64 replies to this topic

[PLEASUREMAN]

In "Sociobiology As The Freudianism Of The Right", someone writing as N.T. Carlsbad (a search of the name pulls up articles from only one website) argues that the right has become obsessed with race as a primary cause, and nowhere is this obsession more evident than on the alt-right.  "Today's alt-right essentially consists of a synthesis of revolutionary ethnonationalism with sociobiological materialism."  (Here one should note that Carlsbad's conception of the alt-right appears to be centered on the likes of Adolf Skywalker, TRS, and HBDers.)

The obsession on the right with race corresponds to an equal but opposite obsession with race on the left, in a proscriptive/guilt-oriented sense.  For the left, race explains the evil that (white) men do, for the right it explains everything in human history.  In right wing discourse, the "socio" in "sociobiology" looks more and more like a vestigial organ.  Biology is to explain the social, and there is no other way of looking at it.  Thus examination of group differences in IQ, r/K selection, and gross racial categories dominate this avenue of right wing thought.  The only "true" identity is racial.

The problem is that this racial obsession leaves totally unexplained differences among whites, including conflicts within very specific ingroups.  As Carlsbad writes:

Quote

On the other hand, it is nevertheless quite astonishing how thoroughly the race question (a specific take on it, too) has been made the ultimate theory of society and of history of the modern far-right, subordinating all other concerns as being a mere "superstructure" to the "base" of genetics. Today's alt-right essentially consists of a synthesis of revolutionary ethnonationalism with sociobiological materialism. True, these were the animating ideas of an older white nationalism, also. But today's right is seeing a determinist racialism incrementally growing into a consensus position. Around this racialism, a sort of clownish archetype of what "European civilization" is supposed to be has formed around it, an archetype I have difficulty describing except as a Greco-Roman-Nietzschean composite.

To conclude that race determines culture is simple-minded and leads to ahistorical theorizing based around a concept of race as static through millennia (even as it claims that it took only some 10,000 years or so for major racial divergences).  It becomes a board game played backwards, where cultural outcomes are scrutinized for racial origins, or "just so" stories are contrived from assumptions about racial characteristics.

Quote

This approach to history becomes almost panglossian in a way. European man, endowed with good genes, will inevitably tower above others. As such, the cultivation of European tradition boils down simply to a eugenic question: secure a homeland for white European man and segregate him from others, and being European man, he will inevitably be in health. We live in the best of all possible worlds, for if we didn't, white European man would not have good genes enabling him to build master cultures. But since he does and he will always adapt to whatever environmental conditions are given (since his high cognitive capacity represented in Spearman's g will guarantee this), any specific cultural facet of Europeans is irrelevant in and of itself because it will automatically be replenished thanks to good genetic stock, provided he doesn't mix with other races.

This racialism posits that European man is a superior, almost godlike being, and all white people share in this designation.  But in terms of "white achievement", whiteness is stretched thin to cover up the truth that most of the achievement came from a rather small segment:

Quote

The case of Europe is even more striking, as [Charles] Murray shows here [in Human Achievement]. Quote:

Charles Murray:

80% of all the European significant figures can be enclosed in an area that does not include Russia, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Spain, Portugal, the Balkans, Poland, Hungary, East and West Prussia, Ireland, Wales, most of Scotland, the lower quarter of Italy, and about a third of France.
In other words, it turns out that most Europeans are actually a bunch of Untermenschen—at least under the typical standards of value regarding scientific accomplishment that racialists use. Throw the Slav down the well! Or perhaps claim you're something else. When the Ustase regime was active in Croatia, the party line was that Croatians weren't Slavs, but a distinct Dinaric race, at the time a category that was in vogue in physical anthropology.

Of course we are not obliged to focus only on scientific or artistic or political achievement in estimating racial sympathy, but then if one views most of the "white race" as a middling assortment of farmers, tradesmen, and gene pool algae, it doesn't really get the blood flowing.  Arguably, the fixation with white achievement is produced by the contemporary dearth of actual brotherhood, and moreso by the dearth of actual kin to act as incubator for brotherly feeling.

The ludicrousness of a Unified Whiteness is blatant to everyone, it seems, but deracinated American mutts:

Quote

Try to rally Europeans around a "collective white identity" and watch as Europeans soon realize that they are not all interchangeable themselves, either. Nordicists will turn on Mediterraneanists. Slavophiles will then split off quickly. Then Eastern Slavs will assert their uniqueness from the damned Wendish. And then as everybody gets their own ethnostate, watch as various obscure European ethnicities like Kashubians in Poland, Rusyns in Slovakia and Ukraine and Lusatian Sorbs in Germany carve Europe into morsels. Russia, with its enormous amount of ethnic groups, would be nightmarish to partition.

Even in America, regional identity that maps to different ethnic blends, not to mention the urbanite self-consciousness of the coasts, makes unity a fairly dim hope at this point--maybe a temporary arrangement against a common enemy.  Add to this the fact that every sociopolitical development of the last century has had the effect of dissolving or diluting social identity.  There has probably been more cohesion among Mac users, for example, than among American whites as a group.

The racialist conceives of two ways out of the current crisis of whiteness:  become ethnocentric like Jews (an approach at odds with the hereditary traits which racialists claim for whites), or eugenic engineering to preserve white alleles (breeding vats to the nth degree).

As Carlsbad details, the racialist's one-way theory of cultural development gets into problems accounting for a large number of edge cases, including situations where cultural isolation leads to ethnogenesis--the wrong way around, according to the racialist.  There are numerous cases where group conflicts confound assertions about genetic distance being the tell-all for compatibility--closely related groups fighting tooth and nail and strange ethnic bedfellows abound within Europe alone.

Because race is everything, racial motives are a favorite among this set, including everyone's favorite game, Blame It on the Jews.  Jews loom as all-powerful racial antagonists because the conditions of mass society catapulted them ahead of other groups (although at the same time the effects mass society has had on Jewish behavior and clarity of genetic definition are understated).

Silly liberal hysterics aside, there's nothing particularly unusual about two ethnic groups clashing, or in the case of Jews, every ethnic group on the planet clashing with them.  Ethnic differences often lead to conflict, especially when such differences result in unequal apportionment of resources:  Indian males fail at attracting women, therefore seethe at white men; blacks fail at competing in a complex society, therefore blame whites (and computers) for being racist; Jews are born ugly, therefore hate (and/or miscegenate with--Night Porter roleplaying optional) Nordic whites.  But even a cursory glance at society in its current state of atomization reveals conflicts which have nothing to do with race--between the religious and secular, between the managerial and working classes, between the urban and rural/suburban, between the nationalist and globalist.

If race cannot explain the largest conflicts, what exactly does the racialist right hope to get out of resolving its racial mid-life crisis?  It lacks a positive vision and clings to victimhood while clutching a racial body pillow for comfort.

Source: http://thermidormag....m-of-the-right/

[concerned degenerate]

Great post.

PLEASUREMAN, on 03 May 2017 - 12:39 PM, said:

unequal apportionment of resources

Scarcity is one of the most fundamental facts of life, and competition over scarce resources, be it jobs, gibs or physical space explain a lot more than any racial theory.

Edited by Concerned Degenerate, 03 May 2017 - 01:41 PM.

[Harry Dexter Whyte]

Quote

The ludicrousness of a Unified Whiteness is blatant to everyone, it seems, but deracinated American mutts

I'm not so sure that it is a ludicrous concept as this author suggests, considering that whiteness as a social construct arguably played a central role in the assimilation of vastly differing European peoples (as this article notes) and their unification under the flag of a host nation that they otherwise had no relation to. Whiteness allowed Irish paupers and German peasants to lay claim to the legacy of a country founded on English principles by Englishmen - due to their shared racial 'identity'. That white American mutts can look at George Washington and say "I'm like him" is incredibly powerful, and indicates the strength of whiteness as an identity in the US.

Black people do not feel that bond. Asian people do not feel that bond. Indian people do not feel that bond. But any white person in America - no matter how much their great great great granddaddy might have loathed the English and been loathed right back - can feel that the American tradition is their tradition. You can say that this connection is irrational, but that's almost beside the point.

Quote

Even in America, regional identity that maps to different ethnic blends, not to mention the urbanite self-consciousness of the coasts, makes unity a fairly dim hope at this point--maybe a temporary arrangement against a common enemy. Add to this the fact that every sociopolitical development of the last century has had the effect of dissolving or diluting social identity.  There has probably been more cohesion among Mac users, for example, than among American whites as a group.

Considering the above, this strikes me as a fairly ahistorical understanding of race in America. That regional identities exist and that there has always been an urban/suburban divide is not indicative of there being no cohesion at all. Indeed, by the very nature of white/non-white race relations and the exclusionary social/legal ramifications of non-whiteness just the title "white" historically became a means inclusion.


The relevant question, and the article does attempt to address this, is whether race still has value in explaining our current state of affairs:

Quote

But even a cursory glance at society in its current state of atomization reveals conflicts which have nothing to do with race--between the religious and secular, between the managerial and working classes, between the urban and rural/suburban, between the nationalist and globalist.

At least in the US, I'm not so sure he is correct about race having nothing to do with any of these issues. Because race has played such a large role in the development of this country, it is incredibly difficult to disentangle it from any issue.

In a society beset by SCALE whiteness allowed for the creation of a shared identity. The question for me is how, or indeed whether, that shared identity can be expanded to include everyone in this country. Whether just having an American passport could ever be enough for every child to be able to feel they are learning "their" history in school just by learning about the founders. And I don't really know the answer to that.

[WiRE (moderator team)]

Murray is a fuckin IDIOT ... there are MANY GREAT figures from: Prussia, Portugal, Spain, Hungary, Russia, Scotland and probably a bunch of others on his list. Thats honestly one of the dumbest things I heard he deserves to be on SPLC HATE WATCH for this alone

[WiRE (moderator team)]

[WiRE (moderator team)]

(He cucked against trump also)

[PLEASUREMAN]

Harry Dexter Whyte, on 03 May 2017 - 07:36 PM, said:

Quote

The ludicrousness of a Unified Whiteness is blatant to everyone, it seems, but deracinated American mutts

I'm not so sure that it is a ludicrous concept as this author suggests, considering that whiteness as a social construct arguably played a central role in the assimilation of vastly differing European peoples (as this article notes) and their unification under the flag of a host nation that they otherwise had no relation to. Whiteness allowed Irish paupers and German peasants to lay claim to the legacy of a country founded on English principles by Englishmen - due to their shared racial 'identity'. That white American mutts can look at George Washington and say "I'm like him" is incredibly powerful, and indicates the strength of whiteness as an identity in the US.

I guess that's why you snipped out the part where Europe is demonstrably not unified, and have applied so much whiteout to American history as to nearly pass out from the fumes.  "Whiteness" didn't aid assimilation, it is instead the bogus identity of mass society that replaced the stronger American identity that existed before waves of Irish, Italians, Germans, and Jews came aboard (the Germans at least spread out into the empty middle of the country--other groups mainly urbanized).  It's exactly the same glib assumption of assimilation curing all ills that cuckservatives expect from a giant wave of Mexican immigration.  Hey, it will all work out and we'll have a sturdy off-white American identity where we enjoy margaritas and salsa.  Happy Cinco de Mayo!

In fact, you'll have noticed that any sense of connectedness to the founders is as weak as it ever has been, or maybe you haven't noticed the Hamilton phenomenon (spoiler:  the founders are depicted as crotch-grabbing naggers).  In fact the founders' true cultural and racial identity is as remote to us as Caesar's, which allows people like Adolf Skywalker to harken back (inanely) to ancient Rome as well, as if that is also a meaningful part of our heritage.  But that is where the empty racial concept of "whiteness" leads, to a Disneyfied "It's a small world after all" identity where it makes little sense to exclude anyone in order to retain it, because it is merely a vague cartoon tableau.

Harry Dexter Whyte, on 03 May 2017 - 07:36 PM, said:

Black people do not feel that bond. Asian people do not feel that bond. Indian people do not feel that bond. But any white person in America

...also does not feel that bond.  Sorry to wake you out of your daydream.  Look around you.  At most Americans feel a sense of Americanness--which is fully appropriate, because there's little that really connects us to our European ancestors and their trajectory--something to be grateful for, in my opinion.  But if you don't believe me just go talk to people.  They will disabuse you of the notion that their primary identity is "white".

Harry Dexter Whyte, on 03 May 2017 - 07:36 PM, said:

Quote

Even in America, regional identity that maps to different ethnic blends, not to mention the urbanite self-consciousness of the coasts, makes unity a fairly dim hope at this point--maybe a temporary arrangement against a common enemy. Add to this the fact that every sociopolitical development of the last century has had the effect of dissolving or diluting social identity.  There has probably been more cohesion among Mac users, for example, than among American whites as a group.

Considering the above, this strikes me as a fairly ahistorical understanding of race in America. That regional identities exist and that there has always been an urban/suburban divide is not indicative of there being no cohesion at all. Indeed, by the very nature of white/non-white race relations and the exclusionary social/legal ramifications of non-whiteness just the title "white" historically became a means inclusion.

This is where you admit that "whiteness" isn't a real racial identity, but rather a negative identity of "not-blackness".  I guess you don't understand the implications of the words you are typing.

Harry Dexter Whyte, on 03 May 2017 - 07:36 PM, said:

In a society beset by SCALE whiteness allowed for the creation of a shared identity. The question for me is how, or indeed whether, that shared identity can be expanded to include everyone in this country. Whether just having an American passport could ever be enough for every child to be able to feel they are learning "their" history in school just by learning about the founders. And I don't really know the answer to that.

You are asking a pointless, backwards looking question which has no answer.  Saying "whiteness allowed for the creation of a shared identity" is as vapid as saying "the MacBook Pro allowed for the creation of a shared identity".  "Whiteness" is what you get when you have no identity--it literally just means you share a skin color with a bunch of other people.  It's too broad a category and is not based in a definite geography and kinship.  We even recognize the vapidity of this in the acronym SWPL--Stuff White People Like--which is mainly a list of consumer and lifestyle preferences.  There's your whiteness.

[Monkfish]

https://www.rug.nl/s..._et_al_2008.pdf

Quote

Consistent with its conceptualization, individual selfstereotyping was most associated with depersonalization of the self and perceiving the self as part of the in-group. Although also associated with individual self-perception, the in-group homogeneity component was uniquely associated with the intergroup level perception of differences between the in-group and out-groups (i.e., meta-contrast).

Group identity is inextricably linked to the presence or absence of competing out-groups. "Whiteness" in America was conceived in response to specific environmental conditions (competing native tribes, large slave populations) just as the decline of shared White identity and contraction of identifying boundaries was a response to the homogeneity of future decades. Regardless what role it played in the past or plays in Europe now, racial consciousness and the adoption of White identity in America is directly correlated to Whites' relative share of the population:

[img]https://62e528761d06...06engi.png[/img]

Edited by Monkfish, 03 May 2017 - 09:34 PM.

[Harry Dexter Whyte]

Pleasureman, I don't know that you can disassociate "white" from "American". The stronger American identity you are referring to was a product of the close cultural and geographic ties of the nation's largely English founding stock, without a doubt - but at the same time the creation of this American identity (an act of treason) entailed breaking ties with their English identity and ancestral homeland. The American project they created was open to all white people, made explicitly clear in the 1790 immigration and naturalization act and implicitly clear in the Constitution (and its interpretation). That whiteness (and that is the term they used, "white") was a defining factor in determining one's status as a free and equal member of the republic cannot be viewed as arbitrary - but must be seen as a reflection of the norms and values of the people who created the United States. Whiteness did not arise from mass society, but preceded it and allowed for it to happen.

That is, by establishing whiteness as the standard for immigration, naturalization, and citizenship the Founders implicitly endorsed the idea that to be American was not tied to shared origin, but to race. The mass immigration that followed, and the mass society that it resulted in, reflected this established understanding of Americanness.

When you say that

Quote

"Whiteness" is what you get when you have no identity--it literally just means you share a skin color with a bunch of other people.  It's too broad a category and is not based in a definite geography and kinship.

you are calling into question the rationale for this country's very existence - a question that I and just about everyone else these days is plagued with. Indeed, to be American was not and has never been based on geography or kinship. It literally just means you share citizenship with a bunch of other people. So what ties Americans together? Whiteness used to be one thing. To be American was to be white, and to be white in America was to be American. That's no longer the case - to be American now theoretically has nothing to do with race. But I'm not sure non-whites feel any less alienated, only that whites feel more alienated than ever before.

Again, I don't have a good answer to this question. To take a more limited historical timeline, America in 1955 was a mass society, full of (mostly) deracinated whites. Today, it is a mass society, full of deracinated whites and a growing minority of non-whites. I don't think you can entirely delink the changes that have occurred between 1955 and now from race because race is a defining feature of the American identity and always has been. Even something like the Hamilton phenomenon can be seen as at once a rejection of whiteness and at the same time a rejection of the founding fathers - that is, of American identity as traditionally defined.

Edited by Harry Dexter Whyte, 03 May 2017 - 10:34 PM.

[haha yeah]

Harry Dexter Whyte, on 03 May 2017 - 07:36 PM, said:

Quote

The ludicrousness of a Unified Whiteness is blatant to everyone, it seems, but deracinated American mutts

That white American mutts can look at George Washington and say "I'm like him" is incredibly powerful, and indicates the strength of whiteness as an identity in the US.

eh, is it? I think for most "I'm like him" just means "George Washington and I are both white people," I'd be shocked if your average schmo reads more into it than mere surface-level identification.

Edited by haha yeah, 04 May 2017 - 01:12 AM.

[PLEASUREMAN]

The assertion is repeated over and over that we must have whiteness because we don't have anything else.  I really give up on someone who keeps saying this as if this will change reality.  You have only to look at the behavior of "white people" to see that there's no coherence.  Nor can there be because there is inadequate basis for a strong identity.

This is the craziest part of the alt-right's racial obsession:  because Americans lack a stable social and racial identity, the alt-right tries to make something out of a census form checkbox and the idea that assimilation worked (but it won't work with any other group, trust us).  It's defensive and weak.

[mhm sure alright]

I just don't like to live near muds tbh

[PLEASUREMAN]

mhm sure alright, on 04 May 2017 - 05:46 AM, said:

I just don't like to live near muds tbh

Lots of people want to have their cake and eat it.  "I don't like naggers but uh why can't I have an atomized consumerist society where I don't do anything productive and seek constant stimulation and enjoy the weed-porn lifestyle?"  Guess what, now you're the nagger.

[Harry Dexter Whyte]

PLEASUREMAN, on 04 May 2017 - 02:21 AM, said:

The assertion is repeated over and over that we must have whiteness because we don't have anything else.  I really give up on someone who keeps saying this as if this will change reality.  You have only to look at the behavior of "white people" to see that there's no coherence.  Nor can there be because there is inadequate basis for a strong identity.

This is the craziest part of the alt-right's racial obsession:  because Americans lack a stable social and racial identity, the alt-right tries to make something out of a census form checkbox and the idea that assimilation worked (but it won't work with any other group, trust us).  It's defensive and weak.

I'm not making that assertion, though. It's not a matter of "must have" or trying to "change reality" - I'm simply saying that the article understates the role race has played and continues to play in American society. I am not saying that whiteness was or is the basis for American identity, but rather has been an integral part of it - a signifier for defining who was, and could be, American (serving a gatekeeper function). That is, to be white was not to be American but to be American was to be white. Again when you say there is "no coherence" and that it is an "inadequate basis for a strong identity" you are not simply calling into question whiteness but Americanness as well. Historically the two have never been separate, and concerted efforts to delink the two are part and parcel of the broader deconstructive process that has defined American society since the 1960s - the results of that process must be viewed in a racial context at least to a degree.

Indeed, its interesting to note that 'white' nations with strong historical kinship ties are seemingly no less affected by this identity disintegration. Instead of "what does it mean to be white?" you get "what does it mean to be Swedish?" What can you say about the strength of European ethnic identity in 2017? A concerted effort is being made to shed that identity both within (mass migration) and between (the EU) European nations. Certainly many people oppose this but just as many if not more agree with the aims and at least ostensibly claim no connection with someone based on shared origin alone. If this deconstructive process plays itself out regardless of circumstance then what does that say about the strength of shared identity in the first place? I don't know.

Whether you disagree with me on this isn't particularly relevant, because we are both left with the same question - what is the "adequate basis for a strong identity" in an American context? Even if race served as a signifier for American in the past that is no longer the case (although I'd argue that a strong racial legacy, what the Left calls "white privilege", is indicative of its continuing power), so how can a disparate nation of 330 million people have any sense of unity? Can it?

Edited by Harry Dexter Whyte, 04 May 2017 - 09:33 AM.

[PLEASUREMAN]

What is your point, anyway?  Yes, relatively stable countries like Sweden have completely lost any sense of racial identity--therefore "whiteness" in America made up of far more unstable demographics will deliver this via white assimilation?  Thus--and this was the point of the article--the alt-right's fixation on racial identity betrays the larping quality of it.  They want to be white, really really bad, and they view everything through that already cartoonish racial perspective (since whiteness has not and never will be a sufficient binding identity).

That's why you see Mike Enoch making Hitler salutes and shouting into a bullhorn about how his whiteness is under attack.  He has no clue how he's ever going to get to a real social identity, and thinks traversing the country meeting up with a few thousand outcasts will get him there.  He will get a kind of sugar rush of enthusiasm but it will leave him empty and more lonely than before.  There is a need among this set to step up the intensity for just this reason--no real social belonging is obtained, so they get into extreme larping to compensate.

The Nordics may simply be f**ked--I confess the Nordic mind is baffling to me, some combination of ultra-conformity and mental illness.  In any case the obsession with race causes misguided alt-righters to neglect the far larger problems that are depriving them of real social identity.  They think they can get it by running around a copse shouting "Blitzkrieg! Blitzkrieg!" at each other.

[Harry Dexter Whyte]

My point is that the article had a flawed understanding of the historical role of race in America. I am not saying that white assimilation is a solution to anything, indeed white assimilation preceded and did not prevent the deconstructive process. But race has real, concrete, material effects (effects that were much, much stronger in the past) on one's interaction with and place in American society, and therefore it cannot be ignored when trying to understand and solve the far larger problems you are referring to.

Race isn't a solution, as a neo-nazi might say, but nor is it a non-factor that can simply be disregarded. If the question is, "how can real social identity develop (or re-develop, depending on your perspective) in a country like the United States?", then the answer must account for race.

[Navalinfantry]

Why not live in the town or city neighborhood your grandparents did and go to the same Church and coach a little league team ? Shop and do business with your neighbors , socialize at local places and clubs , work with people you know and get involved in your community as a volunteer ? Walk down your block and say hi to people . Find out who needs help , then do that .

I suppose that is pretty boring . But it has worked pretty well for me .

[Navalinfantry]

P.S. you will probably not get rich or famous either .

[Jack of All Hates]

The American liberal approach (traditionally, assimilation, now waning) was to drive identity to more generalized (less specific) identity levels; that is, to destroy identity.  "We're all members of the human race" is the identity version of "Coexist!" and an attempt to keep peace in a multi-ethnic society, which is what America is--and pretty much always has been.

"White" is more identity than "Human" but barely.  If you have something more substantive it's a step down.  If you have nothing at all--very sad!--it's a step up.

Edited by Otish Cambel, 04 May 2017 - 10:28 AM.

[Weimar Republican]

mhm sure alright, on 04 May 2017 - 05:46 AM, said:

I just don't like to live near muds tbh

As someone who is blessed with more diversity than you can shake a stick at- I relate to this sentiment. I am not sure I even care what 'whiteness' means or that what I think of essence of whiteness matters to my day to day life outside of learning of our natural defects and how those have lead me into harm.

From a practical stand point what is white and not white is defined by others. Just like that one man in Fresno who recently went a whitey-huntin' and blew out the brains of a white antifa supporter-the noble and aggrieved people of color did not stop to ask if he was an 'ally' or if he felt connected to the founding fathers.  The state of present day and likely future whiteness is an exogenic one. PoC have decided what it means to be white-and for the most part it means you will be treated with ridicule at best and deserve to be the victim of violence as soon as your numbers get small enough.

I even have a very good friend who is a PoC who confessed to me once that "Before I knew you and your family I hated white people." Then she described belonging to some people of color club where they apparently sat around talking about how much they hate us. After her change of heart she said she would try to convince them that 'not all white people are like that though'-but they weren't having it.  I was so surprised at the time that I didn't ask her what she meant. I partly figured I knew- she meant 'we are burning with jealousy'. Jealous people not only feel they have the right to hurt you but the obligation.

Of course if we were in an all white society I would probably unironically sneer at the French or Canadians but I'm not. What will unite white people is when it is absolutely unavoidable to ignore how universally hated we are.

And it doesn't have anything to do w/colonialism bc as soon as you give the noble PoC the slightest reason to claim some white thing as theirs they salivate over it. The reason a black can be pro-black or a mexican can be la Raza or a jew can be chosen and we can't is because they believe in our supremacy- not because of us. Most of us don't care a lick because we aren't collectivists.

Edited by Weimar Republican, 04 May 2017 - 10:32 AM.