I am not sure I call Kipling a “defender of English imperialism.” His poem “The White Man’s Burden” was if anything anti-imperialist. I think his work was more record of English imperialism than promotion.
Whatever the case, I’d thought “Song of the English” was in favor of foreign intervention because of “He hath smote for us a pathway to the ends of all the Earth!”
If not, then it’s a very good poem and it’s certainly preferred to focus on love of one’s people rather than fear of the stranger.
I’m at a loss for what SonOfUther’s point is that he’s trying to get across with “even if race is a prerequisite for this, why not focus on cultural aspect?” I’m also wary of Benoist… Isn’t he in favor of assimilating alien elements already within?
—-
Another argument I should have added: genetic traditions can be as cultural traditions. And another, preservation of one’s people can be motivated simply by love of one’s people…
If I’m not mistaken “White Man’s Burden” was written as a corrective to the United States, encouraging not it to engage in imperialist practices simply for economic or political advantage, but to make the focus the moral education of its subjects.
Frank - 01 August 2008 11:30 AM
I’m at a loss for what SonOfUther’s point is that he’s trying to get across with “even if race is a prerequisite for this, why not focus on cultural aspect?”
I mean, personally I prefer to rally around St. George’s flag. This wider appeal than simply fending off hordes of barbarians with my shotgun when they come for my family. This is primarily because I don’t expect to be successful in the latter effort.
I’m also wary of Benoist… Isn’t he in favor of assimilating alien elements already within?
This is a complicated question which I’m not well poised to answer. I believe Benoist avoids giving a direct answer to this question because of the political implications of certain answers. Certainly he is not in favor of ‘assimilating’ in the usual sense of this word. He may be in favor of not forcibly sending immigrants back to their countries of origin. What are the other options? Segregated ethnic homelands? The French seem to have a broader idea of national cohesion than persons of Northern European extraction, which may be a disadvantage here.
I am not sure I call Kipling a “defender of English imperialism.” His poem “The White Man’s Burden” was if anything anti-imperialist. I think his work was more record of English imperialism than promotion.
As a matter of record, Kipling was, along with Rhodes and that camp, in favor of the broadening and defense of the British empire. This is why Kipling holds a lower rank in the Kinist canon. Where they differed was in their approach to what it means to be “English.” Quigley’s Anglo-American Establishment is an excellent treatise on this subject.
Kinism opposes what it considers the false dichotomy between race-ethnicity and “culture.” Culture is not an ideological entity, and thus does not fall within the framework of the “propositional state,” or so-called civic nation, which is nothing more than mere agreement on the rules of polity within a geographical territory. We believe that racial aliens can never produce the authentic “native” culture, though they can, to greater and lesser degrees varying according to their created capacities, become assimilated to it. When one defends St George’s cross, Kinism says that one is really defending the people who produced the culture from which it derives, not a set of ideological propositions, though ideas are a part of that totality. Negroes defend this idea implicitly when they talk about the condition of “blackness.” They largely concur on the idea that a white man can never be “black” no matter how many of their cultural conventions he adopts.
If one looks at history, racially and ethically distinct peoples never produce identical cultures. If cultures were purely ideological, then they would do so, on occasion. Kinism is actually more an ethnic doctrine than a racial one. From a genetic perspective, the modern conception of race does not align precisely with reality, since it is too broad. In the past, one often heard terms such as “English race” or “German race,” and this idea is closer to the genetic reality than the broad abstraction of race popular today. For instance, sub-Saharan Negroids are quite genetically distinct from Mediterranean Negroids, and their cultures are also quite distinct, but we would call Negroids of both regions “black.” Nevertheless, there exist genetic markers (characteristics) that are shared among related ethnic groups that are not shared by exogenous groups, and this is really the racial distinction. Also, those related ethnic groups can be shown to have a common genetic origin, and thus form a sort of proto-ethnicity. This is why race is a valid category for Kinists.
The major racial classifications are quite useful and we do utilize them. Genetically and culturally, Europeans are incredibly similar, though composed of distinct “ethnicities”. In this sense we can speak of a “Europe” in a way we cannot speak of an “Africa” as a cultural “unit”. Where one draws the dividing line between what ethnic groups are too dissimilar to contemplate conjugal and geographical unity with is has admittedly arbitrary, but decisions regarding unity are vested in familial authority, church authority, and political authority. Kinism has settled on race as the boundary of dissimilarity that should not be crossed, but on principle we could not dispute with those who wished to narrow this criterion to ethnic groups.
Howdy…back from ObamaLand, where all the White folks seem to be working against their own self-interest. I kid you not…
But on to discussion…
The Sailer statement is, to my mind, incomplete.
Salter’s defense of self-sacrifice for one’s people gives a rational foundation for racial activism. A person who foregoes having children
of his own to serve the larger interests of his race—one who lives or dies for his race—may serve his genetic interests better than someone who leaves a large family but works against the interests of his race as a whole.
This, of course, begs the question: Wouldn’t the best defender of his ethnic group be the one who has a large family AND works for the interest of his racial group?
And couldn’t the person who has a large family and raises them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord as well as healthy love of their own People multiplying his or her impact many times?
I don’t want to diss the “unlucky in love” or those who otherwise have been unable to have children, but it seems as if Sailer is trying to justify an idea that could be equivalent to running into battle with your bow and one good arrow…and without a battalion of other archers to defend you.
Kinism opposes what it considers the false dichotomy between race-ethnicity and “culture.” Culture is not an ideological entity, and thus does not fall within the framework of the “propositional state,” or so-called civic nation, which is nothing more than mere agreement on the rules of polity within a geographical territory. We believe that racial aliens can never produce the authentic “native” culture, though they can, to greater and lesser degrees varying according to their created capacities, become assimilated to it. When one defends St George’s cross, Kinism says that one is really defending the people who produced the culture from which it derives, not a set of ideological propositions, though ideas are a part of that totality. Negroes defend this idea implicitly when they talk about the condition of “blackness.” They largely concur on the idea that a white man can never be “black” no matter how many of their cultural conventions he adopts.
If one looks at history, racially and ethically distinct peoples never produce identical cultures. If cultures were purely ideological, then they would do so, on occasion. Kinism is actually more an ethnic doctrine than a racial one. From a genetic perspective, the modern conception of race does not align precisely with reality, since it is too broad. In the past, one often heard terms such as “English race” or “German race,” and this idea is closer to the genetic reality than the broad abstraction of race popular today. For instance, sub-Saharan Negroids are quite genetically distinct from Mediterranean Negroids, and their cultures are also quite distinct, but we would call Negroids of both regions “black.” Nevertheless, there exist genetic markers (characteristics) that are shared among related ethnic groups that are not shared by exogenous groups, and this is really the racial distinction. Also, those related ethnic groups can be shown to have a common genetic origin, and thus form a sort of proto-ethnicity. This is why race is a valid category for Kinists.
The major racial classifications are quite useful and we do utilize them. Genetically and culturally, Europeans are incredibly similar, though composed of distinct “ethnicities”. In this sense we can speak of a “Europe” in a way we cannot speak of an “Africa” as a cultural “unit”. Where one draws the dividing line between what ethnic groups are too dissimilar to contemplate conjugal and geographical unity with is has admittedly arbitrary, but decisions regarding unity are vested in familial authority, church authority, and political authority. Kinism has settled on race as the boundary of dissimilarity that should not be crossed, but on principle we could not dispute with those who wished to narrow this criterion to ethnic groups.
Excellent explanation, John Marshall.
While my ethnic background contains three separate Northern European cultures and one Eastern European, the one that speaks to my central identity (outside of being American) is my Swedish heritage. It’s the largest proportion of my genetic background, but the unique culture attracts me like none of the others.
The tribal distinctions between African ethnic groups are very defined, although we might find it difficulty to tell one sub-Saharan African from another. Their cultures are ethnic and distinct.
This, of course, begs the question: Wouldn’t the best defender of his ethnic group be the one who has a large family AND works for the interest of his racial group?
And couldn’t the person who has a large family and raises them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord as well as healthy love of their own People multiplying his or her impact many times?
I don’t want to diss the “unlucky in love” or those who otherwise have been unable to have children, but it seems as if Sailer is trying to justify an idea that could be equivalent to running into battle with your bow and one good arrow…and without a battalion of other archers to defend you.
Works once, but after that you’d better duck.
God bless,
Laurel
Haha, very good points. I admire men like Sam Francis and Richard Weaver, but as far as I know neither had children. Imagine 5 or 6 Sam Francises about! They’d be a movement in themselves.
I’m similarly a Euro mutt, but I like the Celtic, specifically Ulster Celtic, the best. Ah, and the Scots…
“The White Man’s Burden” is about the folly of trying civilize the savage. John Derbyshire called Kipling “an imperialist utterly without illusions about what being an imperialist actually means. Which, in some ways, means that he was not really an imperialist at all.”
SonOfUther - 01 August 2008 01:09 PM
If I’m not mistaken “White Man’s Burden” was written as a corrective to the United States, encouraging not it to engage in imperialist practices simply for economic or political advantage, but to make the focus the moral education of its subjects.
From the “The White Man’s Burden;”
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to naught.
You are very right, but remember we have not done such either.
Frank - 01 August 2008 10:30 PM
Haha, very good points. I admire men like Sam Francis and Richard Weaver, but as far as I know neither had children. Imagine 5 or 6 Sam Francises about! They’d be a movement in themselves.
Kinism opposes what it considers the false dichotomy between race-ethnicity and “culture.”
I apologize if I made it seem as if I was arguing for this dichotomy.
When one defends St George’s cross, Kinism says that one is really defending the people who produced the culture from which it derives, not a set of ideological propositions, though ideas are a part of that totality. Negroes defend this idea implicitly when they talk about the condition of “blackness.” They largely concur on the idea that a white man can never be “black” no matter how many of their cultural conventions he adopts.
Granted.
Where one draws the dividing line between what ethnic groups are too dissimilar to contemplate conjugal and geographical unity with is has admittedly arbitrary, but decisions regarding unity are vested in familial authority, church authority, and political authority.
Would you mind expanding upon this point? What familial, church, and political authorities does Kinism recognize to adjudicate possible unities? What manner of advice (or commands) do you extend to young people of different races who claim to have fallen in love?
“The White Man’s Burden” is about the folly of trying civilize the savage. John Derbyshire called Kipling “an imperialist utterly without illusions about what being an imperialist actually means. Which, in some ways, means that he was not really an imperialist at all.”
SonOfUther - 01 August 2008 01:09 PM
If I’m not mistaken “White Man’s Burden” was written as a corrective to the United States, encouraging not it to engage in imperialist practices simply for economic or political advantage, but to make the focus the moral education of its subjects.
From the “The White Man’s Burden;”
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to naught.
The original subtitle to the poem was “The United States and the Phillipine Islands,” so it is possible we are both right. Kipling may have recognized Imperialism was a failed venture but also hoped to provide some minor corrective.
Would you mind expanding upon this point? What familial, church, and political authorities does Kinism recognize to adjudicate possible unities? What manner of advice (or commands) do you extend to young people of different races who claim to have fallen in love?
Hi, SonofUther,
Welcome to Kinism.net. For folks who are brand new to Kinism as a set of beliefs, we recommend that they read the What is Kinism and Why Does it Matter? essay as well as Our Mission and Distinctives. Kinism is quite a bit different from what most folks call White Nationalism, and can be best summarized as Occidental Christianity in the truly traditional sense of the word.
Having personally seen the negative results both relational and generational of young people of different races who have “fallen in love,” I believe that the parents of both young people, particularly the fathers, are responsible for discouraging the union. The negative consequences of these unions extend not just to the two individuals contemplating marriage, but to the families on both sides of the aisle and to any children that result from such a union. Falling in love is not the only requirement for a lifelong, solid relationship. There should be serious consideration on the part of all involved of the spiritual status of the prospective mate as well as the family, ethnic, and cultural suitability of the match.
An example from another culture might be apropos here. In India parents work together to secure suitable mates for their children. They choose them from similar castes, professions, social status, and wealth. The emphasis is on people they know and families they trust. And while we might not go to the lengths these Hindus do in creating arranged marriages (OK, single guys, I can hear the groans already!), the marriages created that way tend to last.
Infatuation, from recent studies, seems to last about six months. After that, the newly married are left with the real person they married, including their temperament, race, religion, family background, etc. In America, depending on “falling in love” to produce a good marriage has produced a 50% divorce rate. Believing that love triumphs over all is a lovely fantasy that doesn’t work out too well in real life. In the earlier years of our country families were far more actively involved in the selection of appropriate spouses.
The father is the designated head of the household, and, though he is wise to take into account the views and wisdom of his wife, ultimately he is responsible for the success or failure of the family, including generations in the future. So in this kind of issue, Father is the first line of authority. After that would be the authorities of the church(es) the young people belong to. Secular political/governmental authorities should have little to no say, at least that is my personal opinion.
I am sure John Marshall has some insight on this, as do others.
God bless,
Laurel
P.S. I’ve written about one of the many mixed-race students I’ve known over the years at my personal blog, Natural Consequences. Mixed-up Mixed Race. It summarizes a lot of what I see in the progeny of mixed-race marriages. Or you could just observe Obama’s efforts to be more Black than he really is, and his disrespect of the White members of his family who stood by him when his father left.
Thank you very much Laurel. If you don’t mind I will ask a few more follow-up questions.
For folks who are brand new to Kinism as a set of beliefs, we recommend that they read the What is Kinism and Why Does it Matter? essay as well as . Kinism is quite a bit different from what most folks call White Nationalism, and can be best summarized as Occidental Christianity in the truly traditional sense of the word.
I found the two essays very informative. Are there any documents which summarize the history of Kinism?
Kinists enthusiastically support the Second Amendment understood as an individual Right and a necessity to restrain the rapacious, autonomous bureaucracies that run roughshod over liberty, security, privacy, and property.
What does ‘Right’ mean in this context? Does Kinism have a standard response to ‘human rights’ ?
Following Spengler and Carlyle, we accept the notion of a plurality civilizations, each of which naturally possess its own paradigms and typologies, as opposed to the inherently imperialist conception of a singular “civilization” to which all peoples must conform.
I believe there is a typo in this sentence.
The father is the designated head of the household, and, though he is wise to take into account the views and wisdom of his wife, ultimately he is responsible for the success or failure of the family, including generations in the future. So in this kind of issue, Father is the first line of authority. After that would be the authorities of the church(es) the young people belong to. Secular political/governmental authorities should have little to no say, at least that is my personal opinion.
Is this equally true for those who come from non-Christian families?
P.S. I’ve written about one of the many mixed-race students I’ve known over the years at my personal blog, Natural Consequences. Mixed-up Mixed Race. It summarizes a lot of what I see in the progeny of mixed-race marriages.
I have witnessed the same thing on multiple occasions.
