On the Liberal/Leftist Mantra:”Our Common Humanity”

There is an overabundance of the use of the words “we,” “us,” and “our” in the following polemic. Whites in America have been discouraged from describing themselves with these terms in discussions about race, because we have been discouraged from having a collective identity. In defiance of that convention, I have used the terms often in this essay.

I will begin by stating that America’s Europeans — Europeans everywhere — are experiencing massive displacement by swelling non-White populations, a shift that threatens to make our political and cultural landscapes unrecognizable in the near future. As this happens, public discourse has been reinvented to accommodate the visible changes in our societies. Let us start by examining just a few examples:

  • Demands for redistributions of wealth are now increasingly presented as being reasonable and inevitable; the imported poor must be fed and subsidized.
  • The historical narratives of Western nations are increasingly rewritten to include non-Whites, even if the rewrites are historically inaccurate.
  • The rare acts of violence committed by Whites against non-Whites are extensively examined for any hints that they are “hate crimes,” while vastly more numerous incidences of violence by non-Whites against Whites are generally dismissed being merely criminal in intent.
  • Institutional discrimination against non-Whites is intensely denounced as being unthinkable, while the legalized discrimination routinely directed at Whites in job hires, promotions, and college placements is either ignored or applauded as necessary.

Ironically, all of these things, and similar convolutions of logic and justice, now occur while great to-do is made about a need for “colorblindness,” or the need for “equality under the law,” or “understanding.” As our societies are enthusiastically deconstructed and reinvented, one of the most perpetual refrains that we now hear is the insistence that Whites search within themselves for tolerance by tapping into their sense of the common humanity that they share with all other human beings, and especially human beings of color.

As appealing as this sounds, if we are to examine humankind’s “common humanity,” it may be important that we include in our examination a thorough appraisal of the vast destruction that we humans have repeatedly inflicted on our own species, other species, and the natural environment. We should perhaps intellectually embrace the reality that placing multiple and very different groups in previously homogeneous areas — like the U.S., Canada, Germany, or Australia — greatly increases the potential for intergroup conflict, overpopulation, political upheaval, resource depletion, environmental devastation, and a host of other problems. And let us least of all forego an examination of the potential for this kind of demographic change to rapidly submerge the original populations of those countries. Are the odds of perpetual conflict and collateral devastation not exceedingly high? If they are, is it not exceedingly foolhardy to take these risks?

Fundamentally, it’s because the people who are engineering this transformation and a great many of their followers hate White people far more than they worry about the downsides of multiculturalism. Most of us, whatever our political persuasion, do not look into another man’s face without seeing therein a fellow human being. But seeing a shared humanity in another person’s face requires reciprocity. We are not receiving reciprocity when other individuals and groups condemn us for wanting the historical and cultural and racial continuity of our own lineages and societies to endure into the future. We are not guilty of any sin merely by virtue of having a racial or cultural or religious identity that we desire to perpetuate — just as no other group is guilty for having these things and wanting to perpetuate them. We also are not receiving reciprocity when we are forced to demand the same rights of association or freedom from discrimination that other groups around us consider to be their entitlement. And it again follows that we are guilty of no moral misdeed when we make appeals that the same standards of morality and civic engagement apply to our group — especially when we can see very clearly that they do not.

As a rule, it is better that enlightened individuals hate no man, and hate no group of men. Be that as it may, we are not guilty of “hate” by virtue of wanting to keep our own house. There is no guilt in wanting our children and grandchildren to remain a majority in the United States in order that they may remain in control of their own political destiny. We are not immediately guilty of racism or any other “ism” for preferring the company of our own ethnic group, our own religion, our own race, and our own social class. We are also not guilty of malevolence because we perceive the desirability of holding membership in a dominant religious or racial group — these perks are a reality in every country with a dominant ethnic or religious majority, and they cease to be desirable only in groups hell-bent on self-immolation. Has anyone on the left complained about Korean supremacism in Korea or African supremacism in African countries? Of course not. It’s a concept that they apply only to White countries.

And horror of all modern horrors, we may want our children to marry into their own race and class and religion! Yet, nothing even in this is innately sinister, and if any of these things are sins, then most humans in most nations of the world are guilty of them. We know better; these things also are a part of our common humanity, not sins to be overcome, but to acknowledge and accommodate as if in many ways our welfare and survival may depend on them. Because in today’s realities, they often do.

The founding documents of America were formulated to be examples to the world, but they were primarily compacts intended for the benefit of the descendants of the founders. Only beguiled or fevered minds dare to argue otherwise. We want the America that we inherited to remain our legacy, and also the legacy of our children and grandchildren. The world may follow our example if it desires, but there is no moral imperative that it be allowed to invade us en masse, displace us, and usurp that birthright. These sentiments, by any sane logic, are not sinister. They are pragmatic. They are entirely legitimate by any moral logic known to man.

Let us thus move further beyond the pale, at the risk of inspiring greater fury, and state new truths that are self-evident: that no two individuals, groups, or institutions are equal, nor were they ever construed as being equal by America’s founders or founding documents. Let us speak plainly: The moral posturing in our founding documents about equality and rights was solely for the benefit of our British overlords. The documents speak of their contents, meaning, the egalitarian and democratic principles of government contained therein, as being “for our progeny,” and the only brown faces present at the authorship of those documents were the ones scrubbing chamber pots. The documents speak of slaves, who formed the vast majority of Blacks, as property and Native Americans as “savages.” And in 1790 passed the Naturalization Act that made it quite clear that the founders intended American to remain a White country. The notion that the founding documents represented the formation of a “propositional nation,” meaning, a nation based solely on democratic ideals, and thus a nation conducive to the creation of an American dumping ground “nation of nations” — is thus an absurdity.

The welcoming of massive influxes of dissimilar peoples is only a moral imperative in the West, and the sins of which we have spoken are only sins for the melanin-deficient. It is by codifying these sins into violations of never intended moral laws that we have made ourselves pariahs in our own lands. Can our adversaries acknowledge the bloody history of multicultural, multiracial societies, and then deny us the human right to be afraid as we watch the gleeful and irrevocable erasing of the American nation-state? Any student of history knows there is plenty to fear. So, too, do our enemies, who are promoting America’s deconstruction.

If we must emote with great shows of guilt over the loss of the Native Americans’ world, are we not allowed to mourn the loss of our own? If Native Americans were morally justified in resisting their displacement, are we not morally justified in resisting our own? If it is permissible to say that Iowa is too White and needs more diversity, is such a statement substantively any less racist than saying that Mississippi is too Black, and needs an increased percentage of White people? If all groups in America are afforded the privilege of having a group identity, do Whites not have that same right, especially as we shrink into minority status in the country our ancestors overwhelmingly founded and built? If it is permissible for non-Whites to advocate solely for the welfare and interests of their own groups, are we guilty of mere hate or intolerance or intellectualized racism when we advocate for our own?

Is it a sin to wish, when passing a baby carriage, to see the future of our own people in it? Is it a sin, when passing a school, to want to see the progeny of one’s own people playing in the school yard? When we are in the marketplace, is it a sin to want to be surrounded by our own people’s faces and the sound of our native tongue? Is it a sin, to spurn the notion that our most desirable future involves becoming strangers in our own land?

We already know the answers to these questions.

If a special understanding and empathy are required for the future, then what must also be understood is our resentment toward our own government, inasmuch as in what our leaders have planned and failed to plan for us, nothing is guaranteed for our own group except extinction. Let our adversaries comprehend our contempt for our own people, who, like bumbling zoo pandas, no longer possess even the primal instinct to procreate sufficiently to replace their numbers that die. Let there be empathy for our disdain for these human pandas, who have allowed themselves to be manipulated into believing that their dispossession is inevitable and natural and good. Pandas who allow themselves to be uniformed and stationed to defend borders in other countries, rather than rallying to obstruct armed and unarmed invasions across their own. Pandas so monstrously beguiled as to believe that their ancestors spent centuries building infrastructure and institutions — all while doing the great bulk of the dying in this country’s wars and famines and epidemics — so that it could all be deeded in its entirety to people whose ancestors played marginal parts or no part in creating those things.

Let us ask that our adversaries see our common humanity in our discomfort, when we see our kinsmen bowing and supplicating in raucous debates about “cultural appropriation,” because some melanin-impaired dolt decides to wear beaded dreads or a sari, and while the complainants screech their arguments in our language, while wearing Western attire, while using technologies and mediums our ancestors created, and while enjoying the benefits of the wealth and institutions and freedoms that many of their own ancestors, to reiterate, played little or no part in creating. Let them understand our rage, when they whine about “White privilege,” while enjoying the racial preferences that are now routinely showered on Third Worlders newly disembarked from boats. Let them refrain from sneering about cultural appropriation while basking in all of these perks, as they applaud overpriced performances of Hamilton — American history deformed into universalist hip-hop blackface. Further, let them understand our resentment when the same complainants and their collaborators survey the feast that they are consuming and then jettison the parts of our culture and history that they have decided are irrelevant — such as recent college curriculum purges of Shakespeare, Plato, Descartes, and Immanuel Kant, for being too Eurocentric.

Can we correctly assume that all of the demands for empathy, humaneness, and cultural sensitivity will remain one-sided?

You can bank on it.

Finally, let us request a comprehension of our all too human despair when we denounce the sum total of all of these hypocrisies and assaults — all of them paraded as virtues, and all of them better described as treasons. In that vein, let them understand our rage when we start expressing what are, for “us,” two simple truths: that the intent of both our opposition involves taking a completely viable and advanced nation-state and destroying it, and that — in both our silence and our inaction — we have made ourselves accessories to murder.

34 replies
  1. Luke
    Luke says:

    A very well written, well reasoned and brilliantly composed article.

    But, the enemy we are fighting – or, should I say, the multiple enemies we are fighting – could care less about the logic and reason and appeal to fairness and understanding that flows from this article. They are consumed with such a deep rooted, unbelievably intense hatred for White Europeans that they are willfully blind to any rational argument that we might offer in defense of our perfectly legitimate right to survive and to secure a future of self-determination for our white children and grandchildren.

    An example of how determined our enemies are to destroy us, consider how much effort they are now expending towards trying to shut down, de-monitize, and de-platform any pro-White website or any social media outlet that Whites might use to spread their pro-White message. Amazon is now banning scholarly books written by the best and brightness intellectuals and academics within the pro-White movement. Attempts to schedule peaceful conferences where pro-White movement leaders can give speeches to gatherings of racially healthy White audiences are routinely shut down and canceled – with our enemies using threats of violence to intimidate private hotel and conference halls into canceling our contracts. Travel bans are now their latest chess move to create lists of pro-White advocates and then prohibit them from attending conferences in Europe and elsewhere.

    And, what is the response from the White leaders of these historic White nations? With few exceptions, silence. Or, worse yet – a rabid endorsement of these anti-White measures. Donald Trump’s mouth is physically incapable of ever uttering the word ‘White’, but he can’t stop blabbering about blacks, Hispanics, jews, muh holocost, and parroting every other form of anti-White baloney that his Cultural Marxist speech writers put in front of him.

    Kevin MacDonald originally educated this reader on how the jews have put enormous energy into pathologizing any expression of White racial pride – and it looks to me like this agenda has been a horrible success. They have effectively figured out how to switch off the racial survival instinct within millions of White Europeans, and this is certainly true with regards to our White political leaders.

    So, how do we switch it back on?

    • Junghans
      Junghans says:

      Bingo Luke, Whites are deeply afflicted with a lifetime of intellectual poisoning, which will only be overcome by desperate circumstances, brutally affecting them. It will take really tragic times, unfortunately, to wake up their somnolent survival instincts.
      It will also take a lot of racial motivation to shake off the kosher spell they are under. But it is possible, because it’s happened before.

    • treetrunk88
      treetrunk88 says:

      The Plan is going great. 18 years after 9/11, there is no one of consequence in DC who wants us to know what happened. Of course the US/NATO wars sparked by 9/11 was the (fake?) precipitating event that sent the unwashed , uneducated, very poor and in most cases unknown by the millions. Now that Europe has hundreds of no-go zones due to the wonders of “diversity”, Sweden is now known for rape more than Swiss Miss, and you can’t walk around England without worrying about a knife in the back, what does the US do? Try to recreate the same problem! Meanwhile Israel openly declares itself a racist state with some bada** walls. When will Nancy and Chuck criticize Israel’s walls as immoral.?

  2. PaleoAtlantid
    PaleoAtlantid says:

    Another phrase reverently intoned by the televisual talking heads is, “international community”. There ain’t no such thing!

  3. Ken
    Ken says:

    Why the silence on the present genocide against whites in the US via massive legal and illegal non-white immigration and the murderous black criminal cancer?Because of the third world invasion, whites will soon be a racial minority in a country founded by our ancestors. This is a deliberate action perpetrated by the Democratic Party in a diabolical plan to keep them in power and impose socialism on us. They try to silence us by screaming “racism,” “xenophobia,” and other epithets. It is for us, the victims of this massive social engineering project, to resist our demographic replacement. We have to resist. Go to numbersusa to protest; contact congress to demand and end to this invasion. If you do nothing, you are part of the problem. Build the wall now.

  4. Pat Etheridge
    Pat Etheridge says:

    An articulate evaluation of Liberal / Leftist hypocrisy. May a mighty fire be destined to come.

  5. Armor
    Armor says:

    massive displacement by swelling non-White populations / threatens to make our political and cultural landscapes unrecognizable / just a few examples: redistributions of wealth / historical narratives of Western nations / legalized discrimination / theories about racism, hate crimes, White privilege, the USA as a propositional nation…

    That list of examples illustrates Jewish power and its hostility to White people. It doesn’t illustrate the impact of the non-White invasion, which is mainly that public places have become dangerous, and that White people are becoming socially isolated because they interact with fewer fellow Whites. Even the redistribution of wealth has more to do with Jewish power than with the invasion itself.

    Blacks and Mexicans are not responsible for destroying White people’s culture. We only hear Black rappers because they are promoted by ZOG, which is also behind the censorship of normal decent White people in the media, academia, etc.

    “horror of all modern horrors, we may want our children to marry into their own race”

    Here again, it’s ZOG that wants White people to marry non-Whites.

    Black and Hispanic voters may support ZOG against White people, but they are not leading the war against us. And I don’t think Blacks insist on crazy theories like the US being a propositional nation. That kind of nonsense comes from Jewish activists, with the support of manipulated leftist and libertarian Whites.

    “great to-do is made about a need for colorblindness”

    The whole anti-racist thing is an anti-White scam. A distinction needs to be made between the racism of the genociders who try to destroy a nation, and the racism of their victims, who try to save their collective existence. Whites who refuse to be genocided are called racist. But racial awareness is not a crime in itself, and our attackers are clearly not racially blind at all. Their phony racial blindness works one-way only. The aim is to replace us.

    I wouldn’t waste time talking to Jews and other non-Whites about our common humanity. We need to wake up our fellow White people.

  6. Panadechi
    Panadechi says:

    This is a deliberate plan and I will explain it below. There is the concept of social node, it is defined that node is a space in which converge part of the connections of other real or abstract spaces that share their same characteristics and that in turn are also nodes. These nodes in addition to being linked contain information that can be used and exchanged between them for a common goal. The most powerful social node is the Ethnic, Zionism seeks to destroy it. This applies to human beings with a common interest there is an interaction of communication and information which can be translated into social cohesion and domain. In summary this system of grouping and social interaction is the one used by groups of interest and power, to achieve advantages and dominion over others, the main exponent of ethnic social node are Zionism and Jews. Multiculturalism (forced diversity) was created by cultural Marxism (Jewish School of Frankfurt) to eliminate social cohesion in order to deliver advantages and power to globalist Zionism, as they do not want social competition to seek to undermine whites and demonize any group organized from whites, it is also usable against other ethnic groups to weaken them.
    In nature a scattered solitary ant of her sisters is weak and defenseless (Jewish multiculturalism), but millions of sisters together can tear down a lion or an elephant (ethnic power).

    The most powerful weapon of power and dominion is the development of the brain and therefore the intelligence, all the species of the earth even the strongest have been submitted by humans, the current competition is not against other species, this is among the diverse races, ethnic groups and human groups, obviously following the brain-intelligence pattern which will have the domain is the one with greater IQ, there are three ways to achieve that goal:
     The first is natural selection and preservation of the homogeneous high QI group (Caucasians, Asians, Jews). It is not an option for Zionism.
    The second is to mix groups or ethnicities high IQ.
    (a): (Asian / Caucasic) or (b): (Asian / Caucasian / Jewish),
    the (a) leads to lost identity / cohesion, but it is still competition for the Jew, which is not the favorite of Zionist globalism,
    (b) will never be an option for them.
    The third is to mix races under IQ with those of high IQ:
    (African / Caucasus) or (African / Asian), leading to IQ degradation, the latter method created by design in the Jewish School of Frankfurt (Zionist Talmudism or Jewish supremacy), is the preferred and is being applied, the current victim is the European Caucasian race, the main weapon to use is open borders to promote mass immigration from the third world to facilitate the degradation miscegenation, which would put the Jews at the top because they will not mix massively, and by not degrade they would preserve their high IQ, they would be on all other groups since they will have the highest IQ, that is the ultimate goal of Talmudist Marxism and all its variants including cultural Marxism. To achieve and infiltrate, you need Power, Money and Control, there is only one group or tribe with those characteristics.
    Finally it is a biological control struggle of the human being. Alto IQ will dominate the future but as evolution takes thousands of years the method is to degrade the competitors. Do you understand Goy? ..
    The globalists do not believe in the truth, they only use deception as their only truth, Chinese General Sun Tzu, wrote in his book “The Art of War”, in bamboo papyri 2500 years ago:
    The famous phrase “War is the Deception”, I will add “Life is only Survival”. Do you understand what you’re up against, Goy?

    Finally, expelling non-white invaders will be an impossible task, the only option will be to create autonomous white homogeneous communities. Example Alaska could be an enclave of isolated white communities, another possibility is to build submarine cities, the Japanese are already designing and implementing the project, finally the antartida a continent totally uninhabited. If the white man managed to reach the moon, he should have the ability to conquer other environments. Requirements: Only whites independent of governments since they are anti-white globalists (Zionists), do not allow Jews, do not allow other races.

    • pakistan
      pakistan says:

      DNA evidence shows only 2-3% of Israeli Jews have any relation whatsoever to peoples of the ancient ME. The term anti-Semitic is intended to create the impression that Jews are returning to the land given by God. But Jews are actually European/Turkish.Some of the orthodox rabbis were right all along, Judaism is about an approach to life, not a geographical location.

  7. Pat Etheridge
    Pat Etheridge says:

    This is not a comment, but a correction to the article, which is carefully worded in an articulate manner. In the very last sentence of the article, the word “both” is repeated twice. In the first use of the word “both” in the sentence, the word needs to be deleted. It is obviously some kind of typo, and it garbles the sentence and the flow of thought in the article. This is undesirable, inasmuch as the author is summarizing and wrapping things up. Not a desirable moment in which to flub things up. The second use of the word is correct and should remain unchanged.

    • Charlie
      Charlie says:

      Presumably most reading a blog like this are intelligent enough to self grammar Nazi things in to a readable format. Please contribute something useful like links to weaponry, battlefield tactics, etc.

      • Pat Etheridge
        Pat Etheridge says:

        I believe we should first respond with the best effort we can muster, utilizing the tactics of civil disobedience and noncooperation against “the juggernaut,” as it has been called. Compliance with the activities deconstructing our nation is interpreted as consent — just as our silence is interpreted as consent.

      • Pat Etheridge
        Pat Etheridge says:

        The author’s point is that there is nothing inherently sinister about the sentiments and responses he is describing, and they are common throughout the rest of humanity. They are genuinely “universal,” unlike a lot of the universalist hogwash currently tossed at Westerners to promote the deconstruction of their countries. To describe these things as “Nazi” does no one any favor, and contradicts the entire message of the article.

  8. Dr ExCathedra
    Dr ExCathedra says:

    “Our Common Humanity” is just gussied up Enlightenment-speak for “the Least Common Denominator.”

  9. Charlie
    Charlie says:

    YOUR leaders have failed you – ALL of them! While they amass immoral amounts of wealth and power you sit in a puddle of your own filth.

    The elephant in the room is that the Earth is overpopulated. The 3rd world is in chaos and their leaders of despotic brown and yellow races are sending their mouth breathers to live off the wealth of first world producers while they continue receiving Aid from the USA’s taxpayers in order to grant the Earth Rapers access to the natural resources at pennies on the shekel.

    The Earth does not have the carrying capacity for the continued exploding population of browns and yellows. They are not contributors only consumers. I thank God that I’m living in this time because this is the best it will ever be. The Earth is in extreme decline and one can only hope that the Whites see this and take action to eliminate the other tribes especially the hook nosed tribe of demons that are at the heart of it all.

    • TJ
      TJ says:

      The explosion in the browns was preceded by an explosion of the greenies- the fake money.

      The latter is the great enabler of the former.

      jews – fake money monopoly = zero.

  10. Richard McCulloch
    Richard McCulloch says:

    “There is no guilt in wanting our children and grandchildren to remain a majority in the United States in order that they may remain in control of their own political destiny.”

    We need to be far more than a simple majority to remain in control of our country and destiny. Otherwise everything would be just fine as it is, with us still having a 60% majority in the U.S. and an 80% majority or more in Canada, Australia, Britain and Sweden and an over 75% majority in France. But as we see, even an 80% majority is far from sufficient, as even at that level those countries are far too multiracial and multicultural to be healthy for Whites. The U.S. still had an over 80% non-Hispanic, non-Jewish White majority in 1970. How did that work out?

    • Charlie
      Charlie says:

      In the 1970’s Whites were buying brand new vehicles from the Big 3 that rusted out within 2 years and stalled after 1. They were racing home to watch Barnaby Jones and Charlie’s Angels after a healthy dose of mind programming from the Big 3 networks.

    • Armor
      Armor says:

      We need to have our own homelands, and the only way we can have that is if we get rid of ZOG. But even apart from the territorial question, the key to survival is getting rid of Jewish power. In the 19th century, many White people had a pleasant life in third-world countries where we were only a small minority. But today, our society and our culture are being destroyed from the top down, even in places where there are few non-Whites. Robert Putnam says that racial diversity destroys social capital, but someone ought to tell him that what really atomizes White society is having Jews in control of our countries. In the USSR, they managed to destroy millions of lives even though White gentiles were a big majority. If not for Jewish power, I know we wouldn’t be invaded by the third-world in the first place, but if we were, it wouldn’t be so destructive.

      • Charlie
        Charlie says:

        Can’t do any of that until the White Snowflakes, Evangelicals, and Protestants are dealt with. As long as there’s traitors within our tribe the joo will remain firmly seated in the throne.

        • David Ashton
          David Ashton says:

          What methods do you suggest to get the “joo off the loo”? The Oscar Pitorius/Robert Bowers method? Didn’t work in 1941-45.

          • Charlie
            Charlie says:

            There in lies the rub now doesn’t it? Discussing it ad nauseum for decades hasn’t produced any results either has it?

      • Jacobite
        Jacobite says:

        The bulk of the 40 million Europeans killed by the Bolsheviks after 1917 were murdered before Stalin ousted his three Jewish competitors for power in the mid-20s. Until then, Jews ran the USSR completely. Only the sorry state of Russian technology prevented the extermination of the Russian people. The adoption of Georg Lukacs’ Cultural Marxism allowed Jews to destroy European societies without prior military conquest.

  11. Rerevisionist
    Rerevisionist says:

    Would someone kindly give me a reason why ‘all men are created equal’ was inserted into the US Constitution? Why include soemthing so odd? {NB please include some reference to the Jews of the time]

    • Pat Etheridge
      Pat Etheridge says:

      The founding fathers felt they were not being treated equally by the British (the founders were experiencing “taxation without representation,” etc.). The use of the language was intended as a rebuke to the British, sending the message of “treat us as your equals.” There was a small Jewish presence in North America at the time, however, there is little evidence they influenced the language in the nation’s founding documents. Since blacks and Native Americans were clearly not considered equals in colonial America, the language is obviously an appeal to the founders’ British kinsmen. It is absurd to use the language in question to contend that the founders wanted to promote racial egalitarianism, because everything else that regarded race and was visible in colonial society was proof that they did not.

Comments are closed.