What do not understand is why it's not obvious to de Benoist that only White people are theorizing as he does and realize his philosophical efforts are just another iteration of 'the White Man's Burden'.
There is hidden assumption that sameness is just a consequence of the dominant universalist ideologies. But what if it is also and even primarily an expression of reality in which everybody pretty much are the same. Can some men really claim to be differentiated men like those which existed in the "old world"? It seems like everybody lives typical consumer-bourgeois life.
But people aren't 'the same. That's the point. Your liberal equalitarianism and 'Can't we all just be bourgeois' attitude has already failed. My suspicion is your resistance to difference is solely directed toward racial nationalists and more specifically White Nationalists. But I wouldn't be surprised to find that you live in wealthy zip code that super-majority White and where - outside the help - the non-Whites in your zip code are upperclass Affirmative Action Americans who like the same trendy restaurants and expensive coffee that you do.
You think the world can be homogenized because *you* have been homogenized.
Whites who care about being White and care about other Whites are walking away from the death-spiral that is bourgeois liberal anti-Whiteism.
I am not liberal. To me all whites today are pretty much the same. Differences between whites and other races of the body are also trivial. I hope there are some men who can differentiate themselves, but they are invisible to me.
Point I was trying to make is that it is not that some external force (in this case egalitarianism, liberalism, etc.) artificially made all people equal, but that also, and maybe even primarily, this dominant ideology is just the reflection of the realistic state of things, and that is that we are all pretty much equal. This make sense because revolutions from bellow basically wiped out many (or most) of superior human material which existed in the old world.
Well, the fact that something is the case ‘to you’ must seem pretty definitive. But it’s not. In fact, it’s simply another way for an anti-White like yourself to insult White people.
How would it sound to you if I said ‘All jews seem pretty much the same’?
In any even, Whites are White. If that makes ‘whites’ seem ‘the same’ to you, that’s fine because I feel the same about jews and negros and browns and yellows.
But the idea of ‘equality’ and ‘sameness’ did not arise from observation. Observation can only result in recognition of ‘similarity’, which one can show empirically in any number of way. ‘Similarity’ is something you observe. ‘Equality’ is fully and only an ideological construct that draws certain completely unprovable and imaginary conclusions from the brute fact of similarity.
Humans mostly have two hand, two arms, one head, etc. That’s similarity. The idea that this similarity makes them interchangeable and identical in all other respects is the ideology of ‘equality’.
I want to thank you for making me want to buy de Benoist’s book. I had not realized that there were people who did not understand the difference between ‘similarity’ and ‘equality’.
We can define what "equal" means, but we won't agree even then.
We are all equal by my definition of equality. But we have potential for differentiation. That will require a lot of work, qualitatively and quantitatively.
western culture has been atomized it becomes bewildering when we lose the fundament
what it means to be a free human
What do not understand is why it's not obvious to de Benoist that only White people are theorizing as he does and realize his philosophical efforts are just another iteration of 'the White Man's Burden'.
There is hidden assumption that sameness is just a consequence of the dominant universalist ideologies. But what if it is also and even primarily an expression of reality in which everybody pretty much are the same. Can some men really claim to be differentiated men like those which existed in the "old world"? It seems like everybody lives typical consumer-bourgeois life.
But people aren't 'the same. That's the point. Your liberal equalitarianism and 'Can't we all just be bourgeois' attitude has already failed. My suspicion is your resistance to difference is solely directed toward racial nationalists and more specifically White Nationalists. But I wouldn't be surprised to find that you live in wealthy zip code that super-majority White and where - outside the help - the non-Whites in your zip code are upperclass Affirmative Action Americans who like the same trendy restaurants and expensive coffee that you do.
You think the world can be homogenized because *you* have been homogenized.
Whites who care about being White and care about other Whites are walking away from the death-spiral that is bourgeois liberal anti-Whiteism.
I am not liberal. To me all whites today are pretty much the same. Differences between whites and other races of the body are also trivial. I hope there are some men who can differentiate themselves, but they are invisible to me.
Point I was trying to make is that it is not that some external force (in this case egalitarianism, liberalism, etc.) artificially made all people equal, but that also, and maybe even primarily, this dominant ideology is just the reflection of the realistic state of things, and that is that we are all pretty much equal. This make sense because revolutions from bellow basically wiped out many (or most) of superior human material which existed in the old world.
Well, the fact that something is the case ‘to you’ must seem pretty definitive. But it’s not. In fact, it’s simply another way for an anti-White like yourself to insult White people.
How would it sound to you if I said ‘All jews seem pretty much the same’?
In any even, Whites are White. If that makes ‘whites’ seem ‘the same’ to you, that’s fine because I feel the same about jews and negros and browns and yellows.
But the idea of ‘equality’ and ‘sameness’ did not arise from observation. Observation can only result in recognition of ‘similarity’, which one can show empirically in any number of way. ‘Similarity’ is something you observe. ‘Equality’ is fully and only an ideological construct that draws certain completely unprovable and imaginary conclusions from the brute fact of similarity.
Humans mostly have two hand, two arms, one head, etc. That’s similarity. The idea that this similarity makes them interchangeable and identical in all other respects is the ideology of ‘equality’.
I want to thank you for making me want to buy de Benoist’s book. I had not realized that there were people who did not understand the difference between ‘similarity’ and ‘equality’.
We can define what "equal" means, but we won't agree even then.
We are all equal by my definition of equality. But we have potential for differentiation. That will require a lot of work, qualitatively and quantitatively.