I write this in February which is said to be Black History Month. It is not at all what has prompted me to write this, but it certainly is an interesting coincidence.
In The Way of Men, Jack Donovan discusses loyalty by group size. The tighter the group, the stronger the pride and loyalty. The bigger the group, the less loyalty and commitment you'll have. He analogized this to the Military, being closest to your Fire Team, then to your Squad, and so forth. It ties in closely with Dunbar's number, the estimate that you can only have 150 or so meaningful connections in your life. My take away from this is that it's best to focus your life on the people you know and care about. You can't expect yourself to take care of billions of people on Earth, especially not in any meaningful way. I'm not saying to harm them or to not consider simple choices that may be in their favor while not harming you, but I don't think we have the human capacity to care for more than so many people. As such, I think we tend to divide ourselves into groups. The smaller the group, the closer the tie. Even if reality, there may or may not be much in common.
As such, one of these dividers is race. People of the same race tend to feel more in common with eachother. People of the same nationality tend to feel more in common with eachother. I don't think it's completely logical given the extremely vast population behind every race, but on the other hand there is at least some genetic tie. And with people of the same nation, usually at least some semblance of cultural ties even if on the surface you only see the differences. Ultimately, I don't feel that all people can get along in this world. I feel that it's far more effective for people to form smaller countries and groups. They seem to both understand and respect eachother more. Even in large companies it seems that many different voices and movements form internally. They start to fight with one another and their cause is no longer united.
This said, most every race has some form of pride. Asians have pride, blacks have pride. And though this is more on a nationalistic level, I've seen Indians at work group off like night and day. With the Indians in particular, I find that though they do group off, they are very welcoming and friendly to anyone who tries to be respectful. I don't think that a mix of group stiction and openness is a bad thing.
The one race I can think of who doesn't have any accepted pride movement is the whites. I am white and growing up it was generally understood that any sort of pride for being white immediately elevated me to Nazi/KKK status. Later in life I started to find more of the listed reasons. I think there are two of them. There's this notion that whites are privileged and therefore can't have pride, and that whites are not a minority. Because there's so many of us, we don't really matter.
I'm going to start with the latter. Whites are not a minority. The global population is currently estimated at 7.45 billion people.
If you break it down by physical demographics Asia has about 4.3 billion people. Africa, 1 billion. Europe, 816 million. North America, 544 million. I think those demographics are better understood than percentages by race. But pulling up one source on percentages by race, it states that East Asian are 25%, South Asian are 21%, white are 16%, black are 15%, and the next smallest group is Southeast Asian at 9%.
Whether these are extensively correct or not, I imagine they are in the ballpark. I think it's safe to say that whites are not a majority. It's not like we are an immediately endangered species of some kind, but given the birth rates around, our population is dwindling proportionately every year. In the US it's listed that we are 77% white, but that includes Hispanics. I imagine either way whites are a majority in the US, but even in the US that is shrinking.
Because of this, I don't think that whites are a majority on Earth. In the US, obviously, but if you complain about the US being too white you should complain about Africa being too black. Or China having too many Asians by demographic. I think the US is much more of a melting pot than other countries, though I doubt it is the biggest melting pot.
And if we aren't a majority, the other primary reason we can't have "pride" is because we are privileged. Slave ownership is often cited. Yet, it seems to be forgotten that blacks themselves were the first slave owners. And that there have been numerous Asian slaves. They seem to have moved on from this and are highly successful.
Whether or not my ancestors were slave owners, should I be held accountable for it? We all have different legs up on others at birth. For me, I have wonderful and loving parents. Without them I would not be where I am today. I feel that unless you embrace double standards, blacks should be held "socially accountable" for their extremely high murder rates. You can look up the figures on it, it's not something I should need to cite. We could go back and forth and list one wrong for another. Are we accomplishing anything?
And so I have to change my mind. It's taken me 24 years to realize this. There's nothing wrong with being white. And despite the majority of people telling me this is wrong, I am proud to be white. Not endlessly proud, but a bit. I hope that if you are black you are proud of it. I hope that if you are Asian you are proud of it. Being proud of one thing doesn't mean you must hate the alternative.
I hope that if you are white some day you will feel the same way.
Is there any difference between the races? I've wondered this before. US Schools seem to stifle such conversation. I talked to a friend of mine and asked why we don't see as much variance in humans as we do in dogs. Dogs come in huge size variance, from 3 pound dogs to 150 pound dogs, or more. Different colors, different temperaments, different personalities. While any breed of dog has a lot of variance there are some common traits that they follow more often than not. And the biggest reason for the difference in dog and human variance ranges is that humans are not actively bred. Dogs are bred for traits. We pick our mates. While I suppose dogs do that in the wild, they are also held in captivity and bred to a certain point. If I am objective about this at all and in my observation with dogs, while the variance of human races is probably not nearly as great as dogs are (unless humans are bred purposefully), we are different. There are genetic propensities towards personality, physical ability, sex drive, intelligence, and overall demeanor. Generally, Asians tend to test as the most intelligent. You can blame it on anything you want, but if you look at countries by race and how they are doing, after all this time is it just bad luck or might it have something to do with our genetics? By population percentage, how many successful white countries are there? What about Asian? Now what about black? And how many Hispanic? Are these countries stable? Are they far along technologically?
I don't need to get into that subject further at this time.
I have one final topic to cover.
If you don't like blacks, you are called racist. If you don't like Asians, you are called racist. But if you don't like Jews, you are called anti-Semitic.
But wait, who doesn't like the Jews? Ah, the Nazis. Of course. And Henry Ford. By why does it matter? Everyone likes the Jews! But why do they have their own word for it?
Consider the population of Jews for a moment. In the US, it's about 2.2%. Obama's Senior Advisers had 9 Jews out of 11 total. This is exceptionally disproportionate. At Trump's inauguration they had three religious speakers. The first one was Jewish, the other two Christian. Why? Again, I'd expect that in Israel -- not in the US. The numbers don't add up.
If you look at the Federal Reserve, at the government, at banks, and especially at media, Jews control a huge portion of it. Not by fluke levels, but significantly over. Now it's possible that Jews are really just better. Maybe they are 10% smarter than even Asians on average. Shouldn't that mean that they numbers are a little disproportionate in their favor? And not by an order of magnitude?
One thing I've realized is that people can barely agree on the present. What are our history books telling us? Are they actually accurate?
If you go way back, you'll find that a Jewish newspaper declared war on the Nazis before there was any war. And you'll find that Anne Frank's diary had been partly inked in ball point pen back before those were available in the area. And why is that we only hear of Jews being tortured by the Nazis? Why only Jews? We don't hear of Blacks or Asians who were tortured. Just Jews.
If you're like myself from just a couple years ago, you probably think I'm a crazy lunatic by now. That is fine. You don't have to believe me. I just think you should have something more to consider. Another perspective to view the world. I may be wrong, right, or a bit in between.
Search for Jews and slave ownership. Look at how Jews will build walls in Israel and have strict border control, yet try to make every other country's border open. Obviously, not all Jews do this. I don't think there's some Jewish mastermind who runs it all. But I don't think the numbers are lying. Jews nearly run the ACLU and they have their own Anti-Defamation League. Is this to right wrongs or is it because they have something to hide?
Just something to think about:
It appears that the Jews have largely scapegoated Whites for their evils. They are using America as a pawn to fight wars for them by proxy. They have been very double-faced in the world politically. And the most evil man alive, George Soros... is a Jew. Coincidence?
Don't be afraid to be proud to be White. And don't be afraid to consider the Jewish agenda.