AWM wrote:White guilt is not a side effect of anti white movements like BLM. White guilt is the enabler of these things. If whites had a healthy sense of identity and purpose we wouldn't tolerate BLM, not even for a single day. Try to imagine how your ancestors would have dealt with BLM. They would have put those animals down in an instant. To contradict your ancestors in this regard shows how rootless and deracinated you are. It certainly doesn't make you wise and enlightened. It makes you look week and foolish.
Your analysis is too limited, too slanted, too biased, too incomplete. In fact 'white guilt' is much more complex. It has to be unraveled. White guilt is a result of religious, and also Christian, introspection. It is also a simple awareness of a very bad situation that the white early American brought upon himself with the importation of slaves. Take for example Thomas Jefferson who wrote, intelligently, on his perceptions of the condition of those men and women who were his slaves. The Northern Puritans were absolutely, and religiously, opposed to slavery, and they expressed their total indignation of the institution of slavery in such terms that it is still alive today. Generally, the northern attitude toward the South, is inflected with those sentiments.
It is accurate therefor to say that 'white guilt' enabled a great deal as the cultural anthropology shifted from one era to another, from the olden anthropology to the modern anthropology. But this same white guilt also brought slavery to a formal end within the British empire as a declared, non-negotiable stance on the issue. White guilt is a form of historical revue, if I can put it like this. For example, when considering the 300-400 years of English subjegation and exploitation of India any thinking man will have to think through the implications of this sort of imperialism, and especially when it is carried on into the modern era where capitalist and exploitive systems came under scrutiny. You seem AWM to resort of easy formulas in what you imagine to be the way that white guilt will be cast off, like a dirty shirt, and then replaced by a new one, harder, leaner and 'meaner' as you put it.
You also fail to take into consideration one of the primary engines of white guilt in the postwar era: the destructiveness of the second WW and, of course, the 'destruction of the European Jews'. It is likely that you do not have much of a sense of the soul-searching and the profound sense of guilt as Europe lay demolished. As I said, no one but the Europeans did this to the Europeans. It was an event that arose out of their own psyche. And that had to then, and it still has to now, to be dealt with. You cannot just gloss that over. Yet people like you, who deal in simplistic narratives and seem immune to deeper introspection, do not seem interested in the deeper analysis. But the only way forward is
through.
To live in a multi-cultural society, that is, to live in America as it came to be defined, is to live in a world in which Ms Elliott and activists like her, must impose their ethics through a hard-core shaming process; a cathartic, social process in which the former dominant White is shown what his new place in the order will be. It follows from democratic principles of course. It is in fact an
ethical procedure. I mean ethical insofar as it expresses a group ethic. And to resist it requires the definition of
another, alternate ethics.
What I can say with a certain amount of certainty is that there is no place in Europe, nor in any European outpost, where there is any sort of viable 'movement' at a cultural level that can be said to be organic. There are fringe activists, and a rising tide of anger, frustration, awareness of encroaching powerlessness (or reductions in power), but there is no viable *nationalist* movement. And it will be extremely difficult to construct one.