This is uncomfortable, because anyone who defends racial realities is painted as an anti-Semite, bigot, or racist. But we have to be careful not to allow the politics of rhetoric to turn us into automatons. All of these concepts have been popularly anchored to violence, which is not a necessary corrolate to race realism, which is merely the recognition that qualitatively different races exist. Anchoring refers to the fact that humans are prone to accept the first and most socially-accepted definitions of things, and as a tactic refers to efforts to polarize words and give them meanings that are not inherent to them. We have all heard that anti-Semitism, bigotry, and racism are bad and that they lead to violence. This has been pounded into our heads since we were schoolchildren. As a result, we feel, and think that we know, that any kind of value judgements of Jews or people of color are equal to being false and hateful, and resulting in violence. As a result, we are deterred from exploring concepts that may relate to or overlap with these notions. This is what is meant by anchoring. It is a tactic of psychological manipulation and mesmerism.
The most powerful anchoring job ever done was to establish the idea that criticism of Jews comes from the Nazis of World War II and resulted in an unjust Holocaust. This is not true. Criticisms of Jews probably go back as far as the existence of Jewish interactions with other peoples. And they exist worldwide. They certainly have resulted in various pogroms and massacres, but this was not always the case and may have actually had some justification based in self-defense, considering who Jews are as a people (ethnocentric, usurious, poor character, opportunistic, religious maniacs) and what they have done to countries across the world (though this does not excuse harm to individual, innocent, working class Jews, even if they deserve criticism for their voluntary identity). Anyhow, today we know that this is not even to be considered and that I am treading water and perhaps even at risk of harm just by bringing it up. After all, we are ruled by Jews, and they do not want us to know that, so they must stop us from talking about it. They want us to stay focused on the attrocities of the Holocaust, and to feel the officiated feelings about it without questioning its having taken place or why it takes precedence over other genocides, such as those of Christians by Joseph Stalin (whose interests were aligned with Jews) during the Holodomor or of black Africans by Leopold II of Belgium. It's Jews, Jews, Jews on the news, news, news!
To complicate things further than simple anchoring, definitions have changed over time, such that more content starts to accumulate around the anchor. What is a racist today was not necessarily a racist yesterday. Today, it is important to distinguish between racialism, the belief that different races exist (a la race realism), and racism, the belief that, as a result of these differences the state should apply legal particularisms. But these definitions have not always been consistently applied, and there is even contestation to their origins, with the meanings possibly even having flipped at some point. For the sake of this writing, racialism will be treated as an outlook of race realism that sees differences in race, even qualitative and moral differences, but that does not support any sort of distinct legal treatment by the state based upon race. Racism will refer to any position on race that supports a distinction of legal treatment by the state based on racial categories. These will be used, however, with the understanding that racialism is often mistreated and miscategorized as a variety of racism, such that racist may include racialist when considered through the perspective of the avidly anti-racist. That is, as a result of the confusions and inconsistencies in terminology, racialist has been anchored to racism by the anti-racist, which we already know means “wrong, hateful, and violent.” Thus, racialist has receieved the same connotation as racist, by extension of its having been anchored to it, an example of the anchor serving as a central point of accumulation.
We are told that racism is dangerous, because it results in people getting killed, and that, as a result, must be stopped. By my definitions of racism, this is actually correct. However, it is important to understand that the racialist notions behind the bad intentions or motivations of racism are not the issue, so much as the effort to use one's qualitative understanding of others to overpower them with state action or government (including in that definition any socially-sanctioned violent aggression, whatsoever). That is what sets racism apart from racialism.
Unfortunately for some, history attests to the capacity of Aryans or Indo-Europeans to dominate people of other races and each other and force them into castes as a result of racial and class realities. But mutualism is the recognition that domination is not desirable, particularly when cooperation, reciprocity, and mutual aid can be made to substitute it. The problem is not “white privilege”-- referring to the genetic and cultural endowments that enabled white peoples to dominate others and themselves, however cruelly or unjustly--, but the lack of justice and efficiency, and the lost actualization, that is entailed in domination.
Instead of feudalism, capitalism, and fascism, it is theoretically possible to have mutualism. And, because we can, we should. It is as simple as that. At least, it would be, if anti-racists did not continually push their agenda, which has pitted the interests of the races against one another rather than bringing them into a peaceable equilibrium.
When describing mutualism to Leftists or “liberals,” upon the mention of abolishing taxes and allowing for a free market the question always comes to what would be done about people who cannot take care of themselves. Sometimes, it is expressedly clear that this means black people, but others this must be inferred from demographics with regard to the concerns presented (“poor people”). Examples of concerns they bring up is that rich people will be able to have better schools and hospitals, for instance, and will not have to share what they have with others, possibly even along racially-exclusive lines. Inherent to this view is an implied racial realism which, I find, though false, is that blacks are not capable of staying alive at their own cost or developing wealth of their own, and that white people must afford them a living. This is a problem for me, because mutualism is about exactly that, the Cost Principle, whereby each exists at their own cost. If someone exists at another's cost-- whether by rent, interest, and profit or by welfare subsidies and affirmative action-- this is an infringement of the Cost Principle, particularly when the Cost Principle is taken as a moral imperative, as I do, and as is implied within classical anarchism.
Now, I do not believe that the conclusion is correct, that black people cannot exist at their own cost, however I do believe that it is possible that mutualism could result in general but not universal differences in status between members of the different races. This I have inferred from the concerns of the Leftists and “liberals” I have talked to, which comes with the implicit racial realism (that they deny is such) in the idea that black people must have some form of welfare, lest they will not survive or will be destitute. It became clear, Leftists and “liberals” felt obligated to stand up for taxation and state control because if they did not they were “racists,” and that is not the aesthetic or identity that they have attached their egos to. Leftists and “liberals” would make these points so often, that I started to account for them in my thought: black people won't be as well-off as whites under mutualism. Though they will still own their own property, and not rely on that of others, blacks overall will tend to have less of it and of not as good of quality. I accept this as a fact of mutualism now. This has become a point of much contention, because, instead of bending to the Leftist and “liberal” notion that this means that some degree of communism or state-socialism is necessary, and that I must by extension give up my self-worth and autonomy, I have been willing to accept that there may be differences in the qualities of the races, such that conditions of freedom and equality of opportunity do not at all mean compulsory cosmopolitanism or equality of outcome. And this scares the shit out of the Leftists and “liberals,” who stand by the Politics of Jealousy.
For the longest time (and especially since my original scientific interest was zoology), I had an interest in comprehending the physical evolution of the human species. With that, I wanted to understand how the evolution of different phenotypes came about. I found that this discussion was taboo, and for the longest time thought that it was basically untouched. More recently, however, I discovered physical anthropology and ethnology, which has corroborated the idea that there are indeed racial realities that come with differences in quality between the races, as the Leftists and “liberals” implied in their concerns. The unsung and censored American School of anthropology and enthological polygenism more generally cast much doubt on the Out-of-Africa model and on monogenism more generally, and, when combined with recent insights, suggests that the human species is actually a composite resulting from convergent evolution and hybridization. This being so, human races do not share common origins, but originate from disparate species, their commonablities resulting from multiple occurrences and intermixture with one another over time. This is morally and ethically superior to the Out-of-Africa and monogenist model, however, because instead of stating a common origin away from which we all diverged and became more different, it states disparate origins from which we are coming together. As such, this is a much more humanistic and humanitarian basis for relating with one another, and one that acknowledges that from out of differences of quality come leaps of mutual evolution.
Differences in race, however, do mean that there are also differences in behaviors and physical endowments, including intellectual ones. While we are all still perfecting, and require one another to continue this process, we are still different, and we maintain our own interests, both as individuals and as part of various levels of collectivity, from the family and friends groups to workplaces and peoplegroups. The various races have sometimes shared in multiple discovery as an aspect of convergent cultural evolution, but have also developed their own ways of doing things, and differ with regard not only to their phenotypes, but to their arts, technologies, philosophies, and jurisprudence. And differences of these kinds result in differences of consequence, both in its indigenous condition and as an import. Assimilation and diffusion are hybridizing forces that dialectically sublate that which is good in each, and tease it away from that which is bad, which is by extension deselected from reality. Such a process of convergence and hybridization is how human evolution occurs, and it had probably occurred this way somewhat similarly since our time as Cercopithecines or before.
It is a fact of our historical and archaeological record that Aryans or Indo-Europeans conquered the majority of the world and forced the other races into lower castes and classes. This is not disputed by Leftists or “liberals,” but is quite often mentioned by their own lamentations about “white privilege” and “white supremacy,” with attempts to explain this away through guns, germs, and steel. Such lamentations come from out of the German idealist-inspired views of the Frankfurt School cultural Marxists and their ilk, and are not based in common sense observations of reality.
The fact still remains that the Indo-European has, so far, been the most successful of the cultural complexes, and quite possibly owing to its own internal diversity. After all, white people are a coalescence of various depigmented races, and do not consitute a singular race. There are in fact a number of basal races that may be considered white, such as Cro-Magnoids and their subtypes as well as Mediterranoids, Alpinids, and Nordids, and even Capoids and Mongoloids by some definitions (that don't use the Yellow category and tend to be more binary). But the emerging Indo-Eurafricanoid overall, which one might more generally recognize as “white people,” is the result of the combination of these races along with depigmented Levantoids, Australoids, Negroids, and Congoids and even members who were not depigmented (but who did not have their darker features selected for sexually or socially or ecologically, so as to change the white race).
As such, the “blushing race”– Indo-Eurafricanoids, or “white people” – is a medley of peoples, and this medley of peoples has produced the bunch with the greatest variation of hair color and texture and eye color, as well as range of skin tones (which range from brown and olive to ruddy to fair and pale and beyond). The one uniting feature is depigmentation, a common trait that has allowed for their blushing to be socially witnessed, and which by extension establishes an infinite, recursive mirroring effect, whereby a liar not only knows that they have been caught, but that they have been caught and display knowledge of having done wrong. This creates a situation of common knowledge where “I know that they know that I know that they know that I know..,” which, when combined with the shame, remorse, or regret that inspires the blush, enhances or reinforces the capacity of white people to become self-aware, self-conscious, and self-actualized. This is a qualitative and biological difference, and likely the key feature that has allowed whites to become dominant on the planet. Those who are self-conscious can act in concert with others and take responsibility for their own actions, and white races have a biological advantage in this regard. These sorts of endowments, however, are considered “privileges” by cultural Marxists and neo-anarchists, privilege being a word that used to refer exclusively to imbalanced legal advantages such as charters.
Mutualism-- despite being a product of multiple discovery in practice, and as a philosophy instead--, developed from out of the blushing races, and in particular the Germanic ones, especially as inspired by Saxon and Frisian culture, but becoming an organized force during the Enlightenment and modernism throughout the Germanic and Celtic countries and beyond. As such, an attack on “whiteness,” "white supremacy,” “racism,” and other such notions that include in them race realism or racialism, is a direct attack on mutualism by cultural Marxists, whose interests are typically Jewish, Trojan (Parisian), and Italian. This can be seen outright in the treatment of Herbert Spencer and Pierre Proudhon by the Left and “liberals,” who have come to denounce both, Spencer as a racist and Proudhon as an anti-Semite. Proudhon and Spencer are probably the two most major influences on mutualism outside of Josiah Warren and Benjamin Tucker. Warren's efforts were hardly threatening, while Tucker started drifting into the influences of the fin de siecle, making him more favorable to the Parisians. But in attacking Proudhon and Spencer, both of whom influenced Tucker and his followers greatly, basically coming to define, with Josiah Warren, what mutualism is as an economic project, they were attacking mutualism as a whole.
The idea that the races must be assumed to be equal in quality and capacity, and that any deviation from this or allowing for personal decisions or voluntary separation with regard to race is racism, or an indication that racism must be present as the only explanation, cannot be tolerated if real mutualism (not neo-Proudhonianism, neo-mutualism, or New Mutualism) is to be allowed to have a real impact on the world. These ideas have always been used to move society toward communism, communitarianism, state-socialism, or “anarcho”-communism, and as arguments for why a truly free and equal society cannot be tolerated. With the racial background of humanity being what it is, differences in status, correlating however strongly or loosely to race, are quite likely to occur even in the absence of class differences, those arising from alienation of property from the true owner such as exist between tenant and landlord, employer and employee, creditor and debtor.
It must be understood that defending the description of these things is not the same thing as prescribing them. That is, I do not prescribe that there should be a difference in capacity of the races, but describe that these differences manifest, in a classless society, in the form of social status. A mutualist is not a statist or governmentalist who wishes to declare legal particularisms with regard to race outside of voluntary and consensual bounds, and so provides no risk of establishing or utilizing state power to implement racial or ethnic control over others. As such, a mutualist understands that each, limited only by their own capacities, and enabled to use land and issue credit, is as such limited only by their own genetic and cultural endowments, which are not to be constricted in any way by private property or the state. This means, consistent with the evolutionary sociology of Herbert Spencer, as well as that of Proudhon, that members of every race and ethnicity, whether organized along those lines or not, will have the ability to demonstrate their own merits and be judged objectively thereby. If, then, evolution begins to favor races or ethnic groups that were previously behind in status, mutualism allows that they may “bubble up” from the “quantum field” of society to become its shining star. Mutualism, as such, does not wish to impose any constraints on anyone, but instead celebrates the freedom and equality under the law (together, Equal Freedom) of each and every individual of each and every race.
However, this does not detract from the Germanic, and especially Saxon and Frisian, origins of mutualism, nor from the fact that most of its advocates have been white or admixed with white (Mestizo, Mulatto), making it a “white philosophy” insofar as relates to its literary origins. Mutualism is an expression of Western philosophy, the Enlightenment, and modernist thinking, which had its origins in Europe and developed from out of Saxon notions such as frith, as Peter Kropotkin tells us. In particular, mutualism developed from out of the guilds and alongside notions of liberal socialism, which are also native to Europe. Its notions of freedom and equality are distinctly European and American at their foundations, and are the best-developed in the whole world.
While mutualism is a white philosophy with regard to origins, nonetheless, it is not a white philosophy with regard to aspirations or its practices. Spencer and Proudhon both expressed evolutionary and developmental regard for people of other races, holding that they were capable of moving ahead or even catching up entirely with regard to their physical and societal evolution. Before these two figureheads, mutualism was already in practice though not explicated as such, as among the friendly societies, fraternities, and guilds of Europe and America. The latter of which, at least, included those which were composed of people of color, such as those which tended toward cosmopolitanism-- which were actually rare-- and those which were organized along separatist lines, which was the standard of the day. Even after Spencer and Proudhon started writing, and often inspired by it, however, Blacks, Jews, Mexicans, Catholics, and others who fell outside of WASP society organized themselves into their own associations, much as the WASPs were doing. Mutualism, despite its Germanic philosophical origins, was always an intercultural affair.
While mutualism is not white with regard to its aspirations or practices, it is nonetheless hated and hindered, for tolerating such aspirations within it, as if this were its main aspiration. Again, this comes from the emotional position that anyone who considers racial realities and justifies differences in status-- even if for the sake of abolishing class-- must by extension be a racist. As such, Herbert Spencer, who inspired Gentile whites and blacks and Jews alike in their associations, and challenged them to consciously evolve and develop good character and organization, is now understood to be a figurehead of racism. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon is demonized as an anti-Semite because he opposed usury and harshly judged Jews for good reason, only speaking of violence against them in his personal journal, if this artifact is even legitimate. Mutualism, which would solve the plethora of the world's problems– indeed those which are solvable by adjustments to our social structure– , is rejected by Leftists and “liberals,” and only tolerated in the Marxist-led Left Unity in efforts of co-optation, because of its rejection of Jewish usury and black welfare traps, both primarily serving the interests of Jews, and so as not to align mutualism with civic Saxonism where it belongs.
The fact that this conflict exists at all poses a problem for mutualism. If white automata are so driven by black jealousies and Jewish factitiousness that they cannot tolerate differences in outcome resulting from differences in genetic and cultural endowments, this means that they will have a difficult time with mutuality. Indeed, we have seen that mutualism is outright opposed, or else must be perverted with cultural Marxism and so rendered null, if Leftists are going to get their way. These politics of jealousy may limit mutualism from being able to have the cosmopolitan impact it originally set out to, and force it into the realm of defense and reaction, such that mutualism may today have more in common with the alternative Right, paleoconservatism, and even folkish Right-wing fascism than with the New Left (Left-wing fascism), and may find its best efforts are placed toward ethnically-exclusive associations, distinguished from ethnostates by an absence of a ruling class, but having in common a desire to defend its members from the encroachments of an anti-white multiculturalism that sees mud huts and Gothic cathedrals to exist on a value-neutral spectrum and that justifies Jewish usury and black welfare trappings paid for by Poor Whites. If mutualists want to avoid having to align their interests with the Right, they are going to have to stop allowing for perversions of their takes on mutualism (such as neo-Proudhonianism, neo-mutualism, or New Mutualism) and embrace that mutualism not only allows for, but was established upon, racial separitism, and that differences in status as accorded by one's genetic and cultural endowments must be allowed if class is at all to be abolished. So long as this is not allowed, there will be required a noble class of neo-anarchist and cultural Marxist Bobos of the professional-managerial class, the 20% that works for the 1%, to judge Poor Whites for their transgressions against the gods of intersectionality, to condemn judgements of Poor Whites against Jewish (and any) usury, and to keep Poor Whites poor for the sake of affording affirmative action and welfare privileges to otherwise themselves-exploited blacks. Such an option will always, by extension, enable the existence of landlords, bosses, lenders, and politicians (in one word, class). The only way to do away with class is to admit, without prescribing, differences in status existing along racial lines as a tolerable likelihood.
In short, differences in status between the races does not necessitate state or private action against the holder of the highest status, as is suggested by the Left and their “liberal” (communitarian) cohorts. If natural and inevitable differences in status cannot be tolerated, the embrace of the moral elements of natural law that mutualism requires cannot be attained, and society will continue to exist under the laws of the state, themselves a legalistic manifestation of Jungle Law applied by the government, that group of people who administer the state on behalf of the economic ruling class (landlords, bosses, lenders) and for the ends of Jews, its leading constituent. As such, class society will continue.