(179) Černá káva
I agree with the statement by Evola and Spengler that “those who talk about race don’t have it.” Now, of course, I recognise my racial stack as follows: British > English > Welsh (metacategory, European; biological category, white); since my father is English I am English before I am Welsh (the paternal predominates; and yet I am “mixed’, so I am British first)—it’s the reverse to a liberal, who would put “European” first and only (except as a purely belief-based category in which an African who arrived yesterday would be “European”); and they would do so to disassociate themselves from “British”, let alone “English”. Horrific.
However, I would never put forward “who I am” as being primarily about “being British” or any sub-category within the stack described above. Actually, for me and for all people res ipsa loquitur—you know what I am from what I do, not what I tell you (or try to gull you into thinking ) I am. What Evola and Spengler mean is that you shouldn’t boast about your “race” or make it your central identification point—quality speaks for itself, its racial aspect is inferred from that. In fact, it is actually “not English” to assert you are English. If someone says, “You’re English,” the classical English response would be, “I don’t know if I’d go so far as that” (and that is very English, magical reversal—that which is denied is asserted).
So I don’t deny the facts—cultural and biological—as a liberal might do; but I don’t “twalk”, as Taleb might put it (as Spengler and Evola mean, boastfully), about it. This is why white nationalism is never classy; it’s all based on “talk”, empty boast, about race. It’s based on the need to huddle in the mass (“more white babies”—or extinction). Profane example: in 1921 the first Chinese Communist Party congress had 13 men at it—by 1949 they ran the country; and that’s why I only need 12 Grail knights.