This principle from Spengler and Evola “those who talk about race don’t have it” really rubs some people up the wrong way, it irritates them—and that’s because, as with socialism or any secular project, they use race as a substitute to stave off their own fear as regards their own mortality (“I may die, but socialism lives on” “I may die, but my race lives on”); except everything dies eventually, even socialism or your race—and what then, as regards *your* survival? Alternatively, they need to huddle behind 145,564 white bodies; and yet the air is crisp away from the mass. The point is not that race doesn’t exist, nor that if it’s mentioned it’s “the end of the world”—per Petersonian opinion. The point is that if race is to exist it cannot become a central identification point or something to be proud about.
I once had a good friendship; however, I became self-conscious as regards the friendship, I started to foreground the “friendliness” of the friendship—the other person eventually resented this situation, the friendship ended. “People who talk about friendship, don’t have friendship”. A magical point: you foreground it, you lose it. If you go up to someone in the pub and say, “We’re such good mates, eh?” unless you do it ironically then the friendship will suffer.
Use the word “love” very sparingly—love and hate are connected; if you say you love someone, it also means you hate them—and the word itself easily debases. It’s better to let the love demonstrate itself rather than ruin itself in self consciousness (as happens in many relationships). It’s the same with “race”: when you talk it up as a central point, the primary political axiom, you make it self-conscious and awkward—you debase it. It’s Taoist, “People who build up, pull down; people who pull down, build up.” Nobody builds “white solidarity” better than the leftist who rants about “white supremacy”—stay silent, race strengthens; speak out, race weakens.