Racial Smugness

Food for thought.

In Baker’s book Race is a comment about how it is often individuals who are not optimally representative of their group who are the ones who most strongly identify with, and defend, that group.

Hitler, an Austrian of South German ancestry and non-Nordic phenotype, is a good example here, as he was fanatically attached to a German identity, was a Nordicist, and was someone very strongly focused on the interests of the German (not Austrian) state. Other Germanocentrics and Nordicists were not good phenotypic representatives of those ethnoracial groups; the Nazi regime was full of such individuals.  In America, White ethnics, who are not of the Anglo-Saxon founding stock, nor of closely related (non-Anglo) Northern European Protestant background, are often “racists” who strongly identify with a White America that they are more peripheral to compared to Anglo-Celto-Germanic White Protestants. One can of course think of many other examples. For instance, non-Whites have similar examples of this phenomenon. Some of the most radical Blacks, some of the people most obsessed with their Blackness, are “African-Americans” who are more “brown” than “black," and who obviously have significant White ancestry.  

Of course, there are always exceptions to the rule. There were fanatical Nazis and Nordicists who were thoroughly Nordic. The “movement” today is full of Nordic Nordicists, and many of the pro-American FOX News/Gab crowd are Northwest European types. Some radical Blacks are dark-skinned and are of mostly, or all, sub-Saharan African ancestry. But in its broad outlines, Baker’s observation has some merit. Granted, part of this merit is because the outliers - the peripheral types that Baker describes - stand out more and are thus better remembered.  But, still, even with all of that, there does seem to be a real over-representation of the more peripheral types among those most strongly committed to the group that they identify with. There is a real phenomenon here.

Armchair psychiatrists will aver that such individuals overcompensate because they feel insecure in their identity, and so try to out-do those who they perceive as more optimally representing their group.  A more charitable explanation is that such people, coming as they do from the periphery of the group, are more aware of, and sensitive to, potential threats to that group, as opposed to more central group members who may be more isolated from those dangers. Thus, for example, given that ethnic Germans were a minority within the Austro-Hungarian Empire, struggling against powerful Hungarians and increasingly aggressive Slavs, an Austro-German like Hitler, born and raised in that environment, would be more likely to strongly identify with his endangered Germanic identity as opposed to some North German in Hamburg enjoying the security and power of the pre-WWI German Reich. Likewise, a person not phenotypically the archetype of their group has their own physical appearance as a daily reminder of how fragile maintenance of optimal group characteristics are. They themselves represent the “downfall” of their group archetype; Nordicists who have less-than-Nordic or less-than-Nordish phenotypes no doubt fit into this category. It is possible that both explanations – overcompensation and increased sensitivity to threats – are at work here.

What no one really delves into is the opposite situation.  Why do more central individuals, who are more representative of the group archetype, typically identify with the group less strongly, and are often less aggressive in group defense?  Let us consider Nordic Europeans - and by “Nordic” here I mean the broad range of “Nordish” peoples, not just those who are technically “pure Nordics” according to traditional physical anthropology; here, we can consider “Nordic” to be shorthand for people who are generally Northern European, Northwest European, and/or Northcentral European. The “movement” considers Nordics – particularly those who are more phenotypically Nordic/Nordish - to be the most central and archetypically representative members of the White race. 

The HBD Nordicists would ascribe the less ethnocentric behavior of this group to them being more individualistic, being just “too good” for their own good, too noble, too trusting, too altruistic, etc. A less charitable explanation, flipping the script given for the peripheral people Baker described, is that the more representative and central individuals are too comfortable and too self-satisfied in their identities – a sense of “racial smugness” may be in play here. Thus, these people feel overly secure in their ancestry and phenotype, they therefore do not feel threatened by the lesser types who they view with condescending attitudes and/or pity; indeed, they may feel a sense of noblesse oblige toward non-Whites (while they despise non-Nordic Whites who they see as competitors – not quite their equal but not deserving of the kindness bestowed upon Coloreds). This is a form of “The White Man’s Burden” that the High Trusters have, which is derived from “racial smugness.” 

For example, consider White Nordic females who smile benignly at the ranting of some fat, ugly Negress (or, more succinctly – some Negress).  The underlying attitude of these Nordic females toward the Negress may be something like this – “I’m so glad I’m me and not her, I’m so self-satisfied that I am what I am and I am not a Black woman and I look like myself and not like her. Of course she’s so angry and is full of resentment and unjustified self-esteem. Imagine how horrible it must be to look in the mirror every day and see Koko the gorilla staring back at you. I need to be kind and understanding to her and her people, given my advantages. I can afford to be generous; I have an obligation to those less fortunate. It’s not her fault she looks like Mighty Joe Young’s kid sister.” 

Now, as explained below, I am not saying that these Nordic females actually consciously think any of this.  They would no doubt be horrified and deeply offended if anyone (like me) claimed that their real attitude was what is described above. What I am saying is that their more unconscious, or subconscious, underlying, attitude is essentially what I have described, it is lurking just beneath the surface of their conscious thoughts. Indeed, to the extent that this attitude starts leaking into their conscious thoughts it would make them feel extremely guilty and spur them into even more of a noblesse oblige toward non-Whites.  So, again, don’t view this as me saying that every time a White Nordic meets a Black they explicitly think “for the grace of God goes I; how fortunate I am that I’m me and not this disgusting half-ape – I pity them and must help them.”  No, but they behave as if they do think that, and the reason is that they are ‘thinking” that just beneath the surface of their conscious thoughts.  This is how racial smugness manifests itself.  Of course, there are always outliers, so it may be possible that in some minority of cases, these thoughts are actually conscious and explicit, but no doubt not as harsh as my description (I doubt a SJW would term a Negro as a “half-ape” – although they may pity them for their race and phenotype). Male Nordics would of course have similar underlying attitudes leading them to have racially smug attitudes manifesting in an attitude of noblesse oblige toward non-Whites.  Non-Nordic Whites, on the other hand, are more likely to have underlying attitudes that manifest in viewing Coloreds as more of a threat; these people would lack the arrogant sense of self-satisfied complacency and would also lack any sense of noblesse oblige toward Coloreds. Some of these differences are also discussed in light of my other theory of intra-White behavioral differences – Racial Proximity Theory. But, again, in most cases, the attitudes described are likely to be beneath the surface of thought rather than something open and explicit.

So, to summarize, just as with the opposite group Baker described (the “peripherals”), there is no need to assume that the “central” smug group always, or often, has an explicit and conscious attitude leading to their behavior.  Now, don’t get me wrong, sometimes it indeed is explicit and conscious, but often it likely is operating more as an underlying attitude that is not openly and explicitly recognized as such.  A person does not have to be constantly thinking about how they identify with their group and why; instead, there are a number of behaviors that emerge from a person’s total sense of themselves and from their internal self-conception, as well as from their life experiences. 

In describing the behavior, we should not worry so much about how much of it is explicit and how much is implicit. However, if one wanted prescriptively to try and get the smug to realize how self-destructive their behavior is and that they should change, then issues of how cognizant they are of the behavior becomes more important. Perhaps pointing out the behavior to them will make them realize the extent to which it is true.  On the other hand, I think the people Baker described - the peripheral types - would not be much affected by having their behavior pointed out. That is because, regardless of how aware they are about the underlying reasons for their behavior, they are so much more explicit about it, relatively speaking, than are the SJW types. Thus, even if some of the underlying motivations of the peripheral, ethnocentric types are unconscious, they are still very close to the surface. The "membrane" separating underlying attitudes and conscious thought is much thinner in the ethnocentric peripheral types than it is in the central SJW types, for whom realization of their underlying attitudes would be painful.

After all, here I am, as a White ethnic racist, openly writing about it. in summary, I believe that the peripheral people Baker described are much closer to self-awareness than are smug SJWs. So, the peripheral group would not be negatively affected by having their peripheral nature pointed out; they are aware of this at least at some level.  Making it all explicit would lead them to just be more open about how their experiences made them aware of their group identity and dangers to that group. The SJWs, on the other hand, would likely get seriously deflated if they realized how much of their racial liberalism derives from a deep sense of self-satisfaction over their racial ancestry and phenotype.  In other words, the peripheral people would maintain, and possibly even increase, their ethnocentrism if their behavior was openly analyzed, while the SJWs may have a crisis of conscience (or maybe not, but I see it as more likely).

Therefore, in summary, in addition to Racial Proximity Theory, here I propose “racial smugness" – a self-satisfied arrogant racial complacency – to explain Nordic attitudes toward Coloreds. This hypothesis can be further analyzed, dissected, critiqued, proofed, and extended.