American Liberty, Barack Obama, BBC, BNP, Christopher Caldwell, Counter-Jihad, Defend the modern world, Multiculturalism, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, United States
As the election results in France, Hungary and Greece last week demonstrated, White Nationalism is a growing movement across the continent of Europe. The reasons for this are no great mystery. Everywhere on earth, in every available measure, White Power is declining.
The future leader of the world is expected to be China. The second in command meanwhile is predicted to be India (perhaps), and the third, a non-White majority United States. Europe by this time will be a fragmented, half-Islamised economic mess and Russia will have a fraction of its current population. Only Australia seems to offer the White race any hope for a dignified and homogenous future – and even this is based on wishful thinking (Australia is already 20% non-White).
To prevent any further decline in racial influence therefore, Ethno-Nationalism appears self-evidently fit for purpose. If Whites can band together and provide a common front against shared problems, perhaps some kind of stable future can still be manufactured.
I am an individualist. Ethno-nationalism is a collectivist concept, and so I reject it. Nevertheless, I don’t hate or seek to dehumanise those who find solace this way. It is totally understandable for a society undergoing decline to grasp at radical straws, and to endorse things which might not otherwise be in concert with its moral nature.
To argue against Ethno-Nationalism (and argue I shall), I find a simple exposure of its extent to be usually sufficient. Many White Nationalists are unaware that they are moderates in an extreme movement. That is, they do not appreciate the destructive nature of what they endorse.
Perhaps the most useful and coherent statement of ethno-nationalism to date is ‘The Passing of the Great Race’ by 20th century Eugenicist Madison Grant. This brief work was recently mentioned approvingly by Anders Breivik, and still enjoys a lofty position on the bookshelf of Nationalist elites. Adolf Hitler notably called it his ‘bible’.
Unlike White Nationalists of the contemporary mainstream, Grant did not accept the traditional division of races into four categories (Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid and Amerindian) as sufficient for his purposes. The White European race itself, he claimed, was not one race but many, and his polemical energy was dedicated solely to the preservation of only one – the ‘highest type’ – the Nordic race. Below the Nordic, he described two other European sub-groups (found in all nations, and identifiable only by physical characteristics) called the ‘Alpine’ and ‘Mediterranean’.
The Mediterranean race is largely found in countries along that coastline, including those on the southern bank. The Mediterranean race therefore includes not only Portuguese, Spaniards and Greeks, but Syrians, Berbers and Cypriots. According to Grant, they are noted for their romantic, artistic and sentimental qualities.
The Nordic race meanwhile is scattered around the northern countries of Europe, and its members are especially easy to identify. Nordic people are long-skulled, sharp-nosed, with blue or green eyes. They are tall, strong, unromantic and suited to analytical and organisational activity.
Alpines meanwhile, perhaps the majority in European nations, are the residuum of ancient peoples, noted for their darker skin, roundness of skull, and (in Grant’s words) peasant character. Alpines, he writes, form a majority in Wales, large parts of England, and most of France.
Even though this is hateful nonsense with no basis in science, I know what Grant is getting at here, and so let’s look at some examples of these ‘races’. The first is an example of the Nordic type, for which I have chosen the late model Reeva Steenkamp.
For the Alpine, here is the Welsh television presenter Alex Jones.
And for the Mediterranean, here is an unnamed Greek woman from a tourist website.
These are all European people, yet their diversity is obvious. The liberal form of White Nationalism plays down these differences. The harder, more traditional Nazi type does not. Who is to say that these two different ideologies will play nice with each other indefinitely?
As in Western Europe, there has been a worrying renaissance of Nazi ideology in Russia and parts of the former Soviet Union. This is perhaps even better suited to the demonstration of my point.
Apart from Jews, Hitler, Himmler and Rosenberg hated the Slavic peoples more than any other. Hitler in particular believed their submission to Bolshevism (in his mind, dominated by Jews) was the natural consequence of a Slavic predisposition to obedience, itself the product of a long period of natural selection designed to produce the best ‘peasant type’. Whilst most Neo-Nazis have collectively agreed to forget this tenet of Nazi thought, many have not. In Germany, the far-right street movement Die Unsterblichen (the immortals) has repeatedly made anti-Slavic comments. The same organisation has also bemoaned the modern Greeks, describing them as a formerly great people degraded over the centuries by miscegenation with Negros.
Even in Britain, one sees the same madly divisive force at work. The British National Party’s old manifesto (now taken down from its website) called for the separation of British citizens into ‘folk-communities’, each defined by a biological peculiarity like ‘Anglo-Nordic’, ‘Scots-Irish’, and ‘Celtic-Germanic’.
The problem here is integral. Biological nationalism, whether or not it intends to unite, inevitably leads to disintegration. One cannot be half-dedicated to it. If one endorses a scientific idea at all, then one must go the full distance. That process will lead necessarily to the re-fragmentation of Europe, and would be a disaster at this point in history when unity is very much needed to defend from foreign invasions.
European fraternity is put at risk by Ethno-Nationalism. Inflexible Biological Nationalism, blind to political reality, leads ultimately to the dark ages. Perhaps not a new Islamic dark age, but a dark age nevertheless. We must oppose both regressions. Defend the modern world.
This is an issue on which I find myself somewhat undecided. Have you read this essay by Fjordman?
It seems undeniable that “kin identity” does exist and that people generally feel most comfortable with their own “kind” and this includes people of their own race. Whether this can be overcome seems unclear at the moment.
The second possible issue is that culture, aptitudes, and so on may be to some degree inextricably connected with, and emergent from, race. (To be clear, are you only arguing in favour of European ethnic diversity here, or in favour of full racial racial diversity e.g. Arab, African, within nation states also?)
Primary arguments against biological nationalism (or ethnic nationalism) might be that it is backward (we should seek to be getting along, not splitting apart). However, it is counter-argued that diversity actually does split a country apart socially. Other possible problems with ethnical nationalism are that it does not take into account individuals, and it could become difficult to determine “who should stay and who should go”.
Further, there are the sheer practical consequences of such a policy, which dissuade some (mass deportation and so on). But it can be counter-argued, look at the consequences of the opposite – mass uncontrolled immigration has created self-imposed ethnic ghettoes across Europe (not only Islamic ones), higher crime and massive economic costs.
The question you address here seems to be a critically important one (it now being obvious to almost all people, at least privately, that Islam is a serious problem – but it is ultimately a creed).
Individuals from anywhere can be fine, and a society can absorb a few of them. But for reasons I have mentioned above, when entire groups are formed, this seems to cause some serious problems for a society. See also Robert Putnam’s findings on this issue:
Whether human nature can be changed to avoid these issues seems to be the question of our time. Whether societies (only western ones) should be obliged to continue the experiment in order to find out (when they never wished to have the experiment in the first place anyway) is also pertinent.
Our core mistake seems to have been to import hundreds of thousands of people from other countries and support them for living here. If we had instead obliged them to either fend for themselves or leave, perhaps we would not be seeing the troubles we see now.
Defend the Modern World said:
I would argue for an immigration policy based purely on talent. While it’s true that some people gravitate towards their own ‘kind’, it’s not a trait to be celebrated in my view, or to be encouraged by the state. America used to be racially-minded, but gradually it evolved into a meritocracy. It hasn’t stopped it getting richer.
I’ve yet to hear a decent argument against the meritocratic idea that isn’t based on a personal fear of being out-competed. This usually lies behind popular anti-Semitism for example.
Nevertheless, I don’t think importing Africans was particularly wise on Europe’s part. Ultimately on this issue, numbers mean everything. If they develop in such concentrated purity that they spawn their own little Africas implanted in Europe, that would be a disaster. It is what happened to Detroit after-all, which now resembles perfectly an authentic African city.
Still, if you took England, deported the Muslim population and put strict curbs on EU migration, I don’t believe there would be any serious problems remaining. Of course, there would be a steadily growing proportion of immigrants in London and Birmingham; but the nation would survive it, just as America has survived the same process. Australia too will survive the growth of its Asian population. Limits must be enforced of course, but that needn’t be with radical ideology attached.
Ethno-Nationalism tends to exalt attributes which are unworthy of exaltation. A person can be White and uncreative, Asian and individualistic, Black and law-abiding etc… Race is not exact enough as a signifier. Individuals are much more complicated, and society must reflect this.
As regards racism in general, I agree largely with Ayn Rand:
“Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.”
Culture and values within communities are a more powerful determinant of an immigrant’s desirability than anything else. If you allow whole communities to immigrate and set up in your country, you are altering your culture such that theirs can create a foothold and colonize. If you allow only individuals to immigrate and compel them by way of socialization to conform to your own culture, you have a citizen whose loyalty is to his new country. Singapore is a great example. The consensus culture and language are aggressively taught and imposed, and the society is stable. Britain and the U.S. are examples of what not to do, because they have allowed whole tribal entities and communities to immigrate and impose certain cultural boundaries on the land. In essence, part of your territory, the cities in particular, do not belong to all the British people any more. And if they do not belong to all Britons, then they are not . . . British. They have been conquered.
If young British indigenous girls are raped and married into these communities, they become subordinate and even second or third class in these new communities.
British law has no standing in relation to Sharia. Sharia dominates. Again, as a nation, Britain may as well not exist in its urban areas.
By every measure, Britain is not recognizably British any more. Same situation as the Irish, 16th century. Truly, the British are the new Irish.
Defend the Modern World said:
I agree with all of that, and would also place the examples of America and Australia alongside that of Singapore. Japan also doesn’t allow for any minority group to threaten the primacy of Yamato culture and that policy has preserved a uniquely stable society. I don’t necessarily want a monoculture, but I do agree that there must be a ‘parent culture’ – by the standards of which national belonging can be measured. Nobody should come to Britain and then try to construct a second Pakistan.