March 19, 2011
THE DISCUSSION about white nationalism, which began here, continues below.
Boris S. writes:
The essential difference between the so-called “white nationalist” tribalism and the organization of Jews, which the “white nationalists” seek to emulate, is that the Jews point to a common four-thousand-year-old religion, with a shared culture, historical memory, and transcendental hopes. The “white nationalists,” on the other hand, want to impose a totally new tribal organization, invented out of thin air, on a group that has never constituted—that is, never saw itself as—a single nation, people, or tribe. “Whites” are not, and never have been, a people, in the sense that one speaks of the “Jewish people.”
Furthermore, no matter how much “white nationalists” deny their ideological affinity with Hitlerian National Socialism, the latter remains the only movement to have tried to reorganize the European nations into a single race-tribe, itself differentiated according to an internal racial hierarchy. The crippling blow to Western civilization, that may yet turn out to be a deathblow, which has been wrought by Nazism, does not seem to give much pause to thesoi-disant“white nationalists” who claim to “defend Western civilization.” One would like to know what that oft-invoked “Western civilization” means to such people. Does it refer to the individual freedoms granted by the Western democracies? Does it mean Western music, art, literature? The Western philosophical tradition? The Christian religion? One suspects it is merely a suitably noble-sounding call to arms, perhaps to be replaced by some other catch-phrase when its use has run out. To this, “white nationalists” would protest that, unlike Nazism, their movement does not promote violence and war. This objection cannot be taken seriously for two reasons. First, because the movement seeks to overturn the present political and social order, it is by nature revolutionary, and, like all revolutionary movements, it will one day face the necessity of the use of violence if it seriously hopes to achieve its goals. Second, because Western societies are not “racially homogenous” according to the understanding of the “white nationalists” themselves, their desired order will inevitably create classes of “racial aliens” who would resent their sudden status as outsiders and would have to be dealt with somehow. It is amusing to note that many “white nationalists” deny the revolutionary nature of their movement as they try to claim what they take to be the “prestigious” mantle of “true conservatism” or “reaction.”
These are some of the nasty consequences of the “white nationalist” program. It is important to add that the ideology does not withstand theoretical criticism, because many of its claims about human history and human societies are basically incorrect. Racial tribalism as a mode of thought is alien to Western tradition, and has become widespread only in the late 19th century, when it could be based upon Darwinism and its naturalistic (or “zoological”) view of man, and when masses of men disoriented by the fall of the feudal order and the havoc of industrial capitalism sought a new identity to give them meaning and a sense of belonging. It is true that the demographic changes now sweeping the Western world are in part made possible by what could be called “anti-racism” or “reverse racism,” an essentially revolutionary attitude that denies to those nation-states it sees as “white” any right to defense against “non-white” invaders (and is also responsible for affirmative action). This attitude, which does not rise to the level of ideology (with the possible exception of a few revolutionary socialist groups that have attempted to articulate it), is a diseased reaction to the likewise diseased fit of racism which took hold of the West approximately from 1880 to 1950. But the demographic changes are also made possible by the shrinking of the world due to modern technology, and receive their impetus from technological and economic forces. In other words, what the racialists see as the preserved “racial purity” of Europe until the second half of the 20th century, is not the result of a nonexistent tradition of racial tribalism, but simply the expected absence of rapid change in the pre-industrial era. This brings us to another problem with the “white nationalist” ideology: what today we would call “ethnic mixing” has happened continuously for millennia between peoples who lived within accessible geographic distances. Thus, unless we deny the common origin of mankind (at which point we could no longer claim scientific backing or any connection with Western tradition) we cannot treat “the white race” as an objectively fixed entity.
The only good thing that can be said of “white nationalism” is that it gives comfort to some individuals who, in having been deprived of any adequate outlet for their creative energies and a stable community, have been among the unfortunate victims of modernity. But apart from the theoretical problems and the necessary violence and immorality that would flow from any attempt to implement “white nationalism” in America, the ideology, in its obsession with race and its beside-the-point pursuit of scientific justification, seems to have no answer to the problems any serious political thinker today would have to deal with, including the overwhelming role of technological and economic forces in constraining the freedom of modern man, the prevailing antihumanist ethos of Enlightened or bourgeois utilitarianism which holds human beings to be valuable only insofar as they happen to be “useful” (however this is to be defined, whether by the state or the “free market”), the related contempt for philosophy, religion, and contemplation, or the superficial scientism and “secular humanism” (a sort of cheap tribalism from which “white nationalism” differs only in the scope of the designated tribe) that dominate respectable discourse. Considering either the silence or the incredible shallowness of “white nationalism” on such matters, the movement seems to be rather one more symptom of the pathology.
Robert Gray writes:
It’s ironic that the Jew-mongers would describe Auster as a “Jewish fifth columnist” when they themselves drive white Americans away from the cause with their incessant talk of Jews and Jewish influence. The typical white nationalist site, in its content, comments, and links, repels whites because we are not utterly obsessed with Jews and have no sympathy with neo-Nazism, Fascism, and Holocaust denial. I’ve tried to reason with those afflicted with Jew-mania, but reason and logic have no effect. They cannot see the damage they do. Indeed, I don’t think they care. For their concern is proving that Jews are evil, rather than securing the interests of white people.
John McNeill writes:
I’ve noticed that the thread has expanded its criticism of white nationalism by invoking the exclusionary nature of white nationalism, such as the call for a whites-only ethno-state. Allow me to clarify my position on this sticky but important subject.
When I first became an ethnonationalist (and yes Laura, it is a mouthful although I’ve acclimatized to it), I was convinced that we white Americans need an ethno-state of our own in order to survive. White Americans (and our cousins in Europe) are a dying people, and I felt that an ethno-state was the only way to allow white Americans to recover from their low birth rate and other symptoms of social liberalism. And to this day, I still view the ethno-state model as ideal. For when you have multiple ethnicities living in the same country, the subject of who has control over the country boils down to a matter of babies, and nothing else. A breeding war essentially. To guarantee a white majority (which many in the traditionalist orbit seem to consider more acceptable than an ethno-state), you need to ensure that whites have a superior birth rate. And how do you go about doing that?
Regardless, over time I began seeing the problems of the ethno-state model, thanks to my interactions with a wise biracial man named nikcrit over at Guy White’s blog and Sagat’s. He pointed out that the U.S. is not a country where there can be solid boundaries between races/ethnicities. Indeed, as I continually study the census, and try to map out a white ethno-state, the more difficult it becomes thanks to Hispanic migration into the Upper Midwest and the Rockies. I saw the ethno-state as an easy way out of having to resort to harsh methods like deportations. And indeed, if there was a way to get America to divide up into ethno-states on a mutually beneficial and peaceful basis, I’d support it.
But I don’t think it’s going to happen. Any attempt at dividing America will probably lead to (or be a result of) violence, and that is something I do not want.
So what then? Do I just throw my arms up in the air and accept extinction? No. I try to find ways to preserve my people, my nation, while remaining in the confines of a multi-ethnic, multicultural United States. Whites are going to continue to decline in numbers, thus guaranteeing our position as a future minority. The way I see, the best thing we can do is to try to get along with the non-white ethnic groups so we don’t become a hated and persecuted minority. I also believe we need to become more coherent, more closely knit as a community. Try to promote positive European-American identity and hope that from that pride will result in a determination to at least stabilize our birth rate so we do not fade into oblivion. If we can accomplish these goals, I would say Mission Accomplished.
On the subject of Jews, I feel that it’s a non-issue. There are Jews who see themselves as white Americans, others do not, for either religious/nationalist reasons or liberal-internationalist ones. The ones who do see themselves as white Americans are welcome to join my movement. In fact, there’s really no need to flat out discriminate against anyone. We can call for the rallying of people who identify as white Americans, and thus who identify as such, and seek to preserve our identity, will come to us. Discrimination is really a non-issue for a movement that sees its nation as being people rather than borders, and can exist inside a political and diverse entity like the US.
And to Clem, that statement, as said by me, is fairly self-evident. Most whites that I have met will not stomach the kind of rhetoric deemed acceptable by mainstream white nationalists. There’s no sense in ignoring the truth that whites have had plenty of positive interactions with minorities. It’s not always mugging and rape. White nationalists, especially those at the CofCC, continually bring up news of black/Hispanic violence in an attempt to get us to see them as our enemies. And yet that approach will not resonate with whites who have black co-workers or Hispanic neighbors.
I firmly believe that positive identity is the key to success. There’s an organization called the Asatru Folk Assembly (neo-pagan) that promotes European identity on the basis of heritage, and their videos are very stirring and beautiful. When I watch them, I feel that I have something special, something worth preserving. And nowadays, when I see large Hispanic families gathering around to celebrate the birth of a new child, rather than harboring ill will towards them for outbreeding my people, I look at them, and say wow that’s really nice, we whites should be more like that. Orania is another example of positive identity. The Afrikaners there decided to establish a township within the new South Africa to preserve their heritage. Visiting blacks are not treated with scorn, Nelson Mandela has visited it and is friends with one of the founders, and ANC officials have praised it as a role-model community. Yes, it’s a Afrikaner reservation, and I feel that it is a role-model for us white Americans. I encourage you to visit their website and see the kind of wonderful things that can be done when nationalists decide to take the positive route. It has an English tab, for the record.
— End of Initial Entry —
While I agree with many of his points on white nationalism and its “incredible shallowness,” Boris’s point that racial tribalism did not exist before the modern era is not correct. This tribalism did not express itself as “white nationalism” or even as “white” as it was often bound up with ethnic and religious identity. But the people of Europe and the ancient world were highly conscious of race and saw it as a determing aspect of life. Again, they usually saw it as intertwined with other aspects of identity, such as tribe, clan, ethnicity, religion and class. Virgils’ Aeneid is a story of racial consciousness, as Aeneas sets out from the ruins of Troy to found a new nation, which will be the basis for an entire civilization. This new civilization is not to be based on ideas in Virgil’s conception of it (a vision which was embraced by Romans and Europeans for many hundreds of years in their almost fanatical devotion to this tale), but racial and tribal identity. Aeneas does not stay in Carthage, despite the temptation to do so. His people and his ultimate destiny are not there.
The ancients and later Europeans did not intermarry or form integrated communties with other races despite extensive mixing with the peoples of Asia and Africa. It is not correct to say they were bound in place because of lack of transportation. Goods were exchanged with Asia and Africa and there was ample opportunity for intermixing if it was desired. The white race also has for many hundreds of years had an overriding transcendent aspect to its collective identity in the form of Christianity.
I am confused by Boris’s point that we cannot treat the white race as “an objectively fixed entity.” It is treated as an objectively fixed entity every hour of the day. It is a determining factor in where we live, what jobs we get, what colleges we get into, what scholarships we receive, whom we marry and where we send our children to school. Whites may not perceive the white race as “an objectively fixed entity,” but others do. The reason why it is treated as an objectively fixed entity is not because of reverse racism but because it is real. The races do have certain general characteristics. The fact that these general characteristics are combined with ethnic, family, and individual traits does not mean they are not objectively real.
I have written a response to your commenter, Boris S. at Occidental Dissent.
David Lee Mundy writes:
Boris S. claims that “we cannot treat ‘the white race’ as an objectively fixed entity.” This is imprecise. I was born and raised in the South and specifically in the Appalachian mountains, a backward
area with a rich history of resiting assimilation. My culture is clearly on display in the recent DVD series “The Appalacians.” Or you might read Senator Jim Webb’s book “Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America.”
Senator Webb concludes his opening chapter saying, “The contributions of this culture are too great to be forgotten as America rushes forward into yet another redefinition of itself. And in a society
obsessed with multicultural jealousies, those who cannot articulate their ethnic origins are doomed to a form of social and political isolation. My culture needs to rediscover itself, and in so doing to
regain its power to shape the direction of America.”
I appreciate that you have had this thread. Obviously like almost all politics, it isn’t something that is cut-and-dried and there will never be 100 percent agreement. For whatever it’s worth, as I said earlier I don’t support a ‘100 percent white state’, although I do support whatever it takes for us and Christianity to survive. I flat out reject those that would say Jews or any other group can do it but we can’t.
Mr. McNeill, I’m not sure what you stand for exactly but it doesn’t appear to be anything I would recognize or support. In my opinion, you essentially are saying if we have to force them, then let’s not. The idea that we shouldn’t by willing to do whatever is needed for our survival tells me you are not serious. It appears to me that you embrace just another form of multiculturalism with your admiring and flowery talk of non-threatening Hispanic families that know not what they do and with what I view as absurd admiration of Nelson Mandela and the destruction of that nation.
This thread reminds me of the assertion I have seen made frequently since Obama was elected, that he has ‘set race relations back 50 years’. Actually, more and more Whites are waking up and realizing the hypocrisy and destructive nature of our current set-up. As more and more whites start speaking up, it will continue to set back race relations and further polarize. It also will become more obvious who supports us and who doesn’t although it will never fit into a perfectly square box.
Laura, I will repeat what you said in another thread although I guess we just can’t come to terms, at least at this point, on what ‘white identity’ means exactly. I am not sure that that is in and of itself a deal breaker for ‘our’ survival as most agree that we can’t keep going in the direction we are now going:
Regardless of what the possible outcome of an assertion of white identity is, we are compelled to work to save our heritage.
Robert Gray writes:
In response to Boris S:
I would agree that the notion of a pan-white grouping is new, but it is not taken “out of thin air”. If we cannot find the concept of white nationalism in European history it’s because Europe was never threatened with mass immigration from non-white peoples. We’ve never had to face anything like our current dilemma. The heightened consciousness of our identity arises from knowledge of, and comparison with non-Europeans. Furthermore, we have detailed knowledge of genetics that has only been around for a few decades. We now have scientific data about racial differences that indicate our ancestry is a distinct and unique thing.
Jews have a sense of tribal solidarity because, in part, they were a minority in Europe. And their group identity is based on ancestry, not solely on a common religion. Many Jews are secular or atheist, but they retain their group affiliation. As is the case with whites, there are many sub-cultures within the Jewish group; yet they perceive a common identity.
And whites have a common 2,700 year-old tradition that begins with Homer, and which is rooted in Greek literature, art, philosophy, and politics. There is a continuity running into Roman and then Christian civilization. In addition, we have the ancient Germanic and Celtic traits, which have been amalgamated into this complex whole we call white civilization. It binds us together as much as the Jewish tradition.
The idea of our culture and ethnic identity is difficult to express because it is based on a lifetime of reading and listening, of accumulating information. One is tempted to make a list: Shakespeare, Milton, Samuel Johnson, Swift, the OED, da Vinci, Breughel, C.S. Lewis, Leibniz, Plato, Catullus, Yeats, Bach, Mozart, Steeleye Span, Benjamin Franklin, Whole Foods, Dickens, The Smiths, Purcell, the Eddas, Flann O’Brien, John Wayne, etc. etc. It’s hopeless. One could go on for pages and pages, and still not convey the concept that is formed, of diversity united under a common ancestry. The actors in this history, the people portrayed in the art, are white, and the cultural productions themselves are not random, but informed by our unique genetic makeup. If white people disappear, our culture may survive, but only as a fossil, a collection of artifacts from a lost people. The people that these productions are for and about will have been annihilated.
The Asian, African, Arab, and mixed-race peoples that inherit the land will have a different attitude towards the cultural productions of white civilization. It was not created by their people, their ancestors. The people portrayed in Western art and literature are foreign to them. Even the liberals recognize this when they demand “black” literature in college courses. They say blacks need to read Tony Morrison, for instance, in order to relate to literature. They need to understand that mathematics was invented by “their people” in ancient Egypt, and so on.
As Laura points out, consciousness of ancestry is not new. What’s new is mass immigration and the rise of anti-white ideology in the guise of respect for “diversity.” White nationalism is a legitimate response to this unprecedented and revolutionary drive to populate Europe and America with foreigners.
I posted some further comments on my blog.
John McNeill writes:
Clem, I am not a cheerleader for multiculturalism/multiracialism. I do not think it is a great system. However, I am a realist. I do not see any mass movement of white people protesting against multiracialism. Economics and mild social conservatism are the driving forces of the Tea Party, not white nationalism.
On a moral level, I reject the notion of deporting legal immigrants and blacks, which is what we would have to do in order to either secure an ethnostate, or make the US 100% white. But on a practical level, I do not see how that is at all feasible.
In an ideal world, we would have a country that has been ours and continues to be ours, and we would be closed to any permanent mass immigration. But it’s been decades since Third World immigrants have moved in and earned citizenship, and blacks have been here since the colonies were established. Then there’s the Native Americans, what do we do with them?
Now you yourself say that you reject any plans to make the U.S. 100 percent white. So then what? How would you propose keeping whites as a majority when minorities with U.S. citizenship out-reproduce us? Birth rates are pretty much the only thing we can do, and I favor improving it. I think we are in agreement there.
However, I am skeptical that we could ever get whites in this modern age to have an average of 5 children per family. I’m concerned with white survival, and so if white Americans can have an average of two children per family, I would be content. It would mean our population wouldn’t be shrinking, and that it would guarantee a future for ourselves. I feel that encouraging whites to have two children per family is a more realistic goal, at any rate.
We will probably be a minority assuming that non-white citizens continue to out-reproduce us (immigration only affects the rate of change), and if we can’t maintain our majority through breeding, then we might as come up with strategies for being a minority and surviving in a non-white America.
The U.S. fertility rate of whites in 1960 was 3.53 children. I don’t consider it unrealistic to recapture a rate at least as high as that.
Van Wijk writes:
I believe that we will see the end of the entity known as the United States of America within the next 5-15 years. The economic numbers indicate an impending collapse. When this occurs, we can expect social welfare programs to vanish overnight. The blacks of every major city will riot and the Mestizos will begin cleansing their newly founded colonies of non-Mestizos. Think post-Katrina New Orleans on a national scale. Since whites produce the vast majority of the country’s wealth and since we are openly and legally despised, we will be singled out for violence. Indeed, we already are. Whites will probably have very little recourse to whatever thoroughly multiculturalized government agencies or police forces still exist. Those Caucasians who are not prepared to physically defend themselves will be wiped out in short order.
You may think this scenario is unnecessarily bleak or even apocalyptic, but no nation lasts forever. The United States will come to an end. When it does, what nations will take its place?
Unfortunately, I must agree with Clem that Mr. McNeill is quite naive on the point of Caucasian survival. When this economy crashes, his Mestizo and black neighbors will more often than not fall in line with their co-ethnics. Even now I view citizenship as little more than a legal distinction. Many American citizens are not truly Americans. The argument that People X have inhabited the land as long as we have is likewise unpersuasive. The history of the world is one of constant war and fluxes in populations. If Mr. McNeill is not willing to evict those who represent an obvious danger to his own people’s survival, then he truly is not serious.
War changes everything. It shatters trends and destroys expectations. I think that the war I described is actually far more likely than playing a successful breeding game with the Mestizos and Muslims, particularly when the latter can breed full-time and leave Whitey with the bill.
It is no secret that the majority of American Jews are leftists; so are a great many whites. Since leftist Jews are in most cases racially and culturally white, and since they are too few and pacifistic to pose a physical threat, they can be lumped in with white leftists as a whole and dealt with in the same manner. The problem with the Jew-haters is that they tend to ignore or play down the danger posed by demonstrably violent peoples. Solve the problem of Jewish influence, they say, and all other problems will solve themselves. Every time I’ve asked a Jew-hater what to do about Mestizos or Muslims, the response has been that they can be dealt with “in a straightforward manner.” No one but the Jews are on the Jew-hater’s radar, and Jews are (naturally) responsible for most of the evil in the world. For this reason, the proper response to the likes of Cesar “Himmler is my friend” Tort is to delete his emails and otherwise ignore him. Since Jewish influence looms large in the mind of the Jew-hater and can never be resolved while there is a single Jew in the land, to engage them is to be drawn into what Mark Richardson calls an “intellectual cul-de-sac.”
In response to Robert Gray’s first comment, Mr. Auster refers to himself as a Jewish fifth columnist. Commenting on Laura’s first post just a few days ago, he wrote, “Chechar has written that I, the Jewish fifth columnist and puppet master par excellence, bamboozled him.” It would have been more accurate and concise for him to write, “Chechar has written that I bamboozled him.” Chechar didn’t use the term “fifth columnist,” nor did he imply it. Mr. Auster was the one who introduced the idea into the discussion.
Mr. McNeill responds to Van Wijk:
To Van Wijk:
Not too long ago, I shared Van Wijk’s apocalyptic view of race relations and the future of the United States. And yet eventually I came to the realization that we just simply don’t know how the future will turn out for the US. Libertarians were saying that the economic crash in 2009 meant doom, and yet here we are. I’m not saying that the US is immortal and will never crash, but I think we nationalists need to be a bit more level-headed about such prophecy. Rome should have collapsed the day Augustus died, and yet it lingered on for another 1400 years. Things don’t always turn out the way we expect them to.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with being prepared for the possibility of race war; I think it is wise to learn self-defense and training in weapon and survival skills. And yet if America does collapse, it may not fracture along strictly racial lines. There could be a multitude of forces competing for power, and nationalists of any race/ethnicity may be one of many. We just don’t know.
At best, I think it’s wise for us to speak softly and carry a big stick. Know how to fight in case things do turn ugly, but if things don’t collapse any time soon, would it be so wise to make the fall of the US a talking point? What would happen if we try to scare whites into joining us because of some looming race war, and it doesn’t materialize, then what? Wouldn’t we look like fools in the eyes of the public? Crying wolf?
Also, if you see minorities as a threat, how do you think it will be feasible to remove them? Are you prepared to tell whites that we must deport every single non-white citizen? How do you think that’s going to go over with the white public?
Call me not serious if you will, but I believe in building a movement that will have a better chance of reaching out to the mainstream. I do not believe that apocalyptic rhetoric will get us there. But by all means, prepare for the worst. Better to be safe, than sorry.
Posted by Laura Wood in Uncategorized