The Return of Ethnic Nationalism
In Africa last week, President Bush deplored the genocide in Rwanda in the 1990s, defended his refusal to send U.S. troops to Darfur and decried the ethnic slaughter in Kenya.
Following a fraudulent election, the Kikyu, the dominant tribe in Kenya, have been subjected to merciless assault. People are separating from one another and butchering one another along lines of blood and soil.
According to a compelling lead article in the new Foreign Affairs, "Us and Them: The Enduring Power of Ethnic Nationalism," we may be witnessing in the Third World a re-enactment of the ethnic wars that tore Europe to pieces in the 20th century.
"Ethnonationalism," writes history professor Jerry Z. Muller of Catholic University, "has played a more profound role in modern history than is commonly understood, and the processes that led to the dominance of the ethnonational state and the separation of ethnic groups in Europe are likely to recur elsewhere."
Western Man has mis-taught himself his own history.
Writes Muller: "A familiar and influential narrative of 20th-century European history argues that nationalism twice led to war, in 1914 and then again in 1939. Thereafter, the story goes, Europeans concluded that nationalism was a danger and gradually abandoned it. In the postwar decades, Western Europeans enmeshed themselves in a web of transnational institutions, culminating in the European Union."
Muller contends that this is a myth, that peace came to the Old Continent only after the triumph of ethnonationalism, after the peoples of Europe had sorted themselves out and each achieved its own home.
At the beginning of the 20th century, there were three multi-ethnic empires in Europe: the Ottoman, Russian and Austro-Hungarian. The ethnonationalist Balkan wars of 1912 and 1913 tore at the first.
World War I was ignited by Serbs seeking to rip Bosnia away from Austria-Hungary. After four years of slaughter, the Serbs succeeded, and ethnonationalism triumphed in Europe.
Out of the dead Ottoman Empire came the ethnonationalist state of Turkey and an ethnic transfer of populations between Ankara and Athens. Armenians were massacred and expelled from Turkey.
Out of the Russian and Austro-Hungarian empires came Finland, Estonia, Lativia, Lithuania, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. In the latter three nations, however, a majority ethnic group ruled minorities that wished either their own national home, or to join lost kinsmen.
In Poland, there were Ukrainians, Germans, Lithuanians and Jews. In Czechoslovkia, half the population was German, Slovak, Hungarian, Polish, Ruthenian or Jewish. In Yugoslavia were Slovenes, Croats, Bosnians, Serbs, Macedonians, Montenegrins and Albanians.
The Second World War came out of Hitler's attempt to unite all Germans in one ethnonational home—thus the Anschluss with Austria, the demand for return of the Sudeten Deutsch, and the pressure on Poland to return the Germans' lost city of Danzig, and for Lithuania to give back German Memel and the Memelland it seized in 1923.
World War II advanced the process in the most horrible of ways.
The Jews of Europe, with no national home, perished, or fled to create one, in Israel. The Germans of the Baltic states, Prussia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, the Balkans and their own eastern provinces, almost to Berlin, were expelled in the most brutal act of ethnic cleansing in history—13 million to 15 million Germans, of whom 2 million perished in the exodus.
At the end of World War II, Europe's nations were more ethnically homogenous than they had ever been, at a horrendous cost in blood.
After 45 years of Cold War, the remaining multi-ethnic states—the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia—broke up into more than two dozen nation-states, all rooted in ethnonationlism.
As Muller argues, ethnonationalism may be a precondition of liberal democracy. Only after all the tribes of Europe had their own ethnically homogenous nation-states did peace and comity come. And what happened in Europe in the 20th century may be a precursor of what is to come in Latin America, the Middle East, Africa and Asia.
In China, Uighurs, Mongolians and Tibetans all resist assimilation. Tatarstan may be the next problem for Russia. In the Balkans, it is Kosovo. Serbs there and in Bosnia may emulate the Albanians and secede.
Americans, writes Muller, "find ethnonationalism discomfiting both intellectually and morally. Social scientists go to great lengths to demonstrate that this is a product not of nature but of culture. . . .
"But none of this will make ethnonationalism go away."
Indeed, we see it bubbling up from the Basque country of Spain, to Belgium, Bolivia, Baghdad and Beirut. Perhaps the wisest counsel for the United States may be to get out of the way of this elemental force. Rather than seek to halt the inexorable, we should seek to accommodate it and ameliorate its sometimes awful consequences.
And we should look to our own land. According to Pew Research, there will be 127 million Hispanics here by mid-century, tripling today's 45 million—and almost 100 million new immigrants. No nation faces a graver threat from this resurgence of ethnonationalism than does our own.
Look homeward, America.
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
98 Responses »
Trackbacks
- Buchanan: The Return of Ethnic Nationalism - TDR Roundtable
- Conservative Heritage Times » Buchanan’s “The Return of Ethnic Nationalism”
- Ethnonationalism vs. the Federal Empire Form of Organization « Brave New World Watch
- Persons Who Are Wont To Boast of a Certain Private Matter… « Brave New World Watch
Entries(RSS)
"Based on your previous post, I believe what you are really looking for is an organization where you can participate in universalist Christian fellowship." - waiting
I'm not looking, waiting. I was raised in and still belong to such an organization. It is called the Catholic Church. As far as preserving traditional American culture is concerned, it depends on what you mean by that. Baseball? Rock 'n' roll? McDonald's? Actually I think the US has contributed very little to western culture and has played a major role in degrading it and then exporting the degraded version to the rest of the world.
Kirt,
I am interested in restoring the traditionalist spirit that informed white American culture before WWI and WWII. It's the kind of spirit that would rage in disgust if it was witness to modern day Los Angeles (apparently your kind of city).
Christian [protestant] America, before the World Wars, was also racially aware and had enough common sense to protect its own borders and keep its cities relatively safe. Which is more then what can be said for many of today's white Christians, who can't even find the requisite moral fiber needed to distinguish their own as worthy of special attention (because to do otherwise would be exclusivist).
"There is an ongoing program of genocide against whites in every white country and only white countries. If this is mentioned you are called a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews." (-Lemon)
In Europe, you're not only called a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews, you actually go to jail. Can you imagine this? If a German in Germany, or a Dane in Denmark, expresses a desire to keep their country German or Danish, they go to jail! That's why there is no question that there is a program of genocide being conducted against the white race. Anti-racism really means anti-white. "Hate-speech" laws are genocide implementation devices.
"So my question is how do you intend to make them leave or comply without some kind of brutality?" ('Brutus)
You sir, are an retard. Why don't you admit that you're a SPLC operative and then go away. Are you so simple minded that you can't think of anyway to achieve this goal besides "brutality?" If you cut off ALL benefits (welfare, schools, medical care -besides emergency room) for illegals and their kids they'll go home. Its very simple. People who talk about "brutality" are either provocateurs or they're just dumb.
Religion is another force that tends to lead to blood shed.
Though I think all of the closet Marxists/faux Christians will agree with me that once man has been reduced to a mixed untouchable, he will be far more open to new ideas and new religions, even atheism, since he'll no longer have an ancestral tradition, community, or any other social tie or identity to guide him.
And... atheist, anti-nation communism has plenty of blood on its hands. Without nationalism and religion, power disputes will become quite bloody, though it will require perpetual revolution to prevent the rise of new nationalist and religious forces from arising.
In other words, Mr. Higdon wants to watch it burn.
I wonder if many Catholics truly believe they're building a serious church in this manner of destroying communities and social ties. I suspect they've come to hate everything and just wish to watch it all burn. Or, perhaps they really believe a global utopia will come about once nationalism and religion are washed away - who knows.
I guess that's mean to say... but surely some of these open borders supporters realise just what they're doing. They can't all be fools on such an obvious issue.
At best the argument that they're building the Catholic Church over the corpse of America is but a shallow justification believed by few, though this in itself is an evil act. They surely must realise they're destroying the Church too.
"You sir, are an retard. Why don’t you admit that you’re a SPLC operative and then go away. Are you so simple minded that you can’t think of anyway to achieve this goal besides “brutality?” If you cut off ALL benefits (welfare, schools, medical care -besides emergency room) for illegals and their kids they’ll go home. Its very simple. People who talk about “brutality” are either provocateurs or they’re just dumb."
Yes, a lot of tough talk. But you still did not tell us anything. Cut off welfare and they will all leave? Ok, but what about the hundreds of thousands of "innercity youth" that are at present terrorizing large segments of our territory? The Chinese and other dark skinned Asians are going to make a rush for the border if welfare is ended? And let's not forget that it is not because "hispanics" are leeching our "welfare" state that most folks are riled up. Drastic employment opportunities in key industries have been yanked out from under a good many white men and women.
Some would leave to be sure. But we need more persuasive tactics if we mean to restore control of our country back into to the hands of those who created it.
Some ideas presented here may seem pleasent, but I fear life is often more brutal than our idealistic imaginations like to testify to.
@John Press
I agree and I'm going to order your book. I believe you're on to something.
Well, there we go. Kirt Higdon has revealed what his real agenda is -- filling America with more Third World cities like Los Angeles. Babelization, and all in the name of Christianity, too. Maybe he should learn a bit about Kinism.
Waiting, “Culturalism” won’t work because no one will be able to agree about what “culture” we should be fighting to preserve."
First of al, it is "culturism" not "culturalism." Common error.
I think that Western culture has a fairly coherent core. It is progressive and this is a short post so it is hard to detail here. Again, I think if you don't realize we have a core you underestimate diversity. Check out Islamic nations. Our culture and Mexico's are very different. Asian precepts are not the same as ours. America is a special place. Whereas multiculturalists would agree that we do not have a real culture, culturists affirm that we have a core culture to protect and promte.
Western civ courses should teach that developing sanctity of life and spirit over lust and passion was a long arduous process that went from Socrates to Jesus to Jefferson. Our love of liberty goes from the Peloponnesian War to World War Two. Knowing this was a a struggle and required responsible, thoughtful, behavior can bring morals into the classroom. All we have to do is again teach that America is a special place and you have a duty to it.
This was common classroom fare until very recently; we taught pride in Western civ and its accomplishments. Multiculturalism now teaches that all cultures are great and equal and we are bad for ever having tampered with any of them. Culturism's anthropology chapter undermines the noble savage myth. Other cultures were savage. Barbarism is the norm. What you assume to be normal is a special culture that needs protection. Some produce constitutions and Michaelangelo, some hunt heads. Diviersity exists. By affirming this, culturism can be used to guide our decisions and values.
Racism will only lead us to violence. If we do not teach pride in our being one of the only countries against racism, we cannot expect justice when people of other cultures control bureaucracies. Racism is dangerous and so people will rightfully not listen to you if you say you are a racist. Being culturist gets people to talk about real values. Saying Latinos have high pregnancy and drop out rates is not racist, it is culturist. We desparately need to be able separate discussions of culture and discussions of race. Culturism is against racism.
Culturism takes diversity seriously. The fact that Western nations, and America, have special cultural beliefs to uphold justifies our border control. The failure to realize our culture is special and, therefore, fragile, results in our not taking our borders seriously.
Thanks Maciano! Hope this post confirms rather than changes your mind!! Let me know what you think of the book.
http://www.culturism.us
Mentioning the Austo-Hungarian Empire brings up one of its famous ex-citizens, one Ludwig Von Mieses and the other Austrians who were the court economists. The Rockwellians often speak warmly Kaiser Fritz (Franz-Joseph II) and the sort of loose empire that tried to encompass its diversity in a sort decentralism thinking it was the only way to stay together. Yet here at TRI one can find only contempt for for the Hapsburgs from Pat Buchanan attacks on the multiculturalism of an army who's officers had to learn at least six languages in order to give orders to the troops to the policies of its Austrian hyper-nationalists warlords like Conrad von Holtzendorff from Dr. Trifkovic who have criticized the anti-Serbian nature of such policies that ultimatley led to the tragedy of World War I.
Sadly, one can say the Hapsburg Empire collpased of own it words. Too many words in one land, too many words trying to give orders, too many words trying to give it direction.
Still its a fascinating debate. We celebrate Switzerland for its decentralism and yet its still mains that decentralism despite its diversity. Maybe that because its soo small, so protected by the Alps that it can survive whereas the Austro-Hungarian Empire simply could not resist the nationalist pull and strivings of its peoples because it was seen as an empire and was at the mercy of the propaganda of its neighbors like Italy, Serbia and Russia pulling the threads of this tattered fabric.
Notice that some on here are debating amongst themselves about which WORD to use and how it's spelled?
Don't be shy, how would you spell it Brutus?
Lol, you can't hope to accomplish much debating in a writeback. If you see an opportunity to make a difference, take it, or develop the skills in order to do such or help someone who has them. The rest of us are working to do the same, according to each's unique view of what is right and what is effective.
The first thing we need to be able to do is to work up the courage to say openly that we care about the preservation of our peoples (as in race), our culture, our traditions, and our languages without fear of shame from the more-diverse-than-thou Kirt Higdon's of the world who presently constitute the faux Right.
We need to be able to reach the point where we can say that we want to preserve everything and that we will not compromise and content ourselves to the preservation of our ways so that they can be imperfectly aped by some variant of American, Amerindian, Asiatic, or mongrelized people.
Instead of "American" I meant "African"...
Manntraini:
"In Europe, you’re not only called a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews, you actually go to jail. Can you imagine this? If a German in Germany, or a Dane in Denmark, expresses a desire to keep their country German or Danish, they go to jail! That’s why there is no question that there is a program of genocide being conducted against the white race. Anti-racism really means anti-white. “Hate-speech” laws are genocide implementation devices."
As a European, I just thought this was so good it was worth repeating.
Well said!
Mr. Higdon can defend himself and has done so quite aptly, although as a fellow Catholic I can't help but add my own two cents.
As a Christian I believe in eternal and universal values. I do not believe in eternal and universal monocultural (which is what "multicultural" really is) fast food, liberal democracy, pornography, hedonism, materialism, self-determination or the "Rights of Man." An historian I have believed for several years exactly what Mr. Higdon appraised: that this is largely the cultural contribution of the United States to the world, especially the last sixty years.
(A side note: don't even think about lecturing me on the porno culture in Latin countries. I live in France, I am well aware of their proclivity for the genre, and yes, it is morally repulsive, but even here there seems to be more focus on MAKING the work rather than just packaging a cheap item for consumption, and it seems to be far less disseminative. And don't even think about telling me that the Japanese invented video games; we do not have a monopoly on banality, but we seem to be among the greatest perpetrators.)
I deplore what the United States is becoming due to massive Third World immigration, but this is mainly because it is ripping to shreds the last fragment of a country with which I could identify historically and from which I could drink from the cultural spring that taught me my eternal values.
I try to love my country for the land and people. What land? What people? My family got here in 1900 and has moved around quite a bit.
No, I don't want to watch the U.S. burn and I don't suspect Mr. Higdon does, either. The point is, before you fight for that "white" country that never existed (colonists brought the Africans over here at the same time they settled), just consider what you're fighting for.
Pornography?
A culture of self-hatred? Let me remind you that MASSIVE THIRD WORLD IMMIGRATION IS AN AMERICAN EXPORT to the rest of the West, who was mired in ridiculous self-hatred over a terrible crime conceived and committed by particular criminals. And it was NOT, as some would like to believe, the invention of Jews alone, or has anyone forgotten a senator with the IRISH surname "Kennedy"--who, by the way, is NOT what anyone would consider a model Catholic on any front?
Rootless materialism? My own family (and I'm probably revealing more information than I ought), well-meaning as they are, is fairly typically red-state Republican. My younger brother is a fairly typical university-aged soft-socialist rebel without a cause. I'm the "black flag" son of the extreme right and the only one from the house who is still a practicing Catholic.
Americans are so badly uprooted that they may have forgotten how to build a stable society even if they do remain as an identifiable people. And while I, to, have encountered many genuinely good people of various races, on the whole it is into this decadent culture that the immigrants are assimilating. Of course there are exceptions. People are complex, more so than political ideologues would like us to believe.
Yes, Frank is unfortunately correct that many in the Catholic clergy are supporting the uprooting of tradition and culture in America and elsewhere, but this problem is NOT confined to immigration. Their shilling for "human rights" is probably the broadest and most flagrant example. It comes from attempting to overlay a heretical modernist-liberal-socialist worldview with Catholic orthodoxy and the result is a ridiculous parody of Christian charity and liturgy.
The Church, however, has a duty to minister to her faithful. This does not mean supporting amnesty for lawbreakers or arguing that modern conceptions of freedom of association are timeless and universal, but she cannot, and nor can any decent people, support physical harm against her children.
By the way, immigration is a problem, but FAR LESS SO, in white, Catholic countries like Spain and Italy. True Catholicism STRENGTHENS the resilience of traditional communities, and THIS is the principal problem of the U.S. If there is a point to this long screed, it is this: massive immigration goes hand-in-hand with our loss of place and people AND OF FAITH, and it is childish and naïve to suppose that an all-white U.S.A. would be by default a better place than it is today. Yes, the United States needs much less immigration. But it needs more than that, and by virtue of its constitutionalist liberal heresy (which is what the condemned American nationalism is based on, NOT traditional ethnic ties or kinship) it may not be capable of producing what it needs to survive.
One last point. Radical ethnonationalism is based in natural instincts but in the form it took in the twentieth century it is indeed a problem and ironically may have contributed to the dissipation of traditional kinship and community. The solution is not violent ethnonationalism. Nor is it more McWorld Coca-Colonisation and "diversity."
Anyone who knows me will not be surprised by my proposed solution, which is that if violent ethnonationalism is a precondition for liberal democracy, then it is best that liberal democracy dies. Relegate this horrible relic of the totally unnecessary English, American and French revolutions to the dustbin of history, and resurrect authors like Augustin Cochin and Joseph de Maistre. Start teaching the history of the last two centuries as a time of terrible and completely unjustified upheaval, an attempt to destroy Christianity and European civilisation and to replace them with liberal democracy, ultimately with NOTHING. Nihilism.
Restore the monarchy to its full brilliance in the Occident: in Europe, in North America and in all its outposts around the globe. This would have been the solution to South Africa's problem of how to end apartheid without ushuring in a sudden majority-rule takeover which would tear apart the country. Strip EVERYONE of the right to vote. Allow elite classes to watch over the people below them, and this will enable some sort of rapprochement, or at least a peaceful co-existence.
NGPM,
"Restore the monarchy to its full brilliance in the Occident: in Europe, in North America and in all its outposts around the globe."
You are exposing yourself as a fantasist because the restoration of the monarchy is never going to happen.
If you don't like ethnic nationalism then you'll have to supply a more realistic alternative to "McWorld Coca-Colonisation" than the monarchy.
NGPM,
If there's one thing I've learned from Chronicles it's I can't trust strangers, including those of a royal family. If there's to be a king, he ought to be the best (the patriarch - a ruling father of a large family/group of clans) of a city-state, and we're speaking of much larger territories.
Decentralisation, possible secession, and improving the voting pool (allowing only the best to vote) seem the best answers... as well as a wise guiding tradition such as the Catholics have, a revival of the guilds, and, well, I like deportation too... In a society as transient as is the US, deportation isn't as aweful as it'd be to more rooted peoples, especially those who consider themselves native. And diversity can exist within a nation-state (or nation-confederation of states), I'd like to think, if it arises from communities within rather than from outside foreign immigration.
However, I will admit that your solution is reasonable in that it seeks to promote and preserve communities, which is what Mr. Higdon's solution is so lacking in. Though mass immigration is a major threat, the loss of communities is also great. Your solution at least seeks to build a proper order.
By "diversity within" I meant that created by ethnogenesis not that from different national groups. In other words, I readily admit the rootless white mass that nation-states are apt to produce is not desired. What is desired is a rooted, highly decentralised system of communities made up of proud, distinct peoples.
Frank,
"In other words, I readily admit the rootless white mass that nation-states are apt to produce is not desired. What is desired is a rooted, highly decentralised system of communities made up of proud, distinct peoples."
That's a worthy goal!
Mr Scallon has made inteteresting and valid comments on the Austro-Hungarian empire. The history of the period prior to 1848 is very interesting. First, the more cautious reforms of Maria Theresa, then the reforms of Francis, which went way too far and caused reactions from practically all ethnic groups and classes, including Jews, who, though freed in some ways, also lost certain priviliges on becoming just ordinary citizens. Then, the stifling of any reforms under Metternich combined with repressive measures. Metternich may have known the system was doomed by nationalism and tried to hold it together as long a spossible.
Then, when the parliamentarians met in Vienna in 1848, the majority were slavs. At the same time, there was the pan-Slavic group meeting in Prague. It is interesting that both groups wanted to preserve the monarcy and hold the different nations of the empire together, largely because being part of an empire would have kept small nations like Slovenia safer than going it alone amongst bigger, far more powerful neighbours.
It would be interesting to ponder what might have been if Metternich and other conservatives hadn't been so convinced that the uprisings were going to be a replay of the murderous French revolution. Could a decentralised multi-ethnic empire have worked? Perhaps it could have, but if not, then the decentralisation might have at least allowed the empire to break up gradually and peacefully.
Of course, by 1918, no nationalists were any longer willing to consider the idea being part of a decentralised federative monarchial empire, and nationalism had gone through such changes that smaller multiethnic states like Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia were simply very bad ideas.
It would be interesting to ponder why, despite centuries of fighting and the nature of unification, the union of England and Scotland worked so well, the unification of Italy being only mediocre at best, while the unifications of Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia did not work at all.
Well, I guess I obscured my point by all that blathering. My point was that the empire might have successfully decentralised if it had tried to during Metternich's time, or during the 1848 crises. After that, successful decentralisation seems to have been increasingly less likely to work. Of course, the failure to include Slavs in the system along with Hungarians must have been their biggest blunder.
@74: I would suggest that your racial holy war, if indeed that is your proposed solution, is also a bit fantastical, even if it is "more likely" than a restoration. A couple of points to ponder:
1. If revolutionary leftism is not cleaned out of occidental culture once and for all, it will be only a matter of time before we repeat all the disasters of the last two centuries and succumb to the illness, demographic collapse being but a severe symptom of such.
2. Quite apart from the moral problems of disenfranchising, deporting or exterminating people, have you considered the possibility that if real racial conflict breaks out, whites will NOT win? Or that even if they do, that you and your family may not survive to see the Brave New World? Looking at history from a distance and in the abstract, war creates the opportunity to rearrange sociopolitical orders, sometimes seemingly "for the better" from some perspectives, but always at a terrible cost to both parties.
Ethnonationalism is real and the decades-long attempt to stamp it out with civics education and anti-religious propaganda is both foolish and ineffective, but contrarily, that is no excuse for committing immoral acts of violence.
@75: Again, Mr. Higdon can defend himself, but apart from procreation (which should have been obvious in the first place) I do not recall him endeavoring to propose a solution. Not that that is an indictment.
Also, while I sympathise with your distrust of strangers, bear in mind that distrust is mitigated by such things as a common religious heritage. The attempt to build a universal community is a bit fantastical but love and respect for the other, even and especially if he is one's enemy, is man's second most important mandate.
"By “diversity within” I meant that created by ethnogenesis not that from different national groups. In other words, I readily admit the rootless white mass that nation-states are apt to produce is not desired. What is desired is a rooted, highly decentralised system of communities made up of proud, distinct peoples."
Further, a monarchy, even a very geopolitically powerful and respected one, need not be so heavily centralised, and in fact this was not the case throughout most of the history of post-Roman Europe. We have already discussed the diversity that flourished within the Habsburg Empire. France was much more heavily decentralised before Louis XIV drugged the nobility at Versailles and "diversity within" was very much the order of the day for several centuries thereafter. Even in today's France, arguably the most bureaucratically centralised large nation-state on Earth, one encounters much stronger remnants of regional culture and loyalty than in the United States.
@79: I'm not that well-learned on central and eastern European history, but my understanding is that after the French Revolution, demands for "national self-determination" tended to take up at least in part the banner of Liberté, Égalité and Fraternité, and this was why Metternich feared them--it was certainly one reason why he opposed the Greek revolt against the Turks.
(Side note: as well, the Ottoman Empire was viewed as a check against the westward expansion of Russian power, which was the reason why the European powers saved that sick man from a mercifully early death after the Crimean War. The Russophobia that predominates in Occidental power circles and that Dr. Trifkovic and others decry, not without reason, may be couched in Cold War language, but suspicion of Russian ambitions go back centuries. However, with post-war Europe completely stagnant and the United States on the brink of economic and military collapse, we may soon get to witness whether or not their worries were substantiated.)
"True Catholicism STRENGTHENS the resilience of traditional communities...."
Good. Something I can agree with.
"The point is, before you fight for that 'white' country that never existed (colonists brought the Africans over here at the same time they settled), just consider what you’re fighting for.
"Pornography?"
I have a hard time believing you actually believe this. We're fighting for our self, our LIFE.
"...have you considered the possibility that if real racial conflict breaks out, whites will NOT win?"
Real racial conflict HAS broken out, and everyone who disagrees with you here agrees with one another that whites may not win. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS EXERCISE! We want people like you to wake up and work with us to secure our survival.
Recreating a monarchy of old would be extremely difficult I'd say. Such might work for some parts of the world, but to be honest it'd be difficult for me to be loyal to a what I'd view as a bandit - kings of large states acquire their lands by force after all, no? I realise some kings rule over small clans as a patriarch does his family, but these are not what we are speaking of.
I'm more apt to trust blood ties than religious ties, and voluntary unions of states rather than unions founded by force over subjects. And with today's technology, I suspect the monarchy would tend towards becoming centralised.
I value religious ties, but religion is less permanent and more prone to waxing and waning. Religion is needed as the foundation of a society, but I won't easily trust, or likely understand, a people wholly different than I.
Blood and soil is my way of thinking I'm afraid, and has been for many years now, but again we're all very different in paleodom... united by our dislike of the managerial state, affinity for white Christian cultures, and Christianity.
That should read "different from me" and should be addressed to NGPM.
Ah, I missed the bit about America not originating as a white country... slaves are not citizens. This was a nation mostly made up of western and northern Europeans originally.
NGPM,
"@74: I would suggest that your racial holy war, if indeed that is your proposed solution, is also a bit fantastical, even if it is “more likely” than a restoration."
This is an absurd caricature of my position, which is quite simply that white people need to band together (for a change!) in order to preserver their culture, heritage, character, and traditions.
In contrast to more than a few catholics on this site, I believe that one can be a devout white Christian as well as an advocate for the advancement of their own people and the preservation of their kind (see http://www.spiritwaterblood.com or http://www.cambriawillnotyield.blogspot.com). Being a good Christian doesn't mean we must continue to remain unorganized and slowly miscegenate out of existence. If anything that sounds like the kind of Christian doctrine that only a cynical leftist could preach.
No one on this thread is calling for anything remotely close to a "racial holy war", so you only continue to expose yourself as an unserious thinker by propagating such libel.
Waiting,
I suspect due partly to the recent tendency of major Christian institutions to betray their people for popularity, the European new right seems to have become hostile to Christianity, blaming it with some justification for liberalism in general... Hopefully choosing quantity over quality won't have proven a losing strategy in the end for Christians.
The AmRen article is here.
I can't see how Christianity must be opposed to the nation-state, but I can see how no normal person is going to be attracted to the type of universalism so many modern-day Christians are preaching, they're asking not only for men to give up their wealth but also the wealth (and everything else) of their family, friends, neighbors, etc. It's insanity.
I wrote at another blog recently that this emphasis on intent as all that matters has been taken too an extreme: if a man knows deep down that he's doing wrong, but convinces himself that he's doing right - he's still doing wrong and still ought to know better. I doubt good intent absolves such actions, and I expect one of the growing right wing Christian scholars to write on this topic shortly just because it's such an annoyance having the very demons destroying this world acting in the name of Jesus and dreaming of Heaven. Ultimately all is decided by Him, but some things are known to us.
That should read *some* of the demons (many are anti-Christian), and I made a few grammatical errors...
And the gist was that such do-gooders seem to lie to themselves and seem to not truly have the best of intentions.
But yea, I don't mean to raise myself up as judge... but some things are obvious enough for most any sane man to see.
Frank,
Previous generations of American Christians understood (and valued) their heritage as white men, so I don't see why that can't happen again. In fact, if the social conditions were right, I believe it would happen again.
Waiting. You raise some interesting points. Since you've been so mischaracterized, I'll make my comments mine and not put words into your mouth.
I understood you as being for some race war. Perhaps that is because we associate white pride with such thoughts very quickly.
Working on a university campus I see all sorts of race pride groups. Korean pride, Latino pride groups, etc. You also see Latino magazine. However, no white counter is allowed.
As a culturist pragmatist, I am open to ideas about how to work with such a situation, without prejudice. My gut instinct says denounce all such "race groups." But since they won't disengage themselves that leaves one at a disadvantage.
The problem with your solution, which may be resolved in any response you might offer, is that you use the words "white" and "miscegenation" too strongly. Other groups could be construed as cultural (la raza aside) and you specify race. As a culturist I am not for racial division in our nation. I don't want to add to it.
What you and I might agree upon is an overt celebration of European culture. That, however, is more openly stated as Western culture. Our universitites used to be all about Western civ. Now, having to have club, is a sad sign of the times. Such groups would promulgate love and protection for Western nations and likely not welcome Islamic appreciation and denounce the other race based groups lightly.
Such a movement would necessarily include a large dose of Christianity, though not be exclusive to Christians. If you would want it a "whites only" christian group, you should have a right to it. But I don't know that it would help secure Western civilization. That, of course, might not be your goal.
http://www.culturism.us
John Press,
I am currently living in the American Southwest (specifically South Texas) and have seen the transformation with my very eyes. Intimate experience has informed me that these racially alien people will never carry on our Western culture in a manner that would satisfy either you or me. In fact, the people that are re-colonizing America, whether they be Latin Americans, Orientals, or Punjabis could care less about Western civilization as you and I think about it.
Of course, many of these people have been here for some time and have successfully integrated themselves into our McWorld culture (especially the Orientals and the Punjabis), but our McWorld culture isn't exactly "Western Civilization" now is it! In fact, our McWorld culture is a farce and an abomination to ever generation that fought and founded the U.S., those who would continue to integrate into it (and by doing so give it legitimacy) are only contributing to the larger problem.
"Working on a university campus I see all sorts of race pride groups. Korean pride, Latino pride groups, etc. You also see Latino magazine. However, no white counter is allowed."
Exactly!
Our "culture" is characterized by white weakness and an inability to stand up for ourselves and our civilization as distinct and worthy of special attention. If we merely content ourselves to half-hearted defenses of our culture (like many mainstream conservatives) then we are contributing to the current zeitgeist of white weakness.
"The problem with your solution, which may be resolved in any response you might offer, is that you use the words “white” and “miscegenation” too strongly."
Yes, people have been conditioned to ignore and repudiate anyone who sounds vaguely similar to previous generations of white Christian American men.
"As a culturist I am not for racial division in our nation. I don’t want to add to it."
The heart of our disagreement is that I believe that you cannot separate Western civilization from Western man whereas you think that this can be done. I'm not what justification you have for believing this position other then the fact that you want to preserve Western civilization but aren't willing to fight for the preservation of Western man because of today's political sensitivites.
I will maintain that only Western man can continue Western civilization because only Western man has ever built or sustained something that we might call Western civilization. Why should we hinge everything on an alien or mongrelized people that has never done this before? So, if you're serious about preserving our traditions then in my opinion the most direct path to success is to simultaneously fight for the preservation of our people and (by doing so) awaken them to our traditions.
We need a movement with strength and pride if we are to overcome the "happy death" that our consumerist culture has laid out for us.
It is an ongoing program of genocide. Africa for Africans. Asia for Asians. White countries for everybody. Africa will still be full of Africans. Asia full of Asians. White countries?
Culture is meant to serve the people, and I'd prefer not to list them all here since such would only serve to prove I don't fit false stereotypes.
It's the people, the race, who matter. They in turn serve the religion, which also guides them, including via the culture. Spirit, water, blood; and blood is most important.
Ugh, that should read:
Culture is meant to serve the people, and it does so in many ways though I’d prefer not to list them all here since such would only serve to prove I don’t fit false stereotypes.
Frank,
"It’s the people, the race, who matter. They in turn serve the religion, which also guides them, including via the culture. Spirit, water, blood; and blood is most important."
I hope your visiting http://www.spiritwaterblood.com. It sounds right up your alley!
I'm a regular reader of it.
Oh, and what I mean by blood is most important is that one is loyal to his people over aliens who share the same religion. Also one seeks to marry within his people, even if they're pagan.
Those are just my stances though.
"Perhaps the wisest counsel for the United States may be to get out of the way of this elemental force." — Pat Buchanan
Ethnicity is a part of one's inherited identity, or one's true 'I'. The resurgence of ethnic nationalism indicates the presence of a powerful threat to the integrity of that 'I'.
Like Bolshevism before it, Americanism is an insidious foe that conservative nationalism can be an effective weapon against. The United States, an empire unto itself and the chief exponent of international liberalism, would be wise to withdraw.
@wanting: Very quickly, since I shouldn't even have entered this discussion in the first place. I did not libel you. I specifically qualified my reference to a "racial holy war" with, "if indeed that is your proposed solution." I can of course understand why you would be defensive about this--I would be, too--although from my end, do try to understand that a) I entered the topic to defend my Church and a fellow Catholic--someone with whom I am not in full agreement on all points, but I have no doubt is a wiser and better man than myself, b) I have encountered a great many "white nationalists" who are openly hostile to Christianity and Catholicism in particular and who do endorse to one degree or another some sort of racial war, and c) that in my zeal to stand against the former I spilled over into associating them, perhaps unfairly, wholesale with the latter.
I am bowing out now.
NGPM,
I appreciate your latest comment and have no inclination to argue the point any further.