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)
Buchanan is right on the button as usual. AJP Taylor outlined the fall of the Habsberg Empire in his historical work that should be required reading in all schools and by all politicians. The fall of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and its successor states is the greatest testimony to the idiocy and failure of multiculturalism. Some airhead liberals in the media are attempting to use the constitution the same way that some Austrian politicians tried to use the dynasty as a symbol of unity. The Hapsbergs ruled peoples that had been settled for centuries. The United States is stupidly importing the problems of Habsberg Austria and Tsarist and Soviet Russia. The results will be the same. If the Multiculturalists are right that the US will be stronger than ever and single ethnic states like Japan will fall. Would any one want to make a bet as to which political entity will still be around in 100 years?
So is ethnonationalism the solution or the problem? Does it bring peace or is there no graver threat? Pat Buchanan seems to want to have it both ways. The US is de facto a multi-ethnic empire. Does Pat Buchanan propose converting it into an ethnonationalist state? If so, how? By permitting secession of some areas or by an ethnic cleansing on such a scale that it would make what happened to the eastern Germans after WWII look like a minor atrocity by comparison?
It can't be successfully denied, when it's a force of nature. In Fact, birds of a feather flock together. Accepting ethnonationalism = peace. Again that doesn't mean it's either / or ... We are conceptual-Creatures so inevitably it means we are formed by both culture & nature. It's a dynamic symbiotic relationship happening in human beings between the two. HOWEVER no culture can or 'should' pre-empt or rather attempt to pre-empt since it can't anyway (the attempt just causes conflict) the nuances in culture each variety of human being tends to wish to embrace.
The only cultural influence an alien variety can have on an indigenous peoples is when it complements or is something in addition that harmoniously couples with an indigenous culture. The catholic church noticed this - and is why when catholic/christian culture could be embraced by the local culture as a complement the church made sure both cultures dovetailed and the church did not seek to pre-empt or eliminate local culture.
But christianity will not save the motley assortment of different peoples the ruling elite in the united states is attempting to mix together into its ill conceived stew. At some point without a doubt the ruling elite itself will simply notice that even they don't want to live here any longer. They will have the luxury of departing. Most of the rest of us will not.
But I think Pat's point is that as long as we are mis-instructing ourselves about our own history and what naturally enough = peace and what unnaturally = unnecessary conflict ... & especially when we have it wrong or backwards in what we are instructing ourselves then we'd better get that sorted and realize the truth quick.
In this case it's one of those - know the truth and the truth can unravel it easily enough and make you free of the dilemma. Under God still we can't fight or fool mother Nature. There's a process in place. It's not either / or - it's BOTH. See this isn't 'new'. What's old is new again - simply because the so-called 'new' in this case was bogus or not really 'next.' That's Life.
____
Thank you (again), Mr Buchanan. I continually appreciate this site. A welcome relief from Fox News commentary.
Culturism, the book, looks at this same phenomenon. Most nations naturally shy away from diversity. They know that it creates instability. For us, homogeneity is not an immediate option. Kirt is right to wonder what Mr. Buchanan proposes. When Mr. Buchanan says "look homeward, America" he gives sound advice. We should learn from our own history and our response to the first real shot of diversity this country received via immigration.
When we had our first massive influx of somewhat different immigrants we, first of all, had an Americanization movement. This meant giving a fair deal to immigrants. But it also meant showing, through our schools and public ceremonies that we wanted the immigrants to assimilate. Secondly, in 1924, we nearly entirely cut off immigration. That was done on a culturist basis. Those from Eastern and Southern Europe were specifically targeted. Asians naturalization had been outlawed in 1882.
Multiculturalism tells us that Western culture does not exist. The first thing we need to do is tell people that it does. This means praising our history and noting that we are NOT an Islamic nation. I don't know how many terrorist attacks this will take, but our officials constantly saying we welcome all is historically incorrect and erodes our unity. Western Civilization exists and must be taught as great. This would parallel our Americanization movement of the past.
Secondly, we need to follow our historic example of culturally targeted immigration laws. Nothing unites a country like a good enemy. Not only is Islamic culture great for this, but it actually is our enemy!! Anyone who has studied Europe's past or present knows this. Our values are not the world's values. They are ours to protect. Not having borders means we have no pride in our uniqueness.
Another culturist threat to our stability, that Mr. Buchanan notes, is the rise of a huge hispanic block. As Hamilton said of the states, having many small groups means no one group can dominate. Having a huge block creates a huge potential for battle. It retards assimilation. It causes people to ask who is in whose country. We need to stop immigration and teach assimilation. To what? An appreciation for Western cultural norms/values/history/ and English. If you combine this with requiring media, ending dual citizenship, etc, to be in English, in not so many generations, we will have a more culturally unified nation.
Using the techniques we used before, by 1935 we had a much more unified nation. People intermarried and started referring to themselvevs as "white" people. We will not have the colors again, but we can all identify as "Americans." This worked before and should be a model for us.
You might ask, "How can all of these disparate and currently un-PC projects get passed?" First of all we have to overthrow the concept of multiculturalism. It undermines the very notion of Western cultural particularity. We do this by starting to present culturism as an alternative. Many citizens need to remember and take pride in our culturist past dealings with immigration. This will not take root immediately. But, if any civil disturbance takes place, people will then have an alternative to consider. They may be willing to at least consider a whole slate of traditional culturist remedies.
http://www.culturism.us
Alternatively, the powerful and influential know that augmenting diversity, increases conflict, and are hoping to win new power thereby. Insofar as a nation has been resistant to despotism, that nation is urged to value diversity, including especially the transformative immigration of hostile groups, such as Islamic ones. With countries which have always had despotic rule, and populations quite comfortable with that, pro-diversity doctrines are rarely seen.
America has already in recent decades, shed a number of Pacific island states as new nations. In this connection mass immigration of Mexico-firsters into America looks like war by the powerful against the citizenry. They may hope to fish dictatorship out of clashes of loyalties, which is another reason to work against the nomination of McCain, an enthusiast for such mass immigration, and for bilingual conflict-enhancing 'education', well-suspected of bottomlessly dark motives.
#2: "So is ethnonationalism the solution or the problem?"
Ethnonationalism is the solution to the problem caused by ethnonationalism. You can even see that between the lines of Mr. Buchanan's article. *Why*, for instance, did the Turks massacre the Armenians? In reaction to Armenian nationalism.
Loyalty to one's nation (ethnos) is probably natural, but the desire for political self-determination or even for a nation-state is a modern European invention. There was nothing inevitable about it.
Given the existence of this ideology of "a state for our nation", it's true that ethnic wars solve the problem, except when they don't (cf. Israel/Palestine). When ethnonational war does solve the problem, you're left with self-proclaimed "nation-states" which in reality are almost always multinational, since nations and states can almost never coincide except by complete ethnic cleansing. But that's frowned upon these days, so the alternative is that the Staatvolk runs things and the "minorities" get by as best they can, possible fighting for *their* autonomy by low-level terrorism. Problem solved.
Secession now, secession tomorrow, secession forever...
"So is ethnonationalism the solution or the problem?"
It's a problem insofar as our politicos ignore it and make and administer our laws as if it weren't a factor. It's natural for people to gravitate toward their own and exclude "the other." This is precisely why millions of unassimilated illegal immigrants with a common culture and history present a dire threat to our existence as a nation. We are the other.
To ask whether ethnonationalism is a solution is to miss the point. It's merely a natural process. This is like asking whether natural selection or gravity are "solutions." They simply happen (leaving aside for the moment any arguments over evolution; it's just an example of type) and the wise man therefore takes note of their existence in his cogitations and prescriptions.
This has always struck me as the main problem with regard to the state of Israel. I am far from a scholar in that area, so maybe I'm all wet about it, but it has always seemed to me that to walk into a land dominated population-wise by Muslims and set up a state artificially, by fiat, was the height of folly, for just this reason. Any historical claims Jews might have had to the area meant nothing in the face of the way things had actually shaken out historically. The land was perceived by Muslims to be Muslim land and the Jews were "the other," the foreign culture, installed in the midst of it. It shouldn't have taken a rocket scientist to see that there were going to be problems.
Re "[Ethnonationalism] is a natural process"
Not in the sense of the word "ethnonationalism" as used in Buchanan's article. It's natural to group together, "us" vs. "them", and it's probably natural to respond especially strongly to appeals to kinship ("our fathers brought forth", etc.), but Buchanan's article was specifically about political self-determination or statehood for ethnonations. If this is a "natural process", then why was it practically never seen until nineteenth century Europe?
A great article that will never be understood by those infected with the "Political Correctness Virus."...........Others will see his point.
Isn't this the same trip where El Fascista Maximo asked for them to hold a fair election? That line, coming out of the mouth of a punk, a thug and a crook who has never been legitimately elected ONCE to the presidency, is enough to make God toss up his bootheels.
Ethnonationalism is both the problem and the solution.
But before going there, we should note that not all discrimination against other groups is irrational. The problem with multiculturalism is that it tells us all cultures are deserving of celebration. Female Genital Mutilation and Jihad are, from a Western perspective, wrong. Heavy drinking and traditional harems and spousal abuse too. Mr. Newland is right, we cannot ignore cultural differences.
That said, ethnonationalism is not always irrational, but people have irrational tendencies that must be accounted for. Saying we have nothing in common, as multiculturalism does, goes in the wrong direction. But besides this the categories of ethnonationalism are malleable. If we stress that Western nations have a common culture, that can be a rallying cry. If we stress that Mexicans and Americans are different, that can be a marker of difference. At this point we can no longer unite on race. But core culture and Western heritage can be adopted by all.
You saw how pleasing this can be emotionally when 9-11 happened. Again, immigration laws, removing dual citizenship laws, education, and assimilation can disconnnect people from their home cultures. They can unite us. But our policies must then adopt culturism as their goal.
By advocating culturism, we incorporate the realistic notion that ethnonationalism is a real and scary force in a competitive world. By using the word "culturism" and saying we are "culturist" we start discussions about these realities and can get folks to consider strategies.
http://www.culturism.us
Oh man.. Pat is so great.
I just wished 5-10% of the people would listen to him. That would make so much difference. It's even sad, being so right, all the time, and almost no followers in policymaking.
Well, a country which still harbours people like Pat, is not lost.
"Ethnonationalism is both the problem and the solution."
Too true!
Nationalism is real bad news. Some sense of a nationhood and shared culture and customs can only be commented, especially in the senseless, brainless modern multicultural minefield.
But, as Pat says, look at your history, Western man. Europe is still healing from its many ethnic struggles, and even bleeding in some cases. Nationalism may seem right for some ethnics, but it always boils down to (implicates) ethnic struggle. Nobody should fall for this Faustian bargain. It's wrong and it's self-defeating.
Look at a country like Turkey. What price did they pay/ are they paying for there "one and indivisible" nation? Constant warfare with the Kurds and a genocide of Armenians -- btw, a people which lived among them for centuries. Some day, this episode will come back to haunt them and bring their "national pride" down. Hard.
That's the price of nationalism. Just like power, it corrupts. It's never enough. Nationalists want to expand. They always want more land, they can't compromise. Nationalists are false or misled prophets.
The problem with ethnonationalism for the US is hard to communicate, because the topic of race is non-PC. In its essence and backbone the US is still a "white" country. If whites would turn to nationalism, en masse, the country would fall apart.
Listen to Pat and John Press.
Multiculturalism and nationalism, be damned!
"That’s the price of nationalism. Just like power, it corrupts. It’s never enough. Nationalists want to expand. They always want more land, they can’t compromise. Nationalists are false or misled prophets."
So you are saying here that the creation and expansion of the United States was wrong?
We, white Europeans, landed on the shores of North America and immediately began to expand. We did not compromise. We kept right on going, "Native Americans" be damned.
False or misled prophets? I think you have accepted a major multicultural, One World premise as true.
@Brutus
Yeah, but that was in a time when nationalism, colonialism and imperialism were common and acceptable. The US was to a large extent empty. Europeans colonised it. Sometimes brutally, sometimes just be settling empty land.
I don't believe in multiculturalism, nor do I accept any of its premises. Western culture should be leading and dominant in the nation. I make no compromises, those who don't wish to be part of our culture should reconsider their immigration to the West. Why come and not participate? Doesn't make sense to me.
What I'm warning for is the kind of abstract nationalism which brought down France, Serbia, Germany, Italy and other European nations in the 19th and 20th century. The kind of nationalism that started WWI. The type of nationalism which starts wars and turns fascist.
They believed that their specific ethnicity, and therefore their ethnostate, was the best of all Europe and should be leading. Their hubris urged them to fight and kill eachother in the millions for abstract things like flag, king and soil. I believe that particular nationalism to be a weakness, a dangerous self-defeating curse.
That's why I believe modern nationalists to be false/ misled prophets. Their believe in nationalism is just as wrongheaded as a belief in socialism, communism or some other "God that failed".
The interesting thing about modern Europe is that it is in no sense "multicultural", othet than in American mythology! Europe might be called a "territorial monoculture". Over here, you "are" where you come from. And when you have two "ares" in the same "come from", you always have trouble! The EU has not overridden that phenomenon. It has encouraged it by making ever smaller "come froms" viable. States like Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia only came into existence because the prevailing belief in 1918 was that small countries were unviable. The Jews' problem was that they were an "are" with no "come from" in Europe. The Roma, Europe's ever-increasing current headache, are even worse off, as they have no "come from" anywhere!
The tribe has always been the basic group in human society. Indeed, the American melting pot was an attempt to "brew" a new tribe and has to a great extent succeeded in doing so. Europe has not abandoned its tribal mentality. It has simply built a better mousetrap!
"Western culture should be leading and dominant in the nation. I make no compromises, those who don’t wish to be part of our culture should reconsider their immigration to the West."
I hear this a lot from conservatives. It has been said for decades. Then I hear the same people talk about European "fascism" and the brutality they used against those who they considered outsiders.
Very well. However, you then say, in one way or another, "those who don't wish to be a part of our culture should reconsider their immigration to the West. Well, I don't know if you have noticed or not, but they (the immigrants and such) have shown no intention of leaving or "assimilating." They in fact have said and *demonstrated* that they have no such intentions of leaving.
So my question is how do you intend to make them leave or comply without some kind of brutality? Listening to many conservatives, one gets the impression that they believe they will quietly and politely call the invaders out in some hallway and ask them to leave and they will do so!
I don't think they will.
You have had several decades now to step up to the plate and show us a kinder, gentler way. It has not happened. It is not going to happen. And I really don't blame the immigrants who come here. After all, why should they care if all we do is talk?
When you figure out a way to get *several tens of millions* of people to either leave or do as you want them to do, in a courteous and polite way, I'll take you seriously. I think that instead they are going to have their way with us.
Zionists are the most ethno-patriotic people on the planet. Such a natural instinct, however, is forbidden for white Christians.
Brutus, assimilation happens. It only takes a generation or two. This requires, however, that the connection to the old country be severed, ie, no more immigration. Another dynamic is that the minority assimilates to the majority. If we do not have a majority in an area, we will assimilate to their culture. Culturism says majority cultures have a right to define, protect and promote themselves. Other nations do it, we need to push our culture too. Culturism, not multiculturalism.
Mexico provides a beautiful example of how this can be done. They hardly provide diddly squat for their people. But they wave their flag and put murals everywhere. They have their Virgen d' Guadalupe. We need to push our symbols publicly, or they will not be seen and respected.
Maciono, nationalism is a bit dangerous. That is because it says my nation right or wrong, without ethical grounding. Nazi Germany was bad because it violated basic tenets of Western culture. Both Socrates and Jesus were for the sanctity of life and conscience. Western culturism, invoking culture, provides these guidelines. Since it ascribes all cultures the right to define, protect, and promote themselves, it also protects against trying to turn the Middle East into the West. Because, as Brutus says, pride in nation is a dirty word associated with fascism in the West, we need a new word.
Finally, Michael Kenny is right. Europe is not multicultural. This thought is based on the idea that rights, democracy, individualism, freedom of speech, disapproval of beating women, rational application of mind to wordly problems and relatively strong separation of church and state are universal values. They obviously, no matter what the UN says, are not universal values. These are Western values. Despite what multiculturalists say, cultural diversity is real. Muslims, for example, with their polygamy and theocracy, are not Western.
Just as Saudi Arabia and China define, protect and promote their cultures, we must too. They are distinctive and can do so in any way that does not violate their traditions. We are distinctive and have the right and duty to do the same. In our case, building immigration law around compatability with our culture, culturism, is our tradition. We are not the world. Those who understand what diversity includes, know we have a culture. Multiculturalists deny that we have a core culture. We do. It is not the world culture. If we want it to survive, we must be as culturist as all the other civilizations.
http://www.culturism.us
@Brutus
You raise a good point. What if they don't leave and, instead, stick it to the majority culture: "what u gonna do bout it, huh? Make me."
Conservatives, leave it at words, because they are, in essence, spineless. I'll explain you why conservatives are spineless. Most of their conservatism is, in fact, classical liberalism. And here's what's interesting. The problem with classical liberalism is it's lack of focus. What will classical liberalism become in the future? Those who are not well read (Röpke, Mises, Hayek), don't know that classical liberalism can only exist within a conservative, social stable culture.
So, classical liberalism can be great, i.e. US/ UK in the 19th century. However, classical liberalism can also morph into modern liberalism, the kind which promotes mass immigration, multiculturalism and constant social "change" (read: decay). In short: all is good, nothing matters.
(Bush, is, IMHO, one of the best examples of classical liberalism gone mayhem. The Bush-Clinton axis of the past 20 years established a de facto corporatist system, where big business became more influential then "the people".)
Ask a conservative youth what he/she believes. It'll be mumblings about freedom -- which is great -- but they forget order. Order is necessary too. Classical liberalism without order is what we have now. So, what contemporary conservatism needs, is spine. Real men. Men who don't compromise, men who say: enough is enough. And I don't mean these macho militarists, who believe war is peace. I'm talking about leaders, visionaries.
We know now, that men like that, will not be given a chance on a national or even federal level. Therefore, I advise people to invest in local communities. Create your own local society, where you can create some sort of autonomous status. The South already is like that, I guess.
Now, within these communities, the people should be calling the shots. Culturally unassimilable people should be excluded. Communities can create their own mores and rules. Social control and social exclusion could make the living of anti-socials, criminals or unassimilable people very unpleasant. I believe, they will leave. I know, I wouldn't want to live in a place, where I wouldn't be wanted.
Hey, it's a shot in the dark. It may not work, it may be naive. But why not give it a try. Politics are no longer for the people, it's up to ourselves. It's a bit like culturism (which is a good idea and should gather some following.)
PS I don't equate nationalism with patriotism (which is commendable) or fascism (which is to be hated). I believe nationalism is a form of tribalism and it leads to nothing, only suffering. Especially for those who thought it would help them.
Maciano,
"Conservatives, leave it at words, because they are, in essence, spineless."
Real men fight for their race and don't sacrifice themselves (and their progeny) on the alter of intellectual abstractions.
But even at Chronicles, very few people seem willing to openly advocate for their race so it's not about to happen anytime soon.
@waiting
I never mentioned race, I mentioned culture. But let's be frank here, now you brought it up. The main problem with mixing race and politics, is that it is exclusivist. I would never argue for excluding someone, because they are not of my race.
This mentality is common in the Third World and look where this got them. Nowhere. Just look at Kenya. The Kikuyu are being slaughtered, because they are Kikuyu. I think, that's barbaric and shouldn't be copied in the West. Buchanan once said something like race, ethnicity, customs, tradition, holidays, literature, culture, art, institutions are not all, but they are not nothing. I agree.
Denying the existence of race, and it's consequences in real life -- even if people believe it to be irrational or a social construct -- is unwise. Why? Because, some people experience race problems as real. If people percieve it as real, the consequence are real -- that can't be denied. Also, this deracinated attitude tends to turn against the majority race, which in the West, is white. Non-whites often blame whites for all ills they encounter themselves. I'm sick of that. I'm not guilty of other people's problems, because I'm white! Anti-white sentiment is real and should be addressed. Not in a degrading cowardly way -- can't we get along -- but just be as fiercefully condemned as all other kinds of racism.
Immigrants, who don't want to be Western, like us, have no future in The West. 80% of the land mass is non-Western, they're free to live there -- bend or break.
Moreover, white people share a Western culture, it is to me the most important culture on earth and I want to preserve it. Saving other peoples culture, like multiculturalism commends, is not in my interest, and I frankly don't even want to hear about it -- let alone waste tax money. I just don't care how attached they are to it. It's part of the deal, when you emigrate. In Rome, we do as the Romans do. Non-whites who share -- or want to share -- our culture should be welcomed and accepted as full Americans (and Westerners) IMO.
Btw, if some immigrants don't want to integrate into contemporary Western culture, I can even agree. What's so great about the self-degrading decadence, I see so often around me. If that's their beef, well, I can only say, introduce some better attitudes from your host country. If not, shut up.
So, it would be wise to do something to restrict legal immigration and ban illegal immigration completely. Decrease taxes for the middle class, so they can have children again, without filing for bankruptcy.
Maciano,
You cannot separate culture from race. To fight for one is to fight for the other.
African and Asiatic people will never carry the torch of Western culture for you because they aren't White! It is that simple.
"The main problem with mixing race and politics, is that it is exclusivist. I would never argue for excluding someone, because they are not of my race.
This mentality is common in the Third World and look where this got them. Nowhere. Just look at Kenya."
This is ridiculous. I wonder if anyone else around here is afraid of a homogenous White America (or White Europe!) convulsing into fits of African-style anarchy. Utter rubbish.
Rather, if White people ever got the stones to throw the non-Whites out of their living space then we would no longer have to deal with their disproportionate poverty, crime, and general barbarity. The situation would be vastly improved.
But you are right in that if we fight for our race we become exclusivist. Heaven forbid we ever cease becoming an open society for the world's filth!
"African and Asiatic people will never carry the torch of Western culture for you because they aren’t White! It is that simple."
I've dated a (half) Aruban girl and an Indonesian girl, they were very Western. Some of my best friends are either Asian or black, they loathe non-Western barbarity and they embrace Western culture. They grew up in the West and they don't know any other culture. I agree, that they are in the minority.
If you want to save the white race, you should find a nice girl and raise a big family. I'm all for big families. Hell, I'd like to raise me big family too.
"This is ridiculous. I wonder if anyone else around here is afraid of a homogenous White America (or White Europe!) convulsing into fits of African-style anarchy. Utter rubbish."
I am not afraid of a white West, why would I be? But the West is not completely white anymore, excepting Eastern Europe or Russia maybe -- I doubt, you want to live there. (50% of all births in the US are non-white.)
Also, Russia was completely white during the Revolution, just as France during the Jacobins, Italy during the Borgia's, America during the civil war, etc. Look how they all killed each other en masse. Bottom line: homogenous white countries are no guarantee for peace. Lefty idiots could make a better case claiming the opposite (which I don't believe either).
It's about culture. Non-whites can be acculturated into Western culture. Immigration, though, must be limited. It's been enough now, we need a time-out. A long one.
Secesssion will allow Mexico,China, India and the muslim World to completely colonize huge tracts of American territory. In addition to the loss of US territory, trillions of dollars in infrastructue will be lost.
It is going to feel very crowded-already is-in the areas to which Whites are retreating. There are extreme drought conditins in the West and the Southern states. Housing won't be affordable for much longer in places such as Winchester Virginia and the suburbs of Charlotte.
Just wait, hispanics,asians,nigerians,gahanians and muslims will want to visit all the great National and state parks. The waitng lists for some of these great national parks are already quite long. When the post-1965 nonwhites and their "American" born children start to visit these places in large nyumbers,it will take a deade or two to get into to visit Yellostone and Yoesemine .
The resources of America are scarce. They will become much scarcer as the post-1965 non-white population continues to grow exponentially(think about what this means).
We have very likely reached the point of no return on a futre of violent racail conflict.
What I have just written should be the topic of Pat Buchannans next book.
The Kenyan comparison makes no sense. America was an officially racist country until the 1950's. In fact, federal law originally said that only whites could become citizens. For that matter, every significant country had a clear racial identity (even if some were empires containing a mix of different races) until the 20th century. Was medieval Europe like Kenya? Of course not.
We did have the War Between the States, but that was between whites and other whites. Practically everyone fighting on both sides of that war was by modern standards a "white supremacist". So ethnonationalism didn't figure into that war very much.
Now, the comparison to Europe fighting the world wars over ethnic differences can't be dismissed out of hand. But it doesn't prove that the age-old principle of a state being an extended family is wrong and should be rejected. Nations having a clear racial as well as cultural identity is a norm that we deviate from at our peril.
Maciano,
The West isn't "White" anymore because idiots like you are dating Aruban or Indonesian women whilst romanticizing how the new arrivals will carry on White culture long after our kind has miscegenated out of existence. What a fool you are.
Furthermore, all manner of human flotsam can come to America and assimilate into "Western culture" because our culture has been reduced to Wal-Mart, McDonalds, mass media, American Idol, and idiots like you who deny the importance of biological race. Our culture (such as it was) has been replaced by a consumerist-driven economy which is all too willing to inflict more violence upon our race for the sake of mere profit.
And besides, what's "Western culture" anyway? Who gets to define it? If such a question was ever posed to either Irish, Italian, Polish, or Colonial stock Americans I would imagine that you'd get a very different answer from each group. But we all sure as hell know what the White race is and can theoretically unite under that banner.
C'mon man, lighten up. You never saw the girls, you'd have liked them too.
PS I don't deny race, never have, never will. Neither do I like consumerism. If you want to waste your life on WN, that's fine by me. Just don't call me an idiotic for thinking differently.
I have to side with Maciano on this.
Waiting is right in that a population that looks similar is more stable. But we do not have that anymore. The idea of a race war is dangerous and ridiculous. It will not lead to more of the freedoms I assume you cherish. Next to a very similar racial composition, the next best thing would be having so many small groups that no group thinks it can challenge the others. I trust people raised in Western culture to be sane. I do not fear Waiting's race war. But having a population of hispanics which approaches, in many parts of the country exceeds, the white majority is dangerous. Not because of "brown genes," but because humans group and fight, especially when prodded and they have 1/2 a chance. For peace's sake, limiting immigration is necessary. A tiny majority will rarely pick a fight for a majority.
I also think that Waiting takes Western culture for granted. Americans of Polish, Jewish, Italian, Hungarian, etc descent have largely - due to the 1924 law - become "white" people. Their similarities greatly outweigh their differences. If this is hard to see then compare it with the diversity of the world. Theocracy is rampant throughout the Middle East. Collective, racist nationalism rules Asia. Africa is full of tribal warfare and superstition that is not conducive to rational self-governance. Latin America's high birth rate and low care for education and culture of deference has consistently led to corrupt second world cultures. If you think that happy consumerism is the default of man, you underestimate diversity of the world, how far we have come, and how low we can go.
Many people mistake Western culture for world culture. Partially this is because our culture has spread. But Palistinian and Iranian television should show you technology does not mean Western values. The Aztecs and Nazi Germany had working economies and political structures, but very different values from Western values. Those who think we are not special do not know that many folks love Jihad and glory in conquest more than voting.
The view that Western values are not special rests on the idea that history has ended and all agree democracy, freedom of speech, not having racism, separation of church and state, not beating women, cutting out their genitals, killing them when they shame us, etc. are the only way to go from this day forward. This is BTW the same view that leads us to try imposing our values on Iraq. The view that we have no special culture, that it is - as Waiting intimates - the default world culture, leads us to think others will gladly welcome the imposition of Western modes of life in their countries. NOT SO.
We are in competition. We can split into fighting groups. Our bourgeiouse life can be lost. This is why we need to protect it. That is why we need to be aware of culturist dynamics. The idea that we have won and all values are now Western leads to our having open borders and not protecting ourselves. The culturist assertion that Western values are special and fragile leads to our stopping Islamic immigration, greatly limiting Latino immigration and creating pro-assimilation policies for all immigrants. It should make us aware that sending our factories to China does not secure democracy and respect for individuals regardless of race.
I will only agree with Waiting in that the shopping mentality that has no tie to duty or responsibility, that does not appreciate our ideals, how hard it was to instantiate them and why we need values that maintain them will not suffice. Even our domestic non-immigrant communities must take a culturist sense of responsiblity to the mission of our civilization if we are going to survive. Debt, early pregnancy, partying, and long-term welfare use do not lead to real sustainable freedom or strength.
http://www.culturism.us
"I’ve dated a (half) Aruban girl and an Indonesian girl, they were very Western."
Marciano has a sexual fetish for non-whites.
Of course he is going to say it is about culture and not race. He wants a copious supply of non-white women to fornicate with in his idea of a better society.
As such, no more attention should be given here to him than you would give to a small child's input on an important financial transaction.
Are mono-ethnic states necessarily more peaceful, stable, or long lasting than multi-ethnic ones? Generally even for a state to maintain a mono-ethnic identity, it has to become more or less a hermit kingdom. And even that does not prevent a lot of internal conflict - note the history of Japan prior to its openning to the modern world. Rome lasted as a multi-ethnic republic, then empire for a thousand years and its succesor, the multi-ethnic Byzantine empire for another thousand. There were long periods of peace and stability and long periods of warfare. The occasion for the latter was as often class as ethnic based.
The multi-ethnic US currently has about a one third non-white population within the homeland of the empire - forget about the outlying semi-colonies. With a few exceptions (Mormons, for example), the whites are older and non-reproductive. There will be no race war to expel non-whites from the US homeland because the whites are not capable of it and would derive no benefit from the vast scale of death and destruction that such a war would bring about. And non-whites have no need of a war to achieve majority status since this is gradually happening anyway. Any white who is alarmed at the prospect of impending minority status, I encourage to procreate vigorously. Of course, I've made that suggestion before, but the white nationalist whiners always respond that for some reason or other, they can't or shouldn't be expected to. So much the worse for them.
Maciano,
Racial nationalism for white people is an idea that at the very least makes sense and has a rich history of actually working here in America. Whereas your attempt to argue for a political movement that is centered around the preservation of a "culture", which no one can define to everyone's satisfaction, has the virtue of being politically correct (you won't be associated with those hated neo-nazis) albeit politically impotent.
With respect to my "harshness" all I can say is that I'm responding to wacky ideas put before me, like "Racial nationalism won't work in America because of what happens in Kenya"?! Talk about grasping for straws...
To Everyone Else:
For those amongst us who can't put two and two together, Buchanan is a de facto white racial nationalist who isn't willing to come out of the closet and say so because too many around here aren't ready for it. Almost everything Buchanan writes about (from Kosovo to America's coming economic crisis and the inevitable resurrection of ethnic nationalism) is straight from white racial nationalist playbook (and a part of their daily discussions) minus the calls for "white people to unite" (or some such).
Kirt Higdon,
whites would also do well to get educated and to remove themselves from the corrupt American mass culture (replacing it with a healthier alternative.) Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but we all know Jews hold disproportionate power to their numbers; whites could do the same if they got their act together.
Anyway, you don't care much for whites, your loyalty is to the [increasingly Hispanic] Church as I recall, which seems to push for all to have as many babies as possible for some inexplicable reason. I realise the group that reproduces most (or... that attracts the most immigrants) will gain in numbers and likely power, but if good borders exist this oughtn't be as much of an issue.
Not that I have anything against the Catholic traditions or Catholics in general, but an open borders supporter is an open borders supporter.
Regarding culturalism, I like this new viewpoint very much - it's certainly far preferable to some other alternatives. I won't deny that I hold race to be more important with regards to identity than culturalism acknowledges, but it's a fine view of the world nevertheless.
Frank,
The heighth of culturalism is Samuel P Huntington's, "Who Are We?", which basically lays out the case that America is defined by her Anglo-Saxon cultural heritage.
As you might expect, Huntington diligently separates culture from race in his analysis. What I found particularly amusing about the book, is that his own data belies his thesis since he outlines how our "Anglo-Saxon culture" recedes into the background as hispanics take over various parts of America (such as South Florida and Los Angeles). One gets the feeling that he wants to connect America's heritage with the Anglo-Saxon derived people who've made her great but he just can't bring himself to say it for the same reason that so many others can't either.
Anyway, if you wish to explore this line of thought further you should definitely check out the book.
I think Muller has the cause and effect relationship backwards. Those multi-ethnic empires were stable as multi-ethnic empires for centuries before they collapsed. What destabilized Europe in the twentieth century was the introduction of liberal democratic philosophies. There was no continent-wide ethnonationalist panic until it became apparent that some ethnic groups would come to dominate other ethnic groups through the ballot box. Muller speculated that ethnonationalism may be a necessary precondition for liberal democracy; but it would be more accurate to say liberal democracy, or the threat of it, causes ethnonationalism.
The best argument for white nationalism is the very fact that everyone else is doing it. Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, Arabs all explicitly look out for their own interests. When whites are the minority, I sure hope none of you are expecting affirmative action, are you? I don't even expect the Hispanics to pay out social security to the aging "Anglos."
The only people who are going to take care of us is us. Think about life in America when blacks and Hispanics are running the judicial system. Do you like what you see? If you want to know what it will look like, go study the recent history of Zimbabwe. Look what happened in Jena LA. Blacks actually stomped on the head of a white kid and the blacks at BET gave them an award.
The biggest thing white people need to get over is the fear of being called a "racist." Many white folks I talk to agree that whites need to politically organize but they're too scared of being called a "racist." What I try to get across to them is how worse the situation will be in 20-30 years if we don't. Its better to put up with being called a "racist" today than deal with reparations, land seizures, gang rape, daily violence, and genocide tomorrow.
We need to really think about this. We're entering a very dangerous time in which people with an extreme hatred for us are gaining in numbers. I'm sure you all seen what happened in Kosovo? Well, for us its even worse because we don't have a "Serbia" to fall back to (OK Maybe Vermont). Eventually, we're going to run out places to go. White flight cannot go on forever. What, do you expect The Constitution to save us? Obviously that "piece of paper" went out of style a long time ago with our elites. We have a responsibility to provide our future generations with a safe future.
Samuel Huntington considers Protestant allegiance to be a key element of America's Anglo-Saxon cultural heritage and considers Catholics to be assimilated to this heritage to the degree to which they accept the Protestant values of the culture, even if they maintain a Mass on Sunday Catholic identity. It is for this reason that any Catholic who takes his faith seriously must find himself to be in at least some conflict with American values. While the Church is not particularly enthusiastic about any type of nationalism, Americanism is one of only two nationalisms condemned as a heresy, the other one being Gallicanism or what we would now call French nationalism. Huntington's thesis also explains why anti-immigrant sentiment in the US has always been anti-Catholic. This was even more true in the 19th Century, when the Catholic immigrants were north European whites (Irish and German) than in contemporary times.
waiting,
thanks I've been meaning to read that, as well as so much else...
Kirt Higdon,
isn't race part of the reason Germans and Irish were shunned as well? That is that Germans, especially Bavarians, were thought to be more mixed, and Irish less intelligent (I'm told brain drain might be the reason.)
---
Which brings up a problem with white nationalism: who is white and are there to be any lesser nationalistic ties, patriotic ties assumed? It's said that we know who is white... but do we? If Sicilians are white, then what about Turks and some Central Asians?
Not to say I reject ethnic nationalism, but I remain wary of some of the white nationalism I've seen simply because it seems too inclusive and abstract. I don't shun the title WN if allowed a qualifier.
I guess I've repeated that same line of questions too many times..., but to my defense this is important.
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.
Kirt Higdon wrote:
"Generally even for a state to maintain a mono-ethnic identity, it has to become more or less a hermit kingdom."
Is modern Japan a "hermit kingdom"? China is not completely homogeneous, but it has a majority ethnic group with basically a monopoly on power. Most Asian states allow zero immigration by people not of the home ethnic group. There is a passage in Alien Nation where Peter Brimelow called up the immigration office of virtually every non-Western country posing as someone who wanted to immigrate. He was told that since he was a white European, he couldn't immigrate.
Even Mexico shuts out the Guatemalans and other Central Americans trying to cross its southern border. Mexicans and Guatemalans are probably more genetically akin than Mexicans and Americans, but that doesn't stop the Mexicans from being prepared to shut out a people they clearly view as foreign and not prepared to blend in.
John Savage makes a great point. Who would ever call Japan, China, Mexico, or India hermit kingdoms?
Kirt Higdon's remark sounds like another lame excuse for not attempting to work towards a state that has a "mono-ethnic" identity for white people.
Modern Japan has drawn in well over a million Korean illegal immigrants, much to the chagrin of the xenophobic Japanese, whose government is now urging the natives to up their below replacement level procreation. Apparently I'm not the only one who can make the connection between more babies and a greater population. Contemporary China, still in a population reduction mode with its suicidal one child policy, is seeing its more prolific minorities grow in population, not to mention an influx of illegal immigrants from poorer neighbors such as Myanmar, Vietnam, and North Korea. Not all of this immigration is voluntary. Since the one child policy has led through selective abortion and infanticide to an imbalance of males, many Chinese men have organized kidnapping rings to abduct women from neighboring countries and bring them to China.
And Mexico keeps out Central Americans? You've got to be kidding. Mexico has millions of Central Americans, not to mention Cubans and other Caribbeans and numerous Arabs, especially Iraqis. Far from being "shut out" they are permitted, indeed facilitated in continuing their journey to el norte.
As far as working toward a state which has a "mono-ethnic identity for white people", I need no excuse not to work for that - it's a stupid idea. But if anyone does want to work for that, I strongly urge that they procreate. It would be difficult to have a white people's state without any white people.
Kirt Higdon wrote:
"As far as working toward a state which has a “mono-ethnic identity for white people”, I need no excuse not to work for that"
Why? Just because today's white folk aren't breeding like rabbits doesn't mean it's a stupid idea.
Seriously, do you enjoy our multiracial cities with their diverse populations? Does the mix of people found in either New York, Chicago, Houston, or Los Angeles actually resonate with you? And if so, what exactly are you doing on this website?
I lived almost all of my adult working life in multiracial Los Angeles and retired to multiracial Corpus Christi. Yes, the mix of people found in those cities resonates with me. I've made many friends, including lifetime friends who are (horrors!) immigrants. I go to this website and subscribe to Chronicles because the writers promote the eternal Christian values which my parents taught me and which I taught my own kids and which I continue to teach as an adult catechist at my church. If my central values were racist rather than Christian, I'd post on Stormfront. If you, O Nameless Paleocon, prefer racist to Christian values, what exactly are you doing on this website?
Maciano, we have to replace liberalism with culturism. As you point out, liberalism has too much of an internationalist aspect to it. Culturism says (BTW, no “al”) says majority cultures have a right to define, protect and promote themselves. That means that the 10 Commandments have standing even if one individual is offended. But we have to see that Western civilization itself is a local culture too. Freedom is a Western value. We are NOT the world. If we want to protect freedom, we need to protect us. As D. Manntraini notes, injustice on a tribal basis can even happen here if we aren’t vigilant.
You are also right that anti-white crap needs to be stopped. It comes out of acadme. We need to get back to the realization that the West has given soooo much to the world. Where would Mexico be without electricity? It was not a result of our skin color, but if “white” people are to get blame or credit, we deserve a lot of credit. But it has nothing, really, to do with color, it is because Western civilization, due to its culture, has been a boon to the world.
Civil unrest will just lead to a police state. Until the 1950s we were officially defined as a white country. But guess what? Ted Kennedy. 1965. We cannot go back. We also cannot out reproduce Mexicans. Immigration control and linguistic and cultural assimilation are the only real hope.
Kirt I think nearly all wars are between groups and ethnicity is nearly always a part. The Civil War was not caused by blacks, but no diversity, no war.
Waiting, All Samuel Huntington’s books rule! Much of culturism comes from his Coming Clash of Civilizations. CULTURISM IS A GOOD BOOK TOO (even though I as author should not say so). Culturism tries to sneak in Protestant values by noting that holding the soul / mind over the body is an ancient Western tradition and the key to our success. Improving the culture means holding reading and diligence to be above sex and drugs again. Saying we are “culturist,” not racist, into “culturism” not multiculturalism, makes it easy to start conversations, explain these ideas, protect and promote our culture.
BTW the Anglo-Saxon protestant values are the basis of our culture. There are different types of Catholicism. Catholics here have assimilated much to Protestantism. It was recognizing the effects of diversity and that Catholic colonies have not been progressive that made Protestants paranoid. The high birth rate, low education Catholicism (mostly) below our border can lead to 2nd world conditions. Go to California.
John, Kirt is right. Countries can base their immigration laws on whatever they choose. China’s use of racism violates our current hatred of racism. But culturist criteria would ban Islamic immigration, greatly reduce Mexican immigration and require assimilation of Asian immigrants. Family unification policy must give way to culturist policy if we are to survive.
We have no choice but to be multiracial, but we should not be multicultural.
http://www.culturism.us
I too am a Christian and though I don't hate other races I do prefer my own race, the white race, and am proud to be white.
John Press,
"Culturalism" won't work because no one will be able to agree about what "culture" we should be fighting to preserve. In fact, it would be very difficult for people to agree on what "culture" even means!
Kirt Higdon,
Based on your previous post, I believe what you are really looking for is an organization where you can participate in universalist Christian fellowship.
I'm not sure you call all that much about even preserving traditional American culture (much less white people).