Taking up Serpents
The general approach that the Alternative Right has toward Jews is schizophrenic. They’ll regularly belt out anti-Jewish screeds that could peel paint off a wall. Larry Auster asserts that “the anti-Semites hate the Jews more than they love the things that they profess to love”. Paul Gottfried recently alleged that the “Old Right” has made demonizing Israel a litmus test above all others. I agree that this accurately describes many of them.
Things have gotten so hostile toward Jews over at Alt.Right that Eugene Girin, one of the less perceptive Jews in the collective, is starting to suspect that some of his cohorts might be anti-Semitic. But the queer thing about it isn’t their antipathy toward Jews. It’s their inability to actually distance themselves from Jews. They rant and rave about Jews being the poisonous snakes that they are, yet they can’t resist that overwhelming urge to handle them.
I am not an Anti-Semite!
A classic example of this phenomenon in action is in Richard Nixon’s administration. As the Nixon Tapes show, this extraordinarily intelligent and knowledgeable statesman vividly understood that the Leftist “long march through the institutions” was primarily a Jewish tribal project. His solution was to carry on the secretive “occult war” against the “bad Jews”, pitting them against “good Jews” like Kissinger and other pro-Israeli conservatives.
It’s been decades since Nixon got bit, and the small band of nationalist Jews he courted have since become the omnipotent neocons. They’ve been in power so long that we’ve almost forgotten about the internationalist Jews we were trying to rid ourselves of in the first place. In a pathetic reversal, many on the American Right now see these Jews in the Obama administration who are ambivalent about Israel and uncomfortable with her increasingly aggressive policies as the new good Jews.
A man who writes an entire bookshelf of books damning the Jews and churns out blog posts and articles cursing their perfidy by the day is worse than ineffectual if he fails to do this one simple thing: exclude. By expressing his impotent, toothless hatred of Jews, he only serves to frighten Jewish peasants into obedience to the Jewish elites. By thinking he’s cleverly pitting his trustworthy band of good Jews against the bad ones, he’s only making a useful idiot of himself.
What am I missing? Why even bother creating Alternative Right if you’re going to make the same mistake that doomed its predecessor, The American Conservative?
That Slate article I linked to above consisted of an angry Jew denouncing a dead man for privately confiding that he believed the Jews were out to get him. Can somebody still be called paranoid when the people he believed were out to get him got him? Slate itself was founded by a wealthy WASP only to be converted into a vehicle for Jewish ethnic advocacy. Slate is now owned by The Washington Post, which was also founded by a WASP only to be converted into a vehicle for Jewish ethnic advocacy.
Why shake your fist at them with one hand while giving them a firm handshake with the other? Is it pride, believing you can succeed where others failed? Is it money? Is it out of admiration for their talents? Bribery? Blackmail? Friendship?
Anybody?
Matt Parrott
mindweapon
Why shake your fist at them with one hand while giving them a firm handshake with the other? Is it pride, believing you can succeed where others failed? Is it money? Is it out of admiration for their talents? Bribery? Blackmail?
In some cases, it’s financial or logistical dependence. An example of logistics: A non-Jew might resent Jewish impositions, but his needs an expert to tailor his suit, and the only skilled tailor who speaks English is a Jew.
A second example: A non-Jew might resent lawyers, but right now he needs a lawyer, and here’s this Jewish lawyer who has all the tricks, so in the short run, it seems like the only way…
I suppose a distinction could be made between resigning yourself to purchasing your bagels from a Jew and designing an exclusive political collective which includes Jews. In the latter case, if Jews really are necessary additions to a collective intended to take on the Jewish oligarchy, then we are doomed. We can only hope to get by with a Kievskyite retreat from the overt political struggle.
Help me to understand why non-Jews dislike Jews. Do they think the Jews are acting according to a long-term secret plan, or that the sum total of independent Jewish actions are collectively working against the interests of non-Jews?
Randy,
First off, I’m not driven by a personal dislike of Jews. I’m driven by a basic sense of tribal identity, also known as ethnonationalism.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/the_enduring_power_of_ethnic_n.html
My “tribe” is the White American people. I believe we’re sufficiently homogeneous in our heritage, culture, and beliefs to comprise a true “people”. In most cases, it’s intuitively obvious to discern who is an “us” and who is a “them”. In America, this has historically been so racial that ethnic tribalism and racialism have become synonymous. Almost all White immigrants have seamlessly melted into the White American culture and way of life.
Jews have historically been considered racially White in the American context. There’s a heated anthropological controversy regarding whether they should be classified as racially White, but I believe that’s largely irrelevant; As a people, they do not see themselves as belonging to the same identity group that I do. The historical problem for Americans and Jews has been and remains that we continue to accept them as part of “us” while they do not accept us as belonging to “them”. There’s a lack of reciprocity in defining identity.
I don’t know of any secretive plan, and I believe Jewish influence over gentile institutions can be explained by their giftedness as a people, their persistent ethnic networking, and our own complete disarmament in these ethnic conflicts. A pro-Black organization would be gradually overwhelmed by Whites and gradually shifted toward policies agreeable to Whites if Whites were welcomed in their leadership positions. This is intuitively obvious. For some reason, our people, even the supposedly Jew-wise ones, just can’t seem to get that welcoming Jews into our leadership positions guarantees that they’ll guide the organization in a direction favorable to themselves.
Matt,
I think that I understand where you’re coming from. You make a reasonable case for the self-sovereignty of your people, who you define as”White Americans”. I think it’s inarguable that you and others should have the freedom to prefer and advocate for that position.
Unless I misread your post, I think that here you’re debating the influence and effects of Jews within the existing framework of our multi-ethnic nation. In that context, I would suggest that one could build a coherent point of view without having to specifically address the Jews as a race or as an ethnic group. I realize this isn’t your personal point of view, but I believe that you were curious as to how and why others might think this way.
Perhaps a central pillar to the race-agnostic point of view is the historical observation that life wasn’t all peaches and cream when it was only white people running the show. Does anyone consider 1776 to have been a Periclean Golden Age of civic harmony and tranquility? Of course not. The important players on both sides of the American Revolution were white.
Also, consider the corpus of great writings penned by our founding fathers regarding freedom, tyranny, natural law, natural rights, etc. The most villainous of villains and the most heroic of heroes in that period were all white. This makes a case for evaluating problems by the issues themselves, and not just by race.
Another pillar supporting race-agnostic political debate is the reality that race-based political advocacy is pretty much a non-starter in mainstream discourse.
So what are the “Jewish” political issues, and can they be coherently be debated in a race-agnostic fashion? From what I can tell, they seem to include:
1. Jews tend to support left-wing multicultural advocacy which seeks to artificially promote diversity, inhibit white American organizational unity, and dilute white political influence.
These can be attacked from the standpoint that Affirmative Action= discrimination, and that discrimination is always illegal and immoral. Jim Webb’s recent article is an example of a counterargument to AA (though he only dips a toe into the water).
Also, one can argue that white advocacy groups deserve the same legal and social acceptance as existing non-white ethnic advocacy groups.
2. On the right, Jews tend to advocate for activist support of zionism. This can be argued against from a moral and financial standpoint, as with the non-interventionist position of Ron Paul. Furthermore, a great many non-Israeli Jews oppose carte blanche pro-zionism.
Again, I’m not trying to convince you to embrace this point of view, rather I’m just suggesting that one can assemble a reasonably coherent political belief system in an ethnic-agnostic fashion. Within such a framework, one can buy bagels and hire a Jewish lawyer without any moral qualms.
I just got back from getting a haircut from a Black lady. I’m speaking of political organizations, not casual business relationships.
You can certainly envision whatever ethnic-agnostic paradigm for the world that you fancy. But you can’t impose it. It’s a unilateral disarmament in a world where the other ethnic groups do think tribally. In theory, a button that caused everybody in the world to be post-racial would be a button you would press. But that button doesn’t exist and never will. It’s a red herring.
Even if you’re not interested in tribal identity, tribal identity is interested in you.
I believe the problem with a lot of your thinking is that it begins with ideals and works toward reality, rather than the converse. Of course Jews shouldn’t hijack American institutions to promote a Zionist agenda. But they do. They’re not going to stop because they suddenly realize it’s unfair or inconsistent.
If you got the impression that I’m in this because I think White people are superior, I encourage you to read my recent Intervention post. White folks have been guilty of some of the worst crimes in history. Modern White folks are a sorry bunch, indeed. But family’s family. I’m no sooner going to become ethnic-agnostic than I’m going to become family-agnostic, and for the same reasons. Whether or not my race or my family is the best or what I’m going to personally get out of it is beside the point.
Matt,
Perhaps I misunderstood your question here:
“Why shake your fist at them with one hand while giving them a firm handshake with the other? Is it pride, believing you can succeed where others failed? Is it money? Is it out of admiration for their talents? Bribery? Blackmail? Friendship?
Anybody?”
My comments were intended to address the situations wherein some people alternatively shake fists at, and then hands with Jews. I hadn’t intended that post to be a distillation of my own personal views, but I suppose they’re not dissimilar.
The majority of Jews I know are anti-zionist, but maybe they’re just middle-class nobodies and so form a poor representative sample.
“If you got the impression that I’m in this because I think White people are superior…”
No, I don’t have that impression. You’ve explained your beliefs clearly and passionately, and have illustrated the particular vulnerabilities of white americans in a way I hadn’t conceived of before.
Matt,
You are emerging is one of the most incisive commentators and best stylists on our side. Congratulations on launching your own site, and best wishes.
You are already on my list of sites that I check daily.
Greg Johnson
Randy,
The majority of Jews I know are anti-zionist, but maybe they’re just middle-class nobodies and so form a poor representative sample.
International Jews are more numerous in America. There’s a natural tension between them and National Jews. The latter, pro-Israeli neocons, are increasingly martial, imperialist, and even perhaps ‘fascist’. They endanger the ones in the Diaspora, provoking global animosity toward “the Jews”. The non-Zionist and even anti-Zionist American Jews pose a threat to our way of life, as well – just a different one.
But even if the Jewish oligarchy were doing a fine job, it’s still imperative that we become masters of our own destiny.
Dr. Greg,
I appreciate your supportive comments and enjoy the work you’re doing over at Counter-Currents.
I’ve added it to the blogroll.
“Why shake your fist at them with one hand while giving them a firm handshake with the other? Is it pride, believing you can succeed where others failed? Is it money? Is it out of admiration for their talents? Bribery? Blackmail? Friendship?”
Matt,
Richard Spencer has made it quote clear in some of his most recent articles that he wants bags of money from the Israelis.
He evidently thinks they’ll give said bags to him in exchange for providing the inestimable service of cutting Israel off from all American support, thereby allowing them to expel the Palestinians or something.
But of course if the Israelis didn’t want US Support, they wouldn’t put so much energy into controlling the US Government, now would they?
The whole thing is very weird, and I hope somewhere Unz isn’t rubbing his hands together and doing an evil laugh.
Also, I second what Greg Johnson said about Matt and this site.
Help me to understand why non-Jews dislike Jews.
I’m going to assume you’re familiar with the USS Liberty, the hyper-ethnocentrism documented by Kevin MacDonald, and Bernie Madoff.
And you *still* need more reasons?
Well, how about gays?
Jews predominate in the gay rights movement, and the gay rights movement tends to push gay special interests over democratically expressed majority interests.
See:
http://silasreinagel.blogspot.com/2010/08/faux-democracy.html
Then cross-reference all of that with Lind’s essay on the origins of Political Correctness. After you’ve put all those pieces together, I think the pertinent question is, why don’t non-Jews manage to resist Jews more effectively?
Reginald,
Honestly, I think it’s simple hubris. I think he thinks he can singlehandedly outwit the wittiest people on Earth.
But I really truly don’t get it. I hope it’s not some craven scheme to get his hands on some Jew Gold™.
“At some point in the foreseeable future, America will have a new majority, and one which Israelis simply won’t be able to control.” – Richard Spencer
See, Mr. Spencer knows the deal. The Jews more-or-less ‘control’ America through finance and media manipulation. Spencer’s article is, most likely, a cynical test to see how pro-Israeli his site could become without losing readership. George Van Horn Moseley got it right 70 years ago:
“… if you fail to meet this issue squarely, your organization will accomplish nothing, except possibly to support a certain overhead, including perhaps several Jewish secretaries, placed with you for the purpose of spying upon you and your work.”
Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: If the Naked Female Body Offends You, Don’t Click Edition (NSFW)
“At some point in the foreseeable future, America will have a new majority, and one which Israelis simply won’t be able to control.” – Richard Spencer
Why not? That majority will be “American” — particularly those the result of racial mixing — and probably damn proud of it; at the very least they’ll have an interest in becoming proud of being American and an earnest desire to see off rank-splitters like aztlaners, islamists, black whiners and white nationalists (at least the uncompromising sort). Jews would be part and parcel of that identity, no matter how many nutzi screamers go hoarse denying it. So why wouldn’t the same Jewish influence that, according to your own (WN) worldview, is so integral to maintaining the centre-left/centre-right coalition today not be at least as effective in a future in which Americanism features even more prominently? Even if Jews can’t “control” it, it seems very likely to control itelf, particularly if Islam/Islamism comes to be seen as the central problem.
Silver/accidentaldissent,
Spencer’s under the impression that he can outfox the Foxmans and outwit the Wittgensteins. He’s also under the impression that Jews stand to lose from a diversification of the West and submersion of the White American ethnonational identity. Jews may well end up “part and parcel” of that new Cosmic American identity, an identity which is incompatible with that of the founders and their White American ethnic nationalist progeny. The “Americanism” that you envision being more prominent in the future is of a completely separate tradition, a rootless cosmopolitan mirage usurping the “American” brand.
My sense of tribal identity isn’t based on a calculation, does not weigh the odds, and is not effected one way or another by attributes A, B, or C of non-tribal peoples X, Y, or Z. I don’t care if it’s “too late”, if I’m “out of touch”, or if the Cosmic American future might work out just fine. I disagree with each of those assertions, but neither my beliefs nor my actions relate to them.
Matt,
My sense of tribal identity isn’t based on a calculation
Sure it is. Remember how “crucial” you claimed it was to remain firm on the Sicilian Question? What is that but raw calculation?
Jews may well end up “part and parcel” of that new Cosmic American identity, an identity which is incompatible with that of the founders and their White American ethnic nationalist progeny
“May” end up? May?
Look, your “White American” (Hebrades-to-Cyclades) identity is likewise incompatible with anything the founders envisioned or wanted or expected for their progeny. There’s just a smaller degree of difference between the human kinds involved. But it’s still decidedly arbitrary — and that’s why it’ll founder. Racialism-for-all (which I advocate), on the other hand, doesn’t suffer from those problems — its main problem is the association people make between it and WN (in all its standard forms). But I think there’s good reason to believe that in time that could change.
accidentaldissent,
It’s crucial to remain firm on the Sicilian Question not because precisely defining tribal identity matters. It’s crucial to do so because it doesn’t matter. Holding hard and fast to a European = White definition is an attempt to cut short the exhausting and unproductive debate about precisely defining identity.
I don’t actually care whether fully integrated White Americans of Sicilian descent are included or excluded. I care that a small cohort of anthropology hobbyists are attempting to hold an entire movement hostage to their attempts to exclude a subset of Whites they deem to be insufficiently White.
It’s as if I were trying to start a men’s club and a handful of men kept insisting that only males who can grow full beards should be considered men, teasing and harassing the bare-faced males out of the club. Since “full beard” like “Nordic” is a largely arbitrary determination, all but the most full-bearded of men would be a bit uneasy about it. Eventually, even the full-bearded men would abandon the group out of disgust with the infighting and inefficacy at accomplishing meaningful goals.
Defining men and women is also arbitrary when you’re dealing with a handful of edge cases, yet society carries on just fine in lieu of that ambiguity.
I haven’t a clue what “racialism-for-all” means, so I don’t know how it would contrast with my own vision. I believe my vision is a simple ethnonational one that pretty much approximates what most Americans consider “White”.
“Why shake your fist at them with one hand while giving them a firm handshake with the other?”
As one of those pesky anglos with the whole universal morality thing i have a *really* hard time fighting the urge to be “fair.” I think they’re actively engaged in an attempt to genocide my people and are the critical factor in a vast amount of blood and grief that has been inflicted on my hometown by immigration and the multicult but i *still* feel the need to always be open to making exceptions out of fairness. It’s like a compulsion.
That’s when i’m calm. When i’m angry and vengeful i want to drench the planet in blood. Typical anglo :)
“That majority will be “American” — particularly those the result of racial mixing — and probably damn proud of it”
It doesn’t work that way. Most mixed kids follow the culture of the father when they’re older and as white females are much more in demand by non-white males than vice versa so race-mixing actually causes disintegration and not integration as white people in areas that are becoming white-minority break off and get submerged in one of the invading groups. The children of a hostile muslim immigrant and a white mother are more likely to be slightly paler hostile muslims than americans – not always but mostly. Identity is like what football team you support. It mostly follows the father.
“So why wouldn’t the same Jewish influence that, according to your own (WN) worldview, is so integral to maintaining the centre-left/centre-right coalition today not be at least as effective in a future in which Americanism features even more prominently?”
Because jews didn’t listen to that line from the Godfather “Don’t hate your enemy it clouds your judgement.” White people are different. Everybody else thinks like the jews:
is it good for the Chinese?
is it good for the Arabs?
is it good for the muslims?
is it good for blacks?
is it good for Mexicans?
Instead of being a lone naturally ethno-centric non-white group operating inside and able to take advantage of a much less naturally ethno-centric majority. Now you’re going to have to compete with hundreds of groups who think exactly like you.
Who were the main agents displacing jewish power in the Soviet Union after 1940-ish? I have zero data but i bet it was Georgians and Armenians and people from those sort of places who were less white.
Wandrin,
Who were the main agents displacing jewish power in the Soviet Union after 1940-ish? I have zero data but i bet it was Georgians and Armenians and people from those sort of places who were less white.
Stalin executed a ruthless campaign against a small set of Jewish oligarchs and ideologues. That, in conjunction with American capitalism proving more sustainable and lucrative than the failing Marxist experiment, explains much of their decline in power and the ensuing exodus.
Matt,
I haven’t a clue what “racialism-for-all” means, so I don’t know how it would contrast with my own vision. I believe my vision is a simple ethnonational one that pretty much approximates what most Americans consider “White”.
You “haven’t a clue”, eh? You know, that’s just insulting — and so typical of trying to engage your kind in discussion.
In case you really are that dense, racialism-for-all is a solution to that pesky problem of tribal definition. You call yourself a WN. Fine. Very much in line with what American identity has historically meant and, equally if not more importantly, with the way the majority of American whites (as I understand it) still lead their lives. Now, since races exist along a continuum, a problem arises from the fact a great many other people lead their lives essentially the same way as your stock WN, and in a large number of those cases the racial differences are of a discernible but relatively trivial nature. Such types are prime candidates for the “traditionalist racialist” message, but if they deem it excludes them or they fear that it may do, they’ll balk, and far from embracing racialism you risk having them redouble their efforts to defeat it. You’ve lost them completely. Whereas you might have had allies you now have foes. Yet the fact is they’d very much benefit from ‘racial living’ — living in a society composed of people with whom they share a decent degree of racial similarity with. It shouldn’t matter that someone thinks they’re “not white”; it shouldn’t matter to them at all. You want them to be able to say, sure, Parrott, no problem; we’ll support your project for guys like you, but just return us the favor and support our project for people like ourselves and for other people like themselves, and hey, not only will all get to reap the benefits from living around people like ourselves and, by virtue of our (relative, at least, or perceived) homogeneity, will we able to preserve such benefits for future generations of ourselves, but what is best about “the American way,” as it exists at this point in time, in the 21st century, might be salvaged also. (Anything good at all about 21st century America?! you wonder? Well, I’m not about to get into a debate with you on that, you fedora-sportin’ traditional American polygamist, you. Suffice it to say that millions upon millions would agree with me that there is plenty of good that has resulted from the multiracial project.)
Wandrin,
It doesn’t work that way. Most mixed kids follow the culture of the father when they’re older and as white females are much more in demand by non-white males than vice versa so race-mixing actually causes disintegration and not integration as white people in areas that are becoming white-minority break off and get submerged in one of the invading groups.
That’s only true while American (or British, in your case, or Australian, in mine) = White in people’s minds. I’d say America’s already at a point where someone of partial white ancestry — think a hispanic (already partly white anyway) mixed with a white — will see no good reason to be reflexively anti-American. (Think soccer star Landon Donovan.) People have a deep desire to identify with the place they live. The biggest reason that they don’t — liberals are correct about this — is that they fear that society won’t accept them, so rather than invest of themselves in it and risk the dejection of rejection, they play sour grapes with it. I can definitely see this happening in Australia among my Italian and Greek (and other similar types) friends — when Australia was perceived as being an Anglo-Saxon country, none of them wanted anything to do with being ethnically Australian; now that hindoos and other riff-raff are pouring in at a furious rate, all of a sudden the old differences appear minor and the spats that resulted from them absurd.
Silver/accidentaldissent,
I still can’t decipher your point. As far as I can figure, you are assuming that I’m somehow not in favor of non-Whites developing positive identities and having positive and respectful relations between those relatively autonomous groups? You’re also presuming that I fail to appreciate that there have actually been some beneficial products of racial integration?
My argument is that the negatives of integration outweigh the positives and that the situation is unsustainable. I’ll be sitting over here in my fedora, with my harem of wives, for when you feel like debating positions I actually hold instead of attacking straw men.
As far as I can figure, you are assuming that I’m somehow not in favor of non-Whites developing positive identities and having positive and respectful relations between those relatively autonomous groups?
Actually, no, I tended to assume you were in favor of it, but it’s clearly peripheral to your central stance. Moreover, the tenets of that central stance — “Tradition” “White American nationalism” — really can’t help but seem at odds with an attitude of respect and living and letting live. If you (not the WN movement, you) are willing to settle for, or plan to settle for, something less than the entirety of N. America then it seems to me utterly nonsensical to adopt a stance that suggests (or screams, as it so often does) you’re in a permanent state of hate with the rest of mankind — particularly since this thoroughly alienates those who’d otherwise be disposed to eagerly participate in a racial rearrangement of American affairs.
To reiterate: the purpose is to keep those drawn to racialism within the sphere of racialism. It’s not as if that’s smoke and mirrors, either. Racialist objectives are scalable; they basically lay nested within each other. You know, you might want all of planet Earth but if you don’t need all of planet Earth, then maybe you don’t need all of N. America. And if you don’t have to hate racial others outside N. America, maybe you don’t have to hate racial others inside N. America. The dissimimulating commentor “Adam” (posting as “Elvis,” I think) once said at Kmac’s blog, ethnonationalism is just segregation on a planetary scale, and subject to the same indictment. That’s technically correct, but the answer isn’t gloabal race-war (as the dissimulator was insinuating); the answer is to take the proper steps to ensure that internal racial separatism can endure. Contra McCulloch, that’s not an impossibility, especially not in this day and age, in which the accounting and tracking of numbers is facillitated by modern technology. McCulloch is just so intensely racially identified he wants his people living, thinking, breathing race 24/7. But there’s little reason to suppose many people want that or that they’d like it all that much if it were imposed on them. It’s certainly not necessary. And — getting to the point — if it’s not perceived as necessary, then a great many more people who, for whatever reason took a look at racialism, will remain in racialism, in a “Hey, this seems reasonable, this could work” sense, whatever the “this” that “could work” is — conclusions unlikely to be reached if the reasons that drew one to take an interest in racialist ideas were nationalist.
Moreover, the tenets of that central stance — “Tradition” “White American nationalism” — really can’t help but seem at odds with an attitude of respect and living and letting live.
I’ve made plain that I believe an equitable arrangement ought to be considered for all groups in America, and that the present boundaries ought to be reconsidered in light of our current situation and in pursuit of that goal. If you don’t believe me, wait for the next issue of Essence magazine, in which I tell Black people, with love, that I aim for an equitable yet separate peace.
If you (not the WN movement, you) are willing to settle for, or plan to settle for, something less than the entirety of N. America then it seems to me utterly nonsensical to adopt a stance that suggests (or screams, as it so often does) you’re in a permanent state of hate with the rest of mankind
One of the reasons I set about creating this blog was that I wanted to create a discursive space where vulgar “revulsionism” was completely absent. It’s completely absent here and will remain so. I treat people who do not belong in our ethnic nationalist movement with respect, while remaining firm on exclusion. The Chinese don’t consider me Chinese and don’t welcome me as one of their own, but that doesn’t mean anybody needs to hate anybody or that a fruitful dialogue can’t be had.
And — getting to the point — if it’s not perceived as necessary, then a great many more people who, for whatever reason took a look at racialism, will remain in racialism, in a “Hey, this seems reasonable, this could work” sense, whatever the “this” that “could work” is — conclusions unlikely to be reached if the reasons that drew one to take an interest in racialist ideas were nationalist.
Wait, what’s wrong with nationalism? Nationalism needn’t be vulgar or unnecessarily aggressive in its territorial ambitions.
“when Australia was perceived as being an Anglo-Saxon country, none of them wanted anything to do with being ethnically Australian; now that hindoos and other riff-raff are pouring in at a furious rate, all of a sudden the old differences appear minor”
Similar with English and Irish in the UK. But that illustrates the whole problem. Ethnic conflict is natural. The wider the ethnic difference the greater the conflict but it’s still there.
@@@
I think all ethnic groups are entitled to see their own group as their own personal pinnacle and are entitled to defend it’s uniqueness – black, med, nord, chinese, whatever. The nord problem is not that we see ourselves as the pinnacle but that other groups see us as the pinnacle – currently in practical terms related to things like standard of living but much more fundamentally in terms of access to nord females.
Because of that the problem for us is that we’re in a war of attrition we will always eventually lose unless we win, segregate and then in my view counter-attack a bit as well.
Not only “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children” but “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for WHITER children” because there’ll always be attrition going the other way in the same way there’s been attrition in southern europe.
It’s why your integration argument doesn’t work in practise. It doesn’t matter if white people see half-white as a bad thing or not as long as other ethnic groups see it as a good thing. Other groups seeing it as a good thing means the process will always be going disproportionately one way which from our point of view is slow extinction.
I’m not saying the Brazilian outcome is bad in itself in *some* countries but i don’t want to see the entire white population disappear and the only way to prevent that is to win, segregate and expand. For those people who fall in the cracks then the basis of alliance in my view would be in the phrase whiteR children.
Wandrin,
I believe it’s appropriate to define an in-group, then ascribe status within that in-group based on group loyalty and merit. Simple meritocracy works, as long as it’s within a closed system. The “facts on the ground” are that White Americans have become a relatively monolithic ethnic group spanning the entire spectrum of Nordic, Alpinic, Baltic, Medic, and Slavic sub-groups. If a person of overwhelmingly European descent is culturally American and committed to our vision, then I believe his specific European ancestry is a parochial consideration.
To construct some hierarchy of Whiteness within our ethnostate is to undermine the spirit of group cohesion. We ought to either offer Meds first-class citizenship alongside Nords or no citizenship at all. As luck would have it, the Ural Mountains and the Mediterranean Sea have done a very good job of retaining a similar phenotype among populations that are very closely related. It’s too neat, clean, and obvious of a way to establish the definition to bother trying to draw some kind of arbitrary line a little closer to Scandinavia (a land with its own Saami and Baltic introgression) or Germany (a land that’s heavily Alpinic) – neither of which are even the homelands of the founding stock in the first place.
If you have a different vision, then that’s fine. I’m not passing judgment on Nordicists. But this blog isn’t a Nordicist blog. When I say White American I mean Americans of Greek, Sicilian, and Russian descent as well as Mayflower or Danish stock. I intend to do some anthropological posts in which I hope you’ll make your case and Reginald can make his. But I consider Meds fully White and fully welcome.
Wandrin, I’m not advocating it. It’s a prediction, one based on some pretty sound reasoning, I’d like to think.
How do you imagine it is that the population of Italy today (well, maybe not today, say 1960) came to see itself as Italian? Or Greece’s Greek? If “integration doesn’t work”? Put alternatively: who today misses the Hittites?
Again, I’m not saying any of this is a good thing, or is desirable, or should be sped up. In fact, I would have thought it was clear that I’m advocating the opposite — for somewhat different reasons to yourself, but the end’s basically the same. But you have to first appraise reality you want to change accurately if you are indeed to change it. Racialists do do this, of course, but they don’t always do it as well as they think.
I’m not saying the Brazilian outcome is bad in itself in *some* countries
Now, there’s a sensible statement. Teasing out its logic results in the conclusion that race is contextual; it’s not quite the constant force in human affairs that racialists would have you believe. Sure, “Brazil” is rife with racial undertones, but they’re not anything anyone would base any serious political action on — well, it’s rather unlikely, anyway.
but i don’t want to see the entire white population disappear and the only way to prevent that is to win, segregate and expand.
That seems fair. I’d phrase it as this world’s big enough for all of us. And I’d agree to at least two of the three propositions. Expansion, well, let’s leave that aside for now. (I can appreciate it’s something you’d be interested in. So long as I have the opportunity to get out of the way, I suppose I don’t particularly care one way or the other.)
Not only “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children” but “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for WHITER children” because there’ll always be attrition going the other way in the same way there’s been attrition in southern europe.
What does that mean in practical terms? “Win”; assure people things are stable; and then subtly (or not) begin to peel off (ie pack off, somewhere) layers of whiteness until you reach and are left with the inner core? Probably something like that. Again that’s why I consider my approach superior. Some people simply will fall into the cracks no matter how lines are drawn and some of those could just as easily belong to one group as to another. Emphasizing the “racialist” aspect of racialism, rather than the “white” aspect, fixes a way of looking at the world in people’s minds that allows for the sort of flexibility required. Whiteness, per se, then doesn’t really matter to them. And it shouldn’t matter. It’s hardly the be all and end all of life on this planet. There are, of course, those to whom it should matter, because it’s such a fundamental aspect of who they are that it’d be ridiculous for it not to matter (if the value of racialism and racial living is realized). But it shouldn’t matter to those to whom it’s not a fundamental aspect of their being.
That’s why emphasizing (constantly, endlessly, thunderously) the “white” aspect of it, well, certainly stokes the fires of indignation in those at whom it’s really aimed, but it causes no end of anxiety and disenchantment among those inadvertently and inappropriately lured by its siren call. The reason my blog’s entitled “accidental” dissent (apart from the play on “occidental”) is that I was dumbstruck by the thought of white racism reaching the beyond the Teuton lands into the fringes of Europe. (Not that I ever doubted there was a “racial core” to those ethnies’ being; just that calling it “white,” particularly in a political sense, isn’t something I was was aware was done, and certainly nothing I would have ever thought of doing). Anyway, a quick perusal of the race boards should (a) quickly dispel the notion of any pan-European racial unity/uniformity (ie if a pair of functioning eyeballs weren’t enough), and (b) establish that there are now small legions of energetic little keyboard commandoes peddling an ideology that the bulk of their own people cannot help but find (i) at a casual glance, repellant, or (ii) on deeper consideration, abhorrent, or (iii) perfectly dismal.
Your point is technically correct, of course. You (we, anyone) will always travel away from the most recessive (barring unnaturally disparate birthrates favoring the recessive). That goes for a “homogeneous” Britain, too, btw. Only it’s (or was) rather difficult to notice, given the numbers involved. Ludovici saw it, I think. I suppose most of the early 20th century racialists did. Hans Gunther did. For reasons normal people — it not racial ideologues — will appreciate, it’s all deeply unappealing. “Oh, so there’s a real ‘us’ and this, what, ‘phony’ ‘us’ then is there?” (I caught a segment on one of the breakfast tv shows here in which a geneticist was saying that in the future parents would be able to select certain traits for their children. The hostess, a brunette, clearly jolted, blurted out, “But everyone will choose blond hair and blue eyes!” Shows the depth of thought of these airheads. “Everyone” eh? Including the 20 million more hindoos proponents of her nuanced (to be sure) political persuasion promise — openly — to pack into the country?) The real point is: so what? So what if the race is shifted away? Is that really the point of racial living, to be forever enwhitening? Why? What people are most anxious about is what it means for how they’ll be treated in such society. What does it mean for them? Will they be looked down on? Will they be mercilessly scrutinized…and perhaps found wanting? It’s all too much for most.
I have more to say on this. It might be a better idea to continue the discussion at MR (more eyeballs, sorry Matt; more a UK/Aus thing anyway). Let me know if you reply to some of the points raised here at MR and I’ll follow up there.
Matt Parrott,
It’s not my view or my view of what America should do. It’s a point about people who fall in the cracks both wanting to belong while at the same time wanting to maintain their own unique identity and not seeing that what they’re asking is for the other group to lose their unique identity. Silver mentioned it earlier, Italians in Australia not wanting to be assimilated into Anglo-Australia but now the immigration-genocide has caught up to them they want to belong to the white group but only as Italian-Australians or whatever. They want to have both a unique identity as Italian-Australians *and* be fully paid up white Australians but if Anglo-Australians want their own unique identity they get all pissy because they’re being excluded.
It’s an intra-white version of the black-white thing. Black people want to be allowed to do their own black thing but also want to be allowed to muscle into white things. White people don’t get to have their own unique thing.
(This has been an ongoing thing from other blogs but it doesn’t fit here so i’ll leave it there.)