People like me get extremely confused when economists/politicians continually stress the imperative of importing millions of people from third world countries to stabilize the populations and economies of first world nations, when exactly the same economists/politicians talk about how robots are going to be replacing the jobs that these immigrants are supposed to fill. Any basic demographic arithmetic will show that the numbers involved in these decisions will permanently end the people of Germany, Sweden, etc. whose national identities have stood for hundreds of years, and whose common histories go back thousands. To what end!?
A nation has always been the next step of a tribe, or a group of people with common ancestry, culture and history. Geography is irrelevant with respect to membership. Being born on the landmass that happens to house most of the Poles today does not make you "Polish". If you contest this claim, then you will have to admit that a Pole becomes an Igbo if they are being born in the right part of Nigeria. It is clear that no leftist would be prepared to make such a statement, however, since it would conflict with their "cultural approproation" notion, as well as any number of other "defend the minority" impulses. However, the fact that this double standard has not been addressed means that the question facing young Europeans is no longer about "are non-ethnic Europeans truly European and members of European nations" since it has become superseded by the question of "do ethnic Europeans have a right to continue to be a majority in their regional and continental homeland". Since leftists would inevitably argue that this is true for any other group of people, that contradiction needs to be relentlessly hammered home by the alt-right if they are going to make any progress whatsoever pursuing their objectives.
To the Western liberals who are shocked at the rise of the alt-right/identitarianism, we can only say the evidence was clear as day, but you had your heads way too far up your technocratic, globalist, a-historical asses to take notice. Go cry about it at Davos over your spreadsheets.
Further, to western liberals who decry the alt-right’s/identitarians’ opposition to “liberal values” and “individualism”, those who now find ourselves in that camp out of necessity more than anything else, don’t care anymore. Where were your “liberal values” when Marxist identity mongering was sweeping through Western universities and setting the terms of Western politics and culture? You will have to excuse us for not taking your criticisms of the identitarian opposition to individualism seriously when you completely ignored Marxist inspired collective guilt (privilege theory) sweeping across western academia to become the dominant discourse in Western societies. When tribunals exercising this doctrine (social justice) were set up to strategically diminish the success of certain individuals while elevating the successes of others on the grounds of what groups they belonged to (diversity quotas). Hell many of you funded and supported these developments (soros).
However, in a world in which liberal money has created western states in which identity politics, which assigns people to group categories and places the rights of those group categories above principles of individualism, how long did you really think YOUR pretence of supporting “liberal values” was going to last? How on Earth do you expect anyone to take you seriously now? It is clear that you are only putting on your moralizing liberal glasses now because it is clear things aren’t going quite your way.
How long did you really think white people would have continued to ignore the protective benefits of identifying with their ethno-racial group while they experienced such abundant disadvantages for being placed in that group by others? When being an “individual” white person just means that you get condemned collectively with your racial group, and are systematically disadvantaged in educational and professional “diversity” quotas for your involuntary membership in that group, what did you think was going to happen? The implication is that white people are supposed to only recognize that they are part of a group when forced to “check their privilege”, but somehow forget that they are apart of that group when they are looking for protection and comradery. This is absurd, yet you supposed “liberals” thought it would sustain society for pragmatic reasons. Not only was your choice to ignore your OWN “liberal values” during this period reprehensible, but your pragmatic expectations while doing it were hilariously inaccurate, and here is why.
White people are expected to recognize their membership in the racial category “white people” by every social-justice/white-privilege discourse that you liberals, through your refusal to protect your “liberal values”, allowed to dictate the terms of Western society. Indeed, when a white person recognizes that they are part of the “white” group in order to justify having something taken away from them and given to a person from another group, they are praised for “tolerance”. But, when they recognize they are part of the "white" group to find protection, friendship and community, they are racist. At some point, these people were going to realize the game is rigged. When you, the individual experience so many negative aspects of being placed in a group, beyond your control but are then told that you are not permitted to consider yourself part of that group when you look to it for protection and identity, you are essentially being expected to be a masochist. This is a stupid expectation. It is no less stupid than beating someone with a stick, giving them another stick to beat themselves, and then being surprised when they use the stick you gave them to defend themselves from you and your stick.
So I'm sorry liberals, but while this may have worked for suicidal boomers, young white people have begun to realize that they are in a racial group whether they like it or not. They have already been put into a racial camp by the left, and you liberals did nothing to prevent it. They have been punished as a group, and are now interested in seeing this group identity work for them instead. Those like me who would rather have had nothing to do with racial categories were accused of “white privilege” and thus, despite believing ourselves to be individuals, we were shouted down and denied the ability to speak our minds because of our racial group. Well, if I am forced into this group to make it easier for other groups to take things away from me, then you can be damned well sure I will stay in it to take things back.
To those unfamiliar with arguments opposing immigration that refer to "magic dirt", the logic goes something like this. A nation, which is essentially a tribe, is a group of people who have shared a common ancestry and history for thousands of years. A nation is thus defined by the people therein, and it has the characters it does because of the commonalities of the people therein. The fact that, relatively recently, conquerors have drawn arbitrary territorial borders around these nations of people does not meant that these borders now define what these nations are. Nations are their people, not their borders (As a quick side note: those adhering to the "magic dirt" philosophy for the West are, interestingly, perfectly comfortable with the ethno-centric nationhood concept when it applies to Africa and the arbitrary lines drawn by colonial powers). Based on this reasoning it simply makes no sense to say that a person from an entirely different lineage, with a different history, who happens to have been born in the arbitrary territory that contains a specific nation is now a member of that nation.
Now, rather than deal with the arguments opposing this position, I would rather comment on the degree to which the standard academic/mainstream liberal western mindset not only agrees with the position outlined above, but argues for action to accommodate the it.
Whenever liberal Westerners discuss the, X tribe, or the Y people from some far flung corner of the world, they obviously have an ethno-nation in mind. They, more often than not, have in mind “a people” sharing thousands of years of history, whose membership in the group they have self-delineated is determined by common ancestry and culture and has nothing to do with territory. Obviously this is true, since Australians don’t automatically become Aborigines because they happen to be born on land first occupied by Aborigines. Western liberals even go so far as to condemn Westerners wanting to play too much of a role in the cultures of these indigenous ethno-nations, by accusing the Western participants trying to explore some kind of membership of these groups of “cultural appropriation” .
Consistent with this reasoning was a significant amount of “post-colonial” historical literature that emerged regarding Africa, claiming that the continents terrible fortunes after colonization was down to the arbitrariness of the borders drawn by the ex-colonial powers. The argument went that, “of course Africa is mired in violence and chaos, because the nations that Africans live in do not reflect the groups to which the indigenous inhabitants identify, or the boundaries distinguishing them from each other”. If modern Africa, so the argument goes, redrew borders to reflect the distinct ethno-cultural identities of various tribes and ethnic groups, then the ungovernable chaos would be replaced by states inhabited by people who felt they had a stake in the state’s success, and could trust their fellow citizens because they share common ancestries, cultures, and histories. Presumably then, the recent colonial borders drawn by distant elites don’t undo thousands of years of hereditary and cultural associations between groups of Africans. Also, it seems Africa would work better if the indigenous ethnic groups had territories that reflected their self-imposed limits of kinship. Fancy that.
As per usual, the standard liberal accusing those Germans or Swedes who do not consider black and Asian people “German” or “Swedish” just because they were born in recent geographic geo-political constructs called “Germany” or “Sweden”, are maintaining a raging double standard. They will, after all, have sympathies for any argument suggesting that Africa’s woes derive from the territorial meddling of European metropoles that did not respect the self-generated boundaries of “indigenous” tribes. They will almost certainly not suggest that white Americans living in the south western United States get to call themselves apaches, or that white Australians are Aborigines and have as much right to partake in, and even define Aborigine culture as Aborigines do. And yet, they will simultaneously celebrate the anti-racist bravery of public service videos claiming that ethnic Germans whose ancestors were “German” long before the modern landmass of “Germany” was ever conceived, are in fact not as German as Arabs and black Africans who arrived (or whose parents arrived) on this landmass not 50 years ago. Indeed, this noble “antiracist” video proudly asserts that ethnic Germans who believe that their ancestral, cultural and historical link to their ancestors makes them German are “not the people, you are the past”. A past that will proudly be replaced by legions of people from all over the world, in whose homelands an ethnic German would of course never be considered a native, should they find themselves there. If black African Igbos were told that they were not truly “Igbo”, because what it means to be Igbo gets to be defined by recently arrived blond blue eyed Europeans, it would be instantaneous hate speech. If the video then claimed that black Igbos are in fact not the Igbo people but are the “past”, to be replaced by Europeans and Asians, it would be considered a call to genocide.
Regardless of what your position is on whether common ancestry and shared history have any role in determining nationhood, the double standards of the lazy, self-assured, mainstream western liberal mindset is painfully evident, and it is tearing the world apart. Either the world become an individualist utopia in which everyone is “human” and a “citizen of earth”, or people self delineating kin membership in ethno-cultural terms needs to be accommodated without those people being condemned, or even criminalized, as “racists”. Either everyone is entitled to self-determine kinship, or everyone must be equally condemned. However, if you don’t think a white person who finds himself born in the right part of Nigeria gets to call himself Igbo, and shouldn’t be 110 percent accepted by fellow Igbos for being part of their group, lest those other Igbos be condemned of racism, then you are assuming different things of different people based on how they look, which is to say YOU are treating people differently based on their race. If anything could be called racist, that is it, but honestly people like me are way beyond the “liberals are the real racists!” argument. That fact proves itself time and time again, and pointing it out does nothing. You are either branded a "right wing extremist" or ignored entirely. These days the concern of people like me is that western liberals are trying their level best to tear apart or dissolve ethnic European nations, while leaving every other ethno-nations around the world in tact. Whether by design or studpidity, this will do nothing more than create a world in which European descended people are minorities on the planet, on every part of the planet, and in what were once their own nations, having no control over their collective futures, no ability to delineate their own kinship, and no connection to their ancestral past. Go to hell.
"What will “Sweden” mean when it is no longer the land of the Swedes? The name may as well be changed at that point. After all, it’s a tremendously racist and non-inclusive practice to have the name of a state refer only to one group that lives there, even if they are indigenous."
In this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWSMURYM7bA the Swedish woman's inability (or refusal) to admit that ethnic Swedes becoming a minority in their homeland is a problem, or will even have any recognizable negative consequences, is telling about the nature of the European suicide pact. Evidence like that woman makes me think it may be unstoppable.
The problems if Swedish immigration needn't even be discussed in terms of the existential cataclysm that is the loss of an ethno-nation, which the left also reviles more than most (read leftwing “postcolonial” literature on the destruction of cultures). No, to understand the terrifying, and rather obvious, problems that this woman is missing or ignoring, one need only say two words. Social capital.