Pretty well written. For an explanation of the rise of alt-right nationalism, if not a viable defence of it. This should be read by those looking for a quick, basic introduction to this phenomenon.
Pretty well written. For an explanation of the rise of alt-right nationalism, if not a viable defence of it. This should be read by those looking for a quick, basic introduction to this phenomenon.
"Rather than Pakistan or Somalia having some technological or military advantage over the West, Westerners are bringing in their replacements with their own technology and in some cases strategically settling them to “diversify” their own people...destroying your ethic nations will do nothing but remove you and those like you in the long term, and in the medium term it will deny your children the ethno-national identity of their forebears, while the rest of the world will keep their ethno-national identities and benefit from them."
One of the most interesting aspects of the Western immigration debate may be found in the curious fusion of arguments designed to make immigration by non-ethnic Europeans to ethnic European nations seem as a beneficial gift or net positive, and those claiming it to be some righteous comeuppance for the sins of colonialism. Indeed, if one inquires too hard into the degree to which the standard liberal and leftwing arguments for ethnic and cultural “diversity”, one will very often be met with the argument that, “well, even if mass immigration does permanently destroy your culture and bloodlines, you deserve it for all of those centuries of attacking conquering and replacing those people who are replacing you in your homelands. I mean after all, the United States and Australia were BUILT ON GENOCIDE!!!”
The curious fusion of the immigration is good for you/you deserve it for past sins, argument may be found in any number of left wing and liberal Western publications, and indeed the general gestalt of the West, ethnic minorities in the West, and those wishing to move to the West from elsewhere. Unsurprisingly, an article from the guardian triumphantly declaring “whites to be minority in Us and Europe by 2050” adopts the formula described above. It posits the notion that “the decline of whites is a question of redressing the balance after they colonised much of the world” and that “There was this extraordinary assumption that white people could go and destroy peoples and it would have no consequence. It astounds me”.
So, having established the true nature of this curious argument, lets take a moment to consider the logical precepts that its proponents would have you believe.
If non-European ethnicities living in the West, or wishing to live in the West, feel they have some legitimate bone to pick with those of European descent around the world, and wish to see their revenge occur in the form of cultural and demographic replacement, well, it would be hard to convince them otherwise. If that’s the line they wish to take, I could try to convince them of the unparalleled benefits they received from the European colonization of their ancestors, especially if they are living in the Western world as a result, but it would likely fall on deaf ears. Also, it would be an irrelevant task.
It is irrelevant to convince non-Ethnic Europeans that their desire to see the West cease to be ethnically European because they are not currently the ones undertaking this task. Unlike other ethnic groups, nations and empires throughout history wishing to occupy and replace or fundamentally alter the demographic and cultural nature of other groups, those “people of colour” who believe an ethnic European minority throughout the West to amount to righteous revenge, those groups threatening to permanently reshape the traditionally European cultures and ethnicities that produced the Western world are not dominant powers capable of acting on this desire. For instance, trying to convince the Somalis and Pakistanis to please not occupy, and demographically replace the Germans or the Swedes wouldn’t be quite the same thing as some soon to be client kingdom humbly beseeching a colonizing power to let it preserve some degree of cultural and ethnic autonomy.
Rather, unlike every other demographic replacement in history comparable to the scale experienced by Europe, the United States, Australia and South Africa since the 1970’s, it is people of European descent doing it to themselves. Rather than Pakistan or Somalia having some technological or military advantage over the West, Westerners are bringing in their replacements with their own technology and in some cases strategically settling them to “diversify” their own people (see Germany).
despite popular untruths that it couldn’t be stopped even the mass migrations into Europe between 2014 and 2016 from Africa and the middle east could very easily have been prevented by European powers. If Germany could prevent a more sophisticated and organized Roman empire from managing to occupy and settle its heartland, than a few million unarmed migrants should not have been the slightest challenge for the first world militaries of Europe. And yet, it is the latter situation that threatens to permanently alter ethnic German homogeneity in a way the Roman Empire never could.
Thus, when someone says “well Europe deserves to be ethnically replaced in the same way they replaced so many in the past”, it is not really a call for invasion so much as suicide. They are not asking “people of colour” to take up arms and replace ethnic Europeans in the West, since they couldn’t. They are demanding the West does it to itself.
Since we have unravelled what the “white people deserve it” argument really implies, it prompts a particular rebuttal in response. The rebuttal is not that Europe doesn’t deserve to be ethnically cleansed in retaliation for its colonial history, since it is really up to the successful invading force whether that is true or not. Europe certainly didn’t do anything anyone else didn’t, they were just better at the game of conquest. In fact, having succeeded in conquering the world, they ushered in an age of unparalleled prosperity, and invented the concepts of “human rights” with which we judge the West in retrospect.
No, the question is not whether ethnic Europeans deserve to be replaced in their homelands, but whether they deserve to commit demographic suicide and the only ones who can answer that question are ethnic Europeans themselves. To help them along in getting to an answer, I would ask one more question. What other successful conquering group throughout all of human history has ever been expected to demographically and culturally replace itself? How many “people of colour” or Western leftists/ liberals making this case do you think would go to the apache and say that they shouldn’t even bother trying to fight the white man, but they should electively let him replace them because of what they did to the apache? How about making the case to the Zulus that they should let themselves get replaced by Germans because of the tribes they conquered/ethnically cleansed/ replaced?
And finally, if you do decide to sacrifice your racial and ethnic nationhood to cleanse past sins, understand that you will be the only ones who do. Sub-Saharan Africa will remain “black” and its tribal-nations will remain ethnically defined. Being Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Punjabi, or Iranian, will remain ethnic categories. Thus being “anti-racist” and saying anyone can be Swedish or German, will not rid the world of racism and ethno-centric notions of nationhood. It will not even remove racism in your own countries, since a “Chinese” German will be unlikely to feel kinship with an Igbo or Pakistani one. No, destroying your ethic nations will do nothing but remove you and those like you in the long term, and in the medium term it will deny your children the ethno-national identity of their forebears, while the rest of the world will keep their ethno-national identities and benefit from them.
So I implore ethnic Europeans around the world to think seriously about mass immigration in terms of it’s inevitable outcome, which is Europeans becoming outnumbered in Europe and probably losing any racial or ethnic identity. Consider that doing this will not rid the world of racism, since there is little evidence the majority of the world will follow white people in this great sacrifice. Your children will continue to find themselves as aliens in Asia and Africa, but also aliens in Europe and the West. Does that sound like the ethical decision?
Further, when engaged in the immigration debate, consider this. when members of those non-European groups and your own “anti-racists” explicitly state that white people deserve to be demographically replaced as some kind of payback, or revenge, take this a reason to reassess whether what you area doing to yourselves is actually in your best interests. This is especially because arguments in favour of immigration also contend that it is also seen as some kind of great windfall for Europeans. If “people of colour” from around the world, and your own liberals/leftists, are indeed demanding more immigration of people like them as some kind of diversity “gift” to the West, ask yourself how many gifts you receive that come laden with arguments like “well you deserve this because of what your ancestors did”, and if you did receive such a gift, would you not be suspicious?
"This position certainly does not fall prey to any invisible knapsack arguments about structural disadvantage, or white privilege, that I initially described in this article. Far from it."
I support a non-racial individualist world, but I am increasingly led to believe that such a world is impossible, and that if ethnic Europeans (white people) do not start to play the same game of ethnic and racial identity, they will find themselves up shit creek without a paddle in sight. Why do I say this? Because the most powerful actors dominating the Western dialogue encourage and celebrate racial division, identity, and collective action, but only when this is done by anyone not of European descent. Consider Google’s doodle celebrating Steven Biko and “black-consciousness”, while it simultaneously condemns any national or global call for “white consciousness” or a notion of common history, culture, and nationhood deriving from Europe.
In response to this observation of double standards, one is likely to hear an argument along these lines. “A structurally disadvantaged group of people (black people), who have been marginalized and collectively denigrated, trying to carve an identity for itself in a world dominated by the systemic injustices and advantages of white privilege, is not the same as white people wishing to further isolate and marginalize those different to them by organizing along racial lines”. In short, they are likely to tell you that “black-consciousness” is just a natural reaction to “white-privilege”. These may generally be called the family of arguments deriving from the “invisible knapsack” concept, produced by…. In … to describe the privilege experienced by white people over “people of colour” in the United States. They have since spread, however, across the entire world, and inappropriately so.
Before I continue with my more combative tone, however, I wish to make this point. There may be a degree of truth to these “invisible knapsack” argument, if those making it were doing so based on individualist reasoning, which is to say “individuals who happen to be black are at a disadvantage for reasons beyond their control” in a specific society. However, one is inclined to wonder where exactly this individualism exists within the standard discourse in which arguements of "white privelage" are made. This discourse includes the frameworks of “black-consciousness”, the calls for safe spaces for “people of colour” to congregate, shrieks about the appropriation of "black culture" and even attempts to physically bar white people from getting into universities. These do not seem like ideas interested in the problem of individuals suffering disadvantages for reasons beyond their control. Rather, they seem interested in groups.
Whenever someone talks about the “memory of a people”, “historical injustice”, “restorative justice” etc. they are talking about what happened to specific groups of people. Indeed, there were individuals within those groups who experienced these atrocities but individuals are clearly not the focus of those who continually remind us all of these histories in academia, politics and in wider society, or by those like Google who virtue signal for “black consciousness”. If the experiences of individuals were the central concerns of those who engage in this "social justice" dialogue, then they would be as interested in the experiences of individual white people getting traded as slaves by the barbary pirates, the individual suffering of white Afrikaners, or the bombing of Dresden as much as they are interested in victims of “colonial injustice” in India or the “black suffering” in the United States ranging from slavery to the present. However, neither academia nor mainstream politics in any part of the world takes this line. Considering this, it should be clear to any honest observer of the vast majority of academic and political discourses concerning “white privilege” “historical injustice” “structural disadvantage” “restorative justice” etc. that they are interested in the histories of groups rather than individuals. They are interested in acting politically, economically, and socially for grousp rather than individuals, and they have a clear desire to write history with a focus on groups rather than individuals.
This is where “white privelage” and the celebration of “black-consciousness” falls apart, as these concepts simultaneously require Western style individualism to make ethical sense, but actively work against individualist world views both in the West and elsewhere. In the case of somewhere like the US, or the UK, You can’t just take advantage of Western individualism when it suits you, but use groupist arguments like “white privilege” etc. against those who YOU have placed in a different group category. If you get “black history” than white people around the world ought to get “white history”. If you get to vote and act in accordance with ethnic and racial interests, then everyone does.
This position certainly does not fall prey to any invisible knapsack arguments about structural disadvantage, or white privilege, that I initially described in this article. Far from it. If you want to make the case that “people of colour” deserve special privileges in Western countries and around the world, and are permitted to organize in accordance with race and ethnicity, than you are clearly not interested in an individualist view of the world. Otherwise your “restorative justice” or “social justice” would focus on the unique experiences of individuals, and not allocate levels of “suffering” and “injustice” according to groups.
In that case, if we are not pursuing equal justice for all individuals, and looking for future societies in which race and ethnicity are destroyed by a common individual awareness among citizens of common humanity, then your “white privilege” argument becomes entirely incoherent. This is because, there is no such thing as a privileged “group” only privileged individuals. There is not a group of humans in all of human history that did not attain the benefits for its progeny by earning them in the same bloodthirsty arena of conquest and groupist thinking that dominated human history up until a few westerners decided a better option may be available.
Individuals within traditionally white societies, certainly benefit from the advantage of their ancestors’ successes, and also because they are the majorities in those societies. However, this is true of every other racial and ethnic majority in any country with a history of success in conquest. It is also a set of benefits that white people and exclusively white people are liable to lose by living in societies acting toward removing these benefits, and making indigenous Europeans minorities in their nations by conquest, as well as their indigenous homelands.
Being an individualist, I wouldn’t go so far as to say that it is ethically correct for white individuals to necessarily enjoy the privileges EARNED by their ancestors, at the structural disadvantage of those deriving from different lineages. That is because it produces a situation in which INDIVIDUALS are at disadvantages for reasons beyond their control. However, the buy into race-blind individualism needs to go both ways.
The only legitimate interest white people could possibly have in removing the benefits they derive from their ancestors’ successes, as well as from being majorities in their nations, is to live in a future in which the human individual is the only unit that determines success or failure, and if it is based on individual characters and interests by which people organize.
However, ever since the great “black-consciousness movement” of the 1960’s and its duplicitous hydra which inundates western narrative, with tales of “white privilege” and “historical injustice”, it is clear that “people of colour” in Western societies are mostly not interested in this individualist perspective. This is also evident in countries in which “people of colour” are majorities. How many calls are there for hair care products in Nigeria designed for Swedish hair, or for there to be more Irish people in the Chinese government? How many calls are there in Pakistan to work against monolithic societies, or donate money to impoverished Poles? Who is concerned about Angola's government being too "black" or the lack of white people in Angola demonstrated a toxic lack of "diversity"? (both these points are regularly made in the inverse across the Western world)
It is becoming clear to many white people that if they are the only ones who buy into individualist societies, and who elect not organize according to race and common history, they will become the only racial group on the global scale with no majorities in any country (thus losing the advantages of being national majorities), and with no historical capital of their ancestors left with which to enjoy any “privilege”. Meanwhile, all other groups will continue to pursue the interests for the individuals therein by organizing around common blood, culture and history. This is not a future any sane individual, or any intellectually consistent group, could possibly want for itself, but the only one that will come out of the standard neo-liberal funded leftist/liberal refusal to consider this sort of debate. That is why people like myself find ourselves on the alt-right.
I hate political comedy, and here is why. If someone in comedy makes a good point, but I ignore it because it was made cosmetically and thus shouldn’t be taken seriously, I get accused of being close minded to alternative methods of argument and reason.
So, if I do take the comedy seriously and critically analyze a comedy performance and find that apparent rhetorical truths hide layers of poor dialectical reasoning, then I get criticized for “missing the point” (making a category error), because after all “its only comedy”, not a lecture.
This is a terrible double-standard in which an undialectical, purely rhetorical, means of idea transmission when one is expected to celebrate and circulate the apparently good ideas it presents, while one is simultaneously forced to ignore its obvious logical failures. Political comedy creates currency for ideas, spreading them around society, while guarding them against any form of criticism. I see this as dangerous.
I am honestly sick and tired of this meaningless platitude “diversity is our strength”. When the left chants this they are clearly not interested in “diversity” on the individual level, because this would imply that a group of people regardless of their racial or ethnic origin may be as diverse as one filled with races and ethnicities from around the world (making the need for racial, ethnic or “cultural” diversity redundant). Indeed, if “diversity” of individuals were of any interest to the left, then they would not have such a fundamental aversion to diversity of opinion. No, by “diversity” the left nearly always mean a multi-racial and multi-ethnic society, which is to say a society in which there are obvious differences dividing groups of people.
Sometimes when they say “multiculturalism” they mean sets of ideas held by some groups of people that separate them from other groups of people. In either case, however, “diversity” necessarily implies an absence of homogeneity (a synonym for similarity or unity). Interestingly, two terms in opposition to homogeneity or unity, are difference or division. After all, what could a “diverse” society possibly mean if not a society full of aspects, racial, cultural or otherwise, that separate or divide groups therein? Considering that “diversity” requires (for the left) a society separable/divisible along racial or cultural lines one is inclined to wonder a particular question prompted by ancient military maxims. If “diversity” (difference/divisibility) is “strength”, then why on earth might one find it easier to conquer a society through “divide and rule”?
To avoid getting too abstract, let us consider what increased “diversity” may mean for countries that are not already “diverse”. These countries include places like Japan, Korea, and Poland. Considering every example throughout the Western world, immigration of “visible minorities” (other races) to homogenous countries like Poland could only end up making the society far more divided and racially obsessed. Why? Consider this…
We have learned from other historically white countries is that there will never be parity between people of visibly different ethnic/racial origins in all positions in society without artificial social engineering. The reasons for this can be debated till the cows come home, with accusations of racism on one-side, or Thomas Sowell style explanations of human and cultural capital on the other. Honestly, the answer could just be randomness. If you dyed 15 percent of Japanese peoples’ hands black, do you honestly think that this would lead to people with those died black hands perfectly represented in every position proportional to their population? If one considers race to be meaningless, in other words no more meaningful then a hand dyed black, then why on earth would perfect proportional representation be expected between different races? But I digress.
Answering the questions above has become a central occupation for the Western world, creating more and more discord and resentment as the process continues with no end in sight. Indeed the answers themselves become increasingly irrelevant as the energy produced in trying to find answers, including curbs on free speech, terrorism, authoritarianism, physical violence and infinite accusations of “racism” take on a life of their own. We may never know if there aren’t precisely the number of black people at university as are represented in a particular nation, amounts to “entrenched” racism, cultural differences, or random chance. What we do know is that proposing any particular viewpoint in the wrong company will very quickly to extreme discomfort and resentment, or even violence, making the necessity of answering the question all the more irritating an terrifying.
However, for Poland, Korea and Japan right now, the answers to these questions are irrelevant, as they have none of the problems which prompt them. None at any significant demographic level anyway. In places like Japan, Korea, or Poland people can be chosen comfortably and without hesitation based on how good they are, or how well they fit in specific positions. Because everyone is either recognizably Korean, Japanese or Polish, the proportional distribution of who gets what or goes where in society is not constantly broken down into racial terms. People can be treated as individuals, with skills weaknesses, or as simply lucky or unlucky, without conflict necessarily emerging between people who, regardless of what they do, look different. Is such a situation not desirable?
Why on Earth would anyone want Poland or South Korea to look more like the United States, the UK, or South Africa, where endless “diversity” programmes require quotas or waste time engineering situations so that certain people end up certain places because of how they look? This breeds contempt every which way, and everyone ends up feeling hard done by. Society is more fractured, social capital diminishes, and the likelihood of conflict increases.
If Poland goes from a situation in which Poles can no longer relate to their fellow countrymen based solely on their individual qualities, but are forced to recognize, react to, and account for things like race, has something not been lost? What benefits could "diversity" possibly accrue to make up for this loss?
How “diversity” could possibly be understood as an invariable good considering the evidence of what it has produced nearly everywhere it emerges, I will never know. All I know, is that if places like Poland, or South Korea buy into the “diversity is our strength” mantra (or are bullied into it), their societies will be forever more fractured, contemptuous, and racially obsessed, and by then it will be too late to go back.
Unless they hold out, future Poles will no longer be free to choose to associate with certain people because they like them, hire certain people because they are skilled or good fits, or vote for people based on policy rather than identity. Because, to do any of that, may lead to a situation in which a perfect proportional representation of every race and ethnicity is not achieved, which as we all know, amounts to RACISM! Homogenous societies, be warned. The headaches never end.