A particular type of criticism coming from the normie right toward Trump provides a useful lens with which to describe why I, an ardent liberal globalist, was receptive to the neo-reactionary project and, to a lesser degree, the alt-right. This criticism is that, since he does not express a sole allegiance to classical republican, individualist values, Trump’s incumbency will remove the only bulwark against the victim culture and identity politics of the left. I believe the answer to this question is that, yes, THAT bulwark is gone, but could it not have been replaced by one we do not yet recognize? Could we not be witnessing an entirely new language with which to describe Western civilization and the ties that bind the progeny of its founders?
One may be inclined to say “well if you mean we will just be replacing left wing identity politics with right wing identity politics, while losing liberalism, then that is no better!”. My response to that would be to ask if there is not something more to the Western world than the doctrine of 20th century conservative and classical liberal principles that teach nothing more than consumerist individualism, anti-racism, anti-nationalism and feminism?
These ideals are by and large admirable and good, in a state inhabited by a nation with a common history and culture that can be relied upon to continue respecting that set of values, since it will invariably be from that culture and history that these values emerged in the first place. However, the West is discovering that a vehemently anti-nationalist ideological bent, with a policy of open borders, will do little more in the long run than create new ethnic divisions in once homogenous lands while the indigenous cultural and ethnic kin is slowly outnumbered and bred out. “Tolerance” and “diversity” will reign, for a while at least, but among whom and to what end?
The mistake that well-intentioned libertarians, classical liberals, etc. make is in assuming that Western civilization only began when it produced, essentially a Marxist, lexicon for distinguishing oppressed people from oppressors. That with anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-whateverism, came the Western world itself. But that is simply not true. Most of these words were entirely alien to our grand-parents while growing up, and were entirely divorced from the zeitgeist of their parents. Yet were these not mostly decent people? Does it truly encapsulate our history to say that these words were lacking in the past because our ancestors lived in an extended clusterfuck of darkness, despair and chaos?
Western civilization existed before words like sexism and racism had ever been uttered, and it was still the greatest civilization on Earth. Good people existed in ages before the tyranny of the ism, and they often found meaning and purpose. Wonderful ideas were brought to the fore, and exciting, brilliant, transcendent notions of what it was to be human and to be of a Western society were explored. Life was not perfect, but people were mostly decent, curious, intelligent, brave, and exhibited an x factor that led the Western world to heights relative to its civilizational peers from which it seems the only subsequent trajectory could have been downwards. Are limited, often ill-defined and oft exploited concepts deriving from the 1960’s really important enough to lose everything that preceded them?
Westerners need to ask themselves if their ancient genetic, cultural and civilizational legacy needs to be extinguished for these new gods of “tolerance” and “diversity” to survive, because all demographic data suggests that is the price. For those who say it is worth it, I can but politely disagree, but also urge them to recognize the facts that this IS the price that must be paid. In a world in which "anti-racism" "diversity" "tolerance" etc. will likely have been written off by the African and Asian inheritors of the world as the curious pathological idiosyncracies of a long dead race, one is inclined to wonder if a modern advocate of these western imperatives who could look back from that standpoint, would still think that it was have been worth it.
However, for those who feel that something is not quite right with this picture I invite you to study the vast literature of our ancestors, to explore conventions and traditions once taken for granted, and see if there is something in the soul of the West, beyond the post 1960’s activist agenda of our parents, that is worth exploring, preserving, and even advancing and living.
In a world, largely brought about by baby boomers, which places anti-racialism, anti-nationalism, and anti-sexism above literally every other virtue, it is the task of this generation of indigenous Westerners to rediscover what else it was that made the West what it was before the time of our parents, and reinvent it for us and our progeny. The best aspects of these latter day developments needn’t be lost in the process, and should remain AMONG the Western cultural repertoire.
However, you need to ask yourself if having your children become ethnic minorities in their own countries, while the line of blood and culture preserved by your ancestors, often at the cost of their very lives, is forever lost, is truly the best future Westerners can hope for. You need to ask yourself if an exclusive focus on the virtues of anti-racism, anti-nationalism, “diversity” and “tolerance”, are truly valuable enough to pay this price. A final point to mention is that, unless billions of Chinese, Indians, Africans, etc. can be convinced to be individualists who consider a recognition of the differences between races to be silly distractions from real concerns, and who do not believe that a common ancestry between a specific group of people and, by extension, culture should play any role in any society, then the classical liberal project was doomed from the start.
This is because white Westerners are already an irrelevant demographic group and will only become more so in the future. What they do or do not choose to do for moral reasons with respect to their rather unique and parochial “enlightenment values” is inconsequential on the global stage and even within their own societies. This is because in under 200 years they will become minorities in their own countries and thus as politically insignificant on national scales as they already are demographically on a global scale.
Since they will soon become minorities in their own homelands as well as the world, they are handing national and global control of their own destinies to non-ethnic Europeans around the world, which is to say, they are choosing to bet the future of their children on the hope that the ethnic Asians and Africans who have electoral control over white western homelands as well as the world, will subscribe as fanatically to the same classical liberal values that they do.
So, unless an already tiny global minority of white Westerners can convince the Chinese that a Nigerian or a Swede can be as equally Chinese as them, in all meaningful ways, if they happen to be born on land that is now by chance called “China” (and convince a Somali that a Russian and a Japanese person can be equally Somali, or convince a Japanese person that a Ugandan will become "Japanese" in all meaningful ways if they are just born on the land called Japan, or that all these people can spontaneously become Polish etc.) then all that white Westerners imposing these requirements on themselves will accomplish is breeding themselves out, leaving the world as racially, ethnically and culturally divided, and as historically determined, as it ever was. The only difference is that no white people exist anymore to join in.
Since the rise of “critical race theory” “privilege theory” and all manner of leftist dogmas have already shown that the “race and common ancestry means nothing, and all that matters is individual ideology” concept is tenuous enough in the West, what on Earth makes people think it will govern the way that the Japanese think about themselves, or the Chinese, or the Ugandans or Nigerians. My fall from liberal grace was merely a reaction to the realization that the white Western world can either forgo its classical liberal enlightenment project and behave as self-interestedly as everyone else, or become a disenfranchised minority in every part of the planet until they and their historical legacy ceases to exist entirely. It was a reaction the reality that being a classical liberal myself and encouraging others to be would not bring about a world of classical liberal ideals, nor would it wipe away tribalism or racism, but it would only erode the relevance of groups of people who might be that way inclined. The only way I would be wrong about believing this would be if all of China and Africa could be convinced to become even more reliably classical liberal and individualist then the United States is in the 21st century. Somehow, I just don’t see that happening.
My argument above suggests that placing the post-1960’s virtues of “non-racism”, “tolerance”, etc. above the virtues that directed the Western world for the thousands of years of its history that took place before the 1960’s, will not only destroy the latter virtues permanently, but the western world with it. To develop this point further, consider these implications of post 1960’s dogmas as they have recognizably occurred within the Western world, which can be expected to increase in range and intensity as time goes progresses within the liberal paradigm. The final argument on the list is a projection into the future, but one I believe to be entirely in line with what is currently occurring in the West.
Post 60’s moral virtues:
- Require mass immigration for a list of reasons to numerous to exhaust here. One of these reasons is the preponderant post 60’s ascension of “economic growth” to become the sole legitimate virtue of a nation. The other is the logical requirement of “anti-racism” that anyone can potentially be German, or Swedish, and to suggest otherwise assumes groups of people cannot have different histories. Indeed, “anti-racism” is to assume that anyone who believes that are differences between Swedes and Somalians that will not be overcome by living in the same geographic territory, are “racists”, to be ignored or destroyed. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, anti-racism requires states like Sweden bring in foreigners as a moral requirement well above their moral obligations to their own people. This is because, if anyone is potentially Swedish, as modern “anti-racism” requires to be true, then there are no “Swedish people”, or alternatively, the whole world is “Swedish”, in potential anyway, and thus the responsibility of the Swedish government is to the majority of Swedish people, who by that reasoning, do not currently reside in Sweden. Sweden is used here as an illustrative example for all of the Western world and those nations taken in by its post 60’s dogmas.
- Require that indigenous population sacrifice identity of common genetic history since to do otherwise is “racist”.
- Require special privileges for immigrants because they do not share the majority privilege of the indigenous inhabitants (see “white privilege”). This forms part of the pursuit of “equality” and “tolerance”, which only really become virtues to pursue after the mass immigration of “non-racism” is accomplished.
- Allow immigrants to organize themselves in racial and ethnic communities defined by common histories, and advance those common group identities, as a result of them not having the benefits of being a majority in a nation. Again, this is part of the pursuit of “equality” and assisting “vulnerable” groups, who wouldn’t be there to be vulnerable in the first place if the earlier steps demanded by 1960’s virtues had not been taken.
- Actively denies Indigenous members of the nation the right to assert their common history, not shared by immigrant groups who continue to assert theirs. It criminalizes indigenous members of the nation who freely associate and organize around their common history and culture since post 60’s virtues designate such behaviour, rather than a continuation of ancient legacy and a modern source of identity and meaning, as “racism”.
- Will result in indigenous members of European nations being bred out, and their history will die with them. Why on Earth would the history of "Germany" be respected and maintained when it is no longer the history of the majority of Germans? Why on earth would "pale white males", be treated by Somalis, Turks and Pakistanis as their history, when it so patently is not. The answer is that history will be changed, at the expense of the indigenous population, to accomidate those whose histories lie elsewhere. One needn't look much beyond the "black washing" of Hollywood and BBC accounts of European history and European myth to see that the history of ethnic Europeans, and only ethnic Europeans, will be treated as a quantity to be broken up and equally distributed to accomidate non Europeans who needn't have been let in, in the first place. 60's vitues will not only destroy European people while the rest of the world continues to appear more or less as it is, but it will destroy the forefathers of Europeans with them, by erasing their legacies and purposefully sqewing the appearence of their world.
There is every reason to believe the indigenous populations of nations adhering to post 1960’s virtues will become minorities within the geo-political boundaries that used to be co-extensive with their genetic and cultural nation thousands of years in the making.
They will lose the benefits of being a majority within their state, lose electoral control over their own governance, and likely still be prevented from socially organizing with those who share a common national history, while the now numerically dominant immigrant groups will continue to be allowed to do so.
Some nations, with thousands of years of history, will cease to exist. Their replacers will still have nations around the world in which they are majorities. Nigeria will still be black, African, Thailand will still be East Asian, but European Germans will be increasingly irrelevant majorities in Germany along with Swedes in Sweden, and maybe Asian Koreans in South Korea. No one can truly know what will have replaced the nations of Germany, Sweden or Korea, or what the successor states will be. The benefactors and victims of this change are as unclear as whether or not it will be positive for human societies.
Most Westerners caught by the siren song of post 60’s dogma, are not even aware of this risk and if they were would likely be willing to take it. Neo-reactionaries and their allies are aware of these risks and are not willing to take them.
Before the standard “well immigration has happened throughout all history, and all nations have been melting pots” arguments are inevitably made in response to my logic, I ask for nothing more than historical literacy and a recognition of the relevance of degree as well as kind. Having acquired these attributes, the absurdity of the melting pot argument will become clear. Just because a common nation can survive a smattering of small numbers of people, from near-by, who look like them, immigrating over a long period of time, this does not imply that they can survive the largest immigration in their history, from places further away than at any point in their history, from people who look more different to them at any point in their history, in a shorter time frame than in all of their history. To expect the latter to amount to the same national cohesion, and grant the same homogenous identity as the former because they are both “immigration” is absurd. It is like expecting to make a cake by throwing all the ingredients together in undefined quantities, since, after all, cakes have always been about mixing different ingredients.
No feedback yet
Form is loading...