This is a review of Christopher Caldwell’s 2009 book Reflections on the Revolution in Europe. Let me first start with the positive: Mr. Caldwell is not a bad man. He sees through the rhetoric of Tariq Ramadan, for instance, which makes him superior to the majority of Western journalists, although that is admittedly not difficult to achieve given the terrible quality of Western media these days. The problem is that the ground he covers in his book has already been covered by others, for example Daniel Pipes in his posts or Bruce Bawer in While Europe Slept. This is, in other words, not a pioneering work, and while Caldwell may be better than the bulk of journalists on some issues he is nevertheless not good enough.- - - - - - - - -
Although he does indicate that importing Muslims from, say, Somalia or the Yemen may not work out like previous waves of immigration he doesn’t say anything substantial about whether North Americans or Europeans should therefore halt Muslim immigration. As Claire Berlinski wrote in a review, “Caldwell’s book raises many such questions. It does not answer them. The strength of this book is not in its original reporting, of which there is little, or the solutions it offers, because there are none. What it offers instead is unusual lucidity and comprehensiveness; a reader unfamiliar with the debate would be, upon finishing it, well-informed.”
On the other hand, for a reader who is already familiar with these subjects he adds little that is new. Even when he briefly touches upon important subjects he soon moves on to others, leaving an informed reader feeling unsatisfied. Christopher Caldwell points out that the European Union was created in Western Europe under an American political umbrella during the Cold War and that “The EU, although neither Americans nor Europeans are fond of admitting it, is the institutional expression of the Americanization of Europe.” That could have made for an interesting discussion, yet he does not cover the subject in sufficient detail.
He also asks “whether you can have the same Europe with different people. The answer is no.” But again, he quickly moves on to other topics. In my view, the question is whether you can have the same of any culture with totally different peoples, and the likely answer to that is no. Nobody in their right mind would ever claim that you could exchange the entire population of South Korea with Somalis and that this would be OK as long as the Somalis “preserved Korean culture,” as if they could or would do so. Yet this totally absurd claim is exactly what the media keep repeating when it comes to Iraqis in Sweden, Pakistanis in Britain, Turks in Germany and other immigrant groups in white majority Western nations.
Caldwell states in his book that “Being tough on Muslim foreigners and nice to Muslim citizens will comfort Europeans only to the extent that they maintain the idea that immigration is something temporary and reversible. It no longer is. Europeans can only hope that newcomers, especially Muslim newcomers, will assimilate peaceably.”
Read the rest at Jihad Watch.
37 comments:
It is inexplicable why a nation, race, civilization of people would allow themselves to be overun and overcome if they could easily prevent it, unless have something planned by which they see themselves as being untouched by any negative consequence of this action. Yet I don't see how that could workout for the long term.
These people don't love their own people or culture and this is unnatural, it is counter to evolutionary ideas of struggle, it is suicidal, a death wish. It that case we would have to say something very dangerous has infected these people's minds that could bring all down with them.
What animal in the Darwinian scheme of things would bring in or allow in other animals to take over and not defend against such things, bring in other animal that are stronger,tougher,fiercer,bigger and predatory-- while training its own kids to be weak, effeminate, gay, scared, wimpy, intimidated in mind and body.
I agree with Fjordman on Christopher Caldwell’s “Reflections on the Revolution in Europe”: Caldwell doesn't mention Eurabia by name or by substance; he poses abstract questions like "whether you can have the same Europe with different people", answers "No", but fails to spell out what this means or to hint that there might be a solution; he says that “Europeans can only hope that newcomers, especially Muslim newcomers, will assimilate peaceably", but doesn't say what the chances of this are or what to do if they can't.
Caldwell's book is another that leads you through the issues, but little more.
This isn't a question of intellect, but courage. There are 3 levels of courage that a Euro-Islam writer needs in order to be any good:
1. Admit the problem, and that there’s anything serious about it. Most writers won’t, dominated by the liberal-left establishment and paymasters (Karen Armstrong, Timothy Garton Ash). Such writers are part of the problem and not worth reading.
2. Face up to the implications of the problem. E.g. what happens if European muslim population growth continues for another 20, 20, 40 years? Or if Sharia districts ("communities") continue to grow and harden? Most writers, including Caldwell, but also Walter Laqueur, Melanie Phillips, Douglas Murray, or Bruce Thornton, don't face up to this. You can't avoid the impression that they instinctively understand what the implications are but fight shy of spelling them out. Maybe it is their publishers who are fighting shy. The notable exceptions are the "alarmists" Mark Steyn and Fjordman.
3. Put forward a realistic solution. Writers who fail on 1 and 2 above drivel tediously about "tone", "firmness" and "confidence in our institutions". But so far, I have seen no-one face up to a realistic solution (apart possibly from El-Ingles, although I personally disagree with his). Mark Steyn outlines an inexorable demographic effect, and then fails to suggest a solution to it in America Alone. Pusillanimous publishers again? Or maybe he thinks Europe's a done Turkey so let's get on with it, but at other times he says that Europe's survival is essential to America's. So I think he believes the options are too horrible to advocate any of them. But even Fjordman, who appears to suffer no publisher restrictions, fails to put forward a specific solution. Apart from, possibly, formalised separation until a solution is agreed on. For example his essay "Surviving the Coming Crash" was heavy on the trends he has already described so well, but thin on advice for surviving, let alone any way to reverse the trends.
I don’t blame Fjordman and other writers for their reticence: any possible solution is almost certain to be unthinkable to most people, and will only reap more vilification.
But this is very worrying, especially if, as Wilders says, we are at five-to-midnight. It is one more indication that the situation is beyond saving, and that we have to find ways to rebuild rather than rescue.
Best wishes,
Hal
Christopher Caldwell points out that the European Union was created in Western Europe under an American political umbrella during the Cold War and that “The EU, although neither Americans nor Europeans are fond of admitting it, is the institutional expression of the Americanization of Europe.”
This is an essential point and it is important to understand how this Americanisation of Europe impacts specifically on the Islamisation issue.
For instance when American conservatives, in discussing responses to Islamisation, hint or say outright that contemporary Europeans are naturally Nazi-like (Ralph Peters of the New York Post is the chief exponent of this view) as sometimes happens in discussions, whom do they resemble? The Dutch government, of course.
On this core issue, large chunks of mainstream American conservatism are nigh indistinguishable from European leftism. That is because they are both expressions of the same political culture--Americanism (for lack of a better word). This is why, in Europe, if you move "barely a centimeter to the right" (in the words of Chechar), you fall out of the boat completely.
Also, because the political culture in America began as a repudiation of European systems (and that repudiation has increased over time as the de-Europeanisation of America through non-white immigration has forced conservatives to rely on Constitutional nominalism as a substitution for the historic America) its grafting onto Europe has had a corrosive effect on the old continent.
One positive effect of the Caldwell book may be to confer some respectability on immigration restrictionist movements, although that is small beer at this stage.
The political culture that is ruling America isn't really homegrown, but the American conservatives aren't really conservative. As I wrote on my blog, you can't describe WSJ's deWinter as a conservative writer, despite the fact that the WSJ poses as a conservative publication. Both conservatives and liberals accept the idea that discrimination is the biggest sin and that we are all equal. By accepting these two ideas, you can't find a solution to any of our current problems. The only solution can come out from repudiating both of these ideas. A century ago, it would have been unthinkable that we will accept this sort of immigration. Now it is unthinkable that we will repudiate the ruling paradigm I described before, which prevents us from acting. We must make the unthinkable, thinkable, the impossible, possible. What was impossible merely fifty years ago, it's unquestionable today and we must make what is impossible today, the unquestionable of tomorrow.
As long as we don't do above, there is no solution besides accepting the ultimatum and surrendering to Islam. But if we do, we will be able to reverse all the damaging effects did by our immigration policies in the last 50 years and reverse the effects that they created. I'm unsure if others think along the same lines, but there aren't solutions, there is only one solution - physical separation from the Muslim and non-European world. So there is only one solution - reversing the immigration and sending our immigrants home. Sadly, I don't believe that this will be done or thought about, until the first country will desintegrate due to the effects created by immigration. If that country will be France, Britain or other European country is yet to be seen.
And yes, we will have to rebuild, not rescue. The whole system is based on a false set of assumptions and it needs to collapse in order to build a new one. So the financial crisis is more than welcome in this regard.
You might say that my views, that sending the immigrants home(including their children) is unacceptable. To me, being body scanned because of them is unacceptable. It's unacceptable to me, who I have European descent and whose ancestors fought to preserve this land as it is, to fear being robbed, raped or murdered by an immigrant. It's unacceptable to pay taxes so that these people get handouts so that they reproduce, while I'm worked to death to afford giving a proper life to a single child. It is unacceptable to see my people and culture be gutted by immigrants and self-serving leftist politicians. And as more people will find these unacceptable, the more people will find my solution acceptable.
American Conservativism is different from European Conservatism in that it isnt a communitarian proposition based on an ethnicity or a shared cultural expression. As the nation states of Europe are largely formed out of a common peoples, with a common culture.
This is why the European right is inherently "Nazi-like" in that they are Nationalists, but also collectivists, communitarians, socialists.
What it means to be an American is much different than what it means to be a Dane or Swedish.
This is why the European countries, freshly ethnically cleansed to a great degree post WW2 moved to a more collectivist/socialist government form. French National Socialism as a prime example, or Norweigan/Swedish. The homogeneity of the Scandanavian countries in particular were well served by a large welfare statist model, because everyone was part of the same culture and thus extended family. People that sought to abuse the Welfare State could be pressured informally from within their community to conform to standards of behavior. However when you bring in other groups/cultures who wish to game the system, then you no longer have the informal authority to pressure them into conforming to social norms, lest you be a racist imperialist xenophobe.
That means that the system has to change to be less welfare statist and more an American style system, so that economics and well being enforces social norms via self assimilation. (This has diminished in the US post 60s New Leftism.) In order to prosper, you didnt act like an arse at work, lest your find yourself out of work as a malcontent and disturber of the peace, having negative consequences on production/business.
If you wish to keep your massive welfare states then you must remain homogenous. However the massive welfare state (along with the decline in God belief), produced a decline in feritility rates, and thus the welfare state becomes unsustainable...which is compensated for by increased immigration.
Choices have to be made.
However Islam is a espeically troubling problem, on top of all of this. Its a supremacist and hostile ideology, who seeks to impose its culture upon others, via in institution of Sharish Law.
What a tangled web we weave.
I think that blaming America is not productive at all.
The American way is a way forward, however in Europeans hearts they may long for the simpler days of more homogenaic societies.
However, it must be said that Europe long lectured the US as racists and ill treaters of minorities. This moral snobbery and naivete has led them to their own folly. That isnt America's fault.
We both suffer from the Western Left. Blaming America is not helpful.
Hope that makes sense...
Both conservatives and liberals accept the idea that discrimination is the biggest sin and that we are all equal. By accepting these two ideas, you can't find a solution to any of our current problems.
----
Youve missed some nuance there.
One being with respect to the government and law treating its citizens. And the other with respect to immigration.
It is the Left which has promoted the idea that we be indiscriminate in who we let immigrate to our country. Or in otherwords to oppose open borders is to be a racist. It was Leftists who pushed the idea of changing immigration law in the 60s to promote immigration from third world countries.
So it isnt the ideal that government treat it citizens equally with regards to the law, and promotion of equal opportunity economically that is the problem. The problem stems from the promotion of indiscriminate AND mass immigration, and equality of opportunity, combined with the welfare state.....then to top it off promotion of multiculturalism (which is really not as it claims but celebration of other cultures to the exclusion of the the majority culture). These combine to create colonization, not immigration of those who wish to and will be forced economically to assimilate to the majority culture.
Try for a little more nuance....instead of going for the sledge hammer.
Our culture wars center around Christian ethics, morality, and traditions. And not on ethnicity. And we are notorious for our cultural battles with the Left.
Unfortunately much of Europe has lost their strong Christian heritage, from which to defend their culture, and all they are left with is Ethnicity and Race to rally around, which is a much much weaker position....and sets you up for the Neo Nazi charge.
But you are correct that American Conservatives are Leftists, Protestant Christians and Classical Liberals. They just arent Marxist derived Leftists. American Conservatives arent Rightwing nuts. They are Leftwing radicals. Protestant Christian, Libertarians, Classical Liberals.
However they are Conservative in the sense that they defend the systems that they set up, which are under attack by the Marxist Left.
They are the very essence of Burkean Conservatives.
Escape Velocity, you are wrong about American conservatism. You should read what the founding fathers wrote about who the American people are and what America was until after WW2 or so. The US, just like Europe, was never intended to be a country based on an idea where people whoever they are can move if they adhere to a certain set of ideas.
And the welfare state didn't favour the Scandinavian countries, it undermined them, like it does everywhere. Sure, it is a lot easier to implement where there are homogenous societies because there is no perceived out group leeching, but that doesn't mean that it helps that society.
A nation that doesn't discriminate and forces people to conform to social norms doesn't exist. Liberals actually have it right here - there's no such thing as Swedish, European or whatever people if that people can't discriminate against outsiders.
Also, you are wrong to think that the welfare state is helped by immigration. There was a study that immigrants take more in welfare than pay in taxes, which shows that they actually undermine the system.
Europeans lectured Americans on their treatment of minorities because the European political groups are the same as the liberal political group in the US. Same founding principles to which conservatives later adhered to.
You fail to understand that the idea that it is racist to discriminate against types of immigrants stems from the same idea and it is congruent to the idea that discrimination is bad and that forced integration is good. The 1965 Immigration Act was the natural continuation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act(which by the way, is unconstitutional, like most of the things passed under the interstate commerce clause of the US Constitution).
Obviously the government should treat its citizens equally in regards to the law. That's the whole point of law. lol. But the government has no business in promoting equal opportunity in the sense of forcing business to employ certain people or to do business with certain people. That's the same principle that leads to the rationale behind indiscriminate immigration and it's actually a normal progression from it.
You also have to realize that discrimination is what leads to people having an incentive to assimilate to the majority culture. And you have a sort of naive way of looking at culture - the culture isn't built around an ethnicity because it is the manifestation of that ethnicity.
My point was that American conservatives aren't conservatives. They're conservatives in name only and they accept the founding principles of social liberalism and cultural Marxism. This is why they don't really seem to have a problem with what the leftists did in the 1960s. Also, classical liberalism(which is basically libertarianism) has nothing to do with liberalism or leftism. They also don't defend the system that they set up, I don't see them wanting to repeal all the legislation that is unconstitutional and so many things that would actually be conservative.
Actually the welfare state worked quite well in Sweden for quite a long time because it was essentially a mass mobilisation from an agrarian society to an industrial one. Statism of that sort should be seen in terms of very temporary "war-footing" style economics. Useful if you want to enact a big change...
And it continued to work passably well as long as Sweden maintained her borders and as long as there was a generation around that still remembered the tie to the land.
You see welfare statism is an ideology, when it comes down to it. Theonly way to maintain a pure ideology is to prevent it from being influenced by the outside world, whether it's social statism or libertarianism - if you allow people in who don't believe in your chosen ideology they will undermine it by their presence. Obviously it's not a universal rule. Statism can only ever be a temporary state by its nature, whereas a libertarian society operating within a strongly defended border or an impenetrable natural border can survive indefinitely.
Anyway, that's by the by...
You're mixing up equality of opportunity with equality of outcome. Equality of opportunity simply doesn't require government intervention. It doesn't require the government to mandate that people not be allowed to choose who they employ - or who they work for. All of those things are promoted by the idea of equality of outcome. Opportunity exists for those that seek it and we all have that opportunity, so long as we are all given the same rights and treatment before the law.
Graham, I'm not mixing the two. EV did because he said the government should seek to promote equal opportunity, so I chose his definition of it.
Sweden would have been better off without it. I'm really too lazy to debate economics right now. The welfare state is actually an even bigger problem when you try to industrialize a country, which requires capital accumulation. But as I said, this conversation will be had another time.
r.v.,
As I wrote on my blog, you can't describe WSJ's deWinter as a conservative writer, despite the fact that the WSJ poses as a conservative publication.
I think Leon de Winter is Dutch but that only underscores the original point. A Dutch establishment voice can ghost for the American conservative POV. In any case the WSJ is now owned by NewsCorp which means Prince Alwaled bin Talal has a finger in the pie. The Saudi influence on the WSJ is less subtle than it is Fox News, though the former was always an open borders advocate.
Both [American] conservatives and liberals accept the idea that discrimination is the biggest sin and that we are all equal.
Right, just like in the Dutch Constitution: "All persons in the Netherlands shall be treated equally in equal circumstances. Discrimination on the grounds of religion, belief, political opinion, race or sex or on other grounds whatsoever shall not be permitted."
E.V.,
This is why the European right is inherently "Nazi-like" in that they are Nationalists, but also collectivists, communitarians, socialists.
The BNP and Le Pen's crowd aqrguably fit this description. But others like UKIP, VB, PVV do not. The latter are nationalist-libertarian - not nationalist-socialist - parties. They would be broadly in tune with the non-liberal wing of the GOP.
However Peters et al. are not simply making this fine distinction, they're saying that the European mob are salivating to murder innocents. What American leftists think of all white people, American conservatives (of the Peters variety) think of all white people bar themselves. The latter view is simply leftism with an exemption made for one sub-group of whites. It is leftism -1.
However, it must be said that Europe long lectured the US as racists and ill treaters of minorities.
George W. Bush and John McCain have called their own supporters racist for being immigration restrictionists on several occasions. If you've voted for either of them then you've affirmed that worldview. On the single issue of mass/illegal/Muslim immigration a large chunk of the GOP (the top cats) are an open-borders, 'anti-racist' crowd. Which is no different from European leftism, by which I include Menshevik 'conservative' parties like the English Tories.
Anyway this idea only came to Europe from America in the 1960's, in the wake of the US Civil Rights movement. I agree this false belief that the White American majority were to blame for the shortcoming of minorities contributed to the folly of Europeans allowing immigration--but this folly has an origin (where it is still the dominant belief).
The American way is a way forward, however in Europeans hearts they may long for the simpler days of more homogenaic societies.
The Tower of Babel was a way forward and look what happened to that!
The BNP and Le Pen's crowd aqrguably fit this description. But others like UKIP, VB, PVV do not. The latter are nationalist-libertarian - not nationalist-socialist - parties. They would be broadly in tune with the non-liberal wing of the GOP. --- Sean OBrian.
Indeed.
There is much support in the US among conservatives for the PPV and UKIP. I wish them both great success and hope they become the dominant party in their prospective countries.
I even hope that some of the other so called far Right, Nationalist parties increase their representation to force the center Right to grow some balls.
My point was that American conservatives aren't conservatives. They're conservatives in name only and they accept the founding principles of social liberalism and cultural Marxism. This is why they don't really seem to have a problem with what the leftists did in the 1960s. Also, classical liberalism(which is basically libertarianism) has nothing to do with liberalism or leftism. They also don't defend the system that they set up, I don't see them wanting to repeal all the legislation that is unconstitutional and so many things that would actually be conservative. --- rebelliousvanilla
Boy are you ill informed.
EV, look at the GOP and tell me the differences in between them and liberals, except abortion. They're both state interventionsts in the economy, pro immigration, they don't think a certain group of people is the people that founded America and see the US as a proposition nation. They're both politically correct and operate under the narratives imposed by PC. Hell, look at Palin and her support for Title IX or her belief that the state should help children with problem, which are liberal, not conservative beliefs and both the GOP to an extent and the tea party movement embraced her. They just repeat the old cliches, but look at what they're actually saying and what they're doing. Where are the conservatives who support the right of assembly, which also means excluding people? They have the same liberal worldview. Where are the conservatives who admit racial differences and cultural differences that are evident? Nowhere. Where are the anti-feminist conservatives? The anti-civil rights act of 1964 and immigration act of 1965 conservatives? I'm really curious on what I am ill informed. Educate me if you're so well informed.
There's a reason why conservatives always lose the moral high ground against liberals - it's the same with Islam and radicals. Both liberals and the Islamic radicals want to practice both true liberalism and Islam, while the GOP and the moderates are just toned down versions of the real deals, but still operating under the same principles.
Conservatives and the GOP arent the same thing. That being said their is a ton of difference between the GOP and the Dems and Left.
Furthermore, it is difficult to do some of the things that you are suggesting, given the system. Just look at the Dems and the Left who couldnt push through their Health Care Nationalisation with a supermajority of Dems in the Senate.
PC is definately a problem, but this is being enforced in Corporations, outside the government, this is a cultural battle being waged by the Left with special interests, lawfare, etc.
The key is to organize. Identity politics needs to be adopted by groups that have been excluded, however the GOP should maintain color blindness and equality before the law. The push for Supreme Court nominations should be on originalists and strict constructionists like Clarence Thomas.
A bit of nuance wouldnt hurt you.
I agree Title 9 is an abomination. This could be fought more effectively if pressure groups existed that push for men's rights. Whites, Christians, males, European ethnicities, should all be pushing into the identity politics arena, because they are getting hammered by not playing what has become the zeitgeist and thus are assured to be the losers, discriminated against and treated unfairly.
The Left is the problem...they are the ones pushing their ideologies and furthermore are hostile to certain groups while claiming universaility...which is patently false. They are are anti white, anti Western, anti Conservative, anti white Euro Christian culture, and so on and so forth.
Quit your bitching and get busy. We need to organize and create alternate institutions, because our democratic institutions have been marched through by the Left. Dont throw your hands up and say there is no use. That kind of defeatiism will surely lead to defeat.
We have Alito and Roberts on the Court now, and Kennedy is a waffler, but one more and we can really start to turn back the 60s New Left zeitgeist.
I agree with rebelliousvanilla's critique of American conservatism. As an ex-conservative, and now a white nationalist, I find much at fault with the "American Right" in terms of its obsession with enriching big business, harping about culture while ignoring the key role that ethnicity plays in the preservation of culture, extreme individualism, and belief in the invade the world, invite the world mindset.
The Left is wicked, but the Right is no better. If we are interested in saving our people, we will need to look at different systems amd ideas and try to find what works best, and ultimately reject the Left/Right spectrum. Race survival wasn't really an issue for the French revolutionaries and aristocrats who started the Left/Right spectrum. It's outdated and needs to be tossed in the dustbin of history.
I have to disagree with some of the sentiments and ideas expressed here while simultaneously agreeing and sympathetic. I think it would be sufficient to defend and protect against the sorts of rot we see by defining values and enforcing them, race then is superfluous and not the issue.
its not that I wish to avoid truth where it is found ,no I simply know honorable souls of different races. You know there is another variable beside race that is particular to western civilization and that is Christianity. Also remember blacks and Asians didn't invent, marxism, socialism, nazism, leftism, wacko environmentalism, gay rights and gay marriage confusion. That was your fellow white's and it is commonly your white children who are buying it and moving it forward. There will always develop a psychological underclass by nature. To me the solution was moral courage, strength. The white race is rotting itself it is no one else's fault.
Bringing in other races or atagonistic hostile cultures is just plain stupid and potentially deadly in the long term and that is another story. It defies common sense and even other races, cultures, and lower life forms know that. So whose fault is that? In short it is the white race but I say it is really a mental or psychological race issue. Do white people really have an advantage? I don't know but it would seem they have lost it, just like the Greeks. As is evidenced by their action. I don't go for that sort of analysis or interpretive scheme in full though. Again I think the virtues of character and mind that are timeless and can be cultivated through a love for wisdom and God, make whoever practices them great and successful.
As strange and offensive as it may seem, consider that Muslims in some degraded form aim for this with blurry vision and the successful race or civilization for a time has now become a slave to lower passions, making their slavery manifest in the physical now to people who were once thght to be lesser. There maybe some here who need to stop dwelling in the past and face a newly defined reality
Andreas, I agree with you fully that much of the problems facing our race is self-inflicted. I reject the blame-the-Jews paradigm promoted by Stormfront and other "WNs". But at an ethnonationalist, I see it as my duty to help my people as much as I can, and that includes holding them to task for their failings and trying to find better solutions. And just because whites have forsaken their ancestors and embraced hedonism, marxism, and race suicide does not mean I should just abandon them to the wolves.
I've seen some conservatives proclaim that we whites deserve to be replaced by nonwhites because of our moral shortcomings. I find that immoral and illogical, but it seems to many conservatives, culture and religion are all that matters, and if whites "fail" Western Civilization, some idealized, abstract concept, then someone else must take up the banner. I don't see that being the case; I believe the cherished "West" is a product of the white race, and if the white race goes, so does the West. I don't see Muslim and African colonists in Europe becoming the new West, despite civic nationalists hoping that such a case will happen.
What I am saying is you don't have to go back to a ignorant form of racism or to Darwinism to stand up for yourself, simply defend to the death what is precious, not white skin. If you love white skin and what you see as its associated characteristics, defined as a genetic code then so be it, there nothing wrong with being happy proud and truthful about what you think.
As for me, I don't think that's it, I don't see western civilization as the product of skin color but more nuanced.
Who said anything about skin color? Japanese are whitish in skin color but does not make them members of the white race. Race is much more than mere physical appearance; it's also shared genetic heritage and kinship. I'm not a white nationalist because I like white skin; it's because I am white; I am descended from white ethnic groups and my culture and background are shaped by traditions that go back to the continent of Europe.
I understand. I didn't mean to keep it sound so superficial. So if a white man sharing the same genetic code seeks to beat you rob you and murder you and a stranger from another genetic code sees this and has compassion on you and helps you and dies in the struggle and you survive, who is more a brother, kin, family, friend?
There are links and bonds and sentiments and precious morals greater and stronger than the strongest physical connection.
For the record, my beliefs do not come from "ignorant racism" or Darwinism. I'm a skeptic when it comes to macro-evolution, but open-minded, and I bear no ill will towards other races and peoples. I don't like harping about IQ differences because it can often lead to supremacist chest-beating which I find counter-productive. I believe that all races have developed traits that suit their environment. Blacks have developed both physical characteristics and a corresponding culture that works for them; they wouldn't be alive if it wasn't the case. Likewise, we whites have developed both physical characteristics and a corresponding culture that suits our needs. Fjordman has been exploring such concepts in many of his articles.
And I have a question for all of you nuanced civic nationalists. Where did the West come from? Did it come from Africa? From China? Some like to cite Christianity as the source of the West, but that is problematic as much of our traditions and cultural customs come from pagan Greeks, Romans, Celts, Germans, etc. Some Christians like to make it seem like with the acceptance of Christianity came an erasing of the previous culture, but that is not the case. Otherwise, we would have adopted a Semitic culture which we obviously did not. We took the Semitic religion and made it work for us Europeans, much like how the Japanese are willing to take in foreign ideas and incorporate into their own national framework. I believe Christianity is part of our heritage, but I do not find it sufficient to cite it as the only thing that defines the West. There are Christian churches outside of Europe that don't identify with the West, such as the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, so clearly the West must be something besides Christianity.
Others like to cite values. But where did those values come from? Did those values come from Africa, China, Persia or the Aztec Empire?
Andreas, in response to your last post, of course people from other races are noble. I do not deny that. I don't see how that invalidates ethnonationalism.
Agent Cham,
I did not mean that you were going back to such form of racism and you have demonstrated the opposite and I respect your search and awareness of truths. I wrote that before you ever replied and I meant it only as making a distinction between a honest and truthful form of racism that acknowledges real difference and ignorant form that is not based in truth but in hate for no reason.
Well thank you Andreas for the kind words. :)
I know that white nationalism has a bad reputation (deserved too) because of all the neo-Nazi trash and hatemongers who call themselves WN. It's why I avoided white nationalism for the longest time because of that association. But I've come to realize that a new path needs to made; as you said, something that recognizes racial differences and doesn't turn to hate.
Cham,
I don't think we can or have to invalidate ethnonationalism. But I think it limits justice,truth in their best sense, not in the perverse leftist meaning.
Because ethnonatiomalism I think must be based in preference and will, regardless of any other truth. For as you stated you can acknowledge that there will be honorable individuals of all races and individuals who think like you or I and I would be natural for people of likemind to want to enjoy fellowship together, but ideas of ethnonationalosm would place a wall in the middle of that, not caring much about that but preferring to keep things separate. Again I think that might be fine, although there might be other bad things associated with that path that are not immediately apparent.
See I don't see ethnonationalism as some sort of wall between myself and good people of other races/ethnic groups. Just because an ethnostate would restrict citizenship to members of an ethnic group doesn't mean it would be closed to global communications, tourism, visiting, etc. In this age of the Internet it's even more imperative that we find a way to balance ethnic thinking with interaction with the outside world. I will admit that it's a challenge, but finding a balance is essential in any aspect of life.
It should certainly not be the governments right to force people to live unequally yoked together and at first it might seem like a racial issue solved by ethnonationalism but I think there is a better way which would greatly alleviate the problem and that is by moral, cultural or belief discrimination. We may not all need o be racially one but we do need to be one then in some compensatory way. This would simply be accomplished by acknowledging and discriminating against unamerican ideas.
Well Andreas, I wish you luck in your quest for values-based nationalism. Perhaps you can find a way to make it work. I'll be impressed.
Well your idea does sound balanced and fair enough, I just think it can be accoplished nearly as well by a different type of discrimination-- that of ideas.
Well then, may the best nationalism win! ;)
Maybe we can pitch the idea as a reality tv show.
Lol, it would be better than all the current trash on tv. :P
EV, it's funny, but you actually agree with me about conservatives. When I was using conservatives not being conservatives, I was using it to describe the mainstream conservativism not being conservative at all. I also didn't advocate the US government to discriminate against blacks, for example, it should just get out of the anti-racism, anti-discrimination business and let people employ and do business, live near and go to school with who they want. As a conservative, you have to be against it, because the government has no constitutional authority to do it(ignoring all the other things).
PC isn't enforced in corporations because corporations like it. It's there because as a corporation, if you have an employee with a poster of a scantily clad woman, you can get sued by a feminist. Or sued for having unPC views. Also, the thing isn't about men or women rights or whatever rights, the problem is actually the stupidity of over legislating rights, that aren't really rights.
Andreas, as things are, a man not sharing my genetic code has a by far(more than 10 times) odd of raping me. Obviously, you judge individuals by their actions as individuals and groups by the trends that are in those groups. Like this, my father could rape me while I share half of his genetic makeup, while an African Muslim could help me get away from it. Does it mean that all fathers are bad and African Muslims are good? Because this is the progression of what you wrote applied to groups.
RebelliousVanilla,
I don't think Andreas was going there. Rather he was saying that because there are good people in every ethnic group, we should base our identity on values that promote that goodness, and associate with like-minded people regardless of ethnic background. He would accept your father if he was good and the African Muslim into his identity. It's an individualist framework that's common within the modern American Right.
Btw, I'm John McNeill from Mangan's Place. Nice seeing you again. :)
Rebel Vanilla,
I think we all agree not all cultures or beliefs are compatible or equal and Muslims have a belief system when sincerely followed that creates tension and hostility. I think there is a good basis to deny anyone from a Muslim country admittance into our respective country.
I do believe in looking at individuals and I also see that groups take on different dynamics and it is important to look at and honestly assessed group trends.
I am not completely sure of myself that values morals are enough of a glue, I think I would add culture and language and would not diminish heritage. When values are confused and a people are decadent then racial identity may be the last refuge and most primal bond.
But it seems like it's too late in America, the traitors have already done the damage and the patriots are in lose lose situation . We have a parallel culture being incubated as we speak. Early Americans faced similar issues but they were not afraid or ashamed to deal with it early on and mercilessly cut it off with a view to the future, but I don't know if it could be done again without tremendous sacrifice and bloodshed. By that I mean, outlaws and Indians when viewed as competing cultures. It does show that it can be done and how. But that is hard to imagine since most people don't feel so threatened right now, especially politicians.
Andreas, people don't feel so threatened today because they're busy planning their retirements and vacations. Also, white people don't see themselves as a group and try to stick for the welfare of that group, considering that's 'racist'. Hell, the desire to live is racist in and of itself. And as you know, racism is the biggest sins of humanity, so it's fairly normal that people don't feel threatened now.
And racial identity is the last refuge because the culture, language, art, heroes are built on top of the common perceived ancestry and people associate great value to them because of their bonding abilities and they're a way to safe guard the homogenity of a group.
Post a Comment
All comments are subject to pre-approval by blog admins.
Gates of Vienna's rules about comments require that they be civil, temperate, on-topic, and show decorum. For more information, click here.
Users are asked to limit each comment to about 500 words. If you need to say more, leave a link to your own blog.
Also: long or off-topic comments may be posted on news feed threads.
To add a link in a comment, use this format:
<a href="http://mywebsite.com">My Title</a>
Please do not paste long URLs!
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.