Friday, May 13, 2016

Peace Through Nationalism

One point that I've been making over and over on this blog is that we don't have a choice between either loving a given group of people and giving them everything we have or hating and destroying them. There are things in between. It may sound obvious, stated that way, but try explaining that to the unholy triad of liberals, neocons, and the flakier variety of libertarian.

You see, whenever anybody dares to speculate that we should maybe be more careful who we allow to immigrate, that person is immediately denounced as a racist, Islamophobe, etc. Even those who wouldn't use those terms are quick to condemn in more subtle ways. The most recent such condemnation came from the egregious Paul Ryan, who said something to the effect that Trump's suggestion for a temporary Muslim ban — You know, so we can maybe avoid inviting in more terrorists — "isn't who we are," or some Obamaesque blather. "Who we are," according to pissants like Ryan, is a nation of suckers who should unquestioningly open to door to anybody and everybody.

And not only do such ethnomasochistic types eagerly call for everybody from the Third World to drop in and sign up for bennies, they want all the groups already here to be forced by the Government into close association, whether the groups involved want it or not. The only question is whether such a policy is evil or crazy or both. And that brings us to "diversity," the new secular God. Brett Stevens, over at Alternative Right [link], explains that there's a way that might work better. It has in the past.

THE NON-"RACIST" NATIONALIST


Diversity doing what is always does — creating awkward moments.

by Brett Stevens

I realize, belatedly, that for most people in the world every issue splits to two options. Either you are pro-“racist,” or anti-“racist,” and things of that type. 

I cannot relate to this. I grew up in the South and was taught since my earliest years to be a gentleman. That means a man who speaks the truth without reservation, but also without emotion, including the type of outburst we consider “emotion” but more properly is known as revenge. 
For nineteen years now, I have repeated my mantra: the problem is diversity, not [insert ethnic group here]. The reason I offer for this is that ethnic groups have different standards and abilities, and so when they are put in the same area, ethnic resentment (“racism”) results.

In the South — otherwise known as the part of North America with culture and honor — we settled this by having separate neighborhoods. Whites live in one place, Africans another, Mexicans another still, and Asians somewhere else. Balance is maintained because each group rules itself.

I always offer up the question: if you are African-American, and you get pulled over by a police officer, what type of face do you want to see? The answer is African-American. Same as whites want to see a white police officer, Hispanics a Hispanic police officer, and Asians (rare, but when it does occur) an Asian police officer.

Working class White students
protesting against pointless diversity. 
The fact is, that if we have control over our own communities, we are not enemies but distant friends. I like the “distant friends” idea because it enables me to enjoy people without insisting they be like me. White standards work for white people… for others, well, who knows — it’s up to them.

Growing up in the South, I knew and loved lots of good black people. Sure, there were the ghetto Negroes… but these were the lowest of the African race. They were people who had given up. Whether this was a genetic modification that happened recently, or a moral choice, I do not know. But these were people without hope in their own souls, and they blamed others for that loss.

Despite that, I knew numerous good black people. African-Americans who stood for themselves, yet worked with others to ensure that society kept chugging along. I would never do anything to hurt these individuals. They are good people, even if as different from me as night from day.

I have made it through this life by never pretending to be anything but what I am. “Hello, I am a white guy from the suburbs…” sounds lame until you realize that it is honest, and honesty is like gold, a rarity here on planet earth, which is ruled by Satan or convenience at the expense of reality, as if there is a difference.

As a young man in the South, I knew many black people that I worked with, or were nannies or housekeepers for friends. If you threatened them, I would have murdered you where you stood, and still would. They are good people; they are different, but good. Keep those parallel ideas intact in your mind.

Yet the vision of the South was not just racial segregation, but class segregation. Everyone had their own neighborhoods: Mexicans (Indios), white working classes, white lower middle classes, white upper classes, African-American middle classes, even African-American upper classes). None of us wanted to be “the same” or “equal,” just to be able to be what we are.

Too many Nationalists think that in order to beat liberalism, they have to be hard-ass and come down hard on other groups. You do not. You have to come down hard on diversity, which fails no matter which groups are involved, and democracy, which always leads to liberalism and from that to diversity. The point is finding a workable social order.

I have no hatred for any other group. To my mind, they are acting in self-interest much as I should. The point is, however, that Nationalism solves this conflict. Put each group on its own continent and give it self-rule, and we are no longer in conflict.

Liberalism denies this obvious truth, as does the social conceit which is popular now and insists that everyone is equal. Equal? Equality is a concept from algebra and has no place in complex calculations like comparisons between individuals, groups, ethnicities, classes, castes, and families. It is nonsense to apply it there.

Middle class White students seeking to segregate themselves 
from diversity through moral signalling and political correctness.
The South is the most civilized part of North America. This seems offensive until you realize that it is true. We enslaved people, true, but in the style of European serfdom: we cared for them more than they could care for themselves. We loved them but never expected more of them than nature did. And we still defend them.

Diversity forces every group into competition and ends up creating a mixed-race elite that is mostly white, then Asiatic, with a smattering of African. If you put that into one person, it ends up looking like noting at all. What is unique in each group is lost.

I will never hate. I could never abide those groups that hated, and I still cannot. My goal is a sensible order for everyone, because I know — this is a secret of the universe — that results matter more than feelings. I want the best results for everyone, whether of my tribe (Western European) or not.

You will notice that this viewpoint is represented nowhere in politics. Not in the mainstream, which, much as Budweiser is not beer, is not politics. But also not in the underground. No, it is a path I must forge myself, ignored by most and considered insane by nearly all of the rest.

But this is right. What is true, what is real, and what is right matters more than all the social feelings in the world. Each ethnic group deserves and needs its own domains. It is hatred and contempt to avoid doing this. While we all can recognize the teenage neo-Nazi's hatred as foolish, can we see the same in our status quo?

It’s time we did.
-----------
Quibcag: Only the top one is new. Illustration is three characters from Black Lagoon (ブラック・ラグーン Burakku Ragūn), who look like they're White, Oriental, and Black. Actually the first one is Oriental also, but that's the way they draw in Japan.

6 comments:

  1. How do we treat deadbeats, drunks, and druggies? Citizens v.s. immigrants?

    The problem is not race, ethnicity, or genetic ancestry per se, but the cultural baggage attached to it.

    It is better for the choice to be for the cannibals to remain in the deep jungle and continue the practice, or to, as a condition of entry, give up cannibalism.

    Multiculturalism imports not merely the most wonderful, but also the most monstrous and horrible aspects of a foreign culture. And usually the latter are the aggressive ones that dominate like Kudzu or Zebra Mussels or Asian Carp.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As an addendum, even immigration per se is not necessarily the problem but immigration of groups that want to (or can't overcome the impulse to)transform the new community into a copy of the old country (Dearborn, MI - Hamtramck, MI - London, England - etc.). - Unintentionally curt response due to the need to go to the hardware store.

      Delete
    2. Precisely. Most Europeans, over the years, have been both willing and able to assimilate. Many obsessively so. We don't need indigestible "neighborhoods" of foreigners who intend to remain foreign. No country does.

      Delete
  2. The South is the most civilized part of North America.

    I disagree. I think the West is. It is the most "pioneering-based" culture in North America, in the Frederick Turner Jackson sense. I agree with Robert Zubrin that all non-pioneering cultures are inherently pathological.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I like most of what that fellow says on his blog. And I like his attitude also.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This whole page is just so dang quotable. Heck, I could say that about this whole blog.

    ReplyDelete