Counter-Currents
903 words
Translations: French, German, Slovak, Spanish
When I first became interested in White Nationalism, I noticed that the basic principle of ethnonationalism was always framed as distinct from the Jewish question. Ethnonationalism is the idea that racial and ethnic diversity within the same political system are sources of strife, and that peace and harmony are best served by establishing homogeneous sovereign homelands for all peoples.
The Jewish question, however, is supposedly something separate from basic ethnonationalism. It includes such topics as the role of Jews in promoting Communism, Zionism, and white decline, and even questions about the holocaust. Some nationalists pursue these questions, but others choose to abstain, merely advocating ethnonationalism but not touching the “J.Q.”
I wish to suggest that this framing of the Jewish question is entirely wrong. The Jewish question is not something distinct from ethnonationalism. It is not a separate, higher-order, entirely optional set of questions from which ethnonationalists can recuse themselves. On the contrary, the Jewish question is a simple, straightforward application of the basic principle of ethnonationalism.
If ethnonationalism calls for the replacement of multicultural societies with monocultural ones, then Jews, as a distinct people, belong in their own homeland and not scattered among other nations. Thus if England is to be English, Sweden to be Swedish, Ireland to be Irish, alien populations need to be repatriated to their own homelands, Jews included. That is the ethnonationalist answer to the Jewish question.
This completely accords with the original historical sense of the Jewish question, which is the question of how Jews, being a distinct nation, can be given legal equality and citizenship within other nations. Our answer is: They shouldn’t. They belong in their own nation-state. The Jewish question is entirely a question about the relationship of ethnicity and nation-states.
The Jewish question long predates such phenomena as Communism, Zionism, and the holocaust, so it certainly has no necessary connection to them. Nor is the Jewish question necessarily connected to the Jewish role in promoting white cultural and demographic decline. Jews could be as venomous as snakes or as innocent as lambs, but there would still be a Jewish question simply because they are a distinct people scattered among other nations.
As far as White ethnonationalists are concerned, the Jewish question is exactly analogous to the black question or the Mexican question or the Gypsy question. Thus the Jewish question is Ethnonationalism 101, not an arcane higher-level elective.
This approach to the Jewish question shifts the burden of proof. It is no longer incumbent on the “anti-Semite” to argue that ethnonationalists need to pay attention to the Jewish question. One does not need to argue that Jews are a “special” people once one observes that they are simply a different people, and, therefore, they belong in their own homeland, not among us.
Instead, it is incumbent on those ethnonationalists who would abstain from the “J.Q.” to explain why Jews, unlike other alien peoples, should have the right to live among us with full rights of citizenship — for this is, in effect, what nationalists who wish to avoid the Jewish question are arguing. When Jared Taylor says Jews “look huwyte to me,” he is saying that they are “us,” not a distinct nation. Of course, claiming Jews are “us” is inconsistent with American Renaissance’s policy of praising Israel as a nation that protects its borders and takes its own side in ethnic conflicts. For if Jews are just generic white people, then what possible justification do they have for creating an ethnostate on Palestinian land? And if Jews are a distinct people, then they belong in their own homeland, not among other nations. (Technically, Jared Taylor is not a White Nationalist or ethnonationalist because he proposes no solutions.)
Of course, it is easier for Taylor to imply that Jews are “us” in the American melting pot. It would be harder to say that Jews “look French” or “look Swedish,” because they don’t, and because French or Swedish ethnicity is not a matter of generic whiteness. Furthermore, despite high rates of intermarriage, the core of the American Jewish community has remained aloof from the melting pot and strongly identifies with the state of Israel. And finally, Jews aren’t generically white to begin with. The racial core of their population is non-European, although some Jews have picked up a lot of European genes in their wanderings.
The Jewish question is not distinct from ethnonationalism. It is ethnonationalism applied to Jews. Thus no ethnonationalist is entitled to abstain from it. Once one recognizes that Jews are a distinct people, the ethnonationalist solution to the Jewish question is Jewish nationalism, i.e., Zionism.
Of course many White Nationalists have a whole lot more to say about Jews than merely observing that they are a different people. I have argued that the fate of White Nationalism does not depend one way or another on the outcome of historical debates about the holocaust. But I do believe that Jews are not just different from whites, but powerful and malevolent enemies who bear significant responsibility for causing white decline and opposing white renewal.
Some White Nationalists don’t want to hear it. But even so, as I have argued here, they still have to face up to the Jewish question. Because if Jews are nothing more than a distinct people, then ethnonationalists must conclude that Jews belong in their own homeland, not in ours. It is as simple as that.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
36 comments
I essentially agree. I like Yockey’s distinction, that Jews are different as a combination of varied levels: race, religion, history, high culture, etc.
This ties into what the Amren crowd would likely answer in response to your stated inconsistency in their view. They may say: “Jews look white to me, but they have been persecuted simply because of their religion, so it is understandable, after the Holocaust, that they want their own nation. It’s is also understandable that they pick Palestine, given the historical ties of their religion there, as well as how badly they’ve been persecuted by Europeans.”
In response, one could say that for Jews, religion is tied with ethnicity and history and culture, and any group that identifies with a Middle Eastern homeland is not “us” regardless of what you think they look like. Both Jews and Gentiles consider Jews to be, on some level, distinct. Hence, as you point out, their identification with Palestine. Whether that distinctiveness is a result of their Diaspora ethnic origins, their religion, their self-perception, their history and culture – or as Yockey would argue, all of these – is irrelevant, as it nevertheless exists.
It’s therefore no surprise that folks like Hart and Weissberg have gone to Amren meetings with their ethnicity on their sleeves – Hart cursing at Dulke; Weissberg telling us why Jews distrust White Gentiles (proving the point of distinctiveness – Wessiberg acknowledges the difference).
If I may be excused for answering myself – perhaps instead of being critical of Amren’s pro-Jewish stance, we should be grateful. It has been a decades long experiment, evaluating the question of what would happen if a pro-White endeavor welcomed Jews. The antics of Hart, Weissberg, Levin et al, combined with that of pro-Jewish Gentiles like Jobling and Derbyshire, give the answer.
Even if you want to say, “Jews are White, let’s accept them and convince them to go along,” you’ll find the price is too much to bear. The interests are too different. Even something as simple and fundamental as racial separation means different things to these groups. A White Gentile would view a “White separatist state” as one only for Whites so defined (including Jews if you wish), a Jew would consider such a state as including not only Jews but also Asians, Middle Easterners, Hispanics – everyone except for Blacks. Jews are so dependent upon diversity – they are so allergic to the idea of being the only minority in an all-White state (a hint that they view themselves different from Whites) – that they have the effrontery, the chutzpah, to waltz into an alleged White racialist meeting and promote multiracial White separatism! Or, they’ll try and convince us that the current American system is the best we can hope for, so we should defend the “racial status quo.” All the while, the ADL will continue to hammer away at Amren as “racist” – the acceptance is not reciprocated.
See this:
http://news.yahoo.com/uc-asks-public-input-rewrite-free-speech-policy-060550778.html
Jews behave no different from any non-White group in America today (including the vaunted Asians). Self-perception of difference, antagonism toward the majority, special pleading, “protection” against “discrimination,” speech restriction, etc.
To paraphrase Gump: “Colored is as colored does.”
What makes the Jewish question a bit complicated, are two issues :
(1) Traditionally, Jews have been considered a “wandering people” : a people living a nomadic lifestyle, much like Roma and Sinti gypsies. Also like gypsies, they earned a reputation of “social parasites” for being mostly active in anti-social or illegal professions (eg. thieves, pimps, money lenders, junk peddlers, …).
(2) Most Jews cannot trace their ancestry to the so-called “Holy land”. Whether or not they descend from Khazars, so-called Askenazi Jews (the vast majority among Jews) carry more South-East-European and Hunnish genes than Arab genes.
This makes it hard to notion that Jews are entitled to the so-called state of Israel, which was a British colony populated by Arabs that was “given” to Zionists by the British as part of a political agreement, and which became Jewish land only after a bloody ethnic cleansing. If we want to be ideologically consistent, this would imply that ANY ethno-cultural group is entitled to claim ANY land inhabited by ANY other ethno-cultural group if it manages to succesfully cleanse the region of its previous inhabitants.
However, if we say that NO ethno-cultural group is entitled to claim land already inhabited by another ethno-culture, we enter another moral quagmire. Throughout history, different ethno-cultures have appropriated the lands of other ethno-cultures. Countries like the Unites States and Australia were founded on land appropriated from other ethno-cultures. And in the case of the Unites States, this was most definitely associated with genocide. So if NO ethno-cultural group is entitled to claim land already inhabited by another ethno-culture, what does that imply for the US?
Of course, we might argue that in the case of the US “the damage has already been done”. The US has existed for centuries now and has traditionally been known as White man’s land. However, if that means that White man is entitled to American land, what does this imply for all the Mexican border jumpers currently invading the US? At what point does it become immoral to send them back to their lands? At what point do we say that “the damage has been done”?
While I agree that “Jedem das Seine” (transl : “to each [group] what it deserves”) is a perfectly reasonable moral imperative, it’s not always obvious how to apply it in the real world. Which group is entitled to Israel/Palestine? Which group is entitled to own the Americas? And if Whites are entitled to North-American land, what about the Blacks they imported? What exactly are the criteria for gaining and/or losing entitlement? And that, of course, doesn’t even address the question how we can physically relocate millions of people with minimal bloodshed.
Anyway, a Jewish homeland alternative to Israel already exists in the form of the Jewish Autonomous Oblast. This is a federal subject of Russia in the Russian Far East, bordering with Khabarovsk Krai and Amur Oblast of Russia and with Heilongjiang province of China. It was created by the Soviet Union decades ago to provide a Jewish homeland within the confines of the Soviet Union.
” If we want to be ideologically consistent…”
If you have to be universalistic and objective in order to be consistent, then you fall into the usual trap of Anglo-American mainstream political philosophy (either Kantian or utilitarian). If you’re trying to promote your own ethnic interests, you can’t afford to be universalistic.
When you’re strong and powerful, you can play by the “might is right” rule, which is the rule that, for instance, the USG has been playing in global geopolitics since the downfall of the USSR. When you’re in a disadvantaged position, you can either empower yourself without help or take advice from the ancient philosopher in Frank Herbert’s Children of Dune:
“When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles.”
Does this strategy sound familiar to you? Who plays this game better than anyone?
To put it a bit more politely: this is not a question of property law, claimants and entitlement.
You are vexing yourself and others.
And finally, Jews aren’t generically white to begin with. The racial core of their population is non-European, although some Jews have picked up a lot of European genes in their wanderings.
Arbitrary. Latest findings are that the ‘core’ of the Ashkenazi race was formed by Near Eastern males and western / north Mediterranean females, i.e. Italians, as would be expected from the long sojourn in Rome. In other words, while their Y-DNA is overwhelmingly Near Eastern or Levantine, their mtDNA is overwhelmingly European — making claims that they are “not white” untenable. They are, genetically, in fact, half-white. This isn’t something that can be argued away if your premise is their genetics. Otherwise, you have to ditch the argument from genetics altogether. Which would be fine … if they hadn’t been resident in Europe since Rome became a Mediterranean power.
“Overall, it seems that at least 80% of Ashkenazi maternal ancestry is due to the assimilation of mtDNAs indigenous to Europe, most likely through conversion.”
This is not the same thing as saying “they picked up some European genes in their wandering”; it is saying that without a founding population of European women, there’d be no Ashkenazim at all.
So, like it or not, whether it fits in with holding Jews at a theoretical arm’s length to make the notion of ethnonationalism more plausible or not, Jews are not para-European … at least as far as their maternal ancestors are concerned. The reality is, Jews and most other races on the Eurasian landmass have been mixing for quite some time — and can’t be unmixed with sophistical legerdemain.
Viz. “A substantial prehistoric European ancestry amongst Ashkenazi maternal lineages” (2013), Costa et al., nature.com.
As for expelling them or somehow securing their complete removal to Israel, not that we or anyone has the power to pull that off, that’s adding some six-million Jews to Israel’s eight-million, with its already implosive population problem, making it the 33rd most densely populated state in the world (for reference, India is 31st). Not only would Israel resist this influx, as it must to preserve its increasingly tenuous system, it would be asking for the situation there to become even more volatile — remembering that they possess at least fifty nuclear warheads, and keeping their finger on the button is part of their official policy. Anyone forcing six-million Jews out of America, again bearing in mind the immense political and technical problems of such a program, would likely have to count on a militant defensive stance from Israel before any kind of accommodation — meaning nuclear strikes at targets critical to world infrastructure, namely the Suez Canal, Saudi oil fields, the Strait of Hormuz, etc.
Geopolitics isn’t a game of Risk in which you move pieces around the board in a vacuum where there are no consequences or interdependencies.
How’s this for a reframe: everyone tries really really hard to get over their smoldering Germanophilia and convince Jews that we believe them to be white and would like to work together to preserve our ethnic common interests. Crazy and treacherous, I know, but it might just be more realistic than “Jews aren’t white and we need to expel them all to Israel”.
Depressed much?
You’re being arbitrary here. The core of the Jewish population are the people from the Near East, not their descendants mixed with European blood, or African blood for that matter.
Descent is reckoned by both lines of descent, is my point. It wouldn’t matter if Jews were totally Sub-Saharan in their paternal DNA; if they aren’t maternally, while that would make them hybrid, it does not constitute a “core” inasmuch as humans aren’t anything at all without both lines of descent. You’re not free to pick & choose.
Your purpose up there was to frame European DNA in the Ashkenazi genome as incidental — like, some Jews married Gentile women here & there. But what that study has shown is that European mtDNA is potentially, if not probably or definitely, foundational to the modern Ashkenazi population.
Again then: you can’t disentangle that one. It is a problem, probably an insoluble one, but if you take science seriously at all and I think you do, you can’t just ignore the current divided consensus that Jews as far as their all-important maternal line is concerned are either a) northern Mediterraneans i.e. western Europeans or b) present the same Near Eastern background as millions of other Europeans.
And even then, either a) Italians are not really white, or b) any western European bearing a Near Eastern mtDNA haplotype is not really white.
Anyway Greg, only a thought. The website’s called “Counter Currents”, so you can’t hate me for going against the current here just cause that’s how you swim. You don’t lack for an echo-chamber in any case — Khazars, the Autonomous Oblast, Yockey …
“Again then: you can’t disentangle that one. It is a problem, probably an insoluble one”
I’m not convinced that categorization presents an insoluble problem. Although the nature of race makes it impossible to issue a definitive statement about what any given individual (a ‘racial unit’) ‘really is,’ it’s nevertheless possible to systematically and non-contradictorily sort people into more reasonable and less reasonable groupings. If racial nationalism commits itself to the task of sorting people into ever more reasonable racial groupings, then in my book this counts as categorization being soluble.
Nevertheless, categorization on paper is one thing; getting people to make a political commitment to their categorization is another thing entirely. People are people, and no matter how well thought-out or beneficial your program, they all have their own interests, tastes and desires, and only seldom do these perfectly coincide with what the ideologue deems most important. Although the problem is common to all political persuasions, I dare say few are better acquainted with the frustrations of ‘herding cats’ than WNs.
It’s for this reason that I believe that racial issues must be framed in such way that racial identity attracts the most interest and draws the greatest amount of support possible. For this to occur, racial non-essentials must be forced to give way to racial essentials, and fetishists who insist on this or that non-essential political detail must be shown the door. If this could be done, it’d be the equivalent of placing an open can of tuna before an alley cat lair – the cats would effectively ‘herd’ themselves. Obversely, if it cannot be done, then I believe racialism will remain the province of fantasists it has so long been.
“I’m not convinced that categorization presents an insoluble problem.”
Wasn’t referring to categorization: I meant there is no way to disentangle Jews from the destiny of Europeans. And that this arises in part from Jews being quasi-Europeans themselves, and anyway resident in Europe for well over a thousand years.
Of course they’re not identical, they’re not simply “us”, and they have a notorious tendency to counter attempts at European ethnic self-assertion. I get it; I’ve been on this side for fifteen years. And yes, Amren’s welcoming stance and pitiable results are instructive; Linder’s been going on about that for about as long.
But there it is: if nothing has ever worked, and that in a much smaller world, it probably just can’t be done. No amount of rhetorical lumping or splitting will ever change it. And even if tomorrow a handful of white nationalists were swept into the highest offices of the land with a full military at their disposal, dumping over five-million Jews onto Israel would be disastrous for world politics. They would literally starve to death in some backwater Siberian oblast. And Madagascar, for the glib gentleman down there, is already overpopulated by its own native people in a land bereft of natural resources. There is no solution of that kind whatsoever even in the best-case scenario.
All I can say is that in my life, I’ve met a number of Jews who understood where we are anent the rest of the races of the world. I’d rather totally purge myself of outmoded ideological baggage than alienate them. A real-world understanding with a man or woman who breathes, whom I don’t have to read, is more valuable to me than some unworkable ideology — simple as that. And that’s my idea of a true “reframe”.
This is just depressive/defeatist concern trolling. Further commentary from you would be a waste of your time and ours.
I don’t know if folks like uh are are being deliberately obtuse, but:
1) Identity is based on more than just genetics (although genetics are of course very important). I won’t repeat what I’ve already written here, but just this: Jews don’t identify as White themselves – they consider Jewish-White mixing as morally the same as White-Black.
2) Re: genetics, who cares about mtDNA? Salter’s genetic interest paradigm is based on autosomal DNA anyway, and based on that, (Ashkenazi) Jews can be distinguished from any and all Europeans (even commercial genetic companies can tell folks their Ashkenazi autosomal percentage), and based on that, they are ~ 1/2 modern Middle Eastern. Because Jews have a fetish about their maternal line interests me not. I’m interested in genetic kinship, and since that kinship determines relatedness, that is what should be important to all of us. This is 2015, not 1995. We can stop obsessing over uniparental markers at this point. There’s a wealth of autosomal data out there. We can even get the autosomal profiles of ancient remains.
uh, You’ve styled yourself as a human ecologist since I’ve known you. God only knows on what basis you do it, because your ecological utterances have been so stunningly wrong that I’ve often wondered if you’re not afflicted with some autism spectrum disorder.
By what metric, pray tell, is Madagascar ‘overpopulated’? They’re black and they’re poor and the thought of millions of them crawling about the surface of the earth gives you the creeps and all this congeals in your mind as ‘overpopulation’, something like that? One wonders how seven million Chinamen on a 400 square mile island – which, unlike Madagascar, actually is bereft of natural resources – manage to not only survive, but prosper.
Anyway, this all beside the point because no white ethnostate in North America is ever, ever, ever going to encompass the entirety of U.S. territory. Given that, it simply doesn’t matter whether Jews depart the north American continent or whether they coalesce into some portion of it lying outside the white state. For the life of me I cannot see how any other conclusion is not the stuff of purest fantasy. If I’m wrong about this, I’d dearly love to know how or why.
Even as genetically “half-Europeans” (Ashkenazi) Jews don’t identify with Europeans, on the contrary they see us as their greatest enemies and try to destroy us. Reason enough to expel them.
It would be naive in the extreme to offer Jews the status of “full Europeans” and then expect loyalty from them. History has proven that doesn’t work.
If Israel is too small to be able to contain the 14 million Jews of the world, then Birobidzhan or some other place should be considered.
We are talking theoretical principles here. Practical solutions is another matter. Main point is that this destructive ethnic group doesn’t belong in our living space.
“Even as genetically “half-Europeans” (Ashkenazi) Jews don’t identify with Europeans, on the contrary they see us as their greatest enemies and try to destroy us. Reason enough to expel them.”
Thank you. Good sense. The “movement” always misses the forest for the trees. Look at Amren. We got Hart proposing a multiracial “White separatist state” that would “include Asians and others” (in other words, let’s exclude those anti-Semitic Blacks and we’re all set). We have Levin who wrote in his book that racial preservation for its own sake is crazy. Gottfried blames it all on Protestants. Weissberg advocates the “racial status quo” – advice that even Taylor labeled as “defeatist and suicidal.” Then we have Hart’s performance in 2006 – did anyone notice that all the problems Amren had with meetings protested and cancelled started after that, and all the publicity it received?
How about we concentrate on the essential point: Jews are a different people in their total Identity, with different interests. Let them in, and they’ll promote diversity and multiculturalism – even in the paradigm of White separatism! They’ll promote aracial HBD. they’ll tell us things are OK and we just accept the current racial status quo, they’ll label us equivalent to child molesters. Don’t forget that Derb didn’t invent the “latrine flies” label himself. He was merely repeating the thoughts of am “anonymous AR attendee.” Any guesses to the ethnicity of that unknown person?
“Any guesses to the ethnicity of that unknown person?”
That would not render the observation inaccurate. The testimony of racial organizers like WLP amounts to calling WN at the operational level a madhouse, and the impressions I’ve formed from reading WN commentaries inclines me to believe it. Even Greg forthrightly states that some of the worst people he’s ever met were WNs (supposedly balanced by the fact that some of the best were too, but I wonder about lopsidedness of that balance). The repellent qualities of ‘amateur’ WN devotees is a serious cause for concern if interest in and support for pro-white thought and action are to grow. Just because the commitment of a John Derbyshire or a Bob Weissberg to white racial interests may be highly suspect does not mean that idiocy in pro-white ranks should not be condemned.
All very true. But then we would have to define white in other than purely genetic terms. As a corollary pure whites could potentially and theoretically also be subject to similar adjudication. (Russians, Anglo-Saxons, Nordicists beware.)
Hila Hershkoviz in The Times of Israel: “Jews are not white”.
Jews pretended to be white in order to become accepted in the wider society. Since “white” has become a synonym of “evil” (thanks to the Jewish “Critical Theory”), the time will come when Jews will claim unanimously that they’re not white. They pose as white whenever it suits them.
Anyway, no matter how much European ancestry they carry in their genes, or how much they have been assimilated. They still have a strong sense of their own identity as a group, whose interests are at odds with those of other groups.
“How’s this for a reframe: everyone tries really really hard to get over their smoldering Germanophilia and convince Jews that we believe them to be white and would like to work together to preserve our ethnic common interests.”
How would it be possible to convince jews of something that we dont believe ourselves? You must take them for fools, or us.
The jest of the matter is exactly that their ethnic interests runs counter to ours, in their own perception. If not, they could have assimilated easily.
“Crazy and treacherous, I know, but it might just be more realistic than ‘Jews aren’t white and we need to expel them all to Israel’.”
No–it isn’t.
So Jews are half-white – so what?
Genetically they’re still not us, and as one would expect, culturally they push ideas which weaken historic all-white nations to try to make them not all white.
Johnson’s argument is solid. European countries for Europeans. Jews can have their own nation and we can call it a “half-white” nation if you like.
The true historic destiny of the Jewish people is to be united forever in their homeland of Madagascar.
But the Jews would probably rather live with the liberals, and racists would have to acquire a lot of land before the Jews actually had to move. And even then they’d try and stay with the Chinese if they thought it was profitable. Ultimately we can suggest they go to their own country, but we need to demand they leave ours. Or else we’ll put them in ovens n sheit.
This is a bit out-dated (2009), but perhaps useful:
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Sallis-Rational.html
Also see the posts under the “indigenous” subtitle:
http://westdest.blogspot.com/search/label/indigenous
If Jews are European, then where is their native homeland? It can’t be “everywhere.” When given the choice, they identify with Palestine.
But, let’s look at it this way. If you debate Jews about their hypocritical promotion of miscegenation for Whites, you will inevitably get the argument: “what about the high rate of Jewish intermarriage? We do it too!” In other words, Jews equate Jewish-White intermarriage with White-Black, White-Asian etc. Now, from an objective, purely biological standpoint, that’s nonsense. But they nevertheless always fall back to that argument. To them, the great dividing line is Jew vs. Gentile, not White vs. Colored (or even Derbyshire’s self-serving “Black vs. non-Black”).
Again, we need to go back to Yockey. We cannot explain the Jewish/White distinction only on genetics or on physical appearance or on behavior or on religion or on culture or on history, etc. It is all these things combined that make Jews a distinct people with a distinct self-perception. Individual Jews and part-Jews can no doubt be assimilable if they are sincere. But the Jewish ethny as a whole is not, nor do they want to be. That leaves as the alternatives leaving them as a distinct minority with separate interests, or separation.
They certainly identify as a nation and also view us as the other. That jews are overly represented among leftists, marxists, and other well poisoners is merely icing on the ki– I mean cake.
On The Jewish Question:
http://www.amazon.com/Foundations-Twenty-First-Century-Nationalism/dp/1463562217/ref=la_B002MG6O0A_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1445987769&sr=1-2
Realism and Awareness.
This is because white nationalism, although related to ethnonationalism, has always been distinct from it. Your insistence on treating them as one and the same phenomenon suffers from two problems: it isn’t possible to consistently be both a white nationalist and an ethnonationalist; your reformulation of what ethnonationalism is ‘all about’ differs significantly from ethnonationalism as it has traditionally existed.
Firstly, white nationalism has always concerned itself with race, not ethnicity. It has stood for the principle that people of sufficiently similar racial stock can overcome their ethnic identification and replace it with a racial identification. Disputes among white nationalists have therefore centred around the question of what, in fact, constitutes sufficient racial similarity. The invocation of ethnicity in these debate has always served as a crude shorthand for racial content, not cultural difference, even if, as often happened, one’s opinion on racial content was influenced, sometimes decisively, by cultural considerations. The acceptability of Jews has therefore turned on the question of racial content, and those who have stood for treating Jews as racially non-white have done so in large part on the basis of claims that Jews are an especially pernicious non-white racial group – very much unlike other non-white groups of similar racial divergence.
Secondly, ethnic identity can come into conflict with racial identity. An ethnonationalist resolves this conflict in favor of his ethnic interests, while a white nationalist resolves it in favor of his racial interests. The wider the circle of whiteness that one draws, the more likely it is that such a conflict of interests will arise. Ultimately, one must choose where one’s highest loyalty lies, because the conflict of interests intensifies the harder one tries to be both an ethnonationalist and a white nationalist (or, for non-whites, to whom this logic also applies, a racial nationalist). As desirable as it may be, one cannot have his cake and eat it too.
Thirdly, the contention here is that ethnonationalism “the idea that racial and ethnic diversity within the same political system are sources of strife, and that peace and harmony are best served by establishing homogeneous sovereign homelands for all peoples.” This is an ahistorical redefinition of ethnonationalism. Contrary to what is claimed here, ethnonationalists have not always viewed racial diversity as a source of strife or as an ethnic disqualifier – not even within Europe itself. Members of ethnic groups across vast stretches of southern Europe have visibly differed quite markedly without this ever having bothered ethnonationalists; it was only ever racial nationalists who made an issue out of it (or tried to, but typically failed). Moreover, securing peace and harmony and establishing sovereign homelands for all peoples have been very far down the list of concerns for ethnonationalists. Instead, ethnonationalists have regarded the interests of their own ethnicity as prime and given scant thought to anybody else’s. Ethnonationalists have on occasion pursued their own ethnic interests knowing full well that doing so would increase, not decrease, strife; far from attempting to diminish strife, they have unapologetically and enthusiastically excited it.
Racial and ethnic nationalism = the idea that nation is based on kinship, not ideology or laws. Where there are real ethnic groups, then states should be based on ethnicity. Where there is a colonial melting pot, we need to form new peoples and political homelands on racial lines.
I don’t think you can invoke ‘kinship’ with the expectation that all are agreed on its meaning, its implications, or its boundaries. I mean, when you magnanimously deem that Armenians ‘are okay,’ what assurance can you have that everyone else is thinking the same thing because, you know, kinship necessitates it? Even for yourself, is it really kinship sensu stricto that leads you to making that declaration or are there other political considerations also in play?
Please understand, I emphatically do not wish to open this question here, nor am I trying to be difficult for the sake of it. I think these are obvious questions that would come to mind for any opponent or obstructionist and that therefore its crucial to have convincing answers to them that dodge nothing (only if you already had power could you get away with dodges). I want to splatter the obstructionist so thoroughly that nothing remains of him except his innards dribbling down the wall and I don’t believe that simply invoking the principle of kinship, or making remarks to the effect of “Ethnonationalism, buddy – look it up”, is sufficient to that task.
Jews could be 100% White but should be expelled to Israel regardless for all the troubles they bring, Israel is founded on occupation and colonization – well guess what, so are America and Australia, what difference does it make? White or not, Jews stir shit up among Whites and should be separated, whether Israel or the autonomous oblast or Madagascar or whatever should be their homeland is not the point, let them choose which of these they prefer to migrate to, as long as they just leave!
Are the Jews best regarded as a race or as an anti-race? It’s tempting to regard them as a kind of universal solvent.
I guess I wonder if genetics must be the absolute and sole condition of difference. If, for example, a population as genetically white as the Czech people consistently and historically advocated against the European race, to the point of being a sufficient condition of success for anti-European activity, couldn’t we “otherize” them? Can’t nurture, as opposed to nature, be a good basis of exclusion? For instance, I can disinherit my son if he attempts to murder me.
If you are mostly biologically descended from AND identify with the native peoples of European Christendom, –Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant– then you are White. Regardless of your current beliefs. (I myself would include Georgians and Armenians here because they are Christian peoples surrounded by antagonistic Muslims).
If you are descended from and identify with the AfroAsian Caucasians (like Copts or Jews or Iranians or Turks or Gypsies or Arabs) you’re Caucasian, but not White. I call them the Bronze peoples.
And to me, if you’re a Muslim (like the Bosnians, or any Euro convert to Islam), you’re not White because you identify with Europe’s 1400 year old enemy.
IMHO
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment