Most westerners think of ethnonationalism as a bad thing and are distrustful of political parties like UKIP in the UK, AfD in Germany and FN in France. American liberals, with their relatively modern idea of a ‘proposition nation’ suitable for a land of immigrants, see ethnonationalism as tribal and dangerous. To such a liberal, an American whose ancestors arrived on the Mayflower is no more American than the Somali who arrived yesterday, especially if the Somali pretends to adhere to every last trendy tenet of progressive liberalism while the descendant of the Founding Fathers doesn’t. Any American who now disagrees with the One-Worldism, open borders and welfare paradise of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is not considered as being part of ‘who we are’.
I find such a definition of nationality ridiculous. Taken to an extreme, it isn’t even necessary to set foot in America to be American, just so long as you are willing to feign agreement with the reigning dogma of progressive liberalism for the duration of your visa application.
To liberals on both sides of the Atlantic ethnonationalism conjures up visions of Adolf Hitler and goose-stepping storm troopers. These people are making the mistake of judging a phenomenon by its worst example. Like monarchism, nuclear technology, genetics, religion, the police and any other powerful idea, ethnonationalism in its despotic form is unquestionably bad, but this says more about despotism than about ethnonationalism. And the alternatives are individualism where it’s every man for himself or cleaving to an empire like the EU or the former USSR. Quite how the latter are preferable to nation states I personally can’t see.
Before WWI there were very few ethnically homogenous countries in Europe since most ethnic groups shared territory alongside others in ramshackle empires. During the 19th century the newly-urbanised, newly-educated minorities of these empires often found their paths to advancement blocked if they didn’t belong to the majority ethnic group. This led them, quite reasonably, to demand their own nations where they could advance unhindered up the social scale.
The desire of Serbs to be ruled by Serbs and Germans to be ruled by Germans caused two world wars and some more minor conflicts. It was only after World War II when people had sorted themselves out into their various ethnic groups who were living in self-determined nations that relative peace finally prevailed. This ‘disaggregation’ of ethnic groups was achieved partly through the re-drawing of borders, partly through immigration, partly through forced expulsions and partly through genocide. I envisage the finished disaggregation as a composition made of different coloured grains of sand looking something like this:
So after WWII most large ethnic groups, with the exceptions of Jews and gypsies, possessed their own nations. The Jews got their nation in 1948 while the gypsies probably didn’t even want one. After all, what would they produce, what services would they provide, what would be their country’s GDP and who would they steal all their stuff from if they had their own nation? Their parliament building and capital city would probably look like this.
Though romantic liberals probably picture it more like this:
Whatever. The long peace we are now living through in Europe probably has nothing to do with the creation of the EU or Europeans abjuring ethnonationalism but instead to fact that peoples finally got the separate countries they craved and thus have no further need to invade their neighbours or redraw borders.
Unfortunately, European elites soon felt so secure in their peace that they decided to invite large groups of ethnically diverse people from Muslim countries and the rest of the Third World to come and join us. So, no sooner had disaggregation been achieved than the whole process of ethnic mixing began again, only this time with people who were not only slightly different but often very different from us arriving. What could possibly go wrong?
So the people of Europe had multiculturalism foisted upon them against their will. Native Englanders are now a minority in both their capital city and in various other places, including my own city, Leicester. Anyone who says they preferred things as they were is considered a racist, a Little Englander and a Daily Mail Reader. It is no longer permitted to want to live among people like yourself.
Still, it seems that Europeans are just beginning to wake up to what has been done to their countries and they may even try to get them back. Even so, cultural Marxism and political correctness still hold sway and few wish to be branded an ethnonationalist. We are told that era is behind us and good riddance. What the politically correct fail to mention is that ethnonationalism is gone because our elites got bored with it, not because it no longer worked or had come to feel wrong and unnatural to us, like slavery. In fact unless mocked and sneered at, people appear to naturally prefer living among their own ethnic group, with people they often have more in common with than with those belonging to other groups. If Europeans do ever conclude that what their elites want for them is not what they want for themselves, the whole sorry story of population swaps and forced migration could begin again. Not even I want that. It seems we are stuck with our enforced multiculturalism.
This video gives a good idea of the problem white nations now face. Though the video over-eggs the whole thing with their theory of some grand elitist plan to do away with whites, as well as using scare-mongering language like ‘chasing white people down’, all in all I think they do a good job of visually highlighting the seriousness of the problem. Of course, for the white Europeans who were completely and successfully indoctrinated with cultural Marxism – generally the post-1960’s, university-educated crowd; the ones who have swallowed the whole strength-in-diversity stuff – there is no problem to fix. As long as conservatives – who are now always described as ‘the extreme Right’ – have no sway over culture, only politics, the future looks rosy for these leftists.
In 1945 someone could probably have predicted where future conflicts would arise simply by looking at the ethnic make-up of a region: Yugoslavia, Northern Ireland, the Eastern European states wanting to free themselves from Soviet rule; maybe Belgium, Czechoslovakia, the Basque Country and Catalonia. The conflict in Northern Ireland can be seen as both religious and ethnic in nature with the native Irish representing the Catholics and the Scots-Irish representing the Protestants.
Now in 2015 the former states of Yugoslavia and the ex-Soviet Baltic states are peaceful having respectively split into their various ethnic groups and escaped Soviet rule. Flemish, Walloons, Basques, Catalans, Scots and Welsh continue to push for self-rule depending on degree to which they feel ethnically distinct from those around them and how much they feel they have to win or lose by breaking away.
Just as Winston Churchill thought democracy was the least bad way of structuring the political process, so ethnonationalism seems to me the least bad way of organising a country. For well-understood biological reasons people are born with a slight preference for their own kind. Even simple animals have a refined sense of how closely they are related to other members of their species, as shown in the J.P. Rushton video linked to above. Hitler took this slight preference, exaggerated it with the help of Josef Goebels and warped it into a hatred of other ethnic groups which then became state policy. Nowadays teachers and the media in the western world do the opposite: they inculcate a sense of white guilt into their populations and students. This is no less toxic than what Hitler and Goebels did but rather than mixing pictures of Jews and rats, these teachers and race hustlers try to strengthen a mental association between the white races and slavery, colonialism and racist oppression, even though almost no white person today wishes to keep slaves, to colonise other countries or to racially oppress anyone. This vilification of one race strikes me as being a stupid and dangerous thing to engage in, especially if you are committed to inviting millions of Third Worlders into white countries.
My own preferred course of action would be to encourage patriotism and pride in the achievements of Europeans as an antidote to the cultural Marxist subversion that tries to demoralise native Europeans. If leftist teachers can’t bring themselves to do that, they might at least aim for a little neutrality and objectivity in the spirit of western science i.e. teach about the good things the West has done for humanity rather than concentrate solely on the negative, none of which is unique to whites anyway.
Yet Hollywood movies mainly portray innocent black men being taken as slaves by evil whites. Morgan Freeman has made a career of playing the wise, world-weary old black man. The left-leaning mainstream media under-reports news that shows minorities in a bad light as demonstrated here. There is widespread coverage of unarmed, allegedly gentle black men viciously gunned down by racist police or over-zealous Hispanic-white Neighbourhood Watch fanatics. Little coverage is given to the story when the narrative collapses and the facts turn out to be quite different from those first reported. No one seems to be interested in the fact that blacks kill whites at about 15 times the rate that whites kill blacks.
Documentaries and university lecturers explain the dysfunction of Africa and black American cities with the simplistic trope that all black problems are caused by the legacies of slavery and colonialism, or that white oppression and racism are still alive and kicking, albeit under a veneer of even-handedness.
This progressive liberal bias among teachers and the media leads some impressionable souls to conclude that whites are to blame for most of the world’s ills. Susan Sontag thought that ‘The white race is the cancer of human history’ and a milder version of this view is not uncommon among western liberals.
On university campuses throughout the western world there are young people of all colours who believe that white people’s contribution to mankind has, on the whole, been negative. Sure, we had Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin and Alexander Fleming but we also had Cecil Rhodes, the British Empire and those thugs who killed Stephen Lawrence. Often what is missing in such a view is both a sense of proportion and the understanding that the world was once a very different place, not only for whites but for everyone. These young people have been indoctrinated in the same manner as the children of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. The only difference is that those regimes tried to instil s sense of pride in their young while the West seems determined to instil a sense of shame into their theirs.