While many of his criticisms of “white nationalists” are on point, Fred Reed really loses sight of the issue with his latest:
White nationalists, often inaccurately called â€œwhite supremacists,â€ want to close the border. So do I. They want to make Obama stop importing every sort of third-worlder he has heard of. So do I. They want to deport illegal aliens. With exceptions, so do I.
For the sake of discussion, let us assume that all of this has been done. At this point the white nationalists (hereinafter just â€œnationalistsâ€) run out of gas, having so far as I am aware no further plan or aim beyond a loathing for anything not white and European.
And we are back in cuckistan. Reading only for denotational meaning, he says that white nationalists hate anything not white and European. That is the exact same message that mainstream media conveys not just about “white nationalists,” which are a special hybrid of nationalism, and could have come right off the pages of the SPLC.
He also entirely misses the point of the anti-immigration backlash: diversity has failed. Looking back through history, we see that diversity has always failed, with two particular points of note:
Race does not matter. Diversity fails no matter what groups make up the diversity. Even high-IQ populations clash. Even groups of the same race clash. Diversity can take many forms — race, ethnicity, religion, culture — and wherever it is tried, chaos results. Even the diversity “success stories” like Switzerland are neurotic to the core.
Diversity is the opposite of culture. That is, diversity destroys culture by replacing it with multiculture, which is just another form of pluralism, or the idea that we can “agree to disagree” and therefore not have a goal, but still keep working together.
Reed is beating a dead strawman here. Those of us who have no love for white nationalism, and in particular who consider it “ethno-Bolshevism” as it is, have an obligation to criticize it correctly. That criticism comes from its numerous internal contradictions, its fundamental Leftist leaning, and its emotional radicalism.
However, Reed is not criticizing white nationalists — as he says above, he is criticizing all Nationalists. And for what? Some humanitarian impulse? A desire to justify his own residence in Mexico, despite the constant problems he writes about frequently?
So, what do nationalists propose? I do this not as a challenge but in search of understanding, a reasonable question in search of a reasonable answer. The question is one of the most important that can be asked. The country deserves a concrete answer. The politically correct classes say things like, â€œWe need comprehensive immigration reform.â€ That can mean anything, and therefore means nothing.
My answer would be: Try to make legal Latinos into productive citizens, which should not be terribly hard. Leaving them alone, and not allowing governments to turn them into a welfare class, would probably do the trick. If nationalists have a better idea, or another idea, I would be happy to consider it.
This nationalist has a simple proposition:
We know that diversity does not work, which means that America needs to go back to its Western European (not just “white”) roots. And then, it is time to make sense of mess that liberalism has made.
Europeans Who Are Non-Western go back to their native homelands. If they are mixed, like an Italian-Polish crossover, they go back to whichever of those nations will take them.
Africans go back to Africa, but in recognition of slavery and the resulting non-policy for the last 150 years, they are given reparations with repatriation as a necessary condition. This will strengthen Africa and end a historical wound that, owing to Leftist history-editing, will never be understood.
Hispanics go back to Central or South America, depending on their country of origin. This will not be a large move for them, and both we and their source countries will be better off.
Oriental-Asians go back to their countries of origin. If they are mixed, they go to whatever country is lower (Vietnam over Japan, for example, or Thailand over Korea).
Indic-Asians go back to India if they are of historical Indian heritage, and Pakistan if they have mixed middle-Eastern heritage.
Mixed-race people and the white parts of their family all go to Brazil, which is a diversity paradise that is accepting of mixed-race people.
Looking at facts, America has too many people already. The cities are bursting at the seams and suburbs are stretching far into the countryside. Further, we do not “need” these additional people: they are here as cheap labor and paid Democrat voters, but nothing else.
Peering even deeper into the equation, since diversity does not work, we will see nothing but more actions of resentment and ethnic friction as these groups clash. The real cost is not the violence, however, but the lowered social trust and increased dysfunction of civilization.
No, diversity cannot stand — not in any form at all. It is the great evil that destroys societies and it is not “racist” to say that, because the problem is not the other race(s) but diversity itself; white nationalists should take note. Diversity is a bad policy no matter how it is implemented, and it is time to end it.
As far as Fred goes, he channels every cucked Republican for the past seventy years:
The problem, of courseâ€“â€œof course,â€ anyway, to people who have lived in the developing worldâ€“is that so many of the immigrants are not of the middle class. Once people have a decent job, spouse, mortgage, car, refrigerator, two kids and a dog, they become placid, maybe a little boring, and spend their time taking the kids to soccer practice. (How many of the people shooting each other in Chicago fail to fit this description? How many middle-class blacks shoot each other? Exactly) Thus it might be wise to encourage the entry of Latinos into the middle class.
Translation: give them some nonsense certification-based “education,” fill them with propaganda, move them to the suburbs and they become just like us.
Except that Mexico already has a middle class, and those are not the people coming across the board. You cannot educate and propagandize people into a class; class reflects abilities.
At this point, Fred has gone to full Leftism: the idea that people are all equal, and that we can play God and mold them into whatever good little comrades we desire in order to keep the egalitarian ideal safely in operation. This is a shame as many of his other columns are insightful.
He basically admits that his plan creates an insoluble crisis:
Is assimilation possible? I think so, eventually anyway, but we shall see. I do know that if (a) Latinos, already probably twenty per cent of the population, become ghettoized, isolated, hostile and dysfunctional, the United States is over, fini, done, and (b) constant attacks on them as Latinos tend to lead to this end.
Let us turn that around: “Is assimilation desirable?” Not unless you want to commit genocide of your own population and replace it with an exciting mixed-race group like we see in Brazil, Mexico, Iraq and parts of Russia. Trace admixture worked so well in the former Greek and Roman empires. They have been noticeably absent from history lately.
This is one of the many reasons that diversity does not work.
Reed, following the Leftist playbook, has tried to equate “anti-diversity” with “anti-Latino” and is using his cover of anti-African sentiment as a credential. He wants you to believe that you can oust a certain group, and then life can just keep on going as is convenient.
This is typical of the Baby Boomers and pre-Boomers who opted for diversity in the first place. They wanted convenience. Cheap maids were good for convenience, so they started with Filipino maids (vestiges of the Spanish-American War, perhaps). Then they hired Africans, and finally South/Central Americans. They wanted an end to “bad race relations,” so they demanded integration and welfare. They wanted to be more good than those evil Germans, so they cooked up multiculturalism as an ideology and demanded the world obey it.
When we have chosen a bad path, the most important task is to identify the path. White nationalists get it wrong, and Fred Reed now gets it wrong. The bad path is not a specific ethnic group, or a failure to include a specific racial group; it is the idea of diversity itself. Any other approach is nonsense and cuckery.