Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘ethno-pluralism’

#BLMKidnapping: Clear Proof That #DiversityIsOver

Wednesday, January 4th, 2017

Several African-Americans abducted, beat and tortured a mentally disabled white fellow and posted the video to social media. Among other things, statements against white people and Donald J. Trump were made, and the victim was humiliated with these statements.

Video below — warning, this contains cruelty and violence:

This is an obvious hate crime. If white people did the same thing to black people, with appropriate substitutions for racial slurs and choice of candidate, this would be non-stop national news coverage with much agitation for charges to be filed in as extreme a manner as possible.

The current incident follows a similar incident from the near past. Given that victims do not always report crimes, it would be foolhardy to assume these are isolated.

While emotions run high, and all sorts of lunacies are being suggested, a cold and sober view suggests that this event is a symptom of diversity failing: each group in our multiculture is competing to be on top, and when one group gets ahead of the others, retribution follows.

In that sense, this incident is as much a product of the failure of diversity as lynchings in the past. When groups are thrown into the same society, friction results, in addition to total social alienation caused by the lack of a standard of behavior specific to a group, and in the sinking sensation of unease that comes with discovering that society is not geared toward the well-being of the group to which an individual belongs.

When diversity failures appear, the following can be said loudly and clearly:

Diversity Is Over

For the last 70 years, we have attempted to make diversity work in its most liberal form, after it was nothing but a series of problems in its more restricted variety since the founding of the nation. Every attempt we have made has failed and left the problem worse than it was before.

Ann Coulter correctly identified the problem as diversity itself instead of a specific race or races:

It cannot be said often enough that the chief of staff of the United States Army, Gen. George Casey, responded to a massacre of 13 Americans in which the suspect is a Muslim by saying: “Our diversity … is a strength.”

As long as the general has brought it up: Never in recorded history has diversity been anything but a problem. Look at Ireland with its Protestant and Catholic populations, Canada with its French and English populations, Israel with its Jewish and Palestinian populations.

Or consider the warring factions in India, Sri Lanka, China, Iraq, Czechoslovakia (until it happily split up), the Balkans and Chechnya. Also look at the festering hotbeds of tribal warfare — I mean the “beautiful mosaic” — in Third World hellholes like Afghanistan, Rwanda and South Central, L.A.

“Diversity” is a difficulty to be overcome, not an advantage to be sought. True, America does a better job than most at accommodating a diverse population. We also do a better job at curing cancer and containing pollution. But no one goes around mindlessly exclaiming: “Cancer is a strength!” “Pollution is our greatest asset!”

At Amerika, we have noted this argument for some time, following up on the same argument being made on USENET in the 1990s: the problem is not blacks or whites or any other group, but diversity itself, which puts groups in conflict with one another.

Many of these texts predate Neoreaction, the Alt Right and the new Traditionalist revival of the turn of the millennium. They represent the original position taken by this author in the late 1980s through early 1990s that our problem was something like what Samuel Huntington would later write about as “the clash of civilizations,” namely that each group — ethnic, cultural, religious, class/caste, sexual — needs its own areas and control of its own future so that it can establish its own standards and direction.

While the nation boils with discontent over this latest event, which will lead to positive results for no one, it makes sense instead to go back to our most basic understand and to see that regardless of who is at fault this time, we are all at fault if we continue trying to make the defective and paradoxical policy of diversity (also called internationalism and multiculturalism) function at all.

On Jewishness And The Alt Right

Tuesday, November 1st, 2016

diversity_irony

The messages started almost immediately.

As my piece went live, new Twitter accounts begun for this purpose began reaching out. “I’m a Jew, and I’ve always felt this way but I’m afraid to say it” was one common refrain. This was followed up by Facebook messages, invitations to shadowy right-wing Jewish forums, and furtive Kahane supporters verifying my right-wing credentials. Was I really a spy? The right wing Jew is such a rare breed in the wild, some simply didn’t believe it.

The comment section of my article attracted a not-so-rare breed: the “get in the oven” trolls, there to let me know they weren’t cutting me any slack and a Jew remains a Jew. Even here there were gems. One insightful commentator noted that I wasn’t a REAL racist like they were, I’d merely made the calculation that the modern right was less dangerous to Jews than the modern left. While this fellow underestimated my genuine support of the West qua West, he wasn’t totally wrong, and his next observation was keen: “Do you realize how incredibly neurotic your people are, including yourself?”

Well… yeah!

There are those in the alt-right who define their movement entirely in respect to White Nationalism. To them, the alt-right is the political vehicle in the battle for white “ethno-states” which will replace current democracies in Europe and possibly North America/Australia. Many self-consciously model these states on the example of Israel. The least extreme version of an “ethno-state” need not be racially homogeneous, but the political, economic, and cultural power in the state will remain in the hands of the dominant race/ethnicity, who will decide for themselves what will constitute citizenship. As some call this “white supremacy,” the alt-right points out that it’s simply how most of the world works:

weev

So what is an “ethno-state” and why would figures in the Alt-Right look to Israel for an example?

The idea has been around for some time, in different names and reiterations. For Alt-Right leaders such as Richard Spencer, (head of the National Policy Institute, a “pro white think tank”) defining European and North American states using racial criteria is necessary. Spencer, called the “Karl Marx of the Alt-Right” by Glenn Beck, has written at length about the situation facing American and European Whites. What situation? Minority status, loss of culture, and loss of identity in a multi-ethnic state where the standard of living has fallen for everyone. The solution? Make race or ethnic identity the core organizing principle of the state. Germany for the Germans, France for the French, Japan for the Japanese, etc. The policies of these states can vary, but the bedrock principle would be the maintenance of a majority for the dominant ethnic group.

Israel has chosen to extend certain rights to non-Jewish citizens, including the right to vote; there are Arabs in the Knesset. This is all true, yet between ethno-states, policies can differ greatly.

To the Alt-Right, this solves many problems at once. In his book The Ethnostate, Wilmot Robertson (deceased, 2005) talks about what such a state would look like and what policies it would have. The specifics are less important than the idea that race is a “shortcut” to fix other issues. Problems with Wall Street? Less of a problem in a White ethno-state, where high trust and cultural/ethnic pride lead to better behavior from executives. There’s less of a need for regulation in the first place. Where to put educational resources? Easier question when we aren’t dealing with issues of race and immigration, isn’t it? In an ethno-state, the focus of the government will be a more efficient affair. The time and effort put into bridging ethnic and racial divides in our public institutions will evaporate, leaving societies’ energy focused on more productive issues. The well-being of such a country could be more objectively measured. What’s the standard of living? What’s the pay gap? How’s inequality? These questions are easier to answer without issues of race.

Does any of this sound familiar? Do any states exist with policies intended to keep one ethnic/racial group as a majority? Policies that favor this group? The example given by many Alt-Right figures is Israel. Spencer claims to “respect Israel” as a “homogenous ethno-state.” Israeli policies discouraging non-Jewish immigration and encouraging Palestinians to move away from disputed areas are cited by alt-right leaders as examples for their own ethno-state.

Immigration/emigration are part of the story for Israel, but its commitment to the Jewish population is deeper than that. A good description comes from author Sammy Smooha, in the Journal “Nations and Nationalism”. Smooha writes:

Contrary to its self–image and international reputation as a Western liberal democracy, Israel is an ethnic democracy in which the Jews appropriate the state and make it a tool for advancing their national security, demography, public space, culture and interests.

This is what the Alt-Right theoretically wants. A state in which White people, however defined, have control over the public spaces, the culture, the politics, and the demographic future of their country.

What’s that you say? Israel’s not really an ethno-state? They have minorities? Well, of course. Israel has chosen to extend certain rights to non-Jewish citizens, including the right to vote; there are Arabs in the Knesset. This is all true, yet between ethno-states, policies can differ greatly. There’s no need for such a state to be free of minorities, as long as the state itself is defined around the majority. Israel, which encourages (and pays for) large orthodox Jewish families, and calls itself the “Jewish State” is certainly such a country.

So why isn’t the alt-right thrilled to have more Jews among its ranks? Surely we could provide the guidance they need to set up their ethno-states. If they are impressed with Israel, why not more engagement with sympathetic diaspora Jews?

Many in the Alt-Right fear Jewish influence on their movement, citing the Neoconservative “takeover” of traditional Conservatism, and the change in the movement’s character as a result. They fear that Jews may “dilute” the ethno-state they ultimately want to build.

Kevin McDonald, ex Cal State professor and Alt-Right theorist, has written a piece on Jews and the Alt-Right that mentions nineteenth century Austrian-Jewish politician Victor Adler. Adler’s Austria was the seat of the multinational Austro-Hungarian Empire, and was under strain from the repeated influx of “Slavic” immigrants and refugees.

Merely preserving German language and administrative customs wasn’t enough. Actual German people needed protection as well.

Difficult questions of identity revolved around German-speaking Austrians. Should “German” policies, German language, German culture, predominate? Should loyalty to the Emperor and the state trump ethnic loyalty? Adler was a “cultural” nationalist, part of the Linz Program of 1882, explicitly calling for the primacy of German culture, language, and policies in the Austrian State. One of Adler’s co-signers to the Linz Program was Georg Schönerer, who advocated for the inclusion of an “Aryan Paragraph” which would make explicit the connection between German culture and people of German ethnicity.

So what does this have to do with the ethno-state? Schönerer’s concerns are a model for the concerns of the Alt-Right today. As Austria took in more and more refugees from the east, the relative power of the German-speaking population was reduced. To Schönerer and even Adler, the Slavic “Hungarian” side of the Empire was distinctly inferior to the “German” side. To allow more Slavic influence at court, and to allow more Slavic people into the intuitions of the state would invariably weaken and degrade Austro-Hungary. The Linz Program signers made their feelings explicit:

We protest against all attempts to convert Austria into a Slavic state. We shall continue to agitate for the maintenance of German as the official language and to oppose the extension of federalism…[W]e are steadfast supporters of the alliance with Germany and the foreign policy now being followed by the empire.

Adler agreed with Schönerer regarding the “inferiority” of Slavic culture to German culture, but Schönerer took things a step further. Merely preserving German language and administrative customs wasn’t enough. Actual German people needed protection as well. His “Aryan Paragraph” provided that Germans would receive privileges in the empire including more access to government positions.

Schönerer also advocated for a breakup on the Empire along ethnic lines, and his ideas are said to have motivated Polish and Hungarian Nationalists, as well as providing a model for Zionism. Today’s Alt-Right also feels the need to go beyond “cultural nationalism” as well — which means that their ethno-state will not be welcome to any but those who are genetically of its founding ethnic group. To them, race and ethnicity are biological facts.

There’s something genetically distinct, for example, about a German person, and this genetic distinctiveness expresses itself in German culture, which then influences what will be the German state. A majority Black country in Africa could attempt to become a German “culturally nationalist” state, but in the eyes of the Alt-Right, this would end in failure. Only Jews can make a Jewish state, only Zulus a Zulu State. We can speak each other’s languages, eat each other’s food, but there will always be a deep distinction between us.

There’s something genetically distinct, for example, about a German person, and this genetic distinctiveness expresses itself in German culture, which then influences what will be the German state.

Adler broke with Schönerer over the Aryan Paragraph and soon ended up leading the Austrian Labour Movement and publishing an influential Marxist journal. MacDonald and other Alt-Eight commentators fear that Jews in the Alt-Right would exert a similar influence to that of Adler. It’s not the disagreement between cultural/ethnic nationalism in and of itself that bothers them, but the possibility that Jews will push the former and vilify the latter, all while taking on the mantle of the alt-right. Seems a bit farfetched? Perhaps, but who would have thought that Neoconservatives would take the mantle of American Conservatism from John Birch?

The Alt-Right is mixed on Jewish help, but nuanced. MacDonald is still open to the idea of Jews “allied” to the alt-right, assuming they are “vocal critics of the Jewish community and its role in the dispossession of European-Americans.” More nuance comes from a recent press conference given by top alt-right luminaries including Spencer and Jared Taylor. In Taylor’s own words:

“I tend to believe that European Jews are part of our movement,” Taylor said. “I think it is unquestionable there has been an overrepresentation by Jews [among] individuals that have tried to undermine white legitimacy.”

But, he said, the same is true of Episcopalians.

“Does that mean all Jews are enemies of the white race? I reject that,” Taylor said.

Taylor has long been a “white nationalist” writer, well known for being one of the “moderates” in the movement. His views were well-expressed in a recent NPR interview. What he wants is fairly simple: freedom of association on private property. If (non-Jewish) whites wish to have an all-white club, private school, or neighborhood, government shouldn’t intrude. Is this, in and of itself, anti-Semitic? Will I be on my way to the oven? Not sure, but I managed to avoid oppressing the Goyim on my way to Jewish Summer Camp, so who’s to say Whites couldn’t exhibit similar restraint? This really isn’t terribly different than current American policies. Taylor’s “ethno-state” would be far milder than Israel!

Israel has chosen to extend certain rights to non-Jewish citizens, including the right to vote; there are Arabs in the Knesset. This is all true, yet between ethno-states, policies can differ greatly.

Regardless of individual feelings on the Alt-Right, White People, or ethno-states, there is more nuance here than most will give credit for. Media accounts (Betsy Woodruff in Daily Beast) of the NPI Press Conference claim the participants “hate Jews”, despite Taylor’s clear stance to the contrary:

woodruff

Covering the NPI Press Conference for the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Ron Kampeas writes:

“I want my grandchildren to look like my grandparents,” Taylor said, “not like Fu Manchu or Whoopi Goldberg or Anwar Sadat.”

There were nods of agreement and more pledges to continue the conversation in the Willard bar.

As the room emptied, I prayed silently that Taylor would enjoy good health long enough to behold a grandchild with a pointed goatee, thick braids, foot-long fingernails and a prayer bump, and I recalled his opening remarks, and his overarching predicate for the existence of racial differences.

Most Jewish people would have a similar reaction to Woodruff and Kampeas. Hostility, referring to the Alt-Right leaders as “racist”, mocking their desire for racial and ethnic purity. But why? Are figures like Spencer racist for wanting a White ethno-state? Is Taylor to be condemned for wanting his grandchildren to look like him? (and, it could be assumed, wanting the same or better standard of living for them?) Why can’t we turn the lens around for a moment? What are we really quibbling over? Is it the location of Spencer’s hypothetical ethno-state? What if it was Norway? Is it a problem that White people want to be around other White people? Want their grandchildren to be like them?

I want my grandchildren to be Jewish, I want the Jewish state of Israel to retain its majority Jewish population and character. I want Israel to be there for me and my grandchildren. I want Judaism and the Jewish people to survive. Am I any different than Spencer? Are you?

Why universal basic income signals the end of diversity

Tuesday, October 22nd, 2013

citizenship_by_ethno-cultural_identitySwitzerland is currently grappling with the issue of adopting a universal basic income, or a guarantee of $2500 a month per citizen whether working or not. Advocates claim this will reduce inequality, crime, and produce rainbows on every street corner.

While no one is fooled as to why the audience likes this — they like it for the same reason they like Communism and Socialism, which is that free stuff provided by the collective means they’re less accountable to anything but their own whims — the interesting question is why economists like it. In short, we have too many people working, and we need to find some way to furlough some of them.

Enlightened traditionalists will point out that tradition gave us several brilliant options for this need, the leading strain of which is to furlough women by making them full-time leaders of the home. Further, by having values outside the workplace, traditional societies created multiple roles that weren’t jobs, from religious staff to cultural and intellectual guardians.

The modern economy being what it is in the age of machines, economists reason, we have improved our productivity by tenfold at least. Why, then, do we have so many people working? And more importantly, is having so many people working clogging up the system with layers of semi-accountable peons?

It’s common sense that offices tend to be driven by the acts of a few people who may or may not have titles saying the same. As a matter of logic, the fewer people involved in making a decision, the more responsive it will be; this is the opposite of “committee logic” whereby the more people who can be included, the better, and the result is a creeping calcification and cowardice.

But let’s roll the dice and look into this future where there are fewer workers. Supposing we sent home the lowest-performing 60% of the workforce, and let the rest be more efficient, collaborative, interactive and all those good buzzwords. This would furlough a huge number of people on universal income.

In addition to swelling the rolls of the internet with more crazy people who should never have been in offices anyway, this act will force some hard decisions on who is a member of the community. It doesn’t play well with open borders. For example, if Switzerland offered UBI to every citizen of the world, the tiny Alpine country would soon have a population of five billion people looking for that handout.

If the history of welfare and socialism in the West has taught us anything, it’s that if you offer a benefit, people show up to claim it. They are not particularly concerned with whether this is logical or not. They know they’d like it and you’re handing it out, so they take it at face value and sign up for those bennies.

Thus the hidden conversation behind the debate over UBI is border control and thus, citizenship control. Who is in the tribe? If we’re going to hand out income, and those of us who work are going to have to pretend we’re cool with that, we should at least make sure it goes to our people.

And thus an old debate intensifies. During the nation-state era (1789-2009) it was considered a good thing to import anyone you could, because these people provided financial benefit. The hallmark of the nation-state era was monetarism, or the idea that you could control people with the flow of money. Immigration offered both workers and customers and so, the “wisdom” went, it meant your stake in the corporation of the nation-state went up.

Some painful learning years later, we know that’s not the case at all, and what immigration does is create social chaos, political division and a permanent welfare state. By separating welfare from need, UBI forces a single basic question. Instead of “Is this person suffering?” it’s “Is this person one of us?”

At that point however “one of us” is no longer a political determination since the political basis of that decision is participation in the economy. They’re not immigrants here to make money for you and buy your products; they’re members of your society that you’re supporting solely because they’re members of your society.

Because of that distinction, UBI will introduce the question of who you want around you. After all, you’re paying for it, and not out of some obligation from the past, such as guilt for colonialism or class warfare (“inequality”). There will be no inequality. There is only the question of who you sponsor, which tends to be answered with “people like me.”

Tribalism returns when we stop with the errand of pity and embark instead on the practical task of cleaning up from the great liberal democracy party of the late 20th century, and rebuilding civilization. UBI is one attempt to duck the hangover, but as with all sweeping changes, it will introduce a new debate, and one that will shake our basic assumptions about citizenship and obligation.

Recommended Reading