Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘marcus garvey’

Diversity Will Destroy African-Americans Too

Tuesday, February 28th, 2017

Diversity — the policy of putting different ethnic groups in the same country so that no group can have its own culture compete with the power of ideology and government — is sold to us as a way to protect vulnerable minority groups. In reality, it is a vortex of meaninglessness that will absorb all groups.

Contrary to media image, diversity gives minority groups like African-Americans a choice: be condescend to, or be ignored, but either way, they never get what they want and need, which is rule by themselves, for themselves and control of their future. They will always be a means to an end for the government and its attendant Leftist ideology.

One Leftist African-American Hollywoodite even noticed this:

“If I see another 45-year-old white woman from Williamsburg saying ‘black lives matter,’ I’m going to punch you in the mouth,” the “Saturday Night Live” star said during her recent four-night stint at New York comedy club, Carolines on Broadway. “Stop doing that.”

…Currently single, the “Ghostbusters” actress also blames the president on the lack of love in her life.

“I want to be in love,” she said. “I want to do that, but it’s 2017, and we got a pig in office. The world is about to end.”

What we are seeing here is expression of her special interest group: for black people interested in milking the white civilization for more direct benefits and indirect advantages like fame in entertainment, the world is about to end, because a wave of European discontent with diversity and liberal democracy is sweeping through Western culture.

If we think through her statement, she makes a good point, albeit a paradoxical one. Blacks do not want whites commenting on black events, even in support, because they see this as condescension. White people virtue signal using minorities as tools. This is offensively paternalistic.

But on the other hand, for white people to simply mind their own business is also “problematic” because then they ignore black issues. For example, if white hipster women — Jones identifies Gen X from Williamsburg, which are almost certainly aging bloated hipsters — simply ignored black lives matter, that would also be perceived as racist.

We see this kind of damned-if-you-do/damned-if-you-do-not paradox in many places, exploding into hilarity as well-intentioned white suburban nerds screw up Black History Month yet again:

The township schools superintendent apologized to parents for a recent high school lunch menu that served fried chicken to celebrate Black History Month [alongside: corn bread, sweet potato casserole, sauteed spinach, mac & cheese and peach and apple crisps].

…Pomptonian Vice President Cathy Penna said one of their directors worked with an administrator in one of the district’s schools on creating a menu event to celebrate Black History Month.

“The suggestion was to do something to celebrate soul food,” Penna said in an email. The company tries to offer a diverse menu respecting different cultures, she wrote.

They were trying to respect black culture, you see, but did not realize — being white suburban nerds — that they also tapped into a stereotype. Then again, how could they do anything but use stereotypes, since they are trying to symbolize a race of diverse individuals with a casual token of acknowledgement?

When white people try to help, it ends badly. Then again, if they did nothing for Black History Month, people would call them racist. The only solution that comes to mind is something ludicrous like burgers shaped like Martin Luther King, Jr. This is a common dilemma, damned if you try to be not-racist and damned if you do not vigorously signal anti-racism, even across the pond:

A Cambridge college has been accused of ‘cultural misrepresentation’ by students after serving ‘Jamaican stew’ and ‘Tunisian rice’ on its menus.

Students argued the dishes served at Pembroke College were not authentic to countries they were described to be from.

No one complained about the Greek salad or watery Italian pasta sauce, but a similar cursory treatment — familiar to cafeterias worldwide, apparently — given to minority foods is transformed into something offensive and disturbing. Can the Germans riot for what we have done to beer? Or the English reclaim “Salisbury Steak” from its adulterated modern form, the cheeseburger?

The difference of viewpoint can be explained by a simple fact: majorities do not view themselves as a separate group from the nation, but minorities do. When white people started heading toward minority status, they finally starting “getting” the complaints that minority communities have been issuing for decades.

To be a minority is to never feel at home in a place. You are always of a separate identity than the nation itself, and are either forced to assimilate or to be an outsider, but in neither case do you feel as if you are in the right place. You only feel if you are in the right place if you are in a nation created by people like you, for people like you, ruled by people like you.

African-Americans have never had that. This leads to a condition where they see only two sides, a majority versus united minorities:

“They feel like even if they’re illiterate, skin color should give them privilege. Even if they are an illiterate, they feel superior to a black president with a Harvard degree. What interrupted that was a black president and immigrants. Trump plugged in on that. He’s talking basically about let’s get white males in charge. That was the covert message of this campaign.”

Voting for Trump was a way for whites to restore power they felt was usurped by President Obama, Jordan said.

He has discovered why diversity cannot work. Each group has its own self-interest. These conflict when groups are combined under one nation-state roof. As a result, a zero-sum game is created where minority groups feel themselves succeeding only when they are actively beating down, profiting from or displacing the majority.

There is no way out of this crisis, and it is not about who the majority is, so much as the fact that there is a majority and a minority. This explains in part why crises all over the world explode into violence as soon as diversity arises. Where multiple groups coexist, a power struggle is created for whose self-interest will rule the region.

African-Americans are caught in this struggle, which is why they are offended both by white affirmation of Black Lives Matter and white failure to support Black Lives Matter. Either act is a statement of majority power, either by determining what is a valid group to support, or by being self-interested and demonstrating the clash between that and black self-interest.

There is a line of clothing named FUBU which by rumor stands for “For Us, By Us.” This is the attitude of nationalists toward the nation. The nation-state, with its magic dirt and proposition nation trimmings, cannot work. Only the homogeneous ethnic state allows people to know that it is created for them, by them, and that they command it for their own self-interest.

FUBU is the only working model for the black community, but as Marcus Garvey noted, this will probably require repatriation to Africa. Without that, blacks will be just another ethnic group vying for power in a group, with each group effectively becoming unstated enemies of all the others, in the usual destruction that diversity visits on us.

Renewed Calls For Slavery Reparations Provide Opportunity For Nationalists

Friday, January 6th, 2017

Some Democrats have renewed calls for reparations for slavery of Africans in the United States:

Members of the Congressional Black Caucus and other Democrats this week re-introduced legislation that would set up a commission to consider whether reparations should be paid to black Americans for slavery.

Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., has proposed the bill in each Congress for at least the last two decades.

…Conyers’ new bill wasn’t released as of Wednesday, but the version of the bill proposed last year found that 4 million blacks were enslaved in the U.S. from 1619 to 1865. It said the commission would examine the entire history of slavery, and then make recommendations on whether the U.S. government should apologize for slavery, and whether reparation payments are warranted.

This represents an opportunity for Nationalists: we know that the mixed-ethnic “nation-state” or “proposition nation” does not work because every ethnic group has its own self-interest, and these clash. Specifically, each group needs identity and rules made to fit its behavioral standards, as a means of having pride in itself and control over its future.

Woodrow Wilson recognized this a century ago in response to European wars brought about by the post-Napoleonic order of nation-states:

In World War I the Allies accepted self-determination as a peace aim. In his Fourteen Points—the essential terms for peace—U.S. president Woodrow Wilson listed self-determination as an important objective for the postwar world; the result was the fragmentation of the old Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires and Russia’s former Baltic territories into a number of new states.

…First, a state is said to have the right of self-determination in the sense of having the right to choose freely its political, economic, social, and cultural systems. Second, the right to self-determination is defined as the right of a people to constitute itself in a state or otherwise freely determine the form of its association with an existing state.

He was not the only one. Marcus Garvey, writing in defense of his people, noted that mixed-race societies were a Leftist goal that would ill serve the African population:

The danger of Communism to the Negro, in countries where he forms the minority of the population, is seen in the selfish and vicious attempts of that party or group to use the Negro’s vote and physical numbers in helping to smash and over-throw, by revolution, a system as injurious to them as the white underdogs. the success of which would put their majority group or race still in power, not only as communists but as whitemen. To me there is no difference between two roses looking alike, and smelling alike even if some one calls them by different names. Fundamentally what racial difference os there between a white Communist, Republican or Democrat?

In other words, the nation-state will never give any ethnic group what it needs, which is ethnic self-determination, and will be used by Leftist forces to advance an agenda of the world market in service to Leftism. From this it logically follows that the only solution is ethnic self-determination for all ethnic groups:

This simply does not apply in Europe. The answer to “Who is French” is “I’m from here. I am a Gaul.” That is the end of the conversation. No immmigrant, no matter how long they have been there can make such a claim. A Gaul can say to be French is to be, x,y and z and that’s it. The Frenchman has every right to determine for himself what Frenchness IS and is not. And they can change that definition at will. Nobody else has the right to tell the French what French culture is. Equally the French cannot tell the Yoruba what Yoruba culture is and WHO is a Yoruba. Catch my point? …

Self determination is the right of all people. That includes Europeans.

A lot of people did not like that I stood up for the self determination of Europeans. But this is about consistency. I simply cannot honestly call for self-determination of the African while saying that the European has no such right.

This puts us in an interesting position. We know that diversity cannot work because it pits ethnic groups against one another over the question of self-determination. We know that globalism, which has always been a Leftist goal, wants one world shopping mall where all the workers are united in support of Leftist strong power. We know that ethnic tension is rising and nothing has stopped it, including electing a black president, which seems to have poured fuel on the fire.

As a result, it makes sense to consider reparations on the condition of repatriation. This way, diversity problems end. Since we know that WASP America needs ethnic self-determination, too, and that WASPs — the ethnic group that forms and perpetuates Western Civilization — can coexist together, it makes sense to repatriate all non-WASPs to their homelands, and in the spirit of fairness, give them reparations for their suffering under diversity.

Without ethnic separation, race war is inevitable. No one sane wants that. This is why reparations-with-repatriation is gaining momentum, being a sensible response to continued ethnic strife and a way to end race antagonism brought about by diversity. This would end racial resentment and give African-descended peoples control over their future, as mentioned by prominent black Nationalist leaders.

Repatriation would provide to the developing countries of the world a steady influx of wealth, knowledge and people experienced in the Western method of civilization. This would give many struggling nations a chance to reach their full potential. In addition, it would end the cycle where the founding population of this country pays obscene amounts in welfare and diversity programs and gets race riots for its trouble.

Problems do not just go away. If our methods of solving them are not working, doing more of the same will also not work. We know our current path leads to doom, so it is time to pick another, even if at first it seems like we are doling out money to the other side. With repatriation, this money constitutes an investment in our future, and in those of African-descended peoples everywhere.

Interview With Sondjata of Garvey’s Ghost Blog

Wednesday, November 30th, 2016

garveys_ghost

Those of us who prowl the web looking for interesting reading material will inevitably come across Garvey’s Ghost, a blog of informed and intelligent analysis from an African perspective. Its proprietor, Sondjata, was kind enough to give us the time for an interview.

How did you end up thinking radically differently from the mainstream? What was your introduction to more historically-aware politics, and how did it change over time?

I have always thought differently from the mainstream (even though according to multiple ‘political leaning” tests  I am apparently almost dead center in terms of left-right. However; I had earlier been attracted to more left wing and black liberal (liberational) ideologies.

I later moved into Pan-Africanism of the Garvey strain which put me on the political “right” of black left ideology (if that makes sense). Later on as I strove to maintain intellectual honesty and challenged my own beliefs by looking at data that  I previously dismissed as “racist” due to adhering to the “Thou shalt not read, watch or otherwise acknowledge information from non-left sources” religion, I moved in what would be considered by most a more rightward direction. Of course as mentioned earlier, by many measures I am a centrist which means, in my opinion, being honest with the facts ought make you a centrist.

If you were in control of the world, what would civilization look like, both locally and globally?

I don’t want to control the world. I actually came to the decision that I was unfit for that level of leadership a long time ago. I have “revenge” issues.  I think world control (globalism) is at the root of many problems. I have spent around 20 years simply trying to consider how to make Garveyite Pan-Africanism workable and no matter how I’ve thought it out it means upsetting (and possibly eliminating) a great deal of people.

While there may be technological means to overcome issues such as language, I don’t see how you can “control the globe” without seriously impacting local cultures and customs.  Personally I’m currently leaning to nations setting up themselves as they see fit and do whatever they see fit so long as they don’t negatively impact other nations (warfare, environmental damage). People should be able to leave a nation/culture they don’t care for but upon arriving in a nation they find more inviting must adopt the norms of that society.

Do you think there is an underlying psychological condition behind Leftism, or is it an informed choice, and if so, why do people choose it?

I think we have to define “leftism.” Leftism as we see it now (I refuse to call it “progressive”) and leftism as we saw it in say Barbara Jordan’s time was very different. Old style leftism as I understand it (which could be wrong) was concerned with abuse of power by the powerful. So we had unions that definitely helped the American worker. You had the issue of slavery, Jim Crow and other abridging of rights of certain citizens. I don’t think anyone with a conscience can honestly take issue with these things.This is where I think people get into liberalism. Who’s for discrimination? So it is an obvious logical and importantly emotional decision to be attracted to liberalism.

Modern day liberalism is quite different. Through my reading and watching I am convinced that current liberalism is Marxism/socialism in American garb  (or British, French what-have-you). Yes there were definitely communist influences in the early civil rights movement(s) with even communists in leadership positions but their power, in my opinion, was blunted by a sense of patriotism and cultural respect. Now those checks are all but gone. What happens now with liberals is that you take the emotional power of “are you for discrimination” and you then use that to widen your power grab or as others put it, move the goal post. It also allows those who see themselves as victims to blame an external party (which is human nature) rather than look at themselves.

Garvey’s Ghost has been high on my reading list since I found it. When did you start the blog, and why?

I started Garvey’s Ghost in Dec 2003.  Generally I was upset about G.W. Bush as well as what I considered extremely weak black writings on various subjects. Being a solutions-orientated person, I decided to do something other than complain. By the way it is the longest running, continuously updated black blog that is not a news aggregator.

What do you think Marcus and Amy Garvey offered that others have not, and why are they more obscure than some other thinkers who seem to get all the press?

Well it’s a good thing I reviewed my answer to this question because I totally did not answer the question posed. The reason that I believe Garvey (Marcus and Amy) and Garveyism is and has been ignored is because it generally does not appeal to the “white people owe us everything and all we need to do is make ’em pay” ideology that is rife on the black left.

Part of this again is human nature.  Imagine I came to you and gave you the following offer: I will give you a brand new car for your use right now or I’ll give you the parts to build a new car and all the tools to build it and maintain it and if you like build more. 99.9% of people would say “thanks for the keys.” Liberal ideology is taking the keys. Garveyism is taking the parts and tools. Garveyism is hard in the short term but pays in the long term. But you gotta build the car.

When The Black Star Line company was formed the NAACP went out against it. Think about that, the NAACP was against a black-run organization that would be employing black people. So this is why Garveyism isn’t accepted by left blacks. Oh they love the Red Black and Green. But symbolism is easy.

Speaking specifically about Amy Garvey I would point out that  she often wrote scathing indictments of black men not being husbands, fathers and leaders. Amy Garvey wouldn’t be out here talking about how “our babies are being shot by police.” She would be out there talking about why are your babies out robbing the stores and shooting each other? She’d be asking, what kind of fathers are letting their babies out in the street like that?  I found Amy’s huge contributions to Garveyism much later than discovering Garvey himself and once I discovered her huge impact on the Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA) I added her name to the masthead of the blog.

What do you think of white nationalists and the Alt Right? Is there any legitimacy in these belief systems, or are they compensatory pathologies?

Two different groups with some overlap. As Garveyite Pan-Africanist I cannot be opposed to White Nationalism as a principle. I cannot advocate for black people running their countries however they see fit and then turn around and say that white people cannot run their own nations as they see fit. As a matter of fact I think places like Germany, France and England need a good dose of white nationalism to get themselves back on track. That track being running the country for the benefit of its natives and citizens first! I want to make sure I point out that there is a difference between a “white nationalist” and a “white supremacist.” One can definitely be both but the two are not necessarily mutually inclusive.

That said I have to address America. Where I diverge from white nationalists or white nationalist leaning persons such as those who run Vdare is that America is not a white native country. While it was in fact founded by whites (in the collective sense) none of those whites have a “native” claim on the land as they do in England, France, etc., thus I disagree with those at Vdare that America is not a proposition nation. It most certainly is. Of course the proposition is that one accepts as the general culture that which came from the founders and particularly those of the founding documents.

So to be clear the US is a proposition republic formed on the governing principles of the English. English common law informs all US laws and are the only legitimate source for interpretation. However the US is culturally a mix of a variety of nations whose influences we can see in various states.  This is unlike any of the native West European nations.

The best white nationalists can claim about America is sweat equity.  This is a position you’ll see espoused by Ramzpaul. He points out (correctly) that there was no America as we know it, before Europeans got here and that since Europeans came, conquered and built, Europeans get to claim the nation (a similar argument is made about South Africa).

The problem with this idea is that Europeans were not the only group with “sweat equity” in America. The African population, property or not, was here just about as long as any founding family and given the history of slavery, no one can claim they did not work. So in reality Africans descended from the slave trade have just as much a claim (if not differently based) as whites do. I think many white nationalists have a problem processing that. Or to the extent they do, they simply don’t care.

With that said, let me be clear that I have a massive problem with the violent wing of white nationalists (as I do with violent black nationalists). Such violence in the “service” of ideology undermines rule of law be they polar bear hunts or running down a black man walking along a street.

Per the Alt-Right, this is coming to you after the Spencer “Hail Trump” thing.  I look at alt-right like I did Gamergate. It’s composed of way too many types of people to be easily defined. 

I believe that the MSM are using the same techniques it did on Gamergate on the Alt-Right. The way I see it, the Alt-Right is a “home” for those who are not attracted to “conservatism” or “Republicanism” but have no desire to be on the left because the left essentially lost their marbles at least eight years ago. Had the left not completely lost its mind, then the alt-right would have no need to even exist. 

When it is racist to say a country should enforce its borders, you have a serious problem. When the world is never to forget the Holocaust but I’m supposed to be against a fellow citizen who watched his or her loved ones and fellow citizen jump out of a burning building because that was preferable to burning alive, and now is not “fond” of Muslims?

So as long as the left double and quadruple downs on their agenda an Alt-something is going continue to exist. There will be “unsavory” people doing unsavory things. But that’s human nature.

Can you tell us about yourself: what was your early life and family like? What do you enjoy doing? How does being opposed to most of the political and social thinking around you, and probably the behavior of most others, affect your life?

I’m a first generation American. Family is from the Caribbean. Raised Seventh Day Adventists, left Christianity for what I would call “Reform” ATR (African Traditional Religion). I’ve been on the outside of “mainstream” thought on a lot of things for a very long time so I end up not interacting with folks socially that much.

Do you write or speak beyond the blog? Where can the rest of us find these creations?

I do not write for any other publication. No one has invited me to speak and for aforementioned reasons, I don’t expect to be asked. I briefly created a YouTube series. I won’t embarrass myself by pointing anyone to it, but if you search the blog you’ll likely find it.

What, in your view, does the term “nationalist” mean? Are you influenced by any nationalists from other tribes?

As discussed previously, a nationalist is a person who wants space for their people (however defined). They want to control it in whatever way they see fit. I’ve looked at the acts of various nationalists but I’ve been mostly influenced by Garvey. A lot of the anti-colonial struggles and leaders of that era were heavily influenced by Garveyism. That said, I like to think for myself and a lot of conclusions I’ve come to have come from study.

Does your viewpoint extend to other issues, like monarchism and environmentalism, and how do those fit into your existing worldview?

I have never paid any attention to monarchism. I know it’s a current in NRx circles. As a science-based person I am concerned about the Environment but I see that a lot of countries, leaders and the like have taken to politicizing it and making money off of it. Anyone who’s familiar with earth history knows that the earth’s climate is always changing and that our journey on this rock is a speck of dust in the time the earth has been here and we have been keeping records for not even 1/10 of that time. Whenever I hear people talk about global warming and how man will be devastated by it, I remind them that homo-sapiens-sapiens lived through an ice age with nothing close to the knowledge and technology we have today.

Also, I see a lot of hand wringing about people, usually those stuck in the stone age, who will be very negatively affected by climate change. Well. Sucks to be them. This is why you adapt. This is why you move. This is why you organize into larger national units. If the left wasn’t so intent on letting primitive people remain primitive so that they can virtue signal, they’d be preparing those folks for what’s coming. Like really you are still living in a desert? Why? And I’m supposed to help you stay like that? No thanks.

Where do you see human civilizations going in the future, and do you have hope for a better outcome than the present?

I’m not really much of a futurist so I’ll leave the whole “future of humanity” thing to others. But I will say that in the short term, in the first world, there are some big problems.

Automation is going to eat labor for lunch and dinner. Too many people think the rise of AI is just like the industrial revolution. They are very wrong.  There is going to be a decimation of the human labor market like never seen before. This is going to cause upheaval. Personally I think governments are going to have to get to a guaranteed income which of course means taxing companies.

Thank you for your time, and I hope our readers enjoy this informative interview!

The Nationalism FAQ

Monday, January 20th, 2014

Introduction

Nationalism, or the idea that the nation is described by ethnic group and its culture, contrasts the dominant idea of the last 200 years which is that of the arbitrary geographical region united by belief in liberal ideology, cosmopolitanism and internationalism/globalism. As the organic alternative to ideological government, nationalism defends unique attributes of individual ethnic groups, and posits a world order in which culture enforced by communities, not ideological rules enforced by centralized government, be used to regulate local communities.

Contents

1. Definition
 1.1 What is Nationalism?
 1.2 What is not Nationalism?
 1.3 What is Pan-Nationalism?
 1.4 Is it a political system?
 1.5 List of famous nationalists
2. Advocacy
 2.1 Reasons for Nationalism
 2.2 Nationalism as alternative to enforcement
 2.3 Nationalism as alternative to big government
 2.4 Identitarian advantages
3. Implementation
 3.1 How does a state go Nationalist?
 3.2 Is violence required?
 3.3 What would happen to non-nationals?
 3.4 How would this happen worldwide?
4. About
 4.1 About this FAQ
 4.2 About the Author
 4.3 Contact

1. Definition

1.1 What is Nationalism?

Nationalism is the belief that political groups should be constructed around the idea of “nation,” or population group unified by culture, heritage and language.

As such, Nationalist is “rule by culture” where cultural values come before profit motive or popularity, which enables forward-thinking leadership instead. With profit motive, every object and idea and person is for sale, and society leads itself in circles. With leadership, society determines its goals and moves toward them.

The term “nationalism” comes from the term “nation,” which has a different meaning in current politics. Currently, the nations of the world are political constructions made of borders, legal systems and economies, called “nation-states.” These are not compatible with the view of nation that was common in history up until the last century:

The term “nationalism” is generally used to describe two phenomena: (1) the attitude that the members of a nation have when they care about their national identity and (2) the actions that the members of a nation take when seeking to achieve (or sustain) self-determination. (1) raises questions about the concept of nation (or national identity), which is often defined in terms of common origin, ethnicity, or cultural ties, and while an individual’s membership in a nation is often regarded as involuntary, it is sometimes regarded as voluntary. – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Nationalism”

Since the French Revolution in 1789, the majority of political forces in the West have been opposed to nationalism, which is the idea that the ethnic group defines the nation. The opposite is the “proposition nation” which is the idea that people can be united by ideology or finance alone.

The definition of nationalism is made clear by the Encyclopedia Britannica, which makes a distinction between the use of nationalism as a political token to mean patriotism to the nation-state, and its broader meaning as the idea of a nation as an ethnic and not political entity:

Nationalism, translated into world politics, implies the identification of the state or nation with the people—or at least the desirability of determining the extent of the state according to ethnographic principles. – Encyclopedia Britannica, “Nationalism”

Ancient sources affirm a commonsense definition of nationalism which pre-dates the modern use of the term in combination with the nation state, and constitute the awareness of nationalism, through “nation” or “those born together,” since the dawn of civilization:

The kinship of all Greeks in blood and speech, and the shrines of gods and the sacrifices that we have in common, and the likeness of our way of life. – Herodotus, Histories, 8.144.2

Nationalism supports ethnic self-determination, meaning that any group which combines culture (customs, learning, art, oral histories) with heritage (ethnicity, race, tribal identity) is allowed to “define” its own borders, laws, and cultural change.

1.2 What is not Nationalism?

It’s just like when you’ve got some coffee that’s too black, which means it’s too strong. What you do? You integrate it with cream; you make it weak. If you pour too much cream in, you won’t even know you ever had coffee. It used to be hot, it becomes cool. It used to be strong, it becomes weak. It used to wake you up, now it’ll put you to sleep. This is what they did with the march on Washington. They joined it. They didn’t integrate it; they infiltrated it. They joined it, became a part of it, took it over. And as they took it over, it lost its militancy. – Malcolm X

Nationalism is neither the idea of racial supremacy nor its refutation. It is a context to racial aptitude, meaning that in each nation, those who are desired there are those from the nation only.

It leaves aside other questions in favor of this rule alone. Since nationalism focuses on the smallest natural division among human populations, the ethnic group or ethny, it is not racialism per se but a defense of a human variation on a finer scale.

Modern usage tends to like to conflate “nationalism” with “patriotism,” where one who has patriotism for his nation state and its proposition ideology is a “nationalist.” This is obviously the opposite of what nationalism actually is and is used this way to muddy the waters of perception on this important issue.

Nationalism is tied to identitarian politics and integralist social systems. Identitarian politics holds that a group requires strong identity as a prerequisite to having cultural consensus about moral values and behavior; integralist social systems advocate a unity between social institutions based upon a strong underlying values system such as the one delivered by culture.

For more questions on race, see The Race FAQ by John Goodrum.

1.3 What is Pan-Nationalism?

Pan-Nationalism is the idea of nationalism for every ethnic group on earth. Instead of dividing us, as politics does, this acknowledges that even ethnic groups in competition have the same ultimate goal, which is separation and self-determination.

Pan-Nationalism sees all nationalists as comrades in a struggle for a world order where ethnic groups can determine they want nationalism and thus exclude all others so that ethnic self-determination can take place.

In contrast to racism, which suggests that groups can co-exist and compete and one group will come out above the others by inherent superiority, Pan-Nationalism suggests that groups cannot co-exist because each needs the right to self-define, and that racism occurs only when this right is blocked.

1.4 Is it a political system?

Nationalism is a meta-political system in that it is a choice made by a society about how it shall be organized. Thus it is the container in which politics is decided.

There are essentially two forms of politics, “ideological” and “organic.” Organic and integralist beliefs like identitarian divide people into groups by heritage and shared values, and from those shared values, build a system of natural law. Ideological beliefs attract people to a quest to create “what should be” and then define the group by obedience to that standard. Organic systems tend to focus on things that are bigger than the individual; ideological systems tend to focus on the individual, and in uniting them into a “collective” which implements its ideology through strong institutions.

For this reason, while nationalism is not a political system, it tends to exclude non-organic political systems from its point of view.

1.5 List of famous nationalists

* Theodor Herzl – Conceptualizer of Israel. “Herzl concluded that anti-Semitism was a stable and immutable factor in human society, which assimilation did not solve…He declared that the Jews could gain acceptance in the world only if they ceased being a national anomaly.” – Jewish Virtual Library, “Theodor Herzl”

* Marcus Garvey – A nationalist who advocated a return to Africa for African people worldwide, Marcus Garvey encouraged identitarian pride among Africans in diaspora and founded several companies with the intent of settling in Liberia.

* Chiang Kai-Shek – The leader of the nationalist movement in China, Chiang Kai-Shek united his people and moved them toward modernity through education, national pride and a strong cultural identity.

* Osiris Akkebala – Contemporary African-American prophet and leader Osiris Akkebala writes on topics of nationalism, religion, culture and self-determination, urging Africans to adopt more stringent standards and live by cultural norms, rejecting the assimilationist norms of society around them.

* Oswald Moseley – Early English Nationalist leader Oswald Moseley saw that mass immigration would create a muddle of English culture, leading to a police state fractured by internal ethnic and class violence. Fifty years later, all of his predictions have come true.

2. Advocacy

2.1 Reasons for Nationalism

Nationalism was the most successful political force of the 19th century. It emerged from two main sources: the Romantic exaltation of “feeling” and “identity” and the Liberal requirement that a legitimate state be based on a “people” rather than, for example, a dynasty, God, or imperial domination. Both Romantic “identity nationalism” and Liberal “civic nationalism” were essentially middle class movements. – Modern History Sourcebook,”Nationalism”

Nationalism provides an alternative to the type of modern government that, starting in moderate liberalism, inevitably drifts toward a powerful nanny state, a globalist reach, and the gradual replacement of all culture with crass materialism and control by financial interests.

By investing each group in pride in who it is, and encouraging the development of a cultural value system outside of government, nationalism provides localized resistance to global rule and cosmopolitan culture. Internationalism, and the desire for a common global culture, commerce and people, is destruction of our natural diversity in favor for a more machine-parsable humanity, in addition to being an inevitable path toward the type of society described in either (a) George Orwell’s “1984” and/or (b) Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World” and Vaclav Havel’s “Power of the Powerless.”

The Nationalist way of life has several advantages:

1. Parallelism

Each ethnic group becomes a laboratory of humanity. It is free to develop its own theories (stored in “culture” and through the resulting social selection, “heritage”) about the process of civilization. It then becomes the test case for those theories and values systems.

2. Contra-Assimilation

Groups do not need to dominate others to succeed, but triumph by achieving self-sustenance with no credibly-formed “enemies.” Nationalism has existed through all written history as the way by which tribes protect themselves against assimilation while refining their own abilities.

3. Recombination

Because ideas and their corresponding cultural and genetic ideals are kept important in localized ways in political units of medium size criteria, the multitude of details and arguments and histories that make up any idea are kept consolidated at their origin. Natural diversity and unique variation is preserved.

4. Deep ecology

Regulation as a means of protecting the environment has failed. Under the regulatory agenda, population has skyrocketed to over twice the maximum sensible carrying capacity. In addition, regulation has not been able to limit the reckless behavior of individuals and the profit-seeking motives of even small businesses that cause them to sacrifice the environment. We will never have enough police and laws to enforce these ideals. However, if we build them into each citizen with a strong link between identity, land, culture and heritage, society becomes self-enforcing with people defending the land and its flora/fauna as an extension of themselves.

2.2 Nationalism as alternative to enforcement

The model of the ideological state is based on elites interpreting ideology, then making rules, and then the centralized power of the state and its institutions enforcing these on the citizens. The weak point in this system is that it requires a certain number of infallible, incorruptible and omniscient police to enforce its rules.

In reality, rules make it easy to violate the law in spirit if not exactly, are hard to enforce, and generally catch only the clueless while those who intend to violate the laws take precautions and get away with it. By putting values into rule form, the ideological state makes the law and not the spirit of the law the target, and thus gradually separates people from having any agreement in common regarding values. Formalization literally breaks down the value system it in theory protects.

As a result, governments becoming increasingly militarized and intrusive as time goes on, not because government is evil, but because government unintentionally induces more violations of the law. This enforcement cycle finally culminates in a condition like tyranny, at which point corruption takes over and the lawbreakers find a way to act under color of law.

Nationalism offers a culture-based society which implements a decentralized values system enforced by fellow citizens on each other. Ideological government looks for transgressions of the letter of law; culture-based society looks for intent to evade the law and ostracizes people who have bad intent and are bad actors. The result is that there is a need for less regulation, and the freedom of people to associate with each other means that they exclude those who act badly and/or act against them with approval of their fellow citizens.

2.3 Nationalism as alternative to big government

Ideological government by its nature requires a centralized powerful government to enforce its rules. This government never shrinks in size, since once people are hired into it, they seek to protect their jobs by inventing new causes for their agencies and institutions.

The result is a constant state of mission creep which results in big government which, by needing to justify its own existence and continued growth, intrudes into areas where it cannot succeed so that it has permanent struggles (war is the metaphor most commonly used) which will always merit more government in the eyes of the public.

Much like a gold rush builds up an industry based on selling supplies and services to prospective miners, government is its own industry and finds ways to justify itself by inventing “necessary” services for citizens to purchase with their taxes.

Eventually, so many people are employed or indirectly paid by government that it becomes beyond criticism, and the resulting transfer of wealth to non-productive sectors both through entitlement programs and government hiring weakens the currency and prestige of the nation, signaling its imminent collapse.

2.4 Identitarian advantages

There are no Utopian governments and there are no ideal plans. Identitarian politics however has a massive advantage in that it does not attempt to “fix” things which cannot be fixed, and by binding together the people by cultural rules instead of enforced ideology, creates a sense of community and shared struggle toward the end of society’s health. This is different from the ideological goals of the modern state which seem to always be intensifying, yet never get resolved.

3. Implementation

3.1 How does a state go Nationalist?

A state converts to nationalism the same way it converts to any other form of government. There is either an election, or a revolution. A new party takes power and reshapes the society. Those who fit into the new order find it easy to thrive; those who do not tend to relocate to greener pastures.

3.2 Is violence required?

No, because most of the steps required for nationalism are easiest achieved through elections. This is because nationalism is the default state of humankind; people prefer to live, work, sell to, rent to, hire and socialize with people like them. If anti-discrimination laws and affirmative action are removed, nations inevitably drift back toward nationalism, which is why internationalists demanded those laws in the first place. Once some nationalist policies get adapted, they tend to be seen as more favorable than diversity, which creates social chaos no matter which selection of groups is chosen because the idea of diversity itself destroys the notion of shared cultural values, trust and goals. For these reasons, what is required is not violent overthrow, but selective removal of bad law, and society naturally goes nationalist.

3.3 What would happen to non-nationals?

One of the most frequently asked questions is phrased as, “If we go nationalist, where do non-majority people go?” The answer is that they will be happiest on their own home continents, surrounded by others like them, with ethnic self-determination. If they are already racially mixed, there are plenty of countries like Brazil, Russia, Iraq, and Mexico where this is encouraged and they will find a welcoming home.

3.4 How would this happen worldwide?

When one nation goes nationalist, and its population is able to enjoy actual self-determination, the illusion that ideological government is desirable is fractured and reveals that ideological government is not only unnatural but destructive. At that point, other nations will also seek nationalism out of a need to compete with the nationalist nation, which will enjoy a greater level of stability and thus be more productive and more competitive.

4. About

4.1 About this FAQ

This FAQ was written in January 2014 using fragments of text from the Pan-Nationalism.org website and texts from Amerika.org.

4.2 About the Author

Brett Stevens is a paleoconservative and deep ecologist who writes about conservatism, environmental issues, nationalism and values. He blogs at Amerika.org.

4.3 Contact

To make comments or suggestions, please write to:

media@amerika.org

Recommended Reading