I fundamentally agree with the basic tenets of white nationalism. All people deserve their own nations and whites are the only ones who the worldwide elite denies that (yes, amerindians lack nations of their own, but if they started demanding it, they wouldn't be called racist for saying it by the mass media or the universities or governments or the UN).
I agree that anti racist is a codeword for anti white, that we must secure an existence for white children, that our race is beautiful and unique and must be preserved. I believe that the greatness of western civilization is not an abstract ideal, it comes from its people.
That being said.....
This is not a post to restate all that. This is a post to underscore the innate problems within the white nationalist movement. Why? Because if this movement is ever going to take off, whether on its own or within the larger context of right wing politics (combined with mens rights etc., the dark enlightenment), it needs to iron out some of its own internal contradictions, divisions and problems.
1. The lack of self determination for amerindians and Australian aboriginals
We have to address this issue. Of course it is unrealistic to give 8 million people control over all of Canada and the USA. Yes, white people built America, we built Canada and New Zealand and Australia and we built the good parts of Latin America too. We made these societies into what they are today, and we created these nations in our image.
But that being said, we cannot deny the amerindians, Australian aboriginals or Maoris the right to their own self determination without being hypocritical.
As I said, realistically, in a world with 7 billion people it'd be unreasonable to give entire continents to populations of 8 million (Native Americans in USA and Canada) or less than 1 million (aboriginal Australians). But should they have sovereign nations with their own borders, within these countries? Absolutely yes. No, we cannot turn the clock back to before 1492. If we were going to do that, then we'd also have to go back to before 1453, and give Turkey back to the Greeks and Armenians. We'd have to also make all the blacks leave the Caribbean and give those nations back to the few remaining Caribs.
But we absolutely should allow the indigenous peoples to have their own countries. I made a map of the borders in Canada; we could realistically give them the majority of the country. In America it'd be tougher; the four corners region and parts of South Dakota and most of Alaska seem to be the only viable places. In Australia you could give them most of the interior and even most of Western Australia north of Perth...basically, over 70% of the country.
In Latin America you could give amerindians (not mestizos, actual amerindians) Bolivia and Paraguay, and some of the central American countries (maybe Guatemala, southern Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua). Parts of Peru as well.
New Zealand being a small country would be hard to divide up but I'm sure it'd be manageable. Hawaii again is small, but who knows, it could be possible to allocate one or two islands as the nation of the indigenous Hawaiians.
Would they have a right to kick whites and other non-aboriginals out of these nations? Yes, I suppose so. But realistically I doubt they would, because they do love our money and our tax dollars.
2. One drop rule
The one drop rule is idiotic. I did a poll once of WN's, and it was split literally 50/50 as to whether people believe in this rule. It is literally the single most divisive factor in the white nationalist community. This rule has to go in order for whites to be united. It is unrealistic, it excludes about half of the world's white population or more. And quite frankly it does not reflect reality. Tiny amounts of Moorish, Native American, Mongol and Turk blood exist in huge amounts of the world's white population. If you want to say it's historically regrettable, then fine, but the fact is, it happened, and nothing can change that. These people identify as white European today, they embrace and follow European culture, they embrace white European identity and reject Moorish or Turk or whatever identity (except for the 1/16th Native American people who call themselves Natives....I don't call these people non-whites, I just call them idiots).
If you want to say that olive skinned Greeks and Italians don't belong in Sweden, that's fine, but then I'd also say that blonde haired pale skinned Swedes don't belong in Greece or Italy. Every European ethnicity belongs in their own countries, and whites from the new world of mixed white ethnicity who wish to live in Europe belong in whatever white country they are most genetically and/or linguistically similar to.
Either way the one drop rule must go. It is divisive and quite frankly it seems like a rule more useful to divide whites than to unite them. If I was an anti-white trying to sow discord amongst the white nationalist community, I would fall back on the one drop rule every single time. Defining who is white is a difficult task, and very subjective, but the one drop rule is an absurdly strict definition that has to go.
3. The idea of purging the gene pool of "race traitors"
By their definition of race traitor, anybody who has ever kissed or had sex with a non-white is eternally scarred, never to be allowed back into the fold again. Fact is, we have two problems here. Firstly, we live in a left wing society in which the media aggressively promotes race mixing, to the point where if you don't date non-whites, as a rule, you will be socially shunned by many of your peers for it.
Secondly, this movement needs all the numbers it can get, and automatically shutting out all those with a "checkered past" isn't the way to go. If they're gonna exclude everyone who's ever twerked along to a MTV rap video, good luck getting much of a support base.
Finally, there can be supporters of the white nationalist cause who don't necessarily abide by white nationalist principles themselves. Just because somebody marries an Asian doesn't mean that they can't support the idea of Europe as the white homeland, or America as a 90% white country.
I say everything has its place, and people who wish to marry other races should have a place for that too. I simply don't want that place to be Europe. And yes, within my hypothetical idea of Amerindian and Aboriginal Australian homeland nations, they would have every right to demand that the "blended humanity" shouldn't be a part of their ethnic homelands either. Also, there are many more moderate conservatives who may be open to marrying other races, while still agreeing that we let in too many immigrants. Their difference is that they'd say some individual non-white immigrants benefit our countries and embody our culture well, even if many do not, and even if we simply let in too many to assimilate them all. Some may argue that certain groups (ie East Asians) benefit our countries, while others (ie Africans) do not.
To those moderate conservatives who feel that way, I would say; your attitude and beliefs have relevance in places like Canada and the USA, but in Europe, our ethnic homeland, we require a more overtly ethno-national outlook. If you want to have your conservative mixed race family, I don't begrudge you that; just do it in America or Canada or Australia, not in Europe.
4. Rejecting all non-Europeans as white
This may be the most taboo thing for me to say, but I'm just gonna say it; I think certain non Europeans are white. In terms of appearance and culture. Middle Eastern Christians are my prime example. A Lebanese Christian who looks white, is white in my opinion. Yes there are genetic differences, but then groups like Greeks within Europe share more in common with Lebanese Christians than they do with, say, Swedes (although yes, a Greek shares more in common with a Swede than a Lebanese with a Swede).
Nevertheless, I think Lebanese Christians in America have shown that they can indeed be part of the "white" melting pot. I think they have a place within western society, and as part of the "white culture" in a new world context, particularly in Canada and the USA and places like Argentina as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment