Jared Taylor, Taki’s Magazine, June 1, 2009
Lost in Justin Raimondo’s torrent of mistaken assumptions and wild accusations [see below for excerpts] is one useful question: What do “white nationalists” want? By putting the term in quotation marks, Mr. Raimondo has stumbled onto an important truth, namely, that there is no accepted term for contemporary Americans who still hold some of the views about race that were taken for granted by virtually all Americans until about the 1950s.
Until then, most people believed race was an important aspect of individual and group identity. They believed that the races differed in temperament and ability, and whites preferred the societies built by whites to those built by non-whites. They wanted the United States to be peopled by Europeans because they believed only people of European stock would maintain the civilization they valued. These views were so wide-spread, so taken for granted, so indisputable that there was no term for them. Just as there was no name for people who expected the sun to rise in the East, there was no name for people whose views are today sometimes given the clumsy term “white nationalism.”
The national-origins immigration policy that lasted until 1965 embodied this basic understanding of race. As one of the supporters of that policy, Congressman William Vaile of Colorado explained in 1924, “[the United States] is a good country. It suits us. And what we assert is that we are not going to surrender it to somebody else or allow other people, no matter what their merits, to make it something different.” I might add that even if this sentiment shocks Americans today, it is exactly the view of their own country held by virtually every Japanese, Israeli, or Mexican.
What perhaps most succinctly characterizes those whom Mr. Raimondo calls “white nationalists” is the conviction that it was a terrible mistake to abandon national-origins quotas and throw the United States open to immigration from everywhere. As Senator Sam Ervin of North Carolina wondered at the time: “What is wrong with the national origins of the American people? What is wrong with maintaining them? What is wrong with preferring as immigrants one’s own kinsmen?” There were no good answers to those questions then and there is none today.
I believe Sam Ervin—and Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt—shared my desire for a country in which our ancestors were respected as pioneers and statesmen, not reviled as murderers and thieves. I believe they wanted a country in which their children’s children would walk in the ways of their forebears, sing the same songs, worship the same God, revere the same heroes, and proudly carry forward the civilization and culture of the West. I am certain they believed this would be possible only in a nation whose majority people were the biological heirs to the creators of that culture and civilization.
My hopes for the land in which my descendants will live are no different from those of virtually every person who has ever lived anywhere. The idea that nothing will be lost if a founding population is replaced with aliens is a new disease that strikes only whites. Our Mexican neighbors would scoff at the notion that “diversity” is a strength or that millions of English-speaking, white-skinned immigrants were a form of “cultural enrichment.” They would be astonished at the idea of elevating to a position of power a gringa who claimed white women made better decisions than Mexican men. In all these things they could not be more natural, normal, or healthy. It is we who have betrayed the ideals of our ancestors and diced with our children’s future by opening the doors to dispossession.
Is dispossession too strong a word? Just visit Detroit or Miami or parts of Los Angeles. You will not find the civilization Jefferson or Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt thought they were building for their children. There are great swathes of America in which Spanish—or even Chinese—is the lingua franca, and where English-speakers are out of place. At the college down the road there are footbaths in the student union so Muslim immigrants can clean their feet before salaaming in the worship area they demanded be set aside for them. Washington’s and Jefferson’s names are being pulled down from public schools to be replaced with Cesar Chavez and Martin Luther King.
I am not certain it is possible to salvage from the chaos immigration is bringing to this country a nation of which my grandchildren can even feel a part, much less be proud. But unless whites wake up from their stupor, unless they—like the white firemen of New Haven—realize they have legitimate rights as a group and are prepared to fight for them, they will be shoved aside by Africans, Asians, Mexicans, Haitians, and Muslims who have, in addition to very sharp elbows, a keen sense of their own interests.
It is certainly true that there are many group identifications besides race. Our deepest ties are to our families, and our loyalties expand in concentric and overlapping circles: clubs, friends, work groups, nationalities, even cities and states. But the largest group to which most people feel a natural loyalty is race. That is because race marks the limit of our extended families, and defines the group to which we are genetically closer than to any other.
Loyalties of this kind are not rational but they are no less powerful for this reason. I love my own children more than I love the children of strangers, not because they are objectively superior but because they are mine. No one disputes my right to this irrational loyalty—nor should they dispute my right to an equally irrational, equally deep and genetic loyalty to my extended family.
At the same time, though I make sacrifices for my own children that I would never make for the children of others, this implies no ill feeling for other children. I can even have great affection for other children but mine come first. It should not require pointing out that, in like manner, loyalty to a race or nation need imply no ill feeling for any other. I can admire and like the Chinese or the Watusi without wanting my own country or my own descendants to become Chinese or Watusi. They, in turn, have no desire to fill their countries with Europeans.
Mr. Raimondo seems to think only a Nazi could oppose miscegenation or care about the racial/ethnic composition of his country. I’m sure we can count on him to explain to Israelis who want a Jewish state, and to the many Jews and blacks who oppose inter-marriage that they are actually Nazis. And, of course, the many Americans who opposed what they called “amalgamation” and even passed laws to forbid it were all Nazis long before Nazism. The Japanese, who would rather invent clever robots than encourage immigrants, and the Mexicans who do not let non-citizens own property are no doubt Nazis, too. This is the sort of silliness that comes from thinking in clichés, from swallowing the mantras of liberal egalitarianism.
Mr. Raimondo seems to insist on looking at everything from a libertarian perspective so let us adopt one. Mr. Raimondo does not appear to understand that I am not proposing a state-enforced caste system; I want to dismantle the one we have, the one that turned the New Haven firemen into untouchables. Likewise, I have always stood for completely free association, and if someone wants to associate across racial lines that is his business. In 1843, Massachusetts repealed its anti-miscegenation laws for the same reason I oppose them: healthy societies don’t need them.
Many doctrinaire libertarians think there should not even be immigration control. They argue that in an ideal world of private property each property owner could set his own immigration policy. Until that day comes, I am certainly not proposing an expansion of state power; merely a policy that preserves our heritage rather than devour it.
And what if, like Mr. Raimondo, we are to put libertarianism before the preservation of race or heritage? Perhaps he has not noticed that it is only whites who have even imagined an individualism as pure as libertarianism. How many non-white allies has he found in his battle against the state? Does he really think Mexicans and Africans will help him dismantle state power rather than seize it for their own purposes? By ignoring race Mr. Raimondo is ensuring the failure of what I take to be his most cherished project.
Where Mr. Raimondo and I most clearly part company is that I am in earnest about the survival of my people and their civilization. For that I apologize to no one. If Mr. Raimondo does not see the crisis, he has every right to enjoy his ignorance, but he joins forces with the very multi-culturalists he claims to oppose when he denies to whites an awareness of their group interests without which they are doomed to oblivion.
Original article
(Posted on June 1, 2009)
Justin Raimondo, Taki’s Magazine, May 28, 2009
Jared Taylor’s recent posting on Takimag has drawn a number of a responses, including from Paul Gottfried and Richard Spencer, both of which make some good points. I’m afraid, however, that neither really hits on the essential problem—although Gottfried does mention it in passing, almost as an afterthought—which is that Taylor’s call for whites to organize along lines of “racial solidarity” represents the most complete and abject surrender to multi-culturalism. His bid to become the white Al Sharpton is not only a massive contradiction, coming from someone who ostensibly opposes privileging individuals on account of their alleged race, it is downright pathetic.
To being with, he avers that “if you can’t beat them, join them”—that is, if you can’t beat the multiculti rules and regulations that increasing afflict our lives, then the best policy is one of . . . surrender. He cites a case where the city of New Haven threw out the results of a test taken by aspiring firemen in which blacks didn’t do as well as the city would have liked. New Haven bureaucrats threw out the test results for all races, not just blacks, and did the whole procedure over again: this, claims Taylor, is anti-white “discrimination.”
While Paul Gottfried inexplicably claims that most of the white nationalists he has met are “libertarians,” it appears that their Maximum Leader is not among them: for the libertarian would argue that the entire procedure and the unfairness inherent in it could be eliminated by simply privatizing the fire department. Of course, it would still be possible to pursue the elusive goal of equality of results through enforcement of the so-called civil rights laws—yet that is precisely what Taylor would do on behalf of “oppressed” whites. This kind of scam is wrong when blacks try to pull it off, but right when engaged in by whites.
The Taylorite commitment to “white racial consciousness” is simply a cracked mirror image of the worst excesses of the “black power” movement—and it is advanced with much less justification. {snip}
{snip}
{snip} Taylor is dead serious, but what is he serious about? Ostensibly, he’s upset over those white firemen denied jobs in New Haven, but it quickly becomes all too clear that’s not his main beef: what he’s really against is miscegenation, or what his intellectual heirs used to call “race-mixing”:
The real solution may have to wait another generation or two after which, if some who call themselves conservatives have their way, there will have been so much miscegenation there will be no more white people left to worry about.
He then cites a number of commentators who think this trend is desirable, from Michael Barone to the Socialist candidate in the French election for Prime Minister, and then snarks: “If those New Haven firemen got a raw deal, I guess their parents just married the wrong people. “
But what has miscegenation got to do with the issue he supposedly cares about, those poor oppressed white firemen? It’s not clear. What is all too clear, however, is that the real agenda of the “white nationalist” movement has zero to do with legitimate issues, such as the injustice of affirmative action. It is all about race-mixing—an “issue” that, in an age when a mulatto is president of these United States, has a certain explosive quality, as well as an aura of outright nastiness.
{snip}
As the white-collar wing of the same movement, Taylor and his American Renaissance crowd are salivating as the prospect of massive recruitment because one of “them” is in the White House. They hope to infiltrate what they call the “pseudo-conservatives” with their message of genetic determinism and white supremacy, imbuing the rightist critique of Obama and all his works with a racialist tinge.
This, of course, is just what the Obamaites ordered: they would love to marginalize their opposition and banish them to the fever swamps of race-obsessed neurotics and social misfits. Nothing would please them more than to see the rising resentment of their policies ascribed to the spreading influence of racist agitators. If I were the Democratic National Committee, I’d funnel millions into Taylor’s outfit, and like-minded groups, for the same reason that the interventionists encouraged Nazi infiltration of the America First antiwar movement in the run-up to World War II.
{snip}
What I don’t understand, and I doubt Taylor does either, is this: what do the “white nationalists” want? What is their program? They are “nationalists” without a nation. Do they want to expel all non-whites from U.S. territory? Do they want to carve out their own ersatz “nation” in, say, the nether reaches of Idaho and the Dakotas? Do they want to create a caste system based on racial heritage, as the Nazis tried to do, with whites on top and the “mud people”—their disgusting term for non-whites—on the bottom? Or do they just want to abolish race preferences in law and custom—in which case they shed their “white nationalist” hoods and morph into white versions of Ward Connerly? Would Taylor outlaw miscegenation if he could? I have no doubt that he would, no matter what he says in public.
Americans don’t like racists, not because they have been indoctrinated by leftist professors and do-gooder social workers, but because “white nationalists” and their ilk are looking for the unearned: they want power, prestige, and money in the bank based on factors over which they had no control, that is, their genetic heritage. That’s why they spend so much time posing as amateur “scientists” and “anthropologists,” extrapolating entire theories of social organization from the results of “intelligence tests” that presume to measure the ineffable. It is a soulless, materialist, dogmatic view of life that has nothing in common with authentic conservatism, and which has all sorts of statist implications—not to mention a history of racialist-inspired statist measures—that make “white nationalism” antithetical to libertarianism.
{snip}
Original article
Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, June 1999
Why are bombs falling in Yugoslavia? Why do the Hutu and Tutsi keep slaughtering each other? Why can’t people in Los Angeles take Rodney King’s advice and “just get along”? Since the end of the Cold War, there has been a remarkable upsurge in ethnic, national, racial, and other sectarian conflicts that has baffled liberal policymakers who predicted “the end of history.” To the contrary, a UN study found that if a war were defined as armed conflict that produced more than 1,000 deaths, there have been 82 wars in a recent three-year period, and 79 of them were sectarian bloodlettings that took place within recognized national borders. The current NATO action against Yugoslavia has something of the look of the traditional war that pits belligerent governments against each other, but the real cause, of course, was civil disorder between ethnic Serbs and ethnic Albanians.
The explanations most commonly given for the persistence of this kind of fighting are almost always implausible. Colonialism does not explain why Hutu and Tutsi hate each other any more than slavery explains why blacks rioted in Los Angeles. Liberal sociologists come up with strained, ad hoc explanations of this kind because they refuse to accept the deeper, biological origins of conflict. In explaining why NATO had decided to kill Serbs, William Clinton did mention “nationalism” as one of the causes, but clearly thinks of it as a primitive, even embarrassing sentiment.
J. Philippe Rushton of the University of Western Ontario has offered an analysis of conflict of this kind that links it to the basic biological mechanisms that govern how people—and other organisms—choose their associates. His analysis, known as Genetic Similarity Theory, is an extension of the sociobiological work of E.O. Wilson, William Hamilton, and others into the ethnic/national sphere. GST is firmly rooted in evolution, but its perspective and insights can be appreciated by people with other views as well.
Ever since Darwin, the willingness of some individuals to sacrifice themselves for others has been a riddle for evolutionists. If only the fittest survive, the genes for altruistic behavior should have been weeded out long ago. Any man or animal so foolish as to lay down his life for his fellows stops the genes for altruistic behavior dead in their tracks. Self-sacrifice should disappear, and evolution should have bred pure selfishness into people rather than mixing it with a dose of altruism.
Animals show altruism too. When a worker bee stings something trying to get into the hive, the stinger tears out of its abdomen and it dies—to protect other bees. If a small mammal notices a hawk or fox nearby and gives a warning cry so that others of its species can run for cover, it calls attention to itself and is more likely to be attacked. The animal’s own chances of survival would be best if it quietly ran into a hole and left the rest of the pack to the fox. Animals share food, rescue each other, and fight as a group rather than run away as individuals. But the most widespread and important kind of altruism is care of the young—and this suggests the evolutionary explanation for altruism.
For parents, children are packets of their own genes, and evolutionary theory has an obvious explanation for parental altruism: At least among the higher animals, parents that look after their young are much more likely to pass along their genes to succeeding generations than parents that do not. The genes that cause child-rearing and child protection are therefore very firmly built into all higher species. But altruism for close relatives serves the same purpose. Brothers and sisters share 50 percent of their genes and cousins share about 12 percent. Crucial human traits were formed when men operated in small, extended-family bands, and in this context it made good genetic sense for a warrior to fight for the tribe, since he was fighting for his kinfolk. When the famous British geneticist J.B.S. Haldane was asked for whom he would sacrifice his life, he replied only half-facetiously, “for three brothers or nine cousins.” Either combination adds up to more than 100 percent of one’s own genes, and from an evolutionary point of view it makes more sense to die if that means the others can live.
This explanation for altruism is called kin selection theory, and there is evidence for it in the animal kingdom. A female squirrel can mate with several males and give birth to a litter that contains the children of more than one male. This mixture of full- and half-siblings shares the same womb and grows up in the same nest but each can tell the others apart. They are more likely to come to the aid of full siblings and more likely to fight and quarrel with half-siblings. Another squirrel study likewise found that females give food to sisters but not to strangers. Similar relations are found in lion prides, where all the females are likely to be closely related to each other, and therefore cooperate to kill game. Chimpanzees occasionally kill other chimpanzees, but the victims are almost always isolated males from other bands.
It is not known how animals tell they are related, but even insects are capable of amazingly fine distinctions. When guard bees at a hive encountered intruder bees of 14 different degrees of kinship to them, the guardians let in those that were closely related and drove off the others. In another experiment, when frog eggs from several litters were put into a single tank, after they hatched, the tadpoles that were siblings congregated together.
Humans show similar behavior. The immediate family is obviously the focus of intense loyalty and sacrifice, but every family reunion ever held is a tribute to the importance of kinship ties that go well beyond the nuclear family. The very idea of relatedness, the building of family trees, the search for ancestors—all these things reflect the importance of blood ties.
Recent research has uncovered less-well-known examples of the importance of kinship. Children who live in a household with a man who is not their father are many times more likely to be beaten or killed by him than by their biological fathers. Men are violent, but they rarely kill their own children. Identical twins, who have exactly the same genes, are willing to sacrifice more for each other than non-identical twins (who share only about 50 percent of their genes). Identical twins also show greater affection and physical attachment to each other, and suffer greater loss when their identical co-twin dies. Parents grieve more for children who appear to share more of their own traits than those of their spouses.
Prof. Rushton and others have shown that unconscious preferences for genetic similarity appear to be at work in human beings all the time. When people choose mates, colleagues, and close friends, they not only show cultural preferences, but genetic preferences within the same culture. Friends and spouses resemble each other in many ways, from their social attitudes to IQ scores to physical appearance. According to one study that determined similarity according to blood tests, couples who produce a child are 52 percent similar whereas couples chosen at random in a population are only 43 percent similar. In another study, best friends were found to be 54 percent similar, whereas random pairs of people were 48 percent similar.
Prof. Rushton offers even more surprising evidence for the power of genetic similarity to draw people together: Often what people have in common are the most heritable rather than the most obvious traits. For example, biceps size is only about 50 percent heritable because exercise can change it, whereas finger length is 80 percent heritable. People may well look into each other’s exercise habits, but probably no one measures the lengths of a potential mate’s fingers. Still, when spouses and close friends are compared on the basis of such measures, they resemble each other more on the traits that are the most heritable.
Twin and other studies show that some personality traits are under greater genetic control than others, and spouses resemble each other most on those very traits. Likewise, when IQ scores are divided into subtests, spouses have the closest scores on the most heritable subtests.
There seems to be a limit to the attraction of the similar, however; the taboo against incest is a near-universal protection against inbreeding. The most attractive match appears to be someone genetically similar but not a close relative.
Genetic Similarity Theory greatly confounds those who believe in the supreme power of social and economic environment. They would expect people to choose friends and spouses for those traits that are most influenced by environment. Body-builders should seek out body-builders and stamp collectors should fall in love with other stamp collectors. Instead, without even being aware of it, human beings gravitate towards others who resemble them in countless subtle genetic ways. Genetic similarity is the glue that binds individuals together as much as it binds nations together. Like gravity, we have felt it since the beginning of time, but we are only beginning to understand it.
Seeds of Conflict
Genetic Similarity Theory has important implications for the larger questions of peoplehood and nationality, and Prof. Rushton has not been afraid to take them up. If people make frequent, unconscious decisions on the basis of genetics when they choose associates from within their own ethnic group, it is impossible for them to ignore the even greater genetic distance that separates them from other ethnic groups.
In 1997, in the face of persistent late-20th century sectarian bloodlettings, the American and Canadian Psychological Associations undertook an “Initiative on Ethnopolitical Warfare” in the hope of understanding the psychology of these conflicts. This is a step forward compared to the purely historical or political-science approach that has dominated analysis so far, and may yield useful insights. In Prof. Rushton’s view, however, the problem lies in the very nature of man, and his biological inclination to identify with the carriers of his own genes.
During the long period of evolution that took place in nomadic, extended-family bands—and during which altruism was a particularly effective mechanism for group evolution—humans and proto-humans might sometimes come upon unknown groups of potential adversaries. It was important to be able quickly to tell if a stranger were one of “our people,” and humans have developed a great many different outward signs of what is, ultimately, genetic similarity. Evolutionists would argue they were developed for the very purpose of magnifying the underlying biological differences. Customs, dress, language, manners, and religion are therefore not acquired directly through the genes but for most people they might as well be. They are passed on almost exclusively from parent to child; someone who does not speak your language is not likely to be a relative. People who are not relatives are potential enemies.
Young children learn very quickly which groups with which to identify. By age four most Americans know what race they are and know that race continues from parent to child. By kindergarten or first grade, children are aware of many of the less obvious social and ethnic differences. They naturally identify with their own group; they do not have to be taught. Children are also famously cruel to outsiders, but in this they are only a little more unrestrained than their parents.
After all, it was not only because there were wild animals that it was evolutionarily useful for people to be willing to sacrifice themselves for the group. Carnivores might make off with a child or two, but the greatest threat was always bands of strangers who might exterminate the whole tribe. What gave birth to altruism, therefore, were the wars and conflicts that are its very opposites. For this reason all peoples practice a morality of loyalty to their own people and a morality of suspicion or even hostility for outsiders. Prof. Rushton calls this suspicion of outgroups the “dark side” of altruism, and sees in it the roots of ethnic conflict.
Political scientist Walker Connor, who has written frequently on nationalism, defines a nation as “the largest group that commands a person’s loyalty because of felt kinship ties . . . the fully extended family.” It is no accident that people speak of the “motherland” or “fatherland,” and why patriotism is often seen as an extension of family loyalty. It is ties of blood that make fellow nationals precious and worth dying for. At the same time, it becomes easy to see the aliens who are threatening our precious nationals not just as strangers but as sub-humans. War brings out the best and the worst; when groups set about killing each other they often try to make it as painful, agonizing, and humiliating for the enemy as possible. At the same time, soldiers in combat sacrifice more willingly and more deeply than at any other time in their lives, and the love they may form for comrades-in-arms often lasts a life-time. Nations always promote patriotism because they know how powerful a force it can be.
(The official exceptions to this rule were the Communist countries, which were supposed to be building proletarian loyalties rather than national ties. However, when Germany invaded the Soviet Union the Communists quickly started encouraging deeply nationalist loyalties to Mother Russia, and officially named the conflict the Great Patriotic War.)
Culture Wars
Prof. Rushton argues that there are many forms of ethnic competition short of bloodshed. He says that what we call “culture wars” can also be seen as “gene wars,” since different genes find different environments more or less favorable. People seldom see conflicts in these terms, but the United States is a perfect demonstration of what is at stake. A culture that glorifies sex and rewards unwed motherhood with food stamps and welfare benefits is a very favorable environment for certain kinds of genes, and those have proliferated prodigiously over the last 30 years. A culture that views crime as a societal failing for which individuals cannot be held responsible is one that has also made choices about which genes to favor. Likewise, there are very substantial reproductive consequences when America glorifies non-whites, reviles whites, and encourages miscegenation.
The debate over immigration is nothing less than a debate over the genetic future of the country. To let in people who are wholly unlike the natives is to accept the genetic equivalent of defeat in war and occupation by aliens. This is why no one has ever done it before and why, now that white nations are doing it, it arouses such heated opposition.
Genetic change brings an infinite number of other changes. In virtually every multi-ethnic society group membership is the key element of individual identity and cultural interests. In America, the audiences for many cultural events are almost completely segregated. In their leisure time, Americans of different races rarely watch the same television programs. Ethnic newspapers write about political events thousands of miles away from America. Housing patterns and school attendance show a very clear form of clustering by genetic similarity.
Prof. Rushton thinks of cultural markers like language, folkways, etc. as providing a “home” for certain genes that find such an environment favorable. In this sense, virtually all cultural and political decisions have genetic consequences—whose group is being favored and whose is not? Most groups view policies almost exclusively from their own point of view and support or fight them on this basis alone.
If follows from Prof. Rushton’s theory that it is folly for any group to cease to act in its own genetic interests on the assumption that other groups will do the same. All around the world, whites are welcoming non-whites into their countries with the implied understanding that because whites have decided ethnic nationalism is bad and diversity is good, everyone else will soon think so, too. By now it is entirely clear that non-whites support diversity only when it can be used to increase their own numbers and power. Once they are numerous enough to remake a locality or institution in their own image, any interest they once professed for “diversity” disappears.
The post–Cold War period had been a showcase for the renunciation of “diversity.” The constituent parts of the Soviet Union decided to become homogeneous units rather than parts of a diverse empire. The Czechs and the Slovaks decided the same thing. A number of peoples—the Kurds, Chechens, and Tibetans, for example—would certainly break away except that their rulers are prepared to kill tens of thousands of them to prevent it.
Yugoslavia has broken up quite spectacularly into ethnic states, and has even drawn the United States into a war that could produce a few more. The usual American policy of promoting “diversity” at all costs is completely at odds with what is gradually becoming the objective of NATO’s war: establishment of an ethnically pure and essentially independent Kosovo. Having gone to war to stop the removal of Albanians from that province, it now feels it can win only if it removes Serbians.
NATO’s early miscalculations about the ease with which the Serbians could be made to do its bidding showed an unwillingness to accept the importance of genes, nationality, and ethnic loyalty. In Western countries, where patriotism is thought a little passé because it might interfere with the higher demands of diversity, it is easy to forget just how passionately a healthy people clings to its land and its heritage.
John Stuart Mill once wrote: “Where the sentiment of nationality exists in any force, there is a prima facie case for uniting all the members of the nationality under the same government, and a government to themselves apart. . . .” Prof. Rushton shows why this has always been true. Unfortunately, most Western politicians act as if it were not.
Original article
(Posted on April 24, 2009)
Srdja Trifkovic, Orthodoxy Today, February 21, 2009
We need a paradigm shift in the West that would pave the way for a genuine Northern Alliance of Russia, Europe, and North America, as all three face similar existential threats in the decades ahead. In an uncertain and ever more brutal world, the Northerners may finally consider banding together, lest they be defeated in detail.
{snip}
The concept is as old as Sun Tzu (“if enemy forces are united, separate them”) and was more recently restated by Mao (“concentrate a superior force to destroy the enemy forces one by one”). It is highly relevant to the American interest because the civilization upon which this country is founded—usually described as “Western,” although “Northern” would be more accurate—is in danger of being defeated in detail by its enemies, internal and external.
{snip}
Europe’s demographic self-annihilation is well advanced, from the Atlantic to the Urals and beyond, with Russia and the rest of the Old Continent sharing the same downward trend. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia’s population has fallen six percent, from around 150 million to just over 140 million. The combination of a low birthrate, an aging population, and a public-health crisis may result in the country’s population collapsing by one third, to around 100 million, by 2050. On current form, there will be a 40-percent drop in the size of the core (ages 14 to 25) group, ensuring a continued decline for the rest of the century. At the same time, the number of self-identified Muslims in Russia has risen by 40 percent in the last 15 years to 20 million, partly fueled by immigration from Central Asia and the Caucasus.
In Metropolitan France, an ostensibly healthy birthrate of 12.2 per thousand conceals the fact that, of some 800,000 births in a nation of almost 60 million, Muslim immigrants (predominantly from North Africa) and their French-born descendants account for more than a quarter. Italy will plummet from today’s 57 million to a much older 40 million by 2050. By that time, the continent as a whole will face a net loss of some 150 million people. Europe’s population has aged to such a degree that it will continue to shrink even in the unlikely event that birthrates rebound to the replacement level. This “negative momentum” means that even if women in the future should have an unexpected fertility increase to two children on average, the population would be destined to continue shrinking.
In the 1970’s, the U.S. birthrate not only dipped below replacement but fell below the European rate. In the years since, the American rate recovered modestly to just below replacement level. The fertility rate of white Americans slipped below the replacement rate in the early 1970’s, however, and it never recovered: Today it stands at about 1.8 babies per woman.
Demographers say that the U.S. population will grow by 135 million in the next four decades—a stunning 44-percent increase—but that growth will be entirely the result of immigration (overwhelmingly from the Third World) and increases in the nonwhite population.
{snip}
Continental conservatives—German Christian Democrats; French, Spanish, and Italian rightists—are natural Northerners even when they are squeamish about admitting it. Members of the dominant European left, however, are overwhelmingly enthusiastic about Barack Obama because they are ashamed of their own roots and looks. The sentiment is becoming all-pervasive: Even The Economist opined that Obama’s victory “would salve, if not close, the ugly wound left by America’s history.” The left flatly denies that a common Euro-Russo-American civilization exists, let alone that it is worth preserving or jointly defending.
It is in the United States that the obstacles to a northern paradigm are the most formidable. Opponents are present, to some extent, in every influential segment of this country’s foreign-policy community.
American exceptionalists believe that the United States differs qualitatively from Europe (not to mention Russia) by virtue of her “propositional credo,” which transcends the shackles of ethnicity, race, culture, and faith. Global hegemonists seek dominance over Europe and fragmentation of Russia, rather than partnership with them. Many hegemonists are also visceral Russophobes, owing to their own ethno-cultural baggage rather than any objective assessment of Moscow’s global position and impact on U.S. interests. Obama’s selection of Joe Biden as his Vice President, Hillary Clinton’s appointment to State, Robert Gates’ retention at the Pentagon, and General Jones’s management of the National Security Council point to the President’s willful blindness to the collapsing economic foundation of the American “hyperpower.”
Multiculturalists oppose any notion of “our” physical or cultural space that does not belong to everyone. They deny that we should have a special affinity for any particular country, nation, race, or culture, but demand the imposition of our preferences upon the whole world. They are the mortal enemy of any notion that any shared legacy of the European family is worthy of preservation.
These groups share the radical notion that America is not a real country, but a metaphysical concept or a tool for their own Will to Power—or both. They do not want this country to belong to the people whose ancestors created her and who have inhabited her for generations. They celebrate the resulting random mélange of mutually disconnected multitudes as somehow uniquely “American” and virtuous.
Ideologues will deny it, but in the decades to come Europe, Russia, and America will be in similar mortal peril from those very multitudes. The magnitude of that threat will become clear as those nations age and the numbers of hostile aliens grow. In the end there will be no grand synthesis, no crossfertilization, and certainly no peaceful coexistence, between the North and the Third World.
The short-term prospects for fostering a sense of unity among Europeans—Eastern, Western, and American—are dim and will remain so for as long as the regimes of all the major states of the West are controlled by an elite class hostile to its own biological roots and cultural fruits.
In the longer term, however, it is at least conceivable that the ongoing financial and economic crisis will produce salutary political and cultural effects. In the face of diminished property values, rising unemployment, and collapsed retirement portfolios, our elites risk a comprehensive loss of credibility and authority comparable to that experienced by Europe’s ruling class in 1914-18. When the dust settles they may no longer be heeded as arbiters of who we are, what we are to think, and how we are to lead a good life. As the credibility of American global dominance tanks with the dollar, Europe may increasingly see its interests tracking with those of Russia, forcing Washington to acquiesce.
No refocusing of international policy will matter if there is not a reversal of demographic and immigration trends. The richer the country, the emptier its cradles. A trend toward Third World living standards may lead to Third World birthrates. Increased scarcity may finally break the political taboo about addressing non-European immigration.
Can we hope that a reminder of the harsher realities of life will revive the North’s sense of itself as a Christian civilization and resistance to the stealth jihad being waged in our midst? Sadly, the more likely result of the crisis we now face is deepening demoralization, increased demands for government solutions and services, and ever more inane adulation of such purveyors of political snake oil as our newly enthroned President Messiah. In the early eighth century the triumphant march of Islam into Christendom seemed unstoppable, until it was halted at the gates of Constantinople (718) and at Tours (732). Conversely, in July 1914, Europe was at the peak of every imaginable human achievement, only to be turned into a pale shadow of its former self a mere century later.
{snip}
Original article
(Posted on March 10, 2009)
MORE MEXICAN DEPENDENTS WAITING TO CROSS THE BORDER!
author Colin Thubron recounts a conversation with a Uighur in a restaurant in Khotan which is on the southwest rim of the Tarim Basin.
THEY LOVE EVERYBODY!
GO TO HELL NANCY PELOSI!
BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING
WHY DOES OBAMA PREFER THEM OVER YOU?
MICHAEL STEELE – GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY!
Recent Comments