Whether race or ideology is more important is a vexed question. It may be the most important question confronting those of us who want to save or civilisation.
Mark at Upon Hope argues passionately for the primacy of race (although he certainly doesn't neglect ideology).
My view is that the mass immigration that is destroying the West is not caused by race as such. Unlike most previous mass immigrations it is not driven by population pressure. It has been deliberately engineered – by groups within the West itself.
Firstly we need to be honest about immigration. Mass immigration is effectively invasion. When an existing population is displaced by a new one it doesn't matter whether the new population comes with spears or tanks or whether they come "peacefully" – the end result is the same. The existing population is either destroyed or driven out or absorbed. Historians argued for decades about whether the arrival of the Germanic tribes (Angles, Saxons, etc) in Celtic Britain was immigration or invasion. From the point of view of the Celtic population the result was that England ceased to be a Celtic civilisation and became English. The Celts lost their identity and their culture.
There have been countless arguments about whether the Celtic population was destroyed or absorbed. There have been countless arguments about whether the modern English are genetically predominantly Germanic or Celtic or a mixture. It makes no difference. They had an identity and a culture and they lost both.
A number of factors can drive mass immigrations. Population pressures are the obvious reason. Religion can play a part. Sometimes it's a sheer lust for conquest. There is however one common factor – a perceived weakness on the part of the invaded. Alexander the Great's Macedonian armies did not destroy the Persian Empire because they hated the Persians and they were not driven to it by population pressures. They destroyed the Persian Empire because they could. The were very well aware of their own military superiority over the Persians and of the fragility of the Persian Empire. It was an empire for the taking and the Macedonians took it. The barbarians who invaded and destroyed the Roman Empire in the West also did so because they could. The Romans were no longer capable of defending themselves and the barbarians knew this. The Romans were also foolish enough to think they could bring German tribes into their empire and turn them into Romans who would defend their empire for them. They were wrong. As a result Roman civilisation ceased to exist in the West.
The same argument applies to the modern waves of immigration flooding the West. The immigrants/invaders see the West (correctly) as weak and decadent and unwilling to defend itself. In this case though the military superiority is all on the side of the West. We have the military superiority but it doesn't help us. We have been betrayed from within.
That's where the ideology part comes in. It is globalism that prevents us from defending ourselves. Globalists want free trade and global markets and they want a divided and easily controlled population. The globalists don't care about race. They care about markets and power. They don't care about Islam. They don't even care about Social Justice or feminism or transexual bathroom rights or homosexuality. Those are merely tools to weaken our civilisation. The globalists may well accept a temporary abatement of the immigration flood. If they do it will be merely a short-term tactic. Their long-term agenda will remain unchanged. That's the danger of focusing on immigration and race. The best that can be achieved is a temporary reprieve. Once the globalists feel safe again the flood-gates will be re-opened. Walls will not help without the will to keep the gates closed. Walls will not help as long as the globalists keep pumping cultural poison into our society. What is needed is the will to survive and that requires a focus on destroying the globalist ideology.
It is also worth keeping in mind that a focus on immigration and race will not win election victories. It will not get anti-globalist parties into power. Parties that have focused narrowly on immigration and race have attracted some electoral support but nowhere near enough to gain power. To win elections requires an emphasis on the dire long-term economic consequences of globalism. Trump won largely on economic issues – the catastrophic effects of free trade on American communities. If the immigration invasion is to be stopped it is crucial that anti-globalist parties achieve actual political power. Winning maybe 25% of the vote by running on immigration/race is not enough. You have to get over 50% and that means attacking globalism on all fronts – attacking free trade and open borders and the soft totalitarianism of political correctness and the cultural poisoning of western society.
This entry was posted in immigration.
It is not just economic ideas that won Mr. Trump the election, he talked alot about stopping illegal immigration, alot. I do not see how anyone on the Right can think it wasn't important.
The problem with taking your view is that it becomes civic nationalism, in other words just another way to betray us.
You are right that it they must be attacked on all fronts, economic, social and including race. Because rest assured that they will attack us over race, even if we never mentioned it again. I know you see it so why are you pretending not to see it?
I must say the "purity" idea, that we must be better than our enemy is really getting on my nerves. That is why we keep losing!
I don't buy into the civic nationalism idea. For me nationalism has to be based on something more than squishy liberal ideals. It has to be based on culture and history and ethnicity is the foundation on which culture is built. I say ethnicity rather than race because for me race is too broad. If Portugal were to be inundated by Hungarians to the point where Hungarians outnumbered the Portuguese then Portugal would cease to exist as Portugal. Portuguese identity and Portuguese culture would be destroyed, even though Portuguese and Hungarians are both white. For me race is not enough – you have to have roots in the very soil of the country.
That's the huge problem facing countries like Canada, the US and Australia. Our roots in the soil are not as deep as those of Europeans. Which means we need to be very careful to maintain our original Anglo-Celtic identity if we're to have any real national identity. For the US it's already too late. The proposition nation silliness combined with successive massive waves of immigration has destroyed any chance of a genuine American identity.
I don't just believe in Europe for whites. I believe in Poland for Poles, Italy for Italians, Norway for Norwegians. That's why I detest the EU – it's based on a pan-European idea that I regard as being extremely dangerous.
As for Australia, I believe in Australia for Anglo-Celts. The postwar immigration from southern Europe was too much too fast but it was survivable – our Anglo-Celtic identity still remained strong enough up until a couple of decades ago to make us a reasonably coherent and united nation in the long term. There was still enough of an Anglo-Celtic core. Unfortunately our Anglo-Celtic identity is now under extreme threat.
I agree wholeheartedly with your dislike of civic nationalism. I guess I'd describe myself as an ethno-cultural nationalist.
Agreed. His genius was that he understood that both were crucial.
The reason I put so much stress on engaging on economic issues is, as much as anything, tactical. You can attract considerable support by appealing to nationalism, but not enough to win. But if you combine cultural and ethnic nationalism with economic nationalism there's the chance to win much broader support, possibly enough not just to win a quarter or a third of the vote but perhaps an outright majority. And economic nationalism doesn't conflict with cultural and ethnic nationalism. So it's a win-win.
What is needed is an overall strategy that can win. The difficulty is to come up with a winning strategy that doesn't involve any betrayal of core principles. I believe it can be done. I believe that cultural and ethnic nationalism combined with social conservatism can be a winning strategy if it's also combined with economic nationalism and an implacable opposition to globalism in all its forms.
The history of mainstream conservative parties in the West over the past half-century consists of one betrayal after another. We need to study what mainstream conservative parties have been doing – and then do the opposite!
We are basically saying the same thing. I do not want Portugal overrun by Hungarians, anymore than I want Hungary overrun with Portuguese. But to say Race doesn't matter is really to say Race doesn't exist and that is not true. And when I hear someone say Race doesn't matter, what I hear is that I cannot trust this person because they believe that a Tibetan can be just as much an Australian as I am. I'm sick to death of hearing that rubbish.
And there are too many on the Right who are scared of Race, who run and hide, how can we trust these people?
I also promise you that Race will become a big and big issue because the Left will continue to us it to attack us. When they say White men are to blame for all of the worlds problems, they are attacking not an Ethnicity but a race, the White Race. This issue is not going away.
Very much so. Much written on it.
You are certainly correct about mass immigration, but you miss an important point. And that is that before this mass immigration began we did not have to worry about race, because nearly everyone in Western countries was the same race. This has disappeared and we cannot regain our countries until we actually regain our countries. That makes race important.
But to say Race doesn't matter is really to say Race doesn't exist and that is not true.
Race certainly exists. Just as ethnic differences exist. Both categories are fuzzy around the edges but that doesn't make them any less real.
I'm more focused on culture because your culture is your identity and if you lose your culture you lose everything. But of course if your population is replaced by people of another race then you will most certainly lose your culture. So race is crucial as well. For me the two can't be separated. If you're a cultural nationalist (as I am) then you absolutely have to be strongly opposed to mass immigration from the Third World.
The sad thing is that we're losing our culture rapidly and while immigration is a very major factor it's not the only one (that's something that I'll address in my next post).
Economic, cultural and ethnic nationalism are all three entirely inseparable. I think the best chance of gaining real political traction is to address all three issues simultaneously, and opposition to immigration is crucial in all three cases.
and your family and your future. I think the answer is to link the race question with cultural and economic nationalism – that makes it more palatable to nervous moderates and we need to win over those nervous moderates. I agree completely that it's a mistake to run away from the issue but sometimes it's a good idea to sweeten the medicine. If you want those nervous moderates to swallow scary medicine then disguising the taste a little can be helpful.
And that is that before this mass immigration began we did not have to worry about race, because nearly everyone in Western countries was the same race.
I totally agree, but it was the traitors from within who engineered the immigration and we need to figure out how those traitors could take control of our country. We need to stop the immigration and we need to expose the traitors.
Think we're actually in agreement here.