two cheers for nationalism

I despise globalism and all its works, which should logically put me in the nationalist camp. Which it does, up to a point. The trouble is that I have certain reservations about nationalism.

For one thing, nationalism is a liberal concept.

My main reservation about nationalism is that it has tended to erase regional identities. Regional identities have been fading under the relentless assaults of liberalism, nationalism and modernism for a couple of centuries now. Traces of such identities still survived until quite recently. I can recall stating in a bed-and-breakfast in Cornwall in the early 80s and making the mistake of referring to the landlady as an Englishwoman. She indignantly informed me that, “We’re nothing to do with the English here.” I must confess that I thought that was rather wonderful.

But nationalists have had little time for such regional identities. The aim of French nationalism was to turn Gascons and Bretons into generic Frenchmen. The aim of German nationalism was to turn Bavarians and Swabians into generic Germans. The aim of Italian nationalism was to turn Lombards and Sicilians into generic Italians. The aim of British nationalism was to turn Yorkshiremen and Cornishmen and Welshmen into generic Britons.

I’m not comfortable with any of that. I’m a multiculturalist. That’s why I dislike multiculturalism so much – in practice it seeks to destroy diversity and to replace multiple cultures with a single global culture. I like the idea of a world with countless different cultures.

I also prefer the idea of ties of loyalty that grow naturally, such as loyalty to family, or to a local community bonded together by a common faith, language and customs. I consider loyalty to a king to be a natural loyalty as well, or at least it was in the days when we still had actual kings. I’m not overly keen on the idea of loyalty to a government.

And nationalism can all too easily become loyalty to the state rather than the nation. Even worse (as in the case of French nationalism and American nationalism) it can become loyalty to an ideology.

If I have to choose between nationalism and globalism I’ll choose nationalism, but without any great enthusiasm.

being both a victim and an oppressor

A comment to my previous post noted that “SJWs have plenty of historical and even contemporary stuff to portray East Asians as victims.”

This raises a really interesting point, particularly in regard to America. East Asians in the United States certainly get victim privileges. Given that on average they’re doing better than white people that might seem strange, but if massively privileged white female college students can portray themselves as victims and can get away with it then anyone can do it.

On the other hand when South Koreans, Japanese or Chinese are living in their own nations they suddenly cease to be victims. Suddenly they become oppressors because they aren’t diverse enough. The liberal media whines about Japan’s refusal to replace its Japanese population with a properly diverse population of non-Japanese. China gets the same treatment. The South Koreans have already embraced national suicide (their birth rate is so low that within half a century there won’t be any South Koreans to worry about) so they are not given such a hard time.

This is all part of the weird mix of outrageous racism and grovelling antiracism that characterises modern America. A Chinese person in the U.S. is a victim of white racism and colonialism, but China is a threat to America’s world domination so China as a nation is regarded with suspicion and fear.

It’s pretty much the same with Islam. Muslims in the U.S. are a protected victim class and are therefore virtuous. But Muslim nations refuse to accept American world domination (or more to the point Muslim nations are an inconvenience to Israel) so Muslim nations need to be bombed back into the Stone Age. Muslims in their own countries are evil. Muslims are only good when they live in other people’s countries.

Of course it goes further than this. To white American liberals blacks are sacred – as long as those white liberals don’t have to live in the same neighbourhoods as blacks or send their kids to schools with blacks.

One can’t help getting the feeling that American antiracism is pure hypocrisy. Which of corse would explain why Americans get so strident on the subject.

the coming demographic collapse

Civilisations have died before and in many cases these deaths could be described as being at least in part suicides but what we’re seeing today is something much more frightening – our species is committing suicide. We are simply no longer reproducing. There’s a name for species that stop reproducing – we call them extinct species.

The catastrophic falls in birth rates in the West are certainly old news. Fertility in the West has been slowly declining for well over a century. But it’s not just the West now. Some of the lowest fertility rates on the planet are found in highly developed east Asian societies. South Korea and Taiwan are almost certainly past the point of no return.

Fertility rates have plummeted everywhere, except sub-Saharan Africa. Europe, Latin America, east Asia, the Indian subcontinent, the Islamic world, North America – wherever you look it’s the same story. There are fewer and fewer babies.

No-one can be entirely certain why this has happened. It is possible that physiological factors may be involved, with unhealthy hormone balances being one suspect. It does seem more likely though that the disaster is mostly cultural in nature.

Undoubtedly urbanisation has played a part. The demoralising effects of capitalism and consumerism. The collapse of organised religion. Feminism, the glorification of homosexuality, the trans nonsense, the ubiquity of pornography – these are certainly factors. It has to be said that as American culture has been spread more and more aggressively across the planet it has been followed by the social hollowing-out that leads to further declines in fertility. 

Foolish western governments have allowed themselves to be persuaded that the economic consequences of population collapse can be avoided by mass immigration. That’s not going to work for various reasons, but in the long term the main reason it isn’t going to work is that all human populations are collapsing, and they’re collapsing fastest in the more “advanced” countries. The immigrants are also going to stop reproducing.

Of course it can be argued that declining populations are not necessarily a bad thing. The trouble is that we are not dealing with a slow decline in healthy populations. We’re dealing with populations that are failing to reproduce because society is diseased. We don’t know if such declines can ever be reversed. It might well be that once a certain point is reached an equilibrium will start to establish itself, or alternatively it might be that the collapse will begin to accelerate until self-extinction is achieved.

In any case while the economic problems of declining populations might be solvable we certainly are not close to finding such a solution.

And then of course there’s the added difficulty that the one place that population collapse is not happening is sub-Saharan Africa. If our leaders our determined to arrest declining population by bringing in immigrants then sub-Saharan Africa is going to be the only long-term source of unlimited numbers of immigrants. Does anyone seriously think that’s going to end well?

We also need to ask ourselves if we really want to live in a society in which people are too selfish and too stuck in permanent adolescence to want to raise families. It’s not likely to turn out to be a very healthy society.

rebuilding European demographics

Let’s assume that eventually the anti-immigration argument succeeds and the flood of immigrants into the West is stopped. OK, it seems very unlikely but let’s just assume it anyway. What is the next step?

Western countries like Britain, France, the United States and Sweden are already in a mess. Clearly it’s not going to be enough merely to stop immigration. Those countries need to be restored to functionality and even more importantly they need to be restored to the status of civilised nations. For one thing that means the apparatus of totalitarianism that has been slowly built up over the past half century needs to be dismantled. I am assuming that what we in the anti-immigration camp want is for these nations to be restored to something like the state they were in in the 1950s before the process of de-civilisation got seriously underway.

So what would need to be done? There are many who would like to see the demographic balances of the 50s restored. It’s certainly an attractive idea but could it really be done? Bismarck famously said that politics is the art of the possible, and I’m not entirely sure that  a restoration of 1950s demographics falls within the range of the possible. Existing nationalist parties have had little success even though their policies are very much more moderate than this.

It seems to me that there are four options.

1 Mass deportations to forcible restore 1950s demographics.

2 Selective deportations to achieve a more favourable demographic balance.

3 Assimilation of existing immigrants.

4 Segregation.

Option 1 is almost certainly impossible and could in any case only be carried out by a government with such sweeping powers that it would have the potential to be more totalitarian than our current system.

Option 2 appeals to a lot of people who think our problems could be solved by expelling all members of a certain religion. The Spanish did this fairly successfully after the Reconquista in the late 15th century but they needed the Inquisition to make it work. A modern attempt would need something very similar to the Inquisition.

Enforcing deportations (or immigration bans) on religious lines is not simple. How exactly do you decide if someone actually belongs to the religion in question? Do you deport everyone who was born a Muslim? Or only practising Muslims? How do you define practising? If someone claims that they have abandoned their religion or converted to a different religion can you believe them? The Spanish (no doubt wisely) were not inclined to take people’s word for it that they had sincerely converted to Catholicism. It was the Inquisition’s job to make sure.

The Spanish Inquisition in fact was not particularly brutal or even particularly oppressive. Much of its evil reputation is due to the anti-Catholicism that dominated English intellectual life for so many centuries (Henry Kamen’s excellent book on the subject which I reviewed here is worth a read). But nonetheless it was certainly intrusive and I cannot imagine that a modern version is ever likely to be politically acceptable or even desirable.

http://anotherpoliticallyincorrectblog.blogspot.com.au/2015/12/the-spanish-inquisition-historical.html

We also need to ask ourselves if deporting people for their religious beliefs is a wise precedent to establish. It could just as easily be turned against adherents of other religions, especially Christianity. It’s worth remembering that our political establishment hates Christianity a lot more than it hates Islam. They’d be overjoyed to have the opportunity to ban Christian immigrants and to deport existing Christians.

On the whole any kind of large-scale deportation, whether selective or not, seems to me to be impractical and to involve very real potential dangers.

That brings us to Option 3, assimilation. This might be an unpopular thing to say but this is actually my least favoured option. For various reasons.

Firstly, it doesn’t work particularly well and it works least well with the very people who are most likely to be a social problem.

Secondly, you have to have a viable host culture for the immigrants to assimilate to. We no longer have that. Assimilation means embracing the core values of a culture and what are the core values of our civilisation? Mindless consumerism, greed, celebrity worship,  homosexual marriage, abortion on demand, promiscuity, pornography, transgender bathroom rights and feminism. Why would anyone want to assimilate to a death cult like modern western civilisation? Why would we want to encourage anyone to do so? Do we really need more crazy blue-haired feminist harpies?

Thirdly, I just don’t like the idea of assimilation. It means cutting oneself off from one’s history and cultural traditions. It means betraying one’s loyalties. Essentially it means becoming a rootless cosmopolitan and do we really need any more rootless cosmopolitans? It means you end up with a society with no actual culture (just a veneer of trash pop culture), no shared traditions, no shared history. You end up with a society that will be more and more inclined to embrace the very forces that have led us to ruin – liberal democracy, consumerism and capitalism. You end up with a society more likely to welcome totalitarianism and more likely to worship the state since they have nothing else of substance in which to believe. The descent into degeneracy will continue unchecked.

Option 4 is the one likely to provoke howls of outrage but some kind of segregation might well be the best solution for everyone. Something like the millet system in the Ottoman Empire, whereby different faiths can essentially live under their own laws and preserve their own cultures. This might seem like a very unattractive solution but it might be the best hope for preserving at least a remnant of European civilisation.

a better monarchy

I can understand the appeal of the idea of ethnostates. I can understand the appeal of nations bound together by a common culture, history and religion.

The only problem with the idea is that very few of the currently existing nations qualify as ethnostates.

Britain doesn’t qualify, unless you regard Scots and Welsh and English as interchangeable. Italy doesn’t qualify – northern Italians and southern Italians are certainly not ethnically interchangeable. Spain definitely doesn’t qualify. Belgium is most certainly not an ethnostate.

I’m not talking about these nations as they are today – even fifty years ago before the beginnings of mass immigration they were not ethnostates. Germany maybe, but it was divided on religious lines.

As for countries like Australia, maybe up until the 1940s there might have been a chance for a kind of ethnostate except for the fact of the Irish Catholics. Canada never had a chance, unless they were prepared to sacrifice Quebec. There was never the slightest chance in the US.

So the big problem is that the creation of European ethnostates would have required the dissolution of most of the major nation states. That would not necessarily have been a bad thing had the EU been conceived as a loose federation rather a centralised bureaucratic super-state.

It’s understandable that those who dislike globalism tend to lean towards nationalism since nationalism seems like the only viable alternative. But is it? Perhaps we should be looking at other alternatives. Perhaps we should look to the Holy Roman Empire as an alternative. The reputation of the Holy Roman Empire never really recovered from Voltaire’s characterisation of it as neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire. But in fact its weakness (or its apparent weakness) was the very thing that was so great about the Holy Roman Empire.

It was also the great strength of the empire of the Habsburgs which overlapped with but was by no means identical with the Holy Roman Empire. There was a strong enough central authority to keep it intact and provide a strong army but it was not string enough or bureaucratic enough to enforce conformity. As a result the Habsburg Empire had lots of diversity. Cultural diversity, ethnic diversity, linguistic diversity, even religious diversity.

How could this have worked? Very simple. It was a monarchy. Unity was maintained by a common loyalty to the House of Habsburg. If you want to maintain a unity based on a concept like shared values you need the apparatus of totalitarianism in order to do it. Unity based on loyalty to the crown does not require totalitarianism.

That’s one of the key weaknesses of the United States. The one thing that might have made America workable was a monarchy.

On paper Australia is lucky. We are a monarchy. But it doesn’t work and we are sliding towards the horrors of the proposition nation nonsense as a result. It doesn’t work partly because the House of Windsor is not our monarchy. An English queen cannot provide a focus for unity and loyalty. What we needed, right from the beginning, was our own monarchy. Our own king. The other reason it doesn’t work is that the Windsors are a truly awful family. They’re basically celebrity trash. They’d provide a great basis for a daytime soap opera but as a force for Australian unity they’re pretty useless.

Our problem is that the failings of the present monarchy are likely to result in a renewed push for a republic and that would be much much worse. We need a monarchy, but we need a better monarchy.

liberalism is colonialism

An amusing detail in a recent post at Nourishing Obscurity caught my eye. At a conference an anti-free speech protestor shouted, “liberalism is white supremacy.”

What’s really amusing about this is that it’s true. Liberalism is the ultimate white people ideology. Non-white people aren’t into liberalism at all. They may make tactical political alliances with liberals but non-white people do not have any real belief in liberalism.

And liberalism is not only a white person’s ideology, it is being forced on everybody on the planet. This is an example of extraordinary arrogance and insensitivity and it truly can be described as ideological white supremacism.

Worse even than that, liberalism is the new colonialism. Remember when people of the left used to tell us how evil colonialism was, how it was paternalistic and degrading and it destroyed other cultures. Well folks that’s exactly what liberalism is doing right now.

For all the talk of diversity it is quit obvious that the final objective of the liberal globalist establishment is to destroy every culture but one. No diversity will be permitted in the liberal globalist Brave New World. Everyone will be the same shade of brown. Everyone will speak the same language – English, with an American accent. Everyone will share the same culture. And that culture will be American culture.

Even the European colonial powers in the bad old days showed more respect for other cultures. Liberalism is the most intolerant ideology that human beings have so far managed to devise. The idea of respecting other cultures does not even occur to modern liberals. These fanatically politically correct liberals are engaging in the greatest cultural genocide of all time.

And who are these fanatical liberals? For the most part they are white and middle-class. The liberal true believers are almost entirely white and middle-class.

Liberalism really is white supremacist, and neo-colonialist, and racist. Life is full of little ironies isn’t it?

how not to lose your country and your freedom – stop apologising

What has happened in the West in the past few decades seems incomprehensible. How could people possibly throw away their freedoms and at the same time tamely accept demographic replacement?
Various theories have been put forward to explain this phenomenon. Maybe it was the loss of so many young men in the two world wars? Maybe the loss of the best and the brightest of an entire generation weakened Europeans genetically and produced subsequent generations of miserable weaklings. But in this case how to explain Sweden’s self-destructive frenzy, given that the last time Sweden fought a war it was against Napoleon?
Maybe additives in food are feminising the population. 
Maybe too much prosperity and too much easy living breeds apathy and self-hatred.
My theory is that western Europeans (and I include Americans and Australians) have accept these dismal changes because a very large proportion of them genuinely don’t know that things have changed. Those responsible for these changes have been very much aware of the principle that you if you boil the frog slowly enough the frog won’t realise what’s happening. 
The changes have happened gradually and we now have a couple of generations who have grown up taking these changes for granted. Millennials don’t know that there used to be a time when people could say whatever they wanted to. They can’t conceive of such a society. They have never known such a society. They can’t conceive of a society without the stresses and the outbreaks of violence that accompany diversity. They have never lived in such a society.
How could Londoners have allowed one of the world’s great cities to become a cesspit? The answer is that a very large number of Londoners have never known the city as anything other than a cesspit. Just as a large proportion of Parisians have never known Paris as a peaceful and beautiful city.
Millennials think soft totalitarianism is normal. They think it’s normal to have to self-censor yourself constantly.
You can’t miss what you’ve never had.
And it’s not just Millennials. Even the second cohort of Generation X, those born between 1975 and 1985, have only the haziest recollections of living in a free and decent society.
If this is true, what can be done about it? I think that about the only thing we can do is to try to awaken people to the past. We can try to encourage people to read about the past, to experience a taste of the past by sampling the books and movies and TV of the past. This has to be done carefully. Generation Snowflake gets scared very easily. 
And we have to defend the past. We have to stop apologising for the fact that people smoke in old movies, that characters in old books and movies sometimes speak their minds and express politically incorrect views. We have to stop apologising for the fact that our ancestors sometimes did things that would be considered to be unacceptable to today’s Thought Police. We have to stop apologising for the fact that the past wasn’t politically correct. 
We have to stop apologising altogether, but we need to be especially vigilant in avoiding making apologies for the history and the traditions and the traditional culture of the West.

nationalism and what it means to me

Nationalism became very unfashionable indeed in the West in the postwar period although it certainly seems to be making a comeback now.
The problem we have to face though is – what exactly is nationalism? There has recently been much talk of white nationalism. This is a concept that I find rather puzzling. It seems to me to be so broad as to be essentially meaningless. What does white mean? Does it include Armenians? Does it include Jews? Does white mean caucasian? 
My impression is that when most white nationalists talk about whites they mean Europeans or those of European ancestry. Fair enough but personally it still seems too broad to me. I have nothing whatsoever against Portuguese, Bulgarians or Germans but I feel no great sense of connection to them. I know a bit about German history and culture but pretty much nothing about Portuguese or Bulgarian history and culture. 
To be meaningful nationalism has to involve some kind of emotional resonance. That (in my opinion) requires a shared language, history and culture. Polish nationalism and Danish nationalism make sense since both Poles and Danes have a shared language, history and culture. European nationalism makes no sense to me, plus it has unfortunate universalist connotations – it’s the kind of woolly-minded concept that gave Europe the nightmare of the EU. You can’t expect the Irish and the Lithuanians to feel any genuine solidarity. I’m sure they wish each other well but they have little in common and it’s quite reasonable for Lithuanians to be very concerned about the welfare of fellow Lithuanians and to be entirely uninterested in the welfare of the Irish.
In the United States the proposition nation idea was an attempt to create a different kind of nationalism. It would have worked if only they could have found a way to make sure that every single US citizen would agree with the same propositions, and that every one of their descendants would agree to it. Which is of course entirely impossible. You can’t base nationalism on ideas. Ideas go in and out of fashion. Nationalism has to be based on something much deeper and more lasting.
That leaves the US with a major problem and to some extent it’s a problem for countries like Canada and Australia as well – countries that had to create new nationalisms more or less from scratch. Australia appeared to be well on the way to doing this but several decades of cultural marxism has put paid to that.
I certainly regard myself as a nationalist, but not as a white nationalist no matter how broadly or how narrowly you want to define white nationalism. I’m an Australian nationalist. I have nothing but goodwill for other countries but they’re not my country and for me my country comes first. 
Since I believe that nationalism needs to be based on a common language, history and culture if logically follows that I believe that bringing in enormous numbers of immigrants who do not share that common language, history and culture will be disastrous. Nationalism requires borders. Large-scale immigration is the best and easiest way to destroy a nation. To me the race, ethnicity and religion of the immigrants is irrelevant. All large-scale immigration is ultimately disastrous if it weakens the bonds of language, history and culture.
To a liberal admitting to being a nationalist is tantamount to admitting to being a white supremacist Nazi. Which is of course utter nonsense. I’m a nationalist but
I’m entirely supportive of all other nationalists. I’m in favour of Sweden for the Swedes and Japan for the Japanese and Kenya for the Kenyans and Iran for the Iranians. I have absolutely nothing against any other race, ethnicity or religion. In my view having separate countries is the best way to encourage mutual respect. I like and respect and admire the Japanese but I think it’s better for everyone if the Japanese live in Japan and leave Australia to Australians. Fortunately the Japanese seem to be in total agreement with me on that point!
There are some further difficulties with nationalism. If I’m in favour of Swedish and Japanese and Australian nationalism shouldn’t I also be in favour of Scottish nationalism, and Catalonian nationalism? Those nationalisms are however in conflict with British nationalism and Spanish nationalism. Which nationalisms should take precedence? I haven’t found a solution to that dilemma but I console myself with the thought that nobody else seems to have found a solution either.

why doesn’t cultural diversity matter?

We live in a world in which we’re constantly told that diversity is the most precious thing there is, and yet the people and institutions pushing this line are entirely unconcerned by the fact that actual diversity is rapidly disappearing.
The actual diversity that is vanishing is cultural diversity and this represents one of the great tragedies of human history. A hundred years ago there were countless cultures on this planet, all with their own unique features. These were not necessarily national cultures – often one nation would contain a number of distinctive cultures. Within living memory the Cornish still considered themselves to be culturally quite separate from the English. A Yorkshireman would have considered himself to be more than just a generic Englishman.
Even in countries with much shorter histories there was considerable cultural diversity. It’s reasonable to say that until a generation or so ago Texans thought of themselves as a distinct sub-culture within the large American culture. 
If present trends continue none of these cultural groups will survive. Within a couple of generations the whole western world will be a single monoculture. Everyone will listen to more or less the same music, watch the same movies, watch the same TV programs, use the same slang, eat the same foods, obey the same social rules. Parts of the non-western world may resist a little longer but eventually they too will be assimilated into the monoculture. The elites have already pretty much gone down that path.
It’s not just going to be a monoculture but if present indications are any guide it’s going to be both trashy and dreary, and of course entirely materialistic and consumerist.
Not long ago I read a science fiction book (I’m afraid I don’t remember the title offhand) about a future in which virtually instantaneous travel was possible to all, to any place in the world. But nobody ever made use of it because there was no point. Why bother going to another city since every city on the planet was identical – the same architecture, the same interior design, the same fashions, the same range of cuisines, the same popular culture, the same movies playing, the same TV programs, the same everything. You could travel from Tokyo to New York or to Paris or to Melbourne but once you got there it was exactly the same in every respect as New York.
It seems like that future is getting closer. To me it seems like a nightmare future but oddly enough most people seem unconcerned. 
This post was inspired by an excellent recent posting at Vanishing American II.

Racism is alive and well – among the Greens

Leftists have been telling us for years that racism is alive and well in Australia. It turns out they were right. A journalist on the notoriously left-wing Melbourne newspaper The Age has discovered a particularly obnoxious nest of such racists in the heart of Melbourne.
But these racists are not quite what the leftist media might have led you to believe they’d be. They’re not rednecks. They’re not working-class. They’re not Christians. They’re not evil conservatives. They’re middle-class, very wealthy, LGBTQwhatever-friendly, environmentally conscious, atheist, feminist and they vote solidly for the Greens. They live in inner-city Fitzroy where the local town hall is festooned with banners proclaiming “refugees are welcome here.” 
But they are racists. They don’t send their children to the local primary schools because the local primary schools are very diverse and multi-cultural. No, they send their children to primary schools much further afield – primary schools that are almost entirely white. It seems they don’t want their precious offspring to have to mix with non-whites.
The best part of the article from The Age is the comments section. It’s absolutely hilarious watching the mental contortions these hypocrites perform in their desperate efforts to argue that they’re not racist just because they want their kids to be safely segregated from contact with non-white kids.
The funniest comment of all is from the person who tries to argue that it’s not racism at all – he’s just terrified his kids might come into contact with some of those nasty scary people from the lower socioeconomic groups. Because poor people are so icky, aren’t they? Apparently they’re even ickier than non-white people!
There is truly no limit to leftist hypocrisy.
I was led to the subject matter for this post by a post at OzConservative.