why nationalism has no electoral appeal

I’ve been having an intriguing debate on immigration with a Finn at Unz Review. He was crowing over the magnificent success of the anti-immigration party in the recent Finnish election. That party got a massive 17.5% of the vote. I tried to gently point out that since all the other parties are rabidly pro-immigration that result actually means that 82.5% of Finns voted in effect for pro-immigration policies. He tried to counter that by arguing that a recent survey showed that 74% of Finns opposed immigration. My reply was that such a survey isn’t very comforting when 82.5% of Finns proceeded to vote for parties with explicitly pro-immigration policies.

This all seems consistent with the situation in other countries. Polls show that people do not want immigration but they still vote for parties that they know are in favour of massive immigration.

So what is the answer to this mystery? Why is it that nationalist and anti-immigration parties just don’t attract the level of electoral support that would be expected?

I can suggest a few possible explanations.

Firstly, opinion polls and surveys are not especially reliable when it comes to social attitudes. Results can vary enormously depending on how questions are phrased. Opinion polls can be manipulated to provide particular results. The problem with this explanation is that you would expect opinion polls to underestimate support for immigration restrictionism.

Secondly, it may be that these parties are remarkably poor at selling their message. That sounds plausible but can we really believe that all these parties are incompetent when it comes to selling themselves?

Thirdly, it may be that many of the leaders of anti-immigration parties rub people up the wrong way – they seem autistic or weird, or more to the point they can easily be portrayed by the media as autistic and weird and socially undesirable.

Fourthly, it may be that while a very large number of people are anti-immigration it’s not really a very important issue for most of them. When it comes to voting they’re more interested in bread-and-butter issues. They’re more interested in voting for the party that will put the most money in their pockets right now. That’s much more important than the future of our society.

Fifthly, it may be that nationalist and anti-immigration parties are too much associated in the public mind with ideas that are so deeply unpopular and socially unacceptable that any party even vaguely linked with such ideas will fail to win votes. I’m talking about ideas such as HBD (human biodiversity) which its proponents claim to be a scientifically proven recognition of inherited differences (particularly in intelligence) between races. The problem with stuff like HBD is that firstly the science behind them is very very dubious and secondly there is no way you can avoid having such ideas labelled as white supremacism or Nazi science. So you end up with nationalist/anti-immigration parties being tainted with racism and that’s going to scare off 80% of your potential voters.

Sixthly, such parties can come across as being very negative. Concentrating too much on what you’re against without articulating what you’re for is a major political mistake.

I’m inclined to think that the fourth, fifth and sixth explanations are by far the most likely. So what is the answer to this problem? Obviously nationalist parties have to offer a lot more than anti-immigration rhetoric. They have to offer an economic alternative to globalism. They have to offer hope and inspiration. They have to get people excited about the possibility of having a future again. They have to be wary of obvious vote-losing stuff like HBD.

Whether any of this would actually work, whether nationalist parties would ever be allowed to govern, is another matter. It’s possible that even if they won they’d be targeted for destruction by the United States. I’m not even sure it would necessarily be a good thing if they won – I have expressed my reservations about nationalism in other posts. I’m simply pointing out why the current strategies of nationalists seem doomed to failure.

And it is worth pointing out that one of the reasons nationalists and other dissidents are such easy targets is that they have no real base of popular support.

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.

East Asia and the globalist agenda

If you’re white it’s easy to fall into the trap of thinking that the globalists and SJWs simply hate white people and want to destroy all white nations. It is of course quite true that they hate white people and that they seek to destroy white nations but there’s more to it than that.

In fact the globalists and SJWs hate anyone who has a successful high-functioning society. Such societies are a serious threat to the globalist agenda. East Asians also have very successful very well-functioning societies, therefore to the globalist mind East Asians must be as evil as white people. No successful high-functioning societies can be permitted to survive.

Everyone must be either a victim or an oppressor. Since East Asians are clearly not victims, therefore they must be oppressors.

It’s fairly obvious that the globalists have East Asians marked down for cultural destruction.

This means that theoretically at least whites and East Asians should be able to form an alliance against the globalists. There are many reasons why this hasn’t happened and may not happen. It does remain a possibility, and it’s a possibility that perhaps should be explored by European and North American nationalists.

oppression as a basic human right

One of the amusing things about the absurd times in which we live is that we’re suffering from a severe shortage of oppression.

Oppression is extremely important to privileged groups because oppression is the magical shortcut to privilege. Oppression offers not just privilege and status but as certificate of virtue. Anyone who is oppressed is automatically virtuous.

The most privileged groups in society today are white college-educated women, homosexuals (and other members of the LGBTwhatever lobby) and Jews. These groups enjoy power, prestige and influence beyond anything that could ever be dreamt of. Their power and influence stems largely from their successful efforts to portray themselves as hideously and horrifically oppressed. The problem for them is that they are the least oppressed people in history.

That’s why they’re so angry! They have a precious inalienable right to be oppressed but nobody wants to oppress them. They haven’t been even mildly oppressed for half a century (and even more than half a century ago the claims of women and homosexuals to have been oppressed are dubious and exaggerated). But the problem now is that they’re not even the tiniest bit oppressed.

The problem is spreading to other groups. In the anglophone countries for decades now blacks have been the beneficiaries of positive discrimination far more often than the victims of negative discrimination.

In fact the terrifying truth is that there really isn’t much oppression around these days. What’s even more disturbing is that the only people who really are being actively oppressed (albeit in a fairly mild way at this stage) are unpopular groups like Christians. These are groups who do not deserve to receive the benefits of being oppressed.

It has to be said that liberals are not taking any of this lying down. They are taking active steps to remedy the situation. If oppression doesn’t exist it can always be manufactured. And liberals are setting about manufacturing oppression with enthusiasm. All the real nazis are long since dead but all you need to do is to paint a few stastikas on walls and you’ll have people believing that it’s 1933 all over again and Hitler has been restored to life and is about to take up the reins of power. Manufacturing hate hoaxes is absurdly simple, and given the politicised nature of our police and our courts it’s just about a risk-free activity. Sexism and homophobia are even easier to fabricate. All you need to do is to make the accusation and no matter how ridiculous it might be the media will run with it.

The logic of late liberalism is that oppression is a basic need. Without oppression there can be no virtue. It is the duty of every good liberal to ensure that the supply of oppression never runs out.

SJW circular firing squads working overtime

The Social Justice Warrior circular firing squads have been working overtime this week. First victim was Ellen DeGeneres for her supposedly vile racist tweet featuring sprinter Usain Bolt. Even the fact that Bolt himself thought the tweet was amusing couldn’t save her and she’s had to do some heavy-duty groveling.

Then a lesbian feminist website had to indulge in some delightful ritual self-humiliation after being foolish enough to allow a white person to write a movie review. Needless to say the review turned out to be more vile racism. Who knew that lesbian feminists were actually closet white supremacists?

It must be great fun being a white SJW. You get to apologise and apologise and apologise and then when you’re through apologising you get to apologise some more. But of course it’s never enough to wipe out the Original Sin of being born white. The only conclusion I can come to is that there’s a certain type of white person that really enjoys self-humiliation. Sad.

A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History

Nicholas Wade’s long-awaited (and for liberals much-dreaded) new book A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History proves to be as stimulating as one would expect from this author.
The book, as the author states right from the beginning, falls neatly into two halves. The first half presents the fairly overwhelming evidence that human evolution did not suddenly and magically stop at some date in the distant past. The second half, as Wade freely admits, is more speculative as Wade explores the possible ramifications of on-going human evolution.
The scientific consensus since the 1970s has been that race has no scientific basis and that for some obscure reason human evolution suddenly ground to a stop. There’s little doubt that Wade is right in arguing that this consensus (rather like the climate change consensus) is based on a mixture of ideology, wishful thinking and fear. Any scientist who pursues research into the subject of race knows that he is quite likely committing professional suicide and will stand a good chance of being hounded out of academia. The idea that every species on the planet is subject to natural selection with the single exception of our own is clearly patently absurd. 
Wade presents the argument, based on recent scientific work, that human evolution is not only still happening but that evolution works far more quickly than we used to assume. Significant changes can occur within a fairly small number of generations meaning that the   effects on humans can be seen within a few centuries. Wade explored this subject in much greater depth in his excellent 2006 book Before the Dawn.
This first half of the book is dangerous enough but the second half is pure dynamite. If humans are in fact subject to natural laws and if evolution does work over comparatively  brief time-spans then there are likely to be very real differences between races. The most important aspect of his argument is that cultural changes can be driven by genetic changes and those genetic changes can then in turn drive (or accelerate) cultural change.
The change from hunter-gatherer societies to agricultural societies that started to occur around 15,000 years ago are likely to have been made possible in part by genetic changes and once the societal change had occurred then evolution, very naturally and inevitably, would lead to further genetic changes. The kinds of social behaviours that are advantageous to hunter-gatherer societies are very different from those that are advantageous to agriculturalists. One telling example is that hunter-gatherer societies that have survived into modern times are extraordinarily violent with truly horrendous murder rates and a positively terrifying death toll from incessant warfare. This is no problem for such societies. If anything it is useful in keeping population numbers low enough to avoid the danger of starvation. Such violent behaviour is not merely disadvantageous to agricultural societies; it would make such societies entirely untenable.
The same argument applies to the change from small-scale agricultural communities in which a tribal organisation is extremely useful to urban communities and the development of modern states, in which tribal organisation is entirely unworkable. Some genetic changes may well have played a role in this transformation of human society and once the transformation was underway those genetic changes, such as a considerably lower propensity to violence, would accelerate.
Wade extends the argument further, drawing on the work of British historian Gregory Clark, arguing that the Industrial Revolution may have been partly fueled by small but significant genetic changes and that these changes occurred in some parts of the world such as Europe but did not occur elsewhere. This provides a convincing explanation for the extraordinary and dramatic dominance of the West over the past few centuries. It would also explain the otherwise mysterious fact that attempts to impose western-style economic and political systems in places like Iraq and Haiti have failed so dismally, and for the equally mysterious but undeniable fact that massive amounts of foreign aid have failed to produce any benefits in the majority of African countries.
Wade is clearly aware that he is walking into a minefield and at times, not surprisingly, he treads very carefully. On occasions, especially when dealing with intelligence, he refrains from connecting up the dots although the dots are certainly there to be connected. I don’t think Wade can be blamed for this. He goes as far as it’s possible to go in the current repressive political climate and to have connected up some of those dots would have meant giving up any hope of having the book published.
As it stands A Troublesome Inheritance is an audacious, provocative and immensely stimulating book. Both the author and the publisher (The Penguin Press) are to be commended for having the courage to publish it. Very highly recommended.

Nicholas Wade’s Before the Dawn

Nicholas Wade’s Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors, published in 2007, is a book that describes the way our new knowledge of the human genome has amplified our understanding of the history of our species and added some important and surprising new dimensions to it.
Wade is a science journalist with the New York Times. The idea of the book is to present these advances in our understanding in a way that is accessible to the general reader without dumbing things down.
The most important point the book makes is that evolution does not stop, and that human evolution has not stopped. The usual view had been that once our evolution reached a certain point, around 50,000 years ago, with the appearance of behavourially modern humans, it suddenly stopped and culture took over. Wade believes that recent research blows this idea out of the water.
Modern genetic science can not only track changes in the human genome, it can date them. And some of these changes, such as the development of lactose tolerance, are (in evolutionary terms) very recent indeed.
Anatomically modern humans appeared around 100,000 years ago. At that time there were three human species – our ancestors living in Africa, Homo erectus living in a wide range in eastern Eurasia, and the Neanderthals living in western Eurasia. At first our species had no particular advantage over the other two. All three species remained on more or less the same cultural level for around 50,000 years. 
And then something changed, and changed dramatically. Our species shot ahead. Archaeological remains tell the story of rapid cultural advances. Not long after this a small group of our ancestors left Africa. They spread throughout Eurasia and as far as Australia (which was then part of a larger continent). All humans outside of Africa are descended from the small group, possible as few as 150 individuals, that left Africa 50,000 years ago.
At that time the most recent Ice Age was far from over and the glaciers would advance and retreat several more times. Apart from these major advances and retreats of the ice sheets climate change was continuous and warm periods and cool periods alternated, the changes often occurring quite rapidly. The other two human species disappeared, possibly from a combination of climate change and pressure from our ancestors.
Until fairly recently (around 12,500 years ago) our ancestors were all hunter-gatherers. The next major change has always been assumed to have been the development of agriculture, resulting in the abandonment of the nomadic way of life. In fact, curiously enough, the beginnings of settled existence considerably predated the development of agriculture. The adoption of a sedentary existence may well have been the result of genetic change. Hunter-gatherer societies, both then and in more recent times, are much too violent to adapt to a settled existence in larger groups. Hunter-gatherer societies are in fact the most violent of all human societies, with a death toll from murder and incessant warfare that makes the most violent neighbourhoods in the most violent modern cities seem like oases of peace.
The contention, amply supported by genetic evidence, that human evolution has been continuous right up to the present day, is the part of the book that has upset a lot of people. It implies that human populations that have remained relatively isolated from each other have not only continued to evolve, they have evolved separately. In other words, racial differences are real. Many of the major human groups, including Caucasians and east Asians, made their appearance quite recently.
Wade is, understandably, very cautious in dealing with the dreaded subject of race. He avoids the subject of intelligence as much as possible although he does point out that Ashkenazi Jews have significantly higher IQ scores than any other existing human population and that this seems to be a very recent development, probably occurring some time between 800 and 1700 AD.
Wade also points out that the story is not yet over. Just as modern humans are genetically distinct from our ancestors, our descendants are likely to be distinct from us.
This is a fascinating and provocative book which I cannot recommend too highly. His upcoming book, A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History, is likely to be even more fascinating and even more provocative.