Saturday, January 13, 2018
Paul Gottfried’s Opposition to White Nationalism as Basis for Conservatism/Rightism.
Paul Gottfried, formerly a mentor to Richard Spencer, has remarked ‘white nationalism’ shouldn’t be the basis for the New Right. Gottfried argues that white identity doesn’t have a thematic history in Conservatism. Rather, it is an artificial made-up category, like ‘black nationalism’ in America when, in fact, no such thing as ‘black identity’ existed in Sub-Saharan Africa where people identified along tribal or clan lines than on racial ones. After all, it was blacks who enslaved other blacks and sold them to Arabs or European slave-traders.
Gottfried argues that Rightism in the West has essentially been about Christian values, ethno(as opposed to racial)nationalism, heritage & memory, traditionalism, and culture. In contrast, the notion of racial identity is a radical departure from everything that was genuinely traditional on the Right. Ramzpaul the Youtube personality has also repeatedly said that Europeans don’t identity by race but by narrower categories of ethno-national identity, e.g. Hungarians don’t see Romanians and Russians as their ‘brothers’ on the basis of race.
It was in America that race became a group identity. If black Africans had been divided along tribal or clan lines, black Americans developed a common racial identity based on skin color, genetics, shared historical experience as slaves and second-class citizens. Thus, the identity of race in America, especially among blacks, came to be associated with anti-conservatism. Blacks united to resist and destroy the system that ensured white superiority over blacks. Yet, black movement was paradoxical in that it was about black racial unity whose stated goal was to fight ‘racism’. Officially at least, blacks didn’t come together to favor blacks or uphold narrow black interests. It was to overcome the notion of race so that all Americans will be judged by ‘content of their character than the color of their skin’. So, the Civil Rights Movement was both a black racial movement and an anti-racial movement. Its goals were to break down white racial privileges so that all races could live under equal justice under the law. But if such were its ultimate mission, was the Civil Rights Movement anti-black as well as anti-white? And this issue was the basis for the divide between figures like MLK and figures like Elijah Muhammad & Malcolm X. MLK and his cohorts argued for ultimate integration and assimilation of white and black. In contrast, Muhammad and X argued for black identity and black nationalism as the ultimate objective of black politics. Both sides agreed on the need to resist white power, but one side wanted to merge with white community on the basis(at least officially) of color-blindness whereas the other side wanted to create a separate realm of black power in body and soul. To be sure, even the assimilationist and integrationist blacks could never let go of their racial identity, and their politics became one of race-baiting ‘whitey’. Still, MLK and his values were esteemed by both white and black integrationists as the shining ideal for a color-blind society. Even race-specific Affirmative Action has been rationalized, at least officially, as remedial than racially permanent, i.e. it is to ultimately end when blacks have caught up to white standards.
Anyway, there was an element of black identity in both black integrationists and black separatists. But neither side was associated with American Conservatism. Even black nationalists, despite their racial consciousness(and even black-supremacist tendencies), were seen as the enemy of the American Right. Malcolm X has always been more revered on the Left despite his black racialism.
As for black integrationists, black identity politics was always implicit and even explicit at times. Still, they spoke the words of Christianity, Social Justice, and Universal Progress than black nationalist politics. On those grounds, Paul Gottfried is right that racial consciousness has not been a powerful factor on the American Right? What about the KKK and Neo-Nazis? The KKK was not about white identity but about Southern Anglo-Protestant interests against perceived threats from blacks and eventually Jews. Religion and Cultural heritage were just as important as race, and KKK’s racialism didn’t reach out to white ethnics. If anything, the Southern Anglos of KKK were opposed to mass immigration from non-northern-European nations. They didn’t feel a broad white identity with the entirety of the white race. As for Neo-Nazis, they never amounted to anything in America despite the huge German-American population. They hardly mattered to the core themes of American Conservatism that were centered on religion, heritage, economic policy, family values, and anti-communism.
Therefore, Paul Gottfried finds the notion of race-based ‘radical traditionalism’ on the Alt Right a meaningless idea. He just doesn’t see white racial identity as part of any traditionalism in the West. There was a heavy dose of radical racism in National Socialism, but it was not a traditionalist movement. It was racially radical than traditional, especially as it was about a bunch of ‘Aryan’ whites at war mostly with other ethnic groups of whites. So, where is the history of white identity as part of traditionalist Right in America and Europe?
Gottfried makes much good sense, and it’s true enough that the term ‘radical traditionalism’ is a willful oxymoron. However, the rise of White Racial Identity may be more viable in the future due to common threats faced by ALL whites in both the Old World and New World. New crises birth new consciousness. What had been implicit or irrelevant suddenly seem essential and meaningful. Contexts change consciousness. Consider the notion of Asian-American interests in the US. In Asia, there is no such thing as united or common Asian interests. Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, Vietnamese, Thais, Malays, etc. don’t see eye to eye on much. Each think more in terms of national identity rooted in history, culture, and religion. However, when these groups come to the US, they all find themselves to be minorities and suddenly a shared Asian Identity gains meaning... just like shared common black racial identity gained meaning in the US because all blacks, regardless of their tribal origins, experienced the same story of slave ancestry and dream of emancipation. In black Africa, blacks didn’t have to think about ‘blackness’ since everyone was black. It was a given. And blacks were the only people that most blacks knew. Most black Africans had never seen a white man or non-black. They thought their little world was the entire world and all peoples were black. So, it made no sense for black unity. Black unity against what? Rather, it made more sense to belong to one tribe of blacks against other tribes of blacks. In contrast, blacks in America were faced with the power of whites. Since there was another race that had power over them, blacks couldn’t help but develop BLACK racial consciousness. Likewise, Asian-American identity that unites various Asian groups makes sense in America because they all constitute yellowness in contrast to other races. This is also true of today's American Indians. Prior to the arrival of the white man, notion such as 'Native American' or 'indigenous people' made no sense to Indians. They had no concept of any world beyond their own, and their world was about constant warfare among various hunting tribes. Their core identity was tribal, not 'Indian'. It was the threat posed by whites that gradually led to a common Indian consciousness even though Indians failed to form a united front against the white man(and other immigrant groups heralded by imperialist Emma Lazarus). Today, separate 'Native American' tribes remain and preserve their cultures, but there is also a shared and common sense of Indian-ness among them all since they have the shared experience as indigenous peoples who got defeated by the same enemy: Pale Face and Lazarus' Immigrant-Invaders.
Whether such consciousness is ‘left’ or ‘right’ is ultimately irrelevant. Because the ‘left’ is usually associated with minority interests, even non-white racial interest and tribalism will often be associated with the Left. In contrast, because white majority power is associated with conservatism, even anti-racial white libertarians who call for color-blindness will be associated with the Right. The point is racial consciousness depends on racial context. If America were to suddenly become an all-white nation, racial identity would be moot. What would be the point of discussing race when all Americans are white? The dividing factors in politics will be economic theory, religion, social values, or ethnicity than race, e.g. Polish-American vs Italian-American vs Irish-American. It’s like air. We don’t think about it because it is freely and abundantly available to all. But suppose air were to become scarce and had to be rationed to people for survival. We would all be air-conscious in debates over which groups should receive more air.
For most of American History, white dominance was a given. Whites had power over non-whites. And when ‘too many’ non-whites, such as Chinese, seemed to be arriving, immigration was shut down. So, whites could take White America for granted. Even when the 1965 Immigration Act passed, most white Americans didn’t much care since they only knew a white-dominant America and couldn’t conceive of an America that would eventually become white-minority. Whites were like the Hare in the race against the Tortoise. The Hare, so certain of its victory over the slow tortoise, couldn't even conceive of losing. Hares are faster than tortoises, so hares will naturally win. True enough IF the hare finishes the race. But it just took a nap and the tortoise passed it by.
Anyway, we live in different times, and white consciousness will have to grow in both the US and Europe. White Americans can no longer take their majority status for granted. Non-white colonization is out of control, and PC has mentally colonized countless white minds into welcoming the Great Replacement. And things are changing in Europe too. When Europe used to be virtually all white, it made little sense to unite over whiteness. What was the point when everyone was white? So, the divisions were over ethnicity, religion, ideology, or sense of heritage or historical narrative. But with the rapid rise of non-white populations all across Europe, various European groups are waking up to their shared white-Europeanness and feeling the urgency to work together to beat back the tide. Also, when EU now says even Africans and Arabs are ‘Europeans’ or ‘New Europeans’, race will come to matter more. In the past, to be German meant that you had German ancestry and blood. Now, an Iranian, African, Turk, or Pakistani can be ‘German’. In a nation like Poland or Hungary, national identity still has meaning as the basis of identity & unity since most Poles are ethnic Poles and most Hungarians are ethnic Hungarians. But today, being ‘German’ is increasingly meaningless since Germans with German blood must regard masses of invaders as ‘New Germans’. Germans are to believe that an African ‘German’ or Arabic ‘German’ has more in common with European-Germans than Poles and Russians have with Germans. Since national identity has been rendered meaningless, there is only race left as the unifying theme for Europeans. After all, even if PC argues a black African is a Frenchman, Englishman, or German, it cannot and will not argue that he is a white person. Thus, race is the only thing that can resist PC’s redefinition of national identities.
With the increasing browning of Europe and North America(and Australia), white people will realize that their race has to be the core tenet of their identity. Only when the West is once again made all white can there be meaningful national identities and divisions among whites based on religion, culture, and history. In nations like France, UK, Sweden, and Germany, national identity no longer makes sense. Today, French have to believe that millions of Africans and Muslims are fellow Frenchmen. British whites have to embrace tons of Pakistani Muslims as fellow Englishmen. Swedish have to welcome countless Somalis as fellow Swedes. National identity used to be associated with ethnicity. It is no longer. It is now just an ‘idea'. Jews first turned Americanism into an abstract ideal and then exported this notion to Europe. Western Europe has been thoroughly Judeo-Americanized. Eastern Europe resists, but for how long when the Western side holds all the purse-strings that bribe politicians into collaboration and cuckery?
Granted, the term ‘white nationalism’ is a misnomer since whiteness transcends national boundaries. The Alt Right is for the preservation of distinct white nations with their particular heroes and histories, but it also calls on all whites in Old World and New World to develop another layer of consciousness because all whites, in yrs to come, will be met with the same challenges. After all, anti-white-ness in the US doesn’t discriminate among Scots-Irish, Polish-American, German-American, Italian-American, and etc. They are all seen as part of ‘evil white privilege’. And the invasion of Europe will not spare any nation. Globalists are not content to flood only Sweden and France. They also target Poland and Hungary. And the local elites, eager to win approval and prizes from Glob Central, do the bidding of George Soroses of the world.
Consider the evolution of Jewish consciousness in the Modern World. Though there were Jewish networks all over the world, many diaspora Jews felt little affinity with other Jews. Many Western European Jews sought to assimilate and snubbed Eastern European Jews as vulgar, uncouth, and ill-mannered(like how the refined Anglo elites felt about loud-mouthed braggart Hitler). And European Jews felt little in common with Middle East Jews. And American Jews and Russian Jews went separate ways in their ideologies and strategies. So, what finally brought all those Jews together? One might say the Shoah, but it was really Zionism. It was Zionism that became the focal point of Jewish identity and power. Even though Jews in NY have the most power, Jews in Israel have the most prestige, and Israel was founded as a homeland for ALL Jews regardless of their national backgrounds: Polish, German, Russian, Hungarian, Iranian, Syrian, Yemenese, Egyptian, etc.
Alt Right is not opposed to ethno-nationalism, but it believes white people now need something extra. In the US, whites of all ethnic backgrounds share whiteness as the focal point, just like blacks rally around blackness as they’ve lost their tribal links to Africa. Unlike in the US, whites in Europe mainly identified along ethno-national lines, and this was a plus and a minus. It was a plus in that Europeans retained a deeper sense of roots and heritage. It was a minus in preventing Europeans to pull together their resources to develop into a great world power. After all, WWI , WWII, and Cold War were about divisions among Europeans leading to self-destruction or mutual distrust.
In this time in history, all Europeans face the common threat of massive Third World Invasion. Just like all Christian Europeans felt compelled to put their ethnic & sectarian differences aside and unite in their fight against the Ottoman Turks, Europeans today must realize that all of them face the same threat from both Jewish globalist elites and the Third World. (The one time all Greeks were most united was when faced with the Persian invasion. Even Athenians and Spartans united as fellow Greeks against foreign invasion.)
Jews and their cuck-collaborators have undermined national identity — globalists say anyone can be a ‘New European’ — , and Third World masses aim to colonize Europe and feed on white-wealth-as-beached-whale.
It is in times like this that all Europeans must realize that they are not only members of a nation but members of a race and continent facing the same doom and demise if they fail to unite as a people.