Aussie Conservative Political Philosophy/ Landmark Posts · Ethnonationalism

Is ethnonationalism the way forward?

PJB

While much of the past 30 years has been dedicated towards building colourless societies, these attempts have often failed.

After Nelson Mandela proclaimed his country to be a ‘rainbow nation’, recent decades have seen increasing hostility between South Africa’s white and black populations.

Additionally, the 2008 election of Barrack Obama was supposed to symbolize the end of race in the United States. And yet, 8 years of Obama further entrenched divisions along political, cultural, and racial lines, culminating in the election of the ultimate protest candidate: Donald. J Trump.

Meanwhile in Australia, diametrically opposing Indigenous views on Australian history, culture and people are becoming rampant, as epitomized by pushes to change the date of Australia Day.

Although moves to change the date of Australia Day are nonsensical as I have blogged about previously, this sentiment is undeniably resonating among Indigenous people.

While these trends could be partially blamed on an increasingly Left- wing mainstream, racial issues in Australia seem to stem far deeper.

As no matter how hard we try to achieve ‘reconciliation’, philosophical differences due to contrasting cultural, ethnic and ancestral backgrounds of Indigenous and non- Indigenous Australians, continue to proliferate.

While YouTuber Dave Rubin’s mantra states that “people can believe in different things, and for different reasons”, likewise, what if ancestral backgrounds are a foundational source of sociocultural worldviews, alongside rationality, thought and reason?

Moreover, if recent events are an accurate guide and this sort of hypothesis matches reality, then where can our political outlook go next?

For some, the response to growing clashes along racial and ethnic lines, comes in the form of a new brand of White Nationalism, otherwise known as the ‘alt right’.

Of late, I’ve invested some time in researching White Nationalism and more specifically, on the views of the movement’s spiritual leader, Richard Spencer.

But while Spencer articulately speaks and makes genuine attempts at winning others over to his ideology (something his critics on the Left prove consistently incapable of), his views are misaimed as they are naive.

To Spencer, whiteness defines everything as a purist identitarian. This dogmatic, white- centric ideology was showed when Spencer argued Brexit would make no difference to Britain, unless non- white immigration decreased. This view represents an incredibly narrow perspective upon which to view race, which would conceivably disregard the difference between Syrian Islamists, and Syrian Christian refugees.

Spencer has also described democracy as being insignificant to the concept of Western civilization: a rather extraordinary claim. But above all, Spencer’s grand dream of creating a post American white ethno- state through ‘peaceful ethnic cleansing’, is so utopian, that he could not be considered a conservative of any description.

Whilst White Nationalism represents the far- Right perspective on the argument over race and culture, far- Left activists seek to denigrate Western traditions.

Whether this be in campaigns against ‘toxic whiteness’, #RhodesMustFall and other iconoclastic efforts, ongoing advocacy for the oppression Olympics, or immigration policies aimed at intentionally diminishing the presence of Western majority populations, the Leftist identity politics remains stronger than ever.

And separate from white nationalists and progressive identity politics advocates, are civic nationalists, who regard race as a superfluous construct. For in the eyes of civic nationalists, race, culture and religion are irrelevant features, all to be overlooked by the defined jurisdiction of the state.

However, it is this simplified worldview that has partially contributed to the present tension, as outlined earlier in this post.

So besides from these 3 prominent means of perceiving race and culture, is there a 4th and more feasible way forward?

Personally I believe so, and this could be manifested in the form of ethnonationalist- leaning ideology.

Ethnonationalism can be regarded as “Advocacy of or support for the interests of a particular ethnic group, especially with regard to its national independence or self-determination.”

So 50 years ago, ethnonationalism would have meant Romania for the Romanians, England for the English, China for the Chinese and Australia for the Australians, and as we would traditionally understand it, Australia for the white, Anglo- Saxon majority. Essentially, ethnonationalism is the core idea which has motivated different groups, people and cultures to form nation states throughout history.

But whilst I’ve previously outlined what I found enjoyable about living in a relatively homogenous community, the year is 2017 and racially uniform Western countries are virtually non- existent.

So given this climate, what should our Australian immigration policy look like?

Rather than pursuing a nostalgia- rooted fantasy, I would prefer the formulation of an immigration policy which seeks social and cultural cohesion along ethnic lines, and thus focuses on reproducing the dominant culture existing here.

This could be achieved by dramatically cutting our annual immigration intake from 200 000 to 50 000 a year, as well as rigorously assessing both the quality of individuals entering our nation, and their capacities to readily assimilate.

Our officials must ask: to what extent will each individual migrant further contribute towards both the preservation of traditional Australian values, and our economic wellbeing?

Of course, I support the government’s testing of individuals based on community values.

But as we have a whole world to choose from, Australia should seek migrants who likely embody our values, and should consequently aim for 80 % of our immigration to stem from Canada, New Zealand and Britain.

This approach would sharply serve our national interest, in ensuring that most migrants are chosen on their capacity to integrate into Australian life, which would act to further the presence of a collective Australian identity. Also, such a policy would assist in preventing the current masses of illiterate foreigners who gain citizenship through Australian relatives.

As for the remaining 10 000 annual migration positions, Australia could maintain a humanitarian intake of 5000 refugees per annum, which would be best provided for Christians being massacred in the Middle East.

This would leave 5000 remaining places for other immigrants, which could be granted to those who already have family in Australia, and possess remarkable professional talents.

Obviously, these proposals are far outside the realms of our political establishment, and may be regarded as ‘racist’.

To the contrary, I have no issue with ethnic groups who contribute much towards this country, as they are for the most part composed of decent character. But as people of European descent are the custodians of Western civilization, they share a similar culture and history to that of European Australians. Subsequently, their capacity to assimilate into Australian life is heightened, as would occur for a Spanish- descended migrant moving to Mexico, or for an African- descended migrant moving to Africa.

Considering this, immigration from other countries should preferably not call into doubt the overbearing, defining European- Australian majority. However, even if Australia is headed towards a minority- majority existence (which seems likely), our nation’s leaders should seek cultural cohesion through immigration practices as the circumstances permit.

Australia would be best embracing these type of immigration policies, for a continuation of the status quo may undermine societal harmony, and potentially so too our territorial integrity.

History is littered with examples in which multiculturalism and multi- ethnicism became so profound, that nations collapsed in the absence of a shared ethnic basis.

These include the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union into 15 countries of differing language, culture and creed, the bloody breakup of Yugoslavia, conflict in Rwanda, the Congo and Sudan, as well as ethnic clashes across Indonesia, Thailand and Malaysia.

Besides nations which might seem irrelevant to the Australian story, we need only look to our largest ally: the United States, when considering how mass immigration can be a destabilising, splintering force.

Once regarded as a symbol of the universally- revered American Dream, California has departed upon a radically different path to the rest of the United States, largely due to relentless Hispanic immigration.

While the state that Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan once carried in Presidential elections is now so politically disparate from the rest of the US, Latino immigration has also changed the culture and character of America’s ‘Golden State’. And while California is well known for its identity politics and opposition to President Trump, recent developments show a state so far divided from the rest of the US, that some groups are seriously proposing secession. Moreover, in areas particularly swamped by Hispanic immigration, calls to re-join Mexico grow ever- louder.

Abraham Lincoln once remarked that “A house divided against itself cannot stand”, and this reasoning applies to most nations lacking a clear ethnic majority, who instead adhere to the thoughtless mantra of diversity.

Subsequently, it would be more preferable if Australia maintained its multi- ethnic status, while remaining defined by the nation’s European- Australian preponderance.

Again, these ideas are not to say that immigrants of Asia, Africa and the Middle East cannot become red- blooded Australians should they embody our values and customs.

Rather, my wishes for Australia’s immigration system reflect a desire to serve the interests of both Australia and immigrants: in allowing these two blocs additional scope to assimilate.

Furthermore, a more unified nation would ensure that future Australia better retained the colonial, European legacy once forged by our ancestors. As whereas contemporary society routinely disparages Australia’s past, a proper consideration of Edmund Burke’s wisdom leaves us better equipped when considering the merits of an ethnonationalist- leaning immigration policy.

“Society is indeed a contract”, Burke once said.

“It is a partnership . . . not only between those who are living, but between those who are dead, and those who are to be born”.

For a useful insight into conservative support for the right sort of identity politics, see Lauren Southern’s below video:

4 thoughts on “Is ethnonationalism the way forward?

  1. You cannot have nationalist candidates or nationalist parties without these being smeared as “Nazi”. Any “ethno-nationalism” just will not do.

    1. Perhaps, but those who were sneered as being Nazis gave the world Brexit and Trump. We can’t abandon our principles to appease those who will never support the conservative cause.

Leave a Reply