Vanguard News Network

Alex — GREAT GOYFIRE #47. Laughted my “A” off and learned a lot too.

Here’s a correspondence clip I think VNN readers will value. It’s sorta related to the recent Curt Maynard post.

———–

“This is an interesting phenomenon…the natural leadership of the European Whites, unlike their Hebraic counterparts, have apparently bought into the notion that is unacceptable, even a dangerous pathology to demonstrate any identification or altruism toward one’s own tribe.”

The following is the writer’s commentary on Frank Salter’s book, “On Genetic Interests”.

(http://www.transactionpub.com/on-genetic-interests-paper-1-6 —
Transaction Publishers appears to have a Judeocentric focus, but Salter was wise enough not to mention the Jews by name when he wrote his book, although anyone who has read Dr. Kevin MacDonald’s books can occasionally read between the lines)

[…] and I recall he mentioned in somewhere–probably in the chapter advocating “universal nationalism,” or nationalism for all ethnic groups–that it is probably dangerous for a majority or founding ethny when its ethnic symbols and its symbols of state are one and the same.

If I may elaborate on this theme–which I think Salter gives too brief attention to–in a multi-ethnic society, everyone wants to identify with the symbols of state, so when the majority or founding population lacks no other symbols but the state symbols it is hard for them to maintain an ethnic identity that can never be shared by other ethnies in the same state. That of couse is not our whole problem, but it is certainly an important part of it. American Whites have no symbols to unifiy them *except* the symbols of state that are now shared by all US citizens. And this is especially true of Anglo-Saxons. Our ancestors created the American state “for ourselves and our posterity.” Try googling “british american identity” and you get all of 34 hits. And don’t bother with “Anglo-American”–that phrase has come to mean merely English-speaking Americans. They never paused to imagine that anything like the current situation might develop. What is an Anglo-Saxon to do? Fly the British or English flags? Unpatriotic! Sing “God save the King/Queen” (tune: “My Country ‘Tis Of Thee”)? Monarchs are unAmerican! Rally (if one is a Protestant) around the Episocopal Church (called Anglican or Church of England
everywhere but in the USA)? They’re probably no more numerous than the Jews, and thoroughly corrupt and “anti-racist” (read self-loathing). Even his ancestral tongue is no comfort, being shared with more aliens than co-ethnics. His manner of dress has become the universal modern attire. The poor Anglo-Saxon has no identity except the state! Add to this that Anglophone American Whites have intermarried to such an extent that they feel a need for a common
identity, the only common identity left to them is the statish identity of the United States (“American”) which they now share with a large and fast growing block of non-Europeans.

This has led to most dissenters against replacement immigration, anti-White racial preferences, and a variety of somewhat less glaring injustices, in a desire to create a pan-Euro-American solidarity that is nonetheless distinct from non-European American identities, to rally around their only common denominator that does not overlap with the competition, the European racial identity devoid of any cultural particulars whatever. Aside from forging an identity analogous to a roof held precariously aloft by a single pillar, racialism has the disadvantage of being one of modern America’s most sensitive taboos, even–perhaps especially–among American Whites themselves.

So perhaps the weakness of our ethnic leadership is a direct result of the weakness of our ethnic identity. We have an identity crisis. In answer to the question, Who are you?, the average White American’s answer is “I am an American.” So what is that? Someone descended from American ancestors? No, anything but that!

In Europe, immigrants who become citizens and are legally identified as “Britons,” “Frenchmen,” etc. are creating among “ethnic” Britons, French, and others an identity crisis “from below,” while the EU, by encouraging a deracinated “European” identity is creating one “from above.” The histories of Scotland and Wales probably give them a fighting chance to preserve a group identity, but the English are probably too closely identified with the “British” state. Throughou Europe, wherever the symbols of ethnic identity have become identical with the symbols of state identity, it will be very difficult to mobilize resistance. The newcomers have both their ethnic identity and the acquired state identity of their new “national” homes, but the dominant ethnies have only their state identities which they must share with
the newcomers and no identity markers that are theirs alone. So if a White says “We are Americans” or “We are French” or “We are British,” what the heck does that mean? It is ambiguous at best, and at worst means merely that the state recognizes my legal right to remain within the territory it claims for as long as I live, a right that automatically passes on to my children, sort of like the status of serfs.

Lots of local, regional, and even tribal idenities were traded in by Europeans just a few centuries ago in exchange for the new statish identities they possess today. Now those somewhat recently acquired identities that were usually coterminous with the state–or, at most, coterminous with a particular language–are being extended to others who are genetically more distant, and often religiously distant as
well. This trend undermines the salience of identities that are inextricably bound up with state and sometimes language, but little else. European ethnies cannot defend themselves–often from their own elites–if they do not know who “themselves” are.

And the fact that their enemies include their own elites is also part of the problem. The people they naturally look to for leadership are usually working against them. Being the primates we are, man does not mobilize easily or well against his own alpha males. His intuition, perhaps I could even say instinct, is to follow what he recognizes as his own legitimate authorities, not to revolt. Revolution requires a rival set of respected leaders to follow. The rabble does not rise up of its own accord.

But the most natural sources of leadership among European ethnies are pursuing class interests, not ethnic interests. No prominent White wants to be known as an “ethnic” leader. That is considered beneath his dignity, and most Whites would feel uncomfortable supporting their own “ethnic” leaders. After all, their ethnic markers, having become identical with those of the state, are not under attack. Far
from it–their rivals claim those same markers (language, flag, anthems, historical figures, state leaders) as shared “national” property. Thus, mobilization against the insurgents is muted.

For most of human history, the aliens that human tribes encountered were almost always people who were racially very similar to themselves. Thus, man learned to look to cultural markers–language, clothing, religion, customs–to indicate who was his close kin and who was relatively alien. The response to these cultural markers is so strong that they can weaken the reponse even to pronounced racial
differences, and certainly to lesser racial differences such as those between European and non-European Caucasoids. So European ethnies need ethnic symbols that are not also state or “national” symbols if they are not to be “reverse assimilated” out of existence. For if assimilation is the enemy of ethnic survival, the dominant ethny of a state is at a unique disadvantage once the gates have been opened wide for foreigners because the dominant ethny comes “pre-
assimilated” and so he is especially ill-equipped to resist unarmed, semi-assimilated newcomers who claim a share in the dominant ethny’s state identity while also retaining markers unique to their separate ethnic identities. We have internal struggles between two-identity peoples and one-identity peoples, and the two-identity peoples have an intrinsic advantage in ethnic mobilization.