An interesting way of putting it

Kilroy M. writes from Australia

The “peace flotilla” event makes it clear that Jews and white Gentiles are the only two peoples on earth who are not allowed to have ethno-states. All the more reason to be principled and consistent and to support Israel.
- end of initial entry -

Richard W. writes:

This is an interesting insight, and bears further discussion. In the late 1980s after my high-tech company in Silicon Valley hired several hundred Indian temps to replace (or “augment” as it was described) American workers, I called the Indian Embassy in New York City and spent enough time punching through the bureaucracy to find someone to ask about immigrating there. I was told, “India is not an immigration country,” by the Embassy official.

While China is always willing to accommodate a few highly productive Westerners, the idea that they would take a million Russians, for instance, from a collapsing economic zone adjacent to them is laughable.

As I summarized this state of affairs for a friend recently: “China for the Chinese, India for the Indians, the West for Everyone”.

Israel has always seemed somewhat trapped between their dual heritage, which is a source of some of their problems.

Were they really just another Semitic tribe, with no concern with universality, they could deal with the hostile aliens in and around them much more directly. Certainly the Saudis don’t accept other Arabs or Muslims as citizens, even after years of living and working there. The other Gulf States are also famous for their exploitation of and inhospitality to immigrants of any sort.

Of course Israel is really much more of a Western influenced state, in a bad neighborhood, than a true Arab style state. Israel seems to have settled on this formula: “We are a Jewish State, but we are tolerant to other groups that are part of the nation, and in so far as is possible, will accord them full civil rights.”

Their problem is that this formulation is threatened by immigration and changing demographics. Were Arabs and Muslims to become the majority over time the “Jewish State” would clearly falter.

This seems to highlight that Ethno states to remain in good health must continually reject outsiders to retain their ethnic charter. Indeed there are many on the far right in Israel who think that the only course to security for the country is to push it further into the ethno state category, abandoning many of the Western universalist ideals it still clings to.

Still, despite their many trials and tribulations Israel does exist and does assert its own right to continue to exist, as a Jewish state.

As for a white ethno state I see four trends that prevent them.

First of all, the formerly white countries outside of Europe were formed via colonization. While the waves of immigrants from Europe overwhelmed the native populations in the USA, Australia, New Zealand, in others the indigenous remained in significant numbers (parts of Canada, most of South America). In South Africa the indigenous remained a large majority. Because all of the non-European countries have always had indigenous (and the descendants of slaves in many, as well), they never were true ethno states.

The second deterrent to a white ethno state is also due to the history of colonization. In many cases the colonized have flipped the tables and moved to the European home of the colonizer. Nigerians, Pakistanis, Jamaicans and Indians in Britain. Moroccans and Algerians in France. Universalist definitions of citizenship, not ethnic identity, were in place to facilitate this.

The third, and most powerful force is that for either the colonizing European powers, or their majority white colonies to have remained as white ethno states would have required forbidding non-white immigration. This became defined as “racist” by progressives starting in the 1960s and so liberal elites in all these countries have promoted policies of greater and greater third world immigration. It is mostly ideology that has created the ever-shrinking percentage of whites in their own countries.

So powerful is this third factor, ideology, that even European states with no history of colonization, such as Sweden and Norway, have somehow decided that they must admit millions of immigrants from Africa. Pride has been replaced with guilt.

The fourth factor that prevents places like the USA from being an ethno state is that “white” is not an ethnic group (to anyone except the US Census bureau.) Whites have German, English, Polish, Spanish, Ukrainian, Dutch, Italian, and dozens of other ethnicities. Is there a white American ethnicity? Only partially. Many American idealists have desired and proclaimed it. But even among the most devout supporters of a white ethno state (such as the editors at Occidental Dissent) you find many arguments about the relative merits of “Meds” vs “Nordish”, Catholics vs. Protestants and all the other historic disagreements that resulted in the historic Europe of 30 to 50 different nations and ethnic groups.

Given all this, I rate the potential for a white ethno state to be formed outside of Europe as highly unlikely to impossible. What is more likely is that many European states outside the core might look at what is happening in France, Holland, the UK and Sweden and decide to reject the ideology of immigration and preserve their homogeneous character. States outside the EU have an advantage here. But even the newer entries to the EU like the Czech Republic and Poland may find ways to discourage or prevent immigration at the destructive levels in the core EU states.

Certainly some white ethno states still do exist: Iceland is still highly Icelandic, and many immigrants have left with the collapse of their economy. Poland is very uniformly Polish, with a few traditional sub-groups that all consider themselves part of greater Poland. I’m sure there are others I am less familiar with.

As for Israel it seems it could go in either direction. Towards an abandonment of it’s unique ethno state and fully embracing the policies of the EU mandarins, which would eventually (in my opinion) lead to the Jews again being a minority in a hostile country, or towards a more muscular reinforcement of the Jewish nature of the state. There are strong factions arguing for both approaches and I don’t know which will win.

It is interesting to watch because it is a microcosm of what we in the West face in most of our nations, only a sort of worst-case, very high stakes example.

The conflict between the ethnos focus and universalist ideals in Israel is similar to the conflict among various factions of the right in America.

Some strongly feel that separation is the required primary component of resolving our problems, others that it is anathema and violates our core precepts as a civilization, and a third group that it is a tool, among many, that can be used. (I put many of the Paleocons like Alt Right in the first group. I put most of the Tea Party in the second. I put you in the third group, which is the smallest and a bit harder to understand, as nuanced positions often are.)

As I’ve mentioned I’d like to see more discussion of this topic, so I’ve taken advantage of the opening that Kilroy’s insightful comment provided.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 01, 2010 09:50 AM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):