OneSTDV, one of the more reasonable HBD bloggers, has a post up asking whether or not a White Nationalist ethnostate can be justified. Personally, he doesn’t agree with such a project, and instead thinks that “a capitalistic economy, a strong, unequivocally American cultural narrative, a majority white population, and a discouragement of racialist politics can save this country.” Those of us familar with the online racialist scene will recognize this as Lawrence Auster’s preferred solution.
Here are my objections:
1.) America’s capitalist economy has always been (and remains) one of the primary drivers of race replacement. It was the unbridled operation of market forces that brought hundreds of thousands of negro slaves (which later grew into millions) to our shores, the first wave of Chinese immigrants to California, the Japanese to Hawaii, the Jews to the urban Northern metropoles, Mexicans to the Southwest. If the market had not been restrained for centuries by White nativist and racialist sentiment, America would have plunged into the Third World long ago, as it is doing at full throttle now that those barriers have been removed.
A recent FAIR study found that big business accounts for 59% of the various interests pushing for “comprehensive immigration reform.” From 2006 to 2008, the business community (in particular, the technology, hospitality, construction and agriculture sectors) spent hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying for loose immigration laws. By its very nature, the capitalist system works against those of us who stand for the preservation of America’s racial and cultural integrity.
2.) The capitalist system throws up an elite whose primary qualification to rule is their success at making money. It is not in our racial interest to live under a plutocracy of speculators like George Soros or Bernie Madoff. The old saying that the merchant knows no borders is very true. America’s treasonous elite (whether Anglo or Jewish) already identifies more with the clique of globalist elites abroad than our indigenous racial majority. The United States is now little more than an economic zone; a place to do business, and our plutocratic elite would have it no other way.
3.) The notorious Jewish problem that we are now suffering from, which has metastasized into a cancer in the mass media and universities, is itself an extension of Gilded Age laissez-faire capitalism. Jewish immigrants were brought into the U.S. indiscriminately to work in Northern industry. They went on to become ethnic activists who fomented hate against the indigenous Anglo-Americans. The same process (the formation of permanent grievance lobbies) is repeating itself today with the Hispanics who have come to America since the Immigration Act of 1965.
4.) The market doesn’t respect any boundries: racial, ethnic, cultural, religious, etc. It chews through them like acid and inserts itself into places it doesn’t belong like the family or gender relations.
5.) The market leads to a consumer culture with an ethic of expressive individualism that is corrosive of racial and cultural boundries. Shallow gluttonous consumption deadens our racial and spiritual instincts.
6.) The “strong, unequivocally American cultural narrative” that once reigned unchallenged in America was the handiwork of an Anglo-Protestant elite that was displaced in the mid-twentieth century by the operation of the capitalist economy. The current elite is disproportionately comprised of monied Jews who feel like outsiders in America, who nurse historical grievances against Europeans, and who are wary of anything that smacks of populism or nationalism by America’s indigenious White majority. They are most certainly not fit to rule.
These people (who don’t identify with the hicks in flyover country) promote a cosmopolitan narrative that justifies their own wealth, privileges and ascension to power while delegitimizing their Anglo-American subjects. To expect them to adopt a “strong, unequivocally American cultural narrative” is a wish on the same level of nineteenth century Georgians adopting the mores and identity of the Cherokee. It is the product of a mind which doesn’t have the best interests of America’s White majority at heart.
7.) A “discouragement of racialist politics” is nothing more than a conservative plea, one that will only fall on dear ears as we move further towards 2042, when Whites are (currently expected) to become a minority. The current system privileges non-Whites on account of their race; handicaps Whites on account of our own. Any push for a “discouragement of racialist politics” is going to come from an aging, dwindling and increasingly ignored constituency. The future is (even more radical) versions of “wise Latinas” such as Sonia Sotomayor.
8.) Conservatives have been “discouraging racialist politics” for 50 years now. Has the system become more or less anti-White? When MLK was marching, there was little talk about “multiculturalism” or “diversity,” and none about “white privilege.” “Diversity” became all the rage in the wake of the Bakke decision as a justification for affirmative action.
9.) Conservatives have already given up on “discouraging racialist politics.” The proof is their affirmative action appointment of Michael Steele as head of the GOP and their talk of running Jindal in 2012. They are scrambling to find non-White faces to represent them.
10.) Why should Whites “discourage racialist politics” when every other race is playing this game and refuses to quit? Non-Whites get to play poker with our future and we are too highminded to participate. That is a losing strategy for us.
11.) It is inconceivable that America will continue to have a “majority white population” unless Whites act as Whites, and soon, to reverse their racial decline (and take draconian measures at that).