Thursday, February 16, 2006

Racial Nationalism-Right Or Left?

By Ian McKinney

Within the present political spectrum of right and left where do we find the philosophy of Racial Nationalism? To right-wingers like Rush Limbaugh all the way to the John Birch Society, Racial Nationalism (RN) is socialist, leftist, collectivist, and a derivative of Marxism. To Marxists and liberals, it is fascist, extreme right, or a tool of corporate interests. So, are any of these descriptions really accurate? The answer is no.

Much of the confusion exists because most people have been indoctrinated with the idea that any political philosophy or movement must invariably fit into one of two categories: right and left. And, today those categories are roughly defined as right-being conservative and left-being liberal. The reason why RN does not really fit into either category is that both conservativism and liberalism view the world in mostly economic terms.

To put it in simplistic terms, the fundamental premise of the right is capitalism and the left Marxism, whereas RN has its foundation in biology and treats economics as an important, but secondary issue.

The fact is that RN has no predefined economic philosophy. Economics are viewed primarily as to how the racial well-being of the people is affected. In short, RN rejects both the conservative model of unrestrained capitalism and the massive state-control of Marxism.

To illustrate this point, we can look at how conservatives and liberals view the environmental issue. To the conservatives, preserving the environment is seen mostly in how environmental laws affect business. Ideally, to them all environmental laws should be eliminated, since they invariably increase the cost of doing business. Industrial plants, for example, are no longer allowed to dump untreated wastes into the nearest river and spew toxic smoke into the air.

Conservatives connect the unrestricted polluting of the past with economic growth. Of course, they avoid thinking about the fact that that economic growth came at great cost to both the land and our people. In many areas of America, the effects of pollution caused decades ago by industry are just now beginning to diminish. There remain many streams polluted by mines which closed a generation ago and which still consequently can't support aquatic life. The generation of today are also burdened with the tremendous cost of cleaning-up thousands of waste dumps all over the country. Of course, we have had millions of industrial workers and their children over the years who suffered the effects caused by polluted and dangerous work environments.

So how does the left see the environmental issue? Their patented answer is massive state regulation, resulting in thousands of burdensome laws which do, to a large degree, stifle economic growth. But is their concern really the well-being of the people? Part of their motivation is inspired by Marxism's hatred of free enterprise and wealth, but by burdening business with a myriad of restrictions they actually harm the people by unnecessarily hindering the nation's economics, and thus foster greater dependance on government. Also the left sees any unequal distribution of wealth as unfair and enacts laws and policies to take money from one group and give it to another.

Fundamentally, this fits the Marxist economic theory economic equality and state regulation of the economy. However, another factor that underlines a significant element of leftist thought is demonstrated by their more extreme "animal rights" faction: the placing of human well-being below that of animals. To the extreme "animal rights" activists, people are an aberration of Nature, a danger to all other life, and the enemies of the Earth. To their minds, the world would be a better place if all people simply vanished.

So how would an RN government differ on the environmental issue? A large part of the problem would be prevented by the RN philosophy itself, since man would be viewed as an intrinsic member of the natural world; a manifestation of Nature.

RN stands in diametric opposition to the position of the conservatives which holds that man is master of the world and all land and animals are subjected to any individual's arbitrary will. RN also opposes the extreme leftist position that man is the destroyer of Nature and separate from the natural world.

The positions of both the right and the left are paradoxically based upon the anti-Nature view found in the Semetic religions of Judaism and Christianity that separates man from the rest of Nature. RN rejects this alien position. (FNF NOTE- Author obviously failed to see that True Christianity differs entirely from this Judaised version he makes reference to. With that we disagree obviously..)

RN recognizes personal responsibility and the desire of persons to have as much economic independence as possible. Thus it has no desire to destroy the free enterprise economic system, and we accept the unequal distribution of wealth as a fact of life. However, as was stated earlier, RN places the well-being of the people above that of economics; Economics is treated merely as a tool for the advancement of the racial community and not an end in itself. Thus, dangerous pollution and worker exploitation would be necessarily restricted, not from a desire to increase state control, but for the protection of the environment that is necessary for healthy living. We also recognize the danger posed by the ultra-wealthy and corporations who are able to manipulate government policy for their own selfish purposes, which in many cases are destructive: NAFTA, GATT, and lobbying for the free flow of cheap foreign labor; all of which undermines the wages of average working Americans.

Another issue, which separates conservatives and liberals from RN, is immigration. For decades we have experienced unprecedented levels of immigration. Also, this immigration is vastly different from that of the past: nearly all immigrants are non-white. Even with poll after poll showing that the overwhelming majority of Americans want immigration dramatically reduced, or eliminated all-together, the Federal Government makes merely ineffective efforts to control immigration -- regardless of whether the Republicans or Democrats are in power. Here we have liberals and conservatives is seeming agreement that massive immigration should continue: liberals envision a world of no national borders, of "fairness" and "equality." Conservatives, usually restrict their discussion to illegal immigration and merely want all immigrants, regardless of race, to become citizens. Even in the case of those opposing immigration, we see the whole thing reduced to economic discussions: whether the immigrants are a burden or asset to the economy; each side trotting out their studies and statistics to buttress their respective position.

How would a RN government view immigration? First, and without question, immigration would be tightly restricted to those of our race. The borders would be scrupulously guarded and any non-white illegal immigrant would be promptly repatriated to his homeland. Even citizenship for White immigrants would only be granted with regard to our needs. Again, the prime consideration would be what's best for our respective racial community. Of course, the RN position is anathema to that of the vast majority of conservatives and nearly all liberals, since they have no racial considerations at all, only economic ones. All this is not to say that a RN society would ban non-white tourists, diplomats, or even visitors, but instead that non-whites would never obtain citizenship, participate in our political process, and would have no influence in our media, educational system, and culture.

In the preceding, we have looked at just a couple of areas where the right and the left are in disagreement, but nonetheless use the economic model as the basis of their respective positions. Now, let's look at a couple of areas where the right and left agree with each other while being in opposition to RN. First and foremost is their agreement with interracial marriage, racial mixing, and integration. In this case, we find their agreement based not so much on economics, but in the false doctrine of racial equality. This is especially interesting when we consider that racial equality is a Marxist philosophy, and that only a couple of decades ago conservatives were largely united in opposition to it. That has all changed, not because of any new facts, but because of politically correct fashion.

But, again, with regard to conservatism, we find that its economic philosophical premise never really had a racial imperative - despite the claims by the left. Granted, there were what we consider defenders of our race among various conservative factions of the past, but it was simply impossible for the old conservatives to defend our people against the liberal onslaught using their economics-based orthodoxy.

Obviously, a RN state would have no difficulty here. For example, interracial marriage would be a felony. At the very least, persons engaging in this unnatural activity would be deported or jailed. Of course, today, many trendy persons would see that as unfair and an undo restriction on personal freedom, but it should be remembered that interracial marriage was a crime in America until recent decades and very few White people considered this any great loss of freedom. It was simply understood and accepted as the natural moral paradigm.

Probably, someone will ask "Just what does RN have against interracial marriage?" This question, more than anything, exposes the vast difference between RN and the materialist oriented philosophies of liberalism and conservatism. As was stated earlier, RN is based upon a recognition of Nature.

Even a cursory study of the Natural world shows the underlying force which exists in all life: speciation, competition, and advancement. Since the beginning of time, all life has been dividing into different and more complex forms. We see a diversification process everywhere in plants and animals; each sub-species developing special skills and adaptations which differentiate it from its common ancestors. From the first single-cell animal to humans, life has been following this process. Interracial marriage represents a de-evolution, and a reversal of Nature's universal plan.

RN holds that the desire to associate and mate with persons of one's own race is natural and instinctual. Even today, with interracial dating being glamourized and encouraged in the schools and media, and a host of deliberate government programs aimed at promoting racial integration, we still find the overwhelming majority of both Blacks and Whites selecting mates of their own race for marriage.

Nonetheless, we do find a small, but increasing number of interracial couplings. However, it should surprise no one that if integration programs and the encouragement of interracial marriage were eliminated and replaced with the same effort directed towards racial integrity, interracial marriage would decline rapidly.

Only within a homogenous society where people have a sense of community, history, and group solidarity can advancement really occur. This is something that Whites in America had, more or less, until recent years. We had confidence in ourselves, our nation, our cultural heritage, and our race. We believed we were the best. Now, of course, a non-white person reading this will probably take exception, but I hope they can bear in mind that these assumptions were based upon our own standards. This is much like any school, sports team, or military unit, believes that their respective group is the best and works to improve themselves. As a consequence, competition encouraged and standards are constantly being raised. Of course, their competitors also think themselves superior, but, obviously, not everyone can actually be the best.

Nonetheless, it remains a basic human trait to think one's group to be better than another. So, we have two natural human characteristics: racial affinity and the need to think of their group as being better than the others. RN accepts this and tries to channel these tendencies for the betterment of the society. Both conservatism and liberalism ignore, or worse, create conditions where these tendencies cause much conflict: multi-racialism, multi-culturalism, and heterogeneous populations.

The economic/materialist philosophies of the conservatives and the liberals have brought us the problems we face today. We find social conditions constantly deteriorating. Only by replacing the present attitudes with ones based upon normal morality and Nature can we ever have hope for the future.

2 comments:

Thinking outside the square said...

That was a absolutely fantastic article!

I really enjoyed reading it and found it quite interesting.

Spider said...

Leftwing politics is against the strenghening of their own culture - just selling out the mat from beneath those below them while they reap the benefits.

Only those of right wing Nationalism can provide the protection of cultures.