The Moral Position of White Nationalism and Mass Immigration
The Moral Position of White Nationalism and Mass Immigration.
Donald J. Trump won the election and white identity politics became a reality. For a brief delusional moment, the Alt-Right thought it had won the cultural war, but in reality, the battle has only just begun for cultural dominance.
At the recent NPI conference Richard Spencer raised his empty liquor glass and proclaimed a toast at the end of his rousing speech, “Hail Trump! Hail our people! Hail victory”. Some members in the audience responded to the toast with a Nazi salute. The Atlantic caught the incident on their rolling cameras – they were in the crowd filming a documentary on Spencer -- which they then used to their political advantage by claiming that the Alt-Right are a hardcore Nazi political group. Redice Creations demonstrated in their analysis of the The Atlantic coverage that the video had been edited to remove Richard declaring a toast to the audience to give the Nazi salutes context and the video had been looped so that it appeared that Nazi-salutes filled the conference room when really it was only a few individuals. The real number of Nazi saluters was only 4/5 members and not representative of a conference that had over 300 members. We shouldn’t be surprised though by The Atlantic: they are ideologically our enemies, the editor-in-chief is the ultra-liberal and Jewish Jeffrey Goldberg, and typically Social Justice Warriors (SJWs) always lie.
This current year has ineffectually characterized the Alt-Right as racists, bigots and Nazis throughout Trump’s campaign. Buoyed by the success of Trump, White Nationalism (the core tenet of the Alt-Right as persuasively argued by Greg Johnson is White Nationalism) suddenly appeared a semi-favourable ideological position amongst whites. However, this ideology in a doctored ten second video clip once again appeared to have a monstrous moral centre in the perception of the public.
Moral positions can be crudely captured in the old stoic metaphor offered by Hierocles, which describes how we are beset by “circles of concern.” These “circles of concern” represent the discourse of morality that we feel demands our need and concern. The closest circle refers to the needs and demands of the self. The next concentric circle refers to the needs and demands of the family, and then the next outer concentric circle refers to the tribe, and so on and so forth. The furthermost outer circle contains the whole world. White Nationalism is attached to the concentric circle that refers to the needs and demands of its own race, the white race Leftists and SJW’s on the other hand are primarily concerned with the furthest outer circle, and this circle represents the whole of humanity. This circle does not distinguish the value between the members of its own tribe or members of its own race and members from alien races to its own. “Humanity” is its value and the needs and demands of “humanity” is its moral domain. The prima facie absurd consequence of this thought is that the needs and demands of other races can impinge on the needs and demands of your own race. Although in reality we know it goes further than this, the needs of the rest of humanity override the needs of your race in their view.
In a nutshell, those who are concerned with their own race are a form of Nationalists and those that are concerned with the rest of humanity (in the sense that they have the same value as members of their own race and members of their own country) are Globalists, at least in their moral outlook and values.
This aspect of the article is obvious and each one of us here knows the truth of the following statement, but it deserves stating nonetheless. The nefarious reason that the hegemony of public discourse, the Left, wants to frame White Nationalism into the Nazi party and declare that a Holocaust is imminent (I’ve always been unclear with their Holocaust narrative is simply the Jews, or whether it now includes all people of colour (PoC?)) but whatever it is – the Shoah rises apparently. Re-framing the Alt-Right, or rather framing the Alt-Right into preconceived stereotypes of intolerable hate figures – an irony here that the Left implores us not to label its crime ridden PoC – is to engineer the public discourse and the public perception to immediately react to any assertion about or from the Alt-Right with a spontaneous reflux of disgust. Ideas and discourse with the Alt-Right is to be shut-down and ignored.
Racist and supremacist ideologies as characterised in normative public perception are shown to include only the interests of their own group at the expense of others and to fiercely protect those interests with justifications of prejudice, hate and irrational loathing. Subjugation of oppressed minorities was never a winning argument to dictate public policy and as history has shown to us it never has been.
The following distinction can be made between these two positions:
- Ideologies that commit suffering in the name of the Good.
- Ideologies that remove suffering in the name of the Good.
Both these ideologies attempt to aim for the Good, whatever they define the Good as. And what a particular group of people will define as their Good depends on what they are attempting to achieve. Which itself will obviously be dependent on the historical circumstances and events they are currently embedded within. So, although it may look prima facie that ideologies that commit suffering in the name of the Good are worse ideologies, this may not necessarily be the case. It is much easier to caricature an ideology that commits suffering in the name of the Good because any group that commits suffering can be portrayed as ravaging, homicidal, maniacs. In other words, Hollywood Nazis
Anyways, Framing the Alt-Right as the KKK, the Nazis and, as some deeply neurotic Leftists see us, genocidal maniacs that will slaughter PoC’s throughout the world, the Alt-Right is being framed as an ideology formed to commit suffering to others to realise its goals. Which, despite our continual LARPing and edgy trolling, is completely antithetical to our actual aims since the Alt-Right is an ideology that wants to remove suffering in white countries, in Europe and the West.
In recent times, the premier battleground, in regards to immigration, is the battle between whether third-world immigrants infesting en mass into the heart of Europe is a morally justifiable position. The White Nationalists believe this position of immigration to be morally unjustifiable and the pure Leftist Globalists believe the project of taking third-world immigrants from Africa and the Middle East into the quaint towns and the busy cities of Europe: Germany, France, Austria, Italy, Finland just to name a few countries to be morally justified and desirable. For the past two years since the Syria conflict, The Left have pushed the moral, ideological position that it is morally justifiable for third-world refugees to flood and inundate Europe under the pretense of fleeing from war and persecution.
(a) Is it morally justifiable to put third-world immigrants that are escaping war-torn countries into the heart of Europe
As the below pie chart demonstrates, in Italy (and we can infer this is also across Europe) the large majority of third-world migrants are coming from countries other than Syria. In other words, when politicians and the MSM repeat the statement that the migrants coming into Europe are fleeing war they are stating absolute falsehoods in order to mislead, manipulate and morally guilt the host population into accepting immigrants.
(b) Is it morally justifiable to put economic third-world immigrants wanting a more financially secure existence into the heart of Europe
The MSM would want you to believe that the third-world immigrants pouring over the porous European borders are solely (a) from the war-ravaged Syria and thus it is our moral duty to give asylum to these immigrants. However, sadly, we know that the migrant majority consists of (b) migrants not escaping war, bombs, and conflict but journeying into Europe to collect welfare, benefits and European sympathy. The rationale for window-washing the truth is because type (a) migrants are a stronger moral case to be given passage into Europe than type (b) migrants. To be clear I’m not stating that it is morally justifiable for the (a-type) migrants to be given asylum in Europe (since, primarily, the Gulf States should have granted them asylum) but (a-type) migrants have a stronger moral case to be given immigration into Europe than (b-type) migrants.
So, when we are discussing the pertinent question of whether it is morally justifiable for immigrants to be granted asylum in Europe, the cost-benefit analysis of the suffering they cause will be primarily weighed against the case of the economic migrant The following argument can also be run against the immigrant seeking asylum from conflict and war.
How morally permissible is third-world migration into White European Countries?
Let’s examine the recent atrocities committed by the influx of undemocratically voted for immigrants from the third-world. Here is a brief but illustrative snapshot:
- Rotherham (although there were 10 similar incidents throughout the country of muslim men praying predominantly on white girls: Derby, Oxford, Bristol, Telford, Peterborough, Banbury, Aylesbury, Keighley and Halifax)
Most, if not all, of these immigration atrocities did not receive any substantial news coverage on the MSM and any coverage they did receive was not covered to the devastating extent that it should have been. By censoring dissident voices to the permissibility of the third-world migrant invasion and intentionally suppressing the destruction these migrants commit, the MSM, the political establishment, and the normative morals the cultural bourgeoisie reinforce, they are attempting to maintain the moral justifiability of the migrant crisis and the huge swarth of migrants swarming into Europe. Thus, currently, and for the foreseeable future, it will be up to the independent media – largely comprised of volunteers working to report real events on social media – to spread the media coverage and public awareness of the immigrant atrocities. As is well known, attempting to maintain this propped up moral façade is the precise reasons that social media companies like Twitter, Facebook and Google are censoring, shutting down and marginalizing social media and independent companies.
In essence, this is the crucial and central moral question we face in the next few years and may be a vital component in attempting to attract new recruits. Will the Globalists or the Nationalists be stronger in offering its message to public and altering public perception: the MSM’s attempt to frame the Alt-Right as a reincarnation of the Nazis’ plotting to slaughter innocent Jews and PoC, or will the Alt-Right demonstrate – in its guerrilla warfare methods – that the vast suffering caused by economic migrants is morally unjustifiable. The demographic, social, economic and physical violence incurred by the native European population for the purpose of economic migrants searching for work and prosperity in main Europe cannot be justified on any cost-benefit analysis.
How Can We Counter This?
In essence, the battle between proponents of White Nationalism that utilise alternative media and advocates of anti-white liberal ideologies that have the luxury and firepower of the traditional mainstream media is the battle of perception. A perception of two independent questions irremediably tangled together:
- The perception of White Nationalism and the Alt-Right – is White Nationalism an updated version of Nazism with educated and intellectual men in shirts and ties or is it a rational ideology that is attempting to preserve what is good and beautiful in western civilization by removing suffering and destruction from white European nations.
- The perception of mass immigration – is mass immigration from the third world systemically destroying western civilization and bureaucratically importing uncontrolled levels of physical suffering and violence on the host nation or is it a necessary moral duty to give economic immigrants residence in Europe as they seamlessly integrate into, and improve, our nations.
Though White Nationalism is primarily concerned with white demographic rates in its host nations per se, the initial battleground is stemming the tide of Arab and African invaders from the third-world migrant crisis. An effective strategy to promote White Nationalism is to utilise either points (1) or (2) or both in a media campaign, by framing White Nationalism as having a positive moral position and shining the light on the devastation caused by the migrant crisis. This tactic is currently being somewhat utilised in the propaganda posters that have been appearing at the Universities around the country supplied by www.american-vanguard.org and the Daily Shoah – one of the premier Alt-Right podcasts (if you haven’t listened to it – do it now – NOW!). These posters around college campuses have caused the predictable media and student furore, which only serves to give oxygen to the publicity of our ideas. The only hate speech in these posters is in the projected minds of the “victims” themselves.
These posters have a startling effect for any University student that encounters them for the first time. Young neophytes will likely have a range of reactions from feeling unjustified anxiety, natural curiosity, secret sympathy and mass hysteria.
Whatever their reaction it will certainly cause a gestalt shift in perception to the perceiver. They will never look at the world the same way again. There will be those that these posters will never ideologically reach despite the sweet lure of propaganda – these whites are forever lost to the crumbling system and are only a minor loss. However, there will be whites with a malleable and open-mind that will notice the posters and internalise the message contained within. Given any moment in the media-entertainment-political-geopolitical industry there is likely to be either explicitly pro anti-white comments or a public atrocity featuring PoC, with likely immigrant status. When these state of affairs instantiate and whites are blamed/ maligned/ decried/ or side-lined in contradistinction to the supposedly supreme PoC’s then these thoughts will bloom into full consciousness. A new recruit or a fellow sympathiser is born; they will notice for themselves that these atrocities against our racial brethren (and allies of colour) cannot be morally justified.
Post-election of Donald Trump, the media successfully struck first blood against the Alt-Right and the rising tide of White Nationalism by framing the movement as modern-day Nazis. It is imperative that White Nationalism raise the consciousness of its movement worldwide by stressing the morally inherent aspect of its ideology and thus making it a more palatable position for the white general populace to adopt. White Nationalism is the only real moral position that whites can take in a world where the suffering against whites caused by the devastating migrant crisis in their own counties is morally unjustifiable: they just need to be aware that this is the case.