*Pictured: A multiculturalism poster next to the Lambda symbol, used by right-wing identitarians groups
Multiculturalism vs White Nationalism
I was in a very unproductive discussion yesterday with a Kekistani individual on Facebook, who true to the infamous Troll Nation’s culture, opted for personal attacks rather than what he called “rational debate”, although perhaps to some, that is what being rational entails. Tell me if you’ve heard this before: “Virtue Signaling”?
Why yes, if you happen to explain your point of view to a Kekistani, their reaction is most likely to be that of either mocking you for mocking’s sake or saying you are virtue signaling. Now, this phrase I find very contentious and the reason that is is because it’s just as harmless a phrase to throw out as a leftist calling anyone who disagrees with them a Nazi. If I explain to you why I think multiculturalism is good, I may virtue signal, because no one is capable of being completely objective with regards to their worldview, because it is subjective. So saying someone is signaling their virtue is perhaps just as useless as sticking your tongue out at someone in a “debate” as an argument.
All it does is probably annoy your interlocutor and give you a momentum to pull away from the very pressing issue that is: You have no virtue.
Buzzwords on the internet
The Multiculturalism vs White Nationalism (or Identitarian Nationalists) debate stems from a natural reaction to the helplessness we feel in a world increasingly confusing to us. We’ve crossed bridges between cultures and have started not only exchanging goods with them, but skills and employees. The capitalist economy requires such an exchange of cultures in order to embrace the “infinite growth” that economists salivate over. For some reason, however, the Identitarians think that letting these people move freely between borders will hurt their representation in politics, and rightfully so. It seems fairly logical that if demographics change, those that normally held a cultural and political sway will eventually be shrinking over time. You can’t really go against that, however, unless you want to impose poverty on your people for the sake of cultural homogeneity.
So how do the identity politicians of the right resolve the need for a prosperous economy with a desire to see their culture upheld in supremacy over all others in their own country? They really don’t. In fact, most of their time is spent trying to figure out how best to skew statistics in order to make immigration and immigrants seem like evil people by default or by simply existing. Now, the reason why I’ve been switching from White Nationalism to identitarians is because the people who are Identitarian Nationalists know fully well that they espouse white supremacy views, but don’t want to come out on the streets and shout “White Power!” or even sound like they would. In order to do that, they find new definitions for things that already exist (or don’t, in the following cases).
White Genocide: The theory that white people are being slowly killed off due to mass immigration in their countries, and their precious purity is being soiled by interracial marriages (particularly of muslim and non-muslim marriages), and that this is being imposed on them by the Left who are unknowingly (or knowingly, to some) leading the White race to the ovens. It is a conspiracy theory, pure and simple. Why is it a conspiracy theory?
Well, because if we look at the history of genocidal practices, that’s not really how genocide occurs. In fact, when Germany thought they were being overtaken by jews in their own society, THEY killed off the jews. Makes you wonder how exactly are these minorities going to take over white societies if the white man can just hoist a white nationalist in office and kill off anyone who disagree with them that they are in danger.
At that, how can we agree that the white race is endangered, when white people pre-emptively kill off those that threaten their expansionism? Alright, alright… let me just nuance my statement here. I don’t mean your aunt Janice nor your little brother or even YOU for that matter, but the historical representation of “white culture” as a whole. Glad we could clear that up.
The conspiracy lies in bed with another one, which is very, very famous on the web.
Cultural Marxism: Ah, the Frankfurt School. Famous for its jewish philosophers who single-handedly infected Western civilization with the cultural Marxism parasite, which infects left-leaning cucks with the notion that they should give up their wealth to an undeserving minority of people. Those identitarians who refer to this conspiracy theories typically think that social justice is a code-word for communist overtaking of western values. Things like critical race theory or critical theory at all, are seen as tools of the cultural Marxists to find problems where there are none and thus force the superior white man into standing down from his pedestal to kiss the black man’s foot.
In all seriousness, the theory SOUNDS like it might have a point when you inspect it a little further. A lot of Marxist thought is being taught in school, particularly in the social sciences, even economic sciences, but is Marx the ONLY thing driving social sciences forward? Of course not. That does not stop white nationali– I mean identitarians from claiming that it is and that every feminist / civil rights activist / antifa / socialist etc. has only and will only ever read the Communist Manifesto in their entire lives. Not only that, but that the Communist Manifesto is responsible for the indoctrination of students in school who take sociology classes, making them into rabid S-Jews who think we should treat people who are not like us as equals to us.
Quite the horrible notion, that.
It’s a conspiracy theory simply by being associated with the original McCarthyism of communists trying to overtake “The West” by indoctrinating our children. Why is communism terrible? Plenty of reasons, but for the cultural Marxist, it’s terrible because it’s communism and communism is being taught in school and has taken ahold of the liberal media. Any person moderately educated in political theory or media control will be able to tell you that this is nothing but rubbish. (spoiler: The Liberal Media stands for centrist-right and centrist-left media which attempts to report on things in an unbiased lens)
Post-modernism: As a philosophy enthusiast, this is a personal pet-peeve of mine that is being spread by a Canadian doctor called Jordan Peterson. The idea behind the post-modernism conspiracy theory (oh, another one!) is that post-modernists (which ones? it’s never really clear) are singlehandedly responsible for the corruption of political discourse and the presumptuous statements on sexual dimorphism and equality between genders. Those who believe in this conspiracy theory will hold adamantly that not everyone is equal and that the leftists (again) are single-handedly responsible for putting us in a state of political turmoil, because they won’t abide by normative behavior which would put a lot of people in utter misery except for those who want to uphold the status quo. You’ll gather, at this point, that this is a conspiracy theory that works exceedingly well with conservatives and extreme centrists, who think their “both sides are wrong” routine has any rational value when one side is evidently wrong.
It does help the identitarians however, because it allows them to basically single-handedly disregard any social science research of the last 50 years as being nothing but post-modernist hogwash. I’ve noticed they are particularly hateful toward the philosophers like Jacques Lacan, Derrida and Foucault. In their mind, all these people do is write nonsensical essays and books on rather simple subjects but complicate them needlessly, causing a reinterpretation of objective truths. Now, if that were the case, I would be quite alarmed, but I have read Foucault’s book on Subjectivity and nowhere do I see the notion where he thinks we should doubt that the Earth is round, for example.
Rather, he explains that multiple cultures have various interpretations of similar concepts and you may find a unifying interpretation amongst them. For example, in the opening chapters, he uses the historical analysis of pachyderm mating behaviors and how various philosophers and clergymen from medieval and modern eras as well as the greek Aristotle described these behaviors. Not only that, but each of these people, separated by multiple centuries, all felt that there was some kind of intelligence to the way elephants mate, and that they take their time to make offspring.
Conclusion: Foucault doubts the reality of mating behaviors? Of course not. As I’ve learned over the years, however, dogma is not only religious. It’s very easy, when we’re looking for an anchor with which to dock, to react irrationally to concepts we don’t understand, to the point of resorting to conspiracy theories. I consider those to be plasters put on open gaps in our thinking. By the by, Foucault was a poststructuralist, which inserts itself in post-modernism. Think about that for a moment.
Social Justice Warrior: A pejorative used to brand basically anyone who has a passing resemblance to leftist thought as an irrational, shrill, “autistic” social justice seeking cuck (“feminist” in short, for women). SJWs are normally depicted as being those infected with the virus of which the above notions are the symptoms: A belief in multiculturalism as a good venue for the future of society, a belief that equality has not yet been reached across the people and a belief that we should bring even our most deeply held beliefs into question (aka: Postmodernism). Now, there IS something that the White Nationalists say that is right here, but they’re not the first ones to have said it. Ever since the inception of feminism, there have been radical feminists that held some pretty abhorrent views. So this isn’t new. However, what the White Nationalists do is grab whoever is the loudest and most nonsensical character in the SJW circles and hoist them on their multi-platform social media accounts, for their fans to make fun of and confirm their bias on how rational they are.
While the identitarians will decry identity politics as being poisonous to political discourse, they will have no problem using it to deny the validity of any “leftist” arguments, simply by branding that person an SJW. My main problem, myself, with SJWs although I get called one and rather identify with the ideology myself, is that they’re full of hyperbole themselves and very often, I see words being used out of their context and it annoys me because I would expect us leftists to be held to a greater standard. In fact, we are, but more often than not, it is being done in a way as to identify allies.
The great majority of SJWs however are not irrational activists. Could I say the same of white nationalists and the identitarians? No, because they adhere to age-old and defunct ideas of society that have been demystified in the last century, but are still being raised as vanguards of virtue and secular dogma (which is really just hiding one’s bias against any other ethnic minority and their culture).
And I’ll have to say I am personally not at all worried about people who want to change the way we look at culture and gender, compared to those who would have my ass shot for merely agreeing with these people. One is a change on mere socio-cultural grounds, while the other is an imperialistic ideology that seeks to expel any non-purebloods by way of “selective administrative changes” (read: ACTUAL deportation).
Difference between Identitarianism and White Nationalism?
There is none.
You may be brought to believe that Identitarianism just want their cultural supremacy upheld, but in the end, as you’ve seen above, the things they detest about the world are essentially that they are being criticized on their so-called objectivity. The issue really is that these people don’t want to be identified as Nazis, because that is what they are. They also don’t want to be working underground, because that’ll undermine the political exposure of their ideology. So, one of the best ways to do that is to come up with more politically correct terms for things they normally said with much more hyperbole than they do now.
White Nationalism has become Identitarian Nationalism, White Genocide has become the “Great Replacement”, etc. etc…
The point here, if you haven’t noticed, is that these people want to be taken seriously. In order to be taken seriously, they have to move away from the headlines, and to do so necessitates utilizing more acceptable verbiage and appearing to be victims of the left rather than victims of their own skewed worldview and the reactions it begets. While I’ll definitely admit that the left has its own reactionaries who will call for murder of capitalists, and others who simply DON’T want to bring their ideology into question at any point in time, I think if we take a moment to analyze this rationally, there’s a big difference between the two.
For one, the Left hardly has any sway in politics other than P.R. campaigns. Neoliberals have understood that there’s a lot of people who are politically active who also happen to espouse leftist ideals, so they’ll make all sorts of marketing campaigns catering to these people, but do they bring about any DECISIVE change? Not really, no. Most countries in the Western world are still very much liberal (in the doctrinal sense, not the ideology), and liberalism does not lend itself well to leftist doctrine.
Who benefits from using the weaknesses in the liberal society to their own gain? White Nationalists. They do so by using laws to protect their speech and by ensuring that what they say is not perceived as hate speech, by endowing it with sweetening words, to appear just as rational as everybody else on the left and on the right. In order not to be fooled by this, we have to recognize when these specious buzzwords start being used and cease to take whoever uses them seriously.
Let them speak, but don’t engage on a “rational debate” with someone who thinks the jews are out to get them by mass indoctrination of students in public school systems. One side is obviously wrong, and it bears you no benefit to argue with someone who is objectively wrong, at least, not in any meaningful fashion. A very rational excuse can be brought up for this: Any time you can actually corner them, they will resort to any sort of stratagem to cause a reaction out of you, and claim victory simply due to your outrage to their blatantly racist and sexist remarks.
Do not react to that.
The Culture War is on and the right-wing extremists are clashing with left-wing extremists, and the extremists are not the SJWs. From my experience on the web, SJWs want to gain hold of the status quo and that’s about it. No meaningful structural change occurs under the SJW ideology. It does not seek to change the government, it does not seek to change how we view the economy, it merely wants people to be equal to each other, notwithstanding the structures that hold these inequalities in place. It’s a fairly moderate ideology which, like any other, has some very vocal representatives. It is a war and passions are flaring, but as I said above: I fear white nationalism a LOT more than I do students who demand safe spaces in college campuses.
One of these ideologies is clearly evil, the other is merely misguided at times.