Andrews’ Democratic Multiculturalism

Food for thought.  In all cases, emphasis added, except where indicated.

See this.

We need to remember what Salter wrote in On Genetic Interests, that the only thing worse, from the perspective of a majority being replaced, than a multiculturalism that does not work is one that does work. Democratic multiculturalism is a tool to use to ensure that a multiculturalism that does not work. What is democratic multiculturalism?

I have previously written about, and advocated for, Salter’s idea of “Democratic Multiculturalism” – that White majorities should demand a seat at the multicultural table and use the System’s mechanisms of multiculturalism to advocate for White interests. Multiculturalism is defined (as Salter reminded us) as a system in which minorities are empowered and are encouraged to mobilize for their interests, while majorities are disempowered and demobilized. If that is so, then forcing the multicultural system to allow for majority mobilization will, by definition, make that system untenable, destabilize it, and heighten the contradictions, and lead, eventually, to its demise. There is a saying – “if everyone is my brother, then I have no brother.” Likewise, if every group tales advantage of multiculturalism, then there is no multiculturalism.

Always remember Suvorov’s Law of history – revolutions do not typically occur during the time of greatest repression, but when that repression is suddenly relaxed. That is why it is imperative to put pressure on the System, at its weakest points, to force concessions and force relaxation of the repression.

See this.

See this.

See this.

See this.

Some work by Salter.

Those essays defend the idea behind democratic multiculturalism and answer some criticism of the concept. Back to Andrews:

Peaceful coexistence of different ethnic groups within one state is certainly possible if none of the groups need fear the domination of others, more generally if none finds itself in a situation of interethnic competition. This is best achieved when each group owns its own land and enjoys sovereignty over its own affairs as is the case in Switzerland. — Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt

True enough, but if you are going to go that far, how about different states?  At least for groups that are highly racially and culturally divergent?

Erecting walls that separate ‘us’ from ‘them’ is a necessary correlate of morality since it defines the scope within which sympathy, fairness, and duty operate. The chief wall is the family/clan/village, but during certain historical periods ethnicity defines the wall.The great achievement of Western culture the Enlightenment is to make many of us peer over that wall and grant some respect to people outside it; the great failure of Western culture is to deny that walls are inevitable or important. — James Q. Wilson

True.

I wish to address the question of how a homeland for Whites can be created on the North American continent. I shall not address the demographic problems of Whites in Europe and elsewhere, since their solution requires an entirely different approach.

Fair enough.

Before stating my proposal, however, I must put my readers in a receptive mindset. In the 1930s, in the midst of the National Socialist revolution, a Berlin Rabbi, Joachim Prinz, wrote the following:

We want assimilation to be replaced by a new law: the declaration of belonging to the Jewish nation and the Jewish race. A State built upon the principle of the purity of nation and race can only be honored and respected by a Jew who declares his belonging to his own kind . . . [Italics in original]

Jewish nation?  Jewish race?  But I thought they are HuWhite?  Whither Taylor?

Rabbi Prinz escaped the slaughter…

Slaughter?

…of the European Jews and later became head of the American Jewish Congress. In America, Rabbi Prinz adopted a diametrically different view of the ideas of national and racial purity. Perhaps the most dramatic evidence of this is the speech he gave immediately before Martin Luther King, Jr. took the podium to deliver his famous “I Have a Dream” speech at the Lincoln Memorial in 1963. This was the high point of American assimilationism, when Nathan Glazer still believed that blacks could fully assimilate. Rabbi Prinz changed his tactics dramatically because times had changed dramatically. So must we.

Jews always do what they perceive is the best for Jews (whether they judge correctly is another issue). So must we. 

FROM ASSIMILATIONISM TO MULTICULTURALISM

For the first 350 years after the European (primarily English) settlement of the present United States, we insisted on assimilation for all new immigrants. Americans saw themselves as “modified Englishmen,” and all European newcomers were required to modify them-selves accordingly. Blacks were excluded because it was assumed that they were a special case and clearly impossible to assimilate into our society. Conversely, assimilation of non-English Whites was expected and often forced, as discussed by Benjamin Schwartz:

Sinclair Lewis recognized the melting pot, in Main Street, as a means by which “the sound American customs absorbed with-out one trace of pollution another alien invasion.” Americanization, then, although it did not cleanse America of its ethnic minorities, cleansed its minorities of their ethnicity.

Since 1965, however, the United States has opened its borders to massive legal and illegal immigration by non-Whites who, like American blacks, will not or cannot assimilate. Because of this, the spirit of the age has become multiculturalism and multiracialism.

OK, I’m not going to argue the main points, although one could quibble with details and emphasis.

TOWARD A MULTICULTURALISM OF THE RIGHT

Why then does the right oppose multiculturalism and insist on assimilation? 

Which “right” are we talking about?  Mainstream? Paleoconservatives?  Civic nationalists. Far Right racial nationalists?

The Left also formerly supported assimilation to create the new American citizen. Some leftists, like Todd Gitlin, lament the fact that multiculturalism is destroying traditional leftist universalism and warn that America is lost unless we drop our obsession with group differences.

If that’s the case, America is lost.  Consider how much the “obsession with group differences” has advanced since Andrews wrote this piece.

It is time for the right to discard assimilationism. First of all, it is not possible to assimilate non-Whites. 

Nor is it desirable, and that should be the major consideration- racial preservation, ethnic genetic interests, etc.

Second, the establishment is not even trying to assimilate them. 

True, but descriptive. Prescriptively, that’s irrelevant (but makes our job easier0.

Third, continuing to insist upon assimilation prevents us from focusing on stopping the flow of non-assimilable immigrants, while we wait for the establishment to insist on assimilation, which is impossible anyway. 

Again, desirability is more important than possibility – although in a sense Andrews may be conflating the two ideas, if he means that the impossibility is not only because of pragmatics and probabilities, but because attempting assimilation would be so destructive it is “impossible.”

Fourth, while non-Whites cannot assimilate our culture, Whites seem all too able to assimilate their culture, much to our detriment. 

True.

Fifth, the presence of large populations of unassimilable non-Whites increases miscegenation, i.e., genetic assimilation, which destroys all distinct races that participate in it. 

See above, on desirability vs. possibility.

Finally, the only way for Whites to preserve their cultural and racial distinctness in a multicultural society is to embrace multiculturalism and insist on our right to be and remain distinct.

Indeed. That’s an overt rationale for democratic multiculturalism, with the covert rationale being to destroy the System as described in my linked essays, above.

Embracing multiculturalism will have many positive consequences for White Americans.

Yes.

Multiculturalism promotes stronger group identities for those who perceive themselves as belonging to a specific group. Based on social identity theory, we should also expect increased group conflict and polarization.

Chaos and balkanization - all good.  Disrupt the multicultural consensus and destabilize the System.

Multiculturalism will also increase the desire for individual and group freedom from perceived oppression and control by more socially powerful groups. 

Right – but you will need to convince Whites that they are oppressed and controlled by others (or at least by hostile White elites allied with the others); thus, the “White Privilege” paradigm needs to refuted and delegitimized.

There will also be an increased desire by successful groups for freedom from blame and the costs of servicing groups that seem unable to participate in the “American Success story” without continued assistance. Once we stop thinking of America as a normatively White country, the backwardness of other groups will no longer look like a social problem we have to solve and more like a cultural difference we have to tolerate.

As I say, America is a dead country with no future. The sooner we convince Whites of that, the better.

The net result is that once we start thinking of ourselves as a distinct group with distinct interests, Whites will be more willing and able to hold our own in ethnic competition.

Note that the approach to attack Whites as such a distinct group is to question the existence of Whites as an actual biological-ancestral-cultural group and also constantly raise the “who is White?” question, dividing Whites against each other. The latter approach will, unfortunately, find allies among Nordicists and other ethnic fetishists in Der Movement, with their hostility toward White ethnics. Any successful pro-White activity, including democratic multiculturalism, needs to define the White Identity, and vigorously defend it.

FROM MULTICULTURALISM TO WHITE NATIONALISM

Another long-term consequence of Whites embracing multiculturalism is that it will contribute to the dissolution of the United States and the formation of a White homeland in North America. Consider these words from Ron Unz:

A social ideology that allots to blacks and Latinos and Asians their own separatist institutions and suggested shares of society’s benefits cannot long be prevented from extending itself to Whites as well. Especially as Whites become merely one minority among many minorities. Before it is altogether too late, those who support this status quo must realize that the diversity prescription contains the seeds of national dissolution.

Mr. Unz wrote that in the pages of Commentary and deplores the idea of national dissolution, but that does not affect the soundness of his analysis.

Yes, Unz is an enemy of White nationalism; this helps us to understand those alleged “White nationalists” who write for Unz’s site and enable Unz’s anti-White agenda.

THE POLITICS OF MULTICULTURALISM

What are the political options for multicultural societies? I suggest that there are only four.

Assimilation: The American tradition except for blacks. This is no longer viable due to the massive non-White immigration since 1965 and the failure of the once all-powerful Anglo-American majority to enforce assimilation or to prevent non-White immigration. Indeed, it is not even desirable given the current demographics of the country.

Domination: The American tradition with blacks under slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow. This is no longer viable due both to massive non-White immigration, the change in American sensibilities, and the loss of will by the Anglo-American majority.

Libertarianism: Basically this is just letting the chips fall where they may, what Michael Levin calls “The Clark Gable Solution.” Of course, it is not a solution at all, but simply an abdication of responsibility, the decision to let others deter-mine our destiny as a people. What are the chances that such a destiny will be anything but the short-run subordination and long-run destruction of our people?

Multiculturalism: Two forms of multiculturalism are possible. A) The first is what we have today: multiculturalism in which Whites do not recognize ourselves as a group and take our own side in struggles with other groups. The result is a transfer of power and assets from Whites to non-Whites. Given race differences, this will require a permanent imposition of Affirmative Action and a continued willingness by Whites to accept blame for black and Hispanic failure, until we exit the stage of power and influence entirely. B) In the second form of multiculturalism, some Whites recognize ourselves as a distinct group, take our own side, and hold our own against other ethnic groups. This should be our goal, because while all multiculturalisms are unstable and prone to breakup, at least this one will al-low us to participate in the breakup as equals or better.

This latter form of multiculturalism is akin to Salter’s idea of democratic multiculturalism.

Assimilation is no longer desirable, domination no longer possible, and libertarianism concedes the game. That leaves only multiculturalism, which, if we embrace it and play our cards right, will result in national separation, which is the desired goal.

This is particularly true due to Suvorov’s Law – successes achieved via democratic multiculturalism and concessions from the System will lead to both an increase in White morale and a delegitimization of the System’s hegemony.

A PRACTICAL PROGRAM

We must foster White ethnic self-consciousness. Some years ago Sam Francis pointed out that as a group we Whites exist objectively…

See above.  The White group has been, and will be, challenged on an objective basis; indeed, and ironically enough, constant challenges about this come from Der Movement itself. That faction that defends a stable White identity will have an advantage over those constantly questioning “whiteness.”

…but not subjectively. This phenomenon is common for dominant groups in most societies and should change as we become less dominant. But obviously it would be better for Whites to become self-conscious before we reach minority status. How do we make that happen?

Acknowledging and defending a stable, coherent, objective White Identity would be a good place to start.

We must insist on the importance of biological, psychological, and behavioral genetics research to public policy, including the writings of Garrett Hardin, Raymond Cattell, and Frank Salter. 

That’s great.  Unfortunately, we have retards in Der Movement who actually question the work of Salter. Amazing.

We should discuss and promote the idea that ethnic and race competition and conflict are normal and predictable features of our evolutionary history and stress they will continue on some level — seen or unseen — no matter how much the preachers and politicos talk of universal love and brotherhood. Though now somewhat dated, the contrast between the visible emotional White and black response to the O. J. Simpson verdict as depicted in photographs in Newsweek and Time is a good example of what I mean.

Sounds good, but how to do so?  We can’t even get people on the Far Right to agree on this.

We should promote white Americans as a specific group with specific interests and contrast those interests with the interests of other groups.

OK, but see all of the problems above.

We should acknowledge as valid the legitimate group interests of other groups and show where and how their interests are often incompatible with our interests. Kevin MacDonald’s works should be a guide for similar approaches to explaining White/black and White/Hispanic conflict.

MacDonald's work on the Jews, not the later work.

We should attempt to redirect social/cultural pressures such that “social justice” will include justice for our group of Americans.

We should use Jews as an example of a group that desires both biological and cultural survival. Given their recent history, is it difficult for most people to call them Nazis or racists because they wish to preserve their biological peoplehood. It will be hard to argue that what is positive for Jews would be a bad thing for Americans.

OK.

We should support and promote the following issues, ideas, and programs — some of which some of us now oppose:

Because of the differential demographic impact of abortion, all who can should support it.

We should support bilingual education.

Black and Hispanic history.

Ethnic Studies and departments. Any type of traditional historical/cultural activities, whether real, such as Scottish Games, or fabricated, like Kwanza.

Any type of exclusionary organization, process, or activity by any group whether White or non-White. For example, Bill Gates’ billion-dollar scholarships scheme for blacks and Indians despite its anti-White bias. In fact, we should support any activity that increases group polarization that does not otherwise weaken us.

We must enthusiastically support the first attempt at a breakaway state. I suspect it will be either Hispanic/Mexican or Hawaiian. We should support that precedent in a fashion that will make our own separation less difficult.

We should continue to oppose certain programs:

Accepting blame for minority failure.

Non-White immigration (let’s keep as much as we can).

We should create an organization and begin planning a new Declaration of Independence entitled something like The New Americas: A Manifesto for the Survival of Freedom and Tolerance. In addition, it should contain a proposed master compact for a new federation of sovereign nation-states and a suggested upgrading of the existing Constitution for our specific new America which will take into consideration what we have learned over 225+years of constitutional history.

A new organization - what?  More of the same failed organizations led by the same failed Quota Queens?

Granted it is a bitter pill, but if indeed multiculturalism is the most potent force available, then we must swallow it to move on to create a homeland exclusively for Whites on this continent.

Those suggestions are reasonable, but only a start.

As regards more immediate practical advice for the individual interested in helping to get this process started, I’d suggest that any time you have the chance to express complaints about anti-White discrimination via anonymous means – such as surveys, complaint lines and sites, etc. – do so, as often as possible (making sure it is based on real data and is plausible).  Of course, if you are in a position to make open, overt, live complaints, that is much better, but comes with more potential costs of course.  Everyone has to judge their own situation. One can do both as well – anonymous and overt – as each situation suggests.  In addition, the more people who make the same complaints at the same entity, the better, and the “strength in numbers” strategy makes open, overt complaints and activism somewhat safer and more feasible. In addition, while a single complaint and complainer can be easily dismissed as an outlier and a crank, multiple such actions become much more difficult to dismiss. Document everything in writing – your complaints and actions and the responses (or lack thereof can be noted).  You can expect that most likely complaints about anti-White discrimination, etc. – no matter how real and well documented – will ultimately be dismissed without effective action to remedy the complaint, and that lack of an effective and reasonable response needs to be documented, and could always be used in any future legal action or publicizing of the issue. Getting legal advice and assistance may (eventually) be necessary, at least for the overt actions.

The education system/academia is a particularly fruitful arena for such actions.

I have tried some of these approaches myself, mostly as a lone individual, with the expected lack of effective remediation, but all has been, and will be, well documented for future reference.  If nothing else, such complaints force entities, institutions, HR departments, etc. to at least formally go through the motions of addressing them, which not only takes time and effort (that they would otherwise use for unsavory purposes) but causes upset, chaos, and disrupts the smooth running of the multicultural apparatus. If well documented, it lays the foundation for, e.g., future legal action. Even if alone, the actions may prompt others to speak out as well – someone needs to “break the ice” – why not you?  Just be careful to judge your situation, and do it openly or anonymously, as the situation warrants.  Always be truthful and have everything well documented.  

You can not only do such negative democratic multiculturalism (e.g., complaints), but positive as well, such as organizing within the multicultural apparatus with respect to White identity and mobilization.  That will be more difficult and will almost certainly require you to be overt. It is possible the negative complaints can lay the foundation for the positive work.  In the unlikely event the complaints are taken seriously, one remediation may be offering Whites a “seat at the multicultural table.”  That can be leveraged as the essays by Salter and I describe.