Mudshift Redux

Another Kaufmann emerges.  In all cases, bold font emphasis added.

Never forget what Salter wrote in On Genetic Interests – for a majority being dispossessed, that the only thing worse than a multiculturalism that does not work is one that does, allowing an easy and painless descent into minority status.

Considering that, do you remember the part-Jewish Kaufmann and his agenda to convince Whites to accept their racial dispossession and to accept the widening of the concept of “White” to include mixed-race individuals as part of our new multiracial future?  Well, there seems to be a market for such types; behold Yascha Mounk, another Jewish mongrel pushing a similar agenda.

See this.

…the American mainstream will once again prove capable of expanding in ways that now seem difficult to fathom. The first groups to join this new American mainstream would likely include white Hispanics, Asian-Americans and those who are mixed race. But as the increasingly multiethnic culture of metropoles from Houston to New York City shows, the new mainstream could grow even more inclusive: in particular, an ever greater share of black Americans may also be absorbed.

The choice between an America in which whites and “people of color” form two implacably opposed blocks and an America in which members of all ethnic groups feel a true sense of belonging and mutual solidarity is straightforward. The country would be a much better place to live, for whites and non-whites alike, if it managed to integrate an ever-greater array of ethnic and religious groups into an expanding mainstream…

…Sustaining a diverse democracy in which the members of different ethnic and religious groups feel real solidarity towards each other is a difficult undertaking, which will require both ambitious public policies and a generosity of spirit among ordinary Americans. But all of us can start to make one impactful change immediately. No matter how common it has become to slice and dice the American population into whites and “people of color,” we should, insofar as possible, avoid this simplistic dichotomy. For it both misdescribes America’s current reality and makes it harder to build the kind of future to which all of us should aspire.

Sound familiar?  That may as well be Kaufmann writing – it is a difference without distinction.  Wait, it gets worse; just like Kaufmann, the monster Mounk wrote a book as well, described by Amazon, and by a reader’s review on Amazon, thus:

Some democracies are highly homogeneous. Others have long maintained a brutal racial or religious hierarchy, with some groups dominating and exploiting others. Never in history has a democracy succeeded in being both diverse and equal, treating members of many different ethnic or religious groups fairly. And yet achieving that goal is now central to the democratic project in countries around the world. It is, Yascha Mounk argues, the greatest experiment of our time.

Drawing on history, social psychology, and comparative politics, Mounk examines how diverse societies have long suffered from the ills of domination, fragmentation, or structured anarchy. So it is hardly surprising that most people are now deeply pessimistic that different groups might be able to integrate in harmony, celebrating their differences without essentializing them. But Mounk shows us that the past can offer crucial insights for how to do better in the future. There is real reason for hope.

It is up to us and the institutions we build whether different groups will come to see each other as enemies or friends, as strangers or compatriots. To make diverse democracies endure, and even thrive, we need to create a world in which our ascriptive identities come to matter less—not because we ignore the injustices that still characterize the United States and so many other countries around the world, but because we have succeeded in addressing them.

The Great Experiment is that rare book that offers both a profound understanding of an urgent problem and genuine hope for our human capacity to solve it. As Mounk contends, giving up on the prospects of building fair and thriving diverse democracies is simply not an option—and that is why we must strive to realize a more ambitious vision for the future of our societies.

Mounk divides his book into three parts:

1) A historical review about how and why diverse societies fail, and suggestions about how to help different factions coexist peacefully.

2) A carefully reasoned discussion of various ideas concerning the role government (in a Democracy) should play to address the disparities in the treatment and socioeconomic status of minority groups.

3) Specific ideas about government policies, especially in the USA, which can improve citizens' lives, and also reduce conflicts among racial groups…

…Mounk suggests that in the future, different groups (racial, cultural, etc.) in Western democracies may have far more in common than we now realize, if (and it's a big if) governments adopt policies to improve the quality of life for all.

Again, exactly like Kaufmann. These types seem very afraid of something, and that something is a White reaction to racial dispossession. Indeed, a less sanguine analysis than that of Mounk suggests:

America is in an identity crisis with no shared values that unite the nation nor idea of what it means to be an American. Americanism has long been implicitly linked to Whiteness, but that is not viable long term as diversity is inevitable. Either Americanism exists in some new form of civic nationalism that is decoupled from Whiteness or Whiteness is maintained but under multiculturalism. The best case scenario for White Americans is a version of multi-culturalism where they can successfully play the game too with their own enclaves and patronage networks. The political system of the future will be many tribes competing and lobbying for their group’s interest and forming alliances under a multi-polar system.

The "best case scenario" is essentially Salter’s democratic multiculturalism.

So, how do we address the Kaufmann/Mounk agenda of having Whites accept their dispossession, and to have a “diverse democracy” work via civic nationalism, redefining Whiteness, and making multiculturalism less painful for Whites until it is too late for them to do anything meaningful to stop their dispossession?

To address attempts at expanding the definition of “White” to the point of racial meaninglessness, we need to strongly focus on defining and describing “White” in terms of (Old World) European ancestry. Therefore, a White American is a European-American, and not any of the other groups that Kaufmann and Mounk want to bin with the “White category.” We need to be able to effectively explain and defend the White is European equation, which is something I have been doing for decades; I believe that an effective defense of the concept is easily made from biological, cultural/civilizational, and historical perspectives. And the equation tracks well with the basic conception of “White” held by most Whites. Such a definition serves two purposes: First, as noted, it serves to obstruct attempts to redefine “White” to promote anti-White (indeed, de facto genocidal) agendas, and, second, it can serve as an effective riposte (particularly when combined with the aforementioned defenses of the concept) to the “what about the Irish and the Italians” or “Hispanics are the new Italians” arguments.  Needless to say, for this definition to be effective, intra-White intra-European divisiveness (e.g., Nordicism) and the endless “Who is White” arguments when applied to Europeans, need to end, since that division does nothing but empower the likes of Kaufmann and Mounk and their arguments about the “flexibility” of “Whiteness,” and weakens the White is European equation that serves as a barrier to the “anyone who is not Black – and even some Blacks too – are White” expansionist approaches.  Further, fragmenting the White bloc not only weakens White power, but also the lack of organic solidarity encourages the multiculturalists to break down White cohesion and make cross-racial alliances with elements of the White population.  We have enough problems with ideological renegades (e.g., leftists) among the White population; the last thing we need is to have White ethnies squabbling among themselves so badly that they make alliances with Coloreds to support internecine White struggles. It also goes without saying that when the “movement” enables Nordicism and other such memes, and promotes the work of dividers like Humphrey Ireland, they weaken White comity and solidarity and help promote the Kaufmann/Mounk agenda.

Another, related, approach with respect to this issue is to gradually focus on defining ourselves (in America) as European-Americans (and in Europe, as Europeans in addition to specific national identifies) rather than as “White.” Yes, I know that “White” is a convenient term to use and is the popular choice, and that “European-American” is less convenient, and, yes, I myself do use “White” as a shorthand for “of European descent” and will no doubt continue to do so.  But, still, being as specific as possible as to who we are, even at some cost of convenience, may at some point be necessary.  Yes, we should defend the White is European equation, but it does no harm to emphasize the “European” as much as possible, to obstruct the expansionist agendas.

With respect to civic nationalism, or what Sailer calls “citizenism,” or what others call “constitutional patriotism,” many activists (myself included) have long argued against it. There is an enormous corpus of material – including at EGI Notes – on this subject, Contra “movement” idiots attacking “Salterism,” the fact remains that On Genetic Interests is one of the best critiques of civic nationalism available; indeed the concept of ethnic genetic interests is one of the best antidotes to the civic nationalist poison  Also see this.

Groups are not fungible and they have distinct interests as a result of being distinct groups, and attempts to cover up these distinctions with labels such as “Americans” or “citizens” fail to eliminate the underlying reality. The fact that people like Kaufmann and Mounk worry so much about the future of “diverse democracy” tells you that they recognize the power of group identity and of corrosive power of group competition to dissolve the false and empty bonds of civic nationalism.  Blood is not only thicker than water, blood is thicker than fictive “national” identities based on pieces of paper, memes, and superficial political labels.  If adherence to civic nationalist fiction impairs your adaptive fitness through diminution of your ethny and its interests, why should you continue to adhere to that destructive fiction?  Why listen to the “pied pipers” of civic nationalism leading you and your ethny to your doom?

At the risk of seeming glib, ultimately, to defeat the Kaufmann/Mounk agenda Whites – or a significant enough fraction of the White population to make diverse democracy untenable - simply have to refuse to go along.  When some try to define “White” to include persons who are not of (full) (Old World) European ancestry, European-American Whites need to refuse to accept those “Whites” as their ingroup; instead, they should – they must – insist and act upon a definition that maintains what we today recognize as the "White" concept, and if that ultimately means replacing “White” with “European” and “European-American” then so be it. Kaufmann, Mounk, and their ilk cannot force Whites to consider non-Whites to be “White;” they can only mendaciously gaslight Whites to allow themselves to be redefined out of existence.  They need Whites to accept White genocide; this we must not allow. Of course, resistance to these racial redefinitions will require the explanations and defenses alluded to above and would also require the pro-White movement to demonstrate the discipline to eschew and reject memes that create division within the White ingroup.  

Whites need to reject civic nationalism, including the right-wing populist version of that creed. Ultimately, civic nationalism enables the situation that Salter warned against – a multiculturalism that works and allows for the relatively painless and orderly displacement and race replacement of White populations. When individuals talk of “the people” or “the American people” or “the [fill in name of country] people” the question should always be “which people?”  Who?  Whom? Talk of “citizens” should be met with “which citizens?”  White Identity Politics is necessary, as are leaders who promote policies that are explicitly pro-White; we need a sound political and metapolitical discourse to defend and extend our position and convince Whites of the righteousness of our cause. And Whites should reject “payoffs” and “enticements” and other policies that attempt to lessen group conflict by “buying off” disaffected groups with “goodies.”

Whites need to be mature enough and self-aware enough to recognize their group interests, act to defend those interests, and disciplined enough to identify and reject malicious memes and seductive policies meant to prevent Whites from maintaining their group identity and pursuing their interests.

Whites need to say NO to “diverse democracy” and need to ensure that multiculturalism does NOT work.