|Border security talks in DC; wary eyes over the Rio Grande|
by Andy Nowicki
Ethnic chauvinism is an irritating and at times repulsive trait, but ethnomasochism is a thoroughly contemptible affliction. If the former tendency runs the risk of dehumanizing those outside of one’s own group, and ignoring crucial commonalities due to the horseblinding effect that accompanies the inculcation of extreme prejudice, its antithetical opposite proclivity leads a person to feel unreasonably righteous by hating his own kind. That is, it causes one to feel morally upright by embracing treachery, a trait universally regarded as morally loathsome in nearly any other context.
Ethnomasochism is indeed perverse, in a way that ethnic chauvinism is not. The ethno-chauvinist is but an unseemly exaggeration of one who has a healthy pride in himself and the people who compose his genotypically extended family. The chauvinist takes this natural tendency too far, perhaps with unappetizing results, but the quality he takes too far isn’t a bad thing in itself; it only becomes reprehensible in its abuse. The chauvinist errs, that is, through indulging in an overabundance of loyalty, the sort of rabid sentiment expressed in the saying “My nation, right or wrong.” One’s loyalty to kin should end when it causes one to violate clear moral strictures, but up to that point, ethnic pride is actually a sign of moral health.
Ethnomasochism, on the other hand, is plainly unnatural, and an indication of moral impairment, since it takes positive pleasure in its infidelity. The ethnomasochist doesn’t just reluctantly and with great trepidation turn on his nation as a last possible alternative, to stop a moral atrocity from taking place (after the manner of heroes like Sophie Scholl and Alexander Solzhenitsyn); instead, he takes positive delight in turning against his people, and even looks for the pettiest of excuses to do so.
Little need be said here about the extent to which ethnomasochism is now the mandated contemporary ideological norm among whites. It is well enough known that, if one is to maintain an aura of respectability amongst “polite” company, one must at least implicitly hold, inter alia, (a) that unlike every other racial group in existence, whites have absolutely no legitimate collective interests; (b) that white history is little more than a litany of shameful deeds perpetrated by dastardly exploiters of the earth and appalling oppressors of the duskier-hued segments of the human population, and certainly includes no incidents or events of which one should properly take pride, (like, for example, the establishment of civilization, or the abolition of slavery, or anything else that would seem an exemplary accomplishment); (c) that “diversity,” – meaning in effect the enforcement of white dispossession and eventual eradication – is forever to be “celebrated,” while Caucasian homogeneity, where it still exists, must be mocked and derided as “white bread,” “white trash,” “lily white,” or worse, and must altogether be held in thoroughgoing contempt, until it finally takes the hint and actively dispossesses itself out of abject shame
The question of how things came to this pass is an interesting one, but it won’t be taken up here. In any case, most regulars of Alternative Right are dissenters from this trend, and I am no exception. Though admittedly not as militant on this front as many – I don’t, for example, view racial discord as the inevitable result of promiscuous propinquity, and I reject the notion of insularity as an ostensible virtue – yet I still heartily deplore the disingenuous rhetoric concerning whiteness, and the conspicuous brazen double standard in place, utilized to pressure the majority into submission through the spread of that insufferable plague known as “white guilt.”
One should, however, approach this matter aware of certain subtleties, to guard against causing needless offense. Pro-open border media outlets (and their names are Legion) often characterize their opponents as “anti-immigrant,” as if wishing to preserve national homogeneity and protect the border implied some inherent animus towards people who look different and come from a different place. Intellectually dishonest as this characterization is, it also unfortunately happens to be a correct assessment in many cases. There is indeed a penchant on the part of some activists to fixate entirely on the invaders’ real or perceived negative traits, to the exclusion of all other considerations. In some cases, these rhetorical fixations can approach an unbecoming obsessiveness.
|The unfortunate tenor of some border security activism|
Of course, I loathe the smarmy, maudlin knee-jerk tendency—commonly indulged in by liberal-leftists—to reflexively glamorize the exotic “other,” and concomitantly to castigate those who don’t share their smitten xenophila as little more than “bigots.” Again, though, xenophilia need not, and ought not be combated with its equally brainless mirror-image ideology; namely, xenophobia. One can support greater border control without promoting the notion that border-hopping refugees are nothing but a nefarious bunch of gangbangers, drug runners, and rapists. In fact, most of them are probably decent people attempting to escape intolerable situations, and looking for a better life. Such folk aren’t our enemies, per se; they are only the unwitting pawns of our corrupt and black-hearted globalist rulers, who instigate such population transfers in order to enhance their prospects for world domination.
I don't mean to say that the continuing human invasion of the US from its notoriously porous southern border isn't a hugely important issue, and oughtn’t be strongly opposed, but simply to emphasize that the ongoing effort at an orchestrated reconquista must be seen as part of a broader Gestalt. Staunchly opposing illegal immigration is one thing, but engaging in snide rhetorical broadsides and derogatory jeering at “wetbacks” — or, God forbid, actually instigating unprovoked violence against illegal immigrants — is morally wrong and politically counterproductive. We ought to focus our energies against the puppet-masters, not their mostly hapless mandarins. For such as the former, the name of the game isn’t racial domination per se — indeed, many among the elite are white, English-speaking gentiles — but greater consolidation of power and control.
This truth was brought home to me again when that noxious, nauseating Coca-Cola-sponsored piece of agitprop — first shown at the Super Bowl and discussed in these virtual pages soon afterwards — was rebroadcast during the World Cup game on July 4, and we were once more treated to “America the Beautiful” sung in various different languages, accompanied by a pictorial montage of darkly-complexioned, exotically-garbed, newly-naturalized “Americans” from all corners of the earth laughing, playing, and smiling benignly whilst frolicking through various sites which radiate that traditional Americana vibe — movie theaters, skating rinks, California beaches, New York street corners, verdant Appalachian forests, oceans white with foam, fields filled with amber waves of grain, etc. In the commercial, all of these places retain their wholesome essence, yet at the same time appear to have mostly been drained of the vexatious presence of white people (with the notable exception of one gay Caucasian couple with an apparent adopted daughter in tow — in Coca-Cola world, a redeeming propensity for buggery clearly covers a multitude of sins).
The message, thus, could not be clearer. Submerged beneath the mawkish mise en scene, sugary-sweet as the product being sold, can faintly be heard the strains of a hymn of hate. The entire spot is in fact a barely-concealed jeering taunt from the ranks of the powerful and highly-placed, directed at the weak and disenfranchised: i.e., that long-derided collective entity known as “middle America.” The central theme communicated amounts to a brazen threat: Hey working-class White America, we don’t need you anymore! Your long-dependable stock will soon be replaced with a cheaper brood of slaves that we’re in the process of importing. You can’t fight us, so don’t even try — we are in control; you are not. Object to our plans, and you’ll get on our bad side… and we’ll only step up our campaign of shame and intimidation against you. Accept your fate, agree to hate yourselves, and become complicit in your dispossession, and nobody gets hurt… otherwise, we will bury you!
They aim to turn us against the “spics,” and then to exploit our misplaced anger in order to create an occasion to light another Reichstag fire and create a new pretext for totalitarian tyranny in the name of combating “bigotry.” We must be smart enough to resist this trap, and we must also be clear-eyed enough not to sacrifice the justice of our cause on the altar of a crude, “might makes right” notion of expediency.
It will be a balancing act, requiring subtlety, foresight, and prudence, in which the temptation to embrace bigotry against non-whites is eschewed just as vigorously as we already reject the insufferably prevalent, ever-present anti-white Zeitgeist of our day. But if we conscientiously steer between the Scylla of ethno-chauvinism and the Charybdis of ethnomasochism, we can stake out and protect the precious border of truth.