Split: Cultural Nationalism vs Ethnonationalism

[Panchaea]

In fighting in the BNP and the smear campaign by mainstream media are what really killed the BNP, not a rejection of ethnic nationalism.

I disagree about abandoning ethnic nationalism to avoid attacks from the left, they decried UKIP as racist, bigoted and xenophobic as well.

But its hard to smear UKIP as "racist, bigoted and xenophobic" when they're a multi-ethnic party; and virtually no one has attacked them as "Nazi" or "fascist". Even far-left wing organisations like Hope not Hate point out not to call UKIP the latter. This is why parties like UKIP are the way forward - the left cannot smear them as Nazis.

The BNP were treated different because they were not multi-ethnic (clinging to ethnic nationalism) and in the 1980s & 90s, they did a lot of stupid things; at one point it was only football hooligans and skinheads supporting them, hence their notorious "bovver boot" image that won over no voters, they were considered thugs by the public. When Griffin took over in the early 2000s he tried to loose this bad image for "suits" and professional electioneering. When canvassing in the mid-late 2000s, we had to dress smart and respectable. Anyone turning up such as skinheads with tattoos or people in chav clothes were turned away.

My issue with the BNP is while Griffin modernised it, he didn't do it enough like Marine le Pen did for the FN, so inevitably UKIP replaced them with 2/3 of former BNP voters switching to UKIP, like eventually myself. There was a moderniser faction led by Eddy Butler that wanted to take control of the BNP immediately after the 2010 General Election. Griffin didn't respond well to the fact he could loose power and blocked Butler from a leadership contest. So either the BNP had to modernise into a UKIP, or be replaced by UKIP.

Things like white flight in Britain seem to gainsay your argument that ethnicity is not a issue.

Two points about this:

1. 'White flight' areas are always the big cities, i.e. the most overcrowded. So this doesn't equate to ethnicity, but the factors I already talked about.

Above it might be argued only ethnic English are moving, however this is not accurate:

2. It is not only the ethnic English leaving cities for the less populated areas such as rural countryside but second and third generation immigrants, who have ancestry/families going back around 50-60 years (post Empire Windrush) and are integrated, or assimilated - they are culturally English.

The problem with ethnic nationalism, is the fact there are immigrant (non-ethnic English) populations who have now been settled in England, or other parts of the UK, since the 1950s. Will we refer to these people still as immigrants in 500 years? Most ordinary people would only refer to immigrants being those who have recently settled, say arbitrarily within the last two decades. There's also the fact some of these immigrants have intermarried with ethnic English. Is someone who has some slight Indian or Jewish ancestry 50 or 60 years back, ethnically English?

David Cameron's great-great grandfather Emile Levita was an Ashkenazi Jew from Germany. That would make him like 1/16 Jewish. The rest of his ancestry is ethnic English, with some ethnic Welsh. Would you consider him not ethnically English or British (if the latter is a meta-ethnicity of English/Scots/Welsh)? I'm sure he ticked "white British" on the census form. Very few people would question his ethnicity as not English. There's no such thing as total ancestral purity, for example going back many centuries or millennia people find all sorts of unexpected ancestors in their family tree.

I'm reminded of the American Indian blood quantum laws that really depend on the different tribe, but most seem to be 1/4, although some require 1/2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_quantum_laws

Would I accept someone who is only 1/4 English in terms of ancestry as ethnically English: certainly not. However, 3/4? I would accept them because most their ancestry is English.

[Spjabork]

It is not only the ethnic English leaving cities for the less populated areas such as rural countryside but second and third generation immigrants, who have ancestry/families going back around 50-60 years (post Empire Windrush) and are integrated, or assimilated - they are culturally English.

The problem with ethnic nationalism, is the fact there are immigrant (non-ethnic English) populations who have now been settled in England, or other parts of the UK, since the 1950s. Will we refer to these people still as immigrants in 500 years? Most ordinary people would only refer to immigrants being those who have recently settled, say arbitrarily within the last two decades. There's also the fact some of these immigrants have intermarried with ethnic English. Is someone who has some slight Indian or Jewish ancestry 50 or 60 years back, ethnically English?

There is a logical flaw in your argument. If all these nice, loyal people are so deeply settled, nay, deep-rooted in British soil -- why should, and in fact how could they be opposed to British nationalism? They should all be good, active, or at least paying members of the BNP, shouldn't they? And even if the BNP did reject them -- their true, pure love for their "British fatherland" should make them support British nationalism, morally, and financially. (Because spending money is the only way for a British so show real commitment.)

All these good, "settled" people, who came "since the fifties": they were the door-openers. And they must now serve as the best and most irrefutable argument, that "integration is possible" and that aliens are "enriching" us.

Our first aliens also came "since the 1950s", more precisely since 1955. At first, they were called "guest workers", and it was supposed they would surely go back home after selflessly having given their whole life full of hard labour to us, their hosts. It was not assumed, then, and in any case it was not announced in any open or hidden way to the natives, then, that these "guests" were about to stay forever "with" us.

In 1973, these long-term guests were allowed, and even encouraged, to "reunite" with their families already before their return back to their homelands. This was done out of "humanitarian" reasons. Again, it was not said openly, officially, that this measure was intended to be the first step to their permanent settlement. Over night, one "guest worker" mutated into a "family" of fifteen+ members, all of them health insured by the single one due paying head of the "family". Slowly, over the following 10 years, the term "guest workers" went into disuse, and instead the term "our fellow citizens" came up.

And now 44 years have elapsed. And we are told that we have now a "demographic problem". Yes, I think we do. That demographic problem started in 1955, and it became worse ever since. That is to say: it was worsened deliberately.

What you can learn from that story is this: having had an "empire" is neither an excuse for, nor a protection against getting extirpated by your enemy.

David Cameron's great-great grandfather Emile Levita was an Ashkenazi Jew from Germany. That would make him like 1/16 Jewish.

Thank you so much for this invaluable background information! Always when I saw him I was wondering what that was, that made me loathe and distrust him. Now I finally know.

I am searching since a looong time for an English-, or any other man who would confirm similarly for W.C.

I'm sure he ticked "white British" on the census form. Very few people would question his ethnicity as not English.

Oh yes, I am absolutely sure he did so.

What do you think he might have done instead?

There's no such thing as total ancestral purity, for example going back many centuries or millennia people find all sorts of unexpected ancestors in their family tree.

You are wrong. I am sure there is no jew, and no negro, and no levantine in my ancestry even if I go back 1000 years.

Would I accept someone who is only 1/4 English in terms of ancestry as ethnically English: certainly not. However, 3/4? I would accept them because most their ancestry is English.

Actually, your personal opinion & preferences are irrelevant. We are talking here about the future of our folks, and our race.

But just for your information: in NS Germany, all half-jews were, for all practical purposes, legally on a par with Germans. This was a mistake, in my opinion. But the interesting administrative reason why this was so, was that there were already too many of them, and they were too mixed up with the natives.

At that time, as "too many" were seen 78k.

[Panchaea]

There is a logical flaw in your argument. If all these nice, loyal people are so deeply settled, nay, deep-rooted in British soil -- why should, and in fact how could they be opposed to British nationalism? They should all be good, active, or at least paying members of the BNP, shouldn't they? And even if the BNP did reject them -- their true, pure love for their "British fatherland" should make them support British nationalism, morally, and financially. (Because spending money is the only way for a British so show real commitment.)

Why? Because nationalism for too long has put hurdles in front of itself. We've scared away ethnic minorities. What we need is sensible nationalist parties, of the populist-type, that campaign against mass-immigration not based on ethnicity, but overcrowding on public services that negatively impacts immigrants themselves, and possibly environmental issues.

I'm not sure when anti-immigration became even right-wing; back in the 1960s and 70s it was left-wing greens who championed opposing overpopulation (e.g. Paul Ehrlich's "The Population Bomb") and this included recognising immigration in large numbers is a bad thing; Ehrlich would go on to serve on the board of advisors of the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

[Chlodovech]

I disagree since cultural nationalist parties still oppose mass-immigration. So they're the best chance we have of reducing immigration since they're 100% electorally palatable (not considered extreme to voters). I don't really see cultural nationalism being able to be smeared as Nazis, certainly that has never happened to UKIP.

But UKIP has certainly been denounced as islamophobic and racist (which is almost as bad as "neonazi") and makes them just as unacceptable in the eyes of people who would reject ethnonationalist parties as well.

Farage is literally Hitler and the UKIP is neofascist in the eyes of deluded leftist Britons though, they've been smeared that way and every other possible way. UKIP seemed to be apologizing for potential racism most of the time, which is typical for cultural nationalist parties. Fearful as they are of the media, the state, the left... they're constantly trying to prove how they're not racists. Jack Buckby, a relatively "famous" British cultural nationalist - who completely embraces the idea - constantly has to fight against the nazi label too.

UKIP and cultural nationalists are weak because they fundamentally agree with the left's view of the world and mankind, at best they ignore race, at worst they actively work against native Englishmen by integrationist policies (which do not, for instance, end crime or job worries). Cultural nationalists simply propose a few corrections to the system, ethnonationalists want to replace it because the system has no room for us. And also because it's doubtful ethnonationalism would have a future in a state which does not change its constitution.

Cultural nationalism would've been okay in the Fifties and Sixties, but by now there are too many migrants to integrate without losing our own ethnic identities. Even if mass migration completely stops, all our problems would remain the same due to the presence of enormous amounts of foreigners in the West. They will integrate us, not the other way around.

A party or a movement which remains faithful to its principles will always be rewarded eventually, there's nothing as ugly and shameful as a politician or a movement deserting their own principles, it's a stigma that never goes away. You must look beyond today, beyond what is - indeed, people care less about race than they ever did before, but that may change again too. So let ethnonationalists do their thing, perhaps independently from cultural nationalists.

Also: at times it seems as the entire world is against us, as if 90% of any given western population is against ethnonationalism, but don't be demoralized or beguiled by the media creating this illusion. Most people aren't very politically minded and they could easily lend their support to an ethnonationalist government as much as they support any other government, provided their basic needs aren't neglected. I would say over half of Germans, Englishmen and Dutchmen would not mind it at all if an ethnonationalist government was in power instead of a liberal one, due to apathy, and they'd probably appreciate the ethnonationalists more because we do provide a clear answer to the cultural, social and economic questions, we know how to end the division once and for all: through repatriation. The common people may learn to love their ethnonationalist government or system.

That our ideas are the ideas of a minority is neither a surprise or a problem per se, the same could be said about convinced liberals, conservatives socialists and capitalists, they too are a minority. It's a given, it's something one has to accept: political dominance is a minority thing, a small gang of people dominates an entire country with their ideas. And they would easily lose support if they aren't able to meet the basic needs of their base during a national crisis. In such dramatic circumstances ethnonationalists may still come to power in some countries, just like communists might. Our time will come if we remain steadfast in our beliefs.

When the ethnonationalist analysis of the present and the future is correct - and diversity is wrong - then we will be rewarded. When the U.K. becomes a full blown third world country because of mass migration, then and only then can we discover whether ethnonationalism and ethnic Europeans have a future or not. I don't doubt for a minute that ethnonationalists would have massive support amongst the remaining native Britons if the U.K. is largely a multi-ethnic disaster area. At that point no-one will listen anymore to cultural nationalists or leftists.

OK, but I don't think there's a strong correlation between those statistics and people opposing immigration based on ethnicity/race. From the data I've seen for UK (Ipsos MORI's Social Research Institute ["Public Attitudes to Immigration"]
and Migration Watch): the vast majority of people who oppose mass-immigration do so because of the negative impacts it has on public services (e.g. transport like trains have become too overcrowded), and competition for jobs. There are some cultural concerns, but most people are more concerned with the former two, overcrowding and economy. I guess the cultural concerns are based on things like parents being fed up with sending their children to schools with dozens of different languages spoken in the classroom; some state schools in England now have English as a secondary language.

I strongly suspect that these people with purely cultural and economic objections aren't completely honest with themselves or that they're race realists on an entirely subconscious level. I can't prove that though, and there are certainly people who are cucked enough to only care about the quality of the education of their children because they're their children, but it's certainly something to consider.

Reasons given for why the number of immigrants coming to Britain should be reduced and % of support for these reasons, based on Citizenship Survey (2011):

* 37% (Job competition, i.e. immigrants are taking jobs from British people)
* 35% (immigration causes overcrowding/pressure on public services)
* 16% (there's a housing shortage; immigrants are taking homes that should go the British people first)
* 8% (immigrants abuse welfare system)
* 3% (The country is losing its national identity - it needs to maintain British culture and customs)

Ethnicity doesn't really come into it; "national identity" in most people's minds will be cultural, rather than ancestry.

Yes, and quite understandable, but I would disagree with that conclusion with what I know about the survey. There are several question marks. Grievances almost have to revolve around social/cultural/economic issues by definition - but an ethnonationalist doesn't accept a distinction between culture and ancestry, nor between race and ethnicity. To an ethnonationalist cultural problems are fundamentally the result of racial diversity or ancestry.

But was "white genocide" an option in this survey? I would think it wasn't if not mentioned at all. And it's no surprise: if I look at official petitions or even simple online surveys to discover your own political compass, then they never ask questions related to white genocide/ethnic genocide through migration.

If the people who participated in this survey had been asked "Do you mind Britons becoming an ethnic/racial minority inside the U.K?", do you think that less than 3% would've said they do mind? I certainly don't.

Also: what frightens many citizens the most is not even mentioned .. criminal foreigners! Crime doesn't even play a role in the survey. Do less than 3% of Britons care about crimes commit foreigners against them? The cultural issues such as diverse schools aren't mentioned either, and yet we know parents as a whole are worried about them.

The race problem does not exist in the liberal democratic mind, all the issues are at most considered cultural issues, which are decidedly the result of social and economic inequality according to the left. Race is the elephant in the room.

If race truly didn't play a role in people's minds - would the left and the center right have created this whole religion of anti-racism, with its own dogmas and saints and sinners? I would say race is the dominant factor in politics and evidently so, all cultural problems between ethnic groups are at least related to racial diversity and the left knows many a common man sees it that way too on a primal level - even if his anti-racism prevents him from supporting nationalists, a common man coming across a group of Pakistani doesn't make all these distinctions between race and religion, between natives and foreigners - he sees a bunch of aliens he may not particularly like, he knows they're not like us and that they represent trouble.

Most voters don't care about Islam: they aren't affected by it personally since they don't go in a mosque. What they are though concerned about is public transport being overcrowded because that delays or prevents them getting into and back from work. Voters only care about what personally affects them. That is what we have to tap into.

I agree, Wilders too is wrong to invest so much time in reading, quoting and critizing the Quran ... only libertarians and enlightenment extremists would care. It's a sort of hobby. But one doesn't win elections that way. I like to point out though that when Wilders makes ethnonationalist remarks ("Do you want more or less Moroccan migrants? Less! Less! Less!") he does benefit from it. What is true for Britain may not necessarily be true for other countries in this regard.

What is remarkable is the high % of British public who want immigration reduced. According to the 2014 British Social Attitudes Survey, 77% want to see immigration levels reduced, of those, 56% want to see it reduced "a lot", while 21% wanting to see it reduced "a little". In other words most people (more than half) want to see immigration levels massively cut, i.e. at least zero net-immigration (meaning a reduction of 300,000 immigrants every year.)

It's the same everywhere else in Western Europe, even in Germany 3/4th of the population feels this way. And 90% of my own countrymen are against letting the current refugee wave come to Belgium.

But if 56% of British public want to massively reduce immigration, why have nationalist/right-wing populist parties only obtained a small fraction of these voters? UKIP has done far better than the BNP, but even so, UKIP at their height only secured 13% of the total vote at the 2015 General Election, getting just a single candidate elected.

The British case is rather unique and winning WW2 has burdened the country with an "anti-nazi" complex. The BNP was electorally unimpressive, but UKIP didn't impress me either - and UKIP is dead now, although cultural nationalism may return. In Flanders cultural nationalist parties score at least 40% of the vote however.

[The Aesthete]

You’re wrong it does equate with ethnicity. London for example has a history of overcrowding and crime, but whites have only fled with the arrival of these other ethnic groups.

If I was culturally Chinese that would not make me Chinese and likewise for the ethnic English.

Regarding those who are a ¼ Indian or African as ethnic English is absurd and detrimental to ethnic English identity. Do you also regard a semi-circle as a circle?

Even if a cultural nationalist party came to power and astonishingly cut immigration it would not solve the problem. They would be indifferent to the plight of the ethnic English, erroneously regarding Indians, Africans etc. as all English. This would not decrease miscegenation with these groups, it would probably increase it as these other ethnicities would be more encultured under a cultural nationalist government. It would not also address the poor fertility rate of ethnic English women in comparison to other ethnic groups, because cultural nationalists believe they’re all English. So even if immigration was frozen it would do nothing to address the other factors which will see minority status and the eventual ruination of ethnic English identity.

The English culture usurped and their ethnicity absorbed away into other ethnic groups is the future that cultural nationalists find little issue with.

[Thornack]

personally and right now, I think we can better look at the cultural part, and see race as the following, there are a lot of different races, or "looks" or "make up"
and we must embrace how we are and don't throw away our identity's by mixing with africans or asians to take an example.

but you can not help these days we live in a multi cultural society, that had to be toke care of in a different time, and people should had known better that is would be a mess in the proportions of today's multi culti.

stil we can do the above and that will save a lot I think, but more then that is quite useless and it can never be turned back.

so I go for a little bit of the Ethnic, and more for the cultural Nationalism, because if you find out you have a jewish or even African forebear, would you give up the culture you give yourself 100% for?

just loo kat the jews in the Wehrmacht and even close to the nazi top

they toke the German nationality and saw that there were a lot of problems, and wanted to defend "their" lebensraum, they turned cultural German

[Chlodovech]

Regarding support for ethnonationalism in the U.S.: 4% of Anglos support UtR Charlottesville. Another quarter of them said UtR was right, but may have gone "too far". Almost one fifth "weren't sure". Women were overrepresented, as were independents and democrats. The "shy conservative/rightwinger effect" may also play a role in the survey's results.



To be fair, someone who doesn't purely rely on the MSM for information on the UtR manifestation knows conservatives were just as much present there as the alt-right was, with the K.K.K. and neonazis only representing a minor faction within the UtR. So it's almost certain the most rightwing elements within the G.O.P. and cultural nationalists also are behind UtR or that they would be behind it when they're aware of the truth.

[Spjabork]

Why? Because nationalism for too long has put hurdles in front of itself.

If we should talk here about British nationalism specifically, then the highest "hurdle" in front of it seems to me the mentality of the British people itself. The former owner of this Skadi board, Thorburn, told me once: "Who has no castle is no Englishman". And that exactly is the point: the "true" Englishman must me "estated", must be property-owning. Otherwise he is just a piece of scum. From that follows, first, that the problems of the British lower class, the proles, are not at all affecting the life & mind of the upper crust in any way. And it further follows, second, that each & any random alien may safely and fully become a respectable "Englishman", if only he is rich enough. This is the mindset of all the British people, no matter which side they are on, and this thinking runs through your brain all the time. Who is not by now himself belonging to the rich wants to belong to them one day. And only then he would become a true Englishman.

We've scared away ethnic minorities.

There is nothing wrong with scaring away ethnic minorities. Just scare them out of Britain altogether -- problem solved!

What we need is sensible nationalist parties, of the populist-type, that campaign against mass-immigration not based on ethnicity, but overcrowding on public services that negatively impacts immigrants themselves, and possibly environmental issues.

That won't work. Great Britain has a territory of 244 thousand square kilometers, on which as of today there live 65 million people. Hongkong -- which has been part & parcel of Great Britain for 155 years -- has a territory of 1 (one) thousand square kilometers, on which live 7 million people. Measured by this standard, there is still enough room in Great Britain for another 1'663 million people.

And let me add this: I have been to Hongkong, and I have seen there with my own eyes that even there are still vast void stretches of land, empty plots of ground, on which quite few more apartment complexes and/or highrises could be erected.

I'm not sure when anti-immigration became even right-wing;

Well, it depends on what you understand as "right-wing"? The British National Front was not earlier founded as 1967. Before that time, there simply did not exist any official "right-wing" party in Great Britain. But as soon as the BNF was founded, it was facing the alien-flood problem.

back in the 1960s and 70s it was left-wing greens who championed opposing overpopulation (e.g. Paul Ehrlich's "The Population Bomb")

"Green" and "left-wing" originally had nothing to do with each other. In Germany, the "Green Party" was founded by a highly conservative man, Herbert Gruhl. Only after he had already founded the party, and had succeeded in bringing it to the public's attention, it was first infiltrated and then soon thereafter unfriendly taken over by former communist street fighters.

and this included recognising immigration in large numbers is a bad thing;

No, it does not. This is a logical flaw. Being "opposed" to the "overpopulation" of the planet earth does in no way entail being opposed to immigration to Britain. On the contrary: every true Christenman, whose heart is beating for the miserable and the depraved, must help & feed them, as much and wherever he can!

On the other hand, the problem of planetary overpopulation is alleviated somewhat by the white people reducing their offspring. Because they, the white people, are the true destroyers of this planet and the wasters of its precious resources.

Ehrlich would go on to serve on the board of advisors of the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

Yeah, and the board as a whole abolished any immigration restrictions for negroes and asians, in 1967. On the other hand, white Europeans were discouraged the immigrate into the USA.

[The Aesthete]

The cultural nationalists fail to recognise that we will be the ones becoming assimilated. Cultural nationalists don’t care about immigration as long as the immigrants adopt the culture. Cultural nationalists don’t care about interracial mixing as it is racial and has nothing to do with English culture to them; they may even support it as these relationships better enculture. Cultural nationalists don’t care about the low fertility rate of the ethnic English or the high fertility rate of racial others in Britain as that is racial not cultural. To them an encultured (I prefer the term usurper) African/ Arab/ Asian is English full stop, they don’t care if the ethnic English perish as long as the culture which the ethnic English created is practised in the island named after the ethnic English.

Cultural nationalism is for cucks!

[Spjabork]

The cultural nationalists fail to recognise that we will be the ones becoming assimilated. Cultural nationalists don’t care about immigration as long as the immigrants adopt the culture. Cultural nationalists don’t care about interracial mixing as it is racial and has nothing to do with English culture to them; they may even support it as these relationships better enculture. Cultural nationalists don’t care about the low fertility rate of the ethnic English or the high fertility rate of racial others in Britain as that is racial not cultural. To them an encultured (I prefer the term usurper) African/ Arab/ Asian is English full stop, they don’t care if the ethnic English perish as long as the culture which the ethnic English created is practised in the island named after the ethnic English.

This idea came up in France during the revolution. It is forcefully propagated and pushed at present throughout western Europe. It would be interesting to know since when this idea became virulent in Britain (I guess since after the war), and why British people support it so much? I mean: what can British people get from this nonsense of mindlessly aping the French?