Ethno Nationalists are Leftists, Part 2

This is part 2. For proper context, please see part 1, where I cover definitions and actual similarities between Leftism and Ethnonationalism. Here, I’m looking to discuss the inherent flaws with the ideology.

Flaws with Race Realism:

So, in the previous part, I listed all the similarities I could think of. You could argue various points, sure, but the main underlying point will remain. They are very focused on race, and make their conclusions off of racial trends. Honestly, Ethno Nationalists are really just self interested Leftists, whereas Leftists are Ethno Nationalists that believe they need to “save” minorities. That’s the way I see it.

But now, we need to discuss exactly why Ethnonationalists, despite being more right than Leftists, are still wrong.

First, we have more accurate information for determining a person’s characteristics. Basing any sort of decisions such as voting rights or acceptance as an immigrant off of something as general as race is nonsensical. When you say a certain percentage of a race votes a certain way, why would you not restrict them based on how they will vote, especially if filtering by that criteria is your end goal anyways? It’s certainly possible, by checking things like education, financial status, and personal values. I mean, if you are already at the point of restricting immigration based on race, restricting it based on political leanings is far less arbitrary, since that seems to be the ultimate goal for people suggesting this kind of thing in the first place.

And as far as ethnic makeup goes, isn’t it a far bigger problem that white people aren’t reproducing at anywhere close to the same rate as other races? Personally, I think this is largely based on Leftist propaganda combined with a rise in secularism, and Ethno Nationalists might even agree with me on that. But reproduction rates are crucially important if you want a nation that actually lasts. Otherwise, your population dwindles, growing more elderly on average, until society starts to fail under the increased stress on social programs that accompanies such a trend. Additionally, reproduction rates function as an exponential growth model for any population, while immigration is only a geometric growth model. The focus I’ve seen on immigration when you would expect reproduction to not only be a bigger problem, but a far more manageable one by using simple tax incentives and reestablishment of family values, baffles me.

Continuing on this note, you also can’t choose your populace as a leader of… well, any country, really. Or, at least not without dictatorial control. Even if you wish for the ethnic makeup of America to be different, changing it is not an ability of a free society’s government, nor should it be. Again, it is a Leftist view of government to think that populations need to be managed in such a way. It’s right in step with most globalist agendas, at least in core principle.

Determining anyone’s rights via race is creating a de facto caste system. Race is not chosen like one’s actions are, so it is an inherently immoral way of assigning worth to a person. Or, at least that is the thought of most people focused on individual rights versus collectivist conformity. If you are insisting such a thing is necessary to maintain a free society, you are insisting a caste system is necessary to prevent creation of dystopian societies… such as one with a caste system. That’s nonsense.

Furthermore, dividing lines between races get heavily subjective. Are we going with the one drop rule? Is it anyone majority white, as in above fifty percent? Race is definitely an actual phenomenon, but what happens if someone who is otherwise an upstanding citizen in every way gets exposed as being not pure enough racially? Are they deported? What effect does that have on communities, especially if they leave behind relatives who are still racially pure enough? Do you deport entire families because of one person? What happens when people start forging their family tree documentation in order to game the system? What happens when the opposite starts occurring, and racial minorities are blackmailed once discovered, creating increasing corrupt institutions? Does all of that corruption not start to tear apart the very framework the ethno nation was built upon, as more citizens have pedigrees that do not accurately represent their genetics? Can not infiltration and subversion be accomplished in this way, with very little risk? Once people start getting paranoid of being deported because they aren’t pure enough, or because someone with power forged documents framing them as not pure enough, you get a complete breakdown of the social fabric.

Now, these are all tough questions to answer, and give only a small glimpse into the kind of authoritarian dystopia that a synthetically created ethno state begets. It only gets worse when you realize that other ethno states exist, and yet none of them are quite as powerful as America on the world stage, nor did any of them have to deal with a preexisting heterogeneous population. It’s almost like they can’t really grow beyond a certain point while maintaining that state enforced racial purity.

But one of the biggest contradictions in ethno nationalism is the very assumptions they make on demographics. A core argument is that white people are responsible for western civilization, and that without them, it would be impossible to replicate, as demographics are destiny. Assuming this is absolutely true… then you are still doomed, because that same white population allowed other races into the society to, according to race realists, weaken it. So, even asserting that white people by virtue of their race are the ones who pioneered first world, freedom oriented countries, you are then forced into accepting that it was white people who failed to prevent their own decline due to the same demographic voting trends. When thinking along these lines, you are stuck either admitting that white culture is fundamentally short lived and incapable of self preservation due to their own inevitable voting demographics, or you must contradict oneself by arguing we can CHANGE the voting trends of a racial group to achieve a better society, which then proceeds to undermine the very foundations of ethno nationalism.

I can’t overstate how colossal of a contradiction that is in the ethnonationalist’s argument. They are forced to hold a very clear double standard for white demographics, or they must acknowledge that racial demographics aren’t destiny. That’s ideology shattering, right there.

But The Final Twist:

It’s all self defeating.

You see, the problem is less what individual Leftists or Ethnos think. In fact, for efficiency I’ll call them all Leftists from this point forward. The problem is that they fundamentally misunderstand what kind of power they could, or should, have.

The main thing that connects them is this belief that they have a right to wield overarching control over people whom they do not have rightful authority over. Now, I’ve chatted with Anarchists quite a bit online, and they have this one simple idea when the issue of leadership in a anarchic society comes up. They assert that leaders must have voluntary followers, in which case such authority is valid under the NAP. That’s a bit of a summary, but one I hope they won’t object to. Now, I don’t fall lock step with Anarchists, but I will say this. I agree with them a lot more than I agree with Leftists.

A lot of problems are caused by giving people authority they don’t deserve over people that don’t require guidance. People will always resent an unnecessary manager, and such bloated bureaucracy will always make things run worse. This is why smaller government is better generally, because less power for the government means more autonomy for the citizenry. Leftists are absolutely opposed to this, and wish for the world to bend to their will. The conservative movement, or at least the fraction that is intellectually consistent and holding to America’s founding principles, is focused on smaller government because they believe people should largely handle their own affairs rather than be a slave to a state or society at large. That’s the fundamental of individualism; focus on your own actions rather than concerning yourself so much with trying to influence society.

That’s why I think people tend to become more conservative as they grow older. They realize that what some idiot across the country is doing has very little to do with them. It’s your family and friends that you should be focusing on, as they are infinitely more important. Unless you are a wildly popular and successful politician, you have very little power over most political matters. Even celebrities have less power than they think, mostly being able to bring a lot of attention to something, but they certainly aren’t capable of much social change that isn’t heavily influenced by other factors(like teenage rebellion against parents, following the latest trends, etc.)

I’ve always been conservative, but I only became politically active when I learned of the SJWs harassing normal people and trying to get them fired. I oppose collective groups being weaponized against the innocent. If all of that activity, or even just the vast majority, was stopped completely and totally tomorrow, I would probably tune out of most politics. I don’t care about all the drama anywhere near as much as I care about protecting my own freedom of thought. If we keep our rights from being infringed on, most of the details just don’t interest me as much.

And that seems to be the biggest thing that Leftists oppose. People stepping out of line, and having the occasional heterodoxical thought. And that is why, no matter what values they claim to espouse, they will always end up being opposed by those who love freedom and do not wish to abuse their fellow man.