Note: The below referenced Daily Braap episode is presently unavailable. If and when it goes back online, this post will be updated accordingly.
As arises from any time of internal conflict, this year’s turmoil on the Dissident Right has produced various demarcation lines.
These disjunctures are such that, our political sphere can be accurately divided into three sub-groups. These include:
1) The explicitly identitarian, amoral Right;
2) Traditionalists tending to eschew White identity; and
3) Those that synthesise both identitarianism and traditionalism into a comprehensive world view.
Today, we will review some typical arguments associated with group 2, after a Daily Braap episode which generally disparaged White identity.
In this episode one explicit objection came from ‘Alfie’, a regular panel member. At 1.12.38, he asked “Why entertain the notion that we should identify as White?” Alfie cited his Irish-French heritage, disputing any shared plight with Scandinavians and Italians who are “outside of my culture.” By this Alfie bears the tone of E. Michael Jones: submitting ethnic identity is legitimate, whereas racial identity is not.
Contrary to this, racial identity is foundationally legitimate from the perspective of genetic similarity theory. Race consists of identifiable genetic clusters within human populations; from which, greater cooperation, altruism, affection and harmony all follow among members of a shared race.
Of course co-ethnics–Italians, Irish, Poles–have greater levels of genetic similarity, thus providing a greater basis for political action. It is also for this reason that desires to protect one’s family surpass those of protecting one’s ethnic group. Nonetheless, simply because one devotes their main efforts towards family does not render their ethnicity immaterial. In the same sense, an attachment to ethnicity does not logically and should not practically preclude an attachment to race.
If a scenario arose whereby people were forced to choose between loyalty to ethnicity or race, the former–especially in ethnically homogenous European countries–would be better rooted and placed to prevail. Fringe racial imperialists aside (eg. Richard Spencer), identitarians do not wish to diminish ethnicity for racial reasons. Consequently, racial and ethnic identity should not be regarded as incompatible: their undergirding logic reinforce one another.
At 1.19.00 another figure, Dave Reilly, discussed 19th century intra-European conflict in the United States. “There were race riots in Connecticut. It was all White… People died.” The implication being, past European conflict undermines the validity of White identity.
This is a reasonable point, underscored by the European bloodshed of World War One and World War Two. As it is substantiated identitarians can be fairly demanded to answer this challenge. Yet it can be resolved by putting such European quarrels within their proper context. French and Germans have ethnic, cultural, political and historical dissimilarities, of course. However, Franco-German similarities and shared interests are significantly higher than those with any non-European group.
Yes, the two World Wars yielded unprecedented tragedy. But since this era of global European hegemony, circumstances have radically shifted, thus necessitating a fresh outlook towards ethnicity and race. By this century’s end, Nigeria’s population is set to surpass the total European population (alongside Africa’s utterly uncontrollable population growth). Given the tsunami of non-White immigration these trajectories portend, and our foreseeable extinction, it is preposterous to excessively emphasise European dissimilarities–even those observed from past ethnic riots or World Wars. For to do so recklessly overlooks our far broader shared interests.
Another noteworthy point was made at 1.08.00, by ‘Father Groypland’. He opined that older White Americans do not conceive themselves in racial terms, implying White identity is a recent, artificial invention. To an extent this is a veracious claim: older generations often lack the racial consciousness of young people. In January 2019, this concept of a new ‘White’ generation was poignantly symbolised by the Covington Catholic kids’ controversy.
Having acknowledged that, it is mistaken to see White identity as a latter-day, arbitrary creation.
As explained above, genetic similarity sustains the legitimate basis of racial identity. This basis remains whether particular individuals or societies are conscious of it. So, an absence of awareness, is not necessarily equivalent to that thing not existing. A few analogies may be excused in developing this concept.
Catholicism has a distinct and marked identity. This was probably unclear to most people in 11th century England–they knew of little else in a Catholic country. But in 21st century England, a country of many religious views–atheist, protestant, Islamic, Hindu, Jewish–Catholicism takes on an easily distinguishable character. Likewise, in all-boys schools, this environment tends to lower an immediate sense of male consciousness. This certainly does not mean that males lack distinct essences; when brought into direct contact with females, their nature starkly comes to light. Thus, irrespective of an identity’s inducement by circumstances, that identity’s underlying basis will often still subsist.
Relevantly for racial identity, Western society has drastically changed since the normatively White 1970’s, when most Baby Boomers came of age. In 2019, multi-racialism is threatening to upend the numerical and institutional influence of European majorities. As this existential threat continues to intensify, in turn, White consciousness will (and should be encouraged to) rise. While activated by modern conditions, this process clearly draws upon prior dormant sources of racial identity for sustenance.
There is another pertinent point worth making (which Dave Reilly alludes to but does not defend). If a being or entity is attacked on specific grounds, to effectively counter this, it must respond on the verge of this attack. Because Whites are maligned on a racial basis, to halt associated persecution, we must respond in kind. Just as naval attacks require retaliation at sea, nothing but a racial-counter offensive is sufficient to slow down or stop anti-White dispossession. As Sam Francis put it,
If we do not hang together — not only as members of a common nation but also as part of a common race, a common people — then most assuredly we will all hang separately.
One final factor carries particular application for the United States and Australia, enhancing the feasibility of racial identity politics. Which is our contemporary demographic realities. There was a time when our countries were overwhelming English settlements–which for Australia started shifting after World War Two. Before this ethnic transformation, ‘White identity’ might not have made enormous sense, with an Anglo majority still holding sway.
But the age of Anglo-Australia, sadly, is irretrievably gone. Probably just 30 % of the population could be easily identified as Anglo-Australian, as many have hitherto mixed with other European ethnics: Irish, Italians, Dutch, Germans, Greeks, Slavs, etc.
As we have developed into a quasi-melting pot for different European groups, from this has emerged the concept of a common White Australian. This means White identity is a legitimate potentiality for most Australians. On the other hand, a resurgence of ethnically-based action is not. This is because an explicitly Anglo-Australian advocacy is either numerically impractical, or hollow for many–who are the product of European admixture. For this reason, White identity is an overwhelmingly felicitous course.
Coming back to the Daily Braap episode, a salient line was struck by Dave Reilly, assuring listeners “You could be so much more than White.” Despite this post’s title and theme, in this Dave Reilly is absolutely correct. People can be so much more than White: race alone is insufficient to sustain a fulfilling individual and group identity. Importantly, race cannot provide meaningful answers on the questions which pervade human existence, therefore, it is no panacea to nihilism or personal difficulties.
Caveats aside, there is no good case from the Right that philosophically discredits the role of White identity. Accordingly, we should not shy away for citing it where shared interests and affinities exist–as does every other healthy, respectable people.