Discover more from Polemics
"Because They Are Mine": Property & Ethnic Nationalism
The misconception that racial nationalism is linked with libertarianism and self-ownership
There is a quote by Japanese academic and “white advocate” Jared Taylor that presents us with a paradox in race realism and self-determination:
“It doesn’t matter if immigrants are smarter, better behaved, better looking, and superior to us in every way. I still don’t want to be replaced by them. I love the traditions of the West, not necessarily because they are superior, but because they are mine.”
While I can’t find the source of the quote, I found it in an unlikely place.
…From a power electronics album.
Yes. A transgressive, shock-jock noise act by the name of “Brethren,” who mimics the style of Whitehouse and latter-day Industrial acts, reprinted the quote in his 2012 album, Alienated And Radicalized.
These lyrics were printed to shock and offend the liberal audience that is invested in the transgressive youth culture of post-hardcore punk aesthetics.
These lyrics alone sound like what a patriotic and normal marching band would sing during a parade in New York City. Instead, they are repackaged like Christians trying to get into hardcore. I don’t see anything offensive with Jared Taylor or Kevin MacDonald, as I covered previously why power electronics are for immature, dumb white hipsters.
But the statement alone, “but because they are mine” got me thinking about the meaning of why someone becomes a die-hard white racial nationalist. It’s not necessarily linked with a subjective interest in Christian Lander’s SWPL (stuff white people like) culture or an interest in the things “the wrong kind of white people” like. Those are entry points. And yet, It’s hard to believe that there was a white nationalist pulp called The Birth of Prudence a decade ago about a white guy who denies race mixing and rather went to pursue a subjective interest in Western classical art. I even interviewed the author to get to the bottom of this irrationality. Still no answers. Where do I even begin with this “property” obsession?
I was fortunate to meet Jared Taylor in person for the first time in 2017, and I was overwhelmed by his presence. I admit, I’m a huge fan. I first discovered him through reading Shadows of the Rising Sun during my pursuit of the Japanese language and Asian Studies in 2011. It’s hard to imagine Edward Seidensticker, Donald Keene, and Jack Seward, or “The Boulder Boys,” all advocated Taylor at one point in time. If Taylor hadn’t focused his entire career on race realism, he would easily have taken the place of another “boy” from Boulder. Nonetheless, Taylor wasn’t fond of his Antifa hecklers, and dubbed them as “those dirty commies!” I remember laughing at his unusual tone of voice.
Similar arguments by so-called “ethnonationalists” or “plural nationalists for all peoples” are tainted by the spell of 2000s-era libertarianism and synthetic left hysteria. While one can believe that race is real and that there is no doubting it, that still does not mean one should become a hardcore, anti-leftist, and reactionary. What is interesting is the political right adapted race realism into their milieu, while the political left still upholds strict nature-denying egalitarianism.
Realize that both political parties are subcultural distractions and meant to divide and rule, rather than progressing human civilization forward. Somehow in this equation, the political left thinks “progress” means unrealistic transhumanism, social Malthusian population control, and isolated individualism within a resentful police collective acting upon “the people’s will.” That is, “progress” for the political right means uploading class, continuing capitalism, enforcing a whites-only liberalism, and creating gated communities for the Platonic “elites” with an “ethnocratic” basis. It sounds exactly like the Dennis Prager fantasy of returning to a 1950s America. This is ultimately found in the ethics of libertarianism, and more importantly, propertarianism.
What exactly is a “propertarian?” It’s the libertarian idea that reduces all questions of ethics to “the right to own property.” But what exactly is property? Accordingly, so, property also means belonging to one’s ethnic group, or race, as self-ownership. A propertarian has the right to defend his racial interest as a form of property within libertarian thought and logic.
I’m not going to go all over the inner details of what Mises, Rothbard, or the Austrian school of economics wrote about, but the investment into their thinking details and justifies “property” as a human right, and therefore, race as a form of property. Propertarians, and the whole school of libertarians, therefore must defend the interest of racial preservation on the lines of self-ownership.
However, the paradox here is that whiteness is not a race. In other words, the admixture European people, especially in America, are deracinated from other concrete European ethnic groups, and share no similarities with French, German, Irish, etc. What white people are, is a generic malaise of divided interests. Jared Taylor wrote a book, White Identity: Racial Consciousness in the 21st Century, as a means to find a single, solid identity within admixture European people. What is “pro-white” could also be a policy of finding a unifying monoculture and ethnic background among many divided subcultures within “whites.” Hence the global elite calls this behavior, “white supremacy.” It is not so much one race wants to rule over everyone else, but the projection of white values is the axiom of a single white race.
Even so, after establishing a white race, the same admixture European people had to support and advocate solid European ethnic groups too, and support their racial self-determination against the state. Unfortunately, French, German, Irish, and other ethnic groups are not guaranteed to ever support or advocate an egalitarian white race project and may wish to preserve a race behind being only French, German, Irish, etc. This is the ultimate problem with white nationalists, as they support the many racial nationalisms of other ethnic groups, including those European groups who wish to harm others. As if there ever was an “Asian race” trying to protect the interests of Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese, all while ignoring the triad of hostility among each other.
Furthermore, in my own opinion, why should I be interested in things which are not mine? What white people like that most is not in my interest, and as someone who is a North American admixture European person, what white people like tends to irk me, and all of it is not worth saving.
You can have Insane Clown Posse, monster trucks, black ink tattoos, and Trader Joe’s, because these are rather subcultural consumer products and not related to the whole of “the white race.” What is mine, however, is determined by my background and interests. I am not being “cuckolded” if I race mix, because as libertarian logic states, it is related to the environment I exist in, which is mine.
Imagine African people subscribing to propertarian thought. Subjectively, they may like the nation-states of Angola, Sudan, Mali, and Ethiopia, but when it comes to the objective superior notion that these countries also have a lower quality of life and unlivable environments, why would any African secure these places as a moral right and say “these are my countries worth defending!” They wouldn’t! Instead, they would rather assimilate to a rich European country and ask for the same benefits these societies have. You can call that a “replacement,” as written in the 1975 French novel, The Camp of the Saints.
An African wouldn’t be pretentious and proclaim the immigrants as being “smarter, better behaved, better looking, and superior to us in every way.” Immigrants wouldn’t be flocking to Africa in numbers. Rather, the Africans want to become smart, better-looking, and superior through European assimilation. Is it wrong that he wants to become a better person through a culture that isn’t his? This is what libertarianism can’t fathom.
Supposedly, a love for African traditions can only be stirred up by someone who is African. Jared Taylor might softly admit that Jews or the Japanese have a higher IQ than white people but is still stubborn enough to project the “traditions of the West” simply because it’s his. Exactly, what is mine that was created for me? Does a biracial child own two traditions more than one? Or is the biracial child pushed as being an inauthentic outsider and must pursue a new civilization that he or she has to build? I’m sure if there was a half-black, half-white man or woman, he or she would choose the racial group that gives him or her the best welfare, and like a Swiss army knife, switch and project racial interests that could maximize his or her quality of life at any given moment in the host society.
The argument shouldn’t even be about property or self-ownership. Racial nationalism is when the nation is aligned with the dominant ethnic group or race, that seeks out a society and civilization for their interests and future survival for the whole of humanity. It isn’t some immature argument around, “Well, I like being Asian because I like anime, and that means I have to advocate being ‘Asian’ for the world to produce more anime and small nook-and-cranny shit I like.” Wrong. The entire semantics and logic are flawed!
Race realism does not belong in the realm of property, nor should it ever be ghettoized in the political right and its crony subculture. Even worse is that a power electronics punk thought that a basic understanding of race and ownership is somehow transgressive and sadist, which is downright wrong and pathetic.
Leave Jared Taylor out of the punk rock collage art. Period.
Brethren is advocating that liberal morality is supreme and that anything criticizing liberalism leads to being a violent criminal. Sure, I like to roleplay as this Joker type just to piss off liberals sometimes, but it’s just not cool or sincere when some dipshit hipster thinks race realism and Jared Taylor is somehow transgressive like a serial killer or disgusting porno.
Brethren is no different from a propertarian. Conservatism was never transgressive to begin with. This political framing by Brethren is dishonest. The creation of feelings around ownership somehow related to race realism and violent rage is wrong. Race is a reality, but not a means of property. I want to defend and uphold the values I see as significant against the interests of a created race, that isn’t mine, that acts as my representation. What is “non-white” is also a bad semantic, assuming what is “white” is a group of mixed meat multicultural Europeans, and what is “non-white” could very well mean Italians as a race. If one represents “white” interests, they represent a classist subculture and not a hegemonic culture. What has to be immediately defined is the race and not the classification of interests.
The concept of a “nationalist” has changed drastically through accelerating technology, consumer culture, and virtual reality. The same could be said about “socialism,” which has been coopted as a form of democratic reform in America. Thus being a “national socialist” would imply a nationalist urge and a socialist economy, outside the realm of race.
To assume that race has the highest priority over the problems of capitalism or the nation-state, one no longer belongs to either faction of the political right or left. They should be seen as some kind of Heideggerian advocate related to the interests of “human biodiversity” and “authentic” living. These types are no different from Green activists, deep ecologists, and animal liberation lunatics. I would further classify them as highly religious people invested in a bastard form of martyr Christianity and “the church” as a place of habitual worship.
Pathological altruism is a real trait among admixture European people. The charity to simply “save the Whales” and relate it to “save the white people” is not only downright pretentious and full of virtue signaling, but acts upon a fake paternalism. What was “white” before was the conservative values of the 1950s and not exactly that of racial interests. Today, “white” might as well mean being half-Asian, or Eurasian, as belonging to a new “white” race. But again, is being mixed really “white?”
My ownership is not interested in what those whites did, nor do I claim ownership over what Chinese people did. People like Rachel Dolezal assume ownership over a group that isn’t theirs, and honestly, that is quite common among any assimilator or alien new to a host society. They call it being “transracial” for a reason, just so they can push transhumanism altogether. We know it’s wrong because it's inauthentic, but what exactly is ownership here? What is “authentic” to the self? A majority of Japanese academics, in addition to their mandatory race mixing, are trans-racialists.
Race mixing is a human right. The action is masculine and assertive. It’s the beginning of any future people. The children can proclaim a unique ownership over a new identity. What is mine is where my desires lead me. I want to defend the interests I see fit, for me and my associates, against all hostile forces.
It’s easy to understand. You don’t need the exploitative concept of “property” in this equation.
Why should I ever feel guilty over my actions?