Is White Nationalism Destroying The West?

Submitted by Ryszard Witek

The New York Times recently ran an article that, at first glance, looked like it could be interesting.  The author Sasha Polakow-Suranksy produced an article titled “White Nationalism Is Destroying the West“.

My curiosity was piqued, I must admit.

A provocative and audacious thesis, I was looking forward to see the case he made.  Unfortunately the author doesn’t deliver the goods.  His article not only lacks original insights, worse it completely fails to even address the claims of the villains, the White Nationalists.  Instead we are treated to a few anecdotes about various deplorable right-wingers, while the author merely states his thesis over and over again:  White Nationalism will ruin Western liberal democracy.

A more honest and interesting article would have been simple to write.  At root we have a set of conflicting claims.  The author’s claim is clearly stated in the title of his essay.  The claims of the White Nationalists are never clearly stated or evaluated in the article, only hinted at, then mocked and dismissed.

Still, the claims of the White Nationalists are simple enough to find.  They can be summarized as:  “White Civilization will be destroyed by large waves of racially, religiously, and culturally alien immigrants.”

A better article might have tried to evaluate both claims. So let’s do what the journalist class refuses to do for them, here and now.

Stipulating for the sake of discussion that the authors warning is true, what are we likely to face if we lose ‘liberal democracy’ in our nations?  What will the average citizen’s life be like in a post-democratic western nation where White Nationalism’s pernicious goals have been fully realized?

And, contra-that, what happens if we lose our civilization itself.

If the White Nationalist’s claim that we will be washed away by a tsunami of immigration turns out to be true.   What sort of world will that be for ourselves and our progeny?

The author’s worry is a future West that loses its “liberal democracy”, having fallen into some other type of political organization, under the influence of White Nationalist philosophy.   Perhaps France becomes a dictatorship, or Holland takes up military rule, maybe Spain returns to the rule of their King? These sorts of outcomes are anathema to the author, to be deeply feared and opposed.  But are they really that horrible?

I think that many White Nationalists, in truth, would find these outcomes acceptable, and maybe even preferable to a future where the form of the political system is maintained, but the essence of the nation is lost.  And, it is likely that many ordinary French, Spanish or Dutch would prefer the nation to survive, rather than the political system currently in place.   France’s glorious history as a Nation extends back as far as 486 AD. The current political system, which Sasha is so worried about, dates to only to 1952, being generous, or perhaps to 1968 if one considers the revolution of that year a successful one, as many do.

Nations changing political systems is a regular feature of European History.  The nations affected by repeated changes in their form of government have still always remained a part of the West, a part of our European civilization.  Forty years of Poland being ruled as a Communist dictatorship did not ruin Poland, it still exists and is experiencing a renaissance.  The dictator Franco ruled Spain from 1936 to 1975, before, during and after his rule Spain was still Spain.  The essence of a nation may be reflected in a long-standing political system, but it is not the core of the nation.  At least not to most citizens.

Of course, the entire concept of Democracy is that majorities mold their laws to suit their beliefs.   So whether French cooking would be legal in a majority Muslim “France” when it violates many Sharia precepts is an open question.  It seems likely under the scenario that Sasha Polakow-Suransky favors that eventually the “liberal” part of the democracy will fade away under the pressure of the aggressive alien culture.  Gay rights is unlikely to survive in a majority Muslim state, especially one where laws are decided by popular votes.

Let us now evaluate the claims of the White Nationalists.

Their claim is: if present trends of mass immigration continue the West will soon no longer be the West.  France will no longer be French in any important sense when 70% of its people are Islamic Africans and Middle Easterners.

This claim is so simple that it takes extreme contortions to even try to invalidate it.   The author doesn’t bother but goes back to attacking his straw man, the horrors of the end of liberal democracy.

The authors preference for a ‘Western State in Name Only’, where some semblance of the old law remains, but the people and culture have been superseded, over a ‘Western State without Liberal Democracy’ probably has a lot to do with his background and position.  He is a first-generation Jewish. immigrant to the United States.

A rootless cosmopolitan if you prefer.

It is not too surprising that he prefers an outcome which preserves the mechanism of “liberal democracy”, which as currently understood includes an almost pathological over-emphasis on the rights of ‘others’, outsiders, newcomers, and minorities.

One can certainly understand a native born French, Polish or American citizen being quite unimpressed with the trade-off being suggested.   Better from our point of view to throw over a failing political system, but save the homeland itself.

For most Jews, who do not see themselves first as “French” or “American” but rather as members, first and foremost, of their Jewish tribe his position makes sense.   Maintaining nations that are open to ‘others’ may well be the highest political goal for members of immigrant tribes.  Maintaining the essential character of the nation itself, of little or no importance.

But there is no reason offered why a White citizen of a Western nation should favor this policy.  Endless heckling by the author substitutes for any sort of logical argument against natives favoring nationalism.   (Interestingly Jews in Israel are pretty fanatic about Israel remaining “The Jewish State”, and most would laugh at the idea that Jewish Nationalism is a danger to Israel.  In fact Jewish Nationalism (Zionism) created Israel.)

And so it goes.

In America outspoken voices of the Tribe, like the Neocons, repeatedly tell us that America is a “proposition nation”, that merely liking some vague idea of America is what makes us all Americans.  I say vague, because it keeps getting more vague all the time.

The Weekly Standard crew liked to pretend that love of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were the signifying traits of Proposition Nationalism, at least in the Bush era.  But now, more and more, as the Left deconstructs the Founders as racist slave-owners, and denigrates American heroes like Robert E. Lee, adherence to a set of quintessentially American values is not a prerequisite for membership in the nation.

As the Alt-Right often says: “America is a shopping mall”.

There is, according to the emerging left-right establishment consensus, no litmus test whatsoever for being American, no legal, racial, historical or philosophical test.  An illegal alien Chinese who snuck in on a container ship to work off the books in Chinatown, speaks no English, and has never heard of Thomas Jefferson, is just as American as a sixth generation American, whose family built up our great cities and fought in our many wars.

The reason the author is reduced to merely repeating his thesis over and over instead of evaluating the actual beliefs of the White Nationalists he denigrates is that he holds the losing hand.  Like the pushy woman in the airport line who keeps insisting “I have to catch my flight”, he is repeating the only argument he has, but it’s not compelling.

Finally, it’s interesting to look at this author’s background in some detail.  Where does the author of this breathless warning in the newspaper of record come from?  Who is Sasha Polakow-Suransky?  Wikipedia informs us that “He is the younger brother of Shael Polakow-Suransky; both are the children of Valerie Polakow and Leonard Suransky, South African Jews who were anti-apartheid activists in South Africa before emigrating to the United States in 1973 to avoid possible arrest.”

In 1973 South Africa still had the wherewithal to identify subversives and eject them for the good of the nation, but it was not enough.  The claims and agitation of people like the author’s parents took hold, and eventually carried the day.   Had the Polakow-Suransky family been allowed to stay in South Africa they would today find a nation that is all but uninhabitable for the Whites who created it and called it home for 400 years.

Here we see the outcome of citizen replacement, something which Sasha rejects as being a real concern for whites. The citizens of South Africa, all whites, built a society on a terribly flawed foundation of massive guest-worker labor.  Like America’s illegal immigrants, these guest workers were not afforded citizenship or voting rights.  This system, while flawed in allowing whites to become a minority in their own country, was able to build a society that functioned at a high level.  In the 1960s South Africa was considered a first world nation, like Canada, and gave us the first heart transplant, as well as  a space program.

In South Africa today, as a result of the end of the Apartheid system, the nation transitioned instantly from a white majority political system (where only the whites voted and had political power) to a black majority polity, where whites were reduced to a 20% minority in a country they had built and ruled for generations.   It is, therefore, the most instructive example of what we can expect in the West, should the White Nationalist claims prove true.

The New York Times themselves admit in an opinion piece published in 2015 “What Happened to South African Democracy”:

“For much of the black population, fear and despair arise out of the sense that while South Africa became a democratic nation after apartheid, in many ways very little has changed.”

But our main concern, using South Africa as an example, is how the whites citizens have faired. South Africa has created a kind of African parody version of “liberal democracy” that the author is so obsessed with.  Are the white South Africans threw in with the “liberal democracy” project pleased with their choice?

Clearly, the answer is that the situation of whites in South Africa has degraded terribly, as indeed it has for many blacks.  Beset by majority imposed legal impediments to employment, subject to an overwhelming crime and rape epidemic, stuck in a rapidly declining economy, terrorized and murdered on their farms, it is an appalling situation.  The fate of South African whites could not be a more poignant warning if it were created as fiction.  It is not fiction though, it is the terrible outcome of a nation that foolishly favored political form over national essence, and is paying the price for this foolish mistake with their children’s blood.

One is tempted to ask Sasha if his parents have any remorse, if they regret their role in replacing a functional first-world state with a failing African dystopia.   Regardless of the author’s feelings, astute readers should view his back story as an ominous preview of where this kind of myopic Jewish liberalism actually leads.

While Polakow-Suransky’s piece falls far short of providing a serious overview of his topic, it’s publication, particularly in the still influential New York TImes, serves the careful reader as a stark warning.  To avoid the sort of outcomes that his family helped bring about in South Africa we need to reject the obsession with form over essence.  We must not allow ourselves to be persuaded against taking our own side in things. We must not favor weak and poorly defined concepts like “liberalism”, or  even “liberal democracy” over the continued existence of our people and our nations.

Instead, we must insist on accurate and fair-minded evaluations of the claims of our home grown political dissidents, even those whom our elites freely demonize.  In rejecting the author’s cartoon level pronouncements we take an important first step, the journey’s completion requires we and find alternate and reliable sources which help us grow our understanding of the challenges and risks posed by the White Nationalist critique of the current order.

Guest Writer
the authorGuest Writer