Far right anti-colonialism

[mesonoxian]

Well they aren't hostile to history unless the groups have been fighting each other. When I say groups are hostile to each other, I mean their beliefs are incompatible. And while this can be a white nationalist dog whisstle, it isn't always and can be true. There are cultures where freedom of speech is sacrosanct, and there are cultures where blasphamy is a capital offense. There are diffrent standards on age of maturity and when one is able to have sex, there are tons of diffrent standards for diffrent things. Now not all cultures are opposed, but there are some cultures which have vast differances on topics that are very important to them and they cannot budge on, and won't be able to live peacefully and happily in the same nation with a group that is the opposite of that topic.

Also Lucius the Syrian was Roman, and looked down on the local ethnic Syrians. That's not multiculturalism, one culture is clearly held above all others. That's why your point about there being multi cultural nations in history is kind of false definitely false in practice. The most closest examples that actually achieved stable multi cultural ism are Ancient Persia, and the Ottomans. And the thing is not all ethnicities in those empires were equals. There was one in charge of them. And even this is not something I'd expect a western secular liberal to like. For example in the Ottoman Millet system (where religious minorities did have protections, but they were still not equal to Islam) there were certain recognized groups that the Empire gave protection to so the Muslims, Jews and Christians for simplicity. However this means that in needs to be somewhat hirearchial and not individualistic so that the Imperial government knows who the representatives of the groups are. So this means that in cities people were represented and had their interests looked after by either a Bishop, respectod elder Rabbi, or Imam. And for the most part the people governed themselves under their own laws. When a crime occured in a comunity that communities own laws would be used to deal with it. The ONLY time the central government got involved is if there was a matter of state like taxes being withheld, or someone from one community victimized someone else from another community. And THAT is how you can make a stable multi cultural society where no one steps on anyone elses toes for the most part.


Israeli's do have common history and religion they are all members of the Jewish faith, and a decent chunk of them have the experience of being oppressed minorities in other nations.
As for that last part, that deals with citizenship. But if you think about it your way of thinking can be pretty problematic, I understand dealing with Germany is delicate because of their history but we have to try to be fair and unbiased. So if you are saying there is no such thing as an ethnic/native German would you say the same of Americans that a Native American whose ancestors have been here for thousands of years is just the same as someone who landed at Jamestown, or someone fresh off the boat today? I mean legally sure, you can't make second class citizenships, but you have to be careful and recognize the rights of native peoples, because they can really get fucked hard. As the example of the Native Americans shows.

Click to shrink...

You're claiming "Lucius the Syrian" wasn't identified as Syrian. I think that's going to be a pretty hard sell. The Roman empire was most definitely a multicultural society. It was also a brutal, hierarchical, and authoritarian one. They didn't have equality among the various groups within the empire, but they did have more than one culture. But multiculturalism can just as easily be a union of distinct equals as a relationship between a metropole and subject peoples. Modern Canada, for example.

The Israelis don't all share a common religion. They practice different varieties of Judaism, some which do not recognize each other, and many Israelis are atheists, whether they are practitioners of Judaism or not. They share a common history, sure if you go back multiple millennia. So do most people at that point. And most Israelis these days were born there, and so even this shared refugee experience isn't a unifying factor. They are a single nation because they recognize themselves as such. No common history, language, or culture required.

I never said there weren't ethnic Germans. I said their citizenship laws weren't a sample of ethnonationalist policy.

 

[Arawn_Emrys]

So to summarize: monoethnic societies don't exist and have never existed above the most primitive small tribal level. Every attempt to create one has involved genocide or attempted genocide. And even attempting one is stupid, because all modern ethnicities are just the end result of older ones that interbred themselves until no differences remained.

Edit: hell, just look at the "WASP" it even notes in the name that they are a mix of two different peoples, although most these days actually add Norman into the mix as well.

 

[galahad]

Except that Japan is 1: a hodgepodge of old ethnic groups that white supremacists just can't tell apart, but which the Japanese can and do. 2: Is only not militaristic expansionist because it got the shit kicked out of it in the only actual use of nuclear weapons.

And Israel is in fact militaristic and expansionist right bloody now.

Click to shrink...

1) Ethno-nationalism does not mean mono-ethnic, it encompasses range of ethnic groups in that area. Japanese have a set number of islands and people from those islands they consider as part of their identity. And will not extend that to people from north America or Europe even if you naturalize (which is exceedingly difficult btw).

2) The point is Japan is able to act as an ethno-state while pursue a fruitful existence as a peaceful, productive member of the world community. And you also have to look at other countries, South Korea is also an ethno-state, are they out conquering anyone ? What about Poland ? Most countries in the world are some form of ethno-state, ethno-natonalism is not imperialism. Quite to contrary the modern idea of ethno-nationalism developed to an extent as rejection of imperialism, people from past empires that broke up formed new states based on ethnic identity instead of loyalty to a crown. See for instance the countries of eastern Europe that emerged from past empires that encompassed those regions and pursued self determination as homeland for their peoples.

That's exactly why I brought up Israel, though? Because it is nominally an "ethnostate" but the "ethnicity" doesn't match any of the criteria (language, genetics, culture, etc.) that ethnonationalists usually try to sub in when someone points out how silly their Romantic conception of race is. It wouldn't make sense if the ethnonationalists didn't cite them. Also, Japan isn't especially homogeneous. As usual, ethnonationalist arguments are based in ignorance, willful or otherwise, of the actual complexities of the situation.

Click to shrink...

Well Israel seem to treat Jewish is an ethnic identity based on descent from one of the recognized Jewish groups. To be recognized as a Jewish person you have to prove matrilineal descent for four generation (seven in case of Ethiopian Jews). Converts to Judaism are treated differently from those of Jewish descent, they have to go through great many hoops to obtain Israeli citizenship, and their overall status seem to be a point of contention and they face discrimination.

When the idea of bringing Ethiopian Jews to Israel happened, a lot of work including genetic and cultural studies had to be done to show their link to ancient Israelites and have their ethnic group be accorded status as one of the recognized Jewish groups, and that is how support for this project was created. And there remains discrimination and skepticism in Israeli society about Ethiopian Jews by those who question the veracity of Beta Israel's claim of being descended from ancient Israel. Or see how the Black Hebrew Israelite's are not recognized as Jewish by Israel, even though many of them have been living in Israel since the 1960s.

Also, "German ancestry" doesn't mean participation in the mystical essence of Germany. It means having a German citizen as a parent. They don't to be "Germanic" as you seem to be implying. Germany also recognizes jus soli citizenship, so it is entirely possible for the children of foreigners living in German to become citizens, and at that point, their children born abroad would have equal claim to German citizenship as the descendants of people who'd lived in Thuringia since the fall of Rome.

Click to shrink...

You are talking about the current German republic, where German nationality is reduced to a piece of paper. I was talking about what a hypothetical ethno-nationalist form of Germany might look like. Which would be about ethnic Germans and other ethnic groups indigenous to Germany.

Germans - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Arawn_Emrys]

1) Ethno-nationalism does not mean mono-ethnic, it encompasses range of ethnic groups in that area. Japanese have a set number of islands and people from those islands they consider as part of their identity. And will not extend that to people from north America or Europe even if you naturalize (which is exceedingly difficult btw).

2) The point is Japan is able to act as an ethno-state while pursue a fruitful existence as a peaceful, productive member of the world community. And you also have to look at other countries, South Korea is also an ethno-state, are they out conquering anyone ? What about Poland ? Most countries in the world are some form of ethno-state, ethno-natonalism is not imperialism. Quite to contrary the modern idea of ethno-nationalism developed to an extent as rejection of imperialism, people from past empires that broke up formed new states based on ethnic identity instead of loyalty to a crown. See for instance the countries of eastern Europe that emerged from past empires that encompassed those regions and pursued self determination as homeland for their peoples.



Well Israel seem to treat Jewish is an ethnic identity based on descent from one of the recognized Jewish groups. To be recognized as a Jewish person you have to prove matrilineal descent for four generation (seven in case of Ethiopian Jews). Converts to Judaism are treated differently from those of Jewish descent, they have to go through great many hoops to obtain Israeli citizenship, and their overall status seem to be a point of contention and they face discrimination.

When the idea of bringing Ethiopian Jews to Israel happened, a lot of work including genetic and cultural studies had to be done to show their link to ancient Israelites and have their ethnic group be accorded status as one of the recognized Jewish groups, and that is how support for this project was created. And there remains discrimination and skepticism in Israeli society about Ethiopian Jews by those who question the veracity of Beta Israel's claim of being descended from ancient Israel. Or see how the Black Hebrew Israelite's are not recognized as Jewish by Israel, even though many of them have been living in Israel since the 1960s.



You are talking about the current German republic, where German nationality is reduced to a piece of paper. I was talking about what a hypothetical ethno-nationalist form of Germany might look like. Which would be about ethnic Germans and other ethnic groups indigenous to Germany.

Germans - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

Click to shrink...

Define "ethnic german", hell define ethnonationalist, because your arguments are defining it differently than anyone who's ever advocated for it. And you need to do some goddamn research on Japan. And on Israel. Both have conflicts even among the parts of the "one ethnic group" that you consider them to have. What about the Ainu? Or when they create their own separate subcaste in the eta/burakumin that they define as a separate ethnicity even within the main ethnicity?

Are Celts "ethnic germans"? They have similar origins. How about the French, descended from the Gauls? Where is the line? At what point in history do the divergences start counting and the mixing together stop counting?

 

[mesonoxian]

1) Ethno-nationalism does not mean mono-ethnic, it encompasses range of ethnic groups in that area. Japanese have a set number of islands and people from those islands they consider as part of their identity. And will not extend that to people from north America or Europe even if you naturalize (which is exceedingly difficult btw).

2) The point is Japan is able to act as an ethno-state while pursue a fruitful existence as a peaceful, productive member of the world community. And you also have to look at other countries, South Korea is also an ethno-state, are they out conquering anyone ? What about Poland ? Most countries in the world are some form of ethno-state, ethno-natonalism is not imperialism. Quite to contrary the modern idea of ethno-nationalism developed to an extent as rejection of imperialism, people from past empires that broke up formed new states based on ethnic identity instead of loyalty to a crown. See for instance the countries of eastern Europe that emerged from past empires that encompassed those regions and pursued self determination as homeland for their peoples.



Well Israel seem to treat Jewish is an ethnic identity based on descent from one of the recognized Jewish groups. To be recognized as a Jewish person you have to prove matrilineal descent for four generation (seven in case of Ethiopian Jews). Converts to Judaism are treated differently from those of Jewish descent, they have to go through great many hoops to obtain Israeli citizenship, and their overall status seem to be a point of contention and they face discrimination.

When the idea of bringing Ethiopian Jews to Israel happened, a lot of work including genetic and cultural studies had to be done to show their link to ancient Israelites and have their ethnic group be accorded status as one of the recognized Jewish groups, and that is how support for this project was created. And there remains discrimination and skepticism in Israeli society about Ethiopian Jews by those who question the veracity of Beta Israel's claim of being descended from ancient Israel. Or see how the Black Hebrew Israelite's are not recognized as Jewish by Israel, even though many of them have been living in Israel since the 1960s.



You are talking about the current German republic, where German nationality is reduced to a piece of paper. I was talking about what a hypothetical ethno-nationalist form of Germany might look like. Which would be about ethnic Germans and other ethnic groups indigenous to Germany.

Click to shrink...

Germany had an attempt at ethnonationalism. As I understand it, it went poorly. What possible good would their be in declaring that people whose families have been out of Germany for centuries have more of a claim on the place than people born there or whose parents lived there? I mean, they could do that, but why would they?

Also, Japan is still not homogeneous. Poland isn't entirely homogeneous, but it is much more so than it was before the Nazis and the Soviets had a go at it.

Ethnonationalism was rejection of empires in Europe. They didn't extend the same recognition to other places. It was also a pretty bad idea, as the populations that existed in Europe weren't homogeneous, and people who'd gotten along well enough started trying to ethnically cleanse "their" territory, ejecting people from neighboring ethnic blocs and targeting nations without territory like the Romani and Jews. And eventually there is some unpleasantness about Alsace-Lorraine and the whole 20th century goes to hell.

The idea that a distant genetic relationship and distant theological kinship is enough to unify the Jews of Ethiopia and the Jews of Poland into a single people, but much stronger theological and genetic similarity somehow doesn't do the same for the French and the Germans is pretty hard to support. It only makes sense because the ethnonationalist is working backwards from the groups with political and linguistic independence that exist in his own time to identify these supposedly essential ethnic groups. But they aren't essential. They are changing and flowing into each other all the time.

Ethnonationalism opposed the multi-ethnic empires of old Europe, but they also opposed the distinctive identities of any group on the fringes of a powerful ethnic group. The various ethnicities that existed throughout France were forcibly homogenized and taught a "French" culture that was just Parisian culture.

So we have ethnonationalism, that displaces people from their homes, destroys diversity, makes targets of minorities, and which gave us two of the most horrific wars in human history. I'll pass.

 

[galahad]

Define "ethnic german", hell define ethnonationalist, because your arguments are defining it differently than anyone who's ever advocated for it. And you need to do some goddamn research on Japan. And on Israel. Both have conflicts even among the parts of the "one ethnic group" that you consider them to have. What about the Ainu? Or when they create their own separate subcaste in the eta/burakumin that they define as a separate ethnicity even within the main ethnicity?

Are Celts "ethnic germans"? They have similar origins. How about the French, descended from the Gauls? Where is the line? At what point in history do the divergences start counting and the mixing together stop counting?

Click to shrink...

You seem to be hung up attacking some strawman definition of ethno-states that exists only in your mind and not whats happening in the real world. What European ethno-nationalist in western EU states want is for their nations to operate more like most other countries in the world that implement Jus Sanguinis. They have examples close to home in form of fellow European countries in eastern Europe that they want to emulate. That is all there is to it, nobody is trying to make the Fourth Reich.

Germany had an attempt at ethnonationalism. As I understand it, it went poorly. What possible good would their be in declaring that people whose families have been out of Germany for centuries have more of a claim on the place than people born there or whose parents lived there? I mean, they could do that, but why would they?

Also, Japan is still not homogeneous. Poland isn't entirely homogeneous, but it is much more so than it was before the Nazis and the Soviets had a go at it.

Ethnonationalism was rejection of empires in Europe. They didn't extend the same recognition to other places. It was also a pretty bad idea, as the populations that existed in Europe weren't homogeneous, and people who'd gotten along well enough started trying to ethnically cleanse "their" territory, ejecting people from neighboring ethnic blocs and targeting nations without territory like the Romani and Jews. And eventually there is some unpleasantness about Alsace-Lorraine and the whole 20th century goes to hell.

The idea that a distant genetic relationship and distant theological kinship is enough to unify the Jews of Ethiopia and the Jews of Poland into a single people, but much stronger theological and genetic similarity somehow doesn't do the same for the French and the Germans is pretty hard to support. It only makes sense because the ethnonationalist is working backwards from the groups with political and linguistic independence that exist in his own time to identify these supposedly essential ethnic groups. But they aren't essential. They are changing and flowing into each other all the time.

Ethnonationalism opposed the multi-ethnic empires of old Europe, but they also opposed the distinctive identities of any group on the fringes of a powerful ethnic group. The various ethnicities that existed throughout France were forcibly homogenized and taught a "French" culture that was just Parisian culture.

So we have ethnonationalism, that displaces people from their homes, destroys diversity, makes targets of minorities, and which gave us two of the most horrific wars in human history. I'll pass.

Click to shrink...

So what you are basically saying is you have no problem with western European countries adopting an immigration policy similar to eastern European states like Poland or Hungary, or like east Asian states like Japan/Korea. I mean we are in agreement that these countries are not ethnostates. Glad to see people on internet agree for once. 👍

 

[mesonoxian]

So what you are basically saying is you have no problem with western European countries adopting an immigration policy similar to eastern European states like Poland or Hungary, or like east Asian states like Japan/Korea. I mean we are in agreement that these countries are not ethnostates. Glad to see people on internet agree for once. 👍

Click to shrink...

I think you're making several unjustified logical leaps.

But just in case, let's go over things carefully. You and others brought up certain states as samples of "good" ethnonationalism. It was point out that these states either aren't homogeneous (and thus their national ethnic identity comes at the expense of minority populations) or that they were created as the result of terrible and inhumane practices, either at the hands of their own government, or as victims of another.

I have argued that ethnonationalism is stupid, and that those advocating it are mostly fascists, and that where it exists it has done a lot of harm. None of that implies ethnonationalists don't hold power anywhere, or that some states don't have an ethnic population that receives special rights. It just means it is not a good thing. And even if some state could be totally shown to be untouched by ethnonationalism, why would that make their policy worth emulating? The Soviet Union wasn't an ethnostate either, do you think that means their policies were unquestionably good?

Ethnonationalism is archaic nonsense that should never have left the 19th century. People advocating for it today are trying to justify their racist impulses. Where it holds sway, it is generally the result of atrocities or will result in them.

 

[galahad]

I think you're making several unjustified logical leaps.

But just in case, let's go over things carefully. You and others brought up certain states as samples of "good" ethnonationalism. It was point out that these states either aren't homogeneous (and thus their national ethnic identity comes at the expense of minority populations) or that they were created as the result of terrible and inhumane practices, either at the hands of their own government, or as victims of another.

I have argued that ethnonationalism is stupid, and that those advocating it are mostly fascists, and that where it exists it has done a lot of harm. None of that implies ethnonationalists don't hold power anywhere, or that some states don't have an ethnic population that receives special rights. It just means it is not a good thing. And even if some state could be totally shown to be untouched by ethnonationalism, why would that make their policy worth emulating? The Soviet Union wasn't an ethnostate either, do you think that means their policies were unquestionably good?

Ethnonationalism is archaic nonsense that should never have left the 19th century. People advocating for it today are trying to justify their racist impulses. Where it holds sway, it is generally the result of atrocities or will result in them.

Click to shrink...

Vast majority of the world uses a variation of Jus Sanguinus as basic of their nationality law and adopt strict controls on migration. Are they all fascist now ?

Is South Korea a fascist country creating the K-Pop reich ?

 

[mesonoxian]

Vast majority of the world uses a variation of Jus Sanguinus as basic of their nationality law and adopt strict controls on migration. Are they all fascist now ?

Is South Korea a fascist country creating the K-Pop reich ?

Click to shrink...

If you're going to continue to misrepresent my posts, I don't think there is much point in continuing.

 

[galahad]

If you're going to continue to misrepresent my posts, I don't think there is much point in continuing.

Click to shrink...

But that is the issue being contended. You have this image of ethno-nationalism being some precursor to fascism and self destructive wars of aggression. When in reality what ethno-nationalist factions in West want is to emulate what is the norm in most other countries in the world, from some of poorest to some of richest, countries that run the gamut from democracy to monarchies. Having a restricted immigration policy and imposing limits on birthright citizenship does not seem to produce the effect you seem to believe it does. Here is a map for quick reference, multi-cultural countries are the aberration not the norm.

Spoiler

 

[mesonoxian]

But that is the issue being contended. You have this image of ethno-nationalism being some precursor to fascism and self destructive wars of aggression. When in reality what ethno-nationalist factions in West want is to emulate what is the norm in most other countries in the world, from some of poorest to some of richest, countries that run the gamut from democracy to monarchies. Having a restricted immigration policy and imposing limits on birthright citizenship does not seem to produce the effect you seem to believe it does. Here is a map for quick reference, multi-cultural countries are the aberration not the norm.

Spoiler

Click to shrink...

Lacking birthright citizenship isn't the same as being ethnonationalist, and states having such policies, while unfortunate, doesn't tell us much, whereas trying to impose those policies on states that don't have them says quite a bit about the people doing so.

Why do you think it would benefit European states to exclude non-Europeans from citizenship?

 

[Arthur Frayn]

I imagine holding up Japan as an example of a "good" ethnostate means you need to quietly ignore the whole "declining birthrate and shrinking population" thing, right?

Because that's the thing with ethnonationalism - sooner or later you run out of the "right" sort of people and need to start expanding the definition, otherwise you're facing down the barrel of a population crisis.

 

[xa na xa]

Spoiler

Click to shrink...

That map means nothing.

For instance in Sweden, the requirement for citizenship is 5 years of permanent residency. Hardly an ethnonationalist hurdle of racial purity.

@galahad your definition of ethnonationalism is way too wide, encompassing a lot of run of the mill nationalism.

Ethnonationalism is actively promoting racial purity, not merely not being a massive melting pot like the US, or handing out passports in cereal boxes.

There have been only a very few real ethnonationalist states in the modern era, like Nazi Germany.

And basically none today; perhaps North Korea would be the exception, but even there the racial aspects are more undertone and not very explicit.

 

[galahad]

Lacking birthright citizenship isn't the same as being ethnonationalist, and states having such policies, while unfortunate, doesn't tell us much, whereas trying to impose those policies on states that don't have them says quite a bit about the people doing so.

Click to shrink...

Are not you disproving yourself there ? First you say that lack of birthright citizenship is not same thing as ethno-nationalist. Then you seem to imply that imposing such policies imply fascism.

Lets drop the semantics and etymology games about what "ethno-nationalism" means and get to meat of the matter. Immigration control and no birthright citizenship. Most of the world seem to do fine by it, why is it bad. What do you think of such policies in west ? Do you think it will lead to some apocalyptic scenario ?

Why do you think it would benefit European states to exclude non-Europeans from citizenship?

Click to shrink...

Same benefits other countries get from similar policies, namely increased stability and preservation of ethnic identity.

I imagine holding up Japan as an example of a "good" ethnostate means you need to quietly ignore the whole "declining birthrate and shrinking population" thing, right?

Because that's the thing with ethnonationalism - sooner or later you run out of the "right" sort of people and need to start expanding the definition, otherwise you're facing down the barrel of a population crisis.

Click to shrink...

Countries with restricted immigration are aware of the economic hit they are taking in the short term. But they prefer it to long term instability. In a few decades we will all know who is correct. But for now it seems the multi-cultural West is indeed destabilizing along racial and religious fault lines. This confirms the worst fears and reaffirms the decisions of politicians in countries that have not opened up for mass migrations.

That map means nothing.

For instance in Sweden, the requirement for citizenship is 5 years of permanent residency. Hardly an ethnonationalist hurdle of racial purity.

@galahad your definition of ethnonationalism is way too wide, encompassing a lot of run of the mill nationalism.

Ethnonationalism is actively promoting racial purity, not merely not being a massive melting pot like the US, or handing out passports in cereal boxes.

There have been only a very few real ethnonationalist states in the modern era, like Nazi Germany.

And basically none today; perhaps North Korea would be the exception, but even there the racial aspects are more undertone and not very explicit.

Click to shrink...

The thing is in this thread people are caught up fighting strawman images what they assume ethno-nationalism is and/or engaged in semantics/etymology battles about what "ethno-nationalism" is.

Lets refocus. We are talking about the European far right here. It is being said that the far right are bunch of nazis and will basically start WW 3. But is it true really ?

Look at the websites of political parties like UKIP and read their political platforms. You will notice they seem like just a plain, vanilla political party. They are not trying to overthrow democracy, enact totalitarianism, deport all non-whites from Britain etc. They are not even trying to end all immigration. One does not have to like them and can even find their political positions deplorable. But the thing is they are not trying to turn Britain into Nazi country like some here are saying is inevitable outcome of far right politics. These guys dont even like wars if you read up on their position on foreign intervention. Hence the comparisons with other countries, the European far right, as in actual political parties that get votes, seem to be along line of contemporary nationalism as seen in east Europe or east Asia. And not the 1930s version of we need to conquer more land or 19th century scramble for colonies style.

 

[Arawn_Emrys]

Are not you disproving yourself there ? First you say that lack of birthright citizenship is not same thing as ethno-nationalist. Then you seem to imply that imposing such policies imply fascism.

Lets drop the semantics and etymology games about what "ethno-nationalism" means and get to meat of the matter. Immigration control and no birthright citizenship. Most of the world seem to do fine by it, why is it bad. What do you think of such policies in west ? Do you think it will lead to some apocalyptic scenario ?



Same benefits other countries get from similar policies, namely increased stability and preservation of ethnic identity.



Countries with restricted immigration are aware of the economic hit they are taking in the short term. But they prefer it to long term instability. In a few decades we will all know who is correct. But for now it seems the multi-cultural West is indeed destabilizing along racial and religious fault lines. This confirms the worst fears and reaffirms the decisions of politicians in countries that have not opened up for mass migrations.



The thing is in this thread people are caught up fighting strawman images what they assume ethno-nationalism is and/or engaged in semantics/etymology battles about what "ethno-nationalism" is.

Lets refocus. We are talking about the European far right here. It is being said that the far right are bunch of nazis and will basically start WW 3. But is it true really ?

Look at the websites of political parties like UKIP and read their political platforms. You will notice they seem like just a plain, vanilla political party. They are not trying to overthrow democracy, enact totalitarianism, deport all non-whites from Britain etc. They are not even trying to end all immigration. One does not have to like them and can even find their political positions deplorable. But the thing is they are not trying to turn Britain into Nazi country like some here are saying is inevitable outcome of far right politics. These guys dont even like wars if you read up on their position on foreign intervention. Hence the comparisons with other countries, the European far right, as in actual political parties that get votes, seem to be along line of contemporary nationalism as seen in east Europe or east Asia. And not the 1930s version of we need to conquer more land or 19th century scramble for colonies style.

Click to shrink...

Ummm.... you do realize that the founder of UKIP left specifically because the party was taken over by neo-nazis, right?

Lets cut to the chase, you need to define what you mean when you say ethnonationalist, because you aren't using a definition familiar to anyone else here. That smacks of mott and bailey arguments which is bad faith.

 

[mesonoxian]

Are not you disproving yourself there ? First you say that lack of birthright citizenship is not same thing as ethno-nationalist. Then you seem to imply that imposing such policies imply fascism.

Lets drop the semantics and etymology games about what "ethno-nationalism" means and get to meat of the matter. Immigration control and no birthright citizenship. Most of the world seem to do fine by it, why is it bad. What do you think of such policies in west ? Do you think it will lead to some apocalyptic scenario ?

Same benefits other countries get from similar policies, namely increased stability and preservation of ethnic identity.

Click to shrink...

It is no contradiction at all. A lack of birthright citizenship is bad. People ought to be able to participate in the societies they live in. But people who want to impose those rules in places where they don't currently exist are ideological ethnonationalists and racist ideologues. There are states that have the death penalty. That is unfortunate. The state shouldn't kill people. But that they have it doesn't tell us much about the state other than that they have a shitty policy. Those who advocate for the return on the death penalty where it has been abolished are telling us something about themselves.

So why do you think European "ethnic identity" is worth preserving, and why do you think non-Europeans threaten it, and threaten "stability"?

 

[Arawn_Emrys]

It is no contradiction at all. A lack of birthright citizenship is bad. People ought to be able to participate in the societies they live in. But people who want to impose those rules in places where they don't currently exist are ideological ethnonationalists and racist ideologues. There are states that have the death penalty. That is unfortunate. The state shouldn't kill people. But that they have it doesn't tell us much about the state other than that they have a shitty policy. Those who advocate for the return on the death penalty where it has been abolished are telling us something about themselves.

So why do you think European "ethnic identity" is worth preserving, and why do you think non-Europeans threaten it, and threaten "stability"?

Click to shrink...

Especially given that there is no "European" ethnic Identity, but rather dozens of them even within European nations. Look at Belgium with it's Flemish and Waloons or Britain with the Irish, Scots, Welsh, Cornish, English, and Manx. And the Scots are Irish/Picts and the English are Saxons/Angles/Normans with bits of Italian due to longterm Roman occupation.

 

[mesonoxian]

Especially given that there is no "European" ethnic Identity, but rather dozens of them even within European nations. Look at Belgium with it's Flemish and Waloons or Britain with the Irish, Scots, Welsh, Cornish, English, and Manx.

Click to shrink...

I suspect the answer is going to be "racial disharmony", which for some reason is a problem with the immigrants, and not with the racists.

Ethnonationalism always works backwards to justify the state of affairs that seems "natural" to the person advocating it. Somehow nobody ever thinks it is vitally important to eject the Irish from Britain, or French people of German descent, but immigration from Asia and Africa is scary and destabilizing. I wonder what the difference could be.

 

[lotho]

Especially given that there is no "European" ethnic Identity, but rather dozens of them even within European nations. Look at Belgium with it's Flemish and Waloons or Britain with the Irish, Scots, Welsh, Cornish, English, and Manx. And the Scots are Irish/Picts and the English are Saxons/Angles/Normans with bits of Italian due to longterm Roman occupation.

Click to shrink...

Of course there is no ethnic european identity. Except by people who don't know what culture is, Just like there is no African, or Asian identity. If the EU actually became an empire then it could grow into having an identity of course.

 

[Redditredcoat]

Right now? Pretty easy, the far right AFAIK is not very keen on spreading colonialism, though there might be some sects here and there that still believe in the old white man's burden shit. But yeah OTL fills in this prompt.

 

[Redditredcoat]

Russia for instance is largely built around ethnic Russians and their culture. It has a substantial muslim population, but muslims in Russia are various ethnic groups native to Russia. Unlike western countries where they are immigrants and undergoing issues integrating with the countries native culture. This is a a short 2 min clip where Putin discusses Russia's ethnic and religious diversity. Like him or hate him its worth a watch on how Russia's take on diversity compares to western liberal model of multi-culturalism.

Click to shrink...

Russians are oddly proud of "their muslims", from what I can tell, as opposed to the "bad muslims" in Western Europe, who are mostly recent immigrants. I find it rather strange.

 

[Memphet'ran]

So, how to achieve a far-right ideology in Europe that supports the struggles of native nationalisms against the colonial powers?

Click to shrink...

This could easily happen if there was a state that A) was controlled by a far-right regime, B) had little or no realistic hope of getting its own colonial empire, C) had enemies that did have colonial empires. Such a state would benefit from making strategic alliances with anti-colonial movements to weaken its enemies, and doctrine tends to be shaped by strategy. It would be a case of politics making strange bedfellows.

As for what the doctrine of such a regime might be, I'd look at the more cosmopolitan-minded theosophist-influenced parts of the traditionalist far right. The far right almost by definition hates the Otherness meme, but it doesn't necessarily hate the existence of difference, sometimes the thing it hates in Otherness culture is just the promiscuous mixing and it's OK with difference existing as long as everyone stays siloed in their "traditional" cultures and "traditional" homelands. I imagine the doctrine might be something like "The right sort of Hindus and Muslims and Confucians and so on are alright, they hate liberals and atheists and queers and the Otherness meme and want to keep the poors and women in their place just like we do, we can coexist with them as long as they stay in their authentic traditional homelands and we stay in ours, in fact we can and should make common cause with them against the liberal cultural imperialist force of colonialism." I think some real-world far-rightists like the Mad Monarchist have politics that's more-or-less what I just described, so I can easily imagine a world where that sort of traditionalism becomes the official ideology of a government. Such a state would have the most natural affinity for social conservative and ethnic nationalist anti-colonial movements, but I wouldn't put it past it to support liberal or leftist anti-colonial movements as a matter of strategic expediency; politics makes strange bedfellows. Offhand, if the Tsarist Russian Empire had survived into the middle and later twentieth century I could see it following a trajectory like this; as a geographically constrained land power it would plausibly gain from strategic alliances with anti-colonial movements, and it was the culture that produced Baron von Ungern-Sternbern, who's one of the precedents that pops into my mind for the sort of "diversity-friendly paleo-conservatism" I'm imagining. A somewhat different (from the Nazis), more geopolitically cautious German far-right revanchist movement seems like another possibility to produce a state like this, because big land power that had been shorn of its overseas colonial empire and was unlikely to get another colonial empire unless it won a world war.

 

[bookwyrm]

Something could also be done with the vagaries of total war and international economic fuckery and not bringing down like a Young Turk or a Constitutionalist Ottoman Empire. Structurally a moderate to hard right wing would be disproportionately favored in power, with a possibility for a far right faction to come into power in the back of revanchist support of North and West African Sufi orders and anti-colonial revivalism. Then you have a far-right support of anti-colonialism in the Maghreb.

 

[Sabertooth]

I don't really get whats so important about "muh identity".

Maybe its because I come from a country whosr powet is very small and creating a myth around that identity would be mostly a lie since most other nations in Europe could break us with little trouble. So whats the point of beating my chest about how awesome I am, when its a lie with no concrete military strenght to back it up?

 

[Madam Carstein]

In the era of colonialism, there *was* opposition to imperialism/colonialism on extreme racist/nationalist grounds because the integration of non-white peoples was viewed as anathema to "civilised" nations (nevermind that most of the colonised societies had longstanding histories that in some cases predated those of their colonial ruler). So I do think it fair to emphasise that while past societies had extremely racist elements, the *responses* of these racist elements and their proposals varied massively.

But this was merely one part of a larger spectrum which also included strong proponents of imperialism who were strongly lobbying for colonial expansion.

So I mean, I could see elements of a European far-right opposing colonialism on the above grounds, or because "civilised" countries shouldn't spend their money for the benefit of "savages" but this seems like something which would be a part of a wider movement at most.