Johnson hits on some points that don't require scientific study for me. When I was 17 my Dad moved us from Ohio to New Mexico. This was a move away from all my friends and relatives. This was a move to the desert. I have been here since 1978 and I long to go back to be with kin. Something is missing here that is hard to explain but apparently it shows up in scientific studies.
These lessons are part of a wider study seeking to answer a timely but age old question:
Psalms 11:3 If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?”
God set boundaries to protect us from evil. Underneath each boundary lays a foundation. When evil men redefine biological sex (Gen 1:27), they strike at that foundation. When evil men redefine marriage (Gen 2:23-24), they strike at that foundation. When evil men redefine nation (Gen 10:5), they strike at that foundation. When the footing is shattered, people lose hope and become easy prey to evil forces.
When God freed the sons of Israel from Egypt (Ex 1:1) He continued His promise to make them into a nation (Gen 12:1-2). He taught them as they marched through the desert to the Promised Land. He gave them their first lessons on nationhood. He reminded them of their history and origin. In the first 11 chapters, and of first importance, were the definitions of nation, marriage, and biological sex. From chapter 12 on, to the end of the New Testament, God persistently impressed these definitions upon His chosen, but deviant, people. His definitions were not contrary to the nature of things. This was His plan and means of bringing the world a Savior and conquering evil. What would have happened had He not held to these definitions or worked against His own laws of nature?
I hope to bring light upon these questions and others like them in this series of studies called What is a Nation? To explore this broader topic I will review a number of books, the first of which is The White Nationalist Manifesto by Greg Johnson. I will add some comments and study questions to each post to turn them into short 10-20 minute lessons. To go to the beginning of this series click here.
4. The Deepest Source Of Social Harmony
Why is diversity a source of disharmony? And why is similarity a source of harmony? Is it entirely a matter of culture, namely a common language and system of values? Or is there something more, something deeper? White Nationalists argue that the ultimate source of political harmony is not culture. It’s genetics.[1]
The civic nationalist idea is basically that we can create a unified and harmonious society out of radically different groups of people if we assimilate them to a common language and system of values. Civic nationalists cling to the idea of assimilation, because without it, they will have to break the dreaded taboo of “racism.”[2]
Of course we are not even trying to assimilate immigrants today. We have lost the cultural self-confidence to insist that foreigners adopt our norms and way of life. Beyond that, immigrants are very aggressively trying to assimilate us, one taco at a time. Furthermore, until such time as we regain the self-confidence to try to assimilate outsiders, conservative assimilationists should support a complete halt to immigration. And we have to ask: Do conservatives really want to assimilate our most recent immigrants? Can these people actually improve America or any other white country?
Frankly, I am glad that assimilationism was abandoned when we opened our borders to the Third World. I don’t want to assimilate non-whites at all, for the more assimilated they become, the more likely they are to intermarry with whites and to gain power and influence in our societies. Thus it is best that their communities remain as separate and alienated as possible, rather than become entangled with the rest of society. It will make it much easier for them to go home someday.
But even if we regained enough cultural self-confidence to demand assimilation, it isn’t an easy thing. Most Americans today are a mixture of different European stocks. Some people think, “Well, that was easy.” But it wasn’t. Even the most superficial acquaintance with American history teaches us there was enormous conflict when very similar groups came from Europe to the United States.[3]
The people of the British Isles are very similar to one another genetically and culturally. They even speak a common language. But the Irish were not welcome in America, primarily because of a single cultural difference: Catholicism.[4] But that was enough to create enormous conflict and ill will.
These conflicts were exacerbated when even more culturally different groups came to the United States from Southern and Eastern Europe. Because of these conflicts, the United States passed an immigration restriction act in 1924, not to deal with non-white immigration, which was virtually non-existent, but with white immigration from Europe.
I’m glad that America got through these crises and managed to meld different European immigrant groups into a new people: Americans. I am absolutely opposed to any attempts, even under the guise of humor, to reopen old ethnic conflicts in America. We are all Americans now, and most of the time when white people claim a hyphenated American identity, it is simply a case of a person of mixed European ancestry claiming to be Italian or Irish or Polish because of his surname.
Assimilation also had enormous cultural costs. For instance, Americans used to care passionately about the differences between Protestantism and Catholicism. To assimilate large numbers of Catholic immigrants, Americans eventually simply stopped caring about religious differences.[5] We stopped caring about a lot of historical and cultural differences between Europeans, just so we could stop fighting over them. Cultural assimilation, in short, erases cultural differences.[6] Ceasing to care about them is a creeping form of nihilism that has alienated us from our ancestors, who would regard us as unworthy heirs who have abandoned their cultural legacy.[7]
So it is absurd to say, “It was a breeze assimilating all these European groups, so let’s toss Pakistanis and Somalis into the melting pot!” It was hard enough to assimilate fellow Europeans. So why borrow trouble by importing even more radically different people? There is no selfish benefit or moral imperative that requires us to turn our societies into battlegrounds once again. Especially because this time, it is a battle we cannot win, since radically alien peoples could not be assimilated, even if we tried.
It was possible to assimilate fellow Europeans only because they weren’t that different to begin with. The United States never managed to assimilate blacks, American Indians, and Asians, most of whom are merely in America, not part of it. White assimilation was possible because, beyond all our cultural differences, we are genetically very similar.[8]
Whites are actually the most genetically similar of all the races, because there were points in time in our evolutionary history when there were very few of us, and we all have common descent. So the genetic differences between Eastern and Western Europe and Northern and Southern Europe are quite small, and this genetic similarity was enough to bridge wide cultural gaps and conflicts.
5. Genetic Similarity Theory
J. Philippe Rushton was an evolutionary psychologist who is best known for his book Race, Evolution, and Behavior. He is less well-known for his research in what he called Genetic Similarity Theory.[9] When Rushton introduced the idea to me it was in the context of interpersonal relationships. He said, “Opposites don’t attract, and I can prove it with science.” But he could just as well have said, “Diversity causes conflict, and I can prove it with science.”
Genetic Similarity Theory shows that affection, harmony, and altruism among humans—and living things in general—are functions of genetic similarity.[10] The more genetically similar two creatures are, the more likely they will have harmonious relationships.
The ultimate explanation for this is the biological imperative for genes to replicate themselves. One might think that this imperative would lead to ruthlessly selfish and competitive behavior. But it does not, because the genes that seek to propagate themselves are present in multiple individuals. One shares the most genes with immediate family, fewer and fewer genes with more distant relatives, and some genes with everyone in one’s broader ethnic and racial group.
Thus each individual will have a tendency toward cooperative, harmonious, and even altruistic behavior toward those who share more of his genes. Individuals are even capable of sacrificing their lives for their families and communities if it secures the greater propagation of their genes among their fellows.
But the flip side of loving one’s own is hostility to outsiders. Thus human beings and other animals are willing to fight strangers to protect the genetic interests of their family, tribe, nation, and race. This is the foundation of politics, and politics by other means, namely war.
The science behind Genetic Similarity Theory is very strong. But we don’t actually need Rushton’s studies to prove this to us, because we are all familiar with a phenomenon that shows that genetic similarity breeds harmony: identical twins. Identical twins have the same exact genes.
I once met a pair of identical twins, and one of them said something quite touching and memorable. It should be the title of a book about twins. He said, “We’re not so much two people as one egg divided.” That was an indication of the level of harmony between them. Just sitting and watching them converse and interact, you could see that they knew exactly what the other was going to say, what the other was thinking; they could finish one another’s sentences. And indeed, studies of identical twins, especially twins raised apart, demonstrate how massive and fine-grained genetic determinism really is, as opposed to environmental and cultural factors.[11]
The greatest harmony between two people is the harmony of identical twins. They know one another’s minds in ways that even fraternal twins or ordinary siblings just don’t. In fact, if you wanted to create the most harmonious society possible, it would be a society of clones.[12] Of course you would need a bit more genetic diversity if you wanted to have sexual reproduction, but surprisingly little. In Iceland, it was discovered that the most harmonious marriages and the most offspring come from people who are as genetically similar as third and fourth cousins.[13]
Genetic Similarity Theory would predict that the happiest societies in the world are also the most genetically homogeneous. This is certainly true in the case of Denmark, which is routinely rated the happiest country in the world[14] and is also one of the most genetically homogeneous.[15] Genetic Similarity Theory also predicts that as a society increases genetic diversity, it will become less harmonious, unified, and happy. Even if such a society somehow managed to “assimilate” this increasing diversity to a common language and system of values, it would still be less harmonious and happy than a genetically homogeneous society. A society can increase its genetic diversity even by assimilating people of the same race, but the most dramatic increase in genetic diversity comes from immigrants of entirely different races. Increased racial diversity makes a society weaker and less harmonious. Diversity is not a strength at all.
White Nationalism is simply the idea of a society where everybody around you is kin. It is a society where you can understand and trust your fellow citizens. Where you can cooperate to pursue the common good. Where you will wish to contribute to grand projects, even though you might not live to see them completed. Where people plant trees so that future generations can enjoy shade. It is a society in which people feel such a strong identity with the body politic that they are willing to sacrifice their lives for it, if they must. But most importantly, it is a society in which you can feel at home. That’s what White Nationalism is about: securing homelands for all white peoples.
Without homelands, our people feel rootless, detached, and alienated.[16] They long to be around people with the same culture, history, and destiny. But it is more than that. They also long to be around people who vibrate on the same deep, unconscious frequencies of white racial kinship that bind us all together. That’s what White Nationalism wants to create again for our people.
We stand for brotherhood and belonging. Diversity takes those away. That’s what’s wrong with diversity.
Click on the "The White Nationalist Manifesto" tag below to see all the posts in this series. To go to the start of this series click here.
Questions & Notes
White Nationalists argue that the ultimate source of political harmony is not culture. It’s _________. ↑
Civic nationalists cling to the idea of assimilation, because without it, they will have to break the dreaded taboo of “_________.” ↑
Even the most superficial acquaintance with American history teaches us there was enormous _________ when very similar groups came from Europe to the United States. ↑
the Irish were not welcome in America, primarily because of a single cultural difference: _________. ↑
To assimilate large numbers of Catholic immigrants, Americans eventually simply stopped caring about _________ differences. ↑
Cultural assimilation, in short, _________ cultural differences. ↑
Ceasing to care about cultural differences is a creeping form of _________ that has alienated us from our ancestors, who would regard us as unworthy heirs who have abandoned their cultural legacy. ↑
White assimilation was possible because, beyond all our cultural differences, we are _________ _________ _________. ↑
J. P. Rushton, “Ethnic Nationalism, Evolutionary Psychology, and Genetic Similarity Theory,” Nations and Nationalism 11 (2005): 489–507. ↑
_________ _________ _________ shows that affection, harmony, and altruism among humans—and living things in general—are functions of genetic similarity. ↑
Nancy Segal, Born Together―Reared Apart: The Landmark Minnesota Twin Study (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2012). ↑
If you wanted to create the most harmonious society possible, it would be a society of _________. ↑
https://www.nature.com/news/2008/080207/full/news.2008.562.html ↑
https://www.livescience.com/62150-why-denmark-is-happiest-country.html ↑
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161011131428.htm ↑
Without _________, our people feel rootless, detached, and alienated. ↑