NYT Demonisation of Steve Bannon & White Identity

‘Turn On the Hate’: Steve Bannon at the White House

By the Editorial Board, Nov. 15 2016 (LINK to editorial)

"Mr. Bannon, and his toxic [far-right, white ethno-nationalist] ideology . . "

I don't know Mr Bannon, but I have a lot of sympathy with "ethno-nationalism", which the NYT so despises, along with the whole notion of white, i.e. ethnic European, identity.

White nationalism might have spared Europe centuries of civil war, culminating in WW1, WW2 and the Holocaust. It might also have spared America its own civil war.

White nationalism, as I see it, has nothing to do with white supremacism and is the very opposite of Nazism, which, insanely and self-destructively, divided Europeans into different races, some of which it sought to exterminate. The Nazis were not motivated by racial hatred, but by racial SELF-hatred.

In overreaction to the evil of Nazism and the Holocaust, western academics, and with them its ruling elites, embraced the exact, but equally extreme, opposite ideology of post-racial multiculturalism, which denies the importance - even the very existence - of race altogether (even when it is real and manifest), along with the Orwellian oxymoronic absurdity of "multi-ethnic (multi-racial and multicultural) nationhood".

I'm not suggesting that the NYT love those it sees as enemies, e.g. white nationalists, but that it ceases to hate and demonise them the way it does, and to seek to understand them instead. They are not as evil, nor you at the NYT and the Southern Poverty Law Center as good, as you  imagine.

See my BLOG, where I elaborate on these ideas.

What's Wrong with Ethno-Nationalism?

The Donald Trump Show

By Ross Douthat July 23, 2016 (LINK to article)

"[Donald Trump's] ethno-nationalism"

That is mean as a slur, of course, which Trump would reject, claiming to want to be President for ALL Americans.

The question is, does ethno-nationalism deserve to be demonised the way it is? I don't believe it does.

It's demonised because the Nazis were ethno-nationalists, as are some modern groups of racial supremacists, but ethno-nationalism doesn't have to be judged by such negative examples. Zionism is also a form of ethno-nationalism, and, although it includes some extremists, is generally viewed positively. Good Zionists - and there are many of them - reach out the hand of friendship and cooperation to Palestinians, who unfortunately refuse to accept it.

So, taking Zionism as a positive example of ethno-nationalism, how might one apply it to multi-ethnic America?

First, one needs to recognise that the present Constitution was written by and for just one ethnic group, i.e. whites. The founding fathers never intended it to be applied to races other than their own. Thus, America needs to be refounded with a new constitution written by and for ALL Americans, not just whites. A revolutionary idea, but a good one, I think.

Also we need to recognise the deceit of equating state and nation, not just in America, but in all so-called "nation states", which are not genuine nations at all, but mercenary "patron states" deceitfully posing as nations, to legitimise themselves, their ruling elites and the immense power they wield and abuse.

America's Founding Ethno-Nationalism

Looking On the Bright Side of Trump

By Ross Douthan, Feb. 24 2016 (LINK to article)

" . . the [Republican] party’s donors and consultants don’t want to work for a party trending toward ethno-nationalism . . ."

America's founding fathers took the new country's "ethno-nationalism" for granted: The American nation was originally white, i.e. ethnic European, like the country it split from. All other races, specifically African and Native Americans were totally marginalised and effectively ignored in regard to America's national identity.

The Civil War was primarily about maintaining the Union, i.e. the POWER of the ruling white elite in the federal government, rather than ending slavery, which would have ended soon enough anyway, as it did everywhere else, without the need of bloody civil war. America might also have won its independence from Britain, had its leaders been a little more patience with their brethren across the ocean, as all Britain's other colonies eventually did, without resorting to violence.

The more recent history of western civilisation would have been very different if America, i.e. its ruling white elites, hadn't been so quick to resort to force and violence in defending and projecting their power.

The American melting pot worked extremely well for everyone who passed for white, for the simple reason that race and ethnic origins form the NATURAL basis of national identity and genuine nationhood, which "progressive" ideology now denies and suppresses, of course.

The reason for this denial and suppress of the natural ethnic basis of national identity is the state's need to pose as a single nation, in order to legitimise itself, its ruling elites and the immense power they wield and abuse.

What we have is a classic case of Orwellian "doublethink", whereby the American state claims to represent a single nation and people, when clearly it does not, the very notion of "multi-ethnic nationhood" being an oxymoronic absurdity.

So long as whites formed the overwhelmingly dominant majority, this absurdity could be maintained, but not for much longer, as whites increasingly lose their dominance, not least thanks to an ideology of white racial self-denial and self-contempt, which began as an understandable OVERREACTION to the evils of Nazism and the Holocaust (as well as those of Jim Crow and Apartheid), before being hijacked and incorporated into the state's age-old strategy of divide and rule, whereby American society is divided into a morally superior, supposedly "colour-blind", elite and the morally inferior, naturally (human nature being what it is) less colour-blind, masses, who must submit to the authority of and domination by their "moral superiors".

See BLOG in which I elaborate further.