An Ethnic-Hawaiian government could only be good for the mainland majority

In previous posts and threads I talked about the potential, even inevitability for increased racial balkanization in the USA. Balkanization will throw a “monkey wrench” into the multicultural regime that is destroying us. The more the better, therefore.

Naturally, to be of permanent benefit it has to produce a political unit that is self-governing. So I was intrigued to read of the introduction of a bill that would allow a separate government for ethnic Hawaiins.

It is limited in its ambitions. Its supporters are loudly denying that it has any implications for a race-based preference or for racial discrimination.

“All my bill does is clarify the political and legal relationship between native Hawaiians and the United States, thereby establishing parity in the federal policies towards American Indians, Alaska natives and native Hawaiians,” Mr. Akaka told The Washington Times last week.

The opposition to the bill, meanwhile, is predictably vocal.

‘…critics say would have dire ramifications beyond Hawaii. “By creating a race-based government in the United States, we would be enhancing a trend toward the Balkanization of our culture,” said Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, the Senate Republican Policy Committee chairman. “This would be the first time that we would actually be creating a race-based government entity within the United States … This bill is un-American in that it seeks to define citizenship based on race, rather than shared ideals,” said Bruce Fein, a constitutional lawyer and Justice Department official in the Reagan administration.

Yes, that’s right Fein – that is the way citizenship should be based, and ad hominem what is and what is not “un-American” is subjective and illogical. After all, when this nation was founded it did indeed have a race-based criteria for citizenship, did it not?

And, as I have posted previously at MRFein’s constitutional patriotism cannot logically be separated from biological considerations. What good is the ideals-based nation to those within it who are suffering the reality of displacement and dispossession?

White Americans should support self-determination for native Hawaiians – actually this plan does not go far enough – and then demand the same for themselves.

Remember, multiculturalism depends upon the passivity of the majority. If that majority is inhibited from mobilizing on the basis of group interests and group identity it loses all power over its own fate. Although a multicultural state can survive some degree of minority-initiated balkanization, it simply cannot survive having the predominant group “opt out” of the “experiment.” After all, what do you think is the nightmare scenario that bothers folks with the mindset of Kyl and Fein (and GNXP)? Simply put, that a significant portion of white Americans will start thinking in terms of race and not “ideals”, and that their main identity will be “white” or “European-American”, rather than “American.”

As I’ve stated before if you go back 15 years – no American Renaissance, no EAIF, no The Occidental Quarterly (TOQ), and no one outside of their own narrow group had ever heard of Jared Taylor, Kevin MacDonald, Frank Salter and “ethnic genetic interests”, etc. Even five years ago, there was no TOQ and no academic discussion of genetic interests, immigration, and universal nationalism.

Times are changing. This Hawaiian idea is a harbinger of the future– regardless of whether it is successful in the face of determined resistance from the status quo, the forces of constitutional patriotism and a dying America. The French and Dutch rejection of the anti-national, anti-European EU Constitution – based primarily on racial/cultural issues (national integrity, immigration, Turkey) – is yet another sign. Ethno-politics, rather than constitutional patriotism, can be the predominant force in the West.

Unfortunately, “can be” and “will be” are two different things. In today’s hyper-PC climate, in which globalist elites have their own agendas, ethno-politicians have to work carefully and intelligently to slowly build up a strong foundation of ideology, infrastructure, and support. I hope that those of us at MR who believe in Ethno-politics can play some small role - and a positive one - in these developments.

In the meantime, remember: balkanization is good!

Posted by JW Holliday on Friday, June 3, 2005 at 04:05 PM in The Proposition Nation
Comments (9) | Tell a friend

Comments:

Posted by Tournament of Champions on June 03, 2005, 04:50 PM | #

To deal with other ethnies (sp?) whites must form a centralized organization, along with its specialized organs (e.g. ADL, AIPAC). Unless that happens it wont matter how bad it gets or how organized others are. AFAIK the only US groups are marginal.

Btw, how the heck is ethny/ethnie/ethnee spelled? And how about the plural, is it ethnies, or ethnys? I see Salter use ethny/ethnys but seems other forms are more popular. Who knows their Latin?

Posted by Amren_fan on June 03, 2005, 07:43 PM | #

Just who are the Hawaiians racially, anyways? Whenever I think “Hawaiian” I also think “Samoan,” for some reason.

P.S: Totally random question, but I gotta ask what happened to a bunch of people around here. I haven’t seen Dr. Sean Gabb, Dr. E. Christian Kopff, James Kalb, Niki Raapana, Michael Walker, Dr Tomislav Sunic, Tim Gillin, Kevin Michael Grace, Thrasynachus, Charles Copeland, Il Ragno, or Johan Van Vlaams around here for a long time. What happened to ‘em?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 03, 2005, 08:18 PM | #

“Btw, how the heck is ethny/ethnie/ethnee spelled? And how about the plural, is it ethnies, or ethnys? I see Salter use ethny/ethnys but seems other forms are more popular.” (—Tournament)

Tournament, to reply to your question, here’s what I, for one, know about that word: When I was in Europe in the 70s to early 80s there was a French word in common use, une ethnie, which meant ethnic group, a totally non-political, totally non-technical word. It was just an ordinary everyday word that one sometimes heard. The first time I encountered that word in English was in a thread over at Dienekes’ blog maybe a couple of years ago, when a commenter signing as “mxrienzi” used it a few times in comments. When I saw him use a word I knew to be French I assumed he was a Frenchman using it because he spoke English imperfectly. When I asked in passing if he was French, Jason Molloy of GnXp, who was participating in the thread, told me Rienzi wasn’t a Frenchman but had gotten that word from Salter. I looked it up in my French dictionary but it wasn’t there, which surprised me because it had been in common use among European French-speakers during my years-long stay in Europe. I’ve not read Salter’s stuff and don’t know exactly what “ethnie” means in his work, but I gather it means the same as what I personally mean by “race”: that is, a race, a sub-race, or an ethnic group, the last in the sense of having at least a partial genetic basis. The spelling of the French word which I remember was “ethnie,” a feminine noun ("une ethnie") meaning “ethnic group.” (I still don’t understand why it’s not in my Cassell’s dictionary which dates from the 70s—I suppose it must be of relatively recent coinage over there? ...) I don’t know why Salter adopted that word instead of using its equivalent in English, or how the English version is supposed to be spelled, or how Salter himself spells it. At this blog I’ve seen it spelled both “ethnie” and “ethny.” (In French the plural would be “les ethnies,” meaning “the ethnic groups.")

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 03, 2005, 08:25 PM | #

In French, by the way, “ethnie” is pronounced “ett - nee,” with equal stress on both syllables. “Les ethnies” is pronounced “lay - zett - nee,” all three syllables equally stressed.

Posted by Will S. on June 04, 2005, 12:53 AM | #

hey, I know this is off-topic, but did any of you Britons ever hear this, that all Commonwealthers who either (a) are studying in Britain or (b) own a second home in Britain, can vote in British elections, and many do? Unreal… What better recipe to dissolve the people - not only allow mass immigration from everywhere, but allow non-residents from Commonwealth countries (including Caribbean, African, and Asian countries, of course) who are in the U.K., to have a say in British elections?

Incredible…

Posted by Will S. on June 04, 2005, 01:32 AM | #

BTW, I just read that Ismail Merchant, of Merchant-Ivory fame, recently passed away; apparently he was working on a new movie:

Merchant spoke a couple of years ago about another project that he doesn’t seem to have completed. It’s unfortunate, as it seems to herald a return to the broader themes that made Merchant-Ivory a synonym for literate, beautiful films. UPI said the film was to be “a comedy about a rich young Indian couple that buys the most beautiful house in England, and employs a house staff made up entirely of English servants.”

“It’s the reverse idea of how we were ruled by the English,” Merchant said. “Today, England is being run by people who came from the outside. The shops, the restaurants-are all being run by Pakistanis, Indians, Bangladeshis and Africans. The English have even taken to the Indian cuisine.”

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 04, 2005, 01:50 AM | #

Looks like he passed away just in time ...

Posted by Svigor on June 04, 2005, 01:55 AM | #

The part that shocks me is how brazen non-whites generally are about such matters. I was just saying the other day how they’re conditioned to act in ways we’d consider borderline-psychotic.

Imagine moving to France, putting an American flag on your house and/or car, going on welfare, bragging about how your ethnic kinsmen and other outsiders were taking France over, how “you’d” be the majority in x years, how “you” invading is the side of the angels, how soon the shoe would be on the other foot, how France is racist unless it provides free public schooling in American English, how the French are now eating “American” food, etc., ad infinitum.

Imagine what it would take to emigrate to France and do all that, or to make movies promoting all of that as wonderful, inevitable, a tide of history.

I suppose Ismael told us exactly what it takes, that is, precisely what it took for the English to rule the Indians.

Posted by Svigor on June 04, 2005, 01:57 AM | #

The only thing more shocking is the white boys like bb cheering it all on (or cheering on the elite vanguard of same).