Which European Identity in Our Postmodernity?

Posted by Guest Blogger on Friday, 05 September 2008 20:57.

Speech given by Dr. Tom Sunic at the “Nordic festival,” Gothenburg, Sweden, 30th August, 2008

We start to wonder about our identity at the moment when we are about to lose it. Our fathers and our grandparents never asked questions about their identity; they never worried about it. They took for granted their affiliation to a given religion and to a given tribe or a people. It is with the rising tide of globalization, multiculturalism and multiracialism, along with the waning of the traditional nation-state, that we start asking a question about who we are. The minute we raise the question of identity we start thinking about national identity.

But is this still really so today? How do we define our modern identity? Let us propose a couple of modern definitions that are onerous to Europeans.

First, we must mention the “substitute” identity, or ersatz identity, or identity by proxy. It is no accident that along with the loss of their own identity, white Europeans resort to ersatz identities. For instance they espouse the Palestinian or Tibetan identity or some other distant Third World identity as if it was their own. They spot some lost Indian tribe in the Amazon forest and then, with all their passion, strive to protect and preserve it. But when it comes to defining and preserving their own identity they remain silent. To say aloud “I am proud of being European,” let alone “I am proud of being a Swede,” or “proud of being a Croat,” smacks of nationalism. It must be avoided in modern discourse.

So which is the defining factor of identity today? Here in this place, you and I can talk about primary identity, secondary and tertiary identity. Does our local national identity today, in the epoch of globalism, precede our secondary European identity? I may have many more things in common in terms of my identity here with young Swedish identitarians than with my fellow Croat nationalists. But in a multicultural and multiracial society it changes. I may find common bonds even with my former enemies, the Serbs, who may also have difficulties identifying themselves with non-European residents coming to their shores.

Now, the second onerous definition is “negative identity.” When it is couched in the narrative of victimology, substitute or foreign-inspired identity becomes particularly strong. Europeans erect monuments to exotic tribes that they never heard of until the day before last. Days of atonement keep accumulating on the calendar. Every white European or American politician is obliged to pay moral and/or financial tributes to peoples whose identity has nothing in common with his own. While Western media and opinion makers assure us that history is creeping toward an end, we are witnessing a staggering demand for the revival of new non-European micro-identities often expressed as unique victimhoods. Yet, each non-European victimhood requires an expanding number of its own dead and culprits. Culprits, as a rule, must always be white Europeans, forced in turn to practice the ritual of remorse. The old sense of the tragic, which until recently was the fundamental pillar of European historical memory, cedes its place to European jeremiads for victimhoods of Asian and African tribes. Slowly but surely, the European culture of death is being supplemented by a fixation on non-European identities. What a scandal if a white European or American statesman fails to display remorse for the past suffering of some non- European people!

One must, however, make a clear distinction between the culture of death and the cult of death. The old culture of death, so common to ancient European identity, is being replaced by bizarre cults of the dead, stripped of any redemptive meaning. What counts in each non-European victimhood identity is its impressively high figures for the dead, the endless enumeration of surreal body counts, which serve as an additional weapon to impose guilt feelings on white Europeans. And where does the appetite for the foreign dead stop? On the hit parade of various victimologies or, as the buzzword now goes, in the “battle of memories,” victims can never be equal. Some must take precedence over others, as is the case with the Jewish Holocaust. Given the victimological atmosphere, which prevails today in the multiracial West, each non-European tribe, race or community is led to believe that its own victimology is unique. This is a dangerous phenomenon in view of the fact that each victimology is by definition conflictual, inevitably aiming at the removal of the other competing victimology.

The essence of victimology lies in the liberal dogma of human rights. The dogma of human rights and its most logical social consequence, the foundation of the multiracial world system, is the main motor behind the resurgence of the spirit of victimhood. When all men are declared equal, each human being and each tribe on Earth must be automatically entitled to the status of victimhood. By their nature, multicultural countries in the West are required to allot the victimhood status to every human being. Each ethnic group, every racial, and even every sub-group, practicing some exotic lifestyle, such as gays, lesbians, or sun worshippers, needs it own martyrology in order to legitimize its identity. To illustrate this point, let’s put ourselves in the shoes of the non-European Other, i.e., a Congolese, a Samoan, an Tamil, residing in Paris, London, or New York. Is he or she not entitled to pose the following question: “Why do the others, for instance the Jews, have the right to their victimhood, but not my group?” Indeed, in the name of humanity, some of the largest genocides were made possible during the twentieth century. In the name of an abstract victimology and human rights, dissident intellectuals or political opponents, or whole groups of people, have been dehumanized. To put it differently, each spirit of victimhood searches for its negative identity by negating Otherness, i.e. by abolishing the Other, who is henceforth no longer perceived as human, but depicted as a monster who needs to be eliminated as quickly as possible. The spirit of victimology does not serve to prevent the conflict. It often enhances and renders the conflict inevitable.

There is a serious problem regarding the viability of diverse identities in the multicultural system in the West. On the one hand modern liberal Western societies require that each non-European ethnic group receives an appropriate identity and its right to historical grievance; yet on the other liberal societies are unable to function in an environment beset by ethnic balkanization. Therefore, the contest of diverse victimologies makes the functioning of the liberal system extremely precarious. In essence, each victimological spirit in multiracial society is confrontational and discriminatory. It creates the climate leading up to latent civil war.

Europeans are facing a perilous postmodern situation. On the one hand, they are being overwhelmed by the rhetoric of negative identities, i.e. anti-colonial victimologies, and by the endless palaver about past European fascist crimes. Yet on the other hand one can barely hear a word about crimes committed by Communists and their liberal allies against different peoples around the world. Who can still remember Europe’s victims of communism, who have no victimological status in Western Europe, at least?

In our postmodernity we have to overcome the sense of territorial rootedness. Our European racial and cultural identity stretches from Argentina to Sweden and to Russia. We do not wish to waste our time and search for the appropriate word for this prospective political entity: it could be called the “Reich,” “the “Empire,” or the “European Union.” What counts, though, is the substance and the values behind this political structure and not the name per se. Furthermore, our identity must not be posited on the exclusion of the Otherness, but on the clear acknowledgement of Differentiation of different identities. We must not define our racial and cultural identity by making the Other a Xerox copy of ourselves - as modern Liberals and Christians do with their vague universalism. Our identity lies in the transcendental sphere of our own uniqueness - but not at the price of excluding the uniqueness of other peoples and other races.

Thank you for your attention.

Tom Sunic’s website is here.

Tags: Political Philosophy

Comments:

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 05 Sep 2008 23:35 | #

I’ve fallen into the habit of late of questioning that word, “identity”. It has about it the quality of something that floats down and alights on words and symbols. It’s too cultural, too much isolated in the mind. It doesn’t grow out of the ground as the subject matter really demands.

“Identity” is used by pomo-ists and social constuctionists in general precisely for that reason. It can (supposedly) be deconstructed and replaced by new feelings and new loyalties. Any black or brown immigrant - and certainly his children - can “identify” with “English”. And, as we all know, it’s racist to say they can’t (shades of the angry Mr Kingsnorth).

Something more rigorous and solid is needed. Ethnic genetic interest has to be a substantial part of it, and would permit concentricity. When partnered by a common historiography the meaning of “who I am” modulates to “who we are”. It becomes a precise fit of blood and soil, and the would-be interloper is excluded. The domaine of idiosyncratic ideas and loyalties, which constructionists press us to re-engineer, would top it off - but it would be the weakest element.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 06 Sep 2008 08:50 | #

“When partnered by a common historiography the meaning of “who I am” modulates to “who we are”.” - GW

Ethnic Genetic Interest is the natural incentive (I do not say imperative because our present actions indicate that, for us at least, there is leeway not to pursue our Ethnic Genetic Interest - it is not unavoidable that we do pursue said) to preserve and propagate “what we are” - genetically. Once a person is aware of “what they are” or what genetic stock they come from, they can immerse themselves in the history, traditions, accomplishments, and myths of their people - that’s the “who we are.” But how to get the deracinated individual to become the “I” whose self-concept is necessarily part of the “we”?

Well, there is the “scare the lemmings” (really just a loosely bound collection of deracinated individuals who the “lowest” manifestation of the herd instinct) approach in which we tick off the ten thousand and one ways in which what they value will be lost or significantly down-graded if their race is dispossessed and ultimately genocided.

Then, we can begin to indoctrinate the newly shocked-awakened in a manner that will tinge their new “identity” with religious awe and a moral imperative to take positive action in the defence of their peoples interests. The new “I” that is formed should have an experience of intense spiritualized transcendence at the prospect of being part of something bigger and of unfathomable significance than their meaningless, pleasure seeking life of before: the majesty, the grandeur of the “we”.

Make use of that “faith gene.”

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 06 Sep 2008 09:13 | #

What we need is pro-White propaganda. How about a slickly produced film that is formulated to elicit a racial awakening from the viewer based upon empirical research of how, psychologically, an awaken actually occurs and progresses in time.

Different strokes for different folks. Different films tailored for different audiences.

Market research, focus groups, controled studies: the works.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 06 Sep 2008 23:16 | #

I didn’t read this because after reading the little intro and the first three paragraphs or so, my eyes glazed over. It looks like typical luke-warm vacuous Catholic baby pablum, especially compared to the red meat of Prof. Sunic’s typical offerings, and the rest of what we devour daily at MR.com. I said to myself “I’ll plow through it” but then I noticed at the bottom of the page that was only the first: there were umpteen more pages of this thin watery soup, and I said, “I won’t be able to get though this.” I dunno, maybe I’m wrong. Probably am. If anyone reads it and it turns out it’s worth reading, could you post that conclusion somewhere? Sorry, I just don’t have the strength any more to waste my time with bloodless, hormoneless, very possibly synapse-challenged zeros, as this guy appears to be at first glance. Hey after what we’ve seen with Zmirak’s Catholic vacuity and flat-lined brain-death, can anyone blame me? Thnx.

(Hat tip)

Posted by torgrim on Sun, 07 Sep 2008 00:53 | #

“What we need is pro-white propaganda.” Captain Chaos

Remember, “Falling Down”, with Michael Douglas? Good start, Hollywood ending or actually it ended half way through the film….

But the beginning would make a good start for a film.

Posted by Fr. John on Sun, 07 Sep 2008 04:39 | #

“It looks like typical luke-warm vacuous Catholic baby pablum, especially compared to the red meat of Prof. Sunic’s typical offerings, and the rest of what we devour daily at MR.com.”

Though Sunic is a Croat, I am willing to hear what he has to say, even though the war on the Serbs currently still being waged, is being waged by the “Catholic” (i.e. Papal) West… and not the Russians.

But, the reason Rome has nothing to say is because she is indeologically bankrupt. The Filioquism that sustained her from Aquinas down to Newman is over and gone, and the Synagogue of Satan is now in full sway on the Tiber. What is happening in Russia, OTOH, is anyone’s guess, but I think the Slavic soul is finally awaking after 70-plus years of Bolshevism.

I’d trust Putin and Medvedev far sooner than I’d trust the Obamanation, or even McCain and his ‘squaw.’

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-heilbrunn/mccains-indiscretion_b_123185.html?view=print

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 07 Sep 2008 10:06 | #

Racial conscious does and must necessarily be manifest somehow psychologically/neurologically in the brain. How? We need to find out precisely how that is. We need people to do that. Even if such research in not given the stamp of approval by “Academia”, who cares; so long as we know. Once we know, scientifically, how a racial awakening is manifested and how to elicit it we can get to work.

Obviously, for propaganda to be maximumly effectual, it must be total or as close as can be gotten. But, we have to start somewhere.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 07 Sep 2008 14:08 | #

To Fr. John:

“typical luke-warm vacuous Catholic baby pablum”

In that phrase I was referring not to Prof. Sunic’s article, of course, but to the one by Jerry Z. Muller linked in my comment.

I agree with Fr. John, by the way, that the Catholic Church (I’m Catholic) is bankrupt of ideas. But there’s not only that, it gets worse: the Catholic Church today is run by the most cynical, most corrupt, most unbelieving, religion-hating, nation-and-civilization-destroying evilest men and sodomy-practicing, phallus-worshipping homos ever in its history since the time of the New Testament. Words cannot describe how sickeningly evil these insects are, these vermin, these antichrists, and I include the Pope in that of course. You’re looking at the Whore of Babylon now in Rome where the Catholic Church once stood. The Catholic Church today is one of the evilest forces that ever existed in the history of mankind.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 07 Sep 2008 14:11 | #

John Zmirak, the late William F. Buckley, Jr., and today’s “Catholic Church” (the corrupt, filthy, mammon-worshipping sodomite Whore of Babylon that has replaced true Catholicism, how I don’t know, probably with Jewish help) all go very well together.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 07 Sep 2008 14:59 | #

“Synagogue of Satan,” good name for it.

Posted by Othemla_Jr on Sat, 13 Sep 2008 11:15 | #

I applaud Dr. Sunics speech and everything he is doing right now (writing books like homo americanus and going on the speech making circuit) to help spread Euro New Right Ideology. Seriously someone should have been doing this stuff years ago. The moribund Far Right here in the USA could us an injection of some of the stuff Sunic is talking about.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 13 Sep 2008 13:15 | #

“The moribund Far Right here in the USA could use an injection of some of the stuff Sunic is talking about.” (—Othelma Jr.)

I reject the “far right” characterization. I consider it slightly left-of-center middle-of-the-road ordinary normalness. Just like me.

I for one don’t go by how many people believe something. You could have every person in the world believe something, I still won’t believe it; every person in the world going along with something, I still won’t go along with it; every person in the world saying I should submit to something, I still won’t submit to it. I don’t care if all the people in the world say forced race-replacement is good, I’ll still say it’s bad. I don’t care if all the people in the world say our side is “far right,” I’ll still say it’s middle-of-the-road, slightly left-of-center. Sorry, Jews, I’m not buying whatever you’re peddling today. Oh, today’s fare is two-plus-two equals five? Gee guys, thanks but no thanks. But you’ve got every goy on the planet to believe it? Yeah, OK, that may be, but ... I guess I’m a different kind of goy, I dunno, I’m sort of a two-plus-two-equals-four kind of <strike>goy</strike> guy. I’ll tell you what, I might change my mind the day Alon Ziv marries a Negro, OK? Till then, don’t call me, I’ll call you, don’t quit your day job, and, uhhh ... oh yeah, Mazel Tov!

(I agree, by the way, Prof. Sunic is a sort of hero of the modern age. This is a great man.)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 16 Sep 2008 01:41 | #

In this fragment published today, Lawrence Auster describes his view, and pretty much the standard view among many “on the right,” of the forces contending with each another on today’s socio-political battlefields:

[Consider] the basic ideas of right, left, and center. (Let’s remember that the three types described below rarely appear in pure form but are intermixed with the others.)

On the right, traditional conservatives believe in “larger wholes” — the realities of nature, society, and God —of race, culture, and religion — that make us what we are. They believe in natural and spiritual hierarchies that are implied in these larger wholes. Inequality is built into existence. Of course there are various kinds of traditional conservatism, each of them placing particular emphasis on certain aspects of the natural, social, and transcendent orders, and less emphasis on others.

In the middle, traditional liberals (right-liberals) believe in individualism: all individuals have equal rights, the individual is free to create himself, he is not determined by the larger wholes into which he was born. We should just see people, all members of the human race, as individuals deserving of equal dignity.

On the left, socialists and Communists, like traditional conservatives, also believe in larger wholes, but the wholes they believe in seen in terms of equality: the whole of society — equal; the whole of the human race — equal. They believe that man has the ability to engineer this larger, equal whole into existence, wiping out the unequal, inherited orders of class, sex, nation, race, religion, morality, and thus creating a New Humanity. Only the largest whole — humankind — is good, because only at the level of all humanity can there be true equality and fraternity uniting all people.

So, both the traditionalist conservatives on one side and the leftists on the other believe in larger wholes and agree in rejecting the pure individualism of liberalism. But beyond that, the right and the left are radically at odds, since the left seeks to destroy the natural and traditional wholes that the right believes in.

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/011423.html

(In the rest of this interesting VFR log entry Auster outlines an interpretation of German National Socialism which I for one don’t subscribe to.)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 16 Sep 2008 02:16 | #

In place of tradcon and the others I would put, repectively, normal (for tradcon) and degenerate (for the others), except for socialism, which can be in the normal category, depending on whose version. Right liberalism, communism, and what David Horowitz calls leftism are degenerate. What Auster means by tradconservatism is the only way to be normal. There’s no other kind of normalness. If you’re something else, then assuming you’ve had an education (so are supposed to know right from wrong, sense from nonsense, sanity from insanity, etc.), you’re not normal.

Posted by Bill on Fri, 19 Sep 2008 09:04 | #

The coming crack-up of postmodern liberalism

By Fred Hutchison

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/hutchison/050117

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 24 Sep 2008 23:33 | #

The Realist posts a how-to outline for boots-on-the-ground activism for our side:

I am a conservative activist in Virginia who has recently become a fan of The Inverted World and is excited by Ian Jobling’s proposal for a pro-white activism. The proposal is not easy to put into practice — the very fact that I am hiding my identity by using the pseudonym Ed Gorski indicates how controversial pro-white ideas are. So how should we go about building pro-white activism? My experiences and thoughts will perhaps provide some clues. For the time being I advise pro-white activists to frame their concerns mainly in non-racial conservative terms while seeking to introduce racial concepts gently and incrementally.

Over the past year and a half I have helped assemble and lead a group of about 150 members that lobbies for increased enforcement of immigration laws in the county where I live. We have been very active, writing letters to local newspapers, speaking at county forums, and meeting with our local, state, and federal politicians. As a result of our efforts the county has established an illegal immigration task force. Additionally, I recently convinced the county school system to use a conservative textbook in Advanced Placement US history classes as a counterweight to Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States, which is a standard text in the classes. As Ian wrote last week, the book is a thorough-going vilification of American white people.

Continue reading:

http://inverted-world.com/index.php/articles/articles/an_activist_speaks/

Posted by Bongo on Sun, 16 Oct 2011 22:09 | #

Wake up people! I personally know a jew in London who was warned about the 9/11 attacks a day before it all happened. IT WAS ALL ARANGED! and bloody OBAMA knows all about it!

Posted by James on Sat, 03 Dec 2011 04:16 | #

“You’re free to believe that little gremlins lurking in the basements of the Twin Towers set off explosives. Whatever makes your clock tick…Just don’t indulge those fantasies out loud on this blog again.

No more comments about the Twin Towers. None. Nada.

Consider yourself warned, teach.”

I could not be bothered reading any more of this fascists blog after reading the above.