Meta Cultural Flags

Posted by James Bowery on Friday, 09 December 2005 05:41.

Multiculturalism is the belief that all cultures should coexist in intimate contact with each other and that territories are largely irrelevant so long as “democracy” rules. There is a countervailing belief, best called “metaculturalism”, which is that each culture should have its own territorial allocation, and that democracy is largely irrelevant as long as people can choose their cultural affiliation and move to a territory for that culture, with territorial adjustments to accomodate such migration. Some cultures would naturally be racially separatist, and some would be multiracial—some might even be multicultural within their own territory. The point is there is an alternative to world-wide multicultural supremacy.

Taking my inspiration from the recent replacement of the Red Cross flag with the Red Crystal flag for use in territories hostile to Christianity (interestingly the Muslims didn’t demand this change—Jews did), I’ve designed a set of metacultural flags for ethnostates—territories whose culture is oriented to blood and soil.

Ethnostate for people of African descent.

Ethnostate for people of Asian descent.

Ethnostate for people of Hispanic descent.

Ethnostate for people of Amerindian descent. (See the exceptionally high rate of genetic change with geographic distance for the New World peoples given by Cavalli-Sforza et al “The History and Geography of Human Genes”)

A flag that may be redundant given current worldwide dominance of multiracialism:

Ethnostate for people dedicated to experiments in racial hybridization.

And, of course, our own:

Ethnostate for people of European descent.

Tags: No particular place to go

Comments:

Posted by Mark Richardson on Fri, 09 Dec 2005 08:37 | #

JJR, maybe you could think of it as “people and place”. It’s normal to have a close sense of connection to the place you inhabit as part of a traditional national identity. The identity you feel with your co-nationals, your ethnic kin, is tied up with the love you have for the land you inhabit. This feeling runs too deeply to be an invention of any century - it’s timeless.

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 09 Dec 2005 09:19 | #

The “Blood and soil” concept has been replaced by the “indigenous people” concept because Euroman is not supposed to have any native lands anymore. I reject that. As I’ve already pointed out—it is more important that Euroman be preserved in Europe than in the European colonies. Right now we don’t have so much as a reservation for our people.

I reject the rejection of “blood and soil” for the same reason I reject the rejection of the rights of indigenous peoples.

The supposed justification for attacking Euroman’s rights to his native land is his success in colonizing other people’s lands.

This is fallacious in two ways:

1 Euroman increased carrying capacity dramatically in the New World and Australia. Something no other ethny has done subsequent to European colonization.
2 The tendency to colonize other lands came from the invasion of a middle eastern diaspora culture that had effectively colonized Europe to make it Europeans adopt a diaspora culture.

If we follow the logic here then by looking at casualty rates in the middle east, we see Pacific Islander military men are out there sacrificing themselves for the imperial aims of the US more than others. They are colonized themselves by this military power. Are we to say the Pacifici Islands should be occupied by Arabs because the Pacific Islanders had the misfortune of being colonized and their culture replaced by a diaspora culture?

No, blood and soil isn’t a 19th century ideology.

It is a deep reality of living beings.

Posted by Ventris on Fri, 09 Dec 2005 19:09 | #

Multiculturalism is the belief that all cultures should coexist in intimate contact with each other and that territories are largely irrelevant so long as “democracy” rules.

No, it is the belief that cultures, where already confronted with the prospect of sharing geographical space, should not be made to assimilate into one national-cultural mould but rather maintain their particularity (identity, institutions). It is neutral with regard to the value of diversity in itself; it responds where presented with it de facto.

The point about democracy, though an incomplete thought, is valid; the first claim however is very far off base.

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 09 Dec 2005 19:50 | #

I think you miss the fundamental change that occurred with the immigration liberalization of the 1960s where national origin ceased to be a legitimate criteria for immigration restriction. This was clearly a multicultural assault on the rights of national groups to defend their territorial boundaries.

Posted by Svigor on Fri, 09 Dec 2005 20:43 | #

Why talk about that “blood and soil” nonsense.

Soil does not influence what we are

It is an obsolete 19th century theory which Marx was keen on—though Engels tried to talk him out of it.

What an odd thing for a Conservative to say! Clearly soil does influence what we are, even if only subtly and over great periods of time (racially; culturally soil can affect us profoundly in just a generation).

I’m curious if you have anything in your voluminous collection defending a tactic that seems ubiquituous in your writing, that of guilt by association? You rely on it ad infinitum, and I know you’re a prolific and educated fellow so I’m wondering if you’ve examined this and have some sort of defense for what seems to my sophmoric mind to be a simple and easily-avoided fallacy.

Posted by Svigor on Fri, 09 Dec 2005 20:49 | #

Ventris is right insofar as he’s delineating the textbook version of MCism.

James is right insofar as he’s delineating the practical version of MCism, where the rubber meets the road and it intersects with globalism and global kulturkampf.