On the problem of open border elites and Western-hating Whites: White nationalism vs. libertarian nationalism

From:
Frank Salter on Stupid Open Borders Arguments
(Occidental Observer Blog) -- by Kevin MacDonald --

Frank Salter is a giant in the intellectual defense of White identity and interests. His book On Genetic Interests is a breakthrough in providing a rigorous conception of ethnic interests based on evolutionary theory and modern research in genetics and the social sciences.

Salter has just published a wonderful article in Quadrant, an Australian neocon publication (“On misguided advocates of open borders“). It is a masterpiece of elegant argumentation and a complete trashing of his professorial opponent, the unfortunate Mirko Bagaric, who seems almost ludicrously unaware of the most basic academic literature bearing on the issue. The good news is that it’s an excellent introduction to Salter’s thinking–much recommended.

Prof. Bagaric believes that all the world’s ills could be solved if the poor people were allowed to immigrate to places like Australia. Instantly world poverty would be solved! What’s not to like?

Salter lists the downsides to this idea–all of which apply equally well to other Western societies similarly bent on open borders self-destruction. Diversity is associated with “reduced democracy, slowed economic growth, falling social cohesion and foreign aid, as well as rising corruption and risk of civil conflict.” Ethnic diversity is also associated with “reduced public altruism or social capital, evident in falling volunteerism, government welfare for the aged and sick, public health care and a general loss of trust. Ethnic diversity is second only to lack of democracy in predicting civil war. Globally it correlates negatively with governmental efficiency and prosperity.”

Critically, he points to “invidious ethnic stratification” as an inevitable result: “No one likes to be ruled over by a different ethnic group or to see his own people worse off than others. The result is resentment or contempt, depending on the perspective taken.”

Ethnocentrism is not a White disorder and evidence is emerging that immigrant communities harbour invidious attitude towards Anglo Australians, disparaging their culture and the legitimacy of their central place in national identity.

Sound familiar? These are all the things that Westerners can look forward to as they become minorities in the societies they built and dominated for hundreds of years. This resentment and contempt will produce enormous unrest in Western societies, and ultimately it will result in violence directed at White people perpetrated by ethnic groups with deep historical grudges against their erstwhile benefactors.

Salter also emphasizes the general point that everyone has rights and interests. People who argue for open borders argue solely from the rights and interests of people who (naturally) want to go to a place where they have a higher standard of living. They never take the perspective of the natives. Egocentrism writ large. As Salter argues, the open borders movement is profoundly immoral.

The other consistent strand of Salter’s thinking is that this horrifying state of affairs has resulted from the domination of elite forms of discourse by advocates for open borders among academic, media, and political elites.

The egregious standard of analysis behind open borders advocacy is not an aberration. It is deeply embedded at the elite level of Australian political culture. The problem lies with an influential tradition well established within the universities and intellectual class as a whole. … The rapid transformation of Australia by mass Third World immigration has been a top-down revolution in which exclusivist politicised circles within academia have been complicit by commission and omission.

There are other factors as well. For example, Salter points to a collusion of self-censorship on immigration by self-interested politicians bent on obtaining support from immigrant constituencies.

But the role of elite academics should never be underestimated. Not one Australian academic stood up to point out the shoddiness of Bagaric’s arguments. The revolution in the academic world that toppled Darwinian social science in favor of erecting the culture of critique is critical to the demise of White nation states. In my view, this revolution was at its core an ethnic revolution, resulting from the rise of a Jewish intellectual elite, Jewish ownership and influence in the media, and Jewish influence on the political process. It is not surprising that the revolution that caused the impending increase in ethnic hatred and conflict in Western societies was itself the result of ethnic hatred and conflict.

The power and rigor of Salter’s ideas are a huge asset in combating the suicidal tide sweeping all White countries...LINK
-------------------------

Chris Moore comments:

Today, the Left has essentially modified Marxism from a Darwinian class analysis to an anti-White, Darwinian class-racial analysis wherein the (middle and lower middle class) White masses are largely evil, the non-White masses are good, and a certain class of elite “progressive” Whites (and neocon Whites) are good. Ironically, the “good” Whites are comprised of a relatively wealthy, insular elite, which turns the original class basis of Marxism on its head. Indeed, in this modified Marxism, a certain type of wealthy Whites can be good -- the wealthy, “progressive” Jewish and Judaized neocon type of Whites willing to cut the throats of all other Whites either through open borders, or through sacrificing them in Middle Eastern wars for Jewry.

But these limousine liberal and neocon Whites themselves could be said to be playing a Darwinian game of realpolitik, which itself should draw admiration from Darwinian White supremacists -- all of which is why I reject White nationalism in favor of libertarian nationalism, as any Darwinian contest has to respect the ultimate “winner” as the “superior” in a survival-of-the-fittest contest, regardless of how dirty or underhandedly they might have played.

Libertarian nationalism would respect and reward those who uphold the concepts and standards of Western civilization and the libertarian ideology of America’s founders, and punish those who do not, irrespective of race. Ultimately, this is the only way to preserve Whites, too, as it would punish back-stabbing, cut-throat Whites getting their strings pulled by Jewry and Judeo supremacist concepts and ideologies, be they openly Jewish supremacist (neoconservatism) or crypto Jewish supremacist (modified, racialized limousine liberal Marxism).