Is Racial Nationalism Acceptable?

Hello, I've recently came into Nationalism from a Marxist perspective. Mainly, I've been watching racial realists on YouTube debate with the racial egalitarians. I found the racial realist arguments more compelling and I was convinced that racial and ethnic homogeneity would be immensely helpful to the Socialist project; mainly because I think people have more empathy and solidarity with those similar to them. I also believe that the races differ in intelligence as proxied by I.Q. tests which means that a racial division of labor will arise when the races mix. This, in turn, will lead to a lack of economic self determination among the races, especially blacks.

What I advocate is essentially a communist Federation of relatively racially homogeneous nations which cooperate via resource sharing, with each group having self determination. Personally, I have no special connection to my race as a European American, so I'm not particularly enflamed by this issue. I care more about social cohesion and solidarity than I do about the loss of "MY HERITAGE!" specifically. I guess you could classify me as a White Nationalist, although I don't think I fit in with that crowd very well, for numerous reasons.

1. Antisemitism. I absolutely hate this. The scapegoating is beyond ridiculous.
2. Corporatism and Capitalism. I'm opposed to both; however, these seem to be the dominant economic positions of the White Nationalist movement.
3. Social Conservatism. I despise the hatred of homosexuals and such in these groups. It's abhorrent.
4 I support International Class Struggle. There are more reasons, but I think you get the picture.

So, this leads me to a series of questions:
1. Is this type of Nationalism considered reactionary?
2. Am I welcome on this site?
3. What would you classify my ideology as?
4. Are you aware of any online forums where people like myself gather?

Thanks!

cogarian888 wrote:Hello, I've recently came into Nationalism from a Marxist perspective. Mainly, I've been watching racial realists on YouTube debate with the racial egalitarians. I found the racial realist arguments more compelling and I was convinced that racial and ethnic homogeneity would be immensely helpful to the Socialist project; mainly because I think people have more empathy and solidarity with those similar to them. I also believe that the races differ in intelligence as proxied by I.Q. tests which means that a racial division of labor will arise when the races mix. This, in turn, will lead to a lack of economic self determination among the races, especially blacks.

What I advocate is essentially a communist Federation of relatively racially homogeneous nations which cooperate via resource sharing, with each group having self determination. Personally, I have no special connection to my race as a European American, so I'm not particularly enflamed by this issue. I care more about social cohesion and solidarity than I do about the loss of "MY HERITAGE!" specifically. I guess you could classify me as a White Nationalist, although I don't think I fit in with that crowd very well, for numerous reasons.

1. Antisemitism. I absolutely hate this. The scapegoating is beyond ridiculous.
2. Corporatism and Capitalism. I'm opposed to both; however, these seem to be the dominant economic positions of the White Nationalist movement.
3. Social Conservatism. I despise the hatred of homosexuals and such in these groups. It's abhorrent.
4 I support International Class Struggle. There are more reasons, but I think you get the picture.

So, this leads me to a series of questions:
1. Is this type of Nationalism considered reactionary?
2. Am I welcome on this site?
3. What would you classify my ideology as?
4. Are you aware of any online forums where people like myself gather?

Thanks!

Welcome comrade, I can not speak for the RSF, though from what it sounds like you and me have a lot in common. I consider myself "racialist" (I use the term very hesitantly) simply because I see the value in preserving the different human races as well as having pride in my own racial heritage, without any disrespect and/or hatred and contempt for other races of course. I also support homogenized States for the sake of good social cohesion as you pointed out.

To answer your questions:

1. Not at all.
2. Not my forum, can't answer for you, but I would accept you.
3. I would probably call you a National Revolutionary or National Bolshevik
4. You should probably check out The American New Resistance

Pantheon Rising wrote:Welcome comrade, I can not speak for the RSF, though from what it sounds like you and me have a lot in common. I consider myself "racialist" (I use the term very hesitantly) simply because I see the value in preserving the different human races as well as having pride in my own racial heritage, without any disrespect and/or hatred and contempt for other races of course. I also support homogenized States for the sake of good social cohesion as you pointed out.

To answer your questions:

1. Not at all.
2. Not my forum, can't answer for you, but I would accept you.
3. I would probably call you a National Revolutionary or National Bolshevik

Thanks for the reply! I think we're similar, albeit with some significant differences.

National Bolshevik Party wrote:THE PURPOSE
3. Global purpose of National-bolshevism is the creation of Empire from Vladivostok up to Gibraltar on the basis of Russian civilization. The purpose will be achieved in four stages: à) Transformation of Russian Federation into the national state Russia by Russian Revolution, b) Joining of the territories of former republics of the Soviet Union, inhabit by Russians c) Rallying around of Russians Eurasian nations of the former USSR. d) Creation of huge continental Empire.

THE STATE
4. Having come to power, NBP will make revolutionary on the scales of transformation in Russia, will construct the TOTAL STATE, the human rights will concede a place to the rights of a nation. Inside the country the iron Russian order, climate of discipline, bellicose and diligence will be established.

Based on this, I can say with certainty that I'm not a National Bolshevik. The American New Resistance, however, was fairly close to my views(although there were a few red flags which came up in my mind, e.g., they have some of Kim Jong Il's writings on their website, and their advocacy of a rekindling of the spirit causes me some pause), and I'd like to thank you for referring me to them.

First of all, welcome to the forum, cogarian888.

cogarian888 wrote:Hello, I've recently came into Nationalism from a Marxist perspective. Mainly, I've been watching racial realists on YouTube debate with the racial egalitarians. I found the racial realist arguments more compelling and I was convinced that racial and ethnic homogeneity would be immensely helpful to the Socialist project; mainly because I think people have more empathy and solidarity with those similar to them. I also believe that the races differ in intelligence as proxied by I.Q. tests which means that a racial division of labor will arise when the races mix. This, in turn, will lead to a lack of economic self determination among the races, especially blacks.

I am intimately familiar with the debate between hereditarians and environmentalists on the subject of IQ and the racial disparities thereof. Aside from reading many of the major works and recent journal articles on the topic, I've spent a bit of time observing the online debates dealing with the subject. I'll simply say that those who have decided to defend the environmentalist position on YouTube do a disservice to it, because they're generally ignorant of the important studies vindicating the malleability of IQ. I used to be a proponent of the hereditarian position myself, until I overcame my confirmation bias and began to seriously research the opposing viewpoints. (I've briefly discussed by views on IQ theory here, here, and here, if you're interested in reading them.)

As for racial nationalism, I think it overemphasizes the importance people place on ethnicity. Many of the individuals who espouse racial nationalism do so because they (whether consciously or otherwise) accept the validity of group selection, which I consider to be inaccurate for a variety of reasons—but I don't want to diverge this thread with my criticisms of sociobiology. Nevertheless, I do believe that ethnocultural homogeneity tends to increase levels of group cohesion, and that people, if given the choice, would tend to agglomerate on that basis; such is the left-wing nationalist hypothesis.

What I advocate is essentially a communist Federation of relatively racially homogeneous nations which cooperate via resource sharing, with each group having self determination.

Why do you feel inclined to "advocate" your nationalist position? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to just support a policy whereby the masses, following the proletarian revolution, are permitted to decide how they wish to solve the national question themselves?

I guess you could classify me as a White Nationalist, although I don't think I fit in with that crowd very well, for numerous reasons.

White Nationalists are reactionaries (e.g., racists, imperialists, anti-Semites, homophobes, and capitalists), so I would hope that you, being a communist, wouldn't want to identify yourself with that tradition.

Is this type of Nationalism considered reactionary?

I would only consider it reactionary if it was used to justify oppressing ethnic groups, or if it was imposed on the people coercively.

Am I welcome on this site?

Anyone who follows the forum guidelines is allowed to post on the Socialist Phalanx.

What would you classify my ideology as?

Communism + ethnic nationalism.

Are you aware of any online forums where people like myself gather?

I'm not aware of any. Your position isn't radically different from left-wing nationalism, but you do stress ethnicity far more than many of us do.

Thanks!

No problem.

I side much more on the nurture/culture side of that argument, so I disagree with your premise; however, I would be willing to discuss it with you. That said, you do not sound like a white nationalist, and I would caution you against accepting that label without being sure that you are. It's very divisive and would cause many unneeded arguments.

I see no reason why you should not be welcome.

cogarian888 wrote:Thanks for the reply! I think we're similar, albeit with some significant differences.

Yes, I think we may differ slightly on issues such as social conservatism. I am pretty socially conservative, but I don't support the imposition of morality by dictatorial means. I do think however that socialism will reduce things such as hyper sexualization and populations will generally become more socially conservative.

Based on this, I can say with certainty that I'm not a National Bolshevik. The American New Resistance, however, was fairly close to my views(although there were a few red flags which came up in my mind, e.g., they have some of Kim Jong Il's writings on their website, and their advocacy of a rekindling of the spirit causes me some pause), and I'd like to thank you for referring me to them.

Well, National Bolshevism as understood by Liminov and the "NBP" (as opposed to Dugin's NBF) is strictly a Russian chauvinist ideology with absolutely no merit whatsoever. National Bolshevism is a very very widely used term and is often abused, to understand it truly I would suggest looking into men like Ernst Niekisch and Karl Otto Paetel.

They do indeed study Juche and North Korea though the party ideology is separate and is manifested in their manifesto. No problem comrade.

cogarian888 wrote:1. Is this type of Nationalism considered reactionary?
2. Am I welcome on this site?
3. What would you classify my ideology as?
4. Are you aware of any online forums where people like myself gather?

1.No
2.Yes
3.National Communist
4.No but I'm still looking

Celtiberian wrote:I am intimately familiar with the debate between hereditarians and environmentalists on the subject of IQ and the racial disparities thereof. Aside from reading many of the major works and recent journal articles on the topic, I've spent a bit of time observing the online debates dealing with the subject. I'll simply say that those who have decided to defend the environmentalist position on YouTube do a disservice to it, because they're generally ignorant of the important studies vindicating the malleability of IQ. I used to be a proponent of the hereditarian position myself, until I overcame my confirmation bias and began to seriously research the opposing viewpoints.

I'd be very interested in those studies, if you could point me in the right direction(the links you provided were fairly cursory). I'm not at all fond of the idea that the races innately differ in intelligence, and it's something that I've come to reluctantly accept; it's sort of like a prostate exam for me.

As for racial nationalism, I think it overemphasizes the importance people place on ethnicity. Many of the individuals who espouse racial nationalism do so because they (whether consciously or otherwise) accept the validity of group selection, which I consider to be inaccurate for a variety of reasons—but I don't want to diverge this thread with my criticisms of sociobiology. Nevertheless, I do believe that ethnocultural homogeneity tends to increase levels of group cohesion, and that people, if given the choice, would tend to agglomerate on that basis; such is the left-wing nationalist hypothesis.

I ultimately agree with this, but, like I said, my recent encounter with hereditarianism has led me to believe that race is of some significance.

Why do you feel inclined to "advocate" your nationalist position? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to just support a policy whereby the masses, following the proletarian revolution, are permitted to decide how they wish to solve the national question themselves?

Well, I'm a part of these masses, and I have my own personal opinion about it. I guess "advocate" is too strong a word; it's just something which I passively support.

White Nationalists are reactionaries (e.g., racists, imperialists, anti-Semites, homophobes, and capitalists), so I would hope that you, being a communist, wouldn't want to identify yourself with that tradition.

I certainly don't enjoy holding beliefs in common with these people, and I don't really identify as a White Nationalist, at least not openly.

I would only consider it reactionary if it was used to justify oppressing ethnic groups, or if it was imposed on the people coercively.

Absolutely not.

cogarian888 wrote:I'd be very interested in those studies, if you could point me in the right direction(the links you provided were fairly cursory).

The links I provided in my previous post merely contained fragments of my own views on the matter. For an excellent overview of the recent evidence compiled in favor of the environmentalist position, I recommend reading Nisbett, et al.'s “Intelligence: New Findings and Theoretical Developments” (American Psychologist, Vol. 67, No. 2, pp. 130–159). I also recommend Jay Joseph's The Missing Gene: Psychiatry, Heredity, and the Fruitless Search for Genes and The Gene Illusion: Genetic Research in Psychiatry and Psychology Under the Microscope for thorough critiques of the methodology employed by behavior geneticists to formulate heritability estimates. As far as the general factor of intelligence is concerned, Peter Schönemann spent much of his academic career refuting its explanatory power, and Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences and Robert Sternberg's triarchic theory of intelligence are intriguing alternatives, so you may want to research them as well.

I'm not at all fond of the idea that the races innately differ in intelligence, and it's something that I've come to reluctantly accept; it's sort of like a prostate exam for me.

Bear in mind that the hereditarian position has implications for within group variation as well. Classists like Charles Murray, for example, have long used it to put forth the notion that capitalism meritocratically elevates the so-called "cognitive elite" to positions of wealth and authority in society—though the empirical data most certainly doesn't verify such a claim.

I ultimately agree with this, but, like I said, my recent encounter with hereditarianism has led me to believe that race is of some significance.

You're conflating hereditarianism (a theory of cognitive ability) with sociobiology (a theory of human nature). Acknowledging the former doesn't necessarily imply an acceptance of the latter, and vice versa. To understand the relative importance people place on ethnicity, it's best to consult historical, sociological, and anthropological sources. In my readings, I've come to the conclusion that people do indeed identify with their ethnic group (particularly under conditions of ethnic heterogeneity in a location), but generally place just as much importance on their cultural identity.

I guess "advocate" is too strong a word; it's just something which I passively support.

Okay.

I certainly don't enjoy holding beliefs in common with these people, and I don't really identify as a White Nationalist, at least not openly.

Accepting the view that races differ with respect to their cognitive ability and that people display stronger levels of solidarity toward those more similar to themselves wouldn't qualify you as a White Nationalist, so it's probably best to avoid that label altogether.

I've spent some time over the last day reading articles by Nisbett, Flynn, et al. and I've became agnostic on the issue. I think a lot of the genetic arguments are pretty poor now (e.g., regression to the mean, intermediate I.Q., g loaded tests have the highest gap, heritable tests have the highest gap). However, I don't see much evidence for a culture only explanation, save for the Moore adoption study which has problems because of the age of the children. I've revised my position for now, but I was curious if any of you know of the evidence for the culture only explanation, as that would be immensely helpful. Thanks for not freaking out on me; if this were RevLeft I would've been banned and I would've grudgingly thought it proved the racists right.

I would recommend looking up case studies of children who were abused through isolation and lack of human contact. It severely hindered their intelligence even years after being rescued from their abusers. They highlight a case for socialization as a major factor in developing personality and intelligence.

Red Aegis wrote:I would recommend looking up case studies of children who were abused through isolation and lack of human contact. It severely hindered their intelligence even years after being rescued from their abusers. They highlight a case for socialization as a major factor in developing personality and intelligence.

This is kind of irrelevant to the race and I.Q. discussion because you have to restrict the range of environments. If you have a very poor environment this can lead to low I.Q. and personality changes, yes. However, the question is of whether or not the races have significant enough social gaps to explain the I.Q. disparity; in the US in particular.

No it is not irrelevant. Which do you think matters more, environment or genetics? Without proper environment genes do not even function in the same manner in their phenotypical expression, ie: intelligence, athleticism, health, ect. I've read studies that the intelligence differences between races are the same as between individuals of the same race. People are not limited by their genes anyway.

Red Aegis wrote:No it is not irrelevant. Which do you think matters more, environment or genetics? Without proper environment genes do not even function in the same manner in their phenotypical expression, ie: intelligence, athleticism, health, ect. I've read studies that the intelligence differences between races are the same as between individuals of the same race. People are not limited by their genes anyway.

That question doesn't have a binary answer. It depends on the environment in question. If the B/W environments were equal, genetics would be more important, if Blacks were raised with wolves and malnourished, environment would be more important. So, again, you need to show that there's a significant environmental difference between Blacks and Whites in the US, and you need to show which specific factors in this environmental difference affect I.Q. scores.

I don't have to do anything, you asserted the difference. I am willing to help you look for sources, but I don't feel like debating at the moment. You also assumed that I was referring to a binary choice.

Red Aegis wrote:I don't have to do anything, you asserted the difference. I am willing to help you look for sources, but I don't feel like debating at the moment. You also assumed that I was referring to a binary choice.

Which difference? You implicitly accepted all of the differences through your arguments. You accept racial genetic difference, because you accept them as categories, and you accept the I.Q. and environmental differences by arguing that the latter causes the former. I'm not trying to debate you; I was just pointing out that your studies aren't really relevant, and if you think they are, then I see no problem with you defending that point of view.

cogarian888 wrote:I've spent some time over the last day reading articles by Nisbett, Flynn, et al. and I've became agnostic on the issue.

In certain respects, agnosticism is the most reasonable decision given the existing data and the technological limitations researchers have to manage with.

I don't see much evidence for a culture only explanation

Very few (if any) of the individuals involved with intelligence research support an exclusively cultural hypothesis. The environmentalist position contends that nutrition, in utero conditions (including a mother's diet and level of stress), social class, and culture significantly impact cognitive development and, consequently, intelligence. As you probably know, hereditarians are of the view that 60-85% of one's general intelligence is genetically determined, whereas environmentalists support much lower estimates. Neither side of the debate is of the view that genes or environment accounts for the entirety of our intelligence.

The reality of the situation is that there is no way to conclusively settle the matter given the aforementioned technological limitations. Traditional methods behavior geneticists employ to come up with heritability estimates are fraught with problems, as Jay Joseph's research aptly demonstrates; and genetic analysis is still in its infancy. It is exceedingly difficult to isolate the specific genes associated with cognitive performance, and this problem isn't limited to intelligence research. Despite the billions of dollars invested in the Human Genome Project over the years, the genes responsible for the development of cancer, for example, still haven't been identified. (For more on this, I recommend Richard Lewontin's It Ain't Necessarily So: The Dream of the Human Genome and Other Illusions.)

Thanks for not freaking out on me; if this were RevLeft I would've been banned and I would've grudgingly thought it proved the racists right.

It's quite all right. RevLeft is a cesspool of ignorance. Despite their fanatical promotion of "tolerance," they certainly cannot tolerate differences of opinion on most issues.

the question is of whether or not the races have significant enough social gaps to explain the I.Q. disparity; in the US in particular.

I think it's rather obvious that they do. By no means have the environments between Blacks and Whites in the United States been equalized.

As a point of clarification, I know intelligence isn't "culture only", I was referring to the racial I.Q. gaps.

cogarian888 wrote:As a point of clarification, I know intelligence isn't "culture only", I was referring to the racial I.Q. gaps.

Richard Nisbett's Intelligence and How to Get It: Why Schools and Cultures Count, and his article “Heredity, Environment, and Race Differences in IQ: A Commentary on Rushton and Jensen” (Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 302–310.) presents the evidence supportive of the environmental explanation for the Black-White IQ gap.

I'm actually reading Intelligence, but Rushton and Jensen have written a critical repply in their 2010 review.

I haven't finished either, so I can't comment on the strengths of their arguments, but I'm not aware of a response from Nisbett.

A lot of the arguments in Nisbett(2005) were addressed in "Wanted: More Race Realism, Less Moralistic Fallacy"

I'm not sure if Nisbett replied. If you're aware of a reply to either of these, it'd be much appreciated.

cogarian888 wrote:I'm not sure if Nisbett replied. If you're aware of a reply to either of these, it'd be much appreciated.

All of Rushton's remarks since 2005 were addressed in the aforementioned Nisbett, et al. paper, “Intelligence: New Findings and Theoretical Developments” (American Psychologist, Vol. 67, No. 2, pp. 130–159).

cogarian888 wrote:Which difference? You implicitly accepted all of the differences through your arguments. You accept racial genetic difference, because you accept them as categories, and you accept the I.Q. and environmental differences by arguing that the latter causes the former. I'm not trying to debate you; I was just pointing out that your studies aren't really relevant, and if you think they are, then I see no problem with you defending that point of view.

I accepted that there may be some slight differences in how different races score on a test. I accept that environment plays a role. However, this is largely irrelevant in planning a possible future policy, as any considerations of these differences sounds more like meritocracy than democracy. To try to legislate based upon this would be the same as instituting an apartheid system. That's why I don't really care about this topic and don't feel the need to defend it. If you think that apartheid is a good thing then you have more problems than I can solve through debating something as subjective as intelligence with you.

Red Aegis wrote:I accepted that there may be some slight differences in how different races score on a test. I accept that environment plays a role. However, this is largely irrelevant in planning a possible future policy, as any considerations of these differences sounds more like meritocracy than democracy. To try to legislate based upon this would be the same as instituting an apartheid system. That's why I don't really care about this topic and don't feel the need to defend it. If you think that apartheid is a good thing then you have more problems than I can solve through debating something as subjective as intelligence with you.

A system of voluntary racial segregation could lead to more self determination for all groups if differences are genetic. If differences are genetic, a racial division of labor would emerge, and Whites would leave Black areas due to them being prone to crime. Racial animosity would grow as Whites begin to view other races as less useful(janitors are a dime a dozen, surgeons are not. This doesn't mean janitors aren't valuable human beings or that they're unnecessary, but if Blacks are viewed as adding nothing to society while being a drain, Whites won't like them.) And Blacks will dislike that they have fewer doctors than the other races. Relative social inequality would lead to trust issues. Blacks would blame Whites, Whites would blame Blacks.

That is why this issue is important. I'm not for forcing anything on the working classes, but if racial differences are genetic, the whole conversation about how to achieve social equality and justice changes. This is less important within groups, because people don't tend to generalize about their own group. At least not in my experience.

cogarian888 wrote:A system of voluntary racial segregation could lead to more self determination for all groups if differences are genetic. If differences are genetic, a racial division of labor would emerge, and Whites would leave Black areas due to them being prone to crime. Racial animosity would grow as Whites begin to view other races as less useful(janitors are a dime a dozen, surgeons are not. This doesn't mean janitors aren't valuable human beings or that they're unnecessary, but if Blacks are viewed as adding nothing to society while being a drain, Whites won't like them.) And Blacks will dislike that they have fewer doctors than the other races. Relative social inequality would lead to trust issues. Blacks would blame Whites, Whites would blame Blacks.

That is why this issue is important. I'm not for forcing anything on the working classes, but if racial differences are genetic, the whole conversation about how to achieve social equality and justice changes. This is less important within groups, because people don't tend to generalize about their own group. At least not in my experience.

There is no evidence for a genetic link, for one. Furthermore, that logic would justify internal exploitation and oppression, since it legitimizes hierarchies. Unless it can be proven that blacks are so incapable of adhering to societal rules and behavioral standards that allowing them to integrate would be unbearably costly (that is, unless the cognitive abilities of blacks can be demonstrated to be somehow less than human, which is absurd) there can be no compelling reasons to exclude "black" people on the basis of race alone.

Rev Scare wrote:There is no evidence for a genetic link, for one. Furthermore, that logic would justify internal exploitation and oppression, since it legitimizes hierarchies. Unless it can be proven that blacks are so incapable of adhering to societal rules and behavioral standards that allowing them to integrate would be unbearably costly (that is, unless the cognitive abilities of blacks can be demonstrated to be somehow less than human, which is absurd) there can be no compelling reasons to exclude "black" on the basis of race alone.

1. That's the point of contention at the moment.
2. The same could be said of ethnic nationalism. Deciding on who you want to live with is not exploitative. And I have no doubt that there'd be exceptions.
3. The idea that Blacks would have to be of subhuman intelligence in order for racial segregation to be justified is your opinion.