Identity and Difference, Part 2: Identity

Alain DeBenoist

Part 1, Difference


The question of identity (national, cultural, etc.) also plays a central role in the debate about immigration. To begin, two observations must be made. The first is that there is much talk of the identity of the host population, but, in general, there is much less talk of the identity of the immigrants themselves, who nevertheless seem, by far, the most threatened by the fact of immigration itself. Indeed, the immigrants, insofar as they are the minority, directly suffer the pressure of the modes of behavior of the majority. Pulled to disappearance or, inversely, exacerbated in a provocative way, their identity only survives, frequently, in a negative (or reactive) manner by the hostility of the host environment, by capitalist over-exploitation exerted on certain workers uprooted from their natural structures of defense and protection.

The second observation is the following: It is striking to see how, in certain ways, the problem of identity is situated exclusively in relation with immigration. The immigrants would be the principal “threat,” if not the only one, that weighs on French identity. But that is tantamount to overlooking the numerous factors that in the whole world, both in the countries with a strong foreign labor as in those without it, are inducing a rapid disintegration of collective identities: the primacy of consumption, the Westernization of customs, the media homogenization, the generalization of the axiomatic of self-interest, etc.

With such a perception of things, it is too easy to fall into the temptation of scapegoating. But, certainly, it is not the fault of the immigrants that the French are apparently no longer capable of producing a way of life that is their own nor to offer to the world the spectacle of an original form of thought and of being. And nor is it the fault of the immigrants that the social bond is broken wherever liberal individualism is extended, that the dictatorship of the private has extinguished the public spaces that could constitute the crucible in which to renew an active citizenry, nor that individuals, submerged in the ideology of merchandise, turn away more and more from their own nature. It is not the fault of the immigrants that the French form a people increasingly less, that the nation has become a phantasm, that the economy has been globalized nor that individuals renounce being actors of their own existence to accept that there are others who decide in their place from norms and values that they no longer contribute to forming. It is not the immigrants, finally, who colonize the collective imagination and impose on the radio and on the television sounds, images, concerns, and models “which come from outside.” If there is “globalism,” we say too with clarity that, until proven otherwise, where it comes from is the other side of the Atlantic, and not the other side of the Mediterranean. And let us add that the small Arab shopkeeper contributes more to maintain, in a convivial way, the French identity than the Americanomorphic park of attractions or the “shopping center” of a very French capital. Read more »

Observations - The Occidental Observer Blog
Disconnect between elites and the rest in Germany: Is it legitimate to criticize diaspora Jews for the behavior of Israel?

The World Jewish Congress expressed its displeasure at the turnout for a demonstration against anti-Semitism in Germany thusly:

Germany’s entire political elite has gathered in Berlin to demonstrate against anti-Semitism. The protest adds 6,000 people to the campaign. But it is far from enough, says DW’s Editor-in-Chief Alexander Kudascheff.

It is a clear signal — 6,000 people have gathered in Berlin to protest against anti-Semitism. Only 6,000. No more.

In 1992, over one million Germans held candle-light vigils in cities, villages and communities across the country to speak out against racism. That was at a time when right-wing hate was countered with demonstrative and imposing force.

But this time, 6,000 people have spoken out. That includes Germany’s entire political elite. The president. The chancellor. Ministers. Unionists. The Protestant and Catholic churches. They all gathered on Sunday to make a clear statement against anti-Semitism – upon invitation from the Central Council of Jews in Germany, since no initiative came from within society, from within Germany itself. That is quite disgraceful, as is the small number of participants.

This disconnect between elites and everyone else is likely a real problem for Jews throughout the West and increasingly so. Jewish influence has always been a top-down phenomenon. Jews as an elite throughout the West have a strong track record of being able to dominate elite discourse by eliminating or marginalizing media figures or politicians who call attention to Jewish power or are critical of Jewish power or Israel (see below). One gets the impression that it was de rigueur for German elites to show up for the demonstration and that any no-shows would be in danger of their political lives. But one has the feeling that no one’s heart is in it, least of all for the great mass of people who stayed away.

Read more »

Norjalainen Johan Galtung puhuu juutalaisista (Finnish Translation of “Johan Galtung on Jews”

Norjalainen Johan Galtung puhuu juutalaisista (Finnish Translation of “Johan Galtung on Jews“)

Johan Galtung on merkittävä norjalainen akateemikko, rauhantutkimusten perustaja ja yli 100 kirjan sekä yli 1000 tutkimuksen kirjoittaja. Hänet on myös virallisesti leimattu antisemitistiksi hänen lausuntojensa vuoksi. Hän kuitenkin puhuu usein järkeä.

Galtungin mukaan historiallinen antisemitismi perustuu osittain juutalaisten käytökseen. Saksassa 1920-luvulla ei Galtungin mielestä ollut ”ongelmatonta, että juutalaisilla oli avainasemat yhteiskunnassa, jota oli nöyryytetty tappiolla Versaillesissa,” samalla, kun juutalaisvastaiset liikkeet voimistuivat.

Hän tekee selvän eron juutalaisvastaisen käytöksen ennustamisen ja hyväksymisen välillä: ”Tämä ei millään tavalla, todellakaan millään tavalla, oikeuta hirmutekoja. Se kuitenkin loi antisemitistisen liikkeen, jonka synnyn olisi voinut ennustaa.” Samaan tapaan hän perustelee keskiaikaisten vainojen perustuneen juutalaisten rooliin koronkiskonnassa: ”Juutalaisilla oli oma roolinsa maksun vaatimisessa velkaantuneilta torppareilta.”

Read more »

Pakistani Collectivist Political Culture at the Root of the Rotherham Pathology

An article from the Daily Telegraph points up ethnic differences in political culture that enabled the horror that unfolded in Rotherham (Rotherham: politics ‘imported from Pakistan’ fuelled sex abuse cover-up – MP). Although we at TOO have stressed the pathology of the White community for not prosecuting industrial-scale rape of White British children by Pakistani males for fear of being labeled a “racist,” it goes without saying that the Pakistani community must bear ultimate responsibility.

Part of the Pakistani pathology was that such large numbers of men would engage in such behavior. But in addition, the industrial-scale rape of children had to have been common knowledge within the Pakistani community because of the large numbers of men involved.

Nevertheless, nothing was done to stop it. As Tobias Langdon notes, White sex criminals do their deeds secretly and in private because they are well aware that such behavior is looked on with horror by the vast majority of other Whites. This is what one would expect in an individualist culture.

However, Pakistan is a typical Middle Eastern collectivist culture, so the emphasis is on supporting one’s own kinship group, no matter what. This is also the case in the Orthodox Jewish community, another typical Middle Eastern collectivist culture (see here on the SY’s, a group of Syrian Jews living in New York). The Mesirah phenomenon in these  Orthodox Jewish communities has led to covering up a wide range of crimes, especially sex crimes against children and financial crimes.  Read more »