Top

Tom Sunic interviews Kevin MacDonald

June 9, 2009

In this episode, Dr. Kevin MacDonald joins Tom for a discussion on “identity”: what it is, the psychology of identity, and identity politics.

Tom and Kevin, leading lights among those who advocate for the political organization of European-derived peoples around the world, are long-time friends and knew each other when Tom taught at Cal State Long Beach. This is a thought-provoking show that shouldn’t be missed!

A high-quality version of this broadcast archive can be found here.

13 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 59 min.

Contact Tom:
tom.sunic hotmail.com

Comments

27 Responses to “Tom Sunic interviews Kevin MacDonald”

  1. George Orwell on June 10th, 2009 12:16 am

    Great show…. 5 Stars

  2. chubby guy on June 10th, 2009 6:00 am

    Sunic needs to talk less and listen more. Ask shorter questions and allow your distinguished guest to do the talking. Every question was prefaced with a long introduction which made me wonder whether Sunic was even interested in having KM speak.

  3. Luis Magno on June 10th, 2009 12:24 pm

    The top ideological, social, political and cultural issue facing European America in decline is the issue of “whiteness” as is clear from Dr. Kevin McDonald’s insane obsession with it. Dr. Sunic’s kabuki dance around the issue would be comical were the implied self-masturbatory tragedy behind the kabuki not so tragic.

  4. Skeeter on June 10th, 2009 12:49 pm

    The idea that Jews are the only reason, or even the main reason, why Euro-Americans are in the situation they’re in today is simply absurd.

    America was set up as a polyarchy, which means it was really only a matter of time before it started looking the way is does today.

  5. George Orwell on June 10th, 2009 1:33 pm

    Both Luis and Gluck are absurdly wrong, and are doing this intentionally. Every issue of today, from the decline in morals, multiculturalism, civil rights, immigration are a direct result of the jewish agendas. You two might want to wake up to these facts because I’m sure the folks at VoR won’t allow your sack of lies to continue.

  6. William of OC on June 10th, 2009 4:55 pm

    Wonderful show. The existential threat facing Europeans and European-descended peoples everywhere is unique in history. I’m sure our ancestors would be shocked if they saw what we have allowed to happen. Of course much of it can be attributed to the Jewish tribal agenda. And that’s what it is: tribal. The Jewish assault on the West is a kind of tribal war. But, aren’t there other processes at work here? A decline in traditional religious belief and mores, a loss of civilisational confidence at least partly a result of the horrors of the First World War. How do we explain the willingness of Europeans to surrender control of our destiny to Jewish tribal warriors in the first place?

  7. Luis Magno on June 10th, 2009 7:42 pm

    The seeds of Manifest Destiny gone berserk were sown in 1619 in Jamestown, Virginia with the introduction of Black slavery and re-sown with that “splendid” war of choice known as the Mexican War of 1846-48.

    We can blame the Other, be it Black, Jewish or Mexican, for all of our problems as European Americans but the fact remains that the solutions to those problems can only be ours. The dark side of Manifest Destiny has nothing to do with either Judaism or mass Mexican immigration.

    To be sure the Talmudists cleverly exploit the internal weaknesses built into the racial supremacist Anglo-Saxon beginnings of “white” America. We have met the enemy and it is us.

  8. itnw on June 11th, 2009 5:39 am

    G.O. is right. Anyone going around trying to take blame away from the Jews is either ignorant or is doing it purposely to mislead. VOR shouldn’t allow these types of posters to spread their lies here.

  9. Morgan on June 11th, 2009 7:11 pm

    George Orwell, of course you’re correct in saying that the jew is responsible for peddling just about every degenerate cause of the 20th Century, with the intent on destroying the European races. Yet Gluck is correct in saying it is the way America was founded that is contributing. I couldn’t give a hoot how ‘racialist’ the Founding Fathers were, they were Enlightenment liberals! And in no country, hell no continent, is the Enlightenment most uphold than in America. To be a conservative, to be on the Right, one must reject the Enlightenment. To do otherwise is to conserve an older form of leftism that the Left have since abandoned.

    Let’s look at France with their revolution based on ‘the rights of man’ and other abstractions of degenerate minds. You’d think all their ‘Conservatisms’ would be similar to American ones, not quite. You have figures such as Charles Maurras and Maurice Barrès who held unthinkable positions for mainstream conservatives in the States today and their predecessors in the late 19th to early 20th Century, and these two chaps were in the mainstream of French society, in the upper echelons!

  10. Ngach on June 15th, 2009 3:30 am

    From Wikipedia:

    Rights of Man (1791), by Thomas Paine, posits that popular political revolution is permissible when a government does not safeguard its people, their natural rights, and their national interests. It defends the French Revolution against Edmund Burke’s attack in Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790).

    ****

    Human rights originate in Nature, thus, rights cannot be granted via political charter, because that implies that rights are legally revocable, hence, would be privileges:

    It is a perversion of terms to say that a charter gives rights. It operates by a contrary effect — that of taking rights away. Rights are inherently in all the inhabitants; but charters, by annulling those rights, in the majority, leave the right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few . . . They . . . consequently are instruments of injustice.

    The fact, therefore, must be that the individuals, themselves, each, in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a compact with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist.

  11. Anti on June 17th, 2009 2:19 am

    Morgan, your post contained great truth:

    “I couldn’t give a hoot how ‘racialist’ the Founding Fathers were, they were Enlightenment liberals! And in no country, hell no continent, is the Enlightenment most uphold than in America. To be a conservative, to be on the Right, one must reject the Enlightenment. To do otherwise is to conserve an older form of leftism that the Left have since abandoned.”

    Ngach, you are engaging in nothing more than Enlightenment-esque sophistry.

  12. Anti on June 17th, 2009 2:22 am

    George Orwell: the Jew has played a large part in our decline. But he is by no means the only factor, as you are suggesting.

    Some of the major contributors to our demise are indigenous European creations, such as the Englightenment and Classical Liberalism.

    Likewise the manner in which the United States was formed – by White Liberals informed almost exlcusively by Englightenment ideals – plays a large role in the problems the USA faces today.

    Putting all the blame and responsibility on the Jew is intellectual dishonesty.

  13. GR on June 17th, 2009 9:00 pm

    “Putting all the blame and responsibility on the Jew is intellectual dishonesty.”

    No; it is at most an emotional exaggeration. What you offer — the snooty pose of finding “the Enlightenment” to blame — is dishonest. One day you’ll perhaps understand that precisely in your high-minded reserve is the seed of that love of abstraction that makes “Enlightenment ideals” a culpable entity in your mind.

  14. GR on June 17th, 2009 9:03 pm

    “Ngach, you are engaging in nothing more than Enlightenment-esque sophistry.”

    You’re engaging in whiteskin wordplay.

    Keep whining about “the Enlightenment” though. It’s doing us all a world of good.

  15. Anti on June 17th, 2009 10:17 pm

    “Keep whining about “the Enlightenment” though. It’s doing us all a world of good.”

    Right then, GR. Do you want to discuss the issues or not?

    I guess your dismissive post is just another way of saying you don’t consider the Englightenment, and all of the issues raised therein, to be important?

    Why don’t you just say that?

  16. Anti on June 17th, 2009 10:19 pm

    Whether you like it or not, the ideas of the Enlightenment and Classical Liberalism, are sooner or later a core issue for any Rightist, Nationalist or Conservative.

    To just leave it out, or dismiss it, is irresponsible and dishonest.

  17. Anti on June 17th, 2009 10:24 pm

    Unlike you it seems, I don’t believe critiquing the Jew and critiquing the Englightenment (as well as its supporters such as the Founders) to be an EITHER/OR proposition.

    I think Tomislav makes a very crucial and important point towards the end about America being a propositional nation.

    I imagine it is probably a more difficult bridge for American Nationalists to cross, but nevertheless… The fact that the US was set up essentially as a propositional nation – an Englightenment Nation – is something that has to be recognised.

  18. Anti on June 18th, 2009 9:25 pm

    http://www.amazon.com/review/R39KKR036PQCAR/ref=cm_cr_pr_cmt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1439168571&nodeID=#wasThisHelpful

    “Of course Thomas Paine was a “lefty”. ALL of the founders were, at the time, on the left; hence the term liberalism, and liberal democracy. Hayek was a liberal. Friedman was a liberal. Jefferson was a liberal. Believe in individual rights, the free market, civil liberties, yep you’re a liberal too.”

  19. Luis Magno on June 20th, 2009 9:11 pm

    Let us bypass the European Enlightenment altogether and go back directly to the 15th-century European cultural and scientific Renaissance with ethno-racial roots in Spain’s 13th-century Golden Age under the Hispanic/Iberian kings of Castile and Leon – Alphonse the Learned and his father before him, Ferdinand the Saint.

  20. Antonio on June 22nd, 2009 2:56 pm

    Wow Rush kick ass.

  21. Historama on June 22nd, 2009 3:37 pm

    I agree with much of what was said, but I disagree with MacDonald on the point of abandoning (or diminishing the importance of) our ethnocultural identities in favor of a pan-European ‘white’ identity. I can’t see any other reason for such an identity other than competing successfully in the arena of identity politics. I don’t want to give up my identity as Germanic/North European just because a bunch of morons in the media love to divide the world into ‘black’, ‘white’, ‘brown’, ‘yellow’, etc. I don’t want Europeans to freely intermix and diminish the vast differences that exist between them. Swedes are clearly different from Italians; if you can’t see this, you need professional eye surgery.

    I don’t think that Europeans should develop a pan-European white identity, as Dr. MacDonald suggests they should. I think there should be a collaboration between Europeans, but not a unified identity that will only facilitate race mixture between different European races. This goes both for Europeans in Europe, and Europeans in the New World. Homogenizing the European races is just as undesirable as homogenizing the races of the entire human species.

    Europeans are not all the same, they are very different. Germanics, Slavics, Celtics, Latins, Uralics, etc. Nordish, Alpines, Dinarics, Ladogans, Meds, etc. Why destroy this diversity, all for the sake of some nebulous, historically baseless concept of ‘whiteness’?

  22. Luis Magno on June 22nd, 2009 9:22 pm

    Most European Americans are of mixed-ethnic European descent. They are officially and also popularly identified as “white” by other races but also by many European Americans themselves who self-identify as “white”. This is a socio-racial classification, a caste classification. On the one hand it refers to race but on the other hand it refers to social status.

    There is an urgent political need for a pan-European-American ethno-racial identity based on related European ethno-cultural-historical heritages as well as shared racial characteristics. The various European-American ethno-racial subgroup identities are real and nobody is advocating their disappearance.

    The political reality is that the American government and the American culture (as it were) as well as non-European-American ethno-racial groups generally identify European Americans (except for Spanish Americans) as “white” based on their physical appearance including but not limited to having a pale skin, that is, to having a deficiency of skin melanin.

    That is the reality that must be dealt with. That identification and, in particular, that self-identification as “white” I see as a serious obstacle on the path toward a viable and politically effective pan-European-American ethno-racial (not just ethno-cultural and not just racial) identity

    If Swedish Americans, for example, want to maintain their ethno-racial identity intact and their gene pool pure they are free to do so. It is their human right to do so. The issue for Swedes in Europe is outside my purview. I understand that many Blacks now live in Sweden. I am an American concerned with the destiny of the United States first of all.

    A strong Swedish-American ethno-racial identification ought not to preclude and certainly does not preclude a broader ethno-racial identification as European American. On the contrary that narrower Swedish-American ethno-racial identification is the necessary foundation on which Swedish-Americans must, can and do build their broader European-American ethno-racial identification.

    Eduardo Galeano, a famous Chilean writer of European descent, defines culture as the collective expression of human identity. It is culture that ultimately defines us or self-defines us, although never exclusively, as either Americans or as European Americans or as Germans or as Blacks or as Greeks or as Asians or what have you.

    Ethnicity is both culture-based and race-based. The relative importance of culture and race is ultimately an individual or a collective human decision. Some people make race, i.e., their physical appearance, the sole criterion of their humanity. They have the right to that criterion but it is a limiting criterion that diminishes their humanity.

  23. Historama on June 23rd, 2009 12:51 pm

    Well, like I said, if it’s about collaboration between different ethnies and different European races (they are NOT ‘subraces’ or subgroups or anything of the sort, they are just races), then I’m all for it. But, then again, why does this form of collaboration have to stop with just European-derived peoples? You talk about the urgent need for a broad ‘European-American’ identity for political purposes, but why is this the case?

    Why can’t I collaborate just as much with someone who is Japanese for the purposes of fighting against multiculturalism, and building genuine respect between national and racial communities? What about Chinese in China? Iranians in Iran? Why does opposition to multiculturalism only have to be a ‘white thing’?

    I think that MacDonald’s agenda in this regard might be more harmful than helpful. Frankly, I think he wants to build a pan-European ‘white’ identity because he is upset with the current establishment, and so he wants to ‘combat’ the establishment by building a large movement that has considerable political clout. To me, that’s not a rational solution to the problem. I think it will do more to alienate the mainstream and also generate unnecessary resentment between groups. Plus, as I’ve tried to say, it totally neglect the complex realities of racial differences and European history.

    Heck, to be honest, I feel closer to most Japanese than to your average Irishman or Hungarian. The Japanese have achieved an impressive degree of civilization and have made significant contributions to technology, science, etc. Not only that, they have developed a culture where natural differences are openly recognized and encouraged by society. And they are technically ‘non-white’. I feel a greater spiritual connection to them than many European groups who have little to offer civilization except their ‘light skin’ (how in the world can the Irish compare to the Japanese? The same goes for plenty of Euro-groups).

    I’m all for collaborating with different Euro-groups, but I don’t see why this collaboration has to stop there. I don’t see any reason not to collaborate with other peoples around the world for the collective purpose of opposing multiculturalism and the forces which are trying to homogenize us. Can you explain the reasons for not doing so?

  24. Luis Magno on June 23rd, 2009 7:25 pm

    I have no quarrel with your main thesis. Some of your objections to what I am saying appear, however, to be cosmetic, i.e., simply a matter of nomenclature. I addressed some of these objections in my previous post but perhaps not to your satisfaction.

    I don’t see the struggle as a struggle against “multi-culturalism” (whatever that is) or against anything else. I see the struggle as a constructive struggle for a positive ethno-racial identity on both personal and collective levels. The personal and the collective are intertwined and inseparable.

    We are Americans. That’s a given. But what is an American? I am a European American. But what is a European American?

    The American reality is that we are today a complex of different ethnies, races, religions and nationalities. That’s the given. We cannot turn the clock back. It would be impossible or impractical to deport those groups that we don’t like. We have to learn to live together.

    The challenge is to create the social rules and structures that will provide the context for these disparate groups to interact constructively. I favor an immediate moratorium on all immigration, legal and illegal, until such time as we, the European Americans, who are still the numerical majority can get our ethno-racial act together.

    If we can get our act together the sky is the limit precisely because we are the majority. Shall we do nothing and wait for 2040 when we shall no longer be the majority?

    As it is the non-European minorities have a decided advantage over us. It is not a level playing field. Their sense of identity is strong. Ours is weak and we can no longer afford to continue quibbling among ourselves, or worse, insulting each other as some on this blog have done, over unimportant differences or over misunderstandings.

    Our collective futures, our survival, as Americans and as European Americans is at stake

  25. Historama on June 24th, 2009 2:44 am

    Luis Magno on June 23rd, 2009 7:25 pm

    “The American reality is that we are today a complex of different ethnies, races, religions and nationalities. That’s the given. We cannot turn the clock back. It would be impossible or impractical to deport those groups that we don’t like. We have to learn to live together.”

    I disagree. I don’t care if they are here. They still aren’t my people, and I will never consider them to be. I don’t want to share an identity with Italians, East Europeans, etc. regardless if they are either here or in their respective home countries. Yes, they jumped ship, and came over here for ‘opportunity’; my ancestors didn’t do that, they came here to carve a successful civilization out of a wilderness. And they did. I’m not suggesting deportation, but we shouldn’t ‘learn to live together’, because life is pointless unless you can feel a genuine sense of community with your own people. Geographical separation within North America is totally feasible, given our population density. Europe is much more cramped, by comparison. The only thing that is lacking is proper attitude.

    “If we can get our act together the sky is the limit precisely because we are the majority. Shall we do nothing and wait for 2040 when we shall no longer be the majority?”

    ‘We’ are already a minority; that is, North European-derived people whose ancestors actually built this country. A substantial part of those in the so-called ‘white’ community in the US today are not descended from the pioneer nation-builders who came here 300 years ago. These people are not creative culture-builders, they are opportunists. I don’t want to be lumped in with such people, no matter how ‘European’ they are.

    As for the American superstate monstrosity, I say let it perish by way of its own internal contradictions. I couldn’t care less if it self-destructs under the weight of a non-white majority. It will fall sooner rather than later anyways, given the totally clueless plutocrats who are running it, not to mention the increasingly degraded population over which they rule. Your average ‘American’ today is a semi-literate, overweight, slack-jawed, ill-dressed couch potato; how in the world can such a country expect to compete in a world of advanced economies?

    I couldn’t care less if it falls, because I’m not interested in ruling the world. I don’t want to play identity politics, because to me it’s not meaningful. When America falls, we will be able to rebuild North America with a rational policy of recognizing ethno-racial differences. People can have their OWN communities with their own traditions, languages, etc. instead of trying to force this disgusting mixed salad of ethnicities and races into a homogenized mass that all speaks English. This is just as true for the non-North European groups as for the non-European groups. I don’t want to force Italian-Americans to speak English, and they are only deluding themselves if they think that this is their natural language. We should respect each other, of course, but good fences make good neighbors.

    “As it is the non-European minorities have a decided advantage over us. It is not a level playing field. Their sense of identity is strong. Ours is weak and we can no longer afford to continue quibbling among ourselves, or worse, insulting each other as some on this blog have done, over unimportant differences or over misunderstandings.”

    Lol, well, they may seem ‘unimportant’ to you, but not to me. My family history is extremely important to me, as is my particular ethnic background. The differences between ethnocultural groups are very significant, including intra-European differences. When I look at my own ancestors, I don’t see ‘whites’, I see North Europeans who helped to build this country from literally nothing. The problem with many who follow the MacDonald line so blindly is that they don’t consider these differences, even though they must. Having a pan-European identity for anything other than practical purposes is not only stupid, it’s dangerous. I don’t want my own specific North European identity to be compromised just because there are people here who ‘look White’ (whatever that means) and come from Europe. Separation is the only way to achieve genuine respect and understanding between peoples, and for preserving common interests in civilization, stability, etc.

    BTW, by ‘multiculturalism’ I’m just referring to the tendency to mass homogenization; that is, forcing — through either physical or psychological means — different and otherwise unrelated groups together for political and/or economic purposes. That includes the pan-European crowd, who wish to force different Euro-groups together for the sake of preserving ‘white civilization’ (I have no idea what that is) and competition against minority identity politics.

  26. Luis Magno on July 4th, 2009 1:03 pm

    To: Historama on June 24th, 2009 2:44 am

    I believe that you and I are much closer in our thinking than you seem to believe. I am of mixed-ethnic European descent as I suspect you are too because “Northern European” includes many different European nationalities speaking many different languages and having distinct histories, cultures and gene pools.

    My European-American identity is firmly grounded on one specific European national identity… by choice. That’s how Europeans do it when they are of mixed ethnic descent. They choose either their paternal or their maternal heritage to identify with depending on what country they live in.

    For example, my Spanish friend’s brother lives in Germany and married a German woman and they have several children. The whole family adopted her German surname. They are simply Germans living in Germany. If they had been living in Spain they would have retained their Spanish surname and become simply Spanish.

    My idea of a pan-European-American identity is for political purposes to be sure as is apparently McDonald’s pan-White identity. But such an identity can only be constructed around a shared culture including a shared history. As European Americans we have that shared culture and that shared history both here and in Europe. That identity can not be created around the notion of a “white” skin as McDonald apparently wants to do.

    To Amerindians, Blacks, Chicanos and others we are “white”. To the powers that be we are “white”. To “whites” we are “white”. We are seen as one race, the “white race” and as individuals we are all perceived to be “racist” by virtue of being “white”.

    European Americans are increasingly being legally discriminated against by hate crime and civil right laws on the supposed grounds that they are all hateful “white racists”. It’s collective punishment on the basis of race.

    On what basis would you cooperate politically with other European Americans if not on the basis of a shared culture and a shared history and, yes, shared “white” skins?

  27. Historama on July 6th, 2009 9:06 am

    To Luis Magno

    “I believe that you and I are much closer in our thinking than you seem to believe. I am of mixed-ethnic European descent as I suspect you are too because “Northern European” includes many different European nationalities speaking many different languages and having distinct histories, cultures and gene pools.

    My European-American identity is firmly grounded on one specific European national identity… by choice. That’s how Europeans do it when they are of mixed ethnic descent. They choose either their paternal or their maternal heritage to identify with depending on what country they live in.”

    Yes, I am of mixed-ethnic descent, but as you’ve pointed out, it’s natural for people to gravitate towards a specific ethnic identity based on their particular situation. In my case, I have several northern European nationalities, but I strongly prefer certain of those nationalities over others. In a sense, my own identity could be described as multi-layered — I have a ‘macro-identity’ based on my shared northern European background with other Americans, and also a more narrow personal identity based on my characteristics, habits, etc. This is why I consider myself to be ‘Germanic’ northern European, because even within the general blend of northern European groups I feel the strongest connection with Germanic culture.

    Yes, in their own ‘Old World’ countries, the various northern European groups have very distinct histories, and their own ethnocultural heritages. But, in the US, contact between northern European types has been happening since the beginning; the same cannot be said of north and south Europeans, however. Southern Europeans have a totally different experience in the New World when compared with Northern Europeans. The same is true for Eastern Europeans, and for non-Germanic and non-Celtic Europeans as well. That’s why I think a northern European identity is logical for New Worlders in the US. It is not ‘ethnic’ in the Old World sense, where ethnies tend to mirror national boundaries and political organization, but it does have an ethnic component because it doesn’t include all of them.

    “For example, my Spanish friend’s brother lives in Germany and married a German woman and they have several children. The whole family adopted her German surname. They are simply Germans living in Germany. If they had been living in Spain they would have retained their Spanish surname and become simply Spanish.”

    I don’t think this is right; the Spanish and the German are not compatible, imo. Nothing against Spaniards at all, I just don’t want to lose the particular characteristics of Northern European groups, especially the Germanic groups. The fact is, if too much Spanish genetic material is transferred into the German gene pool, the Germans will lose their peculiar features. I think this diversity should be preserved; if this is to happen, the identities of said groups have to remain intact.

    “My idea of a pan-European-American identity is for political purposes to be sure as is apparently McDonald’s pan-White identity. But such an identity can only be constructed around a shared culture including a shared history. As European Americans we have that shared culture and that shared history both here and in Europe. That identity can not be created around the notion of a “white” skin as McDonald apparently wants to do.

    To Amerindians, Blacks, Chicanos and others we are “white”. To the powers that be we are “white”. To “whites” we are “white”. We are seen as one race, the “white race” and as individuals we are all perceived to be “racist” by virtue of being “white”.

    European Americans are increasingly being legally discriminated against by hate crime and civil right laws on the supposed grounds that they are all hateful “white racists”. It’s collective punishment on the basis of race.”

    I don’t really care about the perceptions of these people; they are only perceiving things that way because the media tells them so in the first place. As I’ve said, I don’t consider myself to be ‘white’ at all. Yes, according to the current US government, I’m a ‘white’ person. But Italian-Americans, Bulgarian-Americans, and Greek-Americans, etc. would also be included in the same category. I don’t consider myself to be part of their category. It’s that simple.

    As for history, I think the historical record will show that the experience of northern Europeans and non-northern Europeans in the New World is very different; only a very inaccurate picture of history could lead one to believe that this experience is adequate for a ‘pan-European’ identity. The US is a perfect case in point. In what sense do you see the experience of the various European groups as being sufficient for this kind of identity?

    Heck, in many ways, the experience of certain non-northern European groups has been closer to experience of some non-European groups. Look at the experience of the East Asians, for instance; the Chinese were considered unassimilable, and they were socially excluded by mainstream society for most of their history here. During the Second Great Wave of Immigration, many non-northern European groups remained unassimilable (for various reasons), and so the result was a huge flowering of ethnic enclaves within American society. This rarely happened before with the earlier immigrants. The non-northern European immigrants were also ‘discriminated’ against in many ways, similar to the East Asians. Yes, the East Asians were not from Europe, as the other Second Wave immigrants were, but apparently this didn’t stop the northern European establishment from seeing the latter (or at least a larger part of the latter) group as essentially unassimilable. On the surface, it would seem that one could more easily make a case for the ‘collective identity’ of East Asians and non-northern Europeans in the US, based on similarities of experience. Any arguments to the contrary?

    New Worlders are different from Old Worlders, and so the Old World can only serve as a basis for ethnocultural matters to a limited extent. Ethnicity here means something very different, because our history concerning ethnic issues is completely different. In the early 20th century (definitely up until WWI), most ‘Americans’ considered themselves to be a stabilized blend of northern European types, with the Anglo-Saxon heritage being most important (in terms of language, culture, etc.). Perhaps we sacrificed a little bit of the ‘Old World’ nationalistic excluvism to our ethnocultural identity, since we welcomed various groups, but that is really just the same story of every ethnic group. England is a perfect example of the crystallization of ethnic identity through mixture and cross-tribal interaction.

    “On what basis would you cooperate politically with other European Americans if not on the basis of a shared culture and a shared history and, yes, shared “white” skins?”

    On a basis that recognizes the very different histories of the various Euro-groups, for starters. As I’ve said, the historical record will show that ‘pan-European identity’ has had essentially no place in the New World. And, I’m not quite sure what you mean by ‘shared culture’. Shared in what way? Culture is usually something that binds people together tightly and individuals take very seriously. I don’t see really see evidence for this among the various Euro-groups, at least not evidence for anything more than superficial articles of culture (‘outward’ things like language can be learned; look at the non-Euro groups). Culture is inter-generational, in that is has to do with the continuation of a particular way of life over time. How has this occurred between Euro groups? To what extent?

    I would be happy to cooperate with them, but the cooperation would have to respect the distance between groups and the desire to maintain those boundaries. The same is true for non-European groups that also want to oppose the destructive agenda of the current establishment.

Bottom