A note on ethnonationalism (and the oikonomic nexus of family, race and nation)

Chase Cook
Chase Cook

I fell into a rabbit hole of reading a lot of leftoid websites and the (seemingly) thousands of university journals and publications these people have and write shit in. I found this short one about ethnonationalism.

I was asked for a brief definition of what I mean when I talk about the oikonomic nexus of race, nation, family that I’ve written about elsewhere, but also to situate an explanation of ethnonationalism within that. Posting that below for anyone who might be interested.

So, as briefly as possible.

There is no racism that does not involve a politics of sex and which links both of these with notions of property ownership. Without a theory and politics of sexuality and desire, there is no plausibility to tenets concerning the reproduction of the purportedly heritable property of race. Both cultural and biological concepts of race emphasize the importance of heritability, they simply disagree over the mechanism of transmission. The concept of race as a heritable property links race to class—it does so by naturalizing the (inter-generational) distribution of property and wealth, and links it moreover to the histories of coveture, paternal rights and absolute primogeniture. Hence, too, the antipathy to miscegenation, particularly where the husband is defined as not-white, and therefore also an antipathy that involves caveats, as where ‘inter-racial’ sex where wives or women generally are considered as property.

Along these lines, ethnonationalism—as well as the post-Plessy v Ferguson ‘separate but equal’ doctrine of segregation or Apartheid—involve a strict conflation between race, nation and family. In these schema, political rights and authority are distributed on the basis of masculinity while being spatially or geographically delimited on the basis of inseparable concepts of race and sex. Every nation a patriarchal household, engaged in competition within a global system. Ethnonationalism invites men to identify as both men and white (or with a race) as the condition of rights and, by implication, to consider women—and land or territory, and on occasion other non-white men who are often explicitly feminized—as the property over which those rights are exercised by ‘nature’ or divine right, and without restriction; or, as Marx put it while writing of the American Civil War, it promises “to tame them with the prospect of one day becoming slaveholders themselves.” This is also the promise that migration controls offer, the diffuse but naturalized promise of a distributed sovereign politics and selective decisionism. It is a concept of politics as regulative of the economy, whose norms and laws (nomos) are grounded in a distinction between public-political and private-economic domains (oikos). Hence oikonomia.

In this sense, race, sexuality, gender and class are not discrete, comparable categories. They refer to different but inseparable functions within a legal, economic and political system of appropriation and exploitation. All of this therefore involves an emphasis on labor, without taking as given how activities are defined as labor (or not), and who has rights of possession over that labor as stipulated in the arrangement of contracts.

In general the point is the same we have heard thousands of times before, everything is a spook. The word spook at this point has become a trigger word for right-wingers and I am wondering if there is any effort at all from any right-wing intellectual or organization to disprove the idea. The "HBD" crowd seems to be the only place where this is happening but all the kool kids are now shitting on it.

Attached: oy-there-lad-its-all-a-spook.jpg (88.99 KB, 960x783)

Other urls found in this thread:

osf.io/fgxru?show=view

Brandon Walker
Brandon Walker

She also wrote this gem in a different article in a different website:

Given all of this, the intellectual effort—renewed in the immediate wake of Trump’s election—to distinguish the dynamics of class or capitalism from those of race, gender, and sexuality indicate a reluctance to confront the significance of the latter in the contemporary organization of capitalism and, at the same time, a willingness to downplay, if not tacitly accept, the liberal and, more so, neoliberal obsession with “law and order,” border controls, criminalization, the regulation of sexuality and reproduction. There is a refusal to admit that these have never been some occasional anomaly or authoritarian paradox that periodically emerges in the practices of an otherwise ideal adherence to liberty and free markets. On the contrary, they are functionally presupposed by an understanding of the economy as a natural order, as an oikonomia. This is why the euphemistically-described “alt-Right” alignments of white supremacists and white nationalists around Trump like to accuse their (male) opponents of being “cucks” (or “cuckolded”), because it raises anxiety about patriarchal rights and paternity. It is also why Jo Cox’s murderer regarded her support for asylum seekers as tantamount to being a “race traitor.”

John Perez
John Perez

She also wrote something about National Socialism itself but it is in pdf form here:

osf.io/fgxru?show=view

The broader point about nationalism is that is it an archaism: amythic disavowal of the contested history through which nation-states, their borders and migration controls emerged in theeighteenth-century, along with the rise of capitalism and the conceptof race and within an international system, through wars, and in the course of competing dynastic, imperial and colonial claims. It was ameans of mobilising sentiment and soldiers in support of thoseclaims. Briefly put, national socialism is a doctrine of classcollaboration and a dogma concerning a qualitative distinctionbetween nations, or ‘proper places’—hence the importance of theborder, and of legitimating the violence, desires and affect that carveout the lines between nations.

If this thread stays up I will post more choice quotes from it later when I come back

Gabriel Jenkins
Gabriel Jenkins

Throughout this essay,nationalism is understood in terms of a diffuse aestheticisation ofprivate property rights (exclusive possession) that emerged alongsidethe concept of race and with the rise of capitalism in the eighteenth-century.

Beneath both economic nationalist and the faux pragmatism ofnationalist populism, there is a constitutive, political-theologicalpremise about nation-states as eternal, racial entities that, for some,renders those claims believable irrespective of evidence to thecontrary. They tend to be impervious to reasoned argument becausenationalism borrows from theology but, more so, is simply anaesthetics of myth—that is, an epistemic preference for theexpressionism of mystified desires. In this sense, national socialismis, as Griffin suggested of fascism more generally, a performative,palingenetic aesthetics.2 But it is a performative aesthetics thatjustifies nationalist affiliation and violence, including and especiallythe violence of the border.

Joshua Lewis
Joshua Lewis

National socialism’s historical antecedents are the aristocratic andimperial reactions to revolutions and uprisings in the eighteenth-and nineteenth-centuries. This is the same antecedent as that whichyielded the eighteenth-century concept of race as a modification-preservation of the ideas of ‘noble breeding’ and the divine or charismatic right of kings; that sought to restore the idea of aneternal order of entitlement and mystically-qualified rank in the faceof those revolutions; and which unfolded in the course of colonialexpansion as white supremacy and the idea of a ‘white workingclass’ distinguished ‘by natural law’ from slaves and, unlike thecolonised, purportedly entitled to the possession of property by dintof ‘productively working’ the land and the capacity for prudentialforesight.4 Put another way: it is important to point out that Trump’s‘base’ is not working class, as that term is generally understood. Asall the research suggests, Trump’s most loyal supporters are whiteevangelicals who, for the most part are in middle- to upper-incomebrackets.
Trump out of nowhere in a write up about National Socialism.

Bentley Butler
Bentley Butler

However, that argument neglects what is distinctive to a nationalsocialist aesthetics. When national socialists utter the phrase ‘whiteworking class,’ the term ‘class’ does not refer to income level orsource, whether they are in paid work, in receipt of a social incomein lieu of paid work, or unable to live without making themselvesavailable to work. To the contrary, the term ‘white working class’invokes a Lockean understanding of ‘working’ as properlyproductive labour and property right. Locke defined this in theeminently agrarianist terms of the time, as ‘the cultivation of land,’though he formulated it as a general justification of private (andcolonial) property rights from his reading of Genesis passages in thebible. The idea of whiteness is derived from Kant’s typology of theraces, which he elaborated in his anthropology lectures in the lateeighteenth-century, and which also furnished an understanding ofcategorical differentiation that implies a charismatic, eternal order—from which he fashioned his later speculative idealism.5 Kant wasnot alone in making that argument, but he is by all accounts the firstto have presented a colour-coded system of continental races. Thatsaid, the concept of ‘the white working class’ is a theological andteleological doctrine of property right (‘working’) plus classification(‘white … class’). Indeed, for contemporary white evangelicals, thatteleology has flipped into an emphatically eschatological doctrineconcerning a ‘war between nations’—a euphemism for ‘race war.’

Jaxon Barnes
Jaxon Barnes

Despite constant efforts by various researchers over many years,there is no evidence for the claims made by economic nationalists forborder control. The only study that has come close to identifying adecrease in income levels as a consequence of migration is thatundertaken by George Borjas, which was recently cited by StephenMiller in his announcement of a raft of changes to US immigrationpolicy in August 2017.8 Yet as Michael Clemens and Jennifer Hunt point out, the decline in the incomes of local workers that Borjasclaimed to have discovered can instead be traced to a change in themethod and scope of his statistical analysis—not, that is, themovement of people across borders, but rather a modification instatistical techniques.9Borjas’ work has been widely promoted by theneomalthusian, anti-immigrant and white supremacist group FAIR.
btw guys this is reading like a direct reply to "National Socialists" today not the actual NatSocs of the 30's.

Matthew Thomas
Matthew Thomas

Economic nationalism is the nationalist socialist dream ofeliminating the fluctuations of the market damaging to profitabilityand the accumulation of capital, just as monopolisation involvescorporations setting prices and standards, and through state actionand violence, while retaining capitalism as a system of extractingsurplus value. The national socialist obsession with the restriction ofeconomic and political rights, including freedom of movement, is aversion of monopoly capitalism, not its abolition.

John Reed
John Reed

The second set of claims is less economic than it concerns a fauxpragmatic political calculus: that the resurgence of the far Rightsignals a failure of the Left to take seriously the “legitimate concerns”of economic nationalism. It is a false pragmatism because it assumespremises and ends that it disavows responsibility for fostering andvalidating, arguing that since ‘people’ hold racist views, it isnecessary to defer to racism in order to attain government. Thisclaim appeals to racists who wish to pretend they are otherwise. It isa procedure that treats nationalism as if it were simply aninstrumental necessity, but all methods are the materialisation ofends; or, put another way, performance does not require intention orbelief to make or transform something—as all workers know. Thereare other assumptions and ends that could be approachedpragmatically, in terms of what works. Moreover, there is sufficientevidence in recent elections that genuinely confronting racism—orany other bigotry—is not destined to result in a loss.
You can't deny that some of this is true

Lincoln Torres
Lincoln Torres

nice post OP. im a marxist now. time to forget about the fact that my race is 10% of the world and dying. also time to forget about the fact that in-group bias exists, which proves the practical existence of race despite this idiot's word salad.

Juan Wilson
Juan Wilson

This is the entire section called "Nationalism as racism" including a white genocide shout out.

Nationalism as racism

The racist premise that lurks behind every argument for restricting migration is that increases in the size of a population due to migration have qualitatively different and destructive effects, as compared to those changes in size that come about as a result of changes in the purportedly ‘natural’ ratio of births and deaths. The idea that migration is an unnatural means by which the size of a population increases is analogous to the idea that there are improper, destructive forms of biological generation—where migration is treated as if it were a disease, contagion or cancer. It also presupposes that the rates of birth and death are natural (more precisely: divinely-ordained), and treats the happenstance of birthplace as a charismatic, providential decision. The only time racists racialize the rates of births and deaths within a nation-state is when they explicitly introduce categorical distinctions within that rate, to which they ascribe qualitatively meaningful (racial)implications, as with narratives of ‘white demographic decline,’‘white genocide,’ or black and people having ‘too many children.’

For national socialists, the nexus between these two points is the racial welfare state and racist demographics (the restriction of the franchise). In either case, the border is understood as a presumably natural placeholder, inasmuch as the nation is treated as a natural entity with defined, unique or substantive properties which have to be cultivated through a panoply of (eugenic) health and welfare policies and its futurity ensured through a racial demographics.
That's it. That's all she has to say.

I am not endorsing this though

Chase Evans
Chase Evans

The last section is a really boring and lame part about borders.

Levi Ramirez
Levi Ramirez

What do you mean by in-group bias? As in some provable genetic bias that exists despite material conditions? Because she would argue that in-group bias is a societal subjective artifact born out of the economic necessity for profit, monetary value, capitalism and such. She would even say that even the belief that in-group bias exists is an ideological justification born out of the same material conditions. I D E O L O G Y

Matthew Bell
Matthew Bell

Your end draws near, you aren't from around here.
Answer honestly:
1: is it preferable to be part of a minority?
2: do you want to become a minority in your own nations?
The terribly crafted rhetoric of an "educated" nigger-lover isn't going to slow down society's increasing racism, from all parties against all parties. Niggers, spics, whites, and jews are becoming increasingly hostile towards one another; this can't be denied. Soon the Republicans will lose any chance of winning TX and FL; they will either capitulate, shifting way further to the left amidst an entire rebranding, or they will fail to survive, opening up a massive power vacuum in which a legitimate nationalist/fascist party will be created.

The professional pilpul utilized by the tools of the elites is outdated at best; your facade fools nobody. Despite the "radical" ideas that these jew-educated individuals espouse, they fool nobody into thinking that they want anything more than a comfortable life doing what they've always done. They pretend to be have it all figured out; yet they don't war, they don't kill, they don't go through daily life wishing that they had a chance to honorably kill and die for their beliefs. Why is this? Why are they so tame, their ideas so counterintuitive to society's thought? They don't lash out, they don't desire to lash out, but nearly every person in history who had a real belief wanted to kill for it. They are enlightened, their philosophy is against it? Then they will be exterminated, and their thoughts won't matter at all.

But that isn't the case. The truth isn't that their philosophy is against it, the truth is that they are domesticated, and they have been carefully crafted by a system particularly designed, by the jews, to create people exactly like them.

It's mass-produced pilpul.

Attached: objects.jpg (54.28 KB, 709x532)

Angel Gutierrez
Angel Gutierrez

Is this copy pasta?

Anthony Perez
Anthony Perez

Imagine thinking writing all that horseshit is a worthwhile use of xer's (it's) time lmao.

Charles Walker
Charles Walker

Why would people need to refute it if it's fundamentally wrong? The majority of non-whites view white majority countries as habitable areas that they feel entitled to be in. That's why they immigrate in droves to white majority nations despite criticizing it heavily.

White nations are valued because of their culture, it's altruistic and forgiving in comparison to non-white ones. When white nations die out, then their values will be gone as well. It's not going to be good for anyone involved.

Blake Bailey
Blake Bailey

feminist like tries to promote its bullshit on Zig Forums.
hopes to get raided so that it can gather evidence to support a GOFRAUDME charity appeal.
Nah.
You'll just have to lie like the rest of your badly drawn swastika artists.

Kevin Davis
Kevin Davis

Jesus Christ enough with the vapid nothing posting. I don't even know who wrote this but it has to be a Jew because they manage to say nearly nothing after thousands of words.
Race = Sexual Values = Boarder control
Yes. Obviously. Do you need a PHD to figure out the basics of the 14 words? There are only 14 of them you absolute nigger.

Austin Scott
Austin Scott

Intelligent responses from the brilliant minds of Zig Forums as always

Tyler Myers
Tyler Myers

Argue against what people have responded with then. Oh wait
acts as though a point was already made and agreed to.
Hi there kike.

James Roberts
James Roberts

The concept of race as a heritable property links race to class
No, it links it to biology, you massive sophist faggot. Not everything is about class.

Gavin Foster
Gavin Foster

This entire shit is big piece of magical reasoning and unsubstantiated claims, this is public fraud and she should be fired. Which ever people are being taxed for this drivel is being defrauded, she should be fire, fined for the salary she made making this and put into jail

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Confirm your age

This website may contain content of an adult nature. If you are under the age of 18, if such content offends you or if it is illegal to view such content in your community, please EXIT.

Enter Exit

About Privacy

We use cookies to personalize content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyze our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our advertising and analytics partners.

Accept Exit