The delta between a heroin-addicted antifa and a Harvard professor is the breadth of their vocabulary. All other intellectual and emotional contours remain congruent. I believe that characterization is more true than not, which is an appreciably higher standard of fidelity than most on the Harvard faculty would attempt to achieve. Let me give you an example.
Today I was reading the twitter feed of Anti-Gnostic, who is an intelligent and measured mainstay of the dissident right, and also a far more fair and reasonable interlocutor than any leftist deserves. In this instance I noticed he responded to a tweet from a Harvard Sociology professor, whose feed was encrusted with the same anti-Trump hysterics as any highly intelligent Hollywood starlet. The professor was opining on the allegedly enduring appeal of ethno-nationalism to white Americans, which he presumably views as abhorrent as long as they’re white. In the course of which, AG offered the blandly indisputable observation that…
Ethno-nationalism has broad appeal among practically all ethnicities.
Though being indisputable doesn’t mean a liberal won’t dispute it. Particularly when disputing is in service to a useful narrative. So the professor responded…
That’s not the case. Much lower prevalence among non-whites in white-majority countries (not surprisingly).
Ethno-nationalism is unsurprisingly much lower among non-whites? For someone who lives in a matrix of men rather than models, that was a surprising assertion indeed. Because if the professor is actually eating his baloney, it is a remarkable concession of failure. Society, that is to say wholly liberalized society, has cooked white racial solidarity in a crock-pot for generations. The anti-racial/nationalist apparatus could fairly be considered the country’s most carefully cultivated industry. From a child’s first reception at their government school to an adult’s corporate retirement, the indoctrination is unrelenting, and punishment for deviation unforgiving. A white person can not even express a concern for his people’s mere continued presence without vain and boisterous clucking followed typically by imminent unemployment. Despite the ceaseless investment and maintenance in this vast machinery, we are now advised it has not nearly the effect we had all feared. What a relief.
And that’s not the only good news. Non-whites also are apparently inoculated against the best efforts of prog professors. As whites are meticulously shorn of their heritage and identity, non-whites have theirs nurtured as if they were artisanal tulip bulbs. Movies, music, media, and academia collude in a great copulation to birth both a sense of superior separateness in non-whites as well as a mindset of entitlement and resentment toward the people whose taxes keep them complaining obesely. Yet all this effort is wasted as we are told ethno-nationalism is of much lower prevalence in this cohort. You really just can’t find any black people interested in their blackness.
All of which represents such risible bullshit that one can only speculate as to what conceivable data they tortured on the rack to substantiate it. We may actually be able to do more than speculate. This research may be the source of his nationalist assertions. The primary question of which to me was: how does one define (malign) nationalism so as to make racially deracinated whites more of it? The answer is embarrassing. What follows is the foundational survey.
How close do you feel to . . . America
Some people say the following things are important for being truly American. Others say they are not important. How important do you think each of the following is?
To have been born in America
To be a Christian
To have American citizenship
To be able to speak English
To feel American
To respect America’s political institutions and laws
To have lived in America for most of one’s life
How proud are you of America in each of the following?
Its achievements in the arts and literature
The way democracy works
America’s economic achievements
Its fair and equal treatment of all groups in society
America’s armed forces
Its political influence in the world
Its scientific and technological achievements Its achievements in sports
Its social security system
How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
Generally speaking, America is a better country than most other countries
I would rather be a citizen of America than of any other country in the world
The world would be a better place if people from other countries were more like the Americans
People should support their country even if their country is in the wrong
There are some things about America today that make me feel ashamed of America
These are all under Table 1 Nationalism Measures
So if fondly disposed toward America, you are an “ardent” nationalist (as explained on page 10/35). Conversely, if one dislikes America very much, as for instance with the black panthers, that person is completely devoid of ethno-nationalist sentiment. Similarly, Netanyahu would certainly be an ardent nationalist in Tel Aviv, but quite likely an anti-nationalist in Budapest—his entire philosophy and persona shifting with the topography. Because how do you feel about Israel? is a different question than how do you feel about Hungary?
The premise being that you can’t be a nationalist if you want to replace someone else’s nation (that you don’t like) with your own (that you do). And thus intensely tribal Arab Muslims in Marseille who are completely indifferent to French achievements are thus not intensely tribal at all. The fact that they don’t care whether a word of French is ever spoken in that country again makes this clear. Obviously the Mongol Khans would have also scored very low on Nationalism Measures when queried in foreign bivouacs.
As for myself, Mexican history means nothing to me. So when asked over many drinks in Cancun if I harbored nationalist tendencies I answered honestly as per the professor’s template: Not even slightly! Shockingly to Harvard faculty, there are very few nationalists for another man’s nation.
In any event, this Ivy League lecturer subsequently concluded that whites (particularly whites from the South, whom Harvard has proven on multiple occasions are the worst whites of all) are the most nationalist, with Republicans obviously more egregious offenders than democrats. Hispanics were the next most nationalist/liked America racial group, followed by blacks, and then “others,” who do not care for America at all except for where they beg to live. Thus we may be relieved to know they have no competing tribal inclinations whatsoever.
I hope this lesson has been edifying. As our motto says here at Harvard: Veritas.