America's Ethno-Nationalist Future
Our strength isn’t “diversity,” our strength is our ability to absorb diversity.
As many of you are likely aware, a mass shooting occurred on the night of Saturday, January 21 in Monterey Park, California, a city seven miles from Los Angeles. It was the eve of the Lunar New Year when the killer, 72-year-old Huu Can Tran, went to a dancehall and opened fire, killing 11 as of this writing, with 10 others still injured. All his victims were Asian American. Less than 48 hours later, another shooting occurred, this time in California’s Bay Area in a city called Half Moon Bay, resulting in seven fatalities. Once again, the shooter was Asian American, though his victims seem predominantly of other races.
I’ve noted many times how America isn’t a tranquil place. I’m not particularly interested in how the rest of the world sees our country, at least no more than what the average liberal European thinks of how Americans view their respective homelands. Still, you’d have to lack introspection to at least not wonder what the United States looks like from the outside. Not because it matters what outsiders think - it doesn’t - but because of what it might say about what’s happening to the place we call home.
Rod Dreher, no globalist leftist, explains why it’s important to step back and think about what your country looks like from the outside:
Watching news over the weekend of the mass shooting in Los Angeles, and one in Baton Rouge, I reflected on how bizarre America looks from Budapest. This is the capital city of a European country that is not remotely as wealthy per capita as the United States, yet you can walk around this city anywhere, at any time of day, and not be afraid. You can't do that in Paris or London, come to think of it. It's not because there are police everywhere, either, or that this is some kind of authoritarian state. It's just safe, and orderly. That's how things are here. When people ask me what Hungary is like, I tell them that it feels like what America did when it was normal.
America looks bad. But there’s a difference between looking bad and being bad. I think some of us will be surprised by how safe the U.S. actually is. Certainly, where you live and whom you associate with plays a big role in your exposure to crime. Still, the likelihood we are going to be victims of a mass shooting in our lifetimes is quite low as to be insignificant. The problem is that the likelihood of it happening to us is still higher than it would be in many places throughout the world.
I don’t think this is something we ought to be flippantly shrugging off, because mass shootings are a particular kind of evil indicating there exists a deep social sickness afflicting the country. Even with the kind of access the average American has to weaponry with little to no parallel in the developed world, killing someone isn’t that easy. It’s actually quite difficult to cross that mental red line to take someone’s life and most mass shooters have never killed anyone before. To suddenly decide to cross that point of no return in a big way is something which cannot be explained merely by having access to guns.
That’s all I have to say about the killings for now, but I want to focus instead on the public reaction to it. They’ve been disappointing, as usual. Despite the shooter being a 72-year-old Asian male, immediate reaction, including from many Asian-Americans, was that “White supremacy” was behind the mass shooting. Here’s one example that made the rounds:
Francesca Hong has yet to delete or correct this tweet. In case you missed it, she wasn’t the only one who chomped at the bit to blame the incident on White supremacy. This despite the fact the most recent spate of mass shootings of Asian-Americas has been committed by Asian-Americans, oddly, of older age:
While most mass shooters are White and male, this can be explained by the fact Whites are the racial majority in the country. By comparison, Blacks are 13% of the population, but comprise almost 21% of mass shooters, according to one study. The same study also points out that in 70% of cases, the mass killer knew at least some of the victims. In the Monterey Park shooting, the perpetrator was a regular at the dance hall he shot up. In most school shootings, the shooter is often a disgruntled student. Point being, the likelihood of being the victim of a totally random mass shooter is extremely low, though this also means very little, since nobody ever really sees a mass shooting coming until it actually happens, whether its victims knew the perpetrator or not.
Back to the reactions. I want to focus your attention on a disturbing thread I came across the day following the Monterey Park shooting. It’s authored by a woman named Bianca Mabute-Louie and she talks about how wonderful the city has been for her and her family. It sounds like an innocent thread, but read the selected tweets and see if you spot anything troubling about what she says:
Thrives because it refuses to assimilate. Troubles the American imagination of an immigrant, assimilation, and integration. Bottom line up front: what she’s describing might sound benign to the left-liberal ear, but it really shouldn’t, because it’s something we’ve been taught to view as abhorrent: ethno-separatism.
A word about assimilation: it’s a controversial topic in America and the broader West, but it really shouldn’t be. All societies involve a certain level of assimilation, otherwise, how do you get different peoples to live peaceably among each other? Humans are tribal by nature - Mabute-Louie’s tweet thread is proof of that - so to get them to co-exist with other tribes, there needs to be an entity capable of keeping the peace and give these different groups of people something bigger to integrate into. This is where statehood and nationhood comes into play. The state is the entity keeping peace among the people, while the nation is the collective identity which unites all these disparate individuals and groups.
Maybe she lives too much in an academic bubble or hasn’t spent much time outside her racial and cultural circles and doesn’t know what she’s talking about. Whether she means well or not, however, doesn’t change the fact Mabute-Louie is advocating for Asians to occupy their own slice of ground in this country, push out the existing residents if needed (especially if they’re White), and turn it into a veritable nation - complete with its own distinct culture, language, etc. If it troubles the American imagination, it should, because there’s another word for what she’s advocating: balkanization.
Okay, maybe balkanization is too strong a term. But historically, different ethnic and racial groups living in close proximity to each other often clash, fight wars, and treat each other badly. Usually, this is stopped by a stronger, sometimes foreign power capable of imposing governance and enforcing the rule of law on all these different groups. There are many examples in history of successful multiethnic, multiracial, or even multinational states - the Romans and Ottoman Empires, Yugoslavia, and of course, the United States - but what they all had in common was either a strong, usually authoritarian central government, or a dominant ethnic or racial group whose culture was the one everyone else was supposed to assimilate into.
What happens when the state collapses or the dominant group loses dominance, though? Yugoslavia is a recent example of what happens. I hate bringing up the Balkans region as a point of comparison to the U.S., if only because advocates of civil war and collapse often compare us to the former Yugoslavia, inaccurately. But it’s important to know that when different ethnicities and races by-and-large lead separate lives from one another, once that common thread unravels, they became just that: separate nations. And what is a nation, if not a group of people you’re willing to die and kill for to ensure it’s survival?
Let’s back up a bit. I’ve established America isn’t Yugoslavia. So what is it? I suppose it’s many things, but a nation-state, it isn’t (and neither was Yugoslavia). As I said in my last post, nationhood is still a work in progress here because we’re a relatively young country and even the early Americans were an ethnically and religiously, if not racially, diverse population. We’re even bigger and more diverse today, resulting in extravagant characterizations such as “multiracial empire.” At it’s core, however, America has always been a pluralist federation. There’s no better encapsulation of what we are than our longtime motto: E pluribus unum - "Out of many, one."1
This doesn’t mean the U.S. has no culture or is a “blank slate” as has become conventional wisdom, at least during my lifetime. In his masterpiece Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity, the late Samuel Huntington explains how nationalism in the U.S. has gone through cycles, but through it all, a distinct Anglo-Protestant culture has emerged from the struggle. Without getting too deep into the weeds, this is what we’ve come to accept as “American culture,” even as we progressively deny it, and is precisely what we’ve expected newcomers to assimilate into, along with speaking English. When we speak of the “melting pot,” it’s not talking about creating a new culture out of many, but incorporating many cultures into one overall Anglo-Protestant society, arguably the best in history at pluralism.
Yet the diversity and size of the U.S. also means, as time goes by, that overall identity can become diluted, frayed, or otherwise rendered meaningless. Assimilation isn’t easy and some people have a harder time with it than others. America has become more accommodating to newcomers, to its credit, but this also means its kindness has often been taken advantage of, to say nothing of the fact de-incentivizing assimilation means you get communities like Monterey Park - mini-ethnostates within the larger society.
This isn’t a criticism of Monterey Park. I’ve been through there and it’s a relatively safe community, the mass shooting aside, and I think everyone should have access to communities where they feel comfortable and where migrants can ease their way into society. It’s a whole different matter, however, to refuse to assimilate and indulge in ethno-separatism. It’s downright anti-American, as a matter of fact, the very thing that’d lead to the disintegration of this country. Yet they believe they can manage both: live as a separate nation and still reap the benefits of being part of a greater union.
For people like Mabute-Louie, being American is a bureaucratic formality, just a matter of holding a passport and proudly paying your taxes (which we all know nobody would unless the government forced us to). There’s nothing more to it, no greater sense of belonging, destiny, nor obligation. In some ways, America is a land to be conquered, if nothing out of a sense of grievance, which is utterly bizarre, since Asians Americans have done little else but prosper in this country for generations. Certainly that wasn’t always the case, but if we can’t even recognize how much better this country has become in a relatively short period of time, what are we all doing here? Nationhood isn’t possible when everyone spends their time finding reasons to unravel the country.
Of course, ethno-separatists like Mabute-Louie also believe the country owes them something, again, if out of nothing but grievance. The country owes them safety and security, even from themselves. That requires a strong state and Asians Americans, perhaps owing to their culture, are in fact a law-abiding group, to their credit. But this also means they tend to be overly deferential to those in positions of authority, especially politicians. Classical liberalism, federalism, individualism, and limited government aren’t the values which animate Asian Americans. Then again, thanks to generations of decadence, social engineering, and subversion, they’re values no longer held strongly by most Americans, either.
The real threat, according to the Asian ethno-separatists, however, is White supremacy. It’s against this which they justify their own separatism. How ironic - after years of warning about the threat of White supremacy and decrying the supposedly pervasive sentiment of White nationalism, the answer is to… Asian nationalism? If you think I’m reading too much into it, look at the Twitter thread again, then also consider Mabute-Louie is currently writing a book titled “Unassimilable:”
It’s important to remember that a key tenant of Woke Leftism is that all White Americans are guilty of White supremacy and White nationalism until proven innocent. Typically, that involves being a Democrat and a Woke Leftist. Otherwise, the implication is that Asians - by implication, all non-White races - need to segregate themselves into their “ethnoburbs” where they can just be their ancestral selves instead of becoming part of the English-speaking, Anglo-Protestant America that’s stood for coming up on 250 years. Of course, Whites, by virtue of their so-called privilege, must never have their own ethnoburbs, lest they be guilty of White nationalism, the biggest threat to the country and all people of color.
Really, if White supremacy and nationalism were the biggest threats to this country and people of color, they’re doing an awful job of it. Racial minorities, but especially Asian Americans, do incredibly well in this country:
Money isn’t everything, but financial well-being is the most consistent metric of how a group is doing in a society. Consider the lot of African Americans, for example. The increasing hostility Asians have for Whites is also bizarre, given both groups often live in close proximity to each other, work in the same industries, and have among the higher rates of intermarriage. The sense that Asian Americans are under siege from Whites in this country is the product of relentless propaganda and not reflected in the real world. It’s an outgrowth of the media’s own hostility towards Heartland, Middle Americans who are culturally divergent from those who live in the major metro areas, which are also where the vast majority of Asians live.
Most important, no White American has ever called for racial or ethnic separatism, like the way Mabute-Louie did. Yes, I’m aware White supremacists and White nationalists exist. I’ve spoken with them. I’m not big fans of them. But that gets to something I said a few paragraphs earlier - what this overwhelming minority says matters only if you believe all Whites are guilty until proven innocent. Meanwhile, Mabute-Louie and others are expressing thoughts published in mainstream, institutional circles, and are considered perfectly on-side with regards to political correctness and public appropriateness. No White person, or even a person of color without leftist views, would dare utter similar sentiments.
Nor does this call for Asian nationalism make sense, either. How does one manage a country comprised of multiple ethnostates, all speaking different languages, anyway? It’s happened before, but it’s not an ideal arrangement. Are you going to have a military and police forces compromised of people all speaking different languages? Are public services going to be rendered the same or different, depending on the identity of the recipient? How do you resolve cultural clashes which are certain to occur? It’s all so strange, because though it’s never easy, America has done such a great job of assimilating so many different people from all over. Our strength isn’t “diversity,” our strength is our ability to absorb diversity. Now they want to do undo it all? For what? Because learning the language of a new country is too tough?
When the country balkanizes along racial/ethnic lines, what’s left are going to be disparate nations, all living next to each other. With no higher authority to manage differences and keep the peace, life will look very different. It’s easy for non-Whites to uniformly dunk on Whites today in a state of relative safety, but after balkanization, each nation will find the other nations, even if they were previously allies, aren’t as friendly as they once were. With each fighting for their survival, conflict will ensue, eventually devolving into violence. What’s the prospensity of gun ownership among Asians? Among Whites? Among Blacks? What about their crime rates? Is the Asian nation prepared to rely only on themselves for security, instead of expecting some authority to provide it on their behalf? Asians are already having a tough time protecting themselves from mostly Black criminals in places like the Bay Area, despite the presence of authorities.
I’m going to quit theorizing because now I’m starting to parrot the rhetoric of the hyper-apocalyptic far-right survivalist community, something I swore I’d avoid doing. I don’t like the fact I’ve distracted from the 17 people murdered in just 48 hours, either. Mabute-Louie’s thread on ethnoburbs was quite jarring to read, however. It’s disheartening that more people don’t see she’s calling for ethnonationalism in this country, but given how racialist and anti-American we’ve become as a society, perhaps it’s just a sign of the times.
I’ve said before that I don’t believe race relations to be anywhere near as bad as they seem. I still do. But there are unsettling indications of a fracturing along racial lines. The fact these two shootings occurred in California is significant, because it’s in this state the fracturing has become most apparent. Someone shared with me an excellent essay written by Substacker Robert Stark where he explains what’s happening to the state [bold mine]:
While I am sympathetic to dissident right concerns about demographics, they often over sensationalize racial problems to appear worse than they actually are. To the degree there is anti-Whiteness in California, it is more on an institutional level, such as tech censorship, anti-White discrimination in University Admissions and woke corporations, as well as state policies such as UBI for Black birthing and proposed reparations, despite California never being a slave state. Regardless, the main issues impacting White Californians are not so much overt racial hostilities, but rather practical issues, such as the cost of housing and job security, and especially social atomization, and a lack of community and identity. Life in California is much closer to Bowling Alone than American History X, which is less sensationalist than stories about racial conflict. Overall race relations between Whites, Hispanics and Asians, are affable enough, that Whites might have less incentives to become more ethnocentric.
I’ve said before, Whites are the least racially conscious group in the country. Meanwhile, racial consciousness has been much higher among Hispanics and Asians, the latter for whom it seems on the rise. If a racial crack-up comes, it’s not coming from Whites:
The absolute worst case scenario, without veering too much into alt-right fear porn, is the left going full force with radical anti-White policies, as California already has corrupt one party leadership, with anti-White ideology permeating on an institutional level. Revisiting the point about race relations being affable between Whites, Hispanics, and Asians, that could change as younger generations are indoctrinated into anti-White ideology, and radically woke young Democrat partisans are rising up into positions of power. Even though the reparations proposal could fail to be implemented, it is a signifier of the direction of California politics. Since the reparations proposal is linked to housing discrimination in California history, I could see Asian and Latino advocacy groups lobbying for reparations, on grounds of past discrimination, and obviously having Asians and Latinos demand reparations against Whites would have a much greater impact than reparations for Blacks. It would not be farfetched, in the not so distant future, to see California propose a reparations tax on White inheritance of say 50%. While the White upper middle class are loyalist to the system, they could likely be thrown under the bus. The danger is that Whites might still be too atomized to prepare and organize in response to that kind of scenario. While I give California boomers a hard time, once they are gone, it will dramatically diminish White influence and their moderating impact on politics, and that is when we could really see an acceleration towards radical woke policies in California.
As I explained before, it’s easy for non-White races to be united now because they have someone to unite against. Once Whites are thrown under the bus, however, what’s to say the Asians and Hispanics won’t start eyeing each other’s slices of the pie? After all, nobody likes playing second fiddle to anyone else.
Once more, assimilation suppressed those instincts. But:
The degree of assimilation among many 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants, is offered as a counter-point to the breakdown into enclavism. The question is whether this assimilationist trend is temporary or sustainable long-term, as California no longer has any dominant demographic group to act as an anchor or conduit of assimilation, nor mass culture for new immigrants to assimilate into. Even as recently as the 80s, an immigrant from say Mexico, Korea, or Iran to California, would have found the cultural attributes, as something to aspire to. Today, a recent immigrant might look at all the repulsive woke advertisements, and think, “no thanks, I’ll just keep my own culture,” though they will stay for the economic opportunities or family connections. Regardless, I predict the formation of various ethnogenesis, such as a Eurasian/Hapa identity, Asian Latinos, Castizo (White plus Hispanic) identity, alongside a Euro-Californian caste.
I implore you to read Stark’s entire essay, because it really is that excellent. I may choose to do a deeper dive into it later on, but this also seemed as good a time as any to talk about it. The emerging picture seems to be that as California progresses, with non-White racial groups becoming more powerful, it’s creating a multinational society where everyone holds U.S. passports, while identifying with their race or ethnicity first. Stark uses the term “enclavism,” but get real, this is the first step towards ethnonationalism.
This post has gone on much longer than I anticipated. As you can tell, this is a loaded topic, one we could spend a lifetime discussing and still not arrive at a satisfactory answer. These are my thoughts, however, in response to talks of “ethnoburbs” which refuse to assimilate. As Americans, I like to think we can all agree that freedom of association is perfectly fine, but ethnonationalism is a step too far that would unravel the country. I also like to think there’s a way forward to revitalizing American nationalism and make assimilation great again, but I don’t know. It’s times like these I think of my favorite line from the old Beatles classic: There will be an answer, let it be.
What are your thoughts on ethnoburbs? Is ethnonationalism in America something we need to be concerned about? Share your comments below.
Max Remington is a defense, military, and foreign policy writer. Follow him on Twitter at @AgentLoyalist.
If you liked this post from We're Not At the End, But You Can See It From Here, why not share? If you’re a first-time visitor, please consider subscribing!
“In God We Trust” was established as the country’s official motto by an act of Congress in 1956.
Diversity is good up to a point and then it becomes destructive, but destruction is the goal of the diversity agenda. The WEF has said it wants to weaken the power of the US in the world. The diversity agenda is the mechanism they are using to weaken it. The US and its Constitution are the only force strong enough to stop the corporations, and that obstacle is the reason WEF is using DEI to undermine US institutions. The only way to save the US is to stop the diversity agenda and restore meritocracy. The Supreme Court has the opportunity to weaken the diversity agenda in the affirmative action cases it will decide this summer. However the only lasting solution is an overwhelming rejection of any woke politicians in the next election. Anyone who supports a woke politician is signing the death warrant of civilization. Life may go on, but who wants to live in a world like that?