Not necessarily, the Russians are a lot stronger now than way back when. In the 1990s, they were too weak to stop us from slapping down Milosevic. Nowadays, they show no qualms about leveraging their power to complicate our interests.

I also responded to Smitten's comments at my own blog.

“The purpose of a grand strategy & foreign policy: Strengthen our alliances, pump up morale, and disrupt, isolate & fragment the alliances of our enemies, and reduce their morale. I submit that the Kosovo affair has done the exact opposite.
“

Could you elaborate? I'm unsure about how Kosovo now provides signs of strength (instead of weakness) to our enemies, or how coming through for our on-the-ground allies from 1999 reduces their morale.

Stephen,

Russia's transition from the early 1990s to now mirrors their transition from the early 1960s to late 1970s — more cash, less territorial control. This has been their consistent strategy, or death spiral, for quite a long time, and it is wonderful that it shows no signs in letting up.

Catholicgauze has a great article on Kosovo [1], by the way.

[1] http://catholicgauze.blogspot.com/2008/02/kosovo-worlds-newest-country.html

Perhaps “enemy” is too strong of a word. “Adversary” or “Challenger” may be more appropriate.

In the case of Kosovo, our challengers were certainly the Serbs and the Russians. We have now given strength to them by dismembering Serbian territory, and giving more strength to the brand of politics that pits the Russians against the West. (In that type of politics the Russians have a clear advantage.)

Had we instead focused on bringing Serbia into the European club–by perhaps focusing on military-to-military training, promises of aid, etc., we might today be dealing with a fast-tracking of Serbia into NATO membership, thereby removing Russia's last ally in Southern Europe. In doing so, we could have also trapped the Milosovic-driven nationalism in a real web of rulesets. Instead we chose to place the Milosovic nationalism in perminant stasis–this brand of nationalism will forever be able to claim to be a victim of the West.

As far as “coming through for our on-the-ground Allies” goes, our only on-the-ground Ally was the KLA by default. So, yes, I suppose we did pump up their morale by helping to fight their war. At the same time, you will recall that our actual treaty-bound allies in NATO were not so pumped about this discretionary war. Recall how this fighting, far from strengthening the alliance, nearly destroyed it. It was such a delicate operation that seemed to place more emphasis on papering over fissures in the alliance than was actually focused on the enemy.

“Perhaps “enemy” is too strong of a word. “Adversary” or “Challenger” may be more appropriate.”

One might also refer to bargaining partners, other interested parties, etc.

“In the case of Kosovo, our challengers were certainly the Serbs and the Russians. We have now given strength to them by dismembering Serbian territory”

a) Do you believe that Serbia has greater international standing now than before?
b) Do you disagree with Stratfor's analysis on the challenge to Russian power, that was disussed above?

“and giving more strength to the brand of politics that pits the Russians against the West. (In that type of politics the Russians have a clear advantage.)”

c) What evidence do you have to support this?

“Had we instead focused on bringing Serbia into the European club–by perhaps focusing on military-to-military training, promises of aid, etc., we might today be dealing with a fast-tracking of Serbia into NATO membership, thereby removing Russia's last ally in Southern Europe.”

Certainly there is a question of whether states that become clients of Russia and proceed to engage in military action against the United States should gain or lose from such a course of policy. I clearly support punishing bad acts and reward good ones.

“In doing so, we could have also trapped the Milosovic-driven nationalism in a real web of rulesets. Instead we chose to place the Milosovic nationalism in perminant stasis–this brand of nationalism will forever be able to claim to be a victim of the West.”

d) How long of a time period do you mean by “permanent” and “forever”?

“As far as “coming through for our on-the-ground Allies” goes, our only on-the-ground Ally was the KLA by default. So, yes, I suppose we did pump up their morale by helping to fight their war. At the same time, you will recall that our actual treaty-bound allies in NATO were not so pumped about this discretionary war. Recall how this fighting, far from strengthening the alliance, nearly destroyed it. It was such a delicate operation that seemed to place more emphasis on papering over fissures in the alliance than was actually focused on the enemy.”

I was referring to continually supporting our allies, whereas your response criticizes the wisdom of making them allies in the first place. An interesting discussion, but off-topic.

Dan tdaxp,

I'm not sure why you're asking me this, but I will attempt to answer. Ethnopolitics has become a great interest of mine, and I think I have the necessary background to addresses this. I need to go work on some reading for school right now (while my brain still works, it stops at about 12 midnight)but will be back later with an essay.

Way I see it, those interests consist of the following:
* Preventing genocidal violence between the Albanians and Serbs. Apart from the mandates of simple humanity, preventing a repeat of the refugee flows and radicalisation of the 90s- on Europe's doorstep- is in the interests of everone in NATO.
* Eliminating the portion of the Gap that's within the Balkans.
* Keeping Russia from leaving the Core.

The first would have been served as easily by upgrading Kosovo to full republic status within Yugoslavia. More so if that status translated to equal political and military status under the same government. Independence puts minorities in both countries at the mercy of their landlords.

The second is accomplished by independence only to the extent that Kosovo is granted access to IMF funds and the like– which could have been accomplished by changing the rules to allow loans to UN-administered areas. To the extent that Serbian pride is hurt along with their trust of the West, Serbian progress towards the Core is jeopardised.

As the Russians have a fair degree of their own national pride tangled up in this issue, showing them that they can't get what they want by playing by the West's rules threatens their willingness to play by the West's rules. This isn't to say that we should have let them have their way, but openly backing the outcome they didn't want without at least talking to them first or looking for a compromise isn't smart on our part.

I'm positive I just overlooked something in my analysis, but I'm hungry and dehydrated. Have fun dismembering this while I seek dinner.

Thank you for your excellent comment. I'd rephrase your strategic goals as possible

* Preventing political violence from existing in the Balkans such that France, Germany, and Britain materially support opposing sides (as existed in the early 1990s war
* Moving the Balkans Seam into the Core while preventing any of it from sliding into the Gap
* Minimizing Russian influence

Working through your explanations, I'd reply

a) Every other consituent republic of Yugoslavia has seceeded, as was their constitutional right. Elevating Kosovo to a Republic would lead to a rapid secesion vote. If anyone suggested this to Serbia, it's not surprising they didn't fall for the rouse.

b) The second is accomplished by strenghthening the EU/NATO ruleset in the Balkans while preventing the infiltration of jihadis and other ne'er-do-wells. As the Slavic ruleset to dealing with Muslim insurgencies is to kill off the moderates, generating an Islamist opposition (see Chechnya, Dagestan, et al), preventing the Slavs from repeating their performance in Kosovo was vital for failure avoidance, while rewarding EU/NATO friends and punishing EU/NATO enemies (adversaries, whatever) strengthens the Core.

c) Over the past decades, Russia has transitioned from a phony industrial power that exports energy (1980s), to a phony industrial power (1990s), to a state that exports energy (2000s). While Russia is New Core in some ways, it's a power on its way out, not up. Their actions reflect this, as they diplomatically supported Serbia during her war against both NATO and the Kosovars, as the Russian military attempted to block NATO use of the Pristina airport, etc.

Seerov,

I'm looking forward to it!

For some unknown reason, Dan at tdaxp has asked me to answer the above question. His reason for asking me is a bit of a mystery, but due to my interest in Western ethno-politics, I will attempt to give him an answer. The best reason I can come up with for him asking me this is probably due to some of my postings on his blog. These postings sometimes go beyond the comfortable boundaries of someone socialized in the West in the last 40 years. Regardless of the reason for my assignment, I will answer this honestly and thoughtful as possible. If any negative consequences occur as a result of this essay, please understand that “I was only following orders.”

To begin to answer, we have to first ponder what the word “racism” is all about. The Encarta Dictionary has two definitions: (1) animosity or prejudice against peoples who belong to other races; (2) the belief that people of different races have different qualities and abilities, and that some races are inherently superior or inferior.

Seems simple enough, but is it? Why is someone like Al Sharpton who has a history of “animosity” towards whites and Jews and who’s actions even led to the deaths of seven people at the Jewish owned “Freddy’s Fashion Mart”-in New York- not considered to be a racist? How can someone who refers to Jews as “diamond merchants” and to whites as “white interlopers” not be marginalized in our racially sensitive society? And I’m not trying to single out Sharpton, I can give example after example of “respectable” people saying and doing things that would normally be considered “racist” and not see any consequences for doing so.

Of course I’m not saying anything new here. Every somewhat free thinking white person has had these thoughts despite at times being too afraid to admit to it. This feeling of fear is so strong, that if white people even do admit to thinking these forbidden thoughts, they usually have a tourette syndrome-like qualifier which goes something like this “I’m not a racist but” ………… This tourette-like qualifier is strong evidence of the powerful forces of socialization which cannot be considered universal socialization, as if it were; we’d see it in other races as well. In fact, this socialization process is so strong, that there even exists a school of thought which espouses the idea that the only people who can be “racist” are whites.

The second definition is even more controversial. If one is to believe that no differences have occurred from the evolutionary process of human beings, then by default, the movie “White Men Can’t Jump” must be considered inherently racist. Of course it’s not considered racist, but as a Nobel Prize winner recently found out, displaying any sort of dissent towards the orthodoxy relating to human diversity is so dangerous, that an individuals’ life can actually be ruined as a result.

So why is this term “racism” such a confusing ordeal? Why doesn’t it apply to everyone? Why are there “no-go” areas of scholarship when relating to race? To answer this, we have to go to the source of the word itself.

While I have found a couple explanations for the word, all sources seem to point to early 20th century leftwing scholars. Lawrence Dennis, author of “The Coming of American Fascism” and Magnus Hirschfeld author of the book “Racism” seem to be the first to coin the word in english. While there’s not much on Dennis that I could find, I did find an article on Hirschfeld. I’m posing the link to the article at the bottom of the page because it can offer a better explanation than I can. [1] As I expected, the word was mainly intended to use as a slur against European ethno-Nationalism and anyone else who thought of race in terms contrary to leftwing ideology. As we can see today, the term is not so much a word, as it’s a weapon, wielded by people who wish to discredit, embarrass, or destroy. The word can also be used for explanatory reasons too. If children are underperforming in school, it must be the hidden racism of the teachers. If someone doesn’t get the promotion, it must be the racist boss. If one neighborhood is poorer than another, it must be systemic racism. If kids of the same ethnic group sit together in the lunchroom, it must be the racism of the parents. If people get mad, riot in the streets and pull white people from their cars to beat on, this is only out of frustration for the racist society they live in. If people don’t vote for someone, it could be racism too.

In the West, racism has replaced the concept of “original sin” that our Christian forefathers/mothers believed. Today, were all born racists and only by accepting the religion of Political Correctness can we hope to find salvation. The high priests of Political Correctness can be found in our universities and media outlets and any sort of dissent from the faith will make one a heretic. In Europe and Canada, one can actually find themselves thrown in jail for questioning the faith, similar to people offending the profit Muhammad in Muslim Countries.

So “racism” is nothing but a control mechanism. Used by people to crush unpopular ideas and to keep the populace in order. This brings me to the next half of the essay; what is White Nationalism?

White Nationalism can mean many things but it’s mainly associated with white political interests. This shouldn’t be mixed up with White Supremacy. White Supremacy is the belief that whites are superior to other races. It’s possible to be a white supremacist and not a white nationalist. Someone could believe that whites are superior but work as a civil rights attorney who shakes down businesses for not hiring enough non-whites. A white nationalist is a person who believes that whites have legitimate political interests and feels that they should pursue them. White nationalism works on a continuum. It can range from people who feel that better care should made by the schools to celebrate western history, appose affirmative action, and draw attention to crime against whites, to people who believe that whites should have their own ethno-State. It’s similar to the environmental movement. On one side you have the Serria Club (American Renaissance), and on the other you have the Earth Liberation Front (Aryan Nations). However, in the media and schools, all these groups are one in the same.

Its important to understand how White Nationalism relates to “Conservative” politics. Conservatives are supposed to oppose Affirmative Action, oppose open borders, support gun rights, and generally oppose shenanigans by so called “civil rights” activists. Does this mean that Conservatives are White Nationalists? (For now on I’ll use WN) I would say no, but they do share some characteristics. In general, WN are less concerned with abortion, gay marriage, and prayer in schools. While many WN are Christians, I would consider their movement to be secular. WN are more concerned with Homer being taught in the schools than they are with the Bible. The biggest difference I see between the two relates to foreign policy. Most WN are opposed to the war in Iraq and many are opposed to the war in Afghanistan. Where Conservatives and WN really, really, really spilt, is on the subject of Israel and Jews. Where Conservatives adore Israel and feel that “Israel’s interests are our interests” WN strongly disagree. This too, runs on the continuum. Some WN, like the American Renaissance people, see Jews as White and shun anti-Semitism. Others, like Psychologist Kevin Macdonald, believe that Jews are a competing ethnic group, and that Jews have played a role in undermining white interests. The most radical groups like Aryan Nations see Jews as the “Seed of Satan” who should be liquidated. On economic issues, WN can range from protectionist to free trade, but overall not much can be found regarding this. Issues such as the size of the government or levels of public health tend to vary from Libertarianism to even National Socialism.

White nationalism is growing and will be more of a force in the future. While in the past, it only attracted the dregs of society and a few eccentric academics, it now appears to be attracting “normal” middle/working class people. The reason for this is twofold. First, the demographic situation in America is changing and second, mainstream politicians are seen as neglecting whites and pandering to their new and future constituents. While Lindsey Gram and John McCain call whites concerned about immigration “racists”, people are starting to look to those who don’t. People are seeing their children’s schools overcrowding, hospitals shut down, crime increase, and wages fall. They’re also seeing the buildings in their communities turn from George Washington to MLK and also becoming more sensitive to the anti-western rhetoric being taught in the schools.

The rise of the internet is also a huge factor in the rise of WN. Besides being able to read various perspectives besides the normal left-right scam, they can now become aware of news stories that are normally covered up. About a year ago, there was a terrible killing in Knoxville Tennessee. Two white college kids were kidnapped, beaten, raped, cut to pieces, and burned by six blacks. It was probably one of the worst crimes I ever heard of. It was the type of crime that you would hear about on the national news. It didn’t get on the national news but in a matter of days, it had spread through the internet like wildfire. It seemed like it was being talked about everywhere and eventually became a national story based on how much internet traffic it got. People became aware of it but it started with a handful of WN talking about it. Eventually it showed up in some major news outlets and WN considered it a victory. The networking power of the internet is well understood here so I don’t think I need to go on.

I try to think about WN like other movements that have sprang up in history. From what I can tell, most political movements start in an intellectual stage. Marx wrote the communist manifesto in 1848 and it didn’t bare fruit for at least 60-70 years. The neoconservative Strauss planted the seeds for that ideology in the 60’s and 40 years later we see the results. I see the early 1990’s as the beginning of the modern WN movement and believe the 2020’s will be the time it becomes a political force. The 20’s will mark the downside of the 50 year economic cycle that the American economy goes through and by then, whites will no longer be the majority in America.

Europe will see a similar situation. Traditionally, the concept of “White Nationalism” has not existed in Europe. European identity was based on National identity and the concept of “white” meant nothing. With the rise of Islam and a similar outlook by the political and business elite, this will change. For the first time since the siege in Vienna, Pol’s and Germans will be reacting to the Islamic demographic as “Europeans” as they will have no choice. The situation there is “heating up” as I write this.

The reaction to WN in America will be similar to other multi-ethnic States. Hate speech laws, internet censorship, intense political indoctrination in the schools, and forced integration will be the norm. Instead of giving people the right to separate and live with who they wish, the state will do all it can to “dilute” any homogenous enclaves (except for where the elite live). We saw this in the former Soviet Union when the State brought in ethnic Russians to the Baltic States and Central Asian States. If you read any ethnic conflict literature, you’ll see that large enclaves start the most “trouble.” Most of all, the media will do its best to make people think that the 4th Reich is close to being. This is key, as people must be scared. Don’t be surprised if some kind of “War on Hate” is expanded from the “War on Terror.” The current elite like the status quo and WN as a movement threatens this status quo. The current left-right sham serves the elite well, and they will not tolerate any change that they don’t authorize.

So, the answer to the question: “What is the difference between racism and white nationalism” is NOTHING, and at the same time EVERTHING. To some people White Nationalism must be made to be racism, hate, Nazism, genocide, death, war, and intolerance. To others, trying to survive a multi-ethnic state, White Nationalism will be a sense of belonging, pride, HOPE, survival, CHANGE, and transformation. As for me, I’ll be reading about it in a cabin in the woods, far, far away.

[1] http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/02/the_origins_of.php

Thank you for your well-written reply.

Clearly, the second definition of racism (“”) is poorly written, as “the belief that people of different races have different qualities and abilities,” is factually testable and probably true, while it's not clear whether “that some races are inherently superior or inferior.” is speaking on empirical or normative grounds.

The first definition of racism, “animosity or prejudice against peoples who belong to other races,” appears to describe a psychological rather than political orientation, and so is not too useful.

The paragraphs “White National can mean many things…” and “Its important to understand…” are particularly illuminating. An excellent description in some detail of a broad political movement.