Why Ethnic Pluralism is Necessary

Ethnic nationalism is the natural form of nationalism. Moreover, it is the only viable form of nationalism. In fact, term nationalism itself comes from Latin “natio”, which means “birth”. Thus, “nation” is a group of people who share the same descent – which is to say, genetic origin. Term “genetic” itself comes from a “gene”, which comes from Latin “gens”, meaning “people, tribe”; “gens” itself comes from proto-Indo-European “genhtis”, which means “birth, production”.

Ethnic nationalism is a natural extension of the basic social unit, which is family. Under ethnic nationalism, the entire nation is one large extended family. Much like a family serves to help preserve and continue one’s own genetic signature, so an ethnic group is supposed to preserve and continue its own genetic code. By contrast, civic nationalism is a communist version of nationalism, where anyone can become a member of the family. It is a natural extension of the belief that all humans are fundamentally the same.

Ethnonationalism is based on three fundamental beliefs:

  1. Ethnic tribes are the natural extension of the most basic organizational unit, which is a family.
  2. Diversity is one of basic survival aspects of a species, which means that it should be preserved.
  3. Humans were historically isolated into groups and tribes, through simple lack of means of transportation. This meant that genetic and cultural traits were highly concentrated. Ethnic nationalism opens a way to preserve these distinctions even into the technologically and transportationally globalized world.

But the ethnic nationalism is simply a newer and more extreme version of the ancient concept of ethnic pluralism. Tribal states for long time coexisted with multiethnic empires, yet differences between them were far lesser than might be assumed. Said multiethnic empires did not, in fact, force diversity or ethnic mixing. Rather, each ethnic group was left to govern itself, and only had to give political allegiance (and taxes) to the central authority. But its people, language and culture were left intact. Only when this did not happen – when government decided to intervene in the natural order of the things – did conflicts occur.

Ethnic pluralism thus preserves the natural order. Different races and even ethnic groups have fundamental genetic differences – bone structure, bone marrow, blood, susceptibility to genetic diseases, susceptibility to communicable diseases, physical and mental abilities. Personality traits are also largely genetically determined – various breeds of dogs had aggression or docility bred into them. These differences are well worth preserving, and ethnic pluralism is the only way to avoid a de facto mass genocide the likes of which the world had never seen. There are also practical reasons to support ethnic pluralism. Technological civilization will not last forever, and greater the number of genetically unique groups makes for a greater probability of human species itself surviving. Races exist because populations adapted to local conditions, but ever since the beginnings of the era of colonialism, we have major populations of people living in environments which they are not biologically adapted to. Thus it is necessary to artificially replicate the obstacles to mixing of groups that were previously provided by the barriers of terrain and distance.

Ethnic pluralism also makes racism a non-issue, by simply preventing races from coming into contact with each other. Hate is only a problem if the person who hates can actually do something to physically express that hate. Moreover, hate usually appears if a person or a group is perceived as a threat – it is a completely natural defensive reaction to something one values being threatened. If ethnic groups are separated by borders, they cannot be logically a threat. Hitler would have never had been able to, or had the cause or justification to, try to exterminate the Jews if all Jews were located in a Jewish ethnostate. Historically, imperialism was always justified by some variant of leftist values. In fact, the leftist idea of universal values is fundamentally not different from imperialist idea of the White Man’s Burden. Both believe that the Western civilization has discovered the ideals which all humans share. The only different is that proponents of “universal values” believe that all humans already do share these values, while proponents of “White Man’s Burden” believe that Europeans ought to teach all humans those universal values. This would make the latter far more realistic in their assessment, though Left’s push for globalism and supranational institutions makes them no different from imperialists.

The Left is racist. Half the Left openly dislikes the white people, while the other half merely pushes for “color blindness”. Extreme left pushes for open discrimination against the whites, due to their hatred and hostility towards the white race due to perceived wrongs the whites did through the history – wrongs that are wholly overstated, and in some cases completely made up, by the Left itself. White people are being taxed in order to support immigration and immigrants through social state, thus making it easier for other races to have children while whites have problems starting families.

But the Left is controlling terms of the narrative. According to them, in-group preference = belief into group superiority = wish to dominate other groups = wish to genocide other groups. This is obvious insanity: it is natural to love one’s own family more than any other without believing that it is inherently superior to all other families. But the Left has defined that as racism, it has defined the entire terminology and set up the framing. It has taken over the discussion, and made any right-of-Lenin views illegal. Leftists – including the mainstream Right – will attack anyone who suggests that white people pay attention to their own interests, or even have the right to fight against the slow extermination.

Yet ethnic pluralism and ethnic nationalism are the best defense against out-group racism, since they move different ethnic groups out of each others’ way and allow them to fulfill their own interests without presenting an existential danger to each other. Self-racism of the Leftist type is a much greater problem – because it is aimed at one’s own group, it can only be stopped through self-genocide – which is the Left’s goal. Civic nationalism, on the contrary, brings different groups into close proximity, which results in the conflict and racism. Civic nationalism thus requires constant loyalty test to the shared ideal, as well as extensive shared ideology, in order to work. This is impossible to ensure always and for everybody, which means that while civic nationalism may work for a while, it is not limitless, and a nation based solely on civic nationalism will sooner or later fall apart, or else turn to tyranny in a desperate bid to hold together. Diversity + proximity = conflict, and this has shown itself in all highly diverse countries. In general, a society stops being functional once 15% or more of the population is not part of the majority race.

Because of this, but also transport limitations, majority of states through history were ethnopluralist. While people like to talk about the multiethnic empires, this paints a wrong picture. Even in the empires, different ethnicities did not mix. Concept of nations and states actually goes back to the Bronze Age, and concept of territorial tribal groups goes back to even earlier times. Persians or Romans did not force different ethnicities to mix, and they were left to self-govern. Treaty of Alfred and Guthrum is clearly defined in ethnonationalist terms – Danelaw and England, with England literally meaning “the land of the Angles”. Roman Empire was not just Imperium Romanum (“Empire of the Rome”), but also Imperium Romanorum (“Empire of the Romans”), and the Byzantine Empire was Basileia Rhomaion (“Kingdom of the Romans”). Within the Byzantine Empire, both pre-Roman languages and pre-Christ religions survived up until the 10th century AD in both Peloponnese and Asia Minor. Considering how anal Byzantines were about heresies and potential heresies, this does indeed prove that there was no significant travel or mixing of populations. Even the Slavic conquest of the Peloponnese did not alter the genetics all that much. Ethnic and linguistic diversity of Anatolia significantly weakened resistance to Turkish infiltration and consequent conquest, both of which came in the shape of migrations as opposed to the military conquest. Process intensified after the Battle of Manzikert, and between 1071. and 1081. a series of small Turcoman states were established. This insidious penetration by pacific tribes was gradual, and in fact continued until the 20th century.

Likewise, despite the Turkification, modern-day peoples of Anatolia are genetically still correspondant to ancient pre-Roman inhabitants. Cities in Anatolia before the Turkish conquest were actually linguistically and culturally distinct from the countryside, showing that mixing did not happen even at the local level, and whatever mixing did happen was mild enough to be erased by the genetic drift. Turkification itself was wholly cultural, and – with some exceptions – the genetic code present in Anatolia hails from the ancient times.

Holy Roman Empire started out as a federation of teritorially organized tribes. So while multiethnic states are nothing new, modern idea of mixing ethnic groups is absolutely new. Previously, each ethnic group had its own living space, and would have its own government (or governments) that answered to the central government: Romans for example very deliberately left local ethnic governments in place. In fact, premodern governments actively discouraged travel and migration because it made taxation much more difficult. Having one central government be responsible for multiple ethnicities is as new as is the idea of multiple ethnicities living “together”, and even when a group was conquered politically, it did not lead to genetic mixing.

In conclusion, while ethnic groups did not always have states, they always had their own polities. Large-scale mixing of different ethnic groups is a modern, unnatural phenomenon that has never happened in any lasting, functional society. By contrast, historical states were always organized along tribal lines.


  1. Except human beings are not dogs, sure, they have different personalities that can be influenced by their genetic inheritance (which is also dependent on factors such as environment and family, things that are not homogeneous like a group of insects even while sharing the same ethnicity) and other external factors. Your logic suffers the same strange Anglo/West European racialist conception that racial ethnicities are as hard wired into a human’s DNA as much as their biological sex is, which leads to some idiotic and pathological thinking (that, believe it or not, influenced a large part in U.S leftist politics). I’m not sure how you as a Christian can believe human is completely enslaved to their “nature” and is interchangeable from other human beings instead of being individuals comprised of talents, creativity, and development of diverse pathways that yes, do tie into their greater culture, family, or religion, since this is ironically a type of Age of Enlightenment way of thinking that lead to the development of scientific racialism and then the current culture we have now.. It’s a bit funny, considering Asians (from the greater Orient and Western Asia) don’t have this belief as they have little influence from the West European vision of race, if you’re a Turk or Chinese you may share the same ethnicity as them but if you’re raised overseas you’ll have more external personality traits in the nation you grew up on.
    Of course different countries have different handling of things. Some are more fiercely protective of their ethnic identity because of factors like their environment or relations to other countries historically, others have a great pride in their ethnic history but still had historical mixing due to their geographical proximity to other locations, which lead them to have good relations with different ethnicities which allowed for more mixing, and so on. It’s false to state that inter ethnic mixing didn’t occur until the discovery of other races, btw. I dunno why you have such an outright naive and immature American-like understanding of history.

    Mixing with races you despise and hate is not really that new either, honestly usually happens in wartime when you’re conquering other villages or you live in close vicinity to the other ethnicities. Though West Europeans took it to a new level when they discovered different continents of women they could subjugate and also make into their sex slaves/concubines, which is funny how you and most other people ignore this viable historical fact lol


    1. Humans are not dogs, but they are not different on any fundamental level either. Race is a biological fact, as is ethnicity – which while nowhere as significant as race, is still a result of important genetic differences. And differences, in my opinion, are worth preserving.

      Humans are also not completely enslaved to their nature, but it is likewise impossible to ignore the nature. Take a look at nations GDP per capita. Yes, there are many factors in it: culture, resources, geographic position… but it also has major correlation with average IQ; and IQ is determined largely by genetics:

      Look at situation in United States. People create the culture, not the opposite. You know the Bible Belt meme? Well, what it actually reveals is the reality of a diverse society:

      So again, while I do not think that humans are *completely* enslaved by their nature, nor are they interchangeable with other humans, it is a fact that biology and heritage cannot be ignored. They matter.

      And yes, mixing between races was, historically, very low-level. Not nonexistent, per se, but it was rare and did not have much impact: conquerors would form a new ruling elite within the society, and elites typically do not mix with lower classes. More importantly, any migrating group would form only a minority among the conquered people. The entirety of the Vandal nation numbered 80 000 (and maybe 16 000 were warriors), while Roman Africa had between 4 and 8 million people living there. Vandals thus numbered, at best, 2% of the population. And they were “only” a different ethnicity, rather than a different race. Races were separated by largely impassable areas (Sahara Desert separating white and black people, and in Asia there are Himalayas and Gobi desert). Thus, if it weren’t for rapid technological advancement, it is not unimaginable that humans will have eventually evolved into different species.

      Also, I am not a Christian.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s