Housing Policies for Ethnic Solidarity and Prosperity
Opinion; Posted on: 2007-11-07 13:54:31 [ Printer friendly / Instant flyer ]
by Charles Lemagne
As is becoming more and more apparent, though many European Americans believe in fair play and universal codes of morality, the fact is that some members of minority groups do not. Since the beginning of the civil rights movement and before, minorities of different backgrounds have fought for equal rights, but have also either exploited our generosity, the democratic political system, or civil rights laws to advance their own interests at our expense or use their positions to abuse and humiliate us. The continual association of European American interest groups with racism and anti-Semitism is only the most blatant example, but so is the unregenerate attempt to transform the U.S. into a European American-minority nation through open-door immigration policies. More and more of us are awakening to the fact that influential sections of other groups, as well as many of our own, do not care for our welfare, and even want our permanent subjugation and dissolution. The ongoing effort to make America into an empire in which we are only one set of subjects among others ruled by wealthy oligarchies is another problem we face.
The current civil rights program of course reflects a desegregation ideology, the opposite of an ethnic- or otherwise particularist-based ideology, but it need not be the final word in the subject. Desegregation, or integration, was born in part out of the desire to remove second-class human status from blacks, something said to be implicit in segregated housing. It may have been. The labeling of European Americans as racist whenever they stand up for their collective interests is in a way the reverse of labeling blacks unfit to mingle with whites on an equal basis, however: Both degrade their object to inferior moral and human status, and thus fit for supervision and regulation by the state. Such shifting degradation campaigns need not be allowed to form the basis of housing policy. If desegregation and civil rights have become no more than rationales for efforts to subjugate or disperse those of European heritage, they are evidence of harmful intent, and so need to be replaced.
The word “nationalist” will be used in this proposal to describe European Americans who are conscious of their heritage and seek to protect their legitimate interests instead of “racial,” because the latter can evoke too much of the biological argument, and tends toward biological determinism. Rightly or wrongly, I prefer to think we are more mental beings than biological ones, or, at the very least, that it is important to emphasize this aspect more than one that makes us just another part of Nature, like fish or animals, who operate only on the basis of what their genes tell them. We all have genetic determinants, but nationalist is a more broad term, and can include political, economic, social, and cultural factors as well. It also avoids implying that all our actions are only the products of genes, and thus that we have no freedom or choice. Put another way, there is no “me” or “us” to the extent things are genetically ordained; we become little more than transmission points for Nature’s laws and impulses. Without making these distinctions in terminology, a European American rights philosophy might end up resembling the other side of Marxism, which holds that our thoughts, values, and behavior are only the products of our class. Freud was also a biological determinist.
The word racial also paints perhaps too broad a stroke, since within any given race are important cultural distinctions worth preserving. Whoever has been in Scandinavia, Italy, and France, for example, knows how beautiful and constructive this diversity is. The American tendency toward cultural homogenization works against it and has to be watched carefully, and its merits and demerits discussed; some European Americans retain a healthy sense of their ethnic heritage, others consider themselves part of a blended European American group. Clearly, European Americans may have to unite for strategic reasons around a European American identity, but in the long run we should also perhaps allow reconstitution of various ethno-cultural groups within that whole if members of those groups feel strongly enough about it. Southern Anglo-Celts, for example, may not want to surrender their unique history, culture, and identity so easily.
Using racial terminology also makes a nationalist movement vulnerable to charges of racism, even when no racism exists, precisely when these can harm a movement that lacks strength, and might alienate potential supporters among those of our own background. The link between racial terminology and racism, which in the past has existed even though it is not a logically necessary one, is rather strong and may be too strong to overcome. The terms “people,” “folk,” or “volk” could also be used, as some have done, including here on this website, with less invitation to hysteria. Nevertheless, regardless of terminology, policies that have been institutionalized by Marxist, liberal, and certain ethnic groups have to be rolled back in favor of those that neither demonize nor deconstruct European American, or other, lineages.
Housing patterns are subject to the prevailing social ideology, which now mandates acceptance of diversity and integration not only in our thoughts and work, but where we live. In the future, housing policies will reflect nationalist parameters. As we develop our policies, we will be able both to better demonstrate our positive purposes and to better deflect insidious charges of racism and anti-Semitism. I would like to propose for consideration two policies to help us on the path toward greater unity and prosperity. Policies like these will strengthen the bond between national groups and economics, and make membership in such groups meaningful economically as well as socially and culturally.
First, all homes, condos, and other units of housing should be reserved for members of a given national group within any given area where they dominate numerically or have been the traditional majority. That is, whenever a housing unit goes on the market, the members of that group will be given priority in subsequent purchase and leasing contracts. This will include housing properties given as inheritances or in any other transfer of ownership. It would exclude, for example, students still in school and renting apartments. Fair market prices should of course be observed at all times. A reservation policy like this will allow members of any given group to recongregate, and thus rejuvenate their culture and social contacts, something more difficult to do when they are subject to population dispersal laws that inhibit the development of a collective, nationalist psychology.
Second, housing ownership should be given priority over income property. Ownership serves vital economic, psychological, and political functions. Economically, it is a form of equity, and allows people to be more prosperous and secure, as well as use as a basis for loans, which create economic opportunities and serve as a safeguard in a pinch. It also frees a person or family from a life of debt bondage, in the sense that paying rent is something continually owed and never results in equity, and is money down the drain. It is probably more closely related to indentured servitude than freedom, the main difference being that it occurs in the realm of equity rather than the realm of labor. As a nationalist program, housing ownership will therefore mean increasing individual, family, and group wealth. Psychologically, ownership provides security as well as stability, as well as the sense of being a member of society in so far as that is defined by ownership. Politically, as the founders and old theoreticians of democracy knew well, ownership fosters independence of opinion, and thus less vulnerability to demagogues who gain appeal on the basis of economic deprivation and then expand state power, even to the point of establishing quasi-totalitarian governments. Housing policies should therefore be formulated with these goals in mind.
More specifically, people seeking to own homes or condos should have first right to a unit of housing, not, generally speaking, those seeking rental income or profits from speculation. This can be done in any or all of three ways: first, requiring conversion to ownership when a rental unit becomes available; second, requiring conversion of the necessary number of rental units within a given, reasonable period in order to satisfy need; and third, granting construction permits on the same lines, for the purposes of personal and family ownership, not income. It may be possible to allow some rental units for the purposes of extra income, but, given the priority of disseminating ownership in a nationalist ideology, this should probably take second place. In addition, making a living from rents should be strongly discouraged, if not made illegal, in favor of productive work.
The only exception would appear to be housing for transients or those unwilling or unable to commit to permanent housing at any given time, such as students or young couples. In these cases, being able to rent is more important than ownership, and so a rental supply must be available. Even so, rental units need not be privately owned as a rule, and can be owned by cooperative associations of apartment owners who have surplus units, or by local housing boards, whose purpose is to maintain such units in order to benefit those who need them, not to make excessive, if any, profits.
Special consideration could be given to rental units owned by those over a certain age who have spent most of their working years investing in housing, and thus less likely to be able to develop another source of income, though it is conceivable that work in a related field could be found for them. In addition, the money they receive from conversion could be substantial, enough to last them for years, perhaps even through retirement. Policy will have to be developed so that the goal of widespread ownership is achieved while caring for people who would be left without prospects of sufficient income because of the conversion process.
Though shared lineage is the basic criterion for membership within a national group, in some circumstances this criterion might have to be open to modification. Many European Americans, for example, especially in the beginning stages of national revitalization, may oppose such a framework. They should be allowed to live elsewhere if they want, and even encouraged to do so if their presence prevents sincere people from finding residence where members of their group reside. In other words, a simple lineage litmus test may be insufficient in all cases, and, rather, intent should also play a role. Second, those of other national heritages, if they desire to work for the betterment of another group, could conceivably be allowed, up to a point, to live with that group also. This is particularly true of Asians, who appear to have sought assimilation more than anything else, for which they should be honored and respected, unlike many members of other immigrant groups, who have a strong tendency to assert their independence and demand separate rights. The extent of these kinds of modification should probably be limited, however, especially in the beginning, at least until a group has had adequate time to establish itself and gather strength and confidence, if not longer. In any case, the primary reason for implementing housing policies like these is for the betterment of the members of a particular heritage, and this always has to be kept at the forefront.
It might be better to postpone modification of basic policy for another reason as well, with the possible exception, once again, of Asians. Distrust among many members of different groups may be too deep at the current time to allow it, and papering it over with pretensions at accommodation may fail to establish healthy relations. Rather, healthy relations should be established first as a condition for changes in policy, though exceptions may exist. In addition, realistic safeguards have to be erected against those who pretend sympathy but want to work against the interests of another group from the inside. This kind of perfidy need not be limited to those of other groups, once again, but can come from amongst European Americans also, particularly those who want to put their personal profit ahead of the needs and interests of those of the same lineage. Neither heritage nor skin color are any guarantee of virtue, and virtue has to proactively be protected. Sometimes sincerity is more important than genetics.
In addition, the sole purpose of a nationalist housing policy is neither physical proximity nor even increasing the wealth of ordinary people, but concerns the value of culture also, something aptly noted by John Young recently here on this website. Since we assume that culture does have value, and requires others of the same culture around to nourish it (assuming most people do not do this in a vacuum), housing policy should have a cultural component, along the lines discussed. This is true for all cultures.
It is to be expected that a housing reservation and reorganization policy like this will be labelled racist. It may seem so on a superficial examination that merely parrots prevailing ideas. It is not, however, because all national groups will be entitled by law to pursue the same program, and thus be entitled to the equal protection of the laws. National unity rights in housing will be available not only to European Americans, but Blacks, Jews, Cubans, Amerindians, and the like wherever they dominate, and they will have first right to available housing wherever they are in a majority, or, perhaps, have a historical presence. They will also own all that housing, something that most likely further distinguishes these policies from, for example, Southern segregationist laws. The only exceptions might be immigrants who have come illegally or recently been awarded citizen status under pressure from open-door policy lobbies who work in the interests of corporate globalist, Marxist, and other agendas, and legal immigrants who came here because they wanted to become American.
The current policy of desegregation is only one of many related policies that have been used to manage inter-ethnic and interracial relations in the history of the U.S. It is, however, racist in its own way, in the sense that it mandates the de-integration of each and every national group by law, as if group identity and cohesion of this kind are somehow immoral. In other words, merely asserting group identity politically is considered a racist phenomenon, at least when done by those of European descent. This itself is racist, however, because it portrays the activities of national groups, under the rubric of racial terminology, as fundamentally immoral, suggesting that national groups themselves are fundamentally immoral. This assertion rests on poor reasoning, however, because in one sense national groups are just like trees or flowers: They merely exist, and existence is not immoral. Morality’s domain, rather, is motive and deed, particularly behavior in the interpersonal and public spheres.
Using terms like racist thus tends to obscure rather than enlighten, especially when the term is never defined, or is defined within the context of a defective ideology. This paper uses it in the sense of the subjugation or plunder of members of one group by members of another, and maintains that its proper concern is the relations of groups, not their very existence. The fact that the current meaning of racism has roots in the ideology of individual rights is no real argument in this regard either, since it ignores the profound social and cultural dimensions to man, has other faults, and, like any ideology, should be open to discussion.
Desegregationists assume that the end of racism in this more accurate sense can be achieved without desegregation, but this is a fallacy. The individualist-pluralist model of society allows some groups to become wealthy at the expense of others, since it allows members of one national group to penetrate the social, cultural, economic, and other domains of another national group and take over its resources, whether wealth-producing, institutional, or otherwise. This may or may not stem from racism in ideology, but it is racism structurally and in fact, since the end result is economic, cultural, or another form of domination of one group by another. The ethic behind this model is competition, and in all competition there are winners and losers. This can occur on an individual or group basis. Nor are equal opportunity laws—so highly touted by advocates of this model—a safeguard against this outcome: They are in fact a sufficient condition for it, since they nourish and protect an environment in which it becomes possible.
These are just a few of the policies and issues that need to be discussed and refined in order to provide housing to all members of any given cohesive national group, and to do this in a way that helps them prosper, not remain subject to debt bondage, as so many Americans are now. Moreover, housing policy is only one piece of a much larger puzzle and struggle. Other policies need to be formulated as well, including an overall plan for economic independence and revolt. A true nationalist reorganization of American society will require research, thought, and policy development in nearly all fields of life.
© the author, 2007; Used by EAU and WVWNews with the author's consent
News Source: Email