It is important first to distinguish what I mean by homogeneity. There are different ways to measure homogeneity, depending on the context:
- There is ethnic homogeneity (such as the Japanese or South Koreans)
- There is religious homogeneity (such as many Orthodox Eastern European nations or Islamic Arab nations)
- There is cultural homogeneity (which is prevalent in sub-groups such as Amish or in larger groups such as pre-1920’s USA)
We’re solely addressing cultural homogeneity here. This isn’t to discredit the other two, but to instead focus on what I consider to be the most important of the three.
Because I’m from the US, this is focused on the US.
I would agree with most ethnic homogeneity standpoints when referencing other nations such as nearly every European nation. They are European: which is ethnic Caucasian of a specific nationality and should be preserved. Including the nations of Europe, their diverse cultures, and their people. Religious homogeneity doesn’t make sense in their context; neither does cultural.
Let’s address this ethnic viewpoint domestically. So while I support ethnic homogeneity for Europe. I have a hard time doing so for the US. Mostly, because it never existed as a ethnic homogeneous nation. Rather, an assortment of otherwise ethnically homogeneous peoples which focused on white Western Europeans.
Instead of unifying based on being a German or a protestant – the US focused on uniting by cultural means. You give up your previous heritage, you become an American, and you assimilate to our united culture.
Or at least, that’s the way it used to be.
Even then, cultural differences were evident. The black population of the US hovered around 10-20% of the population for much of its early existence. This is not counting natives, either.
We never really existed as an ethnically homogeneous nation, so we have nothing to return too in such a regard.
We did, however, have a unified culture which was based around European values, assimilation, and Christianity. These things made up the culture of the US. That culture should be preserved and it is best preserved by the descendants of those who were already born and lived here for generations.
So this isn’t to say that the 1965 Immigration Act was a good idea. Rather, it further splintered an already culturally-uncertain nation. We were already witnessing the cracks of the non-uniform culture, the massive influx of immigrants just ripped out the brake pedal and hit the turbo.
Full assimilation into the US national culture should be required of all current immigrants and all immigration should be fully halted until that point is reached. If they can’t, or won’t, assimilate into our culture, they must be returned to their nation of origin. That’s the only way to ensure cultural homogeneity: regardless of ethnic or religious underpinnings.
Back to culture. No sane person could argue that modern-day rural Alabama, San Fransisco, or Dayton Ohio are culturally homogeneous. In many ways, you could argue that the US was not culturally cohesive numerous times throughout its history. Most notably preceding the civil war, which was fought because of cultural differences between the North and the South. If anything, that war should be a giant spotlight on the importance of cultural cohesion. If you don’t have it, war or balkanization is inevitable.
However, even when we weren’t fully culturally cohesive, we had bedrock, foundational cultural values in common. Things such as Christian values, the respect of the rule of law, strong values, an objective moral law, social conservativism, respect of elders, a forward-looking approach, and a focus on family.
We don’t have those any more. The foundational pillars of our cultural unity have been broken and torn down. This is why rural Alabama and San Fransisco cannot get along. It is fine to have cultural differences, even rather extreme ones, so long as the societal culture that acts as the glue continues to connect them. Ours no longer exists, largely thanks to leftism.
In many ways, we have centered our society around the opposite of culturally-beneficial values. We’ve put exceptionalism into the virtue-signalling guillotine. Instead of strength, honor, and hard-work as our highest values, we praise “equality”, being “nice”, and fairness. When we switched these, weakness took over. And weakness leads to fruitless men and a damaged society.
So we would need to achieve beneficial cultural unity in the first place. Right now, we don’t have one. Nor do we have ethnic homogeneity. Nor do we have religious homogeneity. Yet, without cultural unification, we’re looking at the beginning of a very dark tunnel. Multiculturalism, diversity, and the like do not work without some form of homogeneity to unite the people.
One variant of homogeneity is present in nearly every successful nation. Religious, ethnic, or cultural:
- When the US was most successful, it was culturally homogeneous. (But it was not ethnically or religiously homogeneous).
- When the Roman Empire was at its height, it was culturally homogeneous. (But it had a ridiculous number of ethnicities under its dominion and was splintered between Roman Paganism/Christianity).
- As Japan continues to be successful, it is ethnically homogeneous. (But does not witness religious homogeneity and cultural is a tossup).
- As many Western European nations grew in prominence, they were ethnically homogeneous. (But many different religions and cultures).
- When the Holy Roman Empire was spreading in the early 1000’s, it was religiously homogeneous. (But extremely culturally diverse and ethnically expanding).
There are a million other examples but these are the first that come to mind.
So our goal, in the US at least, should be cultural homogeneity. Leaving ethnic homogeneity to the European nations. And leaving religious homogeneity to the other more religion-focused nations. I’d rather avoid a monarchy, which tends to be a necessary precursor for religious homogeneity.
We now know why culturally homogeneity is important and why I vote in favor of it. But how do we get it and then preserve it?
Acquiring it is relatively easy: it solely takes a concentrated effort by those with power in the nation. During this effort they also have to ensure opposing cultural power players are averted.
We have seen how dramatically the culture changed in the US just from the 1960’s to the 2000’s. This is because the cultural power players (Media, Big Tech, Hollywood, Popular Culture, Leftwing Politiburo, etc) desired the shift. All you need is for those players to be on our side. Then, give it a few years.
It may be a tad authoritarian but it is necessary for survival. No different than what has already happened to us in the opposite direction.
Preserving the result of this is the harder part.
In many ways, currently our own (white) ethnic counterparts are the most problematic at cultural preservation.
Who tend to be the most virulent leftists? The most prominent cultural degenerates? You’ll likely see whites in each of these corners.
After all, the most violent and destructive of the #BLM protests over George Floyd have come from Portland: an overwhelming white city. One of the whitest cities in the entire US, actually.
Whereas many Southern US cities, with far greater black populations, had much less violent or even non-existent protests.
The culture in these regions differs significantly. One, that still retains some semblance of the before-modern era culture and one that exhibits only the violent, nihilistic viewpoints of the modern US culture. I’m sure you can guess which is which.
So, preserving the culture has to start with the native inhabitants: The citizens. Tradition, heritage, and beliefs need to be passed down in a linear fashion to the next generations. Those that distort or degrade these values and morals need to be put in their place.
This cultural attitude must also be reflected in all other sensitive cultural sources. Such as I mentioned above: the media, Hollywood, pop culture, information distribution sources, and the like. They all must be made accountable. They cannot act as a “private company” or such.
Only then, when the culture is actually preserved, institutions are accountable, and individuals are actually taught why it is important to continue down this path, can other avenues be considered.
These other avenues are what people typically (incorrectly) target first: such as making sure immigrants are fully assimilated or deported; blocking foreign interference in internal cultural issues, and legalizing culture in the form of laws.
While these tasks are also important, a strong population will naturally lend itself toward accomplishing the above mentioned goals automatically. Whereas completing the above goals will not prevent the domestic population from degrading. One is more important than the other. So one must take precedence.
An acceptance must also be made by the nation that culture must always come first. It must be the focus.
In a way, that’s exactly what nationalism is. Nationalists simply want to put the culture first, productivity second. For what is a nation if not the people and their culture?
If you keep the culture: you keep the people. Native culturally-minded citizens will naturally support keeping only those like them and removing the rest.
If you don’t keep the culture, you end up with the Portland-type domestic population and non-assimilating immigrants. While both are negatives when the goal is cultural preservation, in many cases, the native Portland-types are way worse.
I’d personally much rather be around a cultural Mexican than a psychotic screaming liberal woman.
So, we must approach using culture first. Which is the opposite of globalism. Where globalization requires that productivity comes first, culture a distant second.
Yet, productivity means very little if it is not sustainable long-term. And this brand of cultural-disregard is not sustainable long-term, as is becoming more evident every day. It is apparent that non-integrational multicultural societies are not capable of sustaining themselves forever. They will eventually concave.
Nationalism is thus inevitable. It is merely if we go to it willingly or through civilizational collapse.
So that temporary productivity boost serves only to benefit the elites that reside over the nation during that time period. Everyone else – including the other cultures that move within – suffer.
Thus, a moderate productivity with a sustainable culture is a preferred parameter compared to the globalist productivity-first approach. And with this approach, comes the possibility for cultural preservation. But once you give up that goal; it’s gone. It won’t take long.
Preserving the culture then takes a multi-faceted approach from the government, the cultural institutions, and the parents of the next generation.
You could envision it: a government that is conservative and authoritarian socially, yet is capitalistic economically albeit with efficient government intervention.
Through this, we could establish a preserved culture, a preserved nation, and a preserved people.
This will only happen once we place culture first and make sure that every institution that touches it is held accountable.
This isn’t to say that culture can’t change or evolve, but the people who “direct” the culture must at least be held accountable to the nation. In modern republic societies, this doesn’t happen. The chosen ones who determine culture are accountable to none.
Achieving this victory over culture is arguably the most important task for the internal preservation of any nation.