Race and Ethnicity

How the “Race is a Social Construct” Construct Undermines Nationalism

By Batidan Batu

Black Liberation Army

The denial of evolutionary sub-speciation, encapsulated by the “race is a social construct” mantra, is not merely a product of the Progressive’s confusion of scientific theory: it is also a political organ intended to quell Nationalistic sentiments among the races and to ultimately propagate the destructive memes of racial integrationism, ever-expanding statism, and globalization. It is necessary to note that by “Nationalism” (as denoted with a capital-letter for the sake of clarity), I am referring to the solidarity and affinity that one retains towards his race, in lieu of the conventional use of the term “nationalism”, which is more or less flag-and-dirt worship. The denigration of Nationalism is largely responsible for the atomization and alienation suffered by both the White working-class and the Black underclass, and will persist thanks to the increasing efforts of the Brahminesque elite in perfecting a fully-inclusive, culturally-homogenous utopia.

Race-denialism is, first and foremost, an effort to deconstruct the binaries on which, putatively, all oppression is sustained1. The primary tenant of this postmodern offshoot is the belief in race purely as a taxonomic construct without biological legitimacy, which is sustained on the purported absence of substantial genetic differentiation among the races. In this respect, this narrative attempts to render the immutable line of demarcation between the races, the existence of tangible biological differences, moot, and in effect, culls budding separatist, Nationalistic movements posing a legitimate threat to its institutional paradigm. Racial Nationalists aware of the nature of the modern race war cannot afford to cave into this rhetoric. There must be hard lines distinguishing the enemy from the ally, and solidarity must be kept alive through resistance to the claims of homogeneity. Race-denialism effectively blurs these lines, and complicates racial struggle. After all, if we are all members of one human “race” (species is implied, but never stated), what is the foundation for racial separation and Nationalism?

The rhetoric of race-denialism is engineered primarily towards racial minorities in the hope that their latent déclassé elements will abandon their aberrant lifestyles and be systematically absorbed into the institutions of the privileged few. One can turn to the affirmative-action measures of the modern day for a concrete example of this insidious assimilation in action. Universities, or more specifically the social-science departments of these institutions, are responsible for disseminating the rhetoric of racial decline, with its emphasis on universality over localism, “multiculturalism” (multiracialism) over Nationalism, entrenching statism over separatism, and equality over selective solidarity. Given the overtly-Progressive nature of the present-day university system and its increasing consolidation of power (undoubtedly correlated to the intensifying bourgeoisification of American society), it is no wonder those coerced into these indoctrination-centers are effectively groomed to embrace New Class managerialism, bureaucratic management, professionalism, and other cultural appendages of the Ouroboros-esque Progressive zeitgeist. It is assumed to be the Progressive’s responsibility to bear the righteous burden of elevating destitute minorities, holding them by hand, and priming them into becoming material parodies of their White liberators. In the context of modern US politics, this is all equality can amount to.

The race-denialism farce does not fare well with the notion of solely targeting the undesirable dregs of the non-White masses: it is also actively used against working Whites (in tidy accordance with the idea of white privilege”, of course) to extinguish any sentiment of Nationalism, however specious it may be. The Progressive has, more or less, has recognized his failure to subdue the working White, and when this caustic ideology fails to assimilate, it destroys. Poor, rural Whites, heralding from “flyover” America, cannot be beguiled into submission with the rhetoric of “racial equality”, “cultural tolerance”, “civil liberties”, and the like, for not only are these lofty notions inapplicable, but they are also estranging and infuriating for the disenchanted White. Those among this demonized caste have no concern for matters of impotent triviality: their lives are dictated by material arrangements in their daily lives, which guide familial, communal, and Nationalistic ties. The working White could care less about the “oppression” an overfed Progressive suffers from, or about the delusionary persecution-complex shared by professional victims. What poses as a greater menace for the bourgeois elite, though, is the ability of some vilified Whites to mobilize and metastasize these Nationalistic attitudes via the formation, sustainment, and enactment of local militias2, racially-homogenous enclaves, traditional family structures, and other communal arrangements, which are immediate threats to the monoculturalist vision of the Progressive.

There is a reason as to why George Lee Rockwell sat with confidence in the International Amphitheater, flanked by the Nation of Islam’s supporters, to hear of Malcolm X’s 1962 speech3. The separatist ideology of the Black Nationalists sleekly complemented the separatist ideology of the White Nationalists, who sought nothing more than the radical departure from the integrationist suicide-pact attracting political momentum during the Civil Rights Era due to the efforts of the moderates. Contrary to what these Progressive peddle, equality is not needed to nourish an enduring peace between the races, sexes, or any other collective for that matter, since Nationalism, whose excesses can be tamed under a framework of mutual separation (omni-separatism), far surpasses an egalitarian’s meager conception of freedom.

Once the ideal of self-determination is internalized, opposition to the modern bloated state will follow as a logical corollary. The immediate threat that Nationalist movements pose to the current order is substantial, as proven by the marshaling of repressive state measures intended to decimate Nationalist groups of all stripes, particularly the Black Liberation Army, whose ability to simultaneously politicize the Black underground and to militarize the aboveground political structure4 won the organization a lasting legacy of resistance. Nationalism paves the way for the self-determination, dignity, and sovereignty of all those willing to abandon the destructive drivel of the ruling elite, and requires that we be honest when confronted with the realities of human difference.



1 Coates, Ta-Nehisi. “What We Mean When We Say “Race Is a Social Construct.” Online posting. The Atlantic. N.p., 15 May 2013.

2 “White Power USA: The Rise of Right-Wing Militias in America.” Online posting. DemocracyNow. N.p., 11 Jan. 2010.

3 Lee, Martin A. “American Black Muslims, Neo-Nazis, Foreign Muslim Extremists Join Forces.” Southern Poverty Law Center. N.p., Spring 2002.

4 Muntaqim, Jalil A. On the Black Liberation Army. N.p.: n.p., 1979. Print.


Categories: Race and Ethnicity

8 replies »

  1. I agree with Zizek when he says that the liberation of an oppressed people is only possible because they have been oppressed as a people. Without having been oppressed they would not understand themselves as a people. For example, Indians did not conceive of themselves as Indians until they had been conquered by Britain and named as such. Likewise, black people and the black race exist because Africans were enslaved by Europeans and brought to America, where they were given the designation of black and oppressed as black. For the liberation of a people it is necessary for that people to understand themselves as such, but to change the meaning of the identity they have been given by their oppressor to be one that is positive and meaningful. Just because race is a cultural construct does not mean it does not exist. Government is a cultural construct, but governments oppress and murder people. Capitalism is a cultural construct, but corporations still exploit people and destroy our planet. Cultural constructs exist, and in order for us to liberate ourselves from our oppression we must understand them as such and redefine them to be meaningful.

    • Agreed. But I am also wary of a pan- American Indian National identity. I view such an identity as a recent phenomenon that is easily co-opted by the system. I’d rather see Natives revive their clan/band/village and tribal identities and start forming alliances with other clans/bands/villages. The clan or band was the basic economic and political building block of our tribes and was naturally resistant to being co-opted by the system.

      • Ok but I was citing Zizek’s example of Indians from India, otherwise I would have said Native Americans.

        • Gotcha: dots not feathers. The use of Native American, American Indian, Alaska Native, Indigenous, First Nations, etc varies from region to region and sometimes depends on personal political outlook. My dad’s tribe tends to say “Native” and my mom’s tribe “Indian” so even I get confused.

  2. “Race” seems to be a pretty elastic concept. At one point, the Irish were considered a race. So were the Cockneys. In the heyday of eugenics, even the lower socioeconomic classes were often regarded by elites as a “race.” No one seems to agree even today as to whether the Jews are a “race.” Westerners tend to think of Asians as a solitary race, though many Asians certainly don’t view themselves that way. “Race” just seems to be a generic term connoting a community that shares both common physical attributes and common cultural attributes. Beyond that, the definition can be as wide or narrow as anyone wants to make it.

  3. Might be elastic but it isn’t optional. People might have varying ideas of what constitutes a “race” or even their own “race” (I love fucking with WN’s over this “are Italians “white” what about Greeks or Persians? Stand back and watch the fight go on for hours) however it has proved impossible to persuade the great mass of people that “race is not a thing”.

    Even the most ardent progressive has problems with this, he might be ready to deny the existence of his own race but he is rarely willing to condemn the Australian aborigines to extinction or demand the withdrawal of “affirmative action” by applying the same standard.

    This should not be a problem, even the Comintern was happy to use nationalistic and racial movements as vehicles for organization in the service of the revolution. It is only because this fact of life conflicts with progressive dogma that this is even an issue. For people actually fighting the system, because they have to, then this is not even a question. Look at the KKP. “yeah we’re communists, yeah we’re Kurds. Load the fucking artillery and we’ll talk shit later)

  4. decent article batidan. however, i found your thesis at end of your essay: “Nationalism paves the way…” That argument should b at beginning of essay n be argued consistently throughout it. Remember, essays, research papers, etc are almost mathematically organized. They’re not designed as Creative Writing. That is another discipline. This allows your writing to be focused and disciplined, and consequently, respected. It is mathmatics in written form. Bloggers don’t understand this. I get the feeling u r much more intelligent than a blogger. I love your grammar. Keep up the fine work Batidan!

  5. Probably the best article on this subject I’ve read.

    There’s a lot scientific data confirming biological differences between races – gestation periods, physical and cognitive development of new born babies, all the obvious physical features, and of course different DNA, but that’s all ‘elastic’, right? Maybe, just maybe, there’s a racial component to consciousness too!!!

    “(I love fucking with WN’s over this “are Italians “white” what about Greeks or Persians? Stand back and watch the fight go on for hours)”
    The reason you get ‘dark’ Italians, Greeks and Persians is because they have genes from North Africa and the Middle East; the Mediterrenean being what it is with trade and invasions, and of course Islamic conquests enforcing ‘dhimmitude’ on subject populations. As for modern day Persians, they’re clearly a mix of the different groups that have swept through the region over the millenia, but the original Persians would have been Aryans. Google images of the Kalash people and you’ll have an idea of what original Persians would have looked like (bear in mind that the modern Kalash will now be mixed to some degree too.)

Leave a Reply