Mandatory Assimilation

From the President of the Nathanael Greene Society

Many fault lines have opened up in right-wing American politics in the last 6-10 years, and one of most fundamental ones is between the civic nationalists (often called “propositional nationalists”) and the nationalists proper (“ethno-nationalism” is a sloppy term that essentially just means “nation nationalism” and essentially no-one who holds to that view refer to themselves that way).

I have written in prior essays (particularly “Race, Nation, and State” Parts 1 and 2) that race is not only real, but also essential to the creation of civil society, especially in light of the dual nature of racial inclusion (by bare fact, and expressed intention, united in the sincere desire for union). While this understanding of race gives it its due weight, it also brings us back to the critique of the civic nationalists: by what metric do we exclude people from the nation? You can argue that there are some who are simply unable to assimilate, but this brings the argument back to the long-contested front of “nature vs nurture” that neither side is well prepared to definitively answer. Even if you cut the Gordian knot by claiming that it doesn’t matter because one’s parents (the fundamental unit of race) are the source of both (the position I hold, incidentally) the question still gets bogged down on the question of “to what degree should law favor exceptions over rules”?

This last question, I believe, is the real chink in the armor of many nationalists (or even race realists more broadly). Essentially-especially in light of the scriptural data we have figures such as Ruth, Uriah, and others-what do we do with the exceptional individuals? It seems that we must allow some degree of mixing, both in terms of citizenship and in marriage, and that this allowance does not categorically undermine race and nation (whether this mixing can be limited by other factors by law will be the subject of future articles).

Before the civic nationalists pop their champaign, however, they have their own data to work through: beyond the arguments already presented in the other essays regarding the importance of race and nation, they also have to observe the assimilation process shown in the Bible; namely, that assimilation was only allowed to those who demonstrated ironclad loyalty to their new people, to functionally the complete exclusion of their prior people.

The Fig Leaf: The Oath of Allegiance

I believe the governing solution to the question of racial mixing, at both the marriage and nation level, is to compel the integrating party to produce a solid proof of their new loyalty. This proof should be an oath of allegiance to the heritage American nation, and her cause. I do not suggest this lightly, and I believe the precise wording of such an oath would require a great degree of care. There are several reasons, though, that I feel that such a solution provides a viable path forward:

1. I believe this is sufficient proof of loyalty, because Hebrews 6:16b tells us that “an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife.”

2. The violation of an oath is punishable as a felony under federal and state law. If someone violated their oath they could be deported or dispossessed as a felony, which would take care of the racial question “by other means” for those unwilling to behave honorably.

3. This process avoids the objection often raised regarding the supposed tyranny of regulating marriages.

4. It forces those entering into interracial marriages to consider the national implications of their choice. If the minority in the arrangement does not want to integrate into heritage America, it gives them the opportunity to decide that before it is too late.

5. If passed, it would enshrine important legal doctrines regarding race and nation into law, which could counteract some of the damage brought about by the civil rights era.