A Social Alloying Model for Immigration
When discussing the question of nationalism, I am not alone in believing that the traditional and biblical understanding of a “nation” as being based off of shared culture, mores, and traditions is superior to the modernistic “genetics only” view based on shared ancestry held by some people, including most of those who would subscribe to white nationalism. White nationalism is a concept that is alien to Europe, with its long history of intra-European ethnic and sectarian rivalries. In the United States, where the proverbial “melting pot” has almost obliterated the former ethnic and group distinctions between the various waves of European migration, a generic European blended ethnicity (an ethnic American) could be contemplated for political and identitarian purposes, first informally (in the “us vs them” of politics and culture) and then formally, through overt politicization, affirmative action privileges and quotas and through self-identification on census forms in an increasingly (and visibly) diverse nation. Rejecting the ancestry exclusive criteria for membership within the group, which is the historical origin of the “jus sanguinis” law of inheriting nationality, leaves open the possibility of the introduction of outsiders into a national group, provided they assimilate and acculturate themselves to the culture and folkways of the nation they are joining. When looking at the way immigration is generally handled in the Western World today, one might be moved to ask questions about the relative good of preserving absolute genetic distinction in a nation (i.e. no outsiders coming in) versus the polar alternative which is unconcerned with the conservation of ethnic and cultural groups and ratios. This is what many current systems in the West are approaching, in which anyone and everyone from anywhere in the world for any reason whatsoever is allowed to come into nations subscribing to the pro-immigration, multicultural ethos. The observer might note that both of these extremes are suboptimal and that the optimum, through the Aristotelian principle of moderation, must be somewhere in the middle.
My response to that observation would be affirmative. Coming from an American perspective, I would note there is always room for the introduction of some “out-group genetics”, which has largely been the history of immigration to the United States. This reality, however, does not seem as pronounced because most of the groups that were being grafted on to the old Anglo/British stock which made up the bulk of the original population of the colonies at the time of their independence were people who looked at least reasonably similar to them, and shared a good degree of genetic commonality with them anywise. Not unreasonably, this genetic similarity corresponded to a cultural similarity as well, which was really the more important of the two issues involved.
This discussion of this question dovetails quite nicely with concerns about the efficacy of immigration and how immigration can be “engineered” to benefit the receiving nation (in this case, European and other Western nations, but, in theory, this could apply to any nation).
The basis for a sound immigration policy begins with five principles:
Any immigration policy must revolve around the fundamental premise that it operates for the good of the receiving nation and the people of that nation;
It must seek to guarantee the quality of those immigrants who are allowed in, screening for things such as criminality and lack of contributable skills;
It must discourage “short term” immigrants (who are usually just “economic mercenaries” with an instrumental view of the nation they are joining, reducing it to a “labor market” or a welfare system) in favor of those who genuinely desire to become a part of their host society and be fully committed to it;
Assimilation must be made mandatory, including demonstrated proficiency in the native language as well as both a knowledge and acceptance of the receiving nation’s culture and mores;
It must include zero tolerance for illegal immigration; all entrants must be willing to respect the legal and moral sovereignty of the receiving nation before they can remain.
These are only the “basics” for a reasoned immigration policy, however. These are principles from which a nation should begin, not the place where the immigration policy of a wise national leadership will end.
In the spirit of comparing analogues between the physical and social sciences, I believe we can approach the question of what would constitute a successful optimum for immigration by drawing an analogy with the metallurgical process of alloying. Alloying is the process whereby a minority component (called the alloying agent or solute) is added to a majority component (the base metal), forming a solid solution. Most often this is accomplished by melting the components, mixing them, and allowing the subsequent alloy to cool.
There are two basic types of alloys – substitution alloys and interstitial alloys. A substitution alloy is one in which atoms of the alloying agent replace atoms of the base metal in the crystalline structure of the solid alloy. An interstitial alloy, on the other hand, is one in which atoms of the alloying agent actually embed themselves in the interstices, the gaps between the atoms formed in the crystalline lattice (see figure below).
What typically determines whether an alloy will be substitutional or interstitial is the relative sizes of the atoms involved, which depends mostly upon the period(s) to which the atoms belong (the horizontal rows of elements in Mendeleev’s periodic table of elements). When the atoms involved in the alloy are relatively similar in size and possess similar electronegativities, the alloy will be substitutional – the alloying agent atoms can more easily take the place of the base metal atoms without too great distortion of the crystalline structure. When the atomic radii of the solute atoms are approximately 60% or less than that of the base metal, then the smaller alloying agent’s atoms will fill the interstices. Doing so will avoid deformation of the crystalline lattice and generating a much higher energy state along with a more unstable structure. Essentially what allows alloys to exist is the fact that the solute atoms do not dislocate the base metal structure too much.
Typically, substitution alloys can contain greater percentages by mass of solute atoms. Conversely, interstitial alloys tend to contain lower percentages by mass of the solute elements. Some examples of common substitutional alloys include bronze (78-95% copper, 5-22% tin), brass (65-90% copper, 10-35% zinc), and Nichrome (-80% nickel, ~20% chromium). In each case, the atoms involved are all Period 4 or 5 metals with similar radii and electronegativities.
A couple of examples of common interstitial alloys include steel (95-99% iron, 5% or less carbon, plus other trace elements) and Zamak (~95% zinc, 4% aluminum, 1% copper, trace magnesium). In these alloys, the smaller Period 2 and 3 atoms (i.e. carbon and aluminum, respectively) occupy the interstices formed by the crystal structure of the base metal. Some alloys may be both substitutional and interstitial. For instance, stainless steel (~50-70% iron, ~10-30% chromium, plus smaller amounts of carbon, manganese, nickel, etc.) has the chromium atoms substituted into the iron’s crystalline structure, while carbon atoms occupy the gaps in the lattice.
There are some lessons we can learn from this which we may apply to a sound and pro-active immigration policy.
Every national group has strengths and weaknesses which are related to the complex interplay of all kinds of traits ranging from average national IQ and average physical capabilities to various “intangibles” relating to culture and history such as artistic inclinations, temperament, industriousness, future time orientation, delayed gratification and many, many others
First of all, the process of alloying metals exists because alloys exhibit desirable properties which improve upon the base metal, such as increased hardness, ductility, malleability, or other properties which can be engineered into an alloy by choosing the right proportion of solute(s). Every national group has strengths and weaknesses which are related to the complex interplay of all kinds of traits ranging from average national IQ and average physical capabilities to various “intangibles” relating to culture and history such as artistic inclinations, temperament, industriousness, future time orientation, delayed gratification and many, many others. These “national traits” are real and relevant, as well as a basis for enduring stereotypes, and they can help a nation decide who it wishes to receive or who not to. We should understand that the introduction of any foreign elements into one nation will result – even with eventual assimilation and acculturation – in a greater or lesser degree of “cultural drift” over time, analogous to the distortion of a base metal’s crystal lattice when a differently sized solute atom is introduced. The question is to decide what level of distortion is acceptable with relation to the introduction of immigrants who will tend to possess the traits desired by their host country.
Second, it is apparent that the level of immigration, as with the percentage of mass of solute atoms introduced into the base metal, can be higher when the solute atoms (immigrants) are more similar to the atoms of base metal (native citizens). One can introduce 20% by mass zinc into copper and produce a beautiful brass alloy. One cannot introduce 20% by mass carbon into iron and produce any kind of load-bearing steel alloy. Carbon is too dissimilar from iron for that much to be successfully introduced, whereas zinc is very close in size and electronegativity to copper. Likewise, a nation can more successfully introduce and assimilate immigrants from culturally similar foreign nations than those from grossly dissimilar cultures.
For example, the United States was quite reasonably successful in grafting other Europeans (and especially the Northern and Western Europeans) into its original Anglo cultural stock – these immigrants *did* affect the culture to a certain degree, but America remained overall an Anglo-cultured nation and assimilated these immigrants rather well, retaining the English derived social mores, ideals, relationship to freedom and power, institutions and legal traditions. The Founding Fathers, in their extensive recorded deliberations, weighed both on the cultural inheritance of the US, the requirements for the maintenance of a nation, and the ability of immigrants to either strengthen the nation or weaken it, a largely preventable evil whose management British politician Enoch Powell termed “the supreme function of statesmanship” and is assimilated to the virtue of prudence. Founding Father Alexander Hamilton wrote that:
“The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias, and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family. […]
The opinion advanced in the Notes on Virginia is undoubtedly correct, that foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners. They will also entertain opinions on government congenial with those under which they have lived; or, if they should be led hither from a preference to ours, how extremely unlikely is it that they will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, so essential to real republicanism? There may, as to particular individuals, and at particular times, be occasional exceptions to these remarks, yet such is the general rule. The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency. […]
The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils. It has been often likely to compromise the interests of our own country in favor of another. The permanent effect of such a policy will be, that in times of great public danger there will be always a numerous body of men, of whom there may be just grounds of distrust; the suspicion alone will weaken the strength of the nation, but their force may be actually employed in assisting an invader.[…]
To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens, the moment they put foot in our country, as recommended in the message, would be nothing less than to admit the Grecian horse into the citadel of our liberty and sovereignty.”
The same cannot be said, however, for the more recent mass of immigration from widely dissimilar cultures from all over the rest of the non-European and non-Anglo world, who, in the last 50 years, have introduced greater cultural distortion and dislocation than the immigration that occurred in the previous 200 years. Masses of non-European immigrants into a European-derived nation cannot be successfully assimilated as European-derived immigrants can. Of course, it does not help that the USA is barely even making the attempt to do so anymore, having adopted cultural relativism and a supine and deprecating attitude towards its history, culture and achievements.
This does not just apply to European and European-descended nations, either. China, for example, would better be able to acculturate Koreans and Mongolians (and has done so over millennia of existence) than it could Canadians or Brazilians, especially in large numbers. Likewise, India could much more readily introduce and assimilate immigrants from other culturally Hinduised nations such as the Nepalese or Javanese than they could immigrants from either Africa or Europe. The father of the overwhelmingly Muslim Pakistani nation which separated from India, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, once said that:
“It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not religions in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders, and it is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality, and this misconception of one Indian nation has troubles and will lead India to destruction if we fail to revise our notions in time. The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, literatures. They neither intermarry nor inter-dine together and, indeed, they belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspects on life and of life are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Mussalmans (Muslims) derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, different heroes, and different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other and, likewise, their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built for the government of such a state.”
The continued enmity between Hindus and Muslims in India (the latter of which are almost as numerous in India as in Pakistan), which flares up in the form of sectarians violence or in attempts at (self)segregation, bears testament to the accuracy of his words.
A third point we should draw from this is that we should not necessarily fear immigration. Control it, yes, but we need not fear it. No nation remains the same perpetually. It should not be the goal of any nation to remain exactly as it always has been indefinitely. Each nation, for the good of its people, should strive to pursue genuine national progress (not to be confused with the false kind proposed by political “progressives”) in the arts and humanities. Nations can preserve good traditions while revising or improving the bad. Nations can also allow in small numbers of foreign elements without having to submit themselves to wholesale inundation. The Roman Empire benefited from allowing in a few talented Germans like Stilicho. It was undermined by the mass influx of Goths under Fritigern. It is to a nation’s benefit to be receptive to talented individuals who desire to seek their fortunes there – more so the case if they are from culturally similar foreign nations, but this can even be the case for smaller numbers from more dissimilar nations, if they belong to the upper echelons and the cognitive elites. Mass immigration is always a bad idea and can, often, more correctly be termed “invasion” and arouse similar emotions, but low intakes of rigorously controlled entrants do not spell disaster.
This brings me to my fourth and final point, which is that alloys exist by design. They do not just spontaneously occur. Alloys do not exist in nature except in some exceedingly rare cases. Practically, all of the alloys used by man today were designed and created by man, specifically for his own purposes. Similarly, the immigration policy of a nation cannot be allowed to “just happen”. It must be a deliberate process that exists for the purpose of engineering and designing the development of the nation in the directions that the wise and civic-minded leadership of the nation knows will be best. The balance must be struck between maintaining good traditions and preserving the traditional mores and religion of the nation, while at the same time allowing the introduction of elements which will strengthen, rather than weaken, the national resolve, the national morals, and the national strength.
Immigration is essentially a process that creates a social alloy. The wise nation will control this process so as to strengthen its long-term social cohesion, as well as its strength, hardness, ductility, and so forth. Pure, raw iron has little tensile strength, while high-grade steel with just a small percentage of carbon in it can be used to build skyscrapers. Change is inevitable. The success or failure of any Neo-reactionary and Traditionalist system will not be whether it can stifle and hold back change, but whether it can control and adapt it in such a way as to restore and maintain the good while developing the bad into something better. Nations must deal with scientific advances, the introduction of new ideas, natural disasters, and many other things. Resilience allows them to weather these trials and emerge stronger, while brittleness sees the nation which cannot adapt be shattered upon the rocks of history. The wise nation will utilize whatever means are at its disposal – including an immigration policy crafted for its own national needs – to pursue its own survival and efflorescence in the cutthroat competition of a world to which the biblical descriptor of “fallen” can be applied.
As to the question of where that “optimum point” is, the answer would be – “It all depends”. Overall, though, the more culturally dissimilar a group of potential immigrants is, the smaller the “percentage by mass” which should be introduced, if they are to be introduced at all. Ultimately, the needs of the nation perceived by its leadership – assuming this leadership has the best interests of the nation in mind (which cannot necessarily be said for the current “leadership” in most Western nations) – will determine who should be allowed in and to what extent. And certainly, it is to be considered always in the best interest of a nation to avoid the sort of uncontrolled mass immigration that is being allowed, and indeed encouraged, by today’s globalist-minded transnational elites.