3,674 words
Modern Right-wingers who assert the importance of racial differences and advocate racial separatism, especially White Nationalists, face a number of philosophical challenges which they need to be aware of and ready to address. It is all too common to rely on presuppositions, assumptions, or implications without being prepared to respond to more in-depth issues or the complications involving the interpretation of facts and ideas. What is needed in the modern Right is a developed philosophy of race and culture, of identity and community, which clarifies the issues involved and which gives depth to their standpoint.
Without this philosophical or intellectual depth supporting their worldview in their minds, they are less and less likely to successfully challenge their opponents and convince others. The intellectual resources to establish this depth have already been provided by the thought of the German “Conservative Revolution” and the European “New Right,” but their contributions and ideas have not yet been fully recognized or utilized. We hope to bring to attention some basic philosophical problems and the necessity of being of aware of them and being prepared to address them. Of course, we do not pretend to investigate or tackle all the issues involving these topics and in enough depth; rather, our purpose here is to fulfill the aim of simply spreading an awareness of the most typical complications involved.
Ethnic Identity and Culture
Human beings are defined by their particular identities; the notion of an abstract humanity before which all particularity is unimportant is completely groundless. Yet it always needs to be kept in mind that identity per se is a complicated subject, encompassing both the details of individual or personal identity as well as various types of group or collective identities – ideological, political, religious, social, etc. Group identities may also overlap or conflict with each other (which still does not eliminate their validity), they may be voluntary or involuntary, and they may be inherited or chosen. It cannot be denied that a person’s identity as part of a collective group, even a racial or ethnic group, has a subjective dimension and involves conscious identification, just as it cannot be denied that some types of identity or aspects of them are inherited and inescapable.[1]
However, what concerns us here in particular is the role and function of ethnic and racial identity, and the undeniable relationship between these two forms of collective identity. “Ethnicity” has become a word with many meanings, encompassing both larger and smaller groups which are defined by the possession of certain common elementary characteristics, especially in the field of culture. Properly defined, an ethnicity signifies a people or a folk which constitutes (and is thus defined) as an organic cultural unity with a particular spirit and a particular historical continuity. In many cases, the term “nation” or “nationality” is synonymous with ethnicity, although it is always important to distinguish a “nation” in the ethno-cultural sense from the idea of “civic nation.”
However, it always needs to be kept in mind that culture exists on multiple levels, which means that an ethnicity or folk is not the only level at which culture operates; it is not the only valid form of cultural unity. This is why it is valid to speak of cultural groups encompassing multiple ethnicities (for example, a general Celtic culture), a larger Western culture, or, greater still, a general Indo-European or European culture. It is for this reason that Guillaume Faye is right to assert the position that one can identify both with local as well as with greater ethno-cultural groups: “to each European his own fatherland, national or regional (chosen on the basis of intimate, emotive affinities) – and to all Europeans the Great Fatherland, this land of intimately related peoples. The consciousness of belonging to both a ‘small native land’ and a ‘great fatherland’ is very difficult for contemporaries to grasp.”[2]
Each cultural entity is furthermore in contact with and sometimes connected with other cultural entities. Although cultures exist separately from other cultures, they cannot be regarded as forming different universes and they normally engage in contact and exchange ideas with each other. Each exchange results in the appropriation – or better, re-appropriation – of the cultural creations of another group in a new way based on the particular local spirit of a folk.
The different ethnic groups of Europe have generally engaged in a “cultural dialogue” with each other throughout their history, oftentimes drawing ideas, cultural objects and practices from other groups or from past cultures. Europeans have also exchanged certain cultural creations with non-European peoples, although this “dialogue” naturally occurred in a very selective and limited form because of the foreignness of these peoples. Thus one can, as Hans Freyer has done, justly speak of a “world-history of Europe,” while simultaneously upholding the fact that Europeans have always maintained their uniqueness and particularity.[3]
This fact of course, brings up the question of openness to other cultures, and whether or not it is valid for a cultural group to be either completely open or completely closed to others. On the one hand, liberals and globalists advocate complete opening, while on the other hand some (although not all) Right-wingers advocate total closure. In reality, neither complete closure nor complete openness are normal or healthy states, but rather a selective communication with partial (not absolute) barriers. It is a fact that, as Alain de Benoist pointed out, the “diversity of peoples and cultures exists . . . only because, in the past, these various peoples and cultures were relatively isolated from one another,” and thus in order to maintain their existence as different cultures, “communication can only be imperfect. Without this imperfection, it would lose its raison d’être and its very possibility of existing.”[4]
Racial Issues
The matter of race is closely bound up with that of ethnicity, which therefore also links racial identity with ethnic identity. It is not satisfactory to merely point out the reality of race, since opponents can argue that its reality is insignificant; one must assert its importance and function. Race is, of course, primarily a biological type, defined by certain physical-anthropological traits and certain subtle traits of character which are inherited.
There are also evidently many disagreements on racial classification, which is why one must always be prepared to defend one’s particular view of racial typology. We will only mention here that we believe that, contrary to certain scientists who insisted on asserting the primacy of sub-racial groups among Europeans, that European peoples as a whole, due to their close relatedness, form primarily a general “white” or European race. The existence of this common racial type among all European ethnic groups forms a bond between them and allows them to better relate to each other (in ways that they surely cannot relate to non-white peoples). This fact certainly does not eliminate differences between European groups, but to deny the racial relatedness of European peoples is akin to and just as incorrect as denying the existence of a general European culture and type.[5]
However, it also needs to be mentioned that race should not be seen in a simplistic biological sense, since it has an important and undeniable sociological function. Race has a spiritual dimension, permeating society and culture, due to the fact that racial type is also defined by its style of expression. Race is a force “which has deposited itself in man’s bodily and psychic existence, and which confers an intrinsic norm upon all the expressions of a culture, even the highest, most individual creations.”[6] This does not mean that culture and society can be reduced to race, which would be a fallacious biological reductionism, since many cultural and social changes occur independently of race and because of multiple factors. Nevertheless it is clear that racial type is an important influence on the nature of culture and society (which may themselves convey a reciprocal influence on race), even if it is one influence among a number of others.[7]
Thus, to quote Nicolas Lahovary, “the first explanation [of history] is generally found in the nature of a human being and his derives, in all the cases where he acts as a collective being, from the nature of his people. The latter, in turn, depends on the race that imprints its seal upon it.”[8] Therefore, it is evident from this that since any significant level of racial miscegenation transforms the basic structure of a racial type, it also transforms ethnic type; a concrete change in racial background causes a fundamental change in identity. The notion that culture and ethnicity can exist entirely independently of race can thus be seen as naïve and ill-founded; ethno-cultural type and identity is strongly influenced by race, even by racial phenotype alone, with which it has a psychological association.
The problem of miscegenation, however, is not readily solved. Anyone who believes in the importance of racial differences and in the separation of racial groups[9] must be prepared to challenge the “multiculturalist” argument that racial miscegenation is acceptable and normal due to its incidence all throughout history. Without touching upon the reasons for the occurrence of miscegenation, we must remind our readers that it is necessary to argue, on the basis of racial principles and values which hold a meta-historical value, that miscegenation, despite its presence throughout history, is a deviation from normality, not an expression of it. Maintaining stability in racial type was regarded as the norm in most traditional societies.[10]
Likewise, the notion that miscegenation is beneficial and brings about positive transformations (and is thus desirable) is of course entirely lacking in foundations, not only because race-mixing is usually associated with negative changes but also because it is completely unnecessary for positive transformation, as such transformations often occur within homogeneous populations.
It needs to be emphasized, in this regard, that evoking mere biological racial survival or preservation – as is commonly done by White Nationalists – is by itself never a sufficient argument against multiculturalism (or, more precisely, multiracialism). It always needs to be contended that even if, theoretically, the white or European race could survive in the presence of rampant multiculturalism and multiracialism, multiracial society would still be problematic.
The racial type can only live and thrive when it is able to express itself, to live in accordance with its own inner being and nature, in a homogeneous society without psychological and sociological interference from the immediate presence of other races. Just as a unique cultural type and spirit cannot survive when it is completely merged with other cultures, so a unique racial expressive style is unfulfilled and altered in a multiracial society; it denies a race complete fulfillment in its own way of being. This means that racial being only truly manifests itself in a homogeneous community, and is distorted or harmed by social mixing (the “integration” of different races). Furthermore, as Benoist pointed out, mixing can be opposed not only for biological but also for socio-cultural reasons:
In fact, hostility to miscegenation may very well be inspired by cultural or religious considerations. . . . Moreover, it is well known that in societies where there are many interracial marriages, the social status of these married couples depends, to a large extent, on their closeness to the dominant racial phenotype — all of which impacts on the marriage and on genetic selection.[11]
The Importance of Community
As previously implied, racial identity and ethnic identity only find their full meaning and validity in the presence of a sense of organic spiritual community. Of course, similarity in racial and ethnic type among the people contributes to their sense of organic community, but the latter also in turn influences the collective identities based on the former. This type of community mentioned here can be understood better by distinguishing the idea of community (Gemeinschaft) from that of society (Gesellschaft), as in the terminology of Ferdinand Tönnies.[12]
A true community exists where a group of people feel an organic sense of belonging and solidarity, with the existence of psychological bonds between each other, whereas a society is a mere mass or collection of essentially disconnected individuals. In society, bonds between individuals are superficial and mechanical (hence also their transitory nature). On the other hand, in organic community, in Othmar Spann’s words, “individuals may no longer be looked upon as self-sufficing and independent entities; the energy of their being inheres in their spiritual interconnexion, in the whole . . .”[13]
This stands in contrast to liberal individualism – which, in theory, means regarding society as nothing more than a sum of its parts, and, in social life, means the fundamental feeling of separation between individuals. The traditional holistic view of society holds that the normal state of human social order is thus the spiritual community and not the individualistic society, that the community is higher than the individual. This, of course, does not lead to totalitarianism or deny the importance of the individual personality, which is given value within the context of community life.[14] Rather, holism rejects individualism as a perversion of social life and a negative deviation, as opposed to being a normal condition.
Individualism results in the atomization of social life, in the disintegration of the feeling of community and the sense of spiritual bonds. All sense of community is of course never fully lost, since it is inherent in all human societies, but it can be weakened or harmed, with the consequences being that an active sense of the common good and interdependence between all the members of the community deteriorates or disappears entirely.[15] It signifies, in short, departing from the organic community into the modern society. To quote Edgar Julius Jung, in a description that is even more valid today than it was in his time, “the sum of men with equal rights forms the modern [Western] society. Without the spirit of true community, without inner binding, they live in dumb spitefulness beside one another. Formal courtesy and badly warmed up humanity conceal strenuous envy, dislike, and joylessness . . .”[16]
Consequently, as Tomislav Sunić wrote, the individualistic society of “liberal countries gradually leads to social alienation, the obsession with privacy and individualism, and most important, to ethnic and national uprootedness or Entwurzelung.”[17] In other words, collective identities – such as ethnic and racial identities – are destabilized or dissolved in an atomized individualistic society due to people’s lack of community-feeling and solidarity. Without the organic sense of community and spiritual bonds, peoples are disintegrated and transformed into a mass of individuals. Racial and ethnic identity can no longer have the meaning it once had in past social forms.
However, a return to community is always possible; social formlessness is not a permanent condition. It is therefore clear that one of the key tasks of the modern Right is the battle for the restoration of the living community, to validate collective identities. It is likewise an intellectual necessity to constantly reassert the holistic vision which values the organic spiritual community and which rejects individualism as an error. A failure to do so can only mean a failure to carry out one’s ideas to the fullest extent, to fully defend one’s worldview. With the fundamental values of race, ethnos, and tradition must always be included the community, which binds them all into a higher unity. As Freyer once wrote:
Man is free when he is free in his Volk, and when it is free in its realm. Man is free when he is part of a concrete collective will, which takes responsibility for its history. Only reality can decide whether such a collective will exist, a will that binds men and endows their private existence with historical meaning.[18]
Concluding Remarks
To conclude this discussion, we wish to reemphasize certain essential points argued for above for the purpose of clarity:
(1) Ethnicities exist as distinct cultural entities, although cultural and ethnic groups exist on both smaller and larger levels, which is why one can speak of both European peoples and a single European people.
(2) Cultures generally communicate with each other and exchange creations; they are normally not fully closed from other cultures. Under normal conditions this communication does not eliminate their uniqueness and existence as separate cultures due to the naturally selective and limited nature of cultural dialogue; only complete openness, which is abnormal, eliminates particularity.
(3) Racial type has an important sociological function, making its mark on both culture and ethnicity. Race is a factor in ethnic identity; to change the racial background of an ethnicity also changes its character and identity. The survival of a particular ethno-cultural identity thus depends on resisting race-mixing, which negatively transforms racial type.
(4) Racial miscegenation, however, cannot be opposed merely by evoking the notion of preservation, but must be opposed on principle. The mixing of races must be rejected as a deviation from normal social order; racial homogeneity is required for ethno-cultural stability.
(5) Finally, racial and ethnic identity finds meaning only when there exists a sense of belonging to a spiritual community, which is itself augmented by ethnic and racial homogeneity. In individualistic liberal societies where the original sense of organic community is weakened, ethnic bonds and identity are weakened as well.
What we have provided here thus far is merely an introduction to some essential concepts of the European New Right. By writing this essay, we hope to see these concepts be more frequently utilized so that not only do the arguments of White Nationalists improve, but so that they are also better understood. The way forward – towards changing the social reality and overcoming liberalism, egalitarianism, and multiculturalism – exists first in the realm of thought, in the ability to successfully challenge the dominant ideology on the intellectual plane. Then, and only then, will the hegemony of liberalism begin to collapse.
Notes
[1] For a more in-depth – if somewhat unsatisfactory with certain topics (particularly race and ethnicity) – discussion of the problem of identity, see Alain de Benoist, “On Identity,” Telos, Vol. 2004, No. 128 (Summer 2004), pp. 9–64. http://www.alaindebenoist.com/pdf/on_identity.pdf.
[2] Guillaume Faye, Why We Fight: Manifesto of the European Resistance (London: Arktos, 2011), p. 143. See also Benoist, “On Identity,” pp. 46–51.
[3] See the overview of Hans Freyer’s Weltgeschichte Europas in Jerry Z. Muller, The Other God That Failed: Hans Freyer and the Deradicalization of German Conservatism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988), pp. 330 ff.
[4] Alain de Benoist, “What is Racism?” Telos, Vol. 1999, No. 114 (Winter 1999), pp. 46–47. http://www.alaindebenoist.com/pdf/what_is_racism.pdf. On the issue of cultural openness, see also Benoist, “Confronting Globalization,” Telos, Vol. 1996, No. 108, (Summer 1996), pp. 117–37. http://www.alaindebenoist.com/pdf/confronting_globalization.pdf.
[5] For a discussion of the racial and cultural unity and relatedness of all Europeans, see for example the comments in Michael O’Meara, New Culture, New Right: Anti-Liberalism in Postmodern Europe, 2nd edition (London: Arktos, 2013), pp. 236 ff. This position has also been argued for by many other New Right authors (including Alain de Benoist, Guillaume Faye, Pierre Krebs, Dominique Venner, Pierre Vial, etc.).
[6] Hans Freyer, “Tradition und Revolution im Weltbild,” Europäische Revue 10 (1934), pp. 74–75. Quoted in Muller, The Other God That Failed, p. 263.
[7] Another source which readers may reference on this matter is Michael O’Meara, “Race, Culture, and Anarchy,” The Occidental Quarterly, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Summer 2009), pp. 35–64. http://toqonline.com/archives/v9n2/TOQv9n2OMeara.pdf.
[8] Nicolas Lahovary, Les peuples européens: leur passé ethnologique et leurs parentés réciproques,d’après les dernières recherches sanguines et anthropologiques (Neuchâtel: Éditions de la Baconnière, 1946), p. 35. Quoted in Pierre Krebs, Fighting for the Essence (London: Arktos, 2012), p. 21, n. 13.
[9] A position which is, needless to say, not equivalent to “racism” (whose distinguishing feature is the belief in racial superiority and hierarchy, not merely the belief that races are different and should live separately), as Alain de Benoist among other New Right authors have pointed out.
[10] See for example: the chapters “Life and Death of Civilizations” and “The Decline of Superior Races” in Julius Evola, Revolt Against the Modern World, trans. Guido Stucco (Rochester: Inner Traditions, 1995); the commentaries in Guillaume Faye, Archeofuturism: European Visions of the Post-Catastrophic Age (London: Arktos Media, 2010); the chapter “The Beauty and the Beast: Race and Racism in Europe” in Tomislav Sunić, Postmortem Report: Cultural Examinations from Postmodernity (Shamley Green, UK: The Paligenesis Project, 2010).
[1[1]] Benoist, “What is Racism?,” p. 34.
[12] See Ferdinand Tönnies, Community and Society (London and New York: Courier Dover Publications, 2002). For a good overview of Tönnies’s ideas, see Alain de Benoist and Tomislav Sunić, “Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft: A Sociological View of the Decay of Modern Society,” Mankind Quarterly, Vol. 34, No. 3 (1994). http://home.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/debenoist/alain6.html.
[13] Othmar Spann, Types of Economic Theory (London: Routledge, 2012), p. 61.
[14] As O’Meara noted, “emphasis on the social constituents of individualism by no means implies a hostility to personalism or a penchant for a faceless collectivism” (New Culture, New Right, pp. 113–14, n. 31), meaning that the rejection of individualism and the valuing of the community over the individual does not imply absolute and unlimited collectivism. Many other writers associated with the Conservative Revolution as well as the New Right have made this point as well.
[15] It must be clarified that this does not mean that every individual person who is individualist is necessarily an immoral person, or a person of bad quality. As Edgar Julius Jung pointed out, “he [the individualist] can be, personally, also a man striving for the good; he may even pay attention to and maintain the existing morals (mores). But he does not have any more the living connection with the significance of these morals” (The Rule of the Inferiour, vol. I [Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1995], p. 53). Thus one can still maintain that individualism essentially means the “splitting-up” of the community, the weakening of bonds and solidarity which are essential to the existence of the true community. As Jung wrote, “community-spirit without a feeling-oriented connectedness with the community, without a supraindividualistic [above the individual] value-standard, is an illusion” (Ibid., p. 134).
[16] Ibid., p. 271.
[17] Tomislav Sunić, Against Democracy and Equality: The European New Right, 3rd edition (London: Arktos, 2010), p. 128.
[18] Hans Freyer, Revolution von Rechts (Jena: Eugen Diederich, 1931), p. 69. Quoted in Hajo Funke and Elliot Yale Neaman, The Ideology of the Radical Right in Germany: Past and Present (Minneapolis: Institute of International Studies, College of Liberal Arts, 1991), p. 5.
11 Comments
With the reorganization of Europe into the global community well under way Robert Stark’s interview with Siryako Akda is well worth the listen especially where they touch on how the current reorganization of the Philippines into the “global community” is affecting that society today.
This is one of those articles at Counter-Currents which expresses views which I’ve held for some time but which articulates them in greater detail and with greater clarity. I agree with practically all of the positions expressed above concerning race and culture, identity and community. Of course, as the author notes, his article is “merely an introduction to some essential concepts of the European New Right”; I hope he’ll follow it up by examining these ideas in greater detail, and by exploring their implications for the North American New Right and its metapolitical project. What forms of ethnocultural identity — and therefore ethnopolitical agency — are possible and desirable for White people in North America?
I may write more on the matter sometime in the future. I was particularly considering doing a more in-depth cultural conservative critique and deconstruction of multiculturalism using Freyer’s philosophy of culture. As for ethno-cultural identity in America, I can say that my view is, in brief, the following: Whites in all places (North America, Europe, South America, etc.) should place value on race, ethnicity, and culture in the sense I have described in the above essay. However, in North America in particular the guiding factors for an “ethno-state” and new community will almost certainly be racial background and a general European or Euro-American cultural background. It is possible that groups of people of different ethnic backgrounds who still retain a strong sense of ethnic differentation could live in their own sub-communities (meaning, smaller communities or neighborhoods alongside other whites), although these would be integrated as part of a larger community. It is also possible – some would argue more likely – that there will simply be a general White Euro-American identity which everyone align themselves to and thus mix with other white ethnicities, since for most people in North America their original origin as part of a smaller ethnic group has diminished in importance and distinction.
An entity hell bent on de structuring identity in order to destroy the possibility of community can only be resisted via a resurgence and strengthening of identity which is a bulwark against the forces of destruction and atomization.
I have come to strongly believe that the most fundamental and problematic philosophical/conceptual problem with American WNsm is the NAME/LABEL: White Nationalism. For good or ill, and whether precisely accurate or not, it’s suggestive of “nationhood” for a great mass of people who aren’t a nation. By far the most common objection I get from reasonable, intelligent and educated liberals who are open to rational discussion is something to the effect of “I share little in common with other whites.”
Lucian/Greg if you’re reading this, what’s your sense of this particular issue?
Maybe we should just start calling ourselves fascists. Some form of fascism seems to be the only way out. Facism encompasses a general worldview, outlook and program. It’s a system that doesn’t need to be recreated from the ground up because it already exists; it just needs to be fine-tuned for our times. It doesn’t imply nationhood among whites but could still unify and serve as a rallying point for any whites who choose to participate by embracing the fascist worldview and program.
White Nationalism means that our race is our nation, so white nationhood is as real as the white race itself.
White people share quite a lot in common with other whites when one gets away from the superficial things they are fixated upon: the same genes, the same natural history, the same cultural development, the same sense for what is beautiful and good, the same number system, the same calendar, the same constellations in the heavens, the same folk music, the same mythology. I could go on. We are intelligible to one another in ways that non-whites are not intellibile to us. We feel comfortable around one another in ways we do not feel around non-whites. When we are lost in a vast city of non-whites, we feel relief to see other white faces. But more important than all of these factors, we share the same enemies and the same destiny. A shared heritage, shared enemies, and shared destiny are all marks of common nationhood.
You are speaking of facism as a form of propositional or creedal identity, which is what White Nationalists oppose. Every system that is serious about its own survival is “fascist” to some extent, meaning basically hierarchical and bellicose. That is even true of liberal and multiracial, multicultural societies. America today is far more fascist than fascist Italy in some respects: more hierarchical, more imperialist, more invasive of privacy. The only difference is that America is also massively dishonest about it.
My fear is that the present system will hold on for a few more decades by going “fascist”: a kind of ceasarism that eliminates some of the most aberrant and unsustainable craziness of the Left and puts the regime on more solid economic and cultural foundations but does not alter Jewish domination and multiracialism. The last thing we want is the present racial system made more efficient.
I admire fascism more than most, but what comes first is race, not regime. I am all for fascism in service of the race. That is what National Socialism is about. But frankly any regime would be acceptable as long as it puts racial survival and flourishing at the top of its priorities: monarchy, dictatorship, theocracy, liberalism, even the old US system.
Lew, I did not address the issue of name/label in my essay because it was outside the scope of its subjects. However, I agree that the term “white nationalism” can be problematic because of conflicting interpretations over its meaning and implications. One major question is whether it simply means nationalism among whites or rather regarding the whole white race as a nation, or something in between. I suppose it would demand frequent clarification. Personally, to describe my position I prefer using generic labels like “Identitarian” or “New Right” (which, of course, also demands explanation of one’s values because of the labels’ broad nature, but they have some advantages), although I will use the term “white nationalist” out of convenience at certain times.
As for the problem of “sharing little in common with other whites,” I basically agree with Greg Johnson. In fact, I have addressed the issue in the above essay to an extent: Whites/Europeans have ethnic and cultural differences between each other, but they simultaneously have a connection and a unity, both racially and culturally. They can understand and relate to each other (in ways that they cannot with non-whites), and they have been doing so throughout most of their history.
I think when those liberals you refer to say those things to you, they are thinking of the fact that a white American may not relate to a Russian or a Pole as well as to another white American (or perhaps, an Englishman, since some cultural groups are closer to each other than to others). However, this is in many ways irrelevant to the issue at hand. Firstly, as I have said before, while these ethno-cultural differences matter, they do not remove the existence of relatability (ultimately, if you think about it, the Russian or Pole is not so alien to you after all); this is even why whites have oftentimes had very little trouble assimilating into other White/European cultures when they migrated.
Secondly, white nationalists in America naturally envision their ethno-state as a Euro-American state; they will be living largely among fellow Americans or assimilated Europeans (and not among unassimilated Europeans; Europeans who move to America always at least partially assimilate). American white nationalists are not asking white Americans to live in, say, a Russian ethno-state but rather in a Euro-American ethno-state (although I have heard of certain white Americans moving to Russia and assimilating into Russian culture), so their argument is irrelevant. Also, I find it funny that these liberals you speak to complain about lacking a connection to other white ethnicities, but they (hypocritically) have no problem with bringing in even more foreign peoples like Mexicans and Africans into their country.
As for the issue of “fascism,” I think I have expressed my basic views on that in past comments, so you might already know what I think. Aside from the fact that “fascism” is associated with outdated and failed movements (which may be interesting to study, and even may be very respectable in some cases [especially people like Franco and Codreanu], but this does not change the fact that they are outdated), some forms of Fascism are not very likeable at all. If you look into certains types of “fascism” which disregarded racial differences such as “Brazilian integralism,” you will be disgusted. Besides, I don’t think it’s a good idea to oppose democracy in the way the Fascists did; rather, we should fight for a reform of democracy to make it better. Fascism is also totalitarian in nature, which is not desirable even from an anti-democratic traditionalist viewpoint. Finally, I cannot see why someone would prefer to associate with Fascism as opposed to simply moving on and using the ideas of people like Faye, Benoist, or Krebs.
Just a note for clarity: I was using the term “Fascism” in a very generic sense for the sake of making my point. Arguably, there are some movements of the early 20th Century which are associated with “Fascism” but which are not strictly “Fascist” because they do not fit the proper definition (since any proper definition of “fascism,” even in a generic sense, needs to take Mussolini’s Fascism as its primary example), usually because of either their conservative or non-totalitarian nature (including those of Franco and Codreanu, actually). These movements are still a thing of the past and almost impossible to really revive, but it may be unjust to their history to label them “Fascist” since they lack certain negative characteristics in Fascism or have positive characteristics lacking in Fascism.
Lew,
Could the problem that you and others have with the term “White nationalism” be related to the lack of identity, solidarity, and agency among Whites of a racial and political character? Whites form a distinct biological group, but they don’t form a self-conscious or sovereign political unit or units. We are a group in ourselves, but we aren’t a group for ourselves. Nationalism ultimately requires state power and national sovereignty, but we’re very far from this today, which means that talk of White nationalism may well sound rather hollow and abstract. Further misunderstandings may be generated by the association or conflation of nationalism with the nation-states of the past and present. White nationalism, rightly understood, is concerned with different political frameworks than those existing today.
I think this problem is not so much philosophical or intellectual as political and cultural. Ideas such as those expressed in the article above are true, but they are now largely “dead truths” rather than “living truths,” truths that inform political and cultural life.
I’m interested in how terms and labels are perceived by others and why. I’d therefore appreciate a reply from you.
I think that a more articulated and pluralistic conception of White nationalism is in order, one in which different forms of ethnocultural identity and ethnopolitical agency coexist and complement each other. This conception of White nationalism is what is required in Europe. As I see it, White nationalism can take regional, national, and continental forms, and these can coexist with each other. The challenge is to put everything in its proper place and its proper proportions. There is no real reason why one can’t be, for example, a Breton, a Frenchman, and a European, or a Saxon, a German, and a European. One can belong to smaller and larger communities simultaneously. This is something that Identitarian groups like Terre et Peuple and Generation Identitaire recognize. This form of White nationalism can be particularistic, pluralistic, and political: it respects the identity and interests of one’s own group, it respects the identity and interests of other groups, it recognises that one’s own group is part of a larger ethnocultural community, it recognises that the problems before White peoples need to be addressed at more than one level of sovereignty, and its hierarchy is informed by the principle of subsidiarity. White nationalism can encompass several forms of nationalism.
So much for my ideal. Where should White nationalists begin?
I think that White nationalism needs to have a telluric character, which is to say that it needs to be attached to a particular territory, to a particular people, and to a particular political project. This particularism involves self-reliance, but it needn’t involve chauvinism or isolationism. We’re in no position to give much aid to White nationalists elsewhere, or to receive much aid from White nationalists elsewhere, but this is no reason to be grossly ignorant of or prejudiced against White nationalists elsewhere. (I’ve encountered a number of White nationalists who are chauvinistic or parochial in their outlook, who are more anti-non-White than pro-White, and who are far removed from Nietzsche’s “Good European.” It’s not unusual to find White nationalists who express scorn and hatred for particular White subraces or nationalities on racial or historical grounds.) We should make use of the best of their intellectual and political cultures by such means as translating the works of their best thinkers and studying their political movements.
I’m sorry to post this in here. It was intended for the article “Racial Civil Religion”, which seems to have comments already closed. Thank you.
I think that what ultimately shapes a society is economy. The analysis in the article “Racial Civil Religion” seems to miss that point. In my opinion it gets too idealistic, while what is needed is a more materialistic approach.
Be it a religion (Christianity or Paganism), or a ‘Civil religion’, the three articles bring about the hypothesis that beliefs guide a society. That’s essentially wrong. Economy does (not only, but for the most part).
During the Neolithic age, uncertainty for life (bad crops, diseases, etc) gave as a result all sort of religions that had in common that they all would encompass the whole daily life of the people. They succeeded because they were useful in making life less harsh then, not because of any ‘contest of ideas’ or anything similar. In our times and geographical area, religions seem to be losing allure, parallel to the amazing technological advances and great productivity leaps. We have gained confidence, we seem to not need that anymore and so Liberalism, more useful to globalized capitalism, has become the ideology of our society.
Again, during the so-called French Revolution, the bourgeoisie allied with the underclass in order to withdraw the Feudal system. Ideas emerged from material changes, not the other way around (ideas didn’t emerge in someone’s mind, but were a product of those changes, a fruit ready to be harvested, in a kind of a dialectic process. It was because of the changes in the production process: industrial revolution and emergence of a new form of relationships in the production system through wages, i.e. capitalism). The feudal system simply didn’t allow them to get richer, so it was destroyed by History.
To make a long story short, specifically what we have now is not only ‘capitalism’ but the realm of profit maximisation. Maximum profit in the shortest term possible is what our economic system seeks. Thus, according to this reasoning we would have two options:
– either we succeed in making our model of society/economy the most profitable one (which could mean to come up with some sort of new technology of our own, which in turn theoretically would allow us to “win” and make our values mainstream), or
– we get out of capitalism and come up with another production framework (actually, it can still be a free market society, only removing the über-rich and some other changes).
Maximum profit in the shortest time gives rise to a clear contradiction between short term and long term interests (i.e. the preservation of the environment, moral values, or even the economic system itself). And this in turn could bring about the collapse of capitalism.
To reinforce that idea, I will say that there are other contradictions and interesting phenomena that are taking place these days. I am referring to the ‘second wave’ of liberalism reaching the arab world and China through global capitalism. We’ll see what it brings about.
Anyway, I am not suggesting any “let’s wait and see” strategy. We certainly should get ready in case these major changes occur.
And let me end with a quotation, only slightly tied in with what has been commented, but for sure very interesting for us anyway:
“Whoever criticizes capitalism, while approving immigration, whose working class is its first victim, had better shut up. Whoever criticizes immigration, while remaining silent about capitalism, should do the same.” Alain de Benoist
I am a little annoyed that you made this comment on my article instead of just asking Greg Johnson to insert it into the one it was meant for, even though its comments are now closed. By the way, I might say that your argument that everything in society – ideas, religious attitudes, etc. – can simply be reduced to materialistic and economic forces is completely fallacious and is clearly based on invalid liberal and “economist” ideology. The materialistic and economic reductionist position you espouse has been heavily critiqued, taken apart, and shown to be groundless by many intellectuals, even those of different ideological positions. Economic influences on society do exist, but they are normally not the determining forces; truly, a deeper study will show that it is rather ethnic, cultural (customs and traditions), political, ideological, spiritual, and worldview forces which are more determining. One example – among so many others – which illustrates this is the fact that economic prosperity has always failed to remove the troubles and conflicts of mulitcultural & multiracial society; in this case ethnic, racial, and cultural forces are clearly affecting the character of society in ways the economy cannot. Anyway, you would do well to read critiques of materialistic and economic determinist ideology, especially those from a Right-wing perspective (such as the thinkers of the Conservative Revolution and the New Right [including Alain de Benoist, ironically]).