Edward Wadsworth, Dazzle-ships in Drydock at Liverpool, 1919
1,364 words
Translations: Czech, French, German, Polish, Russian, Slovak, Spanish
White Nationalism as I define it is the right of all white peoples to sovereign homelands. A right is not a duty. You are morally obliged to do your duty. You merely have the option of exercising a right. If, for example, the Swiss Germans are content living in the Swiss Federation, they have no duty to set up their own homeland. But if they feel their identity is threatened by the Swiss Federation and want to exercise their right to secede and form a sovereign homeland, the rest of us have the duty to get out of their way.
Why do I call myself a “White” Nationalist? As an American of European descent, my primary concern is the survival of my race, both on this continent and around the globe. In every white homeland, more whites are dying than being born, and our people are being replaced by highly fertile non-whites. If these trends are not reversed, our race will simply become extinct. The best way to save our race is to create homogeneously white homelands, with pro-natal, pro-eugenic policies. And this means that race must be the basis for defining who belongs to our nations and who does not. Hence White Nationalism.
Now consider the alternatives: civic nationalism, which defines the nation legally; creedal nationalism, which defines the nation in terms of a common belief system; linguistic or cultural nationalism, which defines the nation in terms of a shared language and culture; and ethnonationalism, which defines nationality in terms of both common descent and a common culture.
White survival requires the political separation of whites from other races. But civic, creedal, and cultural-linguistic forms of nationalism cannot discriminate between white and non-white, for different races can share legal citizenship, a creed, or a language and culture. Therefore, these forms of nationalism are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
But what about ethnonationalism? How is this an inadequate vehicle for white survival? I think that ethnonationalism usually is a good vehicle. Therefore, I also call myself an ethnonationalist. Indeed, as I define it, White Nationalism is simply ethnonationalism for all white peoples. But there are some important caveats.
First, in the United States and other European colonial societies, old world ethnic identities are increasingly irrelevant as different European stocks blend into mixed white identities. Generally, when an American identifies himself as Irish-American or Italian-American, it is simply because he has an Irish or Italian surname. But I know many Italian Americans who are more Irish than Italian, and vice-versa. And even two Americans who have unmixed Irish or Italian ancestry still have more in common with one another in terms of language, culture, and even diet than either of them do with Irishmen or Italians in the Old World.
But the result of this process of blending is not a generic racially white person, but a new ethnic identity: the American. After all, if Americans and Canadians were simply generic white people, there would be no differences between us. But there are differences, which are primarily cultural or ethnic, not racial. White Nationalism does mean that generic white people have the right to a homeland. It means that all distinct white peoples have that right: the French, Germans, and Italians—but also Americans, Canadians, and Quebecois.
Second, colonial societies from the start involved racial distinctions between European colonists and indigenous non-whites. In some cases, African slaves and South and East-Asian coolies were added to the mix. In such an environment, it is natural for whites not to see different nations and tribes (Aztec, Mayan), but simply different racial groupings (Indians, blacks, etc.), and it is equally natural for non-whites to see Europeans of different national origins simply as whites. Indeed, in the context of racial polarization and struggle, when whites must present a unified front, the remnants of old-world ethnic differences are actually harmful to white interests.
Third, within Europe itself, simple ethnic nationalism is not always sufficient to ensure either narrow national or broader racial interests. It is perfectly natural, normal, and right for individuals and nations to take care of their own people first. And when multiethnic empires or multinational bodies like the European Union work against the ethnic interests of specific peoples, then the “petty” nationalism of Scotland or Hungary or Poland is entirely legitimate. However, when petty ethnic nationalism or imperialism lead to wars between European nations, or prevent coordinated European responses to common threats, then a broader sense of pan-European racial solidarity becomes necessary to secure racial survival and flourishing.
Fourth, now that Europe is being colonized by non-whites, the colonial process of racial polarization is taking place there as well. Blacks, Arabs, and South Asians in Europe do not see Frenchmen, Englishmen, and Germans. They simply see white men. And we simply see blacks and browns. Our differences do not matter to them, and their differences do not matter to us. As racial tensions increase in Europe, our people will realize that they are not being attacked as Frenchmen or Germans, but simply as white men. And when Europeans resist ethnic displacement, they will increasingly regard their race as their nation and their skin as their uniform. The sooner we see ourselves as white people, united by common enemies and challenges, sharing a common origin and a common destiny, the sooner we will be equal to the tasks facing us.
Fifth, even though being French or Spanish is about more than simple generic whiteness, being white is still a necessary condition of belonging to any European ethnic group, and simply adding that requirement to the naturalization procedures of all European states would have revolutionary positive implications.
But just as I am an ethnonationalist on the condition that it is qualified by a broader white racial solidarity, I am also a White Nationalist on the condition that this preserves rather than undermines distinct white ethnic groups. A broad sense of pan-European solidarity should never become an excuse for the political unification and the cultural and ethnic homogenization of Europe. Thus I fully support the desire of different European peoples to preserve their cultural and biological distinctness. The best vehicle for this is the creation of homogeneous sovereign homelands for all European ethnic groups. The best vehicle for securing pan-European interests is an alliance or federation of sovereign states.
Within colonial societies like the United States, does the emergence of a distinct ethnic identity imply the existence a single white state? Not necessarily. The ethnic unity of white Americans would certainly not stand in the way of such a state. It is perfectly conceivable that the United States might become a homogeneously white society while maintaining its present borders simply by removing its non-white populations.
But White Nationalists should have no absolute commitment to maintaining the present borders of the United States and Canada. Our only absolute goal is white racial preservation. By what means? By any means necessary. Thus if the opportunity arises for states or regions to split off from the United States, perhaps made possible by a collapse of the Federal government or the national economy, White Nationalists should seize upon it.
This is why I have long recommended Harold Covington’s Northwest Novels as a stimulus and guide to thinking about how a white homeland might emerge.[1] I don’t necessarily think that Covington’s particular scenario will play out. Our ability to predict and control events is very limited. Thus, instead of investing a great deal of imagination elaborating a single grand design that probably will never happen, we should explore a whole range of possible scenarios, so that no matter what fate sends our way, we can always turn it to our advantage. Our metapolitical task is not just to make White Nationalism desirable, but to make white homelands conceivable outcomes in a whole array of different circumstances. The only fixed goal is the creation of white homelands. On all other matters, we should be ruthlessly pragmatic.
Note
[1] Greg Johnson, “Birth of a Nation: On Harold Covington’s Northwest Quartet,” in In Defense of Prejudice (San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2017).
12 Comments
At the outset, let me say that I think that this article addresses an issue that nationalists have generally avoided. So congratulations for addressing it.
I also think that your characterisation of the spectrum of nationalisms provides a level of clarity that I haven’t found elsewhere.
With all that said – and working on your definitions – I’d characterise myself as an ethnonationalist. I believe that a common heritage and common culture are what defines a nation. I don’t believe that a nation can be genetically defined. Sure, a race can be genetically defined and if one seeks to defend the interests of ones race (and I have no objection to that) then perhaps that position could be more accurately described as white racialism.
In any case, I tend to think that nationalists of the White, ethnic and cultural varieties have more in common than might otherwise be believed. We are all challenged by mass immigration and multiculturalism. We all share a love of our own communities over ‘the other’. The Left is notoriously fractured along philosophical lines that are so close as to be almost indistinguishable to outsiders.
In my opinion, it will be important for nationalists to collaborate on the key issues that threaten our national survival and to avoid the philosophical splintering that keeps it fighting itself more often than not.
.
Ethnic nationalism contains a genetic component to it, or it just reduces to cultural-linguistic nationalism.
How to find people who can think about these issues so lucidly? This is a difficult conversation to start out of nowhere.
Most regional “nationalist” groups in Europe are corrupt opportunists, politicians who see the chance of being bigger fish in a smaller pond if their region is granted some autonomy from the larger state of which it is part. Very few of them are pro-white. In most cases, the European Union rulers encourage them, in order to undermine the remaining vestiges of national government and usher in a Europe-wide anti-white federation.
‘Corrupt opportunists’: so are most of the politicians in the established ‘nation-states’ too.
It doesn’t have anything with size. The ruling elites (and their political parties) in France, Germany, Spain, Italy, etc, is the nº 1 responsible for mass immigration.
The advantage that ethnonationalist parties like Sweden Democrats and the Front National have is that there’s a widespread awareness of the group whose interests they are defending. That’s certainly true of those parties’ supporters. So any Frenchman or Swede who decides he has had enough of either multiculturalism or multiracialism has (so he thinks) an obvious political alternative to give his allegiance to. Such enthonationalist politics require far less in the way of explication or justification than racialist politics.
Unfortunately, the most that these parties could do racially if they attained power is to terminate immigration and put an end to anti-white cultural practices. That may seem promising, but I fear these parties’ bid to smooth the ensuing ruffled feathers (and thereby hold onto power) would see them emphasize cultural unity at the expense of racial survival – to the point that a Swedish or a French racialist could be deemed anti-Swedish or anti-French. Even if that is not what the party leadership desires, it is an absolute certainty that obstructionists would take that line and so pressure the party into following it. At that point, these parties should be classified as effectively culturalist.
In order to avoid this outcome, it’s essential for at least some racialists to adopt a “that’s a good start, but I’m not sure it’s really enough” stance. This way racialists can feed on the success of the culturalist parties while establishing goodwill and a track record of pointing out culturalism’s shortcomings. If this seems too convoluted, think of it like a multistage rocket: once one rocket booster has achieved its objective, it is jettisoned. Similarly, a culturalist approach may be necessary to get the ball rolling, but once it has accomplished that task it can be safely jettisoned (though certain criteria would have to be developed to determine task-accomplishment).
“But just as I am an ethnonationalist on the condition that it is qualified by a broader white racial solidarity, I am also a White Nationalist on the condition that this preserves rather than undermines distinct white ethnic groups. A broad sense of pan-European solidarity should never become an excuse for the political unification and the cultural and ethnic homogenization of Europe. Thus I fully support the desire of different European peoples to preserve their cultural and biological distinctness. The best vehicle for this is the creation of homogeneous sovereign homelands for all European ethnic groups. The best vehicle for securing pan-European interests is an alliance or federation of sovereign states.”
Very nicely put.
The New Right definitively has the best approach to our survival. Anything to add.
Is the term ‘Nationalism’ even an accurate term we want to use even when enemy associations are ignored? The tide of European herediatry interests is becoming ever more international. At conferences patriots from all over the European world meet and get on instantly. Their presence is appreciated and embraced. There is a ‘espirit de corps’ between Pro-Whites from other nations which you would never find between Liberals or Conservatives from different nations.
Modern Pro-White politics implicity embraces internationalism, not to destroy but to preserve. Nationalism centers around the Nation State and it’s people but the tide is increasingly becoming one that looks out for the interests of other people. We want to help the people residing in Hungary, Estonia, Greece etc nearly as much as we want to help our own as we recognise that our peoples’ welfare and future are interlinked.
The word Nationalist has of course had every negative association thrown at it for 70 years. However even when we deconstruct those associations are we really not ‘Nationalists’ but more International Patriots who seek to ensure a European Herediatry future?
Should we implicity accept our position as internationalists but steer it towards an end which meets our herediatry interests?
I highly disagree with your attitude regarding nationalism.
It might be worth considering a a little terminology.
Without giving it more due than is worth, it is conventient to see how Internationalism has become defined in Wikipedia:
“Internationalism is a political principle which advocates a greater political or economic
cooperation among nations and peoples,[1] and whose ideological roots can be traced to both
socialism and liberalism.”
But, I would point out that it is a biased definition because what the internationalists seek is not merely “cooperation” but “unity.” They seek to create a society which is inclusive of all nations, and perhaps which eventually encompasses all nations, to the detriment of individual nations. I, for one, am strongly opposed to that. This is certainly something that we do not seek.
Although we nationalists also sometimes seek out “cooperation” among nations and peoples, we do so by calling for respecting each’s distinct nationality.
Another useful term to consider is Pan-X as in Pan-European or Pan-Arabic. Using Wikipedia merely as a common reference source, it defines Pan-Nationalism as:
“Pan-nationalism is a form of nationalism distinguished by being associated with a claimed national
territory which does not correspond to existing political boundaries. It often defines the nation
as a ‘‘cluster’’ of supposedly related ethnic or cultural groups. It shares the general nationalist
premises that the nation is a fundamental unit of human social life, and that it is the only
legitimate basis for the state.
I think this is a pretty good definition in describing my own views on the relationship between myself, other Europeans and those beyond.
There is definitely a feeling of relatedness and brotherhood to all of the European peoples and the loss or degradation of any of the European nations is seen as a personal loss. Yes, we Europeans are certainly one big family. Yes, I am highly related and concerned for my fellow Europeans and seek the greatest degree of cooperation and good relations as possible, but I would not deny them their own nationality or “clustering.” In my own society, I would greatly accept just about any of the European peoples as long as they come with the intent of maintaining and promoting the principles of my society and its values and focus and that their numbers didn’t significantly change the nature of my society. On the other hand, should their existence be threatened, then I see that as a threat on my own existence. We also may decide to unify in order to prevail over threats of our mutual existence.
But at some point, one must be practical and recognize that there is some impracticality in realizing Pan-Nationalist dreams by seeking to create one single, large super-National political entity. Therefore, there is an acceptance to me that a practical political solution results in multiple European/Eurofolk states. Just as Brothers and Sisters often want their own rooms as children, they grow up to pursue their own destinies in maturity. However, if we don’t stand as a family, we will fall as individuals.
So, in a Pan-European manner, we should work closely and cooperatively with our relatives in Europe. But here in North America, political realism demands that we settle on a political solution that is smaller in scope and deals with the particulars of our own existence here. We might, in fact, develop councils or congresses with our European brothers and sisters. We might, in fact, even decide to join with them as one singular society. But, then again, we might not. Finally, should they decide to pursue their own independent destinies, we wish them the best on that too.
So, getting back to the idea of nationalism, the best definition of my own nationalism comes from John Breuilly:
“A nationalist argument is a political doctrine built upon three basic assertions:
* There exists a nation with an explicit and peculiar character
* The interests and values of this nation take priority over all other interests and values.
* The nation must be as independent as possible. This usually requires at least attainment
of political sovereignty. [Breuilly, 1982. p 3]
In my view, I belong to a particular nation which is composed of Europeans people and we have historical, racial and ethnic bases for our existence. Yes, the interests of my nation my nation (the Eurofolk nation) take priority over all other interests and values. Yes, the entire Eurofolk nation must be independent as possible with the greatest amount of political sovereignty possible, although that doesn’t mean in one singular political entity. I am both Pan-European and Eurofolk nationalist.
So in summary:
Respect for all nations: Yes
Internationalist: No
Pan-European: Yes
Nationalist: Yes
I am pleased to see so many people moving beyond nationalism. Races are no longer confined to their home continents and the nation state has outlived its usefulness. Our only hope is European solidarity.
What a great choice in images. Wadsworth is one of my favorite artists. Virtcism is such a wonderful genre. I don’t know his politics though.
Simply put, racial separation is the only solution.