2,002 words
“White Nationalism” is doomed.
And that’s okay.
As Vox Day and many others have pointed out over the years, the concept of “white nationalism” is a distinctly American notion. Europeans are “British Nationalists,” or they support “Germany for the Germans.” In fact, there are few things more hated by Europeans with a sense of identity than the European Union.
This hatred is exacerbated by the EU’s support for immigration, but it would exist just as well without floods of migrants pouring into the country; if anything, it redirects their attention away from Brussels.
Jack Donovan stirred the pot in the White Nationalist movement when he publicly declared that he was not one of us in the end of May. By “us,” of course, I mean people who have, at some point or other, called ourselves White Nationalists and still hold the general beliefs about identity, race, and culture that drew us to this movement.
The general response was, of course, negative. No one wants to be disavowed, condemned, or mocked, especially by someone charismatic and relatively influential.
Aside from the emotion, there seemed to be some critical arguments Donovan had neglected. Isn’t there strength in numbers, after all? Strength that we would be giving up by limiting our “tribe?” And if you refuse to take pride and ownership of the accomplishments of your culture, your ancestors, and your people—if you refuse the gifts that have been handed down to you as a legacy—don’t you forgo the very basis for civilization, perhaps for survival itself?
These are powerful arguments, and contain cores of truth that are essentially inarguable. Strength is fundamentally derived from social organization, because we are social organisms. Working together is what we do. And part of working together is working across times and generations, benefiting from the dead, and bequeathing benefits to those not yet alive. We, in turn, carry on the life of those deceased in our own DNA, in hopes of our descendants picking up the torch where we drop it.
But the arguments for large-scale statism are a step beyond mere social organization. The logic of strength through cooperation outside of your nation is contingent upon a shared loyalty and sense of identity in that nation. While the nation can achieve this in short stints, through the organic frenzy of revolution, through social manipulation, or at gun-point. When these things begin to fail, the State is already dead, even if it has a few convulsive steps left in its legs.
This is a brief summary of the premise behind Fifth Political Theory. It’s like becoming barbarians, but it appeals to a slightly different crowd.
Could the Wolves, Hell’s Angels, and other, similar organizations be conquered by the United States Military? Easily. But at what cost, and for what benefit? What do the Wolves have that the US Government wants? And how much would the Government have to spend to attain it?
The scaling problem of using the state monopoly of force has been compounded in recent years by technology, especially the internet. William S. Lind and Lt. Col. Gregory Thiele explain some of these changes in their handbook on the subject:
But today, war is changing faster and on a larger scale than at any time in the last 350 years. Not only are we facing rapid change in how war is fought, we are facing radical changes in who fights and what they are fighting for. All over the world, state militaries find themselves fighting non-state opponents.
This kind of war, which we call Fourth Generation war, or 4GW, is a very difficult challenge. Almost always, state militaries have vast superiority over their non-state opponents in what we call “combat power:” technology, weapons, techniques, training, etc. Despite this superiority, more often than not, state militaries end up losing.
These state forces keep losing, mind you, to relatively untrained tribes in rural parts of the world, who have not read Lind and Thiele, and who may not have eaten a full breakfast today, or even seen—let alone used—a bench press. How possible would it be for a government to enforce its will on the well-read, well-trained quasi-militias of the North American continent, like the Mafia, Hell’s Angels, and the Wolves?
The strength of size is subject to rapidly diminishing returns, and more rapidly diminishing in this century than in the last. The question then is about the nature of different types of political organizations, specifically as these natures relate to size. Which sort would you want to be a part of? Which size of a group would you be afraid to be in? Which would be uplifting, challenging, or lonely?
If biology has any say in the matter, it is that smaller is better.
Without white people having an interest in “white America”—not because it never existed, but because it is dead—and without the advantage of military strength, on what grounds should we call ourselves “white nationalists?” In the most semantically precise sense of the word, it may be accurate: nation, after all, refers to a people, and is separate in meaning from the geopolitical entity we call a state. But for most people, “white nationalist” means “white statist,” especially if that state happens to look similar to the United States in its current shape.
Most white people do not have the space in their heart to accommodate all other white people. We all get the math when its applied to non-whites, but there are a whole lot of other white people out there too, even when you discount the liberals and the ones with purple hair.
The feelings of patriotism and national pride that we experience on public holidays like July 4th, or on days of remembrance like December 7th or September 11th, are truly powerful things. Sometimes, it almost feels strong enough to hold the country together. In Greek city-states, they may have served exactly that purpose very effectively. But today, in a country of 330 million—of whom functionally 0% had ancestors at Pearl Harbor or the Twin Towers, let alone the Revolution—it all feels a bit commercialized and put on.
Tribes that know who we are draw us out of ourselves and transform us into the best people we can be. Taking up this responsibility is not a rejection of our ancestor’s gifts, but an acceptance of them, with the obligation that those gifts carry. Nor is participating in a tribe a rejection of the strength of a group. It is axiomatically the opposite.
Tribes are where we were born as a species. They are what we long for when we watch TV, we approximate the social feeling of a tribe in the dorms of college, which many people describe to be the happiest days of their life. Tribe is not just better; it’s human.
So why the push-back? Why do White Nationalists want to be called White Nationalists? Why did I initially balk at Jack’s rejection?
We face a common enemy today—several in fact. The left and its cancerous ideologies, the logic of an internationalist consumer ethic, and militant Islam, all variously carve away at the various components of white civilization. These are non-state actors of the worst kind, far more difficult to deal with than a tyrannical state, and are not subject in the same way to the strategies and tactics of 4th Generation Warfare. We should all be concerned that failing to hang together against these threats may mean we all hang separately. It is on this matter, I think, that the importance of the question of “white nationalism” rests.
Adapting a tribal, barbaric—or 5th Political Theory—identity is not antithetical to joining together against a common enemy. Forming alliances is among the oldest of human strategies for winning conflicts, and a loose, decentralized alliance among right-wing, identitarian groups is not only possible, but stronger than forming a single, cohesive organization. We can see this strength in application just within the last few years.
You don’t need to care about or play video games to care about #GamerGate. All you need to care about is that a loose group of gamers decided to take on Academia, the media, and a significant portion of the game development community at the same time. They fought a culture war, won it, and laid the groundwork for the Trump social media campaign that was to follow a year later. They did this all without leaders, without structured organization, or formal alliances. In other words, they fought a 4th Generation War against the business equivalent of a state actor. And they won.
Why shouldn’t whites do the same?
Towards this end, whites should work at a local level to establish healthy and functional communities: tribes that challenge and enrich each others lives. They are agile, adaptive, and bring out the best in their members, from whom they derive their strength.
In pursuit of defeating the common enemies, whites should also adapt a code of behavior—a sort of political etiquette, really—so as to make our nation as inhospitable, as annoying, and as dangerous as possible for our enemies, through the all-to-human power of intergroup cooperation.
The following is a very rough list of rules for the success of New Right organizations. It is by no means complete, but just a head-start for the sort of code of etiquette we will need to be successful. I have designed them to emulate Jante Law and Vox Day’s 16 Points, in that they are non-binding, but descriptive, and should facilitate cohesion and cooperation among discreet and different groups in a new political order:
- Remember your enemy. Other groups on the right may be competition and rivals, but they are not your enemy. The tribal new right is composed of independent and different groups pursuing separate goals and ideals. Some of our ideals will be at odds with others, but this does not make us enemies. The only enemy is the one who does not want any of us to be able to live in our own way.
- Condemn others; get condemned. Our strength as a movement, as well as our freedom, comes from our decentralized structure. Disagreements between groups are inevitable and positive, but using these differences to appeal to our enemy is corrosive and treacherous. If you denounce other right-wing groups to the left, you will be disowned and ostracized. If a group denounces another, you have a duty to and interest in mocking, denouncing, and ostracizing that group.
- Tridents catch more fish than spears. Different methods of persuasion and lines of reasoning will appeal to different people. Do not disavow certain strategies on the sole basis of personal incredulity or aesthetic distaste.
- Do not talk to the enemy. Do not talk to the left and their proxies in public except within the mindset of combat. Dialogues approached as a game of rhetoric and persuasion by skilled speakers is the equivalent of battle in a 4th Generation War. You will not receive good-faith arguments in public, so do not open your own group or other groups to their attacks. Anything you say can and will be used against you, or twisted until it can be. Talk to the enemy – especially the media – and you put your group and others’ at risk.
- Represent your group. Strength, courage, and competence of the individual reflect the same in the group and the broader movement. So do weakness, cowardice, stupidity, and hypocrisy. Our success as distinct tribes and as a New Right will depend upon the virtues of the individuals who comprise them; they lead to success on their own, and attract quality members to us. Hold other members of your group to account, and be accountable.
To Jack Donovan, we may owe an apology. But to our people, and to our children, we owe a community that they can be a spirited part of; a gift that they can be proud of and can call home. We owe them, and we owe ourselves, a tribe.
Source: https://caffeinephilosophy.wordpress.com/2017/07/17/jack-donovan-was-right/
26 Comments
White Nationalism as a term or concept has been recognized as problematic for years. This isn’t something Jack Donovan came up with.
There’s nothing wrong with White nationalism. There’s plenty wrong with White nationalists. Freakish “tribalists” will bring all the same problems, without the racial solidarity necessary to stand against others.
There are, literally, hundreds of millions more Chinese – one single Asian nation – than all the Whites worldwide combined. So the solution to that is to huddle together in small tribes?
All these micro-promoters don’t realize there’s a whole world out there independent of the narrow problems of how to organize a White resistance.
To be crude: John Chinaman doesn’t give two chopsticks about your political theories. In the clash of civilizations, small nations – let alone tribes – are lost.
Well said, Ted! I believe a crucial part of the real solution to the existential crisis of the White race is to bundle together, steadfast and unwavering, to work toward an effective tactical alliance with other nationalistic peoples (like the Japanese and Indians) who are in a similar situation of facing the same dire geopolitical and racial menace of imperialist-globalism championed by Jews and Chinese, and to work out and carry out truly ingenious and efficacious strategies and countermeasures together to offset and overcome numerical and other advantages of our common enemies (Jewry and China) so as to defang and defeat them eventually and secure our ultimate racial survival.
Jack is doing nothing but playing in the woods with his degenerate biker buddies. How many of those dudes have legit families? How many of them have acquired the wealth needed to fund any sort of resistance?
They are just punk rockers and metal heads who traded up to the most radical ideas they could find. Now they are doing lifestyle anarchism of the right-wing sort….yawn
Pagan Tribalism already lost. It lost to Empire Building Christendom.
The best modern model is the suidlanders of SA.
I agree. In his May 31st statement Donovan seems to be saying that he is rejecting white nationalism because he doesn’t like most of the men involved and feels they are inferior to him, as men. Maybe they are, but who cares. I think he comes across like a life-coach looking for customers. WNs should be capable of realistic self-assessment and devising practical plans for self-improvement. This doesn’t require sacrificing goats and living in a Viking longhall.
The Wikipedia reference to the Wolves of Vinland (Donovan’s tribe) notes “…the group was able to raise $3000 on GoFundMe to raise money to build a Viking-style longhall, and was helped in this campaign by several prominent white nationalist organizations such as Counter Currents Publishing…” If true, is Counter Currents still funding the Wolves I wonder?
one of the problems with white nationalism is “white nationalism.” The quotation marks indicate self-conscious identification with this specific ideology. However, successful ideologies are intuitively adopted. Their postulates and assumptions strike the subject as just ‘the way things are.’
That’s the ultimate point of metapolitics IMO. To shift outlooks without the masses being consciously aware their ‘common sense’ opinions have drifted toward our ideological coordinates.
I really like Jack Donovan’s work, I even own one of his T-shirts. I can understand the problems around the concept of “white”. I’m also a European, and a Gael, probably the last Europeans to live with a strong “tribal identity”. Our lands were confiscated, people removed of the land and the culture legislated out of existence by people who didn’t have a tribal consciousness.
What did the guys up at Ruby Ridge have that the Govt wanted? Nationalist movements across the West are thoroughly infiltrated by the state. The government wants control above all. In recent decades people have died for refusing to bend the knee. If you’re in the hills with an AR-15 thumbing your nose at the Govt they are letting you do it. The moment the want to they will bulldoze your compound while the media and a large proportion of the Country cheer them on.
Imagine the power that jack and the Wolves would have if they threw themselves into the fight, imagine if they embraced a militant Christianity! What a lightning rod they would be.
We don’t need pagans (however sincere) in the hills busily making themselves irrelevant the average white family sees these people as being little better than Winritch and his degenerates if they see them at all.
Our many, many enemies see us as “white” even if we don’t We have institutions that have successfully resisted Europe’s foes for more than a millennia that have on assumed their cucked out forms for decades. No one wants the Empire of nothing it can be resisted and destroyed with a concerted push, retreating from it almost guarantees failure.
As much as there might be some ambiguity around the term ‘white nationalist’, I think there will be bigger questions about the concept of ‘uniting the right’ under a less nation-centric label.
Recognising that this is likely a minority view here at CC, I’d suggest that there are sections of the broad right that we may not wish to ally with at all.
Which is why the author lost me at rule 1. Other groups on the right who argue for freer trade, smaller government, lower taxes and access to cheaper labour at home and abroad ARE the enemy – their agenda has been a prime mover in the corrosion of our national interests since the late 20th century. Seeking accommodation with such groups – because we might identify with their ‘right wing’ identity – will lead us backwards. The Australian nationalist Dr Jim Saleam wrote about this risk to genuinely nationalist groups as far back as the 1980’s.
At the same time, there are elements of the left that could be won over to nationalism – or are already basically nationalistic. Michael Walker published an excellent piece here on CC two days ago exploring this possibility.
In my opinion, if we value our genetic tribe over petty mercantile concerns, ‘left’ and ‘right’ are no longer useful indicators. The coming struggle is between nationalists and globalists.
Euro, North American, Australian, NZ and other white nationalists all fight for our particular cultures and tribes. The issues we face are broadly similar and we should cooperate and support each other.
So while white nationalism is an imperfect descriptor, I think it’s still superior to anything based on the increasingly redundant concept of a political left and right.
Unite the right? No.
Unite nationalists of left and right..
.
Thanks for your pertinent and insightful points, very correct and reasonable, and should be well taken by most of us.
However, in your following paragraph in which you unrolled an argument critical of and questioning the author’s view, I honestly think you have misconstrued the original meaning of the author of this article.
“Which is why the author lost me at rule 1. Other groups on the right who argue for freer trade, smaller government, lower taxes and access to cheaper labour at home and abroad ARE the enemy – their agenda has been a prime mover in the corrosion of our national interests since the late 20th century. Seeking accommodation with such groups – because we might identify with their ‘right wing’ identity – will lead us backwards. ”
The “right” you described in the paragraph, which we usually call “free market conservative”, “civic conservative” or just plainly “mainstream conservative” typical of the baby boomer generation in US, is not the same right the author referred to when he admonished that we should “remember the enemy and do not attack other groups of the right”. The “right” the author had in mind when he made that observation I believe to mean the new right, alt-right or the nationalist right, who and the right you (rightfully) reject are disparate and actually mutually-excluding. So it seems you have misunderstood the author’s argument in this particular aspect.
Thanks for the clarification, Riki. Well put.
If that was the author’s intent, then I agree with you both. At the risk of labouring the point, it’s useful to remember that the old formations of left and right both had nationalist and globalist elements. So while a number of writers use ‘right’ as shorthand for nationalist (and possibly most US readers are accustomed to this) it could be ambiguous for some, especially outside of America.
The flip-side is apparent at rule 4; not talking to the left and their proxies, except in a mindset of combat. If we accept that by ‘the left’, the author means globalist SJW’s, antifa and the like – sure , I completely agree. If we’re talking about the economic left (Michael Walker’s Group 1) though, I think rule 4 could distance us from a large group of potentially useful people who share – more or less – our nationalist worldview.
For instance, the blogger Lord Keynes operates the ‘Social Democracy for the 21st century’ website. Sounds pretty ‘left’, doesn’t it?
But if you really look at what he says, much of it is consistent with the kinds of articles published here. ‘The Cultural Left’s War on Straight White Male Science’, published on 18 July, is one example.
I find LK’s site to be worthwhile – and the economics there particularly useful. Approaching his site and readers in a mindset of combat – analogous to how we wight approach the antifa – would be counterproductive, I think.
So my point is really just one about clarity of language and intent.
Thanks again – appreciate your considered comments.
My intent in differentiating “the enemy” in conversation comes down to sincerity and intent. If someone is arguing in good faith, I think open debate in public is fine, even good.
Most people of the SJW, Globalist persuasion are, by their nature, and of their own philosophical foundation, not arguing in good faith. It’s against those people that you should not engage in sincere conversation on the record, because they will try to use everything you say against you and yours.
Thanks, Nineofclubs, for your further explanations and additional points especially on the sound economic understanding of the traditional working class Left, which are completely agreed upon by this humble commentator. Interestingly, I have long formed a personal value system which is right-wing politically and philosophically while congenial with the traditional Western Left wing on economic dimensions, even before I came to know this great website of CC and one or two other good ones with similar intent. From early on, I have discovered and deeply identified with the national socialist economic principles and policies of the Third Reich and their underpinning ideologies.
As an anecdotal side note, I once ran across an online test including a series of questions to find out the political and economic stance of the participants, which is then laid out in a coordinate axis featuring one’s political view and economic view on its horizontal axis and vertical axis respectively. and one’s comprehensive stance is determined by the two aforementioned factors jointly, to be located at a certain cross point on the two-dimensional diagram. . I took the test, and to my reaffirmed delight, found out that my position is exactly what I have self-assessed, far right on politics and considerably left on economic view, similar to that of Adolf Hitler and other early national socialist politico-economic theorists like Gottfried Feder and Dietrich Eckart in my own knowledge. And to my big surprise, I was also informed by the test itself that my overall position resembles another famous western person the most i.e. the former Pope Benedict XVI, who I had known to be a decent and honorable figure, being a Hitlerjugend in his youth and way much better than the current lousy Pope who is an anti-White arch-liberal globalist. Thus my incidental association with him in the sense of sharing similar political and economic worldviews profoundly humbled and flattered me, for that I was all the more deeply saddened and disappointed by his resignation in early 2013.
Excellent! While having reservations about some aspects of German National Socialism, I would completely agree with you on the (largely unrecognised) value of Feder’s work on economic issues – and particularly the role of interest. There are also a small number of books written by Otto Strasser and translated by Douglas Reed that you might be familiar with? These provide a good insight into Strasser’s ideas about the socialist aspect of National Socialism.
Regarding the online political quiz you took, maybe it was the Political Compass? If so, I took the same test with similar results. Very left of centre on economics, quite ‘authoritarian’ on social issues.
It seems likely that this position would align closely with earlier Australian nationalists and socialists like William Lane, W.G Spence, Jack Lang and Daniel Deniehy. Another, more recent, figure of note in this quadrant is the late academic and political economist Ted Wheelright. Wheelwright is still well regarded by some sectors of the Australian left (there’s a series of lectures named after him) despite the fact that he was openly nationalistic and wrote articles for the American ‘Social Contract Press’ website.
In the past, I have found myself struggling with the left/right axis. Always too fashy for the left and too skeptical about capitalism for the right; it’s heartening to find a community of similar minds here.
Will have to check out some of the works of Benedict XVI, about whom I am shamefully ignorant. Thanks for the reference and interesting conversation.
.
Thanks for helping me recall the name of that online test, which I have almost forgotten but for your kind reminding. Yes, exactly, it is the Political Compass. And yes, just like you, I’m decidedly nationalist and authoritarian politically and very socialist in the economic domain according to the test results. I am also very delighted and heartened to find a congenial mind like you, Mister, and have the valuable chance to be further informed by and benefit from your broad knowledge pertaining to the particular school of Australian thinkers with their distinctive and remarkable economically socialist views with which I have not been quite familiar in the past.
As for the former Pope Benedict XVI, I deeply regretted and lamented his abrupt and untimely resignation (ostensibly out of health issue), and I strongly suspected he was actually pressured or forced to resign by the powerful black hands behind the curtain composed of leftist, globalist and Jewish elements who had staged a successful coup against him. This surmise of mine can be at least partially justified by his successor i.e. the current Pope, an utterly and hideously anti-nationalist, anti-White and globalist, nation-wrecking and “refugee-condoning” critter of treachery, and an outright antithesis to the Benedict XVI.
It all falls into place once you realize ‘left’ and ‘right’ are relative terms, and describe styles of politics more than substance. One must return to first principles and observation to imbue the style with substance.
No reason to criticize WN, which is called AltRight now anyway. The main thing is to wake white people world-wide up to the race war being instituted against them and to encourage them to fight back anyway they can. And this is happening.
The following article might be interesting to this discussion/debate:
Visualizing Values Mismatch in the European Union
http://peterturchin.com/cliodynamica/visualizing-values-mismatch-in-the-european-union/
“The pattern is so striking it almost doesn’t require commentary, but let’s spell it out anyway. The original six (“Core Europe”) group together very closely. There are only two other countries that are part of the same cluster, Austria and Switzerland. Remarkably, the modern territories of both of these countries were encompassed by the boundaries of the Carolingian empire (see Is this the Beginning of the End for the European Union?). It looks like the “ghost” of the Charlemagne’s empire has more influence on today’s cultural values than such later distinctions as Catholicism versus Protestantism.
The current 28 members of the European Union, on the other hand, don’t cluster at all. On the contrary, they span three-quarters of world variation in values. Only African-Islamic countries and central America end up outside the ellipse that encompasses all 28 EU members.
Given such normative mismatch, is it so surprising that the European Union in its current composition is a dysfunctional organization?”
Hmmm..I don’t know, maybe the core reason the EU is dysfunctional is that it is led by anti-White globalists – all of whom come from Turchin’s core group – who want to race replace Europeans with AfroAsiatics.
Secondarily, it’s too much into nitpicking micro-management (again, the core group) and, thirdly, it never was realistic about differing economic productivity when putting forth the common currency.
In the end, the nations in the EU outside the core group (mostly Eastern European) are more healthy than the central core cucks. We need some “light from the East” in this regard.
Stupid. No other way to phrase it. The author confuses the social with the political and seems to be unaware that nationalism belongs to the latter.
It’s pretty clear why third world tribesmen keep “winning” against the US military. They simply don’t have anything to lose to the US, in the strictest most material sense. Hitler won in France after he took Paris and it became obvious that everything which made the French lead a modern lifestyle would be denied to them if they continued to put on a resistance. There’s nothing to deny third world semi-animals but their lives, and the US military isn’t into massacres.
As for 5pt and Donovan’s “barbarianism”. It will most likely go the way of similar movements of the past, from Tolstoi’s little agrarian cult to the Germanic LARPers Thomas Mann and Hitler were making fun of. Nowhere.
People who hate on Donovan don’t understand his philosophy(maybe I don’t too but I’ll give it a shot). See Donovan is a radical individualist he does not care if you and your grandma survive the 3rd World Invasion, he cares about him self – so if you want him on your side you have to give him something in return.
And what would that be? Well the Status Quo won’t do, as this is what most of the Alt-Right is proposing(consciously or unconsciously) – going back to the 60′ or 50′ or the 1800′ (!) is of no interest to the likes of Donovan.
You need to offer up something which has not been yet(in recent time), something that combines both the loyalty of the tribe with the freedom of self expression a radical individualist craves – going back to National Socialism is no better than Cultural Marxism for people like us. If you want the Wolves on your side you need to become wolves your selves and stop being dogs of (((Jesus))) and Hitler.
You know wolves and dogs are close relatives but at the same time the most bitter enemies – and you know why? Because wolves see dogs as traitors and there is nothing worse than a traitor – so keep your (((Jesus))) keep your Hitler, but count us out if you do.
“…but count us out…”
We will. Something that took many many years to learn, but which is now obvious, is that it is not possible to convince all people, or most people, or even perhaps very many people, of your views. What is more important: to convince the right people. It is quite obvious that “radical individualists” are not the right people for racial nationalism.
Also: that “radical individualists” need and want a collective tribal wolfpack doesn’t quite make sense.
As regards the main article: citing the Mafia as an example of a System-resistant group is ludicrous. With RICO, informers, targeted prosecutions, and sociopolitical issues, the Mafia today is a weak shadow of what it was in the past.
The idea that the “Wolves” are going to resist the government like a Red Dawn scenario is equally ludicrous.
Imagine a lose confederation of pagan tribes, with differing goals and ideals, fighting against the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages, having only one in common: their willingnes to resist forced conversion to an alien faith and subjugation to an imperial, cosmopolitan foreign power. Surely the professional, centralized, well funded, ideologically tight-knit organization in the Catholic Church will be overwhelmed and picked part by the complex 4th generational warfare tactics of the descentralized pagan coalition (no to mention intellectually amazed at their cleverness and carefree irreverence), and eventually give in.
Now imagine Zionism as a lose confederation of Jewish groups, with different goals and ideals, largely content with living and letting live in the hills of Palestine alongside the overwhelming Muslim majority, never engaging in dirty statism… Etc.
My thought experiments may sound snarky and disingenuous, but Neal Matheson and others have made good arguments and shared more concrete examples. Tribalism sounds like a tried-and-true recipe for failure.
The Northwest Front is an answer to these problems. Not “the” answer, but one of many. Join us those who would fight, and those who will run or be “summer Soldiers” run.
We will have our White Homeland.
Ex Gladius Libertas.
This argument again? Funny how few people counter-signal against “British nationalism” despite “British nationalism” itself actually being a rather artificial conflation of English, Scottish, and Welsh (and Irish even.)
Why is no one attacking “Spanish nationalism” despite the fact that “Spanish” is hardly more authentic than “American” – just look at the Basque vs. the Catalan, etc?
America has always drawn on a wider European base than individual European nations. So what? No one in America is demanding that the nations of Europe all drop their identity and become generic “white” – but apparently there is no end to the attempts to define “American” out of existence.
How eerily similar to the well known Jewish talking points: “Palestinians are an invented people” and “Whiteness is a social construct” and “how the Irish became White.”
Excellent comment. Indeed, I’ve known Spaniards who were vehemently “Catalonian” and not “Spanish.” On the other hands, I’ve seen websites of equally vehement Spanish nationalists. And there are Spanish pan-Europeanists. All levels are valid.
One can go to absurd levels of microcosms here. Spanish or Catalonian? Catalonia or a specific attachment to Barcelona? A particular neighborhood in Barcelona? A particular pub in that neighborhood? Or perhaps different tables in the same pub can form their own tribes?
Cui bono?
[quote]”All levels are valid.”[unquote]
Pan-European Nationalism is not valid as Europe is not a nation and cannot be without diminishing the different ethnic identities which make ‘Europe’ European.
It is also a misconception – typical of Americans and others who are hostile to Britain – to believe that British Nationalism implies a rejection of sub-national identities, such as English, Welsh, Scots, Ulster-Scots, Manx and Cornish. This is untrue and amounts to mischief-making. In the case of the Ulster-Scots, Britishness is essential. In the case of the others, there is a subordination of the sub-national identities, true, but not a desire to ignore or eradicate them. Far from it: British identity is meta-ethnic and defined by its parts.
It is true that societies evolve. I am not proposing that British identity should be preserved in aspic. Over time, local and regional identities have agglomerated, and in the process, interesting cultures have been lost. I live in a part of England that was once the Kingdom of Northumbria and had its own distinct dialect of Old English. Maybe over the course of the centuries ahead, due to technological and economic forces, British identity might disappear into something else and come to be seen as somewhat archaic or obscure, rather than Occitan identity. Who knows? It’s possible. But I’m not going to teleologically advocate some sort of modish attitude to ‘progress’ for its own sake, just to make myself look ‘with it’ and cosmopolitan. Besides which, progress does not necessarily have to point to geopolitical agglomeration. It may point in the other direction. There are also more pressing and immediate reasons why we should reject ‘white internationalism’: the failure of the United States.
The difficulties with American-style White Nationalism are linked to the contemporary fundamental cultural, sociological and political issues facing the United States, which the rest of us don’t want in our own societies. In the beginning, the United States was not an ethnic free-for-all but an attempt to build a federated white civic nationalism out of closely-kindred ethnicities, i.e. north-western Europeans, mainly from the British Isles. These different ethnicities retained their distinct identities, often coterminous with the states, which were almost nations in their own right, but under a broader American identity. This eventually failed or surrendered to immigration from countries outside the kindred ethnic groups, including white-looking Jews. The result is a rather shallow, commercialised society in which identity has been eroded and the umbrella civic identity has become free-floating and decontextualised. I believe that the United States itself must eventually fail and break up (re-boot) into its constituent ethnic parts, but that’s speculation. For now, the point is that we don’t want to follow your example.
Melting pot societies do not work, that in itself is one of the fundamental lessons of nationalism, and it is self-defeating to argue for some sort of white civic nationalism that is any broader than the natural level. British identity (in the traditional sense) is a form of white civic nationalism and it works, because Britain is the natural level of political organisation, covering a cluster of sister ethnicities who are indigenous to an archipelago as well as a settler population on a closely-kindred neighbouring island. Our society is now only ceasing to work because we have abandoned it, have given in to Marxoid neo-nationalists and are going down the American road of a free-floating type of civic nationalism. We needn’t have done this.
In the case of American White Nationalists specifically, civic nationalism seems to include (depending on who you speak to), in addition to northern Europeans, also southern and eastern Europeans, white-looking Jews and even north-east Asians. It won’t work. It’s the road to perdition. That’s not to say that I am an ethnic chauvinist or a Nordicist or any of these other dirty words that are wheeled out as strawmen. I don’t object to organic evolutionary migration between white countries, though in the case of Britain, I would prefer it is confined to kindred countries, not just any white countries. However I don’t object to close relations between white countries of whatever ethnicity, but I see no strong justification for becoming part of some kind of ethno-European super-state or white Imperium, which is where American-style White Nationalism takes us. That will soften and eventually sink the important ethnic differences and lead to a late 19th. century U.S.-style civic identity, in which anybody who ‘looks white’ will be considered acceptable. No thank you. We know where that will eventually go.