920 words
In this short article I present my thoughts about our post-modern, post-liberal, and – I would say – post-nationalist age.
Perhaps the first step is to describe what I mean by “post-nationalism.”
The advocates of our postmodern, post-liberal, globalized age regularly speak of the end of classical politics, states, societies, and nations.
Because of left-wing indoctrination by the mass media and the educational systems in Western countries, Western societies now think differently about matters concerning human equality, internationalism, and globalism. Leftist ideologues usually stress that we need to understand that we’re living in a post-nationalistic age, and that multiculturalism and the welfare state have changed what we once called the “nation” hundreds of years ago. And I have to admit I think they are right in some sense.
Idealistic ideas about nations that nationalists like to uphold have already failed. In Western Europe it’s easy to see just by looking at the mass immigration and ongoing “migrant crisis” that have sadly changed the structure of the society in great measure. In Central Europe the situation is different because – ironically – western standards of living have saved us from mass migration for now, and our societies have remained more conservative in some sense – nevertheless, liberalism and capitalism are rooted here too, and the consumer society is a problem even here.
But it is not like the “glorious forces” of nationalism failed against the “dark forces” of liberalism and globalism. The roots of the problem go deeper. The idea of nationalism was doomed from the start, because democratic nationalism, nation-states, and the inherent animosities underlying “petty nationalism” were the first destructive force against the old, traditional European societies and political order. These ideas were what destroyed the diversity of Europe – which at one time was real and organic – and created ongoing hatred between European ethnic groups. Liberalism, of course, does this as well, but in the 19th century liberalism and nationalism were connected and unopposed to each other.
The counter-revolutionaries Joseph de Maistre and Klemens von Metternich had known that. And as weird as it may be, some liberal intellectuals nowadays recognize the same truth monarchists of hundreds of years ago recognized: that small communities and organizations – including, sometimes, international organizations – are the most important actors of politics, not nation-states. Of course these liberals probably wouldn’t agree with my assertion that the Church in the Middle Ages and Early Modern period – which includes compound states like the Holy Roman Empire, the Hapsburg Empire, and the Russian Empire – are good examples of this concept.
I am not saying that the core values behind present-day nationalism are not important and valuable. The intention to save the integrity of a society and to save the culture and identity of a nation are important core values for me, too. But I don’t think nationalism – which usually proves quite chauvinistic – is best equipped to do so. One reason why is that nationalism wants to unify a population by ethnicity, language, and religion, but Europe never was, and is not today unitary in these categories. Just think, for example, of Catalonia, Brittany, the Occitan-speaking people in Southern France, Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol in Italy, the historic populations of Silesia, and the Hungarian populations living in portions of Slovakia, Romania, and Ukraine.
As I see it, ethnonationalist thinking oppresses and slowly destroys authentically European regional ethnic cultures, religious traditions, and artisanal crafts that are the heart and essence of Europe’s organic diversity. It is through this unity in diversity, unitas in varietate, which is how premodern nations existed, primarily (but not exclusively) as monarchies. These “compound nations” were interconnected with broader cultural, historical, and religious connections as well as common interests. (Of course I don’t want to deny the ongoing, devastating wars that have occurred between European nations, but even allowing for this my point holds true.)
Sadly, present-day nationalists don’t seem to understand this, and can’t let go of the 19th- and 20th-century nation-state paradigm. Unfortunately, this paradigm can’t create and maintain a much more unified Europe – which is exactly what we need as we face the migration crisis, climate change, and potentially the biggest geopolitical changes the world has seen since the end of the Cold War.
If we continue with old nationalist paradigms we will become each other’s enemies, which we cannot allow in the time of the “migrant crisis,” the LGBT offensive against the traditional family, and the liberal push to “redefine” the nature of things. Of course, the conservative victories of 2016 like the election of Donald Trump, Brexit, and the growth of the alt-right movement in the US have shown us that political opinions are changing for the better in the West. But that’s not enough. After the election of Alexander Van der Bellen, Emmanuel Macron, and the electoral defeat of Geert Wilders, it is clear that problems remain. And in my view we cannot really change Europe’s direction if we remain on the basis of nationalist thinking. The post-liberal globalists think their enemies on the West are “retrograde nationalists”; they know what these people can say and do. Continuing with the dated nationalist paradigm means acting in accordance with their predictions. We need to stop and reconsider.
In the past, the conservative political strategies I mentioned were better able to do this – in the process maintaining and preserving the natural diversity of the European people – and nowadays Identitarian ideas are better suited for this. We therefore need to step beyond nationalism and understand what an illiberal post-nationalism can provide us.
9 Comments
Thanks for the thought provoking article. I like the idea of a World Union of White Advocates (WUWA)–which already exists in our online efforts. It would seek to raise racial consciousness among all Europeans–at home and abroad.
Whites need to become aware of the fact that we are facing a serious crisis, ie, nearing extinction. The problems we face today are global. Not only do we have to contend with organized jewry, but we have the global wealthy elites importing cheap labor and weakening the fabric/integrity of our cultures and societies. Then there are the more idealistic–yet no less traitorous than the transnational elite Whites mentioned above–who are openly pushing/embracing diversity/third-worldism.
Today we have also to face the dangers posed by a rising Asia (military, economic domination, and environmental destruction). Then there is the problem of Africa and her growing numbers. And of course there is the threat of Islam which in some ways is new, but in other ways has been there from its beginning. I don’t think we’ve ever been in such peril.
We have to communicate the importance and necessity of having genetic interests. Whites seem to be embarrassed about talking about race and prefer talking about nation states. Civic nationalism is easy and yet outdated. Yet I still like the acronym CAUSE: Canada, Australia, United States, South America and South Africa and Europe. I think the goal is to regain traditional geographic territories because we need living space in which to thrive.
These ideas don’t exactly have a reputation of success. The legacy of de Maistre, Evola and von Leddihn and their followers has mostly been self-designated exile in the wilderness of the sidelines of history.
If we are to judge solely by “success,” then I am afraid there is little to be hoped for us. Late liberalism, by such a standard, is the unique and unambiguous champion of the West.
Your point, Valföðr, is taken, and must be contemplated well; there may indeed be reasons internal to the thought of such men as Evola and de Maistre which prohibit the realization of their ideas. Yet the fact that they have not succeeded practically is neither a disproof of their ideas, nor even necessarily a demonstration of the impracticability of the same. It might be that they were but “ahead of their time,” or that the historical conditions of their times did not permit them to have a greater influence than they enjoyed. It might be that the time into which we are entering now furnishes precisely the conditions for the practical success of their ideas.
History is a deceptive teacher; we would learn from the successes and failures of the past, but these were based ever on radically contingent circumstances which will never repeat themselves. Simply because a thing has never been done before, or has always before failed, does not mean it will never be done.
Obsolete ideas do not quickly fade away. The British Empire was gone by the sixties but half of the British population refuses to believe it. On the other hand revolutionary ideas take many years to come to fruition. Mosley, Yockey and Thiarart were a hundred years ahead of their time so their dream of European unity will happen in the mid 21st century. Most American nationalists have swallowed the nation-statism of Trump and Boris Johnson, but they are wrong. The White Race needs leadership and self-belief, it does not need petty nationalism and division.
This article presents an excellent point, and I agree entirely with Mr. Varga’s central thesis. “Nationalism” is a late-born idea, and issued directly from modern thought. It is in part responsible for the very problems which now crowd up around us, for the simple reason that “nationalism” and “identitarianism” have nothing essential in common; only in very select historical cases has a “nation” corresponded with an “ethnicity.” Nations are by their nature super-ethnic, as the empires of old, for instance, were not. Nations are already to that extent merely geographical and “humanistic” constructs.
We are in need of a new political structure, which can only come of precisely the kind of thinking displayed by this article.
No. As an island nation the English (I suppose the British) have a territorial imperative to support the retention of their territory and the historical nation is the best way for that to occur.
None of this means we engage in conflicts with other Europeans.
I would agree to some extent. If politics are to some degree a reflection of the underlying genetics, then we should seek to increase the ethnocentricity of our people by assortive mating between those who are best suited to preserve our legacy. To which end, we should already be developing diasporic tendencies and the philosophies to support them. Looked at this way, large parts of our population are actually damaging to that legacy or at best inconsequential.
So we should consider (perhaps through some mathematical or gaming models) how to increase our number in a hostile climate and to develop communal loyalty, where we work towards a common end.
Find a territorial area, contribute to the commonweal, some may actually work away (such as in HNW careers including banking) to support the increase in population and territory. IMO, we should also consider (hard in an age where ‘cuck’ is a thing) of persuading some of our women to consider raising as one of their multiple offspring extremely high IQ children sourced by sponsored donor contributions who are engaged in the most challenging courses in our most elite universities.
Develop the idea of ‘intentional communities’ (look online, plenty of others have done so), individual and group financial security, modern small-scale farming methodologies, ‘home schooling’ which is effectively communal schooling but legally protected from state interference, etc. etc
That said, most Europeans do not see each other as interchangeable, we are not as mixed up ancestrally as Americans. So from my perspective north western Europeans would be fine, but Slavs or Latins, less so. Nothing against them of course. And Slavs at least are not, at present in the danger zone to a similar degree.
Can’t avoid thinking of an Empire Europa. Even, perfectly I can imagine out an empire in a ‘hoppean’ way, but always securing the European borders, I mean, not only the physical ones, but both race and culture.
People give ideas too much credit. In my opinion, an individual´s ideological outlook reflects his inner constitution. Call it his evolutionary strategy or “racial spirit” — I´m agnostic about the cause –, but the observable fact is that people naturally gravitate towards certain kinds of ideas. Nobody visits the library to acquaint oneself with various political ideas, weighting the pros and cons of each, before finally deciding. No, they pick the ideology that justifies what they already want to do — their Existenz, if you will. This process is largely unconscious.
Let´s call (provisionally) right-wing ideas those that emphasize hierarchy, and nationalist those right-wing ideas that emphasize and rootedness and group preference, and accordingly a hierarchy between one´s own group and others´. Conversely let´s call left-wing ideas those that emphasize equality. Etc. Now these aren´t different ideas informing different, otherwise interchangeable individuals. On the contrary, these are different kinds of individuals expressing their own being through different ideas. These individuals obviously organize themselves in larger groups, starting with the family.
To complicate things further, it may be the case that some individuals may hold right-wing ideas for their own group, while at the same time they may support left-wing ideas, either for those groups that they perceive as enemies, or for society at large, as it benefits them. This is the case of diapora groups, most notably Jews.
To the point. I believe there was never a clash of right-wing and left-wing, nationalist and cosmopolitan ideas in the 20th century. Nationalistic-minded people were killed en masse in two world wars, largely by other nationalistic-minded people. These were betrayed in their turn by a very powerful, hostile diaspora group — a diaspora group in and for itelf is very nationalistic –, who funded and supported left-wing groups with a view to eliminate physically and politically right-wing people.
The idea of nationalism in itself didn´t “lose” or “fail” in the 20th century. Proof of this is that it remained unchallenged, nay it was promoted, when it came to Soviet Union, China, African and Asian ex-colonies, and Israel. Even to this day non-white groups are encouraged to express their nationalism. Nationalism is only “defeated”, it only “doesn´t work” in those nations where a powerful diaspora group, who promotes nationalism for itself and cosmopolitanism for others. But again this is only achieved through physically removing, disenfranchising, corrupting and bankrupting naturally right-wing and nationalistic-minded people. Not just, or even necessarily, refuting right-wing and nationalistic ideas and propagandizing their opposites.
“People give ideas too much credit. In my opinion, an individual´s ideological outlook reflects his inner constitution.”
Far be it from me to dispute the pith of your claim, nor the very interesting analysis which follows it. But I wonder if this very situation is not complicated enough to fully justify our attempts at philosophical and intellectual dispute and refutation.
Even given that it is his “inner constitution” which determines a man’s ideology, yet there is no simple binary in this world, such that some men are fully hierarchical beings and adhere strictly to hierarchical ideologies, while others are precisely the contrary. Most human beings, particularly in our day, are mixed or composite beings; they are, as it were, at war with themselves. But then the issue will not be decided only by their “inner constitutions,” but will depend as well on the arguments or experiences these men encounter during their lives. Precisely “ideas” can be the catalyst to a man’s going one way or another. We all of us know cases of conversion; but these would be impossible if ideas did not have some weight in the human soul. And on the contrary side: lacking such ideas it is possible for those of our brethren who might tend our way, but who are too weak or perhaps merely ill-starred to find their way on their own, to be convinced by the rhetoric and arguments of the other side, to the betrayal of their better natures. This becomes the more possible if we remain silent.
Many in the New Right speak of “becoming what one is.” This implies that “we are not what we are”—that there is a discrepancy, perhaps even a grave and in some cases extreme division between what we are in ourselves and truly, and what we are at present and falsely. Ideas are, if not the unique, then certainly the primary solvent by which we might clarify ourselves in accord with our true selves.
It is folly to overestimate the power of ideas, I will agree; but to my eyes it seems more dangerous to underestimate them.