William Blake, The Ancient of Days, 1794
1,296 words
There are two common positions within the White Nationalist community regarding various non-white nationalisms: there are those who support what Frank Salter refers to as “universal nationalism” (nationalism for all peoples)[1] and those who argue that this idea is naïve and that the assertion of any particular group’s interests is invariably a messy process which will more often than not involve behavior that cannot fit neatly into contemporary popular notions of political ethics. The first view is held to be true because it is seemingly ideologically consistent and, additionally, provides the powerful bonus of moral comfort which stems from conforming to the “golden rule”; the second view is held to be true because it is simply more in line with historical reality and also explicitly prioritizes white interests free from the need of moral justification through a “proper” white relationship to the Other. The act of survival is rarely pretty or neat.
But neither position is necessarily contradictory if one simply thinks practically: White Nationalists should, as a rule, generally support other nationalist movements unless or until those movements begin to pose a threat to whites, at which point support should be withdrawn or active measures taken depending on the severity of the threat. Unfortunately, given the policies and cultural control systems of the Judaeo-capitalist elite, non-white nationalist movements usually do have negative repercussions for white populations. As such, in the current political climate, to think practically is to largely reject nationalisms other than those by and for whites.
Implicit in virtually all contemporary sociological and political discourse is the idea that one is morally obligated to care about everyone and everything at all times. This has been deeply internalized by universal nationalists. Notions of fairness occupy a preeminent position in their conception of White Nationalism. This outlook finds fertile ground in the minds of whites, who, more than those of any other race, are drawn to the ideas of common justice and shared ethics. Like liberals who believe that swearing an oath of citizenship will magically transform an alien into a brother, the universal nationalist believes that non-whites will permit him to advocate for his own people if he offers them a square deal in return. The universal nationalist, despite his protests that he is the true champion of global diversity in that he wants to preserve the uniqueness and sovereignty of all human collectives, shares the same fundamental conception of race as the civic nationalist: he sees everyone as interchangeable. For him, other races must be essentially equal because, in the absence this equality, they would be incapable of understanding or accepting his fair-minded call for ethnonationalism, which is the only weapon he allows himself. For this weapon to be effective, there has to be a shared understanding of logic and reason between those with whom he is in conflict as well as mutual trust and well-wishing. But, were this the case, he would not have had to deal with the perils of diversity in the first place.
Those who view universal nationalism as naïve see the movement of different peoples across history as one of inevitable conflict and struggle, not only physical but intellectual. They understand that there is indeed a universal baseline of human tribal behavior–group membership, resource acquisition, territorial defense, biological reproduction–but that these fundamentals will have group-specific shades and textures in both conception and expression. Despite sharing the same basic human drives, the tribal behavior of Britons will differ remarkably from the tribal behavior of the Hutus. Even the Chinese, who are behaviorally very similar to Jews, will express tribalism in ways distinct from their Semitic spiritual cousins.[2] The universal nationalist believes that one can make a case for White Nationalism that would be compelling enough, “reasonable” enough, “fair” enough to garner support from each of these biologically distinct groups. To believe this is to believe in racial equality. And if a universal nationalist objects to this characterization and admits that between some groups an entirely peaceful separation might not be possible, he has already lost the argument.
Too often, however, those on the correct side of this issue tend towards reaction rather than action. Their correct understanding of the realities of nationalist practice is tainted with a pouty conservatism: “If liberals like it, I hate it.” For these people, anything that non-whites do to further their own interests is to be casually dismissed. This is superficial and blindly reactionary. The nationalist aspirations or sentiments of all peoples should be morally supported unless they conflict with white interests. Unfortunately, given the current global power structure, very few ethnic conflicts between non-whites remain independent of white interests regardless of the intentions of the initial participants or the justice of their cause. Take for example the long and ongoing conflict between Burmese Buddhists and the often genetically distinct Muslim minority, which has only recently made it into the Western news. Whites can certainly relate to the problems caused by Muslims in Burmese society and, in an ideal world (which is to say, a world in which sovereign white nations exist), White Nationalists would support the Buddhists and indeed, as one can witness by simply perusing social media, the general impulse is to do so. However, this “humanitarian crisis” has and likely will continue to result in an influx of Burmese Muslims into white countries.[3] Despite any understandable sympathy White Nationalists might have with the Burmese majority, it is irresponsible to support them in this conflict.
Not only is the above yet another example of the twisted anti-humanitarianism of so-called humanitarians but it is a further example of why universal nationalism cannot work. To save or preserve one group of people, other groups of people will almost always pay in myriad ways. For White Nationalists, the only question that needs to be asked regarding conflicts such as those in Burma is which outcome will adversely affect white homelands. It doesn’t have to be this way, but the winds of change will have to blow much harder to deter once and for all the rapacious and heartless globalists from destroying us all. And those winds of change, contrary to the fantasies of universal nationalists, will not be logomachical and “reasonable.” They will originate from the same place as always: the blood, sweat, and tears of peoples who have had simply had enough.
The impulse towards universal nationalism is understandable. It originates in some of the best characteristics of the white race: magnanimity and honesty. However, it betrays a shallow understanding of history. And this shallow understanding can only serve to obfuscate our goals and divert precious time and resources from our cause. Additionally, though it might function as a “soft” entry point into White Nationalism for some people, it is a dead-end position and those who have been in the movement for some time should work to steer newcomers in the right direction as quickly as possible: that is, towards an unqualified, unapologetic prioritization of white interests in all things, even in situations in which one’s instinct is to do otherwise, such as rooting for the feisty Buddhists on the other side of the world.
Notes
[1] See: Frank Salter, On Genetic Interests: Family, Ethnicity, and Humanity in an Age of Mass Migration, 2nd ed. (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 2007).
See also: Michael Polignano, “The Ethics of Racial Preservation: Frank Salter’s On Genetic Interests,” Counter-Currents Publishing, April 8, 2011, https://counter-currents.com/2011/04/the-ethics-of-racial-preservation-frank-salters-on-genetic-interests/ (accessed September 14, 2017).
[2] For a politically correct but nonetheless interesting discussion of this issue see:
Daniel Chirot and Anthony Reid, eds., Essential Outsiders: Chinese and Jews in the Modern Transformation of Southeast Asia and Central Europe (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1997).
[3] See: Jie Zong and Jeanne Batalova, “Refugees and Asylees in the United States,” Migration Policy Institute, June 7, 2017, http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/refugees-and-asylees-united-states/ (accessed September 14, 2017).
15 comments
“The universal nationalist believes that one can make a case for White Nationalism that would be compelling enough, “reasonable” enough, “fair” enough to garner support from each of these biologically distinct groups. ”
This is absolute, unfettered nonsense. Universal nationalism is meant as a meme for Whites, not an attempt to plead with others for our right to exist. That many – most? – Whites are so univeralist in their natural mindset that they require universalism to intrude into nationalism is a fact that needs to be dealt with. Blame all those “high trust hunter gatherers” that the HBD faction is so fond of babbling about. But don’t blame those who understand that the rhetoric of universal nationalism an appeal to the innate fair mindedness of White folks.
Universal nationalism is fully compatible with “doing what it takes” to secure racial survival. There is nothing in Salter’s book that suggests we need to care what happens to Burma or invest any energy in fighting their battles. Salterism says we need to invest in OURSELVES, while, at the same time, granting the Burmese the same right to do so. We are under no obligation to help them. Of course, “universal nationalism” would tell us that attempts to genocide the Burmese, to colonize them, etc. is morally wrong, so, yes, On Genetic Interests is not compatible with The Turner Diaries – but I thought that the “American New Right” eschewed Pierce’s genocidal fantasies, even independent of Salter?
If the author of this piece (did he actually read Salter’s book?) is so exercised over WNs wasting their time worrying about others, then go over to the Alt Right and chastise them about their obsession with Assad of Syria. I for one – a “universal nationalist” – really could care less about Syrians – apart from that they do not belong in White nations and that the West should not interfere with whatever civil war goes on there. They can all kill each other off, for all I care. That’s my version of “universal nationalism.”
“If the author of this piece (did he actually read Salter’s book?) is so exercised over WNs wasting their time worrying about others, then go over to the Alt Right and chastise them about their obsession with Assad of Syria. I for one – a “universal nationalist” – really could care less about Syrians – apart from that they do not belong in White nations and that the West should not interfere with whatever civil war goes on there. They can all kill each other off, for all I care. That’s my version of “universal nationalism.””
Naive. Geopolitics dictate that EVERY European has an intrinsic interest in Syria not falling to Eretz Israel and (((ISIS))). It’s not only about refugees; it’s about the creation of a Jewish-dominated power block so close to home and the dependence of our continent on Judeo-Arab pipeline/energy politics. The manufactured crises in Greece and Turkey are also intimately related to those projects, and despite not being a Russophile in the least, I’m very thankful to Putin for having intervened and stabilied Syria somewhat.
The piece has absolutely nothing to do with Salter, other than using his term. I also am not advocating some kind of retreat from the world. I am only suggesting that the various global ethnic conflicts and non-white nationalisms must be viewed first and foremost through an understanding of what is good for whites in any given situation.
Regarding, universal nationalism as a “meme for Whites” I implied that when I wrote that it was a “‘soft’ entry point” into White Nationalism. Clearly, I should have been more clear about that.
This article basically gets it right, but seems to be confused. Near the beginning it states:
“But neither position is necessarily contradictory if one simply thinks practically: White Nationalists should, as a rule, generally support other nationalist movements unless or until those movements begin to pose a threat to whites”
That’s essentially it. ‘Universal nationalism’ as it’s called, is a tactic to help advance White interests. There are two things that critics of ‘Universal nationalism’ often overlook:
1) The point of adopting a Universal nationalist position is actually above all to appeal to other Whites who, as the author points out, have a strong sense of fairness built into them. You can tell these people that it is impractical because non-Whites will not reciprocate, but if you don’t at least theoretically attempt to find a universal solution, this argument will probably come off as disingenuous. This doesn’t mean kowtowing to non-White demands, but pointing out that a peaceful, mutually beneficial solution COULD be reached IF other groups would treat Whites with respect. It ultimately doesn’t matter if they do or they don’t.
2) While it’s true that non-Whites don’t view the world in terms of fairness and objectivity the way Whites do, it’s also a fundamental tactic when fighting a war (as the struggle of Whites to regain their sovereignty and land from other races essentially is) to always give your enemy a way out. If we create the option for peaceful secession and mutual sovereignty, then even if our enemies don’t wish to co-operate at first, many might start to consider this option if it becomes clear they’re fighting a losing battle. If instead it appears to them that Whites are determined to push back at them until they have no room or status left anywhere, they will naturally put all their efforts in resisting us. This just makes the struggle all the harder.
I’m a ‘Universal nationalist’ and I’m not some wide-eyed and naive dupe who thinks that all races are similar. I just think that adopting this doctrine is a better tactic than advocating exterminationism, as some self-proclaimed tactical experts on the Alt-Right have.
Leon: good points. I agree that universal nationalism appeals to white fairness. I implied that when I described universal nationalism as a “soft” entry point into White Nationalism. In my attempt to write a shorter piece I did not go into as much detail as I would have otherwise.
The use of the conflict in Burma as an example of the perils of ‘Universal nationalist’ thinking also strikes me as absurd. Does the author really think that what White nationalists think or say about the conflict affects the actions of the Burmese government, or the Western governments who allow in the refugees? There’s no reason why we can’t voice our opinion on who’s in the right and who isn’t (whoever that may be). Presently that’s all the ‘support’ that any White nationalists in the West can offer.
Leon, if the fact that White Nationalist opinions on Burma have no effect of policy means that we should just voice any opinion whatsoever on Burma (or anything else) regardless of how whites are affected then what are we even doing here on Counter-Currents?
Mr Thoresen, our battle is over changing the minds of White people about their own identity or interests, not to influence the governments of foreign countries, which we can’t do anyways. I fail to see how honestly voicing our opinions on global events hampers this endeavor.
In our epochal era featuring a close-up death struggle pitting nationalism and globalism against each other for the minds and hearts of the mankind and the future of this world, needless to say, all of us here as either White nationalists or supporters of White nationalism resolutely and unswervingly stand on the side of nationalism against globalism. As to the important issue of nationalism for non-Whites, I think it is basically a sound idea, simply because non-White states ruled by nationalism are much more likely to cease the export of their colored masses to White nations. Primarily because of this and also of some other factors, as an ardent and avowed East Asian nationalist and national socialist, I myself approve of the concept of non-White nationalism in principle.
However, here is a critical caveat, as also noted correctly in this article, that for White nationalists, non-White nationalism must only be allowed as long as it does not threaten or harm the existential interests of the White race. This must be viewed as a central standard used to measure and judge any existing or future entity of non-White nationalism, and is especially meaningful and relevant to be applied to today’s China whose current official version of nationalism advocated by the regime and embraced by hundreds of millions of brainwashed masses has already morphed into arrogant and aggressive Chinese supremacy, imperialism and jingoism, thus posing an ever increasing threat to the White western nations. Although non-White nationalism receives my support in principle, the current form of Chinese nationalism as a dire and inexorable menace to White and other non-White nations alike must be opposed and defeated by all means necessary. If the Chinese nationalism only had led to a monster as China already is now, a China staying in enduring impoverishment and debility would have been a much more preferable result with little doubt. Looking at the Chinese history of the past three centuries, we ought to understand that only a Chinese nation at the nadir of its power and wealth posed no substantial external threat, itself mired in divisive, prolonged and self-consuming maelstroms of killing, cheating, robbing and trampling each other while its neighbors, being exempt from its tentacles, were able to live in peace and security.
In fact, I do have Chinese friends, a tiny number of exceptions of their vast and incorrigibly flawed nation of notorious, inveterate and prevalent vices and iniquities. In my candid opinion, and as a guidance of my own practice of approaching and befriending Chinese, which I hope could be of some reference to White nationalists living with Chinese around, here is my set of two principled and indispensable rules in judging whether a Chinese person can be trusted and befriended. First, he must be sincerely, resolutely and demonstrably against Communism and the current Chinese regime; Second, he must prove himself to be devoid of any trace of influence or mentality of the Chinese supremacy and Chinese uber-nationalism. But again, due to the very nature of Chinese proclivity to dishonesty and mendacity, obtaining an indubitable and incontrovertible proof in this regard is not easy and requires a continuous and patient observation and keen discernment on the part of a White nationalist of the open and private words and deeds of that specific Chinese individual.
Riki-Eiki, thank you for the very interesting comment.
I just want to make clear to others who might misinterpret what I wrote: I believe strongly in universal nationalism but to think that it can be applied prior to the struggle and birth of a new global order is simply wishful thinking.
Thoresen reckons that since the universal nationalist presupposes that non-white races are able to appreciate the golden rule and act accordingly, he consequently “sees everyone as inter-changeable”, has “the same fundamental conception of race as the civic nationalist” and “believes that other races are essentially equal [to the white race]”.
But this is just a non sequitur.
Everyone–including Thoresen, I assume–knows that people of all races are ‘equal’ in some respects. Normal members of all races can learn a language, for example. That doesn’t require us to believe that they’re all ‘inter-changeable’ in any relevant sense. Everyone with an IQ over 85 has certain basic rational capacities but, obviously, it wouldn’t be a good idea to replace the physics faculty at Harvard with just any old collection of people whose IQ is 85. Why should the belief that non-whites are normally capable of basic morality and rationality commit the universal nationalist to some absurd racial inter-changeability thesis? Any sane person knows that you can’t replace the population of Wales with a bunch of Russians without destroying the unique society and culture of Wales, and even if Russians and Welsh are exactly identical with respect to some basic moral and rational capacities.
What does it mean for races to be ‘essentially equal’? If the idea is just that there are some essential properties of (normal) members of all races that are the same, then, again, that’s obviously and trivially true. If instead the idea is that there are no important natural differences between races–differences in IQ or criminality or aggression or moral capacity–then the universal nationalist’s ascription of certain basic moral and rational powers to all races has nothing to do with this false and extreme idea. I can coherently think that blacks can generally understand and act on the golden rule without thinking that they’re typically just as intelligent or conscientious as whites or north asians. For that matter, even someone who thinks that the white race is superior overall to every other race could also coherently grant that normal members of non-white races have the capacities needed for universal nationalism to be feasible.
So this reasoning is faulty. Moreover, Thoresen seems to have no real argument for the highly questionable claim that non-whites lack these moral or rational capacities. Is there really any solid evidence for thinking that blacks (for example) wouldn’t be able or willing to respect principles of fairness and reciprocity even if whites were standing up for their interests and explicitly appealing to these principles? I really don’t know, and I doubt that anyone does.
Finally, universal nationalism doesn’t really require that most normal non-whites have these capacities. All that’s required is that their leaders, the people with whom white nationalists might hope to negotiate, have the relevant capacities. Is it really so hard to believe that there might at least be a ‘talented tenth’ within any ethnic or racial group that would be involved in negotiations? Again, I don’t claim to know the answer but it seems wrong to dismiss universal nationalism on the assumption that there could never be reasonable fair-minded non-white leaders.
Jasper, all races are equal in some very basic biological respects. Of course. But just as genes (mostly or even just to a large degree) determine IQ, IQ and genetics influence how one relates to the world. To think that evolution would produce vast differences in biology and psychology between the races (as everyone here does) but would not produce significant differences in their various understandings of the world (which is just biology and psychology applied to concepts and real world situations) is rather naïve.
As for your suggestion that a talented tenth which would be able to understand and agree to the principles of universal nationalism could influence their people to accept our demands, it is certainly possible. Indeed, I truly hope that this happens. However, nationalism implies sovereignty and self-determination. Unless all races somehow manage to agree with our ideas prior to implementation, their immediate future will most certainly not be one of sovereignty or self-determination. Someone telling you where to go is the opposite of self-determination. It is naïve to think that a race which benefits from being around whites will not resist. As soon as there is resistance, universal nationalist ideals will have to be shelved, at least temporarily.
Hi Donald,
I agree with this:
“To think that evolution would produce vast differences in biology and psychology between the races (as everyone here does) but would not produce significant differences in their various understandings of the world (which is just biology and psychology applied to concepts and real world situations) is rather naïve.”
However, even groups that have very different “understandings of the world” might well be able to agree on some basic moral principles such as the golden rule. That’s true of individuals with very different understandings, after all. A Christian, a Communist, an Islamist and a Nazi are all capable of appreciating that something like the golden rule is an important moral rule, though of course they’ll apply it in different ways because of their very different beliefs about other things. So while I agree with what you say above, I don’t think you’ve yet presented a good reason for thinking that any non-white group lacks the kind of basic moral capacity needed to negotiate some form of universal nationalism. Likewise, I don’t see why a universal nationalist would need to have a ‘naive’ view of racial differences. I think most Australian aborigines are (very probably) able to understand that human groups are different, that different forms of society are appropriate for them, that it’s fair to allow each group to segregate itself and develop its own forms, etc. I also realize that aborigines have very low IQs, and probably differ in lots of profound ways from people like me, and understand the world very differently. This seems coherent and, unless there is good evidence that they aren’t able to understand this kind of thing, I don’t see why I should doubt that they can. An analogy: They’re not going to be doing astrophysics any time soon, but I’m pretty sure they’re capable of learning how to count change and bills.
“Unless all races somehow manage to agree with our ideas prior to implementation, their immediate future will most certainly not be one of sovereignty or self-determination.”
I guess that’s right. But it could be argued that forced separation or repatriation is really just a necessary step toward true self-determination (given current conditions).
Can’t we make a list of which races/ethnic groups are most likely to reciprocate universal-nationalistic behavior and build strategic alliances with them? This way we could work together to isolate non-cooporerative groups more effectively. I see room for a competitor of the UN, a League of Etno-Nationalist Homelands for Peace and Prosperity. The cornerstones of this organisation are the preservation of real etno-diversity and the promotion of rootedness and healthy tradionalist behavior. The populist victors in any election could, after the transfer of power, opt out of the UN and join this new league. The non-cooperative groups could form their own alliance or choose to abide by the new rules.
Somehow I had not noticed that this was published until a few minutes ago. I will read criticisms in more detail and respond as soon as I can. Happy to see long responses though.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.