On Chauvinism

2,208 words ^[1]

Is racial chauvinism essential to any ethnocentric movement? Until recently, I would have considered such a question perfectly trivial, the answer being, “Yes, of course.” How can you have any nationalist or separatist movement based on race or ethnicity and not promote chauvinism for one’s side?

The first dictionary definition of “chauvinism” reads, “Militant devotion to or glorification of one’s own country.” But in this context, the second definition, I believe, is more apropos: “Prejudiced belief in the superiority of one’s own group.” Therefore, the question can be more plainly stated as such:

To what extent is the belief in the superiority of one’s own group essential to the nationalistic aspirations of that group?

For a historical example, we can look at how the Italians struggled to free themselves from Austria during the mid-nineteenth century. Careful study of the period will find that Italian culture at the time was replete with pro-independence symbolism. Take, for example, the popular Verdi opera Attila. In it, the Roman general Ezio tells the Hun that he can rule the entire world, “as long as [he], Ezio, can rule Italy.” Despite crackdowns and threats from Vienna, Italian audiences responded rapturously to such brazen calls for ethnic nationalism. But nowhere in these calls can one find claims that the Italians were actually superior to the Austrians . . . except in one way. The Italians were superior to the Austrians at being Italian in Italy, the ancestral homeland of the Italians. Such affirmative logic alone justified Italian ethnonationalism.

This is an example of chauvinism done right: notions of superiority being clear and unequivocal, yet held firm on a leash of geography. Any ethnocentric movement which lacks these two counterbalancing elements runs the risk of abusing the chauvinistic ideal. For example, had the Italians not trumpeted their own superiority in Italy and transposed that into a superior claim to govern the Italian peninsula, they probably wouldn’t have generated the requisite force of arms to actually stake such a claim. On the other hand, had the Italians used notions of their superiority as an excuse to march on Vienna, that probably wouldn’t have worked out so well, either.

I conclude from this that any ethnocentric movement, including White Nationalism, must nurture healthy amounts of racial chauvinism in order to be successful. In my writing, I constantly promote this ideal form of chauvinism for whites because, as we all know, the majority of whites these days (in the West, at least) lack any chauvinism at all. Further, many whites, especially the ones with the will to power, have become lickspittles to the chauvinism of non-whites who constantly proclaim their own racial superiority and seem oblivious to the fine distinctions between what constitutes the abuse and non-abuse of chauvinism. How else to interpret Hillary Clinton when she blamed white people ^[2] in July 2016 for blacks who had died in police shootings? How else to interpret Al Sharpton who, in September 2017, demanded that anti-white racist Jemele Hill keep her job at ESPN ^[3]? There are thousands of examples like these.

Put simply, without their own affirmative chauvinism to counteract such exogenous encroachments, whites will eventually die, first in spirit, then in body. This position, I believe, remains perfectly consistent with canonical Rightist and ethnonationalist thought. Greg Johnson hits ^[4] this point ^[5] home ^[6] a lot ^[7]. Just because in the past, certain whites abused racial chauvinism (as all peoples have done from time to time throughout history) does not necessarily lead to their entirely renouncing chauvinism in the present. I can understand a limited amount of action and contrition to make up for past abuses, but given the abject and quite suicidal generosity whites have shown the entire world since the Second World War, the time for contrition has long passed.

I bring all this up because a person commenting on my most recent article, “Against Hope: On Adam Carolla and the Jock Right ^[8],” took me to task for promoting “racial chauvinistic arguments.” Here is the offending passage:

I believe that with enough reason, evidence, and time, the Adam Carollas of the world can be led to the two perfectly logical conclusions which currently inform the Hard Right:

1. most non-whites (Hispanics, blacks, and Arabs in particular) are simply incapable of rising to the higher white standards of civilization;
2. with enough non-whites living in a traditionally white society, they will ultimately become the enemy of whites.

As far as I can tell, the commenter’s objection to this is basically threefold:

1. Racial chauvinism does not equip us to deal fairly with other civilized people. He lists Brahmin Indians, Jews, and Asians in this category.
2. Racial chauvinism does not prepare us to deal with hostile whites.
3. Racial chauvinism can potentially get people on the Right into trouble for hate speech.

Therefore racial chauvinism is useless when it comes to building a coherent ideology. I will note, however, that, although he expressed distaste at the quoted passage, the commenter did not refute it. This implies that the claim that “most non-whites (Hispanics, blacks, and Arabs in particular) are simply incapable of rising to the higher white standards of civilization” is based in truth. Indeed, the evidence supporting the truth of this claim is overwhelming ^[9]. One could even argue that forming a political movement around such notions of superiority cannot even be described as chauvinism since these notions are indeed not “prejudiced” as the dictionary requires. If anything, they are “postjudiced,” if I can coin a linguistically ugly term.

But I fully intend to play along. Believing that your group is inherently superior to another for whatever reason and in whatever capacity, regardless of any geographical constraints, is chauvinism. It could be good, it could be bad, appropriate, inappropriate. We can adjudicate all of that on a case-by-case basis. But chauvinism it is.

With the first objection, the commenter would be correct if the racial chauvinism I was promoting lacked a limiting geographic dimension. But it did not. Note how I was concerned about non-whites only with regard to their impact on “traditionally white societies.” Perhaps I could have used the word “homelands” or “nations” rather than “societies,” but nowhere did I state that white chauvinism should go beyond where whites have traditionally lived. I believe we should never tire of making this point. Most White Nationalists today believe in nationalisms (note the plural) for whites in white ancestral homelands only. We do not believe in lording it over Nigerians in Nigeria or the Vietnamese in Vietnam. At least not anymore. This was tried in the past and proved to be folly. In fact, I would be against taking over these countries today even if their inhabitants asked us to. Taking the geographic leash off of racial chauvinism has proven in most cases to be a bad idea.

As for the commenter’s list of people white racial chauvinism leaves in the cold, namely Indians, Jews, and Asians, these people all have ethnic homelands of their own, some of which are quite impressive. So it’s not like they don’t have a place to go (and good for them). There is no reason why White Nationalists cannot share the planet peacefully with Indian, Asian, Jewish, or other nationalists as long as the rules of ethnonationalism are respected. And if one group of Indians or Asians feels oppressed by another group of Indians or Asians, and they wish to do something about it the way Garibaldi and the Italians did a century and a half ago, I’m sure even the most chauvinistic White Nationalists will wish them the best of luck. Just because there are civilized non-whites in the world doesn’t mean whites cannot act in their own racial interests. Further, many of these non-whites have racial chauvinism of their own, a point the commenter neglects to address.

As for his second comment, he has a point. White racial chauvinism does get a bit confused in Imperium on the Hudson, so to speak. How is it that Italians and Austrians could be at each other’s throats in places like Milan and Piedmont but not in places like Poughkeepsie and Schenectady? More importantly, what about those whites who have been bamboozled out of a healthy sense of race chauvinism by our Leftist elites or, even worse, have adopted the hostile chauvinism of non-whites? I found an example of such a creature ^[10] recently on the Ace of Spades. Click if you think you can stomach it.

In the first instance, the commenter’s point is well-taken. White racial chauvinism has more play in places like the United States, where most whites no longer adhere to the intra-European ethnic divides which would have placed them at odds with each other centuries or even decades ago. In my opinion, this has as much to do with intermarriage among whites as it does with the realization that our similarities as Europeans far outweigh our differences when placed alongside most non-whites. Further, I should have made it clear that the concept of white racial chauvinism has little bearing in places like the very white Ukraine, which wishes to remain distinct from the nigh-equally white Russia, despite all their ethnic, linguistic, and cultural similarities. In these cases, ethnocentrism should follow the course it has taken for centuries, and we should probably keep race out of it.

As for the second instance, the commenter might not realize it, but hostility coming from traitorous white Leftists is all the more reason to adopt racial chauvinism rather than abandon it. What other defense is there? Violence? Not unless they become violent first, and only in self-defense. How about reason and logic? I don’t think so. These people stand against whites as folk. They call civic nationalists like Donald Trump and Steve Bannon “white supremacists” simply because they place whites on an equal plane with non-whites. How can you reason someone out of that? And it’s not just about the history of oppression, since the vast majority of whites in the past were poor and had nothing to do with oppression of any kind. Furthermore, Jews and Asians consistently out-earn whites in the United States. They are over-represented ^[11] in many influential fields and are not shy ^[12] about acting in their own racial and tribal interests. Where’s the white privilege in that?

No, the whites who oppose white chauvinism do so out of a perverse self-hatred, nothing more. They feel the need for racism and they exercise that need against the only class of people we are allowed to hate these days: whites. These people are simply wrong, pig-headed, and immoral. They must be opposed as long as they stand in the way of whites acting in their own racial interests. And what better way to do that than to stand up for ourselves and proudly affirm who we are?

The commenter’s final objection—the one about “hate speech”—is silly on its face and trivial to refute. First of all, White Nationalism, the “Alt” Right, and the like are dissident movements. Having your writings and works labeled as “hate speech” by the people you are dissenting against kind of comes with the territory. Of course, they would do such a thing. Of course, they will try to stifle you. In fact, they will barely give you time to even open your mouth before branding you a hate speech fanatic. All you have to do is say you’re a White Nationalist or show up at an American Renaissance conference or a Unite the Right rally, and, just like that, you’re a Nazi. And an unemployable one at that. Our enemies go after us more for who we are than for what we actually say. And if we try to set the record straight by telling the world how much we don’t hate, it will have no effect. They’ll just assume we’re lying. So, I guess if you’re concerned that a little racial chauvinism is going to make our enemies say mean things about us, the Alternative Right is probably not for you. I’m sure the King of Austria had a few choice words for Giuseppe Garibaldi as well. It’s a good thing for the Italian nationalists that he didn’t listen.

Finally, what constitutes “hate speech” is entirely subjective, imminently political, and frankly worthless. I consider some of the bigoted things the girl in the above video said about white men to be “hate speech.” Yet I am sure the people running the Southern Poverty Law Center would not agree. Instead, they would rather comb through the scholarly and fully-documented works of Kevin MacDonald and Jared Taylor and call that hate speech.

Hate speech, along with its odious stepsister political correctness, is nothing more than a thought control measure that people in power use to oppress those who don’t have power. At this point in history, those who promote non-white chauvinism are the ones in power, and those who promote white chauvinism are the ones not in power. White Nationalists, of course, find this state of affairs unjust, unnatural, and ultimately deleterious for the white race. Therefore they wish to reverse it, but only in traditionally white homelands, thereby allowing other peoples and races to benefit from ethnonationalism as well.

Calling such a political position “hate speech” is clearly ridiculous. This is something even a chauvinist can understand.