Is Ethnonationalism Compatible with Genetic Interests in Practice?
Part 2

3,263 words

Part 2 of 2 (Part 1 here)

Ethnonationalism as a natural field of cultural Marxism

The struggle between white ethnic territories, under the pretext of alleged cultural oppression, is just one more expression of the partial struggles that the creators of cultural Marxism have designed to confront the white race (such as the struggle of the sexes, the struggle between generations, of various collectives, etc.), following the failure of their old strategy of the class struggle.

Thus, “ethnonationalism” is a tolerable way for whites to claim to be victims, too — although they can never be victims of other races, of course, but only of even more evil whites, otherwise it would cease to be politically correct. This is the same way in which some feeble-minded people become transsexuals or the like in order — unconsciously or not — to escape the stigma of being white. Such people beg for a place among the oppressed caste, thinking that one has also been oppressed by belonging to a stateless ethnicity, which becomes a psychological escape valve as well. In any event, this does not prevent them — as whites — from having to self-flagellate for their alleged imperialist sins against backward races, as is happening in Ireland on ridiculous pretexts, such as the fact that there were some Irish among British colonial troops.

It therefore cannot be surprising that Marxism, despite being such an anti-national, anti-patriotic, and internationalist ideology, has taken the helm of almost all the “national liberation movements.” Such groups are simply its natural clientele. The fact that modern ethnonationalisms were not invented by Marxists does not change the fact that they are obsolete in a globalized world of superpowers and can never be recovered — assuming we even wanted to attempt such a thing.

Moreover, the Red influence within these pro-independence movements has tended to increase over time, even after the fall of the Soviet Union, to the detriment of Right-wing pro-independence parties and not the other way around. In fact, never until now had Left-wing parties been in the majority among Basque and Catalan secessionists, for example.

Undoubtedly there are many ways in which we must compete with and outperform the cultural Marxists and social liberals, but distracting our own peoples with outdated fratricidal quarrels when they are all threatened by the same enemy is definitely not one of them. It would be foolish to champion a struggle that others have designed to weaken us.

Ethnonationalism as a reversal of genetic interests

Not only is it a cause we cannot steal from cultural Marxism, it is a cause we should not try to steal. Why? Because ethnonationalism attempts, by its very Cainite nature, to oppose the interests of the white race. As nice as it is in theory, in practice it translates into hatred for those peoples that are the most similar, and inculcates xenophilia and preference for the most different and distant.

In what way? Since it is a fact that hatred of others achieves greater mobilization and a better electoral performance than love for one’s own (and this is true of any ideology), the electoral dynamic itself necessarily pushes ethnonationalism — and especially independence movements — to turn one’s neighboring people, or the majority people in any multi-ethnic state, into enemy number one. Thus, since disputes usually arise with one’s surrounding peoples, and since greater geographic proximity is usually correlated with greater genetic proximity, we find that ethnonationalism most often makes a supreme enemy out of precisely those peoples who are most similar to one’s own, rather than those most different and incompatible.

On the contrary, those exotic races and peoples with whom, by virtue of their geographical remoteness, there have never been bad interactions — or any kind of interactions, for that matter — in the past, the various nationalisms tend to see them as less bad people who can be assimilated from scratch, or with whom it is acceptable to merge. Worst of all, they view backward Third World peoples, by virtue of a supposed “common oppression,” as fellow sufferers and spiritual “brethren.” Somewhere in between their hated blood relatives and their beloved racial foreigners, there is a slightly favorable neutrality toward those white peoples who are less related to them, which is why the independentists who tend to hate their white neighbors are often in favor of remaining in or joining the European Union. In practice, ethnonationalism thus becomes, as ironically or counter-intuitively as one wishes, the complete reversal of Frank Salter’s thesis on genetic interests.[1]

I would prefer to reserve the word “ethnonationalism” for the nationalism of an ethnicity. Indeed, that would be its least harmful version. But ethnonationalism’s natural ambiguity constitutes an additional danger that makes it susceptible to numerous deviations, such as being confused with linguistic nationalism, or religious nationalism, or nationalism based on other purely external and temporary aspects of culture. This means that it has more potential to convert racialists into linguistic nationalists, for example, than the other way around. Thus, there is nothing strange about a Pakistani becoming the leader of the Scottish pro-independence movement. It was the sepoys of the Scottish National Party, the only actual Scottish secessionist party, who elected him as their leader, and consequently as First Minister of Scotland. It is simply pathetic. (Significantly, in the British state the Conservatives, for their part, have selected an Indian Hindu as the British Prime Minister. Again, both the petty nationalists and the conservatives are the main obstacle to our victory, as the false opposition that they are.)

You can buy Greg Johnson’s Toward a New Nationalism here.

In practice, ethnonationalism almost never fights on behalf of any ethnicity, but almost invariably only embodies a struggle against another white ethnicity. It is essential that we understand this fact and dispel any delusion about it. Scottish independence supporters are anti-English — just as Sinn Féin in Ireland today. They do not want Englishmen — including, for example, many of their grandparents — in their land, but they are the first to favor invaders coming from elsewhere; they in fact actively support the replacement of their peoples. What good does this do? Supporting a “nationalism” that is captained by pro-invasion parties is shooting ourselves in the foot. The only thing that the current Irish “nationalists” are achieving is that Ireland is ceasing to be white by leaps and bounds. Likewise, the only thing that the pro-Brexit British “patriots” have achieved is to replace Romanian and Polish immigration with Indian and Pakistani immigration. It is high time to put an end to this.

Scotland is one of those ethnic regions with the most support for independence, yet it voted in a referendum not long ago to remain in the United Kingdom. In the vast majority of ethnic regions, independence has much less popular support. And no, if the majority of the members of ethnic populations do not vote for independence it is not because they are dumb, nor because they are bad ethnonationalists who do not care about their culture, nor because there is a high percentage of “colonial populations” from other ethnic regions among them. It is simply many know the consequences of them well enough to be fed up with these nationalisms of fratricidal confrontation and anachronistic or outright false victimhood; many are aware of the fact that it is just another cultural Marxist tactic, that such groups are controlled by our globalist enemies and by people with no values, that they are pointless in this day and age, and so on. It is therefore not surprising that most of those ethnicities simply prefer not to get into the independence game.

Ethnonationalism is self-defeating from a strategic point of view

On the other hand, from a strategic perspective, whether we are in favor of the independence of all these peoples or not, we must be aware that the vast majority of the populations of each state is also opposed to the secession of these regions of their countries.

Bretons, Catalans, and Basques do not even account for 6% of the French population, the cradle of Jacobin centralism. Needless to say, it is not a great strategy to upset a majority of 94% of the population in exchange for trying to win the favor of a pro-independence faction that is a small minority even within the remaining 6%. Further, tendencies toward independence do not appear to be greater among white racialists than among the general population. In fact, in some countries independentism is much more unpopular among the former than among the latter.

Moreover, although Marine Le Pen’s National Rally is a centralist party, this has not prevented French Catalonia from being one of its strongholds. Attempts to create pro-independence identitarian parties in Northern Catalonia have not been very fruitful.

Those who defend on principle a balkanizing white ethnocentrism must therefore become aware of the serious consequences of such a position. Taking into account that almost all white countries are multi-ethnic states (meaning that some of their regions are hegemonically inhabited by a white ethnic group that does not constitute the majority in the country as a whole), this represents an intolerable drain on resources in our present situation. And, given that ethnicities are not watertight compartments without gradations, they represent an unnecessary and lethal Pandora’s box.

I say this as an ethnic federalist, being therefore more inclined toward ethnic autonomism than the average racialist on the Continent or in my native land. I am not worried about the disappearance of Spain as an administrative unit within an ethnic, federal Europe, nor that of any other artificial state whose present borders can be traced back to the haphazard marriages of past monarchs of the past. I am however worried about the disunity of the white peoples, the manipulation of their sentiments, and chaos on principle and without finality, especially if the great golem of our enemies remains united and under the iron control of the Washington regime’s Jews.

We do not need more useless fragmentation in the face of the hegemonic Judaic imperialist superpower(s). For us to find secession of a territory advantageous, there must be a sound strategic motive behind it, not mere inopportune personal sentimentality.

State nationalism

Thus, if we understand that supporting independence micronationalisms such as those of the Bretons, Welsh, and Basque is a self-defeating strategy, does this mean that we should support republicanism and the nationalisms of the existing artificial states, such as the French, British, Spanish, and so on? Not at all.

Even if these states do not have such an intrinsic need to foment hatred against other ethnic groups and countries because they already have their own state, they are still representations of selfish particularisms that put their narrow interests before the more relevant and determining interests of the whole, and which have caused so much weakness and death. They are just another type of petty nationalism. Like individuals in relation to the group, ethnic selfishness can — and constantly does — endanger the entire racial whole.

You can buy Tito Perdue’s novel Cynosura here.

When the Polish King Jan Sobieski committed all his forces to fighting the Turks in the Balkans, the treacherous Hungarian warlord Emeric Thököly took advantage of it to attack his old Polish rival. Such events are the result of ethnonationalism.

When the Moors invaded the Iberian Peninsula, there were many native kings and warlords who allied with Moorish warlords in order to make war on a neighboring white kingdom, which was often led by a relative of theirs. This is the result of ethnonationalism.

Today, when an “ethnonationalist” politician (in the broadest sense of the word) comes to power, his efforts are not focused on expelling invaders from Europe, but on diverting those coming into his country from other white countries, even if both are within the Schengen zone. This is the pinnacle of narrow-mindedness — and is the result of ethnonationalism.

The fight against alien invasion needs to be global — involving all white ethnic groups being coordinated and directed in the same direction. Even when we are dealing with racially conscious ethnonationalisms, we are going nowhere if the white race only matters to us within our own small plot of land. Ethnonationalisms, both those with or without a state, aim to expel invaders from their territory and send them to those of neighboring white ethnicities, as has been suggested by the South Catalan regionalist Sílvia Orriols,[2] who wants to send them “to Spain.” The same has happened via the usual anti-immigration parties in other countries, who desire that other white countries should take those they want to reject. This is the result of ethnonationalism.

Whites harm each other in ethnonationalism. Ethnonationalisms act as an autoimmune disease within the white world. We will not come out of our predicament alive by thinking locally, but racially — as a team, not as isolated players.

Our parties on the scene

Fortunately, pro-identitarian parties that support the distraction of ethnic independence are scarce. They have basically been reduced to the Vlaams Belang and the Lega Nord – and not even really both of those, given that the Lega Nord has abandoned its secessionist pretensions and rebranded itself as Lega, embracing the more appropriate federalist model.

Unfortunately, however, they do sin much in terms of the opposite extreme — that is, through centralism, or at least through state nationalism — imperialist ethnonationalism against the minority ethnic groups of their countries and by indulging in chauvinism against neighboring white countries, also to the detriment of a broader racial consciousness. As I have already said, this is also something to be corrected, because it is the other side of the ethnonationalist coin.

There is only one type of political-administrative organization that is consistent with our identity and our genetic interests: racial nationalism combined with ethnic federalism. But we still need to survive, first and foremost.

Do ethnic groups need a fictitious absolute sovereignty in order to maintain their cultures?

Ethnonationalism rests on the false premise that peoples — despite the fact that ethnonationalists can never agree on how to define them — can, through a simple ceremonial proclamation of sovereignty, eternally preserve their cultures. This is something that apparently, in their view, they could not achieve in any other way. They are then free to decide on matters that, given the limited capacity for autarchy that is inherent in these peoples, are beyond their reach.

Peoples, however, are living organisms. Nothing remains static. Nothing is preserved unchanged forever — nor should it be, otherwise we would still be walking on all fours. Unlike identity (the genetic), cultures are a feature that form relatively rapidly. But in any case, the belief that it is not possible to preserve distinct cultures within the framework of a multi-ethnic state is false, and very easy to disprove. Not only is preservation possible, but the great majority of differentiated ethnic zones within the currently existing states were created within those or other states, since many of those ethnic regions have never been independent.

Catalonia, for example, has never been independent. Its own culture was born while the Catalan territory was part of other Spanish kingdoms. The same can be said of Galicia and many other ethnic regions. How is this possible? It is simple: Even within the same borders, there are always some areas that are more isolated from others, which makes them evolve in a divergent way. At the same time, if there are internal migrations they never take place equally from all parts of a country; these mixtures, with different proportions and different ingredients, still yield different results. And if this is true in small countries such as France, Finland, the Czech Republic, and Italy, just imagine how it is in countries of quasi-continental size.

Conclusion

It is therefore necessary to understand that single-race, multi-ethnic countries are achievable without inflicting damage upon their various ethnic cultures, especially if migration between them is discouraged or limited. If ethnicities want self-preservation, they will preserve themselves. If not, having a fictitious sovereignty will not save them, either.

In any case, since ethnonationalism is neither an ideological nor a strategic requirement intrinsically linked to the survival and progress of the white race, it is merely a distraction and a premature debate. We need to save our race first and do whatever is strategically most beneficial toward achieving that end, and only then should we concern ourselves with determining what form of political-administrative organization is most suitable for us.

At the present time, it only makes sense to consider secession from a purely strategic angle, without consideration for whether such a territory has an ethnic base. This is not least because it is doubtful that the entirety of each ethnicity can be saved.

Now is not the time to pretend to eternalize that which is ephemeral, nor to discuss the future borders of states about which we do not even know whether they will survive genocide via miscegenation with other races and the Great Replacement. Now is the time to elaborate a joint strategy that establishes the survival of the greatest number of whites as its main objective.

Being a White Nationalist is not the same as being a racially-conscious ethnonationalist. Ethnonationalisms — however racially conscious some of their currents may be — prioritize the ethnic level, not the racial level, and this leads to their forces largely cancelling each other out.

White Nationalism, which mean viewing the white race as a Nation and the other whites of the world as compatriots, is the model that will guarantee that we will not allow ourselves to be manipulated once again by foreign agents into using our strength against ourselves. As White Nationalists, it is not our job to prop up other kinds of nationalisms, such as those of the very few single-ethnic states that still exist, such as Iceland or Hungary, let alone the nationalisms of multi-ethnic states such as Spain or Italy, nor even that of the more ethereal and contested stateless ethnic groups. Otherwise we would not be using these old, obsolete nationalisms in our favor, but we would rather find ourselves being used by them for their own petty purposes.

Fighting for White Nationalism through ethnonationalist arguments would be, at best, a form of implicit White Nationalism, which is no less counterproductive than using conservative or civic nationalist arguments for the same purpose. If we don’t fight for explicit White Nationalism, no one will — and we will lose. The result will be a dump called New Pakistan, both in England and in the land of William Wallace.

Notes

[1] Frank Salter’s magnificent work is fundamental for White Nationalists, although it requires careful reading.  For one thing, Salter gives primacy to the genetic factor in defining what the group is. He also makes it clear that one level of identity is not necessarily better than another merely because it is closer. In fact, he states that it is common for there to be more genetic interests within an ethno-racial group than in one’s own family. It does not follow from Salter’s work, however, that there is only one significant classificatory level and that the others are unimportant — an assumption that derive from the organizational form of the ethnic unitary state (which implies, outwardly, the same degree of independence of one white ethnic group with respect to another as they may have with respect to a Polynesian tribe, and also, inwardly, the tamping down and refusal to recognize any variant of their own culture). It is not for nothing that Salter openly and consciously uses the term “ethny” to refer to the group, both when he is talking about ethnic groups as well as about different races and subspecies.

[2] The Mayoress of Ripoll (with 10,000 inhabitants), she is by far the Catalan identitarian pro-independence candidate who has gone the furthest up to now.