Reactionary Expat responded to my article on white nationalism the other day, and if you have an hour or so, it’s worth your time to listen to it if you have an interest in the topic.
The confusion that’s happened in our corner of the web has a lot to do with confusion between means and ends.
Obviously, I’d like to promote eudaemonia for the Anglosphere. White nationalists also say that they want their 14 words, which isn’t really that far from eudaemonia (human flourishing).
The rhetorical and political means that they choose to pursue that goal are wrong-headed at best, and utterly doomed at the worst. Attempting to form new political parties (trying to apply a miracle patch to democracy) or turning whiteness into a victim-identity (using the means of the left towards different ends than they were intended) are both addled.
Saying that “if they’re pale and have a heartbeat, I love ’em” is not fundamentally all that far from the universalist position that states that all people are of equal value. It also runs into the shoals of the fact that said pale people are almost universally opposed to racial thinking with the same lockstep conformity that they all affirmed before World War II. A consistent pan-European nationalism that purported to represent the will of the people would be forced to oppose the same thing that it purported to support — citizenship for whites only.
One of the reasons why the previous belief melted into John Lennonism was because it encouraged the disruption of the old hierarchical ways of thinking in which people were very much unequal, regardless of their race.
What it is good at, as a movement, is generating a certain feeling among people — much like most ideologies, it creates a sense of commonality among strangers where there is none. It’s painful to be alone in the world. It’s consoling to believe that there are people out there, whom if you just repeat the right words to, they’ll have your back. If you repeat the same lines together, read the same books, you too can convince yourself that there’s some sort of bond there, that there’s direction, and that you’re headed towards a certain destination together.
Unfortunately, all ideological constructs are unstable, because they’re built on mountains of language alone. This is one of the reasons why so many ideologues change their feathers so often and are so eager to believe in new doctrines after their old ones have failed them (speaking from experience).
In order to recreate civilization, more than clever combinations of words are needed. And that’s hard for modern people to understand, because we’ve been marinated in ideology forever and know nothing outside of it in the same way that past peoples were marinated in religion to such an extent that irreligion was unthinkable.