Racialism and its relatively recent variant, White nationalism, tends to reduce all political matters of importance down to whether or not a government is racially exclusive. The definition of ‘race’ also tends to be dumbed-down and diluted to the point to which it really is a social construct — a political fiction — rather than something with real genetic, cultural, and political salience.
Any racial group that defines Russians, Germans, Hungarians, Swedes, and Albanians as essentially the same people is missing an enormous amount of detail. It’s not even really the opposite of the one-worldism-race-is-a-social-construct vision of recent vintage liberalism.
It’s entirely possible that liberals will make a second reversal as dramatic and irrational as the previous reversal that began after 1945. It would be an unsurprising adaptation.
The other issue with this inclusive view of race is that it’s not exclusionary or discriminatory enough. It’s accepting far more diversity than is suitable for running any sort of stable society. In seeking a lowest common denominator, it shaves away critical distinctions among people. It would only be conceivable after generations of shallow, synthetic nationalism pushed by states worldwide. It only seems daring because it walks back the dominant ideology by one notch.
Attempting to create this sort of mirror image racial bloc just shifts crackers into the same barrel as the countless grabbing racial groups which all have academic * studies departments with grievances to monger. It’s pathetic, doomed to fail, and a path that runs directly to subordination.
“Vulgar racialism” = “I’m above it all…I’m better than all those toothless plebs” virtue-signaling
Germans and Hungarians are not the same people and no one suggests otherwise. They do, however, share a common identity vis-à-vis non-Europeans.
Big deal.
European identity is gay marriage, transvestites winning Eurovision, and welfare for the dissolute mothers of bastard children. The secular European societies which gave birth to the later values were ethnically uniform.
It’s telling that when white identitarians reach for positive expressions of Euro identity, they reach for Catholic or Greco-Roman art, while simultaneously denying what made those civilizations great.
The actual existing secular European identity tends to be denied or defined as some alien imposition, rather than what it is — something that the populares embrace, themselves, with enthusiasm.
Good post- the point is well taken.
“White people” includes many groups, and more narrowly, individuals who are better relegated to untouchable status in a well ordered society.
All racialisms have a bit of socialism in them as well.
“European identity is….”
I’m not sure what Europe you’re actually describing here since there is much more to ‘Europe’ than this. You’re making it sound like Europe is America; it’s not. If anything, most European nationalists despise the American tendency to use the American template onto its continent–one mass of sameness due to assimilation. Europeans are not assimilationists despite what Brussels and its partners are trying to achieve. And most European nationalists laugh at the very term ‘White Nationalism’. They no more think that homogeneity is based on skin color than they believe it’s based on eye color. They do however believe that homogeneity begins with *culture derived from an ethnos*. This is what ‘vulgar’, that is to say ‘common’ racialism is and always has been about however.
I agree with your points wholeheartedly that assimilationist tendencies à la White Nationalism are *too* inclusive and not discriminatory enough. But whatever notion of ‘Euro nationalism’ one might think they see occurring in Europe is actually more an importation of an American template onto the European reality itself. A great many nationalists living in Europe do not consider themselves to be “Euro nationalists”.
Given that I very much agree with you that the problems with such templates is a lack of discrimination in the sense of keeping clearer demarcations of Otherness-within-the-Larger-Group , I would like to ask you, Mr. Dampier, what do you believe would be a suitable replacement as a template.
P.S. I’ve enjoyed reading your blog for quite some time now. This is my first foray into actually participating in the comments section. I’m looking forward to your reply.
Cheers!
This tendency is why the Hungarians tossed Richard Spencer into the pokey, much to his evident surprise. So much for international paleface solidarity.
>I would like to ask you, Mr. Dampier, what do you believe would be a suitable replacement as a template.
Thanks for commenting. I think our tendency is to always be striving for the better. The healthy perspective is to see our current countries as irredeemably corrupt. I don’t care about ‘saving’ most people, and expect them to be consumed. It’s better to break away independently and collectively through secession.
I think identity politics is cultural Marxist programming. If one merely rejects the assigned identity and then finds an unapproved identity to replace it with, the deeper aspects of the programming will continue. It is entirely likely the elites in this country can play the same identity politics games with white nationalists as they do with minorities- should they ever feel threatened. Fascists are very likely to increase state power to ridiculous levels, only to have it fall into the hands of a more radicalized left once again.
Creating yet another coalition to be bought off with welfare checks may be successful democratic strategy, but it’s not a route to anything resembling greatness. It is, instead, a direct path to further degeneration.
Not identifying as white is ruinous, identifying as white is reductionist, cultural Marxist etc
This degeneration you speak of sounds inevitable, but of course it isn’t.
The enemy has a vote and they’ve cast it: All White Christian Europeans are the same to them. Throw open the borders and kill the cops-these struggles already begun. Indeed we’re not defined internally but externally by mortal and genocidal foes.
As far as a path to subordination – we’re already subordinate.
As far as salience: Key phrase is “political salience”. As our current existential crisis-and America and Europe are in existential crisis now-as it’s political in terms of power it’s salient enough.
As far as Vulgar: the refined surrendered everything including refinement. It will require vulgar methods for any of us to gain our own lands back.
Walking back the dominant ideology by one notch seems like a pretty good start.
Who ever said Albanians are white?
If Russians are white, if modern Greeks are white, Albanians are white. It’s as silly if not more silly than calling Bangladeshi and Han Chinese the same ‘Asian’ race.
As well, if Russians and modern Greeks are white, so too are Kurds, Chechens, most Iranians, Assyrians (the so-called Arab Christians), and arguably some Copts and the Shiite Muslims of Lebanon white. When you really sit down to tease out the implications of WN, this is the kind of foolishness that it leads to.
We’re all brothers in pallor!
This was the belief of Americanism and other similar national ideologies — that most differences could be overcome with some combination of education and propaganda.
It is hard to tell where Whiteness leaves off and non-Whiteness begins, but that does not make the concept of Whiteness meaningless, any more than the concept of clouds is meaningless just because their edges are fuzzy and indeterminate.
In the context of America as a mix of European descended white people, more particular ethnic identities blended together to create a distinct American identity which was decidedly “white”. Now there is an aggressive and pervasive effort to displace this population with third world foreigners- the majority of whom have no interest in assimilation nor European tribal values. This, along with all other manifestations of progressivism is symptomatic of a deeper rot in our society, but it must be recognized as an existential crisis.
I’m all for secession and the formation of smaller self determined sovereign units, a religious revival and the restoration of patriarchal family, but as things stand presently in reality, white nationalists are correct that once whites recede into a minority and beyond, America is doomed to leftism. But if you are an accelerationist I suppose that’s just dandy and the political and social order will somehow be much easier to repair at that point.
America started as mostly English Protestant in origin.
The founders were concerned about what would happen if we opened up immigration to more groups of Europeans. They feared that the new republic which they created would lose its essential character.
That’s one of the reasons why America is such an unintelligible mess today. It’s more than just the departure from the constitution — we imported people from alien political and religious cultures who had no interest in maintaining the original order.
Of course, that error was more than a little baked into the cake of our Lockean founding political structure. Liberalism tolerates everything — including those cultures incapable and uninterested in conserving the liberal political order.
This will probably be one of your more controversial postings, but your thoughts approximate my own.
Still, I am reluctant to condemn white nationalism, although I do not associate with it at all. There is much about it that is demotic, egalitarian, and vulgar, but it is also the obvious defensive reaction in the face of current progressive priorities: demographic transformation, intersectional caste warfare, and the impossible attempts to uplift designated minorities.
These also happen to be the areas where the progressive narrative is most vulnerable to discredit. The problems with diversity, intersectionality, and the assumption of cognitive racial equality are easily established.
It was inevitable that this blend of reactionary grievances would lead some to vulgar racialism. The allure is just so obvious. Can you really blame white nationalism for taking the form that it has when progressivism has done so much to give form to its enemies?
I think cultural Marxism and Americanism have been “imposed” on Europeans since the end of WWII. The denazification of Germany was a social engineering project headed by refugee members of the avowedly Marxist Frankfurt School working for the American OSS. The OSS morphed into the CIA which established the Congress of Cultural Freedom conferences throughout Europe to push Henry Luce’s “Americanism” and Leftist intellectual movements. So, in a sense, there was an imposition of “alien” ideas in Europe which influenced the self image of post-war and pre-EU ethno-states outside the Iron Curtain with American pop culture and Generation of ’68 socialism.
Weak.
The criticisms could be made about the artificially constructed French identity…but now is not the time to do so. Any Schelling point can be picked apart, but it is not always beneficial to do so.
White Nationalism is American, and in that American context, it makes sense. Europeans have their own nationalisms. In America there are around 200,000 Albanians of full or partial descent. So scratch that objection.
White Nationalists acknowledge differences between groups of whites, but America has been blessed with a reasonably good set of white demographics and so there is no need, no public desire and no possibility to tease apart the various American white ethnicities and separate Poles from Germans from Italians in the United States. It’s too late.That doesn’t mean that white nationalists intend to encourage mass immigration of millions of Russians, it just means that there is no need to pick a fight with the ones who are here.
Yes, the original English colonists cucked themselves by bringing in all those other immigrants… but we’re not English, we’re the descendants of those various mixed European ethnicities. What we have now (in terms of demographics) is serviceable and it is worth fighting to protect it.
But it is not just the compatibility of American whites that makes “white” a natural Schelling point, it is also their common enemy; the Cathedral, that encourages everyone else to go after whites. If you’re mad about the rise of white identity, blame the Cathedral for forcing whites to band together.
I did make that argument against artificially constructed French national identity.
http://www.henrydampier.com/2014/11/who-needs-nationalism/
I’m not especially mad about it. I even consider it understandable and legitimate, even if it doesn’t go far enough. I just don’t think it’s a good unifying principle, because of its underlying egalitarianism, toleration, and the democratic outlook.What’s convenient isn’t usually what’s good.
“Let’s group together to save medicare and our democracy from the savages” is not an especially inspiring battle cry. The reason why no one wants to preserve the ‘white race’ is because the white-melting-pot-society created something that no one wants to preserve. Defining your politics as a negation of academic white privilege speech also creates nothing positive to inspire and unify people around.
“The reason why no one wants to preserve the ‘white race’ is because the white-melting-pot-society created something that no one wants to preserve.”
At the moment nobody wants to preserve the English, German, French, whatever races either. Is that because those things are worthless, or is it because Cathedral propaganda has discouraged people from defending them?
Like many Americans, I’m of mixed European descent (Scottish, German, English), with no traditional culture of any kind. White is all that people like me have. The alternative the Cathedral is offering is racial oblivion and degeneration.
What is the alternative to “white” that you are offering?
We’re Americans. Our culture is American, perhaps with emphasis on specific regions. I am happy with this, at least.
There is no good political alternative. So we look to ourselves and our families and aim to survive.
>At the moment nobody wants to preserve the English, German, French, whatever races either. Is that because those things are worthless, or is it because Cathedral propaganda has discouraged people from defending them?
Alone, with no animating religious faith, no one wants to preserve the English, German, or French. Saying that the blood alone is what matters more than what these people do with that blood is part of what made it so enervating.
What you are proposing is really just a recipe for failure Henry. You may not be interested in race, but race is interested in you. I don’t care how well prepared you are, the coming deluge will drown you and all the rest of the urban elves.
Blacks didn’t ban the confederate flag: white liberals did. This is the big confusion that undermines this project — suicidal white liberals outnumber the people who want to vote for collective interests by an order of magnitude. The prospective coalition contains people who consider white separatism the worst moral crime.
Racialism is rooted in each and every individual woman’s choice of mate in breeding. The rest is a form of misplaced chivalry produced by the theoretical cuckold.
Tell that to Asian women
“White Nationalism” is a phrase that strikes me as poorly defined, and perhaps not best interpreted literally. There is a big difference between, say, defending against people who are actively targeting “whites” or denigrating “white” culture, in which case the distinctions between different sorts of whites don’t really matter all that much, vs. trying to create some “pan-white” culture with strict definitions where you cooperate only with other whites and defect against all non-whites, where Armenians are always in and Chinese are always out. I suspect that most people who call themselves WNs are operating on a practical, local level, rather than an abstract theoretical level. The average WN prison gang, for example, is probably driven primarily by mutual defense against attacks from other prisoners than by a conviction that Armenians, Russians, and French are all the same and should live together, but not among Japanese.
If “white culture” is the Aryan Brotherhood, then it deserves a swift execution with no dallying.
What plagiarist WN propagandists usually do is take the products of Christian (often Catholic) and Greco-Roman civilizations, and then declare those to be “white” rather than the particular result of what they believed and fought for.
This given formation that we have in the US is a bit like the response of those kinds of prison gangs. “White” is in opposition to the other kinds of ethnic gangs, because the host civilization is now too weak and self-hating to exterminate all the brutes, which was our SOP until recently.
So all right-thinking Americans now believe that the bad White people are responsible for all of history being a march of evil actions, and the way to be a good White person is to campaign for the displacement and destruction of the bad palefaces.
The problem is much less the Africans and the Turks — it is the liberals who empower them and use them as proxies. And the bulk of those liberals are awfully pale. In that, the WN peacenik tendency and desire to seek out scapegoats for what is an internal problem is entirely counter-productive.
Though I often speak of Occidental Christianity, I have never really been taken with this idea that ‘whites’ are one collective entity. It’s heavily Americanized, the same way we consider ‘blacks’ to be one collective entity, despite the fact that this couldn’t be further from the truth if you go to Africa.
‘Whites’ can be said to be bound together more by a common spiritual characteristic than one which is necessarily ethnic. Croats and Serbs hate each other. Scots and Englishmen hate each other.
But let us just say, as others have alluded to, that we only want to talk about American whites. This is fair. What real delineations are there between Dutch descended Americans and German descended Americans? Little if any. Americans have largely birthed their own race of the spirit, BUT can we then admit the fact that north and south have a different spirit? The white man in Alabama is NOT the white man in New York City. It seems obvious pan-whitism presents big challenges, and Dampier is right to point them out.
And I’d add, when people talk about attacks on ‘white culture’, what the hell do they mean? They hardly ever actually come out and say they mean Christianity, but they should. The only thing common to white people is Christian ethno-religious heritage. And no, the Roman Empire is not ‘white culture’ since Rome never occupied more than this.
http://www.beforebc.de/all_europe/ABriefHistoryOfTheCircumpolarorth-AboriginalPeoples_files/roman_empire.jpg
The only thing one could point to which culturally links all whites, who have everything in their distant history from grandiose empires to mud huts and forest tribes, is Europe’s total embrace of Christianity after Rome’s fall, either in the form of Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy.
We should also say that before Christianization and outside the zones of Roman control, the proto-English and proto-Irish were tattooed barbarians who wore animal skins and performed human sacrifice. They were savages.
>And I’d add, when people talk about attacks on ‘white culture’, what the hell do they mean? They hardly ever actually come out and say they mean Christianity, but they should. The only thing common to white people is Christian ethno-religious heritage. And no, the Roman Empire is not ‘white culture’ since Rome never occupied more than this.
White Privilege is our civilization and all that came with it. Deciding to say “the hell, we don’t need God” and electing to worship your own skin and blood in its place is prideful self-absorption. It also attempts to escape from the duties and strictures of religion while also, somehow, magically, gaining the benefits of service to God.
But do you think going forward that you will be able to field enough people who believe in God and the entire mythology surrounding Christianity? It strikes me that Christianity is in the same position as Julian the Apostate was back in the 4th Century, riding atop of history yelling stop. I don’t think that Christianity will fare much better than ancient Paganism. High IQ people will not ultimately adhere to ancient religious memes that have long out lived their original purpose. The knowledge base of civilization is orders of magnitude higher now that it ever was. Christianity’s articulation of reality is not sophisticated enough going forward. Just the way Zeus’s thunderbolts eventually lost their power.
Going back to a Christian feudal order seems a great way to be edgy these days but I don’t see it as historically viable or necessary. Big picture, Christianity is being secularized. That process is not going to stop. A people need a shared philosophy yes, but that doesn’t mean that ancient near-Eastern religious cults can serve that purpose indefinitely. A significant contingent of your high IQ crowd will never believe in the story of the Carpenter’s son. Especially when that story has too many elements within that lead one down the path to suicidal altruism. Its a shaky mythos to place the foundation of society on as so many of its tenets lead to institutional leftism (which I know is a debated position).
Also, you seem to know enough about economics to know that most of the problems in America could be solved without either a pan White Nationalism or a return to small Christian feudal kingdoms. I understand that Leftism sucks, but to jettison everything associated with the Enlightenment and Classical Liberalism and advanced capitalism seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Not necessary.
Who said anything about jettisoning capitalism?
“The knowledge base of civilization is orders of magnitude higher now that it ever was.”
Or orders of magnitude lower depending on your definition of true knowledge. You have the same assumption as Progressives, which is why you wish to keep the ‘Enlightenment’. You genuinely think man is drifting inevitably towards utopia. I think not, and pretty much every Reactionary in history agrees. The Modern World is drifting towards destruction, demographically, technologically, and ideologically.
Dismiss ‘mythology’ all you like. Soon enough, I have a hunch that mythology might just dismiss you.
Yeah, well sorry you whiny champagne socialist elitist pop tart, but when the enemy defines the terms all you get is everyone against Whites. It doesn’t matter a whit whether you’re Italian, Irish, Polish or whatever European. It doesn’t matter if your ancestors owned slaves or were slaves. The enemy of the system swine are White. When someone declares War on you, and intends to genocide you and your children, you really don’t give a rat’s ass that they’re stupid retards who have not one brain between them. All that sweet elitist fruity talk belongs to the past. You may not like White nationalists and believe they’re “vulgar”, but your fruity pop tart ass is going to go into a cannibals pot like those braindead retards who let South Africa become ape city.
Whites are using proxies against other whites, most of whom agree that it’s splendid and correct to do. Every major mainstream Christian denomination larded with Whites agrees that this is a good thing and ought to happen. Every accredited university in the United States and Europe holds this is a right and good policy. Students who attend those universities have to affirm those beliefs and avoid contradicting them to avoid expulsion.
Given that you’re happy to sling slurs at me without taking much time to understand what I stand for, why should I think that you give much more thought to other matters?
The only people who dissent are those who say that whites ought to be nice to one another and get along, and that it would be really fabulous if we broke down all those divisions between us to face a phantom which is responsible for all our problems.
White liberals destroyed South Africa. Fixating on the implement that they used is idiotic.
So I agree with this post.
The problem is: if not race, then what? You can go for “principles,” but then you’re just in the clutches of an ideology again.
Thus my inability to understand those who don’t believe in God, and seem to rejoice at the (“)fact(“). Civilization and (fucking loved) Science are just as mortal as you are.
Given that this is a blog nostalgic for the old feudal order, it’d be that or a modern descendant of that. I’m also not that hard on an aristocratic republic given a people and geography which could support it.
But most of all, what I do here is give shape to my thoughts and let other people read along with me as I educate myself. I’m not plotting to put the Stuarts back on the throne.
“White” is a salient biological category because phenotype is often “good enough” to get groups of people to think their neighbors are like them. Anglo-Saxons may differ from the Irish in important ways, but if two “white” guys grow up in an American neighborhood and see themselves as “white” that doesn’t actually seem to matter all that much. Robert Putnam’s study of diversity’s impact on social capital is instructive: Homogeneous “white” communities had high levels of social capital despite being composed of your supposedly different groups of whites while diverse communities had low levels of social capital. There is no need for “white nationalists” to run a social experiment to see if “whiteness” is enough to base ethnic solidarity on. We already tried that, and it worked out fine.
This sort of thing is actually quite common too. Germany and France also went through periods of unification in which strong national identities were essentially invented during the 1800s, and it worked because the diverse groups were similar enough. People stopped being Prussians and Corsicans and became Germans and Frenchman. I’m not a universalist so I don’t think you should be forced to live among “white” groups you dislike, but trying to recreate identities like “Anglo-Saxon” in modern America seems quixotic and silly.
Irish who bled and killed to become free of the British yoke would disagree that really, their phenotype should have told them to be nicer to their masters. Maybe if Robert Putnam had been alive back then, he could’ve stopped the bloodshed by telling them about his study. Maybe Putnam could have stopped the fighting in Flanders with his study had he been alive back then by marching out into no man’s land and proclaiming that really, the fighting didn’t need to happen.
Those same ‘homogeneous’ (really ethnically fractured) white communities elected JFK and LBJ, who then elected to dissolve those communities to grub for votes.
Homogenization involved displacement and destruction of their ethnic enclaves. Now, their descendants come by and tell us to love our cracker brothers, because their beloved, holy Africans have gone off the leash. Those same cracker brothers think Nelson Mandela is a hero who deserves to be a saint.
If those are my brothers, then who are my enemies?
>We already tried that, and it worked out fine.
It worked out with some groups of whites allying ecumenically to displace and weaken their enemies, which were other groups of whites. That wasn’t a solidarity-building exercise. I’m not not eager to forge a coalition with the descendants of those people.
>People stopped being Prussians and Corsicans and became Germans and Frenchman.
After which they preceded to murder each other and themselves by the millions. When they finished with that, as nations, they decided to stop reproducing and dilute themselves through mass immigration. Too miserable to care about the future.
>Germany and France also went through periods of unification in which strong national identities were essentially invented during the 1800s, and it worked because the diverse groups were similar enough.
I guess this is the part where the evil wreckers came in to ruin the great dream. Consider that the dream was badly dreampt.
>but trying to recreate identities like “Anglo-Saxon” in modern America seems quixotic and silly.
Whatever develops in the cracks — as Anglo-Saxonism developed in the ruins of Rome — will not be white qua pan-white-nationalism. Nor do I really understand the desire to attempt to make common cause with liberals just because they’re pale.
It is fine to think that it was bad for the Irish and other groups to assimilate into American “whiteness,” but it just not true that those communities remained ethnically fractured. All of the evidence says the opposite, but if you have any serious statistics to back up your point I will be willing to look at them.
Comparing Putnam’s study of modern US neighborhoods to WW1 strikes me as bizarre. He wasn’t claiming to be able to stop conflicts, he was measuring the impact of perceived diversity on social capital. The truth is that those ethnic groups all assimilated into a shared white identity. That is just a fact, it not a value judgement. You are free to think that Anglo-Saxons should go off and form their own communities, you are not free to deny reality. White Nationalism, properly understood, can be seen as a form of political realism. If citizens see themselves as part of the same group they are less likely to fight each other.
>After which they preceded to murder each other and themselves by the millions. When they finished with that, as nations, they decided to stop reproducing and dilute themselves through mass immigration. Too miserable to care about the future.
World War 1 was bad, but it was such a terrible war because the states involved were incredibly advanced. It didn’t come about as a result of a decline or because of some serious social problem. The 1800s was a time of tremendous social, scientific, and economic development and it’s not surprising that the first major war fought using modern technology was terrible. Older nation states couldn’t field such massive armies or sustain such losses. Think of it like boxing: a quick knockout is often better than a long, brutal fight. I don’t see how it is connected to the unification events I described save for the fact that WW1 was partially caused by intense nationalism.
>Whatever develops in the cracks — as Anglo-Saxonism developed in the ruins of Rome — will not be white qua pan-white-nationalism. Nor do I really understand the desire to attempt to make common cause with liberals just because they’re pale.
I am not a white nationalist myself, I’m more of an IQ elitist. It seems likely that racially diverse societies composed of high IQ people are the future. Think Singapore, but bigger. I care about white nationalism only insofar as I think social capital can be a valuable thing to have.
Random Anon’s argument falls apart at the first sentence. Really, the idea that phenotype is ‘good enough’ is self-evidently absurd. I don’t even know why Mr. Dampier would allow such a silly statement to be posted on his website.
What you don’t understand, Henry, is that white identitarianism is something new. It’s a response to a globalised world where non-whites have found common cause and formed their own new blocs.
After all, “Black African” or “Native American” identities were only created when those peoples were under threat. They stopped their tribal warfare to at least notionally assume a unified identity.
The same is happening to white peoples of European descent, in a globalised world where less than 10% of the world is white, and almost all white nations are under heavy immigration.
And thus disparate white tribes will and are becoming conscious. This has nothing to do with your straw men of genetic essentialism or the nationalism of the 19th and 20th centuries.
Hungarians and Germans, if they are to survive the Camp of the Saints 21st century, must find common cause and define themselves against the aliens from other continents. If this involves sometimes strained invocations of “Western civilisation” then so be it. It’s the construction of something new. It’s either that or a “European identity” of tolerance, transexual rights and no babies which ends in civilisational death in this very century.
Rogerrrrrr, It may be that the nations of Europe will need to find common cause to avoid being demographically replaced in their own lands by foreigners, but that in and of itself doesn’t mean that they have to embrace some fictitious, absurd identity based on their shared skin color. In any case, to repeat what I posted above, for this “white” identity to be coherent it would have to include Chechens, most Iranians, Kurds, Assyrians, Albanians, the Shiites and Alawis of Syria and Lebanon, Turks, and the list goes on. Because I know that you aren’t willing to include those groups, I don’t know why you insist on whiteness as an identity. That this is the case is indisputable, but it is worth noting that in a recent article, Richard Spencer himself expresses frustration with the fact that a certain far-right party in Hungary has expressed a desire to make common cause with the Turks, and to have Hungarians remember that they too are at least partly Turkic in blood. His frustration is telling because at some level he realizes — and in the article, he even explicitly admits this — that that far-right party is actually technically correct, that the Hungarians are an at least partly Turkic ethnicity. Nevertheless, he would like that these things not be said because he understands that if they are said, WN becomes incoherent and stupid.
You seem very certain that I wouldn’t accept Iranians, Kurds etc as “white”. Clearly then you know what white is. And so does everyone else. The skin color is just a shorthand, just as some black people can have very light skin.
Look at it this way: Greeks and Turks have exactly the same skin color. One is “white”. The other is not. You know this. They know this. The divide is not genes but identification.
It’s straw-manning to claim that “white nationalism” must follow simple rules that you declare and then is invalid because the real world is complex. Even if a nation on the margin such as Hungary were confused about their identity (and they are not) that wouldn’t change a thing.
But you’ve identified the problem. How can Greeks know that they are “white” and the Turks that they aren’t, even though those two groups essentially genetically indistinguishable from one another? A Greek is much more genetically and culturally closer to a Turk or an Iranian or a Syrian than he is to a German or a Brit. The Greek might not want to acknowledge that, but it is true nonetheless. So what does it matter if he identifies himself as “white”?
“How can Greeks know that they are “white” and the Turks that they aren’t, even though those two groups essentially genetically indistinguishable from one another? A Greek is much more genetically and culturally closer to a Turk or an Iranian or a Syrian than he is to a German or a Brit. ”
Don’t worry, they know.
And they might take issue with the idea that they are culturally closer to the Turks and Syrians than to other post-Christian nations
Just sayin’, I’m sure that they “know”, but what they “know” is wrong”. That’s the whole point.
If the Jews can have a successful ethno-state, why can’t the Whites?
Many secular Jews in Israel, religion can be a nice excuse, but at the end of the day, blood is blood.
JumpinJackFash, “Whites” can’t have an ethno-state because they aren’t an ethnos, that’s why. As for the Jews, it is worth pointing out that even their country isn’t based on blood. The are Ashkenazi Jews, Mizrahi Jews, Ethiopian Jews, Sephardic Jews….perhaps there’s a lesson in that for WNs, who despite their denials admire and are even envious of Israel?
Denying that whites have an identity is simply the anti-white POV. Why are you against whites?
I believe that ethnic homogeneity is important. I just think that a state that is, say, 25% Swedish, 25% Serbian, 25% Portuguese, and 25% Scottish is not ethnically homogeneous.
Yes, whites have a common (racial) identity. But this is not the same as a ethnic identity. Grounds for alliance and partnership, yes. But one common white nation will never happen.
If a Swede, a Serb, and a Scotsman walk into a bar, that’s the start of joke. If a Swede, a Serb, and a Scotsman end up in a mixed-race prison, that’s an ethnos. And both America and Europe more and more are beginning to resemble such places of captivity.
No Bob, there is one mixed race prison and that is the one designated for underclass whites, blacks, hispanics etc…..among the people in that prison there may well emerge the kind of racial tribalism that you allude to, but that’s not what’s at question here; and in any case, the fact that Swede, Serb and Scot prisoners will gang up together against, say, Mexicans doesn’t mean that they share a common identity.
How is the “kind of tribalism” I allude to not an identity?
“White” is to race as “right wing” is to US politics.
I can tell you all, all dead bodies look black after a couple days in the hot sun.
It should be noted, with the cultural Marxists so eager to foment a race war in our country, a complicit media particularly capable of creating whatever narrative and lies suitable to the agenda of those running things, and an armed badged leg breaking federal police state just itching to find themselves some bitter clingers to shoot as white extremists with all the ammunition they have been stockpiling, those dead bodies are a very convenient visual crisis as a means.
Those blue helmeted UN security forces the man child emperor with a pen and a phone, and his pet Frankenstein monster secretary of state, have invited to partake in the coming racial festivities, its going to be a party none of us are going to be excluded from attending.
It is a proxy straw man rich environment.
And none of us have enough ammunition for what’s coming.
Guarantee ya.
Henry, I agree with your assessments of WN. However, I think other posters raise some valid points. Discussing my own situation briefly may help to illustrate why I find myself caught between a rock and a hard place on this issue.
I am from Australia and fairly homogeneous racially. I live in Asia and am married to an Asian woman (with one child so far), so maybe I’m hedging my bets here.
I do believe that white proles and white liberals are a huge part of the problem for the reasons you offer, and so ethnic solidarity is non-sensical.
The problem is this though. A society driven by higher ideals — a really elite society — is almost certainly not going to come from anywhere outside the West except perhaps Asia. Latin America, Africa and the Middle East are a complete write off as far as I am concerned. East Asians may end up creating elite societies, but it’s very far from clear that this is going to happen. They simply haven’t created anywhere near the artistic or cultural output of the West, even to this day. Sure, they’re fairly prosperous, they like order and so on, but that is very far from elite. On the whole, they seem absolutely obsessed with frivolity and comfort. Other Asian cultures (perhaps Indians or Persians) are even farther behind in their likelihood of creating elite societies a la ancient Greece and Rome or Europe prior to the 20th century. This means that, if anywhere, it is going to come down to the West, and for better or worse, that probably means some form of WN being used as a ladder. It might be possible to then discard that ladder once the existential threat is gone, and then create a society along the lines that you, I or others might want. Then again, it might not, but that is the situation we’ve been forced into. It is a gamble, but we’re being forced to gamble.
The other alternative, of course, is to create Singapore on a grand scale, which is perhaps the strategy I have taken by living in Asia and breeding with an Asian. Yet it’s very far from clear to me that this is a sure thing. Firstly, Singapore has the lowest total fertility rate in the world (0.8). I assume you are aware of the concept of the IQ shredder. Singapore seems to be a mouse utopia on steroids. It is also not clear to me that such a small city state that is SO different culturally from its neighbours will last for too long once the world enters a period of overt aggression again.
This is a critical mass issue. For elitism to exist there still needs to be a whole society beneath it. I am concentrating on my own situation, my own family, etc. Yet that is not even remotely enough to ensure civilisation’s continuation, let alone it reaching even higher peaks. If I remain in East Asia, there is the distinct possibility that my children either won’t have their own children or that they will be completely assimilated into an alien culture that does not value higher ideals. There just isn’t a critical mass of people like me here, and even if there were, because this part of the world does see things in terms of ethno-nationalism, they would always be extremely vulnerable as a tiny minority. Witness the regular anti-Chinese violence in Southeast Asia or the way Japanese (businesses) became targets in China only a few years ago, for example.
Yet if I returned to the West, even if my (grand)children did not become either proles or liberals, they would likely be hunted down for having the wrong ideas. Maybe by being of mixed race they could slip under the radar. Maybe.
Tell me the way out from between this rock and that hard place. I don’t want 100% WN (both for personal and ideological reasons), but something in the order of 90-95% WN is probably necessary.
When the Europeans rocked up in North America they were vastly outnumbered by the Native Americans. People still argue the numbers but that was the case.
A modern source estimates something like 600 ‘autonomous societies’ and ’12 quite distinct and apparently unrelated linguistic groups, in some cases more dissimilar than English and Chinese’. There was no unified ‘Native American’ idea, some tribes sided with the Europeans and others didn’t. The reasons were varied, some joined up to settle old grudges with other tribes.
The European invasion also didn’t stop, it kept coming so combined with the disease and low-level warfare the Indians were just beaten back.
WNs must logically assume that had these disparate groups been united under a common identity they could have better resisted the European arrival. It isn’t a stretch to think that might have been the case. However they were never going to be able to for a plethora of reasons.
As someone who has always flirted with WN ideas but ultimately stepped back from them I understand that appeal. Crafting a narrative of Whites vs Everyone else though is always going to be inherently distasteful to modern people. Western Civilization had a time when that was a popular and accepted opinion, and it was largely other Whites who worked so hard to make that taboo.
Europe now finds itself trapped because of this in the migrant crisis, people worry they are going to keep coming from the Middle East or Africa. But also that they will outbreed native white Europeans. Who is to blame for both those? As Faye noted, the problems of France are attributable to the French.
The EU of course many Europeans claim to like, and in part it is because they feel a sense of shared European identity – again a relatively new invention, just as the idea of an ‘Italian’ before 1870 didn’t make sense the idea of a ‘European’ has only appeared recently. I think you brought up a point about the Irish fighting against the yoke of the English, yet Irish immigration to England has been largely successful. There are quite a few people today who had Irish Grandparents or Great Grandparents but consider themselves fully English, the only time they come out as ‘Irish’ might be Ireland being a second sporting team of choice.
WNs who point to South Africa often fail to realise just how split it was, even internally amongst ‘whites’. Afrikanners vs English can be seen as the real root conflict.
Most of the political problems in the usa stem from letting in the wrong kind of Whites. It’s all really an intra White ethnic clash with non Whites in supporting roles for the liberal Whites, ie germans, poles, catholics, swedes etc.
Just like Green is cultural Marxism in a trashcan, this racism, excuse me, diversity they are selling, is another Big Lie, and almost everyone is buying it one way or another.
The sonofabitches have almost everyone right where they want them.
Suckered, and vulnerable.
Its tyranny one oh one, divide and conquer.
I don’t know what is worse, the cultural marxists, or a nation like pavlov’s dog, that without fail, predictable as clock work has lost its christian moral values and is easily manipulated by a mere handful of red diaper mandarin inbreds and their long march.
Where is your Whole Armor of God?
Time to dust it off, shine up the rust, and get a new crusade on, go after the human extinction movement with a bone in our teeth.
Amen brother.
People on all sides try to make the conceptual lines too sharp. Life is actually quite fuzzy. For myself, I see explicit racial nationalism as inherently a sign of weakness and desperation. Its why our white ancestors seemingly paid so little attention to ‘race’. Consequently, I don’t the see total exclusion of non-whites from a healthy, stable majority-white society as necessary. All that is necessary is that we start treating apples like apples and oranges like oranges. When we do this, ultimately everyone will be held to the same standards and no one will be denied opportunity on the basis of race. However, what we will have – all the science points in this direction – is a de facto racially stratified society with non-whites collecting in the lower strata as the proverbial hewers and drawers. People will tend to call the position I described here “white supremacy” but its not. It’s e.g., high-IQ supremacy; low-time preference supremacy, etc. I know this was not the main thrust of this article, but its important to bring that out. As far as the main idea seemingly expressed by Henry, I generally disagree. Germany and Hungary, Russia and the US, etc., should all be conceptually situated in the same ethnic family tree, with Africans, East Asians, ‘Semites’ and Mestizos as the decided out-groups. “The other issue with this inclusive view of race is that it’s not exclusionary or discriminatory enough.” “Discriminatory enough for what?” is the question. “A stable economy” answers Henry Dampier. Fair enough. But we’re not all materialist Liberals, Henry. Some of us think a stable economy ought to be sacrificed in favor of other things. Is that “irrational”? Well, its economically irrational. But that’s neither here nor there and only begs the question.
Our ancestors actually paid a great deal of attention to race, and took white superiority for granted.
I agree with you to a limited extent Henry. Nothing personal against you, but I don’t often feel very warm and fuzzy towards fellow Whites from above the Potomac and Ohio Rivers. I often see this feeling reciprocated in various forums or directly from certain people.
Of course, you are correct about the great diversity of European (White) peoples. Efforts to plaster over our differences will fail for the same reasons as the present European Union is beginning to crumble. There can be no common “white” nation anymore than there is a common “black” nation or a common “brown” nation or a common “yellow” nation.
However, a common European cultural identity goes back to Rome with the sense of “Romanitas”. The Roman Catholic Church successfully morphed this into the cultural and political construct of “Christendom”. The shared Christian identity of Europeans enabled the Crusades, the Reconquista of Spain, and even victory at the Siege of Vienna of 1683 when the charge of the Polish Winged Hussars saved the day. The common Christian identity of Europe generally held until dissipated by the guns of August 1914.
Today Europe faces roughly the same invaders that Jan Sobieski faced at the gates of Vienna. The Church is unwilling and/or unable to provide unity in the face of this latter-day Volkerwanderung. Indeed, the Holy Father is actually welcoming this invasion of welfare colonists. If race can serve as a substitute for traditional forms of European unity, then I’m all for it.
What Christendom wasn’t was a universal state.
What I would say is that Europe needs war among Europeans more than it needs peace among Europeans. Competition between governments in the form of warfare would quickly put an end to all the forcible self-liquidation of the West pretty rapidly. Whether or not it would lead to its total destruction is an open question.
The Great War is exactly what put Europe into the death spiral it finds itself in today, so you don’t want to see that. That’s the danger inherent in any European war today. Some less restrictive form of European cooperation is a good thing.
When you speak of attempting to build a white universal state, you’re constructing a straw man. Very few WN people are really holding out for that. In fact, I hear more from people in NRx who want to reconstruct a Holy Roman Empire on steroids that would include the Anglosphere. As fond as I am of the Hapsburgs, I can’t imagine how that would work either.
I had thought Human Biodiversity was part of the official NRx Canon. HBD leads one to some inevitable conclusions, yet it sounds like you are walking away.from this.
As usual, my goal is for Dixie and her people to be free. What is the actual goal of NRx?
Also as a Souther White man I cannot back a general White Nationalism
When has the damnyankee shown and sort of kinship to Southern Whites?
That’s a good damn point. I would.answer that by telling you the Yankee stock we all despise has been largely replaced by others, and the enemies of the South are now much more diverse.
Agreed
What we need to be sure of is that Southerners don’t get replaced.
Sadly by and large we have been
Is Florida, my beloved North Carolina and Virginia still Southron? Not by much these days
“Racialism and its relatively recent variant, White nationalism, tends to reduce all political matters of importance down to whether or not a government is racially exclusive.”
Uh, nope. White nationalism is the belief that whites are systemically discriminated against are are being replaced by non-whites through immigration, and thus that they need their own place (without immigration). It’s not just a “racially exclusive government”.
“The definition of ‘race’ also tends to be dumbed-down and diluted to the point to which it really is a social construct — a political fiction — rather than something with real genetic, cultural, and political salience.”
Actually, White nationalists are some of the only people who define race correctly, as in a biological category. None of them define it as you put it. This is just dishonest.
“who define race correctly, as in a biological category…”
None of the nationalists or eugenicists of the early 20th century would agree that what you define as a salient biological category was a salient biological category. They broke it down with greater specificity.
And in fact, nationalism as it existed in history versus 4Chan nationalism mainly concerned itself with national differentiation rather than White-unity (hence Italian nationalism / German nationalism / French nationalism).
Is it a vague one? Sure — no dispute there. Go query Hitler to find out what he thought of Slavs.
>Systemically discriminated against are are being replaced by non-whites through immigration, and thus that they need their own place (without immigration).
Whites had their own places — they elected leaders who decided to replace them with foreigners. Popular government is the larger problem — we have seen repeatedly how democracies throughout the Western world have gone from relative ethnic uniformity to polyglot countries in the span of a few decades. Uniformity alone on the basis of skin color alone is not, then, the solution — that’s what they had in the 1960s, and it didn’t solve the problem.
By all means, keep repeating your slogans. Maybe someone will institute a “white studies” department and buy you all off with welfare checks.
Preach it brother.
This post is a disaster. What is even going on here? It is a really short and misguided shit that landed on everyone’s toilette seat. If you’re going to make assertions like this you need to commit a couple thousand words to explaining how you’re still on-board awhile playing fancy Euro micro-racism. We get the ethnic animosities, but you seem to suggest that all-is-lost if we don’t dump the Irish and Sicilians with the niggers, which will never, ever, ever happen.
Knowing what I do about you, it makes me wonder if you have nothing but an interest in trolling everyone for your own masturbatory enjoyment.
White Nationalism emerged due to the attacks on whites themselves, in general, and overall. This identity did emerge over time, but the existence of the European race is completely indisputable. It’s so obvious and huge that you queastioning it makes all your other writing look silly.
You seem to be arguing against European and Euro-American identity movements, right? So… What else have you got here? Is this a signing-off message? Cause the future of actual people is going to be one of racial identification and unification, not babblings about who’s got some Albanian or Portuguese in their bloodstream.
I don’t see how taking the same position as the founders of the EU is sane. Neither do I agree with the tack taken by the American politicians who began mass immigration in the 19th century.
Actually, I did get really tired by the nationalist turn around here. My position has remained the same for the entire time that I’ve written here.
>Cause the future of actual people is going to be one of racial identification and unification
That’s what everyone also thought in the 1840s and 1930s, but it never worked out all that well. I think a lot of the enthusiasm for nationalism comes from people who aren’t all that familiar with the previous convulsions of nationalism before.
On the other hand, I have fewer quibbles with the previous nationalist movements because they were marginally less stupid and more grounded in history, language, and culture than the newer variety.
I’ve also noticed as I get older that political ideas are much less important than I thought they were, and that plenty of people change their feathers all the time.
I’m not going to stump for something that I don’t believe in, and I’m not going to be dragged into an activist movement that I have no interest in.
This is also beyond rude to bring up in public, especially after I have always treated you with politeness and consideration.