Thinking About White Nationalists
Although it might be disturbing to some readers that in my following remarks about white nationalists I treat my subjects with respect, this should cause no surprise to anyone who is familiar with my work. I am accustomed to show respect for intelligent people, including those with whom I disagree. In writing about the post-Marxist Left, I focused on the intellectual side of traditional Marxists and presented their attempts to reconcile changing social realties with a Marxist historical theory. Although these efforts might have led into a blind alley, those who engaged in them were often learned and theoretically resourceful. Unlike multiculturalists or neocons, old-fashioned Marxists began with a serious body of ideas. I should also note that neither white nationalists nor Marxists represent any kind of political danger to our post-bourgeois society. Far more powerful forces are now at work battering what remains of our Anglo-American traditions of ordered liberty.
If someone were to ask me what distinguishes the Right from the Left, the difference that comes to mind most readily centers on equality. The Left favors that principle, while the Right regards it as an unhealthy obsession. A second distinction concerns individualism and community: while the Left focuses on liberating the individual from encumbering social traditions, the Right understands people as belonging to a framework of reference based on hierarchy and community. For the Right liberty has a communal value. Without the community and its established relations, the individual stands unprotected before modern power structures that would impose equal servitude on all.
These distinctions do not commit their respective partisans to any one direction in the battle between a state-controlled and a free market economy. What counts in terms of this division is not which policy one embraces but which doctrines shape one’s economic positions. English historian John Laughland has pointed out that a pro-capitalist stance can easily coexist with the leftist goal of erasing cultural and social stratification. Defenders of capitalism at the Wall Street Journal embrace Marx’s vision of a unified homogenized humanity, without thinking it necessary to pursue that end through socialist revolution.
Paleoconservatives, by sharp contrast, follow the European nationalists of the 1920s when they emphasize “national communities” and advocate tariffs to protect “a national work force.” This rightist approach toward economic collectivism, as a means of enforcing traditional attitudes, recalls the self-explanatory title of a book by German philosopher of history Oswald Spengler, Preussentum und Sozialismus. Spengler did not discern a contradiction between the Prussian military spirit and sense of obedience to lawful, inherited authority and a state-planned economy. The same combination can be found unexpectedly in the postwar German socialist, whom the Nazis had savagely persecuted, Kurt Schumacher. An enigmatic and heroic figure, Schumacher deeply admired Frederick the Great and was known for his efforts to fuse Marxism with Prussian nationalism. Despite his self-identification as a Marxist, Schumacher now seems in retrospect to have been a misplaced figure of the German, anti-Nazi Right.
Having illustrated my distinctions, I would also like to relate them to what today passes for the American Right. To the extent that anything resembling the historic Right can flourish in our predominantly postmodernist, multicultural and feminist society and barring any unforeseen return to a more traditionalist establishment Right, racial nationalism, for better or worse, may be one of the few extant examples of a recognizably rightist mindset. Note that I’m not taking this position because of an ideological or methodological preference. My scholarship stresses nonracial factors in looking for explanations for social and political change. In fact I am often amused by the alacrity with which some white nationalists view civilizations as functions of the testable cognitive levels of genetically linked groups. This perspective is sometimes extended to those who died well before IQ testing was devised.
There is, however, something praiseworthy about the way white nationalists have stepped forward to challenge the purveyors of environmentalist interpretations. And here the white nationalists may be battling an unstoppable enemy. By now the multicultural Left and the politics of shame have done so well in our land that a real Right can no longer be treated with anything but odium and rage. Moreover, the current racial nationalists do not easily substitute for members of the Ku Klux Klan. The white nationalists I have known are articulate gentlemen with extraordinarily high intelligence, who may have started out as IQ prodigies in MENSA, the American organization that enlists high testing achievers. American Renaissance, both a magazine and a self-described rallying point for racial nationalists, has had its annual gatherings soar in attendance over the last seven or eight years. Although its national meeting two years ago was disturbed by a shouting match between Nazi sympathizers and Jewish members (from all indications the latter have prevailed in ousting the former), the wide range of attendees who parade their white pride, according to AR periodical editor Jared Taylor, may be more telling than his movement’s growing pains.
David Horowitz has made the valid observation that Taylor and other racial nationalists are imitating the multicultural Left, by presenting white ethnics as a victimized minority. Even more to the point, they mistake the game that minorities are allowed to play in a self-belittling white Christian society with the problems that the majority population has inflicted on itself. Humiliating white males in our society is not the same as what was done to blacks under slavery, for the simple reason that the majority in a multicultural society is encouraging others to trash its heritage and to practice discrimination against the majority. What is wrong with the latter situation is not oppression by others but the glorification of self-destructive behavior.
What Horowitz has noted about white nationalists might also help explain their attraction. Their movement fits in with selected aspects of the dominant yuppie culture. Most white nationalists of my acquaintance live in cities and hold advanced university degrees. In their lifestyles they are sometimes hard to tell apart from their opponents. Although there may those in their group who have been taken in by the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, I have not met more than a handful of such people. Even those vocal neo-Nazis among the white nationalists appear to be certifiable nerds. There is, by the way, an attempt being made to create a white nationalist organization for Jews in New York City, led by a former school teacher whose sister had been raped by an inner city black.
A few further generalizations might be in order here. As a professor of humanities I have observed that the rising generation cares even less than its parents about holding on to an inherited civilization. Most of my students in Western civ courses have only the vaguest idea of the figures in the Bible (including Jesus) and their knowledge of modern history is usually confined to such inanities as “Hitler was a bad man because he was intolerant.” But our own society is impressed by the quantifiable results of standardized testing. Having spent several years in the preferred country of New York Times “conservative” columnist David Brooks, that is, Montgomery County, Maryland, I was amazed to learn how one’s social status in that DC suburb corresponds to the test scores of one’s children. In a world of rootless bureaucrats, I cannot imagine how else culture and hierarchy would be formed. And the breakdown of the safety of residents, as unruly minorities move closer, is a constant concern in such a setting, however disingenuously und equivocally my neighbors in Rockville, Maryland spoke about “crime problems.”
One advantage held by the white nationalist Right in relation to other now obsolete Rights is its non-traditional, post-communal character. This Right promotes a sense of belonging and elitism that does not depend on sustaining past traditions; and it allows those in suburban Washington and its counterparts elsewhere to think of themselves favorably outside of any inherited social framework. If such people succeed, the white nationalists contend, it is because they are brainier and because they practice more social restraint than those whose presence they are avoiding. Why should they lie to themselves about their true human worth? Moreover, why should they pretend that the means by which they have advanced favors them unfairly? (This call for self-honesty is a pervasive feature of white nationalism.) Once the convert admits what he always knew to be true but had been hiding from himself, namely, that his proven cognitive abilities derive from his fortunate gene pool, one that certain races do not share equally, and that his own group of people are engaged in a race war, a suitable white pride can develop around these revelations.
Showing such pride does not require one to take any special action, except to abandon bad faith. It allows self-declared white nationalists to go on living in non-black enclaves, without declaring their social guilt. The most they might have to do to express their convictions is to oppose the immigration invasion from across our Southern border. And this might mean no more than expressing solidarity with opponents of immigration. Pride also means avoiding intermarriage with blacks; nonetheless, since the Jewish liberals of my acquaintance are not about to encourage their pampered offspring to marry blacks, I cannot imagine what practical difference would result if my former Maryland neighbors became white nationalists. As one white nationalist once told me in conversation, such people already indicate by where and how they live that they “don’t buy into what they give lip service to.”
But this candor would only be possible, we are told, if affluent white and Asian hypocrites would drop their leftist masks. At the same time, there may be an advantage to continuing the pretense, particularly if those who practice it believe that a triumphant racialist view would hurt them as non-white Asians or as the descendants of once disadvantaged Jews. A practical problem that white racialists or white nationalists cannot surmount is getting those who personally behave in a way that seems natural for whites to admit to what they are doing. Why proclaim an embarrassing position when one can practice it quietly and call it something else?
Another observation: Almost all white nationalists I have met are libertarians and atheists, and they are happy to welcome gays with white pride into their movement. They also seem willing to accept black debating partners, if they can find any.
My point here is not to mock white nationalists, most of whom seem socially congenial. To their credit, white nationalists take on insensitive questions that more timid souls regard with horror. They thrust themselves boldly against every third rail of stilted academic discourse, by stressing the ineradicability of cognitive disparities. They also force us to reflect on the genetic causes of violence, and their thinkers tirelessly explain why the dysfunctional behavior of inner city residents cannot be reduced to environmental impediments. Wherever they are let in, they enliven discussion through their politically incorrect conversation. Most significantly, they are the only noticeable opponents of the egalitarian ideal, and they base their case against it on facts drawn from statistics and biology.
Still and all, white nationalists lack a civilization, as opposed to some kind of late modern context. They resemble their opponents, as inhabitants of a disintegrated society, despite their appeals to a social hierarchy, albeit one based on racial and cognitive divisions. The materials that white nationalists bring into play seem inadequate for any serious war for civilization. The most they may land up producing is a fiercely defended critical perspective. And while that perspective can be directed against leftist and neoconservative assumptions, it is not likely to carry our society toward a new vision of order. The structure that white nationalists invoke is rooted in nothing concrete or historical; nor can it be when the family, gender roles, and a good deal else that kept societies together in the past is now under massive and largely successful attack.
White nationalists seem to be following American Republicans when they assume a high degree of social and cultural continuity among mainstream Americans. From their perspective, the fact that professional women have a single child in midlife or stay for a time with a single spouse is interpreted as a victory for the “traditional” family. Also white nationalists typify what I have described elsewhere as “baseless conservatism,” the attempt to create alternatives to the Left without being able to attract a firm social base. Because of this lack of a social foundation for their ideas, white nationalists may not be able to help us to get beyond our present disintegration.
Having picked on my subjects, it seems necessary to balance negative with positive remarks. No other group is presently challenging as frontally as white nationalists the ideal of universal equality. And for those of us who believe that only such a challenge can halt the Left’s forward momentum, it behooves us to pay tribute to those who are willing to be defiant. Furthermore, white nationalists anchor their opposition to egalitarianism in a natural social distinction; and they cite a profusion of data for what they believe is the natural situation. A recent article in the Sunday Times of London sums up the findings of a study involving 15, 000 children, 574 of them adopted, that sustains the conclusion that at least 70 % of intelligence is an inherited feature. Environmental factors count for less in the cases of adopted children than the genes of their biological parents.
Compelling data can also be gleaned in such publications as Intelligence, Mankind Quarterly, and Personality and Individual Difference that indicate that poorer whites generally score higher on IQ tests than do wealthier blacks. And loads of research has been carried on confirming that there are socially significant genetic differences between the sexes. These and other findings abound in the works of such prolific scholars as J. Philippe Rushton, Michael Hart, Richard Lynn, and Michael Levin.
The evidence that these and other authors bring to our attention has caused the Left to suffer heart palpitations. And the Left has worked strenuously to keep data concerning natural inequalities from being respectfully considered. The motive here is not the one that we often hear shouted from rooftops, that racialist thinking would open the door to a neo-Nazi takeover or to a return to black slavery. The real danger from questioning the doctrine of natural human equality, or the virtual interchangeability of all persons, is related to a question of power. Those who have it are demonizing those who dare to challenge them. Whence the name-calling that environmentalists or else inconsistent evolutionists Jared Diamond, the late Ashley Montague, and S.J. Gould have unleashed against hereditarians of all stripes. The friends of social engineering know where to locate their most cerebral critics. It is therefore understandable that several years ago the publisher of the revised edition of Rushton’s magnum opus Race, Evolution and Behavior was warned that he would not be allowed to exhibit his works at any book fair unless he withdrew from circulation his most controversial publication. Our political class acts swiftly and predictably to protect its established church.
Despite this sustained attack, the white nationalists may not go away. Their arguments are too rooted in genetic science and experimental psychology to be effectively dismissed. And every time they are attacked by leftwing environmentalists, they pop back as objects of curiosity or as targets of vilification. These activists may have come along at a propitious time, when gender relations and family life have become destabilized and when our politics are already becoming markedly post-bourgeois. Moreover, what the late Sam Francis called “archaic conservatism” cannot offer a solution to this process that is likely to catch on. Appeals to medieval ethical thinkers or lectures about the inner check on moral appetites may be fine as abstract exercises but they are not the kind of stuff that would resonate in today’s world.
Appeals to what is primal and based on identity might conceivably have this effect. For if white nationalists can demonstrate to the satisfaction of people who count that genetic endowment is a group characteristic and not just an individual fluke, then they might be able to justify collective inequalities as something other than a scandal. They could also put a crimp in the programs undertaken by public administration to equalize all of us, while imposing special handicaps on the white majority “victimizers.” And even in the absence of a real social context, they would be reconstructing in a modern way a defense of hierarchy as the natural human condition. In our age, this may be the best we can hope for to arrest government-promoted social engineering and to restore some inkling of white self-respect. Unfortunately for those who aim at these results, the political and media elites and the voting public are moving in exactly the opposite direction.
Comments
An excellent treatment, as usual. Thank you, Paul.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Hi Paul, I’ve not made it a point to follow your writing but what I have encountered (usually at VDare) has stood you in good stead. It’s nice to read an honest (if subtle) piece about White Nationalism (a term with which I self-identify less and less, as I prefer “race-realist” more nowadays). In that spirit, I have a few comments.
You never mentioned Ethnic Genetic Interests. Salter has laid the groundwork for a scientific basis for ethnonationalism. In this sense, WNism is progressive, but not rootless. As far as cultural continuity goes, I don’t understand your point - there’s so much already there to work with! Incorporate Salterian first principles (one need not read Salter to grasp them, by the way; they’re obvious) into western culture and it works again.
Even more to the point, they mistake the game that minorities are allowed to play in a self-belittling white Christian society with the problems that the majority population has inflicted on itself.
Isn’t that a distinction without a difference? That is not to say that many WNs (particularly those in the Amren crowd) don’t point the finger in the wrong direction, because they do. It’s hilarious to read the daily comments, and the overestimates (usually implied) of African social and political power that go with them. Africans couldn’t tie their shoes politically without European or Jewish aid and approval. And this just doesn’t get through to much of the Amren crowd.
Humiliating white males in our society is not the same as what was done to blacks under slavery, for the simple reason that the majority in a multicultural society is encouraging others to trash its heritage and to practice discrimination against the majority. What is wrong with the latter situation is not oppression by others but the glorification of self-destructive behavior.
So what? Many WNs outside the Amren crowd, myself included, point the finger at their fellow Europeans, and Jews, rather than Africans. And while Europeans selling their coracialists down the river isn’t exactly racial oppression (at least not at the continental level), Jews screwing over Europeans is a rather naked bit of ethnic oppression. Plenty of “other” to go around there.
Although there may those in their group who have been taken in by Protocols of the Elders of Zion, I have not met more than a handful of such people. Even those vocal neo-Nazis among the white nationalists appear to be certifiable nerds. There is, by the way, an attempt being made to create a white nationalist organization for Jews in New York City, led by a former school teacher whose sister had been raped by an inner city black.
Framing the choice as between the Protocols and Jared Taylor amounts to a false dichotomy. As for WN organizations for Jews, I’m all for them. Crypto-Judaism and the long Jewish tradition of ethnic and political savvy preclude any warm feelings on my part about intra-organizational European and Jewish cooperation. I find it odd (if predictable) that exclusion of Jews is a bone of contention; see many non-Jews in Jewish organizations? In discussions of these matters, I find the wailing of philo-Semites amusing. “Oh poor persecuted us!” Jews are suddenly political non-actors, relying on Europeans for representation. Ha! Jews have never depended on anyone to butter their rolls politically. Nobody starts up a political organization as quickly or efficiently as a Jew. They’re the world heavyweight champions. Whenever I see this I also smell something fishy. Philo-Semites should just accept that this prejudice of mine (and hopefully, all WNists) is pro-European, not anti-Jew, and move on with their lives. Inter-organizational cooperation good, intra-organizational cooperation bad.
One advantage held by the white nationalist Right in relation to other now obsolete Rights is its non-traditional, post-communal character.
This paragraph would make more sense if WNs weren’t so obviously proud (or at least, aware) of European history and the success of western civilization.
Why proclaim an embarrassing position when one can practice it quietly and call it something else?
Because it’s corrosive to public policy, to the society in which they live? Because they’re being robbed? Because they’re deferring their (enormous) debts onto their posterity? Because it’s unworthy of men? Because collectives outcompete individuals?
Still and all, white nationalists lack a civilization, as opposed to some kind of late modern context. They resemble their opponents, as inhabitants of a disintegrated society, despite their appeals to a social hierarchy, albeit one based on racial and cognitive divisions. The materials that white nationalists bring into play seem inadequate for any serious war for civilization. The most they may land up producing is a fiercely defended critical perspective. And while that perspective can be directed against leftist and neoconservative assumptions, it is not likely to carry our society toward a new vision of order. The structure that white nationalists invoke is rooted in nothing concrete or historical; nor can it be when the family, gender roles, and a good deal else that kept societies together in the past is now under massive and largely successful attack.
This position strikes me as confused. Obviously WNism is progressive in the sense that it seeks to create a new consciousness. But how is that a weakness? It doesn’t seek to remake society en toto, just to add to it. Just to argue that, ceteris paribus, Europeans would be better off without non-Europeans in their midst. Or rather, to argue that Europeans should be free to determine their own destinies (multicult utopia here, Euronationalism here, etc.).
The argument about likelihood is a red herring. Likelihoods depend on power, which WNs don’t have. If WNism became well-represented in the public sphere tomorrow (e.g., a Euronationalist TV channel, radio channels, presence in the media and politics), the likelihood would change immediately. If European Americans could hear our arguments, they’d jump from the multicultural ship by the millions. Because ceteris paribus, Europeans would choose ethnonationalism over multiculturalism. A concerted effort by like-minded people (WNs, BNs, JNs, libertarians, conservatives, serious Christians, survivalists, etc.) might have a chance of repealing so-called anti-discrimination laws, which would go a hell of a long way toward making ethnonationalism the reality on the ground, over time; if a few laws are repealed, radical social change would ensue.
What civilization do liberals have? They’re running the roost without one. Obviously they have McWorld on their side, but a civilization?
Also white nationalists typify what I have described elsewhere as “baseless conservatism,” the attempt to create alternatives to the Left without being able to attract a firm social base. Because of this lack of a social foundation for their ideas, white nationalists may not be able to help us to get beyond our present disintegration.
This is what I mean by confused. This is laughable! Firm social bases come to those with power, not by the strength of their ideas. Leaders need big ideas; followers need leaders. Okay, leaders need followers too, I don’t mean to downplay the chicken or the egg issue there, but come on; do you really think WNism has had a fair hearing? It’s a fringe movement because it’s inimical to the McWorld zeitgeist. It’s only a movement at all (insofar as it is a movement) because of its intellectual power, because its humanism.
The motive here is not the one that we often hear shouted from rooftops, that racialist thinking would open the door to a neo-Nazi takeover or to a return to black slavery.
No, but they’re not far off, insofar as they realize that racialist thinking would upset the entire McWorld apple cart, and spell doom for multiculturalism. Their fears in that regard are not exaggerated. I think they’re quite right to fight it as if the matter is life and death, politically speaking, because it is. If they let racialism get a voice, a seat at the table, they might as well pack their bags and start typing their resumes.
These activists may have come along at a propitious time, when gender relations and family life have become destabilized and when our politics are already becoming markedly post-bourgeois.
It’s ironic, obviously, that liberals created the vacuum themselves.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
And while Europeans selling their coracialists down the river isn’t exactly racial oppression
Upon further reflection, I realize this isn’t true; clearly the oppression in question targets only Europeans, so it manifestly is racial oppression; it’s just not coming from the “other,” at least not in a broad racial sense.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Could it be that what you call “white nationalism” is a fundamental rebellion by this country’s once-dominant racial group against today’s new mainstream? That race doesn’t exist, that traditional cultures must me replaced with artifically imposed “multicultural” ones, and that political/racial oppression is the sole cause of poverty are the governing tenets of our “established church.” Today. Now. What passes for social revolution these days is a showy - and gassy - burlesque opposition to a cultural establishment long vanished.
Could it be that all those politically incorrect potshots enlivening stuffy debate achieve signal excitement simply because they inject our tired, ragged defining fairy tales with a dose of common sense? Our social and political concord has been codified by the Left for decades now, and its intellectual deficiency can no longer be ignored. Yes, we must all be equal under the law, but remaking society to the specifications of hypocritical daydreams is an idea all tapped out. All claptrap useless and counterintuitive may still be trendy to our profoundly corrupt media and academic mafias, but for the rest of us, it’s as distant and irrelevant as finger-daubed cave paintings.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Very interesting discussion, but flawed in several respects.
The major problem is that there seems to be an underlying theme supporting universalism. I don’t believe that universalism is a widely held view amongst the group discussed. Our own group, which doesn’t claim to be a white nationalistic group, also neither claims victim status nor special IQ status, and has made its case at:
http://www.resistingdefamation.org/sub/g46.htm
We believe that universalism is never an argument in support of any trumpeted universal principle in question; it is just an arguing tactic to support the interests of the members of an identifiable group. Until the ideological underpinnings of “universalism” are thoroughly undermined, we will be deceived about the nature of the world and its dominant species. In short, it’s not victim status or IQ status that matters, the problem of our age is the final obliteration of the ideology of universalism, including a great many ungrounded categories of discourse.
The second major problem is that the idea of quoting David Horowitz about what moves diverse white Americans is risible. “David Horowitz has made the valid observation that Taylor and other racial nationalists are imitating the multicultural Left, by presenting white ethnics as a victimized minority.” Surely that must have been meant to give us a laugh by its assertion of a single cause for the growth of self-consciousness in diverse white Americans. More to the point, any kind of white self-determination that is underway at this time is not based on copying others, it is based on over 35 years of name-calling, mockery, expressions of hatred in print and electronic media, discrimination, and all those attempts to name us and define us by the hateful dominant media and corporate entertainment cultures.
The third major problem is that The Great IQ Question is largely bogus and imposed from without. It beggars the imagination to suppose that IQ testing will lead to “a suitable white pride.” Who needs IQ testing when one learns to decode media-speak about criminals, hate crimes, name-calling, and so on? Relying on IQ test results to secure “pride” is an unworthy idea. All that the diverse white American peoples need to do is to develop a decent sense of self-respect, and all else will follow.
It is surprising that an essay that speaks badly of “victim status” should embrace “IQ testing” to the point of predicting the latter as a basis for “pride.” We reject both concepts and look forward to seeing the diverse white Americans grow a decent sense of self-respect.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
This paragraph would make more sense if WNs weren’t so obviously proud (or at least, aware) of European history and the success of western civilization.
But again, yes I agree that WNism is progressive. It has to be; sensible WNs see with perfect clarity that what came before did not protect European EGI (fancy term for the most fundamental of biological imperatives), so something new is needed. Explicit racialism is the only way forward.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Paul
A very interesting piece. Much of it is your impressions, so I guess that it isn’t for me to say whether you are right or wrong. Nevertheless, I have a few comments of a more general nature.
“if white nationalists can demonstrate to the satisfaction of people who count that genetic endowment is a group characteristic and not just an individual fluke”
I can’t believe that any intelligent group would think that this sort of argument ("I am brainier than you therefore I have a right to exist") was going to be a winner. I agree that the scientific evidence says that intelligence is largely inherited, but you can endlessly argue the toss on those sorts of issues with the politically correct (as we have often seen on this web site). Indeed, Europeans aren’t uniquely brainy. Japanese seem to perform better than us. Should we then scrape and bow before the Japanese?
You link environmentalism with socialists. This may well be true in America, for all I know. But, if it is true then American conservatives are making a grave mistake if they are ceding environmentalism to their foes. Environmentalism provides very powerful arguments against a multitude of issues such as globalism, immigration, and rapacious capitalism.
“there may those in their group who have been taken in by Protocols of the Elders of Zion”
I am genuinely curious to learn from a bona fide academic just why Protocols is fraudulent. It seems to be accepted amongst academics that if you even mention Protocols, let alone suggest that it might be a valid document, then you are immediately condemned as an imbecilic neo-Nazi. Such a situation raises my suspicions. From what I have read of it, Protocols seems to be a remarkably prescient text and it is inconceivable to me that such a sophisticated document could have been written by the Czar’s secret police (or similar plods). From what I have read (eg the Wikipedia article on Protocols), there are two major objections to the validity of Protocols: 1. Its dubious provenance - the gentleman who first published it, changed his story as to how he originally came by the text. 2. There are some sections of Protocols that appear to have been plagiarised from an earlier political text. Neither of these seems very compelling arguments to me. In particular, so what if sections are plagiarised? Many famous books (eg Bible) have incorporated pieces from earlier texts, but that doesn’t invalidate the message of the book or show that it is fraudulent.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Ian, I find it hard to believe that TPotLEOZ came from its ostensible authors, rather than someone attempting to impart insight into same. The language just isn’t right. But the predictions are all accurate (IIRC, only skimmed it once years ago), which probably has a lot to do with why it’s unmentionable (the false attribution is the obfuscation for this).
Click to flag this comment as abusive
A comment to Svigor and others who seem to think that “European civilization” is a self-explanatory concept: the Japanese seem to be ethno-centric, but for sure aren’t missing out on the process of de-civilization.
Atheist libertarian white nationalists that I know seem very confused about any positive ideas for the future. Some think leftist propaganda like the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights represent modern Western culture and some think that Christianity made Europe lose its fighting spirit (but somehow not before the 20th century of Christianity).
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I think Taylor claims that almost half his subscribers are Christians.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
a
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“Paleoconservatives, by sharp contrast, follow the European nationalists of the 1920s when they emphasize “national communities” and advocate tariffs to protect “a national work force.” This rightist approach toward economic collectivism…”
While traditionalists/paleos are absolutely correct to reject the economic reductionism and economic man thinking that characterizes too many libertarians, an American conservative ought to be a Constitutionalist (at the minimum if not an Articles of Confederation supporter). And the Constitution simply does not allow much economic meddling at the federal level. Tariffs are clearly allowed, but much other regulation is not. This results in a system that is de facto free-market in effect, and there is not much that more free-market skeptical paleos can propose that is Constitutional. It is not contradictory to oppose an economic man perspective, while at the same time rejecting federal level intervention in the economy. This reflects the politics of human scale that paleos are striving for.
And this gets at the problem with white nationalists. Their nationalism. While most attacks on political correctness are welcome, nationalists often presuppose the current managerial state. Their solutions are not the politics of human scale or the protection of organic communities and order. Just look at their criticisms of paleos. (For not being racial reductionist enough for one.) The white nationalists are a type of post-French Revolution nationalists just like the neocons and multicult leftists they despise.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“the voting public are moving in exactly the opposite direction.”
It has always been my belief that the monster has yet to have been awaken.... i mean, here, in chicago, the rotten rat daley was “elected” with a 20% turn-out.... their softspot = apathy.... DON’T believe the obama hype (i despise mcshamnesty - as any solid paleo should) - like i said - i’m in the belly of the beast - daley’s machine ward in chicago - i don’t know i SINGLE soul - NOT A ONE - gonna pull the lever for obama.... it’s all fluff....
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Jupiter, good example. What article and section of the Constitution allows for federal work safety regulations? State and local regulations are allowable assuming the State constitution allows them, but federal regulations are not.
Please provide a link to the discussion you are referencing.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
As Paul has documented elsewhere, the decayed Protestantism of our time has contributed to self-destructive behavior on the part of WASPs (who turn leftist, usually against their interests). One challenge facing so-called white nationalists would be to explain why this happened. How could an allegedly superior civilization commit suicide? Surely it is too easy to lay all the blame on one’s ideological enemies who couldn’t have won without mass complicity among a largely Christian population.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Grant,
Mass complicity or mass brainwashing by those who control information in this country?
A superior civilization can commit suicide only when it is led to believe that its death will lead to something greater. In this case, a paradise society where we all men embrace as brothers of equality in peaceful harmony. But I suppose you will then ask me how could a civilization, if it is superior, be duped into believing such a fantasy. To this I offer a simple answer. Sinister agents have entered our country and manipulated our own ideology against us.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
the Japanese seem to be ethno-centric, but for sure aren’t missing out on the process of de-civilization.
True, but they aren’t being ethnically cleansed from their own territory, either. Maybe the trouble here is expectations. I don’t expect ethnonationalism to provide me with a unified political theory of everything - I just want it to prevent European race-replacement.
How this is intrinsically hostile to any solutions for other problems is for others to answer, because I don’t know.
Atheist libertarian white nationalists that I know seem very confused about any positive ideas for the future.
I’m an agnostic, not an atheist, though I am somewhat libertarian (in a utilitarian, not an ideological way). But I’m not confused at all about how to stop European race-replacement.
Yes, obviously the expectations are a bit warped here; ethnonationalism won’t solve all problems, nor does it promise to; it’s a sort of base upon which one establishes other, compatible ideologies (which far outnumber incompatible ideologies as far as I can tell).
some think that Christianity made Europe lose its fighting spirit (but somehow not before the 20th century of Christianity).
Christianity lost Europe, but I don’t think Europe was lost because of Christianity.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
So in a sense my net-buddy Fred Scrooby is right, in that fundamentally what we’re referring to as WNism is actually apolitical, at least on my end; I’d be happy with a monarchy, or democracy, or anarchy, or theocracy, or republic, or even socialist state which protected my race/ethny/tribe/whatever from replacement and depradation. Personally I’d prefer something a lot like what the Founders wrought but beggars can’t be choosers.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
And c’mon, the “if whites are so superior, why are they disintegrating” thing is pretty juvenile. WNism isn’t predicated on supremism. It’s predicated on the right and imperative of all things to survive and prosper; pretty basic.
If a group has to be superior, or even worthy, in order to be justified in continued existence, then what’s blacks’ excuse?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Dr. Gottfried,
excellent piece.
I’d like to point out, however, that white nationalists can also pursue a restoration - rootless men bound by mere genetics we do not need to be.
Additionally, IQ and general genetic ability are far from the only concerns. A people are their genetics, and a people ought defend their own just as they defend their close kin and children. Genetics are a heritage and an integral part of the organic societal being. Change the genetics sharply, and the societal being will likely change sharply, or crumble and be reborn into something else.
The identity of genetic descent will always call out to descendants, and some will always listen to this call no matter the upbringing. All civilisations fall, but races within can help support a civilisation until that day. (I realise the distinction between “nation” and “civilisation”, hence my use of the plural, “races.")
Christian whites ought to be as the Biblical Jews.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“The question is in a homogenous Euro-American society, can this legal protection can be devolved to the State level. This far from obvious.I don’t know if devolution is central to the White Nationalist movement..whatever it may be.”
Then you would at least have the intellectual honesty to admit that the Constitution needed to be amende
Devolution is not central to White Nationalism. That is why it is nationalism.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“needed to be amende”
Oops… needed to be amended, wouldn’t you?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Jupiter, I didn’t say anything about immigration. Why are you bringing that up with regards to what I said.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Post 1965 immigration has been a complete disaster for this country. I am not sure I know of a single paleo who would disagree with that, and if they did I would question their paleoness. But secession is a great idea. Secession is a great idea because I am a Southerner before I am an American. This is as it should be, and this is precisely what is wrong with nationalism. It gets this backwards. I think a lot of nationals make an argument based on what they think is practical, not for what is at base what we should be striving for.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
White Nationalism??? With the large amount of minority on White violent crime people should be flocking to it.
The media will never let it get a footing in popular culture.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Native Born White American, what a great identifier. It beats the hell out of Non-hispanic white.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
To Svigor: if the WN movement is into survival, well, why does the rest of the white race not go along with somethin so basic??
To Red Philips: so you’re a secessionist. Well, which South do you want seceding? The South of Andrew Young or the South of Bill Clinton? Which races will belong to this new Dixie? Read S. Francis on the idiocy of the secessionist movement:
http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/sf_infan.html
Click to flag this comment as abusive
anti-strauss, I am well aware that Sam Francis was wrong on the issue of secession, and I am very familiar with the article you linked too. One of the few things he was wrong on.
Actually secession is a good litmus test on the paleo vs. nationalist issue. The nationalists are appalled. We can’t have anyone breaking up the nation state now can we? Shows where your priorities are.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Red:
If the choice is between keeping the nation state and living in a tiny paleo-enclave called the new South (where the no. of paleos won’t even fill up the city of Richmond), I’ll take the nation state any day.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
To Tom:
Who are these sinister agents? And why was our ruling class dumb enough to let them in? Sorry, but maybe many Americans like these policies.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
ian,
Perhaps Dr. Gottfried meant that those who believe environmental influence takes precedence over hereditary influence in human behavior and achievement are environmentalist rather than hereditist in outlook.
When I was engaged in volunteer activities centered around housing improvement in the crime-ridden multi-ethnic urban core of a mid-western college town, the dominant cultural Marxists (supported by a combination of taxpayer funding and private foundation grants) loved to mis-construe the loose correlation between delinquency, crime, and housing conditions. That tactic was cunningly, stunningly effective at driving-out common sense among the otherwise intelligent managers, academics, and attorneys whom I counted as fellow volunteers. Why? Because that carefully crafted lying little statistic was offered as the lone METRIC to rally and manage around. By God, we’ve got a METRIC! Now we can fix everything! And so they set off down a path; pre-selected for them by lying, conniving, cultural Marxist malcontents and failed miserably at fixing anything. Their efforts would have been better spent (more fruitful) had they pursued innovative methods in rolling-back the Diversity.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
What? Jesus didnt believe in equality?
Equals should not be in awe of one another because awe implies inequality. It is therefore an inappropriate reaction to me.... There is nothing about me that you cannot attain. I have nothing that does not come from God. The difference between us now is that I have nothing else. This leaves me in a state which is only potential in you.... I am in [no] way separate or different from you except in time, and time does not really exist (T-1.II.3:5-6,10-4:1).
Who has taught this falsity that all of you, everyone, are somehow not equal? Why do those who do not, by your remarks, believe in GOD work for equality and you do not?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Jared Taylor is married to a jewish woman and does not allow any criticism towards Jews on his website. Only once did he let the debate roam freely on the jewish question. I guess the results weren’t to his liking, since many of the debaters were critical and didn’t even consider Jews as “whites”, so he never brough up the subject again.
Although Jews generally display many good qualities they don’t and will not belong to the same camp as the white nationalists or patriots. In fact, there are so many examples of jewish hatred and sabotage against the very (white) societies they live in that we have to consider them as not being our friends.
This is manifested both individually and collectively among Jews and seems to transcend time and place.
Jews belonged to the anti-white ANC organization and financed and smuggled bombs and weapons for the sake of this communist organization during the apartheid times. Also, they aided the Arabs in a similar and clandestine way in Algeria, against the French, who regarded the Jews as their own.
The Jews should clean up their own house before looking for alliances with the rest of us. Many of them want to sit on two chairs at the same time. The house cleaning could begin with the ADL.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Yes, Cipher, I think you are right. Funny how one gets locked into accepting the currently most popular meaning of a word.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Posted by Red Phillips on Jun 30, 2008.
Red, I think you’re getting hung up on semantics surrounding the word, “nationalism.”
Jupiter is right, the basis of the word is “race.”
And I’d be equally satisfied with a State’s rights solution, or a secessionist one, or a “federalist” one, since none of the three really has much to do (directly) with my goals; but, I think the federalist solution is least likely to work.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
To Svigor: if the WN movement is into survival, well, why does the rest of the white race not go along with somethin so basic??
Because interested parties have invested mountains of money and labor seeing to it that they don’t.
More or less, same reason a guy blows his brains out when his “friend” hands him a loaded .45 and tells him it’s a “joy gun” and shoots “happy bullets.”
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Nation is derived from natus, i.e. born into, as in to be born into a people. It doesn’t refer to the chunk of real estate you’re birthed on.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I’m not sure what “white nationalism” means exactly. But I’d suggest that Jews would be
far better off in a WASP nation, that shares the “Judeo-Christian” value system, then a
population dominated by non-whites---whose culture and religion share NOTHING with Judeaism.
In fact, non-whites tend to be culturally biased against Jews. For instance, most “Latinos”
are old-world Catholics, who share the age old Catholic bias toward Jews as the “murderers” of
Jesus. See Mel Gibson’s movie, which is “old-world” Catholicism in it’s purest form. Ditto
with Arabs and most Asians---Muslims.
It’s the old-fashioned white protestanism, of the John Hagee variety, that support Israel
and a “homeland” for the Jews, for the bizarre reason that Jews need to exist in Israel to
“witness” the second coming.
As a conservative Jew, you might mention that Jews are better off in a “white” nation, then
a “multi-cultural” one.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I am with Red Phillips only I will be in the north after secession. It doesn’t matter how many paleos or what size enclave I am living in. As near as I can tell I am not using up that much territory for my self anyway. Competition is good and if we had a smaller country maybe we would be less inclined to try all the time to be an empire and rob the people of their rights. A quick comment on the IQ issue. If it is in fact true that 30% of IQ is attributed to environment then I would consider that a significant portion still, even though much smaller than the portion attributed to heredity. It would also tend to validate those who stress environment seeing that it is the only thing that can be controlled, at least after an individual is born.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“I have observed that the rising generation cares even less than its parents about holding on to an inherited civilization. Most of my students in Western civ courses have only the vaguest idea of the figures in the Bible (including Jesus)...”
Who cares how much they know about the Bible or the people contained therein?
The whole ‘Judaeo-Christian’ system of morality and thinking needs to be replaced by White/European nationalists because this Judaeo-Christian system has roots in the Near East and NOT in Western/European culture; Judaeo-Christian morality/religion/culture is an alien, imposed system by those forever rootless and cosmopolitan Near Easterners, the Jews. It’s time to shake it off for good.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Nation is derived from natus, i.e. born into, as in to be born into a people. It doesn’t refer to the chunk of real estate you’re birthed on.
Yes, it comes by way of natio (race, tribe, nation).
At this point in time I’ll make a distinction between ordinary Jews and Jewish organizations. Ordinary Jews do complain to me about immigration. I have no idea if this is a random sample.
I say fight fire with fire. As long as Jews lead the way with the “white privilege” sort of argument, I see no advantage to playing nice in return. Blacks are responsible for black leadership; Jews are responsible for Jewish leadership. The number of Jews who dissent from organized Jewry’s assault on Europeans must be relatively miniscule, because as I mentioned above Jews are the world heavyweight champs of political and ethnic organizing and there’s practically no representation for this dissenting viewpoint.
Are these individual Jews who claim dissent necessarily responsible for organized Jewry? No. Do they represent some valid argument about ethnic politics? No.
As a conservative Jew, you might mention that Jews are better off in a “white” nation, then
a “multi-cultural” one.
This argument doesn’t seem to have legs. Jewry seems convinced that it will be better off as one group amongst many (most of whom are more salient vis-a-vis Europeans than Jews are), than alone with Europeans (where Jewishness becomes much more salient).
I think they have a point. I see Jewish interests and European interests as incompatible, intra-nationally. To borrow a phrase from a friend, the sorts of societies that Jews like and find right and healthy are intolerable to Europeans, and the sorts of societies that Europeans like and find right and healthy are intolerable to Jews - irreconcilable differences.
I am with Red Phillips only I will be in the north after secession.
Funny thing is secession would be unnecessary under a legal government; a strict reading of the Constitution would return national power to where it belongs (the States), and there’d be room for different strategies for different populations.
If it is in fact true that 30% of IQ is attributed to environment then I would consider that a significant portion still
Indeed. I never deny this, in fact I repeat it ad nauseum. In fact I go a bit further by illustrating that this split holds only under certain (typical) conditions. Nurture often trumps nature; I don’t care how great a plant’s genes are, if you pour the right herbicide all over it, it’s done for.
It would also tend to validate those who stress environment
Practically nobody “stresses” environment. There are two basic camps: those who acknowledge nature and nuture, and those who acknowledge nurture and deny nature. The latter sometimes call the former “genetic determinists,” by the way, which strikes me as classic projection; environmental determinists painting moderates as determinists is more than a little ironic and hypocritical.
While I personally share Z’s antipathy for Mosaic religion on a certain level (I’m both conflicted and satisfied with my position on the subject), I don’t share his proselytizing attitude. Christians are welcome in my book, as long as they’re allies on the essentials. I try to keep my preferences on the matter to myself. No way in hell could any reasonable man think an intolerant stance toward Christianity can win us many friends amongst our people. Basically, Christianity is important to millions of Europeans, so it’s got to be somewhat important to me, too.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
The problem with the White Nationalism as described by Professor Gottfried is that it is a
knee-jerk reaction by cosmopolitan whites to the fact that their gated communities and lily
suburbs cannot any longer hide the diversity that’s encroaching all around them. Why else
would start a white nationalist society of Jews in New York if not for visceral reaction to
having one of the kin raped by a black man? You mean there was no reason to do so before?
It’s good thing to see an emerging movement throw off its PC shackles and confront the racial
hypocracies that are all around us. However, such a movement would very limited in what it
could accomplish because, as Professor Gottfried pointed out “they have no civilization.”
Indeed, even if they devloped full conciousness of themselves as whites it would make no
difference because in where they live they would still be surrounded and still be repressed in
their expressions by the powers that be.
One cannot have a civilization without a place. Given this discussion, my facetious suggestion
that white nationalists settle themselves in the empty quarters of the United States on the
website Conservative Heritage Times (http://www.conservativetimes.org) is becoming more serious.
This is a bigger country than I believe some people really imagine and there are many places
in states that you live in that could easily be settled by white nationalists and turned into
seperate communities. And that doesn’t just mean booking trips to western Kansas, Nebraska or the
Dakotas. It could meaning moving from New York City to Upstate or moving from D.C. to the
Delmarva Peninsula or southwest Virginia. If as Profressor Gottfried the white nationalists \
he knows are educated professionals, then these are the very kinds of human capital that such
“forgotten places” in our country need in order to keep surviving.
Look at it this way, who are the most successful white nationalists out there right now? The
Amish and Mennonites of course, because they “keep thyselves ye seperate”, not because
they’ve abandoned technology or live on farms. They are successful because they have
a civilization.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Secession means no longer having a very large ocean between China and India. Now China,India and Pakistan will be one inch over the White homeland bounary. Secession is an infantile fantaasy. WE didn’t win WW11 being tolerant of our enemies.
Honestly, I think everyone here over at vdare.com and every imigration reform organization knows whats at stake. But there is great fear about contemplating the unthinkable and inevitable. How did White America deal threats to its existence in the past?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
They are successful because they have
a civilization.
Ah, I guess I was being a bit dense. YES, in this sense WNs lack a civilization.
But, so did everyone else, ‘til they got one. :)
Nope, no confusion on this one for me now, this is definitely the central problem of WNism.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
And the possibility that the only whites left will be the WNs who get a civilization is looming.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
As a white ethnic that has embraced European cultural and genetic survival as the political fulcrum of my life I reject, by and large, many of the fundamental tenets of what most white nationalists do and say. You could say the signal to noise ratio is difficult to ascertain. Most WN’s are hopelessly reactionary and aspire to an America or culture that is no longer existent. Most spend an inordinate amount of energy on Christianity which as a non Christian I have no patience for. For my philosophical imperative I turn to the social and metapolitical theory’s of the European New Right (nouvelle droit) to look beyond mere racial quantifiers for understanding culture, values, and ethics that are the best opportunity to reclaim our heritage from the liberal and cultural Marxist interpretation of history. With this framework in mind I advocate National Anarchism as a post white nationalism that distills the unnecessary, and quite simply rude, insistence of reenacting the Third Reich or Confederate South. Nationalism as understood by Julius Evola and the New Right expresses itself in two ways, in a lower brutish sense of targeting the different and enforcing ethical homogeneity or the higher elated sense of duty and purpose (that you wrote about tradition) that transcends and unifies groups of human beings for a common purpose. As such I reject out of hand that conservatism (there is little worth conserving) is sufficient to handle this task. I see all aspects of environmentalism as a far more serious and worthy task to pursue for nationalists then what has been abandoned to the Left. The elites and their media tools will lead the masses into which ever direction they want. It is up to us- of all races- to provide No Platform to those who would destroy our communities.
For revolution,
BANA
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Who exactly are the gay pride white nationalists Gottfried is talking about?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“the Japanese seem to be ethno-centric, but for sure aren’t missing out on the process of de-civilization.”
Yes but they’re retaining the possibility of a “Japanese Renaissance.”
So you can kinda see why WN-ists think their issue is so important.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Blut und Boden beschwören kann Glut und Tote bescheren.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Hi McCluck,
“Secession means no longer having a very large ocean between China and India. Now China,India and Pakistan will be one inch over the White homeland bounary. Secession is an infantile fantaasy.”
The U.S. “revolution” was a secessionist war. Natives, Mexicans, and African slaves lived well within the boundaries of the new American homeland.
“WE didn’t win WW11 being tolerant of our enemies.”
Precisely my point.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“I don’t think that Native Born White Americans can fight against this by devolving into a bunch a waring tribes within the borders of America.
That is what Committees of Correspondence are for.
“This is why I think secession is a really bad idea.”
I don’t believe you. One moment your opposition to secession is based upon the fear of warring White tribes. The next moment your opposition is due to the existence of Chinese and Indians within the American homeland. Even fools know that the latter situation already exists and is getting worse everyday. No, your opposition to secession is based upon something else.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“Most WN’s are hopelessly reactionary and aspire to an America or culture that is no longer existent.”
That is because they are not genuine White nationalists. They are conservative, fearful, and long for somebody other than themselves to resuscitate the long dead Republic. Most will unhesitatingly sacrifice working Whites to preserve an urban, easy money lifestyle within gated, mostly-White communities. Are they against immigration? Absolutely, as long as Rosa the housekeeper and Manuel the gardener are not deported, and sleep on the opposite of the tracks in the evening. There is a need for a new, productive and positive White nationalism.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
The biggest obstacle for WN is lack of dissemination power. There is no question in my mind that if WN had control of one cable news station, one nationally syndicated radio station, and one movie production company, that WN would overtake “conservatism” as the country’s right wing representation.
But (and this is a big but) WN is nowhere close to having any of this.
So this begs the question of what WN can do now? There is no question that Whites are growing tired of diversity and liberalism. As the country becomes more diverse, Whites will become more open to a movement that can serve their interests.
Until that time, it would behoove WN to create a solid ideology. This ideology must be more than just IQ scores or interracial crime statistics. It must be almost religious in nature. It needs to be a way of life. It needs to give the masses something to fill the voids in their lives that beer, football, sex, and TV can’t do.
It must be part motivational book, part geopolitical vision, part spiritual guide, and part vision for a better world. It needs to provide the white masses with an explanation of why the world is what it is, how it got this way, the way of changing it, and a future to look forward to.
It must be interesting enough for intellectuals, but simple enough for the working man. Most of all however, IT MUST BE REVOLUTIONARY! And since the ADL or SPLC is probably reading this, when I say REVOLUTIONARY, I mean spiritual revolution. Because a revolution of the spirit is a million times more power than a revolution of arms. I know this disappoints the ADL and SPLC, as they like to make WN out to be an ideology of “hate.”
You see, WN is so powerful of an idea, that violence would only be a distraction. IOW, WN is “RIGHT.” And the people over at the SPLC know its right. If they were that confident in its inadequacy, they would be willing to debate WN on national TV. Instead, they demonize it without allowing WN to defend itself.
Bottom line, WN is just getting started.
A new dawn is rising.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“A New Dawn”?
Outright Liberalism.
You “White Nationalists” continue to prove my point: “White Nationalism” isn’t a traditionalist movement, it’s not a conservative movement, it is pure Liberal Revolution.
To everyone:
Happy 6th Day of the Octave of the Feast Day of Saints Peter and Paul!!!
I never understood why there are fireworks to celebrate the 6th day of an octave...but I enjoy them anyhow.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I fully agree with A.N Dawn, above. A WN movement must be revolutionary. I have said for years that a basic function of WN movement is to allow racially-conscious whites to network with one another, to start building community.
Personally I don’t see that WNs and paleocons are mutually exclusive. We could work together. WNs could focus on practical politics, gaining seats in the legislatures, getting onto the school board. WNs could act as the “muscle,” forcing non-whites out of white neighborhoods, for example.
Paleocons could supply research and analysis work, devise the school curriculum, staff the media organs and universities, etc.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I’ve just come over to this site from amren.com
I must say I am very impressed with the quality of conversation here.
Kudos to all involved.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“You “White Nationalists” continue to prove my point: “White Nationalism” isn’t a traditionalist movement, it’s not a conservative movement, it is pure Liberal Revolution.” (Patrick Hall)
You are correct, WN wishes to “Conserve” nothing. But as for your accusation that WN wants “Liberal Revolution,” I think you need to rethink this.
There may be some argument that WN wants to “conserve” its genetic heritage? But, after some further thought, I think its more accurate to say that WN wants to improve it.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
One thing that some people above are missing is that Jews ARE Europeans. The history of Euroepan civilization could not be written without including Jews, for at least two thousand years. Israel today cannot exist except as a kind of proto-European colony in the ME.
I see Jewish interests and European interests as incompatible, intra-nationally. To borrow a phrase from a friend, the sorts of societies that Jews like and find right and healthy are intolerable to Europeans, and the sorts of societies that Europeans like and find right and healthy are intolerable to Jews - irreconcilable differences.
And the kinds of societies that the Irish like are not the sort of societies that the Italians like, etc. etc.
The reasons that the Jews currently combine ethnic protectionism and preaching for a “multicultural” society are readily evident in Jewish history as a European minority group. One big problem with WN is that it ignores divisions within the white European race, divisions that quite recently caused near-genocidal wars within the European community. And I’m not just talking about Jews here—the Nazis killed more Slavs than Jews, but who here is willing to argue that the descendants of Slavs in the U.S. are not European? One can also look at WWI between the undeniably ethnically European British, French, and Germans. These conflicts, more than tepid contemporary liberalism, were instrumental in the loss of European civilizational self-confidence.
One can’t simply wish away the problem of social solidarity by pinning it on race. That demonstrably doesn’t work. Without an immediately present external enemy, large-scale races fragment along the lines of smaller ethnicities which then conflict.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
MQ, the “White Nationalists” believe the “White” people that deny their affinity for all other “Whites” (as they define the word - if you don’t like their definition, you are the “enemy") should have war waged upon them.
No, seriously, they consider local cultures that wish to separate themselves from this “Great White Nation” as being traitors, and deserve nothing but destruction: see Abraham Lincoln.
Now, if you’re “not White”, then you don’t belong to their club. Being “not White” could mean being Italian, or Greek, or Armenian, or Spanish in some cases, or maybe even Irish among some “old school” White Nationalists.
It’s all so very very weird.
When it gets down to it, White Nationalism is like all other forms of FALSE nationalism: Liberal.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
PH: “Now, is your “not White”, then you don’t belong to their club.”
I, as a White Nationalist, want to ensure the genetic continuity of the Europid race.
I also would like to preserve the genetic diversity of the Europid race. It is a fine thing to ensure that the English, the Dutch, the Germans, the French, the Italians, and the Spanish do not perish from this earth.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“A New Dawn”?
Outright Liberalism.
No, WN is humanist and anti-liberal (nothing so sacred to liberalism as their racial creed; everything else seems negotiable). Progressive (revolutionary, if you will) maybe, in a literal sense.
But everything BUT liberalism (and its close relatives) is progressive (revolutionary) in the same sense, these days.
You “White Nationalists” continue to prove my point: “White Nationalism” isn’t a traditionalist movement, it’s not a conservative movement, it is pure Liberal Revolution.
Maybe you should reiterate your point for the benefit of the thread, because at this point it’s seeming a bit facile.
How can a “pure” Liberal Revolution even oppose liberalism? Liberal Revolution is a fait accompli!
WNs know full well there’s a degree of progressivism (revolution) in WNism (how much of that is “reactionary” and how much is truly “progressive” or “revolutionary” is debatable).
But as I said, EVERYTHING is progressive/revolutionary these days.
And the fact is that what came before the Liberal Revolution didn’t protect against it (and not for incidental reasons; the flaw was one of design, or lack thereof). So a return to precisely what came before it would be monumental stupidity - insanity in the Einsteinian sense. We’re going to need something new to combat liberalism and defend against it.
MQ:
One thing that some people above are missing is that Jews ARE Europeans.
Not psychologically.
The history of Euroepan civilization could not be written without including Jews, for at least two thousand years.
This argument has a specious sort of appeal, implying more than it actually states. No, you can’t write the history of Europe without including the Hebrews (once they became Jews their importance faded). Yes, Europeans would’ve done fine (almost certainly better, actually) without either.
Israel today cannot exist except as a kind of proto-European colony in the ME.
I think Jews need us, and we don’t need them.
“I see Jewish interests and European interests as incompatible, intra-nationally. To borrow a phrase from a friend, the sorts of societies that Jews like and find right and healthy are intolerable to Europeans, and the sorts of societies that Europeans like and find right and healthy are intolerable to Jews - irreconcilable differences.”
And the kinds of societies that the Irish like are not the sort of societies that the Italians like, etc. etc.
Indeed, though there’s a big difference of degree there. There’s no Irish or Italian culture of critique (though Irish punch way above their weight when it comes to wrecking Anglo-Saxon civilization).
The reasons that the Jews currently combine ethnic protectionism and preaching for a “multicultural” society are readily evident in Jewish history as a European minority group.
A big part of the reason that Jews have the history they do is because of their ethnocentrism and behavior toward other groups. Regardless of where one points the finger, and what effects one attributes to which causes, the problem is persistent (sort of like the nature-nurture arguments vis-a-vis black failure). Irreconcilable differences.
One big problem with WN is that it ignores divisions within the white European race, divisions that quite recently caused near-genocidal wars within the European community. And I’m not just talking about Jews here—the Nazis killed more Slavs than Jews, but who here is willing to argue that the descendants of Slavs in the U.S. are not European? One can also look at WWI between the undeniably ethnically European British, French, and Germans. These conflicts, more than tepid contemporary liberalism, were instrumental in the loss of European civilizational self-confidence.
I know lots of WNs who don’t ignore divisions within the European race. There’s a big split here between Europe and America. In America it makes sense to refer to “whites,” whereas in Europe not so much; there I think the best place to start thinking about race is at the national level.
I don’t get your point about the Slavs. Are you asking if WNs consider them European? Most undoubtedly do, myself included (not that there are no intra-European racial differences, mind). Sure, the great wars are a contributing factor. But what argument are you making here? That Jews can’t be a problem, because the wars are? Or that Jews aren’t a problem, because the wars are a bigger one?
That may be true in Europe, but it’s obviously not true of America.
One can’t simply wish away the problem of social solidarity by pinning it on race. That demonstrably doesn’t work. Without an immediately present external enemy, large-scale races fragment along the lines of smaller ethnicities which then conflict.
(Is the third sentence the only support you have for the first two, or is there more?)
Yes, but the level of conflict is reduced. It’s not just a zero-sum game. The more homogeneity along any given axis, the less heterogeneity-driven conflict you’ll have. How can you have (continental-level) racial conflict without different (continental-level) races within the same area and body politic? How can you have (intra-continental-level) racial conflict without different (intra-continental-level) races within the same area and body politic? Same goes for ethnic, cultural, religious, and lingual divisions.
To think otherwise is to think humans are programmed for a consistent level of conflict (which doesn’t vary with human biodiversity) and nothing will ever reduce it; this is demonstrably false. The idea that diversity isn’t a source of conflict is also demonstrably false.
PH:
MQ, the “White Nationalists” believe the “White” people that deny their affinity for all other “Whites” (as they define the word - if you don’t like their definition, you are the “enemy") should have war waged upon them.
Wrong. WNs believe to be (political, social) enemies those Europeans who oppose the right of other Europeans to self-determination and free association, and the right of opting out of the enforced multiculturalist, multiracialist, race-replacement regime. If a portion of the European races wants to live in a multiracial utopia, by all means Godspeed. If they reciprocate our respect for their rights, then there’s no reason for conflict.
I mean really, how absurd is it to think that WNs would want bleeding heart, miscegenationist Europeans living (involuntarily) within a European ethnostate? What, we just can’t live without hypocritical limousine liberals? We just gotta have a fifth column in our midst, so we can start the problems all over again?
No. In fact, the only forcing I’d consider doing would be forbidding them entry, not forcing them in. Otherwise I’d feel a bit too much in common with the current regime.
No, seriously, they consider local cultures that wish to separate themselves from this “Great White Nation” as being traitors, and deserve nothing but destruction: see Abraham Lincoln.
Nonsense. As I explained above, you have things ass backwards here.
Now, if you’re “not White”, then you don’t belong to their club. Being “not White” could mean being Italian, or Greek, or Armenian, or Spanish in some cases, or maybe even Irish among some “old school” White Nationalists.
So, it’s your modus operandi to take a minority of a body of people, and use it to characterize the entire body? Liberals are all hard-core west-hating communists? Democrats are all genocidal Mother Nature worshippers? Libertarians are all survivalist wackos? Conservatives are all fundamentalist Christian anti-abortion terrorists? Republicans all want to rape the Earth and exterminate all Muslims?
On the other hand, I see no great, theoretical distinction between WNism that encircles all Europeans, and one that encirles only Northern Europeans, or Mediterraneans, Czechs, Greeks, Russians, the English, the French, etc. The essentials all remain the same.
What’s so bad about excluding people from consideration in one’s group? (and you’ve tried to pin the “liberal” tail on me?)
It’s all so very very weird.
Yes, the Bizarro World of your straw men is very very weird.
When it gets down to it, White Nationalism is like all other forms of FALSE nationalism: Liberal.
Try something substantive. Playing pin the “liberal” on the donkey makes your arguments seem weak.
(btw, by implication there’s very little in your worldview BUT the liberal definition available to us for TRUE nationalism; sounds like propositional nationhood to me, and if that isn’t neokhan/liberal, what is?)
Click to flag this comment as abusive
LOL, I see that Zmirak’s Sorority is now closed. I guess he got tired of reading all those inconvenient questions - questions he has yet to answer.
If he does choose to answer at some point in future, I have little doubt I’ll be amused by what he chooses to answer honestly (I’m guessing this’ll be the smallest slice of the pie), what he chooses to answer tendentiously (probably a bigger slice), and what he chooses to pretend was never asked, or was beneath his notice (probably the lion’s share).
He doesn’t seem to be very interested in learning anything, just in triangulating.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“Outright Liberalism.”
LOL hahah....!
This idea that WN is “outright liberalism” probably says more about the American political psyche than anything else. Most Americans can only think of politics within the right-left continuum. Therefore if its not “conservatism,” it must be “liberalism?”
Click to flag this comment as abusive
There is a very biased article about ‘White nationalism’ over at the liberal AlterNet website: http://www.alternet.org/immigration/89745
Just passing the info along.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Many Whites/Europeans need to realize that race/ethnicity must ALWAYS trump politics and religion, as there is simply too much petty political and religious bickering sloshing about among modern-day Whites/Europeans and this is extraordinarily divisive on both the micro and macro levels.
Race/ethnicity is literally in our blood and is so incredibly basic and primordial (biological), while political and religious systems/theories are a dime a dozen and are (by comparison) a fairly recent development in human history. In other words, race/ethnicity is very deep while political and religious beliefs are (by comparison) extremely shallow.
In the past, under which humans evolved from a biological and anthropological/evolutionary standpoint, there was only one ‘political party’ since the ‘state’ or ‘nation’ as we have come to know it had not yet come in to being—the only ‘political party’ during the vast bulk of human history was that of blood ties and kin-groups, links formed by a common ancestry, and the ethnically/racially based tribe or clan. Religion is perhaps more complicated because religious systems seem to have predated political systems, though it seems that religious systems were/are often precursors or forerunners of political systems.
An anology: if you build a house it needs a good, solid foundation first and foremost if it is to be a strong and sturdy structure. White nationalists believe that Whites/Europeans should define this foundation as a strong sense of ethnic/racial consciousness and group cohesion amongst Whites/Europeans, and I agree. Whites/Europeans should realize that we need to all live within the same house, all of us living upon this strong foundation in order to protect our basic ethnic/racial genetic interests—we should also realize that it’s tolerable if we inhabit separate rooms and hold differing cultural, religious, or political viewpoints as long as we all still live in the same house and continue working together at the basic ethnic/racial level. This is why ‘ethnic nationalism’ and the concept of the ‘ethnostate’ is so important but has largely been forgotten or ignored by Whites/Europeans in the post-WWII era (much to our detriment).
First and foremost, people of White/European descent need to use race/ethnicity as THE major focal/rallying point (the foundation; i.e., we all live under the same roof), and only after we are united as a cohesive racial/ethnic macro-community can we then amicably and peacefully splinter in to the many cultural, political, and/or religious groups (i.e., inhabit separate rooms within the same structure).
Taken in totality, Whites/Europeans are conservatives and liberals, reds and greens and blues and browns, anarchists and fascists, etc. We are Christians and Neopagans, Deists and Taoists, agnostics and atheists, or whatever else we wish to religiously profess. Some are capitalists while others are socialists, and many are a little bit of both. As the Western tradition has shown us, having differing opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints (along with engaging in constructive criticism) is perfectly healthy and natural because there is always room for social, economic, religious, and political improvement in any society or culture. But let Whites/European only splinter by cultural, political, and/or religious beliefs/affiliation AFTER they have first been united by their basic ethnic/racial ties, united above all of the political and religious bickering by their common White/European heritage. This is the key to a successful White nationalist movement.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
The most funny thing about these “white nationalists” is that they ignore the fact that time and nature will ultimately win in the future.
The funniest thing about WNism is all the completely wrong-headed ideas people have about it, almost always derived from anywhere but WNs themselves. Your post is a good example; where did you get all these nonsensical ideas about WNism?
To want to keep the status quo on the “white race” as it currently exists is just as realistic as trying to cheat death.
Your straw man is yet another inhabitant of Bizarro World, probably on the same street as PH’s straw men.
WNs don’t want to “freeze” anything. Read up on speciation and how it occurs. Then consider how speciation could ever occur without reproductive isolation.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Surprise!
Paul Gottfried is a Jew with a Jewish perspective on white nationalism.
Who woulda thunk it and say it ain’t so!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give Taki's Magazine permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. Personal attacks, ethnic slurs, the riding of hobby horses and the beating of dead ones will be deleted as soon as they are detected by our small but alert staff. Repeat abusers of this policy will be barred from leaving comments. All comments reflect only the views of those posting them and not necessarily those of this website, its editors, or authors. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
Commenting is not available in this section entry.