Monday, November 18, 2013

Why the future of nationalism is far from the mess that is "White Nationalism"

As a traditionalist conservative, I recognize many modern doctrines under their ancient and more representative forms.
Thus for me, racism is a dead letter, but nationalism -- ethno-cultural self-rule for every ethnic and religious group on earth -- is one essential tenet of any happy society. Relative homogeneity allows evolution, where diversity is devolution through averaging.
At this point however, we need to ask ourselves whether we as a people want to survive. This applies to all European ethnic groups, moreso than those in the third world, as they are not experiencing mass immigration seeking wealth built over centuries.
Most Caucasian people want to self-destruct because first-world society is insufferable. It is ugly, tedious, based on obedience and power games, cruel and worst of all, pointless. We work too much, and wait in too many lines, for this illusion of tolerance and equality. Nonsense ideological doctrines like those are epitaphs of formerly great empires.
If we decide to survive, we must find some way of approaching The National Question. My advice is that we avoid being indirect, and simply state what we want: we want to live among our own and rule ourselves by culture, not Nanny State soft totalitarian government.
Among the indirect approaches are two that have been historically proven not to work. The first is the mainstream Republican method of never speaking of the problem, and the second is the underground far-right method of becoming Hollywood Nazis in an attempt to "wake up the sheeple."
The former approach never states an actual plan, and the latter states a plan that confuses appearance with actual need, and thus ends up being a horrible re-enactment of the worst of the WWI-WWII era as acted out by the stereotypes of Western Media.
I'm not the only one to see this. As The White Voice writes:
We at The White Voice are merely normal White people who see modern racial issues for what they are and commentate on how they affect our community. We believe in establishing a White collective through which Whites can operate and mobilize for their best interests. Ultimately our goal is a White homeland but done so the right way.
We are certainly not a part of whatever the "White power" or "White nationalist" movements are. These freaks who march around carrying Swastika flags while goose stepping doing Roman salutes do not represent our interests and are doing their part in scaring people away from White identitarianism.
...
Far too many people say that unless you are taking a "hardcore," screaming in people's face approach, you are wasting your time. No, it is you who is wasting your time trying to bait us into making asses of ourselves. The enemies of Western civilization enjoy your silliness but are afraid of those of us who are normal and reflect the way many Whites feel.
This is written in the context of an article about Craig Cobb, but knowing almost nothing about that situation and having seen thoughtful work by Mr. Cobb in the past, I have left that portion out of this analysis. It's more important we focus on the bigger picture: the future of nationalist politics.
To my mind, it's a mistake to identify as pro-white or neo-Nazi when what we want is much simpler. We want a nationalist world order. That means that each nation rules itself, makes its own rules, and does so through culture instead of the bureaucratic governments that absorb infinite money, make crazy rules, become corrupt, and kick down your door in the night because you said something socially unpopular on Farcebook or Twitless.
In my view, those who want to be "pro-white" should shift to this generalized nationalist program, and then realize that the left will never support them because nationalism conflicts with the leftist need for radical individualism.
To a leftist, if national borders or rules would cause them personal inconvenience, they must go, regardless of consequences. They will never support nationalism, culture, majoritarian or identitarian politics; instead, they will always oppose those.
This leaves us with the right, since there are only two generalized political directions: reality-referential (conservative) or socially-referential (leftist, liberal, socialist, communist, progressive, anarchist, etc.). If you trust reality and your own soul more than social groups, you're a latent conservative.
Conservatism has an answer to The National Question, which is to allow freedom of association and to un-do the liberal legislation enforcing diversity -- multiculturalism, internationalism, tolerance and cosmopolitanism are synonyms for this -- on a population that wants to be nice, but at some level doesn't want to obliterate itself.
Hollywood Nazis make us feel shame, guilt and pity. Responsible conservatives do not. It's time to put away the costumes and accessories, shelve the fetishes and conceits, and instead look at the practical task ahead of us, which is rebuilding our nations after centuries of neglect and abuse.

2 comments:

  1. Thanks for the repost of my words.

    It's about taking yup a major and necessary task the right way that doesn't set negative precedent for those who want to do it positively in the future.

    Now, for those of us who want to do it the right way people will say "look to that guy Cobb, the swastika flags are coming!"

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous3:36 PM

    the only thing that is dead is conservatism. in the future it will be fight or flight, survive or perish. not racialism v. racism, nationalism v. xenophobia, etc., and after decades of worrying about the masses, it will be the exact reverse - they will beg the bands of whites who are ready to take them in and protect them in a community. whites have not had their entire world come to an end, as uprooted as it is today. all these silly distinctions exist because the war has not truly come home yet.

    ReplyDelete

Subvert the dominant paradigm, don't be a solipsist.