Weight in on the demise of white nationalism as we know it, which seems to be the issue of the week, Counter-Currents has declared the demise of white nationalism to be followed by something like Billy Roper’s “balkanization” theory:
Without white people having an interest in “white America”—not because it never existed, but because it is dead—and without the advantage of military strength, on what grounds should we call ourselves “white nationalists?” In the most semantically precise sense of the word, it may be accurate: nation, after all, refers to a people, and is separate in meaning from the geopolitical entity we call a state. But for most people, “white nationalist” means “white statist,” especially if that state happens to look similar to the United States in its current shape.
…Towards this end, whites should work at a local level to establish healthy and functional communities: tribes that challenge and enrich each others lives. They are agile, adaptive, and bring out the best in their members, from whom they derive their strength.
This follows a great article by Jack Donovan entitled “Why I Am Not A White Nationalist” in which he lays down roughly the same theory:
In fact, there’s very little new to say, except that, if anything, I’ve learned to hate white people and White Nationalists more than any of their opponents. Not because they are evil monsters, but because they generally suck. I hate white people and White Nationalists because they are weak, broken, phenomenally autistic, or all three.
…As anyone familiar with my work knows, I support tribalism always and everywhere. As the 1970’s motto goes, I believe that “small is beautiful” when it comes to human communities. However, a tribal community has to have a lot more going for it than race. And this is where the idea of White Nationalism falls apart for me. Race alone isn’t enough to unite a people.
…America is pluralistic by design not because the Founding Fathers wanted to protect the rights of women or racial or sexual minorities — but because white European Christian men have spent centuries murdering and imprisoning each other over religious differences. I see no reason why this phenomenon would not immediately become a problem within a “diverse” population of whites.
This follows by twelve years my own critique which takes several forms, but includes the fundamental accusation that white nationalism is a form of ethno-Bolshevism:
White power movements have simple dogmas: “if it’s white, it’s right” and the idea that if all non-whites are excluded, society will somehow become good “again.” They address (what they see as) a symptom, and not the problem. They also ignore almost all other important issues outside of race. It is as if they are more provocateurs than political thinkers, here to hit us with a quick and repellent suggestion before fading away, laughing at our discomfort in their discontent. They are not alone in this, since almost every special interest group from Environmentalists to Pro-Lifers to Black Power groups falls into this category; it may be a failing of our political system itself that makes agreement so difficult that political movements must be distilled to the ultimate simplicity and singular focus. But if all non-whites died tomorrow, what would happen? The basic problems of whites would remain.
We can distill these problems to two things:
- Predominance of low-quality whites.
- White society in the grips of an insane design of a civilization.
In addressing the first, we have to look at the problem this way: not all things Caucasian are identical. Any society, no matter how wonderful, produces destructive or stupid people; this is the nature of genetic recombination and environmental factors. If you plant a field of corn, you’re going to end up culling the weak plants and the mutants that do not have beneficial attributes. With every generation, some great people are born, and some weaker — inferior — ones. If the culture in question manages to have the great people breed more than the weaker, it rises to a higher overall standard. If not — decline. And what has happened in white culture? First we overthrew the aristocracy and guaranteed universal rights. This places the choices and attributes of the individual beyond criticism. It’s illegal, immoral or some combination thereof to discriminate against people because they are delusional, stupid, corrupt, disgusting, ugly, perverse, etc. This leads to a reversal of the equation of healthy societies, and explains why white societies have gone from producing Beethovens and Shakespeares to Britney Spears and Anne Coulter.
It also includes some more vitriolic criticism:
While we support Nationalism and the Indo-European tribes, the members of this site have nothing to do with neo-Nazi, White Nationalist, or White Power groups. And this isn’t because of social taboo: we agree with said groups on many things, most fundamentally that Indo-Europeans (“Caucasians”,”whites”) have the right to establish nations where no other races are welcome as residents. This is nationalism, by its very definition (nation = a people), and in my belief it should be extended to every ethnic group, from Basque to Eskimo.
…Further, “white power” people want to accept all “whites” as being of the same tribe, which is error. The French are distinct from the Germans and Scotts for historical reasons, and the differences which define them as a tribe are important to preserve in each case. Any “white nationalist” who endorses mixing Indo-European tribes clearly doesn’t understand nationalism, which is the independence and isolation of every ethnic group, not their mixing because of nearby ancestry. I view mixed “white” people as English, and you can find these populations in the majority in the UK, US, Canada and Australia. If these Alpinized Germanocelts wish to create their own ethnicity, they can, by eugenics, eventually define themselves ethnically as well as politically.
I could go on. White nationalists don’t understand caste; they believe in societies without distinction. While I’m no fan of class, which uses the insane doctrine of social Darwinism to rank us by “ability” according to how much money we’re willing to earn, “caste” makes sense to me. Some were born to be warriors, some to be priests, some to be leaders, and some to be cooks. Each job is vital and none is more important than the others. Mixing those together produces people with no specialization who are thus incompetent at any and every job they undertake.
It gets even more extreme:
Mixtures of caste, race and background have produced people of a lowest common denominator, who can agree on sports and television and movies and music, but not much else, and are swayed by the simplest argument presented to them. Therefore, they in every case opt for the most simplistic and idiotic solution to any problem. The “white nationalist” approach is not to change this basic tendency, but to play into it.
I’m not interested in saving the world, or saving “the white race”; I’m interested in solving the ideological split among white people (because this is my race, and for no other reason; were I black, I wouldn’t give a damn at all and it wouldn’t be any of my business; hence, I have the same disinterest in the black race) and in nurturing and giving power to those “white” people who have brains, strength, character and moral leadership ability. Most of you, including the squareskulls who hang around “White Nationalist” outfits, I don’t care about saving or even aiding.
There are some other idiots who reject “white nationalism” and talk about the importance of some “new future movement” but these people are just as stupid: they don’t realize that no new answers are needed, because the answers never change regarding the biggest questions in life. Technology changes; what PDA do I use? But questions of culture, breeding, education and character never do and never will. Nothing will ever change the basic parameters of mortality and thus, a certain amount to accomplish before death, and certain behaviors that are ascendant and others that bring one closer to the lowest common denominator.
Among other things, I criticized white nationalism for avoiding the problem of caste, which is the social order that glues a society together. Without order, we are rabble; mass culture always shifts Leftward, and this has been our problem for centuries. White nationalism does not address this.
My thinking has advanced since that time. I agree with Roper and Donovan that we are going to balkanize into small tribes, but from those are going to come larger nations, united by type of European (Western, Eastern or Southern) and held together by strong culture, a caste system and aristocratic leadership. These are the only way to have civilization, and we are rediscovering it.
The death of white nationalism cannot come too soon. Simplistic solutions will not beat decay; only new life will. New life consists in accepting that humanity has never changed and so, the ideal form of our civilization has never changed, and we only must accept this traditional form and then attempt to improve it qualitatively as we can.
As Bruce Charlton and Mencius Moldbug both point out, modernity is a religion in which there is only one god, the Self. From this comes egalitarianism, where the individualist Self demands that no one can tell it that it is wrong and thus exclude it on that basis, and all other variants of modernity, including band-aids like National Socialism, Communism, Socialism and white nationalism.
We need more than just a band-aid. We need to escape from this entire system. White nationalism will not do it, but more comprehensive civilizational structures will. It is time for all of us to recognize the real enemy, modernity and its root in the ego, and opt for order and virtue instead through a traditional civilization.