White Nationalism failed because it incorporates too much liberalism

franz_ferdinand

If you grew up after 1789, when the French Revolution formalized liberalism as the Western doctrine, you have grown up indoctrinated in Leftist propaganda. Any idea with its root in egalitarianism, or the equality of all people, is leftist.

This includes democracy, freedom, equality, diversity, pluralism, consumerism and… White Nationalism. While Nationalism itself is an idea as old as time, namely that the ethnic tribe constitutes the nation, White Nationalism is like National Socialism a modern creation. In other words: a liberal version of an ancient conservative idea.

White Nationalism misses the point. This is not red team versus blue team; it is how to save the West from imploding thanks to the influence of democracy, and through that, individualism. We need culture, cooperation and purpose to return and to rule ourselves with kings, not votes, because votes and purchases are made by groups who demonstrate the salient trait of humans, which is vanity as individuals and mass delusion as groups.

Anything short of that is failure. Our current society is a disaster and an unpleasant existential experience because it is failing. All of our institutions are inferior substitutes, our leaders are all corrupt salesmen, the voters are delusional and oblivious, and our culture has become dumbed-down mass appeal madness. This cannot be fixed solely by driving out the ethnic Other. We must fix ourselves, too.

Over at the $PLC, Derek Black makes some interesting points in the midst of groveling and logical fallacies:

Promoting a victim complex for whites does not recognize the oppressed experiences of others not in the position of a white person in society

He may have taken another bad direction into liberalism, but he has a good point about victim complexes. We do not need a victim complex; we need a can-do “let’s fix this” culture. The two are opposites.

White nationalism supports the premise that multiculturalism is a failure, and that politicians trapped in a multicultural status quo are oppressing white people in “their own country.”

Here he is correct, but he misses the underlying point: white people voted for this. Voting transforms individuals into a scared, pretentious herd that always votes for easy lies instead of honest solutions. The solution is to end democracy.

On the other hand, white nationalists consider white people in the US to be ostensibly the victims of an ongoing genocide brought about by immigration and miscegenation, and feel that when they try to speak up about it, they are subjected to a vicious double standard.

No one sensible could argue that this is not true. But: who is enforcing the double standard? White governments, at the behest of white voters.

Most arguments that racial equity programs disadvantage whites who would otherwise be hired or accepted to academic programs mask underlying anxieties about the growth of non-white social status.

Here he is off-base. The problem is that our society is being destroyed, and the only healthy societies are homogeneous ones not heterogeneous ones. This is not about our personal inconvenience, except in that having a society collapse into Brazil 2.0 is highly inconvenient and fatal.

More importantly, white nationalism’s staunch opposition to the gains in numbers and in influence of non-whites makes it a movement by nature committed to suppressing these people.

I think he misses the point here, too. The goal is to have zero non-whites and in fact, zero non-Western Europeans. Western Europeans are the only group on earth that is truly a persecuted minority because of our small numbers and relative wealth. Everyone loves to beat up on the successful nerdy kid, and that’s us.

Though there are plenty of powerful Jewish activist groups pursuing their chosen agendas, it is inaccurate and outrageous to talk about people of Jewish descent as “the enemy” of anyone, as it is essentializing a large group into a fairy tale antagonist.

I agree with him here. Jews are another group under attack, as we can see daily when 90% of the world’s liberals are keen to blame Palestinian terrorism on Israeli “oppression” despite nothing of the sort occurring.

The small, smart and successful groups (3S) like Western Europeans, Jews and North Chinese are always under assault by the rest because we have achieved what others cannot and they resent us for that.

There is no way to advocate for white nationalism but by arguing that minorities pose a threat to our supremacy.

Spot the sleight of hand: is it “supremacy” to ask that we have our own countries? Of course not. He has shiftily conflated world domination with wanting, say, Germany for Germans or Israel for Jews.

Advocating for white nationalism means that we are opposed to minority attempts to elevate themselves to a position equal to our own.

Again he is wrong. We want them to do it in their own countries and to leave us alone. We have our own destiny to plan and work toward.

I believe that a healthy sense of identity and belonging are necessary, and I think being proud of where you came from is important regardless of race or class.

He’s right here. Every group should be nationalist and work in its own self-interest. That is Darwinian, moral and common sense.

I do not believe advocacy against “oppression of whites” exists in any form but an entrenched desire to preserve white power at the expense of others.

Here he is off-base again. We want our own countries and our own destiny, the same as anyone else. Why is this denied? It is white genocide by the resentful herd that gnashes its teeth at the fact that it has not made a successful life for itself as we did for ourselves, before liberalism at least.

The point that White Nationalists miss is that we are not fighting for the current system minus minorities. We are fighting to restore our civilization to a point of sanity, and while race is part of that, it is not the whole. Our society is existentially miserable as it is now and would still be without the presence of minorities. Nationalism is a means to an end, which is allowing ourselves to be ruled by our culture instead of an ideological government and its “proposition nation” united by politics, television, economics and a team identity of a jingoistic variety.

Conservatives “conserves” the behaviors of humanity that produce the best results. Those are four:

  1. Aristocracy: A hierarchy of our best people ruling as kings, instead of having a “System” of rules and laws to take the place of clear thinking. This includes a caste system so that people make decisions only at the level for which they are competent.
  2. Nationalism: Germany for Germans, Israel for Jews. This allows the group to have a shared culture which regulates behavior through reward and shame, instead of punishment and law enforcement.
  3. Free markets: Free markets require Nationalism and Aristocracy, but are the only way to do business that rewards performance instead of conformity.
  4. Transcendence: We need goals beyond the immediate material convenience of our society. We need purpose and to aspire to greatness, not merely react to “issues.”

There are no substitutes. Either you want the above, or you are happy with the status quo… if it would only favor you a bit more. That approach will land us back in the current position in no time because it is built on the same illusions.

Our society is dying. We are near the drop-off point. Our solution is to stop using methods that do not work, and to start using methods that do. These time-honored methods work. Democracy, diversity, equality, pluralism, tolerance and altruism do not. It is that simple.

Published by

Brett Stevens

Brett Stevens has written about realism since the late 1980s. His work can be found at RightOn, American Renaissance, Return of Kings, Counter-Currents, Alternative Right and Aristokratia.

17 thoughts on “White Nationalism failed because it incorporates too much liberalism”

  1. While I agreed more with this post, I really thought the article the other day, “Overthrow: the next thousand years are ours” is the best. Many other readers would validate my opinion, but I think it would be interesting to see SJWs forced to read it. Your mention on today’s piece, “this cannot be fixed solely by driving out the ethnic Other” is very accurate. In order to make overall progress to eradicate diversity and democracy, I don’t believe you can make any progress by excluding all potential allies other than some countries in Western Europe (at least in the short term). A retroactive approach toward non-ethno Nationalism may work in baby steps minus the democracy, otherwise this is all a fable. However, there can exist extraneous cases if there happens to be a sudden reduction of populous (controlled at birth) where small tribes can arise from the ashes ascending toward the goals listed above.

  2. I was shocked and chagrined to learn that the word “white” had been uttered during Thursday’s Democratic debate while apparently the censors were asleep at the controls. The social media meltdown of course ridiculed the candidates’ answers, but if you think about it: Except in the case of either an attempt to disparage this skin tone or a reference to the White House (a name which is surely on the chopping block), there’s no other conceivable usage of the word that would not classify as obscene in a political debate. The FCC will no doubt cut the network some slack though since it’s not as if they were trying to say that white people are worth preserving or anything like that.

    Great article. More sober dismantling of the problem and less drunken rage.

  3. When you consider the only difference between radical feminism and white nationalism is whether the patriarchy or the jews are to blame for everything in the world, you realise WN is leftism for white men. Both deny women have any agency, both shift all responsibility from the shoulders of one group to the other, completely removing any agency whatsoever from the primary group (with feminism its women, with WN its white people). They even use the same rhetoric when you point this out, feminists say why do you hate women? When of course you don’t and never suggested anything of the sort. Ditto for WN, and the accusation, “why do you hate white people/love the jews?”.

  4. Here’s some relevant information http://fee.org/resources/why-i-am-not-a-conservative/
    The term Liberal originally meant what is today known as Libertarian. The leftists appropriated the term(and many others) and that is why true liberals had to switch to being called Libertarian. This link illustrates the fundamental differences between libertarians, leftists, and conservatives; but more importantly, it explains why conservatives always drift towards the left until actually being in the leftist camp. The writing in the link was published in 1960, but might as well have been written today. Hayek was one of the central figures in the Austrian School of Economics, which exists mostly to disprove leftist sophistry. It is independent from libertarianism, but most libertarians ascribe to that school of thought.

    1. I actually think this work by Hayek I linked to addresses every point Brett made in this essay. It’s almost as Hayek was responding to this essay in particular.

      A separate issue: Brett continues to call politicians leaders, but there are no political leaders in a true democracy; they are representatives who are not meant to have opinions of their own. I’m no advocate of democracy, but it is a fatal error to assume that leaders must be part of government. Any businessman, any clergyman, any philosopher, hell even Brett are leaders. People follow them without having to use coercion to mandate obedience, and this is how you identify a true leader. Have you not seen how people will do anything a union boss commands; they have a lifelong devotion to their union boss. There are types of leaders, though most seek short-term personal gain at the expense of the society at large because the traits that make a leader are not necessarily correlated with intelligence and virtue. The problem is that societies have been engineered to not produce useful leaders, and to discourage cohesive groups (what you call the promotion of individualism). Something as simple as zoning laws can severely disrupt this leader creation process and lead to what you call individualism. There are so few opportunities to lead in everyday life that one may be fooled into thinking becoming a leader is only possible through coercion, yet consider Donald Trump. He has amassed a huge following merely by speaking; he did not need to be made king to change society. I add this in because Hayek writes nothing like what I have just written.

      1. People follow them without having to use coercion to mandate obedience, and this is how you identify a true leader.

        Good point. I have been calling these “natural leaders.”

        I do not think anything on this site contradicts libertarianism, except that libertarianism/laissez faire is viewed as a method unto an end and not an end in itself. Libertarianism cannot exist without nationalism, aristocracy, strong culture and a transcendental focus to society. Socialism on the other hand is like democracy, diversity, pluralism and tolerance a death knell for whatever society adopts it.

        1. Well, libertarianism just means you support liberty, and a government only when absolutely necessary(my position is that it is never necessary except possibly in a time of war). Your means vs end argument is a little weird here. People have goals independent of the system in place; the libertarian point of view is merely to allow those people to achieve those goals instead of stifling them because government can not know better than those leaders with vision. Taxing the successful to subsidize the poor can only destroy the society. The founders of the US certainly felt that a strong culture, nationalism, and possibly an aristocracy(I honestly don’t know what you mean when you use this word) were needed for a successful society; that is why at the beginning only Western European landowners were allowed to vote. It was not democracy in the way most envision today. The democracy was more of an agreement for the different rich people to not stifle competition, to not restrict each other’s freedom, and not make war without concensus. I’ve seen arguments that at founding, the common man was actually never meant to have rights. Even at the beginning, the concensus was to restrict voting from the Irish, and it was explicitly prohibited for a long time; however, legal difficulties defining who could actually qualify as white or not led to loosening restrictions. To my knowledge, no definition of white that excluded the Irish has ever been devised. Socialism is merely a weapon an aristocrat can use to fool commoners into supporting acts against their own best interest that profit the aristocrat, and a tool of social control that destroys social cohesion to prevent uprisings. These tactics have been employed for thousands of years and socialism is merely another name for the same thing.

        2. I recently read an apt description of Libertarianism (as it is understand and theorized today): applied autism. It would never occur to them to take race or nationalism into account and their trust of fellow humans can only be described as autistic.

          1. Did you even read what I wrote? The US was founded as a libertarian nation. Where do you even get this nonsense about libertarians being trusting? Conservatives trust anyone with a cross and a funny hat. Why don’t you read what Hayek wrote and comment on that instead of knocking down strawmen?

          2. “The main merit of the individualism which [Adam Smith] and his contemporaries advocated is that it is a system under which bad men can do least harm. It is a social system which does not depend for its functioning on our finding good men for running it, or on all men becoming better than they now are, but which makes use of men in all their given variety and complexity, sometimes good and sometimes bad, sometimes intelligent and more often stupid.” (Individualism and Economic Order [London and Chicago, 1948], p. 11).

            I’m not sure how you can call this a trusting point of view.

  5. Is the Derek Black you referred to in the article as writing for the SPLC the same Derek Black that is the son of Stormfront founder Don Black?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *