Why nationalism benefits all races

brotherhood_of_purpose

History has erased nationalism from our consciousness. The word has even be redefined to mean “strong patriotism” instead of its original meaning, which is the idea that a nation is defined by a single ethnic group, its culture and values.

This tells us something about how threatening the concept of nationalism is to the liberal democratic establishment. They fear it like evangelicals fear Satan, and the very mention of it makes them tremble, because nationalism invalidates the idea of universality. Instead of all people being interchangeable cogs, each nation has a type of person it needs and that nation can then not be forced to join the collective hive-mind created by egalitarian ideology.

Most liberal attempts to smear nationalism have focused on attempting to reduce it to “racism,” or a dislike of other races, but that definition only makes sense when one assumes that the natural and sensible order is for people of all types to exist in all nations. In other words, the attack on nationalism is a fallacy, which is doubly proven by the failure of even the most radical nationalists to eliminate other ethnic groups who were not present within their borders. If the Nazis had been fanatical racists, for example, they would have left mass graves across North Africa when they occupied it, and they did not.

As usual with pop culture interpretations of history, the point has been missed. Nationalism is not a bigotry, but an affirmation of identity and through that, control of its own destiny by each ethnic group. This is what people crave but cannot articulate in a diverse society because they have no framework for understanding it, as this article of longing for control of destiny expresses:

I remember listening to his speech and fighting off my own emotions, wondering if America’s black community—my community—could experience emotions similar to those of the father of the bride. At that moment, I knew that there was not a place in the world that I—and probably countless other black Americans—could return to and have an emotional connection that was similar to the man’s standing before me.

Nationalism is an emotional connection to a homeland, a sense of belonging to it based in the similarity of people and shared purpose, destiny and values. It gives to each person the inalienable feeling that they belong. It also shows them a path to success not through government and bureaucracy, but culture. Without nationalism, there is no culture, only an ersatz substitute made of ideology and commerce.

Diversity destroys this. The person under diversity can be proud of an economic system, political and military power, or their ideological alignment, but not their nation as a whole. Nothing binds them to others except tangible self-interest and motivation. This means that there is only a backward-looking society which tries to keep itself together, no forward motion toward shared ideals.

As white America and Europe — the indigenous inhabitants of those civilizations — awaken to what it will be like to be a minority surrounded by a third-world society, few have yet awakened to the simple fact that nationalism benefits everyone. No black person wants to be ruled by white cops, laws, and institutions. They want control of their own destiny and values of their own, including the means of implementing those values. People are not only different, but need to be different, in order to feel the sense of belonging that allows them to work toward a future.

With diversity, we have many communities loosely bound together by laws and commerce. These are regulated by a desire to keep people together through external means because internal means, such as the impulse to work together toward the goals that culture and ethnic identity can provide, are taboo. This means that such societies are always backward-looking, enforcing unity through obligation, where nationalist societies are cooperative and based on internal values.

During the past 226 years since liberal democracy began its conquest of the West, our fortunes have declined in every way but commerce and technology, which were present and rising based on the work of the pre-democracy era. Instead of a paradise, we have found a society that wants to treat us like interchangeable parts as means to the end of its own ideological agenda. The greatest collapse has been within, as this purposeless and compulsory regime depletes our existential hope.

We are all men without nations now, people adrift in a sea of the irrelevant, trying to find something to believe in to move us forward toward the types of higher goals and feelings that make life meaningful. Until we repeal liberal democracy and turn toward nationalism, this situation will only worsen.

Tags: , , , , ,

8 Responses to “Why nationalism benefits all races”

  1. into the void says:

    amazing. so clearly explained

  2. PubliusMN says:

    Brett,
    I just discovered your work these past few days. Amazing stuff. Keep up the good work.

  3. 1349 says:

    “instead of its original meaning, which is the idea that a nation is defined by a single ethnic group, its culture and values.”

    And if there are no ethnic groups and no cultures, but instead a mixed-race third world mass? If the past, history, and heritage had been erased (or had never existed)? What would the word “nationalism” stand for?

    “an affirmation of identity and through that, control of its own destiny by each ethnic group.”

    Seems like some context is missed here.
    Nationalism alone, as an idea of a society unified by culture, blood and land, isn’t sufficient (nor is it necessary) for the group to have self-rule.
    Estonians, for example, can be a hundred times nationalist but will never have real sovereignty because there’s just about one million Estonians out there, concentrated on a land without any significant natural resources. To have technology, safety, hygiene etc. they HAVE to be a proxy or at least a dependent ally of a greater power.

    Will Murkan blacks, once given their own national state, be sovereign? Unbelievable. They will hardly generate any ideas, knowledge, technology, or meaningful art. They wouldn’t be able to keep their internal crime in check, to say nothing of their hypothetical external sovereignty in the face of first world nations.
    Nationalist third world doesn’t mean self-rule.

    • And if there are no ethnic groups and no cultures, but instead a mixed-race third world mass?

      That’s internationalism, also known as globalism, diversity and multiculturalism. One world, one race, one Government.

      To have technology, safety, hygiene etc. they HAVE to be a proxy or at least a dependent ally of a greater power.

      Or in simpler terms: each nation needs the ability to defend against those who wish to conquer it.

      Will Murkan blacks, once given their own national state, be sovereign?

      If it’s in Afrika, yes. If it’s in the USA, no, for the reason that you mention above.

      • 1349 says:

        But please answer the question i asked. If there’s no ethnic groups, no heritage, no history, can nationalism exist and what would that word mean?
        Third world / poverty / illiteracy is the default state of humans. There used to be no nations some time ago. Those times can come back. What will You do if third world if the only thing left around You?

        Or in simpler terms: each nation needs the ability to defend against those who wish to conquer it.

        And not every nation (or multinational state) can have this ability.
        And there are no good samaritans to give them this ability just for thanks.

  4. Neal Joitke says:

    I am glad I found you. Bret Stevens are you any relative of Chris Stevens of the ANSWP I was Michigan State Leader for the ANSWP.
    I would love to hear all the Audio of Bill White. It is very valuable there are enemys that really hate it. And yes all race do well with Nationalism. That is if they dont envey what another race has.

  5. Doug says:

    The NOI sure are an eclectic bunch. Louis Farrakhan is a headline worthy media darling without Caucasian parallel, notable most recently for the million man march anniversary and for his solidarity with “Eminem.” With zero condemnation from the same media whose condemnation of Donald Trump is universal, now he is basically making a not-so-veiled threat of death and destruction to white America if/when Trump gets elected. Continue your suicidal embrace of diversity or else, in other words.

    Can you even begin to imagine a white media darling dictating to black people in such a fashion? Anyway, at first it seemed par for the course / all in a day’s work for the bright skinned, but then I remembered: back in the 90’s I would occasionally fork over a dollar for a “Final Call” newspaper from one of those bowtie dudes while sitting at a red light, just to see the priceless look on his face and trip out whoever else was in the car. There was always a mission statement of sorts on the back page which stated their long term goal of establishing a U.S. subsidized colony for African descended people, with no allusions to a desire for race relation improvements whatsoever.

    Having not done the research but assuming this is still the case since such things tend to lack transience, wouldn’t Trump be by far the closest the NOI has ever come to having a president that would at least hypothetically be open to such a proposal, i.e. if enough Americans of various races would petition for it? A leader at least hinting at a lean toward diversity reassessment would seem to be the best option for all disaffected parties. Through process of elimination one can only assume Clinton is their preferred candidate, but doesn’t this vote for diversity 100% guarantee the continued mutually agreed sodomization of rationality of having whitey within eyesight on a daily basis? So what’s the dealio, NOI?

    Maybe they saw the potential for realization of their purported dreams in Trump and just got cold feet, or perhaps at some point realized that within a few generations in the absense of disruption to the current liberal trajectory we might very well sufficiently Africanize the U.S. without them having to uproot after all. Judging from L.F.’s skin, black racial purity is not a priority so perhaps a more diluted form of black nationalism is indeed still on the agenda. In the name of racial self interest, I suppose who could blame them for wanting to shoot for the North American jackpot rather than some rinkydink colony, assuming a gross miscalculation of resistance has not been made.

    Well whatever the objective, assuming there is one, mom & pop realism sites like amerika.org likely are not at the top of L.F.’s daily reading list, so it will probably come as a surprise to find this (temporarily) subsidized African colony stuff starting to gain a bit of traction. Whoops! Be careful what you wish for!

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>