Why nationalism is rising: it works!

the_vanishing_face

Over at Counter Currents — which has banned me for not discussing the infamous “JQ” ideologically correctly — Guillaume Durocher makes several powerful points in favor of universal nationalism, or every state on earth being nationalistic:

It matters not whether the ethnic differences are based on language (Belgium, Canada), religion (Iraq, Syria), or race (the United States, Mexico, Brazil, South Africa . . .). In each case, the lack of a common identity leads to a perpetual tribalization of politics. These problems are sometimes peaceful, and often they lead to otherwise unnecessary ethnic civil wars, but in each case there are intractable problems. People on average are simply not as willing to submit to authority, pay taxes, or give their life in war for another group, as they would for their own group. In a word: There is no solidarity.

To my mind, it makes sense to turn this around from a negative point to a positive one: with nationalism, you have solidarity without needing ideology and government. People, from a place within themselves, want to do right and they use their national culture as a means of assessing what is right and thus, what will be rewarded by others.

Durocher lists a number of other good points, but this seems to be the core of it: instead of forcing people to get along, choose people who are headed in the same direction and have the same interests and values, and they will desire to get along. Their striving will make it happen without requiring a neurotic layer of government, propaganda and “education” to humiliate and compel them to obey.

It is this positive desire to cooperate with others toward a goal — corresponding to what Evola might have called the inner states — that makes nationalism superior. It is simply more efficient. You do not require a strong-arm government, bureaucrats and media; instead, people naturally get along because they are the same sub-group of a sub-species.

Over at Not Politically Correct, another viewpoint is expressed which is also both right in conclusion and wrong in reasoning:

It’s clear that we are more altruistic to people who look more phenotypically similar to ourselves, to pass on and benefit copies of our genes. This evolved in spite of the negative impact on behalf of the altruist. The altruist is helping copies of his shared genes survive so that they may be copied into the next generation of progeny. The tendency to favor co-ethnics is the tendency to attempt to help pass on shared genes, as if the phenotype is similar, more often than not, the genotype is as well. This is the basis for ethnocentrism.

First, he makes the mistake of calling this process “altruism.” If self-interest is involved, it is not altruism, and calling it so will mislead the vast majority of people reading the article.

But the bigger point that is lost here, I think, is that people identify with a group based on its members being allies, and also see these people as helping the individual collaborate toward a goal. In other words, they are working together toward a common purpose, and that common purpose alone unites them.

This point is downplayed by most racialists who know that liberals will turn around and say, “Great! We’ve got a common purpose, too, called ‘egalitarianism’ and we’re going to use it to destroy your society.” But that is not a common purpose; it is an ideology, which is a belief about what purpose should be and not a purpose in itself, or it could be achieved.

Further, part of common purpose is the creation and nurturing of civilization itself. That requires identity, or a group of the same genetics, because in our heart and guts each of us knows that the happiest and best societies are homogeneous and use that homogeneity as a basis for their own further upward evolution.

I have written on these topics previously (not to mention previous writings at CORRUPT, ANUS, on USENET, and on a number of third-party nationalist sites, going back to 1997). This is not new ground, and this has always been my position: cooperation is more efficient than coercion, and produces better results, and cooperation is only achieved by unity of race, ethnicity, values, culture and moral character, including the ability to see the wisdom of caste systems, aristocracy and traditions. That group is my people.

The concept of “universal nationalism” is appealing, but too ideological for me. Nationalism works for those sane enough to try it; my people need it; my people do not owe a living to any other group. We act in self-interest because our actual interest is in our shared purpose, and the rest of the world will have to find its own path.

Tags: , , , , , ,

8 Responses to “Why nationalism is rising: it works!”

  1. RaceRealist says:

    Genetic similarity theory states that you will help those more similar to yourself. I see how you say it’s not “altruism” per say, but if there was no genetic similarity, which is the driving point of ethnocentrism, the self-sacrifice wouldn’t have happened.

    Yea self-interest is involved in the way that the altruist is helping copies of his genes pass on to the next generation. You’re right that the self-interest is there in the way that the copies of the persons genes are surviving.

    Rushton reasoned that the evolution of altruism was due to “groups who have the trait survive better than those who do not have it” (Rushton, 1980). So due to this, this selected for altruistic behavior for co-ethnics.

    If not ethnic altruism, what to call it? I believe that’s the right way to put it.

    Altruism toward kin and similar others evolved in order to help replicate shared genes.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8129.2005.00216.x/abstract;jsessionid=87DE4424B1060E61CE36F9F09542C249.f02t01

    That is why I said that.

    • Greetings! Nice to see you posting here. My article was not intended to attack a specific source, but specifically to disagree with the nasty term altruism because it is inherently a Left-leaning concept. I think you nailed it here:

      if there was no genetic similarity…the self-sacrifice wouldn’t have happened

      This really hammers home the idea: ethnocentricism is self-interest, both at (a) personal: having allies; and (b) social: having a pleasant, efficient, optimized society; levels.

      • JPW says:

        I like social trust better than altruism. You develop social trust when rational actors believe they will be rewarded for generosity and cooperative effort. In game theory, this is called a Schilling Point.

      • RaceRealist says:

        it is inherently a Left-leaning concept.

        How so?

        Thanks for referencing my article. I’m actually gearing up to tackle JayMan’s article “Ethnic Genetic Interests” Do Not Exist (Neither Does Group Selection).

        To think that EGI, as well as group selection doesn’t exist is crazy, because it’s evident even today in our American society with all of these ethnic special interest groups.

        Rushton calls it ‘Social Learning Theory’, I like that term. Since altruism is 50 percent hereditary, the other 50 percent is environmental, or learned, for instance through reciprocal altruism.

        Ethnic nationalism explains the rise of all the great societies we’ve seen. It also drive our most important and deadly conflicts.

        • It is a great article and I hope more people read it. I enjoyed reading it and found a lot to think about.

          Ethnic nationalism explains the rise of all the great societies we’ve seen.

          This seems to me to be the crux of the issue, and was known by all successful people as few as two generations ago.

          To think that EGI, as well as group selection doesn’t exist is crazy, because it’s evident even today in our American society with all of these ethnic special interest groups.

          Ethnicity conveys (1) this person is like me and (2) together we have a mission. If that’s EGI, I think it exists. There’s a vocabulary divide with the STEM types, often, from the history/philosophy types, and most misunderstandings boil down to that. With many of Jayman’s articles, I can bridge the divide.

          • EX says:

            “There’s a vocabulary divide with the STEM types, often, from the history/philosophy types, and most misunderstandings boil down to that.”

            Its because academics and sciency types care to autistically argue about terminology and redefining everything thats already proven than actually solving real problems. Those who actually do are punished.

  2. Dark Axe says:

    Nationalism means putting your nation’s needs ahead of the needs of other nations. Successful nations do that historically. The US is a cuck for the rest of the world these days. A return to nationalism is the solution.

    The problem with the globalist model is simple : it is naïve in terms of wrongly assuming nations have shared interests ( when they often have conflicting interests in reality).
    and it ignores the free-rider problem .
    Moreover, global institutions like the WTO have proven to be not up to the task of setting a level playing field in terms of trade barriers, intellectual property theft, and currency manipulation. Specifiacally the US faces ridiculous barriers in China and elsewhere when we attempt to export goods.So we end up with a bunch of jenky third world crapola instead of quality MADE IN THE USA goods.

    Author makes a good point about altruism.

    • Ernst says:

      “The problem with the globalist model is simple : it is naïve in terms of wrongly assuming nations have shared interests ( when they often have conflicting interests in reality).”

      That is why yhe globalist are trying to impose liberalist dotrine, to destroy cultral identiy. And it has created results in the West.

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>