There’s no question that Indo-European self-interest is gaining momentum. Thanks to multiculturalism, Indo-Europeans (Caucasians, “whites,” Euripids) now realize they are a minority targetted by other groups who desire the perceived greater wealth and ability of people of European descent. That a change will happen in this direction is not a question, to a broader observer of history. No one who has read a meaningful breadth of history is surprised at the authoritarian moves of the Bush administration; authoritarianism is how one deals with a divided society at the end of its cycle, like our own spoiled and fat and directionless one – whether it’s Bush or not is a different question. Similarly, since we know a resurgence of nationalism is going to inevitably occur, it’s time to pick the most sensible form of nationalism possible.
In many ways, this issue is similar to the different approaches of Nietzsche, Schopenhauer and Hitler to Christianity. Nietzsche said, in effect, “Christianity is sick and Jewish; let us destroy it.” The more contemplative and pessimistic Schopenhauer said simply, let us pick the best form of Christianity – and, as astute philologicians know, he was thinking of his early influence Meister Eckhardt. Hitler, being of exclusively a practical mind, essentially took Schopenhauer a step further: let us decide what is a sensible religion, and make Christianity into it. These three thinkers all knew the problems with Christianity, and took different paths to a solution, but the end result of these paths – which are but a means to an end – would be the same, whether it were labelled Christianity, Hinduism, Nazism or New Age. It isn’t the label on it that matters, but the structure of the thoughts (philosophy) inside of it.
When we look at Nationalism today, the people who watch too much TV, buy too many movies and download too much mainstream music from SoulSeek will recoil in horror and say, “Nationalism is fascist and racist; let us destroy it.” The hardcore clubhouse neo-Nazi types will harrumph and proclaim it “not extreme enough.” The level-headed thinkers, whether we are inclined toward nationalism or not, will decide that regardless of label, this could be a way to adopt sensible values into an insensible society, and thus move ourselves from a diseased time forward. At that level of thought, whether or not our future is nationalist does not matter – outside of the primary statement of nationalism, which is grouping of peoples into political entities by both ethnicity and culture (and not politics, as is the case in patriotism), there are many more issues which fit together to form a philosophy. The question incumbent upon us is what that philosophy might be, and how to pick the best one so that our reform extends beyond questions of nationality alone.
To those who observe dying civilizations, it is clear that the primary trait is a loss of goal, or shared values, and when that occurs, money and personal pretense (“rights” and “freedoms” to do whatever freaky, self-destructive, or cancerously degenerate thing one desires) fill in the void. Replacing a monetarist civilization, or one in which the primary goal is economic competition as a means of giving the individual power, requires we find a higher value than money – that we return to a healthier stage of society, when there was a bigger motivation than personal wealth. For this reason, there should be reason for all to take heart at the adoption of nationalism; it means we are ever-so-slowly moving on from the low point in human history where “it’s profitable” was the only justification we sought or needed. Yet as mentioned above, the concept “nationalism” is only one aspect of complete political worldview, although nationalism has been throughout history associated with other values as well.
The broader historical view suggests that we view this not as much as a political change, but a philosophical one: we’re moving on from issue-based politics, materialism and individualism, and we’re heading toward organic collectivism. The remaining question for a nationalist society involves how it designates ethnic-cultural groups, and how then it decides to structure society to support them.
In current politics, Nationalism is roughly divided into several camps. One of the most prominent are the Nordicists, who argue that the Nordic (and some will say, as Hitler did, the “Nordic-Germanic”) strain is the closest we have to the original ethnic-cultural group that emerged from Northern Europe to establish the societies of Greece, India, Rome, Egypt, and so forth. Most historical data supports this assumption, although it’s fair to note that, at least according to linguistic derivation, that original group fragmented and diversified rapidly, although retained its core values and beliefs. Nordicists argue that Nordics must be preserved from admixture by (a) other races and (b) other Indo-European ethnic-cultural groups. They do not harbor ill-will toward those other groups, but wish them to each exist as their own nationality, refining themselves through positive breeding as best they can. This is the oldest tradition in nationalism, and it essentially states that the tribes should be separated and work together for common goals, but each must rule itself.
Radically contrasted to the Nordicists are the “Pan-Aryanists” or “White Nationalists,” who believe that all things white should exist on the same stratum, and thus we should combine white races and tribes to produce a universal “white culture” which we can then breed toward a higher level. This belief is the most modern form of nationalism, and comes almost exclusively from countries in which a high degree of inter-tribal mixing has already occurred, such as in the United States, Canada, Russia and the UK. The Pan-Aryanists think that anyone of partial Nordic-Germanic-“Aryan” heritage should be included in one giant tribe, and that tribe can approximate its culture from that mix. Admittedly, this is the most pragmatic view in mixed cultures, because to divide the United States, for example, into tribal groups would be easy in some areas (mainly the South) but impossible in others (such as New York, where almost every “white” person is Irish-English-German-Slavic-Italian or some variant thereof). For this reason, American and English neo-Nazi and white nationalist groups almost exclusively adhere to this belief.
For the sake of convenience, I will call these views Tribalism and Demographicism, respectively. The first is called tribal because it believes in the division of tribes, and the second demographic, as it looks practically at how people self-identify in mixed cultures. It’s important to note that both are nationalism, although tribalism divides on the basis of race and tribe, where demographicism divides only on the basis of the largest part of ethnic heritage. Tribalists tend to shy away from the idea of mixing relatively pure tribes (Germans, Scandinavians) with tribes already displaying admixture, and there’s a good amount of historical data to suggest that their point is valid: once mixed, always mixed, or so history dictates; mixing creates a local culture that cannot return to its original state. Where demographicists have the advantage, of course, is in a modern democracy; if you can unite people by the fact of being “white,” it’s easier than trying to address individual tribes and then getting them to cooperate.
Also, as is impossible to miss, it’s essential that some form of demographicist nationalism exist for those Polish-French-Irish-German-Spanish hybrids in America, the UK, and Canada (as well as the corresponding Germanic-Baltid-Slavic-Mongol hybrids in Russia and Eastern Europe, and the Semitic hybrids of the Mediterranean and UK). Without this demographicism, they have the unsteady participation in nationalism of being identified as new mixes, such as “American” or “English,” that do not directly describe a single bloodline. But for those who are mostly unmixed, does it make sense to blend their bloodline, especially with hybrids that include non-Indo-European races?
Clearly this is where the Nordicists make the most sense: if you’re going to preserve a race, do so by starting with that which is less mixed and work outward toward other strata. For this reason, I’d like to propose a new vision of nationalism, called “Preservationism.”
Preservationism not only formulates a more sensible grouping of Nationalists, but also, associates with nationalism a general agenda that not only supports the political needs of nationalism, but the philosophy that allows people to appreciate it. Preservationism includes a form of nationalism, but is not limited to it; however, for practical political purposes, we can call it a type of nationalism. Where Preservation differs from Nordicism is that it is willing to create a Pan-Indo-European group and call it, for lack of a better term, “English”; this applies to all mixed-tribal white people, and separates them from those of relatively pure (3/4 or more) tribal heritage. It differs from Pan-Aryanism/White Nationalism in that it believes in preservation of those relatively unmixed Indo-European groups, and their separation from others.
The reason for this is inherent in the name: unlike most neo-Nazi or White Nationalist groups, Preservationists do not seek to prove that other races are inferior or unfit. They seek instead to assert that their own group needs to be preserved, and the only way to preserve it is through nationalism, including exclusion of all other races and tribes. Further, Preservationists seek to, in the same way the Nazis championed “Blood and Soil,” establish a communitarian principle of government; this means, for you who are familiar with leftist language, an impulse toward localization and permanent association of ethnic groups with ancestral land. The reason for this is also derived from the name: Preservationists seek to continue what nature started, and to act in concert with both natural order and Tradition, in the Julius Evola-Rene Guenon-F.W. Nietzsche sense. They recognize that the “progressive” vision of society is Utopian delusion, and seek to restore the only working form of society that has existed, and that is one where humans see themselves and nature as participants in a cosmic order, and thus work toward “ideals,” or designs of a higher evolutionary nature – not “new” and “empowering” ideas in government, or politics, or art, but better versions of the eternal philosophical concept that unifies them all.
Preservationists are simultaneously Green, Nationalist, and Localist – this is the essence of communitarian, or community-based, government. A local community defines itself by its land, its culture, and its heritage, in this view. Unlike Pan-Aryanist/White Nationalist views, Preservationism is detached from the implement of modern society – large centralized bureaucracies – and returns to an order by which civilizations develop independently with allegiances only against common enemies. In this, it allows a return of Traditionalist values to Indo-European culture, with these including, among other things, a reverence for cosmic order including the system of karma, by which one moves from a least-evolved state to a highest state of evolution. As karma is conveyed through the vehicle of evolutionary breeding, it is not only a racial hierarchy, but one of castes and individual abilities as well. Unlike Judeo-Christian morality, karma does not posit good or evil, but says that if one lives according to higher ideals, one steadily moves up through the caste system from lowest to highest. This happens over many lives, and could as easily describe the process of selective breeding as some kind of reincarnation. For those who believe that the design of their bodies, including minds, creates their consciousness, the two are roughly convertible concepts.
We cannot undo history. The division of the Indo-European peoples has happened; our technology running roughshod over the world and destroying much has happened; our political failures have occurred and cannot be taken back. What we can do is to start working on what we have now, and to take it to a Traditional state, including caste systems. This requires we take a clue from the Nordicists and, for unmixed tribes of whites, breed them into better versions of what they are: Germans, Scandinavians, Mediterraneans, Slavs, Irish. Mixing the unmixed is destructive, and will accomplish the same destruction of heritage toward which modern society aims. As each group carries in its collective genetic memory the recollection of events and decisions made in the karmic cycle to reach its current position, mixing would obliterate that past and start the entire race of white people off at a lower level. However, for those who are already mixed, giving them a cultural identity – English – and encouraging through selective breeding the refinement of that ideal, will produce – much as it has in Slavs, Irish, Italians – a local culture which will steadily move upward toward greatness.
Furthermore, by associating each group to a local community, we remove the braindead system of centralized bureaucracy and replace it with localization, including environmental protection, as who would poison the land of their ancestors which their children will inherit? This also allows diversification, and the rise of those who are more capable and of better moral character, without lumping us all together and standardizing us to a single level in the same way modernity accomplishes all of its political aims. Pan-Aryanism is modernity; Nordicism is too limited; Preservationism is right. As democracy collapses, and individualism reveals itself to be unfettered selfishness, fascism and nationalism are coming – if we inform ourselves to the degree that we can understand why Preservationism makes sense, we can make nationalism an enduring success instead of another stage in a lugubrious decline.