Furthest Right

Nationalism For All Peoples Is A Failed Ideology

We could say that it is in the nature of the post-enlightenment age for thinkers and intellectuals of all colors to contemplate on the burning issues of our times in terms of what we could call “perfect ideas.”

A modern intellectual, being conditioned since birth through educational system and middle class upbringing, approaches all issues from tautological standpoint, where he considers it necessary not to reach the solution within the given circumstances and available means at hand, but to come up with an idea composed of mathematical truisms which cannot be beaten in debate, completely separated from all material realities

One of such approaches unavoidably — since we are still not mature enough to shake of the ideological burden of our times — smuggled itself within the narrative of the most world-changing idea of those loyal to The West and its values, the otherwise anti-egalitarian idea of the Alternative Right. The  idea basically states that given our past experiences and a dire condition in which White race finds itself, especially once culturally its most productive portion, the most sensible solution is to preserve White races by strict segregation of all nations in ethnically exclusive nation states.

This otherwise completely healthy outlook of nationalism is then immediately self-sabotaged and presented with an obstacle by the same thinkers with following amendment: ethno-states are the only natural and perfect form of government, as well as an instrument of propagation of the interests of a nation or a race, and that as such, nationalism is to be proselytized or imposed onto all other nations, even those who historically have never founded such states or even had any idea of the concept of a nation itself.

This idea itself fails to graduate from the most basic courses in anti-egalitarian thought, but before we proceed to explain them, we shall outline the two fundamental problems with such an outlook:

  1. It, without any foundation, claims that all peoples can form, understand, appreciate or even benefit from organizing around a formation that in the West and elsewhere has been known as a nation, or even worse, that all peoples can reach the most sacred goal of every nation building process, which is the formation of a civilization apart from all others.
  2. It then proceeds to claim, that such peoples, will have any rational basis to, in these most dynamic and conflicting times, coexist next to each other and share the globe in peace. Even worse, it lays a claim that such a ghettoization of these highly divergent populations is going to establish a basis for permanent peace and not completely the opposite, which is the basis for the most temporary kind of lull in unavoidable political processes, which would in fact benefit only the most fragile and weak portion of the globe, the one which was in the process of its final disappearance into obscurity.

In order to direct ourselves to a correct path, we have to finally establish what ideal our ideas aim to preserve and propagate in the first place. The position which enables us to avoid this trap of tautological thinking is the position which is defined not by that which is measurable in an abstract way, but that which is measurable only from the point of view of an “insider,” and that is the position of values. Only in this way are we finally able to reach a proper nationalist position, nationalism by itself and without any strings attack, in a sense that it is defined indeed by intuitive, therefore, “inner” interests, which are again in themselves, nothing but a striving for a said hierarchy of values.

If we come from this direction, we are perfectly able to sanely consider where our own standards apply, and where they are not only completely inapplicable, but undesirable. Western European peoples and Western Civilization, whose core lies in The West and its genetic roots, will finally be able to shake of its pathology of historical “burden” as that of a people whose purpose is to give others direction, serve as their intellectual, political and technological nanny, and take responsibility for successful application of it’s own ideas  elsewhere, the ideas whose success (or lack of) was solely founded in their own capacities and dispositions.

I believe it is unnecessary to waste words on explaining how it is completely delusional to expect that third world populations will be able to conceive nation states and enjoy prosperity within them. We have seen, even with the best will, support from The West, and the most favorable possible conditions, how these societies simply descended on their own, to their more natural states in the case of Liberia and now Venezuela.

But even more importantly, recognizing this truth gives us a proper starting point to contemplate on our relations with other peoples, specifically, those whose hierarchies of values are somewhat more approximate to that of our own. There and only there, can we reach a mutual understanding of “nationalists” which in no way necessarily implies friendliness and cooperation. But it allows us to speak a language of similar ideas without interpreting them radically differently, and while communicating that nationalism for us — Western Europeans — is probably incomprehensible to other peoples and fundamentally distinct from what it will mean for them.

Then, we can also consider the dichotomy of ethno-states and empires. Empire as a concept, represents nothing else but hierarchy of values embodied within a state structure, whose source of life is its natural Elite, the Aristocracy. Ethno-states on the other hand are more intimate state structures, whose viewpoint concerns primarily the founding group, and are limited to its capacities. None of the two concepts are fundamentally opposed to the goal of ethnic, racial or cultural preservation. However, both of these can fall victims to their own short comings.

The primary advantage of an empire is its ability to utilize more opportunities which lie undefined by ethnic borders, but by a detached sheer sense of expansion, exploration, conquest and grandeur. These empires are often the hotbeds of individual intellectual, military and cultural marvels, much thanks to their greater open-mindedness, allowing gifted individuals to flourish. On the other hand, nation-states posses the strength of greater sobriety, imposed on them by defensive instincts which often characterize intimate and cohesive groups.

The shortcomings of the empires lie in their susceptibility to cosmopolitanism, loss of a sense of purpose, and over-extension of their vital portions, their elites, while the shortcomings of ethno-states lie in the danger of inter-group degradation through the necessity to spend its most valuable people in bitter conflicts necessary for their fragile preservations, coupled with susceptibility to “patriotic” egalitarianism and status-unconscious breeding. Within highly cohesive nation-states, there persists a danger of the rise of folkish sentiments, which lead the people of each to embrace more primitive life styles, defined by elan vital in the most naturalistic base meaning. However, the possibility of the existence of a highly structured ethno-state is not to be dismissed.

The choice therefore, by our own people and our own movement, which by historical necessity and greater geo-political imperatives, currently has a Pan-European form, which means that it is inclusive of the entirety of the White race, but is by no means egalitarian or defined by desire to erase crucial and important differences, has to be made entirely based on our own ideas under development and permanent scrutiny, ideas which are conceivable and understandable by us, and which we will without sense of guilt consider exclusively our own, while entertaining the possibility that others will also fall under the influence of our political wave.

But it under no circumstances means that the goal of our movement should be to promote any global, cosmopolitan solutions; the more these solutions don’t correspond to promotion and cherishing of our values, the worse. We will not pretend that what other people have in mind for the 80% of the world, which will be left uninhabited by us, will necessarily be good news for our future, our posterity, and our as we see, very fragile conception of security which is so easily threatened by devices of our own too easily distracted and solipsist minds.

Nationalism means we keep to ourselves and exclude others. Extending it to a broader political movement is a mistake. The model for our societies, defined by ethnicity, race or caste, or all of these combined, that will be the best for establishing ourselves once again as a civilization, will depend upon many circumstances, and all must be carefully considered, not to mention that different groups might find different solutions more fitting to their needs and purposes.

Tags: , , , , ,

Share on FacebookShare on RedditTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn