Furthest Right

Race-Nationalism Versus Ethno-Nationalism


Now that the Alt Right is firmly established in the public mind, and media attempts to portray it as “white supremacy” have failed simply because it is more complex than that, the Alt Right faces an internal crisis: it must decide what it stands for, and what its goal is.

The Alt Right arose from the convergence of several postwar Rightist movements — the New Right, anti-modernists like Ted Kaczynski, the nationalism and Nietzscheanism of black metal, the anti-liberal critiques of Michel Houellebecq, Traditionalism, White Nationalism, revitalized Social Conservatism and Neoreaction — and still bears the internal conflicts between the differing methods and goals of each.

One large question it faces is whether it wants politics at all. The New Right made a convincing case that a cultural wave was needed to change politics, but Traditionalists rebutted that as long as we live in a society of mass opinion, the herd will always choose degenerate options. Mass opinion is the core of modernity and the root of all politics.

Sidestepping politics would act in accord with the founding idea of the Alt Right, which is that demography is destiny and genetics — not rules on paper or economic rewards — defines the nation and its future. That view is anti-egalitarian because it recognizes that we are not all equal in ability, either as groups or… and this part is unpopular… as individuals. Some are more fit to rule than others.

Richard Spencer of Alternative Right and Radix Journal fame recently gave a speech where he promoted the goal of a race-based state:

We need an ethno-state so that our people can “come home again,” can live amongst family, and feel safe and secure. But we also need an Ethno-state so that Whites can again reach the stars. Before the onset of the “equality” sclerosis, Europeans had a unique ability to risk everything for ends that are super-human. We must give up the false dreams of equality and democracy — not so that we could “wake up” to reality; reality is boring — but so that we can take up the new dreams of channelling our energies and labor towards the exploration of our universe, towards the fostering of a new people, who are healthier, stronger, more intelligent, more beautiful, more athletic. We need an ethno-state so that we could rival the ancients.

This image brilliantly describes why a homogeneous society provides the best option for us: with similarity of goal and abilities, we can not just be better on practical levels, but can also move toward a future that works for Us instead of facilitating the dreams of others. However, the question arises: is his vision homogeneous enough?

The American Conservative describes the roots of Americans:

By 1776, British colonists — mostly English, but with strong Scottish, Welsh, and Irish contingents, along with New York’s Dutch colonials and later German arrivals — had created an American branch of British civilization. At the time of the Declaration of Independence, they were long-settled: almost 170 years in Virginia, over 150 in Massachusetts. At great effort — and at the expense of the Indians they uprooted and the African slaves they imported — colonial Americans formed a nation in their own image. The diversity of their settlements reflected the variety of their British origins. David Hackett Fischer’s magisterial Albion’s Seed traces four great British colonial migrations that leave their mark still: Puritans from East Anglia to New England, Cavaliers from the West Country to Virginia, Quakers from the Midlands to the Delaware, and northern Britons, including the Scots-Irish, to the American backcountry.

Revolutionary Americans, the United States’ founders, were fairly homogeneous: 80 percent of British origin (60 percent English, 20 percent Scottish and Scots-Irish), most of the rest Dutch and German — the great majority American-born. Overwhelmingly Christian, 98 percent were Protestants.

This group made a fatal flaw in its plan: in its zeal for liberty, it forgot that civilization needs guardians.

As a result, it opened the doors to Europeans who were not Western European, and within forty years found itself embarking on a disastrous civil war in which these new Americans served a pivotal role.

The problem with White Nationalism — a variety of Race-Nationalism, as opposed to Ethno-Nationalism (the original definition of Nationalism) which designates a nation by ethnic group, such as “Germany for Germans” — is that it is a form of the proposition nation, or idea that we can combine dissimilar people and force our intent upon them to make them in our image through laws, economics and propaganda.

Proposition nations do not work. The failure of globalism that is currently roiling humanity is proof of that.

Our nation is still divided by pan-European immigration, causing division within the white voting base. The Southern and Eastern Europeans are disproportionately active in Leftist politics and most likely to support them, not because these non-Westerns are “bad” but because they see themselves as underdogs because they are not of the founding group, nor was this society designed for them. Their pride makes them committed to undermining the founding group.

If we are to restore Western Civilization, our goal must be to restore Western Civilization, which is defined by a population of Western peoples, or those from Western Europe who share a Nordic-Germanic root. Adulterating this will produce “ethno-Bolshevism,” or the creation of a generic white race which loses its Western character, and will also destroy that white race through mainstreaming of the trace admixture present in Southern/Irish and Eastern Europeans.

Spencer correctly gauges the magnitude of our task and the necessity of inspiration not just to “end problems” but to rebuild and rise higher than we have ever before. This is a statement of health and sanity. It shows us rising above the concerns of modern politics, and to make good on that quest, we must go further. As Dean Abbott writes in a scathing critique of those who demonize the “reactionary” label:

Reactionaries do not want to return to a “golden-age”. We want a future society consistent with the best of the past, that prizes spiritual riches over material ones, heritage over trinkets. Much reactionary thinking, far from being obsessed with returning to the past is quite vigorously focused on bringing that more humane future into being.

To be sane, we should take stock of where we are, what went wrong and how to create a plan which both avoids this pitfall and heads toward health. Starting with Generation X, our people have had to face the reality that the good and smart people are no longer in control, and that everything in nu-Western Civilization is corrupt and bad. Our task is Herculean, but our people perform best when faced with impossible odds. It is part of our DNA and our romantic mythos of ourselves.

One grim fact is that the ethno-Bolshevist state which triggered the Civil War will not save us; it will doom us, both politically by being unstable, and genetically through backdoored admixture. Instead, we must point our aspirations to the stars yet again, and go with what works: the ethno-state, not the race-state.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Share on FacebookShare on RedditTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn