As it becomes clear that democracy is collapsing from lack of faith and COVID-19 was its Hail Mary, minds turn as usual toward alternatives.
Democracy cannot be separated from the nation-state and diversity, which are two degrees of the same thing, the first signifying ethnic mixture and the second ethnic and racial mixture.
This leads many to wonder whether racial nationalism like “white nationalism” can actually survive, since it attempts to replace one form of diversity with another.
Cynical observers point to the last eighty years of white nationalism failing in America as proof not of a sinister Jewish conspiracy or oppression by “the powers that be,” but of something wrong with white nationalism itself.
Perhaps it does not appeal to people much. Perhaps it does not appeal because it offers a non-plan coupled to implications of imminent extremism, at which point the average person sees no upside and a dangerous downside.
If we look into white nationalism, we see that the cause of its problem is that “white” is not enough of an identity to unite people:
Despite centuries of deep-seated animosities, many Irish Nationalists sympathize with Anglo Nationalists struggling to maintain English identity while Great Britain invites its own suicide by means of demographic replacement. These same Irish Nationalists see the threat to their own home country and its embrace of ethnic suicide. Yet, many Irish Nationalists have a hard time setting aside history to sympathize with Scots-Irish Protestants who are largely the target of demographic exchange, in which London is sending the largest proportional number of migrants to historically Protestant sections of Northern Ireland. Poles and Germans… Serbs and Croats… Spaniards and Basques… Southerners and Yankees… legitimate historical grievances make cooperation hard and furthermore, make broad based cohesion under a central command even harder.
Consequently, broad based White Nationalism is likely to fail because we simply do not have time to attempt to bridge genuine divides. No one is going to unify all of us under a single banner. Despite what some sociopaths and their sycophants may personally believe, there will never be a single leader marching Whites into a Reconquista. Even Adolf Hitler agreed with my sentiment. Hitler never sought to conquer Europe, despite the lies told by the History Channel. He sought to rebuild the natural borders of German-speaking Europe under one banner, while leaving other nation-states to their own devices. Vichy, for example, after the defeat of France, was remarkably independent as it pertained to domestic affairs. Italy was clearly independent until its defenses fell. Hitler, and by extension, the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP), never believed that their system was one-sized-fits-all. Broader White Nationalists should learn from them.
It is my opinion that the various ethno-nationalist groups would be advised to consider delegations for the sake of coordination and cooperation, while respecting each other’s sovereignty.
[A]ny group would have to recognize that all of the participants are White Nationalists second. It would be comprised of Southern Nationalists, Irish Nationalists, French Nationalists, Finnish, Greek, German, etc., etc. The desire for pan-White cooperation would have to transcend the desire for pan-White unification. No titular head would be the next “Supreme Leader.” Rather, leaders and conference chairs would have to focus on organizational objectives – one step at a time.
White Nationalists, like the National Socialists before them, attempt to use race as a substitute for culture, and to have strong wealth transfer based authoritarian government force everything else into line.
If we learn anything from the Leftist millennium, it should be that forcing things into place does not work; it means round pegs into square holes, and always ends with the appearance of success followed by “sudden unpredictable” catastrophic failure.
Altough we can see how people in herds are not very effective, we can also see a reason why the smarter echelon of white people are staying away from white identity: they do not believe it is enough to unify us.
More precisely, they do not believe that white nationalism offers advantages over what we have now, including legal protections for individuals. While they are not quite right, this shows us that white nationalism is not a selling point.
Either people have a strong ethnic identity, like WASPs, or they are already generic huwhites who have no identity and therefore see little point in trying to adopt a racial one.
After all, when you are part English, Irish, Italian, and Polish, the idea of “white” becomes kind of comical when you consider the Turkic, Semitic, and Asiatic admixture that you have piled up. You identify with something else.
Whites after all only know themselves through relativity because we have other races among us. Otherwise, they have no shared culture or identity, just a range of parameters mostly defined by government, economics, and recent convention.
Since most of them have swallowed up the Civil War and WW2 dogmas of the American regime, they see no point in trying to be a white ethnicity unless it grants them something, and getting mashed in with other huwhites is not that.
As The National FAQ points out, nationalism operates on the basis of ethnicity, not race:
Nationalism is the belief that political groups should be constructed around the idea of “nation,” or population group unified by culture, heritage and language.
As such, Nationalist is “rule by culture” where cultural values come before profit motive or popularity, which enables forward-thinking leadership instead. With profit motive, every object and idea and person is for sale, and society leads itself in circles. With leadership, society determines its goals and moves toward them.
Since the French Revolution in 1789, the majority of political forces in the West have been opposed to nationalism, which is the idea that the ethnic group defines the nation. The opposite is the “proposition nation” which is the idea that people can be united by ideology or finance alone.
Our problem in advanced civilization is that people forget why things are done and focus on repeating the recent past as procedure, at which point grifter-type people start pitching “new” ideas which amount to ironism.
Ironism takes the form of “we all know that reality is a certain way, but what if it were otherwise” and then takes that conjecture as fact and makes it into theory which is then applied with the power of the Crowd.
The first thing people forget is why they need culture: individual people, by virtue of being mentally undisciplined, come up with all sorts of “new” ironic reasons simply to make themselves seem important.
Culture resists this change while admitting things of actual utility, that is which consistently produce better results than the old way without introducing new problems. This allows us to have new techniques but the same goals.
Without that consistency, society becomes a stage on which people show off and in the process, erase all past wisdom, learning, and history. Culture emphasizes the continuity of past through future.
For us to have culture, however, we need the ethnic group, because culture is specific to those. The European clusters — Southern, Western, Eastern, and Mediterranean — are similar enough to provide those within themselves.
In the broader sense, however, culture is genetic, and when you introduce trace admixture or foreign groups, that culture can no longer arise and in fact, no longer applies.
To see this, we must first reject the notion of “equality” which says that humans intentions are superior to genetics. In reality, genetics defines our preferences and culture arises from that:
It all began with observing ants. The social organization of ants is complex, as is that of termites and bees, because these “social insects,” according to Wilson, are genetically programmed from birth. An ant does not think, does not learn, does not evolve; it is a product of Darwinian evolution, programmed so as to preserve and then perpetuate its genetic inheritance.
Within the Darwinian camp, however, anthropologists hold that human beings are determined by their social origins and their culture, while animals are determined by their inheritance. This distinction was advanced under the influence of Konrad Lorenz, an Austrian who, in the 1960s, observed geese and deduced that certain of their “social” behaviors were innate and not acquired. Darwin had applied the theory of evolution only to the exterior forms of animals, to anatomy. Lorenz became the first to apply evolution to behaviors. He thus founded ethology, but he did not know how behaviors could be transmitted; the workings of genetic transmission were not yet understood. The great scientific leap after Darwin, and after Lorenz, would be the work of Wilson, who came to believe that certain human behaviors traditionally attributed to culture (for example, incest prohibition, altruism, religious feeling) could be explained by genetic transmission.
But doesn’t sociobiology lead to racism—as Scientific American and others would allege—since we’re not all born with the same genetic patrimony? Wilson proposes that genetic patrimonies may differ but that the difference implies no superiority of one individual or group over another.
Our current civilization consists of a system comprised of systems of politics, economics, and laws. It does not have culture, since democracies always abolish culture in order to give more power to the bureaucracy.
That means that for us to get out of the hole we have dug for ourselves, we have to restore culture, not just make a new version of our existing government that agrees with some of what we want.
White Nationalism cannot accomplish this. Nor can a multi-ethnic and multi-racial society. The path leads another way, which is to nationalists of all races and ethnic groups coming together to restore order and then separate.