Majorityrights Central > Category: White Nationalism

An MR reader - I guess we can call him G de B - has mailed me with a collection of counter-arguments to, for the most part, a genetically-focussed Nordic racialism.  He requests a response with an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of these various arguments.  So I reproduce the mail in full here, duly formatted.  You will see that the sources are broad to say the least, ranging from Yockey to Kritarchy!  Much of it, though, just represents differing positions among nationalists.  G de B implies that these are intellectual problems for Nordicism in particular and white preservationism in general which he has not resolved to his own satisfaction.  I trust we will not experience too much difficulty in setting that right.
GW

Dear Sir,

I would like to draw your attention to the following observation from Tatu Vanhanen in: Ethnic Conflicts Explained by Ethnic Nepotism:

“Religion, culture, and language can be sources of conflict even if they do not reflect biological differences because the family/non-family distinction has spread to many different kinds of groupings: “Our tendency to favor kin over non-kin has extended to include large linguistic, national, racial, religious, and other ethnic groups.”

Take for example Northern Ireland. It’s a place where sectarian violence is commonplace, where warring factions look alike, are of the same race, speak the same language, often have the same last names; think of Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants. Or take Korea: North and South Koreans are of the same race. But economically, politically, and culturally, what a difference! Jews and Muslims are of the same race - they are both Semites!! Hundreds of examples can be given.

The question is then: will such a state of affairs not hinder your ideal of a homogeneous monoracial existence, which is - according to you – necessary for a continued Northern life?

Generally it is assumed that nationalism – in an ‘unnaturally’ way - divides races in general and Northern kind in particular. But according to Vanhanen it is not that ‘unnaturally’! If I am not mistaken, I belief that Rienzi also emphasizes the importance of nationality and he stresses the importance of ethnic racial preservation! According to him, ethnic groups (ethnies) as well as races, are real biological entities, related by common descent and genetic similarities. In Race is a Myth? The left distorts science for political purposes by Michael Rienzi I read that transplant donors and recipients often have to be matched not just for race but for close ethnicity within race, because inter-racial transplantations often fail.

Arthur Kemp in March of the Titans, claims that “all civilizations rise and fall according to their racial homogeneity and nothing else.  Indeed, “It has been suggested that if a group of Nordics were placed almost anywhere, in complete isolation, in a few generations they would produce a thriving civilization.

READ MORE...

So ... I seriously over-estimated the white American electorate when, twenty-two months ago, I declared that Barrack Hussein’s boy had made his move for the VP.  Who’d have thought that a vacuus appeal to empty minds could rout the governing right?  Again.

But I did at least predict that Obama will:-

... divide America like no other, which I presume to be a good.  Should the nationalist American, then, hope that Hillary so scares the cattle he actually wins the nomination?  Should the hope even be that he strides to victory on November 4th next year over a prostrate John McCain (or Rudi Giuliani)?

The Giuliani thing wasn’t such a great call, that’s for sure.  But, anyway, now we’ve got this black - a probable empty suit - and his blacker, angry wife on their way to the White House we can ask ourselves what the result could be for WN.

For all of those twenty-two months the general assumption has certainly been that a black in the White House will create a tidal wave of new support for “the movement”.  It seems inevitable.  The Obamessiah is bound to experience a little difficulty in blessing his errant people with “change”.  Human nature does not change.  Radical leftist objectives are never gratefully seized upon by a subject people.  They are imposed by force.

But, it seems to me now that a great deal depends on how successfully Obama’s team and the “liberal” media can play on the violent redneck factor, while at the same time confounding white fears of KFC parties on the White House lawn and fresh Affirmative Action legislation before Congress.  That could keep the fence-sitters a-sitting and those who become disillussioned with the trope of “change” still convinced of the electoral claim that only white racism is holding America back from a golden new dawn.

Obviously, the media power exists to do this.  Indeed, the image of the redneck with a noose in one hand and a sniper’s rifle in the other is already getting the full SPLC treatment:-

READ MORE...

Evidently, there is a millenarian mood in the air at this point in time.  So it is appropriate that John “Birdman” Bryant circularised his contact list earlier in the week to draw attention to a re-write of his, let it be said, never inflammatory or seditious article, Final Solution to the Washington Question.  The original was circularised on 19th Aug , 2008.  The re-write is reproduced here under the fold.

John belongs in that fine tradition of flinty and indomitable, free-born and proud American citizens for whom that phrase from V for Vendetta was surely written: “The people should not fear their government, their government should fear the people.”  And it is on the theory of governmental fear that John wrote - and rewrote - this essay.

I must say, it brings to mind Geoff Beck’s time at MR, and his heady exhortations to the “Men of the West” to take up their arms and march up the steps of the Capitol Building.  But Geoff’s romanticism was a cry in the dark, and I don’t think he gave it very much thought beyond the pleasures of its utterance.  John, on the other hand, is theorising cooly and logically about change.  His question is: If the point arrives - or has arrived - when lethal violence is the only path left by which white Americans can secure a future for themselves and their children, what is the minimum degree of violence that will lead to that happy end?

Now, I have three criticisms to make of the scenario that John sketches very skilfully.  The first is that, in his eagerness to arrive at a minimal cost in life, he has underestimated the enormity and profundity of the task.  He has not allowed for the resilience of the Establishment, nor its strong preference for giving not an inch, and for a security solution.

Establishments do not go weak at the knees in the face of terror attacks.  They pursue a dual strategy of endeavouring to snuff out the physical threat while buying off popular support.  They pose constant questions for the resistance movement at every possible level via visible security, surveillance and interdiction, arms stings and false flags, infiltration, fund tracking, hearts and minds propaganda, political initiatives, etc.  Their objective is always and in everything to win.  A war with a government is always a long war.

The second criticism is in that old and very moral cliché, one man’s freedom-fighter is another’s terrorist.  If the people whom a freedom-fighter seeks to release from bondage view him only as a terrorist there is an immediate problem of legitimacy.  Without legitimacy, without a recognised shared cause, there will be no support from the people, and a resistance movement cannot prosper in a fight against a government without considerable tacit and active support.  Compare the political impact of the Provisional IRA with that of Brigate Rosse, or the political impact of ETA with that of Baader Meinhof.

This brings us straight back to the abiding issue of why American WN is so splintered and ghettoised.  A movement that cannot be heard at all beyond the badlands of the internet obviously has quite a job to do if it expects terroristic attacks on government officials to be understood in the wider community as the people’s own struggle.  Realistically, the movement should be in a position to lead popular opinion ... to tell a moral story to the hearts of the people while they absorb news over breakfast of the latest “act” done in their name.

The third criticism is an ideological one.  Like many race-loyal Americans, John is a believer in the theory - which is what it is - of isostatic recovery.  If the causes of the malaise are removed, the theory goes, everything will slowly and inevitably return to a point of societal balance and health.  Resolve Jewish power, kick the race-traitors out of their positions of influence, and the process of recovery will commence automatically and proceed unguided.

This theory is predicated on faith in the foundational instruments of the Republic, and on the enduring, indeed, eternal goodness and conservatism of White America.  It denies agency to the America of the past in the creation of the America of the present - since, of course, everything creatively bad rests with Jews and the race-traitors.  It eschews complications like the hyper-moralism and consumerism of modern America, which have their antecedents in Puritanism and the myth of progress, and which tend to far from balanced and healthy outcomes.  If one refuses to acknowledge the extrusions of the past into the present, one is almost certainly inviting what is euphemistically known as “unforeseen events”.  One must know oneself, I think.

Anyway ... here, for you to judge for yourself, is John’s provocative essay:-

READ MORE...

Let us begin with the question ...

If National Socialism was Germany’s preferred answer to Versailles, Depression and inflation, the decadence of Weimar and the revolutionary Marxism of international Jewry, what is the answer to the globalised capital, power elitism, race-replacement immigration, hyper-individualism, racial self-estrangement, and Jewish ethno-aggression of today?

Now, the list of ills in either case - 1920’s Germany or the postmodern present - is open to debate.  Other factors that pressaged and pressage change may be added.  The order of significance - indeed, whether one factor is, alone, significant - may be debated, as we often debate here.  But what cannot be debated is that we, by which I mean all the European peoples of the West, do not face less mortal dangers than Germans did eight decades ago.  That is evident to anyone who can separate himself even a little from the zeitgeist.  But who will subscribe to the philosophical and political muscularity such disaster would seem to commend?

We have fallen a long way.  If the source of our woes is difficult to agree upon, how much more difficult the path back to a decent and free life for our children.

“We’re going to need something new to combat liberalism and defend against it.”

Svi commenting on the thread to Takimag’s Paul Gottfried’s white nationalism article.

For me, Svi’s enlightened view of the totality of the struggle in which we are engaged is a joy to encounter.  One of only two ideas I can say I’ve really had is this notion that everything ... the forced march to a Global Age, the ethno-aggression of political Jewry, race-replacement immigration, hyper-individualism, everything ... fits within, is justified by, is dependent upon the universe of liberalism in which we live and breath.  Liberalism is at once the bulwark of the engine of European destruction and its achilles heel.  For in replacing liberalism we necessarily replace everything.

But selling this great idea is difficult.  And in two statements from his response to Paul Gottfried, Jared Taylor illustrates what the problem is.

Here’s the first:-

Prof. Gottfried sets for “white nationalism” a far grander task than it ever set for itself: creating or defining a civilization. At its most basic, racial consciousness has as its goal the preservation of a certain people. Its aim is to rekindle among whites what every previous generation until recently so took for granted they did not even give it a name: an instinctive preference for their own people and culture, and a strong desire that they should prosper ... Race realism therefore has no theory of religion, the family, art, or the role of government, except in the very general sense that it expects whites to love, first and foremost, the infinite riches created by European man.

And here’s the second:-

Ensuring our survival as a distinct people comes first. Once we have freed ourselves of the unwanted embrace of others, our civilization will unfold in accordance with our own destiny and genius.

Now, I don’t know why Gottfried chose to employ the word “civilisation”.  To my way of thinking, it was a mistake.  As Taylor says, “Civilizations arise organically from the collective efforts of an entire people or nation.”  Plainly, a civilisation is something different from, and inclusive of, a particular philosophy.  Philosophical dominance may be achieved by several ideas in the life of a great civilisation.  Post-classical European civilisation was tribal, feudal, clerical and monarchical (at the same time), and finally liberal and sometimes nationalist.

But I don’t think we can just assume that what Gottfried meant was not civilisation at all in this sense of a grand sweep through time, but in some lesser sense of ideas - and ideals - having historically productive consequences.  I think he was confused, and ended up confusing Taylor, too, who was reduced to saying “our civilization will unfold” when, really, European civilisation is what WNism is trying to revivify, not replace.

So we have to rid our heads of this nonsense - and of Gottfried in the process - and return to what these two gentlemen should have been debating: a nationalist philosophy with the historically productive consequence of a Nationalist Age ... a new world order centred on love.  This, politically and philosophically, is our reason for being.

I believe Taylor would still say no to this.  He seems to dislike the term “white nationalist”.  He employs the utilitarian terms “racial consciousness” and “race realism”.  He is a “race realist”, and race realism is not a philosophy at all but a protest movement:-

What race realists find most infuriating about the liberalism of the last half century is not just that it has lost its instinctive appreciation for the culture and people of the West but actively, viciously attacks them.

It surpasses the obvious to say that such an emphasis on the negative is too light of weight, and cannot effect change at the level of that universe of liberalism I mentioned earlier.  It is ideas which battle and overcome other ideas - not men, however “realistic” their discontent.  And this, tragically, is the reason why Taylor’s contribution will prove inadequate to the racial-preservationist goal he has set us.

Svi’s right - we will need something new and big and powerful to combat and replace liberalism.  We have to equip ourselves with a chain of nationalist logic.  But that is by no means a simple task, complicated as it is by the baggage of the nationalist past and the weaknesses of the present.  We may not succeed in it, and European Man may give away his lands, his world, his life for nothing.  But at least let us be aware of the real nature and immensity of the challenge.

By Bo Sears

One of the great questions confronting the diverse white American peoples as the population of the United States of America changes, requiring all the various peoples to re-tribalize or maintain tribal bonds as may be, is how to establish a governing body much like La Raza, the American Jewish Congress, the NAACP, and the various Indian tribal nations.

We used to be non-hyphenated Americans, now we are the hate-crimes-default demographic, harassed and assaulted by more organized groupings, and unprotected by our government which kills our youth in foreign wars, steals our wages and profits, destroys our symbols and holidays, and unendingly defames us and discriminates against us.

A solution - The Articles of Confederation

One solution for white American governance would be to revive the Articles of Confederation (“Articles”) as our framework for governance.  A little known fact is that the Congress of the Confederation established by the Articles never adjourned sine die (its last meeting with a full quorum was October 10, 1778).  It never officially declared an end to its own existence.

A second little known fact is that the second and current badly-abused Constitution failed to declare the Articles null and void.  So the Articles, approved by each of the original 13 states, continue to exist in a shadowy way, waiting for the sons and daughters of the founders to revivify their promises and protections.

Advantages

The advantages to using the Articles are numerous.  They reflect our European-American natural spirit and ancestry, while rejecting the spirit of one man rule (monarchy).  They are easy to read (only five pages long).  There were ten national presidents under the Articles.  They contain no embarrassing terms even for those whose psychopathology revolves around the mental illness known as “presentism” which means every word can be twisted by comparison to current values simply to disrespect the founders.  There would be no need to meet to draft a fundamental governing body for the diverse white American peoples.  Drafting such a fundamental document could take years - adopting the Articles would take one season, although adopting policies and procedures would be an unending follow-up task.

The Articles were very successful, contrary to the impression given by contemporary spiteful and envious academia:

# The Articles provided the framework for waging war against the most powerful monarchy of its time.

# They handled the ending of the rebellion against the British kingdom, the post-rebellion peace negotiations, and important international relations with the Russian empire and the French kingdom.

# They drafted and adopted the Land Ordinance of 1785 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1887.

All in all a commendable record.

A side note - flaws With current Constitution

There were numerous flaws in the adoption of the new and current Constitution (secret meetings, ultra vires actions, and only nine states required to adopt in violation of Clause 13 of the Articles’ amendment process), and we all see how its purposes and meanings have been twisted out of recognition.  Contemporary centralized government fans disrespect the Articles, but only because they would not be able to use them for war-making and exorbitant taxing purposes.

Bo Sears is a member of that brotherly band Resisting Defamation.

The headline reads “National Vanguard Closes Shop”, and the explanation:-

We regret to inform you that National Vanguard (the organization) has been shut down by the Commonwealth of Virginia.

We thank you for your loyal patronage over the years and hope our hard work has kept you informed and entertained while making a positive difference for our people.

If you are interested in pro-European-American news, we respectfully suggest the following sites:

Western Voices World News
Stormfront
VDare

If you are interested in pro-European-American activism, we respectfully suggest the following organizations:

European Americans United
European Unity and Rights Organization
Council of Conservative Citizens

Again, we thank you for your loyal patronage and wish you and your loved ones all the best.

It is my contention that a good dose of applied Salterism would do much to bind together white nationalist politics and concentrate them in the right place - which, in turn, would vivify them no end.  Ethnic genetic interest resides, for example, in the attachment of a people to its lineage and to its land, and to its own nature as expressed in its traditions.  These are the classic lodestars of nationalism.  But EGI is at its most imperative by far in the matter of perpetuation, and in that of homogeneity.  In an age as dangerously bereft of racial consciousness as the present, EGI makes the case for European preservationism on irrefutable scientific grounds.

This is the second of my three-part post on the vexing issue of white nationalism, the first being merely a Prelude.

Since the expulsion of the Moors, politics in Western Europe have never specifically been a repository of racial preservationism.  Even in the Germany of the 1930’s the politics were not purposively preservationist.  They were self-reverential, self-laudatory.  They were supremacist.  But they were not preservationist other than in an implied sense.

Preservationism is really nothing more than those active measures a people takes to defend itself against extinction or displacement.  Moorish invasions aside, in the long period since European populations became settled there has been little use for it.  The history of intra-European warfare demonstrates that kingly power and prestige, and greed, faith, history and freedom moved men to kill one another.  In such causes European nations sought conquest over one another and sometimes contested land.  But scarcely, if ever, was the goal to extinguish a European enemy’s population.

So for us racial preservationism is not as close to the surface as we think.  Yet the already impinging crisis in the West has to be answered much more out of this instinct than out of any political precedent.  What one might call traditional nationalist politics are near to silent on the issue.  Politically, we have to make this up as we go along.

READ MORE...