Here at the Times, I have previously discussed ethnonationalism and even applied it to the American situation. Essentially, ethnonationalism posits that nations – defined as people sharing common culture, heritage, traditions, language, religion, mores, and so forth (and thus, by extension, nearly always sharing a common genetic descent as well) – should be free to self-associate rather than being forced into supranational or globalistic schemas which dilute and destroy their unique national inheritances. But let’s say that this sort of schema were actually to become a reality to a much greater degree than it currently is – what would such a world look like? Would the world be divided among tens of thousands of different nations – each with its own well-defined territorial expanse – consisting of anywhere from tens of millions of people down to merely a few thousand? I don’t necessarily see how that would be advantageous, and would indeed be a very chaotic sort of situation – exactly the opposite of the type of orderly system that traditionalists and reactionaries seek to restore.
Instead, I believe that an ethnonationalist world order should include the element of aristocladism. Essentially, aristocladism may be defined as the division of national groups into hierarchies based on a variety of metrics having to do with their relative power and capacities, including many intangibles such as national spirit, courage, and so forth. Some nations, even when compared to their close relatives and neighbours, seem to “have it together” more than the others. It’s only natural that these nations should stand out as natural leaders and protectors for those around them. However, before expanding on this idea, I’d like to discuss a few foundational concepts.
When the question of ethnonationalism comes up, many are often tempted to say that the United States cannot have a “genuine” type of it because of the somewhat “artificial” nature of the USA, planted as colonies and then filled with immigrants which were (originally) from NW Europe, then the rest of Europe, prior to 1965. The Germans could have German nationalism, the Italians could have Italian nationalism, and so forth, but Americans can’t have a genuine ethnonationalism of their own. I believe this argument rests on the false premise that race – and only race – determines nationality, which is incorrect. This argument misses the true meaning of what the term ethnos means. Ethnos is a word which was found in nearly all dialects of Greek (Attic, Doric, Koine, etc.) and which originally denoted a body or company of people living together. The term developed the connotative meaning of those who live together and share the same culture, laws, language, etc. In other words, ethnos is primarily a culture term, not a racial one – though certainly we should understand that those who share the same culture will nearly always share the same racial and genetic attributes as well – but this is not the primary meaning of the term.
Hence, genuine “ethnonationalism” isn’t built around a genetic framework, but one of shared culture, mores, religion, language, etc, and obviously involves something much deeper than the superficial “propositional nation” nonsense bandied about by civic nationalists. Indeed, ethnonationalism is the biblical and moral form of nationalism, the one which is most in line with natural law and the long precedent of human historical practice. Frenchmen can have French nationalism because of their shared culture and language – foreign Algerians and Tunisians with their alien mores, religion, and language will never be “Frenchmen” in the true sense of the word. Now, as this applies to the USA – certainly, the people of the USA share culture, language, etc. It is quite legitimate to speak of an “American” ethnic group, which is distinct from other white, European-derived groups, even from other Anglo groups like the English, Canadians, and Australians (members of our cultural and genetic clade).
One of the biggest mysteries that plagues the world of neoconservatism is the question of why the end of history – that final triumph of liberal democracy and consumer capitalism – hasn’t occurred yet. All around the world in many different cultures and nations there is a strenuous reaction against these very things. Indeed, even in the western core – Western Europe and the Anglosphere – there is increasing skepticism about these tenets of the Enlightenment.
The question which the neoconservatives ask is, “Why do they hate us?” This question increasingly applies to pretty much everybody all over the world, but most especially to the Muslim world. Instead of seeing Fukuyama’s end of history, we’re seeing Samuel Huntington’s clash of civilisations. It seems to many of the neocons that the Muslim world is simply being obstinately ungrateful in refusing to recognize the blessings of democracy, secularism, and hedonism being imposed upon them by the force of Western military might.
Now, far be it from me to defend Islam itself or to defend the terroristic tactics which Muslims use. Certainly, I find Islam to be a false religion and Muslims to be primitive barbarians for the most part. However, my attitude toward them tends to be one of desiring to neither invade them nor invite them. I’m perfectly happy to let them do what they want in their own lands and to run their own countries as they see fit, so long as their barbarism is not imported into our Western countries.
There are few things that will get you into trouble as quickly as talking about race. This issue is one of the hardest things for a person to become red-pilled about. Many soft-Right classical liberal-style “conservatives” may go along with limiting immigration or even criticizing democracy, but the moment you start talking about racial differences, their inner cuck comes flying to the surface. Westerners – who seem almost by nature to be xenophilic – have a very difficult time accepting realities about race which contradict the sort of wishful thinking about this issue which they learn from their schooling and from their popular culture. As such, even many so-called conservatives will manifest an unreasonable fear of reality about these things.
The perfect example of this could be seen on Twitter this past Tuesday. There is a third-tier conservative talk radio personality who broadcasts out of Charlotte, North Carolina (I live in this state and had never heard of him prior to a couple of months ago) named Bill Mitchell. He has amassed quite a following on Twitter, much of it due to his vigorous support for Donald Trump during the recent election. However, on Tuesday Mitchell had a complete, day-long Twitter freak out because he thought that some of his followers might be “racists.” This led to a series of rather ridiculous broadsides against the alt-Right, whom he characterized as horrible, horrible people because many of them are concerned about the drastic demographic changes that are being forced upon Western countries. To be concerned about the future of white people in their own countries and to recognize the defensive need for the same sort of identity politics on the part of whites that other races routinely engage in was for him apparently beyond the pale. He responded with a huge, ugly, virtue signalling cuckout.
It really was hilarious to see, in a morbid sort of way. Mitchell asserted that Trump had disowned the nationalist alt-Right (even though Trump’s top representative to Israel canceled a meeting with Israel’s foreign minister after a Swedish delegate from the “far-right” Sweden Democrats had been excluded). He apparently failed to grasp that the whole impetus for the anti-immigration stance that drove Trump’s campaign was essentially alt- Right style nationalism. Instead, and predictably, Mitchell tried to characterize all members of the alt-Right as Nazis and the like.
The West is the world’s sick man. I think that just about anyone with any knowledge of the current state of world affairs would recognise the truth of this statement. While still wielding a great, perhaps even preponderant, amount of military and economic power on paper, the Western nations have increasingly shown themselves to be riddled with feckless “leadership” and a blatant unwillingness to defend themselves against foreign subversion and the invasion of millions of hostile foreign nationals entering under the guise of “refugees” and “immigration.” The failure is not one of capability, but of will. The West is a patient lying on his sickbed who refuses to take the medicine that will assuredly make him well. Instead, he continues to wrestle with his fever while blaming the doctors who prescribe for him his cure.
It’s obvious that the current state of affairs in the West cannot and will not continue for very long. Our societies are very far out of accord with nature, and our unnatural, high-energy transition state situation is going to tip over the edge and drop into a lower energy well of one sort or another. It has generally been one of the goals of Tradition and neoreaction to be ready for this “Great Reset” event (or series of events, more likely), and to become worthy, accept power when it presents itself, and then rule. Typically involved with this is the notion of a “restoration” of the West, a return to the things that made the West natural and good, while hopefully avoiding a repetition of the things that have brought us to our present point. The point to this post is to delve somewhat into what the nature of this restoration might look like, if indeed there is to be a restoration. But to do that, I’d first like to cover and analyse, in brief, some history of “the West” and use the previous “restorations” to draw some conclusions.
When we talk about “the West” or “Western civilisation,” these terms are usually used with varying degrees of precision depending on the speaker or writer. However, I think the most broad and generally understandable definition (which I will, as a result, use here) is that “the West” is a long, semi-continuous succession of civilisational “stages” that first became identifiable around the 6th century BC in Greece, and which continue to the present day. Each succeeding civilisation is like a storey in a building built upon the previous ones. These stages each contributed something to what we now call Western civilisation.
In my previous post, I discussed the question of nationalism, and why the traditional understanding of a “nation” based off of culture, mores, and traditions is superior to the modernistic “genetics only” view held by some, including most of white nationalism. Because I reject the genetics-only view, this leaves open the possibility of the introduction of outsiders into a national group, provided they assimilate and acculturate themselves to the culture and folkways of the nation they are joining. A reader made a comment on that post with respect to the relative good of preserving absolute genetic distinction in a nation (i.e. no outsiders coming in) versus the polar alternative, which is what our current system is approaching in which anyone and everyone from anywhere in the world for any reason whatsoever is allowed to come into western nations. He observed that both of these extremes are…suboptimal…and that, “The optimum is somewhere in the middle.”
As part of my response to this comment, I noted that,
“There’s always room for the introduction of ‘out-group genetics,’ of course, which has largely been the history of the United States, though it doesn’t *seem* as pronounced because most of the groups being grafted on to the old Anglo stock were people who looked at least reasonably similar to them, and shared a good degree of genetic commonality with them anywise.”
This discussion dovetails quite nicely with some thoughts I’ve been having recently about the efficacy of immigration and how immigration can be “engineered” to benefit the receiving nation (in this case, America and other western nations, but in theory this could apply to any nation).
Anyone familiar with the Alt-Right (which term I am using broadly to identify all “non-mainstream” Right movements, from anti-political correctness all the way to neoreaction) has surely heard a great deal about nationalism by now. At its most basic level, nationalism is conventionally understood to refer to the belief that a nation should be able to exist autonomously and independently apart from the domination of others, and that the good of the nation should be placed ahead of international or global concerns. As such, there is really a rather large group of positions which crop up among alt-Righters, all of which are considered by those holding them to be “nationalism.”
Generally speaking, I think these positions can be aggregated into two general groups. First, you have the nationalism held by those who would often call themselves “white nationalists,” who would tend to focus on the issue of race, primarily from a genetic aspect. The other nationalism would be that which focuses its attention on culture and on the organic existence and evolution of nations as cultural and social groupings. This latter form is what I would subscribe to when referring to myself as a “nationalist.”
In a previous post, I essentially laid out my description of what a “nation” is. The best and most natural definition of a nation is that given by God Himself when He used it in the original languages in which the Holy Scripture were revealed. In Greek, the term for “nation” as it relates to “the nations of the world” is ethnos. The conceptually cognate term in Hebrew is goyiim. In both languages, the terms come from root words which essentially describe a group of people who are joined by the same language, traditions, mores, rituals, etc. In other words, culture and society. A “nation” is a group of people who share the same cultural outlook, the same general set of beliefs, assumptions, and presuppositions about the world around them and of their relations to each other. My belief is that any definition beyond this one necessarily rests on some level of artificiality, removing it to a greater or lesser degree from the realm of realism.
One of the great misconceptions that many people hold about the Middle Ages in Europe is that they were a time uniformly devoted to royalism and monarchy. The typical picture is that of a king, attended by his retinue, waging war against other kings, each surrounded by servile knights willing to fight to the death for the honour and welfare of His Royal Majesty. Such a picture, however, presents a woefully inadequate image of the rich tapestry that was medieval government. Monarchy varied in its strength, and was sometimes even elective. Quite often, aristocrats were masters in their domain and waged wars with each other upon their own authority. Free cities abounded across the continent, many with decidedly un-monarchical governments.
More commonly than many realise, aristocratic republics of various types (designed so as to distinguish them from post-1789 “democratic republics” on the model of the French Revolution) existed at various points in medieval and early modern European history, at various places on the continent. While varying in their details and traditions, these republics generally shared one thing in common – stable administration provided by a process in which the best men in their polities were brought to the fore and included in sharing power within their oligarchic systems. These republics were not in any sense “democratic” as we now generally think of “republics” as being – they were neither communist shams like the “People’s Democratic Republic” of North Korea nor democratic shams like the United States of America and others around the world today. Within them the franchise – the exercise of political authority – was held by the leading men and was generally restricted to those who had either proven themselves in battle or through political wisdom or who were successful in the (sometimes quite literally) cutthroat world of medieval commerce.
However, when considering the histories of these medieval and renaissance republics, it is striking that their existence follows a definite pattern. Almost invariably, we find these republics existing among populations which fulfill two qualifications – high average national IQs and Germanic in culture and ethnicity. The medieval and early modern republics which we can identify consist of the following:
This post originally appeared about a year ago on Traditional Right.
I would like to repost it here, in light of recent events such as the Brexit and the on-going crisis surrounding the flood of undesirable immigrants into Europe and North America. Specifically, I believe that nationalism does not have to be merely a secularist phenomenon. There are many solid biblical reasons to support nationalism, contra the sort of simple-minded globalism that so many mainline denominations and even Evangelical cuckservative churchians preach. Just because God’s Son Jesus Christ died for the entire world, this doesn’t mean that God wants the entire world “all getting together” into some globalist fantasy when He specifically broke us apart thousands of years ago to keep that from happening.
The other night, I made the mistake, while cycling through the stations on my car’s radio, of listening to a few moments of an interview on the local public radio station. I don’t even remember the name of the interviewee, and really only remember about him that he was your typical left-wing whiner, in this case complaining that he had not been given a chance to write an op-ed for the New York Times. What really had his knickers in a knot was that Marine Le Pen, leader of France’s National Front party, had been given op-ed space by the Times in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris.
According to our misremembered would-be author, this was simply a horrible, horrible thing for the Times to have done. The interviewer, admitting that he did not know who Marine Le Pen was, asked why. It was because, as we were told by Nameless Whiner, Marine Le Pen is a “fascist.” He then proceeded to expound upon this point, demonstrating in the process that he had no idea what “fascism” really is; explaining that, among other things, Marine Le Pen is against multiculturalism and open immigration into France from the Muslim world.
In other words, Marine Le Pen is a “fascist” because she believes that France should be for French people.
Great news from yesterday evening, as the British people (at least the English and Welsh ones) voted to secede from the Second Belgian Empire.
“British voters chose to ‘leave’ the European Union on Thursday, defying the polls — and President Barack Obama, who had urged Britain to ‘remain’ in the EU. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had also urged Britain to stay in the EU. Only Donald Trump had backed the campaign to leave.
“Republican strategists had panned Trump’s decision to travel to the UK in the midst of campaign turmoil, and in the wake of his blistering attack on Hillary Clinton earlier this week.
“Now, however, it looks like a risk that paid off handsomely, in the currency of foreign policy credibility.”
As you can imagine, there is an incredible amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth from all of the usual suspects – the globalists, the Muslim deep-cover jihadists, the cuckservatives, and the rest. Before I get to what I’d really like to talk about with this post (how the vote reflects centuries old patterns of division in the Anglo-Saxon world, and thus demonstrates the enduring legacy of culture), here are a few brief thoughts on the referendum: