What is White Nationalism?

Let us consider together.

An imbecilic Counter-Currents commentator writes:

I don’t see a contradiction in a political Venn diagram whose largest circle is ‘White Nationalism’ with other more parochial ‘White Nationalisms‘ within it. What matters is what ‘White Nationalism’ you prioritize during a conflict.

Those more parochial ‘White Nationalisms‘ are not “White nationalism” but are ethnic nationalisms. This attempt to alter the meaning of White nationalism derives from Greg Johnson’s repeated mendacious efforts to redefine White nationalism as a collection of individual, atomized European ethnonationalisms. I will demonstrate here that this redefinition is absurd. As to the reason why Johnson went from being (apparently) pan-European (during the time I wrote for Counter-Currents) to an ardent petty nationalist ethnonationalist, I suspect it has to do with his obsessive feud with the “Big Europe” Richard Spencer. His equally mendacious attempt to equate authentic White nationalism with “imperialism” in my opinion has a similar motivational source. However, ultimately, his motivation is irrelevant. Let us instead logically dissect the meaning of the term. What is White nationalism?

What is nationalism? Nationalism is a strong allegiance to a nation; further, Wikipedia defines nationalism as:

Nationalism is an idea and movement that holds that the nation should be congruent with the state.

What is a nation?  A nation is a people who have a common identity, typically this is an identify based upon shared biological descent and a shared culture. A nation is not the same as a state or a nation state.  For example, Basques are a nation who do not have their own state; here, we can consider nationality to be in part aspirational – the Basques are a nation that desires its own nation state. On the other hand, Belgium is a state composed of two nations, the Flemish and the Walloons.

Ethnonationalism, which is what Johnson promotes, is a sense of nationalism limited to considering the nation as a specific ethnic group. Hence, a German ethnonationalist can be considered a German nationalist (as long as we rightfully reject civic nationalist “German nationalism” from being authentically “German nationalist” given that such a “nationalism” includes groups that are in fact nations with widely divergent racial origins and cultures). Of course, one can be more fine-grained and consider Bavarians to be a nation; hence, we would then observe Bavarian nationalism to be the focus of Bavarian national aspirations (thus, established nation states and their underlying national identities are not inherently sacrosanct).

One common thread here is that the type of nationalism in question is defined by the adjective that is associated with it – German, Bavarian, or whatever. If the adjective is of a racial nature, defining the nation in terms of a common racial origin and the broad culture associated with that race, we are then dealing with a form of racial nationalism. Thus, Black nationalism is a nationalism for all Negroes, regardless of their specific ethnic origin or political-state affiliation. The adjective “Black” in “Black nationalism” designates a racial nation.  Black nationalism is not merely the sum of Nigerian nationalism, Angolan nationalism, Ethiopian nationalism, Jamaican nationalism, Afro-American nationalism, etc. The term “Black nationalism” is more than the sum of its ethnic parts; it is a racial nationalism that supersedes all of those narrower ethnic nationalisms.

White nationalism is the same. The adjective here is White. Of course, people can define “White” in different manners – I myself see “White” as equivalent to “European” and thus “White nationalism” to me means “pan-European nationalism.” But we need not quibble about those definitions here; instead, the main point of this essay is that White nationalism is, like Black nationalism, a form of (aspirational) racial nationalism, in which the nation is defined in explicitly racial, not ethnic, terms, and the long term aspirational objective would be building a nation state based on race.

Many ethnonationalists, including Johnson, state that they support ethnonationalism for all peoples, including non-Whites. Therefore, they are simply ethnonationalists, or, perhaps, to borrow a term from Salter, ethnonationalists who are universal nationalists.  Why invoke the racial term “White” to describe their “universal ethnonationalism” unless the racial designation of “White” is in fact fundamental to their sense of identity?  And if that is so, doesn’t that undermine their insistence on the primacy of ethnonationalism?  Why doesn’t Johnson identify as an Anglo nationalist, an American nationalist, or an Anglo-American nationalist? Why “White?”

I suppose that someone can make the argument that they can be both an ethnonationalist and a White nationalist. Whether or not we agree with that assertion, we must at the very least agree that someone who makes that argument is conceding that “ethnonationalist” and “White nationalist” are two separate things, which I believe is indeed the case. The problem is the redefinition of terms to represent ideas that they actually do not represent. A collection of European ethnonationalisms is not (authentic) White nationalism, and (authentic) White nationalism is not “imperialism.” All of these words have specific, precise, commonly accepted (at least historically on the Far Right) definitions, and productive debate on these topics is not possible when the fundamental meaning of such words, terms, and phrases is lost. 

A survey of comments at Counter-Currents and at other sites, sites, such as Occidental Dissent, makes clear that Johnson’s “Ministry of Truth” attempt to transform White nationalism into ethnonationalism and redefine real White nationalism as “imperialism” is being accepted by some of the various mental weaklings, freaks, Nutzis, Nordicists, ethnic fetishists, “Southern nationalist” obsessives, etc. who infest Der Movement. There is something sinister, something Orwellian, about attempts to influence other people via redefining commonly accepted language out of existence, instead of properly using rational arguments based upon those commonly accepted, logical terms. That gaslighting strategy is completely unacceptable and must be opposed. 

The foundation of White nationalism is: Our Race Is Our Nation. That is the commonly accepted definition and that definition, that position, is worth defending and I for one will defend it.

Amren Opinion Poll

Polling.

See this. I have mixed feelings about that. On the one hand, I’ve been beating the drum about racial-based opinion polling of Whites for years, so it’s a step in the right direction. On the other hand, they left out the most important questions – asking all those “racial conservatives” (bad term – “conservative” – but this is Amren after all) what is stopping them from engaging in overt pro-White activism. Do they believe in aracial civic nationalism? If so, why? Like Sailer, do they support civic nationalism because they aver that White nationalism is “impossible?” Are they disgusted with Der Movement and see nothing worth following? Do they see WNs as a bunch of dangerous freakish extremists? Why? What about pro-White activism do they dislike? Are they afraid of social pricing consequences of being WN; are they are afraid of System retaliation? More fundamentally, how many of all of those “racial conservatives” are civic nationalist “citizenists” and how many actually are potential racial nationalists? The Quota Queens think they can “reach out to” all of the “racial conservatives” but without the answers to these questions, they are doomed to fail – as usual.

A Dead Country With No Future

There are two issues to get out of the way before I make my main point.  First, how to define “wignat” and “amnat?”

See this.

A term coined in 2018 by Ricky Vaughn aka Douglass Mackey, and popularized by Andrew Anglin and Nick Fuentes. It stands for “wigger nationalist” and was originally used to describe lower class, violent, and unattractive neo Nazis that were willing to engage in street violence and unabashed Nazism with the use of swastikas and other symbols.

It has now lost that meaning due to the paleoconservative and more GOP-friendly side of the racialist/white nationalist sphere using it to describe any white nationalist who is skeptical of the GOP or holds racialism as their highest value over conservative or right wing politics.

So, originally “wignat” meant the type of fetishistic crazed Nutzis I have often critiqued; however, the definition seems to have morphed into the type of reasonable racial nationalist Nutzi represented by myself and others who associate with a rational form of White nationalism.

As regards the amnats, here we describe more mainstream individuals, Trumpian right-wing populist types, who advocate for traditional American ideas, who wrap themselves in the American flag and who promote a specifically traditional American metapolitical aesthetic, who advocate “America First” rather than White nationalism, who inhabit the border area between civic nationalism and the more racially aware (but stupidly juvenile) Alt Right. They are, as the name implies, more of American nationalists than White racial nationalists. Trump himself is sort of a mild version of an amnat.

The second issue is that my critics will no doubt ascribe my perspective here, my willingness to abandon the Traditional America, to the fact that I am not an Old Stock American, that I am an “alien swarthoid” with no ethno-familial ties to the “historic American nation.” That’s true from a strictly biological perspective – but not from an assimilated cultural perspective (that is beyond the scope of this essay to discuss) – nevertheless, the critics’ argument is merely ad hominem. If my perspective is wrong, then refute it; refuting me personally will not, or should not, convince a rational third party observer. I may add that some leading amnats are not exactly Old Stock Americans either, some of them have surnames that one would not expect to have been found on the Mayflower, for example.  So, the ethnic component of wignat vs. amnat doesn’t seem very relevant.

My premise here is that while the amnats seem to have greater political viability in the short term, their approach will fail beyond that, and that the wignats (newer, broader definition) seem more in tune with the future times to come.

The amnats no doubt have some validity, some promise in the short term, leveraging Trumpian right-wing populism and the “Indian Summer” of hardcore civic nationalism among Whites who not yet realize that they have lost the war to save Traditional America (thathas already died). So, the amnats will make hay while the sun shines, and best of luck to them on their holding action, which may buy some time, which can be a valuable commodity.  But the amnat approach has a limited shelf life.

The Traditional America is a dead country with no future. It has been killed, murdered, by the Jews, the Left, the Coloreds, the SJWs, the “pathological altruists,” and by the feckless bumbling milksops of the Right. The New “Amerikwa” produced by the aforementioned murderers of the Old America is like a child born with a terminal disease – not yet dead, but definitely dying. We cannot predict how long it may hang on, its death may be protracted, but its eventual pathetic end is inevitable, even if later rather than sooner. 

The Future America is a blank slate upon which those with vision can and will write what they wish. It is unlikely that such strong individuals will once again write the empty platitudes and tired political cant of old-style “mom and apple pie” “wave the flag” traditional American patriotism, and it is doubtful that the White Americans of that future time would be interested in once again hearing the memes whose abject failure brought them so much pain. Thus, in the long term, the amnats have nothing to offer; they will be swept away by the tides of history, and although they may rail against those tides like King Canute, swept away by those tides they will be. And they and their ideology will become increasingly irrelevant in the medium term as well, after the final burial of the Old Traditional America, and as the flailing monstrosity of Amerikwa crashes and burns. Race, Culture, and Civilization will be the key issues of the future, not the values and history and aesthetics of a Traditional America whose death is evidence of the ultimate failure of its inherent ideology and of its values.

So, the amnats will have their hour now, but once their time is up they will exit the stage of history and make way for others better suited to deal with reality; they will make way for others better suited to pick up the blank slate and write the future.  The new interpretation of “wignat” – racial nationalists – are those better suited to deal with the realities of tomorrow. At some point, it will be time for us to bury the dead and move on.

America is dead; long live America.

Posted by JWH at 1:00 AM 

The Basic Foundation of White Nationalism

Race as nation.

The Left (and the System in general) pretends to be confused about what White nationalism is – “there is no generalized White nation” they proclaim – or they stupidly and mendaciously conflate White nationalism with “White supremacy.” 

Putting aside all of the details and all of the various permutations of White nationalist thought, the concept is very simple and very basic – extending the concept of “nation” to incorporate the entire race (typically meaning Europeans as a whole), so that the concept of national identity and national allegiance, at its highest level, focuses on race, rather than on particular ethnic groups constituting that race.

What is nationalism?

Nationalism is an ideology and movement characterized by the promotion of the interests of a particular nation,[1] especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining the nation’s sovereignty (self-governance) over its homeland. Nationalism holds that each nation should govern itself, free from outside interference (self-determination), that a nation is a natural and ideal basis for a polity,[2] and that the nation is the only rightful source of political power (popular sovereignty).[1][3] It further aims to build and maintain a single national identity—based on shared social characteristics such as culture, language, religion, politics, and belief in a shared singular history[4][5][page needed]—and to promote national unity or solidarity.[1] Nationalism, therefore, seeks to preserve and foster a nation’s traditional culture, and cultural revivals have been associated with nationalist movements.[6] It also encourages pride in national achievements, and is closely linked to patriotism.[7][page needed] Nationalism is often combined with other ideologies, such as conservatism (national conservatism) or socialism (socialist nationalism) for example.[2]

Thus, again, White nationalism is simply putting the race as a whole as the nation instead of nations based on particular ethnic groups. The latter certainly can still play a role, and those nations can continue to exist (and should),  but the highest form of national allegiance is to the race – Our Race Is Our Nation, the “ORION” theme. The idea that nationalism has to refer to a pre-existing nation-state is ludicrous and ahistorical; indeed, many current nation states exist because of the pre-existing nationalism of those who envisioned the state and actualized it into existence.

Everything described in the Wikipedia quote above holds with respect to White nationalism – self-determination, political power, identity, etc.

Also see this.

It is not easy to formulate an argument that whites, uniquely among the world’s peoples, lack any moral right to organize in defense of their interests or to maintain homelands of their own. So our enemies do not, in fact, attempt to formulate such arguments; they simply lie. The lying takes the form of name-calling, and consists in the discrepancy between the dictionary definition and the definition-in-use of devil terms.

Yes, and that lying includes dishonesty about the meaning of White nationalism, as discussed above.  Lying about White nationalism is simply a malicious racial attack against Whites and White interests.