In the previous article, I said I think nationalism is a good thing. I find it important to note, however, that I did not say “white nationalism.” That is important to note, not just for those who oppose nationalism who might be tempted to mischaracterize my argument, but also for various alt-right types who might be tempted to overcharacterize what I said. I am in favor of nationalism. I am not in favor of white nationalism.
Is there a difference? Yes, and an important one. America has, for its entire existence, been composed of people with various skin colors. The attitudes on the part of many toward those with different skin colors has of course been a major problem at different times. There continues to be a good deal of racism today, on the part of every racial group, toward others.
But part of the problem with even discussing this issue comes from the fact that people use words perversely, to use the language of the Proverbs of Solomon. People call things by their opposite, where it’s hate to identify destructive behavior as such and it’s love to satisfy physical urges. Racism is one of those terms the meaning of which has been subtly changed to mean very nearly the opposite of what it used to mean. This is why it is now racist to oppose affirmative action, when affirmative action (by the old definition of the term) is an explicitly racist policy.
So what do I mean by racist? Perhaps it’s better simply to refer to the Biblical language of hating your brother without a cause. The Bible calls me to love my neighbor as myself, and Jesus defines who my neighbor is in the parable of the Good Samaritan, the story of a person who overcame massive cultural prejudices to help someone in need. So hatred, mistreatment, contempt or the like shown toward someone because of their racial background is a sin. We ought to treat people the right way regardless of superficial characteristics such as that.
This is no longer what racism means. Now, racism is defined in structural terms, where the nation is described as being an explicitly white supremacist nation, that whites simply are the dominant power block and therefore have disproportionate power merely by being white. This is what terms like “white privilege” are meant to capture. So, if you are white, then you are racist, simply because you are a beneficiary of this unjust power structure. Your attitude toward others of different colors is irrelevant. If you are a conservative, in favor of maintaining the status quo, the traditional way that America has been structured, then you are racist, regardless of what you think of blacks or Asians or whoever.
This is lying of the worst sort. It’s what the Proverbs call a “perverse tongue”. “Perverse” means topsy turvy, upside-down, backwards. Take a word with negative connotations, apply it to something different than what it’s traditionally been applied to, and you can direct a lot of rhetorical power toward that other thing without being clear to people what you’re actually talking about. Thus we get to hear how everything’s racist all the time now, and people are totally mystified as to why they’re being called racist since they harbor no animosity toward blacks or Mexicans or whatever, and the person doing the accusing can adopt a moral high ground and signal to everyone else how righteous he is at destroying the reputation or career of this horrible racist who doesn’t even know what he did wrong but is made to grovel and apologize anyway. It’s just a struggle session, and done for exactly the same reason, a naked exercise of power. Old institutions and ways of thinking are to be destroyed to pave the way for the new.
And there’s always a backlash. Today, the backlash is that the charge of racism is losing its power. More and more people do not care at all about being accused of racism. And in fact, this is breaking down the moral taboo against the real thing. This is the purpose, because all of this is cultural Marxism. Marx saw great value in societal conflict, as it was what he believed drove the historical dialectic toward utopia. He believed the lower classes would naturally revolt against the upper classes as tension increased naturally between them. But that failed to happen in many western states, especially America, because we do not experience class the same way other places do. Poor people see themselves as “temporarily embarrassed millionaires” in America and did not have the same level of antagonism toward the rich as a lot of people in other places do. Poor people saw opportunity to become rich themselves.
Marxists in America adapted. Since the rich vs poor dynamic did not have as much punch here as it did in other places, then they found other oppressed classes to work up. Women, minorities, gays, illegal immigrants. The socialists don’t care about any of these people. They just use them, stoke their sense of aggrievance, stir them up, create envy in them in order to create societal conflict. The conflict is the goal, because they hate America and want to destroy it.
So now the backlash is coming. We have actual white nationalism looming. It has become more acceptable to talk about white nationalism than it has been for all of my life. More and more people are coming out and saying, if the blacks and the Latinos and the gays can openly express pride in themselves, why can’t I talk about white pride? Why can’t I openly advocate for the good of my people if everyone else is doing it too? After all, what’s so bad about being white? If the left spent decades trying to force us all to think of ourselves as white above all else (trying to shame us about that fact), then maybe they shouldn’t be so surprised when they actually succeed, except we’re not ashamed of it after all?
Divide and conquer is an old tactic of empire, playing one group against another, in order to keep everyone off balance, the more easily dominated by those at the top. I believe the white nationalists are playing right into the hands of those that want to dominate this country, the statists and socialists who desire to dominate us.
So I believe in nationalism, that of culture. An ethnic group is a group defined by language, by customs, by religion, by attitude. America used to be a country that shared common values, where most everyone spoke English, valued freedom and personal responsibility, largely accepted Christian assumptions about the world even if some weren’t really traditional Christians. This is the nationalism I desire, a country that is formulated largely of people who view the world in somewhat roughly the same way, so that it becomes actually possible to form a coherent set of laws and governing institutions. It is simply impossible to come to consensus between a western Protestant Christian and a sharia-compliant Muslim. There are too many contradictions, as there are also with a Marxist.
Along with that, as I explained before, comes limited government. Nationalism isn’t trying to solve all the problems. It isn’t trying to create utopia. It’s simply saying, leave us alone to govern ourselves and live our lives. And that means government should be as local as possible. There will always be differences, always be a range of views and cultural expectations. I’m not advocating ethnic cleansing. But I am advocating not going any further down the insane road of multiculturalism, and starting to consolidate our culture, to build some cultural consensus on things. I’m not advocating closing the door to immigration. But I am advocating getting control of it, and making decisions about immigration that are for the good of the people already here, and respect the culture and traditions of the country.
I don’t think this is probably possible anymore in the USA in its current form. I think we probably need to subdivide into three or more separate nations. Northeast, South, West / Midwest, Pacific coast. Something like that. Of course that’s oversimplifying. But it might give us a chance to actually formulate policies based on a common set of cultural assumptions. It might be possible to have nations that are not so totally polarized that the only way to hold them together as a nation is through bribery and brute force.
So I didn’t say white nationalism, because I don’t believe in white nationalism. That misunderstands what nationalism is. Saying “white nationalism” is to identify myself first and foremost as white, and that is a false, meaningless category. It’s to identify myself by characteristics that don’t matter. It’s pride, and it carries with it hostility toward others for no good reason. It’s hating your brother without a cause. Yes, there’s a component to national identity that is geographic, where you come from, what you look like. There’s a component that has to do with what we think of as broad racial groups. But that’s not what really matters. I have a lot more in common with many blacks, many Latinos, many Asians, than I do with many white Anglo-Saxons. Common culture is what I care about.