The following is a response to “Boris S.,” who is some type of traditionalist conservative, whose commentary about White Nationalism at The Thinking Housewife contains a number of errors which has annoyed me into penning a rebuttal.
(1) Historically speaking, “White Nationalism” has been around in North America in some form since the mid-seventeenth century. It has been called different names (i.e., Free Soilism) at different times.
It is false to say that “White Nationalists” have invented “a totally new form of tribal organization” out of “thin air.” The basic components of their ideology have been in the American bloodstream for generations.
The roots of “White Nationalism” in the United States can be traced back to the colonial practice of English and European settlers defining themselves in racial terms – that is, in terms of complexion and morphology – in order to forge a greater sense of unity in an alien environment filled with hostile Indian tribes and negro slaves.
White Nationalism started out as a pragmatic strategy (one among many others) for conquering the North American continent. Eventually, it evolved into the social and political foundation of the United States … because it worked.
In so many words, “whiteness” (and the hierarchy of rights and privileges based on race) became an integral aspect of Americanism.
It wasn’t until the mid-twentieth century that the various components of traditional Americanism – whiteness, English language, Protestant Christianity, republican ideology – became unglued and the racial fragment of Americanism became the base of a new universalist ideology – this idea of “our race is our nation” – which Boris S. is attacking here as a straw man.
(2) As I explained above, the roots of White Nationalism can be traced back to the English colonization of North America. The fair complexion of the English settlers stood out in stark contrast to the dark complexion of indigenous Indian tribes and negro slaves.
The children of the original American colonists and succeeding generations increasingly began to define themselves in racial terms. They did this for several reasons:
– In order to retain their distinctiveness as Indians and negroes converted to Christianity.
– In order to distinguish themselves from the English parent stock.
– In order to maximize White unity in an alien region in which hostile Indians and slave rebellions posed a serious threat to the survival of the colonies.
– In order to better facilitate the project of conquering and settling North America.
There is nothing remarkable about this type of ethnogenesis. The same process happened to a lesser degree in Australia and New Zealand as well as in European colonies in Africa.
Black slaves in the New World went through a similar type of ethnogenesis. Negroes intermarried and lost their tribal distinctiveness in favor a common racial identity. They also evolved over time into a new people.
This was going on in North America for centuries before anyone ever heard of Adolf Hitler.
Adolf Hitler was a German nationalist. He sought to unite Austria and other German speaking areas with Germany. Hitler also sought in the long term to forge a greater sense of unity among Germanic Northern Europeans: Germans, English, Dutch, Swedes, Danes, Norwegians, etc.
Even an undergraduate in history can discern that National Socialism and White Nationalism are not necessarily the same thing. Hitler’s ethnonationalist inspired attack on Poland and Czechoslovakia makes little sense under the race based paradigm of White Nationalism.
(3) No one can accuse me of being a National Socialist or a Nazi sympathizer. I have quarreled with those people for years.
It is a gross oversimplification of a complex historical process of White racial decline to singularly blame National Socialism for the downfall of Western civilization. A better argument is that the war against Hitler’s Germany was a catalyst that accelerated preexisting trends.
If Britain and America had not been committed to upholding the existing liberal democratic capitalist system, and the international order based on that system, they wouldn’t have responded to Hitler in such a negative way.
It was the clash between their preexisting liberal values and the Nazi version of racialism that caused most Western nations to demonize the latter and eventually to completely rejected their racial identity.
(4) Like any ideology, “White Nationalism” means different things to different people, but to the vast majority of self described “White Nationalists” it means preserving (at a minimum) the traditional racial and ethnic integrity of White nations in Europe and North America.
Defined in this way, “White Nationalism” can clash with this or that religion, this or that style of music, this or that philosophical framework, appreciation and rejection of the modern world, etc.
It is really not difficult to understand. “Boris S.” is willfully trying to misunderstand White Nationalism.
(5) This argument is based on the flawed premise that “revolution” inherently requires the use of violence. The Cultural Revolution of the 1960s and 1970s – which dismantled the Jim Crow system in the United States – wasn’t particularly violent and was accomplished legally by working through the political process.
White Nationalists (most of them at least) aim to restore the traditional racial definition of Americanism. The Left is “revolutionary” in that it seeks to dismantle all existing institutions.
I suppose White Nationalists are “revolutionary” in the sense that they seek to overthrow the existing elite and the institutionalization of “progressive” norms in American society whereas most conservatives only give lip service to this idea.
(6) White Nationalists have “dealt” with non-Whites in America since 1607. Dealing with them in a White Nationalist America would hardly be anything new.
(7) White Nationalism is “reactionary” in the sense that it is a response to changing racial demographics in the United States.
It is “conservative” in the sense that it seeks to restore the racial basis of Americanism.
It is “revolutionary” in the sense that White Nationalists would like nothing better than to eradicate the existing progressive elite.
(8) I don’t see the restoration of our birthright as Americans under the U.S. Constitution as a “nasty consequence.” Understandably, some people who subscribe to liberal political ideology do see arguments from heredity and tradition in such a negative way.
(9) This is clearly false.
Racial categories were known and familiar to Ancient, Medieval, and Modern Europeans. The American racial tradition stretches back over three centuries.
The real novelty is what is called “anti-racism” or “ethnomasochism.”
(10) The American racial paradigm was around 150 years old when Charles Darwin published Origin of Species and played no role in the American concept of “Manifest Destiny” which was rooted in the older idea of divine providence.
(11) The Dred Scott decision and the U.S. Constitution were written after 1880?
(12) The influx of non-Whites into the United States, Great Britain, Germany and other European countries had everything to do with the repeal of preexisting immigration laws which excluded non-Whites from settling in the West.
That also had everything to do with the demise of racialism in the aftermath of the Second World War.
(13) American industrialization in the 19th century coincided with the Chinese Exclusion Act and the racial hardening of American immigration laws in the decades that followed. It cannot be said to have been caused by industrialization.
Britain and Germany had been “industrializing” for decades and centuries before non-Whites began to settle en masse there after the Second World War.
(14) How is that a problem with White Nationalist ideology? An ethnostate – like any state or legal system – is an artificial construct designed to preserve the racial integrity of any given people.
(12) As a so-called “race materialist,” I do not deny the “common origin” of mankind, unless you are referring to creationism, which is scientifically indefensible.
Traditionally, the West hasn’t used electricity to power machines, but that is hardly an argument against smart phones and computers.
(13) Defending ourselves from racial antagonism by hostile groups that seek our racial dispossession and subjugation in our own lands is hardly immoral by any reasonable standard.
(14) “White Nationalism” is nothing more than a living arrangement. It is not some theoretical sand castle in the air of abstractions like liberalism.
(15) There are plenty of White Nationalist eggheads who are infatuated with that type of airy, abstract nonsense and navel gazing which has never accomplished anything for White people.
Seek and you shall find.
Note: While I am no longer involved in the White Nationalist movement, I remain an expert on the subject.