The trouble with white nationalism

is that it is demotic. The trouble with our brahmins is that they are demotic.

If, seeking power, you propose to give all white people a microslice of power, you will be outbid by those seeking power who propose to give everyone a microslice of power.

White nationalism is moderate leftism, and moderate leftism will always be outbid by immoderate leftism

Today’s white nationalism is yet another variant on the Republican program of backing away from the left singularity in infinitesimally tiny steps. This runs contrary to the natural ever leftwards dynamic, so always turns into program for heading into the left singularity at a slightly slower pace which in turn turns into a program for heading into the left singularity at an ever accelerating pace – mainstream republicanism.

White nationalism, being demotic, tends to become national socialism. National socialism kills people not because it is nationalist, but because it is socialist.

It is necessary to apply different laws to different people on the basis of superficial characteristics. For example a black man taking certain drugs is overwhelmingly likely to be markedly more dangerous than a white man taking the same drugs. So, in practice, we have very restrictive laws that are theoretically applied to everyone, but are, in practice, applied selectively – the alternative to racially aware enforcement being suicide.

Would it not be a lot fairer to openly issue identity cards, and openly have different laws for different groups, with some groups having laws that were simpler, harsher, more restrictive, and more swiftly enforced?

Of course that would be fairer, more just, more effective, than our current hypocritical system.

And if we had that, would not white nationalism be part of the air you breathed, so that all whites would be white nationalist without thinking about it or being aware of it?

Obviously it would. And obviously that is the system that we used to have. We used to all be unthinkingly and naturally race nationalist, the alternative being obviously stupid and suicidal. And we drifted away from that system, replacing it with elaborate hypocrisy and pretense, because white nationalism is leftist, and Cthulhu swims always left.

You can move leftwards from that system to socialism, and wind up murdering people by the truckload, or move leftwards from that system to what we have now, and white people wind up being ethnically cleansed. On the whole, the latter leftwards movement is markedly preferable to the former leftwards movement.

Whites are not naturally a tribe. To make them a tribe, you would need an identitarian religion. That religion would have to become the state religion, and then forcibly convert all whites to that state religion.

But state religions that forcibly convert everyone are intolerably oppressive, and tend to have extremely bad economic effects. A more workable program is what we have now, where the official religion is high status, all deviations from it are low status, and if you want to get a job in government, or quasi government, or go to the more prestigious universities you have to pretend to subscribe to the official religion.

Now if we had an identitarian religion, and it was the state religion, then after a few hundred years or so, nearly all whites would subscribe to it, much as they subscribe to our current official state religion, and then rule of that religion would effectively be white nationalism.

But, lacking such a religion, whites lack tribal identity, so white nationalism will always fail the way it has already failed.

Been there, done that, prohibited from wearing the t-shirt.

We tried going back to the 1950s, time to try 1660.

94 Responses to “The trouble with white nationalism”

  1. Handle says:

    National socialism kills people not because it is nationalist, but because it is socialist.

    Too far, Jim; it’s both. You can kill people because of Communism, and you can kill people because of Nationalism, and it can also be all of the above.

    Plenty of European countries have been very Socialist for a long time, but don’t kill anyone. Soviets and Chinese killed a lot of everybody, including lots of their own people.

    But the Nazis had it out for non-Aryans in particular from day 1 as an essential motivation and part of their program. The way to explain who they chose to kill is their idea of Nationalism.

    • jim says:

      you can kill people because of Nationalism, and it can also be all of the above.

      Where do we see people being murdered in large numbers by a government where you can buy a MacDonald’s hamburger in the capital?

      The biggest mass murderers around today are the government of Congo, beloved by the Cathedral, armed and funded by the Cathedral. It is murdering people on the basis of race, but that is OK with the Cathedral because it is murdering blacks of certain races for being superior to other races of blacks, rather than murdering them for being inferior to other races of blacks. Being loved by the Cathedral, you might suppose they have a McDonald’s, but Google Earth reports otherwise.

      Plenty of European countries have been very Socialist for a long time, but don’t kill anyone

      1. It is the dose that makes the poison. They are not “very” socialist. You can buy a McDonald’s.

      2. They do murder plenty of people. For example the Netherlands practices involuntary euthenasia on people who are old and sick, sick enough to be expensive to look after, yet stubbornly healthy enough to refuse to die. About ten percent of hospital deaths are in the Netherlands “under deep sedation”, and you don’t deeply sedate people unless they are healthy enough to make a fuss about not getting water and food.

      3. Britain has convicted 55000 people for political dissent. They are not killing them, but have a notorious tendency to expose them to political violence by supposedly non state organizations that are in practice state backed and state funded, “anti fascist” organizations created and organized on the model of Hitler’s SA.

      • Virga Ferrea says:

        “Where do we see people being murdered in large numbers by a government where you can buy a MacDonald’s hamburger in the capital?”

        South Africa. But the murders are not directly committed by the government. Instead, the government deliberately avoids dealing with crime.

        And it has nothing to do with your point about nationalism. South Africa is as Cathedral-controlled as any modern country.

        • J. James says:

          The United States is doing the same thing, white genocide by proxy. The black run Department of Justice only acts decisively when a white or near white attempts to defend himself. Out of control black on white crime is ignored or actively concealed.

          • Zeb says:

            Short, sweet, to the point, and lethality accurate. Now how do we get that information in front of 10 million other people directly, or in directly affected by these genocidal goberment policies?

  2. Zach says:

    Meh.

    Jim is anti-power. He’s a good brah.

  3. Elric of Melnibone says:

    Just finished watching a marathon of the first season of The Walking Dead. Between Merle, Daryl, Shane, and Ed, am I properly hating white men per Teh Cathedral instructions yet?

    • Zach says:

      lol

      Can’t agree with ya, but hellz yes nugga.

      • Elric of Melnibone says:

        I must confess all this Keanureevesreactionism is awfully confusing. Been reading Moldbug, Xeno, Jim, and Bloody Shovel lately, and outside the bloody croc poem by Moldbug, none of it makes sense. Still worth reading and studying. Cheers, all.

  4. dudemeister says:

    “Whites are not naturally a tribe. To make them a tribe, you would need an identitarian religion. That religion would have to become the state religion, and then forcibly convert all whites to that state religion.” Mainstream Protestantism was this in USA between Civil War and WWII. The conquest of the United States by Massachusetts and all that.

  5. Elric of Melnibone says:

    “…time to try 1660.”

    Growing up in the rural US south while being Freewill Baptist is about as close to 1660 as you can get, barring wearing a lobster tail pot. My grandfather on my mother’s side reckoned himself a lord humorously based on his agricultural holdings.

    Since whitopia is impossible, what shall we champion? Moldburry Neocartmanism?

  6. Zach says:

    Brilliant:

    “Who are these two, where did they come from, and why don’t they speak our language?

    Are we insufficiently manning the borders, or is this acceptable?”

    Know how long it took for some genius to come along here? Fuckin’ ages. I was waiting and waiting. Finally you two nuggas popped up.

    Don’t fuck with me. I applaud your genius though. Lovin’ it.

  7. Elric of Melnibone says:

    I can’t find a Nyan Sandwich card on Rasish. Does that mean I can ignore him (or her, don’t mean to be offensive.)

  8. Darmand says:

    Jim, wonderful as usual. I am hung up on this though:

    “murdering people by the truckload … or … white people wind up being ethnically cleansed. …the latter leftwards movement is markedly preferable …”

    I am not sure I understand. The latter does not seem preferable. Forgive if I am being dense, but I cannot parse it. And I follow everything else.

    • jim says:

      The former leftwards movement is to move leftwards from a system where different groups are openly treated differently before the law, to a system of national socialism, which results in people being murdered by the truckload.

      The latter leftwards movement is to move leftwards from a system where different groups are openly treated differently before the law, to a system where we hypocritically pretend that different groups are treated equally before the law.

      The latter leftwards movement results in ethnic cleansing of whites, which preferable to the mass murder characteristic of the former leftwards movement.

  9. zhai2nan2 says:

    >state religions that forcibly convert everyone are intolerably oppressive, and tend to have extremely bad economic effects.

    State-enforced Islam doesn’t seem to be crippling Saudi Arabia or Iran. Of course, a few non-Muslim servants are allowed to work as temps without being forcibly converted.

    State-enforced Judaism in Israel doesn’t forcibly convert Palestinians to Judaism, but some would claim Israel is intolerably oppressive.

    I’m not aware of any other state-enforced theistic religions in the modern world.

    I agree with many of Jim’s claims, but on the above-quoted claim, I think he’s extrapolating from insufficient data.

    • jim says:

      No one in Saudi Arabia is forced to convert to the official religion. They have very large religious minorities.

      No one in Israel is forced to convert to Judaism – the official religion of Israel is progressivism, not Judaism.

      I’m not aware of any other state-enforced theistic religions in the modern world.

      There are no state enforced monotheistic religions in the modern world. Spain had a go at it in the sixteenth century, and the cost was too high.

      State enforcement of a polytheistic religion is less damaging.

      • Virga Ferrea says:

        “There are no state enforced monotheistic religions in the modern world.”

        North Korea? It claims to be atheistic, but maintains clearly supernatural beliefs about it’s rulers, ascribing god-like powers to them.

        And while there are technically three different gods, they’re virtually united in their theology and religious practice.

      • AAB says:

        They aren’t forced to convert, but being a non-Muslim is increasingly difficult. Atheists are soon to be classed as ‘terrorists’. Now while that isn’t forcing people to convert to Islam it certainly makes it difficult to be anything but a Muslim. Check out the link:

        Saudi Arabia declares atheists terrorists under new laws targeting citizens who ‘call for secular thought in any form’
        (Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2594139/Saudi-Arabia-declares-atheists-terrorists-new-laws.html)

        • AAB says:

          Sorry, I should’ve noted that I was responding to your comment on Saudi Arabia.

        • jim says:

          No atheists are not to be classed as terrorists. Atheists preaching are to be classed as terrorists. Try preaching HBD in England. It is pretty hazardous even in the USA. Repression against those not of the official religion is worse in England than Saudi Arabia. Currently it is about as bad in Saudi Arabia as in the USA. If they actually give effect to the proposed legislation, it will then be worse in Saudi Arabia than in the USA, but for the moment, Saudi Arabia is more tolerant than the USA – you can openly disbelieve in the official religion, and yet keep your job in Saudi Arabia.

          • AAB says:

            ‘you can openly disbelieve in the official religion, and yet keep your job in Saudi Arabia.’

            Yeah, that’s true. After reading another article on the matter the new law in Saudi Arabia seems to be about public protest rather than beliefs. Which, as you say, is no different to the various laws here in the UK against ‘hate speech’ or ‘racism’ or whatever.

  10. Red says:

    One thing that seems to differ between national socialism and leftist progressiveness: The left murders their own in large numbers. National socialists seem to kill their enemies a lot more than their own.

    • jim says:

      Nazism is more moderate, less left, than communism. It is the dose that makes the poison.

      The Soviet Union also murdered huge numbers in ethnic cleansings of various suspect groups, but people hardly noticed.

  11. spandrell says:

    I’m not aware of us trying to go back to 1950.

    Not that I think it would work.

  12. […] The trouble with white nationalism « Jim’s Blog […]

  13. screaminjay says:

    I must make a small dissent on this rather unremarkable remark:
    “White nationalism is moderate leftism”

    By today standards, Leftism is antiracism, Rightism is racism. I’m not saying this to be cute, by all standards given to any and all political movements, the feelings any given party have to immigration is what situate them on the Left/Right axis.

    As I’m French-Canadian, I may have a perspective on that, since we have a very left-wing form of nationalism that have shape-shifted to go beyond race and mean just “Francophone”. A ludicrous notion that would mean preserving our Nation just mean preserving a Language, no matter if said language is spoken by Arabs and Africans. Now that is, granted, PC nationalism with no connection to our old nationalism built around Race+Faith+Language, the formula of Lionel Groulx. French-Catholic… and French both as a race and language, unlike “francophones”. Our ethnic group is unlike any other according to some HBD sites, with traits we share with Ashkenazim, perhaps for similar reason of adaptation of evolutionary pressure.

    Anyway, our nationalism was well understood a century ago and in line with the far-right in France: L’Action Française of Charles Maurras (a good author, along with Lionel Groulx, for reactionaries). L’Action française was the real conservative, so they were of course royalists. Here’s a traditional song restored on youtube dating all the way back to 1909: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfXEq23wbHQ (it’s quite antisemitic, but the Dreyfus Affair was in the air; they were also mad about the Panama Canal takeover). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Panama_Canal#The_takeover

    Anyway, as far as ideologies are concerned, nationalism is the only one typically associated with the right out of any of them. Liberalism, socialism/communsim, anarchism/libertarianism, all of these are essentially leftist in their lack of hierarchical decision-making process.

    Nationalism is outside of this scope. It doesn’t advocate a given system. But it is right-wing, because it is associated with a bellicose attitude toward out-groups which can lead to warmaking in a State that would be ethno-nationalist. I would never say White. I am not simply “White”, I’m an ethnic group. I believe Ashkenazim are White, that is they are overwhelmingly European, but they are genetically a different ethnic group, they had a different evolutionary path due to specific circumstances this ethnic group faced, which do not need to be elaborated on. I’m not pulling a Moldbug on the whole persecution-industrial-complex, French-Canadians were second-rate citizens for a while in North-America too. But my ethnic group is mostly northern-Frenchmen, you know… the Normans who invaded England and went Crusading. The Montreal in America was not the first we build, there was another one near Jerusalem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_(Crusader_castle)

    Long history short, we were naturally built to be very nationalistic, or rather ethnocentric. Louis XIV prevented anyone other than French Catholics here, to avoid religious wars in the New World. So nationalism is not hard to understand, it’s kin group and we are especially related to one another here, seeing as our number grew from (at very best) 10,000 early settlers (likely half that, numbers on this are unreliable, especially the count of women who were mostly taken from orphanages and put on boat to be married off to settlers who had made the voyage) and rose to 10,000,000 without immigration. Now locally, it’s more 6,000,000, a number that haven’t much changed in the last 50 years due to the Pill. But throughout America, there is many States and Provinces with large quantities of ethnic French-Canadians. Vermont for example have French as the largest ethnic group. Massachusetts still have around 10%. The in-group is highly concentrated and, not inbred (since the Catholic Church is what broke the bound of cousin marriage in the first place), but with a high level of consanguinity. Again, just like Ashkenazim. I even believe I could tell who are French-Canadians in a crowd apart from who isn’t. It’s typical traits one get to recognize.

    This is not the ideology of nationalism, but ethnocentrism, or kinship-relatedness. This is how nations were built. If you read some Pat Buchanan, this is how the borders were broken down in the XXth century European wars, to split ethnic groups tightly apart, so that Hungarians could be led by Hungarians. They too are White people, but very distinct, with an Asiatic language alike all Western one and (tiny bit) Asiatic ancestry.

    That is why I always find White Nationalism boring, I do not belong to the “Whites”, I am an ethnic group with a distinct language, different customs, my own traits, etc.

    I don’t think I should have solidarity for all Whites from Alaska to Iceland to Russia to Australia to Argentina as a common people. My tribe is not that large. I wish them well, same as I would very much enjoy for Egyptians or Malaysians to do well for themselves. Good borders make good neighbors n’est-ce pas?

    We have won the Oscar for a film on that theme: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YAYGi8rQag

    So I do believe a sane dose of nationalism for reactionaries make sense. Now, while I would like Louis XX to be my King (he lives in NYC currently and is of a ripe young age), we need to remember how various ethnics groups clashes within given lands. Especially when they don’t have huge natural borders as Steve Sailer regularly explains.

    You thus make the mistake of thinking too much of US as an entity. Now granted, if the US restored the Stuarts… and they ruled over all of British-America, I guess you’d still have French-Canada in the way. See how nationalism isn’t only about White V Black… It’s distinct ethnic groups, that’s what all European wars were about. The French and the English have kicked each others butts for centuries on end. We are not meant to cooperate and we are not the assimilating kind. But if Old Monarchs came back and became fashionable, we do have not one, not two, but Three Royals ready for the job. Well, not sure how Napoléon VII would fit the bill, an Emperor these days just don’t sound right, especially a French Emperor! But Henri VII is another option. He is already 80 however and it would seem more fitting to bring back the descendant of the guillotined King.

    • jim says:

      Sure. White nationalism is left wing, but ethnic Scotch nationalism is not.

      • peppermint says:

        why?

        the Whites are more genetically distinct from the other major races than the Scots are from the Irish.

        You can define your membership by your DNA, or you can define your membership by learning a language and a bunch of rituals, like it was promised that immigrants would. Mainstream Scotch nationalists continue to advocate for more immigration and assimilation.

        Of course nationalism is left-wing; but White nationalism is the least left-wing.

      • Lou says:

        That statement makes very little sense indeed.

  14. AWC says:

    Jim: “Whites are not naturally a tribe. To make them a tribe, you would need an identitarian religion. That religion would have to become the state religion, and then forcibly convert all whites to that state religion.”

    Historically, this does not make sense. For Europe, Christianity was the first organized religion. Paganism was notoriously unorganized; it was based upon families and tribes, with the family patriarch serving as the head of the family religion, which did include ancestor worship (cf. Penates in Roman religion). States, like Roman state, would build temples to general gods, but the state didn’t have any organized religion in many meaningful sense.

    Generally speaking, nearly all forms of pre-Christian European paganism (or a form of ethnocentric, anti-universalist Christianity) could both be tribal and not be a state religion.

    On the genetic level, whites do cluster together as a tribe. See the genetic distances measured by Cavalli-Sforza:

    “Cavalli-Sforza’s team compiled extraordinary tables depicting the “genetic distances” separating 2,000 different racial groups from each other. For example, assume the genetic distance between the English and the Danes is equal to 1.0. Then, Cavalli-Sforza has found, the separation between the English and the Italians would be about 2.5 times as large as the English-Danish difference. On this scale, the Iranians would be 9 times more distant genetically from the English than the Danish, and the Japanese 59 times greater. Finally, the gap between the English and the Bantus (the main group of sub-Saharan blacks) is 109 times as large as the distance between the English and the Danish.”

    http://www.isteve.com/RealityofRace.htm

    By the way, I have a new article up on identitarian religion:

    http://www.radixjournal.com/blog/2014/3/27/what-is-identitarian-religion

    ..

    • jim says:

      Yes, you could have many identitarian tribal religions for many white tribes, and whites used to have this. But one identitarian religion for one big white tribe never existed, and nazi attempts to manufacture it were rather fake, foolish, and unsuccessful. If they had had a thousand years, would have probably done better.

      • AWC says:

        “But one identitarian religion for one big white tribe never existed”

        But no one is trying to create any such thing, as far as I know. You have various nodes of Identitarian Religion ranging from various sects of Identitarian Christianity to various forms of paganism (Germanic Paganism, Celtic Paganism, Slavic Paganism, Greek Paganism, etc).

        • Lou says:

          There cannot be one unified white religion; the best we will get is a half-dozen (and you named most of them, all in infancy now).

  15. Robert in Arabia says:

    Maimonides ruled that where it is politic to do so and the Jews will not get the blame, then Christians are to be killed whenever possible.

    • jim says:

      The Cathedral is alarmingly relaxed about mass murder directed at Christians by various regimes – but on the other hand, also mighty relaxed about mass murder directed at Jews.

      By and large, Cathedral hostility to Christians does not reflect Jewish hostility to Christianity, but the hostility of a heresy for its parent religion. You have to dig deep in history to find disturbing expressions of Jewish hostility to Christians. If you look, however, at vigorous Cathedral expressions of hostility to Christianity, at today’s expressions of hostility to Christians, they come from people who’s background is Christian convert to progressivism, not Jewish convert to progressivism.

      • oscar the grinch says:

        “You have to dig deep in history to find disturbing expressions of Jewish hostility to Christians.”

        You’re generally a pretty bright guy, but that’s just plain pigshit stupid.

        Just off the top of my head, two recent 20th-cent. examples of extremely disturbing and murderous Jewish hostility to Christians:
        a) Bolshevik USSR, and
        b) the present USA regime. Circumspice!, as they used to say.

        • jim says:

          Bolshevik regime was a lot more hostile to Jews than to Christians. They so vigorously purged each other as to rapidly render the Bolsheviks damn near Judenrein.

          • josh says:

            Jews by and large came into the regime immediately after it had taken power. Their was a power struggle which resulted in the Jews being cast out. To claim that the Bolshevik regime was hostile to the Jews is misleading in the extreme.

            A similar struggle occurred in the US with essentially opposite results. The old white-shoe ruling class was out on its ear, and the upstart Rockefellers who had thrown in with the Kuhn Loeb and Hollywood Jews became the senior partner.

            • jim says:

              Jews by and large came into the regime immediately after it had taken power. Their was a power struggle which resulted in the Jews being cast out. To claim that the Bolshevik regime was hostile to the Jews is misleading in the extreme.

              Purged, etc, seems pretty hostile to me. The Bolshevik regime was full of Jews who were, and are, hostile to Jews. Today’s Trotskyists are still today more antisemitic than anyone.

          • josh says:

            I agree, but the hostility was not there from the beginning; it came later as often happens with anti-semitism. I don’t know enough to say what happened in the USSR, but in Brooklyn Jews wanted to maintain there Jewish identity while becoming communists. This seems inevitably would lead to conflict over control of the movement along ethnic lines.

      • Virga Ferrea says:

        “You have to dig deep in history to find disturbing expressions of Jewish hostility to Christians.”

        Various anti-Jewish websites can find you plenty of real Talmudic quotes (along with a bunch of fake ones) that demonstrate Jewish attitudes of hostility toward Christians (or just non-Jews in general).

        As for actual persecution, Jews didn’t have access to political power through most of European history, so that isn’t a reasonable comparison. And the modern state of Israel isn’t Christian-friendly, despite being well integrated into the Cathedral.

        Of the four major “New Atheist” intellectuals, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and Sam Harris are ethnically Jewish, if we are using the matrilineal definition. Daniel Dennett is the only exception.

      • J.M. says:

        Someone forgot to read “Zwei hundert Jahre zusammen” Die Juden in der Sowjet Union” (Two hundred years together-The Jews in the Soviet Union) a book that has only been translated in German but that tells in all its glory the Jewish power in Russia since their massive introduction in the life of that country in the 18th century.

        Please spare us this phylosemitism, J*** have ALWAYS been hostile to Christian values and ethos and undermined it whenever they could. I understand your pseudo-pagan bias but such hostility should be plain and simple enough for anyone to notice…

      • Zeb says:

        Yes, pigshit stupid, let me echo that sentiment. Hostility, both passive and actively aggressive, toward the goyim is genetically encoded in jews the world over culturally by way of Talmudic teachings even if unconsciously. Jewish cultural of the lowly and repulsive goyim is simple knee jerk reaction hatred enforced by centuries – make that millenia, of socially taught and reinforced beliefs. Jewish organized and systematic hatred toward Christians is simply a subset of Jewish disdain directed at the goyim in general.
        Take a little peak at the historical events surrounding the events leading up to WWII and why Hitler (ooooo, the devil incarnate) had such overwhelming success in achieving such extensive political power, coming practically out of nowhere, running on the wave of Nationalist sentiments. Zionist jews and banksters had infested Germany’s political system and financial institutions threatening to ruin Germany politically, financially, and culturally (much the same as the current situation in the U.S.). All Hitler did was to catch the conniving little creeps with their hand in the cookie jar with a determination to give Germany back to the German people. Well before the first Jewish political prisoner was rounded up the wrath of world jewery was turned upon the Germans and way openly declared. The resulting war crimes involving the murder of untold millions of innocent German citizens as orchestrated by the vast political and financial Jewish influence influence over the allies (Britain in particular). I do not believe we will see a war memorial for the innocent victims of Dresden in our lifetimes.
        But of course there are no examples of Jewish hatred toward Christian cultures. I retract my original statement, this assertion is not pigshit dumb, it’s way dumber than that.

  16. fnn says:

    Illustration of genetic clustering of human populations:

    http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2008/11/human-genetic-variation-fst-and.html

  17. Steve says:

    “On the whole, the latter leftwards movement is markedly preferable to the former leftwards movement.”

    And when whites are ethnically cleansed from the face of the Earth, there will be a massive die off of non-whites, so how exactly is that markedly preferable for anyone.

    • Virga Ferrea says:

      Whites would effectively disappear in either circumstances.

      Over a thousand years of rule, Progressivism would leave the world with many non-White populations, a few part-White populations, and no pure-White populations.

      Over a thousand years of rule, Socialism would effect very dysgenic trends in Whites, reducing IQ, self-discipline and other things to subhuman levels. A 3 point decline in IQ each generation adds up, if you have 40 generations.

  18. Deogratias Kagame says:

    Meh, there are probably better criticisms to be made than the ones you have presented.

    White nationalism is easier to criticize than neo-reaction because white nationalism actually has a popular following. Not a large following, but large enough that one can probably can find some prole advocating whatever position one wants to attribute to white nationalists.

    But white nationalist “intellectuals” have been darkly enlightened for decades, so rest assured that they’ve already thought about a lot of this stuff.

    White nationalism has, at times, attempted to use democratic means to gain power (with a few temporary successes), but white nationalism is not, by any means, ideologically committed to the idea of democracy or popular sovereignty. Far from it. That stuff is an occasional means to an end and most leading (heh) WNs are not invested in it.

    White Nationalism is not specifically moderate leftism, it can occupy any segment of the political spectrum from Euro-style moderate leftism to the farthest reaches of the far right. Funny to think about it, but White Nationalism even had tentacles in the libertarian movement until that movement turned hilariously leftist.

    White Nationalism merely says
    1) White people exist
    2) White people should continue to exist
    3) White people should have a country of their own

    Political forms are secondary and a matter of pragmatism. Rest assured that many of the “intellectuals” (heh) reject both democracy and the idea of merely going back to the 1950s.

    White people may not be a tribe or particularly united, but White people do exist as an ethnic group in the United States. And White Nationalism that identifies itself as White Nationalism is primarily an American phenomenon. Stuff like Ukrainian Nationalism or the European New Right has some overlap and common interests, but isn’t really the same thing.

    You suggest that the solution to the Black problem is to make different laws for black people and to brutalize them when they run afoul of the law. If I recall correctly, you advocate for heavy use of the death penalty for repeat offenses of even relatively minor crimes.

    But I think that in this case your Aspergian tendencies do you a disservice. Historically, one important characteristic of White people is our compassion. Or, to put it another way, we developed squeamish tendencies more quickly than most. In many ways, compassion can be a positive trait, for example, when it leads to more humane forms of animal slaughter, limitations on child labor, or better treatment of POWs. (Waiting to be called leftist for that line, heh)

    But it also means that white people would probably feel pretty bad using the law to brutalize black people who are guilty of minor criminal offenses, as you propose. The policy you propose just begs for someone to come along and propose more humane, lenient treatment for these criminals and then you’re back where you started. And as we are seeing in the United States, setting up a police force to brutalize minorities can lead to more callous treatment of everyone.

    If find your idea very difficult to imagine. The race that is unwilling to see a pit bull put down for mauling a four year old is going to have trouble with the idea of executing black people for petty crimes. And really, I don’t blame them.

    Living separately is a far more humane and permanent solution. Cheaper too. There is really nothing to be gained from a black presence in white society.

    Whether or not White Nationalism will always fail remains to be seen. There has been a whooole lot of propaganda devoted to making white nationalism uncool. And truth be told, White Nationalism has, historically, been for losers. In the economic prosperity of years gone by it was mostly marginal, low status, prole types who could not afford to shield themselves from the costs of diversity. Nowadays though, more and more people are having their noses rubbed in the costs of diversity and the fact that every other group is voting their race.

    White Americans aren’t a tribe. They’re a disunited ethnic group that lacks asabiyyah. But they do stick together under certain circumstances (think prison, high school, suburbia / white flight). We’ll see if they can continue to avoid identity politics as the country becomes majority minority.

    Think about the South. Voting Republican is, of course, a terrible idea. But in the South it serves as a form of identity politics; if whites don’t vote together blacks can end up running things. Romney won the most heavily black state in union, Mississippi, because 89% of whites voted for him. White as a statistical category in the United States includes a lot of groups that aren’t actually white, like Arabs, so it might have been even higher. Whites sticking together, voting together in the presence of huge diversity.

    Of course, that’s not to say that any solution to these problems will come from voting.

    • jim says:

      White Nationalism merely says
      1) White people exist
      2) White people should continue to exist
      3) White people should have a country of their own

      A country of their own – so few or no other ethnicities within those borders – in other words, a westphalian nation state/

      But that takes for granted that everyone within Westphalian state borders is equal before the law of that Westphalian state – and you are on the path that got us to where we are now.

      You suggest that the solution to the Black problem is to make different laws for black people and to brutalize them when they run afoul of the law. If I recall correctly, you advocate for heavy use of the death penalty for repeat offenses of even relatively minor crimes.

      Death for all offenders who repeat excessively, not just blacks, but laws for blacks need to be simpler, harsher, more restrictive, and more swiftly enforced.

      Imagine a homeless white man who regularly smashes car windows with a brick to steal minor things, which he pawns for the price of a couple of drinks. How many car windows should we let him smash before we execute him?

      Historically, one important characteristic of White people is our compassion. Or, to put it another way, we developed squeamish tendencies more quickly than most.

      Britain uses babies as fuel to heat National Health hospitals, the Netherlands murders its old people to keep down healthcare and pension costs. I don’t think we are all that squeamish.

      That selective squeamishness is just leftism. If left, then, holy, if holy, then holier, then ever holier, thus ever lefter.

      In many ways, compassion can be a positive trait, for example, when it leads to more humane forms of animal slaughter, limitations on child labor, or better treatment of POWs. (Waiting to be called leftist for that line, heh)

      You are a leftist. Recall that no one worries much about humane treatment of POWs when progressives massacre reactionaries. The Cathedral is entirely untroubled by the Congo government’s practice of vaginally impaling Tutsi women with very large objects and continues to provide the troops performing these acts with air, ground, and artillery support, Britain murdered women and children in huge numbers to suppress Boer guerrilla warfare, and the world was perfectly happy with Rhodesian POWs being eaten by cannibal terrorists.

      We really are not very squeamish at all. I hear that National Health hospitals are quite warm, though they smell a bit funny.

      Whether or not White Nationalism will always fail remains to be seen. There has been a whooole lot of propaganda devoted to making white nationalism uncool.

      Turn back the clock to before 1940, when white nationalism was in the air you breathed, when the concept of white nationalism did not exist because everyone was a white nationalist. The rot was under way in the nineteenth century, well before white nationalism was made uncool.

      White nationalism is so far left, that inexorably you find yourself going lefter.

      • 5371 says:

        You don’t seem to understand how arbitrary and ahistorical your reification of “left” is (though at least you don’t capitalise the word). When the word was invented, it was unambiguous and consistent throughout Europe. The left attacked the established Christian church, the right defended it. You may like capitalism, dislike multiethnic societies, dislike representative government, etc. but when those predispositions clash, how will you decide which of them is right and which left?

  19. […] The trouble with white nationalism « Jim’s Blog […]

  20. 5371 says:

    My last example should have been autocrats not hesitating to mix races and transport populations.

  21. josh says:

    In the long run, a tribe is determined by inbreeding. Religion strongly encourage inbreeding so over time we breeding populations and religion correlate almost perfectly giving rise to ethnos. Religion doesn’t have to be imposed in a top down manner to create ethnos, it emerges naturally; however, religions that discourage outbreeding (without requiring conversion) will outcompete those that do not. Again, there are infinitely many subtle ways to accomplish this. Quakers and liberals use what used to be called “friendly persuasion”, while muslims carry out honor killings. Anyway, over time whites could become a tribe or several tribes or could form one or many admixed tribes. Who the hell knows.

    In any case, if there were multiple tribes (aka breeding populations) occupying the same territory, it is human nature that they will conflict. It takes constant effort by the most totalitarian propaganda regime in history to try to stop people from favoring their own family members, and it still doesn’t work. I don’t know if the world has a particularly good solution for this, but the current “solution” of constantly injecting new groups into the population while doing everything possible to prevent people from developing ties to a particular community (especially ties of blood) is just about the worst solution short of intentional genocide.

  22. Deogratias Kagame says:

    “A country of their own – so few or no other ethnicities within those borders – in other words, a westphalian nation state/

    But that takes for granted that everyone within Westphalian state borders is equal before the law of that Westphalian state – and you are on the path that got us to where we are now.”

    No, it doesn’t. It just takes the lesson from history that black DNA is corrosive to society and fatal to white people. And it recognizes that we don’t need black people in our society.

    When two groups occupy the same physical location, mating between groups will occur. This requires you to develop a hybrid policy, such as the one drop rule that was used in the United States or the rule used in Brazil which is based on skin color. Unfortunately, there is little reason to believe that there is any good hybrid policy because none of them appear sustainable over the long term.

    The one drop rule in the United States (mostly) avoided genetic damage to the white population by counting all mulattoes as black. But this was inherently unstable, since it meant that the “black” slave population was slowly getting whiter and smarter and easier to empathize with. You might think that black Americans are unintelligent, but they’re almost two standard deviations smarter than their African cousins, the ones who aren’t 15% white. And because of the one drop rule about 10% of black people are less than 50% black and potentially pretty capable and well suited as examples for propaganda purposes. So the black population was getting whiter, more intelligent, harder to keep enslaved and easier to empathize with, making the system of slavery based on race unsustainable.

    At the same time, the Brazilian system of free mixing and classification based on skin color is highly dysgenic. There has been so much mixing in Brazil that the correlation between skin color and African ancestry has broken down and people who are classified as “white” often have significant amounts of African ancestry, with IQs to match. Failed experiment. Game over.

    Your system hasn’t been clarified, but I guess it is just anarcho-capitalism plus racial discrimination in. However, a strict meritocracy doesn’t actually reflect how undesirable African DNA really is. The talented tenth may well rise in white society, but there is a little thing called regression to the mean. Smart, educated black people tend to have children who are significantly less intelligent than they are. Stupid, poor white people tend to have children who are more intelligent than they are. Mulattoes regress to a higher mean than blacks but a lower mean than whites. So, outside of lab conditions, mixing is usually undesirable. Upwardly mobile blacks who breed with whites in their same social class produce downwardly mobile children. Downwardly mobile whites who go black… never go back because their children regress to a low mean and are unlikely to be upwardly mobile. You think proles are irritating now? Wait until they’re genetically as well as culturally Africanized.

    ———————-
    “Imagine a homeless white man who regularly smashes car windows with a brick to steal minor things, which he pawns for the price of a couple of drinks. How many car windows should we let him smash before we execute him?”
    ———————-

    Executing him is probably a bad idea. Visible cruelties like that just play into the hands of people who might like to re-start leftism. Even if nobody can vote, powerful people have wives, wives who are likely to be religious, full of empathy and horrified at the sites of the impaled bodies that line the streets of Compton. You’re setting future elites up for thousands of years worth of nagging. They’ll cave eventually.

    Better to avoid fueling our innate leftism by avoiding visible cruelties like executing wayward blacks and homeless people. Instead of executing incorrigible petty criminals, you could, for example, exile them. More proportionate, no dramatic imagery to fuel leftist sentiments and thus, more sustainable. Policies that require a grim resolve and icy determination are unlikely to be sustainable in the really long term as societies tend to enter periods of decadence and moral weakness.

    During periods of decadence and moral weakness, societies that rely on terrorizing and brutalizing blacks to keep them in line are likely to lack the determination to enforce those policies. During periods of decadence and moral weakness, hybrid policies like the one drop rule are likely to break down, resulting in Africanization and permanent genetic damage. A more homogenous society doesn’t face these risks. China seems to be making a significant recovery from their period of Maoism, but there is no coming back from Brazilization.

    Given the risks involved, I have to ask, *Why do we want blacks in our country*? You want them there because your ideology demands it, not for any pragmatic reason.

    ————————
    “Recall that no one worries much about humane treatment of POWs when progressives massacre reactionaries. The Cathedral is entirely untroubled by the Congo government’s practice of vaginally impaling Tutsi women with very large objects and continues to provide the troops performing these acts with air, ground, and artillery support, Britain murdered women and children in huge numbers to suppress Boer guerrilla warfare, and the world was perfectly happy with Rhodesian POWs being eaten by cannibal terrorists.”
    ————————–

    Sure, people don’t automatically gain perfect knowledge of all acts of cruelty carried out all over the world. But propaganda works better when it is based on reality instead of made up out of nothing. The actions of the Hutus could have been used to make them look worse than the Nazis, if the people in charge of the Cathedral’s propaganda had wanted to do so. It just so happens that the people in charge of propaganda didn’t want to make an issue of it. Fabricating such allegations when nothing occurred would have been much less effective. So, when you commit acts of visible cruelty like that you leave yourself open to leftist propaganda. You propose to base society on routine acts of visible cruelty, taking place right here, not far, far away, specifically the execution of large numbers of black people for petty crimes that they really can’t help but commit. I think that this makes your society far more vulnerable to leftist propaganda and agitation than it would be if acts of visible cruelty were generally avoided. I don’t think you can keep that system going in the long term, without someone starting to feel sorry for all those dead shoplifters.

    Your analysis of leftism is a bit simplistic at times. Perhaps they can inflate any issue into a leftist cause, but we make it much easier for them when we give them obvious cruelties to highlight. Recall that the Cathedral’s media organs were a lot less powerful back in the days of abolitionism. But they had an easy target in slavery. If the best target that they had been able to find was our society’s insufficient tolerance for homosexuals then they would have had more trouble getting traction.

    “Turn back the clock to before 1940, when white nationalism was in the air you breathed, when the concept of white nationalism did not exist because everyone was a white nationalist. The rot was under way in the nineteenth century, well before white nationalism was made uncool.”

    Nope. It seems to me that America has never been a white country, let alone a white nationalist country. Blacks have been here from day one and the Constitution was already egalitarian enough to count them as 3/5ths of a person. Combine that with a declaration of independence that states that all men are created equal and you have an obvious recipe for leftward movement; declaring that blacks are 5/5ths of person. Which is, in fact, correct.

    America was never white nationalist or even a white nation, and thus America’s leftward movement didn’t come from white nationalism. America was always a multi-racial nation and it always had left-egalitarianism written into the founding documents.

    You want multi-racialism without egalitarianism, while I’d prefer to have neither multi-racialism or egalitarianism. Diversity plus proximity breeds conflict and leftism is an obvious weapon in that conflict.

    • jim says:

      Recall that the Cathedral’s media organs were a lot less powerful back in the days of abolitionism. But they had an easy target in slavery.

      Why is slavery an easy target, and the fact that blacks suffer far higher levels of imprisonment and school discipline not an easy target?

      Well, I hear you say, “maybe they are both easy targets, but if we move out all the blacks, and don’t let them in, then neither target will be around”.

      If you could not justify slavery and unequal disciplinary outcomes, how are you going to justify ethnic cleansing?

      And, supposing you get away with ethnic cleansing, then after the cleansing people can more easily pretend that blacks are equal, and in fact the blacks that they are likely to meet, being members of the elite, being people who engage in international travel and can get tourist and business visas, will be equal. Meanwhile, being a democracy in which everyone gets an equal vote, your politicians are looking for cheap voters to import.

      Observe the “Asylum seeker” scam so popular among leftists in Europe and Australia.

      You want multi-racialism without egalitarianism, while I’d prefer to have neither multi-racialism or egalitarianism.

      Without egalitarianism, multi racialism is not a problem.

      With egalitarianism, multi racialism is unavoidable.

      Blacks are only toxic because egalitarianism makes them so.

      Australia is a white country, probably the whitest remaining country in the world. The labor party government was flooding it with “asylum seekers”, many of them black. The recent election put a stop to that, for the moment, but certainly there is no will to kick the existing illegal “asylum seeker” population out. If you say that it is unthinkable that there be will to impose order by executing repeat offenders of minor crimes, where is the will going to come from for ethnic cleansing?

      • Deogratias Kagame says:

        Jim said:
        ————————-
        Why is slavery an easy target, and the fact that blacks suffer far higher levels of imprisonment and school discipline not an easy target?
        ————————-

        Well, there are a lot of reasons, Dramatic (mental) images of legal corporal punishment, rape, execution of slaves. The fact that economies all over the world were phasing out unfree agricultural labor. (Even Russia abolished serfdom by 1861). The liberal ideals baked into the founding documents. Many more.

        I’m inclined to be philosophical about slavery in general but there is no doubt that slavery and negro chattel slavery in particular provided a fair amount of ammunition for those seeking to demonize it. And importing a population that we were never prepared to see freed shows a great lack of foresight.

        On the other hand, punishing people proportionately and humanely (by the standards of the day) for crimes and disciplinary infractions provides relatively less ammunition. Disparate impact provides ideological cover for the exercise of state power but it’s not clear how many people really buy it, even most anti-racists acknowledge that blacks tend to get into more trouble, they just find ridiculous excuses for it.

        Jim said:
        ———————————————–
        If you could not justify slavery and unequal disciplinary outcomes, how are you going to justify ethnic cleansing?
        ———————————————–

        The difference between your solution (ongoing, mass executions of blacks for petty crimes while using social darwinism to starve them out) and mine (strongly encouraging them to move to New York or California) is that your solution is ongoing while my solution solves the problem once and for all. Like pulling off a Band-Aid, one motion, right off!

        Your solution requires people to maintain a hard hearted attitude and grim determination indefinitely, while mine just requires one period of motivated energy. After that period is over, nothing exceptional is required of them.

        It should be obvious by now that whites are not going to get to “keep” the whole country, but that actually makes white nationalism more practical, not less practical. Because that means that if whites do decide to stake out a territory for themselves, it’ll already be heavily white in terms of demographics and the ethnic-cleansing you talk about will just involve strongly encouraging people to move to California or New York City or DC or Texas. At first with cash incentives and compensation that tick down over time, perhaps later with denial of services and shunning. Some may also be grandfathered in, who knows.

        Certainly that does require white people (or a certain subset of them) to develop more of a racial consciousness than they have currently, but that might happen as their backs are pushed closer and closer to the wall. But once they’ve staked out a territory for themselves, they no long need to maintain a grim resolve to impale 400 shoplifters monthly, as you’d prefer. That just seems unlikely to be sustainable as periods of moral weakness come and go.

        One burst of energy from a population whose only other choice is unacceptable seems more realistic than eternal maintenance of a precarious status quo through strict discipline that never breaks down.

        Jim said:
        ————————-
        And, supposing you get away with ethnic cleansing, then after the cleansing people can more easily pretend that blacks are equal, and in fact the blacks that they are likely to meet, being members of the elite, being people who engage in international travel and can get tourist and business visas, will be equal.
        ——————————-
        Well, there will be the counter-example of the rest of the former United States, much of which will be overrun by assorted Africanized third worlders and suffering from serious social disorder. All filmed by camera drone.

        The expanding the franchise problem certainly would need to be addressed as a top priority if democracy were to be retained. There is no guarantee that it would be retained however, it seems like we’re headed into a period where the flaws of democracy will made quite clear to a certain kind of white people.

        Jim said:
        ——————————————

        Without egalitarianism, multi racialism is not a problem.

        With egalitarianism, multi racialism is unavoidable.

        Blacks are only toxic because egalitarianism makes them so.
        ———————————————-

        Disagree. Multi-racialism is problematic because it breeds conflict and ruins social solidarity, making it easier for elites to manipulate the population. See poor white trash voting for Republican neo-con scum just because it’s the only way to avoid black rule. Again, not committed to voting, just illustrating the conflicts involved.

        Multi-racialism in the United States is particularly problematic because the races involved are blacks and mestizo / Indio Hispanics and because there are huge numbers of them with more coming. Mestizo / Indo Hispanics are certainly not as disruptive as blacks, but looking at Latin America should be enough to tell you that it is completely unacceptable for the jewel of your nation (California) to go from 90% white in 1950 to majority mestizo / Indio Hispanic in 2014. A continent and a half has been devoted to the experiment of heavily mestizo / Indo societies and the experiment was a failure. How much scientific innovation is Latin America producing? About as much as you’d expect given the IQs involved, maybe even less.

        And blacks are toxic because of their DNA, not because of egalitarianism. All behavioral traits are heritable. That means all of the negative behavioral traits associated with blacks are heritable. When races live in the same place, mixing occurs. Not even Thomas Jefferson could resist mixing with his slaves. The absorption of mulattoes into the white population in any significant numbers is exceedingly dysgenic, but keeping them down and/or segregated is unstable. The only solution is separation.

        And this is where your prole-death strategy fails. The super high IQ fraction of the population are basically freaks. You don’t get super high IQ people by breeding super high IQ people together. Those offspring regress towards the mean and will probably not be super high IQ. Instead, super high IQ people show up in the general population as a result of genes lining up just right on very low percentage shots.

        When a population loses nearly a full standard deviation of IQ, as, for example, by turning the US into Brazil, those high IQ freaks suddenly become a vanishingly rare because of the math involved in standard deviations. The smart fraction goes away, you’re into the exceedingly tiny percentage of the curve.

        So your elites marry other elites and regress towards a high but not super high mean and generally become mediocrities who have their hands full staying on top of a seething mass of retards. Congrats, you’ve become Latin America, game over.

        Jim said:
        ————————–
        If you say that it is unthinkable that there be will to impose order by executing repeat offenders of minor crimes, where is the will going to come from for ethnic cleansing?
        ________________________

        From whites having their backs pushed against the wall. Either they will carve out a space for themselves or they will go down, never to rise again.

        • jim says:

          The difference between your solution (ongoing, mass executions of blacks for petty crimes while using social darwinism to starve them out) and mine (strongly encouraging them to move to New York or California) is that your solution is ongoing while my solution solves the problem once and for all. Like pulling off a Band-Aid, one motion, right off!

          But it does not solve the problem. Australia is white, lacks the will to remain white. Politicians want to import millions of black voters from Africa, most of them Muslim, to outvote the whites. Sooner or later will get their way, due to ever leftwards tendency.

          From whites having their backs pushed against the wall.

          Does not work. Were their backs not against the wall in Rhodesia and South Africa? It is easiest to resist the mass importation of blacks when, as with Australia, you are almost completely white. And it is not easy enough.

          Today, when Australia is the whitest country remaining, they can some of the time resist the mass importation of migrants. When their backs are against the wall, when they are in the situation of Rhodesians or Detroiters, far too late.

          • Deogratias Kagame says:

            Yes, liberal whites like Australians currently lack the will to remain white. White Nationalism is what happens when whites realize that they want to remain white and get serious about it.

            As the costs of diversity become impossible to ignore, more whites will decide that they want to remain white. How many will it be? No idea. Even if it was only a very small percentage, that might be enough to salvage a small, functional country out of the mess that will be America.

            Could that country remain white? Only time will tell, but you cannot attribute the leftist ratchet of liberal societies to a hypothetical white nationalist country, because white nationalism is not, fundamentally an attempt to return to some idealized version of liberal 1940s America.

            It’s just whites saying “Hey, we probably need to start thinking about conserving whiteness and what it will take to do that.” Which means that White Nationalists are perfectly comfortable stealing ideas from neo-reactionaries or other sources where appropriate.

            Saving anything out of the United States is a long shot, but it’s a shot worth taking. If current trends continue it’s going to be a long, slow descent to third world status and whites will have a long time to look that slow motion genocide in the eye and either get comfortable with it or do something about it.

            It’s not like the system you propose is particularly likely either. Especially if you keep bringing up all the executions.

            • jim says:

              Yes, liberal whites like Australians currently lack the will to remain white. White Nationalism is what happens when whites realize that they want to remain white and get serious about it.

              As the costs of diversity become impossible to ignore, more whites will decide that they want to remain white

              The costs of diversity were pretty high in Detroit, but the politicians were able to avoid any political debate on the “law and order” issue – aka the ethnic cleansing issue.

              In fact it is exactly the other way around. Of all the white countries, Australia, the whitest of them all, has the greatest will to remain white. If you have the doctrine of equality in place, and therefore allow any moron to vote, the more colored people you let in, the harder it is to generate the will to remain white.

              Demonstrably, with our present system, the more blacks, the less will.

              As Detroit got blacker, it became no more possible to discuss government policies aimed at forcing white people out by terror and arson organized by “community organizers” closely linked to the elected government, that it is possible to discuss the role of gays as a reservoir of horrible diseases. That one political party was organizing and encouraging terror, murder, rape, and arson against whites was, and is, unmentionable.

              In Australia, the Labor government arranged for a mass influx of “asylum seekers”, all of them colored, many of them black, many of them Muslim, in order to elect a new people. This pissed off the existing (very white) Australian community, and in the election the Liberal Country Party campaigned that it would use military force to “turn back the boats”.

              The Cathedral did not take them seriously. “Ha Ha, you cannot do that. You would have to do terrible things to poor helpless desperate asylum seekers, and do those terrible things in international waters and other people’s waters. No one would ever stand for that”

              Now in fact, the navy is doing terrible things to poor helpless desperate asylum seekers, the Cathedral is making much drama about how horrible this is, but the required steely resolve seems to be in ample supply – until the next election when the Labor party gets in again.

              The necessary steely resolve is most readily available in the whitest country, not in those countries that are suffering massive diversity costs.

              So, to generate the necessary resolve to ethnically cleanse the country, you first have to limit the franchise, and change what is permissible to debate. But, if you have limited the franchise, you are probably openly treating people unequally before the law, or very soon will be, rather than furtively treating them unequally before the law as at present, in which case ethnic cleansing is no longer particularly urgent.

              On the steely resolve scale:

              Easiest is resisting population replacement (wins in Australia roughly half the time, loses in the entire rest of the white world, largely because the entire rest of the white world is less white)

              Next easiest is installing law and order – wins in Singapore, due to stern Asian traditionalism, loses in the entire white world, and loses the worse the less white they are, for example Detroit. The smaller the number of white voters, the less thinkable it is to punish those crimes that are overwhelmingly committed by blacks.

              Far harder on the required steely resolve is ethnic cleansing.

              It’s not like the system you propose is particularly likely either. Especially if you keep bringing up all the executions.

              Easier to use drastic means on habitual criminals, than to use drastic means on people who refuse to leave, especially since some of those people will be perfectly decent people.

              A lot easier to restrict the franchise, or indeed end democracy altogether, than to ethnically cleanse.

              Further, I don’t think it is hard to use drastic means on habitual petty criminals. If we are willing to set a boat full of refugees on fire when the captain refuses to turn around, we are surely willing to execute someone who keeps smashing car windows and stealing small items to fund his drinking habit. The Cathedral can burn babies to warm a hospital, murder old people to save on pension and medical costs. We could execute habitual petty criminals without anyone blinking an eye, were it not for the ever leftwards tendency.

      • Zeb says:

        Holy Johnson’s Johnson! What rampant, meandering, misguided and mostly unintelligible pedantic esoteric rhetoric. Behind all the social (anti) idealism do you seriously miss the entire point that the National movement is about survival plain and simple? Does your heart not beat to the rhythm of your ancestral genetic pool? One does not need to intellectually define his or her own tribe, but rather simply join hands with their tribes people and dance to the music of their heritage.
        The affront is offered, one does not argue picayune points about rules of engagement after being slapped in the face. The movement is anything but dead and only threatened by armchair philosophers who prefer debating infinitesimal details from the comfort of their living room crouched behind a computer screen. The game is a foot, the questions no longer center around the why and the who, but rather the what and the how. Hope that you have an old style CRT; perhaps you can heave that at the menacing hoards when they calling at your door seeking restitution and revenge from you and your family for something that happened long ago in a different time and a different place.

        • jim says:

          Behind all the social (anti) idealism do you seriously miss the entire point that the National movement is about survival plain and simple? Does your heart not beat to the rhythm of your ancestral genetic pool?

          Whites are not going to survive, unless willing to rule. If you want a white westphalian nation state, you are buying into all residents of that nation state having equal rights, in which case, all is lost.

  23. Virga Ferrea says:

    >Whites are not naturally a tribe. To make them a tribe, you would need an identitarian religion.
    Aggressive conflict with other groups can make Whites act like a tribe. Neo-nazi gangs in prison, for example, are a response to black gangs. The American South and rural South Africa owe their openly racial ideas to perpetual conflict with black groups.

  24. Virga Ferrea says:

    Whites are not naturally a tribe. To make them a tribe, you would need an identitarian religion.

    Aggressive conflict with other groups can make Whites act like a tribe. Neo-nazi gangs in prison, for example, are a response to black gangs. The American South and rural South Africa owe their openly racial ideas to perpetual conflict with black groups.

  25. Darmand says:

    Thank you for the reply.

    I could abstractly accept that if ethnically cleansing whites meant non-murderous ethnic cleansing, an escape route for whites to a better place.

    If it is murderous ethnic cleansing without escape though, maybe even murderous with escape, I am forced simply to categorically reject ethnic cleansing of whites, as I am white.

    I would have to reject that, no choice in the matter. Murder of truckloads is bad, but murder of me is not acceptable. Suicide not an option. Consent to my murder not an option.

    I am taking ethnic cleansing of whites to mean murder of truckloads of whites. If you are referring to something less extreme, forgive my missing that.

  26. Darmand says:

    Sorry I missed the “Reply” button above.

  27. […] white nationalism is wrong. Related: The unique universalism of whites. Related: A bit more on the […]

  28. […] Nationalism is in the news. Here is Jim’s magisterial1 take on it. Briefly, “National socialism kills people not because it is nationalist, but because it is […]

  29. Thanatos says:

    “White nationalism, being demotic, tends to become national socialism. National socialism kills people not because it is nationalist, but because it is socialist.”

    This landmine can be easily sidestepped via a single modification which has the added benefit of being a knock-on effect,improving the scope and reach of the body of White Nationalist beliefs and purifying the understanding of the implications of the modifying aspect’s primary function in White civilization. White Nationalism can become part political movement, part religious movement. I can easily see a quasi-pagan spiritual movement emphasizing moral,scriptural, and racial purity accompanied by all sorts of duties,honors,taboos, and deeply symbolic rituals taking hold among our people. Indeed, it sounds like many of the religions we have already embraced at one time or another.

    Instead of becoming socialist, it could morph into a semi-aristocratic theocratic dynasty with a highly-influential priest class ruling based on iron,and unchangeable, laws of God(s).

    White nationalism HAS the answer,from the political side.It fully explains the intractable nature of modern politics and the genetic basis for cultural differences. It is like a nuclear payload. Were its racial philosophies consciously applied to White European societal-engineering, it would be a Renaissance for our people. What it DOESN’T have, yet, is the delivery system. I think the delivery system that makes the most sense is religion. I’ve seen it become a vehicle for the Marxist agenda in my own lifetime. Global Warming? “Diversity”? There’s no benefit for Whites to believe in these dogmatic axioms. As a matter of fact, to embrace them is out and out suicide, but they stupidly march to their doom like lemmings instead of fighting back against these genocidal attacks on our culture with everything they’ve got while they still have a chance.

    If religion can do that, then it can unite and save our people as well.

    I think we can learn from Christianity,in its pre-Niceaen Council days.
    We keep hearing about these inherent difficulties in uniting White ethnies, but Christianity did indeed accomplish this. The entire White world pledged their allegiance to the cross.

    Where it failed was in its universality,which as we know, is always a poison pill.

    A new religion,focused on the sacred European blood; on improving it, strengthening it, refining it, under the priestly caste’s direction,promising salvation through works of racial heroism,titles of nobility to guarantee positions of prominence,power, and land to White Europeans who fight and conquer in the name of the preservation and purification of our bloodline, this is EXACTLY what is needed as a White Nationalist plan of government.

    White Nationalism need not be demotic. It would be highly beneficial if it weren’t demotic. Some of the culturally-richest and most patriotic Nationalist movements in history were organized on behalf of Kings and Queens and even military dictators.

    These deep-state connections are what reactionaries tap into. Why not sublimate these forces into a religious fervor,completely unassailable through appeals to decency,equality, or fairness, to rival that of our Communist and Muslim enemies?

    • jim says:

      Instead of becoming socialist, it could morph into a semi-aristocratic theocratic dynasty with a highly-influential priest class ruling based on iron,and unchangeable, laws of God(s).

      Well that would be great, and that was Himmler’s program. But his quasi pagan religion just did not get traction, while socialism did get traction.

      I think we can learn from Christianity,in its pre-Niceaen Council days.

      Early Christianity was fine on women, but disturbingly pacific and universalist. I rather like Christianity post Charles the Hammer.

      • peppermint says:

        …then Charles V let the King of France walk away from a military defeat, at which point he started negotiating with the Ottomans, and refused to take extraordinary measures against Lutheranism. I’ve been told he was trying to be a Christian monarch. Is there a redpill I missed somewhere? Metternich was also a Christian.

  30. Robert in Arabia says:

    Outside of the internet, I have met one white person who is realistic about the danger posed by black people. Oddly enough, the number of Arabs I have met who have studied in the United States and Canada who are realistic about black criminality is legion.

  31. Sam says:

    Jim said,”…White nationalism, being demotic, tends to become national socialism. National socialism kills people not because it is nationalist, but because it is socialist…”

    Lets try it. Better to be possibly killed by a socialist than definitely killed by Negros.

  32. […] The trouble with white nationalism « Jim’s Blog […]

Leave a Reply