Nationalism
Prioritising those who resemble you the most is natural, and not to be demonised.
“Tribal behaviour is what makes human beings human. Take it away from ‘man’ or ‘mankind’, and what you get is not ‘pure man’ or ‘liberated man’, but dehumanisation, and from that, tyranny.”
Samuel Francis
Abstract. A “nation” is a biological group; be it tribal, ethnic, or racial. By definition, a nation is not a state, nor a country. The former is a political construct created by the nation, while the latter is the territory occupied and controlled by that nation. A “nation-state”, is a territory occupied and governed by one nation. From this it is easy to posit that a “nation”, is therefore fundamentally defined by blood. However, by necessity, a nation is also defined by its “enemies”: The ‘in-group’ and ‘out-group’ distinction. In other words, what you are, is equally as defined by what you are not.
Firstly, it is important to note that national identities can exist in a state of flux, and they can develop over time - the American White identity is a good example of this. While it initially consisted of Germanics (Anglos and Germans), later, waves of ethnic European migrants (Italics, Celts, etc) were slowly assimilated into the overall ‘White’ ethnic identity. The difference between the collective of European groups of America and the non-Whites, with whom they shared the continent, was strong enough to lead to the formation of a cohesive ‘American’ identity. The formation of this identity was not smooth-sailing by any means, but non-Germanic Europeans were always recognised as the racial kin of the American founding stock. A more modern example can be found in the United Kingdom, where a revived English identity has arisen in opposition to the modern British identity, which has been co-opted by multi-racialism and globalism. According to Wikipedia, approximately 60% of the White inhabitants of England refer to themselves as English rather than British, while only 5% of non-White inhabitants identify themselves as English. The defining factor in this instance is not ethnic (e.g. English vs Scottish), but racial; English (White) vs multi-racial (non-White).
Introduction
Nationalism, which should simply be defined as “politics to advance the nation”, like all politics, can be fundamentally boiled down to the distinction between “friends” and “enemies”. While this conception of politics and, by proxy, nationhood, was not originated by Carl Schmitt, his writings on the topic are well developed and comprehensive. In his work titled, ‘The Concept of the Political’, Schmitt stated that “the specific political distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced is that between friend and enemy.” The definition of politics itself can be reduced to “multiple competing groups opposing one another as mutual enemies.” More often than not, these groups have a biological basis, i.e., they are competing nations (races, ethnic groups, tribes, etc), or competing social ‘castes’. Consider the generalised physical distinctions between the Left and Right wings of the modern world: The Left are stereotypically ‘soft’, degenerate, materialistic, egalitarian, illogical, collectivist, etc. Conversely, the Right are stereotypically moralistic, religious, hierarchical, logical, individualistic, etc. This is evidently a biological conflict; the lowest castes (that of the worker and producer), against the higher castes (that of the Priest and warrior). All politics can be seen as being fundamentally motivated by the propagation and preservation of one’s own immediate lineage and wider biological group.
Friend-Enemy Distinction
According to Schmitt, the distinction between friend and enemy - the in-group and out-group - is the “utmost degree of intensity of association or disassociation.” The utmost degree of association is an individual’s willingness to kill others for the simple reason that they belong to a hostile group. Any two or more groups that find themselves in a situation that may result in war or mutual killing, such as competition for resources and territory, are mutual enemies. As clarification, this does not mean that people are suddenly entitled to go out and kill those who belong to groups that are ‘hostile’ to your own, but it’s merely a point that encapsulates the notion that, for example, all of the groups who have wished death upon Whites, and who are actively invading our territories, objectively fall into the “enemy” category.
Schmitt’s friend-enemy distinction is not necessarily based on morality. An individual’s group can be enemies with a group that said individual views as morally ‘good’. Similarly, groups can view one-another as morally reprehensible without classing each other as ‘enemies’. The friend-enemy distinction is also not necessarily linked to other distinctions upon which group identities are often constructed; race, ethnicity, language, religion, etc. However, Schmitt emphasised that “every religious, moral, economic, ethical, or other antithesis transforms into a political one if it is sufficiently strong to group human beings effectively according to friend and enemy.” Schmitt also advised that any nation-state should “purge heterogeneity”, in order to become as united as possible, thus minimising the possibilities of internal strife and collapse. Believing that the legitimacy of a state or governing body was entirely reliant upon a clearly defined friend-enemy distinction, Schmitt concluded that any sovereign leader must strive to homogenise the community through suppression, elimination, or expulsion of internal elements who do not endorse the defined friend-enemy distinction.
Schmitt proposed that a ‘political community’ or ‘political nation’, exists wherever a group of people separate themselves from out-groups through the creation of a friend-enemy distinction. Any group, regardless of formal or official political organisation, is capable of naturally understanding the distinction between friend and enemy, in the same sense that a gazelle instinctively views a lion as a threat.
Herein lies the problem: Any ‘political nation’ that fails to sufficiently distinguish between friend and enemy will inevitably extend membership rights to those who do not and should not belong to the ‘political nation’ or the self-selected in-group. A hazy boundary between friend and enemy, in-group and out-group, may result in depoliticisation. The nation will suffer from internal strife or become overwhelmed by external enemies who are more politically united than the nation in question - i.e., enemy nations that have a more robust friend-enemy distinction. This is precisely what is currently happening to every White country on the planet.
The friend-enemy distinction is why the Alt-Right’s delusional “Red-Brown Alliance” is destined to fail. The modern Red/Left/Communists have firmly aligned themselves with the anti-White, multi-racial, multi-culturalistic globalist camp - as they have done since the Bolshevik Revolution and the dawn of the Soviet Union, and subsequently, the death of ‘White Russia’. Today, Leftism is completely inseparable from anti-White politics, and reconcile between Nationalists and the Left is utterly impossible, on all levels.
Our current political and geopolitical circumstance can be summarised as follows:
Our biological in-group has been subverted by a biological out-group, that acts as our in-group and steers us in harmful directions.
This out-group has infiltrated and wholly occupies the entirety of our countries’ political infrastructure, as well as corporate, media, and educational apparatus. All meaningful and influential systems in the Western world are now wired to work against Whites and Westerners.
This out-group have opened White countries’ borders and invited multiple ‘hostile’ out-groups into our territories, while propagandising them against us and inciting them to attack us politically, culturally, linguistically, and also, physically.
Our in-group is now involved in a biological struggle against not only the out-group controlling our state apparatus, but all other ‘hostile’ out-groups that are attempting to conquer our un-defended civilisations.
What’s interesting and quite disheartening, is that in this clash of civilisations, nations, races, ethnicities, etc, one side (the globalist, Bolshevik, Communist, Leftist coalition) understands this very fact, that there is a clash, whilst the opposing side (Nationalists, Christians, Conservatives, etc), seemingly do not. The pseudo-intellectuals of the Alt-Right obfuscate the most basic political distinction - friend and enemy - thus making it increasingly difficult to explain the current global situations to an already demoralised group of people.
Views On Other Races
Most open to misinterpretation are Nationalist views on the relations between the various races of the world. It has been questioned whether the fundamental racial principles must not breed condescension. Even contempt of people of a different race. Quite the contrary: These very principles offer the very best guarantee for mutual tolerance, and for the peaceful co-operation of all. Nationalism, by definition, acknowledges the fact that each race is different, and that prioritising your respective in-group is a much better recipe for peace and success than that of trying to appease every single race at once. Nationalists appreciate the fact that those of another race are different from them. This scientific truth is the basis, and the justification, for such policies and ideologies. A common misconception about Nationalism, especially when referencing White countries, is that it automatically views certain races as ‘worse’. This is not possible to judge, since this idea would demand that we transcend our own racial limitations for the duration of the verdict, and take on a superhuman, even divine, attitude from which alone, an ‘impersonal’ verdict could be formed on the value, or lack of such, of the many living forms of inexhaustible nature. Nationalists of all people, are most conscious of the inseparable ties of the blood and our own race. The racial principles of Nationalism therefore, are the surest guarantee for respecting the integrity of other nations and countries. Nationalistic countries will always welcome any guests who wish to visit them, whether of kindred or foreign civilisations, and their racial views only lead to a greater appreciation of their essential peculiarities, in the same way as Nationalists would want their own peculiarities respected.
There is extensive evidence to show that people prefer those that they are the most similar to, characteristically, and also genetically. Ethnic groups are repositories of shared genes, thus, xenophobia can be seen as the ‘darker side’ of human altruism. The evidence that genetically similar peoples are more inclined to take a liking to one-another arises from studies on social assortment, differential heritabilities, the comparison of identical and fraternal twins, blood tests, and family bereavements. In other words, ethnocentrism is biological, and genetic, in origin.
Ethnocentrism is a near-universal ‘syndrome’ of attitudes and behaviours. These attitudes can include seeing one’s own group, or ‘in-group’, as virtuous and superior, whilst seeing other groups, or one’s ‘out-group’, as inferior. Ethnocentric attitudes also include seeing one’s own standards of value as universal, or believing that their standards of value should ‘become’ universal. Humans are more altruistic to those that they are the most similar to, and to whom they are more closely related. Irrespective of the intentions that motivate certain human behaviours, ethnocentrism demonstrates that humans behave in such a way as to maximise inclusive fitness: They are more willing to partake in actions that benefit their closer relatives, as opposed to distantly related individuals. Thus, ethnocentrism is at the heart of nationalism.
In addition, we are biologically programmed to be attracted to those that are genetically, physically, and psychologically similar to ourselves - in other words, ethnocentrism plays a key natural role in dating.
Countries like Yemen, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, etc, are practically 100% Muslim. Israel is by design, a Jewish ethnostate, where you need to undergo DNA tests if you want a chance at citizenship. It is not scandalous for a country to prioritise its own nation and people. The issue of Nationalism and border policies only seem to arise when it’s a White country in question, like Orban’s Hungary for example, that wish to preserve and protect their own nation and people first. This is not a coincidence.
Zionist Hypocrisy
In the modern world, there seems to be a stark difference between how White Nationalism is received and addressed, compared to how Zionism (Jewish Nationalism) is treated by the media and politicians alike. ‘White Supremacy’ now seems to be eternally bound to the term ‘White Nationalism’, not because White Nationalism advertises White people as the ‘master race’, but because it is the perfect way to squash any movement and permanently stigmatise individuals who dare to show pride in their White skin. Perhaps the Holocaust has something to do with this, after all, the term ‘racism’ wasn’t widely used by society until the 1950s and 1960s - post-Holocaust. All in all, the media portray White Nationalism as a threat, whilst propping up Zionism as a movement to secure a ‘persecuted’ peoples who just wish to live freely to embrace their heritage.
Eileen Hershenov, Senior Vice President of the ADL (Anti Defamation League, a prominent Jewish Nationalist organisation), called White Nationalism a “supremacist”, “domestic terrorist” movement. Note the conflation of Nationalism and supremacism. Her definition of White Nationalism was as follows:
“The core ideology of White Nationalists, which is a euphemism for White supremacists, is the belief in the imminent extinction of the White race because of a flood of non-White people and other people that they feel are degenerate, all orchestrated, puppeteered by Jews.”
Of course, Hershenov’s definition of White Nationalism, does not seem to align with the ADL’s definition of Jewish Nationalism:
“Zionism [Jewish Nationalism] is a national movement of self-determination in the land of Israel.”
Their Nationalism is simply a movement of “self-determination”, but White Nationalism is on its way to being legally defined as terrorism - at their hands.
The FBI themselves view White Nationalism as being “pro-White” (http://archive.vn/MvXuw). In other words, anyone that doesn’t hate White people because of their skin, is now a domestic terrorist. This definition means that the founding fathers of the United States would also officially be classed as terrorists, given that they founded an explicitly White Nationalist country (http://archive.vn/mVOtv).
Considering Hershenov evidently thinks that White Nationalism is primarily/only driven by the “flood of non-White people” into White countries, I feel that the views of Jewish Nationalists on floods non-Jewish/Zionist people into their country should be compared. Bear in mind, that according to multiple surveys conducted in the West, approximately 95% of Jews are Jewish Nationalists (http://archive.vn/tDbRA), and they, in the words of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency “agree on almost everything” (http://archive.vn/Q85cG). Israel wish to “keep […] Jewish majority even at the expense of human rights” (http://archive.vn/BdwOU & http://archive.vn/qaufO). Israel’s state-religious court wishes to implement DNA tests to ensure that people moving to Israel, are Jewish (http://archive.vn/0cQT5), and they also do not want non-Jewish immigrants, even if those migrants are “highly skilled” (http://archive.vn/JYhcG - of the poll shown in the link, only Israel and Italy oppose immigration including those with advanced degrees, out of 12 developed countries examined). Israel deport, sterilise, and oppress those who do not belong to their ethnic group, in an attempt to oust them from their country (http://archive.vn/BFSTU, http://archive.vn/hPBNV, http://archive.vn/Ho157, http://archive.vn/AIaKE). Nor do Israel accept refugees, as reported by outlets such as Reuters, the Independent, and the Telegraph, when covering the issue of Syrian refugees - Israel “sent aid”, but did not allow any Syrians to cross into Israel.
They will, however, happily “aid” refugees in coming into White countries.
The extinction of Whites is pretty much an inevitable event if demographic shifts and ‘replacements’ are not stopped, considering that White people may become minorities in their own countries within a few decades.
Going back to Hershenov’s comments, are Jews really “orchestrating and puppeteering” mass migration into White countries? Personally, I don’t think it counts as “puppeteering” when you openly and explicitly admit that you’re doing something. Israeli organisations take a leading role in facilitating “refugee” movement into Europe, whilst also refusing entry of refugees into their own country (http://archive.vn/nEAqa, http://archive.vn/JQNud, http://archive.vn/5LtB8, http://archive.vn/kJAmz, http://archive.vn/HxEOc). The Israeli state, with the aid of ultra-globalist world governance organisations such as the UN, deports its non-Jewish migrants and asylum seekers into Europe. In other words, their ethnostate is flooding White countries with migrants that they don’t want (http://archive.vn/CwiEW, http://archive.vn/nHvsb, http://archive.vn/NIhq5, http://archive.vn/1Fbht). 62% of American rabbis support mass migration and open borders, for White countries, not Israel of course (http://archive.vn/fttYa). In 24 hours, 21,000 Jews signed a letter pledging solidarity with immigrants (http://archive.vn/AbwFw) - that’s more people than the entire Jewish population in some Western countries. They claim that the ‘Islamisation’ of Europe is a “good thing”, and the only thing that can stop “White supremacy” (http://archive.vn/QyFCL, http://archive.vn/o5Fbg). They say this of course whilst Israel continues to fight and oppress Muslim and Arab countries and populations in the Middle East. They vowed to “relentlessly fight against ‘cruel’” immigration restrictions, and they admitted to harbouring illegal immigrants, i.e., criminals, during ICE raids (http://archive.vn/NOYQo, http://archive.vn/Sunqc). In one of the incredibly rare instances of actual ‘White Nationalist terrorism’, an individual shot up a synagogue associated with facilitating mass migration (via the HIAS organisation), claiming that Jews are “behind it all”, to which the Israeli mainstream media replied, “yes” (http://archive.vn/T9NZ9).
So, are Jews/Zionists “puppeteering” anything? No. They tell us exactly what they’re doing, to which the ADL will then lie about it and pretend they aren’t doing any of the things that they openly admit to doing.
Racialism
To use England as an example: English-Racialism is/was never anti-“other race” racialism. English-Racialism is concerned with making the English race stronger and healthier in any possible way, including physically, and especially mentally. Today, one finds rampant alcohol and drug addiction, deliberately easy access to porn, sex, and dating apps, as well as prolonged social-media and electronic device consumption, everywhere. English-Racialism cares and strives for healthy English families that raise healthy English children, for the renewal of a healthy England. English-Racialism means rediscovering the creative values of the English race, and rediscovering the culture - it is a search for excellence, a noble ideal. English-Racialism is for its own race, not against other races, and wishes that all other races and nations do the same for themselves.
Closing Remarks
The following is a quote from Savitri Devi:
Respect the man of noble races other than your own, who carries out, in a different place, a combat parallel to yours — to ours. […] I’m for a multi-racial world in which each race keeps to itself, in harmony with the other races. Like in a garden, you have flowerbeds of carnations and irises and different other flowers. […] They stay separate, and each one has its beauty.
Differentiation of treatment is not and should not be motivated by the (subjective) difference of value of the two races, but of the fundamental differences of their respective natures.
Nationalism in the modern world has been deliberately distorted: For a fully Nationalistic world would be impossible for a global elite to even attempt to subvert, subdue, and control.