There is so much to think about in this chapter it is taking me a while to absorb it all.  One of the footnotes in this section lead to information about Heidegger.  I wanted to look at that before continuing with Johnson.  Here are some clipping from that reference.  

These lessons are part of a wider study seeking to answer a timely but age old question:

Psalms 11:3 If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?”

God set boundaries to protect us from evil. Underneath each boundary lays a foundation. When evil men redefine biological sex (Gen 1:27), they strike at that foundation. When evil men redefine marriage (Gen 2:23-24), they strike at that foundation. When evil men redefine nation (Gen 10:5), they strike at that foundation. When the footing is shattered, people lose hope and become easy prey to evil forces.

When God freed the sons of Israel from Egypt (Ex 1:1) He continued His promise to make them into a nation (Gen 12:1-2). He taught them as they marched through the desert to the Promised Land. He gave them their first lessons on nationhood. He reminded them of their history and origin. In the first 11 chapters, and of first importance, were the definitions of nation, marriage, and biological sex. From chapter 12 on, to the end of the New Testament, God persistently impressed these definitions upon His chosen, but deviant, people. His definitions were not contrary to the nature of things. This was His plan and means of bringing the world a Savior and conquering evil. What would have happened had He not held to these definitions or worked against His own laws of nature?

I hope to bring light upon these questions and others like them in this series of studies called What is a Nation? To explore this broader topic I will review a number of books, the first of which is The White Nationalist Manifesto by Greg Johnson. I will add some comments and study questions to each post to turn them into short 10-20 minute lessons. To go to the beginning of this series click here.

Greg Johnson, “Heidegger and Ethnic Nationalism,” Part 1 | Counter-Currents

Click on the "The White Nationalist Manifesto" tag below to see all the posts in this series. To go to the start of this series click here.

Does Johnson's definition of nationalism square with the Bible's definition of nationalism?  So far, I think so.  I know it squares more with it than civic nationalism or Christian nationalism does.  Nonetheless, this section was difficult for me to understand because I am not yet familiar enough with the terminology and opposing arguments.  I had a hard time understanding what he meant in this section by "generic white people."  Nevertheless, I am pushing through the first part of "Basic Concepts" expecting to learn more as I go.  

These lessons are part of a wider study seeking to answer a timely but age old question:

Psalms 11:3 If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?”

God set boundaries to protect us from evil. Underneath each boundary lays a foundation. When evil men redefine biological sex (Gen 1:27), they strike at that foundation. When evil men redefine marriage (Gen 2:23-24), they strike at that foundation. When evil men redefine nation (Gen 10:5), they strike at that foundation. When the footing is shattered, people lose hope and become easy prey to evil forces.

When God freed the sons of Israel from Egypt (Ex 1:1) He continued His promise to make them into a nation (Gen 12:1-2). He taught them as they marched through the desert to the Promised Land. He gave them their first lessons on nationhood. He reminded them of their history and origin. In the first 11 chapters, and of first importance, were the definitions of nation, marriage, and biological sex. From chapter 12 on, to the end of the New Testament, God persistently impressed these definitions upon His chosen, but deviant, people. His definitions were not contrary to the nature of things. This was His plan and means of bringing the world a Savior and conquering evil. What would have happened had He not held to these definitions or worked against His own laws of nature?

I hope to bring light upon these questions and others like them in this series of studies called What is a Nation? To explore this broader topic I will review a number of books, the first of which is The White Nationalist Manifesto by Greg Johnson. I will add some comments and study questions to each post to turn them into short 10-20 minute lessons. To go to the beginning of this series click here.

Basic Concepts

Whiteness

An obvious line of attack against White Nationalism is the claim that the very concept of whiteness is problematic. We will deal with four such objections. First, the concept of whiteness is supposed to be politically unnecessary. Second, whiteness is alleged to be subversive of ethnic identity. Third, whiteness is said to be a social construct, not a real natural kind. Fourth, the viability of White Nationalism is said to depend on an airtight definition of whiteness, which is elusive.

Is Whiteness Necessary?

A common misunderstanding or misrepresentation of White Nationalism is to claim that the very concept is meaningless, because white people are not interested in “white” nationalism. We are interested in American or French or German or Italian nationalism. On this account, German nationalism is for Germans and White Nationalism is for generic white people.^[1] But there are no generic white people, so White Nationalism is a political program without a constituency, a concept without a referent.

But White Nationalism is not nationalism for generic white people. White Nationalism just means ethnonationalism for all specific white peoples. White Nationalists wish to preserve, restore, or create sovereign racially and ethnically homogeneous homelands for all white peoples who aspire to self-determination.

There really is no such thing as a generic white person. All white people belong to specific ethnic groups. Even in borderline cases, where the children of couples from different ethnic groups are brought up with two cultures, and even two mother tongues, we are still talking about blends of specific ethnic groups.

What differentiates white ethnic groups? There are subracial differences among Europeans, and some nations have well-defined “typical” subracial types, for instance, typical Norwegians and Finns. But other nations encompass a range of subracial types, for instance England and Italy. In short, some white ethnic groups are more biologically homogeneous than others. Thus what is essential in differentiating white nations are their distinct languages, cultures, and histories.^[2]

Since people typically marry within their faith, religious boundaries can beget ethnic boundaries. Even peoples who are genetically very similar and speak the same language—the English and the Irish, or the Serbs, Bosnians, and Croats—can be deeply divided by religion.

It is often said that White Nationalism makes sense only in colonial melting pots like the United States and Canada, in which different European ethnic groups have blended together. This is untrue. The blending of Old-World nations did not produce generic white people. It produced new ethnic groups: Americans, Canadians, Quebecois, Australians, Afrikaners, etc.

If Americans and Canadians were just generic white people, there would be no differences between them. But there are differences, and these differences are linguistic and cultural. Thus from a White Nationalist point of view, there is really no difference between European and colonial nations. We stand for the self-determination of all white nations, all over the world, not just in Europe.

Since there are no generic white people—at least outside Plato’s world of forms or wherever else one finds universals—why speak of “white” nationalism at all? Why not just speak of specific national groups and be done with it?

There are five compelling reasons why we cannot avoid talking about the white race.^[3]

5 Reasons Why We Must Talk About The White Race

First, let’s say we decide to avoid talk of whiteness and instead speak only of promoting the national interests of the French, Germans, Americans, Poles, etc., while studiously avoiding any discussion of such nations as Turkey, India, or China. One has to ask: What does the first list have in common, and why are the other countries left out? The answer to both questions is that we are concerned with white nations, as opposed to non-white ones.

One might try to dodge this accusation of “racism” by speaking of “Western civilization” or “Christendom,” but not all European peoples are “Western,” and vast numbers of Christians are non-whites.

Basically, all attempts to avoid the word “white” are just euphemisms—ways of talking around sensitive topics, like sex or excrement, born from a fear of violating cultural taboos about polite speech. But people who can only speak of race in euphemisms are not yet ready for the struggle. It is noble to wish to save white people, but how can one muster the courage to save the white race if one can’t even bring oneself to utter the word “white”? In order to battle the forces promoting white genocide, we are going to have to be more than a bit impolite.

Second, if the only motive for white skittishness about speaking in terms of race is a cultural taboo against white “racism,” we need to understand the origins and functions of this taboo.^[4]

All the other races can, of course, speak in terms of racial identity and interests. And to my knowledge, Black Nationalists who speak of black power and black interests are never met with the argument, “But Black Nationalism is meaningless, because there are no generic black people, just various black tribes and nations.”

Furthermore, when non-whites—or self-loathing whites—lecture us about “white privilege” and recite endless litanies of white crimes, nobody ever says, “Your accusations are meaningless. There is no such thing as a generic white person.” It seems that whiteness is a completely unproblematic category when people wish to impute blame to us. It is only problematic when whites want to defend ourselves: when we wish to affirm our identity, take pride in our achievements, take stock of our interests, and take our own side in ethnic conflicts.

This taboo against any self-assertive appeal to whiteness is blatantly unfair, and whites can only lose if we continue to honor it. Obviously, this taboo was devised to systematically disadvantage whites. Thus we would be fools to continue honoring it.

Third, even though there is more to being American or English or Swedish than simply being white, we still have to talk about whiteness, because the present political system insists that it is possible for people of all races to be American or English or Swedish. For a very long time, it went without saying that only white people could be part of any European nation. But multiculturalism and civic nationalism seek to divorce European national identities from whiteness.^[5]

Thus to save our nations—and through them our race as a whole—we have to talk explicitly about whiteness.

We have to assert that being white is a necessary condition of belonging to any European national group, although of course we acknowledge that a shared language, culture, and history are also necessary.

We must assert that non-whites can be members of white nations only by virtue of legal fictions. Not every white man is a Swede, but every Swede is a white man.

Fourth, simple ethnic nationalism is not always sufficient to ensure either narrow national or broader racial interests. It is perfectly natural, normal, and right for individuals and nations to take care of their own people first. And when multiethnic empires or multinational bodies like the European Union work against the ethnic interests of specific peoples, then the “petty” nationalism of Scotland or Hungary or Poland is entirely legitimate.^[6] But when petty ethnic nationalism or imperialism lead to wars between European nations, or prevent coordinated European responses to common threats, then a broader sense of pan-European racial solidarity becomes necessary to secure racial survival and flourishing.

Creating such solidarity is imperative. Thus we must emphasize all the things that Europeans have in common, and beyond all the differences of language, culture, and religion, the deepest root of European identity and solidarity is racial.^[7] All Europeans share common ancestors. We are one extended family. In order to ensure our common destiny, we need to overcome silly taboos about acknowledging and drawing strength from our common racial origins.

Fifth, colonial societies from the start involved racial distinctions between European colonists and indigenous non-whites. In some cases, African slaves and South-and East-Asian coolies were added to the mix. In such an environment, it is natural for whites not to see different nations and tribes (Aztec, Mayan), but simply different racial groupings (Indians, blacks, etc.), and it is equally natural for non-whites to see Europeans of different national origins simply as whites. Indeed, in the colonial context of racial polarization and struggle, when whites must present a unified front, the remnants of Old-World ethnic differences are actually harmful to white interests.

But now that Europe itself is being colonized by non-whites, the same process of racial polarization is taking place there as well. Blacks, Arabs, and South Asians in Europe do not see Frenchmen, Englishmen, and Germans. They simply see white men. And we simply see non-whites. Our differences do not matter to them, and their differences do not matter to us. As racial tensions increase in Europe, our people will realize that they are not being attacked as Frenchmen or Germans, but simply as white men. And when Europeans resist ethnic displacement, they will increasingly regard their race as their nation and their skin as their uniform. The sooner we see ourselves as white people, united by common enemies and challenges, sharing a common origin and a common destiny, the sooner we will be equal to the tasks facing us.

Click on the "The White Nationalist Manifesto" tag below to see all the posts in this series. To go to the start of this series click here.

Questions & Notes

1. True or False: White Nationalism is for generic white people. ↑

2. What is essential in differentiating white nations are their distinct _________, _________, and histories. ↑

3. List the five reasons why we must talk about the White race. ↑

4. If the only motive for white skittishness about speaking in terms of race is a cultural taboo against white “racism,” we need to understand the _________ and _________ of this taboo. ↑

5. Multiculturalism and civic nationalism seek to _________ European national identities from whiteness. ↑

6. Greg Johnson, “‘Let’s Call the Whole Thing Off’: In Defense of ‘Petty’ Nationalism,” in Truth, Justice, & a Nice White Country (San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2015). ↑

7. The deepest root of European identity and solidarity is _________. ↑

Dealing with cults is a given after one becomes a Christian. Every Christian should take a course or read some books on how to deal with cults. Cults typically borrow and twist Christian terminology. The use of common Christian terms confuses weak Christians setting them up to be captured by false doctrine. As long as these terms are misunderstood, the cult survives. By understanding where the Christian terms came from and what they really mean leads to deliverance and the weakening of the cult.

I see a parallel phenomenon regarding nationalism.  The terms defining State are just as important as the terms defining Church.  God created State.  Man redefines it.  In this chapter, consideration is given to this terminology.  What is meant by nation?  What is meant by sovereignty?  What is meant by race?  What is meant by ethnicity?  All of these terms get jumbled together and twisted for the same reasons cult leaders jumble together and twist standard terms within Christianity.  In this chapter Johnson separates the terms to help understand their meaning as they pertain to White Nationalism.  

These lessons are part of a wider study seeking to answer a timely but age old question:

Psalms 11:3 If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?”

God set boundaries to protect us from evil. Underneath each boundary lays a foundation. When evil men redefine biological sex (Gen 1:27), they strike at that foundation. When evil men redefine marriage (Gen 2:23-24), they strike at that foundation. When evil men redefine nation (Gen 10:5), they strike at that foundation. When the footing is shattered, people lose hope and become easy prey to evil forces.

When God freed the sons of Israel from Egypt (Ex 1:1) He continued His promise to make them into a nation (Gen 12:1-2). He taught them as they marched through the desert to the Promised Land. He gave them their first lessons on nationhood. He reminded them of their history and origin. In the first 11 chapters, and of first importance, were the definitions of nation, marriage, and biological sex. From chapter 12 on, to the end of the New Testament, God persistently impressed these definitions upon His chosen, but deviant, people. His definitions were not contrary to the nature of things. This was His plan and means of bringing the world a Savior and conquering evil. What would have happened had He not held to these definitions or worked against His own laws of nature?

I hope to bring light upon these questions and others like them in this series of studies called What is a Nation? To explore this broader topic I will review a number of books, the first of which is The White Nationalist Manifesto by Greg Johnson. I will add some comments and study questions to each post to turn them into short 10-20 minute lessons. To go to the beginning of this series click here.

The Ethnostate

The Sovereignty State

White Nationalists advocate not just racially but also ethnically homogeneous sovereign homelands, i.e., ethnostates. Sovereignty is a principle of international law. A sovereign state controls its own territory and internal affairs. It does not have to answer to any higher political authority. Sovereign states are not allowed to meddle in the internal affairs of other sovereign states. Sovereign states, moreover, regardless of their size and power, are regarded as equal under international law.

Although peoples have been fighting to establish and preserve sovereignty throughout history, the concept of sovereignty is a modern one, generally regarded as being established in 1648 by the Treaty of Westphalia, which ended the Thirty Years’ War between Catholics and Protestants that had devastated Central Europe.^[1]

The Treaty of Westphalia established the principle that each state would adopt the church—Catholic or Protestant—of the ruling prince, and other states had to accept this. This was a pragmatic measure to end decades of religious conflict caused by the diversity of religious confessions in the same state and the church’s claims to supranational authority, which licensed interventions into the religious affairs of states.

In short, the concept of sovereignty arose out of the necessity of ensuring the right to differ. By making social peace more important than questions of religious truth, the emergence of the modern concept of sovereignty marked the downfall of Christendom and the rise of a new hegemonic value system, liberalism.

At first, the boundaries of sovereign states were largely determined by the dynastic politics of Europe’s ruling houses. But in the late 18th century, with the revival of classical republicanism, the idea of the nation-state emerged, which held that the proper sovereign entity is a people united by language, culture, and common descent.^[2]

The Nation-State

Strictly understood, a nation-state is the same thing as an ethnostate, since the English word nation derives from the Latin natio, which refers to a group related by common descent.^[3] But in common parlance, countries like the United Kingdom, Spain, France, Belgium, Canada, and Switzerland are referred to as nation-states, even though they are multiethnic, quasi-imperial societies.

The confusion is compounded by the practice of using nation to refer to all sovereign entities, including multiethnic ones, for instance when we talk about the United Nations, international law, or international trade—all of which deal with states, most of which are not nation-states.

The Ethnostate

Thus we need the ideas of the ethnostate and ethnonationalism, to emphasize ethnicity as the principle of unity of a sovereign state—even though ethnos is just the Greek equivalent of natio, which makes ethnonationalism a rather redundant term.^[4]

Civic Nationalism

Ethnonationalism is contrasted with civic nationalism, in which the principle of unity is subjection to a common system of laws or the profession of a shared civic creed. Civic nationalism need not exist in a multiracial or multicultural society, but the primary reason that civic nationalist creeds are promulgated is to deal with the absence of organic, ethnic unity in a society.^[5]

In his book The Ethnostate, Wilmot Robertson offers a persuasive case for ethnonationalism.^[6] Ethnonationalism preserves distinct races, subraces, and cultures and allows them to evolve without the friction, distortions, and conflicts that inevitably emerge when different races and cultures are forced to share the same territory and political system.^[7]

Ethnonationalism presupposes that racial and cultural diversity are goods worth preserving. It also presupposes that this is a universal principle. To say that racial and cultural diversity are universally valuable means, first, that if a principle is objectively true, it is true for all peoples. Second, it implies that every nation ought to perpetuate itself through time and, if necessary, force other nations to respect its vital interests. Beyond that, it also implies that each nation should respect the vital interests of other nations not simply because they are willing to fight to assert themselves, but because we value the differences of others and respect their right to differ as a matter of principle.

Ethnonationalism should be seen as a right not an obligation.^[8] It is not a moral duty that needs to be adopted by every ethnic group, regardless of circumstances. It is simply a highly pragmatic tool to decrease conflict and promote genetic and cultural diversity. But ethnonationalism is not the only solution to the problems faced by multiethnic societies. For instance, Switzerland is a harmonious multiethnic society due to its decentralized, federal political system in which its 26 cantons enjoy a great deal of autonomy.

In societies like the United States and Canada, with tiny aboriginal relict populations, the best solution is the ethnic reservation where they can govern their internal affairs. Not every tribe in the Amazon or Siberia needs full sovereignty and a seat at the United Nations.

Yet another solution is the uncontested supremacism of a dominant group, in which minorities simply acquiesce to being second-class citizens or resident aliens. Such populations would enjoy the same human rights as foreign travelers, but no civil rights, meaning that all political power would lie in the hands of the dominant people. The dominant people would not just be politically but also culturally supreme, so such a society might not be entirely ethnically French or English or American (meaning white American), but it could be normatively French or English or American, and everyone within its borders would accept the normative supremacy of the dominant culture—or leave.

But whenever a people aspires to a sovereign homeland so that it can perpetuate its genetic and cultural heritage without interference, ethnonationalists believe that it has the right to do so, and nobody else has the right to stand in its way.

Political Unification

Why should sovereignty reside in ethnostates rather than in more inclusive orders, such as the European Union or the “Imperium” envisioned by Francis Parker Yockey? Or, more grandly, the “Eurosiberia” of Jean Thiriart and Guillaume Faye?^[9] Or, grander still, the union of the whole Northern Hemisphere, the “Borean Alliance” or “Septentrion” of Jean Mabire and others?^[10]

The principal benefits attributed to political unification are (1) preventing whites from fighting with one another, and (2) protecting whites from other racial and civilizational power blocs like China, India, and the Muslim world. These goals are important, but I think that political unification is not needed to attain them. Beyond that, it entails serious risks of its own.

Alliances

The essential feature of any scheme of political unification is the transfer of sovereignty from the constituent parts to the new whole.^[11] If sovereignty remains with individual states, then one does not have political unification. Instead, one has an alliance between states, or a treaty organization like NATO, or an intergovernmental organization like the United Nations, or an economic customs union like the European Common Market, or a hybrid customs union and intergovernmental organization like the European Union.

But political unification is not necessary to prevent whites from fighting with one another or to secure whites from external threats. These aims can be attained through alliances and treaties between sovereign states. A European equivalent of NATO, which provides Europe with a common defense and immigration/emigration policy and mediates conflicts between sovereign member states would be sufficient, and it would have the added value of preserving the cultural and subracial distinctness of different European groups.

The threat of non-white blocs should not be exaggerated. France, the UK, or Russia alone are militarily strong enough to prevail against anything that Africa, India, or the Muslim world can throw at us—provided, of course, that whites are again morally strong enough to take their own side in a fight. A simple alliance of European states would be able to deter any Chinese aggression. Thus a defensive alliance between European states would be sufficient to preserve Europe from all outside forces, whether they be armed powers or stateless masses of refugees and immigrants.

Creating Homogeneous Ethnostates

As for white fratricide: the best way to defuse white ethnic conflicts is not to combat “petty” nationalism but to take it to its logical conclusion. If different ethnic groups yoked to the same system are growing restive, then they should be allowed to go their own ways. Through moving borders and moving peoples, homogeneous ethnostates can be created, in which each self-conscious people can speak its own language and practice its own customs free from outside interference. Such a process could be mediated by a European treaty organization, which could ensure that the process is peaceful, orderly, humane, and as fair as possible to all parties.

International crises are by their very nature interruptions in the normal order of things, which also means that their duration is limited, so eventually everything goes back to normal. Military alliances are also shifting and temporary things, but political unification aims at permanence and is very difficult to undo.

Does it really make sense to make permanent changes in the political order to deal with unusual and temporary problems?

The ancient Romans appointed dictators in times of emergency, but only for a limited time, because emergencies are temporary, and a permanent dictatorship is both unnecessary and risky. The same is true of European political unification.

But what would happen if a sovereign European state signed a treaty to host a gigantic Chinese military base? Or if it fell into the hands of plutocrats who started importing cheap non-white labor? Clearly such policies would endanger all of Europe, therefore it is not just the business of whatever rogue state adopts those policies. What could the rest of Europe do to stop this? Isn’t this why we need a politically unified Europe?

The answer, of course, is what all sovereign states do when they face existential conflicts of interest: diplomatic pressure, economic sanctions, and, if those fail, war. Other states would be perfectly justified in declaring war against the rogue state, deposing the offending regime, and removing non-Europeans from its territory. Then they would set up a new sovereign regime and go home.

European Unification

The idea that we need European unification to prevent such wars is absurd. Again, it makes no sense to make permanent changes to solve temporary problems, and it makes no sense to, in effect, declare war on all sovereign states today because we might have to declare war on one of them tomorrow.

Political unification is not only unnecessary, it is dangerous, simply because if it fails, it would fail catastrophically. It is not wise to put all one’s eggs in one basket, or to grow only one crop, or to breed a “homogeneous European man,” for when the basket breaks, or blight strikes the potato crop, or a new pandemic like the Spanish flu breaks out, one is liable to lose everything.

A politically unified Europe would necessarily be ruled by a small, polyglot elite that is remote from and unresponsive to the provinces and their “petty” concerns, which they would take great pride in denigrating in the name of the greater good. If that elite became infected by an anti-European memetic virus—or corrupted by alien elites—it would have the power to destroy Europe, and since there would be no sovereign states to say no, nothing short of a revolution could stop them.

Indeed, the leadership of the present-day European Union is infected by just such a memetic virus, and it is doing all it can to flood Europe with non-whites. The only thing stopping them is the fact that the European Union does not have sovereign power, and stubborn sovereign ethnostates like Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia are saying no.

Even if a European Union were the only way to stop another Europe-wide war, the terrible truth is that, despite all the losses, Europe managed to recover from two World Wars. But it would not recover from race-replacement immigration promoted by a sovereign European Union.

Moreover, at a certain point, the EU is going to face a choice. If Poland or Hungary vetoes non-white immigration once and for all, the EU will either have to accept its dissolution or use coercion to hold itself together. In short, the EU may very well cause rather than prevent the next European “brothers’ war.”

A politically unified Europe would eliminate the principle of the equality of sovereign nations under international law. But it would not eliminate the existence of nations. And in a common market and political system, certain national groups—principally the Germans—would have systematic advantages and end up on top. This means that a unified Europe would end up being a de facto German empire, since Germany has the largest population and the strongest economy. Does anyone really think that the French or the Poles would relish living under the hegemony of priggish self-loathing German technocrats like Angela Merkel? This too is a recipe for hatred and violence, not love and harmony.

Finally, if Rightwing proponents of European unification hold that it is not really a problem for Greeks and Swedes, Poles and Portuguese to live under a single sovereign state, on what grounds, exactly, are they complaining about multiculturalism and diversity? If the EU can encompass the differences between the Irish and the Greeks, why can’t it encompass the differences between Greeks and Turks, or Greeks and Syrians, etc.?

The ethnonationalist vision is of a Europe—and a worldwide European diaspora—of a hundred flags, in which every self-conscious nation has at least one sovereign homeland, each of which will strive for the highest degree of homogeneity, allowing the greatest diversity of cultures, languages, dialects, and institutions to flourish. Wherever a citizen turns, he will encounter his own flesh and blood, people who speak his language, people whose minds he can understand. Social life will be warm and welcoming, not alienating and unsettling as in multicultural societies. Because citizens will have a strong sense of identity, they will know the difference between their own people and foreigners. Because they will control their own borders and destinies, they can afford to be hospitable to diplomats, businessmen, tourists, students, and even a few expatriates, who will behave like grateful guests. These ethnostates will be good neighbors to one another, because they have good fences between them and homes to return to when commerce with outsiders becomes tiring.

The citizens of these states will be deeply steeped in their mother tongues and local cultures, but they will also be educated in the broader tradition of European high culture. They will all strive for fluency in at least one other European language. They will appreciate that all Europeans have common roots, common enemies, and a common destiny. But these commonalities are, and will remain, secondary and remote compared to linguistic and cultural differences.

The leadership caste of each ethnostate will be selected to be both deeply rooted in its own homeland but also to have the broadest possible sense of European solidarity. This ethos will allow political cooperation between all European peoples through intergovernmental and treaty organizations, as well as ad hoc alliances. And, since scientific truth and technological achievements are universally valid, there should be pan-European cooperation in promoting science, technology, national defense, ecological initiatives, and space exploration.

Ethnonationalist Principle

Is ethnonationalism for everyone? Yes and no.

On the one hand, we believe that all peoples have the right to their own homogeneous sovereign homelands, wherever that is possible. We want ethnostates for ourselves, and on the Lockean principle that we will take what we need for ourselves but leave other people the option of doing the same, we wish all peoples well and will honor the ethnonationalist principle wherever it is asserted, even when it might be more convenient to just boss people around and take their resources.

On the other hand, we recognize that not all peoples have an equal capacity for self-government. Successful ethnostates are certainly possible in East Asia, where today Japan and South Korea are among the most homogeneous and advanced societies on the planet. But ethnonationalism is not really possible in the racially mixed societies of Latin America, where the best option is probably a more benevolent version of the present system of rule by European-descended elites. Nor is ethnonationalism possible among the most primitive tribal peoples of the world in Africa, Amazonia, Micronesia, or Papua. Such peoples require benevolent paternalism and ethnic reservations.

But this talk of preserving the existence and distinctness of primitive peoples around the world is somewhat grandiose and premature, given that it is our existence, not theirs, that is threatened by the present global dispensation. When an airplane cabin loses pressure, you are supposed to secure your own oxygen mask before helping others. For if you die by putting the needs of others first, the people who depend on you will die as well. Once White Nationalists secure preserves for our own race, then we can benevolently entertain similar arrangements for other peoples.

Click on the "The White Nationalist Manifesto" tag below to see all the posts in this series. To go to the start of this series click here.

Questions & Notes

1. Although peoples have been fighting to establish and preserve sovereignty throughout history, the concept of sovereignty is a modern one, generally regarded as being established in _________ by the Treaty of Westphalia. ↑

2. But in the late 18th century, with the revival of classical _________, the idea of the nation-state emerged, which held that the proper sovereign entity is a people united by language, culture, and common descent. ↑

3. Strictly understood, a nation-state is the same thing as an _________, since the English word nation derives from the Latin natio, which refers to a group related by common descent. ↑

4. We need the ideas of the ethnostate and ethnonationalism, to _________ ethnicity as the principle of unity of a sovereign state. ↑

5. The primary reason that civic nationalist creeds are promulgated is to deal with the absence of _________. ↑

6. Wilmot Robertson, The Ethnostate: An Unblinkered Prospectus for an Advanced Statecraft (Cape Canaveral, Fl.: Howard Allen, 1992). ↑

7. _________ preserves distinct races, subraces, and cultures and allows them to evolve without the friction, distortions, and conflicts that inevitably emerge when different races and cultures are forced to share the same territory and political system. ↑

8. Ethnonationalism should be seen as a right not an obligation. What is the difference? ↑

9. See Guillaume Faye, “The Geopolitics of Ethnopolitics: The New Concept of ‘Eurosiberia,’” Counter-Currents, August 25, 2010. Also see the articles tagged Jean Thiriart at Counter-Currents. ↑

10. See Greg Johnson, “The ‘Borean Alliance,’” Counter-Currents, June 20, 2011. ↑

11. The essential feature of any scheme of political unification is the transfer of _________ from the constituent parts to the new whole. ↑