The idea of Pan-Nationalism has sat uncomfortably in the lap of traditional Nationalists for the past few decades. In his recent Counter-Currents article entitled Grandiose Nationalism, Greg Johnson—editor in chief of Counter Currents Publishing—proclaims that:
“White Nationalism is all about halting our race’s programmed march to extinction.”
If this is the generally accepted definition of White Nationalism then I myself cannot be judged a White Nationalist.
If White Nationalism (often referred to in cyber-speak as “WN”) is indeed an ideology, then it is sorely etiolated by Johnson’s stingy definition. WN is wilfully framed as merely a backlash in defiance of, to paraphrase Johnson, “the doom of our race.” WN is given the impression of a final bastion against invasion rather than a conquering siege engine. Yet no fortification, no matter how indomitable, can, once besieged, endure eternally.
I will state that I broadly agree with the gist of Johnson’s Grandiose Nationalism and too believe that nationalism(s) (consummate super-organisms comprising folk of the same ethnical and cultural inheritance, further associated by an accepted social purpose) should persist and continue to mirror the unique character of the various subdivisions of the White race; but is it not the case that ‘preservation,’ and its apotheosis, ‘conservation,’ are recent, artificial contrivances that remonstrate against the veracity of evolution?
No nation can be sanctioned to stagnate and wallow, with patriotic zeal, in its past accomplishments and glories. The consequence of this civil inertia is to retard the purpose of a nation, inevitably inciting a social congregation to slough off its cultural vitality, systematically atomise, and either be conquered by a competitor or atrophy of its own accord.
Another—again, at face value semantic—problem with Johnson’s piece is his assessment of WN opposition to multiculturalism. Johnson articulates his reactionary evaluation of WN thusly:
“…we stress different races to live in the same political system is a recipe for tension, hatred, and conflict.”
Of course this is the reality of forcibly fabricating multicultural societies, but it is not the reason conscious White racialists should rebel. “Tension, hatred, and conflict” are temporary, temporal phenomena, the immutable conclusion of which is racial segregation. Without “tension, hatred, and conflict,” multicultural societies would unspectacularly culminate in the genetic amalgamation of the various cultures (and let’s be honest with ourselves here, we are, more precisely, alluding to anthropoid races and subspecies rather than “cultures”) and the extinction of human diversity in those regions of the planet so afflicted.
If the recipe is “tension, hatred, and conflict,” then the final artefact will not be the spoliation of racial homogeneity, it will in fact reveal itself as a violent partitioning of dissimilar genetic groups and a heightened public sense of ‘racism,’ i.e., an acknowledgement of congenital racial differences. There is little doubt in my mind that our enemies had originally envisaged multiculturalism as a route to genetic uniformity. However, true and determinate assimilation is impossible while extant and unavoidable contrasts in customs, habits, and values linger. In the same respect, only vigorous social upheaval can eliminate racial difference, the exclusive means of doing so are via programmes of ‘affirmative action;’ dissemination of sundry propaganda and misinformation; and tampering with demographics (the initiative known as ‘social mobility,’ for instance) at governmental level.
Another aspect I find disturbing, particularly in the case of the Counter-Currents article, is the tendency towards an effete, even feminine, consideration of our Cause. An exemplar of this matriarchal conviction is expressed by Johnson:
“…a unified Europe would take on the quality of an empire, in which the most powerful nation would impose its standards and way of life on the rest.”
The above mentioned White Preservationist orientation is emphasised by Johnson’s clear aversion to ‘the will to power,’ and, accordingly, the processes of natural selection and the inescapable corollary, biotic evolution. I do not personally condone tyranny or intra-tribal bloodshed, but the fact remains that human beings, even those originating from the same gene pool, are inherently unequal. The result of this inequality is that the realisation and accumulation of power perpetually gives rise to the imposition of a dominant “way of life” being imposed upon those of lesser capacity.
Nonetheless, annihilation of the cultural soul of nations and White ethnic sub-groups must be shunned and avoided. This catastrophe, as Johnson correctly attests, will climax in the extinction of a group or their violent reaction to ‘culturicide,’ leading to festering enmities. Impositions of the powerful can be made manifest as direction by the wise and benevolent. Mere nationalism does not induce such a philosophy; it tends instead to stifle comparable White-universalist thinking. National power has historically been recognised, validated, and measured against that of rivals rather than valued as a means to catalyse social development and fuel global progress.
The powerful—if racially conscious—have certain compulsory obligations, the primary being to ensure the survival, proliferation, and development of the race; but other subsidiary responsibilities must also be adopted, including the recognition of minor cultural and inherent differences and eccentricities. The purpose of the powerful is to improve conditions and therefore consolidate and ratify their position by consent, not solely to maintain office by any and all means (existence of the sake of existence: the intoxication of power). These are the principles of a race-based socialism, of White Tribalism.
Greg Johnson’s use of the European Union in his Grandiose Nationalism is a fragile analogy at best, viz.:
“If the EU tried to impose real political unity on Europe, its members would bolt, and it would face the choice of accepting dissolution or preserving itself through coercion.”
As any literate student of modern history knows, the foundations of the EU were poured using the friable concrete of egalitarianism. Furthermore, the architects and executives of the EU are totalitarian fanatics to whom data, international incidents, and existential reality itself, are malleable theories to be contorted and broken to further their own nefarious objectives. The power of the EU bureaucrats and technocrats has not so much enthralled them as it has vindicated their unnatural dogmas, which in turn provides the necessary impetus to rule. Finally, the EU routinely perpetrates such wanton acts of procedural inanity, that only its committed ideological proponents can justify their design. Rational folk, not having been completely overwhelmed by the noxious vapours of liberalism, shake their heads in disbelief at the continuously illogical exhortations from Brussels.
The likely sophism of Johnson’s, “grandiose nationalists should also be pro-NATO,” assertion, which wilfully denies our contemporary living environment (that of enemy occupation), can equally be read as a vacuous jibe at Pan-Nationalist dreamers. That being said, I more readily concur with Johnson’s suggestion of an alliance of “petty” nationalisms in preference to the antagonistic “grandiose,” and, in my opinion, unworkable European imperium, as was espoused by the late Francis Parker Yockey.
An adherent of tribalism is able to embrace the innate human variety of Europe while at the same moment yield to the organic advance to power and a unifying idea qualified to determine the future of Europe and all peoples of unadulterated European descent. The preservation of Europeans is akin to the preservation of an early hominid, just as the constrictive conservation of culture limits the boundaries of the culture per se. Survival is immediate, proliferation displays intent, and development is essentially aspirational – this is our only purpose; this is the sacred Idea.
As Charles Darwin observed in his The Origin of the Species:
“The extinction of species and of whole groups of species, which has played so conspicuous a part in the history of the organic world, almost inevitably follows on the principle of natural selection; for old forms will be supplanted by new and improved forms.”
And so it is with Europe, Europeans, and the White race.
The husbandry of culture is not an indefinite profession, it is not an end in itself. For us to comprehensively appreciate our essence, we must at first absorb and then master the knowledge of our antecedents before accurately estimating our natural predispositions. Only in this manner can we come to terms with exactly who we are and begin to tackle the monumental task of dextrously crafting our own destiny. No White person, from whatever nation his cultural soul is attached, can do this while in a bewildered state of self-abasement or deracination. Ethnography is not only intrinsically fluid, it is constantly evolving and developing as a result of the normal processes of existence. White nationalism is not, after all, a form of gene or culture taxidermy.
Now, the reader may feel that I am being pedantic and that my critique amounts to nothing more than grandstanding or point-scoring, but please allow me to offer an alternative perspective. Before we are properly equipped to offer commentary on, or even solutions to, the peculiar domain of post-war nationalism (whether it is considered “petty,” “grandiose,” or any other imaginable nuance) we must initially establish our point of reference. I contend that an ideology, as is White Nationalism, which pursues merely the preservation of race and promulgates the notion that anathemas, such as multiculturalism, are simply inconvenient obstacles in the pursuit of harmony, love, and peace, is, in actuality, an antithesis rather than a felicitous thesis; it represents the shield as opposed to the sword,or, more correctly, the trepidation of a lone combatant rather than the strategy governing an entire military campaign.
Certainly all lifeforms exist to survive and to proliferate, but we, being both sentient and self-aware, are bound by an intractable esotericism that goes beyond mechanical evolution, something I have defined as development: the upward trajectory that even a lowly individual can influence during his fleeting life experience. If White Nationalism was badly constructed, is being incompetently directed, and crudely sponsored, then the underlying theory is ripe for renovation. Not only must our Cause be reframed, it also demands new and more insightful photographers.