Really, “whites” do not exist—this category is a chimera, except in one special case to be considered later, and so “white nationalism” is a dead end. To be precise, “whites” do exist—except they exist as a biological category, a category that is barely acceptable in open discourse; and, really, to mention it is to put yourself beyond the pale—race and IQ and all that. However, it is the concept’s very biological nature that means the left is correct when it says, in typical gaslight mode, “whites have no history and no culture”—in this they are correct, in exactly the same way that I have no personal history when regarded as a homo sapien male; indeed, I am interchangeable at this level with billions of other males from this species—my personal travails and triumphs have no salience for biology; as a biological organism I have a natural history, not a personal history—not a destiny.
Indeed, the very concept “white” aids the left because it comes from biology, from the lower and not the higher realm—though, naturally, they deny its biological objectivity. The entire “white supremacy”, “white nationalist”, and “anti-racist” dialectic is self-supporting and self-reinforcing—the left needs white nationalists to feed its conceptual engine; and, indeed, as we shall see, white nationalists are also on the left in their own way.
Hence, for example, I once dived into a precious little arts salon in London, in a suitably bohemian section of town where the street outside was totally multiracial. Inside, I got into an argument with a girl because I said: “It’s not very English out there.” “You mean ‘white’, you mean ‘white’,” she squealed at me in quasi-orgasmic hysteria. Presumably, a white nationalist would have said: “Yes. We must secure a future for our race and our children—the 14 words.” Yet I meant English—now I grant that the English are a white race on the biological level, yet this is not the totality as regards Englishness; actually, it says hardly anything about Englishness at all. Notice also that this girl, a leftist larping as a “dissident” for thrills, immediately brought the topic to whiteness—down to the lower level, down to the lowest common denominator that involves millions of people.
The left wants the conversation down on the lowest level; it wants white nationalists and white supremacists to fight against; and it wants this situation for two reasons: firstly, the left always seeks the lowest level of expression—in this case a biological term that they will not treat biologically but will insist is a culturally constructed category, for which dialectic they require a biological interlocutor; secondly, the left is against destiny and spirituality—if they can keep you chasing your tail about whether race is a “biological category” or a “cultural construct to facilitate oppression” they can cut you off from spirituality and destiny. So people are trained to treat the expression “it’s not English” as “it’s not white” because that puts them on the conceptual level where the left always wins.
Ironically, the precious little arts salon in which she sat was entirely white and Jewish (it was an international crowd chaired by a disrespectful American academic and sometime thief, he openly sneered at Britain to much applause—see “white” is not some universal panacea); it was a rather exclusive little event—rather elitist, although everyone there was careful not to be a “reactionary”. If you pointed out that they had sealed themselves inside a salon in their own little European world against the non-European world without they would become uncomfortable—they were hypocrites, of course; another concept not of interest to white nationalists or progressives.
Now, I grant that when I am in Italy I am more at home than when I am in Jordan—I am more at home in a European culture in which people are biologically white. Yet white nationalism is not a question about relative comfort, it is the proposition that because I have a biological similarity to Italians I should be in the same political unit as them. This does not follow, because minor differences—just like the minor differences that genetically separate man from banana, or black from white—can lead to huge differential outcomes. A complicated way to say: “Them wops aren’t half different, with their gesti-cu-fukin-lation. They need to calm down.”
The reason why white nationalists want to squash radically different people, Italians and English, into the same political unit is that white nationalists are in essence leftists: they think the world runs on quantity. Hence their chief concerns revolve around the white birthrate and the sentimental slogan about the world wars, “no more brother wars”. Bleah. It makes me want to vomit—sentimental and therefore untrue. In reality, Europe’s virility derives from the fact we had endless “brother wars”—all those Renaissance princes at each other’s throats—and this remorseless competition drove Europe’s military innovation and hence her general social development. The “no more brother wars” model leads to China—a blob that never changes, or changes rarely, and is dull and uniform.
Behind this view stands nihilism: fear of death and extinction—the fearful man who looks at some demographic chart and feels afraid that he will not have more white bodies to huddle behind; and behind that really lurks fear as regards his own extinction. When progressives—or even individualist conservatives like Peterson—castigate race pride, white race pride, as a substitute for genuine personal achievement or as generated by resentful fear they are often correct. “It’s all coming down, anyway. All races go extinct in the end. It’s just normal change,” sneers the leftist. Of course, they fail to mention that the alternative they offer is total dissolution—just watch Netflix, smoke pot, and eat chocolate brownies and try not think about the day you end in hospital with all the wires plugged into you (hopefully the doctor will give me a big dose of opioids so I’m not conscious for the end).
Contrast this view with the way Evola faced death—in the same manner as the Kazantzakis character “Zorba the Greek”; he pulled himself from his wheelchair and supported himself by grasping the windowsill to greet the morning sun—then he expired. This is a way to go fully into death—confident that it leads to the next level, to a further unfurling of the absolute personality. Naturally, Evola accepted that such a thing as race exists—yet he understood there is another dimension to life, a higher dimension.
By contrast, white nationalists cling to race as a substitute immortality, leftists just want to drug themselves so as not to face their final extinction, and individualist conservatives want you to be a little scheming lying money-grubber—they merely substitute financial success and a family for the white nationalist’s “race”; it is the same solution, only more hypocritical and dishonest—since they claim only to see “individuals”. So you must be careful not to fall for white nationalism, for its gross mass ideas—nor must you fall for the individualist conservatives who tell you race-talk is resentful nonsense (“Think of your career, boy.”); nor must you fall for the decadent “one love” progressives—nor the resentful anti-white activists.
The model I have in mind is TE Lawrence: he came into a completely alien racial and religious group—the Arabs—and assumed leadership over them; and not just because he was a technical specialist who knew about explosives. He had superior leadership skills; and he acquired those through ascetic spiritual practices—as represented in Lean’s film when Lawrence holds his hand over a lighted match (Soldier: “What’s the trick. Why don’t it hurt?” Lawrence: “Of course it hurts, the trick is not minding that it hurts.”).
Note, Lawrence was a supreme individual yet he was always race-conscious—and he regarded Europeans as superior to Arabs, in the techno-scientific realm anyway (he admired the desert purity and nobility found in the Arabs). Indeed, Lawrence insisted that his position among the Arabs required him to be aware of his race—he was not “just an individual” or “a human being”, nor did he lord it over the Arabs (with his higher IQ, or individual outlook found west of the Hajnal line). As such, as one man, Lawrence could lead a wholly different people and almost caused them to form their own nation from disparate tribes. This is not “white”; it is Aryan—it is the way of the noble twice-born, and noble people do not bang on and on about their racial superiority (“Those who talk about race do not have it,” as Spengler observed).
How different is this model from the white nationalist vision whereby, somehow, we must “raise the white birthrate” as if we were in some dismal industrial farm squeezing out more cows to milk—more vacant-eyed cows in a field mooing at each other. This obsession with quantity is even funnier when you consider that the white nationalists tend to see the Jews as their eternal enemy—yet the Jews have never been the most numerous people…The white nationalist is a democrat; if the Jews are few in number and have great influence that is bad because it is undemocratic—we must breed a billion more white people, a billion more cows, and then we will legitimately be top dog. Ugh. Show me one Lawrence.
What they really mean when they talk about birthrates is that they want to live in a homogeneous society—and that is a worthwhile goal. Yet homogeneity does not require high birthrates and is only achieved with cultural artefacts that white nationalists ignore. They would rather unite Britain and Italy into one political unit, because “bigger is better” and we will have more people and a higher GDP—yet “whiteness” is too thin to unite the British and the Italians; and, hilariously, white nationalists tend to reject the only obvious “thick” European commonality—Christianity—in favour of a confected and false paganism.
Ultimately, white nationalism originates in America—as with almost all terrible ideas and tendencies. White nationalists have a bad case of the Woodrow Wilsons in that they tend to sit in Michigan and announce that age-old cultural-historical units, such as Italy and Britain, should just unite into one political unit because they are “white”. The differences are enormous, as with the differences with the Russias—now considered “white” because this is a numbers game, and we feel safer with a few million more Slavs to huddle behind; hence Europe and Russian must fuse into a single entity. Behind this stands outdated catchphrases about “geopolitics” and the idea that we still live in 1914 and that modern war requires a million nondescript bodies to march towards the machine-guns.
Unfortunately, there are even European iterations of this trend—such as Generation Identity. The problem with GI is that it advocates homogenisation; it wants “the EU, but racist”—all under the same black-and-yellow flag with the little kurvi-tasche logo. All uniform, again—all driven by notional biological and geopolitical needs; all driven by fear—like a bunch of cows.
Now, “white” does mean more than biology in America. This is because it is a colonial country, and its foundational documents refer to “white men”—and this made sense, it was the white man and the red man (“Easy, pilgrim.”) and the black slave. So I grant that “white” means something more than biology in the American context—and that because we are in the American empire the term has become salient in Europe. Further, concepts such as “white supremacy” are vastly extended from American historical actualities—i.e there was a formal set of traditions and institutions called “white supremacy” in the South, although now the phrase has been extended to include everything up to “I’m expected to speak English” and is retailed around in the world, even in societies, such as Britain, that never had segregation.
The true American cultural-spiritual identity is British, not “white”: the American ethno-racial core, its language, and its institutions are all British—“American”, unhyphenated, just means “British”. America is Rome to Britain’s Greece—a cliché, yet true nonetheless; everything in America is BIG but it is all ultimately based on a British sensibility, it is big like Rome. “White” has attained importance in America because the Americans had an Enlightenment-inspired revolution that was an experiment to see if you could “begin again” and design a constitution with reason alone—so Americans had to amputate their spiritual attachment to Britain, just as the French Revolution, conducted on similar premises, sought to recreate an abstract French citizen. Please, dear reader, do not “do a Lovecraft” and turn up at your next 4th July celebration in a tricorn hat and announce your undying fealty to Her Britannic Majesty—such pedantry, while it amuses at a certain level, remains redundant; the milk was spilt long ago.
The result is that among the only means for self-identity for Americans is “whiteness”, along with a cult of personality for the Founding Fathers and the Constitution—a document that caused no end of problems in its claim to be “sovereign”, though inert objects do not exert sovereignty, and so led to a country dominated by lawyers and Pharisees who could wrangle a favourable interpretation from their “sovereign”.
The situation as regards “whiteness” then accelerated when America attempted to absorb Europeans beyond the original Anglo-German-Dutch core, people who also needed to find an identity in a land built on reason and “the pursuit of happiness”—i.e. built on deracination. Insofar as all European countries are Americanised and are mass multiracial societies, these American categories begin to have salience here. As previously noted, how else does a London-born Somali identity himself if not with the vocabulary—POC or black—of American mass culture, in which he is immersed? The state supports this identification, for it is also based on “equality, diversity, and inclusion”—the official American ideology.
It has often been observed that America never had a class war, it had a race war instead—with the “proletarian” role being played by black Americans, who constitute their own ethnos and racial group (for their tribes were all mixed together in transit and their women were used by various slave-owners, so that no black American is really the same as a black African—biologically, culturally, or spiritually). Hence white nationalism emerges as a kind of socialism for peripheral whites, and this is why the wider right often disdains the whole setup as somehow stupid and low class—and, indeed, white nationalist activists tend to undertake stupid projects that deserve to be disdained. On the other hand, there is sometimes a naïve element to their propaganda—their wheat-field maidens—that genuinely appeals and is only sneered at by the intellectual right because it sees itself as more clever and sophisticated than that, genuine snobbery.
White nationalism emerges as a proley and populist attempt to assert some fundamental identity and to rebut a left that speaks in primarily racial categories—hence white nationalists tend to be impeccably feminist, worried about “our girls”, and keen to extend generous state provisions to the white population to encourage breeding; the pork barrel, but for us. Of course, such measures would only weaken those they are intended to help, encourage dysgenic breeding, and strangle the economy—more traditional measures to subordinate women tend to be unpopular with white nationalists; yet, ironically, these are the only way to raise the sacred birthrate. White nationalists are egalitarians and democrats at heart—ever-ready to play the victim and demand a state handout. Just as they use race to avoid mortality, they use race to avoid the inherent competition between all men—between Jew and Jew, Hindu and Hindu, Zulu and Zulu; only on occasion do they band together.
The American situation leads to a dynamic where the left tries to unpick “whiteness”, conceptualised as a purely cultural category, whereas the white nationalists defend the “biological reality of race”. This dynamic is only possible because it takes place in an Enlightenment country that is based upon deracination and hostility to spirituality. It is based on men like David Hume, a man who doubted everything that could not be quantified—hence the American right, in its rigid Enlightenment categories, merely represents another left; and oddly their opponents, though perverted, are closer to reality than they are—they are holistically perverted, not rigidly compartmentalised.
It is a sterile debate because race is not just biological—and there is more to differentiation between peoples than just race in any dimension; peoples also have languages, customs, and relations to the land that constitute a common destiny. As is often the case, the left is more correct than the putative right—than the white nationalists—because they understand, being priestly, that race is “constructed” and has a historical dimension; it is just they think that what they call “culture” is malleable and has no transcendent aspect. A similarly sterile non-debate exists over whether sex or gender should predominate—in reality, sexual dimorphism originates in a higher metaphysical order.
So what we deal with in this game is a tedious back-and-forth where the left problematises “whiteness” in some dimension, in a cultural dimension, and then white nationalists—or people who will be called that, regardless of their views—hit back with biological differences. Worse, this scientific approach is often characterised as “Aryan” or “pagan”—pagan in the sense meant by the Enlightenment, the late rationalism of a Marcus Aurelius disenchanted as regards all gods.
Usually, the right is defeated in these battle because the issue is political and not narrowly scientific. Reality is not scientific—actually, science abridges reality and constrains it; reality is a spiritual position—the left, particularly the postmodernists, are close to reality but have inverted it. The right, for its part convinced this holism is “feminine, subjective, and unscientific”, cedes the essential ground—for it is in these cultural interpretations, fundamental for the civic religion, that status is accrued and distributed. The left owns this territory entirely, and so is able to demonise and manipulate white nationalists as they wish.
This oddity “whiteness” has come out of Enlightenment America to dominate the entire West, but it has no relevance to non-colonial societies; and it is itself not reality. Whiteness itself is an empty category—to be pursued like that darn whale Moby-Dick. The various tricks the left plays with whiteness as a concept trip the proles up, serve as snobby status-games—only a total breach with the Enlightenment legacy and its scientific conceptualisation of race, as ably described by the left, can outmanoeuvre the left. At the moment, the right is complicit in a game they are destined to lose.
Without any common core, white nationalists must band together against a common enemy—the only force that can bind together a Briton and an Italian and an American. The usual choice is to select the Jews as an eternal enemy—sometimes they settle for the Muslims instead. I refute this dualism; for sure, conflict with Jews and Muslims, sometimes violent, may arise—yet to choose eternal enmity just to keep your side united is delusion. Reality is dynamic—as with the Crusades, the Jews may betray your castles or the Muslim Assassins offer you their services; yet since the situation is dynamic, points of conflict and common interest may emerge or recede. To be Aryan in the spiritual sense means to be twice-born, born again as evangelical Christians say—and while it has an inextricable blood component to be twice-born means to engage with reality; and reality is dynamic. Hence white nationalists can only offer an artificial and confected worldview that is inorganic; it is not in harmony with reality, it is democratic and rigid—democracy always means stasis.