You see, for an Ethno Nationalist the “Fourteen Words” make absolutely no sense. Whom exactly are the “our people?” “Our people” and “White children” are not only separate ethnic types (How could they not be?), they are also different logical types.
This is the type of inherent cultural imperialism that is part-and-parcel of Murkan “White Nationalism.” Much of it is rooted in false philosophical exceptionalist premises such as these “Fourteen Words.”
Much, if not most, of this problem could have been avoided had David Lane realized that the Germanic National Socialism that he thought he was reproducing, but ended up only merely aping, had actually been Ethno Nationalist at its core and essence.
There is no such thing as “White Nationalism.” It is the McDonalds Arches of infantile, prison yard philosophy. There is only Ethno Nationalism.
WN is an emergent concept; an embryo. Not because the embryo is presently invisible it means that it doesn’t exist. Michael O’Meara, one of the most visionary intellectuals in the proto-movement, beautifully explained it: here.
There can be “White” identity. There can be “White” allegiance, alliances, federations, etc. There can be no White “nationalism.” Nationalism minus turf is nonsensical, as is the propaganda notion of “O.R.I.O.N.” It didn’t work for the Arabs, it hasn’t worked for the Negroes. It will not work for “Whites.”
Re “emergent concept.” That remains to be seen. It may just as likely and easily be a stillbirth.
But have you read O’Meara’s essay, and also this other essay by Tom Sunic (here)?
Yes, of course, I have read “The White Republic”, but not since its publication. It is brilliant, except for one major flaw, the same one made by the Covingtonistas: there will not be one White secessionist breakaway. As such, both “visions” wish to reproduce Murka all over again, Covington with a quasi-National Socialism. Herein, again the myopic head of Murkan “White Nationalism” rears its silly, if even at times brilliant, head.
One of the reasons I think the word “white” is ok is explained by a personal anecdote.
A few weeks before the election of the new Pope I found myself discussing in friendly terms with a group of about four or five Catholic priests in one of their most important Catholic headquarters in town. I asked the polite question if the next Pope could be “of non-European origin”.
Nobody understood the question. A brown bishop told me that they “were people of European origin” and he was right of course: residual Spanish blood inhabits in his veins. Nervously, I tried to ask the question again in a way that they understood that I was talking of race.
A Polish priest understood what I tried to say and asked me: “Do you mean African?”
I said “Yes”. The anecdote proves that the academic expression “people of European ancestry” is ambiguous as mestizos can claim they belong to that category too.
By the way, the second part of Sunic’s essay can be read: here.
I can assure you that if someone like a Billy Roper or Matthew Heimbach spoke on behalf of “our people” (which both have a tendency to do and are entitled to do as Southrons), they would not be speaking on behalf of me.
That’s true, but in the US they still need a simple word to distinguish themselves from brows, blacks, yellows (and the original red Indians).
Addendum: In a post-collapse world new White ethnicities will be born on the NAmerikan continent. It is not possible to be both a “White Nationalist” and a secessionist. If one lays claim to being an ethno-racial secessionist, then one must in turn also be an Ethno Nationalist.
Should new White ethnicities develop new languages, or will this happen organically?
P.S. I purposely chose Michael and Tomislav in my above links because they lean toward Europe, not America. However, they still recognize the need of the embryo to grow…
Have skimmed the Sunic essay, shall read carefully.
The Cascadian Movement is light years ahead of Covington. I doubt if he and the few stragglers who show up at his door are capable of catching up. They and their retarded religions should really stay in Dixie and keep away from the pristine spiritual and geographical beauty that is Cascadia. The “Butler Plan” is nothing more than an opportunistic leg-hump of a sentiment and vision that preceded the thin arrival of “White Nationalists.”
But is the Cascadian Movement composed by racial and cultural fanatics (only overwhelming passion can create an ethnostate)?
Will enough White people survive this collapse to form more than one nation?
Only if whites develop a real desire to live. Going back to farming will do the trick. At any event, the abandonment of the “Shire” and its replacement by the industrialized, mercantilist Jewish world caused the mess in the first place. Have you read Greg Johnson’s “The Scouring of the Shire”?
Snake, likely, but if so, it will be more a matter of geography than survival rate, and how the carving up of the carcass is negotiated with the other ethno-racial stakeholders, with or without ethno-racial violence. The projected numbers are for a 30%-40% survival rate (mostly via attrition over 3-4 generations) across the board. This does not exactly play to White Euro strength seeing as the replacement birth rate is already flat-lining. On the upside, the division of labour that accompanies an agrarian economy can boost those demographics fairly easily. Also, a post-collapse world cannot be and will not be “liberal” in socio-cultural make-up, i.e. the death of Peak Liberalism, in effect, the death of surplus ideology. Collapse offers opportunity only, minus any and all guarantees. What is made of the opportunity remains the wild card.
Matt, did you forget to take your meds?
Re
“The anecdote proves that the academic expression ‘people of European ancestry’ is ambiguous as mestizos can claim they belong to that category too.”
Of course they can. If successfully or nor is open to debate. That they can is only a problem for Murkan WNs whose comprehension of race and ethnicity, never mind claim to racial purity (ethnicity is out completely as “Murkan” is not an ethnicity) is the gist of this thread.
I would argue that it is the notion of “White Nationalism” that is, in effect, the “academic expression.”
Don’t forget that serious White Ethno Nationalists see no problem whatsoever in negotiating with, let’s say, La Raza at some future date re the carving up of the carcass.
Murkan WN has never really been SERIOUSLY challenged by Ethno Nationalism.
I understand the disagreement with the word choice used by David Lane in his 14 words. He had gone over this himself and stated that a different word choice may make more “sense” to the common man. But he believed that, while this word choice may seem to make less sense to some people, that it was far more powerful. This word choice has a very specific numerology value tied to it. Which is why David Lane chose it.
What’s the difference between white nationalism and ethno-nationalism in the context of ‘Murka?
In ‘Murka’ the various European nationalities are too diluted into a mass of white mongrels to have any widespread significance.
You could say that there will need to be multiple secessionist white enclaves, West, MidWest, Southeast, Northeast, but those aren’t actually ethnic groups at the moment, with the possible exception of the Southeast. It’s just white nationalism with multiple white nations forming instead of only one.
In ‘Murka white nationalism and ethno-nationalism are just two different words for the same thing. You’re adding in additional meanings that are not required by the plain language (or common usage) of the terms.
If such a thing as “German nationalism” is possible then such a thing as White nationalism is possible.
Germany did not encompass every German, therefore our theoretical White Republic need not encompass every White person. Even two Germanies, each trying encompass the other but remaining divided by some fundamental disagreement, doesn’t preclude German nationalism from being an ideological force (Korean nationalism is seen from both North and South Koreans, for instance).
Nationalism necessarily includes the pursuit of either statehood or some other major advancement in autonomy, but it does not require the national group to possess a state at the time of the movement (Scottish nationalism and Kurdish nationalism are perfectly intelligible concepts).
A national group can be comprised of several smaller ethnicities; the German nation can be comprised of Bavarians and Prussians, which were themselves originally formed from smaller tribes and estates. Even if Germany was destroyed and splintered back into smaller countries it wouldn’t invalidate German nationalism as an idea, just as it wasn’t invalidated by Germany having begun its existence splintered.
Otto Strasser claimed that Hitler’s “ethno-nationalism” was the cultural imperialism of the Prussians, in unifying distinct German folks under a more abstract “Germanism”, and even going so far as to include Germans who had been living outside of the Reich for centuries. Nonetheless I side with Hitler and the Prussian tendency on that question, and if there is an American/European split along similar lines I’m inclined to say the Americans are right for once.
Pan-Arabism in the form of the Ba’ath party was as effective as anything else they’ve done. Blacks have difficulty with any task that involves a great deal of organization. The Jews have been immensely successful in their racial stance, and are themselves much more hostile to White identity as such than they are to even their least favorite “ethnic” identity (a shirt that says “White pride” will attract much more hostility from the establishment than one that says “German pride”, for example).
In fact, I’d go so far as to say Sebastian has it backwards. “White nationalism” is a coherent concept because it references a coherent group (the White race), just as German nationalism references the German folk. “Ethno-nationalism” is abstract nonsense, because it doesn’t really reference anything at all. It’s like saying you support “group nationalism” or something. Would an ethno-nation consist of all of the White race, all of the European continent, all of the British Isles, just the English, just Southeast Englanders, or only people from Hampshire? Which of these is the “ethnos” that ethno-nationalism supports against all other claims?
I consider Imperium Europa a better thought-out concept. Their model places all White people under a single shell (the Imperium), which is sovereign and tasked with the most important and broadest needs of our race: maintaining a spiritual outlook, resolution of internal conflict, large-scale environmental problems, securing borders from and waging war (if necessary) with other races, the promotion of High Culture, and presumably some degree of mediation in trade. Other, more routine issues will be handled by provinces about the size of Bavaria or England (the Dominions), or by yet smaller divisions (cities, counties, etc).
This setup is meant to give the White race a hardened skeleton that wouldn’t be possible from a race-level “confederation” or “League of Nations” with no standing army to enforce its resolutions, while still allowing for internal heterogeneity in matters of culture and policy. The pursuit of this idea seems to me entirely consistent with prior unification efforts, and while it’s ambitious I still consider it more corporeal than a “pan-secessionist” movement containing no guidelines besides “it cannot be done at the racial level”.
The notion of “white” started in America when it was obvious that those European immigrants, though from various and distinct ethnicities, faced a common foe: the red Indian. Later the blacks reinforced the POV to see themselves as “whites”.
Paradoxically, the genocidal agenda of European liberals and Jews may have the effect of producing, in the near future, exactly the same psychological phenomenon in the Old World of what happened in the New World: uniting diverse groups of Caucasoids under the banner of the lightness of their skin. As Covington put it in his novels to reclaim a parcel of territory for whites, “The color of your skin is your uniform”.
Yes, there was a fair amount of European unity under Christendom but it didn’t acknowledge a biological basis for it. There was also a strong biological sense of “Whiteness” for the Indo-Aryans but as far as I know that never translated into a race-wide identity. The merger of the two is going to be one of the key features of the future.
It’s also true that racial conflict is an inseparable part of our collective consciousness, although technical advancements in travel, communication, biology, and anthropology also push us in that direction.
After all it wasn’t just North Americans but Australians, South Africans, British merchants living in India and Southeast Asia, French slavers living in Haiti, and many other European colonists who used the concept, distinguishing themselves both from their homeland (“English,” not including a Scotsman) and from their extended empire (“British subjects”, including Indians and Africans who are subordinate to the crown).
Stubbs:
“White nationalism” is a coherent concept because it references a coherent group (the White race), just as German nationalism references the German folk. “Ethno-nationalism” is abstract nonsense, because it doesn’t really reference anything at all. It’s like saying you support “group nationalism” or something.
German nationalism is simply an example of ethno-nationalism (unless you can find German nationalists who “happen to be” African, Jewish, or Chinese).
“Ethno” or “ethnic” nationalism is mainly a euphemism for racial nationalism, as opposed to the fraudulent concept of “civic nationalism”, which is promoted by the Jews who control the governments and media of (formerly) White countries. If you do not believe that Whites and Blacks are interchangeable, then you are an “ethnic nationalist”.
Ethnic is an ambiguous word. Sometimes, in a territory where everyone belongs to the same race, ethnic identity refers to sub-race, culture, language, and history simultaneously. But in places where White people coexist with other races, ethnic is simply a euphemism for racial.
Re
“White nationalism” is a coherent concept because it references a coherent group (the White race), just as German nationalism references the German folk. “Ethno-nationalism” is abstract nonsense, because it doesn’t really reference anything at all. It’s like saying you support “group nationalism” or something.
The exact opposite happens to be the case. Murkan “White Nationalists”, i.e. Murka-Firsters, dance, dance, dance.
“I consider Imperium Europa a better thought-out concept.”
White Nationalism in America has always been coherently ethnic nationalist, and acutely aware of the problem of identity and cohesion that Seb pretends he was the first one to notice.
It’s as if Seb charged into Dunkin Donuts and shrieked “You fools, how can you dunk donuts without any coffee!?”
Of course, Dunkin Donuts has coffee, prominently. It’s had coffee the entire time, long since before he showed up. No matter how many times you show him the coffee, he’ll keep barking and snorting about how Dunkin Donuts is fatally flawed because you can’t have donuts without coffee.
I want to be part of a solution to better the white race.
27 replies on “The fourteen words”
You see, for an Ethno Nationalist the “Fourteen Words” make absolutely no sense. Whom exactly are the “our people?” “Our people” and “White children” are not only separate ethnic types (How could they not be?), they are also different logical types.
This is the type of inherent cultural imperialism that is part-and-parcel of Murkan “White Nationalism.” Much of it is rooted in false philosophical exceptionalist premises such as these “Fourteen Words.”
Much, if not most, of this problem could have been avoided had David Lane realized that the Germanic National Socialism that he thought he was reproducing, but ended up only merely aping, had actually been Ethno Nationalist at its core and essence.
There is no such thing as “White Nationalism.” It is the McDonalds Arches of infantile, prison yard philosophy. There is only Ethno Nationalism.
WN is an emergent concept; an embryo. Not because the embryo is presently invisible it means that it doesn’t exist. Michael O’Meara, one of the most visionary intellectuals in the proto-movement, beautifully explained it: here.
There can be “White” identity. There can be “White” allegiance, alliances, federations, etc. There can be no White “nationalism.” Nationalism minus turf is nonsensical, as is the propaganda notion of “O.R.I.O.N.” It didn’t work for the Arabs, it hasn’t worked for the Negroes. It will not work for “Whites.”
Re “emergent concept.” That remains to be seen. It may just as likely and easily be a stillbirth.
But have you read O’Meara’s essay, and also this other essay by Tom Sunic (here)?
Yes, of course, I have read “The White Republic”, but not since its publication. It is brilliant, except for one major flaw, the same one made by the Covingtonistas: there will not be one White secessionist breakaway. As such, both “visions” wish to reproduce Murka all over again, Covington with a quasi-National Socialism. Herein, again the myopic head of Murkan “White Nationalism” rears its silly, if even at times brilliant, head.
One of the reasons I think the word “white” is ok is explained by a personal anecdote.
A few weeks before the election of the new Pope I found myself discussing in friendly terms with a group of about four or five Catholic priests in one of their most important Catholic headquarters in town. I asked the polite question if the next Pope could be “of non-European origin”.
Nobody understood the question. A brown bishop told me that they “were people of European origin” and he was right of course: residual Spanish blood inhabits in his veins. Nervously, I tried to ask the question again in a way that they understood that I was talking of race.
A Polish priest understood what I tried to say and asked me: “Do you mean African?”
I said “Yes”. The anecdote proves that the academic expression “people of European ancestry” is ambiguous as mestizos can claim they belong to that category too.
By the way, the second part of Sunic’s essay can be read: here.
I can assure you that if someone like a Billy Roper or Matthew Heimbach spoke on behalf of “our people” (which both have a tendency to do and are entitled to do as Southrons), they would not be speaking on behalf of me.
That’s true, but in the US they still need a simple word to distinguish themselves from brows, blacks, yellows (and the original red Indians).
Addendum: In a post-collapse world new White ethnicities will be born on the NAmerikan continent. It is not possible to be both a “White Nationalist” and a secessionist. If one lays claim to being an ethno-racial secessionist, then one must in turn also be an Ethno Nationalist.
Should new White ethnicities develop new languages, or will this happen organically?
P.S. I purposely chose Michael and Tomislav in my above links because they lean toward Europe, not America. However, they still recognize the need of the embryo to grow…
Have skimmed the Sunic essay, shall read carefully.
The Cascadian Movement is light years ahead of Covington. I doubt if he and the few stragglers who show up at his door are capable of catching up. They and their retarded religions should really stay in Dixie and keep away from the pristine spiritual and geographical beauty that is Cascadia. The “Butler Plan” is nothing more than an opportunistic leg-hump of a sentiment and vision that preceded the thin arrival of “White Nationalists.”
But is the Cascadian Movement composed by racial and cultural fanatics (only overwhelming passion can create an ethnostate)?
Will enough White people survive this collapse to form more than one nation?
Only if whites develop a real desire to live. Going back to farming will do the trick. At any event, the abandonment of the “Shire” and its replacement by the industrialized, mercantilist Jewish world caused the mess in the first place. Have you read Greg Johnson’s “The Scouring of the Shire”?
Snake, likely, but if so, it will be more a matter of geography than survival rate, and how the carving up of the carcass is negotiated with the other ethno-racial stakeholders, with or without ethno-racial violence. The projected numbers are for a 30%-40% survival rate (mostly via attrition over 3-4 generations) across the board. This does not exactly play to White Euro strength seeing as the replacement birth rate is already flat-lining. On the upside, the division of labour that accompanies an agrarian economy can boost those demographics fairly easily. Also, a post-collapse world cannot be and will not be “liberal” in socio-cultural make-up, i.e. the death of Peak Liberalism, in effect, the death of surplus ideology. Collapse offers opportunity only, minus any and all guarantees. What is made of the opportunity remains the wild card.
Matt, did you forget to take your meds?
Re
Of course they can. If successfully or nor is open to debate. That they can is only a problem for Murkan WNs whose comprehension of race and ethnicity, never mind claim to racial purity (ethnicity is out completely as “Murkan” is not an ethnicity) is the gist of this thread.
I would argue that it is the notion of “White Nationalism” that is, in effect, the “academic expression.”
Don’t forget that serious White Ethno Nationalists see no problem whatsoever in negotiating with, let’s say, La Raza at some future date re the carving up of the carcass.
Murkan WN has never really been SERIOUSLY challenged by Ethno Nationalism.
I understand the disagreement with the word choice used by David Lane in his 14 words. He had gone over this himself and stated that a different word choice may make more “sense” to the common man. But he believed that, while this word choice may seem to make less sense to some people, that it was far more powerful. This word choice has a very specific numerology value tied to it. Which is why David Lane chose it.
What’s the difference between white nationalism and ethno-nationalism in the context of ‘Murka?
In ‘Murka’ the various European nationalities are too diluted into a mass of white mongrels to have any widespread significance.
You could say that there will need to be multiple secessionist white enclaves, West, MidWest, Southeast, Northeast, but those aren’t actually ethnic groups at the moment, with the possible exception of the Southeast. It’s just white nationalism with multiple white nations forming instead of only one.
In ‘Murka white nationalism and ethno-nationalism are just two different words for the same thing. You’re adding in additional meanings that are not required by the plain language (or common usage) of the terms.
If such a thing as “German nationalism” is possible then such a thing as White nationalism is possible.
Germany did not encompass every German, therefore our theoretical White Republic need not encompass every White person. Even two Germanies, each trying encompass the other but remaining divided by some fundamental disagreement, doesn’t preclude German nationalism from being an ideological force (Korean nationalism is seen from both North and South Koreans, for instance).
Nationalism necessarily includes the pursuit of either statehood or some other major advancement in autonomy, but it does not require the national group to possess a state at the time of the movement (Scottish nationalism and Kurdish nationalism are perfectly intelligible concepts).
A national group can be comprised of several smaller ethnicities; the German nation can be comprised of Bavarians and Prussians, which were themselves originally formed from smaller tribes and estates. Even if Germany was destroyed and splintered back into smaller countries it wouldn’t invalidate German nationalism as an idea, just as it wasn’t invalidated by Germany having begun its existence splintered.
Otto Strasser claimed that Hitler’s “ethno-nationalism” was the cultural imperialism of the Prussians, in unifying distinct German folks under a more abstract “Germanism”, and even going so far as to include Germans who had been living outside of the Reich for centuries. Nonetheless I side with Hitler and the Prussian tendency on that question, and if there is an American/European split along similar lines I’m inclined to say the Americans are right for once.
Pan-Arabism in the form of the Ba’ath party was as effective as anything else they’ve done. Blacks have difficulty with any task that involves a great deal of organization. The Jews have been immensely successful in their racial stance, and are themselves much more hostile to White identity as such than they are to even their least favorite “ethnic” identity (a shirt that says “White pride” will attract much more hostility from the establishment than one that says “German pride”, for example).
In fact, I’d go so far as to say Sebastian has it backwards. “White nationalism” is a coherent concept because it references a coherent group (the White race), just as German nationalism references the German folk. “Ethno-nationalism” is abstract nonsense, because it doesn’t really reference anything at all. It’s like saying you support “group nationalism” or something. Would an ethno-nation consist of all of the White race, all of the European continent, all of the British Isles, just the English, just Southeast Englanders, or only people from Hampshire? Which of these is the “ethnos” that ethno-nationalism supports against all other claims?
I consider Imperium Europa a better thought-out concept. Their model places all White people under a single shell (the Imperium), which is sovereign and tasked with the most important and broadest needs of our race: maintaining a spiritual outlook, resolution of internal conflict, large-scale environmental problems, securing borders from and waging war (if necessary) with other races, the promotion of High Culture, and presumably some degree of mediation in trade. Other, more routine issues will be handled by provinces about the size of Bavaria or England (the Dominions), or by yet smaller divisions (cities, counties, etc).
This setup is meant to give the White race a hardened skeleton that wouldn’t be possible from a race-level “confederation” or “League of Nations” with no standing army to enforce its resolutions, while still allowing for internal heterogeneity in matters of culture and policy. The pursuit of this idea seems to me entirely consistent with prior unification efforts, and while it’s ambitious I still consider it more corporeal than a “pan-secessionist” movement containing no guidelines besides “it cannot be done at the racial level”.
The notion of “white” started in America when it was obvious that those European immigrants, though from various and distinct ethnicities, faced a common foe: the red Indian. Later the blacks reinforced the POV to see themselves as “whites”.
Paradoxically, the genocidal agenda of European liberals and Jews may have the effect of producing, in the near future, exactly the same psychological phenomenon in the Old World of what happened in the New World: uniting diverse groups of Caucasoids under the banner of the lightness of their skin. As Covington put it in his novels to reclaim a parcel of territory for whites, “The color of your skin is your uniform”.
Yes, there was a fair amount of European unity under Christendom but it didn’t acknowledge a biological basis for it. There was also a strong biological sense of “Whiteness” for the Indo-Aryans but as far as I know that never translated into a race-wide identity. The merger of the two is going to be one of the key features of the future.
It’s also true that racial conflict is an inseparable part of our collective consciousness, although technical advancements in travel, communication, biology, and anthropology also push us in that direction.
After all it wasn’t just North Americans but Australians, South Africans, British merchants living in India and Southeast Asia, French slavers living in Haiti, and many other European colonists who used the concept, distinguishing themselves both from their homeland (“English,” not including a Scotsman) and from their extended empire (“British subjects”, including Indians and Africans who are subordinate to the crown).
Stubbs:
German nationalism is simply an example of ethno-nationalism (unless you can find German nationalists who “happen to be” African, Jewish, or Chinese).
“Ethno” or “ethnic” nationalism is mainly a euphemism for racial nationalism, as opposed to the fraudulent concept of “civic nationalism”, which is promoted by the Jews who control the governments and media of (formerly) White countries. If you do not believe that Whites and Blacks are interchangeable, then you are an “ethnic nationalist”.
Ethnic is an ambiguous word. Sometimes, in a territory where everyone belongs to the same race, ethnic identity refers to sub-race, culture, language, and history simultaneously. But in places where White people coexist with other races, ethnic is simply a euphemism for racial.
Re
The exact opposite happens to be the case. Murkan “White Nationalists”, i.e. Murka-Firsters, dance, dance, dance.
“I consider Imperium Europa a better thought-out concept.”
Ditto.
Please watch this video:
http://www.imperat.org
White Nationalism in America has always been coherently ethnic nationalist, and acutely aware of the problem of identity and cohesion that Seb pretends he was the first one to notice.
It’s as if Seb charged into Dunkin Donuts and shrieked “You fools, how can you dunk donuts without any coffee!?”
Of course, Dunkin Donuts has coffee, prominently. It’s had coffee the entire time, long since before he showed up. No matter how many times you show him the coffee, he’ll keep barking and snorting about how Dunkin Donuts is fatally flawed because you can’t have donuts without coffee.
I want to be part of a solution to better the white race.