Liberalism believes in a brotherhood of man while white nationalists want a brotherhood of whites. If we consider that the biggest enemies of whites are other whites, it should become obvious that white nationalism is a pipe dream.
As with other forms of liberalism, white nationalism either rejects or ignores real human tribalism, which isn’t centered around race, but ethnicity.
7 replies on “Pipe dream?”
Later in that thread I discovered that Dunnyveg holds an ideology similar to that of the late Larry Auster✡.
S/he also said:
That’s a dubious definition of “ethnicity”. And if you think “Irish Pride” is going to spark a revolution in 2015 you’re a lot more delusional than Stormfront is.
What he should say is that the conflict is primarily ideological. White racists must destroy White liberals (including the conservative ones). Not “appeal” to them, not “educate” them, not any offer they can refuse. Destroy.
Absolutely. The thought above really drives the point home that our fellow Whites are our biggest threat. And that being the case we must utterly exterminate the Whites who stand in our way. And those Whites are first and foremost liberals and conservatives. They must go, and their filthy Christian morality with it.
Only then are we ready to deal with kikes and muds.
And here comes handy Breivik’s “Traitor Classification.” I wonder what monocausal WNsts would say about my mind on this issue, but while I merely want a final solution for the JP, in the case of white traitors I volunteer to crucify them.
They’re all liberals now. They just use different voting blocks to get to the same place. They all betray their constituencies and people fall for it. I just heard a white democrat from a democratically controlled state in the NE blame the Republicans for his bad roads as if the Republicans used some kind of voodoo to cause the roads to crumble. Americans are just stupid Goyim.
And by BTW, I didn’t get off topic. It’s all the same topic. Atomized individualism of whites.
No problem with off-topic comments except in the “Syssistia” thread.
Here’s a thought:
The Irish nationalists, in the form of the IRA (both earlier and later versions), were very effective in getting what they wanted.
The Irish today evidently are powerless to resist the mud invasion.
What is the difference between the two situations?
An identifiable enemy.
A similar observation can be made concerning the Dutch – their hard-fought independence from Spain versus being prostrate before a mud invasion.
And consider the CSA that fought so valiantly against the Union, but were helpless to resist integration.
The reader can probably think of other examples.
If whites can formulate an identifiable enemy, then they will fight hard and long, against the odds, like enraged pitbulls.
How can that understanding be translated into a plan?