A Dismissal of White Nationalism

[kurwenal]

I think this article is interesting:

What is White Nationalism?

by Michael O'Meara


"Blut will zu Blut."



White nationalists have embarked on a daunting mission, perhaps the most daunting of the last 30,000 years. This mission is to ensure the survival of the white race -- the survival of the culture that is its spiritual embodiment and of the unique genotype that is its biological achievement. They bear all this as their mission, along with a seemingly awkward political designation.

For like historic "nationalism," the notion of "white nationalism" lacks theoretical rigor, even coherence. But what its critics don't understand is that this distracts not in the least from its significance or truth. The problems associated with its usage tend, in fact, to be less semantical than practical, for it is less a theory or an ideology than a spirit, a heroic sentiment, a movement embodying the will to power of an oppressed people. Just, then, as nationalism's unclear definition did not prevent it from playing a pivotal role in the last two centuries of world history, for similar reasons white nationalism is likely to play an analogous role in the 21st century.

*
When I was a child the men I first admired were James Connolly and Patrick Pearse. Working-class Ireland's most gifted son, Connolly spent a lifetime organizing against the money-grubbing world of the 19th-century bourgeoisie (a world already infused with the Jews' predatory spirit), along with everything in it that had left working people powerless before the alien interlopers; Pearse, by contrast, was the poet-dreamer, the myth maker, who realized -- first in words, then in deeds -- that only through a blood sacrifice would Ireland achieve nationhood. These two men, the poet and the worker-warrior, are the fathers of the modern Irish nation and their nationalism is the origin of my white nationalism.

Others have since entered my Pantheon, but Connolly and Pearse continue to occupy a special place. The cause for which they fought -- the cause of Holy Mother Ireland and of my own mother, whose homeland I've always put before the benighted one of my birth -- remains for me the most sacred cause of all. How could it be otherwise? They sacrificed their lives for the most primordial of things: family, freedom, heritage, destiny, duty, courage.

But this Ireland of her bravest sons, it hurts me to write, is once more threatened -- by an even greater menace that promises to destroy not just the larger civilizational heritage of which she is a part, but the peoples and nations who are her closest blood kin. In this larger sense, I cannot but feel that my family is again under attack, this time not by Albion, but by the race-mixing, spirit-killing forces of the Global Moloch that seeks to reorder the world according to the most debauched criterion of all: the Holy Writ of the Jews, money

*
Since 1945 the international forces of subversion -- led by the American imperium and supported, backhandedly, in the East by Soviet Communism -- have sought to reduce all world politics to the political-economic rivalries of the Cold War blocs. The ensuing ideological polarization entailed not just a united-nation of alliances, but the demotion of traditional authorities, the severance of ties based on blood and history, and the stripping away of genetic interests. Fidelity to the two bloodless political-economic blocs required, thus, the demotion (and ultimately the repression) of national institutions and national sentiment. As the Jewish-American war criminal, General Wesley Clark, put it: "There is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states."

As might be expected, denationalization went furthest in Germany, where an entire people -- whose courage and achievement in asserting their nationalist project were unparalleled in history -- was henceforth marked with the sign of Cain. The ethno-suicidal cosmopolitanism that has come to grip the rest of the white homelands is not, though, simply ideological or political in form, but undergirded by free markets and transnational organizations, electronic media and sophisticated conditioning technologies that usurp the sovereignty of the nation-state and erode its historic culture. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, these tendencies have gotten even worse, as the UN, the EU, NAFTA, NATO, the World Bank, the IMF, the International Court of Justice, NGOs, and other globalist organizations encroach on the last vestiges of the nation's traditional jurisdiction.

As our lives are forced to succumb to Washington's anti-white dominion, principles of cosmopolitanism and universalism, economism, rootlessness, and egalitarian homogenization, all premised on an implicit hatred of white life, dictate a totalitarian reorganization of our world. For only by levelling everything down, uprooting Europe's historic nations, standardizing its cultures, and dominating its institutions can whites be properly "herded, milked, sheared, and slaughtered" in the interests of the system's pecuniary appetites. The final stage of this subversion has already gotten underway, as the bearers of our race and culture try to survive the demographic tsunami of millions and millions of invading Third Worlders, who are to provide the coolie labor, the indiscriminate materialism, and the thoughtless beliefs upon which America's Judeo-oligarchy depends.

*
Historically, white nationalism grew out of what Yockey called the 19th century's petty-state nationalism. This nationalism was itself an outgrowth of earlier, more localized allegiances, as kinsman and clansmen grew into the men of Cork and Connacht, and then, in the modern period, into Irishmen (not unlike the way Bretons and Gascons, Alsatians and Burgundians arose from earlier formations to become Frenchmen; or Swabians, Rhinelanders, and Prussians became Germans).

The loyalties and affections rooted in these earlier attachments no longer, though, influence the state -- which has distanced itself from all notion of national allegiance and especially from the people that once were its flesh and spirit.

In a globalized world, where capital, goods, and colored peoples constantly move into and through our lands and where the political system is increasingly less autonomous and less national, "we Irish" need to rethink the idea of nationality. For to defend our homelands from the new invaders, it is necessary today to stand with Germans, Slavs, Latins, even (maybe especially) Englishmen to form a bulwark against the anti-white forces threatening us.

Given, therefore, that the nation-state has been supplanted by a bloodless economy-driven system oriented to the oligarchs' transnational agenda and that the existence of the white race-nation is now endangered, national struggle is obliged to follow the globalizing process and assume a posture appropriate to it. In the largest scheme, this means that nationalists must defend not merely their immediate family, but their great family, the one born of the seven daughters of Eve, comprising the descendants of the Cro Magnons and the Aryans who inhabited the Western, North Mediterranean, East European and Trans-Siberian regions of primordial Eurasia. If they fail to do so, if they let the narrower national concerns that occupied them in the past turn them away from the bio-civilizational pincers set in motion by the Judeo-oligarchic powers, if they don't form the most solid and impenetrable front against the invaders and their domestic agents -- they will cease to have a future, either as Irishmen or white men.

*
Kathleen ni Houlihan, Marianne, John Bull, and Saint Vladimir may still hold special meaning for us, but our political loyalties can no longer belong solely to those of the people or nation closest to us -- the lion's share of our loyalties must henceforth go to the race, the Borean race, that is our great mother and that groups us in ways that unite us against the enemies of our spirit and unique genetic heritage. This sort of racial nationalism clashes, of course, with the inertia of earlier nationalisms and entails the development of a new consciousness and identity. A white nationalist identity and consciousness are, though, already implicit in who we are. Indeed, it is the traditional attachments that come from family, community, province, and nation that undergird our larger attachments to the white race.

For in an age when national borders have been breached and the state no longer serves the nation, the nationalist slogan of Irishmen, Frenchmen, Americans, and all peoples of European descent can only be: OUR RACE IS OUR NATION. The provincial identities and local communities that constituted the major part of the historic nation's background are in no way denied or demoted in this, for they too constitute a major part of the meta-nation's background. White nationalists may therefore differ with their forefathers in the scale, scope and nature of the tasks they set for themselves, but they too fight for the survival and rebirth of their people. In this elementary sense, the struggle they wage against the genocidal forces threatening them is simply an extension of their ancestors' struggle, though one taken to the higher stage dictated by contemporary international developments.

*
What, finally, is this "nation?" The best definition in my view is that of Walker Connor: "the largest grouping characterized by a myth of common ancestry." This definition implies a genetically-specific line of descent and a "community of destiny." It is essentially a racial definition. Magnified and adapted to the global age, this definition is no less applicable to the white nationalist concept of race. (It seems hardly coincidental that the word "race" was once synonymous with "nation.")

In its ethno-historical manifestation, historic nationalism divided the world into nations, each with a distinct character and destiny; it made national loyalty primary; and it championed the nation's self-realization and autonomy. White nationalists see the world in an analogous way, insofar as they see it divided into distinct and competing races, make loyalty to the white race their foremost concern, and seek to enhance the freedom, unity, and identity of white people worldwide (which implies, among other things, separation from other races and cultures). The race-nation of white nationalists is thus that species of man whose genetically-related peoples were the first to occupy the northern and western extremities of the Eurasian landmass, whose root languages were Latin and Greek and before that proto-Indo-European, and whose cultural legacy stems from Ancient Greece and Rome and from what Celtic, Germanic, Slavic and other European peoples brought to it.

Historic and white nationalists also share a kindred fate. Earlier forms of nationalisms arose from small bands of poets and dreamers whose nature enabled them to see beyond the multitude of common daily concerns to discern the collective dictates of their people's destiny. Rarely were their initial reception anything other than one of scorn and ridicule. But their dreams and poems spoke to First Things. In time, especially times of crisis, when state and society grew alienated and it became possible to glimpse certain, usually veiled realities, others flocked to their ranks. Racial nationalists who uphold their race's 30,000 year old heritage are likewise scorned and ridiculed. All the considerable forces of the existing system of subversion, in fact, are ready, if need be, to be arrayed against them. While the incommensurability of the opposed camps indicates the severe disparity of the struggle, it neither refutes the justice of the nationalist cause nor its inevitability. This also was the way it was for historic nationalism.

*

When Pearse and Connolly seized the GPO on Easter Monday 1916 no one thought these dreamers, supported by a few hundred, then a few thousand armed men, had a chance of defeating the British Empire. But they were wrong. The empire rested on a bloodless cosmopolitanism, was obsessed with a low-minded materialism, and beholden to liberal values, all of which made it no match for a nation violently awakened to its destiny.

Everything in this transitional period may stand against the cause of white nationalism, but the weight of history, culture, and nature nevertheless conspires in its favor. Given, then, that it upholds the most primordial interests of white people in a period when whites faces extinction, that it opposes a system favoring the miscegenation and ultimate destruction of the white race, and that it is indeed the only alternative to extinction -- for all these reasons, the white nationalist movement, no matter how meager its present ranks, is likely to play the leading role in the struggles of fire and steel that lie ahead.

White Nationalism and Historic Nationalism: Elements of a Definition

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by kurwenal

I think this article is interesting:

No, it is not. Visionaries who can't see two palms beyond their noses.

We are arguing about postions in and for Europe and you give us a link of some lunatics in America. We are discussing different views in and for Europe, none of which I believe include or even sympathize with America, and you bring us America. We talk of nation as an evolutive concept and these people speak of nation as a back to ape misconception. We look at the reality at home and intend to deal with real solutions, and these people masturbate over delusions and words empty of all content within an ocean distance.

How is it interesting?

[kurwenal]

Your answer tells me that you haven't read the article. It's written by Michael O'Meara, an Irishman and therefore an European. It's understandable that you have a general aversion towards America and things coming from America. Nevertheless on the page of National Vanguard one can find now and then interesting articles coming from everywhere:Western Europe,Russia,South America,etc...
Michael O'Meara's article is relevant to this thread because he basically discusses all these topics: origin of national movements, the Nation-State, globalization and its threats to Europe and European peoples...

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by kurwenal

Your answer tells me that you haven't read the article.

At a glance, what I read was an unjustified dismisal of true and real Nationalism (which he calls "historical") just to make room and to accommodate unreal and delusive white nationalism.

White nationalism being a reaction to black nationalism, brown nationalism and other similar movements in America, it should look its space there and not attempt to inflict a damage on Europe's Nationalism.

The easiest way for this is to stay well away, within at the very least an ocean distance. As an ideology (which is not even that), White Nationalism is as much of an immigrant and strange thing in Europe as is Zionism.

It's written by Michael O'Meara, an Irishman and therefore an European.

A disgrace that an Irishman would dismiss his nation in favour for a multicultural American construct.

Not surprisingly: "Michael O’Meara is a scholar who resides and teaches on the West Coast of the United States."

Here at home we fight hard for our survival and we don't have time nor resources to entertain ourselves with exotic trips of mind.

It's understandable that you have a general aversion towards America and things coming from America.

Indeed. I'm glad that you can see that.

Nevertheless on the page of National Vanguard one can find now and then interesting articles coming from everywhere:Western Europe,Russia,South America,etc...
Michael O'Meara's article is relevant to this thread because he basically discusses all these topics: origin of national movements, the Nation-State, globalization and its threats to Europe and European peoples...

How the state or the states are configured within any and every single nation in Europe is something that pertains only to that nation and not to any global-wide (or "white"-wide) movement of desperated and hopeless individuals.

Individuals for who one might feel some pity or even sympathy were they not a faithful reflection of all they say to abhor.

White Americans do not have an ethnic/national identity, that's how they chose to live their lifes. Fair. But now when things look bad and they have to clinge to a constructed pseudo-identity (white), it is rogue to pretend that we strip ourselves from our identities to join the world of the miserables and perish into it.

If we have to perish, be it at least with our dignity intact.


P.S. it is even more sad that an Irishman should affiliate with such a construct like white nationalism, when there is more than enough evidence to suspect that it is a sequel of the WASP of the past. The same who labeled the Irish the negroes of Europe and who now need them (the Irish and all others) to take them out of the mud load that they have created.

[Milesian]

It's written by Michael O'Meara, an Irishman and therefore an European.

There are numerous Irishmen and women of the "D4 West Brit" variety who would sell us back into the British Commonwealth or even the Union itself given half a chance. Others would make us the 53rd state of the USA, other would make us part of a United Europe, and some would sell the entire island for a briefcase full of hard currency.It should not be thought that such traitors, alien in thought to us, represent the view of the average Irish person in any way shape nor form.
If Michael O'Meara was named John Joseph Patrick O'Shaughnessy or Ciarán Ó Duibhín and was born and raised in the Gaeltacht it would still be irrelevent

[Ederico]

Objections to this particular project:

• "We recognize ourselves in a European model democratic and republican, inherited from the Athens of Périclès and of the Roman republic and regenerated by the humanism first and the French revolution afterwards." - That undeniably denies any contribution to Christianity and the Catholic Church in giving Europe its identity, an untenable proposition. If ever there was a spiritually binding force which fostered not a European identity, but a sense, even if potentially minor, of Europeanity, it was the Christian Faith especially through the Roman Catholic Church. Denying the reality of Christianity is denying Europe itself in traditionalist terms, for the most cohesive Europe to ever exist was Christendom.

• Promoting the positions of the French Revolution is doing Europe's enemies the greatest favour. What we are up against is materialism and the revolutionary spirit itself, Europe and our respective nations need to rediscover the values of legitimate authority, reverence to spiritual nobility, and a spirit of idealism together with a reassertment of its battle against materialism and relativism. The French Revolution, with its obvious revolutionary spirit, gives the impetus to revolt against those values ad perpetuum. Europe needs traditionalism, not the revolutionary spirit that destroys that same tradition, and that tradition is the metaphysical value which we must rediscover. In this discourse "revolution" and "tradition" are metaphysical "spirits" and "ideals", the former of the eternal subverter and doubt-spreader, the latter of the guardian and the revering one which has no doubt and is adamant in defence of the sacrosanct values which he cherishes such as Tradition itself, Faith and Fatherland.

Objections to pan-Europeanism in general:

• It presupposes notions which are botched to begin with, such as the messianic-doomsday assertion that salvation lies only through a European supranational state. This is particularly linked to immigration. In this respect, especially if it (hopefully) presupposes a democratic system factional in its internal political functioning, the rise of partitocratic factionalism, whether in actual political sub-organisations contending power or informal individual alliances, will, giving that any proper democratic system must feature debate and discussion before deliberation on important questions, it would give rise to humongous bureaucracy which would hinder efficient and immediate action against problematic phenomena. "Efficient" and "immediate" must be considered in relation to supranational and merely national democratic deliberations in order to act according to the democratic will of the citizenry (as represented in modern democratic systems). If a pan-Europeanist further asserts that substrata of states would exist below the supranational European state, then the problem is further exacerbated. The problematic is politico-logistical due to partitocratic democracy, partitocratic intended as a factionalistic political system.

• Cutting with my mumbo-jumbo above, what is asserted by pan-Europeanists is unrealistic if it purports to subside nationalism by transferring the same ethos on a supranational level. Socio-political reality demonstrates the unrealistic character of such a notion. Pan-Europeanism is anti-traditionalist as in effect it is not drafted in the social ethos of our people, but is primarily an objective of the European liberal left which is imbued with the revolutionary spirit. These, are an actual danger for Europe, because their downtrodding of tradition, indigineous self-preference and proper protection, and discarding of any non-univeralist conception is the only tenable proposition logically speaking when asserting anti-national notions. Anyone supposedly willing to protect Europe would do it a disservice by not protecting his nation primarily against the so-called "common enemy." I disapprove of speaking of a "common enemy" due to national realities. Pan-Europeanists have a reductionist vision of this "common enemy", for they merely focus on non-European immigration neglecting the fact that the rot is much deeper and the beloved French Revolution is also a cause of that rot, we are now enjoying its effects. Europe's battle is not merely against immigration, but it is metaphysical, properly cultural, spiritual and idealistic.

• Speaking of transferal of ethos from a national to a supranational level, this would have tremendous negative socio-psychological effects. This is due to the fact that proper identification and militancy in relation to it, so central to any defensive and pro-active attititude in favour of that same identification, would be diluted and made too vague on a supranational level particularly due to the fact that there has been no effective ethnogenical process in the creation of a European ethnos and related ethos. Transferal to such a supranational fictional illusion, would necessarily impair the sense of identity constituted by a multitude of factors. A European identity is a fictional concoction of Eurocrats and nothing more, and it serves nought to actually protect our European Civilisation, which can only be protected if we as organical elements of our nations fight for them, with the nations themselves being distinct yet organical elements of European Civilisation, which is constituted on a level of definiteness and relationship higher than a national level and far less incisive on our social identifications and ethos.

[Colonial]

Who is this Michael O'meara?

[Marcus Marulus]

First of all, my thanks to Kurnewal for posting this article, because he showed us once again how incompatible the so-called White/WASP "Nationalism" is with the basic feelings and aspirations of the most European nations and how it is entirely incompatible with the struggle for preservation of the distinct European peoples.

The author basically says, in nice words, that all European national identities need to be dumped to the garbage can, in the name of some non-existing "White Nation." And he says it explicitly, therefore I thank him for his sincerity.

In the first part of the article he - correctly - points at the globalist ideologies that have contributed to the erosion of distinct nations and their identities, in the name of the "god" money. Yet in the second part of the article he advocates precisely the same thing that he in the first part condemned: he proposes that all distinct national allegiances of the "White" nations should be forsaken and that a new nation should be formed, a "White Nation." That would surely entail loss of national identities and individualities, terrible cultural homologation, alienation and uprooting of the European people from their origins. Which language would that new "nation" speak? Probably, you-know-which. This is multiculturalism in the rawest sense of word...

There would not be any Irish, or Swedes or French any more, Europeans would just turn into some inarticulate mass of euro-whiteys or euro-gringos. It is obvious that he has the American model before his eyes, the model of amalgamation of different ethnicities into one new nation, the distinct characteristic of which is solely the skin pigmentation (it is not even the language, because American Blacks and Asiatics speak English as well as "Whites" do).

This article is interesting maybe only for America, but not for Europe. Considering their racialism, one could maybe take the same stand as that on Islam. As we use to say that we have nothing against Islam in its own lands, a European nationalist could also say that he does not mind the American "White Nationalism" and raci(ali)sm, as long as it is applied only to America. "Whiteness" is a powerul societal construct there, they tend to define themselves by that concept. It has been in their traditions for centuries. If they want to stick to it, why not? If they want a racial separation, why not? It becomes problem when they want to infect Europe with their agenda. And it seems to me that the attempts to force "Whiteness" upon Europe is also part of the globalist scheme, just as multiracialism is. It is an attempt to win "hearts and minds" of healthy European nationalists for America, some allegedly better America, which hasn't yet been contaminated with multiracialism. But these are only two faces of the same thing.

Their ramblings about "superiority" are also sickening and nauseating. Superiority of what? If someone has an urge to proclaim his superiority all too often and too vulgarly, it may be most probably the sign of exactly the opposite, of some deeply seated insecurity and fear. (It must be, however, noted that not all American racialists are necessarily supremacists. There are some rare exceptions, like that of Michael Hoffman II.)

Accepting the skin-pigmentation-worship instead of existing traditions would mean to fall to the lowest possible level of baseness. It would really mean a terrible cultural regression.