Chauvinism or International Nationalism? The Conquest Question

Hudson River

Call it colonialism, call it imperialism, or call it conquest.

Is it proper for the coming ethnostate to seek its advantage over alien peoples, over foreign nations in separate lands?

This is nowhere near the most hotly contested question among the consciously White, but it may be the most serious issue of contention.

Against Fighting for “Nations for All”

Let us first kick into the ashcan the idea that we should stand for the rights of all peoples to their own ethnic homelands. While many who say this are surely giving mere lip service in order to sell our own call for independence and mastery of our own tomorrow, empty rhetoric often embeds itself in the minds of a nation and leads to destructive ends: simply consider how many insist that “all men are created equal” with no care for the context of those words, the beliefs of the man who wrote them, or even the laws devised by those who fought under that banner.

To hold “nations for all” as an ideal is first to suggest a paradox – that we will fight to determine the shape of alien societies, thus in the name of autonomy taking away their autonomy by “liberating” them to have “their own nation” – but, more importantly, it is to imply that it is proper for us to fight for the benefit of alien peoples. Does that sound familiar? It should: this has been the premise of Western governments for our entire lives.

We must reject, with certainty, the notion of fighting for the well-being of non-Whites. Sacrificing our kin upon the altar of racial altruism should be recognized as treasonous, and all moral claims implying such duties must likewise be opposed.

The Popularity of Noninterference

But what of simple dedication to noninterference? The vision of future White nations keeping to ourselves and allowing the rest of the world to sort out their politics, cultures, and territorial claims on their own is seductive to myself and many others in the pro-White community.

Why is this such a popular idea among even us who stand without shame and say that our interests are more important than the interests of the alien? A case can be made that this idea’s popularity is the hangover from our upbringing, the cultural assumptions of White guilt and treating your racial adversaries equally, and that we have only partially come to be who we are and now stand in a psychological compromise between abnegation and mastery; and this charge almost certainly has some truth: for many of us, the first step out of the self-abasement of mainstream ideology was, “Allow me to stop paying for shitty unproductive thugs to breed – but I’m not a racist,” and it could be seen as a second step, closer to the light of unadulterated self-and-racial-interest yet still shaded by branches of psychological habit to say, “Let us unify along racial lines and expel the alien, but we won’t dominate them.”

The Particularity of Universalist Nationalism

But I submit there is a deeper reason that so many of us want that world of universalist internationalist nationalism, a reason crudely stated but more precisely true than superficial notions of memetic conditioning. This reason explains why we are susceptible to the memetic conditioning in the first place. The reason is that we are White.

It is well known in libertarian and alt-right circles alike that Libertarianism is a White thing. Any poll examining libertarian ethnic identity always comes out around 90% White and 9% Jewish – and we know which Jews those tend to be. When was the last time you saw a Sephardi libertarian? Libertarianism, an ideology centered around personal responsibility, reciprocity, and the right of the individual to be unchained from a host of traditional obligations, is a White thing. We endorse universalist nationalism for the same reason that so many of us were libertarians: we are White.

The psychological archetype of the libertarian is a White archetype. It is not, however, the White archetype. These prelinguistic desires are dominant in the minds of only a minority even of Whites. The notion that all men, or even all White men, naturally want the “freedom” to determine their own path and would not desire domination of innocent others for their personal gain or personal whims is simple projection by people unwilling to accept that they are oddities and oblivious to the drives and desires of those around them. Most Whites desire, at their very core, an active unchallengeable authority, be it a man or an institution. Not all men are born to be philosophers, much less existentialists.

Still, these protolibertarian psychic drivers find some space of resonance within the wider White culture. Gifted men have been able to plant memetic seeds that found a bit of foothold in the White mind, receptive to degrees and variants of the proposition that man should be free to prosper and free to fail. I refer you to the mythos of the United States of America. It’s all a spectrum, much like the spectrum so many libertarians are on.

The reciprocal ethos of “hands off” has worked well within many White societies. There are arguments made that these White societies would be better if they held to this ethos more consistently. But even if these arguments are accurate, they do not apply to intersocietal matters.

Regardless of how any civilization has functioned internally, it seems that no society, no nation, has survived and prospered with reciprocal noninterference. The reality of every civilization seems to be always in constant movement along the spectrum of dominance and submission: a growing power repelling active invaders, a growing power subjugating others by invasion, a receding power pulling back from conquered territory, or a receding power subjugated to the power of invaders.

We are of course now at that fourth stage, and may, for simple reasons of survival, need to turn inwards, steel our resolve, and embrace the ways of the first stage. In the long term, however, history suggests that the first stage is simply not sustainable. Once we have become free of the alien hordes, dynamism does not stop. It may be a simple fact that those who do not expand are expanded upon. Look at China. How long before simple refusal to preempt their designs seals our destruction?

Why Leave Others Undisturbed?

That is the empirical case. Now for the question of value.

What is the value of animals who will never harness the power beneath their feet being left to occupy the land and block the resources from being used in service of a historically unprecedented good? We have built cities beyond the imagination of the poets of a mere 100 generations ago. What we can do in another 20, 80, or 800 generations – is that worth less than another million years of mud huts in Africa? We can extend the life of the human species – and the best part of the human species – beyond the next cataclysm, if we have the will. Is that worth less than letting Dindu-Bongo continue his simian rape-culture unmolested by us?

And now for the reciprocal case. Even a core moral presupposition for the noninterference party can be turned back upon them.

We have been the sole race that has, when in full power, freed the alien to our own material disadvantage. We have educated the negro, enriched the Arab, and pushed the yellow man into our age of technological marvel. And from every one of our beneficiaries, we have only gotten more pushback. We grow the negro population so that they can more easily slaughter us; we enrich the Arabs so that they can organize stronger troops against us; we all know what will happen if China reaches per-capita military might with us. No non-White people make it a secret that we are targets. This is what our spreading of our wealth has brought us. They repay beneficence with hostility. When you think that we should treat them as separate entities worthy of respect, worthy at least of the right to live free of our coercion, remember that only we think that way.

I am not suggesting that every White man needs to become a master-morality Sherman, stomping on the weak. All civilizations are multimoral to an extent, and perhaps White civilization is that which most must be multimoral, for the brutality of the negro works on all levels, the rapacity of the Arab works on all levels, the conniving of the Chinaman works on all levels, but the cooperativeness and mutual respect natural to the masses of Whites does not work on the highest and broadest of levels. It is good for the common White man to hold principles akin to the Golden Rule and the NAP – but it may be suicidal for White civilizations to hold to the same. All things to their proper places; all moralities to their proper scales.

I speak not to the common White man, who has no problem compartmentalizing his own morality from the morality of the state: I speak only to the White men interested in shaping the morality of the coming authority. Can you look your child in the eye and tell him that the children of Congolese savages are more important to you than his own great-great-great-great-grandchildren?

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*