Does Your Nationalism Suck?
Why do we Lose?
Nationalism keeps losing. I’m not just talking about ethnonationalism, with the embarrassing failures of the movement and the widespread frustrations. Civic Nationalism keeps losing. National Bolshevism keeps losing. Southern Nationalism keeps losing. We spent the entirety of the 20th century watching various factions in the West fail to have any semblance of a coherent nation state which sees its own people as its first (or only) priority. Even in cases like Ireland, the struggle for independence was won – only to see a severe degradation, including open borders and demographic displacement championed by the very people who once fought bravely for their homeland.
Why is this? You might point to the power imbalance, that the world system uses hard power to stop nationalism: all cultural, governmental, and societal institutions are oriented against us. Let’s call this Problem A. Ever since the Second World War, nationalism has been the great enemy of today’s world order, and both the Western and Soviet powers worked tirelessly to crush it. When the West “won” the cold war, the greatest effort has been taken to prevent any sort of revival of nationalism over all other issues. Problem A ensures that there is no self-adhered principle that the system will not break in order to make sure that nationalism loses. It is public enemy number one precisely because it remains the only threat to the system. So we’re the underdogs because of Problem A. Sure.
But to honest with you, I am not convinced that this would be as big of an obstacle to us if nationalists stopped poisoning their own ideologies with the absolute worst motivations, opinions, strategies, and utter delusions. We could have a great amount of success, even if only on the small scale at first, if only we had avoided the problems brought on by toxic personalities and addiction to loss. In other words, nationalism keeps losing because most people’s nationalism sucks.
If we want any sort of success, any return to sanity, and any hope for the future, then it will do everyone well to interrogate their motives with this handy questionnaire. If you answer “yes” to any of these questions, your nationalism sucks and you need to rework it. I suggest everyone reading this article have a pen and paper handy; if you disagree with me, write down why, and ask yourself seriously whether the problem is with me or you. I received some constructive criticism (and some not-so-constructive criticism) over my first article on this site; after that, I saw that simply “be poorer” was only telling half of the story and began to write on some practical matters that help build the self and community. I urge everyone to have the same level of introspection.
The Questionnaire: Does My Nationalism Suck?
Question 1: Is my nationalism based on hatred?
Maybe someone is reading this and having a knee-jerk allergic reaction to it. “Hatred is a stupid and made-up term used by the [insert people you hate here] to avoid accountability for their actions! Besides, hatred for the enemy is the flip side of love for one’s own people!” But… is that really the case? Let me posit to you that hatred is the dumbest, most time-consuming mindset you can have. It takes away a positive vision for your ideology, makes you repugnant to everyone, and retards your ability to function.
So let’s hear an example with Enemy #1.1 Yes, there is such a thing as Enemy #1 misbehavior. Maybe you’re right that there is a massive Enemy #1-ish conspiracy that is subverting the West. So what are you going to do about it? Even with moral considerations aside, we know that warfare isn’t the answer because of Problem A: suggest it and you find yourself in jail, enact it and your actions will be used to further oppress your people – at the hands of Enemy #1. Kill someone, and the cops make it plain that you did this as an act of “hate” – and now the government has the cassus belli to act against your people even more. Violence won’t work – what will? Political subversion? Have fun trying that one after your infiltrator candidates end up going insane with all the false loyalty and constant hiding. The people who engaged in the long march through the institutions remembered how they got total power; they’re not about to allow us to have any, especially not by their methods.
With the first two options out of the way, the answer most nationalists end up having is “redpilling the normies” through podcasts and memes, in the hope of something like either mass awakening or sufficient recruitment to make a movement possible. “Listen to 300 episodes of this podcast and we’ll make sure you know exactly why Enemy #1 is BAD and why you need to HATE them.” Maybe this isn’t a bad idea if it doesn’t exist in a vacuum, but the problem is that it always does. Eventually, once you have sufficiently convinced yourself that yes, you must hate Enemy #1, that is all you will ever talk about. You won’t shut up about it. You will think that Enemy #1 is not only the cause of the world’s problems, but also the only problem ever.
I am convinced that few people actually do this outside of the outer right. You never hear some Oath Keeper telling you he loves the constitution for the sole reason that he hates monarchs, and you won’t hear him talk incessantly about the misbehavior of British royalty. Only among fringe circles have I ever seen someone say “yeah, I started noticing [insert people group here] doing bad stuff, hated them, and then I found myself believing what I do now because of it.”
Hatred makes your nationalism suck. It makes you suck. People who cannot think about or talk about anything other than their hobby-horse Enemy #1 inevitably become cantankerous, one-dimensional, annoying losers. They cannot relate to the common man at all, and usually end up hating the common man as well. I have met so few of this type that have any sort of positive vision (“what does my ideology mean? What does it look like in practice?”), and even then their positive vision generally looks like “once they’re all dead and we’re in charge, you’ll see.” We say that conservatives, especially the Republican Party, exist to lose gracefully; haters lose angrily.
Question 2: am I Edgy for the Sake of Being Edgy?
Well are you? Then your edgy version of nationalism sucks. It might sound like I’m repeating the first question, but this goes a bit deeper. The right has accurately called out virtue signaling for what it is, and regularly takes people down for their shallow, stupid opinions that always amount to “look at how good of a person I am, you should like me more.” But over the course of time edgy signaling replaced it. The normie virtue signals with “I put a black square on my Instagram account to say Black Lives matter.” The edgy-poster signals with “the Holocaust didn’t happen… but I wish it did.”
It is one thing to hold an opinion about supposed historical events. It is quite another to loudly proclaim, in the most obnoxious way, whatever you think is the most heinous thing you could say. I’m not questioning the edgy-poster’s authenticity, as I am sure many of them have decided to conform their philosophy to whatever ridiculous thing they’re saying. I’m questioning whether such an individual will see any success whatsoever.
“Yeah man, I like Nietzsche, there’s no such thing as good or evil and only the strongest survive. If my grandma asked me for help getting down the stairs I’d just push her down and steal her food. Just like my foreign policy.” Might be fun to say stuff like this (signaling after all gives people something of a high), but no one will take you seriously. The edgy-poster can tell me that he’s a rational actor all he wants and say that his ideas are well-thought out until he’s blue in the face, but at the end of the day he’s just silly. Go ahead, convince normal people that going full exto is the only way. See where it gets you.
This isn’t just regarding policies either. Edgy signaling has caused endless division and infighting on the right as far as it touches aesthetics (see: optics debate), religion, taste in entertainment, etc. It simply isn’t productive and if you disagree with me then your nationalism sucks (or you’re a fed). Everyone is trying to build a community of like-minded people and get something done for our side; the only ones who will follow after the edgy-poster are the ones who will probably kill him, at least when they find something edgier. Like Islam.
Question 3: am I just a wimp?
Many in our circle came to it through the urgent desire for safety. Our crowd expanded sharply as the European migrant crisis came into the public eye, as FBI crime statistics were published everywhere, and Donald Trump’s comments were accurate; “someone’s doing the raping.” We were confronted in our forums with compilation videos of [insert racial/ethnic/foreign group here] being violent towards Americans, Trump Supporters, Whites, women, and so forth, and suddenly we got pretty scared. The normal solution offered by the nationalists then was to kick the offending groups out. Pretty reasonable, right?
There is nothing wrong with this notion per se. But there is a point in which it shows a loser mentality, even an implicit weakness. “We have to kick this element out of the nation because the natives like peace” is often code for “this violence demonstrates how weak my people are.” This sentiment is woven into statements for the need for some “nice white country.” Look, I get it, no one likes to see a lot of violence, but if your entire opposition to diversity rests on “other races are mean and I want to be far away from the meanies” then you are admitting your nationalism is for limp wristed weaklings.
Nationalists: if you honestly have a problem with the violence you’re seeing, then learn to defend yourself, spar often and be ready. “B-b-but they’re unfair and they hunt in packs!!!” Then go out in groups. We aren’t getting out of this mess any time soon: now is the time to get tough and teach your people to be tough. If you’re worried that at some point self-defense is going to be outlawed, then put space in your head that you might go to prison or have to be on the run. Come up with a plan instead of insisting that we have a safe nation right now. Again, Problem A has made it pretty inconceivable that we’ll get our way any time soon, and I’m not advocating learning violence in order to go to war with the well-armed and well-funded Clown World, but you must adjust your lifestyle and embrace self-hardening to survive on the street level. Once your have a mannerbund in operation, the first priority you need to have is making sure you have each other’s backs -and each other’s families’ backs as well.
That said, I also believe that having real interactions with people you consider enemies is a good thing. They are human beings as well, not automata of things you don’t like. Learn about them through direct interaction, and you will have a better sense of getting around the bad eggs. Who knows, you might even end up making some friends along the way. But prepare for real self-defense. Anything less than preparation for (and acceptance of the fact of) street violence is just wishful thinking.2
Question 4: am I just a picky Liberal?
This is not as large a problem regarding our crowd these days as it used to be, but it is still around. If your conception of nationalism is liberalism but only for your people, your nationalism sucks. When the Pulse nightclub shooting happened, I recall so many people lamenting that these were OUR homosexuals and this FOREIGNER came in and KILLED them – HOW DARE HE? Of course, a year prior we were all complaining about how the Supreme Court’s decision to force legalization of gay marriage everywhere was a sign of America’s total moral collapse.
It still happens to some extent today. We cry like conservatives at how unconstitutional the left behaves when they have power – soon after complaining about how the Constitution gave our enemies room to destroy the nation. People aren’t mad about the progressive mindset – you’re just angry that the results of progressivism ended up being what they are today. Again, this isn’t as much of a problem as it used to be, but every now and then it crops up as things get worse. I believe it is a sign that we haven’t given up a lot of our upbringing in the educational system, or our ideological priors are getting the better of us. Please take a moment to examine them and excise them if needed.
Question 5: am I an all-or-nothing type?
The Black Pill is reserved for those people who expected the world and only got a neighborhood. They expected Donald Trump to give us an ethnostate when instead he just bought us some time. They wanted The Turner Diaries (just as Pierce, who was probably an intelligence or law enforcement asset, would have had it), but got Charlottesville instead. There has been an idolatry of power which supposes that if only we could get total control over the American Leviathan, we could make all our dreams come true. If only we could win complete control over the system, then we could have everything we ever wanted. This is nationalism for losers, precisely because it loses every single time it tries to do this. Again: the people who engaged in the long march through the institutions remembered how they got total power; they’re not about to allow us to have any, especially not by their methods. If you demand clear victory at the outset and revolve your entire ideology around getting your way, then your nationalism sucks.
At this point, I fully agree with Borzoi that local power and community mindedness are the way to go. If you can get one of our guys to have some influence over your town or city, then you have achieved an important victory. Do you have friends who will support you if you lose a job? Good, you have one of the biggest needs fulfilled. Our enemies have a nasty habit of destroying themselves; ensure your survival while they go out with a bang, and you’ll be able to realize the bigger goals after.
Final Question: do I strive for neurotic purity?
Purity spiraling is for losers and D&C shills. Have a broad circle across the right. Heck, you ought to be friends with the Hoteps, too. Neo-reactionaries might be goofballs at times, but they’re good at thinking things over. If anyone on our general side of things, even the libertarians, get some sort of victory, it’s best to find some good in how that affects your side. This is not just “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.” This is “don’t be a brat.”
Here’s a handy test for getting along with someone politically. Simply ask yourself if you and him share at least half of the broader priorities in your ideology. Closed borders? Non-masochistic education? Silencing the pervert-industrial complex? Ask yourself what your limits are: if you find that you can only hang out with people that agree with you 100% on everything, then you will find yourself a lonely failure.
Ask yourself these questions, and I guarantee you this will provide some clarity on your direction. A lot of these problems have more or less been dealt with by the “movement” at large, but they are also some of the biggest contributors to our failures – and naming them will help our guys prevent further losses. In doing this, we ensure victories in the future.
1That is, whatever minority, nation-state, or political belief you’re thinking of right now.
2This will likely be the topic of my next article.
18 Comments Add yours
This post is a call for purity. If you brush away what a lot of people are calling for an observe what they really want you will come up with a list similar to or the same as points 1-5, and good on you for realizing that.
The solution to this problem isn’t chastising people with petty motivations for having petty motivations. If your motives are petty and somebody calls that out your first course of action will be denial and your second will be checking out and neither of those get us anywhere.
What petty motivations need is to be used by those with higher motivations as an “in”. You have peoples interest through their petty motivations, what is needed is to use that to bring people to another stage which is based on a more solid motivational foundation. Haters need something to love, wimps need a smack to the face, edgelords need something that isn’t fake, autistic purity spirallers need tasks better suited to autists and liberals need to be told to take a long walk on a short pier.
Anyway I’m out of coffee and have to go, so my comment ends here.
Build your own community. Look at your friends and family to start the nucleus of a new community, people who you trust. Buy houses near each other. Build things, make things. Learn a trade, a craft, an art. Make your homes and environments beautiful. Help each other fix up your houses. Develop your own entertainment, rather than relying on Hollyweird. Learn to play an instrument, to sing, to dance. Choose the lower paying job that keeps you close to your friends and community rather than the atomizing higher paying job that moves you far away.
We are all going to need to rely on each other. The glowing screens will not help us. Our friends and family will.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Well, my Nationalism doesn’t suck too hard. Mostly because I subordinate it to the Mannerbünd I’m in, which I think helps. Lonewolf Nationalism is an oxymoron. There are no Nations of one.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Nationalism fails because everyone around us is either lazy, selfish or traitorous.
The issue of neurotic purity is definitely worth thinking about. We should always strive to victory by all means. The amount of damage that could be done to the globohomo coalition by pushing divisive propaganda to its various member tribes should not be underestimated. No, this does not mean actually becoming BFFs with them.
The list of questions seems to me too broad, contradictory at times, and baggage-laden to be useful to any specific person. In other words, it’s more sermon than “questionnaire.” Not that there’s anything wrong with that. The basic message is be positive and proactive and not ‘hateful.’
But a lot of the essay feels like it’s begging the question of what is meant by ‘nationalism.’ The first paragraph comes out swinging with the allegation that “civic nationalism keeps losing.” How is civic nationalism defined? As I see it, a form of civic nationalism is doing fine, if civic nationalism means loyalty to the mythology of the state/regime. For even the statue-attackers are loyal to the post-1960s vision of America. Their civic nationalism can be called hate-based, if we want, but it’s all a matter of perspective. To them they are righteous moral crusaders against heretics.
And that’s the dilemma of the ethnonationalist: He is a heretic in the current West. There is no checklist by which the heretic (of any place and time) easily finds a winning strategy. As the essay has it: “We aren’t getting out of this mess any time soon: now is the time to get tough and teach your people to be tough.” This should also include dropping the illusion of a deus-ex-machina solution.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on Muunyayo.
There is one Ethno-nationalist state that seems to be getting along just fine with putting the ethno into the nationalist and building a wall and enforcing an apartheid-like division between itself and those nations around it that are different ethnically. So, there isn’t a problem with ethnonationalism per se but rather if you really want to go down that path nobody is going to make it easy for you. If you can’t even get your ethnostate off the ground because of a little international pushback then you aren’t really up to the task of founding an ethnostate. Anyway, it’s a pipe dream. We have been herded onto this continent to form a new racial mix and not because we are supposed to be a second Europe with some extra non-Europeans thrown in for excitement.
>Pierce is an asset
That’s a new one. That’s quite a claim to make without providing at least some evidence. If it’s only suspicion, and you’re just making a baseless allegation in order to police what you deem is acceptable ideology… then I think your nationalism sucks.
Okay, i don’t want to be mean. Check out the myth of the 20th centuries podcast on the turner diaries if you’d like to understand more why the work was written and what purpose it was supposed to serve.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve listened to the Myth20C ep on him, read some stuff he’s written, etc.
If anyone said anything even close to what Pierce said today, we’d conclude they’re either a) gonna be arrested, or b) they’re a fed.
I have looked long and hard to see if Pierce was under investigation, ever got a knock on the door by law enforcement, anything. Maybe I’m not looking in the right place but it seems he never was – in spite of repeated, actionable calls for violence, writing (in fiction) handbooks on it, etc.- stuff that had gotten other guys arrested even during his heyday. And the tactics he was bringing up in his fiction demonstrate a familiarity with guerilla tactics that I wouldn’t expect a university professor to have – unless he was either in contact with actual guerillas or a glowie that gave him materials. Remember, back in the 70’s and 80’s, IRA/VC strategic planning guides weren’t out in the open and easily accessed the way they are now, and Pierce’s military experience and education was all conventional, pre-Vietnam stuff.
And oh look, the government just so happens to keep entrapping people who just so happen to have read the Turner Diaries and just so happen to plan on doing the stuff that Pierce described. And oh look, it just keeps so happening that the government keeps hinting at doing things described in the Turner Diaries, like outlawing self-defense for White people, or outlawing White people calling the cops on non-Whites. It’s between Pierce being an amazing genius with prophetic levels of perception for the future, or Pierce is a fed that was trying to mobilize normal people into committing violence.
Yes, I give it a 75% chance the guy was a fed. If I’m wrong I’m wrong, and if someone proves me wrong I’ll announce it publicly. But until then I’m going to find the guy suspect.
Pierce didn’t predict anything unforeseeable in his time. Huxley, Orwell and Rand all predicted similar flavors of dystopia with similar correlation with IRL events. You know as well as I that the chances of “proving” Pierce wasn’t a Fed are vanishingly small given the difficulties in proving a negative about a long dead man. Your distaste for his subject matter is skewing your judgment.
It’s much more simple and common-sensical to simply accept him at face value. He sincerely believed that these kinds of actions were necessary for revolution. It’s not as if that kind of violence hasn’t been a precursor in many other revolutions – including Vietnam, for instance.
The fact that you or I may disagree with those tactics in our modern context doesn’t make Pierce a “Fed” either.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I respect that you put a lot of effort into your reply. Ultimately you don’t have proof though. I’m not even gonna dispute your specific points. I think it’s gonna waste both of our time going back and forth on this. You haven’t even convinced yourself fully that he’s a fed, so there’s no reason to make that allegation. Especially when allegations of someone being a fed are so highly contentious to begin, whether alive or dead. When and if there is hard proof, spread it far and wide.
Pierce avoided arrest and life-ruination despite publicly fedposting for profit under his own name on a very nice piece of real estate that one could easily get by suing him.
How can he not be an asset?
Beg the question all you want. Post hard proof.
Appeals for unity are never about the speaker’s desire to compromise with others. They’re about getting the listeners to shift toward the speaker. And almost every one of the these appeals is for “extremists” to “moderate.” If we’ve learned nothing else from the past few years, it should be that it’s time for the moderates to radicalize. Let them compromise their big-brained centrism for the good of muh movement for once.
I’ll white knight for hate here. Any coherent and reasonably thought-out identity has both positive and negative elements. In politics you can rarely be for something without standing against others who want something incompatible or antithetical. We have enemies and pretending they don’t exist or not talking about them is hardly the way to win any struggle. No general ever won a war with that strategy nor any lawyer a case.
I’m with WS. Sacrificing Pierce on the altar of optics isn’t going to buy SL any favors from the Powers That Ree.
LikeLiked by 3 people
If the reason to exist is solely hate. That movement falls apart when the object of hate goes away. Or they turn on each other.
That’s why I said “*(a)ny coherent and reasonably thought-out identity has both positive and negative elements.”
The positivity police always insist on constructing this “nothing but hate” straw man whenever anyone pushes back against happy-face-only dissident politics.
“Enemy#1” seems to have hatred as a big part of their motivation for what they do. Their big compendium of books on how to be a proper Enemy#1 is filled with hatred of non-Enemy#1 people, especially towards people of the author’s religious persuasion. Enemy#1 seems to have a lot of power, be it of the hard or soft variety, and there’s also a state, to which the US seems to often pledge its undying loyalty, which bills itself as being first and foremost for Enemy#1 to have a refuge and base of operations. Does the left really have a positive vision for humanity? Sure they sometimes say positive-sounding things, but when their preferred ideas fail or are counterproductive to their stated positive goals, they seem more apt to double down on castigating Straight White Cis Men as the source of all evil which undoes and poisons their well meaning plans. And this seems to work pretty well, given that conservatives are about as successful as nationalists in stopping the left, despite being more numerous and more well funded than even the most milquetoast civic nationalist would currently dare to dream of. These groups, which overlap a bit, seem to not be overly hampered by their own hatred for their enemies, and seem to be pretty good at using it as a tool.
As for edginess for the sake of edginess, by all means, sure, don’t do that. One may disagree on the ethics of being a wolf in sheep’s clothing, but no one can disagree in seriousness on the impracticality of being a sheep in wolves’ clothing.
It’s all very well to call people wimps for wanting to be away from 13/50s, but consider that many men are more concerned for the safety of their wives and children, whom they can’t necessarily guard 24 hours a day against assailants. This is by no means restricted to nationalists, ethnic or otherwise, since it’s a widely observed phenomenon that to the extent young Whites get down to forming families, they try to relocate to Whiter neighborhoods than what they preferred (or at least tolerated) as singles. Once again, by all means, do what you legally can to ensure your family’s physical safety within the existing context, but the idea that there is something innately illegitimate or unmasculine about wanting to be able to count on a certain level of domestic peace is insulting.
Not much to say regarding “all or nothing” mentalities. Certainly, it’s better to set achievable goals, and many nationalists get blackpilled by setting unrealistic goals (usually for some outside savior, be it Trump or whichever flavor-of-the-week “based” foreign strongman is the new locus of copes) and being disappointed when these goals are disappointed. I would disagree with the idea that Trump “bought time” for anyone except Bibi Netanyahu and his faction of extreme Zionists, but counterfactuals are by nature difficult to substantiate, and I am not adamant on this point.
I can’t speak for everyone that calls himself a nationalist, but it seems like there’s a goodly number of “ecumenical” figures in at least White Nationalist circles. I suspect you might have some criticisms of certain of your fellow podcasters at The Right Stuff, but they tend to be pretty positive to far less ideologically “pure” groups like the Proudboys. In general, the extreme focus on purging the impure seems to come from the supposedly more moderate and “optics”-oriented sections of the dissident right. Indeed, the groypers, once the toast of the town for critics of the “wignat” wing of dissident politics, have recently been on the receiving end of a lot of criticism of their “optics” from other people in their sphere. It’s important to distinguish between “purity-spiraling”, and acknowledging that some personalities will never be your friends, especially when they seemingly take delight in sniping at you.