Nationalism
Originally published on April 7, 2019.
Last Updated on August 17, 2021.
EDIT Aug 17/21: I don’t think anything I’ve written below has changed substantially, but I’m not convinced I would call myself a Nationalist in any form anymore. My view of the world has been remolded by the Covid hoax and I see myself as more Christian and heavenly than a citizen of any nation or nationality. At some point I’ll have to try to work out my thoughts on this. Thanks – Axe.
I am not a ‘white nationalist,’
Let me explain why. While I am completely white (as far back at 1500’s anyway) and I also am a nationalist (I’ll explain that in a minute,) I have absolutely nothing in common with, lets say, Afghan Muslims. The only thing we share is the lack of melanin in our skin. We do not have a common history, we don’t share a language, a religion or even a world view. We are white, but that is it. There is nothing there for us to build nationalism on. With that in mind, there is not, nor cannot be a white nation.
The word nationalism comes from the word nation. The most common use of the word nation today is the narrow definition indicating a politically defined plot of land with borders. ie. Canada, France, etc. Nations of this definition appear and disappear, become larger and smaller, switch religions, change demographics; nothing stays the same, not even the name. This definition of nation would more correctly be called a State and the desire to promote such a politically defined area would properly be called Statism. I use state designations (country names) to define current areas of land but even this can introduce errors because the borders of states are not fixed. States expand and shrink and indeed come and go. Further, the politics that create a state may change over time, and sometimes very quickly. For instance, Russia went from a monarchy to a republic to a communist state all within the period of 1 year. This narrow definition of nation (statism) is ephemeral and has no lasting power to draw and hold the hearts of people. So I am not a statist.
I define my nationalism based on the broader original meaning of the word nation which comes to us from the old English word nacioun defined as “a race of people, large group of people with common ancestry and language.” Nacioun comes from French meaning “birth, rank; descendants, relatives; country, homeland,” and the French comes directly from the Latin word nationem which means “birth, origin; breed, stock, kind, species; race of people, tribe.” Nation in the past only referred to what something or someone was at birth. (The Proto-Indo-European root is *gene – “give birth, beget,” from which the word genes and genetics came.)
I was born a mix of English, Irish with a bit of German mixed in. The vast majority of my ethnic heritage is Northern European. I was born in the state called Canada which was settled primarily by French and British Europeans with the British outnumbering the French 10 – 1 by the 1700’s. Therefore, I would rightly be called European British-Canadian. This is a clumsy designation though because it blends the broad and narrow definition of nation into one category (European peoples with the state of Canada.) To clean up my nation and define my nationalism, I consider myself primarily British European … living in Canada. (I have never done any DNA testing, nor do I ever intend to, but I’ve researched my family history back to the 1500’s and have confirmed much of my families traditional history.) Going back to the original definitions, my ‘common ancestry’ is European, my ‘common language’ is English and my ‘homeland’ is primarily British Europe including Ireland and England.
I have settled on the term British European for two reasons. If I go in either direction, I either lose things that characterize my nation or errors are introduced. I also believe that a common religion is such a shaping factor of a nation that it must not be lost.
Going in a broader direction toward just European or further to Caucasian I begin to lose some of my national characteristics including my religion (Christian,) my recent ancestral history (English and Irish) and physical traits including body shape and my very light coloured skin. Going further back to ‘White’ or Japhethite I lose even more of those things.
In the other direction, if I try to more narrowly define my nationality I run into the problem of confusing nationalism with statism which can introduce errors. For instance, if I say that I’m Irish, then I lose my my language (I don’t speak Gaelic,) and I would have to define which part of Irish ancestry I come from (Celtic, Norwegian/Viking, etc.) Further splitting could also introduce errors regarding my religion by introducing Paganism or Druidism and I would also lose the more recent blending of who I am through my mother and father.
The other reason for British European being the sweet spot for me is the importance of Christianity in my nationalism. (I don’t narrow down to Catholic vs Protestant although I am very much a Protestant.) Even though the current states of England or Ireland might no longer be considered Christian, their history and government are built on Christian principles and the teachings of the Bible form the common morality of the people whether they are believers or not. (Do unto others, etc.)
Therefore the nationality term of British European allows me to characterize my nationality by both recent and ancient history, common ancestry, common religion and common language all which make up who I am by birth.
Back to White Nationalism. The problem with White Nationalism is that it is too broad a term to really mean anything other than non-specific white people. (Jordan Peterson speaks against grouping people into categories all together, but his self-loathing individual is a far worse and I would argue dangerous ideology.) Often, people who use the term white nationalist as a pejorative really mean white supremacist which is a very different thing than just white skin colour. While I won’t get into the evils of white supremacy, suffice it to say that most ‘white nationalists’ are not ‘white supremacists.’ The White Nationalist movement has only gained traction in response to anti-white rhetoric which permeates all parts of public policy and media, especially social media. Anti-white sentiment has exponentially increased without censorship and with the blessing of the Liberal Progressive elements of our world. Any concerns about immigration are often reduced to people being called racists and bigots. As this anti-white ideology has taken on form and function, the equal and opposite response has also risen up. People who have been reduced to a mere skin colour can only find safety with people who have been likewise maltreated. In the end, the result is a herd of people corralled into the grouping of white nationalists. It is a response, not a movement. It is not based on hatred of other skin coloured people, but on the fellowship that one finds in associating with others so damned.
As I stated earlier, I do not call myself a white nationalist but I both understand and sympathize with people who feel cornered by white hatred and who seek solace with others in the same predicament. While I cannot stand with them based only on my skin colour, I will not condemn them either. It is a simple response to a complex problem created by years of dumbed down education, familial breakdown and moral depravity fueled by the fires of hatred. People have lost their purpose in life. They’ve lost their national identity through family. They’ve lost their moral compass and their desire for someone to blame for the resulting failure drives their passions. In this weakened state, when oppression comes, poor choices are sure to follow.
I urge people to seek their history and find their nation (not state.) Reject the isolation of the self-loathing individualist that Jordan Peterson teaches and find your people. Reject the white supremacy ideology as fervently as you hate the anti-white beasts at your door. Fight for your own history and your own people. Fight for who you are. Fight for you.