There are few things in the political realm more frustrating than white nationalism. For people who implicitly recognize much of what is wrong with the world, white nationalists’ proposed cure for modern ills is at best a supreme exercise in futility, if not entirely counterproductive and harmful.
It is the great irony of the white nationalist movement that while everything against which it stands is a product of the Enlightenment and modernism, white nationalist ideology itself and the political program it implicitly supports are also products of the Enlightenment and modernism.
Greg Johnson, who I have personally found to be the most engaging and thoughtful proponent of New Right white nationalism, defines three (out of four*) “political absolutes” of the white nationalism platform:
1. Europeans constitute a distinct race, the white race… Therefore, no non-racial form of civic, linguistic, cultural, or religious nationalism is sufficient to defend European peoples. Because non-whites can be citizens of European lands, speak European languages, share in European culture, and profess Christianity, any form of nationalism that cannot distinguish such people from whites cannot save our race.
2. The white race is threatened with simple biological extinction, compared to which all other political issues are trivial distractions…
3. The only tenable solution to the threat of white extinction is White Nationalism: the creation of homogeneously white homelands for all white peoples, which will require the alteration of political borders and the mass resettlement of non-whites.
Broadly speaking, the traditionalist conservative would recognize the general truth behind the premise of second absolute (though perhaps not its conclusion), and possibly to an extent even the first. Where the traditionalist conservative position parts vehemently with white nationalists is on the basis of Johnson’s third absolute.
This is of course the most obvious critique of white nationalism from the vantage of Throne and Altar: that it is nationalism at all — nationalism being at its heart a scion of Jacobinism. Despite Johnson’s claim that “any form of nationalism that cannot distinguish such people from white cannot save out race,” absolutely no form of nationalism can save what Johnson calls “his race.” Nationalism, as I have written before, is a direct product of the French Revolution.
Ethno-nationalism was at the very centre of the revolutionary program, indeed before they decided to murder Louis XVI, the revolutionaries changed his style from King of France to the “King of the French.”
Ethno-nationalism was the brute battering ram used by revolutionaries throughout the late 18th and 19th centuries to break apart the great multiethnic Christian empires of Europe. It was the most insidious of Jacobin poisons, working its way slowly through Europa Mater, causing convulsions throughout the 19th century and culminating in her violent death during the First and Second World Wars. Nation-states beget national banks.
The notion that ethnic groups have a Right to self-governance and self-determination, that independent nation-states are the preferable and natural order of affairs, is abstract Enlightenment nonsense. Indeed it reeks of egalitarianism and democracy — the concept of rule in the name of “the people” by “the people”.
Of course, the central premise driving white nationalism — that what is generally referred to as the “white race” is threatened with simple biological extinction — is unavoidably correct (a quick glance at birth rates confirms as much). But the idea that “the only tenable solution to the threat of white extinction is white nationalism” is simply nonsense.
The bottom line is that European peoples aren’t dying out because they lack homogenous ethno-states. Even if the current levels of mass migration were to cease tomorrow, and every non-European banished from Western nations, it wouldn’t change the fact that European peoples are dying out. Liberalism, licentiousness, and feminism have done more damage to white nations than a veritable invasion of third world non-whites could ever hope to accomplish.
What the Greg Johnsons and Richard Spencers of the world seem to fail to fundamentally understand is that the rejection of the traditional Christian order and the growth of Ideology — secular religion — is what created this mess we’re in to begin with, and more ideology, even one of a right-wing, Eurocentric, racialist variety opposed to liberalism, is ultimately insufficient to prevent the eventual destruction of European peoples and their culture, which at its heart stems from metaphysical and religious roots.
Another problem with white nationalism from a traditionalist perspective is its materialistic and darwinistic conception of race. Indeed, the “white race” is a wholly modern concept. If one reads Spengler, Burke, or even — of all people — Mussolini, it becomes quite clear that the classical conception of race is quite different from the New Right white nationalist (implicitly Darwinistic) version.
The very notion of the “white race” is somewhat ridiculous. Whilst there are admittedly broad bio-racial similarities between Englishmen, Poles, and Spaniards — and far closer similarities between, say, Englishmen, Danes, and Frisians — the traditionalist recognizes that those basic genetic similarities are by no means stronger or even equal to the power of thousands of years of different cultural, linguistic, and religious practices.
And this of course brings us back the the first general objection. Ultimately, nationalism — white or otherwise — is a Jacobin abstraction. As I have oft written in the past and will undoubtedly do so in the future, the motto of the white nationalist is “blood and soil,” whereas the motto of the true traditionalist (and patriot) is “God, King, and Country.”
What in this author’s mind reveals that the white nationalist emperor truly wears no clothes, is the fact that many of the tribes and ethnic groups that make up what Spencer or Johnson would likely call the “white race” are just as much modern abstractions as the “white race” itself.
“The only tenable solution to the threat of white extinction is White Nationalism: the creation of homogeneously white homelands for all white peoples, which will require the alteration of political borders,” writes Johnson.
But which “white peoples” are to get these homelands? Which borders are to be redrawn? The Ukraine, Italy, and the Czech Republic, for example, are modern 19th century inventions. They’re no more real objectively speaking than transgender “women” or unicorns.
Again, this is by no means to say the traditionalist does not recognize the inherent dangers and undesirability of mass migration and multicultural societies. But such things were brought about due to what was fundamentally a cultural/religious crisis — not some sudden loss of a materialistic racial consciousness which never existed in the first place — and can only truly be reversed and prevented by a cultural/religious renewal.
* the fourth white nationalist “political absolute” of Johnson’s deals with Jews, their place in Europe, and their role in European history. It is extensive and is worthy of its own critique, which is forthcoming.