During an ongoing discussion under a post on Counter-Currents, someone with the username “Middle Class Twit” asked me why I (a non-White) tried to engage with White Nationalists.
The following was my reply:
Aryan Meditations – از قلم آریایی
"إَنَّ الظَّنَّ لاَ يُغْنِي مِنَ الْحَقِّ شَيْئًا" – "Assuredly conjecture can by no means take the place of Truth." (10:36)
A few days ago, as I was going through my Telegram feed, I saw an essay on the wall of Imperium Press. It was titled, In Defence of Ethnonationalism, which was written by Victor Van Brandt.
It begins with an etymological description of the word ‘nation’ and how a people precede a state not vice versa, and, therefore, “one cannot define the nation by reference to the state”, which is a valid point.
It then lists four arguments in support of ethnonationalism.
The argument from particularism
The pragmatic argument
The argument from fairness
The argument from diversity
Let us analyze each one separately.
“Argument from Particularism”
In the “argument from particularism”, the author describes nation as an “extended kinship group”. And since we prioritize our family and its interests over others, the same can be said in the context of a nation.
The subtext is “evolutionary” that sees Man as a descendent of ape-like ancestors whose behavior should be studied within the parameters of empirical sciences.
To quote from the essay:
One sees that in nature, animals keep to their own kind. They move together in groups based on their shared characteristics and look after their own group. Humans are in physical terms really just a very intelligent species of primate, and the same basic principles and laws apply to them as to every other animal.
Now, here is a problem.
Whereas it can be said that animals “do move together in groups based on their shared characteristics and look after their own group”, they do not do this under some order of morality and ethics.
Besides, intra-group infanticide and killings are regular occurrences within the animal kingdom.
The exigencies of leading a pack often result in ruthless massacres of potential rivals irrespective of their age and stature.
A lion does not think twice before attacking a little cub.
Would a particular human ethnic group benefit if it adopts such savage in-group competition where heads of families clash violently among themselves? They would extinct themselves with their own hands.
It is the moral and ethical framework that governs the parameters of human relationships.
Why should a son/daughter listen to his/her father/mother?
Why should he/she respect his/her elders?
Why should a man look after his children?
Why should a mother take care of her newborn?
Why should she not abandon her offspring?
Why should she not have the right to kill them?
Why should I show kindness to those younger than me?
Why should I be gentle towards my co-ethnics?
Why should I be respectful towards other ethnicities/races?
In essence, a moral argument for ethnonationalism can only be raised on moral and ethical foundations, which I do not think the “evolutionary” perspective can provide.
(To be continued)
What has been the biggest enemy of White ethnicities?
The answer: ‘Western Civilization‘.
The White man needs to ask himself whether this civilization helped him answer the following questions:
– What is Man?
– What is Being?
Now when the White race arrives at, perhaps, the most critical moment in its collective history, it is about time that it dispassionately reassessed the road it took thousands of years ago.
The subtext is not that there is already a civilization or culture out there that correctly understood the aforementioned queries; and that Whites are therefore advised to follow it.
The point is that these queries are too profound to be unlocked by philosophical treatises or doctrines. They are beyond human cognitive capacity.
When we try to define ourselves, we transcend ourselves. And once we are in a transcendental mode, we require a transcendental point of reference.
It has to be necessarily above us.
This point of reference is called Waḥy, which is translated in English as ‘revelation’.
A human race should not exist because other human races also exist.
It should not exist because there is ‘scientific evidence of its existence’.
It should not exist because it achieved this or that technical landmark or erected this or that literary edifice, and, consequently, it has earned the right to survive.
It should exist because it is also one of the manifestations of the Divine order.
O Mankind, We have created you from a male and a female and made you into races and tribes, so that you may identify one another. Surely, the noblest of you, in Allah’s sight, is the one who is most pious of you. Surely Allah is All-Knowing, All-Aware. [Qur’an: 49:13]
This an expansion of a comment I posted on Z blog.
I think the last greatest metapolitical shift in the history of Western Europe was the execution (1649) of Charles I at the hands of the Cromwellian parliamentary gang.
Here is how the late British philosopher Anthony Ludovici describes the struggle in his A Defence of Aristocracy:
“The triumph of Parliament did not mean the triumph of the liberties of the people. It meant the triumph of a new morality, a new outlook on life, and a new understanding of what life was worth. It meant the triumph of the morality of unrestricted competition, of uncontrolled and unguided trade, and of a policy of neglect in regard to all things that really mattered.” [pgs. 161-162]
The forces that are beyond political bureaucratization like religion, family, and ethnocultural ties/blood ties determine metapolitics. This particular triad prevents political accretion turning into a malignancy.
After 1649, the malignant forces were in the ascendance. They were to systematically destroy this defensive triad so as to clear the way for the ‘new morality’, which meant social organic body would serve the commercial/monetary interests and not vice versa.
The following are the weapons deployed to sabotage the three metapolitical pillars:
Now, if you try to read the last 500 years of Occidental history against the aforementioned background, you will understand how a full-fledged ‘liberal democracy’ is a stage of total, vicious, and wicked political bureaucratization of every aspect of life.
One of the most preposterous lines of thought that I often come across on various fora is the laughable assumption that ‘Islamization’ [another dubious term nevertheless] of a particular area implies complete decimation of indigenous races, languages, and cultures. In other words, you would ultimately be transformed into Arab Bedouins.
Being an Arab and being a Muslim are two entirely different things.
I am an Indo-Aryan by race. My distant ancestors stood against the invading waves of Arab armies when in the 7th century they moved eastwards towards what today constitutes Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan.
The defenders were defeated and became subjects of the new ruling elite. It was a purely political struggle between two Imperial houses. The Arabs replaced the Persian Sassanids as regional hegemons. This Arab expansion, at the expense of administratively collapsing neighbors, had a lot to do with deadly intra-Arab power struggles [which I will touch upon in some other post].
Just as in today’s world mediocre politicians polish their legacies by embarking on ‘humanitarian interventions’ and aggressive wars abroad, there were factions within the Arab power elite who had to build their own ‘legacies’ to denigrate those whose exemplary conduct during and after Prophet (Peace and Blessings be Upon Him and the Ahl al Bayt) had become indigestible due to tribal and personal jealousies.
That the Arab forces were religiously Muslim did not make this engagement an ‘Islam vs Zoroastrianism/Hinduism’ affair.
If battlefield and military engagements could fundamentally transform a people’s spirit, the Greek and Mongol incursions in the Khorasan and Western Indus regions would have resulted in the spiritual Hellenization and Tengerisation of this part of the world respectively. None of that ever happened. It takes more than that to revolutionize the spirit of a people.
Besides, anyone who thinks that his ancestors were forcefully converted to a ‘foreign faith’ unconsciously sketches a damning picture of his own forefathers. I am not prepared to condemn my direct predecessors.
As I wrote in the last part, Islam addresses the human nature; not Arab, Persian, Indian, Turkic, White, Han, Korean, Japanese, Black natures etc.
Race is a biological fact as obvious as life and death.
It has a certain sanctity.
As the Holy Quran says:
“O mankind! Lo! We have created you male and female, and have made you nations and tribes that ye may know one another. Lo! the noblest of you, in the sight of Allah, is the best in conduct. Lo! Allah is Knower, Aware.” [49:13]
In light of the above verse, if now someone denies races and ethnicities, he not only denies the divine order but also displays sheer ignorance of reality.
Similarly, he who advocates forced mixing of various nations and tribes to eradicate their natural differences tinkers with the divine equilibrium and invites disorder and mayhem.
Even people who live under one roof are expected to respect each other’s private space.
Naturally, then, it is expected that macro-differences [racial, ethnic, tribal, and linguistic] too should be acknowledged and not trampled upon.
Each race, ethnicity, tribe, etc. has the divine right to maintain its distinct outlook.
And, thus, the noblest is the one who recognizes the natural differences and ventures to align himself with divine wisdom.
(to be continued)
Note: What follows lacks the progression of a properly structured essay. I apologize to the reader in advance if he finds its disorderliness irritating.
I have been following dissident cyberspace for some time now. An ocean of audio-visual material, blog posts, e-books, etc., occupies my hard drive. The reason being that the critique of modernity that arises in the dissident sector aligns greatly with what we have been saying for years against the Ravanas of ‘enlightenment’ and ‘liberal reform’ in our part of the world. And then there is the English language which I happen to know as well as my mother tongue. Naturally, it makes the endeavor all the more interesting since I do not have to rely on secondary and biased sources to get familiarized with the subject at hand.
Our contact with the Western White races during the colonial era incubated an army of native ‘social reformers’, ‘rationalists’, ‘modernists’, etc. who pushed something which was purely historical [Renaissance, Enlightenment, etc.] as natural.
Thus, we were introduced with absurdities like:
-‘a modernist interpretation of Islam’,
-‘a scientific approach towards Quran’,
-‘too much religion took us no where; just look at the West how it abandoned superstition and moderated its religious opiate and attained such prosperity.’
That ‘prosperity’ [whatever that means] proved a poisoned chalice for the White race. Today, when it is facing ethno-cultural dispossession on its own soil, its spiritual arsenal lacks effective weapons to repulse highly organized and absolutely satanic assaults.
Now, many a writers, bloggers, vloggers, activists, etc. just consume sub-standard, intellectually lazy ‘critiques’ of Islam when displaying their anger towards continuous non-White migration into their territories.
They may counter this objection by saying, ‘why should we care?, what do we gain by caring about semantics?, we just don’t want Muslims on our lands; plain and simple.’
But precisely here lies the rub. ‘Muslim’ is a theological category. It is not racial.
(((Whoever))) first deployed phrases like ‘Islam vs the West’ or ‘Muslims are on the verge of taking over Europe’ in mass communications killed many birds with one stone.
It denied Whites a mobilization on the basis of race. A racial mobilization implies that the threat is first and foremost biological. And since ‘Islam’ & ‘Muslim’ are not biological terms, room could be made for those who oppose Islam but are not themselves necessarily White.
An equation like ‘Islam vs the West’ hollows out the White racial element from the term ‘the West’. Just as anyone can embrace Islam, likewise, anyone can also adopt the West and become Western.
Welcome to ‘civic nationalism’.
The battle has never been between Islam and the West. Islam is innate. It deals with the metaphysical dimension of the human nature. One can adhere to Islam and be a White Nationalist at the same time. There is no contradiction.
It was a mistaken view of history plain and simple perpetuated by Whiggish historiography; an approach that blurred many visions.
The battles, however, were ethnic/racial and tribal:
– Arabs VS the Germanic tribes of Hispania,
– Berbers VS Hispanic Celtics,
– Ottoman Turks [most of them were erstwhile Byzantine Romans and Greeks who gradually got Turkified when they adopted Islam] VS Greeks, Slavs, and Romanians.
– Berbers VS Franks
– Arabs VS Franks
(to be continued)