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:
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)
Following is the comment I posted on Counter-Currents under the title Christianity is a Vast Reservoir of Potential White Allies:
Both Christianity and Paganism(s) have serious structural deficiencies. They can’t challenge let alone overturn the totalitarian marketization of the society.
They do not have a comprehensive way of life. They are made to adjust themselves to the prevailing or developing value system.
The erroneous splitting of the social existence into “secular” and “godly” sectors leaves the latter part at the mercy of the former.
It happened to Pagan traditions when they came into contact with Christianity. The erstwhile pagan royalty and nobility switched towards the new system and overcame the pagan masses and their traditions by granting Christianity a privileged status in society.
This favored status persisted as long as the “secular” world was suffering from administrative weaknesses.
However, once the “secular” domain regained its strength, it outmuscled Christianity socially as well as ideologically.
Now, the “secular” bureaucratic state machinery negotiates from the position of strength. It behaves condescendingly.
Liberal ontology is abominable but formidable.
P.S.: Today, Hinduism too is suffering the same fate Christianity suffered in Europe. The “Hindu revival” (Hindutva) under the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is the market regimentalization of the Hindu portion of the society, which is a corporate-driven effort to decimate the rural strongholds (a potential threat to the liberal urban value system) and force the rural man to migrate towards the big commercial centers in search of “jobs”. His ancestral land will be used to “industrialize” India.
Tacitus writes in chapter 11 of his Germania, and it is a fascinating observation:
“About minor matters the chiefs deliberate, about the more important the whole tribe. Yet even when the final decision rests with the people, the affair is always thoroughly discussed by the chiefs. They assemble, except in the case of a sudden emergency, on certain fixed days, either at new or at full moon; for this they consider the most auspicious season for the transaction of business. Instead of reckoning by days as we do, they reckon by nights, and in this manner fix both their ordinary and their legal appointments. Night they regard as bringing on day.”
Islam too recognizes not the solar but lunar cycles as the primary source for temporal management for Man. The waxing moon, the full moon, and the waning moon, carry deep signification.
The month can be either 29 or 30 days long. A lunar period runs from sunset to sunset. The date changes as the Sun sets.
The ambiguity at the end of the month is deliberate and when we combine this feature with the fact that the lunar months float throughout the seasons, we find with ourselves a way to frustrate the totalitarian imposition of fixed time, which has been one of the most glaring characteristics of the marketization of human societies.
And for the moon We have appointed mansions till she return like an old shrivelled palm-leaf.
Surah Ya Seen Verse 39
Lo! the vigil of the night is (a time) when impression is more keen and speech more certain.
Surah Muzzammil, Verse 6.
Translations: William Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall
How does the West define Man?
Is there really a Western conception of Man?
Are there multiple Western conceptions of Man?
Which is the correct one?
What are the criteria to judge a pronouncement correct or false in this regard?
Should we go to the psychological realm to quench our thirst or does philosophy contain all that we require to deal with this issue?
What does it say about a tradition/school of thought that is yet to provide a solid answer to the aforementioned problem?
What is the worth of the rest of the corpus if it has been failing to address this absolutely fundamental issue?
Philosophy is the quicksilver that revelation was sent down from on high to preclude humanity from having to touch, for touch it enough and we will surely become “as mad as a hatter”.
“A coherent philosophical footing” is an oxymoron that is bested only by the term “philosophical faith”. Philosophy is for those who have failed to attain the certainty of faith. And so the solution is to recognize the need for a stability whose only basis can be revealed knowledge concerning the world beyond the ken of human perception.Arash Najaf-Zadeh (The European New Right – A Shi’a Response: A Radical Critique of Alexander Dugin, E. Michael Jones, and Alain de Benoist, pgs. 60-1)
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]
The United Kingdom carelessly refused any serious understanding with Wilhelmine Germany. The Teutophobia of the political class was deplorable. It had been building up since the German unification. The Monarchy should have intervened and restrained the out of control anti-German clique.
Europe was humiliated at Versailles by Europeans, and a generation later it was all over.
Germany did surrender but it took with it the British and French empires.
Has the globalization of the English language been intellectually beneficial for the native White English speakers [Britishers, Americans, Canadians, Australians, and New Zealanders] and other non-English speaking Occidentals?
Has it rendered them susceptible to greater political manipulation?
They understand the world in the English language.
Is this understanding superfluous or deep?
Is it primary or secondary?
Look at it this way.
Many of us do not need a translator or a Routledge/Oxford/Cambridge/Penguin/Palgrave Macmillan handbook to know what is taking place in the Occident.
Familiarity with English [as far as West Asia and South Asia are concerned] and in other cases French and German outside academia is quite common.
Unlike in the West where the academia acts as a kind of suspicious intermediary, we know politics in the West like the back of our hands.
Therefore, here, political elites find it tremendously difficult to sell ‘meaningful engagement with the West’ and other related nonsense.
People are generally aware (((who))) holds the bridle of the West and who, eventually, would gain from this ‘engagement’.
Now, put the Occident in the aforementioned context.
How many in the Occident know Arabic, Persian, Urdu, Turkish etc. outside the academia?
When they read the news, how do they know that a certain anti-western leader’s words have been translated correctly?
Or that a certain country’s internal political dynamics, history, society etc. are being portrayed accurately?
The correct answers to these inquiries will reveal why it has been so easy for Western political elites to gain enthusiasts and addicts for their ‘Judeo-Christian/Rome Jerusalem/Western Civilization is superior’ fantasies.
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)