Page 1 of 9 123456 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 83

Thread: Why I Am Not a White Nationalist

  1. #1
    Senior Member Stríbog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Last Online
    Wednesday, January 12th, 2005 @ 11:45 PM
    Subrace
    Nordid-Baltid (Aistin)
    Country
    Vinland Vinland
    Location
    Where Rust Belt meets Farm Belt
    Gender
    Age
    35
    Occupation
    college student
    Politics
    Environmentalism and eugenics
    Religion
    occultism & Nature worship
    Posts
    2,163
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts

    Post Why I Am Not a White Nationalist

    Most of us of the racialist persuasion refer to ourselves as Nationalists. More and more, though, I have been thinking that nationalism per se, *as an organized system relating to a state* has long since failed us. It gave us countless internecine wars that depopulated Europe of both its rank-and-file and its would-be leaders. Nationalism has been used to justify two world wars that resulted in millions upon millions of dead on every side. Nationalism is even being used today, with great success, to whip up fervor for the Zionist invasion of Iraq and 'liberation' of its oil assets.
    The problem lies, I think, in confounding the STATE or NATION-STATE with the Folk. Nationalism has come to mean unwavering support for the GOVERNMENT of one's land; a flag-waving, hypnotic blind faith. I think that ethnic and also racial solidarity needs to be encouraged, but as a folkish trend from the people themselves, not as a government-dictated program of loyalty to the state. I also think that people have a right to form their own communities as they wish. If they dislike being born/raised in a particular community, they are welcome to leave and found their own or find one that suits them. I think people with an instinct for ethnic preservation will band together; the rest are free to go their own routes and sink into oblivion. I think this is preferable to the older European 'nationalist' systems which actually coincided quite poorly with ethnic boundaries and created countless wars, invasions and ethnic cleansing.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Last Online
    Saturday, July 15th, 2006 @ 10:25 PM
    Location
    Ireland
    Gender
    Posts
    107
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Re: Has 'Nationalism' really benefitted European Man?

    I'm starting to think this way too,if only from a propaganda point of view.One of the tenets of propaganda is that it should reinforce widely held presuppositions and myths,such as SCIENCE or HAPPINESS, rather than contradict them.With so many people talking about the world becoming a smaller place it's futile to cut yourself off from it.Nationalism is now considered backward in Europe - it has a negative stereotype which is hard to contradict.So perhaps discussions of the Volk or race should build on this widely-held assumption.As if to say,"at least it's not nationalism".
    Last edited by Moody; Monday, March 29th, 2004 at 06:01 PM.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Ederico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Last Online
    Tuesday, September 4th, 2007 @ 10:37 PM
    Gender
    Age
    37
    Posts
    1,269
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Post

    Nationalism is not of benefit to our Race as a whole. I am of the opinion that most Racialists claim to be Nationalists either out of true Nationalism or to downplay the importance of Race due to the implications associated with Race.

    How many of us here really say they are Racists with pride and without a sense of, and how many of you think that this would be a positive image to portray to the public when they hear the term Racist they simply imagine an oppressor, and in most cases an European oppressor. Due to the implications of the term Racist/Racialist the term Nationalist comes into play.

    I think Anarch could be useful here to describe the differences between Vertical and Horizontal Nationalism. From what I know, Vertical Nationalism is sort of Fascist, dedication to something that is above the Folk, Horizontal Nationalism stresses that militancy and devotion must be given only to the Nation, the Folk, and not a structure such that as a State.

    I do not consider myself a Nationalist, but that is due to the situation in the Society I live in, do not get me wrong, I would want to see my Nation prosper and be as independent from non-European or simply foreign influence, yet first of all I consider my Race as my real Folk.

    Europe needs Pan-European Racialism and a Social Revolution, Nationalism could help each single Nation independently from the others but unfortunately due to the Dictatorship that is the European Union in regards to Nationalism and Racialism, the two cannot flourish unless great Social Disorder is created. I see Europe at war within itself in the future, and I can only hope that it will be a war of liberation from the chains that hinder European men.

  4. #4
    THE SEVENTH SON
    OF A SEVENTH SON
    hardcorps's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Last Online
    Sunday, July 26th, 2009 @ 11:52 AM
    Ethnicity
    Northern
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Location
    Transcending existentialism
    Gender
    Politics
    Preservation
    Posts
    147
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Re: Has 'Nationalism' really benefitted European Man?

    Originally posted by Stríbog
    Most of us of the racialist persuasion refer to ourselves as Nationalists. More and more, though, I have been thinking that nationalism per se, *as an organized system relating to a state* has long since failed us. It gave us countless internecine wars that depopulated Europe of both its rank-and-file and its would-be leaders. Nationalism has been used to justify two world wars that resulted in millions upon millions of dead on every side. Nationalism is even being used today, with great success, to whip up fervor for the Zionist invasion of Iraq and 'liberation' of its oil assets.
    Yes but what was before nationalism? Answer: feudalism! Nationalism is certainly a better option for the majority in a white nation-state. Also, I don't think it makes a huge amount of difference if people die for their state or their lord.

    The problem lies, I think, in confounding the STATE or NATION-STATE with the Folk. Nationalism has come to mean unwavering support for the GOVERNMENT of one's land; a flag-waving, hypnotic blind faith. I think that ethnic and also racial solidarity needs to be encouraged, but as a folkish trend from the people themselves, not as a government-dictated program of loyalty to the state.
    I don't see the problems with western nations as the fault of nationalism as a political ideology. They’re caused by an inappropriate understanding and application of nationalism, IMO. If a majority of the policymakers of previous generations understood that healthy nationalism cannot really exist without a strong element of homogeneity (both cultural and biological) they would not have allowed absolute racial outlanders into the national fold.

    The problem is that nationalism was never deliberately applied except perhaps in NS Germany, it basically grew out of feudalism.


    On the plus side, nationalism (or the nation-state system) not only causes, but also prevents, conflict. There is a lot more room for discussion when the heads of nations meet. This might not be the case with loose communities meeting in the wilderness!

    Nationalism also helps a group of people quickly unite under the auspices of a shared identity in their territory’s DEFENCE.

    I also think that people have a right to form their own communities as they wish. If they dislike being born/raised in a particular community, they are welcome to leave and found their own or find one that suits them. I think people with an instinct for ethnic preservation will band together; the rest are free to go their own routes and sink into oblivion. I think this is preferable to the older European 'nationalist' systems which actually coincided quite poorly with ethnic boundaries and created countless wars, invasions and ethnic cleansing.
    This is rather Hobbesian. That is, if people don't like the nature of the social contract, they are free to go elsewhere and live a life 'solitary [or otherwise], poor, nasty, brutish and short' – ROFL well hopefully not, Hobbes was a staunch monarchist after all! The main problem is: go WHERE?! The habitable land is all taken now. (Look what happened to the poor Southern states when they tried for independence!)

    Additionally, who would want to be that first successful secessionist group? Obviously the western world is fairly stable now, but for the long term I wouldn't want to be in a 'folk community' without a good established military, or else very strong military alliances.

    I also think that people have a right to form their own communities as they wish. If they dislike being born/raised in a particular community, they are welcome to leave and found their own or find one that suits them.
    Yes people SHOULD have this right, but they don’t literally have that right in the current international community. Wishing will not make it so!


    I don't mean to be bombastically critical of these ideas, but I don't think it's going to do us good in the long term to break off into Amish-like communities while in the shadow of predatory nation-states, even if it’s possible. The international community DOES operate along almost completely realist lines, IMO.


    It's hard to be optimistic here. Perhaps, indeed, Arthur de Gobineau was right in saying that the human species is inexorably de-evolving.

    The only real hope, IMHO, is through power acquisition in existing nation-states. Thus it is may be counterproductive to try to engender anti-nationalist sentiment in the folk, when the reality might be that the ONLY successful path is to somehow become the party in charge of that nation. It is hardly prudent to encourage future enmity for the governments we will run Thus I think we racialists who live in nation-states with a, say, 70% white populace should not be against nationalism. Criticism of poor government is one thing, suggesting anarchist scenarios is another altogether! (If your nation has very few whites, nationalism is possibly a moot point – it might be necessary to accept that your future lies in another, whiter, state.)

    @Stribog
    Apologies if I misinterpreted any of what you wrote or implied. This is a rather large and nebulous topic!
    If I rest, I rust.
    - Martin Luther

  5. #5
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Last Online
    Wednesday, July 16th, 2003 @ 09:00 PM
    Gender
    Politics
    freethinker of the frist order.
    Posts
    8
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post

    Surly nation-states are artifical,nineteenth century
    imperualism.Which in time will be eradicated(with luck)
    and consequently replaced by autonomous village-communities.



  6. #6
    New Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Last Online
    Saturday, September 13th, 2003 @ 10:31 AM
    Location
    Dublin - Ireland
    Gender
    Age
    58
    Occupation
    Frideg Engineer
    Politics
    white-power
    Posts
    5
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post

    Nationalism is dead and has been since at least 1945 and possibly since 1914.A nation state or nationality or nationalism without a racial dimension is a complete nonesense.
    Look at sport teams full of negros most western nations now have millions and millions of alien invaders who are legal citizens of the countries they have settled in.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Götterschicksal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Last Online
    Monday, September 15th, 2003 @ 06:10 AM
    Location
    Österreich
    Gender
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    Europäer
    Posts
    135
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post

    It`s natural for mann to group themselves. Has national rivalry not produced advancement in technology, science and culture? Since early times, man has rivaled themselves and built bigger things than the of ones. Would have the Hittites started iron making if they didn`t rival their neighbors? I hope Europa unites and europeans become one, then when will be strong and stand agianst the threat of die Außereuropäer. Also when we are a united Europa, different cultures and volk in Europa will still group themselves into German, Russian, French and English (etc.).
    „Sollten Sie dabei sein, wenn ich sterbe, so werden Sie sehen, dass ich ruhig dahinscheide; denn ich glaube, dass nach dem Tode alles zu Ende ist.”
    Friedrich der Große

  8. #8
    Account Inactive Saoirse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Last Online
    Thursday, October 28th, 2004 @ 05:16 AM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    Location
    Seattle - soon to the midlands
    Gender
    Age
    36
    Occupation
    Red Robins
    Politics
    National Socialist
    Religion
    Atheist
    Posts
    636
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post

    Theres 'Nationalism' in the animal kingdom. All different species of the Cat groups themselves. Same with Wolves, Bears, Birds ect.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Stríbog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Last Online
    Wednesday, January 12th, 2005 @ 11:45 PM
    Subrace
    Nordid-Baltid (Aistin)
    Country
    Vinland Vinland
    Location
    Where Rust Belt meets Farm Belt
    Gender
    Age
    35
    Occupation
    college student
    Politics
    Environmentalism and eugenics
    Religion
    occultism & Nature worship
    Posts
    2,163
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Irish Nationalist
    Theres 'Nationalism' in the animal kingdom. All different species of the Cat groups themselves. Same with Wolves, Bears, Birds ect.
    That's about a 1st-grade analogy. In fact, since all Europeans are of the same species, biologically speaking, and all humans in fact seem to be as well, that would argue against European nationalism at the very least, if not against all racial identification. :p Cat, dog, horse, etc. breeds when left to themselves will interbreed into homogeneity. I don't think animal analogies are particularly relevant here.

  10. #10
    Account Inactive Saoirse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Last Online
    Thursday, October 28th, 2004 @ 05:16 AM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    Location
    Seattle - soon to the midlands
    Gender
    Age
    36
    Occupation
    Red Robins
    Politics
    National Socialist
    Religion
    Atheist
    Posts
    636
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post

    We still would group ourselves as Scottish, English, Irish, Russian, German no matter what.

Page 1 of 9 123456 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Declaration of White Nationalist Principles
    By Von Braun in forum Parties, Organizations, & Activism
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: Tuesday, October 3rd, 2006, 01:04 AM
  2. 'Survival of the Species' - A White Nationalist Novel
    By Furius in forum Literature & Book Reviews
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Friday, December 17th, 2004, 07:49 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •