I remember Sargon trying to be clever and say he is not White or pro-White instead he is BRITISH and ENGLISH. Sigh. Let's just talk about homelands and peoples. British people have a homeland and so do Indian people. Let's take concrete steps to protect and improve our homelands instead of falling into the constant intellectual pothole of "not being as smart as we think we are".
It seems that one of our challenges will be rebuilding a sense of ethno-nationalism that would've simply been common sense in the past, but is now heavily proscribed by the Regime.
A good way to start would be to point out the schizophrenic levels of contradiction between treatment of Whites and other major ethnic groups. Whether they be Black, Asian, Hispanic, Native American, etc, everyone is allowed to take pride in their heritage and bloodline, all except Whites, who are both evil oppressors and don't exist at the same time.
Another issue, pointed out by Mencius Moldbug, is with land acknowledgments, ie the stolen land narrative, which implies blood & soil nationalism for Native tribes, while forbidding the same to Whites.
A common canard is that "we're all illegal immigrants!". Allowing this, it means that illegal immigration was a catastrophe for the Native Americans -- they lost their land, culture, and way of life, and here in the US at least, they survive only as fragments on reservations. Some of them even have casinos and make a profit, but many more are drunk and destitute. It's survival, and it's better than extinction, but it's a grim way for one's folk to persist. The fate of the Native Americans is a warning and prophecy of what will become of us, unless we take decisive action to alter the future.
Excellent piece of writing to wake up to this morning, thank you!
Attributing nationalism to the French Revolution seems like a very modern take, muddying the waters, obscuring the fact that belonging to a nation, even if that nation is called a duchy or principality rather than a kingdom, is integral to who one is. Certainly religion formed a very important part of one’s identity, but the fact that Christians worldwide developed such different traditions surrounding major feasts like Christmas and Easter owes a lot to their ethnic, hence national identity and not the creed they have in common. Language too seems to draw isolating bubbles around peoples, drawing them into nations. Countries like Belgium or states like Quebec where two languages are spoken have histories of strife between the factions. If three or four hundred years have not drawn French and English speaking Canadians together, people who have European backgrounds in common, the prognosis for the future of the current experiment in “blending” is poor.
Many writers today seem to be predicting a drawing back from the brink in the future. A return to older ways of living that are time tested. I fervently hope they are right. To ask people to accept managed declined under current conditions is cruel. To ask them to make do with less so that they might return to a stable society of families with time to cook healthy meals, make your own entertainment and raise your own children, the graceful simplicity a homemaker provides is much more appealing.
If the future belongs to those that show up the Amish will be there, as Louise Perry recently stated. This strikes me as just, a sort of literal playing out of “ the meek shall inherit the earth.” The Amish view themselves as strangers and pilgrims not having any fixed country, but they are dependent on an indulgent government, one that lets them have their own schools, exempts them from military service and social security taxes. That is why they voted, which they do rarely, with the help of vans provided by Elon Musk, to protect their “right” to be left alone. I fear if the democrats get in there will be reprisals against them.
The Amish wouldn’t fare very well in today’s England , would they?
The word nationalism is a threat today, hence the PR around it. I have always felt discussing one's homeland works, certainly in Britain. The Indians evicted us from India because it was their homeland and not ours, something I note is never discussed when they mention Imperialism. The Empire came to an end and we left India and the African nations. This is avoided because of the implications; we left their homelands to return to our own.
More broadly, for the colonies, the country belongs to the descendants who built it. This too is not discussed in Canada and Australia etc. It can't be.
Propaganda works. Alas I do feel most "educated" people think of globalism as a lovely hand-holding exercise that broadens the number of interesting cuisine choices one has, and not permanent ethnic conflict that history suggests. Time will tell.
I have read quite a few of Steve Laws' tweets. I don't pick up many undertones of political theology or philosophy from his output. I interpret his main point that things will get so bad it will come to the juncture where it is a case of "us or them".
I believe much of the theorising is done after any paradigm shifting event, rather than before or during.
The ongoing realities that should make the "us" aware of how bad things will become are currently strangled, stifled and misdirected by censorship, legalese and propaganda.
There is much to be gained in his direct approach.
I'm with you on the nerdy attempt to redefine words or terms. It's always irritated me. Similar discussions can be seen around using left- or right-wing, liberal or conservative, woke, gay, etc. I think for some rare people it can be a fun mental exercise, but for the vast majority it simply muddies the waters of discourse and shows an ignorance of the dynamic nature of language. The meaning of words change with time and place. What you call a lorry I call a truck. Once we've established that (which should take 3 seconds), incessantly pointing it out just slows communication and comes across as pedantic. The phrase, "I call myself a classical liberal" has become to me almost a shibolleth for someone I'm going to ignore.
No matter the word used, the remarkable level of doublethink around the concept of nationalism is fascinating to me. People will simultaneously applaud Brown, Black and Yellow people for it, while viciously attacking Whites for showing the slightest hint of national pride or exclusivity. I've heard American Indians make statements that if put in another context could have been written by Nazi propagandists, while left-wing people looked on and nodded approvingly. These weren't isolated incidents. In the US we're utterly inundated with this never ending psy op and to point it out is almost cringe its so obvious. But even so, it has the intended effect. A so-called 'Native' can casually mention that they don't want to sell their property to a non-Native because they want to keep their town genetically pure. They can complain about miscegenation. They can call out strangers for appropriating clothing styles (even materials) that their people traditionally used. All of this is done with full legal and social freedom.
I should add that I don't fault them for any of it. Nationalism, racial pride, favoritism, even low level discrimination, are all healthy and basically ubiquitous.fpr everyone but Whites. To boil this discrepancy down to its source I'd say that this has been pushed almost exclusively by Jews who are terrified that any racial or cultural chauvinism from Whites will lead immediately to six-gorillion-jews-in-boxcars. I honestly don't think it's any more complicated than that.
The Gods Blessings to you and yours Morgoth, have Faith in a beautiful tomorrow.
I would say that one, the Homeland party should attempt at engaging with fundraising from the public via any means necessary.
Two, the term Nationalism must be dropped as it has implications as you have stated.
Three, to back up the second point, The spelling matters, as in spell-ing, the word is literally magical as all words are cast out of your mouth as a spell onto who you are talking to. They either accept it or it is warded off as they have their own counter spells.
To emphasise this futher, think about National-ism, the -ism part means ideo or Idea so Nationalism is an abstracted concept as it is cast when speaking.
So I would suggest the phrase Folk-National without the -ism at the end, I would say that anything with the -ism should be dropped completely from our Ænglish language for ourselves.
I can recommend here on Substack the Phonecian Hunter as he has covered the importance of Spelling and it's magical properties.
Trump was elected because the average American could no longer stand the general weirdness of trans ideology, anti-white racism being taught in the public school system (Critical Race Theory--CRT), open borders, and exploding crime rates--which the Biden Admin and the Democratic party tried to hide by refusing to tally crime from thirty--30--of America's most crime ridden cities. American society has become insane, violent, dirty, rundown, and dangerous--and the liberal class tells Americans that it is racist of them to notice, yet alone complain. Trump was the American people saying, 'NO. ENOUGH. NO MORE.
The liberals overplayed their hand, and now it's all falling apart.
Decline is not inevitable. A strong hand can reverse a dire situation. History gives us plenty of examples.
That being said, I still see countries collapsing under the weight of mass 3rd world immigration, failed liberal policies, and apathy.
I have talked about this a lot on the boards here, so I will be brief.
I have lived all over the world, and I can tell you that people are not the same. Some cultures--high trust societies-- expect honesty, common decency, and a respect for the law. Many cultures, do not--that's why they remain 3rd world countries inspite of having huge amounts of natural resources.
Rule of Law, Law and Order, are not ideals in the West--they are minimal requirements for us, as Western people. Importing people who have no respect for law and order and who lack common decency does not work. Some groups lack western values--it's not in their makeup, and it never will be.
Look for countries to collapse and new countries, yes, ethno-states, to be formed. Soon.
Anyone interested in historical nationalism should read Nations: The Long History and Deep Roots of Political Ethnicity and Nationalism by Azar Gat, a surprisingly based Israeli scholar. He rigorously defends the fact that ethnos and nationalism long predates the French Revolution and Enlightenment by citing primary source evidence of people centuries ago people, including the English, referring to themselves as a distinct people and race. It was a refreshing read, devoid of kvetching about the “dangers” of nationalism, especially considering the left’s recent attempts to deconstruct and destroy the concept of Western peoples as a nation. The book will give people on our sides lots of ammo in this fight.
I know he's not really the one your text is about, but that it's more a recount of how the political terms in question came to be, how they (or their definitions) have changed over time, and where the concept of "Nationalism" stands today and the struggle to really encapsulate what it means and not means.
But still...
As I see it, Carl of Swindon has 2 major issues. Probably several more, but at least 2 major ones:
1. He's nowhere near as smart as he likes to think he is
2. He will never admit to being wrong on any subject matter, but will instead argue his stance into absurdum and beyond
He will later change his stance on any and everything if proven wrong, but he will never ever acknowledge he was once wrong, nor that he has changed his stance or that the change came about because someone once proved him wrong on something.
A good way to approach this idea of Nationalism is to see how Jewish people in the US have changed their sense of identity over the past 50 years. Although they were eager to use the Holocaust as a point in their favor as victims of Nazi oppression in the 60s and 70s they still identified as white, per Don Rickles telling a black man at a nationally televised 70s "roast", you need us we don't need you. We meaning us whites. Flash forward to 2012 or so, after the election of Obama, and Jews are starting to mull the idea they aren't white. Today, there is a Jewish art critic writing at the New Criterion who identifies non-apologetic white people as Aryans. This would have been unthinkable to Rickles' generation.
So, it would appear the Jews are beginning to see the white man as a weak horse compared to half a century ago and are quite logically distancing themselves. Many even go as far as identifying with Hamas, as seen with the artist Nan Goldin recently in Berlin.
One of the hardest arguments to counter is that to a large extent our Universitised youth are integrating and miscegenating. Maybe the future IS blended, and it’s just happening in the West first.
This is not to overlook the real extent of separation occurring too. The dream might well become the nightmare. Certainly I am not optimistic.
This just underlines that we should be offering an attractive alternative, not just doomsaying.
I remember Sargon trying to be clever and say he is not White or pro-White instead he is BRITISH and ENGLISH. Sigh. Let's just talk about homelands and peoples. British people have a homeland and so do Indian people. Let's take concrete steps to protect and improve our homelands instead of falling into the constant intellectual pothole of "not being as smart as we think we are".
It seems that one of our challenges will be rebuilding a sense of ethno-nationalism that would've simply been common sense in the past, but is now heavily proscribed by the Regime.
A good way to start would be to point out the schizophrenic levels of contradiction between treatment of Whites and other major ethnic groups. Whether they be Black, Asian, Hispanic, Native American, etc, everyone is allowed to take pride in their heritage and bloodline, all except Whites, who are both evil oppressors and don't exist at the same time.
Another issue, pointed out by Mencius Moldbug, is with land acknowledgments, ie the stolen land narrative, which implies blood & soil nationalism for Native tribes, while forbidding the same to Whites.
A common canard is that "we're all illegal immigrants!". Allowing this, it means that illegal immigration was a catastrophe for the Native Americans -- they lost their land, culture, and way of life, and here in the US at least, they survive only as fragments on reservations. Some of them even have casinos and make a profit, but many more are drunk and destitute. It's survival, and it's better than extinction, but it's a grim way for one's folk to persist. The fate of the Native Americans is a warning and prophecy of what will become of us, unless we take decisive action to alter the future.
Excellent piece of writing to wake up to this morning, thank you!
Attributing nationalism to the French Revolution seems like a very modern take, muddying the waters, obscuring the fact that belonging to a nation, even if that nation is called a duchy or principality rather than a kingdom, is integral to who one is. Certainly religion formed a very important part of one’s identity, but the fact that Christians worldwide developed such different traditions surrounding major feasts like Christmas and Easter owes a lot to their ethnic, hence national identity and not the creed they have in common. Language too seems to draw isolating bubbles around peoples, drawing them into nations. Countries like Belgium or states like Quebec where two languages are spoken have histories of strife between the factions. If three or four hundred years have not drawn French and English speaking Canadians together, people who have European backgrounds in common, the prognosis for the future of the current experiment in “blending” is poor.
Many writers today seem to be predicting a drawing back from the brink in the future. A return to older ways of living that are time tested. I fervently hope they are right. To ask people to accept managed declined under current conditions is cruel. To ask them to make do with less so that they might return to a stable society of families with time to cook healthy meals, make your own entertainment and raise your own children, the graceful simplicity a homemaker provides is much more appealing.
If the future belongs to those that show up the Amish will be there, as Louise Perry recently stated. This strikes me as just, a sort of literal playing out of “ the meek shall inherit the earth.” The Amish view themselves as strangers and pilgrims not having any fixed country, but they are dependent on an indulgent government, one that lets them have their own schools, exempts them from military service and social security taxes. That is why they voted, which they do rarely, with the help of vans provided by Elon Musk, to protect their “right” to be left alone. I fear if the democrats get in there will be reprisals against them.
The Amish wouldn’t fare very well in today’s England , would they?
Brilliant and piercing as usual 👌 “…fungible widgets for wars, labour and tax”.
I will share the article widely. There is much for me to take to pub conversations with normie neighbours this Christmas.
Haha
Have a good one.
The word nationalism is a threat today, hence the PR around it. I have always felt discussing one's homeland works, certainly in Britain. The Indians evicted us from India because it was their homeland and not ours, something I note is never discussed when they mention Imperialism. The Empire came to an end and we left India and the African nations. This is avoided because of the implications; we left their homelands to return to our own.
More broadly, for the colonies, the country belongs to the descendants who built it. This too is not discussed in Canada and Australia etc. It can't be.
Propaganda works. Alas I do feel most "educated" people think of globalism as a lovely hand-holding exercise that broadens the number of interesting cuisine choices one has, and not permanent ethnic conflict that history suggests. Time will tell.
I have read quite a few of Steve Laws' tweets. I don't pick up many undertones of political theology or philosophy from his output. I interpret his main point that things will get so bad it will come to the juncture where it is a case of "us or them".
I believe much of the theorising is done after any paradigm shifting event, rather than before or during.
The ongoing realities that should make the "us" aware of how bad things will become are currently strangled, stifled and misdirected by censorship, legalese and propaganda.
There is much to be gained in his direct approach.
I'm with you on the nerdy attempt to redefine words or terms. It's always irritated me. Similar discussions can be seen around using left- or right-wing, liberal or conservative, woke, gay, etc. I think for some rare people it can be a fun mental exercise, but for the vast majority it simply muddies the waters of discourse and shows an ignorance of the dynamic nature of language. The meaning of words change with time and place. What you call a lorry I call a truck. Once we've established that (which should take 3 seconds), incessantly pointing it out just slows communication and comes across as pedantic. The phrase, "I call myself a classical liberal" has become to me almost a shibolleth for someone I'm going to ignore.
No matter the word used, the remarkable level of doublethink around the concept of nationalism is fascinating to me. People will simultaneously applaud Brown, Black and Yellow people for it, while viciously attacking Whites for showing the slightest hint of national pride or exclusivity. I've heard American Indians make statements that if put in another context could have been written by Nazi propagandists, while left-wing people looked on and nodded approvingly. These weren't isolated incidents. In the US we're utterly inundated with this never ending psy op and to point it out is almost cringe its so obvious. But even so, it has the intended effect. A so-called 'Native' can casually mention that they don't want to sell their property to a non-Native because they want to keep their town genetically pure. They can complain about miscegenation. They can call out strangers for appropriating clothing styles (even materials) that their people traditionally used. All of this is done with full legal and social freedom.
I should add that I don't fault them for any of it. Nationalism, racial pride, favoritism, even low level discrimination, are all healthy and basically ubiquitous.fpr everyone but Whites. To boil this discrepancy down to its source I'd say that this has been pushed almost exclusively by Jews who are terrified that any racial or cultural chauvinism from Whites will lead immediately to six-gorillion-jews-in-boxcars. I honestly don't think it's any more complicated than that.
The Gods Blessings to you and yours Morgoth, have Faith in a beautiful tomorrow.
I would say that one, the Homeland party should attempt at engaging with fundraising from the public via any means necessary.
Two, the term Nationalism must be dropped as it has implications as you have stated.
Three, to back up the second point, The spelling matters, as in spell-ing, the word is literally magical as all words are cast out of your mouth as a spell onto who you are talking to. They either accept it or it is warded off as they have their own counter spells.
To emphasise this futher, think about National-ism, the -ism part means ideo or Idea so Nationalism is an abstracted concept as it is cast when speaking.
So I would suggest the phrase Folk-National without the -ism at the end, I would say that anything with the -ism should be dropped completely from our Ænglish language for ourselves.
I can recommend here on Substack the Phonecian Hunter as he has covered the importance of Spelling and it's magical properties.
Yes, I have no issue changing the name. It's the substance that matters.
All the best.
Trump was elected because the average American could no longer stand the general weirdness of trans ideology, anti-white racism being taught in the public school system (Critical Race Theory--CRT), open borders, and exploding crime rates--which the Biden Admin and the Democratic party tried to hide by refusing to tally crime from thirty--30--of America's most crime ridden cities. American society has become insane, violent, dirty, rundown, and dangerous--and the liberal class tells Americans that it is racist of them to notice, yet alone complain. Trump was the American people saying, 'NO. ENOUGH. NO MORE.
The liberals overplayed their hand, and now it's all falling apart.
Decline is not inevitable. A strong hand can reverse a dire situation. History gives us plenty of examples.
That being said, I still see countries collapsing under the weight of mass 3rd world immigration, failed liberal policies, and apathy.
I have talked about this a lot on the boards here, so I will be brief.
I have lived all over the world, and I can tell you that people are not the same. Some cultures--high trust societies-- expect honesty, common decency, and a respect for the law. Many cultures, do not--that's why they remain 3rd world countries inspite of having huge amounts of natural resources.
Rule of Law, Law and Order, are not ideals in the West--they are minimal requirements for us, as Western people. Importing people who have no respect for law and order and who lack common decency does not work. Some groups lack western values--it's not in their makeup, and it never will be.
Look for countries to collapse and new countries, yes, ethno-states, to be formed. Soon.
Anyone interested in historical nationalism should read Nations: The Long History and Deep Roots of Political Ethnicity and Nationalism by Azar Gat, a surprisingly based Israeli scholar. He rigorously defends the fact that ethnos and nationalism long predates the French Revolution and Enlightenment by citing primary source evidence of people centuries ago people, including the English, referring to themselves as a distinct people and race. It was a refreshing read, devoid of kvetching about the “dangers” of nationalism, especially considering the left’s recent attempts to deconstruct and destroy the concept of Western peoples as a nation. The book will give people on our sides lots of ammo in this fight.
I know he's not really the one your text is about, but that it's more a recount of how the political terms in question came to be, how they (or their definitions) have changed over time, and where the concept of "Nationalism" stands today and the struggle to really encapsulate what it means and not means.
But still...
As I see it, Carl of Swindon has 2 major issues. Probably several more, but at least 2 major ones:
1. He's nowhere near as smart as he likes to think he is
2. He will never admit to being wrong on any subject matter, but will instead argue his stance into absurdum and beyond
He will later change his stance on any and everything if proven wrong, but he will never ever acknowledge he was once wrong, nor that he has changed his stance or that the change came about because someone once proved him wrong on something.
"no romantic era paintings of heavily bosomed, sword-wielding matriarchs"
maybe that's the problem
Wow - what a though-provoking historical analysis!
A good way to approach this idea of Nationalism is to see how Jewish people in the US have changed their sense of identity over the past 50 years. Although they were eager to use the Holocaust as a point in their favor as victims of Nazi oppression in the 60s and 70s they still identified as white, per Don Rickles telling a black man at a nationally televised 70s "roast", you need us we don't need you. We meaning us whites. Flash forward to 2012 or so, after the election of Obama, and Jews are starting to mull the idea they aren't white. Today, there is a Jewish art critic writing at the New Criterion who identifies non-apologetic white people as Aryans. This would have been unthinkable to Rickles' generation.
So, it would appear the Jews are beginning to see the white man as a weak horse compared to half a century ago and are quite logically distancing themselves. Many even go as far as identifying with Hamas, as seen with the artist Nan Goldin recently in Berlin.
Wow - wiohat a thought-provoking analysis!
One of the hardest arguments to counter is that to a large extent our Universitised youth are integrating and miscegenating. Maybe the future IS blended, and it’s just happening in the West first.
This is not to overlook the real extent of separation occurring too. The dream might well become the nightmare. Certainly I am not optimistic.
This just underlines that we should be offering an attractive alternative, not just doomsaying.