White Nationalism

It is very seldom that the issue of White Nationalism is ever approached with a serious, critical eye. The intellectual mainstream of the modern West has not been able to formulate any rejection of this political movement which doesn't depend upon an explicit denial of the reality of racial differences and an implicit attitude of superiority towards those who are so philosophically unfashionable as to espouse racist views. Unfortunately, racial differences are of enormous importance, and parochial condescension towards racism falls into the exact same pattern of thought which characterizes racism itself: denigration of the other. This renders the typical opposition to racism, and to the organized White Nationalist movement, invalid. What, then, should be said of White Nationalism?

Any objective analysis of nationalist thought must accept the reality of race from the outset. While most physical differences are of trivial importance and serve only as visible markers for racial identification, the psychometric differences – namely, IQ differences – are of great importance from a wide variety of viewpoints, be they social, economic, psychological, cultural, academic, religious, or otherwise. The American Black-White gap in IQ is well known and well studied, being roughly 16 points between US Whites and US Blacks (who average in the neighborhood of 20% White ancestry), but each racial group has a signature average IQ which appears under worldwide analysis, and results in different outcomes for members of these groups, not only because of their own individual scores, but because of the IQ of those with whom they interact with and grow up amongst.

Many discussions of IQ actually contain implicit attacks on nationalism on account of these persistent differences in IQ between racial groups, and several objections are often raised regarding the use of IQ to measure intelligence, especially between racial groups. Test bias and environmental factors are often brought up as a means of explaining away these differences. Yet, claims of "Eurocentric bias" are irrelevant for tests which use lines, dots, and squares to test for pattern recognition, and claims of "discrimination" depressing the test scores of racial minorities is equally absurd, given the existence of East Asians and Ashkenazi Jews who outscore mainstream Euros in IQ, and the further fact that Blacks outside of Western nations score even lower in IQ than their counterparts in America. And factor analysis carried out by Professor Rushton has recently shown that the heritability of intelligence test questions rises as the Black-White gap rises – in other words, the more an IQ test question taps into innate genetic potential, the better Whites do in comparison to Blacks.

Although this result sometimes comes as a surprise to those who grew up sheltered by modern bioegalitarian propaganda, even a cursory analysis of related information shows that genetic gaps in average IQ are rather obvious. As has been repeatedly demonstrated by twin and adoption studies, IQ is predominantly a genetic phenomenon, deriving the overwhelming majority of its variance in the general population directly from genetic sources. Individual Blacks living in America have always done poorly even in the wake of desegregation and with Affirmative Action to tip the scales in their favor, while individual East Asians and Jews have always done well even when suffering from discrimination themselves. And the fact that equatorial nations have never risen above primitive tribalism even after stimulation from contact with developed nations further demonstrates the reality and importance of intelligence even without the need for IQ tests.

But the results of the tests themselves are enlightening: Richard Lynn, in his 2005 book, "Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis" provides data showing that East Asians score an average of 105 for IQ, Whites an average of 100, Amerindians an average 87, Africans an average of 67, and Australoids an average of 62. Notice that these last two groups, Africans and Australoids, average below 70 – the threshold for mental retardation in White society. Presuming an average IQ for most chimpanzees somewhere near 25 (which roughly corresponds to the mental development of a European 4-year-old), this suggests that the difference in intelligence between native Australians and native Japanese is comparable to the difference in intelligence between Australoids and chimps. Of course, this does not mean that Australoids are evolutionarily midway (or some sort of "missing link") between the East Asian and the chimpanzee; all three groups have been evolving to cope with the pressures and difficulties of life in their own natural habitats for as long as they have existed. But it helps to put in perspective the staggering scope of racial differences in mental ability, and drives home the futility of the suggestion that race is somehow unimportant.

Knowing then that race is of strong importance, it remains to be discussed why White Nationalism is, or is not, a reasonable response to this fact. My contention is that it is not.

Although the primary goal of White Nationalism is never stated explicitly, it can be summed up quite nicely as "the preservation of the white phenotype." While the "14 words" as spoken by David Lane are often taken as an explicit statement of purpose, the words, "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children," can't explain the nationalist party line. After all, "our people" could easily survive in the midst of another people, just as "our genes" could easily survive in mixed form. Yet above all else, White Nationalists hate and fear the thought of racial mixing; this is why they propose separation from other races on the large scale, in order to prevent individual acts of miscegenation which may result in the dilution of their bloodline. There is no greater sin against White Nationalism than miscegenation; those who "racemix" are flatly defined as traitors. Obviously, then, the goal of White Nationalism is not to secure the existence of their people or the future for their children, but to preserve their phenotype; they do not want it to die out or be diluted.

Leaving alone the need for some justification of this goal, the goal itself is pure fantasy. Evolution waits for no one. Genetic drift, random mutation, and differential fertility exert an unremitting pressure on every species that lives – or, stated another way, the only species that remain static are dead. Just like languages and cultures, living species are in a continual state of change. Dysgenesis provides a perfect example of this: even if White Nationalists were able to wave a wand and send every non-White (and every White of suspicious pedigree) to the moon, in about 200 years at current rates of change, Whites will have taken on the psychological characteristics of modern Blacks, with an average IQ of around 85. Even with strict social controls in place which could stave off this dysgenic erosion of intelligence, change would still occur – other traits such as Extroversion and Neuroticism have shown massive increases over the past half-century of approximately a full standard deviation; this is the equivalent of all the Whites in America, who once had an average "EQ" and "NQ" of 100 in the 1950's, now possessing an average EQ and NQ of 115.

The massive change to Extroversion and Neuroticism over the past half century may be from environmental causes; and in fact the change in these traits is too large to be entirely due to genetic causes. But this makes them no less important. The psychological makeup of the White race has been radically altered, at least in America – Whites today are not the same as Whites of yesterday. And it is only by pretending that they are that modern White Nationalists can draw inspiration from German philosophers or Roman statesmen who are separated from modern Whites by oceans of time and space.

This brings us to a further problem of White Nationalism: sorting out friend from foe. Many nationalists would rather define ingroup and outgroup by their country of origin; others by their racial subgroup; others by their religion; still others would like to include all Whites and all Asians beneath the umbrella of pan-Eurasian nationalism. To expect that Whites can abandon their loyalties to state, church, and subrace, as well as their ties to groups outside of the white race (except for their pets*) is ridiculous – it isn't possible. Even forgetting for a moment the question of whether they really ought to try this, the descendants of Europe have a very diverse background, including three major language groups (Germanic, Romantic, Balto-Slavic), two surviving pagan traditions (Greek and Icelandic), three branches of modern religion (Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox), and a host of other variables too numerous to name. To brush these aside as transient or meaningless is desperately naïve; the Weinachtsbaum is still decorated in German winters, while Russia still takes the bear for its mascot – both of these traditions arise from pagan belief systems still taken to heart after hundreds of years. Old antagonisms between English and French are remembered since 1066; old friendships between the Serbs and the Russians run just as deeply.

And the obvious lack of racial and cultural solidarity among White racists themselves is striking. Nordicists vie with Roman Empire enthusiasts, Asatruar butt heads with Christians, and numerous arguments abound as to who is, and is not, "White." And the cultural discontinuity within the White Nationalist community is merely one side of the inherent ethnocentrism which marks the movement; the other aspect of this ethnocentrism can be seen in the rhetoric used by various camps which would be meaningless outside of the particular culture from which it originated. Affirmative Action, for instance, is often opposed by White Nationalists of American extraction on the grounds that it is "racist" and "discriminatory;" likewise Jewish power is opposed on account of its "unfairness." Many White Nationalists living in America will even go so far as to claim that they are "preserving ethnic diversity" and "fighting against the genocide of their people," in defense of their "right to exist." Invoking concepts like "ethnic diversity," "genocide," and "rights" may serve a useful propagandistic purpose, but when statements like these are used in actual debate, they merely demonstrate how intellectually impoverished the White Nationalist worldview is if it must resort to the rhetoric of its political opponents in its own defense.

Given the pronounced overlap between American White Nationalist and mainstream American thought, part of the criticism of White Nationalism also inevitably a criticism of modern Western ideology. The arrogant theorizing of Westerners today is depressingly common and pathetically simple to argue against simply by asking "why." Why is racism bad? Why is discrimination bad? When one group succeeds and another fails, is that unfair, and why is that bad? Is preservation good? Why? Is preservation better than progress, which most politicians and scientists seem to be struggling toward? Why is genocide wrong? Is it wrong to eliminate AIDS, as doctors are struggling to do now? What are "rights," and where do they come from?

Thus far, there has been no explanation for the legitimacy of the concept of "rights;" where is the justification for the right to smoke, the right to dance, or the right to float upside down over the Atlantic Ocean, let alone the right to exist? The imperative to "preserve diversity" and the condemnation of "genocide" invoked by White Nationalist rhetoricians are also characterized by the same lack of justification, arrogant for its presumption that justification is unnecessary: "Others must argue; I pronounce Truth." It is only within the context of modern American culture, where such "Truths" are seldom questioned, that they carry any force. White Nationalism tries to be a universalist philosophy in order to smooth over the glaring cultural divides, but its practitioners are still tribalists.

But even if the two problems of remaining racially static and preventing fragmentation were surmountable, the true test of White Nationalism is in asking "why" of White Nationalism itself. Why is preservation of the White genotype good, and the loss or change to this genotype bad? This cuts to the heart of the issue by demanding justification for the moral claim which serves as the foundation for White Nationalist thought. Without justification, this moral claim is no better than its opposite, which says that the preservation of the White genotype is evil, and that this genotype must be altered or destroyed. Yet this opposite claim does have justification – this is the conclusion of the religion of Millennium. A fully detailed discussion on Seeker morality would take up too much space for this essay, but a brief outline should suffice:

1. It is moral to do good; this is a tautology. But what is good is not obvious: for any moral claim there exists a moral counterclaim which could also be true, and, if so, would falsify the initial claim. Therefore, it is moral for a person seek to discover what is good, in order to do it.
2. In order to discover what is good, a person must be willing and able to question his current viewpoint; he must be self-doubting. He must also be willing and able to sort through other viewpoints (or pieces of other viewpoints) which may be superior to his own; he must be objective. And the only way to do this is with reason, since other means of judging between possibilities are subjective.
3. Accepting and applying these conclusions is morally good; having confused ideas about good and evil will prevent a person from doing good, so those who live their lives outside of Millennium are doing the wrong thing; they are immoral (to a greater or lesser degree). But our own actions influence them and their beliefs; we are therefore partially responsible for their morality or immorality. Therefore, we should do what we can to encourage morality on the part of others.
4. Intelligence is genotypic in origin. And the intelligence of other people directly affects their morality, not only in their ability to apply the Method (point 2) but their ability to understand why they ought to (point 1). Since our choices can have an effect on our ethnie's genotype, we have a responsibility (point 3) to change the genotype of our society to encourage intelligence, and thereby, moral behavior.

The preservationist goal of White Nationalism is directly at odds with the eugenic imperative of Millennium – an imperative with rational, philosophical justification. If a White Nationalist asks "why" to point 4, the discussion delves into points 3, and then into point 2 and finally point 1, which is self justifying insofar as it begins with a tautology. This argument may not be perfect – the principle of Self Doubt reminds us that no matter how valid it may seem, there may be some error. But White Nationalism cannot even provide a chain of reasoning with the appearance of validity; asking "why" to the claim that the White genotype should be preserved returns a null result.

The closest any justification for White Nationalism can come is based on the average traits of Whites; they are creative, caring, noble, intelligent, beautiful, and so forth. But - do Whites really have these traits, on the average? In many cases, the traits can't be defined, and when they can be defined, there are other races with a greater share of one or more of these traits.

Assuming that Whites really do exemplify these traits, then are these traits really desirable and worth preserving? Why? Justification once again is lacking.

But if these traits are desirable, and the White race possesses them more than any other race does, then that only means that the White race is only worth preserving insofar as it possesses these traits. This argument leads directly into a variation on point 4 of the Seeker argument, above; it is the traits which are of value, not the race which carries them! The result is eugenism, which calls for the alteration of the White genotype, not White Nationalism, which calls for the preservation of the White genotype.

In conclusion, then, White Nationalism is a not only a hopeless philosophy on account of the unworkability of its goals, but it is an immoral philosophy which confuses good and evil. If White Nationalism survives, it may eventually alter itself into something more reasonable by forming an endogamous breeding group with its own culture, language, and religion which cultivates those traits which are of value not only to the aesthetic judgment of nationalists but to encouraging genuinely moral behavior. And, the budding subculture of White Nationalism with its National Socialist iconography, peppy slogans, Internet slang, and shared heroes, suggests the possibility for a genuine culture to someday arise, while the lack of an anti-eugenic attitude among nationalists – an attitude which pervades mainstream thought – allows even for the future development of a eugenic ideal. Until that time, however, White Nationalism remains a quixotic and unjustifiable philosophy which wouldn't have any power at all were not for the concerted efforts of a liberal elite to stamp it out entirely.

* White Nationalists are notorious for their attachment to pet dogs. Why this is is a matter for some speculation; very likely it stems from conservative values assigned to dogs for their ability to hunt and guard property.