As the election results in France, Hungary and Greece last week demonstrated, White Nationalism is a growing movement across the continent of Europe. The reasons for this are no great mystery. Everywhere on earth, in every available measure, White Power is declining.
The future leader of the world is expected to be China. The second in command meanwhile is predicted to be India (perhaps), and the third, a non-White majority United States. Europe by this time will be a fragmented, half-Islamised economic mess and Russia will have a fraction of its current population. Only Australia seems to offer the White race any hope for a dignified and homogenous future – and even this is based on wishful thinking (Australia is already 20% non-White).
To prevent any further decline in racial influence therefore, Ethno-Nationalism appears self-evidently fit for purpose. If Whites can band together and provide a common front against shared problems, perhaps some kind of stable future can still be manufactured.
I am an individualist. Ethno-nationalism is a collectivist concept, and so I reject it. Nevertheless, I don’t hate or seek to dehumanise those who find solace this way. It is totally understandable for a society undergoing decline to grasp at radical straws, and to endorse things which might not otherwise be in concert with its moral nature.
To argue against Ethno-Nationalism (and argue I shall), I find a simple exposure of its extent to be usually sufficient. Many White Nationalists are unaware that they are moderates in an extreme movement. That is, they do not appreciate the destructive nature of what they endorse.
Perhaps the most useful and coherent statement of ethno-nationalism to date is ‘The Passing of the Great Race’ by 20th century Eugenicist Madison Grant. This brief work was recently mentioned approvingly by Anders Breivik, and still enjoys a lofty position on the bookshelf of Nationalist elites. Adolf Hitler notably called it his ‘bible’.
Unlike White Nationalists of the contemporary mainstream, Grant did not accept the traditional division of races into four categories (Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid and Amerindian) as sufficient for his purposes. The White European race itself, he claimed, was not one race but many, and his polemical energy was dedicated solely to the preservation of only one – the ‘highest type’ – the Nordic race. Below the Nordic, he described two other European sub-groups (found in all nations, and identifiable only by physical characteristics) called the ‘Alpine’ and ‘Mediterranean’.
The Mediterranean race is largely found in countries along that coastline, including those on the southern bank. The Mediterranean race therefore includes not only Portuguese, Spaniards and Greeks, but Syrians, Berbers and Cypriots. According to Grant, they are noted for their romantic, artistic and sentimental qualities.
The Nordic race meanwhile is scattered around the northern countries of Europe, and its members are especially easy to identify. Nordic people are long-skulled, sharp-nosed, with blue or green eyes. They are tall, strong, unromantic and suited to analytical and organisational activity.
Alpines meanwhile, perhaps the majority in European nations, are the residuum of ancient peoples, noted for their darker skin, roundness of skull, and (in Grant’s words) peasant character. Alpines, he writes, form a majority in Wales, large parts of England, and most of France.
Even though this is hateful nonsense with no basis in science, I know what Grant is getting at here, and so let’s look at some examples of these ‘races’. The first is an example of the Nordic type, for which I have chosen the late model Reeva Steenkamp.
For the Alpine, here is the Welsh television presenter Alex Jones.
And for the Mediterranean, here is an unnamed Greek woman from a tourist website.
These are all European people, yet their diversity is obvious. The liberal form of White Nationalism plays down these differences. The harder, more traditional Nazi type does not. Who is to say that these two different ideologies will play nice with each other indefinitely?
As in Western Europe, there has been a worrying renaissance of Nazi ideology in Russia and parts of the former Soviet Union. This is perhaps even better suited to the demonstration of my point.
Apart from Jews, Hitler, Himmler and Rosenberg hated the Slavic peoples more than any other. Hitler in particular believed their submission to Bolshevism (in his mind, dominated by Jews) was the natural consequence of a Slavic predisposition to obedience, itself the product of a long period of natural selection designed to produce the best ‘peasant type’. Whilst most Neo-Nazis have collectively agreed to forget this tenet of Nazi thought, many have not. In Germany, the far-right street movement Die Unsterblichen (the immortals) has repeatedly made anti-Slavic comments. The same organisation has also bemoaned the modern Greeks, describing them as a formerly great people degraded over the centuries by miscegenation with Negros.
Even in Britain, one sees the same madly divisive force at work. The British National Party’s old manifesto (now taken down from its website) called for the separation of British citizens into ‘folk-communities’, each defined by a biological peculiarity like ‘Anglo-Nordic’, ‘Scots-Irish’, and ‘Celtic-Germanic’.
The problem here is integral. Biological nationalism, whether or not it intends to unite, inevitably leads to disintegration. One cannot be half-dedicated to it. If one endorses a scientific idea at all, then one must go the full distance. That process will lead necessarily to the re-fragmentation of Europe, and would be a disaster at this point in history when unity is very much needed to defend from foreign invasions.
European fraternity is put at risk by Ethno-Nationalism. Inflexible Biological Nationalism, blind to political reality, leads ultimately to the dark ages. Perhaps not a new Islamic dark age, but a dark age nevertheless. We must oppose both regressions. Defend the modern world.