- Counter-Currents Publishing - https://www.counter-currents.com -

Interview on White Nationalism

[1]

Socrates and Xantippe

1,432 words

Author’s Note:

This interview with Georges Feltin-Tracol appeared in French translation in Réfléchir & Agir, no. 55 (2017). I want to thank Mr. Feltin-Tracol and the editors of Réfléchir & Agir.

Isn’t White Nationalism a theory specific to a North American context?

As I define it, White Nationalism is the advocacy of sovereign homelands for all white ethnic groups, which applies just as well to Europe as to North America. North Americans are not simply generic white people. We are Americans, Canadians, and Quebecois. Just as Europeans are not generic white people, but members of different ethnic groups as well.

Now, to be precise, I regard ethnic sovereignty as a pragmatic principle for conflict resolution and cultural development, not as a categorical imperative. Some ethnic groups may get along well in a multiethnic system and not aspire to sovereignty, for instance the peoples of the Swiss Federation. Not every tribe of American or Siberian aborigines needs a seat at the United Nations.

But when multiethnic societies lead to conflict or the destruction of identities, and particular peoples aspire to their own homelands, then as a White Nationalist, I say give it to them. Give it to them in an orderly, peaceful, and humane manner like the partition of Czechoslovakia, so they do not have to arrive at the same conclusion by the Yugoslav route of war and bloodshed.

White Nationalism is politically realistic enough to recognize that a completely peaceful world might not be possible. But we think that giving all peoples their own homelands, where they can live in a manner that befits them without outside interference, is the best way to minimize needless strife and lay the foundations for peaceful cultural and economic development.   

Does White Nationalism have a vision of economics?

White Nationalists differ in their views of economics, and many of us, unfortunately, are still mentally mired in libertarian, “free market” economic thinking, since most of us start our intellectual journeys on the libertarian and conservative Right, and we carry that baggage with us. One of the most important agenda items for Counter-Currents is to promote the exploration of the rich tradition of critiques of capitalism from the Right: Social Credit, Distributism, Guild Socialism, populism, agrarianism, the economic innovations in Fascist Italy and National Socialist Germany, and so forth. My own economic views are most influenced by the Social Credit school, as can be appreciated in my essay “Money for Nothing [2].”

What do you think of liberalism?

Individual self-actualization and freedom are important things. But they are not as important as liberals make them out to be. I believe that the common good is a meaningful idea, and that liberalism is absurd to claim that the common good either does not exist, or does not matter more than individual interests, or cannot be imposed on individuals without tyranny, or comes about spontaneously though individual selfishness, so we do not need wise statesmen imposing limits on individual freedom whenever they conflict with the common good. In the illiberal society I envision, there will be wide latitude for individual freedom and self-development, but only as long as they are consisted with the common good.

What do you think of globalization?

Globalization is a profoundly destructive process. It is destructive of everything that the Right holds dear: traditions, hierarchies, particular identities, national sovereignty, etc. This is one reason that the Left promotes it, at least the Left that focuses on identity politics. But it is also destructive of much of what the Left holds dear as well, at least the older Left that cared about workers.

Globalization destroys the genuine progress that has been made by the labor movement, all of which took place in societies that practiced some measure of economic protectionism. Globalization means removing those barriers to trade. That means that labor costs in the First World and Third World will tend to equalize, which will mean a slight improvement in Third World living standards and a catastrophic drop in First World living standards. This will lead to the liquidation of the white working and middle classes to the benefit of an elite of rootless plutocrats.

Leftists who want to stop globalization need to recognize that the natural stopping point is the nation state. For more on this, see my essay “The End of Globalization [3].”

Globalization is also deeply incompatible with technological progress. One of the main spurs of technological progress has been high labor costs, which encourage capitalists to create new technologies, which make labor more productive. As long as labor has the collective power to appropriate the benefits of these productivity gains, technological progress leads to a rising middle class. Cheap labor removes that spur to innovation and rising living standards. Globalization is thus leading to technological stagnation and a low tech, low wage plantation economy.

My goal is to create a utopia where machines put us all out of work, by means of economic nationalism and protectionism, which keep labor costs high and spur technological innovations. But the productivity gains made possible by high tech will be distributed to everyone in the form of a social dividend, which will give everyone the purchasing power to keep the economy running and the leisure to pursue higher aims: family life, creativity, self-cultivation, political activism, science, technology, exploration, and the like.

You state in your book New Right vs. Old Right that “your nation is your race.” Isn’t it a reductive statement, since many white people stand for immigration, multiculturalism, and interbreeding?

All “my race is my nation” means is that I believe that the survival and flourishing of our race is the highest political good. Of course, there are many white people who disagree with that. But they remain our flesh and blood, members of our greater racial community, just as I regard misguided white Americans as members of my greater national community. They simply have mistaken political opinions.

The goal of White Nationalists should be complete cultural and political hegemony. We must aim at communicating the relevance of our ideas to all white constituencies and securing their loyalty. There is no need to end political pluralism as long as white identity and interests become sacrosanct and throughout the political spectrum, no matter how many other issues might divide us. I am all for the maximum political and cultural pluralism, as long as the degradation and destruction of our race is not one of the possibilities.

I see the task of White Nationalism as rationally persuading an active minority of people of the truth of our views and the necessity of politically realizing them. We can persuade a somewhat larger minority of our people of our views through non-rational factors. Then, if we gain power, we can secure the loyalty of the broad masses by offering them security, prosperity, and peace.

There will always, however, be a minority of our people who will never accept our views. But if our ideas become culturally and politically hegemonic, we will deprive that remnant of all political power and social influence. They will be as alienated, marginalized, and powerless as White Nationalists are today under the current multiculturalist hegemony.

Do you believe that American White Nationalism can help the cause of Europeans on all continents?

Yes, because White Nationalism as I define it defends sovereign homelands for all white groups that aspire to sovereignty, no matter where they live. Indeed, ethnonationalist principles apply to non-white peoples as well. 

Some neo-cons contemplate the “Anglosphere,” as the union between the United Kingdom, USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. What about you?

Although the Anglosphere does share a common language and a common history up to a point, Englishmen, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, and Americans are now different ethnic groups, some of us separated by thousands of miles. Thus, the idea of any sort of politically unified Anglosphere strikes me as absurd and contrary to ethnonationalism. Any necessary cooperation between Anglosphere nations can be secured by trade, diplomacy, customs unions, intergovernmental organizations, and military alliances. There is simply no need for a common sovereign state.

Neocons, of course, are a tiny minority with an immense will to power. Thus, they desire the centralization of power, even if it increases strife between different peoples subject to the same system, since such unification allows a small group to dominate many different peoples. Thus they feel threatened by all forces demanding decentralization and ethnic-national sovereignty.

What do North-American White Nationalists think of an Alter Europe based on identity?

We are for it, as it follows of necessity from our basic principle of supporting the national aspirations of all white ethnic groups.