There are two common positions within the White Nationalist community regarding various non-white nationalisms: there are those who support what Frank Salter refers to as “universal nationalism” (nationalism for all peoples)  and those who argue that this idea is naïve and that the assertion of any particular group’s interests is invariably a messy process which will more often than not involve behavior that cannot fit neatly into contemporary popular notions of political ethics. The first view is held to be true because it is seemingly ideologically consistent and, additionally, provides the powerful bonus of moral comfort which stems from conforming to the “golden rule”; the second view is held to be true because it is simply more in line with historical reality and also explicitly prioritizes white interests free from the need of moral justification through a “proper” white relationship to the Other. The act of survival is rarely pretty or neat.
But neither position is necessarily contradictory if one simply thinks practically: White Nationalists should, as a rule, generally support other nationalist movements unless or until those movements begin to pose a threat to whites, at which point support should be withdrawn or active measures taken depending on the severity of the threat. Unfortunately, given the policies and cultural control systems of the Judaeo-capitalist elite, non-white nationalist movements usually do have negative repercussions for white populations. As such, in the current political climate, to think practically is to largely reject nationalisms other than those by and for whites.
Implicit in virtually all contemporary sociological and political discourse is the idea that one is morally obligated to care about everyone and everything at all times. This has been deeply internalized by universal nationalists. Notions of fairness occupy a preeminent position in their conception of White Nationalism. This outlook finds fertile ground in the minds of whites, who, more than those of any other race, are drawn to the ideas of common justice and shared ethics. Like liberals who believe that swearing an oath of citizenship will magically transform an alien into a brother, the universal nationalist believes that non-whites will permit him to advocate for his own people if he offers them a square deal in return. The universal nationalist, despite his protests that he is the true champion of global diversity in that he wants to preserve the uniqueness and sovereignty of all human collectives, shares the same fundamental conception of race as the civic nationalist: he sees everyone as interchangeable. For him, other races must be essentially equal because, in the absence this equality, they would be incapable of understanding or accepting his fair-minded call for ethnonationalism, which is the only weapon he allows himself. For this weapon to be effective, there has to be a shared understanding of logic and reason between those with whom he is in conflict as well as mutual trust and well-wishing. But, were this the case, he would not have had to deal with the perils of diversity in the first place.
Those who view universal nationalism as naïve see the movement of different peoples across history as one of inevitable conflict and struggle, not only physical but intellectual. They understand that there is indeed a universal baseline of human tribal behavior–group membership, resource acquisition, territorial defense, biological reproduction–but that these fundamentals will have group-specific shades and textures in both conception and expression. Despite sharing the same basic human drives, the tribal behavior of Britons will differ remarkably from the tribal behavior of the Hutus. Even the Chinese, who are behaviorally very similar to Jews, will express tribalism in ways distinct from their Semitic spiritual cousins.  The universal nationalist believes that one can make a case for White Nationalism that would be compelling enough, “reasonable” enough, “fair” enough to garner support from each of these biologically distinct groups. To believe this is to believe in racial equality. And if a universal nationalist objects to this characterization and admits that between some groups an entirely peaceful separation might not be possible, he has already lost the argument.
Too often, however, those on the correct side of this issue tend towards reaction rather than action. Their correct understanding of the realities of nationalist practice is tainted with a pouty conservatism: “If liberals like it, I hate it.” For these people, anything that non-whites do to further their own interests is to be casually dismissed. This is superficial and blindly reactionary. The nationalist aspirations or sentiments of all peoples should be morally supported unless they conflict with white interests. Unfortunately, given the current global power structure, very few ethnic conflicts between non-whites remain independent of white interests regardless of the intentions of the initial participants or the justice of their cause. Take for example the long and ongoing conflict between Burmese Buddhists and the often genetically distinct Muslim minority, which has only recently made it into the Western news. Whites can certainly relate to the problems caused by Muslims in Burmese society and, in an ideal world (which is to say, a world in which sovereign white nations exist), White Nationalists would support the Buddhists and indeed, as one can witness by simply perusing social media, the general impulse is to do so. However, this “humanitarian crisis” has and likely will continue to result in an influx of Burmese Muslims into white countries.  Despite any understandable sympathy White Nationalists might have with the Burmese majority, it is irresponsible to support them in this conflict.
Not only is the above yet another example of the twisted anti-humanitarianism of so-called humanitarians but it is a further example of why universal nationalism cannot work. To save or preserve one group of people, other groups of people will almost always pay in myriad ways. For White Nationalists, the only question that needs to be asked regarding conflicts such as those in Burma is which outcome will adversely affect white homelands. It doesn’t have to be this way, but the winds of change will have to blow much harder to deter once and for all the rapacious and heartless globalists from destroying us all. And those winds of change, contrary to the fantasies of universal nationalists, will not be logomachical and “reasonable.” They will originate from the same place as always: the blood, sweat, and tears of peoples who have had simply had enough.
The impulse towards universal nationalism is understandable. It originates in some of the best characteristics of the white race: magnanimity and honesty. However, it betrays a shallow understanding of history. And this shallow understanding can only serve to obfuscate our goals and divert precious time and resources from our cause. Additionally, though it might function as a “soft” entry point into White Nationalism for some people, it is a dead-end position and those who have been in the movement for some time should work to steer newcomers in the right direction as quickly as possible: that is, towards an unqualified, unapologetic prioritization of white interests in all things, even in situations in which one’s instinct is to do otherwise, such as rooting for the feisty Buddhists on the other side of the world.
  See: Frank Salter, On Genetic Interests: Family, Ethnicity, and Humanity in an Age of Mass Migration, 2nd ed. (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 2007).
See also: Michael Polignano, “The Ethics of Racial Preservation: Frank Salter’s On Genetic Interests,” Counter-Currents Publishing, April 8, 2011, https://www.counter-currents.com/2011/04/the-ethics-of-racial-preservation-frank-salters-on-genetic-interests/ (accessed September 14, 2017).
  For a politically correct but nonetheless interesting discussion of this issue see:
Daniel Chirot and Anthony Reid, eds., Essential Outsiders: Chinese and Jews in the Modern Transformation of Southeast Asia and Central Europe (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1997).
  See: Jie Zong and Jeanne Batalova, “Refugees and Asylees in the United States,” Migration Policy Institute, June 7, 2017, http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/refugees-and-asylees-united-states/  (accessed September 14, 2017).