Print this post Print this post

The Good Kind of Nationalism

Immanuel Kant

2,092 words

Part 3 of 3. Part 1 here; part 2 here.

Author’s Note:

The following text is based on a talk delivered at the Northwest Forum in Seattle on June 9, 2018. I want to thank the organizers, the audience, and James B. for the transcription.     

Universalizability

Love of one’s own and self-actualization are all about the unique, individual, and particular: what differentiates individuals from individuals and peoples from peoples.

But the idea that true moral principles are universal has a great deal of intuitive appeal. If something is true, that means it is true for everyone. If something is right, that means it is right for everyone. Immanuel Kant argued that a principle isn’t moral unless you can will it to be a universal law.

But there’s nothing un-universalizable about the principle that you take care of your own first, and you let other people take care of their own first. There’s nothing un-universalizable about the principle of individuals and groups actualizing their unique potentials for excellence and letting other individuals and groups do the same. We can all live quite contentedly under such rules, and in fact they actually forward the good much better than the alternative.

What is the alternative? What does it mean to say that it’s not right to take care of the people who are nearest and dearest to us first? Are we assuming that other people are going to take care of them? Why would other people take care of people that they don’t have much connection to? It just doesn’t make any sense.

If you want to live in a world where everybody gets some consideration, it is best to do what comes naturally, i.e., take care of the ones who are genetically closest to us, our kin. And, if you follow that rule in your life, that does not impede anybody else from following the same rule, and in fact, you have a better world for doing it.

You can buy Greg Johnson’s The White Nationalist Manifesto here

We also have to question the idea that if something is good, it is good for everyone. There is an ambiguity in the phrase “for everyone.” Let’s grant that some moral principles are true for everyone. Principles like “Promote the good; spurn the evil,” are surely true for everyone, meaning that everyone should follow them.

But are all questions of what is good, right, or fitting equally universal? To choose a trivial example, it might be the case that size 12 shoes are right for my feet. As an objective fact about my feet, that is true for everybody. But that does not imply that everybody has size 12 feet or should wear size 12 shoes.

When we talk about basic moral principles, one size might fit all people. But when we talk about self-actualization—individual and collective—then there are no one-size-fits-all solutions. Different ways of life are fitting for different people. But that is still an objective fact, and the principle that everyone should actualize his unique potentialities for excellence is entirely universalizable.

Another way to approach this is to distinguish between moral relativism and moral subjectivism. Relativism is the idea that what is good, right, or fitting varies between times, places, and individuals. When one asks, “What is right?” the answer is: “That depends”—on time, place, and individuality, so there is no single right answer. Subjectivism is the idea that what is good, right, etc. depends entirely on our subjective feelings and decisions.

Every subjectivist is a relativist, because he believes that the good depends on his subjectivity. But not every relativist is a subjectivist. One can be an objective relativist. It is an objective fact that size 12 shoes are the best fit for size 12 feet, but the answer to the question “What is the best shoe size?” is “Depends on the foot.”

Identity politics claims that the best way of life depends on the unique identities of peoples. It does not deny that there are some moral and political universals. But those are not enough for a good society. There is no universal language. There is no universal culture. There is no universal mythology, costume, or cuisine. Universalistic ideologies like liberalism, however, claim that, beyond universal moral and political principles, there is one best way of life for all peoples. Identity politics is the custom-tailored suit. One-worldism is the equivalent of forcing everyone to wear flip-flops and Maoist boiler suits. But just because identity politics focuses on the particular, that doesn’t mean it isn’t good for everyone, since every individual and every people has its own particularities.

Fairness

You can buy Greg Johnson’s Toward a New Nationalism here

Another intuitively plausible moral principle is “fairness.” Even little kids understand fairness. You constantly hear them saying “No fair!,” especially during games and meals.

Fairness is connected with universalizability. For instance, the “Golden Rule” bids us to “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.” In other words, what is good for you is also good for others.

When John Locke talks about appropriating things from nature—making something your own—he said that fairness requires us to leave “as much and as good” for others. So, if you’re the first guy on the island, and you plant your flag and say “It’s all mine!,” the people coming up the beach behind you might say, “Wait a second here, you need to leave some for us too.”

John Rawls’ idea of “justice as fairness” urges people to design a social order in which we could morally accept trading places with any other person. There can be any different stations, roles, and ways of life in such a society. But none of them should be morally outrageous, like being a slave or being forced to sell your organs for survival.

Fairness means, in some sense, not treating others fundamentally differently than you treat yourself. But identity politics is all about doing justice to our differences. So we must ask: Is white identity politics fair?

There’s nothing unfair about ethnonationalism. The ethnonationalist says: I’m going to take care of those who are closest to me first, and I’m going to accept that other people will do the same thing. I’m going to create a homeland where my language, traditions, and way of life are normative, and where my extended family can flourish, and I will accept the desire of others to do the same. I’m going to accept that if I’m a stranger in a foreign land, that the natives come first, that their comfort comes before my comfort. I want to live by those rules in my country, and I’m willing to live by those rules in countries where I travel.

The basic Identitarian principle is to plant one’s flag and say, “This country is this ours; this is our homeland; invaders and colonists must leave.” There is nothing unfair about that, because the invaders and colonists have homelands of their own.

But the current situation, in which whites—and only whites—are being asked to accept replacement levels of immigration from the Third World, while Third Worlders keep their homelands, is totally unfair. What’s theirs, they keep. What’s ours is negotiable. That’s a morally outrageous proposition. Repatriating invaders and colonists is not, however, unfair, because at the end of the process, everyone has a homeland.

There are good and bad kinds of nationalism. Bad nationalists seek to secure the sovereignty of their own people, but they are willing to deny the sovereignty of other peoples. They refuse to treat others the same way they wish to be treated. They defend their own but do not allow others to do the same. They create a world of oppressors and the oppressed, in which they could never risk trading places with others.

Good nationalists believe in nationalism for all nations. They treat other peoples as they would like to be treated themselves. They realize that nobody is immune to misfortune, that oppressor and oppressed can and often do trade places, and that a just world requires abolishing both roles. That kind of white identity politics is not unfair to anyone.

Utilitarianism

You can buy Greg Johnson’s In Defense of Prejudice here

Moral principles are about governing actions. Actions aim at results. Therefore, it seems plausible that we should justify moral principles by their consequences. A principle is good if it leads to good consequences. It is bad if it leads to bad consequences. This approach to ethics is called “consequentialism.” Utilitarianism is one of the best-known forms of consequentialism, which says right actions promote “the greatest good for the greatest number.”

It is easy to make a consequentialist argument for white identity politics. In fact, in my book, The White Nationalist Manifesto, I make precisely that kind of argument. Under the present globalist, multiculturalist, individualist order, all white nations are in demographic decline. If this decline is not reversed, whites will cease to exist as a distinct race. What would reverse these alarming demographic trends? We don’t need to go into detail here. Suffice it to say that governments would have to make white preservation and flourishing the overriding goal of public policy. In short, they would have to adopt some form of white identity politics.

White extinction would not have negative consequences for whites alone. Nonwhites would suffer, as would the planet as a whole. As Charles Murray exhaustively documents in his book Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950, whites are by far the most creative race. White people have created great cities, great civilizations, great languages, great art, and enormous chunks of what we think of as science, technology, and modernity. Many non-whites around the world genuinely admire and eagerly benefit from white achievements. They would mourn our passing.

Of course, some of our past achievements would continue to exist even if whites went extinct, but we will have no future achievements. The world, however, is facing enormous challenges to sustain both human life and the planet as a whole as exploding populations use up finite resources. The only way to save mankind, and the planet, from such a Malthusian crisis is technological innovation, which is still disproportionately a white thing. White technological achievement, however, requires white preservation, which requires white identity politics. (See my essay “Technological Utopianism and Ethnic Nationalism.”) If we want to save the world, we have to save the whites, thus white identity politics truly produces the greatest good for the greatest number.

Will We Win?

I have argued that white identity politics is inevitable, that it is necessary, and that it is moral. Which brings us to the final question: Will we win? That brings us to the big problem with consequentialism. We can’t really predict and control all the consequences of our actions.

Victory depends on two things: things we can control and things we can’t. The things that we can’t control are basically the historical conditions in which we operate. If conditions aren’t right, then no matter how well organized we are, we cannot win. If conditions are right, but we are not ready for them, then we can’t win either.

So we have to focus on what we can control. We need to be the best possible versions of ourselves, both as individuals and as a community. We need to become a ruling elite in waiting. To do that, we must aim at attracting intelligent, enterprising people and encourage them to acquire educations, build networks, amass wealth, build institutions, and start dynasties.

Then, if historical events start breaking our favor, we can actually stop having history done to us and start making history again. And if conditions never break in our favor, we can console ourselves with the fact that we will still be a formidable, community—the white people with a future—even if we can’t secure a future for all white people.

To sustain ourselves in this struggle, we need to keep two ideas in mind.

First, even though it is not in our power to foresee and control all consequences, it is in our power to act on the right principles and to cultivate excellence. Therefore, we need to follow the ancient Aryan ethos that is found in the Bhagavad Gita, the Stoics, and Kant: Do the right thing, and let the gods sort out the rest. Thus, even if we don’t win, we can console ourselves with the knowledge that we at least deserved to win.

Second, there is good reason to hope that we will win, because our ideas are in harmony with reality and because it really is true that all of our people—even our most stubborn enemies—in their hearts, know we’re right.

 

12 Comments

  1. Loren R
    Posted March 1, 2020 at 5:20 pm | Permalink

    Thanks Greg, I have not had a chance to read much of your stuff and I am grateful you are still fighting the good fight. I agree with the other posters that I wish we could all come together and fight as one group. I know our enemies have used every trick in the book to divide us yet I can’t believe some of the silly stuff that keeps us separated.
    We need a moratorium on immigration, a repeal of Hart-Cellar and the quick deportation of all criminal immigrants. And just for one easy piece of low hanging fruit, the indictment, arrest and trial of the Sackler family.
    Their are massive numbers of us that want these things. Do we have to wait for Tucker Carlson to be President and Ann Coulter as VP?

  2. John
    Posted February 27, 2020 at 2:05 am | Permalink

    We have arrived at this point because we wrongly chose diversity; it would not have happened had we remained a European country. Now, we either reverse thereby correcting our error(repatriation) or we will LOSE our country.

    • vasil
      Posted February 27, 2020 at 11:19 am | Permalink

      we didnt choose it we lost the war and we were braiwhased by the victors to accept it

  3. Ronnie Waters
    Posted February 26, 2020 at 11:44 am | Permalink

    It’s amazing we have arrived at this point where standing up for your own European ethnic identity is considered evil and uniquely evil at that. Even in the animal kingdom lions, tigers, bears, and wolves take care of themselves. But, somehow black and brown human beings need to be coddled from cradle to grave.

  4. kikz
    Posted February 26, 2020 at 9:59 am | Permalink

    thx so much, enjoyed the series.

  5. vasil
    Posted February 26, 2020 at 7:40 am | Permalink

    sadly the mayority of the “alt right” instead of building walls with latinos blacks chinese and indians they have dedicated almost their entire time to treat them like trash when a lot of them were eager to accept our leadership in the campaign against sauron.

    the sad thing is a lot of pro european people dont really hate non europeans but in this times of conflicted identity their own insecurities have lead them to the abiss with the inestimable help of jews of course always eager to confront one group against each other to rule in the chaos.

  6. D.M.
    Posted February 26, 2020 at 4:27 am | Permalink

    Every leftist (and ethnic/racial enemy) maxim is un-universalizable; none is consistent or fair. For example, “Homelands for us but not for you”; “Racial identity for us but not for you”; “Guilt for you but not for us”; “Tolerate my point of view but not yours.” Every multiculturalist demand leads to terrible consequences.

    The moral case for White identity politics is overwhelming. There are no good opposing arguments.

    That happens often in philosophy and philosophers have to critique the arguments repeatedly. But that’s a good problem to have. Nothing is as important as making the case for White identity politics publicly for all (or as many as can be reached) to see.

    The argument here shows that White nationalists occupy the moral high ground.

  7. Arthur Konrad
    Posted February 26, 2020 at 3:21 am | Permalink

    You craft very well structured arguments Mr. Johnson, it is shame that Dissident politics have run into this sort of deadlock caused by censorship and a few internal fiascos, for it should have been normal that well thought out arguments are disseminated far and wide at least among movement publications.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted February 26, 2020 at 3:32 am | Permalink

      Thanks. But deplatforming and buffoonery are not going to stop us, just slow us down.

    • vasil
      Posted February 26, 2020 at 7:05 am | Permalink

      keep in mind that the alt right has been the only serious counterattack by Europeans since the second world war.

      Blinded by 60 years of propaganda, it has been a desperate, almost blind attack, an emotional response that has exploded against the Jewish wall.
      Jews have a supreme confidense right now, it’s easy to feel it when you visit web like 4chan where 10% of users who are easily shills .
      but it has not been in vain now that we really know the enemy the way the acts ,how he camouflage his message, what arguments and strategies he uses and what his limits are it would be much easier to prepare a second offensive.
      I am convinced that we can beat them, they are not as intelligent as they might seem, they are simply much better organized and their doctrine has been written in stone for millennia, which makes it easier for them to attack their enemies as one, almost unconsciously

      • HamburgerToday
        Posted February 26, 2020 at 8:57 am | Permalink

        The Jews are in the position that they are because Whites got convinced other things mattered more than race and failed to maintain White political dominance. If Whites had not been distracted, the Jews would still be a negligible people in their ghettos or schtetls.

        • DP84
          Posted February 26, 2020 at 2:26 pm | Permalink

          @HamburgerToday

          The Jews are in the position that they are because Whites got convinced other things mattered more than race

          +1000

          Race is the most important thing in the world. Everything else pales in comparison. I honestly believe that one of the big reasons the Pro-White Movement is so full of division, other than the usual reasons (ego, narcissism, etc), is because the different factions would rather focus on their petty, irrelevant, regional cultures instead of thinking in terms of one, united race. That’s why I don’t support alliances with Ethnonationalists in Europe. They don’t have the same goals or philosophy as White Nationalists. At the end of the day, Whites will either give enough of a crap about their race or they will perish. Jews have a thick racial identity despite numerous cultural differences. We need to become the same way.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.
 
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
 
Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

*
*

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  • Our Titles

    White Identity Politics

    The World in Flames

    The White Nationalist Manifesto

    From Plato to Postmodernism

    The Gizmo

    Return of the Son of Trevor Lynch's CENSORED Guide to the Movies

    Toward a New Nationalism

    The Smut Book

    The Alternative Right

    My Nationalist Pony

    Dark Right: Batman Viewed From the Right

    The Philatelist

    Novel Folklore

    Confessions of an Anti-Feminist

    East and West

    Though We Be Dead, Yet Our Day Will Come

    White Like You

    The Homo and the Negro, Second Edition

    Numinous Machines

    Venus and Her Thugs

    Cynosura

    North American New Right, vol. 2

    You Asked For It

    More Artists of the Right

    Extremists: Studies in Metapolitics

    Rising

    The Importance of James Bond

    In Defense of Prejudice

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles

    Reuben

    The Node

    The New Austerities

    Morning Crafts

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Gold in the Furnace

    Defiance