What is a Nationalist?

How do we define "nationalism" and the "nationalist" in an age of postmodern confusion?

This board game is called “Supremacy.”

The Latin word, “natio,” refers to “something that is born.” Hence a “nation” is a “place of birth.” This is similar to the notion of “philas,” which means “to love.” Combined with the word “sophy,” meaning “wisdom,” we have the single concept of “philosophy,” or, “a lover of wisdom.” The “nation” is the birthplace of where we come from and is commonly referred to as “the place where one loves.” But what do we love in the concept of “nationalism?” The natural place of birth becomes an ideology or a religion over our simple existence as breathing animals sharing a single planet.

In the context of modernity, individualism and liberalism give us the power to discriminate and choose our own lives at the expense for a personal society or avoiding a grand civilization as a whole. The nation is at war with the elite globalists and cosmopolitan class that has no roots in any particular area of origin. The globalists see “planet Earth” as a nation where all humans come from and not the micro areas that create the geography. What then, do we make up of the term “nationalism,” and what does it mean to be a “nationalist” in this age of postmodern (but still very modern) confusion?

In 2018, Donald Trump spoke during a rally, “You know what I am? I am a nationalist.” Out of the 74 million people who voted for Trump in the 2020 presidential election, that is half the nation that subscribes to the ideology that they are self-described “nationalists” as well. But does this mean that voting for Trump ultimately makes us a “nationalist” the same way voting for Bernie Sanders makes us a “socialist?” Trumpism has further transformed the definition of nationalism to encompass his politics and attitude as a political ideology. What is the significance of “nationalism” then if it means voting Trump and “owning the libs?”

A proper definition of praxis must be addressed to the meaning behind nationalism. A nationalist must do something rather than read theory or believe in optimism. So what does a nationalist have to do to be considered a “nationalist” by definition and action?

A nationalist draws lines. A line is drawn through a particular area and enforced by the individual as a segregation zone. This idea of self-segregation is rooted in community, tradition, and the desire to be a part of a human society that accepts the drawer. The trick, however, is that anyone can draw lines and the activity is not limited or exclusive to nationalism. If nations, by definition, are just “large bodies of people united by common descent, history, culture, and language,” the priority must be on the personal area or land where these large bodies can thrive. But there always have been elite forces that have tried to stop such Epicurean forces of discrimination and self-ownership.

A new version of “nationalism” assumes that the Diaspora, or large bodies of people without a homeland, are considered a “nation.” This group evolutionary strategy is based upon the premise that people who have the same racial commonalities should be charitable and altruistic enough to support a “brother or sister” in said plural “ethnic nationalism.” This mimics the behavior of Diaspora Jews and a global interest in anyone who is quarter Jewish.

The same “Zionist” ideology could be said about white people having a “European brotherhood” and advocating the global interest of both Russian and Ukrainian people, even though both hate each other, or advocating the malaise and admixture European people class without origin (The Americas). This white Diaspora becomes a eunuch class of “whites without labels.” This also emulates the interest of Black Americans trying to advocate and support anyone who is African, which transcribes their traits as oppressed and victimized against a host nation. And the same could be said about an “Asian Diaspora,” which could not happen on the premise that Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, and even Vietnamese all have hostile issues against one another that could never be compared to the European conflict of World War I. The “white nationalist” loves to cry “No more brother wars,” but blames “The Jews” upon all objective evidence of similar European people fighting with one another.

A nation cannot be described as just large bodies of people, because “the place of birth” must be an objective area of interest. Many advocates of biological determinism believe one section of the Earth produced the results of muscular blonde-haired blue-haired men, and therefore, only that exclusive area, by science and biology, is worth protecting. This also becomes an argument for science rather than of nations, as the nation itself becomes an objective, hierarchical science rather than an abstract ideal, like in the foundation of the United States of America, Liberia, or Singapore.

A nation has to draw lines to practice nationalism rather than believe in William Shockey or John Philippe Rushton's “Malthusian” eugenics of population control and protection of conservative elites. This insidious form of social control is largely in part a misunderstanding of deep ecology or green politics, where the point is to save the environment and animals of the world to peacefully “co-exist” with one another as the agenda. This creates a “museum of the world” where every tiny universe is possible, but at the expense of the ideologue of the nationalist bent on “human bio-diversity” and “green activism” based upon a xenophobic thesis of personal trauma of hating aliens and loving familiar goods. What then is “activism” if changing the world means upholding the state and pretending one is Socrates gaslighting Alcibiades (or the opposition) that “he needs me!”

I believe this interest in saving animals or creating a “green” Earth, is from the influence of the kind and paternal nature of European people, who, by agitation, assume the world should stop being barbaric and rather care for wild animals because “they have human feelings too.” This “gentle giant” complex is espoused by degenerate nationalists who assume only white people can practice liberalism and hedonism, even though both concepts avoid the societal pursuit of duty and reproduction.

Perhaps the real “gentle giants” are the naive and Christian-like white people who assume virtue ethics is applicable if they act upon a false Hindu concept of a “karma” loopback of “what comes around, goes around.” For example, a gentle-giant projection is found in the recent middle-class invention of the “public bookcase,” a cabinet erected in a neighborhood or park that may be freely and anonymously used for the exchange of books without any proper rules for returns or donations. This concept is quite absurd, as anyone can steal all the books and not return them. Only a Eurocentric society that believes in cultural traits of “trust” or altruism can rely on such a game. The public bookcase is a distortion of virtue ethics, as it assumes someone should play along with “what is right” about a society that isn’t even based on anything. Only a foolish gentle giant would cuckold himself into thinking that everyone else wants the same thing because he acts as a pretentious and paternal parent who demands immediate respect and love back for sacrificing himself for the education of the public.

Even lifestyle and cultural anarchists, like Crimethinc, believe in such pathological liberalism to the extent that it can only rely on the nepotistic concept of “philas” rather than of “natio” for an anarchist state-less society to function. This is nothing more than the popular traits of Greeks, Romans, and Christians who constantly distort and derange white people into their universal and blind stance as blank individuals without any commitment to a greater cause. Like Jesus Christ, white people would rather die on a cross out of humiliation and ridicule over a paternal spirit of what is right or wrong than die in battle. If this Christian martyrdom is the core of white interest, then what is nationalism?

A “white” nationalist is a conundrum. What is “white” is not just around who is admixture European, but also who shares similar cultural interests around white people. Like the degenerate nationalist, a “white nationalist” can only approve what whites do, no matter how regressive and Malthusian it is to their population numbers and power. And like in a Diaspora state of ebb and flow, white nationalists can only support “the current thing” if it’s in their interest. They must support everything that is hostile to white interests and ironically assimilate the alien culture into their own. It is based upon a faulty and outdated axiom influenced by Leon Trotsky and Antonio Gramsci, that “all politics derives from culture.” What then, is “politics” if it’s nothing more than an interest in libertarian friendship and consumer subcultures?

It is a misnomer to call white nationalists actual “nationalists” at all because they do nothing to draw lines. Instead, they must believe in culture above all praxis, and like the hippy deep ecologist, advocate it by buying things associated with “white” interest and by displaying it as e-girl to e-boy fashion. The best way to be an activist without doing anything is to show it as a bumper sticker on the back of their car.

This school of “new nationalism” was developed by the liberal democratic interest of America that hated the sincerity of communism and fascism, and developed a subverted interest in a centrist mode of thinking that downplayed sincerity for consumer culture. The birth of The Partisan Review declared itself as “left-wing,” yet attacked all existing forms of socialism as evil, while later journals, like Telos, provided a libertarian mindset and axiom into the New Left, and eventually resulted in the total opposite as a sympathetic right-leaning outlet.

The CIA still plays an important role in influencing the minds of young Americans through social media celebrities and the echo chamber of Twitter which is presented as a “free speech” platform. Such redundant belief of a fraudulent “culture war” could only excuse the conservative and deep state behaviors of Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, Jonah Bennett, Richard Hanania, Christopher Rufo, Mike Crumplar, Raw Egg Nationalist, Med Gold, and Bronze Age Pervert, who all create “a synthetic right” platform of a compatible right for an American audience and agenda, and that means transforming the definition and purpose of “nationalism” as something someone consumes in, like “goth rock” or “gay house music.” Is it true that they all have “skin in the game” and “sacrifice” their white-collar cushy careers to tell “the truth?” No!

This egalitarian canon commits all markets of supposed "anti-liberalism” as one of the same, but if one critical individual or consumer is to fall out of line, the subcultures rule out “cancel culture” when the markets can’t get profit or consumer satisfaction. This process is further elaborated in Peter Coffin’s 2022 political pamphlet, “Cancel Culture: Mob Justice or a Society of Subscriptions?”

This to an extent has affected the influences and definitions of “white nationalism” as one egalitarian market of hipsters being nostalgic over black metal or esoterica Nazism. This is likely rooted in the origins of industrial music, and the praxis is not about “saving the white race” whatsoever, but only as a means to shock and offend liberal peers. Such derivative forms of aesthetic nationalism fall from the grace of what is “white,” and inject itself with something new related to it. Take for example “Jetson’s nationalism,” McDonald’s nationalism,” “Planet of The Bass nationalism,” “homonationalism,” “anime nationalism,” “tennis girl nationalism,” “My Litte Pony nationalism,” “Eshay nationalism,” “Cosmopolitan nationalism,” and even “BioLenin nationalism.” This eclectic wordplay further erases the meaning of “white,” as the term itself was never settled. It becomes apparent that the word “nationalism” itself is a reaction against liberalism, as both a market and a subculture, that demands to have a distinct identity of opposition for the sake of it.

This "nationalist" subversion, from "raw eggs" to "perfume," does a great job at hiding and distorting what exactly a "nationalist" is, and ridicules the concept as subculture allegiance and libertarian preference. What is "white" is no longer a concern, because "natio" itself is wrong.

One example of this kind of quirky assimilation is “national anarchy,” which was a 1990s pet project by English punk writer Troy Southgate, who tried to synthesize lifestyle anarchist theory and culture with the subculture of latter-day Neo-Nazis. There was even a 2010 group of “Bay Area National Anarchists” led by Andrew Yeoman, who tried to create an early “alternative right” lifestyle in one of the world’s hippest cities. National-anarchist members emulated the actions of green political crust punks by leaving hospice baskets for the white homeless, and by burning the Quran to passive-aggressively protest that only “radical Muslims” are not welcomed in San Francisco.

Craig Fitzgerald of the “National Anarchist Tribal Alliance” in New York would often get into brawls at protests with other Antifa fanatics. No matter the occasion, the National-Anarchists solely relied on exclusive skin color to get across the persuasion point for a working Epicurean commune. It is their stubborn belief that biology is naturally rooted in anarchy, and thus self-discovery and virtue ethics come at the cost that the “natio” should be the highest pursuit of stateless freedom, but they rely on hardcore punk aesthetics as the target audience.

There is also “revolutionary nationalism” that espouses Marxist theories of the proletariat revolting for nationalism. Such a revolution could create Strasserism, formulated by Otto Strasser, that anti-capitalism is only possible by one’s people against an alien elite that upholds the capitalist state. This means that nationalism is highly compatible with anti-capitalism, albeit that the innocence of race is still a priority over the creation of the nation. Whatever form “nationalism” takes, it’s muddled in its misdirection of racism and prejudice, going further and further away than what a nation is.

Because there is this level of friendliness that instead creates a hostile high school clique, politics are read the same way for this sole perversion. White nationalists distort Carl Schmitt’s friend-enemy distinction (that political actions and motives can be reduced to being friends and enemies) as literal nepotistic interest. The white nationalists further distort this nepotism from the original dialogue of Socrates’ conversation with Alcibiades, in that Schmitt’s conclusion is an evolution of this homosexual manipulation. Thomas Sowell wrote something similar in his 2023 book, Social Justice Fallacies, that, “In politics, the goal is not truth, but votes.” If it’s just nothing more than the obsession of grabbing power, how come is it that culture is supposed to be superior to praxis? How does voting for Donald Trump create nationalists out of us? Nationalists are supposed to draw lines and secure territory, not reading books on Julius Evola instead.

Even more strange is how the subculture of nationalism has destroyed its integrity through its selfishness and agitation. They have never realized that nationalism is a praxis, and not an intellectual theory of Plato, Hegel, or Marx. This is because nationalism and communism are not dialectically opposed to one another. Both nationalism and communism thrive together.

During the 1950s, Cold War propaganda made sure that nationalism as a concept was belittled by the notion that “communism is Jewish,” or that “communism supports race mixing,” two irrelevant and irrational claims against the theory itself. This is because nationalism played a huge role in making communism possible, and if communism was associated with nefarious forces that harmed the working class, they would be against it. Both Vladimir Lenin and Jack London recognized a “labor aristocracy” class amid backward capitalism. This labor aristocracy would have the same benefits as someone in a post-scarcity society and would be provided security from the capitalists themselves. Unfortunately, the labor aristocracy could be told by the capitalists to fear communism because it could take away their wealth. In doing so, this was a successful transition in the creation of the notion that nationalism and communism are opposed to one another when in reality, this is the biggest lie ever constructed by the CIA in America.

Nationalism is only a means to an end, and communism is an economic condition where post-scarcity is reached. There could be nationalists that draw lines in favor of a society that provides them with the post-scarcity for their people, as nationalist-communists. Those who assume that the far-right is exclusively made up of “nationalists” fall into this liberal trap.

As an example, Skinhead music saw a divide between how the English middle to lower class should view communism. Because the CIA subverted communism into an alien and self-destructive force, Skinheads started to naturally revolt with their genre of “Rock Against Communism” against the synthetic left and American propaganda of “Rock Against Racism.” Rock Against Racism was funded by elite liberals who hated the politically incorrect speech of Eric Clapton and David Bowie, who performed proto-industrial aesthetic interest in a totalitarian image meant to parody fascism and communism,¹² but instead, the very liberal democratic capitalist elite became offended by their subversion, and created this fabricated evidence as a purpose for their so-called “rise” of fake “racist” attacks against non-English people because of Clapton and Bowie. This fabricated evidence by the elite is related to the same “cancel culture” advocation and curation of a “politically correct” society that socially controls dissidents from criticizing both liberalism and capitalism. The elites create a fake culture based around offense through the wording of “safe spaces” and “micro-aggressions” which were never evident in the first place. This is the state’s interest in a new form of dehumanization that demonizes and fabricates an enemy that does not exist or pretends it was never real, thereby obscuring the source of evidence.

The new form of Trump “nationalism” is a politically correct form of anti-liberalism that can only advocate liberalism, just like degenerate nationalism. It becomes a compatible nationalism that is based on subculture, belief, and irony. This new form of nationalism also provides fabricated evidence for a liberal opposition that is opposing all types of new “racism” and “fascism” of action. A hipster may call himself a “racist” to sound cool at parties, but the liberal finds a truth that can be used against him, even when the pretentious hipster proclaims that he rather “trolled” the opposition. What is the point then if it’s just to be an art-school Nazi? This distorts nationalism further into a religious attitude of defending the middle class and regressive bourgeoisie, all fitting evidence for a liberal who could care less about intellectualism.

The last four years also saw a popular interest in the “trad” or “e-trad” ideology of roleplaying the idea that Christianity is somehow the main motivator and interest in nationalism and the far-right. There are convoluted arguments that “the nation is the kingdom of God” or that “the bible advocates capitalism.” So much is rooted in the anxiety that the institutions of American middle-class Christianity are falling apart, that white people don’t find the religion interesting anymore to their wants and needs. What you have left are empty churches that become clubhouses and communes for the principles of “tradition” and that the supernatural is losing touch with reality. If Christianity is about white nationalism, it can only contradict itself by assuming anyone who sacrifices themselves for the greater good is “white,” while still being rooted as a Jewish sect. James Mason argues in an interview with Bob Larson³ that the supernaturalism of Jesus Christ is real, but it can only be understood by hard science and the divine interest that white people can make it happen. What is Christ then, if any interpretation of him can be asserted?

Nationalism is often confused with populism, which argues that the people are the focus of politics. Populism can be anti-nationalist in its defense when it realizes it doesn’t need to fight for a space to operate. The assumption that large bodies of people want fleeting and subjective similar things, like a home, is rooted back to the Diaspora fallacy found in CIA-opted nationalism. Why desire a territory when one could just desire a similar congregation? Populism takes the form of a “civic nationalism” also attacked by white nationalism, but what is nationalism if both parties are fighting over people and culture and not the space they want to draw?

I wouldn’t want to advocate a nationalist party that celebrates bad art over good art, and it seems that white nationalists are only into “white” art vs. civic nationalists who could care less what abstract art is. The former attack on “postmodern art” or even “modernist art” is hated by white nationalists simply because it operates outside the preferred aesthetic of “Aryan women in the wheat field.” White nationalists tend to believe that “you can’t fetishize your own race,” and yet with glee and excitement, they irrationally fixate and materialistically desire and demand an aesthetic worldview that is somehow based upon their confused virtue ethics of Platonism. This allows white nationalists to fetishize their interests to the extreme extent that sadism and degeneration are allowed. Meanwhile, it is immoral and unethical for a white guy to pursue an Asian woman not because he’s race mixing, but because supposedly all white male to Asian female couples are based upon a “fetish.” Again, why is it that this law can’t happen to couples of the same race? It’s a perfect example of degenerate nationalist irrationalism when it tries to steer clear of liberal logic, only then to advocate such policies. A “nationalist art critic” could only critique the spaces he wants and how others perceive his personal zone.

Nationalists think this is somehow revolting. Or, it must be it's own, “Disney nationalism.”

It’s quite paradoxical when previous leaders of nationalist thought, like Jonathan Bowden, assume that the British National Party should advocate a cultural mode of interest rather than a practical one. For Bowden, politics was a war between “egalitarianism vs. inegalitarianism,” and less to do with nationalism as the praxis. He cared about being a Nietzschean and a pagan more than he did with the label of being a “nationalist.” His attack on the avant-garde writer Stewart Home was based on the premise that anything to do with a “left” is somehow crazy, and yet ironically, only points out the insanity concocted by the synthetic left and American deconstruction. If biological determinism is the point, how should European nationalists reclaim their original piece of land? We don’t get answers from Bowden, but only shady and creative hypothesies from an eccentric orator influenced by early English translations of Alain de Benoist. Bowden fails to understand Marxist as an understanding of dialectic materialism, assumes the belief is “egalitarian,” and calls it an “ersatz religion” because of a few bad influences from misleading English liberals who hate sincere communism that subscribe to the work of Trotsky and Gramsci, who Bowden is ironically influenced by.

So what is even “nationalism” if I had to mention all these annoying weeds that continue to grow and tangle the meaning behind the origin of “natio?” How does a sincere nationalist actually draw lines?

One of the best books ever written on geography and its impact on politics is the 1969 work, “Explanation in Geography” by David Harvey. Every self-proclaimed nationalist should read this book. Harvey, although a Marxist, gives a systematic explanation of why geography matters to politics and philosophical thought. If somebody loves the Grand Canyon for personal reasons, this is an “ideographic” understanding of their world. What happened in the 1960s saw a rapid change in the way we make makes, and a “Quantitative revolution” of a scientific and detailed understanding of the world started to appear. This opened up a niche faction of “critical geography” where leftist politics could be understood through the science of geography and where people are located on the Earth. If material is abundant, people are going to become more liberal, and if there are scarce resources, people become more tribal and hostile. This is related to a similar discipline, “evolutionary psychology,” where thoughts, actions, and behavior are shaped by evolutionary forces (due to environment or geography).

I can best describe Harvey’s concept of critical geography as similar to the board game Borderlands, and Richard Wolff’s understanding of world economic history. The concept of “spatial inequality” isn’t a moral wrongdoing, but a limitation of what the geographical land can produce. It’s not worth celebrating Las Vegas if the surrounding desert cannot produce water. Once the casinos and strip clubs go out of business, Las Vegas will die too. Or, if “redlining” is considered unethical because that area of black people just happens to not pay back debt, and capitalism, therefore, must accept the money of any client, hence a new interest in a debt economy will arise where everyone spends money and becomes slaves to it, destroying the area. Whatever the case, geography is an important aspect of understanding nationalist interests.

Critical geography provides the nationalists with a praxis of putting lines into reality. That is, a real and successful nationalist movement begins with local successionism. Examples include the movement and development of Cascadia, Greater Idaho, Republic of New Afrika, Deseret, Liberty State, Jefferson, Lakotah, or any state that wishes to succeed from the United States and become its own country. It’s easy to understand, but this is never the priority with the so-called “nationalists” of today. They may complain about a future" “ethnostate,” and yet they never explain where it is or what this state is about.

The ethnostate in question could be a communist one! Ever think of that?

The “big tent” nationalist always fails because it’s impossible to force an entire mass of a country, like the United States, into one ideological retardation. This is what the Trump “nationalists” do not understand, as they continue to have a belief of the state than of a “natio.”

A “nationalist” is an advocate that likes to draw lines. A nationalist should know where he belongs, what he likes, and how his economic reality is created through his own space that he is demanding. Once that is understood, any topics of culture or theory are reduced in conversation. When “culture” is always a priority, consumer capitalism will always reign supreme; a system we currently have. And the trusted elite, like Musk and Trump, will give the nationalists a real treat with pods, bugs, and artificial Aryan wheat field porn. Libertarianism may be attractive because it advocates a world where everybody does what they want and respects other boundaries, but it’s not possible when people fight over the most frivolous and stupid things. If the libertarian is about freedom, the nationalist is about lines.

There are some who proclaim that they are “anti-nationalists” because they do not like nationalism because of the issues I mentioned. But what they think is “nationalism” is rather a form of statism, and they ignore the authentic understanding of place or home. It is hypocritical to be a “anti-nationalist” because one is against the natural order of belonging, commune, and family. It is only if the nationalist party is victimized do these anti-nationalist types become proponents instead. Thus, it is impossible to be an anti-nationalist, because people demand group identity through natios, even if its in a cosmopolitan and borderless world.

Nationalism is an ideology based upon critical geography, for any political persuasion and foundation.

…The next article you should read is “The Origins of Industrial Music.” Please click on this link to read it.

-pe

10-20-2023

1. Vulliamy, Ed (4 March 2007). "Blood and glory". The Guardian. (https://www.theguardian.com/music/2008/apr/20/popandrock.race)

2. Manzoor, Sarfraz (20 April 2008). "The year rock found the power to unite". The Observer. London. (https://www.theguardian.com/music/2008/apr/20/popandrock.race)

3. BOB LARSON VS. NEO-NAZI JAMES MASON - Dec 2, 2021. (https://www.youtube.com/live/TqwDKmZQ3QY?si=HWD45x0CIGB9DsSs)