Why American-style White Nationalism Is Flawed

Back to the Home Page
Back to Nationalism main page

I believe the differences between, on the one hand, American-style White Nationalism and, on the other, British Nationalism (together with most other ethnic European nationalisms) are fundamental and the influence of Americans in British Nationalism should be rejected and their leaders and speakers should (in general) be treated with extreme caution. What has caused me to take this line are some of the representative utterances I have seen and read over the years from American White Nationalists online, in which the views expressed by various people can broadly be summed-up in two interlinked propositions:

(i). That white ethnicities are not as important as white racial identity, and the different ethnic nationalisms that exist in Europe should be abandoned in favour of a pan-racial form of nationalism.
(ii). That non-white races and ethnicities that either look white (i.e. Ashkenazim Jews) or are deemed to behave acceptably (typically "high IQ" north-east Asians) should be tolerated, even regarded as equals within white societies, or at least within the United States.

I find these positions completely unacceptable, but at the same time, I recognise that they are a result of the particular history and conditions of the United States. We can argue over whether they are the right response, or even represent a correct understanding of U.S. history and its implications - I think they do not and I explain why below - but I also accept that (ii) above represents a pragmatic accommodation with the realities of American society, and anyway, what American White Nationalists do in regard to their own country is up to them. The thing I find especially objectionable is (i) above, that white nationalists in the United States should presume to tell nationalists in Europe what we should do too, often showing a very poor understanding of their own country, let alone our countries, in the process. This is not some obscure debating point, but fundamental to nationalism.

Pan-European Nationalism is not valid as Europe is not a nation and cannot be without diminishing the different ethnic identities which make 'Europe' European. It is also a misconception - typical of Americans and others who are hostile to Britain - to believe that British Nationalism implies a rejection of sub-national identities, such as English, Welsh, Scots, Ulster-Scots, Manx and Cornish. This is untrue and amounts to mischief-making. In the case of the Ulster-Scots, Britishness is essential. In the case of the others, there is a subordination of the sub-national identities, true, but not a desire to ignore or eradicate them. Far from it: British identity is meta-ethnic and defined by its parts.

It is true that societies evolve. I am not proposing that British identity should be preserved in aspic. Over time, local and regional identities have agglomerated, and in the process, interesting cultures have been lost. I live in a part of England that was once the Kingdom of Northumbria and had its own distinct dialect of Old English. Maybe over the course of the centuries ahead, due to technological and economic forces, British identity might disappear into something else and come to be seen as somewhat archaic or obscure, rather than Occitan identity. Who knows? It's possible. But I'm not going to teleologically advocate some sort of modish attitude to 'progress' for its own sake, just to make myself look 'with it' and cosmopolitan. Besides which, progress does not necessarily have to point to geopolitical agglomeration. It may point in the other direction. There are also more pressing and immediate reasons why we should reject 'white internationalism': the failure of the United States.

The difficulties with American-style White Nationalism are linked to the contemporary fundamental cultural, sociological and political issues facing the United States, which the rest of us don't want in our own societies. In the beginning, the United States was not an ethnic free-for-all but an attempt to build a federated white civic nationalism out of closely-kindred ethnicities, i.e. north-western Europeans, mainly from the British Isles. These different ethnicities retained their distinct identities, in some cases coterminous with the states, which were almost nations in their own right, but under a broader American identity. This eventually failed or surrendered to immigration from countries outside the kindred ethnic groups, including white-looking Jews. The result is a rather shallow, commercialised society in which identity has been eroded and the umbrella civic identity has become free-floating and decontextualised. I believe that the United States itself must eventually fail and break up (re-boot) into its constituent ethnic parts, but that's speculation. For now, the point is that we don't want to follow your example.

Melting pot societies do not work, that in itself is one of the fundamental lessons of nationalism, and it is self-defeating to argue for some sort of white civic nationalism that is any broader than the natural level. British identity (in the traditional sense) is a form of white civic nationalism and it works, because Britain is the natural level of political organisation, covering a cluster of sister ethnicities who are indigenous to an archipelago as well as a settler population on a closely-kindred neighbouring island. Our society is now only ceasing to work because we have abandoned it, have given in to Marxoid neo-nationalists and are going down the American road of a free-floating type of civic nationalism. We needn't have done this.

In the case of American White Nationalists specifically, civic nationalism seems to include (depending on who you speak to), in addition to northern Europeans, also southern and eastern Europeans, white-looking Jews and even north-east Asians. It won't work. It's the road to perdition. That's not to say that I am an ethnic chauvinist or a Nordicist or any of these other dirty words that are wheeled out as strawmen. I don't object to organic evolutionary migration between white countries, though in the case of Britain, I would prefer it is confined to kindred countries, not just any white countries. However I don't object to close relations between white countries of whatever ethnicity, but I see no strong justification for becoming part of some kind of ethno-European super-state or white Imperium, which is where American-style White Nationalism takes us. That will soften and eventually sink the important ethnic differences and lead to a late 19th. century U.S.-style civic identity, in which anybody who 'looks white' will be considered acceptable. No thank you. We know where that will eventually go.

It ends with: “Well, they look white to me” – Jared Taylor.

“They look white to me” is the credo of American-style White Nationalism, which is the position of the historically-ignorant Pan-European mongrel whose ‘identity’ extends to some made-up, plastic philosemitic civic identity and who has no grasp of the context within which all this is going on and doesn’t see that the United States failed precisely due to this very mentality. Instead of having the intelligence and confidence to say ‘No!’, the mongrel wishes to keep the door open, in America and in Europe, the better so that the rest of us will become mongrels too. Today it’s dusky-looking southern Europeans, Ashkenazim and even “high IQ” Asians, and then tomorrow……In the case of Taylor, this stuff extends to: If you act white, you’re white, so the next race or ethnicity to be accepted by American White Nationalists could be anything. It is the mark of a society without self-confidence, without genuine, organic bonds. Almost as an tacit acknowledgement of this, some American White Nationalists have taken to calling themselves Post-Nationalist and have adopted something called the Fifth Political Theory. That's nice, but in the boring real world, we need borders.

© July 2017 Tom Rogers