Thoughts On White Nationalism

© 2015 Tom Rogers

Return to Home Page
Return to the Nationalism main page


Politics is interesting, even when - as today - it is sterile and seems boring. What I especially find interesting are political ideas.

I am sympathetic to white racialism, and I see nothing wrong, or shameful or embarrassing in that. Quite the contrary: the wish to preserve one's culture in the political sense (however that culture might have arisen) is perfectly natural. However, I do not, strictly-speaking, regard myself as a white nationalist. This is partly because I see white nationalism as more of an historical perspective than a living philosophy, and I am sceptical about its value and practicality as a dominant belief system for society.

White nationalism could be loosely described as the belief in a society that serves the interests of whites. Most white nationalists would agree that the population of such a society would need to be overwhelmingly or exclusively white - i.e. somewhere above 95% white, as a minimum - if the goals and objects of white nationalism are to be realised.

The basic problem for white nationalists is the preponderance of what I would call 'hard variables': i.e. things that are difficult or impossible to change or reform on a formal level. If I want to create a global form of socialism, all that would be in my way are 'soft variables' - i.e. things that can be changed without any formal difficulty. It would be a matter of working with others to change the consciousness of the majority of people, then leveraging this democratic majority to capture the machinery of political power and using that power to reform society as necessary. These things are still difficult to do, and would probably not be achievable in one single lifetime but over several generations, but there is nothing formally standing in the way of the goal. We are not being asked to change some formal aspect of reality itself.

To create a white nationalist society, on the other hand, we are presented straight-away with a significant stumbling block involving formal biological reality: you can't change a black (or other non-white) person into a white person. [Well, you could perhaps do it over thousands of years, through some kind of inter-generational breeding programme, but I assume that would not be treated as anything other than a theoretical proposal in this context]. To acknowledge this stumbling block requires that we adopt a central tenet of white nationalism: that races and significant racial differences do exist, a premise I personally have no trouble accepting. So that being the case, white nationalists have a dilemma - and a number of options:

(i). Do they physically exterminate all non-whites, or maybe just allow them to die through starvation, civil war and self-neglect? If so, will this take place within a given area or globally? And given that lots of people are going to be killed in this scheme, who decides who is 'white' (a more difficult problem than you might first think)?

(ii). Do they ask people to keep to certain regions of the globe? And do they restrict white people in this way too, to prevent inter-marriages and other sins?

(iii). Do they endeavour to change the definition of 'white', to accommodate as many people as possible, and so make life easier?

National Socialist Germany tried all of these. They tried (i) in the form of the Holocaust and other atrocities (though there may be some doubt about whether these occurred as believed, or at all; and where they did occur, it is debatable whether it was intentional or simply an incidental consequence of military conquest and a conflict environment - I may comment on this subject in future). They tried (ii). in the form of military conquest and ethnic cleansing. They tried (iii). in the form of the Nuremberg Laws, and in a more indirect way, by turning a blind eye to the presence of some non-whites in their midst, as well as instances of race-mixing.

A secondary problem is the extent to which this biological formalism might be tractable. I think it would have to be conceded that when white racialists use the term 'white', they are often, if not invariably, using it as a synonym for 'genetically-fit'. Once you have removed non-whites, either locally or globally, do we then agree that we are all 'white' in that sense, or does the divide and rule strategy continue in a new form, with new targets and scapegoats? Maybe we should exclude all brown-eyed people next? They do, after all, make up most of the world's capitalists and investment bankers [I'm making this up, but I'm sure you can see my point]. Someone may 'discover' a secret document, written by the Brown-eyed People [they have the dignity of capital letters by this stage], in which they plot global takeover and a worldwide system of chattel slavery to be imposed on the rest of humanity, whom they derisively call moy, a suspiciously similar word to goy. Those pesky brown-eyed people are probably of Semitic descent anyway, and are not true whites. And so on and so on.

By all means you can sneer at my sardonic exaggeration, but I do this deliberately to make a point. I think there is some validity in white nationalism as an historical perspective, and I also think that pro-white activists are correct to emphasise how culture is axiomatically pivoted by race. 'Race', remember, is just another word for 'people' or 'genes'. To deny this is to condemn human societies to sterility and desiccation. So I think white societies and the preservation of Europe are legitimate aspirations - but the tractability of this stuff also makes it dangerous when put in the wrong hands. It's like a very useful chemical that industry needs, but it's a chemical that also happens to be highly toxic and flammable. Handle With Care. Our civilisation does need white nationalism if it is to continue. Look at history - our entire culture is based on it. It's not a crude or uncouth position at all - it's a philosophy that can, and should, be embraced by respectable, sensible people. Not only that, it needs to be embraced by respectable and sensible people, safe pairs of hands, if European civilisation is to survive.

It's worth noting that white nationalism or national-socialism doesn't necessarily require an authoritarian system of government. Nor is it the creed of bigots. A Labour government could be white nationalist in the lower case sense. A left-wing anarchist could simultaneously be a white nationalist in a very broad sense, though admittedly this would require some fine-tuned thinking. The point is that white nationalism is not necessarily a rigid doctrinal ideology with all sorts of terrifying practical implications. It can just be seen as a broad-based philosophy within which societies seek to preserve their essentialist features by prioritising racial and genetic advancement. In other words, it's just another term for healthy society. In that sense, virtually anybody who is white can be a white nationalist - and perhaps we all should be in some implicit sense.

As matters stand, the implicit white nationalism that was traditionally invisible and never mentioned but kept our culture going has been purged from the West. Instead, our civilisation's essential social and political DNA has been entrusted to some of its worst elements, many of whom are naturally attracted to 'extremism', and so the vital idea of white preservation - The Idea, so to speak - has been marginalised politically. This is ironic, given that white nationalism itself has to be the most moderate and conventional belief system imaginable. It just means preserving your own society. It's also an odd situation, because cultures, which are made up of populations and which embody a general way of life, are supposed to celebrate and sustain their own existence; admittedly they adapt and evolve along the way, but healthy cultures are expected to preserve their populations, not facilitate their self-destruction. Why would an entire culture in effect welcome its own degradation? The answer lies in the detachment of our culture from its people: in short, the culture no longer serves to sustain the people who created it. The dominant culture is being evacuated biologically, its people replaced with new non-white peoples who will, in time, adapt the culture to their own ends.

So the problem for those who healthily concern themselves with prospects for European survival is that the culture itself is not fit for purpose. That, I consider, is the real problem facing the white nationalist, and I think the prognosis could be terminal. I believe one of the implications of the present 'anti-civilisational' culture is that white nationalist thinking itself may have to be abandoned by white racialists in favour of a new intellectual paradigm that is non-nationalist and non-reactionary.