Civic Nationalism Vs White Nationalism

Steve Sailer, Steve Bannon and Donald Trump embody civic nationalism. Richard Spencer, Kevin MacDonald and Jared Taylor embody white nationalism.

Which do I think is the more powerful evolutionary group strategy? Ethno-nationalism rather than civic nationalism.

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* Which do I think is the more powerful evolutionary group strategy? Ethno-nationalism rather than civic nationalism.

* Have white identity politics emerged in countries with much less Jewish influence than the United States? If not, I would guess that something else is the problem. Most likely virtue signalling among elites who don’t want to be seen as “racist.”

I imagine some people might argue that, even though not present, Jews are subtly dominating the entire world. To this I would point out that (1) there are many countries who openly support anti-Israel NGOs and/or who regularly vote against Israel at the United Nations; it is difficult to square this with Jewish dominance.; and (2) if you seriously believe that Jews are subtly controlling the world, don’t be surprised when you are accused of anti-Semitism.

* Jews are just people. They can be defeated, undermined, persuaded, etc. You read white nationalists too long and you start believing Jews are some sort of insurmountable ubermensch.

I think there are more moderately conservative Jewish men than there are insane Jewish communists.

* Some scholars talk about an ethnic contract between ethnic groups that allows for stable, relatively non-violent relationships between ethnic groups. What preserves the ethnic contract is, of course, the fact that there is an ethnic majority that will support the ethnic contract.

One of the interesting and significant consequences of a demographic shift in the ethnic balance of a country is it politically nullifies the ethnic contract. Moreover, because politics is about perceptions and anticipation, the perception of an imminent demographic shift in the ethnic balance of a country is sufficient in itself to nullify the ethnic contract.

What we are witnessing with the rise of Trump and the Alt-Right is the rooster of the Hart-Celler Act of 1965 coming home to roost. The ethnic contract in America is in the process of rapidly unravelling. On one hand, this means opportunities for all, but it also means danger to all. I think the possibilities run from Nazi Germany to Zimbabwe, with all points in between. Further, just because there was an ethnic contract previously, doesn’t mean that the various ethnic groups involved will be able to reach a new contract. In other words, the possibility of a protracted period of ethnic civil war is on the horizon.

I frankly not only fail to see anything good for the Jews in this prospect, but I fail to see anything good for anyone, save those who find the idea of violent struggle (rassenkampf) in the name of ethnonationalist ideology appealing. What I don’t get is that one would presume that the CIA or someone in the Defense Department would have some decent intelligent analysts who would be advising the government that they are unravelling the social order in a potentially dangerous and destructive manner.

* I do not see how there are any realistic prospect of peace between the altright and WN when the disagreement is not about whether flat taxation or progressive taxation, or whether there should be income tax at all, or the political role of women in a white state, or whether 1/8 Asians or native Americans or octoroons, or quarter Jews should be considered white, or even whether ethnic persians and pashtuns, or even some Arabs should be considered white, all of which has some room for horse trading, the core disagreement is on the very issue of white preservation itself, citizenists see white preservation as something which is either not that important, or something that is secondary only to loyalty to the state, while WNs see white presevationism and the formation of a white ethnostate as the alpha and omega of all other issues, and the preservation of the state depends on whether this serves the interests of white posterity. Therefore I see do not see any middle ground, and so citizenism and white nationalism cannot exist in the same territory, and one must be crushed for the other to live, and from the perspective of the citizenist any sort of identity politics, including white identity politics must be crushed in order to preserve to loyalty of the citizenry to the state.

* Reddit has been using the term “civic nationalism” to denote the same thing – independently invented. It’s a response I think to the alt-right brouhaha and the WN issue. I still prefer “citizenist” for chauvinist reasons, as you would expect – I’m a partisan iStevist. American nationalism is another term used.

But the reality is, white identity is an idea whose time has come. “Asian pride = good, Black pride = good, White pride = racist Nazi xenophobe” is resonant. White people understand fair, and by the same token, unfair. Brexit, Trump, our elected leaders may turn tail and wilt when they are asked to disavow (Recant!), but we decide elections. Those votes that were dormant since Reagan are on the table again. And at least as far as pre-election Trump was concerned, he was the comment section incarnate. Comment sections weren’t like that in 2006.

Can we not have a citizenist government and a white identity movement at the same time that gets a seat at the table in say, media discussions?

* One problem here is that Whites have been completely out-triangulated by the victim advocacy group system. There are hundreds (thousands?) of groups like La Raza; Mexican-American Legal Defense Fund; CAIR; NAACP; etc., but absolutely nothing mainstream for Whites. Thus we get things like the New Black Panthers spewing complete anti-White propaganda with no push back.

The refrain is that Whites have to give stuff away to make the Other happy, but of course we are seeing that the more you give away, the more the other side wants.

* Do you think Trump will tolerate it if his white employees suddenly demand their own separate dining rooms, offices, or that they associate with whites only? If not, what makes you think the Trump will tolerate any sort of white identity politics or attempt to form a White Volksstaat? What makes you think that his response to white nationalists will not make ruby ridge and waco look like a picnic? And all of his grandchildren are eligible to make aliyah by blood, what makes you think that his foreign policy will not be extremely pro-zionist?

* “Trumpism” is basically “citzenism” but the left and media insists it’s “white nationalism.” I’ve yet to find any statements by Trump, Bannon, or even Sessions, where they talk about whites as a collective group with their own interests. Trumpism is only white nationalism in the sense that it’s not openly hostile towards whites. A lot of this silliness is self-projection, considering that liberalism/leftism encourages stuff like black nationalism and La Raza.

* I agree with John Derbyshire – white people are too darned nice.

This past weekend, I visited friends in the little Wisconsin town of Oconomowoc, population 15,000 and about 97% white folks. Nicest people you’d ever meet. I can’t even believe that they need police officers, other than to offer you a hand if your car got stuck. After my consciousness-raising here and at Radio Derb, I found myself thinking “They’re doomed.”

This self-effacing, hard-working nature, essential to our national success, is undoubtedly genetic in nature. If Jews were as smart as they think they are, they’d work to conserve it.

The portion of Donald Trump’s support that is silent is important. He needs to continue giving it a voice, because based on what I was seeing in Oconomowoc, it’s not going to speak up for itself, regardless of whether you call it white identitarianism or citizenism. I think it’s genetic.

* Citizenism is the way. Everyone just needs to admit and accept the fact that whiteness and goyness are essential ingredients. It’s like chicken soup: there are herbs and spices, but the theme is chicken. We all love the herbs and spices, and we don’t want our soup without them, but they must work in concert with the chicken!

* If one thing is certain, it’s that Trump has proven that, whatever happens in American politics, it’s never that cerebral. People respond to what they respond to, and it’s almost never as the intellectuals have predicted. They might go in the general direction the intellectuals thought they would, but not for the reasons that they predicted. It could be a white identity movement, or it could just be whites firmly and stubbornly insisting, mostly in the privacy of the voting booth, that we aren’t going to be kicked around by groups of people who claim we whites are all racists but would never move back to a country full of people like themselves.

I remember being shocked, ten years or so ago, at the positive response to the Minuteman Project. Here’s a bunch of old geezers sitting near the border in lawn chairs with binoculars. I never thought what seemed to me little more than a silly and stupid PR stunt would inspire so many Americans to care about illegal immigration, but it did, and in retrospect it definitely wasn’t stupid.

So: we can’t really predict whether or not the current situation will inspire a “white identity” movement, but we can predict – safely – that whites will start putting up a fight. Trump’s election shows that we have already started doing so.

* I think the media should talk to people like Sailer, Coulter, Derb, and Kaus. They all have IQs north of 130, are generally sensible/informed people, and can provide an intellectual justification for Trump/Trumpism. All the people I’ve seen on tv promoting Trump are complete bozos. For instance, Hannity was FOR THE GANG OF 8 BILL! Same deal with Christie. Trump is an enormously flawed individual, but he believed in this old fashioned idea called “borders”. A pro-amnesty republican who supports Trump is insane.

* I think “Citizenism” is an acceptable alternative to “Nationalism”, but it’s really just a change of name.

Most of us when we think of “nationalism” think of what in Europe is essentially “ethnic chauvinism” and while there have been episodes of that in American history they never seem to get very far, largely because intermarriage of different groups is so common, but also because the American ethos has always been pretty much live and let live, do your own thing, if the constraints in A are too strong, just move to B, and so on.

At the same time it raises the question of where we are going to hang our hat, since a national or ethnic identity in the US isn’t going to be supported by religion or race. That’s where our shared history, culture, flag, etc. come into play.

I grew up on the West Coast (Bay Area) and then was in the service for 4 years. Nobody paid any attention — at least, no one I knew — to the ethnic background or background of X, Y or Z. There was occasionally some Black/White stuff. But if a black person could speak the King’s English nobody really cared. As for Irish, Italian, Jews, Hispanics, Asians? No way.

Years later I moved to the East Coast, where I have lived for many decades. When I got there, the level of ethnic self-identification was to me incredible. I also thought it was kind of ridiculous. It’s much less now, but that’s partly because NYC is much less white now. Or at any rate, seems so.

I think at bottom most Americans are splintered out. They are tired of hearing about the special problems that everyone has because of their niche position (women, blacks, Asians, disabled, LGBTQIA, etc. etc.) Enough already. And straight white guys are tired of being told to care, and tired of being told that they only reason they don’t care is because of their privilege. I don’t know if a vote for Trump was “the biggest F U in American politics” (I think Megyn Kelly called it that on TV.) But I do know that many Americans have a big F U and a cheerfully raised middle finger for people who keep complaining about how specially oppressed they are.

This is where I think Trump has a way of arguing for a more inclusive “American” identity. Because we all know what an “American” is, and that’s the ordinary person we encounter in our daily life, who speaks English, who understands the culture, and who isn’t always trying to draw attention to themselves over their special status.

* Steve,

Recognizing that your review of Jared Taylor’s book was written in 2011, I suspect you might now be a bit more optimistic about the emergence of “identity politics” for Whites.

As an axiom, the globalist NWO depreciates the meaning of “citizenship”. (If there are no longer nations, people cannot be citizens of those nations.) I’ve believed for some time that the solution to our national malaise — a theme for White “identity politics” and a response to the NWO — is to restore the powers of citizenship. That immediately leads to the concept of equality under the law … from which it directly follows that affirmative action is unlawful for the racial and gender privilege it gives existing minorities, women, and incoming immigrants.

Those who lived during the Civil Right era in the 1960s recall why affirmative action for Blacks was permitted as an exception to equality under the law: It was an attempt at a broad brush reparation for racial prejudice still extant in law in some states and in the Federal government. The assumption was that racial quotas were a temporary solution to a material problem that warranted a Constitutional exception to equal protection under the law.

* I wish something like “citizenism” could gain traction so I’d have something handy to describe myself. I note from my Facebook feed that my liberal friends have discovered the term “alt-right,” which they see as a synonym for “Nazi.” Seriously, it’s a coordinated thing — practically overnight I’m seeing my libtard friends flood the site with “alt-right = Nazi” memes.

* Steve, you can’t call back the bullet and it is precisely BECAUSE Jews are now being fired and excluded is the reason for White Nationalism, EXPLICITLY INCLUDING JEWS.

Hollywood is now purging lower echelon Jews out of writing, producing, etc. In favor of AA Blacks. The same is true for Corporate America. There will be no Jewish successor to Chuck Schumer, instead someone like Keith Ellison X is the new face of the Democratic Party. All the old Jewish dudes who were big deals in politics, business, finance, and culture are now being replaced by … Tyler Perry and Kamala Harris.

Look at BDS — its spreading like wildfire. Muslims, Blacks, and even Hispanics either hate or hate hate hate or dislike Jews.

What else is there? Dems neither need nor desire Jewish money in donations, given that Chinese money and control over Corporate and Government that give control over huge money spigots and patronage networks. Imagine Berkeley or UCLA writ large — that’s a guarantee of Jewish support for WN; and the scope and scale of mass third world immigration guarantees that Whites will be a minority in the US within ten years and maybe five.

* Americans have spoken in elections, time and again, that they hate explicit white nationalism. Even in the deep south, even when the conditions are most ripe (surrounded by a 30-40% black population), David Duke types can’t even break 10% in GOP primaries.

The extreme hostility of Jews and their cultural influence is of course part of this, but much more important is the extreme hostility of every Christian denomination, the fact that most of us are descended from people who fought Hitler and his allies, and that most of us have many individual Jews and non-whites that we like. It also is because that explicit WNs tend to be nasty people as individuals, as well as the fact they never really confine their hate to non-whites, but also can’t restrain their hate for Jews, Southern Europeans, the Catholic Church, and who knows what else.

Despite this hostility to white nationalism or even watered down “identitarianism,” Americans are OK with a mild implicit version of WN.

This isn’t the same as citizenism, though there is a lot of overlap. For instance, Canadians, Irish, English, and to a slightly lessor extent Israelis and Western Europeans are far more “American” and share more interests with us than an anchor baby, MS-13 gangbanger, or niqab-wearer who may happen to all be US Citizens. Likewise, the mass non-white, anti-white underclass has interests that are objectively hostile to most other Americans, though they are largely US Citizens.

* The last time there was a guy who was really big into white identity politics he wasn’t a Cossack, he was a German and six million Jews died, so maybe it’s not completely irrational.

The traditional advocates of “white identity” in America, such as the KKK, weren’t really into Jews either and there are some facets of the “alt-right” today who aren’t really keen on Jews (or “the Jews” – this is classic anti-Semitism too- my friend Joe is a really nice Jew but the international banker/media Jews are bad) either, so maybe Jews aren’t being so irrational. Maybe they’d be keener on “white identity” if they felt secure that they would be included within it, but the messages are mixed at best. In addition to those who say outright that the Jews are a Bolshevik menace, there’s another contingent that says, sure you can be white if you give up everything that makes you Jewish. You don’t have to outright convert (though we wouldn’t mind) but stop talking about Israel and stuff and just become a generic white guy. Most American Jews aren’t interested in that deal either.

Jews may have a lot of financial/media power but Trump was just elected without the support of most of them. Some Jews will (especially if they are made to feel welcome without having to renounce Israel or their religion, as Trump did with his own son in law) join the “white” side on their own. If you want more Jews on your side, you can’t use the Hillary strategy for white blue collar voters – insult them until they see the error of their ways. Some you are never going to convince and you shouldn’t even try – I again advise the Trump strategy of just bypassing those folks (who are after all a tiny minority concentrated in a few solidly blue states) and appealing directly to the majority of the American people.

Contra Steve, Jews are not really powerful enough to be a roadblock to white identity politics (at least the Trumpian version) and if welcomed instead of excluded some might even be on the right side of it. The Jews of the South are an example – during the Civil Rights movement of the 50s/60s, lots of Yankee Leftist Jews came down South to oppose racism and organize sit-ins, etc. But the local Jewish community (almost every small Southern town had a handful of long settled Jews descended from the peddlers who had settled down – they owned the dry goods store, the pharmacy, etc.) was completely identified with their white neighbors and customers (and were well aware that blacks were not exactly noble angels) and would have nothing to do with the agitators.

* Hitler was into German Nationalism, not White Nationalism. To the extent that he wanted to invade and en-serf the White Nations around him.

He was into socialism, too, but conveniently, that part is forgotten. Almost like the dominant narrative is a false one.

But Hitler’s socialism is useful in another way; the difference between Communism (International Socialism) and Nazism (National Socialism) was a lot like the difference between White Nationalism and Hitler’s aggressive National Socialism. It was enough to make the Commies and the Nazis mortal enemies.

* It’s a common mistake to assume that Hitler was pro-white. First of all, he was a German nationalist. And he saw other Whites, such as Frenchmen and Poles, as enemies. As for Jews, they were classified as non-Aryans, not non-Whites. Nazis had a thing for Aryans, remember? But they would have laughed at the suggestion that Jews weren’t white.

* Basically, white — especially Anglo-Saxon — people live by Judeo-Christian/Western values of individualism, honesty, fair dealing, meritocracy, treating everyone with respect by default. Essentially the Golden Rule.

Having lived and done business in non-Western countries, whether they are basically civilized (China and Japan), not (the Arab world and the Indian subcontinent) or partially (Turkey, Israel, Latin and Slavic countries to an extent), I never ceased to be astonished at the extent to which the Golden Rule is simply not the driving force in society. These places are mostly corrupt and thuggish as a result. You’re a sucker for presuming that the guy across the table is approaching his interaction with you in good faith.

We could engage in a chicken-and-egg argument about why these societies are the way they are. Clearly U.S. culture has successfully integrated some groups that are not too far away from our ideals (e.g., Italians and eastern Europeans who came before the 1960s), but our more recent experience as well as western Europe’s shows why we are doomed.

People who come to the U.S. knowing how to navigate society in Pakistan, Jordan, Indonesia, or Ethiopia will be better equipped to succeed in the America of the future. Whites are being steamrolled. The concept of “citizenism” could be a good description of the required response.

* If a world view needs Jewish permission to be nationally credible, and Jews neither approve of WN nor citizenism, and we know from the current year that they don’t approve of citizenism, and the slight margins to which they might approve of citizenism instead of WN aren’t enough to matter, then our decision on whether to pursue WN or citizenism should not be informed by what the Jews are going to do or not do.

However, another thing the current year taught us is that the Jews aren’t the universal gatekeeper, that they don’t always get what they want. Trump won, didn’t he?

About Luke Ford

I've written five books (see Amazon.com). My work has been followed by the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and 60 Minutes. I teach Alexander Technique in Beverly Hills (Alexander90210.com).
This entry was posted in Jews, Nationalism. Bookmark the permalink.