Saturday, November 25, 2017

Breaking the right way

Some encouraging news. The young women of the alt right are making up their minds on the national question and they are choosing to reject civic nationalism.

It began with a YouTube video by Lauren Rose which I have already posted on (here).

Then Faith Goldy posted the following tweet:

I find it interesting that civic nationalism has some emotional hold on her. I'm not sure why, as it seems emotionally empty to me. Instead of a deeper hold of shared ancestry, history and culture it is based instead on a shared allegiance to some wrongheaded liberal political principles - and in practice most Western nations don't even insist that new immigrants share these principles. Still, I have to accept that something about civic nationalism once appealed to her, but that she now recognises that there is no future in it, and that it leads to ethnocide.

The "coming out" of Lauren Rose and Faith Goldy emboldened the YouTuber "Blonde in the Belly of the Beast" to make the following thoughtful video explaining why she too has shifted away from civic nationalism:

Part of what motivated Blonde to make the video was her negative reaction to the following tweet by Jordan Peterson:

Peterson is good on many issues but this is straight out right-liberalism in which individualism is set against the evil of collectivism. I wish that Blonde had developed a point that she alluded to in her video, namely that this is a false opposition. If you support the individual, then you have to support healthy forms of collective life as well, because humans are in their natures social creatures who develop themselves most fully and readily through these forms of collective life.

The family is one obvious example. This is a collective, and not even a voluntary one. Nonetheless, it is how individuals experience maternal love and paternal guidance; it is how individuals are socialised through relationships with their siblings to have successful peer relationships; it is how individuals develop an appreciation for the efforts and achievements of past generations and part of how they form a commitment toward future generations; it is how men exercise masculine instincts to provide, to protect and to guide and how women exercise feminine maternal instincts; it is how individuals have the opportunity to experience enduring loving relationships that might endure into old age; it is how children experience the stability and "rootedness" that is part of creating an enduring resilience in later life....need I go on?

The right liberal opposition between the individual and the collective is a false one. Instead, the relationship between both has to be ordered the right way, so that individuals uphold the necessary forms of collective life, and make some sacrifices to do so, but without the dignity and significance of individual life being denied by the collective.

Does it not make sense, for instance, for an individual to make some sacrifices on behalf of family, if this is such an important institution in the life of the individual? The real point here is not to deny the importance of family as a collective, but to try to arrange things so that the individual sacrifice is worthwhile, i.e. to arrange things to that there is a viable and healthy culture of family life.

Blonde focuses on a different issue in her video. She notes that in practice it is only whites who are pressured to follow the idea of existing only as individuals, without a collective identity or a collective interest, whereas others are allowed to organise effectively as collectives. This leaves whites defenceless and unable to uphold any right to a future existence - or even to defend themselves against the aggressive politics that is increasingly being directed against them.


  1. I find it interesting that civic nationalism has some emotional hold on her. I'm not sure why, as it seems emotionally empty to me. Instead of a deeper hold of shared ancestry, history and culture it is based instead on a shared allegiance to some wrongheaded liberal political principles

    Is she American? It's practically a religion there. And they've spread it across the planet.

    Of all the many evils that the United States has spread civic nationalism may be the worst.

    Of course the problem for the US is that they have nothing else. No ethnic identity, no cultural identity, no shared religion, no shared historical tradition, nothing. It's a completely artificial nation. It can only survive by becoming a totalitarian empire, which is what has happened.

    That's why Americans worshipped civic nationalism, and the flag, and the military. They're substitutes for a true identity.

    1. I agree with your first point - the likely explanation for the emotional hold is that civic nationalism is more prominent within the American tradition than elsewhere.

      Not so sure about your second point. Up until the later 1800s the US had a WASP elite and a population that was overwhelmingly from northwestern Europe. It had a de facto ethnic identity (albeit with a lot more regional variety than Australia) even if it was officially a proposition nation. There was a push back against open borders in the 1920s.

      Your last point is a good one. There is a lot more invested emotionally in the U.S. in everyone honouring the flag and the military. I suppose this could have to do with America having been a world power for a period of time with a large military. But it is possible, as you write, that it is a way of trying to maintain unity of allegiance in a country that, officially at least, has rejected ethnic unity.

    2. Goldy is Canadian (I believe her ethnic background is Ukrainian/Greek). Her background is standard North American right wing. As someone who followed her for some time, it makes sense that civic nationalism has an emotional hold on her. It also makes sense that she would, sooner or later recognise reality.

    3. You are saying that in ethno-states there is no real love of country? No respect for the military, no love of the flag, no emotionally sung national anthems?

    4. Robert Brandywine, I guess the point is that there is a part of the American population that sees nothing wrong in open borders, meaning that the nation itself as an historic people is being dissolved, but which insists on the flag as a symbol of allegiance. That's the sense in which there is a danger of these things becoming a substitute.

      But to be fair a similar thing has happened in Australia. Our ANZAC Day is still untouchable - held to be sacred in a way - and has much emotion still invested in it. But much of what those soldiers fought for is being dissolved. The outward ceremonies and observances are being honoured, as they should be, and they continue to have meaning, but what is missing is the commitment to a living tradition.

    5. You are saying that in ethno-states there is no real love of country? No respect for the military, no love of the flag, no emotionally sung national anthems?

      It's a different kind of love of country. It's one that comes naturally. It's organic, if you like. You have a natural emotional attachment to the place where you grew up, and the people you grew up with. You have a natural emotional attachment to the traditions of your own community.

      US patriotism always looks to me like something artificial. It actually reminds me of socialist countries, where if you only shout the right slogans long enough eventually you'll start to believe them.

      American popular culture is not like other popular cultures. It's a manufactured culture. And the flag worship and the military worship were manufactured. Sit down and watch a few Hollywood movies of the 40s. The patriotic hysteria is embarrassing, but it's phone. It's Hollywood persuading the American people to fight a war that they didn't want to fight, but a war Hollywood did very much want. That's when the flag worship and the military worship really took hold.

    6. The US military took as significant hit after Vietnam, but recovered its prestige to become the most trusted institution today.

      The US military is seen as the magic leveler of social class, a purist meritocracy. The left has caught on to this after the end of DADT, and the right hasn't noticed the undermining of one of the few institutions not owned by Cultural Marxism.

      The over-the-top patriotism was higher for WW1 than WW2, even though the Zimmerman telegram threat was laughable. The wars also helped advance the Black Civil Rights movement, as blacks moved from the rural south to heavy industry jobs in the Midwest.

      I don't consider the US culture to be "artificial", but I don't mind Commonwealth voices having this view. A global "American" monoculture is ruinous.

  2. Something I left out of the post but is worth mentioning. The future depends to a considerable degree on what happens on the right throughout the Anglosphere countries over the next five years. The danger is that the alt right will be corralled safely by a resurgent classical/right liberalism. That's why it's so encouraging that some of the prominent leaders are not breaking that way, but are pushing ever further toward a traditionalist view.

  3. Here is Roger Scruton, a very intelligent writer on many topics, exhibiting the same stupidity and blindness:

    "If we want a simple definition of the West as it is today, the concept of citizenship is a good starting point. That is what millions of migrants are roaming the world in search of: an order that confers security and freedom in exchange for consent"

    The West, including Canada and America, is not and never was intended to be, a place for "all races and nations". To claim that it is, or was, is a direct attack on the identity, legitimacy, and existence of the Western people.

    Non-White nations MUST be held responsible for building and maintaining their own freedom, and their own prosperity how they choose.

    My nation is NOT a hotel or store, for people to buy if they like the wares. ITs NOT for sale.

  4. Not sure if you'd seen this, but I thought it was a pretty good rejoinder to the meme you had here that Peterson liked so much: