~2700 words


Contents

  1. Introduction
  2. Why This Moral Worldview is Poison
    2.1. “Preserving Cultures”
    2.2. Friend Good, Enemy Bad
    2.3. Submission and Weakness
    2.4. Hostile Subversion
  3. Conclusion
  4. Appendix: Evidence and Results of Out-Group Fetishism
    4.1. BLM
    4.2. Iran
    4.3. Palestine, Middle East in general
    4.4. Overt anti-Whiteness

“We will never trick our enemies into giving us anything by using the false morality that they have invented to destroy us.”



1.Introduction

“Nationalism is when everyone has their own country – a space for every race :-)!” and its consequences have been a disaster for nationalism.

This Liberalized trash has polluted the West for decades, finally reaching its apotheosis among the flabby remnants of the Alt-Right — the TWP / Radix / NPI / TRS coalition that has come to be known as the “wignats.” Although they are by no means the only people to regurgitate this nonsense, I’ll be referring to this moral framework as “wignat morality.”

The moral worldview and geopolitical vision of these ideologically dysfunctional fools is almost indistinguishable from that of the Liberalized rainbow-flag-waving Marxist-Leninists who post about “trans rights” on Twitter.

You will often see both groups:

  • Claiming that Israel is bad because it yeets Palestinians (who we should all have a deep emotional connection to, as they are an “oppressed people”).
  • Claiming that imperialism and colonialism are evil because they make br*wn people cry and are “exploitative.”
  • Un-ironically decrying the meme of “White Supremacy” (an anti-White slur invented by the Marxian Left).
  • Having a social media bio filled with random Third World and shit-tier Communist country flags.

While the Marxist-Leninists believe all of the above because they despise White people, wignats believe all of the above because they… like White people…?

I don’t really know why wignats believe any of the above, and I doubt that their reasoning would hold up to scrutiny. I imagine they would crumble if you asked a few simple questions, such as “How does freeing Palestine save the White race?” or “Why do you believe this stupid Liberalized Marxist bullshit that sounds like it was copied directly from a 1960s Soviet propaganda flyer?”

If these are their genuine beliefs, then they have the worst understanding of nationalism and politics that I’ve ever seen, and they have no business politically representing any nation. If this virtue signaling rhetoric is disingenuous, a cheap facade or bait-and-switch tactic, then they are debasing themselves in a shameful attempt to appease their enemies, which is all the more pathetic and contemptible.

“M-Maybe if I say that I want every ethnic group to have a homeland, while I performatively cry about br*wn people dunking on each other, then the nasty anti-Whites will leave me alone :-(…”

Where did this nonsense originate? Did people start believing their own meme propaganda, which was originally designed to troll Liberals and Leftists? It seems to date back to the “ethnopluralist” ‘New Right,’ the Identitarians of Europe (from whom the Alt-Right draws much inspiration), as far as I can tell. It certainly wasn’t supported by the Fascists and National Socialists that are lauded by wignats.


2. Why This Moral Worldview is Poison

Many of you who read this article may have found the 1960s Soviet propaganda points above to be very agreeable, without reflecting on the damage that this moral worldview inflicts upon nationalism. I’m not going to lambaste you for it. After all, we live in a highly Liberalized, Marxism-infested society. People have had multiracialism, globalism, and “one race, human race :-)” drilled into their brains since childhood, while having any sense of ethnic self-preservation brutally stamped out. I’m only criticizing the “thought leaders” of the nationalist movement who, instead of challenging these Liberal-Marxian moral priors, have decided to completely validate all of them.

In this section, I will explain at length four major problems with wignat morality and “ethnopluralism” (the first four that I could immediately think of, though I’m sure there are more than this). They are as follows:

  1. Wignat morality fails to understand nationalism on the most basic level,
  2. provides no clear friend-enemy distinction, which is a fundamental requirement for nationalism (and all political organization),
  3. projects nothing but weakness and submission,
  4. opens your in-group up to subversion from hostile out-groups.

All of these points are basically variations on the same critique: This framework is a cucked and ret*rded denial of the basic facts of nature, reality, and politics.

2.1. “Preserving Cultures”

Nationalism is not statues, classical music, folk dancing, pottery, your flag, national anthem, or traditions. Those are products of successful nationalism. Nor is nationalism the act of “respecting homelands” or the desire to “preserve all of the unique cultures of the world!” That is “ethnopluralism,” a utopian Liberal-Marxoid fantasy, dreamed up by the Identitarian cuckolds of Central Europe.

Nationalism, on the most fundamental level, is uniting your in-group in order to become collectively stronger than all out-groups, in order to secure your own territory and resources (and to take the territory and resources of out-groups, if necessary), to secure the proliferation of your in-group. Nationalism is tribalism. Politics to advance the interests of the in-group. That is the First Principle of nationalism; the minimum baseline requirement.

Of course, on top of this, you should also wish for your in-group to thrive, live happily, produce beautiful culture, and so on. However, as previously stated, all of these things are a result of and reliant upon the first principle being met.

To make the focus of your so-called “nationalism” something like “preserving the precious, unique cultures of the world” reduces what is, in its purest essence, a never-ending war for the survival of your in-group to the preservation of pretty pots and tribal dances — and not even the pretty pots and tribal dances of your own people, but those of your biological competitors. Nationalism has absolutely nothing to do with securing the existence of out-groups — that is anti-nationalism.

2.2. Friend Good, Enemy Bad

Perhaps the most important aspect of nationalism is the friend-enemy distinction. I’ve explained this distinction at length in the past, but in brief layman’s terms, it refers to the in-group/out-group distinction.

The influential political theorist, Carl Schmitt, warned extensively against disrupting the friend-enemy distinction, arguing that the more defined this distinction is, the greater the chance of the in-group’s survival. This is predominantly because the public masses are largely incapable of complex, abstract thought. There’s nothing wrong with that, of course; they occupy a vital place within the hierarchical ecosystem of society. A society populated entirely by lofty abstract thinkers wouldn’t last a week before collapsing. However, this means that the public requires clearly delineated friend-enemy boundaries that provide them with a definitive opposition to rally against and a definitive in-group to protect.

By extending privileges that should, theoretically, exclusively serve the in-group (i.e., “Rights,” empathy, “Liberty,” “Freedom,” etc.) to the out-group, modern nationalists (particularly wignats and their ilk) blur the line between in-group and out-group, friend and enemy. This universalization of privileges is fatal to the in-group, which is precisely why globalists have worked so tirelessly to utterly destroy our in-group/out-group, friend-enemy distinction — something that wignats are, apparently, more than happy to assist them with. Keith Woods even went as far as to decry anybody who refuses to extend in-group privileges to hostile out-groups as a “sociopathic anti-social freak.”

If these wignat “intellectuals” had any sense at all, they would capitalize on populist ‘anti-Out-Group’ sentiment while also calling out “our” political elites, who claim to oppose these out-groups while handing our countries over to them via trade and mass-migration. Instead, the Alt-Right & Co relentlessly fetishize the very out-groups that are currently devouring the carcasses of our once-great civilizations.

2.3. Submission and Weakness

If the fundamental aim is to somehow win over Whites to attain power (it should be), wignat morality fails at the most basic level: It projects nothing but weakness and submission.

This moral framework essentially boils down to “power = bad, domination = bad, dabbing on enemies = bad” — what Nietzsche would refer to as ‘Slave Morality.’

[They] dared to invert the aristocratic value equations good = noble = powerful = beautiful = happy = favored-of-the-gods, and maintain, with the furious hatred of the underprivileged and impotent, that “only the poor, the powerless, are good; only the suffering, sick, and ugly, truly blessed. But you noble and mighty ones of the earth will be, to all eternity, the evil, the cruel, the avaricious, the godless, and thus the cursed and damned!

ON THE GENEALOGY OF MORALITY, NIETZSCHE (1887)

While Whites have been owned in inter-racial conflicts in the past (e.g., by Arabs, Mongols, and Huns), we have been the most successful throughout all of recorded history — hence why almost the entire globe speaks Indo-European languages. Before the end of the Second World War, Europeans as a race had been on a victory-streak spanning centuries, which is why everyone hates us. And that’s completely reasonable. Nobody likes getting owned once, let alone getting owned consistently for hundreds of years.

“We won’t apologize” was once the standard rhetoric of the Alt-Right. It was extremely successful in winning over new support from young men who had been incessantly browbeaten for their ancestors’ “crime” of being better at owning everyone else than they were at owning us.

Today, wignats have taken a courageous stand against bigotry by wholesale decrying our ancestors’ achievement of subjugating the entire planet — and for what purpose? Why would “nationalists” promote the same poisonous, self-loathing propaganda that young White men already hear spewed out of every government, corporation, and media outlet in the West? To kiss the boots of the Reds who would happily have them lined up against a wall, shot, and thrown in an unmarked grave? To be at the behest of the moral axis of the modern Left? To submit to our mortal enemies?

Leftists simply don’t care how much wignats performatively cry about “muh imperialism” and “muh Palestinians,” the Left simply wants them dead because they are, in the eyes of the Leftist, unapologetic about being White. “No more White people” is the sole political motive of the modern Left. No amount of groveling will ever change that. This was known and accepted as fact for years, even among the Alt-Right, so what changed?

Right-Wing White normies, on the other hand — i.e., the Social Conservatives — are completely repulsed by the wignats’ ethnopluralist and anti-colonialist moralizing rhetoric. Identical rhetoric has been screeched at them by every rabid, anti-White Leftist for the last century. So, who exactly is the wignats’ Marxoid-Libt*rd rhetoric designed to appeal to? Evidently not the browbeaten White youth, who are bombarded with guilt and self-loathing propaganda. Evidently not the social conservatives, who are slandered as “bigots” for wishing to protect their families from the rotten filth of the modern world.

Man is brutal. Oppression and war are inevitable. For your side to win, others must lose. Natural order and hierarchy apply to man and man, just as much as they apply to lion and gazelle. Apparently, these basic Right-Wing beliefs have been all but abandoned among the wignats.

The national identities of certain modern ethnic groups are based almost entirely upon crying about getting owned — e.g., the Polish, the Kurds, the Irish, the other guys (you know the ones). Their status as victims has reached almost mythological levels (literally mythological, in some cases). It’s completely unhealthy for a nation to view itself this way. Nobody truly respects people who whine about getting dunked on because nobody truly respects weakness, and the wignats’ moral framework and rhetoric exudes weakness. Which brings me to my next point…

2.4. Hostile Subversion

By projecting weakness and submission, a nationalist “movement” (if we can even call it that) not only dissuades potential allies and members from joining — for the obvious reason that nobody wants to join losers — but also signals victim status to political and national enemies (out-groups) who immediately pounce to attack the nation, having smelled blood in the water. This is evident even in the tiny microcosm of internet nationalism (see Appendix).

The wignats’ bizarre anti-imperialist, anti-colonialist stance de-legitimizes Whites’ claim to every single territory that we acquired through the right of conquest. How do these geniuses think that we attained North America, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, etc.?

The entirety of human history is in-group versus out-group, conquest and defense. Every single race on this planet lives on “stolen” land. A nation only has “right” to a territory insofar as it can take and defend it by force. This is not my personal opinion, but a basic law of nature that applies to every single living creature on earth. This is as evident today as it has been throughout all of history.

I’ll side with the Leftists here: if the wignats are so staunchly opposed to imperialism and colonialism, they should put their money where their mouths are and go back to their ancestral homelands in Europe.

This anti-colonialist moralizing is bolstered by a similar cancerous idea: that ethnic or racial groups are “indigenous” and have the “right” to “self-determination.” This is exemplified by crybabies who whine and moralize all day about Palestinians and Chinese minorities getting dabbed on.

The esteemed guests who invite themselves into our territories en masse do not give a damn about any of our claims to self-determination. When prodded with ethnopluralistic rhetoric, they simply say “You didn’t care about our ancestors’ self-determination, so why should we care about yours? This is revenge for colonialism!” They will always have this weapon to undermine ethnopluralism and wignat morality, and they are completely justified in using it to do so. Whites only believe that people should not be charged for the crimes of their ancestors because we have a de-racialized, Liberalized worldview. To every other race, it is completely rational that a descendant should be held accountable for his ancestors’ actions. Furthermore, attempting to squirm away from our ancestors’ actions merely proves to our enemies that they were somehow morally reprehensible, validating the Liberal-Marxoid worldview.

“New Americans” and “New Europeans” see our open-bordered and undefended societies and correctly recognize that as a giant “free territory and resources” advertisement. They cannot be convinced to stay in their own countries with squirmy, disingenuous rhetoric — “Hey, buddy, a space for every race, right? Isn’t that great? You get your own homeland!” — because they evidently don’t want their own homelands; they want our homelands. Their homelands are impoverished, war-torn slum-worlds, ruled over by tinpot dictators. In our countries, they get welfare, housing, McDonalds, PornHub, and luxuries exclusive to the elite of their own societies. Again, this is completely reasonable behavior on their behalf; basic self-preservation.

The problem is not that one ethnic group follows the laws of nature by attempting to take territory and resources from another. The problem is that “our” governments do not defend the interest of our national collective by preventing hostile out-groups from taking our territory and resources. The problem is also that nationalist “thought leaders” are filling peoples’ minds with deranged Liberal-Marxoid fantasies. If only they could convince all of the world’s races of the genius that is “ethnopluralism.” Surely, they will cast aside the hostility and drive to conquest that have existed for the entirety of recorded history and are intrinsic to human nature, throw down their weapons and hold hands to sing kumbaya together — united and equal, but separate. Magical.

Finally, crying about Palestine, and so on, because “muh human rights” and “muh poor oppressed br*wn people” further validates the Liberal and Marxist anti-racist worldviews, while invalidating the worldview of Tradition and the Right (which, in layman’s terms, is “get good, or get owned”). Thus, granting our enemies the moral high-ground. Every time a nationalist whines and moralizes about Israeli war crimes (other than to illustrate hypocrisy), or “imperialism,” or “White supremacy,” they provide our enemies an opening into which they can hammer a wedge and attack our in-group.

Our homelands have been conquered, albeit subversively, and reduced to open-bordered, multiracial shopping malls, powered by White paypiggies who will be bled dry until the boom-bust cycle is complete — i.e., when civilization collapses and we all starve to death. “A space for every race!” ethnopluralism, and anti-colonialist moralizing will not change that.


3. Conclusion

My fundamental critique is this: Nationalists cannot live in a fantasy world and must accept nature as it is, rather than projecting their Liberalized ideals onto people who simply don’t care about them. To project these Liberal fantasies onto people who will never reciprocate them fails to grasp nationalism on the most basic level and will, inevitably, lead to the death of the nation.

If you find yourself in agreement with rainbow-flag Marxist-Leninists on Twitter, then your opinions are probably wrong.


4. Appendix: Evidence and Results of Out-Group Fetishism

Some people may be in disbelief that such a large degree of shameless out-group shilling is done by nationalists in the West. Below is a large collection of “wignats in their own words” images. Read these quotes, and ask yourself: Do these people seem like they’re on your side? Friend or foe? In-group or out-group? If you, (presumably) a nationalist, are suspicious of these people, then imagine how a socially-conservative White normie would feel reading their bullshit.



4.1. BLM



4.2. Iran

(I was sent a lot more evidence on this particular topic but, unfortunately, I forgot to save it all).



4.3. Palestine, Middle East in general



4.4. Overt anti-Whiteness





Retvrn to nature: