Of all counter-cultures today, none is more “counter” than Ethno-Nationalism. At root, our ideology (Ethno-Nationalism) is the direct opposite of the ideal that most Westerners accept unquestioningly, and so picking-at-the-scabs of the current arrangement will never be enough to overthrow it. We can howl at this-or-that Multicultural absurdity, and many will concede that we may have a point, but that we are missing the larger point. We need an appealing, idealistic, moral narrative; we need a larger point.
The Birth of Prudence Excerpt: Universalism vs Nationalism
[Ethan] “And you still don’t get it, Logan. You still evoke the northern barbarians and the enfranchising of the proletariats. It is your narrative that because of this, we can go on and on, break barrier after barrier in happy succession, but of course, logically, those have nothing to do with this, like those dark-age thinkers, you extrapolate what something will become based on what something else became from a seemingly similar starting point, your “logic” is basically girlish intuition....The best argument you have is the proles comparison, but of course, races are
instantly identifiable groups, and so freedom is not enough to prove fairness...”
Logan: Now, since the enlightenment, we have been working toward one end: the universality of our universal values. It is the dominant spirit of the modern age, what Christianity was for the middle Ages and what the discovery of man was to the Greeks.
Ethan: My idea is that societies should be ethnic entities because, well, because I wish to see the extended families recognize themselves as such, and to survive and reproduce, which is the sole goal of all life. That is enough for me right there. But I also believe in the idea of a biologically-specific Good....
...So I believe that one’s idea of the Good is bound up in his biology, and that a nation of his ethnics, his biological race, would be most likely to form the society most in sync with his idea, and therefore he will also be better able to know his idea, to participate in his own goodness. It’s funny that the races are identified by color because, in general, the members of each one are different shades of what we might call their form.[Logan] “All you really have are some correlations!”
“But you have nothing! You have false comparisons!”
“Tsss.” Logan looked at Ethan with exasperation. “Should we give up all our noble hopes because there may be some minor physical and mental differences between the races?
“Even if you’re right about racial differences, it may just make you even more wrong. You may think that your idea of the ethnic-specific Good is idealistic and enlightened, but if your basis for that idea is right, how would it actually work? Do you think that Africans without food to eat, suffering horrendous levels of rape and disease, will take comfort in the living an ethnic-specific Good? And what about the tyrant who tortures his people? At what point can a Universal Nationalist step in? But that’s just part of the experience to you, I guess.... Oh, for heaven’s sake, don’t smile at that.”
“No, it’s just that I know exactly how to respond.” Ethan got up and poured himself some soda, then came back and lighted a cigarette. “And some of it probably is part of the experience.
“...I don’t know the answer to either question. I don’t know if the tribesman in the jungle, or even in a violent and ramshackle slum, but in a country dominated by his co-ethnics and their ethic, knows his love better than does Joe Sports Fan sitting on his couch in Ohio. Based on my idea of love, I think he does. I think he has more of what he really wants. But that’s just my idea, impossible to quantify, so I don’t know, but neither do you.
“And while we’re on the subject, sort of, perhaps man, or a man, does not even really want to perpetuate himself. Some claim it’s more accurate to just say that life has the instinct to perpetuate life. With some people, it does seem as if the only relation they have to their object of desire is that they desire it (which is not nothing—it is impossible to love everything and every possibility indiscriminately, therefore you can’t really separate a man’s love from the desire to perpetuate himself, but I admit that this may come-off as relatively weak sauce/salsa/soy sauce). Of course, beyond the very safe assumption that all men have an idea of the Good, the theory of the biologically-specific Good does not at all depend on man desiring to perpetuate himself.
“When might a Universal Nationalist, who has the power to do so, interfere in the affairs of another nation? Well, when might an Egalitarian Universalist? You can offer a few scenarios, but your comprehensive formula can be no more specific than that we should intervene when our involvement would help further Egalitarian Universalism. Substitute the term Universal Nationalism in place of Egalitarian Universalism, and I would agree.”
“That’s very interesting, Ethan. Yes, it doesn’t seem like we love life indiscriminately, but maybe that misses the deeper truth. The individual is attracted to, and wants to perpetuate, what he thinks is beautiful, but perhaps this is purely a means. His end is simply the perpetuation of life, and so, whether instinctive or deliberate, he makes a calculation on how to achieve this, and so what we each call the Beautiful is no more than a calculation on how to perpetuate life in general.”
“It doesn’t really matter whether we want to perpetuate ourselves, or to perpetuate life in general; either way, we still have to decide on the means. Let’s assume we do only want the perpetuation of life in general. What it means to “perpetuate life” is entirely subjective. So unless, at root, we all have the exact same idea, the Individual Will is still real. Therefore, we do have identities, and the perpetuation of life, in practice, remains the perpetuation of ourselves. If deep-down, we do all have the exact same idea, and lets imagine this idea were revealed to us, the fact that, somewhere within, I “want it,” is not enough to convince me to actively want it. I don’t want it, I won’t want it... good thing it doesn’t exist.
“Over and over again,” Ethan continued, “you keep saying that we have to give our gift to everyone, it has more meaning with more believers, etc., your implication that the whole is obviously of more worth than the separate parts, so it takes priority. It’s a reasonable and commonsensical notion, and I agree with it, just not with your idea of what is their interest. You take prioritizing the whole to mean that as many as possible should have as much material stuff, or at least as much ability to acquire that stuff, as possible. Each is thereby better able to satisfy his love by better surviving. For me it is not just a question of surviving, but surviving as what? I prioritize the whole for its own sake, and want it to survive, as it is the way of the most total love, however that love might be distributed among the individuals, though I think that, on balance, each would have a greater share of it, whether they are completely conscious of this fact or not.
“By now, it should be clear that your original assumption has been turned on its head. When we began, you assumed that you were fighting for the idea of equality, whereas my concern was with preserving bloodlines, a material quality. Yet, I am concerned with the material (obviously in the strict sense we’re both materialists, but you know what I mean) in large part, because it achieves ideas, and you are concerned with ideas only in so far as they achieve something material.”
“I am concerned with the idea of allowing others dignity. Some of that certainly is material, but it’s also a matter of rights and acceptance.”
“Even at its most lofty, your “noble idea” is no more than the belief that what we have is so damn good that no one else can ever think of anything better for themselves, so we offer it to everyone, and everyone becomes us.”
Ryan Andrews is the author of The Birth of Prudence, which was published by VDare earlier this year.