I’m totally for a pan-European ethnoplurism or a global north ethnoplurism. The idea that primitives/third worlders are even capable of nationalism is laughable because without outside resources they can’t even sustain a nation. Anti colonialism does horseshoe right into liberalism but those like Dugin think they will outdo liberals at their same old narratives, kind of like conservatives trying to not be racist and calling liberals the real racists.
The Whitest areas of the west are the most socially conservative. The third world areas are the most liberal. Yet the blame for third worlders and the international oligopolies that brought them in is given to the average White. It is ridiculous. There’s also a lot of propoganda purposefully equating WNs with islamists as a psychological technique to create empathy when the original comparison is distorted.
Third worlders are not helpful to anyone, not even themselves. They are unnaturally expanded and their numbers are inseparable from the NGOs and world governing organizations that created them. Their volatility is used to strain the white working and middle class and as a proxy strong man for globalists… right wingers won’t be able to use them as a proxy against globalists because they don’t have to live by them.
I reject both a kind of white chauvinism which forces me into an alliance with white liberals, who are responsible for 90% of the problems we face, in terms of the root cause, as well as a kind of meme third worldism as embraced by people like Jackson Hinkle, where we just drool over any anti-western regime or movement regardless of what it represents. Gaza is a great litmus test for this. We have every reason to be anti-Israeli (I need not list them), but we have very few reasons to be actively pro-Palestine.
This said, there is a degree to which 'the rest' of the world has retained some semblance of sanity when compared to the white world, and we should make use of this where it benefits us. I also predict the US right will come to resemble the Latin American right in some key ways, but this need not be seen purely as a bad thing. We had a WASP right in America, and it failed, utterly and completely, at every turn. And I'd say it failed precisely because it lacked some of the temperamental unerpinnings in Latin America. A Pinochet was totally unthinkable in the United States. Was that a good thing? I think the author would find it hard to argue that it was.
Face the facts: ethnats are viewed by the liberal establishment (which contrary to the memes is overwhelmingly white, we just have to accept this) as not really being any different from China, Iran or Russia. We stand "in the way of progress" etc. Of course we shouldn't be dumb about who we voice our support for, but we should be pragmatic and get our heads around the harsh reality: in order for us to make any political headway, there will have to be a major crisis (we're coming up on 100 years from WWII and no far right movement has even really gotten off the ground). This could take any number of forms, but seemingly the most likely is the discrediting of the liberal international order overseas and the damage this will do to the prestige of the ruling elites. No, I'm never going to embrace the wannabe Hutus in South Africa. That's dumb. But if China takes control of Taiwan, I'm all for it. My interests and those of China do not in any way conflict. We may even find ourselves a mutually beneficial agreement.
Undermining globalism in words doesn’t undermine their power. We don’t live in real democracies or republics. The only way to undermine them is to stop upholding them… and to put in the real work to build foundations. Why whites even in conservative white areas can’t resist in any real manner, is a lack of real foundations and instead upholding the current power structure.
You can point out all of its issues until you are blue in the face but if they want you competing to be in their smart cities/prisons and the alternative is just as insane, your opposing them to third worlders won’t change a thing. Those third worlders will be part of what’s pushing people into future technocratic prisons. It’s regain foundations or be constantly funneled into a horrible future.
No serious white chauvinist applies their sympathies to traitors like internationalists or the liberal useful idiots. You don’t have to pick one or the other. The state is a complicated mess that is specifically targeting and replacing those with racial interests. That doesn’t make whites the root issue… plus most all places that went liberal actually have high percents of primitives.
I agree that being anti Israel doesn’t mean you have to be pro Palestinian.
You have no power, china could care less about your interests.
Unfortunately this is problem that plagues alot of the people on our side. You have people who think siding with either china, islam, russia or zionists will get us brownie points. To think that any of them will sympathize with goals of ours is wishful thinking. Whatever Whites do, it will never be enough to make up for the "evil that was done by our ancestors." I haven't heard any non-White with power or following outside the 2 mentioned in the article have any sympathy for our side. Why would any of them want to help a potential new competitor to their own group? It's all tribal games now.
Western civilization died at Stalingrad. Zionists and capitalists will never support positive political change so the dialectic of "western chauvinism" vs third worldism is irrelevant, the more anti "western" position wins by default.
I’m totally for a pan-European ethnoplurism or a global north ethnoplurism. The idea that primitives/third worlders are even capable of nationalism is laughable because without outside resources they can’t even sustain a nation. Anti colonialism does horseshoe right into liberalism but those like Dugin think they will outdo liberals at their same old narratives, kind of like conservatives trying to not be racist and calling liberals the real racists.
The Whitest areas of the west are the most socially conservative. The third world areas are the most liberal. Yet the blame for third worlders and the international oligopolies that brought them in is given to the average White. It is ridiculous. There’s also a lot of propoganda purposefully equating WNs with islamists as a psychological technique to create empathy when the original comparison is distorted.
Third worlders are not helpful to anyone, not even themselves. They are unnaturally expanded and their numbers are inseparable from the NGOs and world governing organizations that created them. Their volatility is used to strain the white working and middle class and as a proxy strong man for globalists… right wingers won’t be able to use them as a proxy against globalists because they don’t have to live by them.
So, here is my considered critique
I reject both a kind of white chauvinism which forces me into an alliance with white liberals, who are responsible for 90% of the problems we face, in terms of the root cause, as well as a kind of meme third worldism as embraced by people like Jackson Hinkle, where we just drool over any anti-western regime or movement regardless of what it represents. Gaza is a great litmus test for this. We have every reason to be anti-Israeli (I need not list them), but we have very few reasons to be actively pro-Palestine.
This said, there is a degree to which 'the rest' of the world has retained some semblance of sanity when compared to the white world, and we should make use of this where it benefits us. I also predict the US right will come to resemble the Latin American right in some key ways, but this need not be seen purely as a bad thing. We had a WASP right in America, and it failed, utterly and completely, at every turn. And I'd say it failed precisely because it lacked some of the temperamental unerpinnings in Latin America. A Pinochet was totally unthinkable in the United States. Was that a good thing? I think the author would find it hard to argue that it was.
Face the facts: ethnats are viewed by the liberal establishment (which contrary to the memes is overwhelmingly white, we just have to accept this) as not really being any different from China, Iran or Russia. We stand "in the way of progress" etc. Of course we shouldn't be dumb about who we voice our support for, but we should be pragmatic and get our heads around the harsh reality: in order for us to make any political headway, there will have to be a major crisis (we're coming up on 100 years from WWII and no far right movement has even really gotten off the ground). This could take any number of forms, but seemingly the most likely is the discrediting of the liberal international order overseas and the damage this will do to the prestige of the ruling elites. No, I'm never going to embrace the wannabe Hutus in South Africa. That's dumb. But if China takes control of Taiwan, I'm all for it. My interests and those of China do not in any way conflict. We may even find ourselves a mutually beneficial agreement.
Undermining globalism in words doesn’t undermine their power. We don’t live in real democracies or republics. The only way to undermine them is to stop upholding them… and to put in the real work to build foundations. Why whites even in conservative white areas can’t resist in any real manner, is a lack of real foundations and instead upholding the current power structure.
You can point out all of its issues until you are blue in the face but if they want you competing to be in their smart cities/prisons and the alternative is just as insane, your opposing them to third worlders won’t change a thing. Those third worlders will be part of what’s pushing people into future technocratic prisons. It’s regain foundations or be constantly funneled into a horrible future.
No serious white chauvinist applies their sympathies to traitors like internationalists or the liberal useful idiots. You don’t have to pick one or the other. The state is a complicated mess that is specifically targeting and replacing those with racial interests. That doesn’t make whites the root issue… plus most all places that went liberal actually have high percents of primitives.
I agree that being anti Israel doesn’t mean you have to be pro Palestinian.
You have no power, china could care less about your interests.
Unfortunately this is problem that plagues alot of the people on our side. You have people who think siding with either china, islam, russia or zionists will get us brownie points. To think that any of them will sympathize with goals of ours is wishful thinking. Whatever Whites do, it will never be enough to make up for the "evil that was done by our ancestors." I haven't heard any non-White with power or following outside the 2 mentioned in the article have any sympathy for our side. Why would any of them want to help a potential new competitor to their own group? It's all tribal games now.
Western civilization died at Stalingrad. Zionists and capitalists will never support positive political change so the dialectic of "western chauvinism" vs third worldism is irrelevant, the more anti "western" position wins by default.
They were by far the least compared to pretty much any other race when conquering.