Something that crossed my mind earlier this week is how I've seen different ethical reasonings used by different people to justify White ethnonationalism. Even when they don't explicitly spell it out, I can often see their ethics in their proposed solutions to our race's current troubles. To my knowledge, there are at least five different understandings of ethics that White nationalists typically use to justify White nationalism, and they are:
1. "Circular ethnocentrism" - That is to say, that which is good for the White race is the highest good, period. White makes right, so to speak. No higher ethical standard is held to.
2. "Ethnopluralism" - The idea that each race has the right to a homeland of its own. I think most users here already know the problems with this so I'll leave it there.
3. "Tribalism as virtue" - To prioritize the interests of your in-group is natural, virtuous, and good. We are pro-White because we are White. Non-Whites prioritizing their races aren't "evil" for doing so, but they are decidedly our enemies regardless because their racial interests conflict with ours.
4. "Utilitarian racism" - There is something about the White race that makes it inherently more beneficial to the world than other races. We are pro-White because it will make a better world. To some in this camp, destroying other races might be an act of kindness to them since it would end their suffering.
5. "Moral nihilism" - Who says we need an ethical reason to be racist?
Where do you guys stand? I, personally, lean towards the "Tribalism as virtue" camp since I like virtue ethics, and the other views just don't resonate with me as much.
Also, feel free to let me know if there is some other ethical basis for White nationalism that I'm unaware of or that I otherwise didn't list.
The main reason I support White nationalism is in opposition to multiculturalism. Maybe this counts as 2 or 4 or neither. Multiculturalism has been refuted a thousand times over, we clearly deserve better for our own countries, therefore we ought to remove non-Whites and establish an ethnostate.
I don't strictly believe in the superiority of the White race because that's subjective, it seems like every race has adapted to its own niche (even
Africans (Chud where did it go)). We're probably the most modern race, I personally prefer the traits of my own people above all others, but superiority is unclear. For example, Jews have a disproportionate number of achievements relative to their population size. East Asians are probably better office workers, although I think IQ figures are misleading and I wouldn't say they're more intelligent.
I don't think tribalism is at all virtuous in itself, it seems like a step backwards. Pointless ethnic conflicts are common among third world populations where both sides look equally subhuman to us (e.g. caste in India). The way I see it, Whites are forced to reconstruct a racial identity they previously discarded as a necessary evil to fight against the primitive prejudices of lesser races. I want to live in an enlightened society that affords liberal moral luxuries, except with proper non-democratic governance and rule of law that prevents certain specific existential threats like immigration and homosexuality from undermining civilization.
Mason Hall-McCullough Wrote:I don't think tribalism is at all virtuous in itself, it seems like a step backwards. Pointless ethnic conflicts are common among third world populations where both sides look equally subhuman to us (e.g. caste in India). The way I see it, Whites are forced to reconstruct a racial identity they previously discarded as a necessary evil to fight against the primitive prejudices of lesser races. I want to live in an enlightened society that affords liberal moral luxuries, except with proper non-democratic governance and rule of law that prevents certain specific existential threats like immigration and homosexuality from undermining civilization.
I mostly agree with your view, and I do think that different races are more so geared to different goals rather than being rigidly "superior" to one another in
all fields.
Also, I will admit that you have a point here:
Mason Hall-McCullough Wrote:I don't think tribalism is at all virtuous in itself, it seems like a step backwards. Pointless ethnic conflicts are common among third world populations where both sides look equally subhuman to us (e.g. caste in India).
Tribalism and ethnic conflict is obviously not an inherent good in itself. We shouldn't be starting pointless division and war just for the heck of it. I suppose my view is a softer version of "Tribalism is good," perhaps more something like "In-group loyalty is good." Because hatred for outsiders is only good if it stems from love for your own IMO.
3 is the Lobean justification, especially the second sentence. 1 is a less developed version of 3. 4 contains an unexamined moral presupposition (what is beneficial to the world? The utilitarian answer of "happiness" could possibly justify white supremacy of a kind but it would be on shaky ground) and thus doesn't answer the question. 5 is the based and clearpilled option.
The justification for white supremacy is that whites are a necessary condition for the creation of genius. The world turning into a massive favela via migrant hordes would extinguish this necessary condition, so the promotion of the basic interests of the "white race" under the present circumstances is moral. But it should be borne in mind that a white civilization in which the average white today becomes the dominant type and stifles genius (which is always in certain ways anti-social) would be utterly worthless and better off being destroyed. This was the ultimate danger threatening Europe in 1900 and it will be the ultimate danger threatening Europe in 20 or 30 years when the immigration problem is figured out, as it almost certainly will be. White supremacy that justifies itself in terms of material benefits or tribalism lends itself to the leveling of man.
Polytropos Wrote:White supremacy that justifies itself in terms of material benefits or tribalism lends itself to the leveling of man.
I wholeheartedly agree. Whites are superior to other races in some way or another in the first place, but the talk of "the White Race" as a unified whole here is not constructive. First and foremost, White people as a whole are bereft of Will since at least 1945. The average White Man in the West "just wants to be left alone" when just 200 years prior he was settling and conquering continents, and I don't think it possible to reignite the powerful Race-feeling of our forefathers in the some One Billion of European stock--short of a new Hitler that is superior to Hitler in every way.
Secondly, "White" is not a race itself, nor even a racial group, but a term used to differentiate European colonials from natives. When the American Constitution was laid down, the Founders of my Nation saw themselves as Anglo-Saxon, laying down Anglo-Saxon laws and adhering to Anglo-Saxon modes of Governance. Thus for Whites to gain physical supremacy over the earth, it requires a particular subset of Whites to go out and take it for themselves. Only then will the rest of the White races be uplifted.