Am I a white nationalist?

I just came upon a 4,000 word article posted last month by blogger Mencius Moldbug, which he starts off by saying, “I am not a white nationalist, but I do read white-nationalist blogs, and I’m not afraid to link to them.” He then proceeds to call me the “undisputed champion” of the white nationalist bloggers. I thank Mencius for the compliment, though, as he points out, I and others he mentions might not call ourselves white nationalists. In fact, I’ve never related to the term white nationalist and have never called myself one.

Which raises the question, what do I call myself? I don’t have a single label, but there are a couple of terms I use. One is “moral racialist,” a term that Rabbi Mayer Schiller coined and applied to me in the 1990s, distinguishing it from “ecumenic racialist.” A moral racialist is one who thinks that race matters and who cares about the survival and well-being of the European peoples and their civilization, but who subjects his concern about race to an objective moral standard and rejects immoral racialism.

I also call myself a traditionalist. I define traditionalism as recognition of the larger spiritual, cultural, and biological realities that form us as multi-leveled beings, among which is race. Race is not all that we are, but it is an important part of what we are, both as individuals and as cultures. Traditionalism thus constitutes the most direct challenge to the dominant belief systems of the present-day West. Whether we’re speaking of leftism, or left-liberalism, or right-liberalism, or conservatism (which is really a form of right-liberalism), all the orthodox views today agree on one point, that race—or, at least, the white race—does not matter and that it is the most evil thing in the world to say that it does. Thus all the accepted belief systems of today adhere to a principle which cannot be fulfilled until the white race, the race that created our civilization, that created everything we have and everything we are, is eliminated as a collective, culture-forming entity from the pages of history. Which means, at a minimum, that whites must cease to be the dominant majority in the nations that they created. Traditionalism (or moral racialism) stands against this monstrous, anti-human program.

As for what white nationalism means, I will have to read Mencius’ article and take in what he has to say.

- end of initial entry -

Dan M. writes:

I think you’re quite right that your writings thus far do not entail “white nationalism,” a term as broad (and hence vague) as “traditionalism” in your own definition of it. But, if you were to say just how it is that white Euros and their various cultures should be maintained, defended and kept safe, against the by now obvious virulent hatred of various others, I think that we might find some crossover with the WNs. Mere opposition to non-white immigration isn’t enough to amount to a policy. In this respect you quite resemble your “usual suspects,” in a parallel way: you write constantly about the need for the negative measure of restricting non-white immigration, without ever saying what steps must be taken beyond that in multi-racial balkanized America. Should we, for example, encourage voluntary resegregation? Reenact anti-miscegenation laws?

One thing is for certain: if liberalism is not finally and utterly extirpated from among us, our identity as a separate and unique people will ultimately be lost irretrievably.

LA replies:

I think I have dealt with those issues, at least on the level of a broad direction. For example, I’ve said over and over that I want to stop and reverse, not just Muslim immigration, but third-world immigration generally. I can’t say everything I have to say in every blog entry that I write.

In these two articles, I deal with the question, what should relations between the white majority and nonwhite minorities be?

What is European America?

How the 1964 Civil Rights Act made group rights inevitable

Dan M. replies:

Thanks for sending the links. I stand corrected. Your express position that Euros should politically assert and fight for the legitimacy of their demographic and cultural dominance within the U.S. must be understood as white nationalism. Whether or not that makes you one, I suppose can still be argued over. Perhaps you could launch a preemptive strike, so to speak, and declare yourself a moral white nationalist, to head off any negative comparisons.

LA replies:

LOL.

I think I don’t like the phrase because I associate it with the far whites, i.e., the immoral white nationalists, and serious anti-Semites in particular.

I may be wrong, but to me it has a hard unpleasant edge and has the connotation of literally excluding all non-whites.

Also see my discussions (here and here) of Sam Francis’s call for a white “reconquest of America.”

December 20, 2009

LA writes:

I never got around to reading Mencius’ article, but I notice his definition of white nationalism:

What is white nationalism, anyway? I’d say a white nationalist is someone who believes that whites should act collectively to further their collective interests.

While I don’t personally call myself a white nationalist, for the reasons discussed above, I obviously believe that whites should act collectively to further their collective interests. That is central to what I’m about.

I note also the blogger Cesar Tort’s coinage and endorsement of “non-anti-Semitic white nationalism,” a concept I welcome.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 15, 2007 05:43 PM | Send