I think there needs to be a very serious examination of the limits of the notion of 'self-determination for all. It bears within it the same logical - and organizational - contradictions inherent in 'universalist' ideologies.
White America should not have 'American' resources used to support racial or ethnic groups with whim we share no ethno-genetic interests.
Only an *interests-based* domestic and foreign policy can mitigate the inevitable 'moral mission creep' for which liberalism is famous (and justifiably despised).
I disagree. To the extent that there is any stable 'endgame' for our species on this planet, something like "international nationalism" will have to be the form it takes.
The dissident right is developing an incoherent position on the rule of law in the same way that the left developed an incoherent position on the topic of diversity. If law and order beats anarchy, even for purposes of self-rule, then that principle extends all the way to the global level.
Positing the problem as 'law and order' versus 'anarchy' over determines the response.
There are more choices.
'One law to rule them all' hasn't worked and won't work. It's hard enough getting continental law to word (see the USA and EU), let alone 'global law'.
Nations have interests, coalitions of nations have interests.
'International nationalism' is incoherent.
What nations have permanent co-interests for all time?
I submit to you the answer is 'None'.
'International nationalism' is just another form of The White Man's Burden, where Whites arrogate to solving a problem that others simply don't care about while wasting enormous resources pursuing agendas that don't benefit the White race.
I'm not on the right.
The question before the Folk should always be 'What do you want?' not 'What do you think other people want you to want?'
> What nations have permanent co-interests for all time?
No group of individuals is going to reach this standard for cooperation either, and most human nations have the co-interest of, for example, trade networks not collapsing due to lack of maritime security or runaway military arms races leading to nuclear exchange or a skynet scenario.
> 'International nationalism' is incoherent
It isn't any more paradoxical than the observation that freedom, to the limited extent it can realistically exist at all, has to be carved out within the rules and strictures of the state. Hobbes was right, Rousseau was wrong. The absence of law is not freedom, but the rule of the mob and the warlord.
Unlikely as it sounds, the most stable end-state here is probably some version of the GAE that just doesn't allow mass migration.
> 'International nationalism' is just another form of The White Man's Burden, where Whites arrogate to solving a problem that others simply don't care about...
I think you're overstating the degree to which globalism has been motivated by altruism (Africa is a net exporter of both financial and human capital to the west, for example), but if you think white countries don't benefit from international law I would encourage you cast your mind back to, say, the 30 years' war.
Alternatively, if you're envisioning some scenario where white nations and a couple of allied satrapies form a compact not to invade/despoil eachother and dictate terms to the rest of the planet... I mean... congratulations, you've re-invented world government. That's not the absence of world government.
One of the first principles of racial nationalism is ‘There are no neutral systems’.
If you’re an advocate for everyone, then you’re not an advocate for White people specifically.
The notion that, somehow, there are ‘interests’ that ‘align’ in a ‘stable’ way between different races isn’t obviously true. It’s just an assertion based on the desire for some kind of ‘kumbaya’ moment in international and interracial relations.
I don’t think ‘globalism’ is motivated by ‘altruism’, I think that the supporters that do not derive vast wealth from the system are simply dupes.
Your claim that ‘Africa is a net exporter of financial and human capital’ is a good example of the kind of anti-White mind-set that ‘international nationalism’ tries to obscure.
Even the concept of ‘Africa’ is an illusion. There’s a bunch of countries relying on foreign aid and foreign investment in order to keep black Africans from starving. If ‘the West’ stopped ‘aid’ to Africa today, within a few days, there’d be cannibalism across the continent and an attempt to invade the ‘bad ol’ West’ to get food.
Whether Whites benefit from ‘international law’ is irrelevant. They’d benefit just as much from pro-White ‘international law’.
Your comment about the ‘30 Year’s War’ is salient because, in the end, the only real solutions to international relations is warfare. ‘International law’ is a paper tiger in comparison.
The idea that Whites should participate in any ‘international body’ that does not reward their participation is just another form of ‘White Man’s Burden’.
If there are a ‘world government’ that 100% supported White interests in all places, at all times and in all ways, that would be good for Whites.
> Even the concept of ‘Africa’ is an illusion. There’s a bunch of countries relying on foreign aid and foreign investment in order to keep black Africans from starving...
There's a few other items I should address here, but you might find it an interesting mental exercise to actually look up dollar figures for total remittances + aid payments to Africa and then compare it to the size of Africa's GDP. (Then, as I mentioned, subtract debt repayments and capital flight.)
I do think there's a risk of mass hunger in Africa before the end of the century, in the very plausible scenario where population growth outstrips economic development. And for the record I am 100% HBD-pilled. But the average black african today is certainly not subsisting on the teat of western charity.
I don't accept the suggestion that White foreign aid to Black Africa isn't keeping the continent afloat.
It doesn't matter if the average black African isn't 'subsisting on the teat of western charity'.
What matters is that inputs of the West provide a margin of safety that allows the rest of the unteated to go about their business.
The difference between the survival and collapse of complex systems can very small. I think that the West is providing that difference and getting nothing in return.
What's called 'foreign investment' in Africa is just another form of foreign aid. Sure, the investors get something out of it, but it's just another sign the 'Africa' cannot fend for itself without the White West.
Africa seems like a continent that simply will never develop with or without outsiders.
I think there needs to be a very serious examination of the limits of the notion of 'self-determination for all. It bears within it the same logical - and organizational - contradictions inherent in 'universalist' ideologies.
White America should not have 'American' resources used to support racial or ethnic groups with whim we share no ethno-genetic interests.
Only an *interests-based* domestic and foreign policy can mitigate the inevitable 'moral mission creep' for which liberalism is famous (and justifiably despised).
I disagree. To the extent that there is any stable 'endgame' for our species on this planet, something like "international nationalism" will have to be the form it takes.
The dissident right is developing an incoherent position on the rule of law in the same way that the left developed an incoherent position on the topic of diversity. If law and order beats anarchy, even for purposes of self-rule, then that principle extends all the way to the global level.
Positing the problem as 'law and order' versus 'anarchy' over determines the response.
There are more choices.
'One law to rule them all' hasn't worked and won't work. It's hard enough getting continental law to word (see the USA and EU), let alone 'global law'.
Nations have interests, coalitions of nations have interests.
'International nationalism' is incoherent.
What nations have permanent co-interests for all time?
I submit to you the answer is 'None'.
'International nationalism' is just another form of The White Man's Burden, where Whites arrogate to solving a problem that others simply don't care about while wasting enormous resources pursuing agendas that don't benefit the White race.
I'm not on the right.
The question before the Folk should always be 'What do you want?' not 'What do you think other people want you to want?'
> What nations have permanent co-interests for all time?
No group of individuals is going to reach this standard for cooperation either, and most human nations have the co-interest of, for example, trade networks not collapsing due to lack of maritime security or runaway military arms races leading to nuclear exchange or a skynet scenario.
> 'International nationalism' is incoherent
It isn't any more paradoxical than the observation that freedom, to the limited extent it can realistically exist at all, has to be carved out within the rules and strictures of the state. Hobbes was right, Rousseau was wrong. The absence of law is not freedom, but the rule of the mob and the warlord.
Unlikely as it sounds, the most stable end-state here is probably some version of the GAE that just doesn't allow mass migration.
> 'International nationalism' is just another form of The White Man's Burden, where Whites arrogate to solving a problem that others simply don't care about...
I think you're overstating the degree to which globalism has been motivated by altruism (Africa is a net exporter of both financial and human capital to the west, for example), but if you think white countries don't benefit from international law I would encourage you cast your mind back to, say, the 30 years' war.
Alternatively, if you're envisioning some scenario where white nations and a couple of allied satrapies form a compact not to invade/despoil eachother and dictate terms to the rest of the planet... I mean... congratulations, you've re-invented world government. That's not the absence of world government.
One of the first principles of racial nationalism is ‘There are no neutral systems’.
If you’re an advocate for everyone, then you’re not an advocate for White people specifically.
The notion that, somehow, there are ‘interests’ that ‘align’ in a ‘stable’ way between different races isn’t obviously true. It’s just an assertion based on the desire for some kind of ‘kumbaya’ moment in international and interracial relations.
I don’t think ‘globalism’ is motivated by ‘altruism’, I think that the supporters that do not derive vast wealth from the system are simply dupes.
Your claim that ‘Africa is a net exporter of financial and human capital’ is a good example of the kind of anti-White mind-set that ‘international nationalism’ tries to obscure.
Even the concept of ‘Africa’ is an illusion. There’s a bunch of countries relying on foreign aid and foreign investment in order to keep black Africans from starving. If ‘the West’ stopped ‘aid’ to Africa today, within a few days, there’d be cannibalism across the continent and an attempt to invade the ‘bad ol’ West’ to get food.
Whether Whites benefit from ‘international law’ is irrelevant. They’d benefit just as much from pro-White ‘international law’.
Your comment about the ‘30 Year’s War’ is salient because, in the end, the only real solutions to international relations is warfare. ‘International law’ is a paper tiger in comparison.
The idea that Whites should participate in any ‘international body’ that does not reward their participation is just another form of ‘White Man’s Burden’.
If there are a ‘world government’ that 100% supported White interests in all places, at all times and in all ways, that would be good for Whites.
And that’s really all I care about.
> Even the concept of ‘Africa’ is an illusion. There’s a bunch of countries relying on foreign aid and foreign investment in order to keep black Africans from starving...
There's a few other items I should address here, but you might find it an interesting mental exercise to actually look up dollar figures for total remittances + aid payments to Africa and then compare it to the size of Africa's GDP. (Then, as I mentioned, subtract debt repayments and capital flight.)
I do think there's a risk of mass hunger in Africa before the end of the century, in the very plausible scenario where population growth outstrips economic development. And for the record I am 100% HBD-pilled. But the average black african today is certainly not subsisting on the teat of western charity.
I don't accept the suggestion that White foreign aid to Black Africa isn't keeping the continent afloat.
It doesn't matter if the average black African isn't 'subsisting on the teat of western charity'.
What matters is that inputs of the West provide a margin of safety that allows the rest of the unteated to go about their business.
The difference between the survival and collapse of complex systems can very small. I think that the West is providing that difference and getting nothing in return.
What's called 'foreign investment' in Africa is just another form of foreign aid. Sure, the investors get something out of it, but it's just another sign the 'Africa' cannot fend for itself without the White West.
Africa seems like a continent that simply will never develop with or without outsiders.
They can be tapped for resources, and that's it.