Nationalists do not like to think of identity as malleable, invented, constructed by myths, determined by personal choice, and so on. This is natural enough, because such ideas – taken to their most ridiculous extremes – are used by our anti-nationalist establishment to garland the absurd superstition of magic borders, by which non-European foreigners are conjured into "British" and "French" so as to conceal the reality of an aggressive race-replacement policy.
Having arisen in opposition to magic borders, nationalism seeks to place identity on the firmest ground possible, and often finds such a ground in the immutable facts of racial heritage. Although we can argue about the role of biological race as opposed to civilisation and heritage, as long as we confine ourselves to the differences between Europeans and non-Europeans, this emphasis on race provides a good rule of thumb – at least, good enough for the nationalist to be consistently right where the proponent of magic borders is wrong. Long and bitter experience with “multiculturalism” has shown us that while colonies of Africans, Indians and Muslims in Europe may or may not identify with their ancestral homelands, they certainly do not merge into a common identity with native Europeans, any more than white Australians became identical with Aborigines from the moment they began distinguishing themselves from the English.
This emphasis on race is less useful for understanding the intra-European differences between Germans, Englishmen, Frenchmen, Spaniards, Swedes, etc., which certainly cannot be reduced to so many inflections of biological heredity, and must admit reference to creative myths, environmental differences, the vicissitudes of historical accident and so on. Certain occurrences in the nationalist histories of Europe, such as the unification of Italy that was famously followed by D'Azeglio's admission that "now we must make Italians," also force us also to acknowledge a theory held to by an older Rightist tradition: the creation of a people in a certain territory by a State, which is itself animated by a myth or ideal.
All of this poses few problems for nationalists as long as: (1) all of these nations can be reduced to factions within the wider identity of "European," keeping the ingroup-outgroup relation of Europeans and non-Europeans intact; and, (2) it can be pointed out that every European nation, including those "constructed" or "invented," looks back to an historical genesis so far removed from our own time as to make the personal choices of modern individuals irrelevant.
And yes, this indeed holds good for the nations of Europe.
However, in relatively recent times, we have witnessed the creation ex nihilo of an ‘American’ national identity: entirely forward-looking, idealistic, and without heritage, peopled by diverse races of white Europeans who left their homelands and gave it their allegiance voluntarily, and (as Carl Schmitt reminds us in Nomos of the Earth) born and raised in conscious opposition to Europe.
Yes, America did not make a clean break from Europe; yes, the ideal of the “proposition nation” divorced from European heritage does not necessarily equate to modern multiculturalism and racial mixing; and yes, the founding of the American identity does not override the distinction between Europeans and non-Europeans, for whites in the New World have been welded into a new unity while blacks, mestizos, Amerindians and others remain separate and antagonistic sub-groups.
Yet it would be hard to deny that for typical Americans, multi-racialism in some form is seen as a continuation of American history, and absorption back into Europe as a betrayal of it; and that within this mental horizon, the only real choice is between "white supremacy" and "racial equality," which is one reason why the pro-European advocates of white nationhood in America find themselves so utterly marginalised and misunderstood by their compatriots. (No wonder, then, that they are so often drawn to "anti-American" points of view despite the political unwisdom of this.)
America shows that it is possible for a community of biological Europeans to (1) build their identity entirely on ideals, state-foundation, and a forward-looking project, with little or no reference to heritage; (2) divorce themselves from, and indeed oppose, all that "Europe" stands for; and (3) encode a multi-racial status quo, whether "supremacist" or "equalist," into their founding myths. Even as we wish for the collapse of America into a collection of smaller ethnostates, we should bear in mind the paradox of anti-European white identity that it symbolises, as we move to consider the emergence in our own time of a new white identity founded upon an even stronger anti-European myth.
The state-ideal that has forged this new identity makes no use of the words "nation" and "homeland," except when describing its enemies. However, just as atheism has given rise to a negative image of organised religion, it has indeed created a "pseudo-nation" and an "imagined homeland" for those who give allegiance to it. Lacking undiscovered continents on which to establish itself, it lays claim simultaneously to all territory and none at all, although a visit to central London or New York should suffice for a vague impression of its life-vision. From the history of mere nations, it takes only a few precedents – the French Revolution, the American identity, the universalist Communist vision – and discards the lingering ties of race and nation that "polluted" them. Born a master of high diplomacy and prudent dissimulation, it is already waging undeclared war against the European nationalism that constitutes its greatest potential threat, and has made temporary alliances with suitable non-European counterweights while also planning to devour them in time.
And we shall understand precisely none of this if we stubbornly hold to our one-sided view of identity as past-oriented heritage and biological race, and do not concede some points to the other side of identity that is future-oriented project, vision, and ideal.
The entity of which I am speaking cannot yet be called the "World State": the bureaucratic, financial and corporatist structures that tie it together and render its operations possible are not sufficiently strong, unified, and formalised enough for that, although they are certainly straining to become so. For now we can call this state-in-waiting by the name of the World Citadel, and designate one who renders his allegiance to it as a "citizen-of-the-world" or Cosmopolitan – a word that is to small-c cosmopolitanism more or less what Chinese is to chinoiserie. Cosmopolitans, far from being impoverished flotsam and jetsam blown to new shores, stand in possession of the political, business and ideological commanding heights in nearly all white countries; accordingly, those countries' governments no longer exist to serve national interests, but instead work for the cause of the World Citadel while doing their utmost to conceal this fact.
Straight away we encounter strong objections. Ruling classes who treat their people with contempt, elites with cosmopolitan tastes, and traitors in high places are nothing new in Europe or elsewhere; so why designate this class of people alone as a community unto themselves, and refer to them in "identitarian" terms? Simple: because the old concepts, invented when there did not exist a network of formal and informal institutions making up the rudiments of a global state, are simply not fit for describing the magnitude of the problem that we face today as our elites defect from their own nations and give allegiance to a hostile structure. A traitor is the shill of a foreign power, not a foreign power in himself; cosmopolitan elites have never, until now, found a crucible for their cosmopolitanism that can claim to politically represent the whole world; snobbish and tyrannical ruling classes do not give their people much comfort, but can still lead them to collective strength and independence in the world, whereas Cosmopolitans can only bombard a people with comfort while divesting them of the essential prerequisites for freedom of action.
The nationalist Right has expended much invective against an ill-defined "elite," variously described as metropolitan, cosmopolitan, decadent, out of touch, alienated, elitist, well-off, corrupt, liberal, progressive, communist, immoral, and so on. Swinging at the shadows, we can expect to achieve little more than sporadic outbursts of populist sentiment; if we are to wage sustained and effective metapolitical war, we shall need a precise description of this "elite," with all subjective and emotional chaff pruned away from its objective core. I hope to make the case that it is Cosmopolitanism, identification with an ideal and community subversive of the nation, that should at once serve as our most objective description and deepest indictment of this "elite."
At the same time, it should be borne in mind that I am not trying to construct a simplistic Manichean distinction here: tribalism good, universalism bad, therefore the worst thing in the world is to be a "Cosmopolitan." I do not entirely hold to this belief, and even those who do should acknowledge that it is not necessary for a critique of the Cosmopolitan phenomenon.
The vague idea of "Cosmopolitanism" as a universal kumbaya brotherhood has long enjoyed a benign reputation, because it has never before existed in reality. Now that the reality has appeared before us, displaying various ugly traits such as pseudo-national bigotry, economic rapacity, cultural artificiality, warmongering and subversion, and hostility to tradition, we would be very foolish to continue tilting our lances at the theory and not at this reality. It is perfectly possible to use “universalist” arguments against Cosmopolitanism: for example, the undeclared proxy wars of Cosmopolitans against resistant national groups are a serious threat to peace in a nuclear age when serious nationalist conflicts might have been expected to recede into the past.
For the question of how the pseudo-nation of Cosmopolitans can have any sort of clearly defined identity and common life, we must refer to the ideology and practice of political correctness, which is truly fascinating in the sinister multiplicity of its aspects. At its most accessible level, the linguistic one, it comes as close as is presently possible to forging an artificial common language: the various national languages are retained, but mutilated according to the same universal template, cut off from their origins in particular cultures and transformed into anodyne tools of communication imbued with an anti-national, anti-traditional ideology. It goes without saying that the nuances of this ideological language serve to provide, like the mannerisms of aristocrats, an instant means of telling a good Cosmopolitan from a morally subhuman "bigot" loyal to a national identity.
At the deeper level, political correctness acts as a degenerate parody of religious-philosophical spiritual practice. To become capable of projecting a "legitimate" claim to world authority, the Cosmopolitan is constantly challenged to divest himself of unconscious residues of loyalty towards his original race and nation, and to prove himself by sacrificing the interests of less privileged 'national' whites to the resentments of his non-white allies. Can I be alone in having noticed that professional non-white whingers like Franchesca Ramsey have very little to say to out-and-out deplorables like ourselves, but reserve a great deal of paranoid accusatory bile for whites who are passively or actively "anti-racist"? Such entitled ranting irritates Europeans, but provides an essential aid to spiritual deracination for Cosmopolitans, which is perhaps why the whingers have such a high profile on elite university campuses. Governess Franchesca and her ilk, far from just shining the shoes of the incipient elite, can help to purge them of all trace of spiritual "scruff."
This negation of national feeling certainly does not inculcate a "love of humanity" in its practitioners, for that is just a nice-sounding theory and a legitimising myth for the World Citadel. One might even say that it results in a sort of moral regression, with the deracinated individual thrown back on his selfish ego and immediate familial-social circle, as can be seen in the rapacious self-enrichment of a highly-placed Cosmopolitan like Tony Blair. But this result is entirely conducive to the reality, if not the myth, of Cosmopolitanism, which amounts to the exploitative rule of a world of disarmed and repressed nations by the “universal colonialism” of a small and incestuous elect.
Obviously it would be ridiculous to say that every white person who slanders his own race, or waxes lyrical about a world government, thereby becomes a Cosmopolitan and is no longer a European. Here we must refer back to another, non-biological view of identity, which was held by certain older Rightists like Spengler: the national spirit, created by a state-ideal, is embodied in an aristocracy that acts as a 'centre of gravity' for the rest of the population. Regardless of whether we choose to retain the word aristocracy ("rule of the best"), or opt for kakistocracy ("rule of the worst"), a similar phenomenon is undoubtedly at work here. There are plenty of whites, innocent and not so innocent, who find it convenient to spout anti-white and one-world bilge; but the word Cosmopolitan should be reserved for those who pursue a certain style of life, characterised by high commitment to self-deracination and direct contact with the global workings of the World Citadel, as is true of the political, corporate, and intellectual elites of the West.
More clues to the self-identity of Cosmopolitans can be gleaned from their verbal attacks on the majority of Europeans who have not forsaken their national identities. Their obsession with "proving" all racial and national identities to be constructed, artificial, imaginary, subject to personal whim, and so on, can be read psychologically as 'projection' and tactically as 'attacking in order to defend.' While most nations in fact possess both a past and a future, it is only the Cosmopolitan identity that is a completely arbitrary construct (lacking an ethnic basis, a spatial reference point, and a heritage tested by time), and the purpose of constantly attacking and deconstructing national identity is to "normalise" these weaknesses by foisting them onto others. Moreover, the vicious and dehumanising rhetoric used by Cosmopolitans against Europeans should be proof enough that they do not merely see us as a different social class or political faction.
To cease to see Cosmopolitans as Europeans like ourselves is to illuminate many aspects of their conduct that have hitherto been shrouded in mystery. For instance, we need no longer resort to such non-explanations as "cuckery" and "ethnomasochism" when Cosmopolitans constantly indulge and excuse certain non-whites, despite clear evidence of their stubborn ingratitude, blatant racial self-interest, and ferocious hatred of all whites without exception. Leaving aside the fact that non-white identitarianism makes a useful temporary ally against the European nationalist threat, Cosmopolitans are painfully aware that a World Citadel filled with white people has a very fragile legitimacy as a future world-ruling state. Thus, in the name of long-term collective self-interest, they are more than willing to clasp vipers to their bosoms and brave the occasional bites that result (most of which, in any case, tend to fall upon non-Cosmopolitan whites).
The persistence of racial parochialism in non-whites may well imply that the Cosmopolitan identity, having grown out of the white race, may in truth be no more accessible to Africans and Indians than any other European identity. However, Cosmopolitans are already severing non-white identities from their historical roots through the purely negative and individualist pseudo-identity of "Persons of Colour (PoCs)," and they can yet count on the long-term effects of racial mixing within the World Citadel to destroy these non-white identities completely. If Cosmopolitans are wont to engage in moralistic diatribes against eugenics, it is only because they designate by this term some sort of Nazi-Aryan project to move towards a purer European phenotype; when it comes to their own anti-white project to create a world population of Obamas, they are quite willing to witter about the beauty of mixed-race children and the genetic benefits of racial mixing, a phenomenon that is no less amusing than any other of their hypocrisies and double standards.
Murky questions within our own movement also become clearer once we draw a line between Europeans and Cosmopolitans. For example, many Alt-Righters who dream of the eventual political unification of Europe nevertheless supported both Scottish independence and Brexit, and are likely to support future efforts at secession within the European Union: surely this is contradictory, confused, even hypocritical? The answer is no, for the elegantly simple reason that the EU is a Cosmopolitan empire: it is a precedent for a future Third Imperium only insofar as the British Raj was a precedent for an independent India, and the foreign-controlled Manchu Qing Dynasty was a precedent for modern independent China. Many colonialists, in their desire to exploit a territory more effectively, have bequeathed to its inhabitants a unity that they had failed to achieve on their own; but this gift can only be claimed when the colonial empire is broken up and independence achieved, and the surest way to do this is by releasing the fissile energies of secession.
Perhaps it will be noticed that the view of Cosmopolitans outlined here bears a resemblance to the nationalist critique of the Jewish elite in the West. In case it is less than obvious, "Cosmopolitan" and "Jew" do not refer to the same thing. Many Cosmopolitans are, biologically speaking, no less European than any of us, and the purest expression of their world-vision admits no more tolerance for Zionism than for any other form of nationalism (although this view is muted at present, due to Jewish political power and the continued preoccupation with suppressing European nationalism).
The relation of Cosmopolitans to the Jewish elite is somewhat complicated: there are, as the Israelis are wont to complain, many diaspora Jews who are to all intents and purposes Cosmopolitans; concurrently, the establishment view of the Jews as an intelligent and blameless diaspora living among nationalist bigots is a spiritual precedent for the self-image of Cosmopolitans, which is why their denunciations of nationalism from the grave-mounds of Holocaust victims cannot be taken as proof of their subservience to Jewish interests.
The main point of potential disagreement between these two remains the issue of the state of Israel, and on this point we should bear two things in mind: firstly that we must, as Greg Johnson points out, reject on principle the Cosmopolitan view that Israel should die the death of all nations, and instead hold to our own view that Israel should live on its own resources; and secondly, that the high Jewish outmarriage rate combined with the expansion of Muslim constituencies in the West may conspire to bring about a reduction in Jewish power in the future, an occasion on which we shall have no cause for rejoicing as long as Cosmopolitanism remains strong. As James Petras points out, the United States would be a far more effective vehicle of globalist imperialism were it not swayed this way and that by the parochialism of the Israel Lobby, and a "Cosmopolitanism without Jews" would be no friend of European nationalism and self-determination.
Many serious thinkers on the Alt-Right – I exclude from this category all hysterical antisemitic monomaniacs – have done sterling work in exposing and criticising the anti-European subversion perpetuated by a vengeful, hypocritical Jewish-Zionist elite. However, on the subject of the highly-placed "Aryans" who also work to suppress European identity and push race-replacement migration, there has been less insight on display: they have been portrayed as either devoid of freedom of action (i.e. subservient to their Jewish partners-in-crime), or else devoid of rationality (i.e. beholden to selfish appetitive desires or mental disorders like "ethnomasochism"), and the general effect has been to fold their actions into the issue of a foreign attack on Europe by ethnic outsiders. This blind spot has been fostered, I suspect, by the worldview of nationalism, which consists of two main components: inter-racial conflict, which is an immutable fact of human life, and intra-racial unity, which is no less a wishy-washy theory than any Worker's Paradise of Marx.
The idea of the Cosmopolitan identity is put forward here as a starting-point for correction. We need not exonerate Jews or anyone else for anything at all, but we must start taking concepts like "dual loyalties" and "subversion as a survival strategy" and applying them with equal insight to biological Europeans who identify with neither our nations, nor our race, nor our European civilisation. Nay, perhaps more so, for there are plenty of ordinary Jews who get up to precisely nothing in the way of subversion, whereas the Cosmopolitan identity seems to require anti-whitism in order for those who adopt it to be taken seriously by their peers.
If you take nothing else from this article, take this declaration: Cosmopolitans are not Europeans. To defect from our nations is a choice that they themselves have made; it only falls to us to wake up and start taking their defection seriously. Lest we find ourselves blind-sided in the political struggles to come, we must remove those who identify (overtly or covertly) as anti-white citizens-of-the-world from our "ingroup," just as decisively and pitilessly as they long ago removed us from theirs.
Having arisen in opposition to magic borders, nationalism seeks to place identity on the firmest ground possible, and often finds such a ground in the immutable facts of racial heritage. Although we can argue about the role of biological race as opposed to civilisation and heritage, as long as we confine ourselves to the differences between Europeans and non-Europeans, this emphasis on race provides a good rule of thumb – at least, good enough for the nationalist to be consistently right where the proponent of magic borders is wrong. Long and bitter experience with “multiculturalism” has shown us that while colonies of Africans, Indians and Muslims in Europe may or may not identify with their ancestral homelands, they certainly do not merge into a common identity with native Europeans, any more than white Australians became identical with Aborigines from the moment they began distinguishing themselves from the English.
This emphasis on race is less useful for understanding the intra-European differences between Germans, Englishmen, Frenchmen, Spaniards, Swedes, etc., which certainly cannot be reduced to so many inflections of biological heredity, and must admit reference to creative myths, environmental differences, the vicissitudes of historical accident and so on. Certain occurrences in the nationalist histories of Europe, such as the unification of Italy that was famously followed by D'Azeglio's admission that "now we must make Italians," also force us also to acknowledge a theory held to by an older Rightist tradition: the creation of a people in a certain territory by a State, which is itself animated by a myth or ideal.
All of this poses few problems for nationalists as long as: (1) all of these nations can be reduced to factions within the wider identity of "European," keeping the ingroup-outgroup relation of Europeans and non-Europeans intact; and, (2) it can be pointed out that every European nation, including those "constructed" or "invented," looks back to an historical genesis so far removed from our own time as to make the personal choices of modern individuals irrelevant.
And yes, this indeed holds good for the nations of Europe.
 |
| "A hemispheric common market with open trade and open borders" |
However, in relatively recent times, we have witnessed the creation ex nihilo of an ‘American’ national identity: entirely forward-looking, idealistic, and without heritage, peopled by diverse races of white Europeans who left their homelands and gave it their allegiance voluntarily, and (as Carl Schmitt reminds us in Nomos of the Earth) born and raised in conscious opposition to Europe.
Yes, America did not make a clean break from Europe; yes, the ideal of the “proposition nation” divorced from European heritage does not necessarily equate to modern multiculturalism and racial mixing; and yes, the founding of the American identity does not override the distinction between Europeans and non-Europeans, for whites in the New World have been welded into a new unity while blacks, mestizos, Amerindians and others remain separate and antagonistic sub-groups.
Yet it would be hard to deny that for typical Americans, multi-racialism in some form is seen as a continuation of American history, and absorption back into Europe as a betrayal of it; and that within this mental horizon, the only real choice is between "white supremacy" and "racial equality," which is one reason why the pro-European advocates of white nationhood in America find themselves so utterly marginalised and misunderstood by their compatriots. (No wonder, then, that they are so often drawn to "anti-American" points of view despite the political unwisdom of this.)
America shows that it is possible for a community of biological Europeans to (1) build their identity entirely on ideals, state-foundation, and a forward-looking project, with little or no reference to heritage; (2) divorce themselves from, and indeed oppose, all that "Europe" stands for; and (3) encode a multi-racial status quo, whether "supremacist" or "equalist," into their founding myths. Even as we wish for the collapse of America into a collection of smaller ethnostates, we should bear in mind the paradox of anti-European white identity that it symbolises, as we move to consider the emergence in our own time of a new white identity founded upon an even stronger anti-European myth.
The state-ideal that has forged this new identity makes no use of the words "nation" and "homeland," except when describing its enemies. However, just as atheism has given rise to a negative image of organised religion, it has indeed created a "pseudo-nation" and an "imagined homeland" for those who give allegiance to it. Lacking undiscovered continents on which to establish itself, it lays claim simultaneously to all territory and none at all, although a visit to central London or New York should suffice for a vague impression of its life-vision. From the history of mere nations, it takes only a few precedents – the French Revolution, the American identity, the universalist Communist vision – and discards the lingering ties of race and nation that "polluted" them. Born a master of high diplomacy and prudent dissimulation, it is already waging undeclared war against the European nationalism that constitutes its greatest potential threat, and has made temporary alliances with suitable non-European counterweights while also planning to devour them in time.
The entity of which I am speaking cannot yet be called the "World State": the bureaucratic, financial and corporatist structures that tie it together and render its operations possible are not sufficiently strong, unified, and formalised enough for that, although they are certainly straining to become so. For now we can call this state-in-waiting by the name of the World Citadel, and designate one who renders his allegiance to it as a "citizen-of-the-world" or Cosmopolitan – a word that is to small-c cosmopolitanism more or less what Chinese is to chinoiserie. Cosmopolitans, far from being impoverished flotsam and jetsam blown to new shores, stand in possession of the political, business and ideological commanding heights in nearly all white countries; accordingly, those countries' governments no longer exist to serve national interests, but instead work for the cause of the World Citadel while doing their utmost to conceal this fact.
Straight away we encounter strong objections. Ruling classes who treat their people with contempt, elites with cosmopolitan tastes, and traitors in high places are nothing new in Europe or elsewhere; so why designate this class of people alone as a community unto themselves, and refer to them in "identitarian" terms? Simple: because the old concepts, invented when there did not exist a network of formal and informal institutions making up the rudiments of a global state, are simply not fit for describing the magnitude of the problem that we face today as our elites defect from their own nations and give allegiance to a hostile structure. A traitor is the shill of a foreign power, not a foreign power in himself; cosmopolitan elites have never, until now, found a crucible for their cosmopolitanism that can claim to politically represent the whole world; snobbish and tyrannical ruling classes do not give their people much comfort, but can still lead them to collective strength and independence in the world, whereas Cosmopolitans can only bombard a people with comfort while divesting them of the essential prerequisites for freedom of action.
The nationalist Right has expended much invective against an ill-defined "elite," variously described as metropolitan, cosmopolitan, decadent, out of touch, alienated, elitist, well-off, corrupt, liberal, progressive, communist, immoral, and so on. Swinging at the shadows, we can expect to achieve little more than sporadic outbursts of populist sentiment; if we are to wage sustained and effective metapolitical war, we shall need a precise description of this "elite," with all subjective and emotional chaff pruned away from its objective core. I hope to make the case that it is Cosmopolitanism, identification with an ideal and community subversive of the nation, that should at once serve as our most objective description and deepest indictment of this "elite."
At the same time, it should be borne in mind that I am not trying to construct a simplistic Manichean distinction here: tribalism good, universalism bad, therefore the worst thing in the world is to be a "Cosmopolitan." I do not entirely hold to this belief, and even those who do should acknowledge that it is not necessary for a critique of the Cosmopolitan phenomenon.
The vague idea of "Cosmopolitanism" as a universal kumbaya brotherhood has long enjoyed a benign reputation, because it has never before existed in reality. Now that the reality has appeared before us, displaying various ugly traits such as pseudo-national bigotry, economic rapacity, cultural artificiality, warmongering and subversion, and hostility to tradition, we would be very foolish to continue tilting our lances at the theory and not at this reality. It is perfectly possible to use “universalist” arguments against Cosmopolitanism: for example, the undeclared proxy wars of Cosmopolitans against resistant national groups are a serious threat to peace in a nuclear age when serious nationalist conflicts might have been expected to recede into the past.
 |
| A gulf of identity? |
At the deeper level, political correctness acts as a degenerate parody of religious-philosophical spiritual practice. To become capable of projecting a "legitimate" claim to world authority, the Cosmopolitan is constantly challenged to divest himself of unconscious residues of loyalty towards his original race and nation, and to prove himself by sacrificing the interests of less privileged 'national' whites to the resentments of his non-white allies. Can I be alone in having noticed that professional non-white whingers like Franchesca Ramsey have very little to say to out-and-out deplorables like ourselves, but reserve a great deal of paranoid accusatory bile for whites who are passively or actively "anti-racist"? Such entitled ranting irritates Europeans, but provides an essential aid to spiritual deracination for Cosmopolitans, which is perhaps why the whingers have such a high profile on elite university campuses. Governess Franchesca and her ilk, far from just shining the shoes of the incipient elite, can help to purge them of all trace of spiritual "scruff."
This negation of national feeling certainly does not inculcate a "love of humanity" in its practitioners, for that is just a nice-sounding theory and a legitimising myth for the World Citadel. One might even say that it results in a sort of moral regression, with the deracinated individual thrown back on his selfish ego and immediate familial-social circle, as can be seen in the rapacious self-enrichment of a highly-placed Cosmopolitan like Tony Blair. But this result is entirely conducive to the reality, if not the myth, of Cosmopolitanism, which amounts to the exploitative rule of a world of disarmed and repressed nations by the “universal colonialism” of a small and incestuous elect.
Obviously it would be ridiculous to say that every white person who slanders his own race, or waxes lyrical about a world government, thereby becomes a Cosmopolitan and is no longer a European. Here we must refer back to another, non-biological view of identity, which was held by certain older Rightists like Spengler: the national spirit, created by a state-ideal, is embodied in an aristocracy that acts as a 'centre of gravity' for the rest of the population. Regardless of whether we choose to retain the word aristocracy ("rule of the best"), or opt for kakistocracy ("rule of the worst"), a similar phenomenon is undoubtedly at work here. There are plenty of whites, innocent and not so innocent, who find it convenient to spout anti-white and one-world bilge; but the word Cosmopolitan should be reserved for those who pursue a certain style of life, characterised by high commitment to self-deracination and direct contact with the global workings of the World Citadel, as is true of the political, corporate, and intellectual elites of the West.
More clues to the self-identity of Cosmopolitans can be gleaned from their verbal attacks on the majority of Europeans who have not forsaken their national identities. Their obsession with "proving" all racial and national identities to be constructed, artificial, imaginary, subject to personal whim, and so on, can be read psychologically as 'projection' and tactically as 'attacking in order to defend.' While most nations in fact possess both a past and a future, it is only the Cosmopolitan identity that is a completely arbitrary construct (lacking an ethnic basis, a spatial reference point, and a heritage tested by time), and the purpose of constantly attacking and deconstructing national identity is to "normalise" these weaknesses by foisting them onto others. Moreover, the vicious and dehumanising rhetoric used by Cosmopolitans against Europeans should be proof enough that they do not merely see us as a different social class or political faction.
 |
| Loyal to the same state. |
The persistence of racial parochialism in non-whites may well imply that the Cosmopolitan identity, having grown out of the white race, may in truth be no more accessible to Africans and Indians than any other European identity. However, Cosmopolitans are already severing non-white identities from their historical roots through the purely negative and individualist pseudo-identity of "Persons of Colour (PoCs)," and they can yet count on the long-term effects of racial mixing within the World Citadel to destroy these non-white identities completely. If Cosmopolitans are wont to engage in moralistic diatribes against eugenics, it is only because they designate by this term some sort of Nazi-Aryan project to move towards a purer European phenotype; when it comes to their own anti-white project to create a world population of Obamas, they are quite willing to witter about the beauty of mixed-race children and the genetic benefits of racial mixing, a phenomenon that is no less amusing than any other of their hypocrisies and double standards.
Murky questions within our own movement also become clearer once we draw a line between Europeans and Cosmopolitans. For example, many Alt-Righters who dream of the eventual political unification of Europe nevertheless supported both Scottish independence and Brexit, and are likely to support future efforts at secession within the European Union: surely this is contradictory, confused, even hypocritical? The answer is no, for the elegantly simple reason that the EU is a Cosmopolitan empire: it is a precedent for a future Third Imperium only insofar as the British Raj was a precedent for an independent India, and the foreign-controlled Manchu Qing Dynasty was a precedent for modern independent China. Many colonialists, in their desire to exploit a territory more effectively, have bequeathed to its inhabitants a unity that they had failed to achieve on their own; but this gift can only be claimed when the colonial empire is broken up and independence achieved, and the surest way to do this is by releasing the fissile energies of secession.
Perhaps it will be noticed that the view of Cosmopolitans outlined here bears a resemblance to the nationalist critique of the Jewish elite in the West. In case it is less than obvious, "Cosmopolitan" and "Jew" do not refer to the same thing. Many Cosmopolitans are, biologically speaking, no less European than any of us, and the purest expression of their world-vision admits no more tolerance for Zionism than for any other form of nationalism (although this view is muted at present, due to Jewish political power and the continued preoccupation with suppressing European nationalism).
The relation of Cosmopolitans to the Jewish elite is somewhat complicated: there are, as the Israelis are wont to complain, many diaspora Jews who are to all intents and purposes Cosmopolitans; concurrently, the establishment view of the Jews as an intelligent and blameless diaspora living among nationalist bigots is a spiritual precedent for the self-image of Cosmopolitans, which is why their denunciations of nationalism from the grave-mounds of Holocaust victims cannot be taken as proof of their subservience to Jewish interests.
The main point of potential disagreement between these two remains the issue of the state of Israel, and on this point we should bear two things in mind: firstly that we must, as Greg Johnson points out, reject on principle the Cosmopolitan view that Israel should die the death of all nations, and instead hold to our own view that Israel should live on its own resources; and secondly, that the high Jewish outmarriage rate combined with the expansion of Muslim constituencies in the West may conspire to bring about a reduction in Jewish power in the future, an occasion on which we shall have no cause for rejoicing as long as Cosmopolitanism remains strong. As James Petras points out, the United States would be a far more effective vehicle of globalist imperialism were it not swayed this way and that by the parochialism of the Israel Lobby, and a "Cosmopolitanism without Jews" would be no friend of European nationalism and self-determination.
Many serious thinkers on the Alt-Right – I exclude from this category all hysterical antisemitic monomaniacs – have done sterling work in exposing and criticising the anti-European subversion perpetuated by a vengeful, hypocritical Jewish-Zionist elite. However, on the subject of the highly-placed "Aryans" who also work to suppress European identity and push race-replacement migration, there has been less insight on display: they have been portrayed as either devoid of freedom of action (i.e. subservient to their Jewish partners-in-crime), or else devoid of rationality (i.e. beholden to selfish appetitive desires or mental disorders like "ethnomasochism"), and the general effect has been to fold their actions into the issue of a foreign attack on Europe by ethnic outsiders. This blind spot has been fostered, I suspect, by the worldview of nationalism, which consists of two main components: inter-racial conflict, which is an immutable fact of human life, and intra-racial unity, which is no less a wishy-washy theory than any Worker's Paradise of Marx.
The idea of the Cosmopolitan identity is put forward here as a starting-point for correction. We need not exonerate Jews or anyone else for anything at all, but we must start taking concepts like "dual loyalties" and "subversion as a survival strategy" and applying them with equal insight to biological Europeans who identify with neither our nations, nor our race, nor our European civilisation. Nay, perhaps more so, for there are plenty of ordinary Jews who get up to precisely nothing in the way of subversion, whereas the Cosmopolitan identity seems to require anti-whitism in order for those who adopt it to be taken seriously by their peers.
If you take nothing else from this article, take this declaration: Cosmopolitans are not Europeans. To defect from our nations is a choice that they themselves have made; it only falls to us to wake up and start taking their defection seriously. Lest we find ourselves blind-sided in the political struggles to come, we must remove those who identify (overtly or covertly) as anti-white citizens-of-the-world from our "ingroup," just as decisively and pitilessly as they long ago removed us from theirs.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your comment will appear after it has been checked for spam, trolling, and hate speech.