As I’ve previously written, nationalism, or perhaps more approiately thedism, is good.

On the other hand, I am skeptical of white nationalism. Whites exist genetically as a grouping, although there are many sub-groupings within this that are more salient. There is some shared culture, but that is more an artifact of shared Christiandom than any particular intra-racial affinity.

I am skeptical of white nationalism simply for the fact that if I went and asked my Norse great-great-great-great-grandfather if he was of the same nation as a Spaniard or a Bosnian, he’d likely look at me in bewilderment. Individual European nations are different, with different cultures, different values, different Christianities, and different genetics; to proclaim a white nation, a white nationalism for all of Europe is as insane a project as the EU.

White nationalism is far too universalist a concept for me to accept.

That being said, there is always the old Bedouin saying, “I against my brother, my brother and I against my cousin, and my cousin and I against the stranger”. Because of Christendom, proximity, and genetics Europeans have enough shared culture to unite against a common threat of those with fewer shared ties, such as Islamic invasion, but the occasional strategic alliance against outsiders does not a nation make.

On the other hand, there might arguably be a white nation in North America (and possibly South America, but I do not know enough about their racial politics to comment). It’s possible enough intra-European mongrelization and cultural assimilation has occurred to make NA whites a separate independent thede (sort of like NA blacks are a separate thede), but I still doubt it. There are too many separate white thedes in NA who don’t particularly care for each other for white to be a true thede. Even after over 200 years of living together the puritans and cavaliers/reivers still hate each other.

Apart from that, while I say I support nationalism, that is because I do not have a better word. Nationalism grew out of Westphalia and the French Revolution, and is a part of the enlightenment and liberalization.  When it began, nationalism was the ideology of radicals and 1800’s nationalists were often the liberals, until Cthulu swam past them both. Nationalism resulted the destruction of local culture for a more universalist national culture and the end of traditional authorities.

Nationalism, or at least modern nationalism, is too liberal for me to accept as an ideology.

So I support unified communities, nations, and believe that generally each individual nation, whether based on ethnicity, language, religion, ideology, etc., should have self-determination and should govern itself by its own authorities in accordance with its own local culture.

Could that be called nationalism? Possibly, it’s the best existing word I can think of the top of my head. I attempted to use local nationalism on Twitter once, but that it was pointed out that is contradictory. Thedism would probably be more accurate for my views.

So, I’m a thedist. ‘Us’ should govern ‘us’.’Us’ should not govern ‘them’ and ‘them’ should not govern ‘us’.


  1. Whenever I hear someone going on about “whites,” I am discomforted by the lumping together of so many disparate groups. How can someone use “Y’all Qaeda” to refer to a militia thing going on in Oregon? They don’t even use “Y’all” in Oregon! It’s part of the Southern dialect, which is routinely mocked and deprecated by Puritans. To me the difference between the groups is stark and using one group’s shibboleths to mock another group doesn’t even make sense, but somehow to others they all get mashed up into “whites,” or maybe “conservatives” and “liberals.” But trying to explain that these are different groups with different–and often contentious–histories and cultures is generally not worth the effort.

    I am still hoping for a nation of smart people who are all willing to work together and form a single thede, but I’m not holding my breath.

  2. A separate white thede is an interesting concept, although it seems more likely that there are several competing authentically American thedes. At various points in our history it seems like the dominant culture was more unified, but some of that may have been more aspirational than factual. This is the confusing part, competing white thedes that all claim to represent the Real America. I’m put in mind somewhat of That Hideous Strength, where Lewis makes a distinction between the eternal Albion, and Britain. I think there is a Real America, but nailing it down geographically and culturally is a real challenge.

  3. Wow, you’re really pumping out the goods, FN.

    Nationalism was originally a very left wing idea as you point out. Its original proponents, mostly Italians prior to the formation of what we know today as ‘Italy’, wanted an egalitarian, democratic, ethnically homogeneous state.

    I am a nationalist in the following regard, that I support the integrity of nations, that is their permanence and preservation as distinct entities, both ethnically, linguistically, and culturally, contra globalism. However, nationalism often encompasses a belief that political autonomy is also necessary for such nations. This is nonsense. What good would political autonomy do the Udmurt peoples of the Russian taiga, who have been dutifully protected and provided for in their geographic enclave by the Slavic majority for centuries?

    The imperial ideal and the city state are in fact superior modes of civilization than the very Modern concept of the ‘nation state’. I really like your use of the term, ‘Thedism’ here.

    Now, as to your acknowledgement that ‘whites’ are not really a monolithic bloc, I relate this to Evola’s tripartite theory of race, which explains remarkably why ‘white nationalism’ is a dead end, certainly in its present form.

    Our race is expressed in three modes, the body, the character, and the spirit. What ‘whites’ or Occidentals, those being the peoples originating from the lands from the Iberian peninsula to the Ural Mountains, have in common is the race of the spirit. This is why ‘white’ civilization features very common and unique characteristics as compared to other large racial groupings. However, the disparate elements of this cannot be united except by a binding religious principle. It’s too disconnected from the ordinary day-to-day experiences of common men. We are foolish to ask the Serb and the Croat to integrate, even though they not only are of the same spiritual race, but roughly the same bodily race as well.

    The differences in our race of the character are what delineate the various ethnic groups. Germans and Danes are different, even though their genes and outward appearance may be very close. They will build different kinds of structures and societies. Christianity did its best to bring together at least in loose alliance the different character races of the European continent, but theopolitical divisions hampered and ultimately doomed this mission.

    This isn’t to say that a Christendom of the future could not bring all the ‘white’ ethnicities into a concordat of sorts, where Slav and Latin, Greek and Nordic, Anglo and Dutch can work cooperatively as friends, respectful to each other’s right to exist, but to imagine we will see this at any time in the near future is mad. The only thing that can bring together ‘white interests’ right now is a common self-concern with similar enemies. This however, is not a permanent solution nor should it be seen as such. It is a result of mere geopolitical phenomena, not deep-seated spiritual repair.

  4. This is obfuscating the fact. The fact of attack and attempted genocide on all White racial groups and only those groups.

    And come on, nationalism did not begin with Westphalia, that ridiculous and disingenuous. The articulation of a fact does not create the reality — that ‘s called ‘social construction’. ITs right out of 100 years of cultural Marxist rhetoric.

    The issue is White Genocide, the form taken to combat it is secondary to addressing the issue.

  5. I agree with Mark: white identity is a very broad notion, and actual white cultures are highly variegated. White nationalism is ideally an alliance among the various white peoples in recognition of our common enemies. We can get back to fighting each other after we have secured our collective survival.

  6. If you want to stop White genocide, you are going to have to kill a whole lot of Whites to do it, because Whites are the ones committing it. The other races do not have the ability, excepting some Orientals, who prefer to keep to themselves anyway. This is White Autogenocide, and the only way to stop it is to kill the whites responsible. Kill or deport every single Invader-American, and within a few decades, the problem will repeat itself. White Autogenocide is a symptom, not a disease.

    A far better tack is to allow the Northeast to go their own way, the South theirs, the North theirs, and the Mountain West theirs. When the Puritans commit Autogenocide on themselves, they will not have anyone else to take down with them. Then the saner Euro-Americans can reconquer New England and extinguish the last of the Puritans with it.

    The Shadowed Knight

  7. “White nationalism” is more often than not a strawman used by anti-whites who are looking for an avenue of attack whenever they hear someone defending himself while, at the same time, using the word white to describe himself.

    It’s not Politically Correct to say that white people should survive into the future. However, it is Politically Correct to attack whites. Therefore, you can now understand why someone might use the word “white” when exposing the attack against whites. No, being white is still not Politically Correct. #WhiteGenocide


  8. A.J.P., you will note that nowhere in my comment did I call for the extermination of the White race. I called for partition of the White race so that the sections most likely to attempt a White Autogenocide will have only themselves to target. If the Puritans want to commit Autogenocide, I have no desire to be dragged along with them. If they commit collective suicide, so much the better. The weak must die that the strong might survive.

    Furthermore, I have no desire to be part of a political union of all Whites. We have seen how well that turned out. I have my rights infringed to account for the Negros and Latinos and Orientals imported by Whites. I am facing an effort to stomp out my culture directed by Whites. Separation between the White races worked for centuries, and led to the greatest alliance of all time, while cramming us all in together is leading to the typical attempts to murder each other, which, unfortunately, we do all too well.

    If I have to kill Whites by the railcar load to be left alone, I will do it. If my survival is dependant on the extinguishing of millions of White lives, then so be it. Black, brown, red, yellow, or white; if you threaten me or my people, you are my enemy.

    The Shadowed Knight

  9. I’m a white Southerner. No, I have no truck with the Puritans. My personal experience is that quite a lot of Midwesterners, especially those that have had the pleasure to experience blacks at their worst, are part of what could be a broad coalition. We aren’t one culture, but we do have a lot of shared interests. Given that they live north of the Ohio and we south of it, there is no real reason for us to fight.

  10. T.S.K.,

    You’re confusing whites with anti-whites. Then you’re also not using the words White Genocide which has been used to some success already, and instead are using the word autogenocide. If you are a different race and are attaching yourself to some things that the papist sympathisers “anti-Puritan” types and then simply categorising all whites together with the word Auto-Genocide, then it is I who am mistaking you…


  11. A.J.P., so that we may understand each other, my paternal line is English with a recent infusion of Swede, while my maternal line is Scottish and Irish with some sort of French admixture somewhere.

    I used to live in Maine, a land of which I am dearly fond. Unfortunately for me, the degenerate Puritan scum of Massachusetts decided that–having turned their land into a festering cesspool–they enjoyed Maine too much to ruin only one state. Thanks to their influence, the economy has collapsed, feral negros infest the larger cities, the government is out of control, the cost of land is rising, and it has become nearly impossible for me to live there. My home was ruined by Puritans, so I have a very personal reason to hate them.

    I have no desire to share a nation with them. I would like nothing more dearly than to build a giant wall around them, and pour all the niggers, spicks, wogs, and chinks that they invited inside the wall with with them. After the Puritans all died, I would decimate the savages as punishment, then ship the rest back to the dark lands from which they came. At which point I would return to my homeland and live in peace, with drinking vessels made from the skulls of my “fellow” whites to remind me of the good old days.

    The Shadowed Knight

  12. I suspect you would find very interesting the late Elie Bedourie’s book/essay “Nationalism”. The first chapter appears to be available online in various places.

  13. Elie Kedourie: and damn the creators of autocorrect to hell. (I jest. Maybe. Perhaps a few millennia of burning in Purgatory is enough.)

  14. “When it began, nationalism was the ideology of radicals and 1800’s nationalists were often the liberals”

    No, it has always existed. It just didn’t have that name.

    To say it is against local custom is wrong. Local customs can exist at the same time.

    As for “White Nationalism”, the reason for the name is that unlike in Europe, patriotism was not demonized in the U.S. but instead hijacked. People liked the country they had built, so the media started producing pictures of Blacks and Whites standing shoulder to shoulder saluting the flag. This hijacking is seen in how you can’t even talk about Americans anymore; you must say “White Americans” or people will think it includes Blacks and Latinos and Jews, because that’s what the media propaganda says.

    So when people wanted to stand up for actual Americans, they couldn’t call it patriotism, and they couldn’t call it simply nationalism since that would be pretty much the same as saying the hijacked patriotism. They had to add “White” in front of the word to make the meaning clear.

    Of course, after that some would start theorizing endlessly about what White Nationalism mean, and some Americans who don’t understand Europe (or more specifically, who have Slavic ancestry and want their brethren to have full access to the West) would declare online that there should be no borders between White countries. Which was never what White Nationalism stood for. It was simply a word for Americans to stand up for Whites.

Leave a Reply