Nationalism vs Liberalism

I would like to make my political position quite clear. I am neither a liberal nor a conservative. Neither of those political positions have what it takes to get America or other Western nations out of the gutter that we are currently in.

I am a revolutionary nationalist. I believe that nationalism is the best solution to the degradation of the Western world. I would like to clear up some misconceptions of what it means to be a nationalist, at least in my eyes.

Nationalism is not Chauvinism
One of the misconceptions of nationalism is that it leads to chauvinism and other supremacism. This cannot be further from the truth of the modern nationalist movement. We mainly just want to be left alone and leave others alone.

I have been to many different countries during my short life, I have never felt any hatred for any of the cultures that I have experienced. In fact, I believe that my travels have bolstered my nationalism.

I have experienced the cultures of places like Germany and Russia, and I believe that those, like mine, are cultures that deserve to be preserved. I believe that cultural differences are beautiful and that we should respect each other.

There is no desire among the modern nationalist movement to dominate or exterminate certain cultures. I would argue that the neoliberal establishment has done more to diminish culture with their policies of turning nations into economic zones more than any nationalist government.

Nationalists despise warmongers
The majority consensus among Western nationalists today is that we must end unnecessary military adventures. The United States has been embroiled in Middle Eastern conflicts since soon after I was born.

Many modern nationalists come from my generation, born before or during the post-9/11 world. Think about this, we were babies when Afghanistan was invaded and yet many of my peers could still enlist to serve in Afghanistan after we turned 18.

Our soldiers fought in Afghanistan for over 20 years and in the end, it didn’t matter because the government that we propped up turned out to be absolutely useless. Afghanistan will go down in history like Vietnam, another long conflict that ultimately ended in failure.

Since 9/11, America has militarily intervened in multiple Middle Eastern nations, including Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Palestine, and Yemen. Now, you could say that our mission to eradicate ISIS was somewhat successful, but other than that, we haven’t seen much success.

The population there doesn’t like us. We had a bunch of political science professors draw up a government for post-Baathist Iraq that barely functions. There is a brutal civil war in Syria, and it looks like we will see a regional war erupt over Israel/Palestine/Lebanon.

There were many who were against the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan in the first place given that Osama bin-Ladin wasn’t actually in any of those nations. The guy was in Pakistan. There ended up being no WMDs in Iraq.

Many of the people who were opposed to these wars who weren’t on the left were old-school nationalists. Many of the people who were for these wars are considered today to be moderates. This always confused me.

They call us the extremists, yet they were the ones who voted to partake in multiple offensive wars that ended up failing? What is extreme about analyzing the situation and coming to a logical conclusion based on that analysis?

The Cold War ended in 1991. That should have been the time for the United States to focus inward into our own house so we wouldn’t end up broken like the USSR. The European countries could have formed their own defensive alliance.

Yet that didn’t happen, instead we expanded NATO and undertook intervention into the former Yugoslav territories. When there wasn’t a conflict to be found, our leaders took it upon themselves to create one.

There can be no greater example of this than post-Soviet Russia. Boris Yeltsin was, for all his faults, perhaps the most pro-western leader Russia ever had. Instead of extending an olive branch to the new Russian Federation, we continued to treat it as if they were still the Soviet Union.

This, of course, led to the creation of our present-day situation. Vladimir Putin was, initially, willing to work with the West. Many Russian hardliners criticized him for being too pro-western in the past. Some say he is still being too polite.

Had our government listened to the nationalist voices back in the 90s like Pat Buchanan, we would not be in our current predicament.

Liberal governance is not working for the people
To my American readership, when I speak of liberalism, I do not mean it in a Republican/Democrat context. Most governments in the Western world are liberal in character, even those run by conservative parties.

Liberal Democracy has been the Western consensus since after the Second World War when we defeated the Axis. Initially, this was a good idea, but recently we have seen a degradation in the character of liberal democratic states.

My main critique against liberal democracy is that it doesn’t provide a solution to societal degradation. Sure, you can form a political party, run in elections and promise that you have all the answers, but in the end you will be hampered by the system.

In the US, you can become President, but you cannot enact major ideas unless you go through congress. You can use executive orders, but even those are limited in their power to actually do anything.

The problem with Western democracy today is that there are many interests which are so entrenched in the government that it makes change near impossible. Change is only allowed if the powers that be allow it.

Big business, the military-industrial complex, international finance, etc. all have their agents entrenched into powerful positions, let it be congress or the invisible fourth branch of government, the executive bureaucracy.

These agents have even made it so that it is difficult if not impossible to actually fire them. Government workers in the bureaucracy have very strict job protections. You really think that this is for stability or democratic protection? Nah.

The groups mentioned above have played the game of liberal democracy and have managed to rig a previously thought unriggable system by merging themselves with the system itself. This took years to do.

Whenever we are taught about the USSR, a word comes up: Nomenklatura. The Nomenklatura was a term to describe the Communist Party’s dominance over the system of appointments in the Soviet bureaucracy. It essentially cemented Communist Party rule over the entire government.

We in the West have developed a capitalist version of Nomenklatura. The only difference is that it isn’t under one uniform group but separate powerful interests who are united in their desire to stay in control. There is no need for a single-party system when you control all parties.

To be a conservative in such a society is to say that you wish to conserve that system. To be a liberal in such a society is to say that you want to keep the structure of the system but with a more human face.

To be a nationalist in such a society is to say that we must do away with the structure and system that has been rotted altogether.

A new, people’s government must be formed so we can cast out the agents of big business, the military industrial complex, and international finance.

Failed focus on social engineering
The liberal establishment has proven that they are more concerned with social engineering than they are with keeping civilization intact. Their alliance with modern day Social Justice Movements has proven disastrous for the masses.

We have seen our society degrade as governments have focused on idiotic proposals such as diversity, equity, and inclusion instead of hiring the best people for the job. This has led to collapses in infrastructure and other areas.

This has come at the expense of the West’s native white majority. I am sure that you have seen the new thing, White Dudes for Kamala Harris (the presidential candidate for the US Democratic Party). As you would expect, it is full of white self-hate and groveling towards women and minority groups.

This is just a symptom of a wider anti-white problem that the West has been facing from its own ruling class. White people, due to historical power, are considered to be evil and need to be erased. We know where this leads.

All this is done in the name of equality (or equity, whatever the word is they use these days), and you are a bad person if you oppose it. Conservatives have proven that they cannot or will not use government power to end this idiocy.

As nationalists, we must be willing and able to use the power of the state to end this suicidal ideology. We must enact laws forbidding anti-white practices, because we were apparently left out of the Civil Rights Act.

I believe that self-hatred on the basis of skin color is a form of abuse, and any institution or individual advocating or practicing it should be put under arrest.

Then there is also the question of this weird gender ideology nonsense that is going around the West. Our ruling class seems to have forgotten that there are only men and women in existence. This too must be rectified using state power.

It is silly that I must advocate using authoritarian methods to restore what was previously common sense to the West, but if we continue going down this road then all forms of democratic options will have been exhausted

Ultimately, nationalists advocate for an end to social engineering. The government should not be used to enforce fringe ideologies onto the public. Government should be used to govern. Anything else is outside the bounds of reason.

Justice must return
We need to end the soft on crime debacle that our rulers have gotten us into. It used to be that if you commit a crime, you get punished for it. Now whenever someone commits a crime we have to bring out a billion sociologists to explain why.

The end result is places like New York City or Chicago where you have repeat offenders because they get out time and time again. You get gangs terrorizing neighborhoods, druggies on the streets.

Remember when Sadiq Khan, Mayor of London, said that all this is “just part and parcel of living in a big city?” I do, and I absolutely disagree. It may be part and parcel now because of weaklings who refuse to do anything about crime, but it wasn’t always that way and it will not always be that way.

We need a full crackdown on criminal activity in our cities so we can make them livable again. Nobody should have to fear walking on their own at night.

An end to unsustainable immigration
The big business lobby has deemed it necessary to import unskilled labor from abroad at the expense of the native peoples. This has led to lowered wages, exploitation of the illegal aliens that come here, and stagnation.

We need to have mass deportations of illegal aliens in Western countries. This has been done successfully in the past and can be done even more successfully now with all the technology we have today.

Use all means at our disposal: planes, trains, semi-trucks, cargo ships, whatever. If the countries that they are originally from will not take them back, threaten them financially, if that doesn’t work, threaten them with military force.

Demographics are destiny, you cannot have a large influx of foreign demographics into a nation just like you cannot have a hundred people move into your house and expect you to feed all of them.

The big business lobby will cry about this, but it will be too late. The nation will direct capital, capital will not direct the nation.

Conclusion
There is much work to be done in order to fix the West. This piece was a floating of ideas, any other ideas are more than welcome. I believe that in the end, we will win.

Tell me what you think in the comments.