What Is National Culture?

The Underpinnings of Ideology and Biology

Having discussed the preliminary aspects of ethnic-nationalism, let us qualify the ideological and visionary interpretations and rudimentary understandings of just what, as we see it, ethnic-nationalism and its adherents seek to understand and implement in their personal and national lives.

For most of my life, there has been a cacophony of voices, of conflicting distillations of just what is necessary for a healthier and more vibrant society; what is necessary for the continuation of an ‘american exceptionalism’ which has been the bulwark against such anti-exceptionalisms as atheism, communism, socialism, anarchism, feminism, hedonism, and all the other ‘isms’ which, perforce, survive within our natures each, as varied as we, as individuals, see them.

The ethnic-nationalist, seeks ever to this same distillation.

In this regard, the evolutionary path, both ideological and biological, is of utmost importance.

From the very beginning, ethno-nationalism has been concerned with ‘blood and bone’, that element of cultural and racial similarity: it is for this reason, that of affinity and isolation, which has been the largest of our defamation’s by our opposition. Whether this has come from the ‘mainstream’ political parties, ethnic-based ‘special interest’ groups, or amongst the remnants of our own house, the obvious self-expression of racial identity is the base-line of ethno-nationalist perceptions. This is not limited in scope, however, and no matter the slings and arrows of the opposition, the width and breadth of ethnic identity encompasses all the facets of cultural manifestations, and the folk-community the world over.

The ethno-nationalist is also concerned with justice, law, and that which is concerned with liberty:

Now that those who practice justice do so involuntarily and because they have not the power to be unjust will best appear if we imagine something of this kind: having given both to the just and the unjust power to do what they will, let us watch and see whither desire will lead them; then we shall discover in the very act the just and unjust man to be proceeding along the same road, following their interest, which all natures deem to be their good, and are only diverted into the path of justice by the force of law.1

The above quote is just part of a longer dialogue, a parable actually, which infers that that the pull between the ‘just’ and the ‘unjust’ is simply a matter of opportunity; that man, by nature is inclined to look out for ones first cause: himself. In an ancient retelling of this dichotomy, Gyges, the ancestor of Croesus the Lydian was a shepherd, and caught in a terrific storm, also encountered an earthquake which opened up a cavity in the earth, whereupon he climbed down and came upon many artifacts, including a large body; upon this body was a golden ring which, he was to discover, was a magical ring – it allowed Gyges to become invisible. Soon after, he met with his fellow shepherds who, as was their custom, were in assembly to check their ‘books’ and the status of their flocks, which were to be presented to the King. While sitting amongst his friends, he happened to ‘twist’ the golden ring and was at once, invisible2; herein lies the gist of the above dialogue:

He was astonished at this, and again touching the ring he turned the collet outwards and reappeared; he made several trials of the ring, and always with the same result–when he turned the collet inwards he became invisible, when outwards he reappeared. Whereupon he contrived to be chosen one of the messengers who were sent to the court; whereas soon as he arrived he seduced the queen, and with her help conspired against the king and slew him, and took the kingdom. Suppose now that there were two such magic rings, and the just put on one of them and the unjust the other; no man can be imagined to be of such an iron nature that he would stand fast in justice. No man would keep his hands off what was not his own when he could safely take what he liked out of the market, or go into houses and lie with any one at his pleasure, or kill or release from prison whom he would, and in all respects be like a God among men. Then the actions of the just would be as the actions of the unjust; they would both come at last to the same point.3

One has to love the way the Hellenes (our ethnic kin) present the issues of psychology in relation to ‘human behavior’, especially when dealing with ‘social contracts’, which is primarily what ethno-nationalism is concerned as we, as a specific race-culture, a definitive and unique ethnic identity, have dealt with these issues before, for millennia in fact, and now face this ‘dialogue’ once again: what is just and unjust, and just how do we, as a people, adjust our needs and wants in our present presence? What is right, and what is wrong with the future we see before us? Socrates ends his story thus:

And this we may truly affirm to be a great proof that a man is just, not willingly or because he thinks that justice is any good to him individually, but of necessity, for wherever any one thinks that he can safely be unjust, there he is unjust.4

So, in the tradition of our ancestors, let me enter the fray, and disagree.

In the early beginnings of my own personal travels, which led me ineluctably to the choices and decisions that exhorted my very essence when confronted with the issues of my own presence, and that of my own people, I encountered but a handful of individuals who, specifically, used their position, their personal power, or their individual abilities to take advantage of a situation which would have benefited the folk but, rather, took those opportunities for themselves. My peers, however, have been racialists, radical traditionalists, common conservatives and working class individuals; there were a few ‘religious’ leaders and intellectuals but, in the main, those with whom I have shared many of my life experiences with, have been a more rudimentary type of person – this, I submit, is a profound observation of the ‘psychology’ of our fellows, as the width and breadth of persons with which I have had contact, are quite numerous, quite ‘american’, and quite racial in their outlook. In short: I have more often than not, been pleasantly surprised and quite proud of my Kinsmen over the majority of my life.

Of course we have our own ‘unjust’, and this is precisely the ‘why’ of a social contract, a contract which has been dissembled for millennia, by much more intelligent minds than my own; as ethno-nationalists, however, we must reacquaint ourselves with what, precisely, we actually mean, as ethno-nationalists. This is one of our weakest links, as a political force – the lack of consistent, deliberate, and forceful rhetoric and fundamental precepts, which we then can enumerate to our fellows in the public arena.

There have been many debates and dialogues as to the specifics of this type of ideation; and the most common assessment of political and social accommodations is that of the Constitution – with this, I have no argument. How is it, perchance, that such a document was ever created in the first place? Moreover, by what deal of chance, or fate – even of Destiny – was this document ever conceived? In fact, how could it ever be replaced – once again, I have no argument. It is not, however, the right or wrong of this document, or the ‘life-span’ of this document, or even of its ‘spiritual’ value, but to what extent5 this document, or any such document, still lives.

The ethno-nationalist, is a very inventive and innovative individual; as a group, the sparks begin to fly.

In the beginning of ethno-nationalist ideology, that which we embrace, generally, today, there was a very unique and all encompassing feeling of ‘alliance’, of solidarity; it has been remarked to me in more recent years, that those feelings, that sense of power and direction belonged to ‘that time’, while the present lacks all of this. I disagree again, and see it quite differently. We all share a common history – that of our American experience – and with this, also, comes our own unique sense of racial affinity since, for the most part, the majority of us remember what it was like to go to a school, church, boy scouts, girl scouts, field trips, and family outings to the beach or forest, also with a common experience of racial harmony – anecdotally, there were very few fights amongst the peers with which I grew up – this was generally not done, and bullies were rare; when this latter arose, there was more than ample resistance. Not so, today, for all of the above. This, also, we all share in common; negative, as well as positive influences create an atmosphere of ethnic singularity, and the ethno-nationalist knows the power between these two forces.

It is more than obvious here that I am speaking to the choir.

So, then, how was this ‘social contract’ deconstructed, and too what, specifically, do we defer for our future? To the former, I think it better to leave for more robust discussion and group consideration, as this could keep us up all night; to the latter, the ethno-nationalist has much to say.

We are told, more often than not, by the modern politico, clergy, and the assorted multi-cult propagandists, that “we can never go back to the way it was”, and proceed to harp on the perceived fact that there really is nothing we can do. The ethno-nationalist believes none of this.

_______________________

Notes:

1 Republic – Book II

2 One thinks of J.R.R. Tolkien’s masterful interpretations of our ethno-nationalist myths and legends of our northern European tales, (as he, himself, belongs to our folk-community) and presents in his The Hobbit and his Lord of the Rings trilogy, which so eloquently comes to grip with this issue at hand, as guile and honesty wrestle together and, whether by accident or design, allows for good to triumph over bad – this duality, of course, has been with us since time immemorial, and will undoubtedly continue as long as human nature is present within us. FLS

3 Ibid.

4 Ibid.

5 cf. ROTW, passim.