white nonidentity

At this point we here, on NOOSE, have already criticized White Pathology and White Nationalism. Let’s go a step further and strike at the linchpin of these topics, with a criticism of the so-called “White Identity“. It’s a concept which, naturally, could arise only in the United States, and which actively poisons pretty much everything it touches. And this is regardless of if it’s used by the “Left” or the “Right” – although it has been more beneficial to our enemies.

The only reason why the notion of “White Race” – and thus “White Identity” – exists, is because of the unique racial situation in the United States. There, you have a great collection and mixing of ethnicities and races on the same soil under the paper-citizenship identity of “American“. In some ways it could be argued that the concepts of “American” and “White” are at odds with each other. The former represents the victory of the classic liberal nation-state concept, where any citizen of the state is part of the nation, and culture is defined by the state and the man-made ideas it was built on. The latter represents an attempt to make a distinction within that body that excludes the racial and ethnic groups commonly referred to as the minorities, or the non-whites. The only way to create such a, more or less, unified, cohesive body, was to go back to a common denominator, and under such circumstances that denominator actually went back further than a biological racial conception to a supra-racial one – that’s the origins of the “White Race“. Thus you have the division between the “Whites” and “minorities” in USA.

The core problem with this, is the need for a common denominator which demands broader generalization, which is rather the goal of our enemies that repeat bullshit like “only one race – the human race“. The broader you go the more unique traits you have to deny in order to include all the groups you want, washing away any particular distinctions. Thus “White” becomes a negation of everything else. Therein lies the origin of these bullshit stereotypes that exist in the USA about how “bland” and “boring” “white people” are – because the term reduces everyone in it to a commonality devoid of any real cultural traits. This is because “white” Americans don’t have a real connection to the culture of their ancestors, and otherwise fall back on the dominant state-culture.

Another issue is how proponents of “White Identity” try to make it stretch out beyond the borders of USA to Europe as well. Had this been an attempt to create something new and organic in USA then it could be something promising. Americans need an anti-state-culture identity with “blood and soil” potential – one that will go against the entire premise of what the US stands for at the core, and will compromise on nothing less than its total destruction. However the very name does not lend itself to just being an American thing.

American SJW crowd fully exploit the concept of “Whiteness” and “White Identity” in their own narratives, from Noel Ignatiev’s infamous “we have to do away with whiteness“, to Portland Community College’s “Whiteness History Month” from April 6th, 2016, having a discussion on how kids in school are told to bring “artifacts of their culture to share with the class” and the white kids coming up to the teacher, saying “I don’t have a  culture“. Of course the jewy looking old hag that brought up this point, colored it in a narrative of how “not having a culture” gives one power as it means being “normal“. That bullshit aside, it does bring up a point of how Americans don’t have a culture in the same sense the minorities have cultures, but only because the minorities stay true to their actual ethnic cultural background (niggers are a separate issue however), while the generalized “white” Americans have only state-culture to fall back on. Nobody in their right mind would say that Germans or Anglo-Saxons don’t have a culture – yet those are two predominant groups of “whites” in the US. They are stuck between having to adhere to some imaginary “American” state-culture, or the alternative concept of “white identity” that tries to bring the two groups together under one term. But this negates their respective ethno-cultural differences entirely in favor of broader commonalities, leaving only something bland and undefined in their place, something that truly doesn’t have a culture.

The SJW criticism likewise shows how purely rooted in  the US reality all of this is: in Germany it’s perfectly imaginable for kids to be told to do a report on the culture of their own people, and German culture is the “normal” in Germany – that doesn’t mean that they don’t have a culture. This kind of confusion exists only in USA and the notion of “White Identity” is not helping matters. Worse still is how certain imbeciles now attempt to export this American notion to Europe with statements like “One of the most important trends in world history is the development of a Homogenous European Man. We need something like a European Union, or, in the east, a Russian Empire. Ethno-Nationalism is backwards-looking idea.” Take note European nationalists, you apparently have to discard ethnic nationalism entirely and strive for a European Mystery Meathomogenous man“, following the example of the American White Mystery Meat. Naturally someone with no comprehension of blood and soil nationalism and organic culture would deem those things completely unimportant, unification on generalization towards a broader common denominator will save Europe, you fools!

As we’ve covered earlier, generalization is the path of our enemies. The “White Identity” concept is but a step away from going full-on cosmopolitan: “only one race – the human race“. We follow the reverse path of particularization, going from the broader to the more specific. Yes, we’re all humans, but we’re more than that. Yes, we belong to the same race, but we’re more than that. Yes we belong  to the same ethnicity, but there’s more than that – and so it goes until we build up truly unique individuals with a specific place in this world as per their innate nature. Whomever claims that ethnic nationalism is a “backwards-looking idea” literally misses the entire point of the struggle and uses the same line of thinking as our enemies.

This is brought on by a desire to see European unity but at the expense of what actually defines Europe in favor of some generalized “Homogenous European Man“. Obviously there is nothing to fear as this idea will die back where it first appeared, in the USA. No European Nationalist will stand for rejection of their respective ethnic culture or deny blood and soil nationalism. Some scars from fraternal wars in Europe must be addressed in order to achieve unity – one can’t just pretend that they didn’t happen at all.

What Europe needs for unity has already been outlined by several European NS/Fascist figures – Europe a Nation or Europe of Fatherlands. The premise behind this unity is the sharing of a common Civilization, which is to culture what Race is to ethnicity (to an extent, there is a distinct civilizational rift between Europe and Russia, despite common racial origins). One does not come at the expense of the other, because we are not moving away from the particular to the general, but from the general to the particular. Europe is most certainly a distinct entity as a Civilization of its own, but it is made up of various cultures that have a common root.

What Europe needs is to enshrine its nature as a Civilization into the form of state, an Imperium, presenting a unified front to anything outside itself whilst maintaining internal ethno-cultural borders and a certain level of autonomy within said borders on internal matters – Europe of Fatherlands. Any European must feel that he simultaneously belongs to a certain Civilization and Race, as well as to a particular Culture and Ethnicity, and not simply feel that he’s a “European” from “Europe” in the same way that “Americans” are from “America“. Frankly, Americans should leave European nationalists to their own devices as to the future of Europe and stop trying to project their own lack of culture as some kind of virtue for unity.

The other issue to take with the notion of “White Identity” is the second word in it – identity. While the concept of “White” appealed to generalization, which is what our enemies aim for, the word identity is literally a buzzword that our enemies use on a daily basis. Identity does not represent anything concrete or rooted in reality, like blood and soil, it is an abstraction. One can thus change their identity on a whim, by choosing to identify with something, even if its fictitious. Bad enough that men identify as women and vice versa, or how some “whites” try to identify as black, some choose to identify as animals, fictional creatures like unicorns, dragons, vampires, ghosts, demons or whatever (including chimeras of different animals), or even as TV and cartoon characters (“fictionkin”).

Thus “White Identity” becomes willful identification with something fictional, making it no different from the examples given prior – the entire thing is inherently incompatible with our worldview. Probably the sole useful thing to come out of the introduction of the word “White” was its simplicity in use for discourse and debate, as opposed to the technically correct alternative that does not stray from reality: Races of Aryan descent. There can be a lot of nitpicking on the subject and this can easily become a debate over semantics. However the primary criticism on its actual use stands: as a fictional identity that leads to generalization by means of rejecting ethnic differences, which could only come from USA, where people of Aryan descent have forgotten their ethnic cultures and comes as an alternative to the soulless state-culture of the American Dream, the Constitution, the Founding Fathers, of man-made ideas, written laws and their authors.

An alternative is indeed crucial for Americans, but it must foremost seek to establish something organic as opposed to the artificial Leviathan that is the United States, thus its total destruction becomes paramount. What can come out of the ashes is anyone’s guess and there have been many ideas thrown around, from an Anglo-Saxon state being formed, to the balkanization of the country. Regardless, the only road to something real, organic, natural forming on the territory of modern-day US must come from its demise, a notion that has been outlined in some details under the name of American Futurism.

The bottom line is this: if Americans want to figure out who they actually are they must stop relying on fictional and paper identities. Just being “Whiteis not good enough.

14 thoughts on “WHITE NON-IDENTITY”

  1. ‘white’ is just the collectivized term for europeans which is derived from outside-europe colonial ventures, you pack a bunch of ‘white’ ethnicities within the same territories as a bunch of ‘black’ (red, yellow, whatever) they naturally collectivize as a team. though there are examples of governments representing these ethnicities forcing their citizens to ally with alien racial groups to fight their own racial kindred, usually on economic grounds (north american wars between european colonial powers with indian allies).

    no one actually says they want a nationalist european entity that deracinates the european ethnicities within or recreates them in the mystery meat of america. americans just talk about ‘white identity’ because they are all completely mongrelized – the only true homogenous european ethnicities in america are appalachians (border scots/english and scots-irish) and maybe some of the unmixed finnish and norwegian loggers near the great lakes. the only benefit of americans’ mongrelization i can see is a lack of tribal infighting grievances, and they dislike the idea of europeans being at each others’ throats because they have had centuries of racial strife instead of fratricidal ethnic experiences (for the most part)

    1. If it’s simply a very loose collective term then there is no real identity to it, it just becomes a technical categorization term for simplicity’s sake, which is fine, but once you try to talk about “white identity” you actually manufacture something fake as it is not rooted in anything real.

      And there are people who strive for this kind of thing, not deracination but de-ethnitication, hence the Richard Spencer quote as a prime example of that. Americans being mongrelized and that being the source of this sort of talk is exactly the point I make in the article myself, just as I point how this promotion of “White Identity” is marketed as a way for unity against “backwards looking etho-nationalism”.

      European nationalists will have none of it. There is already a slogan used by them when it comes to the historic European fratricide, and that slogan is “No More Brother Wars”, there is already a comprehension of Europeans belonging to the same family and civilization that doesn’t call for erasing ethnic identity, it is “Europe of Fatherlands”. Only the most bitter of histories are still left to be overcome and they have to be overcome in the coming common struggle, not by forging fake identity that nobody in Europe will ever accept as a replacement for their ethno-cultural identity.

      I don’t think you really disagree with anything in the article, you just seem to feel that people whom it criticizes don’t exist, but they do.

      1. “If it’s simply a very loose collective term then there is no real identity to it, it just becomes a technical categorization term for simplicity’s sake, which is fine, but once you try to talk about “white identity” you actually manufacture something fake as it is not rooted in anything real.”

        Which seems to be quite easy when Americans don’t know what a organic culture is, and what keeps a ethnicity & ethnic/indigenous religion together. The process of involution has worked its way to the point where they don’t have those traditions because they weren’t founded on them and more importantly they don’t practice them i.e they don’t carry on rituals, they don’t procreate with the same people belonging to their tribe and they don’t survive as a tribe. The concept of a organic or tribal culture vs artificial or imperial culture is something outside of their awareness as a meaningful distinction, as is their origins as a distinct ethnic group or as a European. Origin myths are a important part of identity – because it “connects the links in the chain” between the generations into a coherent picture so that you know what all the traditions where past & present, not just the ones that exist now, as well as for understanding for who and why you are passing the torch on for. You aren’t keeping traditions alive just for the greater survival of a group, religion, spirituality or to simply hold onto some good ideas that conform to the natural or divine world – your doing it so don’t you lose your identity. Its a part of who you are.

  2. I don’t see this Spencer quote. I know he says some ridiculous things but in this case where is the quote which is the basis of this article from? The link goes to Reddit, but Reddit links to a Radix article and it’s not there (and as if that would be representative of anyone’s viewpoint except him, even if he did say it).

    Some of the criticisms in this article are fair enough, but it’s very confusing. It seems to be claiming ‘White’ is not a sufficient identity for European-Americans, yet doesn’t even offer an alternative just “you better figure it out.”

    Or are you actually suggesting we should call ourselves “Races of Aryan descent” instead of White?

    1. No, I actually do say that saying just “White” is more efficient, as far as holding debates and conversations go, than “Races of Aryan descent”, however it is severely lacking and counterproductive as any sort of “identity”. In other words the term White has a utilitarian purpose as a simple and easy to use term, but it can’t be an “identity”, because if you call yourself White, then you ALREADY in practice call yourself “a member of Race(s) of Aryan descent”.

      As far as providing alternatives: it would be best if americans themselves handled it with all the knowledge of the racial situation in the US and what can be done about the “white mystery meat” issue, or even evaluate how far it goes. A few yanks I know propose an Anglo-Saxon centrist identity and culture, others focus on the Germanic roots, there’s also an idea on the table to forge something new out of said mystery meat by means of organic growth which can happen in the process of the struggle against the System and the post-collapse strife. Depending on those options you’d also have to start thinking about possible balkanization of the US or a creation of a new single body.

      Frankly, it’s a very open ended subject matter that may warrant an entire article of its own, hence why I didn’t go too far into it, as this was foremost to provide criticism of “White” as an “identity”.

      1. Ok, I see now. So you agree that our hands on tied on using “White,” as a label, but are just saying that’s not enough as an identity.

        I have to disagree though, I think a blanket White (American) identity is the only way for us here. Though the lines have been blurred between different European ethnicities in America, the line between White and non-White (especially with the radically different Negroes as the historical contrast) is very clear. Anything “Anglo-Saxon” or “Germanic” or anything of the sort is a non-starter at this point, and already way too abstract.

        When the collapse/balkanization happens we will just become even more homogenous, naturally, as you say. As Rockwell said: the color of our uniform will be the color of our skin. That war of independence will then become our new history and identity, as Whites of American descent (i.e. primarily mixed Northern European/Anglo/Germanic), though America as it had become will be looked at with nothing but disdain.

        For now our lack of culture is ok because we are under attack as a race. SJWs removing Jackson from the $20 bill to be replaced by an ugly negro, for example, as well as the positive aspects of the founding/conquering/building of the nation, should be all the motivation we need (if I’m understanding you right that we need some kind of grounding comparable to the blood and soil concept in order to find the will to fight).

        (Note that I am not defending any of Richard Spencer’s positions specifically, as I don’t really follow him much and when I do I usually can’t even really understand what he is saying, or what his actual positions even are – and I of course agree that his applying to Europe any of these concepts is absurd. I just wanted clarification on the article; which you gave.)

        1. I think your right. The way I see it is WE ARE moving towards the particular since whites have little to no identity, traditions or culture to speak of in places like America, Australia, New Zealand and Canada.
          Abstract civic nationalist, liberal, universal/cosmopolitan, technological consumerist values –> Race –> Ethnicity.
          You can say that these places have to move from the opposite extreme and that due to racial lines defining lines in any serious conflict – that this was going to be what it ultimately comes down to. I don’t think its the intention of the Alt-Right to remove particularism that exists currently, race is just much more tenable position due to where we are at currently. Theres potential there to carve out different factions that also place value on sub-groups. There HAS TO BE a starting position to take that isn’t automatically discounted as fringe that can reach the mainstream.

  3. I always thought White was just an umbrella term. And Identity was a reference to our people (ancestors and present/future) and the deliberate choice to stand by them.
    It has to be said, we do have a lot of baggage that causes as much drama as benefit.

  4. Is Australia, Canada and New Zealand not HuWhite? Because they both seem to me, and this is where I think white identity would actually work best. But its no replacement for tribalism, tradition and heritage (which is mostly Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Celtic) thus it would have to be formulated alongside a base ethnic identity for a wider racial identity to also exist which merely takes commonalities between them and by the commonalities between white civilisations throughout history.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *