Russia has invaded Ukraine, racial tensions are flaring up here in the States, and the Middle East is even more violent and pissed off than usual. Some have even speculated that World War III is becoming likelier. As Lewis Black said of the 21st century, “This is the 20th century […] all over again, only this time it’s in high-definition.” At home and abroad, nationalist sentiments are intensifying. For better or worse, they threaten to destabilize the current world order. More importantly, nationalist sentiments play out in people’s everyday lives, quietly affecting how they think and often subverting objectivity and reason.
In light of recent events, George Orwell’s essay “Notes on Nationalism” merits review. I encourage you to read the whole thing. It’s a relatively brief essay, and you can read it for free here.
What is Nationalism?
Orwell uses the term “nationalism” as the word that best describes a broader psychological phenomenon. He states that:
“By ‘nationalism’ I mean […] the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognising no other duty than that of advancing its interests. Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. […] Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.”
More succinctly, he defines nationalism as “power-hunger tempered by self-deception.”
Characteristics of Nationalism
Orwell notes that nationalist thought is characterized by obsession, instability, and indifference to reality. Nationalists often can’t tell the difference between assumptions and inferences. Nationalists are prone to confirmation bias, and sometimes even hold mutually contradictory beliefs. An example of this is the anti-Semite who accuses Jews of controlling Hollywood, the news media, and banks in order to accumulate vast amounts of power and wealth for themselves, while he also accuses them of promoting a communist agenda (which innately opposes large disparities of wealth).
Kinds of Nationalism
Orwell identifies three kinds of nationalism—Positive, Negative, and Transferred.
Positive nationalism is positive not because it is necessarily good, but because it’s for something. An example of this is white nationalism—a set of feelings about the superiority of whites and a desire for their advancement over other races. The particularities of those other races are not so important to the white nationalist. Whether the other race is black, hispanic, or Martian, the white nationalist believes he and his race are superior and should be in charge.
Negative nationalism is the opposite of positive nationalism. It is not negative because it is necessarily bad, but because it’s against something. An example of this is anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism naturally aligns with white (or some other non-Semitic) nationalism, but it is essentially an attitude about Jews. For example, consider a man with a white father and a black mother. If he has healthy, loving relationships with both sides of his family, we would expect him to be neither a white nationalist nor a black nationalist. And yet, this man could also be an anti-Semite.
Lastly, transferred nationalism has traits of both positive and negative nationalism. Transferred nationalism is distinguished by the nationalist having a disdain for his own native culture or social authority, leading him to transfer positive nationalist sentiments to a foreign entity. Orwell’s example of this is the English Russophiles, Englishmen who despised their English heritage and deified the Soviet Union, despite having never traveled there and despite the atrocities committed by Stalin’s regime, which Russophiles ignored or denied.
A modern example of transferred nationalism is the cluster of sentiments espoused by Guilty White Liberals. Having a general distrust of authority and white American culture (perhaps due to estrangement from their fathers), GWLs become personally, emotionally invested in groups to which they do not belong, such as minority races, gays, and even animals. GWLs do not just oppose what they perceive to be injustice for the sake of justice itself. Instead, they feel personally involved with whatever struggle they attach themselves to. Whites are not innately insulted by the use of racial epithets against minorities, and yet GWLs will consider themselves personally offended when hearing them.
This is totally not about attention whoring or self-aggrandizement—because reasons.
GWLs also exhibit the instability of transferred nationalism as described by Orwell. The GWL flits from cause to cause, crusading against whatever “oppression” is currently trending in liberal discourse. Ultimately, though, most GWLs are hypocritical frauds. Just as the English Russophiles never actually moved to Russia, GWLs don’t elect to live in ghettos. Many decry the plight of black youth, but relatively few volunteer to be mentors. Many bitch about the unfairness of capitalism, but freely embrace the excesses of materialism. As Orwell said, “Transferred nationalism, like the use of scapegoats, is a way of attaining salvation without altering one’s conduct.”
Nationalism in Culture
Nationalism is a powerful force in organizing people into groups because it makes members feel as if their personal interests and those of the group are congruent, even when this is objectively untrue. Here are some of the ways this is manifested in culture:
Sports Fandom
A mundane form of nationalism is the devotion some fans have to a particular sports team. It would be perfectly reasonable for a man to feel good when the Green Bay Packers win, so long as he stands to win money from a bet, or if his son is a member of the team. A lover of football could even appreciate the execution of complicated plays, or the drama of a game-determining struggle. However, to otherwise feel personally increased or decreased by a team’s victory or defeat is irrational, the height of such nonsense being found in hooliganism.
Race and Justice
Unfortunately, nationalism can lead to controversies and conflicts, putting justice and peace at risk. The recent shooting of Michael Brown and the subsequent unrest illustrate how potent nationalist tendencies can be, precisely because nationalist sentiments exist before reason, leading people to select and interpret evidence that fits what they already believe to be true. As Anonymous Cop points out in his article, the media immediately branded Michael Brown as an “unarmed black teenager” shot by a white police officer, which fit nicely into a narrative about power and authority that some people already believe. Thus, the barest details of the incident immediately prompted not just suspicions, but conclusions. Accordingly, the following people believed the corresponding statements to be true:
The white nationalist: The police officer was justified in shooting and killing Michael Brown.
The GWL and the black nationalist: The police officer was not justified in shooting and killing Michael Brown.
A reasonable, neutral person: A policeman shooting and killing an unarmed person is serious. We should investigate this and see what the facts say.
Nationalism involves feelings of superiority, and GWLs and black nationalists have convinced themselves that blacks are victims and are therefore morally superior to whites, the oppressors. This is why GWLs and black nationalists respond so angrily to anyone who asserts that whites are oppressed. Over the past few weeks the GWLs and black nationalists have invoked past allegations of racism as evidence that the death of Michael Brown is just one more murder in a pattern of racist police brutality. However, such a pattern, if it exists, would at most warrant suspicion of Officer Wilson’s motivations. Ultimately, the sins of other officers do not prove that Officer Wilson acted similarly, and to believe so is to claim guilt by association. Citing past racism proves nothing, but for GWLs and black nationalists, it serves to justify what they already believe.
Modern Feminism
“Meine schadenfreude macht mich frei”
Modern feminism fits Orwell’s succinct definition of nationalism—“power-hunger tempered by self-deception.” These feminists have prioritized the interest of women over those of men, children, and society. More than that, they seek to control men, children, and society in order to advance those interests. These feminists obsessively view everything through their narrative of victimization, and many of their beliefs are hypocritical, changing whenever it suits them.
In their minds, men are essentially bad, women are essentially good, and when conflicts arise between a man and a woman, the modern feminist can only take pleasure from the woman winning some advantage over the man. Contrary to their rhetoric, feminists have sought to advance the interests of women not through genuine equality, but by any means necessary.
Final Thoughts
Toward the end of his essay, Orwell makes sure to point out that nationalism is not always or necessarily bad. However, nationalism is a very powerful and potentially dangerous force, and everyone is susceptible to it. The first danger of nationalism comes from its subtlety, the way it can lead to biases and irrational assumptions and cause people to dismiss or become indifferent to reality. The second danger of nationalism is that it compels people to act, and history attests to the results. For Orwell, struggling against nationalistic impulses is a moral effort. Understanding nationalism will help you better understand society and culture. More than that, understanding nationalism will help you free your mind and better know yourself.
Read More: The Playboy Interview With George Carlin
Cultural Marxism is being pushed by some as a means to subvert the enemy or host nation. A group can push ideals against a nation without necessarily believing in the ideology being pushed with the aims of demoralising the nation.
The world and the USA could use MORE nationalism not less nationalism.
Otherwise our YKW overlords will destroy our culture, society, lifestyle, jobs, and infrastructure by opening the borders to billions of foreigners.
87% of the world’s people are poorer than Mexicans, the USA can’t pay for them all and exist.
Let’s face it, any kind of identify anywhere (even self esteem), will threaten elites who would prefer that a chosen people rule over them. Accept the criticism already.
France looks different from Italy which looks different from Switzerland… Austria… Russia. Each culture produced its own different form of greatness. The multicultural USA has a bland sort of sameness. Multiculture is the death of culture.
People are stupid and need some reason to take care of their local surroundings… i’m in Mexico so i can chuck my cigarettes out on the street and throw trash out of my car window… but in California …hell no !
Then when that sentiment gets whipped up into a fever by some politician or other, it’s worse than religion, because at least religion has to answer to god, even if he does suggest beheading the infidels…
Multiculturalism – what Teddy Roosevelt meant when he said that there was no room for ‘hyphenated Americans’ – is the essence of nationalism and identity politics.
Being a white nationalist, Jewish nationalist or black nationalist is in essence no different from the identity politics, like fat acceptance and transspecies, found on Tumblr.
Pretending to be a Viking is just another form of cosplay. Just because it’s your heritage and not an anime doesn’t make it better. Your ancestors moved on but you’re stuck in the past – a different country.
Nationalists are proud of what they are, or what they allegedly are, not what they have done.
Nationalism is another scare word now. Anything you say or do that is even remotely against your leftist social engineering gloabalist overlords and their useful liberal idiots is “nationalism” and the automatic connotation is fascism, Nazism, racism, extreme right, etc.
edited: That’s because of the history of the left in the twentieth century which takes world war 1+ 2 / holocaust as the pivotal event / problem and the battle against anti-semitism / racism / prejudice.
I don’t have a problem with people who look different from my extended British-Irish tribe, provided that they behave themselves and we can function together in the same society.
For example, I have a black lady acquaintance who works as a programmer in Silicon Valley. I get the impression from talking to her that she prefers to hang with white people because she doesn’t know enough intelligent blacks to interest her.
But given how blacks in the U.S. in general don’t run their lives very well, due mainly to their lower IQ’s (unlike the case with the black woman I mentioned above), I prefer to keep a discreet distance from their “communities.”
I traveled to South America for the first time this summer, when you finally see real poverty its mind blowing how many advantages black Americans really have compared to most others in the world, but all they do is bitch about everything and make excuses like women.
It took me a long time to see this, but its true. Poverty in the United States is a life of luxury in much of the world. People (particulalrly on the left) like to pretend there is some Great White Powerstructure holding non-whites down, when in fact it is nothing more than the culture of the projects and the unnoticed and uncared-for sympathy of leftists
Stick any poor group of 3rd world people in the US, and they will grow to bitch more than in their old country. A lot of the ghetto blacks’ bitching in the US comes from the proximity to affluence.
Stop bitching.
“Somebody needs to pay for all these children.”
– unemployed mother of 15
I think she means China, or she might, if she’d heard of it.
Great shades of donglegate, I hope those men don’t joke around her!
“But given how blacks in the U.S. in general don’t run their lives very
well, due mainly to their lower IQ’s (unlike the case with the black
woman I mentioned above), I prefer to keep a discreet distance from
their “communities.””
And would you be implying that whites in the U.S. run their lives generally well due to their higher IQ’s? It would appear that 26 other people found your post as humorous as I did.
Are those who look different from the ones in your “tribe” supposed to behave themselves according to mainstream white principles? Typical “If they act as I act, then all is well.”
Are you suffering from the general feeling that blacks are inferior to you, or perhaps lead inferior lives than you? Sadly, your post is laden with racist overtones, but of course we’re soon presented with the typical “Oh, but I have a black friend”, acquaintance, in you case. Your self-deception, my friend, is quite astounding. I highly suggest you read Mr. Orwell’s “Notes on Nationalism”. Disregarding the title, you can surely learn much from it. With that, I bid adieu!
“I would challenge you to a battle of wits, but I see you are unarmed!”
― William Shakespeare
A question to the author:
How would you define the Israel’s policy in the MIddle East, as patriotic or nationalistic?
If I may, sir, having some personal knowledge of this question:
Israel’s core policy is neither patriotic nor nationalistic, it’s pragmatic by force of events.
It’s a “bunker” or “fortress” mentality – one loss in a war, and it’s the gas chambers and crematoria again.
Pragmatic it is not, as you don’t do unto others what you don’t want others to do unto you. Everything ricochets back at them.
Yes, ever since getting exiled by the Assyrians and Babylonians, then being allowed to return by the Median/Persians, allowing the Romans to crucify mithras/son of god/King of the
Jews, then refusing to accept the prophet of the desert moon god, and so on, it all ricochets back, my friend.
Everyone seems to hate these people everywhere they go. This isn’t the first time another civilization has tried to exterminate them.
The interesting question is, “Why”?, and also, who profits from this (hint: not the average Jew).
No one makes the Chosen People suffer more than the mothers who chose to exclude their children from 99.8% of their interests.
He who exploits for me will exploit me.
huh?
They’re not actually Chosen for anything but exploitation, by their mothers who raise them to believe they’re superior to 99.8% of humanity. That’s a source of conflict.
I think Israeli policy is mostly patriotic, not nationalistic. Of course, there certainly are far-right Israeli nationalists, as there are far-right nationalists in any population.
Israel has used annexation to expand their territory in the past, and for this the Israelis are often accused of nationalism. Clearly, expansion does serve a nationalist agenda. However, it can also serves a defensive, patriotic purpose as well. I imagine that Israeli attitude regarding the Six-Day War was something like that of Ender, from the novel Ender’s Game, who said about a fight at school “I have to win this now and for all time, or I’ll fight it every day and it will get worse and worse.” In a cramped region full of hostile neighbors, strategic positions are vital for national defense.
The Israelis have engaged in numerous conflicts in the past few decades, but these seem to be mostly defensive. I’m sure there are some nationalists who want Israel to go on a rampage and take more land and kill a bunch of Muslims, but the prevailing attitude seems to be that peace and prosperity are better.
Actually, there aren’t, “some nationalists who want Israel to go on a rampage and take more land and kill a bunch of Muslims”.
There are, however, a seemingly lunatic fringe but well represented politically and in the media there, financed mightily by the likes of G. Soros, who press for one-sided concessions and other disadvantage until the day comes that the war is lost.
Everyone (nationalist, patriot, etc.) agrees that, “peace and prosperity are better”. Except the vast majority of Moslems in the vicinity.
“History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme.”
-Mark Twain
Everything Orwell wrote in “Animal Farm” and “1984” is the Absolute Fucking Truth.
À bientôt,
Mistral
Yep. I can’t find anyone to agree with me that 1984 is about our dystopian early childhood but it most certainly is about Big Mother and capture-bonding.
GWL have a very schizophrenic relationship with big government. On the one hand they are very distrustful of it. On the other hand they see big government as the means to achieve their goals. What they don’t realize is that big government will always align itself with the wealthy and the powerful, and will always end up being your oppressor no matter how in tune with your views it starts out.
They are just like most brainwashed people. They love it when it is in their favor and hate it when it opposes their positions. Same as the diehard Republicans or Democrats.
I try to explain to my GWL friends and acquaintances that allowing “their guy” (ie, Obama) to ignore the Constitution is setting a precedence for the next person, who they might not like. They just don’t seem to get it, though.
Obama is hardly the first president to ignore the constitution. The guy before him did much of the same, while at the same time making the US a childish pariah in the world community. I am neither leftist nor rightist, but all those who condemn Obama for not following the rules seem to have willfully forgotten the idiocy of Bush II
Oh I agree. I was not a Bush supporter. But the thing is, my GWL friends would froth at the mouth over what Bush did, but come up with excuse after excuse for Obama. I am an equal opportunity asshole. I like to say that Bush drove the car to the edge of the cliff. Obama just stepped on the gas.
It is a shame. Both parties are pretty much the same.
The “ignoring” of the Constitution (as mentioned by some people) has been going on for quite awhile, now. It didn’t start with Obama and it won’t end with him.
People in power will do whatever is needed or necessary to keep that power.
“People in power will do whatever is needed or necessary to keep that power.”
Right there is precisely why I don’t think our current system, regardless of how unsustainable it is, will be collapsing anytime soon like many on ROK believe. Those at the top will be doing everything in their expansive powers to keep this circus going for as long as possible.
Started with Jefferson didn’t it?
Good question (not sure). But I do laugh when I hear people accusing one party doing it over another one. I tell them that all politicians do it and I recommend that people start being honest with themselves.
No politician gives a shit about the common person….it’s all about keeping power.
If you are saying that Jefferson was a flawed human being, he would have been the first to agree. I see a major difference between him (including the other FFs) and modern politicians: the FFs knew that they – and everyone – were flawed human beings. So they tried to set up a system of government that would help protect against human flaws – including their own. Unfortunately I don’t think they could have forseen the rise of such a huge number of parasites that would overwhelm their “checks and balances”.
So feminism can be positive, negative, and transferred nationalism depending on which “feminist” you talk to. K. Good article
it seems like a very useful type of analytic scheme for any group.
After WW2 there was a big effort to distinguish Hitler from the left, since Hitler called his party national socialists and the left called for socialism.
The Nazis thought they were socialists. Certainly they were not fascists like Mussolini’s Italy, trying to pave a third way between capitalism and socialism.
Orwell knew this. He was a man of the left and he was writing to blame Germany for anything other than his government. It’s dishonest. His attempt to distinguish nationalism from patriotism is hollow, a distinction without a real world difference.
The post WW2 demise of nationalism in Europe has given them the failure that is the EU and a continual economic depression. Meanwhile European lands are being overrun with foreigners and European women have basically stopped reproducing with european men. It’s only a matter of time before Europe is overrun by Muslims and Africans.
From the Master Blaster of Nazism himself:
“National Socialism is what Marxism might have been if it could have broken its absurd and artificial ties with a democratic order. … there is more that binds us to Bolshevism than separates us from it. There is, above all, genuine, revolutionary feeling, which is alive everywhere in Russia except where there are Jewish Marxists. I have always made allowance for this circumstance, and given orders that former Communists are to be admitted to the party at once. The petit bourgeois Social-Democrat and the trade-union boss will never make a National Socialist, but the Communist always will.”
–A. Hitler, quoted in Hitler Speaks, Hermann Rauschning, (1939)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Rauschning#Authenticity_of_Hitler_Speaks
Wow. I guess Abraham Lincoln was right–you can’t believe everything you read on the internet.
Mistral
Wikipedia is frequently wrong.
Wikipedia is a limit to your research. Don’t let it limit your research.
As a National Socialist the main distinction between Hitler’s German Socialism and Stalin’s Communism is that for Hitler, was a method of controlling Germany only, and becoming self-sufficient whereas Communism was international. Meaning the intention of Russian Communism was world domination no matter how unlikely that was.
Hitler was well aware of this and extremely concerned about the prospect of a Russian invasion.
“His attempt to distinguish nationalism from patriotism is hollow, a distinction without a real world difference.”
Orwell is writing in 1945 according to the date of publication at least. Nationalism was implicated in two world wars, and whatever you’re opinions of the matter given how both wars were won, its clearly a causal factor, if not necessarily the only one (by any means). The difference between nationalism and patriotism seems that as different phenomena they are likely to achieve quite different things as the author of the article explains. Nationalism (in all 3 varieties) enables mass popular movements precisely because it dispenses with the purely rational. It doesn’t even have to be self-interested here. Patriotism (as rational self-interest) on the other hand provides a solution to a key problem identified in the article, namely that progressive ideologies may effectively trick groups such as the guilty white liberal into disregarding their group self-interests. This is I think rightly identified as a failure of rationality, that has proven to be destabilising for the nations concerns.
In a sense the problem with the article – which I think is important – is that it isn’t necessarily about nationalism, but about Orwell’s attempt to understand nationalist conflict in light of WW2 in a way that was subsequently studied in psychology in terms of group theory / social identity processes (e.g. tajfel, etc) and by the frankfurt school in terms of group psychopathology, prejudice and authoritarianism. Orwell’s approach if its as the author describes (I haven’t read the article yet) seems to anticipate cognitive psychological approaches (i.e. biases in processing) and maybe also the group conflict theory of Sherif. Tajfel subsequent findings suggested that groups aren’t always rationally self-interested, but in a sense this is unfortunate because it is precisely the analysis of group conflict in terms of self-interest that could have saved us so much profound hypocrisy and virtually suicidal behaviour in western societies. For me the great evil of the progressive movements is its ability to deceive people that they can believe their rational and reasonable self-interests aren’t important compared to some other group. In the West this has been disastrous. But the key here is the combination of rational and self-interest. Nationalism isn’t rational, and doesn’t know how to stop the forces it unleashes. All groups should be able to pursue their self-interests rationally and without self-deception. Patriotism can potentially do that, and the principles behind it, rational / enlightened self-interest can be as the author suggests transferred to any other group situation. Conflict will arise, but it will not be un-containable. So if we’d listened to Orwell, and Sherif etc instead of the psychopathologising frankfurt school, and the deceptive proto-progressives we might now be heading in to the new century without the prospect of another near apocalyptic flare up when repressed self-interest collides as it most probably will
In order words, Internationlism / Globalism won the war and the entire West is suffering for it.
Immigration, cultural marxism, feminism, and central banking, (along with its usury and inflation), and the rest of the tenets of the Judeo-Bolshevik agenda.
So much for the Good War (WWII)
You are certainly right that traditional (not modern) Western culture is superior to Muslim and African culture in it’s institutions and values, and it is true that the mass importation of multiculturalism and particularly Islam is highly negative, along with the rest of the liberal program.
However, while it may be that Orwell’s motivation was to defend socialism, what he said was correct. Unconditional devotion to one’s country is never a good thing, because one’s country can turn tyrannical.
Devotion to the principles of one’s country is different. For example, when I say the Pledge of Allegiance, I am not pledging allegiance to my government, but to my flag and for the Republic it stands for: “One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” Whether or not I support my particular government depends on whether or not it adheres to these principles.
I never pledge allegiance to any nation, much less to an inanimate object. My allegiance is to my family, and to a lesser extent to my friends and community, as long as they honor and respect me. My family does not need a pledge of allegiance and no one else deserves one.
Incidentally, that’s an awful broad statement to make about entire societies being superior to other societies. And the world outside the USA doesn’t view the “left / right” paradigm the way we do in America.
To englishbob and spicynujac:
1.
When I say that I pledge to the flag and Republic, I do not mean that I pledge to the literal piece of cloth and to the actual nation that is America. I view the flag as as a metaphor for America, and when I refer to America, I refer not to the political entity that is the USA, but to the values and principals that America stands for in my mind, namely freedom, justice, etc.
America to me is an ideal for us to strive for, and I fully agree with not pledging blind allegiance to political entities. In fact, if I were pledging to the literal nation of America in which there is “justice for all” I would certainly be a fool, because no such nation exists!
2.
When I say left and right, I refer to the spectrum of totalitarianism vs. liberty, which is the way I view politics. Hitler was on the left, because he supported ruling via propaganda and an iron fist, and the same can be said of modern liberals, though certainly not to the same extent as Hitler.
3.
I am not saying that all other cultures are are inferior in all ways, but many are inferior in certain important ways. For example, while Sikhs and traditional Chinese families are largely positive cultural influences, Islam is a fascist and oppressive ideology, and it’s importation to the West by liberals under the guise of “multiculturalism” is having drastically negative affects.
4.
Englishbob, I agree with you about “indivisible,” that should be taken out.
It’s funny that the only people who dishonored and disrespected you receive your unconditional allegiance.
You failed to produce the logic for why your abusive mother’s conduct is exonerated from scrutiny when the truth is that her unconscionable – unnatural – betrayal of your biological trust has and will continue to harm you more than any other (or every other) human could. Her mutilation of your trusting mind can never be reversed; you’re reduced for life in ways you cannot comprehend because humans only know what they’ve been told and shown and all children are told and shown are horrific lies like:
Whores need to privatise children’s asexual “privates” because sex-obsessed perverts (like our mothers) don’t want to play fair (they would have to compete / pay for sex). We’ve been traumatised with PTSD for life, our minds under-developed and deformed because our mothers loved cock, loved lying about loving cock and loved little else. That’s the short and tall of it.
You love for your abusers makes you sound like a N Korean slave awaiting the impending showdown with the evil American imperialists, which of course they know they’re going to win as their Supreme Leader strikes terror into the hearts of their enemies. He wouldn’t lie to them and even when he does, it’s okay. He would have his reasons and he Knows Best.
Now BOY, run into the guns and die like a man.
You pledge allegiance to fantasy that you know has no correlation with reality and you’re proud of this insanity? Our ancestors prepared for war, said they “came in peace”, committed genocide of their betters who prepared for peace, then revisioned history for schoolchildren (to get them to die for delusional lies that represent the polar opposite values to the cannibalism of leeching war).
The last time the US played a war game at home, their opponents were the US. You should see how they treated their captured foes (image below). You are cannon fodder and no fodder has ever existed that didn’t feel strong emotional sentiments in regards to his dear mother.
Bless her cotton socks…
2) Hitler as viewed from the 1940s perspective was seen as a “right” power fighting the “left” power of Stalinism. I have found most people who try to describe Hitler as a “leftist” are people who identify with right wing politics in America and are desperate to distance themselves from Nazi ideology and paint it as that of the opposition American party. It makes my head explode a little whenever a tea partier makes a statement about a “communist Nazi”, displaying gross ignorance that hundreds of millions died as those 2 ideologies fought each other.
3) I have never experienced Sikh, Chinese, or Islam cultures. I have experienced Latin American culture and find several superior aspects: importance of family, less materialism, religious piety (I am not superstitious but do believe there is some “ends justify the means” good here in teaching morals), love of nature and fellow man. I would caution that if you have not directly experienced other cultures and only hear about them from western sources, you are not getting the true picture. There are many on ROK who praise Islam as one of the few societies which create proper masculine / feminine roles (again, I am completely ignorant here).
4) The first part of the pledge (USA is THE ONLY NATION that has a pledge of allegiance.. think about this for a few minutes and it is quite creepy) is “I pledge allegiance to the flag. Followed by.. AND to the republic for which it stands”. So you are pledging to an inanimate object any time you recite this creed. Words have meanings to me and I will not repeat something I do not believe in simply because others are doing it.
A nationalist statement, written by a socialist and used to program you never to question how the US became “indivisible”. It was not constituted as such. You need to take the “real” red pill because you do not know reality. You have been completely had.
There has been a big recent push to identify today’s United States liberal/left with Hitler and the National Socialist ideology. This is intellectually lazy. Simply because National Socialism has the word “socialism” in it does not mean that modern socialists share a Nazi ideology. Just look at German political parties today. the Christian “Social” Union of Bavaria (CSU) and the “Social” Democratic Party of Germany (SDP) both have the word “Social” in their names, but neither shares the ideology of National Socialism. In fact the CSU and SDP are on a right/left divide politically, but each have the word “Social” in their names. The closest inheritor of National Socialism in Germany that is better known is the National Democratic Party of Germany (Notice how it doesn’t have the word “social” or “socialism” in its name.)
You can blame far left progressive liberals for a lot of things, and discuss the 3rd wave feminist ideologies radical beliefs, but the left-Nazi connection is ridiculous.
Nationalism is integral part from many ideologies.
Every single modern far-left and ethnic separatist organization is both Marxist and Nationalist. You can look at the ideology of IRA, ETA, FLNC, PFLP – marxist and nationalist.
On top of that, socialist and commie regimes were nationalist (in order to stop western evil influences) and internationalist (not supporting open borders and mass immigration, but simply having diplomatic, economic and military ties with other socialist countries in the world).
It’s only a matter of time for some sad threatened racist to suggest that Europe will be overrun by Muslims and Africans.
Honestly, the establishment of white separatist state is more likely to happen than being overrun by incompetent non-white men. Here are the variables for the disaster which is coming soon:
1. You have angry brown minority, pushing for more rights and privileges. They are loud, they rape, they beat, they walk in packs. They only WANT
2. You have white upper class detached from reality. They preach about Diversity, while they segregate themselves in luxury all-white neighborhoods.
3. Here is the final variable. You have working class whites, middle-class whites, white men in their 20s who EXPERIENCE the reality. They are repulsed from the shit around them. Political shit, biological humanoid shit(s). Angry young white men can change the system.
Young people working for the change:
https://vk.com/wotanjugend
Those young brave russian and ukrainian men, know that there is no reason to change the regime with politics. One paramilitary can overthrow even the strongest government… just saying. I am just saying as person who never votes and prefer direct action.
I have to say, most people pushing for more rights and privileges in Britain are White people. Sadly for them, rights and privileges are being curtailed as Britain can no longer afford them.
Since when has that ever stopped the ruling classes from buying reprieve by saying, “Let them eat cake.”
The really bad guys aren’t the 1%. The bad guys are the violent, illegitimately entitled leeches who need to take what they do not merit under pressure from mothers and wives who love cock, love lying about it and are compelled to abuse men and children to pay for their non-contribution (they’re “difficult” in fear of appearing “easy”).
The 1% promise the 99% an entitlement they have no right to confer but their necks are on the line. The end result is not war. War is the merely the means to the end.
The US is $88 trillion in debt. Somebody needs to pay for women to fuck and abuse children. This world’s pretty stupid but it is a logical proof that women who refuse to contribute are the original source of 100% of conflict, violence, lies and destruction. They obstruct biology to create the illusion of worth.
Bitch men fooled into imagining whores are worth marrying (or undressing) or protecting are forced to go to war to get the gold or the prestige to impress women who shrewdly withhold their favour to ‘earn’ more (illegitimate entitlement). Every boy that loves his mother or wife deserves to die along with his abusive Loved Ones.
Naturally, the abused spawn of whores killed all the humane humans instead. War is a means to the end that is The End. Leeches cannot live on obstruction and destruction alone.
The left and right-wing are meaningless concepts. I say meaningless, because they change their meaning over the course of time. Here is extreme example. Left-wing in USA means white liberal upper class fucker (the working white class is right-wing) and in Eastern stolen parts of Ukraine, left-winger mean devout Christian and Stalinist fighting against the satanist fascist right-wingers from western Ukraine.
National Socialism is NOT about political orientation, it’s an ideology based on Blood and Soil. Your genetics, your biology, your heritage. Your value in the society is based on the work you do and the talents you have. Thus, the working class is the most praised, because they are the Fundamental pillars and receive the most benefits.
Modern westerners obsessed over politics can’t comprehend that some ideologies are not based on political orientations but on biology and behavior. I don’t want to say it, but in the west we are currently ruled from one political orientation (The Left) and one biologically-based ideology (Feminism, the clownish idea that women are superior to men). The goods news are, both “the left” and Feminism are suicidal ideologies. The left supports very conservative non-white people and their hatred is focused only on whites, they want to destroy their own state… but they ignore that white radicals will be their new rulers and NOT the non-white incompetent men. And the feminists, well their hatred is based against white men only (the irony here is, that the whitey are the biggest women right supporters) and they support misogynist rapist non-whites. Just give them a time, they will kill their own ideologies very soon. And from the Chaos, WE… white brothers, we will rise again. This time let’s make it for a millennium.
A millenium without coal, oil, gas, titanium, copper, silver (depleted in <45 years) and fish (the globe’s fisheries will all be dead by 2048) or the polar ice cap (mere years away from being melted in summer months), etc.
You’re a dumb Polack too blind to realise your mother mutilated your mind to make you a warrior. It’s what whores do. The problem with warriors and whores, aside from being too stupid to function, is that they cannot contribute value but they believe they’re entitled to take what they do not merit. In doing so, they produced a world devoid of merit.
The joke, as always, is on you. You might not be amused but if you’re not going to laugh as the deity species of the universe wipes itself out in the absence of Natural predators, then you don’t appreciate comedy because that is fucking hilarious.
.
I think that Europe will have major changes before its overrun by Africans and Muslims. At some point the elite will start putting contraceptives in their water supply. Or poverty and interbreeding will take hold. I don’t’ agree that integration was ever a good idea but i have seen a Norwegian muslim from Iraq do a booty dance and she was pretty good looking. At the end of the day islam is a defence against what is the pernicious elements of Western Feminism and all other cults that have tried to limits women’s sexual freedom have failed. i think it would take a very strong push by Islam for them to stop the western hedonism.
nationalism should be more properly be called the desire to protect ones customs and culture in the face of the destructive influences of the Globalists who would want nothing more than for everyone to be money hungry parasites that jump through hoops for food. There is a reason why the Fascists countries were the first to beat foot from the failed institution called the League of Nations. Which post war was renamed the United nations. The new world order which was once a conspiracy name is now common phase uttered by the globalists who desire the type of control that the federalists have but on steroids.
You’re an idiot. All you wanted to say was ‘muslims and africans derp’. Would Europe’s problems go away if muslims and africans were all told to go home? Nope. It would be the exact same thing, and probably worse. The decline would continue. And for proof of this, you need to look no further than Australia. European culture, no africans and very few muslims to speak of, yet it is following the same trajectory of decline as Europe (and probably even worse).
I love these types of articles! They really expand my limited knowledge of the world and how it truly works. More of these please. Thanks RoK.
I don’t trust Orwell. There is no way that Orwell could have been so accurate without an inside knowledge of what was planned. He was an insider allowed to speak up and give the masses a taste of the future.
Read this excellent article which totally deciphers Orwell’s “prophecies” (blue print).
Heard that somewhere before?
Orwell describes the sequence of events that led to the creation of the Big Brother state. A revolution in the United Kingdom turned to civil war and , the same time, the Soviet Union embarked on a mass invasion of mainland Europe, overrunning the entire continent, apart from the British Isles and Iceland. A Third World War then broke out between the three emerging powers of Oceania (including Britain and led by what had previously been the United States); Eastasia (controlled by a revitalized China); and Eurasia (the expanded Soviet Union). During this struggle for total power hundreds of atomic bombs were dropped on Europe, western Russia and North America. Every since the mid-1990s they have been building up China to trigger the imposition of a world government. This has been happening over the years, and look at the way the media is now full of stories about a ‘reviltalised’ China and its massive military and economic capability. The way the world was separated into giant superstates is happening today with the Europe Union, African Union, the planned American Union and Pacific Union, as you will see later. The three superstates in 1984 eventually realized that a continuous stalemate war (war on terrorism) was far more effective than victory. The Constant war kept the people focused and busy manufacturing weapons and goods for the conflict.
Read more: http://granddesignexposed.com/george/orwell.html
Orwell had knowledge of soviet totalitarianism, and nazi totalitarianism, both of which were about exploiting / controlling language. He was also writing at a time when language was increasingly seen not merely as the way the world was mediated, but as what permitted / limited even the possibility of thought e.g. the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis http://visual-memory.co.uk/daniel/Documents/short/whorf.html. Developments in language philosophy also made it increasingly difficult to think of meaning as being prior to thought, or of thought as separate to language. In other words Orwell was very effectively adapting ideas that were current in the intellectual milieu of the time
Orwell was fighting in Spain as a Communist during the Spanish Civil war which was basically the ideological playground of Communists Vs Fascists with Stalin and Hitler both backing each respectively. Read for “Whom the Bell Tolls” by Hemingway a good depiction of how war events are portrayed during this era and a fun read. At any rate the ideological nature of the warfare and how the power structures of both systems were formed was a clear sign for Europe that they were heading towards war.
There are many powerful ‘isms’ : national ism, corporatism, feminism. Of these three, nationalism is the most innocuous because it is contained largely within its borders and it’s reach of colonies and territories. Corporatism is colorblind and global and will enslave whoever is enslavable. Feminism is equally but perhaps more agressively global and threatens to enslave males and make a mad and ill advised dive into extinction for all.
Ever heard the term ‘a snitch society in a gitmo nation on a prison planet’? With feminism it would be a witch bitch society under leather whip in a gynocracy on a PINK PLANET that looks like an orb in space with pepto bismol glopping over it like menstrual coagula. YIKES!
The best thing a man can do is PULL OUT of the corporate whore, DIG OR SLICE your way out of the national rectum and make your escape before being flushed, and grab a hold of and MAN YOUR DICK. . It’s just YOU AND YOUR DICK in this world. The DNA of brotherhood is set in stone – no nationalism required. The dick is ON THE RISE. We CONQUER and TAKE BACK the two ‘xx’s of our helix. IT’S A REPO JOB in space. simple . .
Orwell is a “must read” especially in this day and age. I would suggest a careful study of Politics and the English Language, his best essay, in which he details how language is used as a political weapon to obfuscate, coerce and mislead. You’ll be able to deconstruct just about every political press conference you see.
The boot Orwell described is descending on our faces, right now in fact. Don’t be trapped under it.
I first read “politics and the English Language” when an extremely feminist english professor of mine handed it out to the class. How the irony was lost on her, I’ll never know
This article articulates something that’s been nagging at me recently. Thanks!
[I know I’m quibbling, but the feminazi picture is inaccurate: if she was a real feminist instead of a model, she’d be fat, ugly, unshaven, and short-haired.]
“… a communist agenda (which innately opposes large disparities of wealth.”) You’ve never been to a communist nation, then, where the Party hierarchy are among the richest people in the country.
Excellent article.
1) Occasionally I exhibit transferred nationalism. I live in America and am so disgusted with our society and political system that I sometimes end up favoring moves by China or Russia, simply because they are the only immediate obstacles to American dominance. It’s probably not good that Putin wants to assimilate the Ukraine, but it’s very mild compared to things America has done in the past and I tend to rationalize it that way. It’s basically how we ended up with Texas, not to mention many island holdings. Deep down, the Chinese government is brutal and authoritarian and does not deserve my respect. Although I do appreciate their truthfulness (I had a friend from the UK years ago tell me after visiting China and then the US that America had a FAR more prevalent propaganda media system than “communist China” did.)
2) Either there are very, very few “reasonable” people left in America, or they are simply never represented in media. One often hears the “pro-cop” or “pro-Trayvon” viewpoint but never the logical “Hey don’t shoot an innocent person… something went wrong here” view.
3) I wish you went into more about the power of language, as that was one of Orwell’s main themes. Our language today has been pulverized. Words have lost all meaning. How many times has someone who is not using fear or terror been labeled a “terrorist”? I learned today about a new term from a woman who calls herself “cis-female” which supposedly means “pro-female” that she actually dates both men and women, doesn’t shave her legs, and has a buzz cut. That’s not very “pro-feminine” to me. Calling someone who breaks an immigration law an “illegal” is another laughable example of this. George Carlin, lover of plain, real language, did a GREAT bit on airlines and the ridiculous language used. A brilliant, line by line breakdown of one small aspect of our society, which makes you realize how our language has been utterly destroyed. And of course it’s hilarious.
Noam Chomsky discusses the evisceration of our language at length, which I highly recommend. When I hear new calls for war against this new group of evil terists named ISIS, I think of the George Orwell line “We’ve never been at war with Eurasia. We’ve always been at war with Eurasia.”
4) The ironic part about the feminism is that while feminism as you say “prioritized the interest of women over…men children and society” it is a futile movement, because women who are not feminine are unhappy, unfulfilled, and unloved. Look at the recent article here about how 1/4 of American women are on medication for mental instability, and I compare my own experiences of foreign women who seem confident and happy with who they are, compared to American women who seem lost and without direction (a recent female relative contacted me after graduating college because she has no clue what to do with her life, and is depressed, despite being beautiful, slim, and kind). Feminism does *NOT* benefit females in the long run.
5) Again, any discussion of Orwell that doesn’t focus on language is lacking. One of his most powerful treatises is “Politics and the English Language” which criticizes language which “makes lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind” (this reminds me of just about any American political speech and the language used). I would love to see you write an article on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_and_the_English_Language
I am just a white nationalist who wants a National Socialist state and is working to achieve such state. Neither positive or negative, just a biological realist.
I DONT oppose immigration. If the blacks/brown men have money they can be tourists, if the non-whites are very talented, intelligent, highly educated, financially well – they will be allowed to work in nationalist countries.
Most white nationalists really just want domestic and foreign policy of Israel, Japan and South Korea. No welfare (except for whites), no affirmative action (except whites), no benefits for non-whites. If they want to stay, they need to be Producers and not not Leeches. The Welfare State can work… if the state is dominated only by whites and the immigrants are just to work for the state or be simply tourists.
I say no Welfare State for anyone. I don’t need people I don’t know taking money out of my pocket.
Russia did not invade Ukraine, that is government propaganda.
Russian minority invaded and stoled parts from Ukraine. The Ukrainians never will stop attacking the citizens from the stolen provinces.
Kosovo was invaded and stoled from the Serbs. Serbians someday will attempt to take their land back.
Palestinian lands were stolen by the jews. Even after 40 years, the fight is continuing.
Russian nationalists are supporting the struggle of Ukrainians. Only Putkin-lovers and neo-communists hate the Ukrainian paramilitaries like Azov.
That does not make any sense. Russian minorities were already there. Russian nationalists especially hate battalions like Azov because they are admittedly Neo Nazis. Putin supporters and communists? Doesn’t matter. Anyway, I am all for Slavic unity, but I cannot support the Kiev regime as it is a puppet state installed by the US State Department, as a phone call and a leaked diplomatic cable reveal.
Don’t worry mate. You are not Russian nationalist, just an average russian guy who promotes globalism and mass immigration. The Russian nationalists are active part from The Azov Battalion. Look, you are supporting Neo-Commie old farts who promote race mixing and gloabism. I can’t support that. The Azov are… nationalists. If this is “Neo-Nazism”, then i am a NeoNazi. I just love my slavic nation and country (i am not ukrainian, just a pan-slavist and NS).
Btw, the albanian minority was already in Kosovo. Minorities are all over the Balkans, but in most cases… they are not getting organized and acting as terrorists and separatists (except in Serbia and maybe in the coming years – Macedonia and Bulgaria).
I am a pan-Slavist. By the way, Azov fights for the regime in Kiev, which if you have not noticed is a US puppet state. Fighting for them is high treason against the Slavic people. I do not promote mass immigration, nor globalism, I am against both, and I am a Russian patriot (some of my friends refer to me as an “ultranationalist”, though I would not describe myself that way). Also I am a monarchist, I think the monarchy should be restored, as the Empire should be. But the point is, fighting for the current ruling regime in Kiev is treason, as they are collaborating with American globalists.
BS. Just pure garbage. Instead making up wild theories you should check for what are fighting The Azov/Right Sector. They are fighting for the establishment of White Nationalist (NS) state. Period.
Patriotism was tool of the Communist, i am not a patriot because i don’t fight for a country… i fight for a Bloodline, Nation, Genetic Heritage. Much more “sinister” things than the fight for a… fucking state rotting from bureaucracy.
While before few months i became familiar with the ideas of The Azov, i also from few weeks i am researching the views and end goals of the so called “rebels” (russian minority, just like the jewish settlers who steal lands). And surprise, surprise. I will ignore that the globalists from ANTIFA are on their side and focus on serious stuff – the “rebels” promote Race mixing, mass immigration, relentless fight against nationalism and national identity… oh mate, this was enough to inspire me to go and join The Azov.
Most active Russian nationalists are already in Ukraine and killing their own blood (race traitorous scum from “Novorosiya”).
Oh, so you are one of the racist skinheads?
I do not affiliate with the Russian government—the Russian people. That is why I will join the army, and after that, the FSB. To defend my brethren. I do support the idea of Russians keeping strictly to Russian culture and not allow foreigners to deeply establish their cultures in Russia, and instead have them integrate and accept Russian culture. But I do not take it as far as genetics. As for that, I care little.
Rebels fight against national identity? Are you propagandized or just plain stupid? The rebels fight for nothing other than freedom of the corrupt puppet state in Kiev of the US, and the Neo Nazi criminal thugs who enforce it’s policies. If I had the time, I would have joined the Donbass militia to fight against the American collaborators, and to free Slavic land from this foreign occupation. Death to traitors.
Death to the enemies of the slavs.
Death to traitors.
Neo-Commie bolshevik scum who openly say “We want immigrants. Our genetic heritage doesn’t matter!”
Kill the traitors
You fight for Azov, which fights for Poroshenko regime, which itself is a puppet government; a quisling regime. This makes your a collaborator. High treason. You and your pals in Pravy Sektor will be shot for it.
Should foreigners that come to Russia integrate into Russian culture?
Absolutely.
Should foreigners come here?
No.
Maybe to study or something, but I would prefer foreigners not coming here to live and work. I in no way support mass immigration.
And being a monarchist, I am anti-communist. Russian nationalist do not support this fascism you apparently do about this “racial purity”. No, you are delusioned (if you honestly believe that and are not just trolling). We will execute those who collaborate with the West, or any other foreign occupier.
The Azov fights for the establishment of NS state, and the neo-bolsheviks from eastern Ukraine fight for multiculturalism. I support The Azov.
NS is about genetical and biological idealism. “Pure race” is too abstract concept. Ugly sub-humans also can be pure. Through eugenic breeding, we can have a nation with both beautiful, athletic and smart people. Eugenics programs clearly worked in WWII. The Commies and Capitalists smashed Germany before finishing the great work.
If you don’t fight for eugenically empowered human beings, then you support The Masses. Dysgenic, low IQ biological waste. Honestly, if you want a better future, invest in better biological matterial, better people.
Except this technology never existed, and never will. Not to mention, the current regime that the “territorial defense battalions” fight for is a corrupt quisling government, and will not be able to establish and NS state (though that would be even worse). NS will not work effectively, it was never meant to, and it will never will. It is just a screwed up idea that should be completely eliminated. People will be people, no matter what you try.
Great post, all isms are just distractions for the proles.
For some reason internet atheists don’t want to discuss the weird turn of events where they have established something like the Anti-Sex League from Nineteen Eighty-Four to enforce chastity at atheist gatherings because a few “skepchicks” have complained publicly about atheist men who have tried to pick them up with incompetent game at these events.
I find this situation both funny and bizarre, because someone has clearly lied to us about the sexually liberating effects of atheism. For generations christian leaders have used their pulpits to “denounce” atheists for our allegedly swinging sex lives (seems like that would have the opposite effect). And until fairly recently, atheists have at least talked privately about their fantasies of sexual liberation in the godless world they predicted but they probably wouldn’t live to see; they also promoted this vision in clandestine or discreet publications as well. (Scholars have noted that the Enlightenment’s propaganda project in the 18th Century included a less acknowledged underground pornographic literature which connected sexual freedom with unbelief.)
So now that we have overt atheists all over the place, what do we see in reality? Apparently atheism doesn’t make most men any more fuckable. In a previous post on this site I contrasted the situations between the top-tier teen boys whom the girls want to bang in their youthful, raw state, versus the rest of the boys rejected by these girls who receive the well-intentioned but misdirected advice from their elders to develop themselves and wait indefinitely, in the hopes that sometime in their 20’s or 30’s, those girls who got their sexual training with the top-tier boys will suddenly stop wanting them and instead see the value of the boys they despised earlier.
Inject atheism into this scene, and the boys’ relative positions still don’t change.
So how did anyone in previous generations, christian or atheist, come up with this notion that atheism would create a sexual utopia for men in general?
Islam will become the majority religion the United States within 25 years, as more White men defect to the Alpha male way, as opposed to the feminized church full of “born again virgins”. It’s already happening in Europe.
The spiritual wasteland left by PC/LGBT/Feminism make people search for unshakeable order — and Islam will be more than happy to fill it.
I think it is important to remember that the whole separation of partoism and nationalism is a (recent?) anglo-saxon thing. In my own language the two are still bound, of course people are trying to import the english definitions, and it is getting traction in the ‘better’ part of society. It is the same with the words ‘gender’ and ‘sex’, in my language we still only have one word.
Kinda feels like people are trying to ‘engineer’ the language, so people will stop associating the postive things about nationalism with nationalism, and seperate gender from sex.
So far i have seen, partoism seems like it is the purely emotional feel-good idiot aspect of nationalism, with none of the weight, consequence, history and rationale of nationalism.
Maybe i’m just mixing my langauges up.
On first inspection, the sign in the picture seems to be calling the fat pig inside the cage a…pig. How apt. If there was irony intended, I’m too dumb to grasp it.
Orwell wrote some interesting essays- but I don’t think he goes far and deep enough in any meta way- typically English. He is happy rearranging the chairs on the Titanic.