Nationalism can take on many forms: Ethno-Nationalism, Civic Nationalism, Romantic Nationalism, Liberal Nationalism, Religious Nationalism, and so on. The two most prominent forms that are seen in todays “new right.” “alt right,” and “alt lite” movements are ethnic and civic nationalism and representatives of both ideologies have been constantly feuding. As if things were not complicated enough, these two groups can be divided into further subgroups. White nationalists are not a monolith and neither are civic nationalists.
On the civic nationalist side, there are those who say that they care not at all for racial identity, that as long as they have the Constitution that it doesn’t matter how many white women are gang raped by African refugees, and they unironically believe that a society that is 80 percent brown can hold the same conservative values as they desire.
However, there are also those that are often called civic nationalists that are ideological nationalists. For the right-wing ideological nationalist it matters not so much what ethnicity you are, but rather the right-wing social and cultural values that you hold ie. your belief in the importance of the nuclear family and faith in society, and your disdain of the Marxist agenda. This crowd has joined with much of the white nationalist wing and graced the internet with the ever so popular “physical removal” and General Pinochet memes and images of helicopters ornamented with Marxists on nooses or falling from the sky. This group, after all, is not far removed from those white nationalists who have a greater goal in mind for the nation than merely whiteness and their sometimes stubborn refusal to see this is driven by fear in the face of current social pressures.
Some white nationalists could be described best as national socialists who think that government redistribution of wealth and the handing out of the ‘gibs’ is just fine so long as it is in the hands of white men. This strategy brings about worry for some that it would heighten the time preferences of the white race left within the nation and thus would promote the worst among us. Surely, it would work and operate more smoothly than socialism does within a multicultural or multiracial nation, and thus many on the far right that favor the free market tradition sometimes ignore these differences to work on common goals. In this case, there is something to gain. By working with these types of individuals on issues of racial politics and immigration, we can advance toward our ends and it would guarantee that a pro-market voice at least has a seat at the table of discussion in many alt-right forums. It is also important to stand our ground and not give leeway on any issue that would cause harm to race and nation.
Others that are defined as white nationalists have no set political ideology other than that their nation should be white, leaving very few ideas out there that are capable of inspiring the masses. On the other hand, there are those who see ethno-nationalism as a means to an ideological end. If their desired system of government and/or society is to ever come about, it would require, at the very least, an overwhelming white majority. This conclusion is vindicated by a plethora of statistics on everything from social behavior to voting patterns.
The difference between the hardcore ideological nationalist and neo-reactionary vs. the white ethno-nationalist in many cases is only one of marketing. While the white nationalist is often explicitly racial, the ideological nationalist is implicitly racial. But in order to be a good ideological nationalist of the right-wing variety you must realize that the results of such a system would have a racial impact on advantaged whites and that this is okay. It is important for this group to realize and be aware of the racial implications of its desired societal structure. When one advocates for the physical removal of democrats and communists, he advocates for the removal of an overwhelming amount of Democratic Party voters and left-wing agitators which would punish a vastly disproportionate number of blacks, hispanics, Jews, and people of alternative sexual lifestyles.
When one advocates for this policy, they need not market it as explicitly racial, but it will always be seen as such because the racial agenda is implied. When one wishes to limit access to a nation by right-wing ideology, independence of welfare usage, wholesome family lifestyles, or agency and time preference, they wish to effectively limit access to the nation to primarily whites. However, when there are strong ideological standards put into place, it prevents giving license to undesirable whites within the society as well. But if one does not realize the racial implications of a right-wing ideological movement, they are destined to fail and are at risk of basing their ideology on a false egalitarian premise and thus are likely to refuse short-term racial strategies to bring about their ultimate goals.
One must conclude then that right-wing ideological nationalism if taken to its radical conclusion is inseparable from white ethno-nationalism. Any attempt to make the nation more right-wing will make the country more white and any attempt to make the nation more white will make the country more right wing. The culture warriors must recognize that the issue of culture and race are nearly one in the same, although there are some outliers. Race is important to take into consideration for any worthwhile right-wing movement, but we must not forget that it is not the only important factor in play here. Augusto Pinochet might not have been white, for instance, but I would take one of him before I would take a hundred white Marxist college professors, although I am sure most hardcore white nationalists would agree.
There is no reason that the far-right can’t unite, and it’s important that we get this discussion settled. Certainly most civic nationalists are little more than basic Republican voters scared to leave the reservation so to speak, but in the past they were neoconservatives. As we push the overton window further and further right, we give license to ideas that were never before acceptable to speak about in the public discourse. It is important that the more extreme voices continue to push the overton window right while allowing more polished and palatable people to have room to operate, so long as they do not punch right and spit in the face of those helping them and giving them such license. It may be difficult at times and we must always allow room for friendly discussion and debate, but at the end of the day only a unified front will overtake the enemy.