Thread: Thoughts on Nationalism by a "Newbie"

As a “newbie” to the nationalist movement, and as an amateur historian, I have been reflecting on the prospects and possibilities that the 21st century presents for nationalists. It seems to me that the potential for nationalist growth and influence are increasing exponentially, but are far from certain.

The way I see it, the late 19th and the entire 20th century saw the ascendancy of industrialization with an accompanying tension between two voracious systems in search of “clients.” The United States sought to gain influence and access to markets globally, while the Soviet Union did the same under the veneer of socialism/communism.

I would argue that by the end of the 20th century each world view collapsed under the weight of its own stresses. In the case of the Soviet Union, this was an almost physical disintegration as its internal states and external satellite nations abandoned Communist party rule.

We have had a similar disintegration in the US that proceeds apace even if it isn’t readily recognized. The election of Barack Obama to the presidency can be said to represent the fruition of the movement for greater power (and access to power) for non-whites that gained widespread attention in the late 1950’s and much of the 1960’s.

At the same time, Mr. Obama is, like his predecessors, effectively trapped by the limitations of conventional wisdom masquerading as political ideology in the form of “liberalism” and “conservatism” under the banners of the Democratic and Republican parties respectively.

Logically, if the “traditional” or “conventional” ideological “power players” of the last two centuries, conservatism, liberalism, socialism and communism have been discredited as the abject failures they are and were, nationalism has the potential to be attractive to broad and vast numbers of people who are sick and tired of the same ole status quo. Whether the nationalist movement lives up to its potential is far from certain, and the best that could be said today is that things are “promising.”

I say this because, in my brief time here on WNN, it seems that “nationalist” is an umbrella phrase with a not unsubstantial degree of differences between individuals and groups who embrace the term. My observations, which may or may not be correct, indicate to me that there is great unity when it comes to things that nationalists are against, and far less unity when it comes to either a vision of the future or the means to get there.

For instance, this past Saturday I was tuned into The Political Cesspool radio program, and host James Edwards was interviewing William Johnson, National Chairman of American Third Position, also known as A3P. In response to a question, from TPC’s Winston Smith, I think, Mr. Johnson was speaking to the issue of infiltration. As outstanding as Johnson’s response was, my study of history and political movements leads me to believe that infiltration isn’t the main problem, since a law abiding entity has nothing to fear in that sense. The bigger problem, it seems to me, is dealing with people who will seek to split, connive, or wreck an organization, regardless of whether or not their conduct is by design.

Having said this, I think that if nationalists can address each other with civility and respect as we do on WNN, there’s reason to feel this same spirit can be replicated in precincts and caucuses on the ground.

I am posting this to stimulate discussion. If I have offended anyone, it is entirely unintentional and can be chalked up to my “newbie” status, as I am still finding my way.

Originally Posted by MarkGator

I am posting this to stimulate discussion. If I have offended anyone, it is entirely unintentional and can be chalked up to my “newbie” status, as I am still finding my way.

Don't worry about offending people. You weren't disrespectful or rude.
If anyone gives you a hard time, let me know, I will practise lightsabre drills on em.
Welcome to our little abode, WNN.