Circles of Concern: Relating to other Nationalists - By TipTipTopKek


#1

By TipTipTopKek

Every once in a while, I hear someone in our general pro-White “sphere” say something to the effect of “I support all nationalists.”

I don’t.

Personally, I feel that loving one’s own nation (etymologically that means your people, your race: basically an extended genetic family) and loving one’s own countrymen (etymologically, the people who live on the same lands as you) is not only natural, but a perfectly legitimate expression of the commandments to love one’s neighbor and to care for one’s own family.

It also doesn’t presuppose that you have to hate the “other,” but it does presuppose a prioritization: a set of circles of concern. The inner circle for most people is generally their immediate family. Concentric circles spread outward to extended family, to matters relating to one’s neighborhood, city, country, etc. As an aside, one of the things I noticed when looking at the “Your Morals” quiz site is that people who self-identify as “liberal” or “Democrat” don’t have these circles; they care for the “other” more than they do for their neighbors – not really a surprise, but it points to something intrinsically unnatural about the way that these people think.

I don’t hate or despise other nationalists, be they nationalist Negroes or Jews or Moslems. At the same time, I don’t support them. Frankly, I would be happy in a world where every nation (race or subrace) had its own nationalist state (polity) in its own country (lands). I think that is the framework which would do the most to promote general worldwide peace and maximize internal peace in most countries. However, I worry about my people first. If my folk can’t or don’t get their own state(s) in their own country(ies), then I cannot concern myself with what happens to other nations.

Now, I’m not opposed to working together in some cases, if and only if it seems to be the best way, under current circumstances, to get what I want for my people. As an example, if the “based” Negroes of NOI want to get all the Negroes in the USA to go to Liberia then I’d be happy to help, because I want the Negroes in the USA to go to Liberia, too. But if what NOI wants goes contrary to the interests of my people, e.g., they want policemen dead, then I cannot in any way support them. And if some other nation wants something that does not impact me or my people, then I do not care: my people are my primary concern.

My extended family consists of White people and my neighbors are Americans. Ergo, I will always put American White nationalists and their interests above those of any other nationalists, regardless of whatever else they may share with me ideologically, genetically, or historically. Beyond that, there is a dance of compromises and competing spheres of interests and circles of concern. However, strictly speaking, if it doesn’t help White Americans in some manner, I am not going out of my way to support other nationalist groups.

Original Article: https://thepurityspiral.com/?p=187


#2

The tentacles of toxic altruism and egalitarianism are still deeply entangled in the consciousness of our people. We don’t have to counter others who hold similar ideologies, but that’s a long jump from supporting them. We have to rid ourselves of the notion that we need others to make our points relevant, and that we have to play fair by rules that we invented and only we have to follow. Excellent article.


#3

Good writing. This is a touchy subject here in America. What level of commitment should we expect from the European continent? Are we in a position to make demands of them, or they of us? Certainly, all nationalist have similar interests - namely the expulsion of the Jew from their lands - but do these interests go any farther that? What will be critical, and critically difficult, is determining the level of contribution each group makes. I propose a voluntary system. Each man gives what he chooses and nothing more. Some will give more, some will give less. Certainly no man will be asked to give anymore than he is happy to give


#4

You can’t have nationalism for all people.

The entire idea of ‘nationalism for ALL peoples’ is retarded exactly because it results as a justification from someone who did not develop nationalism from a starting point of tradition. Hitler was right about complaining about eternal objectivity and Germans being unable to take their own side unconditionally.

First of all I don’t think you can actually make yourself care about it beyond social signalling of a moral worth you took for granted coming in (which underlines the paradox of it, as the nihilistic objective approach to nationalism still relies on an assumption which would be deconstructed too if the nihilism was consistent.)

And secondly it’s impossible, as we share this earth and will naturally come into conflicts where to be nationalist will have to mean to step on other peoples’ nationalism.

Nationalism should be developed from tradition, as trying to do it from the ground up is shoddy and impractical. Nihilism has pulled at threads we don’t know how to put back together and it has given us little to no insight in to why it was there to begin with.

The furthest I’d go is a chivalry and understanding among the European races, to not treat them the same as outsiders.


#5

Middernacht

Mutual benefit is as far as “nationalism for all” can ever go. Like the Axis in World War II. Hitler didn’t care about the interests of the Japs, nor did any German Nationalist, but they were useful.

Syria is a good example. Do we really care what happens to Assad, his government, or the people in Syria? No, of course not. But if he wins it will hurt our enemies, so we want him to win.

What really irks me is the ecumenism with people who are not useful, even as enemies of enemies, like the Nation of Islam. The Nation of Islam is even more toxic than we are, and anti-White as all hell. Farrakhan says that niggers should murder White babies because of “muh oppression,” but he counter-signals jews so it’s OK. Seriously, do the people who push this kind of partnership think that when serious action starts happening that Mohammedan niggers are going to stand with us?