Nationalism and Liberal Ethnogenesis

Liberal whites as nationalists.

The modern era of nationalism began in 1870, when the Italians entered Rome, destroying the Papal state, which had existed for over one thousand years. The same year, Prussia began the war of unification against France, which ended one year later. Both Germany and Italy emerged with the general contours of their modern appearance.

However, even in 1871, Europe was still not, on the whole, very nationalist. The Ottoman Empire dominated Bosnia, Albania, Greece, Macedonia, Serbia, Bulgaria, and Romania. Russia dominated Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, as well as Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. Russian’s other possessions could be considered “colonies,” such as Dagestan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tatarstan, and Turkmenistan.

The concept of a nation-state, without any foreign or overseas colonies, governing its own people according to the right of self-determination, with no imperial aims, was something never common or likely throughout history. It was during this brief period, from 1870 to 1939, that this idea grabbed hold of both Europe and America, and seemed to be the solution to all religious and political problems, and promised to grant the earth world peace.

Outside of this period, the term nationalism, if it can be used at all, is almost always consubstantial with the desires of ethnicities to expand, dominate, and conquer other peoples. The conflation of nationalism and imperialism, as in the assertion of a “Roman nationalism,”¹ is a shell game. Nationalists will claim that the ancient Greeks and Romans were nationalist — they will then go on to denounce Anglo-American imperialism against Ireland or Zionist imperialism against Palestine according to the universal morality of “nationalism.” They want to prove that nationalism is an eternal idea by conflating it with ethnocentrism. But in the modern context, nationalism is redefined not just as mere ethnocentrism, but as a universal brotherhood, “nationalism for all peoples.”

This contradiction is not limited to the right. Like many political ideas, it was invented by the left before being repurposed by the right. Marx was a nationalist, who believed that European politics should be defined by ethno-linguistic boundaries. He believed in a Germanic confederation which would unite all German speaking peoples in Europe. Karl Marx wrote in 1853 that "by quarrelling amongst themselves, instead of confederating, Germans and Scandinavians, both of them belonging to the same great race, only prepare the way for their hereditary enemy, the Slav."

In the Soviet Union, communism originated as a movement for the national rights of all peoples, even going so far as to establish a Jewish republic within the Soviet Union. However, very quickly, the Soviet Union appropriated many of the themes and spirit of Russian imperialism and Russian ethnocentrism. Mikhail Suslov, one of the most antisemitic and pro-Russian communists, held power as the Second Secretary from 1965 to 1982.² It was under the influence of Suslov and other ethnocentric Russians that the Soviet Union pursued a policy of anti-Zionism.

At the same time as the Soviet Union was promoting Iraqi, Egyptian, and secular Arab nationalism, it was also intervening in Africa and Asian to fight colonialism in the name of nationalism. From 1945 to 1989, nationalism around the world, whether in Vietnam, South Africa, Cuba, or Venezuela, was a cause which was deeply associated with communism. On the other hand, imperialism and colonialism were associated with Britain, France, Portugal, and Spain.

A new picture of this post-war period is emerging, that within the United States foreign offices there was a split between hardline anti-communists who were willing to ally with colonial powers, and those who sought to dismantle the European colonial project, even at the benefit of communism. John F. Kennedy, often thought of as an anti-communist and even a Nazi sympathizer in his youth, tended to support policies which attacked European colonialism first, and viewed Communism as less of a problem in comparison.

The Wrong Side Won

One of the commonly held (but not publicly expressed) views of contemporary nationalists is that the wrong side won WWII. They believe that while America and the Soviet Union have been the destroyer of nations, Germany was in favor of the independence of all European peoples. If this view were challenged, then it would present a significant problem for nationalists. If Americanism, communism, and Naziism were all fundamentally anti-nationalist, then this indicates that nationalism was doomed, no matter who won WWII.

Firstly, the German attitude toward Poland was not one of a mere border dispute, but a concerted effort to destroy and subjugate an entire nation, to eliminate its sovereignty permanently, to deport or enslave its population, and to physically replace the residents with German colonists. Defenders of Germany claim that this was an almost petty act of revenge, and was a response to Polish hate crimes against Germans. In other words, in the same way that Zionists react to October 7th by justifying the liquidation of Gaza, German nationalists reacted to Polish hate crimes by justifying the liquidation of Poland.

In other countries occupied by Germany, the ethnic makeup was not so dramatically affected in the course of the war, but this does not tell us much about what the future of Europe would have looked like during German rule. Mass non-white immigration to Europe did not occur until 2015, 70 years after allied victory in WWII. If the thesis is that “the Jews won the war, and it was their Kalergi Plan all along to destroy the white race,”³ then the same kind of long-sightedness should be afforded to the Germans. What were their plans?

Firstly, with respect to France, the desire was to militarily eliminate that country from the map, to deprive it of its navy and army, and to transfer its colonies to Italy. Secondly, Spain was also supposed to be deprived of its independent existence, owing to the disloyalty of Franco, as soon as the opportunity arose after the defeat of Russia. When Italy switched sides in the war, it too was planned as a potential area for future German colonization.

Ironically, but logically, while these three nations were to be dominated by Germany, and their national aspirations were to be suppressed, Germany inflamed nationalism where it was useful. Croatian nationalism was supported in order to fight Serbs. Hungarians and Romanians were played off each other. Bulgarians were supported in order to contain Greece. Within Russia, entire ethnicities were to be invented or reinvented almost out of thin air — Muscovites, Novgorodians, Turovites and Polotskites (in modern Belarus), Avars, Bashkirs, Tartars, Chechens, Ukrainaians, Mordvins, Chuvash, Udmurts, Mari, Karelians, Yakuts, Komi, Buryt, Ossetians, Kabardins, Dargins, Kalmyks, Lezgins, Ingush, Moldovans, Tuvans, Abkhazians, and many other hundreds of thousands of obscure ethnicities were to be given large tracts of land to covet, to divide and conquer Russia.

In areas where nationalism was inconvenient, such as in Serbia, the Germans suppressed it. In areas where it was expedient, they supported it. When millions of Russians in prisoner of war camps indicated their willingness to fight the Soviet Union, they were denied the right to fight as a national army until the end of the war, when the conclusion was already decided. The German ideological resistance to any form of non-communist Russian nationalism clearly shows that it would rather lose the war than allow Russia to establish itself as a sovereign power.

With respect to Ukraine, the German playbook is now being plagiarized by the Americans, with contradictory and paradoxical results. Azov is funded by a Jewish billionaire under a Jewish president. Whether American-controlled Ukraine will survive longer than German-controlled Ukraine is not yet certain.

The point of this analysis is not to morally condemn America or Germany for engaging in a cynical manipulation of nationalist ideology for imperial and expansionist aims. Whereas the Germans wanted to establish physical colonies and ethnically replace Slavs in their own countries, Americans prefer to establish political and military control, and allow in mass immigration from the third world. In this sense, America resembles the empire of Darius, Cyrus, or even Alexander the Great. Those Persian and Greek empires actively courted the “natives” and made a special effort to be seen as “ethnically sensitive,” or in modern parlance, “anti-racist.” Yes, America is more traditional than Nazi Germany.

Instead of launching into hysterics about how Germany was not “truly nationalist,” and how America is “anti-white,” and pining for some ideal “true nationalism,” free of imperialism, the point here is to point out that nationalism, much like egalitarianism, is a moral fantasy. Arranging the world into a series of discrete ethno-states, each with perfect and undisturbed sovereignty, entirely free from “globalism,” whether that globalism is Christianity, Freemasonry, Free Trade, Communism, Islam, Judaism, Imperialism, or Liberalism — this is wishful thinking. The world doesn’t work that way.

Ethnicities exist. Ethnic interests exist. Human beings are molded by hundreds if not thousands of years of linguistic, genetic, and religious development. Germans and Slavs are differentiated by thousands of years linguistically, at least 1,000 years religiously, and even by some probabilistic appearances.

Who looks western, and who looks eastern? The probabilities are not equal.

Unfortunately for nationalists, a recognition of these basic facts does not lead immediately and magically to world peace or the end of war. In fact, emphasizing and stressing ethnic differences, historically, either leads to the creation of caste systems, competition, jealousy, resentment, or even open violence.

The German system for Europe created the conditions for mass migration of Germans into Russia. It also denied the political sovereignty of the French, the Spanish, the Italians, the Poles, and the Czechs. Europe was to be Germanized, and Germany itself was to be Nordicized, by increasing the birthrate of those with certain characteristics, and decreasing the birthrate of those deemed undesirable, such as the Roma people and Jews.

Communism, similarly, did not allow its commitment to the “self determination of minorities” to prevent Stalin from deporting millions of troublesome minorities to Kazakhstan and Siberia. Americanism, or liberalism, maintains the hypocrisy that some nationalisms are good, while other nationalisms are bad: Uyghur, Tibetan, and Ukrainian are good, while German, British, and American nationalism are bad. Liberalism, like many other imperial ideologies, seeks to suppress the interests of the majoritarian class in favor of a “divide and conquer” strategy. The same idea was employed in Austria-Hungary, as was complained about by German nationalists of the period.

It is no surprise then that liberalism seeks to attack “whiteness” in Finland, any more than it is surprising that Stalin deported the Cossacks, or that Germany sought to subjugate its neighbors and replace them with Germans. Each ideology was pursuing a policy of mass migration and ethnic replacement in line with its particular objectives. Claiming to be a “nationalist for all peoples” is only tenable if one imagines that in WWII, “the wrong side won,” and had the Germans won, then every nation would live in peace and harmony. Part of this is born out of the Nazi propaganda line that Jews start all the wars, but this was a deflection, meant to appeal to the masses. Both Mein Kampf and Ludendorff’s memoirs clearly state that the point of life is merciless struggle (a poetic term for war), and that strong nations will be warlike, while weak nations deserve to perish. It’s quite Nietzschean.

The “purest” form of nationalism is probably found among the 1848 Revolutionaries, some of whom objected to German imperialism on the grounds that Poles deserve equal rights. Those ideologues were failures, much like the Trotskyites who were too ideological to appeal to nationalist sentiments. Being an ideological purist when it comes to nationalism is not a winning strategy. “Nationalism for me, but not for thee” may be morally hypocritical, but on a deeper level, it is entirely consistent with the foundation of all politics: collective egoism.

The left wing is no safe refuge from racism, as demonstrated by the eternal nagging attitude of those ideologues against white supremacy. Until the last Appalachian hick is wiped off the continent, they will not rest. Although liberals are often referred to as “self-hating whites,” a much more evolutionarily sound theory is that they are covering up their ethnocentrism with a post-Christian martyrdom-performance. They pretend to hate their “own” race, but behind closed doors, they view themselves, as “white liberals,” as a race of their own. They marry white liberals, go to church with white liberals, put their kids in white liberal schools, all their friends are white liberals, and so on. Since it is impolite to say, “I hate rural white people because they represent the warrior class which threatens the priestly academia-media complex,” they choose the more polite phrase, “as a white person, I think we all need to check our privilege.” This is a shibboleth, an esoteric code which, to other white liberals means “I am your friend,” and to white ruralites means, “I am your enemy.” White liberals see white conservatives as a separate race.

And they are probably not wrong. Since the collapse of church attendance in 2000, and the acceptance of interracial marriage in 1996, political identification has become the main force for socio-sexual segregation in America. If this continues long enough, white liberals and white conservatives will indeed resemble two entirely different breeding populations, as if they were separated by a series of rivers or mountain ranges. White liberals recognize this eventuality, and use ideology as a paradoxical (mystical) smokescreen to mask their ethnic hostility and conform to post-Christian, universal morality.

Liberal Ethnocentrism

Liberals are nationalists, not just for the Tibetans or Ukrainians or Palestinians, but even for themselves! Liberals want a country free of conservatives, and they are willing to import millions of non-Whites as allies to destroy the electoral power of white rural voters. Liberals believe that they are so smart, so educated, so moral and good that their own bourgeois lifestyle will not be interrupted by this massive demographic change.

Despite the wishful thinking of conservatives, that the liberals will eventually get a taste of their own medicine, this is largely true. Liberals live in wealthier zip codes and segregated cities where they are not exposed to violent crime. Whites are as likely to be shot by a cop⁴ as they are to be killed by blacks.⁵ Whites are nearly 100x more likely to die of an overdose than to be killed by cops or blacks.⁶ There is no black crime wave or immigrant crime wave that is going to give the liberals a black eye. Liberal victims of black crime are anecdotal, and out of the 48 million white liberals who voted for Biden, very few of them will ever “pay the toll” for their behavior.

An Aside on Interracial Dating

The meme that white liberal women date interracially, while white conservative women do not, may be true in the sense that poor white women are more likely to date interracially than rich white women:

"Mixed-race couples with one black partner live in neighborhoods with poverty levels of 21 percent on average, compared with average rates of just 9 percent for white couples."

Some might object that most white women who date interracially do not necessarily marry their non-white partners. However, a study of adolescents which focused on dating, rather than marriage, was consistent with this pattern:

In accordance with the status-caste exchange theory, some scholars find that whites who enter into interracial relationships come from lower socioeconomic status than whites who marry within their own group, whereas this relationship is the reverse for the minority group members (Crowder and Tolnay, 2000; Qian, 1997; Kalmijn, 1993)⁷

Whites were divided into two groups in the study: low SES and high SES (socio-economic status). This can be thought of as "below average income" and "above average income," broadly.

I have edited the table for clarity, but you can find the original in my footnotes.

Of white adolescents who engaged in interracial relationships, those with higher SES were more likely to date Asians, and less likely to date blacks. Therefore, “working class” white students are more likely to date black students, while “snobby liberal” white students are more likely to date Asian students. The overall rate of interracial dating was the same, 6% of the total sampled.

Furthermore, the study found that Asians who dated black students had, on average, worse grades than Asians who dated white students. It was also true that Hispanics who dated black students had worse grades than Hispanics who dated Asians. Finally, white students who dated Asian students, when compared with white students who dated black students, tended to have better grades.⁸

GPA is not an intelligence test. Whether a student does their homework or not is highly correlated with conscientiousness and willingness to follow authority, not raw intelligence. The question is, does a high high school GPA correlate with liberalism and conservatism? Some of the data on this question is misleading if we want to focus on white students, because black students are more likely to identify as liberal than as conservative. More research is needed, especially given that the study I am citing is from the ancient history of 2007.

Regarding church attendance, white students who dated Asian students tended to have lower church attendance than white students who dated black. This indicates secularism correlates with white-Asian pairings, while church attendance correlates with white-black pairings. This defies the argument that “Christian conservatives are racist against black people” — Christianity here seemed to attract white students to blacks, while secularism tended to attract them to Asians.⁹

Another study found that students who date interracially are at a higher risk for depression than students who did not date at all and students who dated within their race.¹⁰ It is possible that interracial dating was causing the students to become more depressed, but it is more likely that depressed students are simply more likely to date outside their race. Given the self-reported link between depression and liberalism, this might be one argument that liberal students are more likely to date interracially.

The finding of heightened levels of depression among adolescents dating interracially coincides with the “research [that suggests] that interracially married adults are more vulnerable to psychological distress than those in same-race partnerships.”

At the very least, if there is a correlation between SES and white elite coastal liberalism, then it is clear that Gavin Newsom’s kids are less likely to date black people than the children of “working class whites.” Nikki Haley’s daughter, on the other hand…

Interracial marriage statistics are confounded by the conflation of black-white marriages with white-Hispanic or white-Asian marriages. For the latter two, it is clear that these increase with education. In the former case, the data is not clear.

Figure 3 of Strully (2014).

If there’s one thing we know that white liberals love, it’s good schools — in other words, schools which are predominantly white or Asian. A study on adolescent romantic choices shows that white female students in bad schools (in a school in the top quartile of racial diversity), are more than twice as likely as white female students in good schools (the bottom quartile of racial diversity) to date interracially. In other words, while white female students at good schools interracially date less than 10% of the time, white female students at bad schools interracially date more than 20% of the time.¹¹

A similar effect was observed among black female students. However, among Hispanic female students, the effect jumped from less than 5% at the bottom quartile to over 60% in the top quartile. This indicates either that the demographic variation for Hispanics is greater between schools (more regional variation), and/or that Hispanic females are more induced to interracial romance when they are a minority — they feel more “peer pressure” to adjust their dating preferences, and are more susceptible to environmental conditions than white or black females.

In terms of ethnocentrism, white females and black females had very similar levels of in-group preference. The main difference between white and black females is that black females were much more willing than white females to engage in relationships with individuals who did not attend their school. White males were actually slightly more ethnocentric than white females, 5% to 10%. By contrast, black males were much less ethnocentric than black females. Whereas black females never exceeded interracial dating of 20%, black males attained levels up to 45%.

However, when the group in question is less than 25% of the total student body population, black females demonstrate the highest level of in-group preference, then white males and white females, then black males, then Hispanic females, then Hispanic males.

A Footnote on Ethnogenesis and SES

“Controlling for family SES reduces the Black-White disparity in the log-odds of ever having sex by about 32%, although the gap remains significant. The Hispanic-White disparity is reduced to non-significance. The family SES indicators, however, do not provide much in the way of an explanation for the Asian-White disparity although some is explained, and the gap between Whites and other racial/ethnic groups is widened.”¹²

Translation: there is no socio-sexual difference between whites and Hispanics when socio-economic status is controlled for.¹³

Political Ethnogenesis Selection

If there exists a distinct white and black race in America today, it is because for centuries, whites and blacks have either been legally or socially compelled to not mate randomly, but to mate selectively within their own group. Otherwise, the only “African Americans” left would be those with black great grandparents — 1/8th black.

The current data on inter-political marriage indicates that politics is now a greater force for sexual selection than race. Within this framework, liberal support for mass immigration can be viewed in the same way that Austrians during WWI supported the creation of an Austro-Polish state to balance the interests of Germany.

The political preference of white liberals for non-white immigrants exactly mirrors the ethnic coalitions formed by Jews and Catholics with blacks in the 20th century — this was the FDR coalition that later gave birth to Civil Rights under JFK. Jews and Catholics do not, in their heart of hearts, really love black people in an entirely selfless way. In reality, they see black interests as a hedge against the KKK — the emblem of WASP populism, which threatened to take over America in 1924, but was quickly undermined and defeated by the 1930s.

In the same way, white liberals, many of whom are the literal direct descendants of former confederates, KKK supporters, eugenicists, Nordicists, and other “progressives,” do not simply “selflessly” love immigrants. It is not pathological altruism, it is selfish hedging against rural, conservative whites. The Puritan fervor against the heathen, the godless, the churchless, is now directed toward whites without college degrees. This is an ethno-ideological, or ethno-political phenomenon.

David Thomson is worth $65 billion, and he’s not coming to save rural white people.

So no, Bill Gates is not going to get redpilled — because he already is a nationalist for his people. You might cry, “the difference between liberal whites and conservative whites is an illusion! We’re all one big Aryan race! We all have the same interests! Wake up!” Tell that to the Germans and Slavs in 1942. Tell that to the Protestants and Catholics in 1618. Feelings do not care about your facts.

Hawaii, which is only 21% white, still is full of white liberals. They do not care that they are a minority, or that Hawaii is brown, or that non-white criminals exist. America isn’t going to be 21% white this century, so you can buckle yourself in for a long ride of white liberalism beating white ruralites over the head with the immigrant stick for many decades to come.

In this sense, nationalism remains a defining — and winning — political force in the 21st century. Just not in the way that self-described “nationalists” had imagined.

1. A textbook example of this form of conflation can be found here:

Ethnopolitics in the Roman Empire

2. Schmidt-Häuer, Christian (1986). Gorbachev: The Path to Power, p. 78.

3. Kalergi was not Jewish.

4. 425 whites were shot by cops in 2023.

5. 566 whites were killed by blacks in 2019.

6. 53,022 whites died of an overdose in 2021.

7. Hongyu Wang and Grace Kao (2007). Does Higher Socioeconomic Status Increase Contact Between Minorities and Whites? An Examination of Interracial Romantic Relationships Among Adolescents, Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 88, No. 1, pp. 146-164.

Read the whole article here: https://annas-archive.org/scidb/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2007.00451.x

8. Table 5 of the study.

9. This is from Table 5, page 161.

10. "Interracial daters have greater odds of risk for depression than their non-dating and same-race dating peers"; Miller, B. (2014). What are the odds: An examination of adolescent interracial romance and risk for depression. Youth & Society, 49, 180-202. doi.org/10.1177/0044118X14531150

11. Strully (2014). Racially and ethnically diverse schools and adolescent romantic relationships. doi.org/10.1086/679190

12. "Neighborhoods and Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Adolescent Sexual Risk Behavior" (2013) DOI.org/10.1007/s10964-013-0052-0

13. This study was not utilized here, but contains additional research: Derek Kreager (2008) Guarded Borders: Adolescent Interracial Romance and Peer Trouble at School; Social Forces, #2, 87, pages 887-910; https://annas-archive.org/scidb/10.2307/20430895