Ethnonationalism is possibly the most popular of all "isms" within the confines of the Alt-Right or New-Right. Identitarians seek to rebel against the globalist status quo appealing to the historical ethnic character of their nations. Ethnonationalism is thus defined as the preservation of said ethnic character and its sovereignty over a territory, with ethnicity defined not at the tribal but rather at the nation-state level, in other words, it seeks to maintain the sovereignty of the nation-state focusing on the preservation of the "founding" stock of said nation. One could sum it up with a slogan like "Germany for the Germans, England for the English" and so on, with the explicit addendum that the "Germans" and "English" are an ethnos with a closed (as in not open) membership. This closed membership means that a German is the offspring of an ethnic German, not someone with a piece of paper that says he is German. A Turk with German nationality is, to the eyes of an ethno-nationalist, just a Turk, not a German and Turkey is where he should live. But the ancestry issue can go even further, since someone of German descent but raised in the USA wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) be considered German since he lacks the life experience of being constantly in touch with German things or his German roots. This person is, if anything, a "potential German" if he decides to reconnect with his heritage. In contrast, for an ethno-nationalist a Turk is neither German nor a "potential German".
So, we can see how ethno-national is a response against the current situation in the US and Europe where the native White populations decrease while at the same time getting vast numbers of foreigners that, under the previously defined terms are neither nationals nor potential nationals. In other words, the ethnic character of the nation is being broken up and supplanted with a "civil" one where anyone with the right papers is a part of the nation, independently of his origin or ancestry.
Before I proceed with my criticisms of ethno-nationalism (or ethno-nationalists), I want to make clear that said criticisms are not because I am in agreement with what is happening in the US or Europe. I don’t want Germany to be filled with "non-German" nor do I want the native European populations to be replaced by non-European wants. My intention is to point out inconsistencies in the rhetoric being used and demystify the position of ethnic nationalism. With that being said, let’s proceed.
Ethnonationalism is the same as libertarianism
Many of us came over to the Alt-Right from the libertarian camp. At some point, while being libertarians, we realized that the highly individualistic ideology of libertarianism had some serious flaws. The dominating idea within libertarianism is that of the "Non-Aggression Principle" or NAP. The NAP basically states that for the individual anything is permitted as long as no harm is caused to a third party, that you don’t "aggress" on someone else while doing whatever it is you’re doing. An ideal society under the NAP would be a bunch of individuals living their lives however they think is best as not imposing anything on one another. You can have your traditional family over there on your own property while I can be a degenerate on mine. Everything is fine and permitted as long as I don’t try to impose my ways on you and vice versa.
The key problem with the NAP is that it completely ignores the human desire to impose oneself over others. This goes beyond simple "conflict resolution" for which there are libertarian frameworks. No, we’re talking about the need to expand, of having a manifest destiny, of waging jihad on infidels, to increase the glory and honor of your own nation through violence and conquest, or even if it is deemed cheaper to squash and conquer than to tolerate the existence of some people and merely "trade" with them. So the NAP is a failure, precisely because it completely ignores this reality, because human nature has a very strong component that is all about expanding and conquering.
So, what is the point of talking about this? Because ethnonationalism, at least how it is interpreted and proposed today by most in the Alt-Right is exactly what I just described, but at a bigger or more complex scale. Instead of individuals following the NAP, now it’s entire nations or tribes doing it. "No more brother wars", "the age of imperialism is over". All common phrases uttered by (European) ethno-nationalists.
Ethnonationalism is not possible sbecause some ethnic group will always seek to expand and acquire new territory breaking the idyllic arrangement. The same criticisms that the Alt-Right used against libertarianism (essentially destroying it) apply perfectly at the national level too, therefore to ethnonationalism.
To clarify: I’m not saying that there shouldn’t be such a thing as, for instance, "France and "ethnic Frenchmen", and that advocating for the existence of both is dumb. I’m saying that the idea that, somehow, the borders of France will remain unchanged forever because we’re all going to uphold the national NAP is patently false and even contemptible.
Advocating for ethnonationalism generates clear contradictions
There’s something that doesn’t sit right when you hear Alt-Right or ethnonationalist rhetoric regarding the conquest of America by Europeans. "The Indians lost, get over it". The American continent belongs to Europe, go cry somewhere else, losers. But then you see the same people talking about how it is a great atrocity that Mexicans are invading/conquering the US or that Muslims are taking over Europe. These people might disavow or regret past imperialism in the sense that it now opened the door for some to justify the current invasion of Europe, but this regret is not about having violated ethnic sovereignty per se, but about the current consequences for Europe today. I’m not saying that Europeans deserve what is happening because of its colonial past (quite the opposite in fact), I’m saying that it is completely incoherent and naïve to go around defending the violation of the "right of self-determination" of the ethnic-nations or tribes that existed in the different places Europeans conquered and then advocate for said right to self-determination and having ethnonstates/nations. It looks childish and self-serving to be advocating for ethnonationalism NOW, but celebrate how Europeans totally owned everyone at some point. Now that Europe is the one in a precarious position respect for borders preservation of ethnic heritage and self-determination is implored…but about what happened 500 years ago, suck it brown people, we won, go back to the reservation. It’s pure childishness. Past conquest were not wrong, conquering is not wrong (especially if you’re the one doing it), what’s wrong right now is that we can’t mount a response to us being currently invaded beyond arguing that borders and ethno-nations should be respected, something that no one (not just Europe) has ever done.
The conclusion is clear then. Either we completely disavow our past or we stop the ethnonationalist nonsense. I as a Spaniard will never ever disavow nor be ashamed of Spain’s Imperial past and character, couldn’t care less about Catalonia’s or Tenochtitlan’s cries about ethnic sovereignty.
Ethnonationalism is an admission of weakness, not a position based on principles
Lastly, ethnonationalism is not this this highly honorable position based principles that the people advocating it make it seem. It is, simply, an admission of weakness and powerlessness against the conquering onslaught of the current Global(ist) Empire. It should be clear from the previous section of this article that ethnonationalism is not really a concern when one is the Imperial conqueror in fact if you are the Imperial conqueror you want those feelings and arguments suppressed, just like the current empire is doing. You do not advocate for the sovereignty of the people that you are conquering or have conquered. Who does? Well, the conquered, the weak. For instance, American Southerners constantly talk abou secession and how it was and is a terrible injustice to be subjected to the North. But at the same time many of them yearn for an alternate past where the South would form itself an empire over the entire Caribbean called "The Golden Circle". Their pro-secession and sovereignty arguments only apply when it is them the ones that have been conquered, not when they would be the ones conquering places like Cuba or Mexico. Just like Southerners, so are we all.
At the beginning of the article I said that my intention was to demystify ethnonationalism. Well, ethnonationalism is not this universal panacea for all evils past and present, it is not a "principled" and highly honorable position. The truth is that it is merely a rhetorical tactic one employs when one finds oneself in a position of weakness, when somebody else is conquering or has conquered you. Seeing it that way, there is nothing actually wrong with employing said tactic since we’re in a position that calls for it. Just understand what it is you’re doing and what you’re employing.
To the ethno-nationalists I propose the following thought experiment: Supposes that somehow the current Poland starts to successfully invade Western Europe producing a Polish empire encompassing countries like Germany, France and Britain. A clear violation of etho-nationalist principles since not only is Poland violating German sovereignty it is killing other Europeans to achieve it. However, this Polish Empire starts banning and deporting all Africans and Muslims and starts executing all proponents and defenders of pernicious ideologies we call "cultural Marxism" as well as destroying their institutions and works, they also expel the Jews. In short, imagine that our imagined Polish Empire has achieved all if not most of the goals the Alt-Right advocates. This Empire has saved Europe from Islamization and has saved it from destructive egalitarian ideologues. The alternative to the Polish Empire is the current status quo.
What side should an ethno-nationalist take? Is this hypothetical Empire preferable to its alternative or is it better it didn’t exist because imperialism and empires are categorically bad and ethno-nationalism categorically and absolutely good and desirable above all other state arrangements?