See, Rahowa was short for Racial Holy War and it was a skinhead slash white supremacist game.
Sigh. White supremacism is for stupid people. To quote portions of the 16 Points; an Alt-Right manifesto that I largely agree with (although some of the 16 points I care about considerably less than others):
- The Alt Right is openly and avowedly nationalist. It supports all nationalisms and the right of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and immigration.
- The Alt Right is anti-globalist. It opposes all groups who work for globalist ideals or globalist objectives.
- The Alt Right is anti-equalitarian. It rejects the idea of equality for the same reason it rejects the ideas of unicorns and leprechauns, noting that human equality does not exist in any observable scientific, legal, material, intellectual, sexual, or spiritual form.
- The Alt Right believes identity > culture > politics.
- The Alt Right is opposed to the rule or domination of any native ethnic group by another, particularly in the sovereign homelands of the dominated peoples. The Alt Right is opposed to any non-native ethnic group obtaining excessive influence in any society through nepotism, tribalism, or any other means.
- The Alt Right understands that diversity + proximity = war.
- The Alt Right rejects international free trade and the free movement of peoples that free trade requires. The benefits of intranational free trade is not evidence for the benefits of international free trade.
- The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children.
- The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, people, or sub-species. Every race, nation, people, and human sub-species has its own unique strengths and weaknesses, and possesses the sovereign right to dwell unmolested in the native culture it prefers.
- The Alt Right is a philosophy that values peace among the various nations of the world and opposes wars to impose the values of one nation upon another as well as efforts to exterminate individual nations through war, genocide, immigration, or genetic assimilation.
That isn't all of the 16 points, of course, but those are the ones that debunk the effort to (deliberately) confuse white nationalism with white supremacism. Although the use of sub-species is kind of over-the-top, since as biologically defined, there are no extant human sub-species save Homo sapiens sapiens. That is a reference to the degree to which Neanderthal, Denisovan or other DNA makes up components of the genetic legacy of various populations of the world; ironically because most people would believe the opposite based on racial posturing of the past, the least "pure" humans are white Europeans and even moreso, north Asians; the percentage of Neanderthal admixture is highest there. It also seems to lean towards the multiregional origin of modern humans, or at least implicitly allow for the possibility—which may be justified as continued paleogenetic data becomes available.
Anyway, here's another, more succinct explanation of the alt-right, including it's tenets of race and culture:
Now; it should be obvious from both of these that white supremacy and white nationalism are not the same thing at all. Rahowa was a white supremacist game, and although I've never been a white supremacist, I find that my tastes are migrating more and more to a white nationalist approach. What does white nationalism mean?
Quite simply that white people should be able to be proud of their heritage and recognize that their culture and society is best suited to them, as they are best suited to it (as Steve Sailer says; culture is little more than the aggregate of the personalities and behavior of the people who live within it). And that white nations have a right to order their societies as they please and dwell therein unmolested by those who seek to impose a different culture on them, or those who seek to loot their society, either one. And that white nationalists do not begrudge African nationalists, Hispanic-Indio nationalists, Japanese nationalists, Arabic nationalists, or Jewish nationalists (etc. ad nauseum) the same privilege. Merely that your privilege needs to be exercised in your own lands as we will exercise our privilege in ours.
From a perspective of gaming and science fiction and fantasy, that means that I reject the notion that these genres are "too white" completely. If Charles Saunders wants to write Imaro as an expression of black nationalism (which he did want to do, and which he did do) then he's perfectly within his rights to do so. However, there should be no expectation that white people should read the story, accept it as part of their canon, or even have any interest in it whatsoever except perhaps as a novelty (which, based on sales, appears largely to be the case with the exception of some virtue-signalers or completists who would read anything with the sword & sorcery label on it, regardless of any other qualities.) And if African or even African-American readers don't show any interest in sword & sorcery, which is primarily a white genre, well, that's fine too. After all, if sword & sorcery isn't "African" enough of a story mode for them, that's fine. Why should they appropriate story modes from me and my heritage, rather than using something more in keeping with their own culture? Nobody should feel like there's any need to subsidize or "force" the success of "diverse" fiction or gaming—or ram diversity down the throats of readers and gamers who want to be entertained, not preached to about how terrible they are. In this vein, I've embraced gaming and fiction (again) that is largely based on my heritage, as I should. That heritage is, after all, mine. Why wouldn't I embrace it, and if I don't, who from any other heritage would?
This is one of the primary details that has evolved with my conception of DARK•HERITAGE over time; I had initially rejected a white nationalist approach as "too familiar" and made the main "protagonist" culture a kind of Aragonese Medieval Mediterranean one—more for the novelty value than for anything more substantive. I'm actually surprised that the notion survived as long as it did, given the fleeting foundation on which it was built. That fictional polity still exists, but I've decided that I don't want to focus on it, because my connection to that culture is relatively tenuous, and after all, why should I appropriate too much from a culture foreign to me when I can continue to explore cultures that are my own? Hence the change from a focus on the Terrasan Empire around a fantasy Mediterranean analog to one that is more about British Dark Ages cultures along a fantasy analog of the Atlantic Seaboard and their first advancements westward. Celtic, Anglo-Saxon and Viking, with lingering traces of Graeco-Roman antecedents is familiar, but that's exactly the reason to recommend it, actually, rather than the reason to reject it. And that is, of course, my own heritage.
Anyway, I've made a list of real-life kingdoms from the Dark Ages and I'll probably translate them into petty kingdoms, city-states or other small polities on my Atlantic Seaboard. Heck; I'll even posit that they may well have come from actual Europe into a fantasy New World (instead of the real New World) because... well, because why not? The notion that the real world and the secondary world have to be kept completely separate has a long tradition in fantasy, but it is not monolithic. To be fair, both Middle-earth and the Hyborian Age are technically supposed to represent the real world from some mythic period of time, although in both cases that's more of a framing device rather than something that's meant to be taken seriously. Most post-Tolkien fantasy has rejected it completely and simply made the secondary world be a secondary world with no connections to the real world at all. But not all fantasy, back in the day, was done so.
So, yeah—the development of DARK•HERITAGE Mk. IV into Mk. V continues apace. It's probably also time that I started adding some more detail to my sketchy map. Coming soon.