White Nationalism is the monstrous and immoral idea that the white race, a unique biological subspecies that is in long-term danger of extinction (due to loss of habitat and competition from hardier invasive subspecies) deserves the same protections as snail darters, spotted owls, and California condors.
White Americans will become a minority in this country by 2050. I know for a fact that a vast number of white Americans—liberals, centrists, and conservatives—are profoundly uncomfortable with this transformation. They know that it threatens the things they value. Rightists realize that individualism, capitalism, and constitutional government will not survive in a black and brown America. Liberals know that women’s rights, gay rights, environmentalism, animal welfare, and support for “the arts” have little place in a nation dominated by Mexicans, Muslims, and blacks. (Sadly, nobody in the white political mainstream thinks of the perpetuation of their extended racial family as a political good in itself. But we are working on that.)
I also know that white Americans will become even more uncomfortable as the tipping point approaches, perhaps restless enough to actually do something to slow down or reverse the process.
I know this, because I am already living in that future. Yes, I have access to a time machine. Just buy a plane ticket to California, where it is 2050 today.
White Americans know that our country is being taken from us, and we are afraid. But white Americans also know that it is dangerous to express these fears for the future, out of fears for much more immediate consequences. We fear that expressing ourselves will make us many enemies and few friends.
But what if the majority of white Americans comes to feel this way? What if a majority decides that there are already too few white European states in the Western hemisphere, and far too many backward, Spanish-speaking non-white states? This country is still democratic enough to change policy, if the people stand up and demand it.
But it is not enough that the majority merely believes something. Majority members have to know that they are the majority, and the politicians have to know it too. But that means that people have to declare their beliefs publicly, so a self-conscious minority can coalesce. A silent majority is powerless.
But for a silent majority to become self-conscious, at least some people have to speak out. A courageous minority have to declare themselves and hold their ground long enough for the less courageous to gin up the courage to join them. Gradually the crowd grows by adding layer upon layer of ever more timid and tepid people, until finally it attracts the necessary ballast of every mass movement: the people who join simply because they want to be on the winning side. At that point, the most contemptible people of all—the politicians—will throw in, and the new majority will carry the day. It is a process that can only begin, however, with a few men of courage who will risk raising a standard to which their less courageous fellows may or may not repair.
In short, we need explicit White Nationalists. We need a lot of them. And we need them to appear sooner rather than later.
Ideally, explicit White Nationalists should be come from all walks of life, social classes, regions, religions, cultures, subcultures, and ethnic groups, so that people from all those groups can identify with concrete examples of explicit White Nationalists.
Furthermore, it would also be ideal if explicit White Nationalists were on average smarter, better-looking, and more successful than the other members of their particular groups, since we want people not merely to identify with them but also to look up to them.
Obviously, we have a long way to go.
In the United States, it is not illegal to be a White Nationalist. Not yet anyway. White Nationalists are not arrested, imprisoned, tortured, or murdered by the state. Although we know that our government is doing these very things to non-US citizens around the globe.
Being an explicit White Nationalist does, however, open one to all kinds of private harassment, both legal and illegal. Explicit White Nationalists are subjected to verbal abuse, including moral shaming. Explicit White Nationalists can lose business opportunities and employment. Sometimes one loses friends. One can even be shunned by one’s family or lose one’s marriage. In very rare instances, explicit White Nationalists are subjected to criminal violence because of their beliefs, or are framed as criminals by the government.
But usually the penalties are pretty mild. One might have a few heated exchanges that can get one’s heart-rate elevated. One might have to endure an uncomfortable work environment. One might lose the company of tepid and cowardly friends. (Since one is dealing with cowardice, one often never really knows why certain friends and acquaintances drift away.) But one is well-rid of such people and will eventually come to find new friends who are capable of deeper and more significant relationships—friends who also understand the greatest problem facing the world today.
Because of these difficulties, many people who come to White Nationalism prefer to remain silent about it. They reason that there is nothing to be gained by going public, since so few people think the way we do, and very few of them would come to the defense of someone who is publicly attacked for advocating the continued existence of our race.
This is particularly true of White Nationalists who have a lot to lose—money and status; business, social, and political connections—and who want themselves and their families to stay on an upward social trajectory.
These are exactly the kind of people White Nationalists need on our side.
The only people who have nothing to fear from social opprobrium are those who have nothing to lose. But people who have nothing to lose also have little to offer. And we have enough people like that already.
One of the most popular ways of engaging in White Advocacy while protecting oneself is to use a pen name. It provides most of the protections of silence yet allows one to speak out. A good percentage of the best White Advocates fall into this category.
So how do we build a winning team from mainstream types who are mostly silent and explicit types who are mostly marginal?
A natural division of labor suggests itself. Explicit White Nationalists need to go public, stand their ground, and buckle down for the long, hard, grinding task of winning more people to our side. Silent White Nationalists need to write checks. Or, if they are afraid of writing checks, they need to stuff cash in envelopes.
According to one of his friends, Wilmot Robertson recounted that over the years, he would hear from wealthy and powerful people who expressed their agreement with him but told him that they dare not speak out themselves. When he asked them to support him, so he could speak for them, they said that they didn’t dare do that either. Were they afraid that their checks would be traced? Maybe so, but in all his years of publishing Instauration, Robertson never received an anonymous envelope of cash either.
How can we forge cordial and productive relationships between explicit White Nationalists, including those who use pen names, and those who choose to remain silent? A couple of points of etiquette are a good start:
2. Everybody else needs to respect those decisions. White Nationalists have the right to be silent. White Nationalists have the right to use pen names.
This implies that:
1. It is wrong for explicit WNs to denigrate people who choose to remain silent or use pen names.
2. It is wrong for explicit WNs to “out” people who choose to remain silent or use pen names.
Human motives and decisions are complex. From the outside, we cannot presume to know why people choose to remain silent or adopt pen names. These decisions cannot, therefore, be taken ipso facto as evidence of cowardice, venality, stupidity, or dishonesty. And even if such motives do play a role, people can grow in courage, idealism, and understanding.
People of good character can have good reasons for remaining silent or concealing their names. Explicit White Nationalists who cannot or will not understand that are a danger to the movement. They drive people away who could otherwise contribute. And they create a climate of fear and suspicion that makes it difficult for the people who do stay to work together.
When explicit WNs hector and brow-beat silent WNs to get off the bench, or when they excoriate people who use pen names, the natural conclusion of sensible and cautious people is: “Somewhere down the road, this guy is going to start ‘outing’ people.” They are right to be worried, and explicit WNs need to step up and say something about it. The scolds and outers need to be reprimanded, and if they persist, they need to be shunned. It is the only way that the explicit movement can gain credibility and begin to grow.
Silent or anonymous WNs need to reciprocate these courtesies as follows:
1. Don’t complain about the marginal nature of explicit WNs.
The main reason that explicit WNs are less mainstream than the rest is because the more mainstream ones prefer silence or anonymity. The quickest way to change that is not by complaining, but by going explicit. If you are not ready for that, then cut us some slack. We get enough flak from the system. We don’t need our own people chiming in too. Just as there are good reasons why you are silent or anonymous, there are good reasons why many explicit WNs are eccentric. Eccentric ideas attract eccentric people. Once our ideas become more mainstream, mainstream people will be attracted to them. Eccentric WNs, however, are not to be blamed for the bad press WNs get. The bad press comes from offering a fundamental critique of the system.
2. Don’t come to our gatherings and start rehearsing all the reasons why it is best to remain silent and anonymous.
We are all well aware of the world we live in. Flogging that dead horse only makes it more difficult for us to recruit and activate good people, which reinforces the marginality of the movement, which makes it smart to stay silent, and so the cycle continues. Break the cycle by remaining silent. Or, better yet, offer words of encouragement and constructive advice for insulating oneself from the negative consequences of explicit White Advocacy.
La politique identitaire blanche est morale, Partie 2
Audio Versions of Recent Articles
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 407 Gregory Hood on “Their Democracy”
Martin Luther King, Jr. Day Resources at Counter-Currents
Remembering Yukio Mishima (January 14, 1925–November 25, 1970)
Politique identitaire blanche : inévitable, nécessaire, morale, Partie 1
Remembering Jack London (January 12, 1876–November 22, 1916)
Remembering Anthony M. Ludovici:
January 8, 1882–April 3, 1971