Frequently Asked Questions, Part 1

Walter Crane, “Freedom”

1,539 words

Part 2 here; Translations: French, German, Spanish

Counter-Currents/North American New Right will celebrate its second anniversary on Monday, June 11. We have been around long enough to notice certain frequently asked questions, which I will begin to answer this week. If you have other questions that you think should be added to this list, please post them as comments below.

1. What is Ethnonationalism?

Ethnonationalism is the idea that every distinct ethnic group should enjoy political sovereignty and an ethnically homogeneous homeland or homelands. The opposing view is multiculturalism, which holds that multiple ethnic groups should share the same homelands and governments.

Unfortunately, ethnic, racial, and cultural diversity inevitably lead to friction, which can either wear away distinct identities or spark hatred, conflict, and violence. Therefore, the best way to ensure peace and good will among peoples and preserve human racial, cultural, and religious diversity is to give each distinct group a homeland where it can live and develop according to its own distinct nature and destiny.

For more on this, see:

• Michael Polignano, “Taking Our Own Side“
• Greg Johnson, “Confessions of a Reluctant Hater“
• Greg Johnson, “White Nationalism and Jewish Nationalism“

2. What is White Nationalism?

White Nationalism is the advocacy of national self-determination for all white peoples. White Nationalism is often misrepresented as nationalism for generic white people, as opposed to national self-determination for all white ethnic groups. But there is no such thing as a generic white person. All white people also have specific ethnic identities. Even in colonial societies where different European ethnic stocks have blended together, the result is not a generic white person but rather new ethnicities: Americans, Canadians, Quebecois, etc.

It is necessary, however, to stress whiteness as a necessary condition of belonging to white ethnic groups, because the white-spread civic nationalist idea that non-whites can be American, Germans, etc. Not all white people are Swedish, but all Swedes are white people. Non-whites are only Americans or Germans or Swedish because of legal fictions.

White Nationalism also makes sense in the context of competition from other races, which tend to see themselves and whites in simple racial terms. Even whites who do not see themselves merely as whites may be forced to do so as racial conflict increases, simply because their enemies will see and treat them as generically white.

In Europe, where old national and regional identities remain robust, generic whiteness, if adopted as one’s primary identity and political philosophy, would actually promote the breakdown of distinct identities and the homogenization of Europe. However, a sense of European identity can still supervene upon more compact national and regional identities.

This wider sense of European identity can actually work to preserve particular identities in two important ways. First, it can help to prevent conflict among European peoples. Second, it can help European peoples to unite in the face of non-white immigration, which is primarily organized under the banner of Islam.

For more on these topics, see:

• Michael O’Meara, “Toward the White Republic“
• Ted Sallis, “Pan-European Preservationism“
• Andrew Hamilton, “Pan-Nationalism“

3. What is the North American New Right, and how does it differ from the Old Right and the European New Right?

The North American New Right is a White Nationalist metapolitical movement that seeks to lay the foundations of a White Republic or republics in North America.

We differ from the Old Right, meaning Fascism and National Socialism, in that we repudiate the party politics, totalitarianism, terrorism, and genocide associated, rightly or wrongly, with the Old Right.

We differ from the European New Right insofar as our North American context forces us (1) to give greater place to biological race and other deep roots of common European identity given the breakdown of European national identities and the blending of European stocks, and (2) to put greater emphasis on the Jewish question, given the role of American Jewry in promoting anti-white policies both in the United States and in white countries world-wide.

For more detailed discussions of these issues, see:

• Greg Johnson, “Toward a North American New Right“
• Greg Johnson, “New Right vs. Old Right” (podcast version here)

4. What is “metapolitics”?

“Metapolitics” refers to the non-political preconditions of political change. These conditions fall into two broad categories: (1) education and (2) community organizing. Education refers to the intellectual case for a new political order and all the media by which that message is propagated. Community organizing refers to the creation of an actual, real-world community that lives according to the principles.

Basic metapolitical issues include questions of identity (who are we, and who isn’t us?), morality (what are our duties to ourselves, our race and subracial groups, and other races?), and practicality (how can we actually create the White Republic?).

For more on metapolitics, see:

• Greg Johnson, “Toward a North American New Right“
• Michael O’Meara, “The Myth of Our Rebirth“
• White Republican, “On Metapolitics“
• Alex Kurtagic, “Interview with Greg Johnson“
• Matt Parrott, “Ideas Matter“

5. What is the basic message, the “mantra,” of the North American New Right?

White Americans are a distinct ethnic group with distinct interests. The same is true of Anglo and French Canadians. We live in a world in which there are real ethnic conflicts. It is right for whites to take our own side in these ethnic conflicts. Multicultural, multiracial societies make ethnic conflict and hatred inevitable. Ethnic conflict can best be ended by the creation of ethnically homogeneous homelands for all peoples. Thus it is an existential imperative—a matter of life and death—for whites to create or preserve ethnically homogeneous homelands.

6. What is “hegemony”?

By hegemony, we mean a kind of indirect and “soft” power propagated through culture and education that shapes the political realm by framing people’s sense of identity, morality, and political possibility. Hegemony, in short, is metapolitical power.

The aim of the metapolitical project of the North American New Right is to destroy the cultural hegemony of multiculturalism and anti-white racism and to replace them with the cultural hegemony of white pride, white self-assertion, and White Nationalism.

Because of the cultural hegemony of anti-white ideas, it really does not matter which party holds power, since their power will be used against white interests. When White Nationalist ideas attain cultural hegemony, it will not matter which party holds political power, since all of them will treat white interests as sacrosanct.

For more on hegemony, see:

• Greg Johnson, “Hegemony” (podcast version here)
• Greg Johnson, “New Right vs. Old Right” (podcast version here)

7. What is the relationship of the North American New Right to political parties?

Both the Old Right and the New Right have metapolitical elements. Old Right metapolitics envisions its ideas being put into practice through a particular political party, which seeks to gain power through democratic or revolutionary means. The New Right does not tie the triumph of its ideas to the fortunes of a particular political party. Instead, we wish to secure white interests through the attainment of cultural hegemony: the transformation of consciousness and culture, such that white racial consciousness and the protection of white interests is the common sense of all political parties.

The North American New Right does not link our project to the triumph of a particular political party. Furthermore, we spend a great deal of time trying to wean people away from party politics or at least give them realistic expectations of it. We believe that the existing parties are effectively under enemy control and cannot serve as vehicles of white interests until white intellectual and cultural hegemony has been established. We believe that the Ron Paul movement is a distraction because he is philosophically opposed to White Nationalism. We believe that it is too late, and too early, for an explicitly white political party to make headway in North America.

That said, we do not wish to completely cut ourselves off from political parties, since our goal is to influence the whole cultural and political realm. But we wish to influence them, not let them influence us. We wish to draw personnel and resources away from the mainstream political parties, rather than funnel our scarce resources toward them.

The key questions that must always be borne in mind by White Nationalists who engage in politics are: “Is my political engagement aiding the system or the cause of the white race? Is my engagement drawing the political mainstream in our direction, or the white movement toward the mainstream? Is my engagement drawing resources out of the mainstream toward our cause, or is it siphoning resources out of the white cause and into the mainstream?”

If your political engagement makes the white cause poorer in money, man-hours, and open advocates for the white cause, don’t do it. You’ve been co-opted by the enemy.

Naturally, we would be delighted if, somewhere down the line, an effective political party emerged to carry our banner. But such a party is not necessary for our project and we are not depending upon it.

For more on this topic, read:

• Greg Johnson, “Toward a North American New Right“
• Greg Johnson, “White Nationalists and the Political ‘Mainstream’“
• Greg Johnson, “Explicit White Nationalism“
• Greg Johnson, “Implicit Whiteness and the Republicans“
• Greg Johnson, Review of Tea Party: The Documentary Film
• Alex Stark, “We are Not Conservatives“
• Matt Parrott, “The REAL Ron Paul Scandal“
• Trainspotter, “The Case Against Ron Paul“

Part 2 here