Counter-Currents
5,098 words
Editor’s Note:
The following text by Michael O’Meara is the title essay of his book Toward the White Republic.
“Breathes there the man with soul so dead,
Who never to himself hath said,
This is my own, my native land!”
—Sir Walter Scott
One.
Some time in the second half of the 1990s, a terminological change occurred in the racially conscious community.
Many who previously identified themselves as White Power advocates, segregationists, separatists, supremacists, survivalists, neo-Confederates, biological realists, etc. started calling themselves “white nationalists.”
At the time (and I didn’t know much about these things then), I thought this reflected a changing political consciousness.
For what began after 1945 as a “movement” to maintain the integrity of America’s racial character and prevent alien races from intruding into its various “life worlds” had, by the 1990s, ceased to be a realistic project—30 years of Third World immigration, “civil rights” legislation, and various measures imposed by the federal government to subordinate white interests to those of non-whites had irrevocably transformed the American people so that it was increasingly difficult to characterize it any longer as a majority white population.
For this reason, “white advocates” in the late 1990s started making traditional nationalist claims for secession and self-determination because the United States, in their eyes, had become a threat to their people’s existence.
Two.
This interpretation was not at all unreasonable. But, alas, it didn’t quite accord with the facts.
I’ve since learned that those calling themselves “white nationalists” are not necessarily nationalists in the sense of wanting to secede from the United States in order to form an independent ethnostate. Most, I think it’s fair to say, are racially conscious conservatives who want to work through the existing institutions to regain control of the country their ancestors made—in order, ultimately, to dismantle the present anti-white system of preferences and restore something of the white man’s former hegemony.
By contrast, white nationalists in the strict sense (i.e., those favoring secession) have no interest in restoring the old ways, let alone regaining control of the central state, whose authority is already slipping and whose rule is increasingly dysfunctional. Indeed, the American state system, as its more astute supporters acknowledge, is beyond reform.[1]
Instead, white nationalists aspire to create a counter-elite to lead disaffected white youth in a movement to found a whites-only nation-state somewhere in North America, once the poorly managed enterprise known as the United States collapses in a centrifugal dispersion of its decaying and perverted powers.
Without an organizational presence in the real world and a “public” largely of computer hobbyists, white nationalists have no hope at present of actually mobilizing whites in opposition to the existing anti-white regime (even if they seek to influence whatever social currents might run in their general direction). Rather, their immediate goal is to prepare the way for the development of a revolutionary nationalist vanguard to lead the struggle for white liberation. They aspire thus not to recapture the rotting corpse of the US government, but to free themselves from it—in order to be themselves, in their own land, in their own way.
White nationalists, as such, politically define themselves in wanting to create a sovereign state in North America. They endeavor, therefore, not to “put things back the way they were,” as conservatives wish, but to rid themselves of them completely.
A National Revolution, they hold, will alone restore “the white man to his rightful place in the world.”[2]
Inspired by the birthright handed down by the blood and sacrifice of ancestors, their project, relatedly, is not about restoring the Third Reich or the Confederacy, as leftists imagine, but about creating a future white homeland in which their kind will be able “to pursue their destiny without interference from other races.”[3]
Three.
White nationalism is a variant of historic ethnonationalism, what Walker Connor calls nationalism “in its pristine sense.”[4]
All three—racial, ethno, and pristine nationalism—define the nation in terms of blood.
The creedal or civic nationalism of the present regime, which makes loyalty to the state, not the nation, primary, is by contrast “nationalist” only in a narrow ideological sense, confusing as it does loyalty to the state or affection for the land (patriotism) with loyalty to the people (nationalism). It thus defines the nation in terms of certain abstract democratic principles, seeing it as a collection of individuals, each more important than the whole.
Though ethnonationalists privilege the nation’s spirit above all else, they nevertheless define it organically, in terms of blood, as an extended family, an endogamous kin group, or a genetic commonwealth.
Unlike European nations, formed around long-established ethnic cores (which had developed in the Middle Ages, as Germanic and other tribal confederations evolved into larger political, regional, and cultural identities), American national identity was defined, historically, in explicitly racial terms.
As Sir Arthur Keith characterized it: “In Europe the stock has been broken up into local national breeds; in America the local breeds have been reunited.”[5]
In both cases, a national identity grew out of a real or imagined blood relationship linking the nation’s members to inherited customs and institutions.
Because the American form of racial nationhood lacks the ethnic dimension distinct to European nationalism, it is a source of some misunderstanding, especially in its purely negative expression as anti-Semitism or Negrophobia.
For example, even Euronationalists who struggle for a Continental nation-state tend to dismiss white nationalism —because it seems to imply the typical American leveling of cultural and other identities by subsuming them under a homogenizing biological concept that negates the particularisms of European nationhood and subjects them to another form of Anglo-American hegemony.
In this, however, our European cousins misunderstand the aim of white nationalism, though some white nationalists in their one-sided reaction to non-whites or in their “numbskull Americanism” may, admittedly, have given cause to this misunderstanding.
White nationalism is a distinctly American (or, better said, New World) nationalism, not a European one, and the two are analogous only at the highest level, where the national community, defined ethnically or racially, affirms its right to control its own destiny. Its highest loyalty, as Francis Parker Yockey held, is to the destiny of its mother soil and father culture: Europe.
This is not to say that American racial nationalism—which makes white European racial ascriptions the basis of American identity—has no ethnic or historic component.
The country’s original settlers were largely of Anglo-Protestant descent, and this had a formative effect on American institutions and folkways.
The organic basis of the American nation, however, was less English ethnicity than “whiteness.”
Even before the War of Independence (the first American war of secession), more than a quarter of the population was of non-English, mainly North European stock: Scots-Irish, German, Dutch, French Huguenots, etc. By about the mid-18th century, the “American English” were increasingly referred to as “Americans,” a people “selected by a whole series of ordeals which [had] killed off the weak and worthless” and conferred a distinct vitality on their laws, attitudes, and local institutions.[6]
The bitterness of the War of Independence and the War of 1812, US-British acrimony and rivalry extending late into the 19th century, in addition to the “normal” nationalist compulsion to celebrate an American identity independent of the English—all tended to minimize the significance of the colonists’ original national origins, as they were reborn as pure Americans.
American nationalism arose in fact on the basis of a certain popular revulsion against the English.
Nevertheless, English-Americans were the original native Americans, and all the rest of us have since become American by assimilating something of the ethos derived from their unique genos.
Though Anglo-Protestant ethnicity continues to animate the inner reaches of American culture, it wasn’t the phenotypical basis of American identity. Rather, it was the racial experience of transplanted Englishmen in 17th-century Virginia, then the “exotic far western periphery . . . of the metropolitan European cultural system.”[7]
In the New World part of this system, the ever-looming presence of African slaves, considered “by nature vicious and morally inferior,” and “savage” red Indians, who posed an ongoing threat, could not but foster an acute racial consciousness.
Given that economic opportunities, vast expanses of virgin land, and new fortunes prevented the old European social hierarchies from re-establishing themselves, these racial bearings would serve as the one fixed hierarchy ordering colonial life.
Forged, thus, in conflict with non-whites, the colonists’ early racial consciousness served to mark the boundaries of the emerging American identity. The historian Winthrop Jordan claims that “Anglo-Americans” were already identifying themselves as “whites” rather than “Englishmen” as early as 1680.[8]
National or ethnic differences in this racially mixed environment were simply less meaningful than differences between Europeans and non-Europeans.
These differences were subsequently institutionalized, once the American colonists declared their independence, for they declared in effect their intent to become a self-determining people in the evolutionary sense, by becoming a nation, an organic body with its own sovereign state and its own laws of growth.
Then, following the revolution, as republican principles were gradually extended to all white males, the country’s Herrenvolk democracy posed an insurmountable obstacle to the extension of these principles to non-whites—for the new, explicitly white nation was based not on the liberal fiction of “humanity,” but on the assumption that human nature is a product of blood and race.
Indeed, the white egalitarianism of the early republic, shaped largely in opposition to the Toryism of Anglophile Federalists (who represented the bourgeois interests of liberal market society and its connection to British commerce) was premised on the Negro’s otherness and the primacy of white racial ascriptions, all of which further contributed to the nation’s self-consciousness, coherence, and communality, as British and European Americans, largely under the leadership of Indian-fighting, pro-slavery, and expansionist Southerners, came to share not just the same horizontal sense of right and identity, but the same vertical qualities and dignities of their racial stock.
In ways different from ethnicity, race formed the psychological bonds that joined American whites and differentiated them from non-whites, just as the language, customs, and early institutions of the original Anglo-Protestant settlers established the cultural-linguistic framework in which white Americans became a self-conscious nation.
Four.
The ethnogenic process that gradually imposed a common culture and identity on the former colonists, as they became Virginians and New Englanders, and more generally, Americans, was interrupted in the 1840s by the mass influx of Irish and German Catholics—the former seen almost as an alien race. Then, in the late 19th century, this was followed by a second great immigrant wave, from Southern and Eastern Europe.
Today the Third World invasion is taking the ethnogenic process to a new extreme, as the state, with its inorganic definition of the nation, endeavors to “transcend” the perennially white, Christian character of the American people for the sake of its oxymoronic “universal nation.”
At each nodal point in this demographic transformation, except the most recent, native Americans, however resistant to the newcomers, succeeded in assimilating them on the basis of their racial ascriptions, as the Anglo-Protestant character of American identity became progressively more “ecumenical.”
Indeed, it’s increasingly difficult today to talk of “hyphenated-Americans,” given that the different European ethnic strains making up the white population have so extensively intermarried that many now no longer know their ethnic origins, European hybrids that they have become.[9] As one historian writes: “Ellis Island whiteness” has come to replace “Plymouth Rock whiteness.”[10]
There were obvious limits to assimilation, though. As Woodrow Wilson put it: “We cannot make a homogenous population of a people who do not blend with the Caucasian race.”[11] Against this view, many “new,” especially Jewish immigrants, advanced the cause for greater racial/ethnic diversity, as if America’s vocation was to become a boardinghouse to all the world’s peoples. The Old America, though, would have none of this, and, in Lothrop Stoddard’s words, dismissed such claims with the insistence “that America is basically ‘made’—and that it shall not be unmade.”[12]
Then, later, when the post-1945 National Security State, armed with its newly acquired “mandate of heaven,” endeavored to turn Franklin D. Roosevelt’s liberal-managerial state system into a world empire, premised on the belief that it was based on an idea, not a people, it launched what amounted to an assault on America’s historic identity—an assault whose overarching aim was to undermine the population’s racial consciousness and promote ethnocidal practices facilitating its “demographic” reconstitution.
The state’s “anti-racism” came thus to serve as an instrument of its social engineers, who sought to turn whites into herds of “tamed sheep [who] care not in which flock [they] are driven.”[13]
It was only natural, therefore, that once the shearing got under way the most racially conscious whites began to see themselves as an oppressed nation in need of their own sovereign state.
Five.
Numerous have been the criticisms that racial conservatives make of nationalists advocating secession from the United States. The most common of these—made in a period which has witnessed successful secessionist movements (in the former Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, etc.), as well as other popular movements resisting a despotic, leveling centralization in the name of regionalism, devolution, and the defense of historic identities—is that the prospect of creating a white ethnostate in North America free of the United States is totally unrealizable . . . a fantasy . . . pure and utter folly.
But this, they fail to realize, is hardly criticism at all.
For those with the courage of their convictions, it’s never a matter of calculating the odds and going with the winning side, but of doing what needs to be done—like that Roman soldier cited by Oswald Spengler in Man and Technics, whose Aryan sense of duty kept him at his post, doing what had to be done, as Pompeii was buried in the ash of Vesuvius.
The secessionist, then, is not another party politician loyal to Washington’s New Class establishment, but a nationalist loyal to his nation—and thus to whatever political imperative the nation’s welfare demands.
He has, moreover, no illusions about what this entails.
As the Euronationalist Jean Thiriart put it: “One does not create a nation with speeches, pious talk, and banquets. One creates a nation with rifles, martyrs, jointly lived dangers.”[14]
Six.
Viewed “objectively,” neither secession nor a white conservative reconquest has a chance, not one in a universe of infinite possibilities. Both are figments of a few white minds troubled by the prospect of their people’s imminent demise.
But that’s the way all great movements begin.
If a presently unattainable ideal is not first articulated as a mythic possibility, it remains unrealized, for its idealization is part of the process that quickens its realization (sic volo, sic jubeo).
In 1774, only a few believed in American independence, but after 1776 it was a critical mass.
Secession, as such, cannot be submitted to the usual criticism, for it’s not a fact or even an idea so much as it is a way of being—or of wanting to be.[15]
Central to its realization, therefore, is not the objective forces opposing it, but the subjective will seeking its triumph—the triumph which comes, as Julius Evola says, whenever “a heroic vocation awakens as an irresistible force from above and . . . is animated by a will to keep on going, overcoming every material or rational obstacle.”[16]
Many things, of course, would have to change before either secession or reconquest are remotely realizable (though our postmodern age, the Kali Yuga of the Traditionalists, is an interregnum in which time and events are greatly accelerated, as all things hurtle toward the inevitable crackup, the Ragnarök, which precedes every rebirth).
The thought, nevertheless, of whites breaking free of the United States, in this period when the multi-cult empire is experiencing what may be the first of its death agonies, seems, from a secessionist perspective, somewhat less of a fantasy than trying to reform it, which 60 years of experience suggest is unreformable.
Seven.
Almost every criticism that can be made of secession is to be found in Sam Francis’s “Prospects for Racial and Cultural Survival” (1995).[17]
Sam, to whom I have paid high tribute in these pages, was an important transitional figure in the development of white nationalism.[18]
Though one of his feet was solidly planted in the racialist camp, the other, however, was never quite freed from his former “new right” and paleocon beliefs. Divided, his critique of secession reflected an old-fashioned patriotism unwilling to break with the US—though, perhaps, if he had lived, he might feel differently, now that the dusky helmsman has begun steering the ship of state perilously close to the shoals of what promises to be an even more horrendous fate.
As an anti-secessionist, Sam considered separation from the United States tantamount to surrender—surrender of the country his ancestors created, surrender of its history, traditions, interests.
But Sam was wrong.
Secessionists surrender nothing but the slow death of their people. For among other things, secession is about survival—and the prospect of being able to fight another day.
To do that, one must live. But where, how?
For all practical purposes whites have lost the United States. Though still a near majority, they are surrounded by armed forces seeking their destruction, they are running out of ammunition, and the ground troops are being sent in to clean up the remaining pockets of resistance. It looks as if they’re doomed.
Secession is a way of avoiding the deadly pincers closing in on white life. It is perhaps the only way.
In the last 60 years, it bears emphasizing, absolutely nothing—not one little thing—has been accomplished to interrupt the programmed destruction of European America.
Nevertheless, the critics of secession drone on: “Why give up the country when you can take it back?”
These two-fisted patriots, who think this is the most powerful argument against secession, are likely to be singing the same song in the not too distant future, when colored novelists start writing about “The Last of the Europeans.”
But even if feasible, what self-respecting white man would want to take back the United States, this monstrous, bureaucratic Leviathan whose Jewish, race-mixing, homophile, feminist, fraudulent, anti-Christian, and degenerate practices stand as an affront to everything his ancestors stood for?
The hard truth is that it’s gotten to the point where the US can no longer be defended as “my mother, drunk or sober,” only repulsed as an alien body-snatcher.
To this end, secessionists emulate the proud Danes, who said after the loss of Schleswig-Holstein in 1865: “What has been lost externally will be gained internally.”[19]
But more than refusing to abide the state responsible for their dispossession, secessionists see this “abomination of desolation” as their principal enemy. Only by freeing themselves from it and acquiring their own land under their own sovereignty do they see a future for their kind.
One might call this “surrendering large parts of the country to non-whites”—though these aliens already occupy large parts of it and will continue to do so until whites are completely replaced.
The secessionists’ ultimate consideration, then, is not what will be lost, but what gives whites the best chance to survive.
“Any proposal for separation,” Sam argued, “would simply alienate the most patriotic and nationalist loyalties of American whites and lead them to see separatists as un-American.” Most whites would also “refuse to abandon their allegiance to the US or forsake its territory.”
Here Sam confused loyalty to the state with loyalty to the nation, paying tribute, in effect, to Caesar in his own coin. One cannot wonder, moreover, how patriotic most Americans are going to be once they discover that their grandchildren will be paying off the debts of the present US government—at a time when American citizenship is likely to be little more than a form of Chinese peonage.
Secessionists care not in the least if most whites would refuse to abandon “their” country. “Most” whites, de-Aryanized as they are, allowed a Negro to become president.
Only those who care for their kind and are willing to fight for them can possibly found a new nation.
The flag-waving, Constitution-worshipping types—who know nothing outside the ideology of liberal democracy, old (“conservative”) or new (“progressive”), and who believe that there is something sacred about the unholy United States—will never be mobilized for the sake of “racial preservation”; that ship has sailed.
In secessionist eyes, it’s better to lose a bit of territory and shed the race’s detritus than to lose whatever remains of the white nation—especially in view of the coming age, which is certain to be filled with cascading catastrophes, set off by the imploding contradictions of liberalism’s dystopian regime.
As for being militarily crushed by the US, another frequent objection, anti-secessionists seem not to have heard of Fourth Generation Warfare,[20] just as they conveniently forget that the only country the United States has truly defeated in the many wars of choice it’s waged in the last 60 years is the tiny Caribbean nation of Grenada. As one Russian observer notes, the US “military does not know how to win . . . [only] how to blow things up” (a Second Generation Warfare practice which the US Army learned from the French in WW I and continues to teach in its academies, as it justifies the Pentagon’s vast budgetary appropriations). It’s consequentially incapable of “prevailing over any enemy, no matter how badly armed, demoralized, or minuscule”—because it only knows how to fight standing armies in “conventional” wars, where firepower is paramount.[21]
Both militarily and politically, it would seem a hundred times easier to secede from, than to retake, the United States. Concentrating their forces at the enemy’s weakest link—a concentration of what would be a growing base of support, once the United States starts its slow slide into the abyss of insolvency and tyranny—secessionists would need only to penetrate the enemy’s porous lines, disorganize his rear through an “open-source insurgency,” and then sue for formal sovereignty over a collapsed or ungovernable part of the United States.
In the context of such a possible development, Sam wondered how the races could possibly be separated and what would prevent them from “unseparating.” Here again he didn’t see what was coming. Since the end of the Second World War there have been numerous population transfers by partitioned states (the most important of which were sanctioned by the US). These transfers occurred in the recent past, will undoubtedly occur again, and already occur in little ways every day in the US, as non-whites force whites out of their former neighborhoods.
Secession implies both population transfers and territorial partition—historically justifiable measures, sanctioned by US precedent, and executable with a minimum of force, unlike the pipe-dreams of anti-secessionists, whose imagined “reconquest” would be of a state with a hundred million non-white citizens, all with their hands out.
Sam thought that a separate white nation, in its desire for cheap labor, would simply repeat the process that got whites into the present mess—as if the struggle for secession (and all it entails) wouldn’t lead to an explicitly racial definition of nationality, to an inversion of the market’s primacy, and to a spiritual triumph over the materialism that has corrupted so many whites.
As a conservative, he couldn’t see that white secession (unlike the secession of the Confederacy) is a revolutionary project premised on a rejection not just of the illegal alienations of the federal government, but of the entire social, economic, and moral order sustaining its ethnocidal rule.
A white breakaway state, Sam also claimed, would be surrounded by hostile powers, vulnerable to invasion, and unable to defend itself against the rising demographic tide outside its borders. Again, these are non-criticisms. Any region seceded from the United States would have its own arms stockpile, including nukes, and would likely be supported by Russia and other powers having scores to settle with Washington’s New World Order.
More crucially, the racially homogenous populace of a seceded white republic would be imbued with the nationalist fervor that is the inevitable offshoot of newly forged nations and armed not simply with the technologies of mass destruction, which are now accessible to small states, but also with a society-wide system of local militias, like the Swiss.
To think that a mutilated United States, with its warring racial factions, welfare politics, and rubber-spine army would be able to crush an armed, autonomous white republic is to abandon the realm of logic. Even at the height of its expansionist powers, National Socialist Germany never thought of invading tiny, mountainous Switzerland, where every citizen was armed and ready to defend his nation. The US Army, need it be said, is no Wehrmacht.
Eight.
European Americans will not survive another generation under the present Judeo-Negro regime.
Racially conscious conservatives are counting on a future white backlash to mobilize in defense of white interests. Through such a mobilization, and a much discussed though little practiced “march through the institutions,” they hope to raise white racial consciousness, counter the demographic threat posed by non-whites, and introduce reforms that will curtail non-white power—all of which, of course, are totally desirable.
But they expect to arrive at this Utopia without explaining how they would counter a population half of which will be non-white in 33 years (2042); without explaining how they would challenge a government that criminalizes white dissent; without explaining how a system can be fundamentally changed without fundamentally changing the institutions and powers that govern it and make it what it is; without any of these things, racial conservatives mock the notion of secession, as if their own not particularly successful project is the sole conceivable alternative.
Nine.
Unlike their conservative critics, secessionists have a plan, a simple, straightforward one, that offers whites an alternative to an unreformable system and an inescapable death.
This plan has the advantage of being (a) eminently political, (b) based on proven historical precedents, and (c) imbued with the power to generate a will to nationhood.
Given the increasingly totalitarian nature of the existing system, where the mere mention of “race” can be taken as an incitement to crimes against humanity, this aspect of secession, ought, perhaps, to be discussed in historical rather than explicitly programmatic terms.
Much of the history of European nationalism speaks to the American situation today, especially (in my admittedly partisan view) Irish nationalism.
In the 1870s and ’80s, a generation after the An Gorta Mór (the Great Hunger), revolutionary and conservative nationalists agreed to be allies in the common struggle for Irish nationhood. The revolutionary Fenians, preeminently in the form of Michael Davitt’s Land League, which led the rebellion in the countryside, gave the constitutionalists in Charles Stewart Parnell’s Irish Parliamentary Party the social leverage to force concessions from the English at Westminster—concessions that eventually won back many Irish lands. Then, once the constitutionalists had gone as far as they could, by about 1911 or so, the revolutionary, physical force wing of Irish nationalism took over to complete the nationalist project.
We American secessionists want whatever works best for the future of our people. If our “constitutionalists,” perhaps in the form of a third party, are able to create dissension and vulnerability among the “English” in a way that promotes white interests, they are to be supported. But once they fail, we will need to turn, as did the Irish, to the methods of Connolly and Pearse.
Those who know Hibernian—or any other European—nationalist history also know the immeasurable power of the nation, especially the nation rising to nationhood.
This is the spirit we secessionists hope to stir in white Americans.
The situation today may, therefore, be totally grim, but politically there is no more feasible or marketable strategy to awaken our people, especially as they become aware of their approaching minority status and all it implies.
Imagine, then, for a moment, a white homeland in North America, free of the Jew-ridden US government, with its colored multitudes and parasitic institutions: In my mind, this one image says everything, explains everything, promises everything.
The powerful imagery of an autonomous white nation possesses, as well, the mythic potential that the General Strike has in the thought of Georges Sorel.
All great movements, Sorel saw, are driven not by rational arguments or party programs, but by their myths (which “are not descriptions of things, but expressions of a determination to act”).[22]
For it is myth—and the memories and hopes animating it—that shape a nation, that turn a “motley horde” into a people with a shared sense of purpose and identity, that mobilize them against the state of things, and prepare them for self-sacrifice and self-rule.
A Sovereign Independent State, as the Irish called it in 1916—the White Republic, as I call it—is a possible secessionist myth to symbolize the determination of white men to assert themselves as a free people somewhere in an all-white America.
TOQ Online, August 1, 2009
Notes
[1] E.g., James V. DeLong, “The Coming of the American Fourth Republic” (April 21, 2009), http://www.american.com/archive/2009/april-2009/the-coming-of-the-fourth-republic
[2] Rick Cooper, “A Brief History of the White Nationalist Movement,” http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=53960
[3] Don Black, quoted in Carol M. Swain, The New White Nationalism: Its Challenge to Integration (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 20.
[4] Walker Connor, Ethnonationalism: The Quest for Understanding (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), xi.
[5] Arthur Keith, A New Theory of Human Evolution (Gloucester: Peter Smith, 1968 [1947]), 397.
[6] Lothrop Stoddard, Re–forging America: The Story of Our Nationhood (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1927), 9.
[7] Bernard Bailyn, The Peopling of British North America: An Introduction (New York: Vintage, 1986), 112.
[8] Winthrop D. Jordan, The White Man’s Burden: Historical Origins of Racism in the United States (London: Oxford University Press, 1974), 52.
[9] Richard D. Alba, Ethnic Identity: The Transformation of White America (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990).
[10] Jay P. Dolan, The Irish Americans: A History (New York: Bloomsbury Press, 2008), 305.
[11] “Woodrow Wilson on Race,” http://downwithjugears.blogspot.com/2007/10/woodrow-wilson-on-race.html
[12] Lothrop Stoddard, Racial Realities in Europe (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1924), 243.
[13] Arthur Keith, Ethnos (London: Keagan Paul, 1931), 25.
[14] Jean Thiriart, For the European Nation-State (Paraparaumu, NZ: Renaissance Press, n.d.).
[15] Georges Sorel, Reflections on Violence, trans. T. E. Hulme and J. Roth (Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1950 [1906]), 50.
[16] Julius Evola, Meditations on the Peaks, trans. Guido Stucco (Rochester: Inner Traditions, 1998), 84.
[17] Sam Francis, Essential Writings on Race, ed. Jared Taylor (Oakton Va.: New Century Foundation, 2008). This is said largely on the basis, among other sources, of the discussion of Greg Johnson’s “Essay Competition: Secession and Racial Nationalism” (February 20, 2009) at http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2009/02/essay_competiti.php
[18] See my essay “Three Pillars,” chapter 8, below.
[19] John Hutchinson, Nations as Zones of Conflict (London: Sage, 2005), 139.
[20] John Robb, Brave New War: The Next Stage of Terrorism and the End of Globalization (Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2007).
[21] Dmitry Orlov, Reinventing Collapse: The Soviet Example and American Prospects (Gabriola Island, Canada: New Society Publishers, 2008), 37. See chapter 13, below.
[22] Sorel, Reflections on Violence, 57.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
14 comments
Still a brilliant piece.
Mr. O’Meara’s timeline, however, is still off by degrees.
What one sees today, in the morass and diffused milieu of ‘racial nationalism’ one does not necessarily see White Nationalism; true white nationalism is refined by many aspects of a multi-generational attempt at fusing the better and more profound (i.e. revolutionary) aspects of both European and American ‘nationalism’. This started much earlier than the ’90’s’, and most neo-intellectuals who have attempted to understand, or make comment on this attempt, fail to address a whole litany of events and sacrifices – not to confuse these particulars with any of the refuse, dilettantes, or imaginary leaders/organizations who now, claim the label of WN.
It is precisely because of this latter that WN’sm was formulated and designed to combat. White Nationalism was the furtive step toward a legitimate and nascent political outlook which included the concept of a Territory, a defined physical area which would be demarcated by both a ‘civilian population’, as well as ‘sovereign political and nascent State’ , accepted by either the force of arms necessary to ‘hold it’, or the ability to be recognized by International debate and acceptance.
A whole generation of individuals have already grown up with this Mythos, and the assertion that this is somehow ‘new’, is off target; as well, those who actually represent these views have little, if anything to do with those who parrot or criticize this effort, as these were cautious and timid individuals when this concept was promoted in both word and deed.
Mr. O’Meara is a fine spokesman, and his points hit very, very close to the mark. It would serve him and others who actually see what is transpiring, and what shall transpire in the future, to enlarge their world-view, and comprehensively assess and address the working relationship of WN’sm as both a philosophical and practical assertion of a comprehensive and legitimate Political and ethno-nationalist movement.
Many years ago, there were several Editors and Publishers which were sent material in this regard, and were given a chance at viewing, first-hand, a developing formula – spread out over several years – which would have given a bright mind, the chance to see how the mechanism of evolution had brought about a unique opportunity to present this to the folk-community; funny, but there is still silence amongst our ‘intellectuals’ who, for the most part, are content with their love affair with ‘euro-rightism’, and have left their own to die in the field.
This will pass however, and as more material is presented, such as Mr. O’Meara’s material, the pace at which this discussion will accelerate is only exponential; and if modern writers and neo-intellectuals would see a brighter future for their children and Folk, then they will broaden their view of things, and accept the historical nature of a movement whose time, finally, has come. Indeed, it will be the writers and spokesmen who will first break this news to the international community, and will, of necessity, bear the first attacks – and for this, one will need courage.
Those who know when, where, and why WN’sm are many, but few can either elaborate or are in contact with those ‘in the know’ to have any telling influence hence, you have those who have maligned and misdirected a ‘noble effort’ with both malice and aforethought – but their time, also, is short – and the more that we discuss these issues, the faster we will come to a collective decision.
It would be interesting to know if Mr. O’Meara has ‘added’ to this work, and what he has observed since writing it.
Faustus in blockquote:
What?
“Fusing certain ‘aspects’ of both European and American ‘nationalism'” is a reference to Yockey? A clarification of this”attempt,” and the failures that seems to have befallen it, would surely be useful. We might even derive some useful organizing principles.
In the absence of such “clarification,” it seems O’Meara occupies the High Ground.
Pre-Covington, there simply was not serious discussions of the most elementary foundations of such an order. if White Nationalism is now – only now – being defined “correctly” as an organic response to the collective failures of the last century I repeat last century of Wite Nationalist organizations and “leaders,” then I would ask one and all to start with “Toward the White Republic,” and obtain Covington’s Northwest Republic series of books. It’s all in there. The excuses for inaction have been removed.
This comes close to ad hominem attacks, but I’ll let it slide, out of respect for the clarity of your writing. IF you are referring to Harold Covington and the Northwest Republic, however inadvertantly, note that Covington always gave credit to Butler, and all of his intellectual predecessors. Covington simply, and wonderfully, extended the idea of a Northwest Refuge into a functioning State, with a clearly defined WRITTEN Constitution that is open to all for discussion.
I will note that there was a debate on counter-currents regarding the Northwest Republic some time back. Covington won handily, because the Ideas he articulates represent the outworking of the Ideals to which we all, at our best, aspire.
“Mr. O’Meara is a fine spokesman.” That’s James J. O’Meara. Dr. O’Meara is a fine spokesman too, and the issue is, “Spokesman for WHAT?” He does not merely speak for Others; his writings are his own, and are inspiration in their own right.
We all “see what is transpiring.” If our world-views need “enlarging,” by all means, start the process here, and now. In all seriousness, anything that defines The Cause, and builds the political bridge to the manifestation of the proper metapolitical order, this is the place here such offerings are more than welcome.
Our “intellectuals” – would this include Pierce? – have all seen, all too often, the double-secret magic formula that would magically make it all better. If you have it and wish to call it forward, this the place, and now is the time.
And, as for ” a unique opportunity to present this to the folk-community,” all moments are unique. Make this one yours, and declare this – this WHAT, by the way? – to all of us here.
Give credit where credit is due; Harold Covington has put all of his positions in clearly written books and pamphlets. When his detractors have tried, they have all ended up in the intellectual equivalent of White Zion, some combination of Turkey Buzzard Flats and wishful thinking. One example of “wishful thinking” is the idea that capping parking mudsharks is a useful acticity; another is that the US Army will come to OUR aid, in Southern California. None of that is present here, fortunately.
And, as for “silence amongst our ‘intellectuals’ who, for the most part, are content with their love affair with ‘euro-rightism’, and have left their own to die in the field,” this veers close to being a canard on several levels. None of our “intellectuals” are in love with ‘euro-rightism.” They all want to find something that WORKS, over generations. If “euro-rightism” works best, for now, than we can use it to its best, for now. Our duty is to make what is, better. That is where the “silence” is among self-identified “White Nationalists.”
Of course, judging by their records, they have a great deal to be silent about.
Covington doesn’t, and neither does O’Meara.
“Writers and spokesmen” have broken the news to the international community. What they choose to do with it is up to them. I do know this about “writers and spokesmen” like Michael O’Meara and Harold Covington:
They have removed our excuses.
I guess that’s why their detractors always want to change the topic.
Read C. S. Lewis on “The Inner Circle,” and know that those “in the know” are few, indeed. It is the best of those “in the know” to make damn sure it is the RIGHT “know,” and encourage others to join them “in the know.”
Those who are “out the know,” such as, it seems, the rest of us, certainly wish to “discuss these issues.” Counter-currents stands ready. Hopefully, those “in the know” are, as well -ready, I mean, to “discuss these issues.” How much they “know” will stand revealed to all, and we will be the better for it.
I respectfully suggest that, if Dr. O’Meara has “added to this work,” or has additional observations for us, he will share them with us.
In the meanwhile, perhaps those “in the know” would be willing to step forth and declare their deep secrets to one and all. Unless, of course, they hold their tiny little tin ring tightly, fearing the day someone like Harold Covington enters their little cave.
Would they then whimper, “The Light! It burnses us! It burnses us! Make it stop!”
Let’s find out.
Bring them on.
I enjoy your commentary; and your positions are well said. I do not have the time right now, but will address your questions later in the day.
I do not take a position on Covington, as his attempt is still in a nascent stage. The Cult of personality is a necessary part of our struggle, and by nature this is quixotic – I try and present the case by comparing and presenting discernible programmes which can then be developed by our community.
I am not talking about Pierce…but there are few others who did not fail in their support of early WN’sm; many of these individuals remain, and continue to plague us with their lack of understanding.
My apologies for sounding cryptic at times, it is just my style. I will endeavor to be more specific in the future.
More later…
@ Fourmyle Ceres
White Nationalism began to congeal as a viable political/racial/territorial programme in the early and mid 80’s…and if your are as close to the individual that you speak so highly about, you will know this. The possible ‘lip-service’ paid to men like David Lane or RJM, is countered by the obvious fact that, I believe, HC dedicated one of more of his books to these men – these efforts are what is noticeably absent in many of the discussions about ‘white nationalism’ – and still affects the psychology of the larger strata of our previous generations without, however, having been ‘formally’ educated in a more succinct and positive overarching strategy. This, of course, was caused by the conservative sycophants of a previous effort (I would offer that many of the ‘trappings’ of Fraternal Orders, Uniforms, abstract street activism and the like, was the decadent left-overs of those who really had no idea what they were doing, and hence, passed that on to the next generation, without ‘telling them of others more noble and visionary).
@ Fourmyle Ceres
To the first part: Close.
To succinctly put this would, of course, take up much more space than is necessary; let me suffice to say that what I mean here is that, being an American (with all this implies: territory, customs, mores, etc.), and knowing as much as I have been able to garner over the years, that a unique ‘american nationalism’ is part and parcel of my world-view – like it is many of us. The European ‘aspect’ is one of formality, as we generally do not know many Europeans on a personal level but have studied or talked to Grandparents of the ‘way it was’, and thereby have come to certain notions and opinions which, in the main, are only partly true, or partly whole; this is why I, and many of my acquaintance, see it more than natural to embrace, firstly, our own ‘americanism’, warts and all. White Nationalism, as the term implies however, is over-broad to include our ‘family of ethno-states’ as being intrinsically a part of our effort at reclaiming the West as ‘it should be’.
The balance between the old and new worlds is not without its encumbrances, but this realignment, this new Traditionalism will happen regardless – on which continent will this occur first – this remains to be seen, but each must aid the other in this great task.
As to Mr. O’Meara “having the high ground”, I would not argue at this point. This will lead into your next point:
@ Fourmyle Ceres
I alluded to the fact, through Mr. O’Meara’s treatise, he makes a succinct and poignent delivery in regards to how ‘white nationalists’ see themselves (see his introduction to the piece). The effort is well reasoned, and I, for one, agree with the majority of what he has presented – yet this has been delivered many times – it is just that MO’s views have seen a much larger audience, and his erudition has markedly aided in the struggle for an ethno-state. Now, we need a hundred like him.
I have read that ‘white nationalism’ is a watermark – I would agree. Moreover, this mark may only be surpassed if the logical and obvious imperatives, as set forth by a previous generational attempt, is followed and made better. (I know this will give you cause for more questions, but let’s keep this simple, shall we)
I am just a simple man, but if defining is to be done, it should be done in open debate, with recognized ‘true’ WN’st believers, chosen by representatives or by affirmation of public debate, and those individuals should be inclined and motivated by philosophical, legal, and national outlook – this could be seen as a ‘political party’, or this could be, simply, a chance to voice our differing strategies and takes on the issue. But this is just musing on my part, and it is not certain who, exactly, we might have attend. This would not have to be a strictly formal meeting, but simply a chance to get together with ‘certain’ minds which might have the ability to ferret out the larger issues and take them back to their regions with the idea of coming the next year, and comparing notes. This would, of necessity, be filled with both ‘working class’ and ‘intellectuals’ – both of which would share the latter. I, for one, would love to hear some of our ‘editors’ and ‘public figures’ first-hand.
I had a question for you, FC: The term ‘Cause’ is notable; is this yours?
@ Fourmyle Ceres
Yes, there are many works to consider, and yet, deep inside, we all desire a real sense of momentum, and this will come.
@ Fourmyle Ceres
Well said.
@ Phil White
I know what you are saying, but even the great Hero had to write; he did not abhor writers, only writers without a spine. This understanding is imperative for any of this calling in the future.
I would have to concur with FC in regards a ‘unanimous’ ( my word) presentation of the structure and delivery in which WN’st present themselves.
Note on Above:
We should, of course, have members of our European brethren here, if not only to ‘see and hear’ what we have to offer, but to bring to our attention what we might be missing in a broader discussion.
Faustus in blockquote:
Not mine alone. I borrowed it from Harold Covington, who argued that people on Our Side who engaged in politics always fell well short of the mark. He’s right, because they always defined themselves in terms of what they were against. In politics, “against” is good for one election cycle, two at the most. Then, the efforts are constructively neutralized by The System. If they were “for” anything, it was defined in terms that lent themselves to mockery.
“The Cause” is the metaframework, the Great What and Why.
This allows for great flexibility in how the greatest of Ends can be achieved, and thus, the greatest effectiveness.That fosters politically stable outcomes at all points.
This, incidentally, is why most acts of “rebellion” fail. Their “Cause” is narrow, and narrowly defined. The Rulers, who have their own definition of The Cause, can usefully apply a broader perspective, and a wider range of technics, to (1) contain the “rebellion,” (2) neutralize the “rebellion,” (3) destroy the rebels as effective political actors and, if necessary, (4) teach them of war.
The only exception to this is when synthetic “rebellions” are formed as backfires to contain the forces that might effectively rebel, channeling their efforts into tales of sound, fury, and all but effectiveness. They are Tools used to create useful propaganda exercises that serve The Rulers.
Yet, proving, yet again, the prophetic gifts of Harold Covington, the Queen of England went to Dublin, and shook the hand of Martin McGuinness. Symbolically, this is all but a precursor to the Longview Conference of the Northwest Republic. It means Someone achieved Some Goal, and their version of The Cause was being made manifest.
Yet, we can achieve the same Ends, with totally legal means, in time. Great Britain simply can not afford to hold onto Northern Ireland in the forms it has used, and what looks like constructive abandonment might just be gracious terms for a measured process of what looks like, but can not be publicly called, surrender.
The Question before the men of Northern Ireland will now become:
“What is the most appropriate Form for the next phase of fulfilling their Duty to The Cause?”
All done, of course, in an “apple pie, strictly legal, sort of way.” (HT: Jim Giles)
@ Fourmyle Ceres
Thanks. I thought, for a moment, that you got your term the ’cause’, from David Tate’s ‘The Cause’.
phil white in blockquote:
Never heard of it, but, on your recommendation, I will try to track it down.
Thank you.
That is pretty clear and precise writing. It makes one ask oneself ‘are you committed or not’?
I think Sir Walter would be in the pokey if he dared said that in today’s Scotland.
“Breathes there the man with soul so dead,
Who never to himself hath said,
This is my own, my native land!”
@ Fastus; “… Covington, as his attempt is still in a nascent stage.” Covingtons attempt has been in a nanscent stage for 10 years. Either Hitler was right that we need oritors and not writers or as Machiavelli wrote the times have not advanced to where Covington will be a sucessfull match for them.
@ Fourmyli; “… the US Army will come to OUR aid, in Southern California. None of that is present here, fortunately.”
I just learned the shooter at the Milwaukee Shik temple was an Army paratrooper. A cut above the usual enlisted man. Maybe the calvary will show up soon.
philwhite in blockquote:
Both are correct. We DO need orators, and the times are not to the point where the Northwest Republic is their match. Yet.
Above all, the orators needs to have common themes to their speech, and a common metatheme. Bob Whitaker’s Mantra ss an excellent start, but a framework is needed as a bridge to our own Racial Homeland, the Northwest Republic. Only words that define what we are are FOR will carry us past more than one electoral cycle.
That was from a Pierce Scenario, where the Army would also use atomic weapons on our behalf.
One of the reasons for our heartbreaking ineffectiveness over the last, say, century or so, is our belief that Someone will come along to save us from what we have created. Thus, we have avoided asking the hard questions, and doing the hard work that needs to be done, upon our selves. The Army and Marine Corps height/weight numbers and fitness tests are all available online. Nothing stops us from using them as personal standards, except us.
Go to any White Nationalist meeting, and you will see two basic groups, the Gray and the Doomed. Either it is older people, usually men, or it is younger people, doomed nihilists who have no conception of what is wrong, or how to solve the problem.
That is where Better Ideas come to the fore. Nobody is coming to save us from what we have allowed to be created. No one. Not Sky God Rockwell, not Sky God Pierce, no one at all.
It is by doing what we need to do, to repeat TO ourselves, first, that we can develop the talents and capabilities needed to lay the foundation for us becoming the Living Foundation of the new nation, even as Jefferson, Franklin, Hamilton and others were before the colonies became the organic nation at the foundation of the states of a new state, the United States of America.
Covington, alone, offers the only viable solution, in both microcosm and macrocosm.
I don’t suggest we sit on our hands while waiting for the Cavalry. However if you google Nathan Freier and his U.S. Army war college paper, “Known Unknowns” you will find some astounding, barely concealed commentary, (skip down to about pg. 31) on the impossibility of containing a NVA (Northwest Volunteer Army) type event.
There are on the other hand also Army training papers detailing the circumstances when Army insurrection control units should fire on U.S. civilians to “assist law enforcement in restoring order.” Check out recent articles on prisonplanet.com
It’s possible in future we could see firefights between opposing U.S. military units. The next several years look to be—exciting.
The national security apparatchiks have a nightmare on their hands. Oh well.
I don’t suggest we sit on our hands while waiting for the Cavalry. My car outside has Whitakers mini mantra magnetic signs. A couple of them were stolen last year.
However if you google Nathan Freier and his U.S. Army war college paper, “Known Unknowns” from 2008 you will find some astounding, barely concealed commentary, (skip down to about pg. 31) on the impossibility of containing an NVA (Norhwest Volunteer Army) type event.
There are on the other hand also Army training papers detailing the circumstances when Army insurrection control units should fire on U.S. civilians to “assist law enforcement in restoring order.” Check out recent articles on prisonplanet.com
It’s possible in future we could see fire fights between opposing U.S. military units. The next several years look to be—exciting.
The national security aparatchiks have a nightmare on their hands. Oh well.
Wow! My my 1:50pm comment got approved in record time, under 25 minutes, even with my major obvious glitch. Sorry guys.
I especially appreciated that part near the chapter’s beginning where O’ Meara makes forcibly clear how America became a White racial nation at its outset. That is particularly important as a warranted assertion against arguments of a propositional nation – viz. as the proposition nation argument would bear against the nature of a nation, a White nation in its declarations of independence. I am in agreement with all of this essay, wonderfully articulate as it is. I would add to it its resource, however, the matter of coordination, not only of one secessionist state, but on two additional important levels – of affiliation for native European peoples defending their reformed and ancient human ecologies in an overall separatist alliance.
I was fortunate to have had the editing of Prof. MacDonald in addressing the matter of coordination here:
http://www.whitenewsnow.com/lounge-white-patriots/32824-euro-d-n-nation.html
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment