In the United States, many white Americans who fear being ethnically swamped by non-white immigrants are not willing to actually say so, for fear of being called racist. So instead they object to illegal immigration.
But fixing illegal immigration does not fix the real problem, for illegal immigrants can simply be legalized by the government, and even if all immigration were halted, whites would still be demographically displaced by the fast-breeding non-whites who are already among us.
The lesson here is: You can’t solve a problem if you won’t accurately name it.
But, on the other hand, if illegal immigration is the first thing to wake up white Americans to our demographic crisis, we should welcome that fact, then try to explain the full nature of the problem and what must actually be done to fix it.
In Europe too, many whites are worried about demographic displacement by non-white immigrants. But instead of objecting to non-whites as such, they prefer to complain about Islamization. But this contains traps as well:
- Are non-whites OK if they are not Muslim? In that case, there are billions of other non-whites to choose from: Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.
- Isn’t the problem Islamic “extremism” or “fundamentalism,” rather than people who are merely nominally Muslim? If so, then the solution is to secularize the extremists who are here and be more selective about future immigrants, so we only get nominal, secular Muslims. In fact, there are plenty of secular-minded nominal Muslims, the Kemalist movement in Turkey and the Baathist movement in the Arab countries being the best examples.
- Attacking Islam invites a host of distracting distinctions and quibbles. What about the Sunni vs. Shia? What about the Sufis? What about Bosnians and Albanians? Are they not European? Are Maronites and Armenians and Georgians European because they are Christian? None of these issues matter if we properly identify the problem as demographic displacement by non-Europeans.
- Attacking Islam does not sit well with European secularists, who fought long and hard for religious tolerance. They think that Islam can be made tolerant as well. It took hundreds of years, of course, and many wars, but Europe managed to de-fang Christianity. Today, most whites are nominally Christian and de facto liberals, which is the true civil religion of the West. So it is completely conceivable that Islam can be de-fanged as well. Of course, it would be salutary to review the history of the Enlightenment in Europe, as some might blanch at the prospect of turning Europe into a battle-ground for three centuries or so just to “enrich” ourselves with nominal Muslims.
- Attacking Islam allows Christians to frame European identity politics as a clash between two universalist religions, Christianity and Islam. But we are not fighting for Christendom, which is now more non-white than white. We are fighting for the white race, regardless of religion.
- Attacking Islam plays into the hands of the principal enemy, the organized Jewish community, which is happy to reroute white anti-Muslim sentiment into fighting Israel’s enemies abroad, rather than fighting Islam in the streets of Europe. Indeed, when Israel destroys strong Muslim regimes in its neighborhood, this sends new waves of Muslim refugees to destroy white countries, killing two birds with one stone (a stone that we ourselves provide).
Again, we can’t effectively fight enemies and fix problems if we do not accurately name them.
On the other hand, if Islamic barbarism, intolerance, violence, and frank declarations that they intend to assimilate us actually wake up some of our people, we should be glad of that. But we should work to make sure that they see the whole problem and the necessary solution, not get sidetracked by half-truths and half-measures.
The problem is the destruction of the white race by non-whites, through demographic swamping, miscegenation, and outright genocide. The solution is White Nationalism: the creation of ethnically homogeneous white homelands through moving borders (partition, secession) and/or moving populations.
In every political struggle, as in every war, we must decide who is “us” and who is “them,” the enemy. We are whites — not Christians, not conservatives, not Westerners, etc., although those categories somewhat overlap with the white race — and our enemies are those promoting our racial destruction, namely non-whites and traitorous whites.
But the hard core of the coalition that opposes us is the organized Jewish community. That makes Jews the principal enemy, because we cannot set our house in order without defeating them. The role of Jews in creating the present crisis is an interesting but largely academic question, because political change is ultimately about the future, not the past. And there is no question that organized Jewry today is opposed to every policy necessary to save our race, and they are the organizational and financial linchpin of the entire anti-white coalition. And since Jews have a record of subverting movements that oppose them, we cannot risk trusting even those Jews who express sympathy for our cause, because that is exactly what Jewish subversives would say.
That said, it is a mistake to dismiss the Muslim problem as simply an expression of the Jewish problem, or as a distraction from the race problem, because Islam is an independent variable. If we solved the Jewish problem, and if we solved the race problem, there would still be a Muslim problem. Islam has been at war with the rest of humanity since the days of the prophet. It has brought war, death, slavery, and racial and cultural annihilation to millions. This is not, moreover, a departure from “true” Islam but an expression of it. The establishment of Islamic rule would mean the death of white civilization and the white race.
Islam was a threat to whites before today’s Jewish hegemony, and it will be a threat when Jewish hegemony is ended. Islam is not just a problem because it is practiced by non-whites. Islam makes non-whites far more militant and destructive of white civilization. As one commentator pointed out, this may be providential, because without Islam, it would be possible for many Europeans to believe that a multiracial, multicultural society might actually work.
Making an issue of Islam also reveals intellectual confusions and smokes out false friends in our ranks:
- One-track anti-Semites bristle when Islam is attacked, because they fear it inevitably “plays into the Jews’ hands.” But it is not an either/or: both Jews and Muslims are problems, and they are problems on their own as well as in concert with one another.
- Those who put anti-Semitism over race reject criticism of Islam because they hope for an alliance.
- People who put “tradition” (large or small “t”) before race sympathize with Islam and bristle when it is attacked.
- People who put patriarchy (and, let’s be frank, misogyny) before race sympathize with Islam.
- People who put machismo, bellicosity, and barbarism before race sympathize with Islam.
What, then, should be the White Nationalist solution to the Muslim problem?
- If non-whites, including Jews, leave white homelands for their own, Islam would become predominantly a question of foreign policy toward the Muslim world, the ummah, including its European outposts Bosnia and Albania.
- Whites would be completely free to convert to Islam. But since Islam is a political religion, and thus a threat to white political orders, such converts would be sent to the ummah destination of their choice.
- White countries would maintain cordial relations with the Muslim world, but our own security dictates that we prefer secular, nationalist Muslim regimes.
- Wherever our racial interests dictate, we would side with peoples who are resisting Muslim expansion.
- The Jewish homeland of Israel would exist alongside a Palestinian homeland, in the sights of a thousand nuclear missiles, so the Jews behave themselves.
In sum, white policy toward the Muslim world would no longer be dictated by Jews, but by our identity and interests. This would eliminate the causes of virtually every current war and intervention in the Muslim world. And that’s it. It would be a world we can all live with.
But we are not going to get there from here unless we attain some intellectual clarity about fundamental values and distinctions. That is the purpose of metapolitics. It is particularly important to White Nationalists, since in the present world, our only ally is the truth, and our greatest asset is honesty and credibility.
Unfortunately, politics makes liars of us all. Two cases in point are Marine Le Pen’s and Guillaume Faye’s reactions to the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris.
On January 18, 2015, an editorial by Marine Le Pen, “To Call this Threat by Its Name,” appeared on the Op-Ed page of the New York Times. What her appearance in the Times means in terms of world Jewish opinion and strategy is a topic for another time. I wish to focus here on what she said.
Miss Le Pen begins with a quote attributed to Albert Camus: “To misname things is to add to the world’s unhappiness.” Then she proceeds to misname the problem in terms essentially identical to the line George W. Bush took after 9/11:
Let us call things by their rightful names, since the French government seems reluctant to do so. France, land of human rights and freedoms, was attacked on its own soil by a totalitarian ideology: Islamic fundamentalism. It is only by refusing to be in denial, by looking the enemy in the eye, that one can avoid conflating issues. Muslims themselves need to hear this message. They need the distinction between Islamist terrorism and their faith to be made clearly.
Yet this distinction can only be made if one is willing to identify the threat. It does our Muslim compatriots no favors to fuel suspicions and leave things unspoken. Islamist terrorism is a cancer on Islam, and Muslims themselves must fight it at our side.
What France needs is to become French again. That means the departure of millions of non-French, most of them non-whites, most but not all of them Muslim, most but not all of them non-fundamentalists. Thus, by claiming that the problem is simply Muslim fundamentalism, the vast majority of the problem is left out of the picture. Furthermore, Le Pen does not breathe a word about sending even fundamentalist Muslims back to the ummah, although she makes a quite radical proposal of stripping jihadists of French citizenship, the natural sequel of which would be explusion.
Miss Le Pen basically spoke the maximum amount of truth fit to print in the New York Times. Because, with the Right, the more truthful one’s discourse, the smaller the audience Jews allow you to reach. But even this mealy-mouthed mush is radical compared to what the French establishment will admit. So Le Pen’s editorial still represents a step forward, the start of a wider conversation about Islam and France, a opportunity that we should plunge into and try to lead in our direction.
Guillaume Faye has criticized Miss Le Pen’s moderation and economy with the truth. But Faye too is a politician of sorts and thus dishonest in his own way. His strategy is to focus on Islam and avoid the Jewish problem. I am sure he thinks that he can gain a bigger audience this way. I am sure he thinks that Islamic immigration is a more pressing problem. I am sure he thinks that it would be advantageous to posture as an anti-anti-Semite in the hope of splitting the Jewish bloc and thus reducing their opposition to French nationalism.
Not only do I understand it his position, but I can even condone it in a qualified sense, namely that I think that some of our people should stake out this position and cultivate it intensively, because it brings some people from the mainstream closer to the truth. And as long as people like Kevin MacDonald exist, some of those people can be brought the rest of the way to the truth.
But to bring them the rest of the way, we have to keep up a steady pressure. That entails taking the Fayes of the world to task for their omissions. And frankly, in the final section of his essay, “Jihadist Carnage in Paris,” it seems like Faye is setting himself up for just such a critique.
Because if he is going to use the heading “Designating the Enemy is the Central Problem,” and if he is willing to pull back from contemporary events to speak of an ancient war, going back to the 7th century, between Islam and the rest of the world, that fairly cries out for correction.
For if we are going to name the principal enemy of whites, in the dual sense of (1) who has done more to cause our present demographic and cultural decline and, more importantly, (2) who is the hard core of the opposition to fixing our problems, the answer has to be the organized Jewish community. And Jewish enmity against the rest of humanity is far older than Islam, which is only an offshoot of the Abrahamic religious tradition.
Faye pooh-poohs the idea of “good” and “moderate” Muslims because he wants the whole community gone. But in fact he does recognize that there are such Muslims who are our objective allies against Islamic fundamentalism. He even alludes to three of them: Bashar al-Assad, Muammar Qaddafi, and Saddam Hussein, all of them nominal Muslims who were committed to secular law and a good deal of religious tolerance. I want these sorts of Muslims to flourish, but outside of European lands, with all the rest of their co-religionists.
Faye, however, wants us to believe that there are good and bad Jews. And he has never uttered a peep about sending either group away. My attitude toward Jews is exactly analogous to his views about Muslims: there are good and bad Jews, but such distinctions should not distract us from the overriding necessity of freeing European lands from Jewish power, and that means separating ourselves from the whole community. I want good and moderate Jews to flourish, but in Israel, with the rest of their people.
Faye won’t say it, because he is engaged in political maneuvering rather than truth-telling. That’s why I cleave to metapolitics: I want to speak the whole truth as I see it. And, in the longest World War of all — between the seed of Abraham and the rest of humanity — telling the truth is also the only practical thing to do, since, as Faye says, we must name the enemy. We cannot fight an enemy we cannot name.
Faye clearly does not want to be the enemy of the Jews. But what Faye wants does not matter, as his quote from Julien Freund implies: “Even if you do not choose the enemy, the enemy chooses you. . . . As long as he wants you to be the enemy, you are. And it will prevent you from tending your own garden.”
It takes two to make friends, only one to make enemies. And the Jewish community has marked Faye as the enemy, along with all the rest of us. Whites are slated for extermination by the kinds of genocidal policies that Jews refuse to accept in their own country while imposing them on ours. Since Jews are more aware of what promotes genocide than any other people, it is folly to think that they are unaware or ashamed of this double standard. They consciously intend to destroy us as a race, and all non-white immigrants, not just the most militant and obnoxious among them, are just Jewish biological weapons of mass destruction.
Until we treat the Jews as enemies in turn, and defeat them, we are never going to be left alone to cultivate our garden.
Remembering Philip Larkin:
August 9, 1922–December 2, 1985
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 473 Ask Me Anything with Greg Johnson
Remembering Knut Hamsun
(August 4, 1859–February 19, 1952)
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 472 Hwitgeard on The Writers’ Bloc
Ask A. Wyatt Nationalist Is it Rational for Blacks to Distrust Whites?
سكوت هوارد مجمع المتحولين جنسياً الصناعي لسكوت هوار
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 471 Ask Me Anything with Greg Johnson & Mark Collett