The Case for Racial Divorce
To listen in a player, click here.
To download the mp3, right-click here and choose “save link as” or “save target as.”
White Nationalists believe that our race is on the road to simple biological extinction, and that the only real solution is to create homogeneously white homelands with pro-natal, pro-family institutions.
To make White Nationalism a reality, however, we have to convince our people that such policies are necessary, that they are moral, and that they are possible.
Political separation along ethnic lines does not happen every day, and it usually involves hatred, violence, and bloodshed. So most whites simply do not wish to contemplate it. But all-too-many whites are quite willing contemplate a smaller-scale form of separation, namely divorce. And indeed, the model we recommend for peaceful and humane racial separation is the so-called “velvet divorce” between the Czechs and the Slovaks.
If the relationship between whites and blacks in America today were a marriage, we would have divorced long ago. The same is true of whites and Jews, and any other non-white group. White Nationalists are simply proposing a policy of racial divorce.
Legally, there are two kinds of divorce: fault and no fault. In a fault divorce, at least one party is held responsible for the breakdown of the marriage. Causes include:
- spousal abuse
- substance abuse
- infecting one’s spouse with a sexually-transmitted disease
In no fault divorces, neither party is held to be singly responsible. The main causes are separation and irreconcilable differences. Irreconcilable differences include:
- Strong personality differences
- Strong lifestyle differences
- Strong differences between work and spending patterns
- Lack of trust
- Lack of reciprocity
- Constant bickering
- Long-simmering resentment
- Inability of the relationship to meet the emotional needs of one or both partners
It is interesting that even something as seemingly trivial as different work and spending habits can be a cause for divorce. But earning and spending are a large part of life, and mismatches there can easily spill over into and upset the rest of one’s life.
In the case of blacks and whites in America, there is plenty of fault on both sides. But focusing on historical grievances is actually a trap, simply because groups may be victims, but they are not perpetrators. Collective guilt is meaningless. And many individual whites and blacks today have not harmed or been harmed by one another, so collective historical grievances are not sufficient cause for many to contemplate racial divorce.
For instance, I think it was a terrible crime to introduce black slaves to the New World. But I do not feel a shred of guilt for it. And although my life has been negatively impacted by the presence of blacks in America, most black individuals have done me no harm, and some have actually benefited me. Thus my desire for racial divorce has nothing to do with guilt or innocence or moral judgments of any kind.
Racial divorce is not really about individuals at all. It is about the incompatibility of groups. There are above average blacks who are credits to white society, and there are below average whites who drag our race down. But the character of a society is determined by the average, not the outliers. Thus my desire for racial divorce is based simply on the recognition that whites and blacks as groups have irreconcilable differences that make it impossible for them to be fully happy when forced to live in the same system.
All the common causes of no fault divorce apply to the relationship of blacks and whites in America: on the whole, the races have different personalities, different lifestyles, different work and spending habits, etc. When forced to live in the same system, these differences create tensions. To use a trivial example, blacks have a very different sense of the passage of time, and when a long line of white people forms while a black Post Office clerk inanely chats away with the customer at the window, the result is resentment. We resent blacks for failing to live up to our standards, and blacks resent us for imposing white standards in the first place.
These problems are not based on history but on nature. Even without black slavery and black crime — even if the past could be completely wiped away and blacks and whites could start fresh on a desert island — these differences would give rise to new frictions and new resentments.
Given these differences, it should come as no surprise that relations between whites and blacks are poisoned with endless bickering, distrust, contempt, and long-simmering resentment and bitterness. Reciprocity is central to our idea of moral conduct, and unequal peoples cannot practice real reciprocity.
Again, if this were a marriage, it would have ended in divorce a long time ago. Any responsible marriage counselor would recommend a no fault divorce as quickly as possible, because such a relationship is on the road to a fault divorce, when bitterness becomes hatred and hatred becomes violence.
It is false to claim that White Nationalism is based simply on racial hatred. As the author of Confessions of a Reluctant Hater, I do not deny that hatred plays a role. But I believe that hatred must be seen primarily as the product, rather than the cause, of bad racial relationships. I hate other groups because of multiculturalism. I believe in racial divorce because I don’t want to hate other groups.
Most people who divorce do not simply hate one another. Presumably, they originally married out of affection. So usually there is a love-hate relationship. And although blacks and whites in America were forced together — the equivalent of a shotgun marriage — elements of genuine affection have still managed to grow up between the races. So there is a love-hate relationship here as well.
But in some cases, there is no hatred in divorce at all. Both parties simply recognize that they would be happier on their own, and they cordially separate. Furthermore, once people divorce, it is not uncommon for them to like one another more. It is easier to admire some people at a distance. Some people remember why they got married in the first place. Some even make the same mistake twice.
The main reason why individuals are willing to stay in unhappy and even abusive marriages is the conviction that their own happiness does not matter. They believe that duties to God or community or family are more important. Or they believe that they deserve to be unhappy because of feelings of guilt and worthlessness. Divorce is legitimate only if individual happiness is legitimate.
The same is true of bad racial relationships as well. Whites will never be free until we recover the conviction that we have the right to be happy, to flourish as a race rather than just fill the stomachs and empty the bedpans of the Third World.
When Barack Obama prissily reminds whites of the alleged horrors of the Crusades a millennium ago, lest headlines about ISIS give us any ideas about separation from the Muslim world today, or when Jews traumatize our children with Holocaust “education,” we have to see them for what they are: abusive spouses telling us that we are worthless, that we do not deserve to be happy, to keep us in subordinate, exploitative, parasitic relationships.
There is nothing more obscene than being exploited because of one’s conscience, by means of one’s conscience, by those who lack conscience altogether.
White Nationalists tend to be uncomfortable with divorce. We think that divorce rates are too high, because people are too individualistic and unwilling to compromise or to grow as individuals to make marriages and families work. But for all that, we recognize that individual happiness still matters, and that, try as we must, some marriages cannot work and should be dissolved for the good of all.
Our reluctance to condone divorce and our willingness to work to save even doomed marriages should give us insight into the minds of white liberals, many of whom are trying to make multiculturalism work out of the same essentially decent motives.
Yet white liberals are also willing — perhaps too willing — to condone divorce on the grounds of individual happiness. We need to make this tendency work for us. White Nationalism will seem much more appealing if our people come to see that multiculturalism is a marriage made in hell.
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 340 Greg Johnson, Millennial Woes, & Fróði Midjord
Remembering Sam Francis (April 29, 1947–February 15, 2005)
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 339 Greg Johnson, Millennial Woes, & Fróði Midjord
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 338 Ted Talk
Verdict on America
Irreconcilable Differences: The Case for Racial Divorce
Tonight’s Livestream: Greg Johnson & Fróði Midjord on Network
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 337 Greg Johnson, Millennial Woes, & Fróði Midjord