Counter-Currents
Irreconcilable Differences:
The Case for Racial Divorce
Greg Johnson
1,401 words
Translations: French, Spanish, Arabic
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
- incarceration
- adultery
- infecting one’s spouse with a sexually-transmitted disease
- insanity
- abandonment
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
- Contempt
- 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.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
47 comments
They believe that duties to God or community or family are more important.
The presence or absence of children in the marriage should also play a role in the decision. On the subject about what to do about mixed race children, I think some sort of middle ground should be found. It has been pointed out that partially Jewish (by ancestry) people tend to be loyal to Jewry. We want partially white people to be loyal to the white race, don’t we?
How or where to draw racial dividing lines is probably the thorniest question in all of racial politics. The answer to your specific question depends on what one believes racial identity politics intends to achieve. If it’s a question of maximizing group strength, then basically yes, you’d want as many people to side with you as possible. In this case, an individual’s partial non-whiteness is no barrier at all. If racial identity politics is meant to secure the long-term existence of one’s racial group, then the answer is a qualified “maybe, but probably not,” but it really depends on the numbers involved. Setting the parameters too loosely may mean such a huge influx of non-white genes that including them all becomes self-defeating. Then also, for some racial identity politics is meant to inculcate a sense of group ‘infeeling’ – far above and beyond what exists today – and in this sense partial whites would seem to dilute in-group bonds because including them requires what many feel is an ‘unnatural’ degree of mental exertion. These are only some of the questions raised, and they will not be settled with glib answers. I really wish someone like Greg Johnson would devote his formidable powers of reasoning to fully exploring rather than patly eliding these issues.
It seems silly to wring our hands over a small number of whites who have weak racial feeling and identity to begin with. Miscegenators who have non-white children should simply emigrate with the race into which they marry. If they have a racial awakening and wish to leave their non-white family to live in a white community, I am not sure that actually speaks well of them, although I would accept them back, perhaps after some sort of cleansing ritual, since many racially conscious whites have an irrational feeling that such people are somehow tainted. I don’t share such feelings, and I wish such people the best with their lives. I simply no longer regard them as us. But in a world where everyone has a place, just not necessarily among us, that is not such a terrible thing.
The numbers of weakly-identifying and/or intermixing whites are not nearly as negligible as you assert. Moreover, the trends regarding mixing are ominous. In 2013, some 15-20%* of babies born to white mothers were fathered by non-whites, and the 80% fathered by ‘whites’ includes Jews, Middle Easterners and others you wouldn’t (or would be reluctant to) regard as white. That 15-20% is double the proportion in 1990. Extrapolating the trend to 2035 would mean 30-40%. All cultural indications place such a proportion well within the realms of possibility. *[Based on Centers for Disease Control data, which includes a significant proportion of ‘Not Stated’ racial category for fathers, making a precise estimate difficult.]
Contrary to what seems to be commonly supposed, mixing affects more than the racially murky individuals it produces. Each individual exists in a constellation of social relations, and children born to white mothers, whether they are white or not, are typically introduced into white constellations. The exposure of whites in that constellation to the mixed-race individual has the effect of tempering the attitudes of those whites to racial intermixture. Not uncommonly, it completely inures them to pro-white arguments, especially those that pertain to the dangers of intermixture. Intermixture thus becomes one of those issues that whites are extremely reluctant to contemplate, and issues that don’t get contemplated don’t get solved.
So, far from being silly hand-wringing, finding a way to talk about the interplay of racial categories, racial intermixture and racial identity that encourages people to tune in rather than tune out is very necessary. Even if you insist that I’m putting undue emphasis on all this, consider this: the sequence of political events that would secure white existence would rank among the most momentous in all of recorded history. It would be the stuff of endless commentaries and analyses. It would be the post-war on steroids. The humanities and social sciences would be completely transformed by it. God only knows how many monographs would be turned out on just the issues I’ve raised here. Given all this, why shouldn’t racial identitarians themselves have detailed and complete answers to these questions? Why leave it to outsiders, few of whom can be expected to be sympathetic (in the early going), to supply the details? Detailed and complete answers not only leave least to the imagination (and thus to the manipulation of obstructionists), but can also excite and invigorate and involve people, whereas vague or incomplete answers flummox and frustrate people and foster apathy.
They’re not us, and they never can be us, if whites are to remain a distinct race. There is nothing more to be said.
This is the easiest of questions. Jews have solved this for us by leading the way in DNA testing of their populations and stating that unless the test looks like “this” you may not emigrate to Israel. In fact their standard, strict though it is, has many times been challenged as too lenient by Israel’s parliament. What do you think happens to those who are deemed “too impure”? They continue their lives in whatever country they are in. In the case of a White Homeland they would simply be not allowed to immigrate, so they would stay in Kentucky or Vermont or wherever.
Such is Life.
This describes the problem well. The “divorce” analogy breaks down if mixed children are to be disowned. Decent parents don’t disown their children.
I think it is too early to be talking seriously about white ethnostates. For the time being it suffices to advocate for white interests. This includes encouraging marrying within the race and discouraging marrying outside the race.
The fundamental incompatibility is evolutionary. The worst aspect of the African slave trade was in transporting Africans away from their evolutionary homes, their kinsmen, and their culture to live in a totally foreign environment. It would have been even worse to have transported them as free men only to leave them to their own devices. In that regard emancipation was akin to abandonment and could not be expected to remedy the essential wrong. More than fifty years after emancipation the UNIA’s slogan, “Africa for Africans” resonated for American blacks who had been born free. Perhaps annulment would be better than divorce if it means returning Africans to thier evolutionary home.
True geographical divorce for such intertwined population groups, numbering many millions, is impossible. Projects of that scale are not undertaken not because they are logistically impossible – though in fact this one is – but because they rely on a will and a consensus which are lacking. If whites are so conscientious that they’ve allowed this much to happen, it doesn’t follow that they will experience a collective “awakening”, but rather will continue to be conciliatory until there is more widespread miscegenation and greater psychological identity among the populations, feigned or not. All it takes is one half-black child in the family to cement the most powerful psychological bond apart from money-lust.
1. Odd that the people who are promoting blending the white race out of existence seem unphased by hand-waving that such vast transformations are logistically impossible.
2. It has never been easier to move large numbers of people. Whites simply need the political will to make such migrations work for us rather than against us.
3. I have dealt with logistical qualms in my essay “The Slow Cleanse”: https://counter-currents.com/2014/06/the-slow-cleanse/
4. I don’t think it is important to sway miscegenators over to our position. Some might be convinced, but it is not a priority. I am content with respecting the decisions of those who choose to marry other races to no longer be among us.
Well put-
– now how, exactly, will this “divorce” take place?
I like this article. However, sometimes the hardest part of any divorce is figuring out who gets what. If we “divorce” the blacks what do they get? What would be a suitable black homeland? What do we get to keep?
My ex took everything… and I thought it a bargain.
Blacks and Whites have a no-fault divorce, but Jews and Whites have a fault divorce? Jews are always creating problems for us.
I think we need no fault divorce from all non-whites.
We want partially white people to be loyal to the white race, don’t we?
I don’t. Mixed-blooded people are always partial to whatever non-White blood they have. The one-drop rule is a standard for a reason.
My vote for what blacks can have is those areas in which they already have left their “personal stamp”, such as Ferguson, MO, Newark, NJ, Atlanta, GA, Memphis, TN, Chicago (East Side), and, of course, Detroit. I think that would be more than ample compensation. I’m also completely open for a one-way ticket back to their Motherland.
It’s foolish to think that a parasite will willfully divorce its host. Make no mistake, the constant yammering of, especially, the Blacks about “racism”,” hate” and “inequality” is purely tactical, meant to further guilt trip the gullible Whites and get free goodies. But they don’t actually buy into that victim narrative themselves; if they did they’d logically want to distance themselves from us, rather than following us wherever we go/flee, as they do.
And that is really the case for all non-Whites. Despite their jealous hatred of our people, they know they need to be around us to enjoy the fruits of our societies. They’ll never willfully agree to part with us, even under the best possible guarantees, because the achievement disparities between ours and theirs societies, which are inevitable to occur, would be for them an unbearable reminder of their inferiority in that regard. Lastly, most non-White males will stop at nothing to get their hands on a White woman, which is a big reason for the current immigration as well.
If our people have truly become so degenerate and ‘civilized’ (read: mentally deranged) that they won’t dare to go past ‘contracts’ and ‘diplomacy’, even in matters of survival, then all hope is truly lost.
You are missing the point of my piece, which is directed at whites, not non-whites. If whites decide we really want to be free of non-whites, then it will happen whether or not they consent.
That can’t be stressed enough. One encounters the “but they’ll never let us go” objection to reasonable-sounding cases for racial separation time after time after time from WNs who incorrectly figure that the case is being put forward to non-whites rather than whites. These people completely miss the point that one of the most important roadblocks to the pursuit of white interests is the belief (or suspicion or expectation) among whites that said pursuit necessitates conflict – especially permanent conflict – with other races, which is something the average white would very much prefer to avoid. This belief is incorrect, but given the stress placed on conflict by ‘first generation’ WNs – think heartfelt but culturally tone-deaf GLR or WLP types – it has long been all too easy for people to get the impression that standing up for white interests requires whites to seek out racial conflict. Convincing whites that although racial conflict may result, it will do so less from the unreasonableness of white demands and more from the unreasonableness of non-white insistence on the anti-white status quo is a task of the greatest importance. I hesitate to say it, but given what I’ve witnessed so far it’s truly an open question whether it’s a task the average WN is up to, overwhelmed with racial grief and righteous fury as he typically is.
In Europe, the strategy laid out by Frances Parker Yockey in “Imperium” is the route to survival. In America it will come down to unlimited biological warfare or savage violence or both. We must formulate a controlling strategy for the white-christian cleric, that subversive agent in our midst whom never thinks of the survival of our people and never leads from the front.
Perhaps the Noble Lie of Christian Identity? It seems to be growing on its own anyway so why not fertilize it?
I do not perceive anything noble about “Christian Identity.” We are not jews and it makes us look stupid in front of our enemies. We need a racial religion, perhaps it could be based on Nietzschem or Tolkein’s “Lord Of The Rings. I think the spirituality expressed in Star Wars is promising, I think it is a reworking of deism, i.e., god in nature. A blending of Nietzschem and Jedi spirituality, i.e., Cosmotheism would serve us better. The great thing about Tolkein’s spirituality and the Jedi spirituality is that you do see a church system anywhere (I could be wrong, I have only watched the movies and cartoons). In “Lord Of The Rings” the closest thing to a priesthood is the four wizards, and the best of the lot is Gandalf whom fights and works for middle-earth. In the Jedi system they are all warrior priests and they fight and strive within their faith. You never see the Jedis pray, i.e., beg a god for assistance. In both spiritualities, Tolkein and Jedi (more-so in the Jedi spituality) evil is a natural and necessary part of the universe for continuous advancement. Neither system is a closed-ended system, i.e, apocalyptic, the world ends, god gathers his faithful and all that rot. No life will always continue elsewhere in the universe. You can get more Aryan spiritual sustenance out of one chapter of “Lord Of The Rings” than you can out of the whole jewish “Bible.”
I think the hardest part is convincing White people that there is an ocean of alternatives out there if they will just show a little fortitude and pry themselves away from the false sense of security they have been indoctrinated with. Starting over scares the shit out of a lot of people. Personally, the current state of society and the direction it is flowing scares the shit out of me much more so than does throwing a little caution to the wind and being a pioneer.
This is where the end begins; therefore, we begin with the end.
Guilt over slavery is easily rejected, but the guilt we seemingly cannot control works to keep us from repatriating Africans and withdrawing First World support from Third World populations. The West has created an ecological problem by interfering with the evolutionary products and balance in Africa. Populations that have lost their ability to fend for themselves and have lost their connection to their lands continue to grow as we continue to feed them. We are held in thrall by conscience. Divorce means going our separate ways, but divorcing denatured and dependent black people doesn’t solve our problem or theirs.
Most Progressives are brainwashed tools, and too stupid to recognize their being used to carry out a self-debasing anti-White/anti-European propaganda campaign against their own people, which is tantamount to mass genocide.
These brainwashed Progressives will soon learn just how easily anti-European attitudes can erupt into race hate abuse, threats, and attacks.
A day will soon come when these brainwashed Progressives will come running to us hat in hand begging for protection from the multicultural mishmash that they foisted upon us.
Europeans certainly won’t force other Europeans to live among us; however we should always encourage those who have demonstrated their preference for other races to live among those races.
Even if I were as racially driven as an extreme national socialist I could not imagine what there is to be gained by such comments. This is rank idiocy and nothing more. Firstly, it’s far from a rule that mixed people are always partial to their non-white blood. (See Latin America.) Secondly, the ‘one-drop rule,’ far from being any kind of standard, is antiquated nonsense.
You are right. If whites establish themselves as a proud elite, non-whites with varying degrees of white admixture will array themselves in a racial hierarchy below them. But I don’t really relish the idea of the white ethnostate turning into a kind of Caribbean or South American pigmentocracy, in which a small number of whites exist among a vast number of off whites.
Is your objection technical or something else? Would genetic testing to prove 100% (or close to it) White Ancestry be satisfactory? Or are you looking for apologies (in the traditional sense of the word) that can explain our motives to Academia? Don’t we already have a those? Have their hearts been moved enough to let their minds be informed?
Instead of having to defend why we want to survive, why shouldn’t they have to defend why they want us dead? Academics are mostly herdsmen of other men’s cows (values). They follow consciously or unconsciously the lead of those who pay them. Thus power is usually the unseen factor in all such agendas as to what is on the table for discussion. And power is not granted but taken. We put it on the table and let them sputter. Our existence means they’ll have to think and talk about it at some point.
In the meantime, I have no objection to trying to explain our position to true intellectuals. I’m just saying they are rare. Far more common is the commissar type – who may be brilliant but simply doesn’t care about Truth per se. They are the mainstay of Academia and the so called Liberal Arts.
Verlis whinged, Even if I were as racially driven as an extreme national socialist I could not imagine what there is to be gained by such comments. This is rank idiocy and nothing more. Firstly, it’s far from a rule that mixed people are always partial to their non-white blood. (See Latin America.)
Yes, please. Let’s SEE Latin America. I have family there, and your ridiculous liberal, anti-White dreams of a mongrelized society are the only hallmarks of idiocy being espoused in this discussion. Mongrelized societies are extremely dangerous and the (actual) Whites there are relegated to living in gated communities with armed guards. How is being a prisoner in a sea of non-Whites possibly to be construed as a positive?
Secondly, the ‘one-drop rule,’ far from being any kind of standard, is antiquated nonsense. Oh, absolutely. It’s just inconceivable for Whites to put any sort of standard for who is to be considered of European descent and who is not. The one-drop rule essentially states that mixed-blood people do not and cannot add to the racial continuity of the White race, because they are not White.
Further, to throw out a word like ‘extreme national socialist’, in such a disparaging manner, because someone holds the view that White people should actually be White people, is disgusting. I can’t even begin to estimate your damage and I have no desire to do so, but it does make it visibly clearer why our movements have such a hard time going anywhere.
White Rose,
Calm down.
(1) My point was that non-whites are not necessarily “partial to whatever non-white blood they have.” That Latin America proves this amply is obvious, but in no way does it suggests it’s any kind of “dream” of mine.
(2) I wasn’t arguing a standard per se, only that the ‘one-drop’ standard shouldn’t (or can’t) be it. If you say “whinged” and have family in Latin America (probably Argentina), I’m guessing you’re Italian-Australian. You might want to research the historical application of one-drop wisdom in America before you come out so enthusiastically in favor of it.
(3) National socialism is not the only ideology interested in or capable of preserving racial existence or furthering racial interests. Nor, I would argue, is it the best such ideology. Have you ever thought about the damage done by the insistence that it is?
Verlis,
Relax.
1) You are wrong. Non-Whites are extremely partial to their non-White blood. The only group who will not coalesce around a shared ethnic background is Whites. Mestizos definitely do not consider themselves White. Non-Whites have extreme loyalty to their non-White heritage for a number of reasons, not the least of which is affirmative action policies which reward non-Whites for not being White.
2) Whinged is an old English term for whined. I am neither Australian nor Italian. You have given no better proposal or suggestion about a superior method of determining who is European, other than exclaiming your disdain for the one-drop rule. I would say that it is a very ethnically conservative (and healthy) view to believe that those who have non-White ancestors are not White. Korean, Chinese, and Japanese peoples are very clear about not accepting the half-breed offspring of White men and Asian females as one of their own. My point being that this makes sense to many intelligent peoples, not just awakened Whites.
(3) When and where did I ever say that National Socialism was the only way to go about things? Right. I never did. You essentially called me an “Extreme National Socialist”, because I happen to think that White people should be White. Ludicrous. You do like to leap Grand Canyon-style with some of your assumptions. If you are not sure what a White person actually is, then what’s the point, really?
Anyway, the original article was insightful and a breath of fresh air. I would love nothing more than to be able to divorce the 2nd and 3rd world hordes that have invaded my country. May it be as amicable as a no-fault parting of ways.
White Nationalist intellectuals were typically trained in politically correct Universities and often revert back to their previous orientation and attitudes. They often want to be taken seriously by their former colleagues and become embarrassed by something as crude as wanting White Nationalism to be White. Of course it’s utterly absurd but there it is. I’ve seen a worse example on this site: for one Identitarian article, commenters started using quotation marks around the word White. Of course Verlis is right if he is saying White has to be defined. Not everyone in Europe is may be eligible. A fuzzy set is still a set. We will have to decide where the boundary lies. In any case, it takes a long time and a concerted effort to expunge all political correctness from the mind and heart. The more educated you are, the more work you have to do.
I’m sorry, but as I see it, I have better reasons for believing much more can and should be said than you have for believing there is nothing more to be said. But it seems this isn’t something you want to get into, so I’ll leave it here.
A very good article full of insightful and convincing ideas. The only missing part which I found and which contimues to perplex and torment me is that, the fact that the Jewish force has been manipulating, exploiting, and stoking up historical grievances and resentment of the blacks and other minorities in the White societies against the native White people aside, the big majority of those manirities and espeically the blacks in US society themselves simply want to live a parasitical life, depending on and sucking off fresh blood and nutrients from the welfare created and sustained by the White people, and dissolving and eliminating that mentality and behavior on the part of the blacks collectively is by no means a easy and quick job.
Unless we thoroughly solve the Jewish question, the very root of all these racial incitment, agitations, and exploitation of the resentment, bitterness, and jealousy of minorities against Whites, disable and defang the same wicked and disingenuous leadership of the blacks and other inimical minorities, and then convince and facilitate their masses by persuasion backed by tactful force, the peaceful and self-convinced racial divorce as desired by Mr. Johnson will hardly become a reality. Let all White nationalists start thinking how we can manage to accomplish our goal by successfully clearing off the questions above and striving to act toward it.
The article is really outstanding. I’ve thought about it all weekend. It is something that should, in future, go into an anthology such as those read by students discussing the Founding Fathers-like Benjamin Franklin’s Story of the Speckled Axe.
Like Franklin’s story, his article takes a complex problem and puts it into terms anyone can understand. The future impacts of this broadside is yet to be seen, but I imagine that the ripples flowing from this article will be big indeed.
The big word, divorce-racial divorce implies many things here in North America. The sheer numbers involved, America’s world position, and other matters mean carrying out this divorce could be an effort involving all aspects of human endeavor. It’s like the Partition of British India or breakup of the Ottoman and Austria-Hungary Empire.
In the US, it is called the melting pot and in Canada the cultural mosaic, but the powers that be regard it as one racial entity, whether it is called America or Canada. They have been at it for a long time. First, the little ethnic community is allowed in and then using guilt to break it up and impose people upon other people because after all we are one big happy family. It is a pretty dysfunctional family, I think and they play one member group off another to maintain their control. They used sex to divide men and women and they use Christian guilt to force compliance in integration. The common ingredient is peer pressure. Just as it was wrong to divorce, it is now wrong to want your own ethnic group. One is supposed to regard the president or the prime minister as the father authority figure and obey, no matter how painful it is. Everything you believe is used against you to force compliance. They are inverting everything. Divorce is really the only option left.
“You are missing the point of my piece, which is directed at whites, not non-whites. If whites decide we really want to be free of non-whites, then it will happen whether or not they consent.”
How do you propose to persuade the white oligarchy/overclass elite of Multicultural America that their interests will be served by a Great Divorce?
They seem to be OK with the Brazilianization (race stratification = class stratification) of America as long as they can hide behind their private estates, private schools…
The oligarchy will have to be deposed. Their wealth and positions will be given to racial loyalists. And the new regime will subordinate bourgeois values to the values of racial community.
I agree with this. If ever there was case where “eating the rich” was justified this would be it.
Thanks for this post, I do same wishes. I’m french and i noticed that the “racial divorce”, the white separatism, is an idea gowing fast in western world, both side of the Atlantic Ocean.
But, our 2nd problem after convicing aware occidental people, is territorial : there is no free lands anymore and we are the majority in any. At least in western Europe. That’s why I wouldn’t say white “nationalists” but “separatists”. I did not want to live with non-whites nor “leftists”, collectivists or any “world citizen”.
Next step will be to gather for real. Then become independent. Avoid involving hatred, violence, and bloodshed won’t be easy anyway, because some won’t agree.
At least, the will is there and grown every day.
/sorry for my poor english
Lt_Greyman: Jews have solved this for us by leading the way in DNA testing of their populations and stating that unless the test looks like “this” you may not emigrate to Israel.
The Israeli standard, strict though it may be, is not a racial standard in the same sense that a WN standard would be. Israel only tests for evidence of Jewish ancestry, but that ancestry comes in a variety of racial guises.
Secondly, you’re right that testing is the easy part. The hard part is determining the categories in the first place. This necessarily goes further than “who is white.” The point isn’t merely to set the parameters of whiteness, but to provide a way for all peoples to reorient their views about who they are and the role of racial identity in their lives. If this could be achieved then a great deal (though certainly not all) of resistance to racial separation would melt away (or at least lessen), because people would have something positive and desirable to move towards, rather than something negative and undesirable to resist being forced into.
Good stuff. Reprinted
http://ex-army.blogspot.com/2015/03/time-to-lawyer-up.html
We need to save our unique consciousness or “Race-Soul” from extinction.
I don’t see anything respectable about “Christian Identity.” We are not jews and it makes us look imbecilic before our adversaries. We require a racial religion, maybe it could be founded on Nietzschem or Tolkein’s “Ruler Of The Rings. I think the deep sense of being communicated in Star Wars is promising, I think it is a modifying of deism, i.e., god in nature. A mixing of Nietzschem and Jedi otherworldly existence, i.e., Cosmotheism would serve us better. The considerable thing about Tolkein’s most profound sense of being and the Jedi deep sense of being is that you do see a congregation framework anyplace (I could not be right, I have just viewed the motion pictures and kid’s shows). In “Ruler Of The Rings” the nearest thing to a brotherhood is the four wizards, and the best of the parcel is Gandalf whom battles and works for center earth. In the Jedi framework they are all warrior clerics and they battle and endeavor inside their confidence. You never see the Jedis implore, i.e., ask a divine being for help. In both spiritualities, Tolkein and Jedi (all the more so in the Jedi spituality) wickedness is a characteristic and vital part of the universe for nonstop progression. Neither one of the systems is a shut finished framework, i.e, whole-world destroying, the world closures, god accumulates his dependable and all that spoil. No life will dependably proceed somewhere else in the universe. You can get more Aryan profound sustenance out of one section of “Master Of The Rings” than you can out of the entire jewish “Book of scriptures.”
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall 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