Print this post Print this post

White Nationalism FAQ

2,640 words

lady-fashThere seems to be a bit of confusion lately over White nationalism, on Twitter and elsewhere. All too often, I see the same misconceptions parroted and read the same questions or critiques over and over again, with only a hundred or so characters to try to respond with. It gets tiring tbh, fam. With that in mind, I wanted to create a simple Q&A style reference post about White nationalism as I personally interpret it, which I hope you goys will find useful in your outreach efforts and ideological formation. If not, have at it in the comments. And with that, the bait is set.

What is White nationalism?

White nationalism is the idea that the nation-state should exist or be brought into existence on the basis of race, for our purposes, the White race. The White race consists of the indigenous gentile peoples of Europe and those who migrated to her settler colonies around the world. Acknowledging that identity is inherent to all in-groups, White nationalists assert that a multiracial society leads to a multitude of identity-derived problems which are best solved by separating these groups as much as possible. This is especially true when one race is faced with demographic destruction in its own country while the others stand to gain. Majority rule means the majority will rule.

White nationalism serves as an expedient method of providing security and space for White people to survive and raise families in, and the family unit is the building block of civilization. This is crucial considering that the most basic impulse of any organism is survival, and the current configuration of many White majority societies around the world is such that they will become White minority societies in our lifetimes. With that in mind, White nationalism is not an ideology of negation or hostility, but one of self-advocacy and collective interest in the face of those threats.

What about European nationalism(s)? Being White isn’t enough to warrant unity between Portugal and Ukraine.

On the Continent, yes, the basis for nationalism is different. There are long-established peoples with divergent histories, cultures, politics, etc. One’s ethnicity lines up with one’s nation almost exactly, with few exceptions, such as in Britain and Spain. In fact, the examples of Britain and Spain show that national unions have the potential to work, but with a greater amount of friction than otherwise. What holds across all of these nation-states is that they are White in terms of race. Hence, there is no incompatibility between the theory of White nationalism and its most obvious expression in Europe, which is that of the European nation-state.

What about Pan-Europeanism? Is that what White nationalists want?

Some do. I personally think a federated Europe of nations will not work and would prefer a sort of sacrosanct alliance that deals with external threats only, and allows each nation-state to manage its own affairs to the degree that it can without chafing against the others. In a federated Europe, much like the European Union we have now, it is obvious to all parties that one nation is the most powerful and the others are strung along; this fuels resentment and resistance. Additionally, the centralization and un-accountability of the EU makes it a powerful tool for exporting degeneracy; something a confederation is at less risk of due due to decentralization and the autonomy of its parts. If one  unit goes bad, it has less power to spread it to the rest if they are compartmentalized behind borders and different administration.

If Brussels had its way, every country in the EU would take in as many Afro-Islamic colonists as it decreed. In the EU today, it is indeed the more nationalistic countries such as Poland and Hungary that resist multiculturalism and race-suicide the most and the federation that encourages those harms. Could a racially conscious Pan-European superstate work? Maybe. But that’s not a core goal of White nationalism in my opinion. More important is to secure any territory anywhere in Europe or the settler colonies where Whites can regulate their own affairs and exist without facing forced minoritization and extinction thereafter.

The United States doesn’t have a ethnic national identity like European countries do, it is a product of immigration. What national unity is there between Irish- and German-Americans, for example, if you reject Pan-Europeanism?

I believe there is a national identity, just a different kind. In European settler colonies like the United States, there are few ethnic differences between the components of the European-derived or White population after generations of mixture and co-inhabitation. While millions and millions of people claim different European national ancestries and sometimes several at the same time, it is highly LARPy to suggest an nth-generation Irish-American or German-American is actually an Irish person or a German person. They are native-born, English-speaking, White people of mixed ethnic origins, or what I like to call Anglo-Americans. A foreign-born European American who natively speaks his non-English ancestral tongue is another story, but those are in the minority and are extremely likely to be assimilated.

Another issue to consider is that these hyphenated identities largely exist in reaction to multiculturalism and the anti-white bias of our elite social, academic, and public institutions. Prior to the ascendancy of New Left in the 1960s, “American” was simply understood to mean a White person, domestically and abroad, as the country was nearly 90% White and immigration had been severely restricted for two generations. But under the new paradigm of Whiteness as original sin, positive identification with Whiteness becomes a uncomfortable position. By claiming one or more ancestral European nationality as their primary identity rather than “White,” one can try to special-snowflake their way out of being labelled and criticized as White. The joke is on them though. ((((Noel Ignatiev)))) and his ilk don’t honestly think Irish- or Italian-Americans are non-white; the thesis is that they became White. We are in this together, potato goy.

These European ancestries, furthermore, can be found across the country. While some areas are more concentrated than others, every county in America almost definitely has Irish, German, and English descended people. What largely dominates in the United States more than European ancestry/ancestries alone in terms of identification are regional cultures (e.g. Northeast, South, Appalachia, Midwest) which have their roots in the founding European settler population(s), historical events, and the social, natural, and political environment of each area. These differences, while significant, are not substantial enough to warrant separation in most cases since there is a common language, history, and shared racial origin that facilitates integration and assimilation across regional lines. With that in mind, Anglo-American nationalism is thus a very plausible implementation of the ideal of White nationalism in the context of the United States and the settler colonial experience.


Isn’t the United States too racially diverse for White nationalism to work?

Yeah and Algeria had too many Frenchmen, Italians, and Sephardim for Algerian nationalism to work. Just kidding, the West allows nationalism when the nation in question is non-white. Europeans had to leave most of Africa and Asia en masse during decolonization. Look, some people are going to have to go home. Some people might even have new homelands created for them. Personally I think the United States ought to be partitioned into ethnostates and multi-ethnic countries, or could face a Soviet-style collapse one day. It sounds distant now, but it’s not impossible. You just need a new paradigm.

What about ethnic and racial minorities?

My perspective is as follows: 1.) most people live where they do because of economic incentives, and 2.) there has never been a totally homogeneous society larger than a village. These truths have consequences. First of all, if people came to the United States or Europe for shekels, they can be persuaded, convinced, and if need be cajoled into leaving, for shekels. And we don’t care where they go, because as White nationalists our first duty is to our own people (which is how most of the non-Western world behaves, mind you). There is an old Arab proverb that goes something like, “me against my brother, me and my brother against my cousin, me and my cousin against the world.” You get the idea; we have to take care of our own. We could pay countries to receive emigrants like Australia does with its neighbors in order to redirect kebab boat people away from their continent. If we’re nice we could even pay people outright to go somewhere else as part of a colonization scheme (and you will find minority radicals who agree with this). We could also reduce their credit and employment opportunities to provide more incentives if need be, though that would be considered mean.

I think any one of these strategies or a combination of would result in most non-white people leaving, for perhaps their native countries or elsewhere in the colored world, which could no doubt benefit from an influx of Western educated and skilled migrants, or even unskilled labor. Our capitalists certainly thought importing them was a good idea. Who does this leave behind? Probably very few minorities (who are also potentially assimilable due to reduced numbers and their active decision to stay behind) and/or minorities who are relevant to diplomacy or business with foreign countries. Would it be unthinkable for a White nationalist state to have a 10-15% minority population in its ports or larger cities? No, it would be a regular country. And it goes without saying that they would be here on terms of good behavior and cordiality. Nothing less would be rationally tolerated.

Did you just say there would be minorities in a White ethnostate? REEEEEEEEEE!

Well, probably. A 90% White country with non-white immigration banned sounds like a really good deal to be honest. Unless we want to be landlocked into the Midwest with no routes to Europe or Oceania, there will be minorities (even the Midwest has those actually). And such demographics would be temporary, because I guarantee you whatever circumstances led to the creation of White nation-states in North America, Europe, and/or Oceania would also lead to White immigration to those states. For comparison, the United States actually became Whiter over the 19th century by a similar process, with the predominately black non-white population losing share to the influx of Europeans. This was brought to a halt by the 1965 ((((Hart-Celler Act)))), which got rid of the quota system favoring immigration from Britain, Ireland, and Germany. Since then the United States has become increasingly colored, due to majority non-white immigration over the last few decades. You won’t get what you want overnight; even the left knows this.


Is White nationalism the same thing as Nazism/fascism?

I must confess that I am not very well-versed in the minutia of Nazism/fascism. But the simple answer is an emphatic no, they are not the same thing. Nazism, or national socialism, is a particular brand of totalitarian ultra-nationalistic right-wing populism that thrived in interwar Germany and Austria until the end of WWII. In practice, the Nazis set about helotizing other (non-German) nations, making it a kind of imperialism as well, and posited that the Nordic sub-race of the White race was the master race. None of this is inherent to White nationalism. Fascism is distinct from both White nationalism and Nazism, though closer to the latter but with less emphasis on Germany. Our opponents, out of malice, laziness, or both, automatically equate anything right-wing with Nazism/fascism anyway, so keep that in mind when you hear these terms lumped together. There are people who consider themselves both White nationalists and Nazis/fascists (the so-called 1488ers), but these are not the same thing, and one does not require the other.


This is something entirely different.

What about the Jews? Can’t you cool it with the anti-Semitic remarks?

Greg Johnson has the most straightforward take on the Jewish Question that I have read:

The Jewish question is not distinct from ethnonationalism. It is ethnonationalism applied to Jews. Thus no ethnonationalist is entitled to abstain from it. Once one recognizes that Jews are a distinct people, the ethnonationalist solution to the Jewish question is Jewish nationalism, i.e., Zionism.

Of course, as is well-understood on the alt-right, contrary to anything ((((Milo)))) has to say:

The disproportionate influence of an elite Jewish minority in Western societies has been a net negative. Jews, who have a three thousand year history of regulating their communities to be as insular as possible among the nations whose territory they dwell in have a consistent pattern of promoting the interests of their own ethnoreligious minority at the expense of the majority nation.

Jews are history’s original tribalists, and they have their own well-fortified ethnostate, complete with border fences and majoritarian immigration policies. That so many political Jews oppose border control in the West and support anti-majority policies is a telling form of hypocrisy. But it doesn’t have to be this way. They too can go home. That is what nationalism is all about.

This all seems very future-oriented. We clearly don’t have any power to make policy decisions. What are White nationalists supposed to do right now?

This is a widely debated topic and different people propose different solutions. I am of the opinion that the most important avenues of attack for us are media and culture, not the political process or forming a party. In the United States, a White nationalist party would have to compete against the rigid two-party system. Furthermore, anyone running against a White nationalist candidate for office would essentially be given a blank check by the occupying powers to fund their campaign.

The strategy I prefer is metapolitical. Our ideas are the truth and we must evangelize our truth to our people through social, cultural, and literary means. This is how nationalism came to dominate societies before the victory of materialism over tribalism during the World Wars, and we in the 21st century are aided in our struggle by new media platforms that are decentralized and instantaneous. When the idea of White nationalism has taken root among enough of our people, the potential to demand, demonstrate, and act will be superior to what it currently is.

One interesting contemporary model that can be found overseas is in Egypt. Since the end of colonialism, Egyptian society has re-Islamicized away from what was a secular and ((((cosmopolitan)))) social order. This was not done through political parties, but institutions like the Muslim Brotherhood, which provides its members and their families with media, services, and camaraderie. We aren’t there yet. But we do have media and meet-ups. We are trying to build meatspace connections and new social realities. What is the relevance between our situations, value judgments about Islam aside? In the West, we seek to regain the racial consciousness that once reigned, just as Muslim societies have tried to reassert their traditional religious principles. Our identity is suppressed by political correctness and the influence of ((((postwar German-American academics)))), just as their religion was suppressed by foreign conquerors. We can undo our situation, and we need to do it by changing minds.

I wouldn’t be able to fully answer this question, however, without recommending that you send us some shekels. Hosting costs money. And the more we have the more we can expand our outreach and improve the quality and quantity of our materials. It’s better than buying dildos or video game DLC. It’s an investment in the future of White nationalist media and promoting racial consciousness.

Oh and of course, get in shape, get skilled, and try to work on the whole “future for White children” thing. This entire project is all pointless if our resident EMT has to drive your bariatric ass to the hospital at age 35 because you became fused to your swivel chair after marathoning chinese cartoons. Don’t be the last man, be the first of a new line.




  1. Posted April 14, 2016 at 1:56 am | Permalink

    “Nazism, or national socialism, is a particular brand of totalitarian ultra-nationalistic right-wing populism that thrived in interwar Germany and Austria until the end of WWII.”

    ^ National-Socialism rejects labels such as right-wing and left-wing to describe itself, takes from each, and transcends both.

  2. Mishima
    Posted April 14, 2016 at 11:41 am | Permalink

    I think it’s interesting that there is a huge influence in the alt-right to become like Yukio Mishima.

    Mishima was once a young, skinny, boney, sadomasochistic, homosexual with dreadful revenge fantasies against everyone.

    Then, he began to work out, after his cross-dressing boyfriend, Akihiro Miwa, said he was too weak to dance in the gay club.

    Mishima learned the importance of starting a family, becoming an authoritative figure, and the right to have a healthy life.

    Unfortunately, he committed suicide. After his transformation, he was still a freak.

    It is hard to tell normal, ordinary, and consuming white males to turn to extreme transformation. To “get in shape” and to become constantly paranoid about the 14 words, is like a voice in your head telling you to hate yourself. Video games and Japanese art have found a place in our current white identity. The answer is to investigate these influences than to shun them. I think there are some animes that have a bad influence on us and there some animes which have a good influence.

    Of course, I’m not saying that every white should partake in Asian studies. It’s not like anime is a natural thing made by us. However, there is no denying the influence of Japanese art.

    For video games, I see a lot of “jocks” play the traditional lineup of first person shooter games, and head to the gym or college sport afterwords. Video games is an influence from our ever increasing technological society.

    It might be right to ignore anime and video games and to get focus on the “greater things.” However, proselytizing a “bro” into the Alt-right (or trying to become an Alt-right bro) is like the inner weakness of Mishima.

    It is really reminding me now something Andy Nowicki would write about.

  3. Leon
    Posted April 15, 2016 at 8:20 am | Permalink

    “1. NS is not totalitarian, it is a Weltanschauung, which is very different.”

    I don’t see how that’s the case.

    2. NS is not ultra-nationalistic. At first, was very germanic and very german, but it evolved afterwards.

    Yes it was ultra-nationalistic, considering Germans as having the right to dominate and abuse other European nations. As to it ‘evolving’? Well, a) not very much, b) only among a minority, and c) too late to be of use.

    3. NS is not “right-wing”. If you read the official NS doctrine (Mein Kampf, the 25 Points, etc) you will find an unique position which cannot be labeled as right wing.

    Sure, I’ll grant you that. I think the whole right-wing-left-wing paradigm is a distraction anyway. But it was chauvinistic, no question.

    • Leon
      Posted April 16, 2016 at 3:24 am | Permalink

      You think Huffington Post will let in a Polish White Nationalist?

      • paugi
        Posted May 17, 2016 at 7:27 am | Permalink

        “Yes it was ultra-nationalistic, considering Germans as having the right to dominate and abuse other European nations. As to it ‘evolving’? Well, a) not very much, b) only among a minority, and c) too late to be of use.”

        -poles didn’t abuse others while de facto fascist poland was having fun with french toys in ukraine 1919 or with the internment of germans in the first concentration camp on european soil near Szczypiorno? I think Revisionism shouldn’t stop where the second most financially profiteering people of the holocau$t want people to turn a blind eye on.

        3. Sure, I’ll grant you that. I think the whole right-wing-left-wing paradigm is a distraction anyway. But it was chauvinistic, no question.

        NS was neither nor because it’s mostly non-congruent with both concepts.

        speaking from another perspective, the poles and their rzeczpospolita fantasies as an extension of the visegrad pact seem to be the last jingoists of europe. also,
        polish WN nationalism usually ends when it comes to germany/ukraine/russia. If france and german will be irrevocably changed there won’t be much more hope for the rest of europe, since britcucks barely see themselves at such and as we know betrayed poland before. they rather hand out child support money to non whites than polish children.

  4. cecilhenry
    Posted April 15, 2016 at 9:14 pm | Permalink

    Here’s a non-white who’s opposed to White Genocide!!! Interesting.

    Frank Raymond – An Outsider’s Insight into the White Mind & Caucasian Culture–z7SEtypY

    • Leon
      Posted April 16, 2016 at 3:29 am | Permalink

      Ugh. This interview really annoys me. The interviewer does nothing but interrupt with stupid or pointless comments/questions, and the interviewee just keeps ignoring him rudely. Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad that someone from the outside has sympathy for us, but I think there’s a lot more can be said for us besides bad movies and crossword puzzles.

    • Posted April 17, 2016 at 7:58 pm | Permalink

      Fascinating style that interviewer has. I can’t place it?

  5. Zack
    Posted April 18, 2016 at 5:49 am | Permalink

    I am rather annoyed at the double standard that sees criticism of any culture other than traditional European culture as totally verboten, while at the same time constantly denigrating European civilization and its historical achievements. I think people of European descent have much to be proud of, and have no need to feel ashamed of their heritage. So, at least at that point, we probably have some common ground.

    However, at the same time, white nationalism doesn’t really appeal to me. For one thing, I am a professional, and so my values are basically to value professional ability, and that is what really matters to me, not your skin colour or heritage. I know some very intelligent people that you would likely class as “non-white”; you seem to suggest I should value an uneducated working class white over a fellow member of the educated professional classes who happens to me non-white, when my own feelings push me in the opposite direction. I feel like I have more in common with a Chinese or Indian person with a university degree than with a white unskilled labourer who never finished high school. I see these suburbs filled with working class whites with very limited aspirations being taken over by Chinese and Indian families who really want to succeed academically and professionally, and to me that seems like an improvement. I imagine a lot of better educated people feel the same way as I do; yet if you struggle to appeal to the more highly educated segments of society, one has to question what prospects you actually have.

    My best friend is Hispanic; is that white enough for you? (We actually had an argument once, over whether or not he was “white”; I thought he was, he thought he wasn’t – although, he agreed with me, that in Latin America, he would be considered white – all his ancestors came from Spain and Italy.) Part of the problem with “white nationalism” is no one can agree on what the boundaries of “white” are. I’d probably class a lot of people as “white” which you might not (e.g. a lot of Middle Eastern people look pretty white to me), but I’m not aware that “white” has any precise scientific/objective definition, so who can say whose definition is right? But if we can’t find a solid objective basis for defining “white”, then “white nationalism” seems to me to be a project on very shaky foundations.

    • Posted April 18, 2016 at 11:43 pm | Permalink

      Well look, if you freely admit you think White people being replaced by Chinese and Indian people in the United States is an improvement, you are clearly not a very ethnocentric person. I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but you sound like the kind of person who wouldn’t be bothered by the United States morphing into a clone of Brazil, except with an Anglo-Jewish-Asian technocracy and a mystery meat black and brown underclass of service sector helots, which is already happening in New York and California. Which would make you more of a neo-reactionary/aristocrat type of ideologue than a White nationalist.

      I understand that you are attached to other people in your social class. These are people for whom race and identity is largely irrelevant, because presumably they live in mostly liberal White or Jewish areas, and such people are deracinated by wealth and a lack of exposure to diversity. If you want to have some fun, look at high income areas on the Census and/or Wikipedia and take note of the large 80-90% White population with the sprinkling of Asians and Hispanics and nearly no blacks. Demographics matter.

      Assuming you are a race-blind elitist/technocratic type, I ask you this: When this country becomes majority-less, do you think that will harm social cohesion and vertical loyalty to the government and those with power and authority? The legendary stability of the United States is being given up for virtue signaling and profit, and it will never come back in a polyglot multi-ethnic and multi-racial society. There will be permanent and elevated racial tensions between mostly Whites, blacks, and mestizos, higher levels of corruption as a common in third world societies, widespread alienation, a lack of identity for incomers to assimilate towards, etc. I suspect this is a very likely outcome if nothing changes and not one that most liberals would honestly be happy with. But it is what they march towards, wittingly or not.

      As for your questions about Whiteness, as I have indicated, gentile Europeans are White. Are there individuals who can pass and assimilate in a generation or two, such as high-caste Hispanics or Lebanese Christians, provided they are moving to a society which is by a large majority White European? Yes. And having that majority is absolutely critical to prevent them from assimilating downward. If you are familiar with Ibero-American history, it was an alliance between criollos and mestizos that brough down Spanish rule. And in the time since independence from White Europe, much of Ibero-America has become less European and more Indianized, because the criollo minority could not sustain itself indepedently and the democratizing character of republican governments led to the end of the colonial caste system. The only legacy today is lighter Hispanics tend to be wealthier.

      It is also worth noting that your friend may have little incentive to identify as White in the United States given that Whites are declining in status and there is affirmative action available for non-Whites.

      • Zack
        Posted April 20, 2016 at 6:28 am | Permalink

        I agree I’m not a very ethnocentric person; I think that’s pretty common among people of my background. The way I look at it, your identity is an intersection of several different dimensions – nationality, race, ethnicity, language, geography, education, intelligence, social class, wealth, occupation, religion, politics, interests, etc. It’s entirely natural that you’ll prefer people who are more like you than people who are very different, and we shouldn’t have to feel ashamed of this fact. Our degree of similarity with another person is a compound of all those different dimensions; but people generally treat some of those dimensions as more important than others. I get the impression that for you, the race dimension outranks most or all of the others, whereas for me, dimensions like education and intelligence are more important. We could each say “my ranking is better than yours”; or, we could say, “we just have different personal preferences”. The success of your political project depends in part on how popular your ranking of those dimensions is compared to mine.

        I agree that mass immigration has its downsides; I think we should be able to have an open discussion about its pros and cons, which sadly isn’t always possible at the moment (contemporary Western society is a lot less “free”, and a lot more authoritarian, than it likes to tell itself that it is.) But at the same time, I think there are genuine upsides to immigration that we should also take into account. Immigration is inevitably a somewhat selective process (even with illegal immigration, illegal immigrants tend to be more motivated than those who remain behind in their home countries) – obviously different government policies can influence how selective it is, and an orderly, legal migration program can be far more selective than uncontrolled mass population flows. A Western country with a large legal skilled immigration program can potentially sweep up the best and brightest of countries like China and India, improving its national averages of education and IQ (at the expense of the immigration source countries).

        One problem which modern society faces is that less intelligent people tend to reproduce faster than more intelligent people, which risks producing a long-term decline in the average IQ of the population. If one or both of your parents are university-educated professionals, you are likely to aspire to the same station in life, so you’ll spend much of your twenties focusing on education and establishing a career, and by the time you are ready to start a family you are already thirty-something, and then you’ll only have a couple of kids because who can afford to send six children to university? Meanwhile, on the other side of town, an unemployed high school dropout single mother has six children to six different men, and her semi-literate thirteen year old daughter is pregnant and getting ready to retrace her mother’s life story. The IQ boost of large-scale selective immigration can potentially counteract this source of IQ decline. This phenomenon isn’t really racially-specific: there are plenty of people in this underclass with completely white ancestry, and in your hoped-for 90% white society this underclass could easily still exist – it’d just be 90%+ white. (Some argue that the abolition of welfare and a draconian approach to drugs and crime could eliminate this underclass – these measures might limit it somewhat but are unlikely to be a panacea – forced sterilization, extermination, enslavement or deportation could neutralise it entirely, but apart from questions of morality, such measures would be so immensely unpopular that they are unlikely to be feasible even in a dictatorship.)

  6. Riki
    Posted April 22, 2016 at 10:54 am | Permalink

    In my humble opinion, this article, its merits aside, is naive and even misguided in a few major regards. Firstly, its treatment of Nazism sounds too harsh and unreasonably, even jealously so. Nazism of course does not completely equate with today’s White Nationalism as advocated by the author and agreed by many, but Nazism is indeed a healthy, decent, and balanced system as proved by its economic and social-historical successes. It had been actually put into practice and achieved so many wonders in a White nation i.e. Germany of 1930s, only forcibly interrupted by the War which Hitler did not want and did not prepare. I am not arguing that the White nationalist ideas argued by the author which I actually espouse won’t be successful, which I certainly wish, but despite all the high-sounding ideals, at least they have not yer been practiced or implemented, unlike the Nazi ideas which had been tested by realities to be wonderfully effective and instrumental, again, by 1939 when they were disrupted and crippled by a war planned by the vicious and vile enemies of the Nazi.

    Secondly, the author seemed pretty starry-eyed, childish, and weirdly inconsistent with his so-called “insight” on the Jewish Question. He argued that “That so many political Jews oppose border control in the West and support anti-majority policies is a telling form of hypocrisy. But it doesn’t have to be this way. They too can go home. That is what nationalism is all about.” Only if what the author predicted above would come into being! It dawned on me as being utterly juvenile and inconsistent that before making the aforementioned argument, the author had cited another paragraph of the Jewish parasitical living, subversion, and treachery in the homelands of White European countries, then he simply followed that by expressing his hope that “but it doesn’t have to be this way. They (the Jews) too can go home.” How can he be so sure? How that if the Jews simply refuse to go to away? They have stayed in other peoples’ homes in the past one thousand years and enjoyed living as usurpers, manipulators, and exploiters all along, haven’t they? Yes the Jews have had their well-fortified ethnostate now, but the international Jewry will just let Israel be their home fortress and headquarter, while continue to occupy and inhabit many “stronghold villas” throughout the world and especially in White homeland for their own operating advantages. Thus in the future, it is extremely likely that they will continue to want to live in the White people’s lands as privileged elites and refuse to leave voluntarily, unless forcefully halted and removed, which is exactly what the Nazis did, and rightfully so, and what a genuine White Nationalism will have to emulate and act if it really means to ensure and safeguard the survival and thriving of the White race.

    Lastly, the author mentioned “Our identity is suppressed by political correctness and the influence of ((((postwar German-American academics)))).” On clicking on the (((()))) phrase, one is clear that author refers to Cultural Marxism spearheaded by the Frankfurt School, which is doubtless all but an entirely Jewish phenomenon. Therefore, its is highly inaccurate and unfair to note it as “German-American…”, just like if we got some Jewish intellectual hoodlums emigrating to US from Britain or France or Russia and creating havoc, one call those perpetrating their criminal activities “Anglo-American” or “French-American” or “Russian-American”. Such naming is ridiculous and misleading. Wherever those Jewish elements came from, they should all be addressed as “Jewish”, not by their country of origin because they are not German, or English, or French, or Russian in the real authentic sense.

Post a Comment

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.
Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  • Our Titles

    White Identity Politics

    Here’s the Thing

    Trevor Lynch: Part Four of the Trilogy

    Graduate School with Heidegger

    It’s Okay to Be White


    The Enemy of Europe

    The World in Flames

    The White Nationalist Manifesto

    From Plato to Postmodernism

    The Gizmo

    Return of the Son of Trevor Lynch's CENSORED Guide to the Movies

    Toward a New Nationalism

    The Smut Book

    The Alternative Right

    My Nationalist Pony

    Dark Right: Batman Viewed From the Right

    The Philatelist

    Novel Folklore

    Confessions of an Anti-Feminist

    East and West

    Though We Be Dead, Yet Our Day Will Come

    White Like You

    The Homo and the Negro, Second Edition

    Numinous Machines

    Venus and Her Thugs


    North American New Right, vol. 2

    You Asked For It

    More Artists of the Right

    Extremists: Studies in Metapolitics


    The Importance of James Bond

    In Defense of Prejudice

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles


    The Node

    The New Austerities

    Morning Crafts

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Gold in the Furnace