On Liberals & the White Ethnostate

1,653 words

When we envision the future — and I am sure we do that a lot — we imagine what a white-only ethnostate will actually be like. Since many of us are already conservative in our views, so conservative that we really don’t yet have much of a place in mainstream American politics, it is natural to assume that such a state would be conservative as well. But this is not necessarily so, and for this we can thank Donald Trump.

The Trump ascendancy has done many things, of course, but a major one is that it has forced “conservatives” to prioritize. During the Bush years and up until about the 2012 election, conservatives were fairly united when it came to supporting their Unifying Principles (as liberals were fairly united in opposing them). These major principles could be placed into two groups, what I call the Martial and the Social. The Martial Principles include: Pro-Gun, Anti-Amnesty, Anti-Illegal Immigration, and Pro-military. The Social Principles include: Pro-Life, Pro-Christianity, Fiscal Responsibility, and Low Taxation. Of course, this list is not complete and one can nitpick, but for our purposes, grouping these principles in this way will demonstrate the effects of the historic Trump candidacy.

Conservatives were more-or-less unified on these issues because these issues, in a way, represented an unspoken compromise with the liberals. Both sides kept quiet about what they really wanted, and instead debated over proxy issues, which are encapsulated in the above list of principles. What many, if not most, conservatives really wanted all these years (a white ethnostate) we kept to ourselves, while I’m sure many mainstream liberals did the same with their dreams of a completely socialist and racially pluralistic America. Fifteen years ago, talk of such things would have been considered impolite.

Trump blew this façade wide open and is forcing conservatives to decide which principles are more important than others. Why? Because Mr. Trump is not entirely conservative. Also, he has introduced two new principles to the Martial Principles list: mass deportation of illegals and halting Muslim immigration. These two issues were completely unthinkable in the mainstream prior to the Trump candidacy, and obviously are the first steps in preserving a white majority in America. So now we see a rift among conservatives: On one side you have Trump supporters who embrace the Martial Principles first and the Social Principles second (if at all), and Mainstream Conservatives who have their hearts set on the Social Principles and could live without the Martial ones if need be.

Right now, the Martial Principles are winning out. This makes sense given the increased immigration from Hispanic counties (legal or otherwise), the increased hostility and crime of the American black population, and the current Muslim invasion of Europe. Such developments have made many American conservatives nervous. They have also cause many conservatives to take note of and discuss the one thing the vast majority of them have in common: race. The majority of Mr. Trump’s supporters are of white European stock and are beginning to assert themselves according to their racial interests.

This is a Beautiful thing.

But as this white racial awakening unfolds in the next 20 to 30 years, it will naturally shift the political dichotomy in America from the principles listed above to a White/Nonwhite split. Things will become racial more than ideological, and the concepts of “conservative” and “liberal” will mean less than “white” or “nonwhite.”

So what does this mean? It means that if a white socialist liberal opposes many of the Martial and Social Principles above (except the ones dealing with immigration) but believes in a white ethnostate nonetheless, we would have to accept him. We cannot say no to a person like that. Remember, the dividing line will be race. As long as someone is willing to draw that line and keep on our side of it, are we really going to kick him out because he believes in vast social programs and higher taxes? That would self-defeating, especially considering that whites are making up a smaller proportion of the planet’s population every day.

While such a scenario is certainly possible, it is currently much less likely than taking in refugees from the conservative mainstream. One thing that differentiates conservatives from liberals is the idea of inequality. From Edmund Burke all the way up to William F. Buckley, conservative thinkers have never denied the moral, physical, and intellectual inequality of Man. Some may be cagey about admitting this in blunt terms, but they all consistently support government policies that reflect inequality rather than attempt to rectify it.

Keep in mind that until the past 20 or 30 years, the inequality being discussed was mostly that among whites (with the inequality among the races being implied). Demographic changes in Europe and America as well as the rise of virulent anti-white racism from nonwhites are beginning to change this. Starting with thinkers such as Samuel Francis and others, this inequality became overtly racial. Whites are now detecting a serious threat from nonwhites in their own countries and are beginning to use this inequality as a major reason to promote white European identity and a white ethnostate.

Since conservatives are, by definition, more comfortable with inequality than liberals are, those onboard with white identity and the white ethnostate these days are likely to be conservative.

Liberals, on the other hand, are all about equality. A glance at Rousseau’s “General Will” of Man or Bentham’s sweeping utilitarianism, to say nothing of the social upheavals promoted by Marx and implemented by Lenin and the Bolsheviks, show us that liberals refuse to respect the line between the aristocracy and the hoi polloi. To them, inequality is unnatural and anathema, and can only be caused by the cruelty, selfishness, and oppression of the people on top.

Again, as with the conservatives, this universal equality at first only included white people. Lip service may have been given to race, but as there were precious few liberals outside of Europe and North America reading Marx and Engels in the 19th century, race wasn’t much of a factor when it came to liberalism back then. With the exception of the fiasco which became all-black Haiti (which should have been a warning to everyone), liberalism only mattered to the white nations.

It was only towards the end of the 19th century, as Jews began to infiltrate and coopt liberal movements across the civilized world, that liberalism began to embrace nonwhites in their pantheon of equality. For example, Jews were behind anti-Apartheid movements in South Africa as well as the formation of the NAACP in America. They also made up much of FDR’s “Brain Trust” during the Depression years which did what it could to help American blacks. This process achieved nearly complete dominance after World War II with the death of eugenics in America and the defection of Strom Thurmond’s Dixiecrats from the Democrat Party. From that point on, equality was universal for liberals. To believe anything else would be racist.

Of course, this didn’t stop Jewish liberals from pressing their advantage by attempting to enforce this equality. Jews such as Stanley Levison and Harry Wachtel were some of the main financiers and strategists behind the Civil Rights movement. Jews such as Franz Boas, Theodor Adorno, and the Frankfurt School effectively made racism taboo in academia. Jews such as Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin led the charge against the psychometric study of racial differences. Jews such as Norman Lear and Steven Spielberg were (and still are) indispensable pitchmen for political correctness and multiculturalism. And today, Jews such as George Soros are helping to finance much of the current Muslim invasion of Europe. Even “conservative” Jews like David Horowitz and Ben Shapiro get in on the act when they at best disavow race-realism and at worst actively work against conservatives who believe in racial differences. This list can go on and on.

Of course, we can enjoy the irony that a race of people who have for thousands of years believed in their own superiority over gentiles are now the world’s biggest proponents of racial equality.

No liberal, I don’t care how white he is, can be accepted as a citizen in a white ethnostate if he is still under the spell of universal equality as cast by liberal Jews. For one, universal equality is a lie. This is obvious and easily proven. Secondly, universal equality is a serious threat to the white race. After all, if we are all equal, what’s to stop Namibian bushmen or Moroccan goat-herders from emigrating to white countries and marrying our daughters?

In order to find a white liberal who would be acceptable in a white ethnostate, he would have to adhere to the 19th-century, whites-only, mold of liberalism, or be a segregationist holdout from the American South, which voted Democrat until Thurmond’s aforementioned defection.

Jack London is a great example. He was a committed socialist and activist for workers’ rights. On the other hand, he supported white identity, eugenics, and social Darwinism. He also believed in the inferiority of blacks. In fact, he spearheaded the movement to find a “Great White Hope” who could knock out the infamous Jack Johnson, who was the first black heavyweight boxing champion. He also wrote a famous essay entitled “The Yellow Peril” regarding the unchecked Asian immigration to America’s west coast.

You would have to go back this far to find a liberal who would fit in inside a white ethnostate. Perhaps some still exist. Perhaps through our efforts, some could be made to exist. Either way, it doesn’t hurt us to take in race-realist liberals. We need all the help we can get, and if the events of the past 20 years or so have taught us anything, it’s that the struggles between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie are nothing compared to the race war that’s going to happen if we don’t re-establish parts of the world for ourselves.