1,877 words
Dear Jack,
I just read your new essay, “Why I am Not a White Nationalist,” and it really deserves a reply. I appreciate your kind words about me, and I think of this as a continuation of our cordial and collegial conversations on White Nationalism. I have decided to make this an “open letter,” since a public statement deserves a public reply, and there is nothing here that I would not say in public anyway.
I have always held that our movement should follow what I call the Fight Club rule: Everyone gets to determine his own level of involvement and explicitness, and the rest of us have to respect whatever course is chosen. I want as many people as possible to feel as comfortable as possible contributing to our movement — or not — in any way they please. So regardless of the outcome of this discussion, I will respect your decision. But it is also my role as a White Nationalist to try to persuade people to expand their comfort zones, perhaps all the way into the ambit of explicit White Nationalism.
I have, however, long maintained that you are a valuable ally precisely because you never claimed to be a White Nationalist, but you still stuck up publicly for White Nationalists, wrote for our publications, and spoke at our events. Having people who are not White Nationalists openly associate with us gives us social validation and builds bridges to the mainstream. But these good deeds were, of course, punished with a great deal of grief — not from the SPLC, the ADL, or Antifa, mind you — but from the very people you were helping.
As I read it, the valid core of your critique is simply this: White Nationalists were among the first people to enthusiastically read, review, and promote your work. But there are a lot of losers, assholes, and freaks in the White Nationalist world in particular, and in white America more generally. So you don’t exactly feel at home here. I get it. The best and the worst people I have ever met are White Nationalists. I try not to let the assholes get me down. I tell myself that this will all pass and that the only thing that matters is whether our race exists on this planet 200 years from now.
Moreover, your writings on masculinity, modernity, and tribalism have now found a much wider audience than White Nationalists and white Americans. Naturally, you prefer to communicate, associate, and identify with people who are receptive to you and your ideas. That is your mission as a writer. Again, I get it. We just have different missions. I identify as a White Nationalist because, perhaps somewhat grandiosely, my mission is to save the white race.
So you wrote your essay to clarify your position. It is an exercise in brand and label management, like my essays contrasting the New Right and the Old Right (here, here, here, and here). I understand it, and I am completely fine with it. But along the way, you make some comments that I would like to dispute.
First, I disagree with your characterization of America. It is fashionable on the Right and Left to deride America as a country that passed from barbarism to decadence without an intervening stage of civilization. Americans, you say, are not a people. We are just a collection of deracinated Euro-mutts with no culture but the junk we buy and sell.
I challenge you, though, to walk through the American galleries at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York or the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C., or to take a walking tour of the great architecture of those cities, from colonial to neoclassical to art deco, or to read the greats of 19th-century American literature like Melville and Whitman, and then to tell me that these are not the products of a confident, coherent high culture sprung from Europe — and the British Isles in particular — but mutated and refined in the New World into something unique and truly magnificent.
America was not, as you put it, always a “culture of inclusion.” White Nationalism is not “un-American.” White Nationalism and White Supremacism were encoded in our immigration and nationalization laws up until 1965.
There really is an American culture and an American ethnic identity. It was weakened by its own Anglo individualism, commercialism, and rootlessness, then infected and sickened by a hostile Jewish elite, and is now caked with filth and decadence. But it is still there, within you and me and all Americans. We just need to scrape away the ignorance and inauthenticity that blind us to who we really are. Once we do that, a lot of the infighting that you rightly deplore within the American White Nationalist scene will abate. Because the various forms of ideological factionalism that pit us against each other are not alternatives to rootlessness, but symptoms of it.
Second, you characterize White Nationalism as something that makes sense only to deracinated Euro-mutts who have no ethnic identity. But I have argued that there is no such thing as generic white people, even in the colonies. Americans, Canadians, Australians, and New Zealanders are different peoples. They may have similar origins and blended European stocks, but they have evolved distinct ethnic identities.
Thus, White Nationalism is not just something for the colonies. White Nationalism means separate homogeneous homelands for all white peoples who long for sovereignty. It means Germany for the Germans, France for the French, Australia for the Australians, and America for the Americans. It might even mean Brittany for the Bretons, Flanders for the Flemish, and Dixie for the Southrons.
Third, I was a bit disappointed — not mad, just disappointed — to see you unironically repeating the Leftist and libertarian canard that “only inbred rednecks identify as ‘White Supremacists,’” and “white pride” is for losers who have nothing else going for them but their skin color. The false premise here is that we only have the right to feel proud of our own achievements, not the achievements of others. So if I feel proud to belong to the race that produced Plato, Shakespeare, Goethe, and Wagner, that’s obviously a sign of an inferiority complex.
In fact, however, we do have the right to things that we do not earn. They are called gifts. We did not earn our genes. They were given to us. We did not earn our cultural heritage. It was given to us. We do not earn the pride we feel in our families. It is their gift to us. But the best of us do not simply rest on the laurels of others or consume the capital of civilization. Instead, we take our heritage as a challenge to pursue individual excellence and contribute something to the common store of civilization. And wasn’t this precisely the attitude of our forebearers — including the Germanic pagans you revere — toward their received heritage?
Fourth, I agree with your feelings of disdain for the present fallen state of white Americans, but I differ with your chosen path. As a White Nationalist, I regard the fate of white people as my problem and my responsibility. I want to save them from a political system that dishonors and degrades us, and has set us on the road to extinction. My goal is not just to save our biological stock, but to liberate our people from today’s corrupting and inauthentic junk culture, and to put us back in touch with both American folk culture and Western high culture.
You have chosen a different path, which you describe as follows.
What happens to “white people” is not my problem or my responsibility. I want to be surrounded with people who share not only my vague common ancestry, but my values and beliefs. Anyone who read Becoming a Barbarian knows I don’t care about “the politics of the Empire.” I want to leave it all behind. I just want to hang out in the woods with my friends and build something beautiful — I want to build a new culture. I want to invest in the people I know personally and my family and the people I am oathed to — my tribe, The Wolves of Vinland.
I’m not a White Nationalist, I’m a Wolves Nationalist.
From my perspective, tribal community-building exercises like the Wolves of Vinland are a useful part of White Nationalist metapolitics. But not all communities are equally conducive to political change. Frankly, if I ran the present corrupt system, I would be delighted to see dissidents turn their backs on their people and hang out in the woods with their friends. Why? Because such people are little threat to the existing system.
But in all candor, we too are turning our backs on some of our people. Our aim is to save all of them, but some of them would prefer to die than think or exercise the slightest act of moral courage. Thus it is inescapable that White Nationalists will eventually become a new people. We are the white people with a future.
But to realize that destiny, White Nationalists need to choose our model of community carefully. Personally, I think we should aim to become a market-dominant, culture-creating minority like the Jews, to maximize our access to education, high culture, wealth, power, and influence.
My goal is to save white civilization. Yours is to replace it with a new and vital barbarism that is somehow not racialist. I don’t think your path is sustainable for two reasons. First, if our multiracial civilization collapsed into barbarism, it would fragment on racial lines, and at that point White Nationalism would in effect be thrust upon you. Second, if American civilization collapsed, it would not be barbarians who started the world anew. It would be other civilizations that would march in and seize control of the ruins.
You wish to turn away from white America and choose your own tribe. But is a tribe something that you can really choose? From my perspective, choice does not exist in this matter. You are born to a tribe. You and are I are white Americans. Unfortunately, that includes an unhealthy dose of libertarian individualism and devil-take-the-hindmost meritocracy that blinds us to our tribal nature and weakens the community from which we spring. To my eyes, the Wolves seem like a paganized version of the perennial American Calvinist impulse to shake off the losers and build a purified new community on the frontier. It is just another gated community. But a tribe you choose is not a real tribe, although — paradoxically — a penchant for this kind of thing is very much a genuine part of our tribe. You are an American despite yourself, Jack.
White Nationalism emerges when whites realize that we share a common destiny and that it is impossible to drop out of a system that wants to destroy us.
In closing, I want to emphasize that I am pledged to respect whatever decision you make on this matter. Naturally, I would like you to become a White Nationalist. But I was perfectly content when you were just an ally, and at the very least, I hope I may have persuaded you to think a bit better of us.
In friendship,
Greg
50 comments
At this point, “American” is a multiracial and meaningless category by definition. Nonwhites have all the rights of citizenship and than some. They serve in the military and in the government. If nothing changes, they will soon make up the majority of so-called “Americans.” This is the political reality on the ground. I think that it’s time to let the “American” label go, if only for purposes of clarity.
Trump’s voters, by a considerable majority IIRC, identified their ethnicity purely as “American.”
The invaders waving Mexican flags at rallies or hammer-and-sickle flags at antifa gatherings KNOW with fiery clarity that they are not Americans, even if they have the passport. Even the quasi-Americans who have been here for many generations still hyphenate to show that they’re not really Americans, except by vague gov’t fiat. For example, you see far, far more people refer to themselves as “African-Americans” than you do people using labels like “Swiss-American,” “Swedish-American,” “French-American,” etc. In fact, officially, Hispanics are “Hispanics” — American is often omitted entirely, even if they’re legally speaking “citizens.”
Our enemies clearly know that “American” means a white, generally English-speaking person, often with a lot of English or Anglo-Germanic ancestry. It’s useless to kick against it; Americans we are and Americans we shall remain, to both our potential friends and our definite enemies. The only alternative is to come up with some LARP title that will have no power to command the loyalty or stir up the pride of men, or to conjure up the mighty deeds of the past to inspire even mightier deeds in the future.
For quite some time I may have agreed with you. However, there are at least 2 major reasons to reassess.
1. Frankly, we are Americans. We have a history and identity as Americans, ie the descendants of those European colonists to the British Colonies and those Europeans who came later and assimilated.
2. Everything that you say there to give reason for abandoning “American” is already happening to “English” and “German” and “French” and “Swede.” Yet you wouldn’t tell the Swedes to abandon identifying as Swedes. You’d say, “You’re the real Swedes!” We are the real Americans.
Pepe,
Should we also discard the labels of Canadian, Australian, New Zealander, Englishman, Frenchman, and Dane?
At this point these are just Geographical Locations. Our culture is not only being erased but also appropriated. We will die unless we sand up together as Whites. It is much easier to divide us if we resist as separate White groups.
Except many (most?) of us don’t really have any other heritage. Is it realistic for us to reach back 300 years for some notional nationality that may no longer exist even in name? How many Europeans—the French, say—define themselves as subjects from the age of Louis XIV? Are we supposed to LARP as Jacobites, fighting for the Old Pretender and Bonnie Prince Charlie? This is frivolous, time-wasting stuff. No, we built a country, we have a right to it, it is ours to take back. History and Founders’ Intent are on our side. We are Americans.
Yeah but nonwhites are not real Americans.
Mr. Johnson,
At this point the discussion who is and who is not an American is like two Romans arguing about the citizenship of Rome while the Rome was burning. When all the fires died out the Rome was no more and the citizenship argument, from the prior day, was as irrelevant as the Roman citizenship. In short, we are Whites and these are our lands and we better be ready to defend them or we will be no more.
I would suggest you read some H. P. Lovecraft – In particular The Terrible Old Man and The Horror at Red Hook.
From these two works alone, it is clear that master Lovecraft considered ‘Amercian’ (Or perhaps ‘Yankee’) to be Whiteness + Something More. This means two things; firstly that non-Whites living in the United States of America, are actually not Americans. Secondly; that being American is more than simply being White.
This means that Americans are, like the Danes for instance, a sub-group of the White Race.
Well this is good. Obviously I’m not in the Jack Donovan camp but if we can’t tolerate disagreement and diversity we might as well all check into a hotel room and take pills. Game’s up!
Kernel of the argument here is, so far as I can see: “As a White Nationalist, I regard the fate of white people as my problem and my responsibility. I want to save them from a political system that dishonors and degrades us, and has set us on the road to extinction. My goal is not just to save our biological stock, but to liberate our people from today’s corrupting and inauthentic junk culture, and to put us back in touch with both American folk culture and Western high culture.”
That’s all there is. Nothing else. It’s not about LARPing as barbarians, Stahlhelm, Nazis, Falangists, neo-Confederates, Crusaders, or 15-minute celebrities. It’s about staying alive and keeping our building from falling down, and facing the hard fact that it’s under attack.
Exactly my though. This is not about America which, as a Nation, is long gone and buried. This is not about France, Britain, Russia, Germany, Poland or any other White Country. This is about White Race and its survive.
Greg, thank you for this. You’ve said everything I’d thought of when I read Jack’s original essay and in a very clear and orderly fashion, as usual.
Whether or not Jack and the Wolves will ever admit it, the Wolves of Vinland are a subset of White Nationalism. They undoubtedly want to appear cooler and aloof to their proximity with other WN groups and offshoots, but even then they can’t ever shake the relation. Even if they sincerely don’t give a damn about any other White Europeans, they’re still a white group that is consciously attempting to separate themselves from what they consider a sick and decaying society and they do so for many of the same reasons WNs do. The main argument is just that they’re more selective, more exclusive, and they (supposedly) don’t care about anyone outside of their exclusive group. I’m not sure that’s enough to disqualify them from the broad WN label.
Beyond all that, I think I recall Jack saying he is disgusted to see Islamic terrorist attacks against Whites/Europeans. He gives the caveat that he feels this way because he knows that Islamic terrorists would see HIM as a White Westerner as well and therefore he knows they hate him and his tribe, regardless of whatever nuances of identity and group-belonging he might personally maintain. But we know the answer to this. Basically all non-Whites are going to see Jack and the Wolves as “Whites.”
Your second to last paragraph is very important. And I know Jack and the other Wolves also have families beyond the Wolves of Vinland. Are we to seriously think they care nothing for those people? Of course they do. As they should. But they aren’t Wolves. They are members of the real tribe that they never chose.
Kind of intriguing about only losers taking pride in general white achievements. Why does it seem that white achievements are never credited to whites per se, but are regarded as “achievements of humanity”, or some such? Jewish people appear to take great pride in their impressive group accomplishments–who compiles all those lists of Nobel laureates after all? Often Jews will know which figures have Jewish provenance down to fractions of blood. These are educated people of healthy ethnic pride, not losers generally. Whatever their race, I find losers are hostile to the notion of achievement in general; people who admire achievement naturally imitate it.
After all white advocacy is not really about Shakespeares or wagners or William Shockleys for me. It’s about the proles. The set hurt by school integration and unable to send their kids to private school, unable perhaps to comprehend the necessity. The people wasting away on opioid addiction. The organic whole of society. What Johnson seems to call for is a honing and perfection of the smart set of Europeans until we select for a high iq, ethnocentric market dominant minority. I think there is already such a group. That would be merely convergent evolution.
White Nationalism is about a future for all whites, except those who refuse to have one. It is certainly not confined to a single class. Many of the middle and upper classes are simply too stupid or cowardly to survive.
While White Nationalism is a good solution for America and Europe, it will still leave whites vulnerable to future guilt, a resurgence in liberalism, and a return to where we are now. I have come to understand there is nothing humane about mercy. While it is not in vogue to say it, but it’s quite obvious the planet will be better off if we eventually expand our land holdings.
A well balanced and thought provoking response Greg. I think the exchange of view points and perspectives expressed here is exactly what the White Natioalist movement needs.
“Frankly, if I ran the present corrupt system, I would be delighted to see dissidents turn their backs on their people and hang out in the woods with their friends.”
Funny how Donovan calls white nationalism weak, but what could possibly be weaker than this kind of isolationism, running away from global problems? The greatest warrior seeks out the greatest battle. Hiding in the woods is not heroic. Saving our race is. Be a hero!
I would like to add to your “right on the mark” comment that Mr. Donovan is fooling himself thinking that the “Masters of the Universe” will leave him, and his tribe, along. It is never a good idea to leave loose ends running freely in the woods.
I do not share the values of college educated white liberals, but I’ve lived safely and happily among them for years.
I most certainly do not share Jack Donovan’s religious values (cough, cough, I’m Catholic), but I’d like him in the neighborhood.
To say you want to be around people who share your “values” is to channel Dinesh Desouza and every other civic nationalist who wants society held together through an ideology they refer to as patriotism, which means going along with the state on foreign affairs. All societies are composed of people with different values. Values are relative (read your Weber, or Allan Bloom if you don’t have time). Values are things we choose for ourselves; pretty insubstantial. Our friends tend share our values (i.e. sports cars, anti-abortion, tennis, electoral politics, Satanism). But any group larger than a small tribe is not composed of friends but of strangers, most of whom do not share your values and never will. Any group larger than a small gang better be held together by something more organic, genetic, unspoken, subconscious – and therein more solid and hard-wired, than values.
Good debate.
Greg is essentially right that the single most important task is to save the race that produced the culture, that was incubated in the ice age. Whose promise is far from fulfilled and has only been halted by poor steerage of the vessel. Mere identitarianism or highly individual libertarian endeavours are nothing but grandiose farts in the wind of time if not motivated by a radical desire to survive into the future, knowing our fierce determination will end in taking up arms against a sea of troublesome insidious outsiders and by opposing end their intrusions. Victory has always been vested in the working class, close to the roots of reality, shorn of pretension, honest and active and ready to fight their way out of the mires created by the corrupt and spoiled elites above them. Wanting to return to values. Yet the working class can only act under the orders of a refined and philosophically driven intellectual class. At the root of censorious, Pharisaic separation from the herd is pure disgusting cowardice, an unwillingness to take any responsibility for passing on and preserving the gifts of the ancestors, a feminine pacifism, an unmanly unwillingness to accept any blood on one’s hands, and there is no more loathsome and low a species of man than he who sees his future as miscegenating his heritage for the sake of short term hedonism and a holier-than-thou self aggrandisement based on an inferiority complex about his own people and a fear of being tarred with a brush by his existential enemy. At a black-pilled moment in the history of the NSDAP someone asked the Fuhrer if he really thought that the degenerated German people were worth saving and he responded that even if sometime he despaired, yes they damn well were!
donovan’s open letter and johnson’s response are a great example of mature discourse between 2 sharp, civilized and educated minds. the well balanced response also shatters the ‘illiterate supremacist red-neck whitey’ narrative peddled by the Left (and unfortunately picked up by many on the alt-right/new right/alt-lite). as johnson stated, let’s hope both remain good allies, and eventually merge paths and unify efforts towards a civilization rebirth.
“Personally, I think we should aim to become a market-dominant, culture-creating minority like the Jews, to maximize our access to education, high culture, wealth, power, and influence.”
Greg, could you please elaborate on this statement. I find two terms a bit disturbing, “market dominant” and “minority.” The second term, “minority,” suggests that you envision Whites as a minority in the USA, not merely less than 50% of the population, but out-numbered by another ethnic group or by a closely allied coalition
The first term, “market dominant,” doesn’t seem to square very well with Part III of your essay on Heidegger and the Jews. But perhaps I am missing something . . . .
By “market dominant”, I think Greg meant to reference, learn and improve upon the practices and tactics of the late White Nationalist giants like GLR and William Pierce, to strive to emulate and actually outperform them by adopting smart and varied approaches to the masses, absorbing the brighter and more intellectually-inclined with metaphysical and philosophic ideas (CC is doing a great job currently) while magnetizing and galvanizing the rest with more practical and effervescent messages and images by appealing to their youthful and emotive mind with popular, marketable devices. In that regard, the historical Nazi populist movement with its fascinating and dazzling propaganda imagery etc. is a model which we can selectively learn and deploy, and as mentioned above, the attempts (despite being not entirely successful ) of the late White Nationalist titans like G. L. Rockwell and William Pierce can also be actively referenced, learnt and improved upon.
By “minority”, I guess Greg meant White Nationalists being a numerical minority within the White race, which of course is an accurate reflection of a factual reality, at least at present and for a foreseeable future. So it is my perception that he actually referred to White Nationalists inside the White race with the term “minority”, instead of White people inside the whole population of US.
“But there are a lot of losers, assholes, and freaks in the White Nationalist world in particular. . .”
This seems unavoidable. There are very powerful social incentives to accept the mainstream narrative. Most people naturally feel a reward when they are accepted by the dominant group, and aversion when they are rejected by the same. These social rewards/punishments may force many people to false conclusions, but they generally make people more amiable and friendly. Thus a great deal, though not all, of those who are willing to continence alternatives to the mainstream narrative will be psychologically abnormal.
But we are not interested in white nationalism because of other white nationalist, but because we believe it is good for white people as such, especially those white folks who are kind, gentile, and generous, but are being manipulated to act against their interest.
Regardless of what he calls himself, I highly doubt he’s ideologically anything other than a White Nationalist. I think he’s just fed up with the amount of stupidity, incompetence, and social views no different from the Afghan Taliban(think DS types or the typical altright site’s commentator reaction to the recent Greg Johnson vs Friberg drama) so present among WNs he questions whether he cares about the white “masses” or his own inner circle, and I can’t blame him.
I also disagree with your analysis on the redneck part, the quote was “white supremacist”. Anyone who identifies themselves as a “white supremacist” or unironically shrieks out “white pride” may as well be an inbred redneck, if not a paid shill, regardless of how true said supremacy is. Different story if the quote was “white nationalist”. It’s also hard to deny WN seems to draw some of the lowest classes of whites without accomplishments of their own, which was essentially his main point(which doesn’t discredit WN, it’s just a symptom of poorer whites are the most likely to actually live around diversity).
To be honest, I’d be lying if I didn’t say the only reason I’m a WN is to ensure that my future generations and family have a prosperous future, not a blind loyalty to random white people. The only difference between me and him is that I acknowledge the former is more likely with a white society. His idea of seperated far-flung communities in the white minority apocalypse are pipe dreams, especially if they are to be in any way economically successful. Take Orania in South Africa for instance, that is not a solution to anything. How long do they think Orania, a small white enclave in a sea of vengeful, gib-seeking South Africans would last if it were to have the same economic success as say, Vermont? It won’t.
This is a good point, I remember reading William Pierces speech about how skinheads were created in England. They didn’t become skinheads because they needed something to boost their self esteem, they became skinheads because they were the poor and working class whites that had to experience their neighborhoods being flooded with Africans, while the middle class whites had the money to white flight. I remember being young and my neighborhood had a block party and two black brothers single handedly ruined it by repeatedly groping the girls and half the people went inside. If I was around more than just two blacks I would have become a WN much sooner.
” I think we should aim to become a market-dominant, culture-creating minority like the Jews, to maximize our access to education, high culture, wealth, power, and influence.
My goal is to save white civilization.”
I’m in agreement with Oswald Spengler that culture precedes civilization. “Culture” typically arises from a shared religion (cult) and Western European culture and civilization arose largely due to the influence of the Catholic Church. The “culture-creating” being carried out by the “market-dominating” Jewish minority is not one that is compatible with the historic high culture of Western Europe, or of Eastern Europe either for that matter. As for “access” to education, my question is since when has education required “access” for anyone of Western European origin who has the motivation to acquire it?
I live in southern South America, in which colonization was carried out originally by Spaniards who mated to a far greater degree with indigenes than did northern Europeans in areas they colonized, thus creating a substantial mestizo population, although in many ways it is unlike that of Central America and even northern South America. Nevertheless, today there are a large number of persons of mixed blood who may not literally be considered “white” but are nonetheless “white” in terms of culture and civilization as generally perceived.
I believe “white nationalists” err in perceiving this growing demographic as outside the pale of “whiteness”, at least upon this continent. There is no small number of us here that that continue to proudly bear the banner of European (aka “white”) culture and civilization although our descendants may be of mildly mixed blood; to ignore or condemn us is to do a disservice to your cause. It is the culture and its resulting civilization that is at issue here, not so much what I perceive as an imagined “racial purity” that will make all the difference in the future.
Since marrying white is also considered marrying up in Brazil, Sri Lanka, and elsewhere (because the IQ difference results in a financial difference) biracial groups tend to become more white over time. It’s for this reason I personally welcome bi-racials into white civilization.
Thanks for the reply. I believe your are wise in your welcoming mixed-race (not necessarily “bi”; my dtr-in-law, for example, is one-eighth Guaraní) into white culture and civilization, given that such persons are often more fervent defenders of them than are genetically “pure” whites and not necessarily or entirely because of a likely improved financial situation. The fact that my two ultra-European-looking grandsons have a genetic connection to the indigenous and mestizo inhabitants of this country will serve them well in the future regardless of their essentially Euro-centric upbringing and education. Color counts for a lot less down here than elsewhere.
If you admire White Culture, you should want Whites to continue. But of course if you think race is meaningless, why would you? Especially since you would be excluded from a racially conscious White Culture where racial purity is valued. To continue to wish us well would take a large degree of Disinterested Love – something Catholic monks called the “Holy Indifference”. No people on Earth are more capable of this than Whites. Very few Non-Whites have it – including people are who only partly White. The Non-White “blood” seems to mitigate against it. Just more proof of the importance of race, as if more was needed. It’s like buying a computer: you don’t have buy all the programs – a lot of them are built in. Our empathy is built in – and you can’t buy it.
I lived in Brazil for five months and I came out of that thinking the Brazilianization scenario for Europe and north America will be impossible, the tupi guarani were naturally receptive and the Catholic imposition was formidable. The brown people of South America definately love European culture than most Americans, but these mahgreb African and slanty eyes Asian have no regard for what existed before them in Europe and they have no regard for a power that whites no longer carry…
I would outlaw all breeding with non-whites.
Yes, when we have the numbers. In the meantime I think we should encourage asperants, like Sri Lankian Burgers.
No, that is the path to white extinction.
Mestizos are not white. You have more than enough nations in this hemisphere, all of which provide ample reason for Americans not to want to make the same mistake.
The book Understanding Human History by Michael hart has an interesting section on mixing of races. He hypothesizes that the falling off of Iberian preeminence after its golden age was related to attitudes about the mixed race persons from the colonies, the “half castes.” Iberian culture practiced hyperdescent, i.e. the half castes were considered white, and thus their genes ingressed into the wider population, causing a general decline. In contrast Northern European cultures practice hypodescent with a stern “one drop rule.”
I believe hart is basically correct, but I think the genetic weakness comes mainly from smearing of already present North African genes after the inquisition, because the scale of the effect wouldn’t seem to me large enough with just the people from the colonies. When barriers to race mixing (based on religion and culture, not scientific comprehension) were removed, the Visigothic elite interbred fully with the moorish population the smart percent of the population fell. One observes a similar effect in southern Italy, also occupied by similar populations, where one can watch the civilization shift from third to first world as one drives north. Derbyshire has an interesting map which shows how the number of math phds is neglible in these regions–anywhere significant noneuropean populations laid a footprint basically!
I think I see this in the poetry as well. The golden age figures such as gongora, de vega, and quevada are peers of the great poets of the north, but afterwards with the possible exception of one or two figures(Jimenez), Spanish poetry is a faint satellite of French poetry.
Great piece. I was particularly pleased to see the mention of American folk culture. I think this is very important and is an often overlooked topic. We tend, for obvious reasons, to have Europe on our minds over here and to neglect real American culture.
Here is the dilemma: we are under attack because we are White.
Not because we are Americans. Not because we are members of Western Civilization. Not because we are warriors.
It’s because we are White.
This is not a fight which most Whites would choose, I think. But it is one being forced by a coalition of hostile elites and non-White invaders. If race is where the battle is, then race is where the fighting must take place.
(Really, this war has been going on since the 1960s, if not earlier: the Hart-Cellar Act, the massive upsurge in “minority” violence from rioting to flashmob attacks, the jihad against Rhodesia-South Africa, the opening of European borders to third world invaders, the elite promotion of cultural marxism, and etc. It now appears to be approaching a culmination point.)
There is some sense in Whites forming warrior bands in remote regions. One thinks of Roman warlords in the era of the Fall, like Aetius or even Arturius Rex. And there is something to be said about warlordism in the 21st century. Look at Joseph Kony or the Islamic State. Today, you can combine a warrior ethos with information technologies to create transnational, non-state forces which carve out independent territories. It just may be possible for White warlord bands to create their own polities, network with each other and, with the proper application of violence plus infowar, maintain a certain degree of freedom.
But there’s no reason for Whites to do so. The thing that is annoying is not that our enemies are strong, it is that they are weak. Consider the snowflake meltdown which occurred in the wake of the Trump victory in 2016. Or how small groups of Alt Right/Light have been able to take on antifa in the streets. Or that most of the invaders of Europe and North America come from low IQ demographics and failed states without much in the way of military csapacity. Were there to be sufficient application of White will to power, all these groups could be routed. And bear in mind that in the 19th century, White peoples conquered North America and Africa. The potential is there, it needs to be awakened.
The warrior ethos just may be a start of this awakening. And it may be the foundation for a Justinian style reconquest of the West. Already out in the woods there may be a Belisarius in the making.
The critical thing is that White Nationalism can give the warriors the political ideology to make it work.
” The best and the worst people I have ever met are White Nationalists. I try not to let the assholes get me down.”
Comments like that really endear you to current and potential White Nationalists.
If some White Nationalists are the worst people you have ever met. You should get out and meet more blacks, Arabs and other low IQ, low culture people.
Just being honest. If you want “fake it till you make it” there are plenty of other sites.
Yes and good ones, I’ll take your advice.
Needless to say, many people calling themselves pro-White don’t want any kind of truth that isn’t centered on them being a victim or doesn’t praise them for accomplishments that they’ve never actually achieved. The truth is that I have been around plenty of blacks and other non-Whites, and I concur with the notion that some of the best and worst people I’ve come across have called themselves White Nationalists. It only becomes a problem and an unworkable solution when those people become the faces and voices of pro-White movements. The failure of White Nationalism has always been an inability or unwillingness to keep the dullards and defects in check.
This war has been going on for over 3,000 years. What we are seeing now is the result of several millennia of jewish infiltration, and subversive activities–Christianity being the primary subversive program.
Ironically it was Hollywood that stated the bare-bones WN world view. There is a scene in ‘The Boys From Brazil’, where Mengele after an altercation says, “I’m not doing this for myself, but for you, the Aryan people of the world. Do you want your descendants to be ruled by Jews, Orientals and Negroes!”
We don’t wish to be ruled by people who are not of our blood, nor do we seek to rule other races. In this respect WN is a simple restatement of Nature’s eternal and irrevocable laws.
Believing as Donovan does that identifying with one’s race is a sort of refuge for those who are individually weak and who have not accomplished much in life does not account for the fact that the potential for accomplishment now is greater than ever and that in earlier times, ie in much simpler subsistence agrarian and hunter-gatherer days, merely getting food on the table was about as much as most people could do. Should we say that we are better than those people because we have more opportunities? Our accomplishments are a result of something those people didn’t have which we did not create but which the sum of humanity created and so our accomplishments are not entirely our own. The environment we inhabit is not solely the result of us. Surely the ancients–many of them were brilliant geniuses, but they did not have as high mountains to stand on as we have today, so they couldn’t reach the heights we have in mathematics technology science etc, so I think that defining oneself solely according to his accomplishments is somewhat vain because his accomplishments are not entirely his doing. Identifying with race on the other hand is something a little more solid. Race is something that is for the most part consistent from–maybe not hunter-gatherer days–but definitely from ancient agrarian days up until the present so it seems to be something that transcends time and although not of our doing certainly is part of our being, the part that the we are not responsible for which gives us a part of our identity, whether we desire it or not.
A White man’s craft. Part of his story.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnTr9EJdpQ4
Am I ‘White’? Am I ‘American’? These are key questions raised in my mind by this interesting, and gentlemanly – Johnson with Donovan – discourse.
I am ‘old Virginia’ but not English elite, or slave-holding Virginia. We got here, to the frontiers of the Blue Ridge mountains and valleys in the early 1700s (the old ‘White House’ – a religious meeting house and fort – still stands near the Shenandoah River). We were the first ‘White Trash’- Swiss, South German, etc Anabaptists; dissenters from the Lutheran and Roman Catholic State Churches; some Anabaptists along the way were anarchists, some peasant socialists/communists, many agrarians, etc – and being ‘trash’ to the Lutherans and the Catholics, who were fighting all in every corner of the Holy Roman Empire (30 Years War, etc) we were subjects of genocidal wars by the Lutheran princes and Roman Catholic Bishops. We fled. Some went East, to Poland, Russia, etc. My folks got to ‘the New World’.
Were we ‘White’ when we got here?
The big oblelisk beside the river lists us among the first Euros settled there, long ago, even by Virginia history. We persisted. Our family stayed in Virginia, as small family farmers, rail road workers, some successful in ‘agri-industry’, and most working on and with land. Historically, some of the ancestors were among those who – personally – went to Washington and Jefferson – to say that they would support the ‘revolution’ they were talking about (remember we were not English, many didn’t speak English, but German, and didn’t have a ‘thing’ against the English monarch) IF they would guarantee end to the Virginia ‘state’ religion – Anglicanism – for which ‘state religion’ taxes were paid, and because of which pastors and preachers in other traditions were banned, jailed, etc.
As you know, Washington wrote that letter to the Touro Synagogue in Rhode Island and Jefferson wrote that letter to the Danbury Connecticut Baptists assuring no state religion in the newly invented ‘America’. So, my people, early ‘White Trash’ hated in Europe, helped create the First Amendment.
Are we ‘American’?
PS: by this you note my approval of your rumination on the collective, rather than merely individualistic or egoistic, sources and well spring of ‘pride’
PS again: I’m sure that living on the frontier of the Blue Ridge some of my carousing ancestors – as surely some or many were – were ‘Wolves of Vinland’ before the current ones wild ones in their enclave in in the Virginia Blue Ridge. They needed no ‘re-wilding’ because the enslaving cultural forms and ideologies that you, and they, and Donovan, et al speak against did not exist. They wre just, ‘naturally’, wild. But, …. but …. they could not forgot WHY they were ‘White Trash’ thrust out of the elites of Europe: their dissident faith.
So, we raise a third question? Can Bible-believing Christians – who do really believe the Bible is a source of access to wisdom from the Creator of all beings and all things – believe any of the things that you believe about human persons, including the destiny of human persons and human communities?
I live in Charlottesville, that has been recently and currently embroiled, in culture wars: with flanked battles (shout downs, primarily) between White Nationalist groups ( since many may be devoted readers of Mr Donovan et al) in the proper drag to showcase their ‘beefcake’ beautifully, frontally and in profile, and launching into unison singing/chanting … and a more randomly dispersed and bouncing around assembly(ies) of students, hangers on (as all university towns have), local folks, activist groups (Workers World Party and various other explicitly anarcho-communist groups), religious in collars, and others. A few wear the ‘world-AntiFa’ drag of black, hoodies, and masks, etc. Neither side of the flanked battleground – in local parks with statues of Confederate generals – suits the tastes, or benefits the daily lives, of we ‘regular working folks’ – the majority of us ‘White working class’. To working folks it looks like elites of one sort shouting down the elites of another sort; one side in ‘beefcake’ drag and the other side in ‘anarchist chic’ drag.
So, a final question, good sir: What, if anything at all, do you have to say to actual – ACTUAL – working class folks who still must live and work with different sorts of people – in REAL LIFE?
Thanks kindly for whatever thoughtfully you may wish to say.
Warlordism, not Nationalism, is the Present — and Future
I read Jack Donovan’s essay as well as Greg Johnson’s reply. Jack Donovan’s analysis of who he is is better than Greg Johnson’s attempts to re-create a “White Racial Nationalism” which has never existed except in the fever dreams of the White Nationalist [bowel] Movement which is full of jews, mongrels, and other non-whites who are delusional as to their own genetic past and thus have no future.
Having been in LibberToon and Reform and other third-party politics as well in the Militia Movement after Waco as well as Christian Identity (actually See-Eye Dentistry) the fact is that while everyone in the proposed overall Movement claims to hold the same beliefs, the reality is that it is every lying fuktard for itzself. Nothing more. The only way to bring order to any proposed Movement is to have something worth having at the moment and to keep it by holding your coalition together. Even then, those who are outnumbered and out-maneuvered will plot to take you down; likewise if you are outnumbered you will continually engage in acts of rebellion and maneuver to make yourself the local baron over that which you control.
So these coalitions, even when comprised of jews, mongrels and ZOGbots, are always at odds with each other. They regularly betray each other and then cum back together every so often but with their unstable arrangements they break apart again as temporary likes and dislikes keep them in a state of flux.
For example, in August 2000, TraitorGlenn Miller ran out of my office when I mentioned Louis Beam and David & Katja Lane as contacts via e-mail from my militia days in the early to mid 90’s. TraitorGlenn Miller ran out of my office in my mom’s double-wide for fear that I would kill the drunken Lumbee melungeon rat. But I convinced both Louis Beam and the Lanes to pretend to be TraitorGlenn Miller’s Internet champion while telling the reporters about TraitorGlenn Miller’s running out like a yellow mongrel dog at “The Greensboro Incident” and snitching on the CI and Order members at Ft. Smith and against another at this Selby County Faggot Bookstore where the jew owner blackmailing TraitorGlenn Miller along with some of its customers were killed. Then when TraitorGlenn Miller would ask how they found out about that old dirty laundry, I’d say, “Beats me, [Traitor]Glenn, Beats me.”
Anyways in 2004 me and TraitorGlenn Miller fell out over me calling TraitorGlenn Miller a ZOGbot rat, and forcing Silly Roper to mount “The Christmas Coup of 2004” and so there was a resumption of a split in the bowel Movement between CI and Klansmen vs. Rabbi Linder and its Greater Free Range Colostomy Bag & ZOGtard Corral Forum along with TraitorGlenn Miller as Linder’s paymaster which lasted until one sick drunken mongrel rat gunned down three mongrels in the Old Kike’s Home parking lot. TraitorGlenn Miller is alive on death row because the drunken melungeon rat can’t drink or smoke in prison.
Now I don’t know what “intellectuals” in the bowel Movement have anything to do with each other. My goal and practice has been to detect bowel Movement jews, mongrels, and ZOGbots and to “ghettoize” them so that they must stick to theys’ own. Trying to get those unruly tards who hate each other more than ZOG/Babylon the Third and Final to pull together is a fools’ task.
Jack Donovan wants to be a Warlord of the “Wolves of Vinland.” Fine by me. I have nothing much in common with Jack Donovan. If Jack wants to kill jews, mongrels, ZOGbots and sundry vermin in “Vinland” then fine by me as long as it is over a hundred miles away from Granby. Having Ten Thousand Warlords upon ZOG Collapse means that nothing much matters a hundred miles off until there is enough of a surplus amongst the survivors for distance warfare to be profitable in terms of loot.
Hail Victory!!!
Pastor Martin Lindstedt
Church of Jesus Christ Christian/Aryan Nations of Missouri
If you have a Subscriber 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.