It is important for White Nationalists to visualize what victory would look like. There are really two answers to this question. The ultimate answer is our vision of Whitopia, the society we want to create. But before we build Whitopia, we need to achieve a victory over the present political system. This victory will give us the power to create our ideal society, and it may come decades before Whitopia is realized.
Victory, like everything, depends on things we can control and things we can’t control.
The things we can’t control can be summed up under the rubric of “the historical moment,” which includes all objective social conditions, including unpredictable historical contingencies like the election of Donald Trump. The historical moment can be either auspicious or inauspicious for our plans. The best-organized movement in the world will make no headway if the historical moment is not right. On the other hand, if we do nothing, our plans will never be realized, no matter how receptive the historical moment might be.
The things we can control are all the things we can actually do, and for our purposes they boil down to political and metapolitical activism. Political activism encompasses all attempts to gain control over the levers of political power. Metapolitical activism encompasses creating the conditions necessary for political success. There are two branches of metapolitics: organizing a White Nationalist community and propaganda, i.e., creating ideas and media to impart a pro-white worldview.
The way that politics and metapolitics work together can be appreciated by considering them in isolation.
It is possible to gain power over a society by purely political activity, without persuading the general public of the rightness and feasibility of our ideas. The clearest example of this path is a foreign invasion, in which the apparatus of state is seized, and all opposition quelled, simply by force. Another such model is an unpopular revolution from within, in which an armed militant party seizes control of the state. Such a route is, of course, maximally difficult and costly, simply because victory becomes easier when more people agree with you and fewer people fight against you. Decreasing the numbers of your enemies and increasing the numbers of your friends and allies is the work of metapolitics.
It is also possible to gain power over a society by purely metapolitical means, simply by persuading the overwhelming majority of the population that one’s ideas are correct. If White Nationalism became the common sense of a whole society, then one would not need to organize a White Nationalist party and take control of the state, for all the political parties would effectively be White Nationalist. No matter how vehemently the different parties might disagree about issues like taxes, health care, and feminism, white identity and interests would be sacrosanct, and this attitude would extend through the whole of the culture. At that point, from the point of view of white interests, it would not matter what political party ends up in charge, because whites simply cannot lose.
This full-spectrum metapolitical dominance is what I call “hegemony.” Hegemony means rule from afar. In politics, a hegemon is a power that dominates subordinate powers without directly ruling them. For instance, the United States is hegemonic throughout Europe and the Western hemisphere, although its clients are sovereign states. In metapolitics, hegemony means a broad cultural consensus sets the parameters of political debate and decision-making, framing every issue in “heads I win, tails you lose” terms, so that no matter what the political outcome, the hegemonic values continue to reign.
In the white world today, the organized Jewish community exercises cultural and political hegemony. Thus no matter how divided the mainstream might be on specific issues, it is united in treating Jewish sensibilities and interests as sacrosanct. The goal of the North American New Right is to deconstruct this Jewish hegemony and replace it with a similar hegemony of pro-white ideas. Wouldn’t it be nice, for a change, if white identity and interests were sacrosanct in white countries?
In practice, of course, the political and metapolitical paths to power work in tandem. Even an armed takeover by a revolutionary party would presuppose metapolitics in order to create an ideological consensus within the party itself. And even if White Nationalism became the common sense of the the whole society, we would seek to make that victory permanent by organizing to take control of governments and other institutions and oust anti-whites from all positions of power and influence.
With these concepts in mind, we can now return to visualizing our victory over the present cultural and political powers, so as to clear the way to building a White Nationalist society. Keeping in mind that politics and metapolitics can never be fully separated, we can still ask if our victory will be primarily political or metapolitical. My answer is: our victory must be primarily metapolitical.
To appreciate this point, take a look at the present state of the Trump administration. Through organizational genius and the sheer force of personality, Donald Trump managed to rouse a populist revolt against the entire political, intellectual, and media elite. This revolt placed him in the White House by a razor-thin margin. Although Trump has the loyalty of the white majority, the voters do not exercise day-to-day control over the levers of cultural and political power. Instead, those are in the hands of people who fundamentally disagree with Trump’s outlook and agenda. Trump won a political victory, but in terms of metapolitics, the globalists are still very much in power. Their ideas are hegemonic, and their networks of influence extend throughout society, blocking Trump at every turn. To push his political agenda through, Trump also needs a metapolitical sea change. He needs a community of people who agree with his populist vision, who can win new people to his cause, and whose influence can counter the globalist network. It is our job to create it.
Trump, moreover, is a far cry from a White Nationalist. The opposition he faces is nothing compared to what would greet a White Nationalist if, by some miracle, he could be elected President in the first place.
A White Nationalist will never attain effective political power in the United States or any other white nation until we change the culture. We have to convince a very high percentage of our people that White Nationalism is both morally right and politically feasible. We also have to convince a significant percentage of those who are ambivalent about us that we are still a legitimate political force, perhaps even worthy political allies. Then we need to convince a large percentage of those who oppose us to do so passively rather than actively. And only at that point will we be able to gain state power and use it to disempower, silence, and marginalize the anti-whites who remain.
The metapolitical approach also plays to our strengths. Right now, the enemy has complete control of all the commanding institutions of our society. Their weakness, however, is that their policies are based on false principles, which means they are leading to evil consequences. Beyond that, our enemies have never been more corrupt, venal, stupid, and laughable.
By contrast, we have almost no real-world institutions of our own, just shifting battle-lines and outposts on the Internet and social media. Our only real advantage is the truth, as well as the credibility that comes from telling it. But effective policies can only be based on reality, thus we are the only ones offering workable solutions for the problems created by multiculturalism. Beyond that, we really have the best people.
Fighting a political battle means pitting our greatest weaknesses against the enemy’s greatest strength. That is a losing strategy. Fighting a metapolitical battle, however, means using our greatest strengths to attack where the enemy is weakest. Only after attaining broad metapolitical hegemony will we be able to muster the resources to take control of actual institutions.
This analysis has forced me to confront a contradiction in my own thinking. I have long maintained that White Nationalism will never triumph until it leaves the Right-wing ghetto and becomes the common sense of the whole political spectrum. There needs to be a racially-conscious Right, a racially-conscious center, and and a racially-conscious Left, and we know this is possible, since such things have already existed throughout the white world. For instance, America’s Asian exclusion movement, South African Apartheid, and the White Australia policy were all supported by the racially-conscious Left.
Nevertheless, I am quite comfortable in the Right-wing ghetto. Honesty compels me to be a man of the Right, since I believe that there are values higher than equality and individual liberty.
But although I am a man of the Right, I am not a Right-wing sectarian. I want the White Nationalist idea to leave the Right-wing ghetto and redefine the whole political spectrum. Right-wing sectarians, however, seek to confine White Nationalism to ever narrower reaches of the far Right.
Right-wing sectarianism is a self-marginalizing, self-defeating tendency, and it could not come at a worse time, for the historical moment has never been more receptive to white identity politics. More people are looking to us for answers than ever before. We must develop new platforms, spokesmen, and messages to try reach and convert every white group: every age group, every social class, every religion, every ethnic group, every interest group, every subculture — everyone. This is how white identity politics will attain complete cultural and political hegemony. But instead of outreach, the movement is turning inward.
The problem started in the Fall of 2016, just before Trump was elected, with the Alt Right “brand” war. Large numbers of half-baked civic nationalists and cultural libertarians suddenly started calling themselves “Alt Right,” because they supported Trump and wanted to distance themselves from movement conservatism. I saw this as an opportunity to embrace, not a threat to repulse. After all, you can only convert people to White Nationalism who aren’t already White Nationalists, and you can only convert them if they are willing to listen to you. And, for a time, they were willing to listen.
The Alt Right “brand” was a White Nationalist entryist and outreach project from the very start. But the Alt Right worked best for White Nationalists by not being exclusively associated with White Nationalism. Normies would never try the Alt Right on for size if it were an exclusively White Nationalist movement, much less associated with people like Nazis and the KKK. The Left, of course, understands the power of such associations to freeze thought and action on the Right, which is why Leftists trot them out time and again.
Some White Nationalists, however, were more concerned with exerting control over a “brand” than outreach to the public. So they hit on the same tactic as the ADL, SPLC, and mainstream media: to chase people away from the Alt Right by associating it with Nazis and the KKK. The best example of this is the troll campaign against Steven Crowder, who made the mistake of calling himself Alt Right, and was rewarded with a storm of memes in which he was welcomed to the ranks of Nazi extremists. It was hilarious, vicious stuff, but completely self-defeating from the point of view of outreach and conversion.
After Heilgate, the Alt Right was forever identified not just with White Nationalism, but with Nazism. This led to a split between the Alt Right and the Alt Lite.
The Alt Lite consists of civic nationalists who are explicitly opposed to white identity politics. Instead, it is the Right-wing identity politics of white race-mixers, non-whites, and diaspora Jews.
The Alt Right has increasingly adopted the ideas, images, and ethos of neo-Nazis and White Nationalism 1.0 (e.g., skinheads and the National Alliance) and is rife with purges and schisms as different factions seek to create a smaller, weaker, dumber, and more “pure” movement.
Both Alt Right and Alt Lite are at each other’s throats, but they do have one major thing in common. They are equally incompatible with white identity politics breaking out of the margins and redefining the cultural and political mainstream, which is precisely how I define victory.
In the sequel to this article, I will explore how to get beyond Right-wing sectarianism.
Remembering Martin Heidegger:
September 26, 1889–May 26, 1976
Remembering T. S. Eliot:
September 26, 1888–January 4, 1965
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 372 Greg Johnson, Jim Goad, & Thomas Steuben on America’s Decline
Remembering Charles Krafft: September 19, 1947–June 12, 2020
Remembering Francis Parker Yockey: September 18, 1917–June 16, 1960
Is Nicki Minaj Super Bass-ed?
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 370 Greg Johnson, Mark Gullick, & Stephen Paul Foster Ponder The Deep Questions
Remembering D. H. Lawrence:
September 11, 1885–March 2, 1930