Print this post Print this post

A Response to StyxHexenHammer666

2,076 words

It was such a delight to listen to Greg Johnson debate Styxhexenhammer666 (AKA Styx) earlier this week. Both principals brought to the table a comprehensive arsenal of facts and arguments with which to support each side and produced some fine intellectual jousting. The debate resulted in a lot of light and thankfully very little heat.

The topic was nominally ethno-nationalism vs. civic nationalism, but in the end amounted to a version of the statism vs. libertarianism debate which in its current form is at least as old as the Enlightenment. This made it fun for me. Although I am not a libertarian myself, there is still a libertarian kernel in my mind which influences my thinking. Further, I do appreciate libertarian-type folks like Styx who are well-informed, civil, and, most importantly, willing to entertain arguments and ideas not their own. This stands in sharp contrast to a previous debate in which YouTuber and famous skeptic Sargon of Akkad could not stop hectoring Richard Spencer whenever he challenged Spencer to describe or defend the idea of a white ethnostate. What could have been a lively debate often descended into a cacophonous caterwaul. Just about the only times the debate became worthwhile was when Styx and Spencer exchanged arguments without the thin-skinned Sargon butting in.

Although not being opposed to race-realism or ethno-nationalism per se, Styx’s twofold objection to it amounted to:

  1. You don’t need ethno-nationalism since the civic nationalist model, once removed of Leftist influences, will be just as suitable, and
  2. The transition from something that is not an ethnostate into something that is will require so much bloodshed and abuse that the end result will be worse than what came before it.

The men debated for over two hours, and so there was a lot more going on than this. However, I think this does encapsulate Styx’s main objections without too much characterization. With the same caveat, I would describe Johnson’s main positions, vis-à-vis these two objections as:

  1. We need a white ethnostate because of impending White Genocide, and
  2. The transition from non-ethnostate to ethnostate does not have to be bloody or abusive since it can happen gradually and with respect for human rights.

One can read any of Johnson’s essays on White Genocide or his “Slow Cleanse” article to get a better feel for his positions.

Although I’m not exactly a disinterested observer here, I don’t think that Styx provided convincing responses to Johnson’s main arguments. After Johnson brought up the possibility of White Genocide, Styx recounted how throughout history whites have had a similar sense of impending doom and yet somehow found the strength and will to survive. He offered the Muslim threat to Europe during the Middle Ages as an example and reminded us of how whites were able to repel it and thrive. Of course, he neglected to realize that adopting the fierce anti-Muslim attitude necessary for purging the Turk and reconquering places like Spain and the Balkans greatly resembles the pro-white absolutism Johnson prescribes for attaining an ethnostate today. The reasons for both are similar as well. In Styx’s mind, carving a white ethnostate out of Moorish territory in the Iberian peninsula over 500 years ago through warfare and massive bloodshed was okay, but doing something similar in America or Europe today while promising significantly less bloodshed is not okay.

Styx’s attitude resembles what I would call ‘historical complacency.’ Historically complacent people may be well versed in history but they take for granted the tangible sacrifices people have made throughout history and instead use history to connect only those dots which support a particular ideology. I am sure we all do this to some extent, but we should still aspire to do as little of it as possible since it is at best irresponsible and at worst dishonest. To demonstrate my point, Styx opposes transitioning to an ethnostate today because the very act of transition he thinks will lead to abuse. Okay, fine. However if we transport Styx back to fifteenth-century New Castile and apply this same logic, he would necessarily be opposed to the Reconquista for the exact same reason: abuse. I am sure in 1492 some poor Muslims were abused and had their human rights stripped away when the Spaniards were expelling the last of their kind from Grenada. Yet, to quell Johnson’s concerns about White Genocide, he then points to events like the Reconquista as good things. Styx offers such events as evidence against the idea that white people will go gently into that good night.

Well, as any logician will tell you, A cannot equal Not A. Styx cannot have it both ways. Either he supports the Reconquista or he doesn’t. Either he supports transitioning to a white ethnostate today or he doesn’t. Due to his historical complacency, he tries to get the best of both worlds. Because the abuse which took place during the Reconquista happened so long ago, he doesn’t see it or feel it. Therefore, it’s okay. However, forcing non-whites to leave historically white nations today could lead to abuse which he can see and feel and therefore is not okay.

I believe such a contradiction strikes a fatal blow to Styx’s position because it leaves him facing the following Hobson’s choice: Either admit he has no sufficient rejoinder to Johnson’s first point (a white ethnostate is needed to prevent White Genocide) or violate his own second point (the threat of abuse outweighs need for transitioning to an ethnostate).

Another point I would like to make which neither principal caught during the debate addresses Styx’s notion of abuse. It seems to him that abuse is something only the state can inflict on people. Every time Johnson (or, earlier, Spencer) brought up ways an ethnostate transition can actually happen, Styx always presented the worst possible scenario as being the most probable. In response to Johnson’s ‘Slow Cleanse’ idea, Styx proposed that non-whites and their white allies would take up arms against white identitarians. What then? In Styx’s mind, any transition to a white ethnostate would devolve into warfare and ultimately tyrannical oppression. While Styx’s point has historical precedent and should not be dismissed outright, he fails to consider that tyranny doesn’t always go from the top down. Sometimes it can go from the bottom up. Multiracialism provides an excellent example of this because when forced in close proximity to most non-whites (blacks, Hispanics, and Arabs, mostly), whites often have no choice but to flee lest they witness their hometowns devolve into depressed barrios, third world ghettos, or modern caliphates—not to mention be victims of violent crimes or oppression themselves. This is ethnic cleansing and it has been happening in America at least since World War II. I will note that it has nothing to do with the left-wing “bullshit” Styx constantly complains about. Instead, it is merely a result of people on different points of the evolutionary timeline acting according to their racial natures. But because in this scenario non-whites benefit at the direct expense of whites who for the most part do not wish to be ethnically cleansed, how is this not tyranny? Such ethnic cleansing may have occurred with minimal bloodshed, but how is it not abuse of the rights of white people? If Styx is so concerned about the abuse which may happen when a white nation becomes more white, why is he then not so concerned about the abuse which has already happened when white nations became less white?

Again, he can’t have it both ways. Also, if he recognizes this contradiction, he must then also recognize the possibility that ethnic cleansing, while abusive, can result in little bloodshed. If whites were able to uproot themselves and establish lives elsewhere, then so can the non-whites. That’s why we have planes, trains, and automobiles. Whites can establish a homeland on the continent for blacks. Whites can encourage most Asians and Jews to live their lives and make their fortunes outside their borders. And whites can entice Hispanics to go back to where they came from.

This will not necessarily result in the kind of abuse Styx fears.

And if the non-whites take up arms, as Styx suggests, what then? Well, consider that by taking up arms against a white ethnostate, these non-whites would be rejecting the white right to ethno-nationalism while tacitly accepting their own. After all, no Chinese, Bangladeshi, or Mexican being displaced in North America would volunteer ceding thousands or millions of square miles of their homelands to make room for white people, would they? Of course not. For these people, ethno-nationalism is sacrosanct for me but not for thee. So, given this manifest imbalance, how can Styx or anyone else claim justice for non-whites who initiate armed insurrection against white ethno-nationalism? And if there is indeed no justice in such an insurrection, will Styx then be forced to admit that putting it down forcefully would be just and would be worth all the abuse?

My last point and conclusion involves Styx’s general attitude towards white people. As someone with a libertarian perspective, Styx has a reasonable fear of centralized power. This was evident when he seemed more comfortable with localized vigilante justice being applied to odious criminals like the Rotherdam grooming gangs than with Johnson’s proposition of a state-sponsored police crackdown. For him, localized vigilante justice may be sloppy, but at least there would be no threat of top-down tyranny. Indeed, one of his strongest objections to the white ethnostate was proposing that if white identitarians today can expunge people by their race, then what is to stop them from doing the same along ethnic lines in the future? Today Mexicans get the boot, and tomorrow it will be the Italians or the Irish. What then?

This is a valid concern. My response however is that it would not be in the nature of whites to do that, even the highfalutin Aryan or WASPy ones. I know this because there is a historic precedent. Millions of Italians and Irish immigrated to America between the 1880s and 1920s and, while there was some strife and bellyaching on both sides, the populations assimilated well enough. White high society had their chance to evict their swarthy, drunken brethren and chose not to, largely because their swarthy, drunken brethren were neither as swarthy nor as drunken as they seemed. Instead, they were white like them. The groups had more in common than not. And as a result everything was all right.

Unlike my previous two points, I cannot prove any of this. This comes from a simple faith in the white race and the greatness of the civilization it has created, especially in America for nearly the last 250 years. Since the time of the ancient Greeks, whites have been on the cutting edge of political thought because, of all races, they were and still are the ones most concerned with notions of justice and liberty. To quote Sir Francis Younghusband, a British military leader during the era of the Raj:

It is not because we are any cleverer than the natives of India, because we have more brains or bigger heads than they have, that we rule India; but because we are stronger morally than they are.

Such moral strength can be seen in the dialogues of Plato and the treatises of Aristotle. It can be seen in Justinian’s Digest of Roman Law and in The Magna Carta. It can be seen in Thomas More’s Utopia and in The Prince and The Discourses by Machiavelli. It can be seen in The English Bill of Rights and the US Constitution. I can give scores of examples leading up to modern times with Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago and Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations. My feeling is that in transitioning to an ethnostate, American whites will make it their job to protect the most rights for the most people as possible. I would feel this way especially if inherently moral white men like Styx were in charge of it. Even at their worst, as slaveholders of blacks or as conquerors of indigenous tribes, American whites sill behaved with more justice and care than other races placed in similar circumstances. After a careful look at history and current events, this cannot be denied. So when Styx frets about potential abuses from the government of an American white ethnostate, I just want to pat him on the shoulder and, with the greatest respect, say, “It will be all right.”

This entry was posted in North American New Right and tagged , , , , , . Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  1. Captain John Charity Spring MA
    Posted January 12, 2018 at 8:55 am | Permalink

    Styx was funny. Europeans fended off Muslims by killing them. Europeans then colonized the Americas and Australia by killing the natives.

  2. Peter
    Posted January 12, 2018 at 10:02 am | Permalink

    Thanks for taking the trouble to elaborate on Styx´ points, as I couldn´t be bothered to do so.
    Interestingly, I even agree with Styx´ libertarianism… only that libertarianism does NOT imply race-blindness. Luckily, meanwhile, the argument of freedom of association, of freedom of assembly, has been recognized by the “Right” (probably missing that it´s a classic liberal argument… but it appears useful so one can employ it, no?): the liberal, libertarian argument for freedom of association is my argument for the ethnostate: I want to associate with Whites. Styx of-course, inconsequential almost like a “Rightist”, doesn´t see that with freedom of association, there is no need for his so much feared violence. How is an “ethnic” person to live in the country if nobody associates with him, i.e. when he´s ostracized? Nobody sells to him, nobody buys from him? And that´s not an idea that libertarian Styx can come to?

  3. Rob Bottom
    Posted January 12, 2018 at 10:48 am | Permalink

    Multiracialism provides an excellent example of this because when forced in close proximity to most non-whites (blacks, Hispanics, and Arabs, mostly), whites often have no choice but to flee lest they witness their hometowns devolve into depressed barrios, third world ghettos, or modern caliphates—not to mention be victims of violent crimes or oppression themselves. This is ethnic cleansing and it has been happening in America at least since World War II.

    YES. Thank you. This point isn’t being driven home enough. Our opponents claim the moral highground positing all the ways separation might go wrong, while ignoring the costs of multiculturalism whites pay on a daily basis. Thanks to multiculturalism and forced integration, we don’t have to imagine what it would be like to have roving bands of Pakistani rape gangs operating in our communities, or suicidal jihadists in our midst. That, along with incessant black-on-white crime including rapes and murders are apparently a small price to pay for these moralists worried about the risks of separation.

  4. Anon
    Posted January 13, 2018 at 1:08 am | Permalink

    The premise of his pragmatism is that culture will not shift in favor of the ethnostate even as we establish material power. As Styx argue how other races can adopt enlightenment ideas, he accidentally admits that culture can, and do, change.

    This is my problem with libertarians. They tend to agree with progressives on the unavoidable trajectory towards ever increasing social liberation.

  5. Afterthought
    Posted January 13, 2018 at 7:59 am | Permalink

    Greg Johnson: We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.

    StyxHexenHammer666: There are right and wrong ways to do that.

    Greg Johnson: Let’s talk more.

    This has been a huge problem for the movement, the lack of white papers describing the future world we are fighting for, AND HOW TO GET THERE. People aren’t going to give up the relative comfort and security of the present for an unknown future, even if they perceive decline.

    What will the maps look like? What will our money be? What will our government be like? What will our foreign policy be, etc.

    The essential barrier is that though white nationalism comes out of the right, in implementation it has to encompass most of the political spectrum – a government of racial unity. Many leaders balk at confronting this reality, for fear of alienating their right wing base, or because they have already painted themselves into a corner with previous statements. But the “put up or shut up” moment must come quickly – your genes or your ideology.

    • Richard McCulloch
      Posted January 13, 2018 at 7:39 pm | Permalink

      I can provide you with a proposed partition map for an all-white American ethnostate at Unfortunately there is no simple map for how to get there. Our race has never faced this situation before, so we are explorers crossing terra incognita, blazing a trail where none of our ancestors have gone before. But it is wise, and motivating, to have a clear idea of one’s destination before starting a difficult journey.

      Focusing on our destination for now, not the path to it, there is no reason to over complicate matters. The territory and its borders (the map) are of course essential, and also the fact that its population would be all-white, by which we mean all European, but the final form of government and all its policies would be best decided by the all-white voters post-partition. Initially it could be a continuation of the present form of government created by our white ancestors, and perhaps it would stay much the same, with the difference that it would be de jure and de facto all-white, and the government of the all-white population would be by whites only and for whites only.

      Many people have personal non-racial agendas that they attach to their vision of a white ethnostate. I think it is much better to define and describe it only in terms of race and territory. Once it exists it can be anything its all-white population wants it to be, and do anything they want to do, with the only limitation being it remain all-white.

      To those who say our struggle to achieve an all-white country through partition will result in bloodshed, implicitly assuming that nonwhites will violently resist our reasonable, justifiable and moral efforts to secure our freedom and continued existence (self- preservation is the first law of nature), then, to paraphrase President Whitmore’s speech from Independence Day, we “will once again be fighting for our freedom. Not [only] from tyranny, oppression, or persecution, but from annihilation. We’re fighting for our right to live, to exist….We will not go quietly into the night! We will not vanish without a fight! We’re going to live on, we’re going to survive.” It might sound corny, but it’s really that serious.

  6. Claus Brinker
    Posted January 13, 2018 at 10:22 am | Permalink

    I must protest the phrase “different points on the evolutionary timeline”. All life is “evolving” simultaneously on the same timeline but in different environments. The white race has hardly advanced on the timeline. We now face the consequences of the dysgenic situation we’ve created for ourselves, that of a society that is too soft, decadent, and unwilling to take the steps necessary to even survive. Fortunately there are still enough of us and enough time for this to change, for the weakest to be culled from the race as typically occurs in evolution.

    There is also a spiritual aspect, the possibility of individuals to transform their mindset within their lifetimes and become survival oriented. I think this is likely to happen to Styx as well as numerous others. Perhaps this psychic change does exist on a timeline seperate from biological evolution. I call it spiritual because it has to do with an awakening understanding of the nature of being, a sense of the individual being part of something much bigger.

    That all said, I find Styx’s arguments to exist in a vacuum of theory without a sense of actual time or history. At one point he said something to the effect of “If WNs were to take power tomorrow, this would fail” and this is the crux of his argument. Looking at everything as it stands today white nationalism will fail. But this is a process, a movement, which means things are always changing, always in flux. People who are not white nationalists will be in the future, and they will be because people who already are WN are fighting the intellectual battle for this change today. That, and the environment whites existing is changing and making them more likely to become survival oriented. Styx does not consider the possibility that public opinion will transform, and not just for whites. Non-whites’ understanding of their place in white countries will also change. Perhaps we all evolve simultaneously on the psychic plane as well.

  7. Aurelius
    Posted January 13, 2018 at 9:10 pm | Permalink

    The ONLY Libertarians I know are white. So Styx has no problem being surrounded by millions of black and brown people who do not believe in Libertarianism, people who may violently oppose Libertarianism? What happens when the blacks and browns become the numerical majority? What happens to Styx and his Libertarianism then? Libertarianism will ONLY work among like-minded whites. In other words, Libertarianism will only work in an ethnostate.

  8. NoddingHead
    Posted January 15, 2018 at 8:43 pm | Permalink

    The only Libertarians are White, the only productive Socialists are White.

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

    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