The Creature from the Black Pill
A Reply to Ryan Faulk
It was only a few weeks ago that I did an interview with Ryan Faulk of Alternative Hypothesis fame here in the pages of Counter-Currents. I thought it was a good interview, and Faulk had a lot of interesting things to say.
But then after that interview, Faulk went on hiatus for a month, and when he resurfaced, he announced that he was no longer a White Nationalist – this coming from Dr. OG Ethnostate himself. Now, for me, this is like going on a date with a girl, and then the next day, she declares herself a lesbian. I can’t help but wonder, “Was it something I said?”
Probably not. A lot of the research Faulk relies on comes from his frequent collaborator, Sean “Garfunkle” Last, aka “the other guy.” But still . . .
In the past, Ryan Faulk has expressed a dislike for the term “White Nationalism” on strategic grounds while still being an ideological White Nationalist. That’s not what I’m talking about here, however. Faulk has now straight-up disavowed the very concept itself. He also thinks a pan-European ethnostate is a futile pipe dream. Damn, bro, do you even believe in race?
As one might expect, Faulk has been taking a lot of grief lately. He has been accused of being a cuck, a coward, a shill, a sperg, a sellout, a race traitor, a regular traitor (that would be in addition to being a race traitor), and all the rest. I think I even heard one person accuse Faulk of stealing the Lindbergh baby.
But it’s not just the fact that Faulk disavowed White Nationalism that has ruffled feathers. It’s also the nonchalant way he did so, like someone walking into work and casually announcing that they left their spouse of many years the night before in they same manner that they talk about the weather. You expect them to be a little more . . . I dunno. Something.
Honestly, I think people are being a bit harsh on the lad. I think this is just a simple case of an autiste being autistic and, well, what are you gonna do? Getting mad at an autiste for being autistic is like getting mad at a dog for barking. It’s a dog. It’s what they do.
So if Faulk’s not a White Nationalist anymore, then just what in blue blazes is he? Well, that’s pretty complicated. I mean, it’s kinda, sorta civic nationalist, but also implicitly Anglo supremacist. It’s also kinda, sorta functionally White Nationalist, but not for all whites.
Okay. Faulk wants a state. Actually, he wants several states. US states, that is. Then, after the passage of a constitutional amendment, those US states will join together and form some kind of quasi-autonomous state-within-a-state, but that state (which, for the purposes of this article, I will refer to as “the Faulklands”) will not be an ethnostate. But in a way, it will be. Like, sort of functionally, but not technically. Confused yet?
Look, it’s simple. The Faulklands will be like an ethnostate, but it won’t actually be an ethnostate. Imagine a white ethnostate, but one that you might not necessarily be able to get into (when you read the fine print, there are no guarantees), but instead of being for white people, this “ethnostate” will be for conservatives (who are really an ethno-religion when you think about it, doncha know?).
The Faulklands will be mostly white people because the state ideology (or more precisely, the quasi-autonomous state-within-a-state ideology) will be conservativism, which disproportionately appeals to white people, but based black guys in Trump hats can (in theory) get into the Faulklands if they have a high enough IQ and if they have the right facial bone structure. The Faulklands will be kinda, sorta libertarian (but not too libertarian), but also with this weird cyberpunk element that I’ll get to in a bit.
Now, I’ve got some good news and some bad news. The good news is that Faulk says there is in fact a master race. The bad news is that it’s the English. Well, not just the English (and not all English), but generally all the people who live along the North Sea coast: southeast England, northern France (and my ancestors had to come from central France . . .), the Netherlands, and Belgium. Well, I guess the wogs don’t begin at Calais after all. Turns out it’s actually the Rhine. Faulk calls these North Sea people “First Worldists,” or the “First Worldist” strain, aka “the Sons of the European Revolution.” Faulk says these First Worldists – and not “whites” in general – are the real civilization-builders who created the First World, and thus the rest of the white race has basically just been piggybacking on top of the good reputation of the First Worldists.
Oh, and the master of that master race? Anglo-Americans. Anglo-Americans are apparently the caviar of First Worldists. Heil Thurston Howell III!
Anyway, Faulk fleshed out his new vision and direction over the course of these three videos. I can’t promise that they will be any more understandable than I just described, but if you want, give it a go anyway:
- GG for Richard Spencer and White Nationalism (only the first 25 minutes; the rest is fairly uncontroversial)
- Discarding Pan-European White Nationalism or Taking the European Revolution Seriously
- Responding to White Nationalists
Like I said, it’s pretty complicated.
To be honest, I’m not entirely sure that it’s even meant to be understood. Maybe you’re just supposed to experience it. Treat it like a Pink Floyd album. Burn some incense and turn the lights down low. Find yourself a comfy chair and press play. Then you just sorta let the words wash over you and lose yourself in the white noise. Just bask in the sonic cathedral which is Ryan Faulk’s voice and the lush soundscapes of the background music. Really helps you forget about your pain for a while. Psychedelics optional.
But assuming that The Alternative Hypothesis’ new direction is not some kind of avant-garde performance piece intended to be more poetry than propaganda and is in fact meant to be understood, it requires some deconstruction, because there’s quite a lot that I don’t think he’s quite thought through.
Let us begin . . .
Okay, so Faulk says he has turned from White Nationalism for three reasons:
- He overestimated the importance of “the Genetic Mesh.”
- He thought Europeans were a lot more genetically similar than they are.
- He’s blackpilled on white solidarity.
Now, I’m not going to try to argue with Faulk on points one and two. Genetics is not my forte. I’m just an artist who can talk some politics. But I do have a bone to pick with him on point three.
Faulk says that once upon on a time, he thought that inside every white person was a White Nationalist waiting to get out. He believed that the only things stopping white people from becoming White Nationalists was that A) that they were ignorant of the facts, and B) that there was an emotional barrier. There were just too many emotional landmines and tripwires when it comes to the subject of race. But once people were armed with the facts and the emotional tripwires were disarmed, there would be no logical reason for any white person not to then become a White Nationalist.
As evidence, Faulk points to examples like YouTubers Andy Warski, Ethan Ralph, and Mister Metokur. Those three are all guys who know all the White Nationalist talking points. And they all platform and/or appear on streams with some of the most hardcore White Nationalists out there, from Patrick Little to Andrew Anglin, and from Mike Enoch to David Duke. They can have calm and civil conversations with White Nationalists without being triggered every thirty seconds, so it would appear that a lot of their emotional boobytraps have already been dismantled. And yet none of those guys (Warski, Metokur, or Ralph) have become White Nationalists. To Faulk, this invalidates the concept of white solidarity, and has led to him discarding his belief that “inside every white person is a White Nationalist dying to get out.”
There are a few things to be said about this.
First, it’s not just an emotional barrier that keeps white people from becoming White Nationalist. There is also a huge social penalty for doing so. If you’re an eccentric autiste with a loner streak who never really fit in to the mainstream matrix to begin with (and I speak as one myself), paying that social cost might not be all that big of a deal. There is also a huge social penalty for being a black conservative. Black conservatives are shunned by other blacks. But if a black guy grew up in the white suburbs listening to Van Halen and never felt much attachment to the greater black community, that social penalty might not be all that bad. But for inner-city blacks whose social circle is predominantly black, the social cost of being a black conservative would be a lot higher. Social costs can differ greatly from person to person. Some people are not willing to pay it.
Faulk is also not taking family into consideration (this will be a recurring theme). Some people might be willing to accept the social cost and be a martyr for The Truth – if it were just them. But forcing social costs onto their loved ones is another matter entirely. I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect married people to immediately take up The Cause. And of course, some people have, ahem, “conflicts of interest” (if you know what I mean).
And some people can only afford so much. For now, at least. While being an open White Nationalist is still pretty goddamn socially expensive, merely associating with White Nationalism is a hell of a lot cheaper than it was just a few years ago. I consider that to be progress. Three years ago, retweeting White Nationalists was too socially expensive for Ann Coulter, but now it’s in her price range.
The fact that people like Ethan Ralph are willing to platform Andrew Anglin is a sign that the social costs of White Nationalism are decreasing. Not long ago, platforming such people was too socially expensive for just about anyone who was not already openly identifying as a White Nationalist. And it may very well be the case that people like Warski, Metokur, and Ralph are actually more useful to The Cause as allies than as adherents. We do need some gateways, or else we become a circle jerk. And I’m not entirely sure some of them aren’t “secret agents” in some capacity. It’s interesting that Metokur never makes fun of White Nationalists, but regularly attacks our enemies. He could have done a video on the cuckbox episode that would have gotten a million views, and he didn’t. And Ethan Ralph, while not a White Nationalist per se, is certainly willing to be an accessory to White Nationalism.
Now, a cynic might say that people like Warski, Metokur, and Ralph only associate with White Nationalists for the money. There may very well be varying degrees of truth to that, depending on which one you are talking about. But I don’t really see that as being a problem. There will come a day for White Nationalism to go to the next level. It will require an eccentric millionaire with a lot of balls to spend a lot of money, and that person will most likely want to see that doing it is profitable (our savior will more likely be a capitalist than a philanthropist). It’s how punk went mainstream. It’s how thrash metal went from underground to MTV. That’s how it works. You prove that you are profitable, then the guys with the fancy suits and big cigars come by and start buying drinks for everyone and being suspiciously friendly. He thinks you’ve got talent and says he can make you a star.
Where was I? Ah, yes. White solidarity. Lemme tell you something about white solidarity. You know where you find a lot of it? In prison. There are no SJWs in prison, and multi-racial gangs only exist in Michael Jackson videos. If a white shitlib SJW walks into the prison cafeteria on their first day, they are going to try to sit down at the table with the other whites. They are not going to try to SJW it up in prison. Outside of their comfort zone, it’s safety first.
Prison proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that whites will choose racial solidarity if it can be demonstrated to them that the alternative is anal rape. Our job as White Nationalists is to convince white people that the alternative to becoming one is metaphorical anal rape by Jews. Mostly metaphorical, that is. The how is that, as society starts to more closely resemble a prison, whites will start acting more like whites in prison do.
Now let me get to his Faulklands project.
Faulk now believes that the white ethnostate is a pipe dream, but I fail to see how his Faulklands project is any less fanciful. For one, it’s complicated, and Americans – particularly American conservatives – hate complexity. So, by its very nature, it is unappealing to its target audience. Conservatives like the simplicity of small government. They like they simplicity of the flat tax. If Faulk’s plan is too complex for the people most likely to embrace it, then your average Limbaugh listener has no chance, and the project will fail.
Second, Faulk says that Anglo-American conservatism is a de facto ethno-religion, not unlike Judaism. It’s sort of a religion, but it also has an ethnic core. Falk says Mormons qualify as an ethno-religion. But to me, that’s like the Beatles comparing themselves to Jesus Christ. Yes, the Beatles were extraordinarily popular when John Lennon said that, but you don’t compare yourself to Jesus Christ until your popularity has endured for as long as Christ’s has. I mean, Jews have been around for thousands of years. Anglo-American conservatism has only been around for a few hundred, which is a historical blink of an eye.
Plus, the analogy of Anglo-American conservatism as an ethno-religion à la Jews is itself deeply flawed. Religions are eternal. The Bible says the same thing now that it did 1,500 years ago. What it means to be a Jew remains constant throughout the millennia, but what it means to be “a conservative” is constantly in flux. Prevailing political and moral paradigms shift over time. These days, the prevailing political paradigm is the conflict between globalism and nationalism. But during the Cold War, it was individualism versus collectivism. In the Civil War, it was states’ rights versus federalism. Before that, it was monarchy versus democracy. At times, it’s been about intervention and non-intervention in a foreign war, which frequently divides along ethnic lines.
Say you set up a multi-racial state based on shared political beliefs on the issues of the day, but then a political paradigm shift occurs (which it always does). Can you be sure that your multi-racial alliance would all stay on the same page? Or is it possible that things could just divide back into white and non-white factions? Say the white Faulklanders wanna help out the white South Africans in some way because they feel a connection with their co-ethnics, but the non-white Faulklanders, who feel no such sentimental connection, don’t.
I think the most salient aspect of Faulk’s new direction is that he now considers the heritability of political beliefs to be a more significant data set than race and IQ. Thus, Faulk wants a quasi-state that only takes the good, conservative, civilization-building whites who all believe X, Y, and Z, and are likely to have children who also believe X, Y, Z, and only the based non-whites in Trump hats who also believe in X, Y, and Z and are likely to have children who also believe X, Y, and Z. Basically, he wants a big clubhouse with a “No Liberals Allowed” sign by the door.
The question that you are probably asking right now is, “How do you keep liberals and freeloading looters from just lying their way into the Faulklands by pretending to be conservatives?”
Strap yourselves in, because this is about to get good.
According to Faulk, all you need to do (a trifle, really) is give every potential immigrant to the Faulklands a Blade Runner-style Voight-Kampff test to ascertain their true ideological views (this is the cyberpunk element I mentioned earlier). So the applicant would walk in, sit down, and be asked emotionally-charged questions about various social and political issues. The test-giver will not only review the applicants’ verbal responses, but also monitor their stress levels, eye movement, face flushing, and eventually sniff out the doppelgangers among us. You know, like in Blade Runner.
Also to be taken into consideration would be previous party registration and facial structure. Race would be a consideration, but not a deal breaker. Faulk assures us that this test would be 90-95% accurate. Now, 95% is a fantastic number if you are talking about how many hit points your video game character has left. It’s a great number if you’re talking about the charge in your cell phone. But in the world of law, business, and politics, 5% is a fucking huge number. Imagine a business that only got your order right 95% of the time. Their Yelp page would look like shit, and people would stop shopping there. Or imagine a criminal justice system that only delivered the correct verdict 90% of the time. Or if a product malfunctioned 5% of the time. It would have to be recalled.
People would not stand for a vetting process that is only 95% accurate. You would have situations where a husband is accepted, but his wife isn’t. Then they’d go crying to the media about how they’ve been loyal Republicans all their lives but were unjustly discriminated against because of their shitlib facial structure. We’re talking about a nation that would include tens of millions of people, so 5% is going to add up to hundreds of thousands of really, really pissed off people. 5% means a shitload of lawsuits, and your court system getting clogged up.
I mean, just who, exactly, are those 5-10% that the Voight-Kampff gets wrong? Are we talking about false positives or false negatives? Liberals passing the Voight-Kampff, or conservatives failing? Each would have different consequences. Is there a 10% chance that Mr. Faulk himself might fail?
What if someone has a child? Do you test the child when he is young, or do you wait until he turns 18? What if the child turns 18 and fails the test? Is he then banished from the Faulklands? If so, where does he go?
Families in general would be a major sticking point in Faulk’s high-IQ civnat state. In a theoretical white ethnostate, whole families could move there together. Not so in the Faulklands. If a family has multiple ideologies among its members, only those who are true conservatives with the bone structure to prove it can move there. So basically, people are put into a position of having to choose between their family and muh Constitution.
The problem with this is that people would not feel the need to embark on a Faulklands-style project unless it were clear the current system is collapsing and that society is in freefall. People will not feel the urgency to embark upon such a project until they see the edge of the cliff approaching. But that’s also when people would be least likely to abandon members of their families, most especially if they knew they would be unsafe. American conservatives are not Syrians. Just one shitlib in an otherwise conservative family who couldn’t get into the Faulklands would be enough to keep a lot of entire families from going. Faith, family, and fatherland: that’s what being a conservative is all about. If things got really intolerable, they would just find some other place to move where they could all go together that wasn’t the Faulklands. That would be the conservative thing to do.
And then there is the issue of women. Ryan acknowledges that the state’s population would need to be half male and half female. The problem with this is that men are a lot more conservative than women tend to be. Everyone knows this. So you would have a lot more men trying to get in than women, and then the laws of supply and demand kick in. So to get the gender balance of the Faulklands right, you would either need to A) lower the standards of admission for women (allow some tolerably mild shitlib women in) or B) turn away a lot of based men who qualify. The problem with B is that people will not support a project if they think there’s a good chance that they might not even get in. Why put forth all the effort just for a lottery ticket? So that leaves us with A. Dare I say it? You would need a kind of affirmative action for women.
And how would you deal with illegal immigrants? How would you smoke those guys out? In a theoretical white ethnostate, you’d be able to spot the illegal immigrants easily because, well, they are the ones who aren’t white. But a Faulklander can look like anything. So what do you do? Do you have police units that go around and give people on-the-spot Voight-Kampff tests? I mean, the Faulklands would need literal blade runners.
But the real kicker, the thing which in my opinion undermines his entire argument, comes in his response video to White Nationalists. Faulk says (and I quote): “White Nationalism could work if you could get every single white person and force them to sit through a three-hour presentation. But since that’s not happening . . .”
Is that what we’re talking about? Three goddamn hours? Faulk is abandoning White Nationalism because white people can’t be bothered to consume three hours’ worth of information on race-realism? Well, I think it would take a bit longer than three hours of persuasion to get people to agree to a Voight-Kampff. Why would a person who has dedicated their life to the Republican Party even agree to take such a test when there is a chance that, through no fault of their own, they might fail it?
How long of a presentation would the Faulklands require? Well, you would have to redpill people on the heritability of political beliefs. The whole plan hinges on this, so you would need the majority of conservatives redpilled on that. Faulk’s test would also take facial structure into consideration, so you would then also have to redpill on physiognomy. People are gonna wanna know what the hell that’s about. And then Faulk says that race would be considered as a factor. So he would also need to redpill people on race and IQ. You’re not going to be able to just slip things like “race” and “facial structure” into your Voight-Kampff algorithm without people asking a few questions – and then a few hundred follow-up questions.
In closing, let me say that I think arguing or even talking about the ethnostate – or any endgame scenario – is kind of retarded. Well, I take that back. It’s not kind of retarded. It is retarded. Arguing about the ethnostate at this point is like an unknown garage band arguing about how to split up the songwriting royalties after they land their major-label record deal. The drummer thinks it should be an even split. But the guitarist, who actually writes all the songs, thinks that’s unfair. I mean, he wrote everything. He’s “the talent,” you see. But then again, you can’t just let him have all the royalties. After all, it’s Charlie’s garage they’ve been practicing in. There would be no band at all if it weren’t for Charlie. And it’s the singer’s PA system they’ve been using all this time!
Here’s an idea. Why don’t you get the major-label record deal first, and then argue about the songwriting royalties?
I don’t see any point in talking about any kind of endgame until the masses are awakened to the fact that the status quo is unsustainable. That alone is a process that could take years. Once that is done, and once people realize that multiculturalism is unmanageable and that the current system won’t last, then we can start talking about endgames. And by that time, the sociopolitical landscape will have shifted and we will have a better idea of what our options are.
You see, the worst thing about Ryan Faulk’s ethnostate videos – and his Faulklands videos do the same thing – is that they all start out with, “The first thing is that we need to get tens of millions of people to move to these handful of states, okay, and then after that . . .” It’s like the old Steve Martin joke: “You can be a millionaire and never pay taxes. How can you be a millionaire and never pay taxes? First, you get a million dollars . . .”
Perhaps it would be more helpful if Ryan Faulk spent a little more time explaining how exactly we get tens of millions of people to move to a handful of states and less time worrying about what to do after they all get there. A marketing strategy, maybe? Even a catchy slogan would be helpful.
Faulk has said that we have to give people an endgame. We have to give people a final goal. Really? Or what? What terrible fate will befall us if we don’t give people an endgame? Look, if you’re on a sinking ship, you don’t need to explain to people how they will get to their destination after they are in the lifeboat. You just have to convince them that the ship is sinking. I don’t think you need to be any more specific than to say, “The current system is unsustainable, and we’re eventually going to have to break up the country. Break it into what? Who knows? We’ll figure it out. But what I do know for sure is that the alternative is that we will all drown, and nothing could be worse than that.”
There’s no good reason to spend time worrying about it now. That way lies madness. I say, let’s leave the details to our grandchildren.
 “But Trav,” you say, “you claim talking about endgames and ethnostates is retarded, and yet you just wrote an entire article talking about endgames and ethnostates.” This is true. But I only did that because I thought of a mildly clever headline and just had to write an article to go along with it. Normally, I never talk about endgames or ethnostates. My muse works in very mysterious ways.
“Subway Vigilante” Bernhard Goetz: A Look Back at the Kyle Rittenhouse of the 80s
Is “Uncle Tom” a Racial Slur?
Toward A New Era of Nation-States, Part III: Challenging the Values of Universal Doctrines
Within Our Gates: The ”Black Birth of a Nation”
Irreconcilable Differences: The Case for Racial Divorce
A Clockwork Orange
Et tu, AOC?