The following text is an interview I gave to a reporter. I don’t know if it will be used, but I made it clear that I would publish the full text at Counter-Currents. Now the whole world can quote from it.
White Nationalists need to understand exactly why I think Andrew Yang is important. As far as I am concerned, nothing essential depends on whether he is sincere about his proposals, gets the Democratic nomination, wins the presidency, or can implement his policies—even though I would like all those things to be true. If your first instinct is to splutter out any of those objections, you don’t understand what I am doing here and why such considerations are irrelevant.
I can’t control any of those factors, and neither can any other White Nationalist. What we can do is use Yang as an occasion to inject ideas that are important to White Nationalists into broader popular discussions, which is what I am doing here. As always, the key is to use politicians, not let politicians use us.
1. What are your general thoughts about the Trump administration?
White Nationalists supported Trump because he supported some policies that we also favor, principally immigration restrictions (including the border wall and the Muslim ban), protectionism, and an America first foreign policy. We think these policies are objectively good for the white majority.
I have no doubt that Trump was sincere about these policies when he announced them. He could have won the Republican nomination and the presidency without them. He chose to fight a two-front war against the Democrats and his own party because he thought these issues were important.
But once in the White House, Trump lacked the skills and—let’s be frank—the character and the moral seriousness to keep his promises. The cucking started hot and heavy from the very beginning of his administration. I wrote my “God Emperor No More” essay on April 8, 2017 after the Syria strike.
Trump spent his first two years giving Jews and Republicans whatever they wanted, without first getting what he wanted from them. I didn’t need to read a book on The Art of the Deal to see how stupid that was.
I hoped that the midterm elections were a near-death experience that might have got Trump back on track. But no. We’re still waiting for that executive order on birthright citizenship.
The last straw for most White Nationalists came in the 2019 State of the Union address, when the boomer-con in Trump came out with an ad lib on increasing immigration, as long as it is legal. Then he doubled down on it. “Legal” immigration is a coward’s and a cuck’s—that is to say, a Republican’s—way of talking about immigration, because it is a euphemism for the real problem: non-white immigration.
We need immigration restrictions because most immigrants, legal and illegal, are not white, and as their numbers grow, America will increasingly resemble the Third World countries from which they come. Trump actually referred to these countries as “shitholes.”
But now he is claiming that “our corporations” need more immigrants from “shithole” countries because “it’s good for the economy.” The populists who put Trump in office don’t think the profits of corporations are a good reason to destroy the ethnic composition and harmony of the nation. This is standard Republican talk. As soon as a lot of White Nationalists heard that, they were simply through.
It is not so much that White Nationalists are off the Trump train. The trouble is that Trump is off the Trump train. We didn’t change. He did.
2. Do you feel that Trump has helped to make White Nationalist thought more mainstream?
Trump made the discussion of some of our issues more mainstream, and indirectly he opened the way to more mainstream discussion of our more fundamental ideas, if only because the Left wanted to stigmatize Trump by trotting out some of his more extreme supporters.
Even though Trump has been a disappointment as a President, he made important—and permanent—metapolitical gains.
First of all, he broke the Republican gentlemen’s agreement to never broach populist measures like immigration restriction and protectionism.
Second, Trump helped reorient political debate in America away from the false and superficial opposition between Republicans and Democrats to the deeper issues of nationalism and populism versus globalism and elitism. The American people want a socially conservative interventionist state that protects the working and middle classes from globalist oligarchs. Trump offered that synthesis.
The other parties are united by their refusal to give the people what they want. Republicans pay lip service to conservative values. Democrats pay lip service to using the state to defend the people from elites, as well as to fewer wars. But in reality, both parties only deliver what the current oligarchy wants: global capitalism and foreign adventurism combined with ultra-Leftist values. In the end, Trump gave the oligarchs what they want, too. But there will be a new champion of National Populist values, because that is what the people want, they are increasingly aware of it, and they are increasingly convinced that they will only get it by sweeping away the current political establishment.
Third, Trump triggered the Left to drop the mask of sanity. I don’t think the days of civility will ever return. White Americans are increasingly aware that the Left doesn’t simply hate Trump. The Left hates them and their values and wishes to replace them with non-whites. Democracy involves different groups in society trading power. That is really possible only if the different groups regard their rivals as part of the same overall people. White Americans are increasingly aware that the Left is not “their people.” It is a coalition of non-whites and alienated, non-typical whites, united by hatred of the white majority. There will come a time—perhaps in 2020, perhaps in 2024—when white Americans will not cede power to the Left, no matter what the outcome of the election. That means that American democracy is broken. The Democrats broke it. But Trump was the trigger.
3. Do those in the White Nationalist and far-Right movement feel that President Trump supports them, after recent comments claiming that the movement is small?
No serious White Nationalist was under the illusion that Trump supported us. He used to support ideas that we supported. But those ideas stopped far short of White Nationalism.
As for his comment that our movement is small and full of problems, that is indeed true. We have a lot of problematic people because American civilization is collapsing, and white men are the primary victims. We have lots of people who are alienated and unemployed. We have lots of people from broken homes, fractured by the drugs, alcohol, and drama of selfish and degenerate parents. We have lots of people with drug and alcohol problems and personality disorders of their own. We have lots of people who are willing to lash out violently against the system that has betrayed them.
We had rather hoped that President Trump might help these problem people, by tackling globalization, immigration, the opioid crisis, and other maladies afflicting white America. But he’s turned his back on us.
However, as long as white dispossession continues—as long as whites see their communities declining because of diversity and their living standards destroyed by globalization and immigration, all to a din of anti-white hate coming from the mainstream media and academia—our numbers will only grow. White dispossession due to immigration and globalization is the primary force driving the rise of National Populism in every white country. White Nationalists are not causing this wave. But we are going to surf it to power and influence.
The closer an election is, the more important small groups of people become—especially highly energetic, motivated, and creative groups. Our movement was even smaller in 2016, when we were Trump’s most ardent supporters and the scourge of the cuckservatives. But we didn’t just post memes and arguments. We also voted, encouraged other people to vote, and worked to counter voter fraud. Trump won by a razor-thin margin: 107,000 votes in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. He knows very well how important our efforts were in the last forty-eight hours of the campaign to flip those states. He won’t win again without us.
4. What are your thoughts on candidate Andrew Yang, and has there been a general shift from those in the movement beginning to support him for President? If so, when did people first begin to support him, and how often do you encounter mentions of Yang online?
Andrew Yang seems like an intelligent and sincere guy. He is not white, but he is the only Democrat who opposes anti-white identity politics. He is also the only Democrat who has talked about the problems afflicting white America. I will vote for him in the Democratic primary, and I will vote for him as President if he goes up against Trump.
Yang appeared right around the time Trump announced his final betrayal on immigration. Many White Nationalists immediately shifted their support to him. Yang memes became omnipresent overnight. Generally speaking, those White Nationalists who fully embrace National Populism immediately saw Yang’s appeal. Those who still retain residual elements of mainstream conservatism—especially the ideology of “free market”’ economics—are skeptical of Yang. But they will come around in the end.
5. What are your thoughts on Yang’s Universal Basic Income proposal?
I have been an advocate of Universal Basic Income (UBI), and more broadly Social Credit economics, since 2011. See my essay “Money for Nothing.” I have also been an advocate of debt repudiation. See “Thoughts on Debt Repudiation.”
A Universal Basic Income is an excellent idea for several reasons.
First, it is a way of creating money and putting it in the hands of consumers that bypasses two vast and parasitic categories of middlemen: banks, which charge interest, and social welfare bureaucracies.
Second, it is a way of dealing with the consequences of automation. When machines put people out of work, they can’t be allowed to starve. Besides, somebody has to buy and use the products of automation. We can automate production, but not consumption. The whole point of the economy, after all, is to provide goods and services for people.
Third, it would be good for the arts and culture. It would free people from basic material necessity to pursue educational and creative activities.
The knee-jerk reaction of those schooled in the ideological pseudo-science of “free market” economics, namely that a UBI would cause “inflation” is highly dubious. (See my essay “The Austrian Economic Apocalypse?“)
To make a UBI work, however, we would have to make some important changes in our present society.
First, the best way to fund a UBI is not to raise the money by taxes or borrowing, but for the state simply to create money out of nothing. We need to move to a pure fiat currency that is entirely decommoditized, i.e., a currency no longer subject to interest, inflation, or deflation—perhaps even a currency that cannot be saved.
Second, the UBI should not just be a safety net for people put out of work by mechanization. The overriding goal of public policy should be to promote scientific and technological advancement to put us all out of work. Our aim should be the Star Trek economy, in which material scarcity has been abolished by technology. See my essay “Technological Utopianism and Ethnic Nationalism.”
Third, creating a UBI would necessitate limits to immigration, both legal and illegal. We cannot give a UBI to the entire planet. Our country is already being flooded by people looking for free stuff.
Fourth, a society with a UBI will have to create conditions in which leisure promotes self-cultivation, not self-destruction. It would have to address the problem of highly addictive and destructive habits—not just alcohol and drugs, but also pornography and videogaming—otherwise a UBI will simply enable large numbers of people to waste their lives. We will also have to give people more positive things to do with their leisure by improving education, giving subsidies to edifying forms of high culture, and encouraging public spiritedness over private hedonism.
6. Are White Nationalists legitimately supporting Yang, or is this just rhetoric online on sites like Jab and 4chan?
I think that quite a few White Nationalists sincerely support Yang because he has better policies than anyone else in the race. Others support him just as a protest, because they are heartily sick of Trump. If America is going to hell, they figure, why not America going to hell plus a thousand dollars a month? Others are just enjoying the Yang memes and the new sense of excitement, purpose, and unity Yang has brought us.
7. For those who do support Yang, how do they respond to his statements that he rejects support from White Nationalists?
Of course he rejects our support. Yang is probably sincerely anti-racist, while we would prefer to live in a society in which there are no Andrew Yangs at all. But generally speaking, White Nationalists find Asians to be the most agreeable non-white group in our society. This is a movement full of anime fanatics, with a fringe of rice burners. Many of them would welcome our new Asian overlord.
Beyond that, we are genuinely pragmatic. We supported Trump despite his obvious faults, because he coincided with our interests. Now that Yang looks like he will advance our interests, we’re Democrats. Now the Democrats really are “the real racists.”
Yang might not like us. But here’s the thing. He will still cash our checks, and he can’t prevent us from arguing for the merits of his proposals, voting for him, and encouraging others to vote for him. Whether he likes it or not, White Nationalists might put him in the White House.
8. Are those in the White Nationalist and far-Right movement feeling more emboldened than ever before?
In a word, yes.
Long-term demographic trends are ominous. As I argue in The White Nationalist Manifesto, if we do nothing—if we do not implement White Nationalist policies—the white race will go extinct. That concentrates the mind wonderfully. That imparts urgency and moral seriousness to our cause. But white extinction is a couple centuries away. So we also have some time to maneuver and turn things around.
Moreover, medium-term demographic and political trends are working in our favor. As Roger Eatwell and Matthew Goodwin argue in National Populism: The Revolt Against Liberal Democracy, the rise of National Populism is being fueled by four deep-seated trends that are not going to abate any time soon: distrust of the establishment, destruction of communities by immigration, the decline of white working class and middle-class living standards due to globalization, and the breakdown of people’s alignments with existing political parties.
Eatwell and Goodwin actually argue that the only way we will get beyond National Populism is if established parties adopt National Populist policies. Which means that the days of globalist hegemony are over, and the future belongs to competing forms of National Populism. That is an environment in which White Nationalists will flourish.
The primary cause of rising white racial consciousness is not White Nationalists like me. Instead, people are waking up in response to objective events—because diversity causes conflict and globalization causes deprivation. Once people wake up, White Nationalists try to deepen their understanding of why these processes are taking place and offer workable political alternatives. But even if we were completely censored and deplatformed, racial polarization and social breakdown will continue to rise until we abandon multiculturalism and globalization and adopt National Populist ideas.
White Nationalists win every honest debate, because truth is on our side. Censorship and deplatforming won’t stop us, because to do that, you’d have to shut down the Internet, and the global economy depends upon it. Immigration and globalization are pushing more people in our direction all the time, and the establishment keeps doubling down on the same failed policies. And now, with the rise of Andrew Yang, American White Nationalists have a new cause around which to unite our warring tribes. White Nationalists have good reason to feel more emboldened than ever.
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
Le Nationalisme Blanc est-il haineux ?
The Counter-Currents 9/11 Symposium
Qu’est-ce que le nationalisme américain ?