Counter-Currents
3,290 words
Czech version here
White Nationalist terrorism—such as Brenton Tarrant’s shooting spree in New Zealand and the similar crimes of Robert Bowers and Dylann Roof—hurts White Nationalism and helps our enemies in at least four ways.
- First, the goal of White Nationalism is to persuade whites that we are better off separating ourselves from non-whites. Terrorism, however, makes many whites feel sympathetic to the non-white victims. It makes white liberals want to hug them, dress like them, and further accommodate them—when we want them to do just the opposite. That’s obviously self-defeating.
- Second, our job is to convince the world that White Nationalism is the solution to ethnic conflict, not a cause of it. White Nationalist terrorism undermines that message and is thus self-defeating as well.
- Third, White Nationalist terrorism energizes the Left. It gives them options for virtue signaling, manufacturing martyrs, and ginning up moral panics. Clearly, we have a better chance of beating the Left if they are enervated and demoralized, not energized and indignant.
- Fourth, these moral panics are used as pretexts for repressing White Nationalists, specifically our freedom of speech and our right to bear arms. That too is obviously self-defeating.
Before one starts a fight, any smart combatant takes stock of his strengths and weaknesses, and the strengths and weaknesses of his enemy. So let’s take stock.
Racially conscious white people lack numbers. We are a tiny minority. We lack money. We lack leadership and organization. We lack institutional power and influence. On the other hand, we do have truth, morality, and practical solutions on our side. We know that racial and ethnic diversity in the same society causes alienation, tension, hatred, and violence. We are also the only people offering a workable alternative. First, to stop increasing diversity. Second, to restore or create racially and ethnically homogeneous homelands for all peoples
Our strengths and weakness are the mirror image of the strengths and weaknesses of our enemies. The advocates of globalization and multiculturalism have numbers. They even have even convinced the vast majority of our own people—the primary victims of diversity—to take the side of our abusers and dispossessors. They have effectively unlimited money. They can just print it. They have leadership. All the political leaders, Left, Right, and center, are working for them. We have no political leaders who actually represent us. They also have control over the leading institutions of our society: academia, religion, business, and government, including the military and police.
But the establishment has some important disadvantages. First of all, globalization and multiculturalism are premised on falsehoods about what makes a society good. They are also premised on a false moral system which blames whites for things we did not do, and excuses non-whites for their failings and offenses. They preach diversity for others, but avoid it themselves, making them rank hypocrites. Because they are responsible for policies that are producing terrible consequences, they must lie to cover up the disasters they create and divert blame to the innocent. On top of that, they are corrupt, hysterical, degenerate, and downright silly.
So given these strengths and these weaknesses, on our side and on their side, where should we attack our enemies? Should we attack them where they’re strongest or where they’re weakest? And how should we attack them? From a position of strength or a position of weakness? The smartest strategy is to attack our enemies at their weakest from a position of strength. The dumbest strategy is to attack our enemies at their strongest from a position of weakness.
We can’t beat them in democratic contests. We can’t beat them in armed struggle. We can’t outspend them. But we can out-argue them. We can out-meme them. We can shame and mock and humiliate them. Truth and morality are on our side. We have enormous advantages in the intellectual and cultural realm of struggle. So we should attack their weaknesses from our strengths.
A great example of such activism is the so-called Alt Right, the largely anonymous online network of White Nationalists and National Populists that in 2015 and 2016 became the bane of mainstream conservatism and the most energetic supporters of Donald Trump. The Alt Right at its peak was a beautiful thing. It was an example of effective metapolitics in action. We were making genuine progress by changing people’s minds. Indeed, the main reason the Left has been screaming for increased social media censorship and deplatforming is that they got tired of losing arguments with us.
But then our people got a little giddy and started memeing in real life. But as we discovered with the “Hailgate” fiasco, anonymous online memes—especially of the Nazi variety—didn’t play well in the real world. Then in 2017 there was a rash of public demonstrations and speeches, and we found that White Nationalists were not really able to stand up against the organized Left. Because even Antifa, who are criminals, could count on the indulgence and secret support of the establishment. Every single one of the rioters that trashed Washington, D.C. at the Trump inauguration has been let off. It took a couple of years, but they’ve all gotten off. Meanwhile, people on the Right who defended themselves from antifa are having the book thrown at them. Our organizations are also being plagued and bankrupted by lawfare. And we simply don’t have the resources to fight back.
In 2015 and 2016, we won enormous victories by attacking the enemy’s weakest points from a position of strength. In 2017 we suffered enormous defeats because we thought we could attack our enemy’s strongest points from a position of weakness. These defeats were entirely predictable, but the wrong people were making decisions.
Since then, the consensus has been to return to what worked: metapolitics, which includes community building, online propaganda, and Identitarian-style activism, which aims to maximize impacts on the public mind while minimizing risks and costs to activists. We can’t outgun the enemy. We can’t outspend them. But we can out-argue them. We can be cooler, cleverer, and funnier. We can change minds, and the establishment is powerless to change them back.
White Nationalists win every fair debate. Thus the longer White Nationalists can stay in the public sphere, the more minds we can change. The more minds we change, the greater the likelihood of restoring white homelands.
Every incident of lone-wolf White Nationalist terrorism, however, is used as an excuse for further censorship, deplatforming, and harassment of all White Nationalists, even those who have nothing to do with such crimes. Therefore, White Nationalist terrorism is counter-productive.
Fortunately, I do not think that our message can be completely suppressed, for two important reasons.
First, the establishment wants to believe that the only thing preventing the emergence of a global, multicultural utopia are skeptics like us, exercising our freedom of speech to persuade people that multiculturalism and globalization are bad things. But in truth the main factors driving the rise of white identity politics are the catastrophic consequences of multiculturalism and globalization themselves. Which means that even if the establishment could censor and deplatform us entirely, it wouldn’t stop the rise of white identity politics. Because as hard as White Nationalists are working to raise our people’s consciousness, we’re not doing a fraction of the consciousness-raising that the establishment is by imposing multiculturalism and globalization. But it is still important to keep our voices heard, so we can deepen our people’s understanding of the problems we face and offer them workable alternatives to the present system.
Second, the only way the establishment could censor and deplatform us completely is to shut down the internet, which is impossible because the world economic system has come to depend upon it. But although censorship cannot stop us, it can surely slow us down, and every day that we are delayed will be paid for by white people who suffer and die—and white people who are never born—because we lack homelands of our own. Thus Brenton Tarrant did more than kill 50 Muslims in New Zealand. He killed uncounted white people by delaying the day we get our homelands back.
Now at this point, many people object: “But surely you don’t think we are going to vote our way out of this mess.” My answer is simple. There are many ways we might create white homelands, including winning elections. But no matter how we end up establishing white homelands, we are going to need a lot more White Nationalists to do it. How do we create more White Nationalists? By converting people, i.e., by changing people’s minds. Which leads us back to metapolitics.
Even if you think the only way to establish a white homeland is through revolution, the first step has to be propaganda. You will need to explain to people what White Nationalism is and why it is necessary, which is what all White Nationalists—no matter how we envision the path to victory—need to be doing. In addition to that, you will have to persuade people that revolution is the best way to establish white homelands. But even that is not enough. Then you will have to persuade people to join your revolution. And since you are more likely to win if more people sympathize with and fewer people resist your cause, you will need to persuade them as well.
So my recommendation to the advocates of revolution is: start persuading people.
Now ask yourself what are the primary impediments to reaching and persuading the public. Clearly they are censorship and deplatforming. Now ask yourself what is the most common pretext for censoring and deplatforming us. Clearly it is acts of violence, like Tarrant’s rampage. So advocates of revolution—if they really are serious—need to discourage White Nationalist terrorism as much as the rest of us.
What can we do to stop White Nationalist terrorism? I can think of four things.
- First, we have to dismantle the intellectual case for terrorism, which is what I am doing right here.
- Second, we have to mock and shame the follies and vices that contribute to terrorism, including anti-intellectualism, unseriousness, juvenile LARPing and bloody-mindedness, nihilism, macho posturing, paranoia and pessimism, and apocalyptic all-or-nothing thinking.
- Third, we have to ban all people who call for violence from our websites, meetings, and organizations.
- Fourth, if someone comes to us making credible threats of terrorism, we need to be the ones to call the police.
This last suggestion has proved controversial. After all, the police do not have a sterling record of honorable dealings with nationalists. But even if the police are unworthy of contact, that does not imply that people like Brenton Tarrant or Robert Bowers are worthy of our silence. After all, they are doing objective harm to our cause. Indeed, Tarrant’s explicit goal was to provoke a crackdown on white advocates to make it impossible for us to influence the public in any other way but terrorism.
Tarrant donated money to the Identitarian Movement in Austria precisely to “link” it to terrorism and give the state a pretext for suppressing it. That makes him no different from antifa in my eyes. We obviously have no obligations to enemy infiltrators in our movement. Outing them would not be doxing. It would not be betraying comrades. The same is true of a Tarrant or a Bowers. They are not us, and I would rather disavow them to police before a terrorist incident than disavow them to the press after one.
Moreover, if you state publicly that you will call the police on people threatening terrorism, that makes it far less likely that anyone will talk about such matters in your company, which gives you some security from both sincere cranks and enemy provocateurs.
Terrorism is a desperate measure. And desperate times call for desperate measures. But I want to argue that times aren’t quite so desperate at some people think. Yes, as I argue in my book The White Nationalist Manifesto that long-term demographic trends for white people are alarming. If we do not halt existing demographic trends, we’re first going to lose control of all of our homelands, and then we’re simply going to become extinct as a race.
But the worst-case scenario of extinction still lies a couple of centuries off. And even in parts of the white world where the majority of births are now of non-whites, it will still be some decades before these people have voting rights and can exercise political power. And by the time that happens, you might find that a lot of whites will be willing to limit the franchise or do away with voting altogether. So we have some decades to fix things: 20 years, 30 years, 50 years, depending on what country we’re in. This means that we have plenty of time to think very carefully about the right way to regain control over our homelands. Things are not so desperate that people should be contemplating acts of violence.
Furthermore, while it is true that the long-term demographic trends are alarming, there are a lot of medium-term social and political trends that are working in our favor. I wish to recommend the book National Populism by two British political scientists Roger Eatwell and Matthew Goodwin. They argue that four trends are giving rise to National Populism.
The first is distrust. The people’s distrust of the establishment is rising in every white country. I am sure that social distrust is at an all-time high in Great Britain now that it is clear that the establishment does not want to deliver Brexit, the people be damned. Rising distrust in the establishment means that people will increasingly consider radical alternatives like White Nationalism.
The second trend is destruction, specifically the destruction of identity by multiculturalism and immigration. Eatwell and Goodwin actually argue that there’s nothing morally objectionable about a people wishing to maintain the ethnic and cultural constitution of its homeland. There is nothing wrong with wanting to pass a country on to your children that resembles the one in which you were born. Thus people are increasingly voting for National Populist measures that will halt multiculturalism and immigration.
The third trend is deprivation, specifically the destruction of working-class and middle-class living standards by globalization. That is also driving people toward populism because populists promise protectionism and re-industrialization, which is a powerful message to people who increasingly feel that their children and grandchildren are facing harder, poorer lives.
The final trend is de-alignment, which simply means that as more people want National Populist policies, they will abandon their ties to the established center-Left and center-Right political parties.
Eatwell and Goodwin argue that all four of these trends are deep-seated and will not abate any time soon. In fact, they believe that the only way to stem the populist tide is for the political establishment to adopt populist measures. Which means that the hegemony of globalism is ending and National Populism is taking its place. White Nationalism is merely the most radical and consistent form of National Populism. And as more people become receptive to our message, we will have opportunities to move politics in our direction for decades to come. So now is not the time to give in to people in the grip of self-marginalizing and self-defeating behaviors.
But even if you believe that time is too short for intelligent action, doing something stupid and self-defeating won’t save us anyway. So you should still do the right thing—and hope that you were wrong about the time frame, so things will all work out.
Now I want to deal briefly with some of the moral arguments that people have made in defense of Tarrant and other White Nationalist terrorists.
Don’t people have a right to self-defense, individually and collectively? Yes, of course we do. If someone attacks you, you should respond appropriately.
But terrorist acts don’t look like self-defense. They look like aggression against innocent people. Now maybe you disagree with that. Maybe you think that people should see such acts as self-defense. So we are back to the problem of changing the public mind.
There is a difference between an act and its meaning. In terms of producing actual political change, the meaning is more important than the act itself. And right now, our enemies are in the position to tell our people what terrorist acts mean. Which entails that the only concrete political changes that we can expect from White Nationalist terrorism are further censorship and deplatforming directed at racially conscious white people.
Someone actually asked me “What’s the difference between Brenton Tarrant and Charles Martel?” And the answer is very simple. Charles Martel was a legitimate leader who had his people behind him, whereas Tarrant was a lone gunman who is now execrated as a moral freak and monster. There are fewer people who sympathize with our views after his attack than before it. If you don’t like that situation, what are you going to do about it? Obviously, you are going to have to change the public mind.
Others argue that if our government is corrupt and in cahoots with criminals and invaders, we have a right to take up arms. Isn’t there a right to be a vigilante against injustice? Isn’t there a right to revolution? And I would say yes, absolutely. A government that does not govern in the interest of its people is illegitimate, and we don’t just have a right to overthrow it, we’ve got an obligation to do so.
The only question is: How do we go about this? What’s the most rational way to change the regime? And again, before you begin, you have to look at your strengths and weaknesses, and those of your enemy, and then work out a course of action. And Tarrant chose poorly. His plan was to promote a crackdown on free expression and gun rights. This, he thought, would make people so angry that—even in the absence of weapons or the ability to communicate with one another—they would somehow come together to launch a popular revolution. Yes, his plan was that dumb.
So yes, people have a right to self-defense. Yes, people have the right to take justice into their own hands when the state fails them. Yes, people have the right to overthrow unjust regimes. But the difference between success and failure in each of these ventures depends in large part on whether public opinion is on your side or not. Thus, in each case, we must begin by changing people’s minds. In each case, we must first worry about securing the metapolitical conditions of political success.
Some people have outrageously misrepresented this as “doing nothing.” Of course their objections consist merely of words on the internet. So if I am “doing nothing” then so are my critics. In fact, however, we are all doing something very important. We are arguing about what makes victory possible. In short, we are doing metapolitics.
Sun Tzu once said, “Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.” To “win first” means to prepare the necessary conditions of victory before one goes into battle. That is analogous to metapolitics. Terrorists like Tarrant, however, first go into battle and then hope that somehow, somebody else will fashion a victory for them. Such folly is the road to defeat.
I can’t help but think that such strategic stupidity is fed, in part, by the Alt Right’s pervasive ethos of ironism and frivolity. If so, then it is time to smack the Alt-Right smirk off the movement’s face. We will never be equal to the most serious crisis our race as ever faced until we are much more serious men.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
31 comments
This is the best I have read from you. I completely agree. My personal experience from white nationalists is bad. For every one of the brilliant few in this movement, there are hundreds of sick people. That is the main obstacle to success.
Regarding the recent Scandza forum, it’s clear even, or maybe especially, to a non-attendee that it is the mold from which our ideas and our leaders must henceforth come; it is the way forward.
These things need to be said to provide clarity, calm and reasoned determination. It is like a balnace: One has to use one’s weight and not put any into the opponent’s scales.
This essay is an excellent summary and one ought to read it more than once.
“It is worse than a crime, it is a mistake.” ~Mis-attributed to Charles Tallyrand
The most important reason to be against violence not in immediate self-defense is IT DOESN’T WORK. It doesn’t discredit anti-whitism and it doesn’t deprogram brainwashed white people. It does nothing toward getting pro-whites and pro-whitism in power.
We’re in a propaganda war. Non-whites are not invading white lands by force of arms, anti-whites in power (most of whom are white traitors) LET THEM IN. Anti-whites do not use physical violence (for the most part) to implement their policy, they use psychological warfare. Violence doesn’t address the PROBLEM which is white demoralization. The solution is to reverse that demoralization with counter-propaganda.
Power comes from controlling public opinion, from CHANGING the way people think. Anti-whites are in power because too many white people think the way they want them to think. We have to get white people to think the way we want then to think. That is the way to power.
Once we start putting concrete proposals on the table we will lose those who want to lose and attract more who want to win: why?
Most of the bad apples in this movement are of the “evil be my good” variety. They hate society, God/Fate, and themselves so they always look for the most reviled and hated thing to identify with, such as the Nazis. If white nationalism were to become more popular they would shift to some other evil thing or try to torpedo it, as we saw with key figures in the alt right.
Once we start marketing an actual road map to an actual white nation carved out of the rotting corpse of America, showing how it would be very very similar to the society that normal people thought we had, except without the people who hate us and want us dead, average folk would become intrigued and the bad apples will be repulsed, because when normal people are happy, it magnifies the bad apples’ unhappiness.
An actual road map would be something like a campaign for a constitutional amendment authorizing secession; a convention of states where the nation would be split up, and where pesky details like money, maps, and the post-Partition international order would be decided; legislation for a treaty between the US and a place holder government for the new nation, where the US cedes land and sovereignty; a court case seeking to reverse Texas v White; or an appeal to the UN Treaty. Not that the Enemy would do a deal, but with enough state formation at the grass roots, we could simply declare independence. But you have to talk about it first.
The current doldrums of the movement are because we are balking at the next logical step and are looking for ANY alternative. Nature abhors a vacuum, and folks like the shooter are a consequence of that dithering and diversion.
What I liked most about this article is how Greg focuses on the fact that the whole point of the WN Movement is to convert as many people as possible to our way of thinking, which is to say, the goal of White Nationalism is to change as many minds as possible. It’s disheartening to see so many factions of the Movement – such as the Read SIEGE crowd and the AmNat crowd – go about it all wrong. The Read SIEGE crowd is committed to WN principles but has no interest in changing hearts and minds, while the AmNat crowd claims to care about converting people but is willing to water itself down to something indistinguishable from Civic Nationalism in order to get converts. Why can’t we simultaneously stay true to our principles while still trying to convert as many Whites as possible? I don’t see why these two positions need be in conflict, unless of course we assume that White Nationalism, qua White Nationalism, won’t ever appeal to “Normies” without dressing it up and disguising it as something else, in which case, we’re already dead as a Movement.
I’m part of what you call the “AmNat” crowd, and you are setting up a straw man.
I assume “AmNat” refers to American Nationalism. What’s wrong with that? Why assume one has to always go from 0 —> 90 mph immediately? That’s not how people think or how most minds get changed.
It’s like seducing a woman (if you’re not some rock star they’re all panting after). Do you get from first words to naked in the bedroom instantaneously? Of course not. One has to keep extending the “comfort zone”: introduction … want to get together for coffee? … more comfort … “let’s have a real date” … dinner/night out … kiss on the cheek goodnight … phone call after 2-3 days “I had a good time, what about doing x?” … go out again, laughter, more touching, confidences (“I shouldn’t be telling you this …”) … invitation inside her place (“but not for THAT, just talk”) … gentle hand on her knee … (“are you trying to kiss me?” “well, now that you mention it …”) … mmmm … (“OK, you really have to go” “but when will I see you again?”) … third date, if all goes well … back to her place or yours … mission accomplished.
[OK OK, I’m older, maybe the 21st century online dating crowd gets these things done much more rapidly. Maybe. There also seems to be a lot of lonely people out there …]
My point obviously is that there is a gradual radicalization process at work in many aspects of life. Converting people politically is no different. Think “salesmanship”. A car salesman doesn’t start selling you by assuming you’re going to buy THIS VERY MODEL, and then demanding at the outset to know if you want the power moonroof. Getting to White nationalism and the ethnostate will be, for many, the final stage in a long process of “awakening” (ie, to the lies of the globalist regime which, sadly, are now at the foundation of America’s “public mythos”, as well as, increasingly and even more outrageously, those of even many “Old European” countries). Wouldn’t American Nationalism – the idea that our government should prioritize the morally legitimate interests of Americans over those of foreigners and especially illegal aliens – be a reasonable point of departure for an openminded but non-WN White American?
You have to burst the bubble of “egalitarian atomizationism” (the powerful if often unspoken or unrecognized idea that everyone is basically just an individual, and that, “under the skin”, we’re all more or less the same in our individualized relation to everyone else) somehow. Why go against the strongest point of modern cultural conditioning from the outset, instead of starting at a weaker point, like the possible and variegated national security threats posed by an unsecured border with a poor and semi-anarchic country like Mexico; or the working class wage suppressionist effect of mass immigration; or the rank injustice according to the internal moral logic of hegemonic race liberalism itself of affirmative action to White men? I think Trump was very shrewd to adopt a kind of non-WN-America-First-nationalism as the template of his 2016 run, and I think he owes his victory to it. OTOH, if he had run as an open WN, sure, he might have won a few more people to our side, but Hillary would have crushed him, and we might already have 4-5 million “Dreamers” as fellow citizens!
Also, not every approach works for all people in the same way. There are some people who are genetically determined to be race difference deniers, who just can’t handle the fact that individuals within identifiable, unchosen groups often behave in ways like others within their unchosen groups, but unlike other individuals in different unchosen groups. Whites seem to be the most individualistic race, and thus it is unsurprising that our people invented liberalism (and all its derivatives, from progressivism to libertarianism), and are the most susceptible to its falsehoods. The really hardcore race difference deniers probably cannot be reached however ontologically truthful our claims. I believe their genomes are evolutionarily defective for this era in the life of homo sapiens, and that eventually they will go extinct (probably through miscegenation, as well as low fertility; though an eventual race war may claim a disproportionate number, too, relative to racially healthier genomes). Our concern is not to allow their racial utopianism to continue to undermine the genetic interests of those of us who are racially healthy (by, eg, placing our descendants under eventual nonwhite control via mass immigration invasions now, which in turn could and probably will pose great physical and therefore reproductive danger to them).
But between these genetic defectives, and fully awakened WN-ethnostatists, are found, say, 90% of Whites (located all along a standard “bell curve” of racial truth convertibility). For the ideological Right side of this bell curve – the kind of people who ‘thrill’ to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, but would be scared initially of Jared Taylor, let alone Greg Johnson – AmNat is probably the best way to commence the awakening process. Indeed, Trump has already functionally accomplished this wrt Hannity. In 2012, post-Romney defeat, Hannity was talking about throwing in the towel on immigration control. I remember him mentioning the “Gang of 8 {Traitors}” favorably, insofar as it was “vital that the GOP win over more minorities”. Since Trump, Hannity has become a huge cheerleader for a secure border. He talks about crisis at the Mexican border constantly. This isn’t WN, but it’s certainly closer to it than where he was in 2013. And now Hannity, though a terrible suckup wrt Israel, is actually playing a positive role, keeping up public pressure on the GOP cowards in Congress to support Trump is trying to secure the border. And securing the damn border is perfectly congruent with the goals of WN, and indeed is even probably a necessity if we are one halcyon day to win our Ethnostate!
Conservatism to start on non-hysterical White liberals; but AmNat to start on openminded White conservatives and Republicans, with WN in the wings and available for those who are ready for it. That is the ticket to metapolitical and eventually political victories. Anyway, there will be no future Ethnostate if we are not able – soon – to make enough AmNat conversions so as to secure the border and considerably reduce legal immigration. In that sense, WN agitation can actually be counterproductive as any kind of “gateway” ideology.
WN is the endpoint, but AmNat should be the starting point for most racial-truth-convertible Whites.
Submitting this comment again without anything that can be construed as FedPosting.
@Lord Shang
My objections to American Nationalism are both Normative (“This is how things should be”) and Positive (“This is how things are”). From a Normative standpoint, my ideal version of a White Ethnostate basically looks like 1920s or 1950s America, or more broadly, 1877-1960s modernizing America. And although I would change some things to prevent the egalitarian trends of history from repeating itself, I’ve noticed that most self-described American Nationalists have a very different society in mind. Whereas they are Traditionalist in their view of the world, I am most definitely a Modernist in comparison. Thus, the very way that I understand the world, and the very goals and dreams I have, tend to differ from most AmNats.
From a Positive Standpoint, lets look at the three geographical classes of Whites: I’m honestly not worried about Rural Whites, because as long as we don’t come across as too stuffy and rich, we won’t alienate most of them. Rural Whites were the core of the Solid South for decades, and they only switched allegiances to the Republicans after LBJ’s prophecy of losing the Southern vote came to fruition. A small minority of Rural Whites might choose class over race like the liberals keep dreaming about, but most of them have nationalistic tendencies at heart. The opposite is the case with Urban Whites/SWPL’s, which make up basically the entirety of Antifa, SJW’s, and Journalists. We can pick off a minority of Urban Whites, but most of them are the genetic defects that you refer to at the end of your comment (I 100% cosign everything you said about those defects, BTW).
That leaves White Suburbanites as the X-Factor. I’m a Midwestern, Middle Class Suburbanite at heart, and I refuse to give up on those types of Whites, as they are fundamentally my people. Thus, my approach to rhetoric and strategy is centered on how to wake up as many White Suburbanites as possible. If we assume that Rural Whites are in the bag and that any Urban Whites who find their way to the Movement will do it no matter what, then our rhetorical strategy should be focused on what appeals to Suburbanites. If we assume that Suburbanites are lost, or that they aren’t worth trying to convert, then frankly, we’re all wasting our time here.
So with that all said, I will explain where I think you are in error by addressing one of your arguments specifically:
“Wouldn’t American Nationalism – the idea that our government should prioritize the morally legitimate interests of Americans over those of foreigners and especially illegal aliens – be a reasonable point of departure for an openminded but non-WN White American?”
No, because Colorblind Conservatives like Limbaugh, Hannity, and Mark Levin have already been doing that for years now. Let’s zero in on Rush since you mentioned him: His entire shtick is bringing everything back around to the big bad evil Democrats. He’s been doing that since 1988 when his radio show was launched. Just the other day, he told his audience:
“I’m going to tell you, whenever you hear anywhere on the left an attack on white nationalism or white supremacy or white this or that, what they’re really talking about is the founding of the country and it’s roots in Christianity. That is the actual target of all of these made up targets: white nationalists, white supremacy, white privilege, white this, white that, white males, and all of that.”
That right there is a prime example of how Colorblind Conservatives are so good at controlled opposition: They tap into anxieties that, in theory, should be channeled into supporting White identity, and instead channel it towards ideas and policies that are irrelevant at best and counterproductive at worst. Conservative White Suburbanites have been choosing the likes of Rush, Hannity, Levin, Fox News, etc., for decades now over the likes of Jared Taylor, Peter Brimelow, Sam Francis, and Joseph Sobran. They choose Conservatives over Nationalists in the 90s, they chose them last decade, and they are still choosing them this decade. Granted, some of them are getting restless, as can be evinced from the comment sections at websites like Breitbart, but I don’t believe we should appeal to Conservative White Suburbanites by exploiting the same anxieties that Conservatism Inc. has already successfully exploited and beat us at. Given the choice between Fox News and Amren, they will always choose Fox News.
So then, the way we should appeal to them is to offer them something that Conservatism Inc. doesn’t offer them and doesn’t even want to offer them, which is racial protection. I suspect that many of them sense in their guts that they are under direct attack just for being who they are as White people. They don’t yet consciously defend themselves as Whites, but increasingly, they want to. We should tap into that and bring out whatever latent racial identity already exists inside of them. But the only way to do that is to NAME it. American Nationalism essentially expects White Suburbanites to implicitly pick up on what we are saying without us explicitly having to say it. But when you’re selling something radical and therefore something dangerous, it doesn’t work that way. We aren’t selling something mundane like a used car. Corporate sales approaches won’t work and haven’t worked. If anything, they invite more contempt towards us because by using corporate marketing techniques, we show that we are too scared to stand behind our own racial beliefs. White people respect honesty more than you might think. We need to explicitly name what many White Suburbanites are already feeling in their guts but don’t yet have the courage to say out loud, and I think the best way to do that is to be honest and truthful. I predict what will happen, and what’s already happening to a certain degree, is that as things get worse and worse, an increasing number of White Suburbanites will seek us out as they look for answers that they aren’t getting from Conservatism Inc. or from the Liberals who control the institutions. Just like what happened in Germany in the late 20s and early 30s, they’ll turn to “Those People” out of desperation, because we’ll be the only game in town that actually supports them. What we need in the meantime is patience and perseverance.
DP84: I seemed to have inadvertently replied to you in part in a response to an earlier thread commenter (“Alexandra”), although I fear you won’t like what I said there.
I’m not sure I agree with your characterization of AmNats as “Traditionalists” vs your own preferred “Modernism”. Perhaps I’m unclear how you’re using these terms. I very much like 1920s and even 1950s America, too, and I don’t know that AmNats as a whole would especially disagree with you. WRT “American Nationalism” or “civic nationalism”, are these terms used interchangeably? I see the ideological sequence as C-nat –> AmNat –> WN (racial separatists)–> Nazi (racial eliminationists), with most C-nats being essentially racial liberals, while AmNats are racial conservatives without being White preservationists or ethnonationalists or apartheidists or, of course, exterminationists.
Anyway, I see the fundamental differences between ANs and WNs as involving ends more than means, at least in this pre-revolutionary or pre-civil war period. It is appropriate, both analytically and morally, for Whites to discuss racial matters in military terms because the essence of the White plight today is that our race is being inexorably reduced from a condition of “racial liberty + sovereignty” to one of “racial servility + conquered status”, albeit via non-military or passive mechanisms. Furthermore, to restore our lost racial freedom and self-government will, I suspect, require some form of armed insurrection, or at least the ability to access military instrumentalities to defend territory newly declared sovereign should times prove propitious to do so. As Greg Johnson sagely notes in the post above, we are nowhere near that position of power, and thus must labor to “win more hearts and minds” until our or the larger society’s circumstances shall have decisively changed.
WNs care about preserving the White race (and I would assume, secondarily, classic White ethnocultures), and ultimately believe that this can only be accomplished via either White supremacism, which many WNs find to be morally problematic and/or ultimately unworkable, or White separatism, which is increasingly the preferred approach, though this also implies a pro-White-interests politics in the [possibly very lengthy] period during which Whites must live under Diversitist tyranny before the final establishment of a White apartheid ethnostate. WNs are often forward-looking and revolutionary (though some like me are reactionaries), seeking substantially to re-conceptualize White experience and re-imagine White political, social and evolutionary potential. {An interesting article could be written contrasting the reactionary and revolutionary strains within White nationalism.}
ANs, OTOH, don’t care about the biological purity and perpetuity of the White race (or any other race, of course), but they do tend to be conservatives who properly wish to conserve the historic American nation, and the cultural and juridical specificities which collectively constitute the “American experiment {usu. added “in ordered liberty”}”, the American Constitutional Republic, and the “American way of life”. The latter is seen, perhaps somewhat insufficiently, as a product of 1) “the Judeo-Christian moral tradition”; 2) our “Anglo-Western cultural patrimony”; 3) an English-derived understanding of and belief in the “rule of law”, which in our country consists of the general principles of “liberty under law” and “equality at law” combined with our uniquely American Constitutional architecture; and lastly, 4) certain noticeable aspects of the American national character, specifically its “rugged individualism” forged in the crucible of our collective experience settling a wild and savage frontier (and, perhaps, by what less Old Stock American conservatives celebrate as the immigrant hardship experience pre-welfare state).
What distinguishes AN from WN is that ANs believe that America is raceless and that National Conservatism is ideological and therefore colorblind (as you allude). The AN correctly believes that his agenda would be good for all [deserving] Americans [perhaps not for liberal “welfare plantationists” or nonwhite grievance mongers, but who cares about them?]. Furthermore, he sees being a “good American” as a matter of values and behavior, not race or ancestry. Thus, for the AN, what matters is not race per se, but ideological preference. He would rather live among nonwhites who are ideologically “conservative” (as he understands “conservatism”) than White liberals.
Now I fear admitting this, but to some extent, so would I. I am a strong American conservative. I believe in conventional conservative principles and policies (and would fight for their preeminence in any future Ethnostate). Race was “The Great Lacuna” in postwar mainstream American conservative thought, but that hardly means that everything conservatives advocate is bunk. Most of it is perennially valid. I nevertheless reject colorblind conservatism because I reject Diversity, and I do so because a) most nonwhites are in fact leftist (and I believe this is predetermined, in part genetically, and in part culturally/historically); b) I do not believe that one race can perpetuate the civilization of another race, and thus I do not believe that even a nonwhite conservative country would or could be truly Western (indeed even if it superficially started out as Western-seeming, it would eventually regress back to a national mentality and culture more in keeping with its racial essence, which would not be my own, and thus around which I would not be truly comfortable or optimally psychologically integrated); and c) I recognize that man is by evolved nature tribal, and that racial identity is the primary identity; thus living in a territory in which my racial group was not dominant would place me in a kind of existential danger, which always could potentially erupt into actual danger. As most people understood throughout history, it is safest to live amongst one’s own people.
Of course, conditions in any all-White state could conceivably get so bad that Diversity would nevertheless be preferable. I would rather have lived in, say, diverse Brazil or Mexico than even in the Whitest portion of the USSR. But, ceteris paribus, I prefer racial homogeneity to diversity, and would sacrifice most of my ideological preferences in order to live with and be ruled by my own kind.
What distinguishes AN from more mainstream “conservatism” (and especially from the faux-conservative horror show called “neoconservatism”) is, as I see it, exactly what Trump advocated which differentiated him so stRiki-Eikingly from the rest of the 2016 GOP primary field (ditto for Pat Buchanan two decades previously). Under the rubric of “American First” (an early 1940s rallying cry for those American patriots and “isolationists” who did not want FDR to railroad America into yet another European war), first Buchanan, then Trump, advocated marked changes to three areas: international trade (and economic globalization in general), foreign and defense policy, and most importantly and controversially, immigration. Trump criticized “bad trade deals”, which had resulted in the loss of tens of millions of manufacturing (and other) jobs to other countries, esp our long term geostrategic competitor, China; wondered why other NATO countries should be allowed to parasite off America’s large military budgets (he should have added: “and then lecture us about our ‘inadequate’ healthcare system”); criticized the Iraq War, and other “wars of choice” pursued for non-national interest objectives; and most infamously, condemned illegal immigration, noticeably from the “shithole” Mexico, and demanded the construction of an as yet unbuilt wall along the entire length of the US/Mexican border.
Two points about this AN agenda need recognizing. First, it proved to be very popular among the grassroots of the GOP, which is the only pool out of which can be drawn sufficient numbers of Whites actually to realize an Ethnostate. Trump fairly handily defeated a large pool of seasoned GOP politicians. Second, it was not so offputting as to prevent a Trump Electoral College victory. That Trump has, through his own ineptitude and poor personnel choices, basically squandered the amazing opportunity Fate handed him should not cause us to overlook the signal fact that an AN agenda, one perfectly congruent with WN objectives, can WIN! Indeed, I believe that a more polished candidate, with less personal moral “baggage” but the same policy agenda, could have eked out a popular vote win, too.
Can the same seriously be said for a WN candidate? I suggest not. The people are ready for an AN agenda, and that agenda, if seriously pursued, would accomplish at least some WN goals, including, most importantly, halting or seriously reducing annual legal immigration (and deporting tens of millions of illegals), which is a virtual precondition for the possibility of any future Ethnostate.
OTOH, to go full WN, when a lot of WHITE people (NOT insane SJWs, but good Middle American Christians and your often overlapping “White Suburbanites”) barely feel racio-morally comfortable with Trump’s “racist” AN agenda, would simply be a “stumble at the starting gate”. The race replacement agenda did not get implemented all at once. If people in the early 60s had been told what America would look like in 2019 – the black crime wave, the alien invasion, Muslim terrorism, endless minority race privileges (accompanying endless complaining about non-existent “White Privilege”), non-transmission of and attacks on White heritage, even corporate/workplace harassment of Whites and White culture – a majority would have told the ‘civil rightsers’ to go f— themselves. Ditto if they had been told that the 1965 Hart-Celler immigration changes would result in 50 years in the US moving from 90% to 60% White. But that is not how the enemy presented his changes. It was all insinuated and implemented gradually, though collectively there has been a racio-cultural revolution since the 60s.
What if the Marxist-multiculturalist subversives had “Named” their entire agenda back in the 60s, and done so before all or most of the American people? They would have failed. “Gradual radicalization” is the key. That doesn’t mean that cutting edge WN sites like C-C shouldn’t exist. Of course they should. But a politician who promulgated the Ethnostatist agenda at this time would kill his chances of being taken seriously before even beginning his career.
AN is the way to go – for the foreseeable future. Indeed, AN itself has had no substantive victories. Until it does, we cannot expect anything more from any politician, nor should we.
Finally getting around to a response to this,
I’ve always seen the Pro-White Movement as analogous to the Evangelical Christians. Like the Evangelicals, we are trying to win converts/fanatics and change hearts and minds. Like the Evangelicals, we have hundreds of different sects which each love to argue with each other and which have intense disagreements about periphery issues. And also like the Evangelicals used to be from 1970-2006 in the GOP until demographics did them in, I believe that we can eventually become a sizable force that our enemies have to deal with. You and I share a desire for a mass movement in that sense.
Where we differ is in how to go about it. The Evangelicals straight up tell people what they believe in and what they want to see in their converts. Specifically, they tell potential recruits about why they believe in Jesus, why they believe in the Bible, why they follow the commands and teachings of the Bible, and how their lives have changed for the better since they’ve accepted Jesus into their heart and become Christians. Say what you will about Evangelicals, but their conversion methods work. We should adapt and mimic their methods where applicable. In particular, if we could demonstrate how our lives and our mental health have changed for the better since we embraced the capital-T Truth that is pro-White philosophy, we’d open up new possibilities.
The reason I don’t agree with the gradual approach you described is two fold:
-We don’t have the top down funding and organizational capacity that Jewish organizations had when they were implementing the Cultural Marxist agenda. Without rich, sympathetic funders and the ability to keep our organizations operating without the SPLC and ADL destroying them, we can’t hope to repeat the long game strategy that worked for Cultural Marxism
-Even if a sufficient number of Whites were implicitly or explicitly pro-White within 40 to 50 years, it won’t matter electorally by then because we’ll be demographically swamped at the voting both. I’m sure you are aware of the Sailer Strategy, as it’s basically what Trump used in 2016. Well, even by Sailer’s rosiest projections, that strategy would only work until the 2052 election, right when the long game strategy you describe would have fully matured. The result is that we wouldn’t reap ANY electoral capital gains, so to speak, and we would have wasted all that time playing GOP politics when we could have been selling our own message and our own agenda.
We need to be selling explicitly pro-White politics NOW because it’s the only way we’ll bring in the type of recruits that will actually live Race and breath Race, which is what we really want anyway (or should want, unless we’re fooling ourselves). You are correct that our numbers would be limited in the mean time, but they will naturally grow as circumstances get worse, and when that happens, we’ll become an intimidating presence in a way that we are not right now.
Besides, I’m not even thinking in terms of electoral politics, I’m thinking in terms of getting enough converts who will want to get rid of the existing system and replace it with something better, similar to how the Abolitionists spent years spreading their message until they converted the entire North by 1860. The Abolitionists never won an election, and yet, the world we live in today owes a great deal to their ultimate victory, in which slavery was abolished. After that, the ball is in the court of our enemies as to whether there will be violence or not. To get the moral highground, we should promote peaceful separation. Our enemies will try to frame us as the bloodthirsty warhawks, but their actions vies a vie our actions will indict them. And if they can actually get away with portraying us as the perpetrators of violence while simultaneously putting the boots of the state on our throats – in other words, if the majority of our people still believe that WE are the monsters even as the Leftist minions actively crush them – then our race is weak and will be done in by Natural Selection. Sorry, but I don’t want to hear this crap about how Whites won’t wake up as things get worse, If that’s true, then we really are everything the Jews say about us. I’m counting on us being better than that, because we’re finished if we are like that.
American Nationalism has to be understood in its historical context.
“American Nationalism” was an attempt to resolve “the Optics Debate”. The meme emerged around the time of the NFL national anthem protests where black players kneels for the anthem because they claimed that the flag did not represent them. According to them, the flag was a symbol of white supremacy. And this outraged white people who feel passionately about the flag.
That was the beginning of the “American Nationalism” meme. Part of it was an attempt to cure the movement of some unhealthy Europhilia (1930’s fascist imagery, Nordic symbols, etc) and be more American-centric in style and presentation. It was more intended as a marketing strategy than a full-blown ideology but even that was too much of a sell-out for the hardcore LARP-ers.
AmNat has been theorized for decades by WNs as a “gateway ideology” (do internet warriors call this “entryist”?) to begin building implicit White consciousness – which can one day, when times are propitious, rapidly be transformed into explicit White nationalism. I know; I was reading Sam Francis on the need for “Middle American Revolution” (ie, pure proto-Trumpian American First Nationalism) in the 80s.
The one thing the alt-right + new WNs need is a bit of American historical perspective (I appreciate what CC does to resurrect and explain really Old – say, pre-1970s – WN; especially all the great European stuff, from the interwar conservative revolution, through Evola and Savitri Devi et al, and up to Venner and Faye). You 21st century WNs did not invent most of these ideas. You just have easier access to them due to the internet.
So no, American Nationalism is not a response to the “kneelers”. It has been one of a menu of entryist options considered by pro-Whites (and advocated by myself, albeit under a different name) for decades now. I happen to feel very strongly that, while it’s fine and important for there to be cutting edge White advocacy sites like CC and AR, AmNat is absolutely the maximum that any reformist (ie, lawful, non-revolutionary) WN operating in the real (non-online) world can push at this time. I’m a full scale ethnostatist, but getting to there, whether it is to be realized peacefully or violently, MUST and will be preceded by a very large amount of AmNat activism and actual legislation, particularly related to halting immigration.
Let me put it this way: no political candidate at this time who is to the racial Right of where Pat Buchanan was in the 90s will have a chance in hell of getting anywhere electorally, probably even at the Congressional level and unarguably at the Presidential one. And ending the immigration invasion will almost certainly only be accomplished via extensive Presidential leadership.
“Every incident of lone-wolf White Nationalist terrorism, however, is used as an excuse for further censorship, deplatforming, and harassment of all White Nationalists, even those who have nothing to do with such crimes.”
Harassed by whom ? The fraudulent, degenerate so-called elites.
http://www.tomatobubble.com/id1298.html
For heavens sake, stop arguing about the means to an end at this point!
I have already managed to make a few people think by confronting them with the fact that 4000 christians were killed in terrorist acts in 2018 just because they were christians. So why should I put all my attentions on this particular instance? Using it as a point to promote a well deserved indifference is very powerful at times.
The Christchurch incident was by no means outstanding as a terrorist act. It was made outstanding by a completely controlled media. And we are dancing to their pipes.
Our very society and it’s law and order is build on the threat of violence, so just get used to it as a force. We are being attacked by a horde adhering to a pedo prophet who could not care less about ‘our right to exist’. At the same time the media is being completely controlled by a slimy tribe that strangle our propaganda no matter how right we are. They lie about everything to promote our destruction.
I would challenge everybody here to use this shooting as a way to promote our cause. It is in many ways a wakeup call, and use it as such.
We who consciously adhere to WN (or whatever you care to call it) are a tiny minority. And I would bet quite a bit that if the bastards who wants to destroy the white homelands decided to slow down a bit and use three centuries on it and not three decades, they would have succeeded.
We do have truth on our side, but it does not matter. We must have the will to survive on our side. By any means. That is the only truth nature understands.
You are correct about this. But as I said, the meaning of the event is more important than the event itself. And as long as the ability to dictate the meaning of such events lies in the hands of our enemies, we face an uphill battle to change public perceptions.
Like I said, there are a lot of ways that white homelands might be established. This faux realist posturing — “We’re not gonna vote our way out of this” or “We’re not gonna talk our way out of this” — is both a straw man (attributing a claim to me that I do not make) and presumptuous with a paranoid edge (claiming to know something when it is merely a worst-case possibility) — is always followed by either an explicit incitement to violence or a disclaimer of violence followed by a covert endorsement of violence, is a classic form of Fed-posting. I don’t know that you are actually an enemy agent. Maybe you’ve just picked up one of their memes. But this is mental poison disguised as world-weary realist “wisdom.”
keyword here is might.
Consequentionalism vs deontology. If Brenton Tarrant’s actions have a hope for enough of an effect, they are good.
But at the same time, what good has he done? It’s so weird. If we are in a war, we can expect violence. But if our teammates do not support us, we will only hurt ourselves.
Imagine that you know what to do, but you have to play with morons! And your correct choices prove out to be “incorrect” because nobody can support you! You have to keep a realistic outlook!
That’s a ridiculous notion of consequentialism. Tarrant’s acts have predictably bad consequences. Therefore, on consequentialist grounds, one should not do them. The fact that you or he HOPE — without any realistic assessment of likely consequences — that something good could happen is not sound consequentialist reasoning.
If Tarrant could count on the vast majority of white people seeing his actions as self-defense, we would not have mosques in New Zealand anyway.
What I don’t get about the White ethnostate argument is that it seems implied that we (European Americans) should have to abandon some large percent of the land we previously and unambiguously conquered and controlled. Shouldn’t we fight to keep the whole country as ours? All 50 states? Why go backwards and allow parts of our country to come under the control of alien others? We are still the world’s only remaining “Superpower”, right? Why would we willingly give up any part such a great piece of land and sea?
I do not want to move to the northwest. Too much cloudiness and rain for my tastes. I live in the middle part of our country, and my ancestors helped to settle it and make it safe for White people. I don’t want to abandon it, it is good, beautiful, and very productive land.
Before WWII (or WWI), the US had a more healthy public state of mind, imposing our much better culture on other lower-grade, and yes, even savage cultures with certitude. Then, we knew we were right to do so, and in fact we were right. We acted on this correct impulse up until the 1950s when Hawaii and Alaska, mostly brown people then, were turned into the 49th and 50th states. And quite successfully. Well, maybe those were mistakes, but not nearly as big of a mistake as importing black Africans for cheap labor in earlier centuries. Hindsight 20-20.
I totally agree with this post — violence is the worst idea at this point in the game. It just gets us listed with ‘Trayvon Martin, Ferguson, and all the school shootings, etc.” and is one more reason to shout ‘racist’ at us all. However, I was struck by Dylan Roof’s comments upon arrest, to the effect that he couldn’t find anyone else with ideas like his that he could talk with. There was no group he could ‘join’, no one to express his feelings to. I am sure that if he had found even the “local KKK group”, they could have and would have talked him out of his idea of shooting up a church. I know it’s hard for us to ‘surface’ and have meetings, but we have to do something of the sort — I do not know what. Any ideas? I live in L.A. County, and do not know one other person who thinks like me. I am sure they are here, but no one can dare post their address. This is a big stumbling block, but I have no idea how to solve it. I do the best I can on FB trying to write ideas that do not specifically identify WN, but get the point across. That’s the best I can do at the moment. Also, I promote some of the books published here, but only in reply to other posts. Any ideas for more direct posts?
I have thought about this a lot. Metapolitics is fine and even necessary, but time is short. We need concurrent real-world organizing and networking. Minorities have all their “associations” and open, ethnonationalist interest groups. Jews have theirs under cover of religion. Whites need “our thing”, too.
I have thought for decades that the only way to get this off the ground is via (now, neo-Trumpian-style) America First, civic nationalist organizing – which White nationalists can use “undercover” to meet our own kind, until such time as we gradually move the civic nat group far enough to the White Right that most non-WNs either find themselves effectively transforming into WNs, or else gradually drifting away from the group altogether, leaving us in charge of an already structured organization.
Perhaps the old communist approach is the best. We need some anodyne name — Americans for National Renewal – which can attract non-WN Whites, as well as quiet and respectful WNs. We need large numbers to start with. This has always been the problem with WNs. They think they should start out “hardcore”, that signs of strength (which we don’t yet have) will snowball, and that if we start out thinking we’re winners, eventually we will become so as people “worship” the strong and want to follow them. This approach can work in some individual situations, but not in our collective political space at this time.
I know a lot of conservatives who would like to meet up with other conservatives in their cities, if only to make new friends and networking allies (or to meet potential spouses?), but who would shy away from anything overtly WN. What is needed is a slightly right-of-center mass organization, which WNs can then infiltrate for their own purposes. The only real world analogue has been various evangelical churches, which have been in the past highly politicized, albeit over the wrong issues. But Christian churches are simply not the right place for race realist proselytizing (though many White Christians could be led to enmity with the occupationist regime, especially as it grows more in-your-face anti-Christian in tandem with its general persecution of Whites).
The key, however, to create a mass political organization which appeals to lots of right-of-center Whites, even if in a very non-political and non-threatening way. Once people have made a commitment to such an organization, it becomes easier to honeycomb it with pro-White infiltrators, who can colonize and transform it over time.
Greg Johnson having reposted this essay on White Nationalist terrorism, I decided to reread the comments, including my own. Ok, this is really the height of “douchebaggery”, I admit, but I think this comment of mine is deserving of extended consideration by every serious WN intellectual and especially activist. The hour is getting late, and the times darker, and while WN terrorism is certainly not any kind of mature or effective approach, at least the terrorists recognize not only the gravity of our cause, and the direness of our circumstances, but the decreasing amount of time we have in which to engage in exclusively intellectual activity (even assuming such activity is aimed at eventually achieving political results).
How do we start having an impact in the real world – even without a metapolitically commanding position? As I have said elsewhere, we’re not going to get from “PC-alpha” to “Ethnostate-omega” in a rapid or linear fashion (ie, “PC-a” ———> decades of metapolitical intellectuality —-> WN political activism -> “Etnostate-o”). The Ethnostate is not going to simply arise overnight, as though one day 50 or 60 million White Americans suddenly all experience racial Awakening, and a few months later, voila! the Ethnostate. There are all sorts of in-between, ideo-political compromises that will have to be made in the course of a process of gradual radicalization getting from Diversity Hell to White Ethnostate. The key is concurrent political (“community”) organizing along with neverending metapolitics.
I suggest that to start the real world networking needed, we must begin with a civic nationalist organizing. After all, if we cannot first bring the immigration invasion to an end, we will never drag enough people all the way to ethnostatism.
Lessee now . . . doesn’t do a damn thing for the whites nationalist cause, and yet helps our enemy . . . Gosh! Could this be why the Jews stage them false flag events, to get a desired response from the goyim? Sure works good to get the masses all riled up fer “gun control.”
It’z kinda like that Trade Tower thingy where the supposed Arab terrorist made absolutely no gains. In fact they got enough negative publicity to get themselves slaughtered in the ensuing war.
All the crazed Allahu Akbar of the airways succeeded in doing was turning the world against everyone in the Near East, cept fer mebbe that gallant little ally of ours, Israel. In the meantime the Zionist American Government got the war they were pressing for.
You know if we can just figger out three more way to help our enemy, we can advertise it as Col. Samson’s secret recipe for white genocide.
I don’t know which country has 50 more years, Hungary is definitely not one of them. Sure, there will be whites here – mostly elderly people. But what matters is the active population – especially the young males, who are responsible for much of what’s good and bad in a society (innovation, criminality).
We lost the demographic game in the 1990s, when the last big white female cohort, born in the 1970s, entered their fertile years, and produced only 1 child. With the currently fertile female population we would have to go back to the early 20th century family model – 6-8 children per woman – just to maintain the current level of civilization.
50 years from now will be a very different world. In large swaths of the countryside – just pockets of white people subsisting here and there. Budapest and a few other cities may hold on, with brutal policing of the Gypsy population.
#5 Go back to your home town, or move into a white working class area in a big city, and run for office.
In this movement, unless someone belongs to the group of the two dozen top content creators, he has nothing to do. Watch our content, push the like button, donate. That’s the message. Even consumer subcultures demand – and offer – more. No wonder the more restless are spinning out of control.
Besides, the movement as a whole lacks coherence. “We are doing metapolitics” – says the Movement Leader. Then, often in the very same paragraph: Remove kebab! Send them to their ethnostate! Mock them and humiliate them!
In my book, this isn’t metapolitics. This is politics – and very aggressive and personal at that. (I’m not saying it’s wrong. I’m saying what it is.) You are politicians. Most of the problems that you (we) face today – deplatforming, Schengen bans, terrorism – stem from a false self-conception of who you are and what you do.
I think Hungary has already basically turned things around. You have a government that rejects race-replacement immigration and is trying to raise birth rates. That is 90% of the battle. At this point, you just need to hold the line.
It might take 20 or 30 years for the US (or what remains of it) to have such a government. Ditto the UK, Scandinavia, France, Germany, etc.
Maybe you think it is too little too late, but in that case, you are really committed to the view that the white race is doomed.
I don’t think we are doomed. But our populations are going to decline more, even if we get young people to have families today. But there was a time when Hungary was a great nation with fewer people than it has today. A Hungary with five million people can still be a healthy society, if it has healthy values, healthy institutions, and healthy demographics — i.e., a future.
There was much rejoicing recently when the fertility rate went up from 1.2 to 1.5. But it turned out that very young women are responsible for much of the growth. A large cohort of Gypsy women, who were born under the generous welfare programs of the leftist government in the 1990s, entered their peak fertile years.
20 year old population 20 years ago: 167,000
20 year old population 10 years ago: 121,000
20 year old population today: 105,000
Ratio of Gypsies in the 20 year old population: we don’t have reliable statistics, but it probably went up from 10% to 20%. Today every 3rd child born in Hungary is Gypsy.
Actually I think the demographic situation of whites in Hungary isn’t any worse than in the West. And we may fare better in the end, because our large cities are still relatively healthy. Paris is lost, Budapest isn’t.
I don’t think the white race is doomed, it will survive and bounce back. I fear the loss of life, of culture, of civilization. We look at the great monuments of antiquity and scratch our heads. Will Hungarians in 2319 scratch their head when they look at the abandoned ruins of the Opera House and the nuclear power plant? That is the question that is decided today.
Dear Mr. Johnson,
White terrorism of nationalistic primum mobile is hurtful to “the cause” FIRSTLY because it is intrinsically morally evil. The slaughter of unarmed civilians in the name of any ideology is evil and criminal, period; and white-nationalist bloodbaths are a matter of either ponerology, criminology of deviated minds, both, the metaphysics of evil, etc. – NOT “the movement.”
If “white nationalists” all are really reduced so psycho-spiritually and culturally to exist at the debased level of moral cognition, or moral amentia, of psychopaths, “white nationalism” (a concept whose meaning I do not comprehend remotely – ethnic cultural preservation has no necessary connection to the strange elements of the ideology as self-advertised contemporaneously) is not even an ideology but a matter of criminology.
I state this as an informal ally of your “cause”. One needn’t be a limp-wristed modern herdling to realize without a coherent, integral ethical-moral foundation, your “cause” is abortive ab initio, Sir…
Any intellectualized neo-Nietzschean moral nihilism is a NO-GO, and if “white nationalists” self-vaunted do not realize that and if within the “white-nationalist” sub-cultural ambient milieu, there is implicit or explicit encouragement of such personalities, given to erupting into terrorist excesses, in their midst, they deserve all the opposition presently mobilized against them from all sides, I am sorry to say…
Please reply if you object to any postulate I have iterated. I believe there is nothing objectionable in anything I stated and I once again remind, I am an “ally”…
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall 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.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment