Print this post Print this post

For My Ethno Guys

Definitely not an ethno guy.

1,722 words

Ever catch abuse from somebody famous? It’s not fun.

Last year, a fairly edgy and well-known conservative writer took me to task for something I had written. Amid all the sophomoric profanity and abuse (he addressed me with “Hey Dipshit,” and his message went downhill from there), he did something interesting. He sneeringly called me an “ethno guy,” as in, “What is it with you ethno guys . . . ?” As in, only a dipshit would ever consider being an “ethno guy.”

Of course, I didn’t respond in kind. How could I?

But the ethno-guy epithet stuck with me. That must be how others view white advocates, nationalists, and dissidents these days. They seem to believe that to be ethno or not results from a conscious, moral choice, like deciding whether to cheat on your taxes if you know you can get away with it. Only morally bad people go full ethno, it seems.

There are several problems with this perspective.

For one, it denies a person his right to be wrong. Everyone has a right to be wrong. Of course, when someone is considered wrong and is harmless, there’s no problem. In the absence of any concrete evidence, I am pretty sure that globetrotting gadfly journalist Graham Hancock was wrong about his theory that an ancient civilization once thrived in Antarctica. But this issue matters little in the big scheme of things these days, and so folks like Hancock can say what they want and pay little price for it. But when someone is wrong and threatens the established order, then there’s a problem. Of course, anyone advocating violence or terror falls into this category. A person who believes he has a right to hold up liquor stores at gunpoint is not only mistaken, he’s also dangerous and must be dealt with.

But not all wrong and dangerous people threaten the established order with violence. An inexact yet instructive historical analogue to Hancock would be Giordano Bruno, who was burned at the stake in 1600 for, among other things, challenging the astronomical and theological dogma which bolstered much of the Church’s power. It has turned out that many of Bruno’s views were indeed correct, or at least reasonable, but since his ideas and his recalcitrance were a threat to his society’s established power structure, he had to go.

This, of course, is unjust, and anyone supporting this kind of totalitarianism should understand that they have something in common with Giordano Bruno’s executioners. They don’t respect a person’s right to be wrong. I could ultimately be wrong to advocate for a white ethnostate through metapolitics, but as long as I am not calling for violence, terrorism, or a race war, people should respect my right to advocate for what I want. It reminds me of a brief moment in Jerry Maguire in which Cuba Gooding, Jr. addresses his family members. He gives a shout out to a male relative by noting that despite being militant, he’s still cool. Get it? Gooding’s character didn’t share his relative’s uncompromising racial opinions, but he respected the man’s rights to those opinions regardless.

This is the respect that our edgy conservative writer friend chose not to afford to me.

But ah, you say, was he not right to disrespect me, since my ideas, while not directly advocating violence, eventually will, if implemented on a large scale? Maybe, but this could be said about any idea that promotes political change, since political change does not always come about peacefully. Did the United States not come into being after violence on a large scale? Did the United States not prevent the Confederacy from leaving the Union after violence on an even larger scale? Any existing society must ultimately enforce its laws and way of life with force as well. If you’re that tax cheat mentioned earlier, sooner or later the authorities will lead you to prison at the point of a gun if you don’t pony up your taxes. Does that make one immoral to support the status quo?

These days, ethnocentrism among whites threatens our ruling elites and their constituents (many of whom are not white). For many wealthy and influential Jews, it makes them feel insecure as a diaspora, and it also threatens the enormous sums of money they have been able to acquire in gentile lands. For many blacks and Hispanics, it threatens the gravy train brought to them by munificently stupid governments which would dry up entirely if they had to live exclusively among their own kind. And for Muslims, well, let’s just say that they prefer it when their enemies don’t fight back.

As reasonable as peaceful white ethnocentrism is, the onus of proving that it is neither reasonable nor peaceful falls upon its opponents like our edgy conservative writer friend. Sadly, like most opponents of white ethnocentrism, he’d rather hurl insults than debate the facts. With interlocutors like this, it seems that white ethnocentrists are the last people who should have to worry about being wrong.

The second problem with the negative “ethno guy” epithet is that it is racist against white people. This one’s a slam dunk. Our edgy conservative writer friend never says anything untoward about Israel – and aren’t Israelis ethno guys, too? Why are white ethno guys “dipshits” and not Jewish ones, if not for an irrational racism against whites? We could even make one of those SAT analogy questions to illustrate our point:

A white ethnocentrist is to white people what

  1. Bibi Netanyahu is to Jews.
  2. Abraham Foxman is to Jews.
  3. David ben Gurion was to Jews.
  4. All of the above.

(I’ll give you five minutes to figure out the answer – and no cheating!)

To be fair, within the context of America, this writer also disapproves of non-white identity politics. He’s also reliably anti-anti-white. But would he so brazenly abuse a Nation of Islam writer with a string of vulgar insults? When was the last time a black or a Hispanic caught a ration of abuse from a white for their ethnocentrism? I cannot prove this, but I strongly suspect that this writer withholds his deepest contempt only for white people who dare to be white.

Of course, the anti-white racism claim seems like it might succumb to the “Dems are the real racists” fallacy. But it really doesn’t. This fallacy, which is used by mouthy conservatives looking to score rhetorical points against the Left, basically accepts the Left’s moral premise (racism is bad) and then tries to show how the Left doesn’t live up to its own standards (usually vis-à-vis blacks or some other non-white demographic group). The problem here is that it accepts the racial-egalitarian premise of the enemy – which is not only a lie, but an incorrect assessment of the enemy’s moral premise to begin with. For the Left, racism is bad except when aimed at white people. This is an extremely important distinction, and one that all whites should never forget. In fact, it bears repeating. Once again, with feeling:

For the Left, racism is bad except when aimed at white people.

Yes, it is nice to annoy the Left with charges of hypocrisy, but hypocrisy is baked in the cake for the Left, so such a charge will stick like undercooked pasta to a greasy wall. Revealing the Left’s anti-white bias, however, goes beyond mere rhetoric because it promises to galvanize whites as a racial group against the Left. This could potentially do serious damage to the international Leftist (and, by definition, anti-white) power structure, and therefore must be suppressed. Remember the part above about threatening the established order? It’s like that.

By attacking me personally with vile insults, this edgy conservative writer friend was, in a sense, doing the Left’s bidding: suppressing whitey for having a white identity. And why? Because white identity is kryptonite for the Left. The only kryptonite. If one really opposes the Left, then one must support white identity and white ethnocentrism. These days, nothing else is potentially strong enough to stand in its way.

The final problem with our edgy conservative writer friend’s phobia of white ethnocentrism is that he fails to realize that not being ethno ultimately means death. There is no other path to survival, let alone greatness. A people that cannot be sure of itself, that cannot love itself and its lands and possessions and history to the point of being able to fight for it, lacks vigor. And any people that lacks vigor will be overcome by other people who don’t lack vigor. Throughout history, this overcoming usually took the form of military invasions. These days, it takes the form of mass non-white immigration into traditional white homelands. In large part because of people like our edgy conservative writer friend who punish pro-white vigor, whites in the West have proven incapable of resisting tide after tide of non-whites who are intent on replacing them and their civilization with systems which are demonstrably inferior. This process is well underway.

Without enough ethno guys among the white population, whites will ultimately be left by the wayside, unable to act in their own interests, unable to defend themselves in a peaceful and legal manner, and despised by more numerous peoples who have little respect for Western civilization to begin with. And after this, the only remaining choices will be armed rebellion or submission and death.

Maybe our edgy conservative writer friend would prefer that whites take that latter option and fade away. But I don’t. White Nationalism today is the only option available that promises to avoid having to make this terrible decision. But if such a choice is forced upon us, the natural thing to do would be to take one’s own side and fight. In this regard, I take inspiration from another ethno guy who never submitted to his Leftist overlords and who fought them with astonishing vigor. This was the early twentieth-century Romanian patriot Corneliu Codreanu, who explained himself in a manner that I cannot improve upon in his classic For My Legionaries:

I acted on orders from my heart, from an instinct of defense possessed by even the least crawling worm, not out of an instinct for mere personal preservation, but one for defending the people of whom I was a part.

Spencer J. Quinn is a frequent contributor to Counter-Currents and the author of the novel White Like You.


  1. Scott
    Posted April 30, 2019 at 7:05 pm | Permalink

    I’m always baffled by conservatives who claim to be nationalists but get triggered by “ethno” nationalism all nationalism is “ethno” nationalism the dictionary definition of nation is A large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory. Their brand of “civic” nationalism is just slow globalism.

    • PhysicistDave
      Posted May 1, 2019 at 2:39 am | Permalink

      African-Americans have a history in this country longer than most Whites, and, of course, share a common language and a common culture.

      And they are not going “back to Africa.”

      American nationalism cannot be based on race. Won’t happen.

      • getfuckedphysicistdave
        Posted May 1, 2019 at 6:44 am | Permalink

        You could always, you know, be a White American nationalist and not an “American nationalist”. But that’d mean that whites have a future, doesn’t it? Can’t have that!

      • PlatoXIX
        Posted May 1, 2019 at 11:33 am | Permalink

        Obviously not everyone agrees with your view of the prospects for white nationalism (though I do more or less) or we wouldn’t be commenting here. American nationalism was once based essentially on the white race and there is is no certainty that it can’t be in the future.

        Though there is a significant union of characteristics between white American culture an that of black Americans, the assertion that the cultures and languages are the same is as absurd as ignoring latter-day voluntary immigration from black Africa and the Caribbean.

        Black Americans have their own ebonic derivatives of English, their own Abyssinian churches, their own dress, their own commercial relations (based extensively on predation rather than civil exchange), unique public behavior, and their own music. So much so that the Smithsonian needed a separate museum to showcase it. In all, An American Dilemma that no education reform can address.

        It is not clear how black culture would allow them to ever be fully incorporated into American nationalism without extensive coercion and there is no reason to believe that even with coercion, most blacks could be incorporated. Four centuries of experience leads to such doubt.

        On the other hand, there is a a tendency to ignore the “created nature” of nations – that is nation/nationality-building. (French and English states resulted in French and English nationality not to mention, at least for France, a somewhat common language.) Ethno-states (90% or more of population from one ethnic group) are extremely rare though many states have a nationalism based upon a dominant ethnic group.

        The oft cited homogeneity of Japan (98.5% “Japanese”) is based on either a civic nationalist definition – that is Japanese citizenship – or on an evolved state-derived ethnic group rather than on the percent of the population of the dominant Yamato (which may meet my somewhat arbitrary 90% threshold) ethnic group. Good luck finding data on the true “ethnic” composition of the Japanese people unless one accepts “Japanese” as a (melting pot?) state-derived (melting pot?) ethnic group.

      • nineofclubs
        Posted May 3, 2019 at 6:20 pm | Permalink

        If African Americans see themselves as a distinct ethnicity with a separate culture within the US – and I think they generally do – then they are already a separate ‘nation’.

        The fact that two (or more) nations share the same geography and are governed by a single state doesn’t make them a single nationality.

        A single, all-inclusive American nationalism will be dominated by whatever ethno-cultural group weilds the most power, so in my view this model doesn’t serve blacks well at all. Whites who genuinely have black American interests at heart would be better off supporting the direction of Malcolm X (separate development) than that of MLK.


  2. whatever
    Posted April 30, 2019 at 8:10 pm | Permalink

    “I acted on orders from my heart, from an instinct of defense possessed by even the least crawling worm, not out of an instinct for mere personal preservation, but one for defending the people of whom I was a part.”

    Seems people can’t comprehend that defending our people is just the same line as defending your own family: you’re just defending those whom you’re connected to, love, and care for. Obviously their defense is logical for you as you want to around those you love and are connected with, which you can only be around by securing their survival in the first place.

  3. nineofclubs
    Posted May 1, 2019 at 1:33 am | Permalink

    Don’t feel too bad. The conservative right is a reeking ideological swamp that fundamentally hates any kind of group solidarity. Survival of the economically fit, and all that tosh. Homo economicus. Ethno-nationalism was never going to fly in that crowd.

    For leftists, I find the following effective;
    . The Nation of Islam should be admired for its healthy desire to support black folks going their own way. Throwing off white oppression and all.. Do you agree?
    . But that will never work while black people are stuck in a judeo-capitalist state. Agreed?
    . So the answer is to help black folks create their own autonomous homelands and smash capitalism, yes?
    .Leaving white people to create homogeneous nation states where Scandinavian style socialist initiatives have a chance of success. Right?


    • Lord Shang
      Posted May 2, 2019 at 2:34 am | Permalink

      For quite some time, the Western Left everywhere has taken to defining itself in anti-(White, Western)-identitarian terms. The Left today is White self-hatred embodied. Indeed, it basically jettisoned the old working class Left as a bunch of cultural reactionary bigots a long time ago.

      It’s great to try to develop a new ethnocommunitarian Left, pointing out all the reasons why mass immigration decreases working class solidarity, and threatens social(ist) democracy. But you won’t have much success. Socialism is passe, no matter how much US Democrats are trying to revive it (mainly by playing the old bribe the voters with other people’s money game, as they – correctly – see an overlap between the people disproportionately with money – Whites – and the people disproportionately without money – nonwhites). Whites generally cannot play this game for the opposite reason: we’re the ones who lose out under socialist redistribution (especially when “generous” immigration policies are maintained).

      • A.M.
        Posted May 3, 2019 at 3:51 am | Permalink

        I disagree that a new left is impossible. Even though whites hold more wealth than certain other races, like Hispanics and blacks, this is not necessarily the case with all other races, referring to more than just Jews. More importantly, only a very small percentage of whites, together with a relatively small number of members of other races, control and own the majority of financial resources in the USA. Whites have a tremendous amount to gain from the redistribution of these resources, they just don’t seem to know it yet. Socialism also rationalizes the variance of economic incentive by ethnicity and race, which allows for immigration to be managed intelligently, and to the benefit of the majority.

        • Lord Shang
          Posted May 4, 2019 at 11:17 pm | Permalink

          You do not know what the facts are at all, nor is your reasoning even from your fake “facts” sound.

          This statement is false: “only a very small percentage of whites, together with a relatively small number of members of other races, control and own the majority of financial resources in the USA.” The bulk of financial resources (do you mean PRIVATE PROPERTY? or am I to assume you don’t respect other people’s property?) are owned by numberless persons in the form of retirement accounts, ETFs, mutual funds, and pension plan investments.

          “Whites have a tremendous amount to gain from the redistribution of these resources, they just don’t seem to know it yet.”

          Whites have nothing to gain as a group. Those who gain will be a) the first accessors of the money (ie, the government and its cronies, who are all leftists and enemies of Whites), and b) parasitic lowlifes, who are mostly nonwhites (though White parasites should also be condemned equally forthrightly).

          “Socialism also rationalizes the variance of economic incentive by ethnicity and race, which allows for immigration to be managed intelligently, and to the benefit of the majority.”

          I don’t know what this statement means. Socialism is inherently irrational and thus economically destructive. This is why all socialist economies are poor (albeit with variances depending upon the pre-socialist level of economic development, and the IQ of the respective populations). Immigration should not be “managed”; it should be halted.

          I do not know a single billionaire. I know one centi-millionaire. I know one deci-millionaire. I know literally many dozens of millionaires, all White (obviously, these days, after a century of Federal Reserve generated inflationism, a “million” just doesn’t mean much; certainly it does not mean “rich”). The backbone of every rightist movement in America has been neither the rich, nor the poor, nor even the middle class. The backbone is the affluent. They cut the checks that makes activism possible. They possess sufficient independence to be non-PC. Only the very young and single can be activist and poor. They may have the energy, but they still need the means.

          Most Whites understand that Big Government is not in our people’s interests. That’s why the vast bulk of conservatives (not only moral or racial traditionalists, but free enterprise ones) are White, and why most Whites (and only White racial majorities) vote against socialist/anti-capitalist programs and candidates. God help us if this changes.

  4. Posted May 1, 2019 at 8:50 am | Permalink

    You can be loyal to your own kind (nationalist) or loyal to a set of words, values, principles, propositions (wordist). Sociopaths are loyal to nothing.

    The entire non-white world is loyal to their own kind. The only group that has a large number of race traitors is white people.

    No one has a problem with Japanese nationalism in Japan or Chinese nationalism in China. Only whites are demonized for nationalism.

    A nationalist can tolerate other nationalists. I’m loyal to my kind. It is only natural they you are loyal to your kind. That doen’t necessarily mean I think I’m better. I’m loyal to my kind because they are my kind.

    But since following one wordism out of the thousands out there is a choice, a wordist HAS to think his wordism is better. A wordist HAS to be an intolerant supremacist.

    Wordist have a way higher kill count than nationalists. Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, 30 Years War.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  • Our Titles

    White Identity Politics

    The World in Flames

    The White Nationalist Manifesto

    From Plato to Postmodernism

    The Gizmo

    Return of the Son of Trevor Lynch's CENSORED Guide to the Movies

    Toward a New Nationalism

    The Smut Book

    The Alternative Right

    My Nationalist Pony

    Dark Right: Batman Viewed From the Right

    The Philatelist

    Novel Folklore

    Confessions of an Anti-Feminist

    East and West

    Though We Be Dead, Yet Our Day Will Come

    White Like You

    The Homo and the Negro, Second Edition

    Numinous Machines

    Venus and Her Thugs


    North American New Right, vol. 2

    You Asked For It

    More Artists of the Right

    Extremists: Studies in Metapolitics


    The Importance of James Bond

    In Defense of Prejudice

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles


    The Node

    The New Austerities

    Morning Crafts

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Gold in the Furnace