Us & ThemSpencer J. Quinn
For any political movement to flourish and obtain tangible results, its proponents must establish a clear distinction between us and them. If this fails to happen, the movement ceases to exist. Therefore, any political movement must define itself by what it isn’t (them – i.e., allies, strangers, or enemies) as much as by what it is (us).
In the case of White Nationalism, this seems to be fairly straightforward. What is White Nationalism? One definition could place it as a movement which promotes white racial advocacy and identity with the final goal of procuring sovereign ethnic homelands for white people. Anyone who opposes this platform is an anti-White Nationalist. Seems simple enough. However, this can get quite tricky. This is so because individuals who claim to be White Nationalists may still belong to other political movements not necessarily subsumed under the tent of White Nationalism. Furthermore, other individuals who claim not to be White Nationalists may subscribe to political movements which can easily be placed under the White Nationalist tent.
Take, for example, Communists. Can someone be simultaneously a White Nationalist and a Communist? While such a combination may seem rare these days, the answer still has to be yes – as long as the former comes before the latter. This would mean that anyone who calls himself a White Nationalist would have to prefer to live in a Communist white ethnostate than in any multi-racial or non-white state. This would have to be the case for White Nationalists who are not Communists. Of course, we are comparing systems in which human rights are respected. It wouldn’t be a betrayal of White Nationalism for whites to attempt to overthrow a white ethnostate in which a paranoid tyrant brutally and randomly represses his own people. Therefore, with human rights guaranteed, a White Nationalist must deem a white ethnostate with any system of government preferable to anything else.
Another example would be feminism. Can someone be a White Nationalist and feminist? Sure. But, again, the former must come before the latter. We all know that in the West, men tend to be more ethnocentric than women. Therefore, in order to maintain its ethnocentrism, it wouldn’t be unreasonable for a white ethnostate to deny women the vote. After all, voting is a political right, not a human one. If a feminist opposes such a white ethnostates, then she is not a White Nationalist. She is a feminist who prefers to be around white people. Big difference. Theoretically, this could apply to men as well. In a bizarro world, if women were reliably more ethnocentric than men, then a white ethnostate would have grounds to deny men the vote for the same reasons. (Not that restricting the vote at all would be a requirement in either case.)
The same applies to democracy, fascism, libertarianism, theocracy, and any other system you can imagine. Any proponent of any of these systems can be a White Nationalist as long they are willing to set aside their allegiance to their system of choice if need be. We can compare White Nationalism, or any other serious political movement, to an airplane. You can only bring so much baggage. And you will have to stow your bigger items, or you can’t get on.
This, of course, raises the question of whether or not a non-white can be a White Nationalist. By definition, the answer must be no. A non-white can be a White Nationalist as much as a white person can be a Japanese nationalist. One can support another race’s nationalism, but that makes one at best an ally, not a member.
These theoretical distinctions may matter now more than ever for White Nationalism. At the moment, White Nationalism is all but criminalized in the United States. Recently, Congress voted unanimously to condemn it. To be an open White Nationalist makes one nigh-unemployable and opens one up to harassment from the populace and government alike. Therefore, discriminating between “us” and “them” becomes vitally important if the movement wishes to survive. Keeping people in who are not committed makes the movement just as weak as keeping people out who are, or could be.
One concept I remember from my political science classes goes like this: If you identify with someone, then you will interpret his words in the best possible light. On the other hand, if you don’t identify with a person, you will interpret his words in the worst possible light. For example, Somali Congresswoman Ilhan Omar recently announced that “this is not going to be the country of white people.” Jewish academic Noel Ignatiev is also well-known for calling for the abolishing of “whiteness” and for stating that “treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.” Because non-whites and anti-whites are likely to identify with people like this, they will just as likely put a positive spin on their positions. For example, they will claim that neither Omar nor Ignatiev wish to physically harm white people.; rather, they simply wish for the privilege that supposedly accompanies whiteness to go away so that people of all races can equally enjoy America’s prosperity. For a White Nationalist, however, such positions would and should be interpreted in the most pessimistic manner possible. People like Omar and Ignatiev wish to ultimately destroy white people, plain and simple. We must assume malice unless the person in question goes out of their way to prove there isn’t any.
Such a dichotomy is well and good when interpreting the words of people who are not part of your movement; neither Omar nor Ignatiev will ever claim to be an ally of White Nationalism. But what of the words of those who are?
An Overton window exists in any political movement. There must be a range of acceptable beliefs which fit under a big tent, and as long as people stay within that tent, they can still be considered “us” rather than “them.” For example, despite not openly calling for a white ethnostate, Jared Taylor should be considered one of us thanks to his tireless white advocacy and identitarianism. This means that people inside that tent should interpret every controversial thing he says or does in the best possible light. Recently, John Derbyshire promoted his idea of an “Arctic alliance” between whites and Asians at the American Renaissance conference. Does this mean that Taylor is going soft on white identity, or is encouraging white-Asian miscegenation? I guess if we wish to cast him out of the White Nationalist tent, we could take such a jaundiced perspective. But that would be extremely presumptuous and politically stupid, let alone manifestly unfair to Taylor. The best possible interpretation would be that Taylor respects Derbyshire and gives him a good deal of latitude whenever he shows up to speak at AmRen.
Because he is one of us, we must always assume the best from Jared Taylor. So if Jews look white to him, well, we just have to assume that the JQ is not his thing and leave it at that.
As for Derbyshire, he’s not one of us – but he’s pretty close. There is significant overlap between White Nationalism and Derbyshire’s brand of race-realism and IQ elitism. Therefore, he’s an ally. When he says something we agree with, we say what an intelligent and perspicacious man he is. And when he says something we don’t agree with – such as forming the aforementioned Arctic alliance against the rising tide of Sun people from his book We Are Doomed – we just shrug and say, “Well, he’s mistaken.” What we don’t do is mutter darkly about how he’s thrown his lot in with the Asians and wishes to hand over California to the Chi-coms.
We can go even further and look at Donald Trump. He’s quite a bit farther away from White Nationalism than is John Derbyshire, but isn’t necessarily hostile to our interests. When he does something we like, such as tweeting about the oppression of white South Africans or proposing a Muslim ban, we praise him for shifting the Overton window rightwards and buying our movement time. And when he does things we don’t like, such as proposing merit-based immigration or lobbing bombs into Syria, we criticize him for falling under the influence of our globalist enemies. But what we don’t do is declare him Enemy Number One and attempt to sabotage his presidency.
Of course, the further left we go, the more cynical and suspicious our interpretations must become. I really believe that many leaders and power players in the Democrat Party would send White Nationalists off to gulags if they could, regardless of what they say.
In order to prevent this from ever happening, people in White Nationalist circles should by default put positive spins on controversial things fellow travelers do or say unless they have significant reasons not to do so. This will cut down on the bickering and make us a more cohesive and disciplined movement – and one that is more attractive to outsiders. In many ways, we are the only friends we have, and I, personally, am loath to push anyone out unless absolutely necessary. Reasoned criticism, of course, should always be welcome. Greg Johnson’s review of Taylor’s White Identity is a great example of this. Unreasonable criticism, such as the crude anti-Semitic barbs Paul Nehlen’s supporters lobbed at Taylor on Gab after Taylor disinvited the Wisconsin politician from speaking at the 2018 AmRen conference, is not.
I have to admit that I have a personal motivation for writing this article. My last article for Counter-Currents, “Two Red Pills from the World of Chess,” unexpectedly generated a tremendous amount of controversy in the comments section. Most of the time, any criticism I get is fair, and this proved no exception. However, one commenter really took me to task. Basically, this person assumed the absolute worst about me – as if I were one of “them” and not one of “us.” (My assumption here is that this commenter is at the very least sympathetic to White Nationalism, since that is the major platform for Counter-Currents, and so is one of “us” and not “them.”)
Here is the offending passage which this commenter correctly pointed out as flawed:
Men are much more likely to be born with the character traits required to be competitive chess players. One needs, among other things, strong powers of concentration, spatial sense, a vast memory, logical ability, and a burning desire to win.
Based on this, the commenter assumed I meant to say that women are born without spatial sense and logical ability. And from here, the commenter made some valid points and concluded that I am not honest and that I am “motivated by an animus against women.”
This is untrue, and anyone who knows me in my normie life will attest to that. The commenter assumed there was malice when there was none. I have to admit, however, I did leave that passage open to such a hidebound interpretation. But where the commenter assumed (not unreasonably) that it was deliberate, I must state for the record that it was by accident. I was writing this article in the wee hours of the morning and I had made a mental note to add qualifiers – and then forgot.
I should have written something like this (emphasis, of course, mine):
Men are much more likely to be born with the character traits required to be competitive chess players. One needs, among other things, strong powers of concentration, freakishly powerful spatial sense, a vast memory, incredibly deep logical ability, and a burning desire to win.
To the commenter’s credit, when I pointed this out, the person eased off the throttle a bit and explained why they were put off in the first place. I totally understand and I hope the person will continue to comment on my articles and others at Counter-Currents. I just wish that the default response had been something positive like “Quinn made a mistake,” rather than something negative like “Quinn hates women.” We are all on the same team, so we don’t need to draw swords so quickly, do we? For example, I could have drawn mine and responded by accusing this person of hating men, or aiming to sabotage White Nationalism, or some such nonsense. But I didn’t because it wouldn’t have been polite or respectful; I strongly doubt that it is true; and I have love for people in this movement. Regardless of your attitude towards me or my writing, if you come to this site and feel motivated enough to constructively comment and debate the important topics of our day, the last thing I want to do is alienate you.
To do so would only weaken the movement by turning “us” into “them.” It would also break my heart.
Spencer J. Quinn is a frequent contributor to Counter-Currents and the author of the novel White Like You.
There’s a lot of people ready to white knight for women in the movement, as a result of purple-pilling on the woman question and a reluctance to draw on the experiences garnered by the manosphere.
Naturally, we need to point out their mistakes and encourage them to reason out of their wrong positions. It is however wrong to tolerate someone who puts forth their feelings of being “put off” as worth considering in a serious discussion.
The manosphere didn’t really provide any “insight” outside of an unbelievably obtuse interpretation of some sociological data already well known to those on the right. Outside of this, it did a very good job to highlight just how cretinous and lacking in general knowledge some of our numbers can be. I honestly lost count of how many times I, as a History grad, had to explain to incredulous and hostile Pizza delivery trash that no, it was almost never in recorded history the norm for women to bear the babies of their conquerors, no matter what some frothing dumbass with a website blurts out among similar outright falsehoods.
Did you graduate from some prestigious reactionary or otherwise rightist institution, or the far more prevalent progressive indoctrination camps masquerading as institutes of higher education?
lol I’m from Eastern Europe and leftist idiocy is kind of rare here, not that this would matter at all in the context. Afaik, the aftermath of warfare and conquest throughout history wasn’t really something leftists went out of their way to re-interpret and even western “liberal” institutions still use pre-1950 sources for medieval and antique history.
You’ve got a lot to learn if you think that the rot began in 1950s, young friend.
When venturing to websites, discussions irl, social media etc. to gather the news and whats going on in the world and see women spewing such cruel and hateful things at white people, at old white men, at masculine men, or their heritage etc. I often respond in kind.
…Upon reflection I don’t see how I don’t alienate some whom are on our side or on the fence.
Of course when I hop on Twitter or other social media where I do see traditional white women, WN women, and so on carrying and spreading our message…they bring me so much peace. It’s food for the soul to see that such tradition lives on in kind outside my irl circle. A famous and infamous leader once said “there is no greater companion for man than women.” This will always be true.
But I cannot help who I am. I am a very direct person in my beliefs. I have to be passionate, honest, and straightforward, (which is likely the German in me), it has gotten me to where I am now in life. It is a flaw but also a virtue. I do not lie and I attempt to explain my position, and to those whom listen it is a deeper connection we make, and to those whom don’t… well they’re only going to hate me more. There are many like me.
People in positions of influence in our “tent” whom scoff at low-class whites, normie Trump whites, say it’s all over, Euro/American bickering, or attack people whom are too passionate about their people etc. only create discord. It’s so disheartening.
There are legitimate people trying to cause discord among us for our views are evil to them, but there is genuine conflict among us as well.
I guess when we’re in such a horrible situation everyone is just human…something we need to understand.
‘Can someone be simultaneously a white nationalist and a communist… as long as the former comes before the latter?’
Why does the former have to precede the latter? There’s no reason why the two cannot coexist. Indeed, I’d argue that those who support capitalism-as-currently -practiced are, inherently, more likely to be backing policy that damages the interests of white nations than some ‘leftists’.
But as to your question, here’s a tiny sample (there are many more) of individuals and organisations – contemporary and historical – who were both white nationalists and communists as currently defined:
. William Lane. Australian communist who led the New Australia project in Paraguay. White Australian nationalist.
. Jack London. A socialist (communist by today’s standards) and also a white nationalist.
. Arthur Calwell. Leader of the Australian Labor Party until the late 1960’s. Called for a socialist revolution in his autobiography ‘Be Just and Fear Not’. Also supported, on many occasions, the White Australia policy.
. Leonid Brezhnev. Fifth leader of the Soviet Union. Told UK Prime Ministers Callaghan and Thatcher that the survival of the white race was paramount. Both scuttled off, clutching at their pearls. Thatcher remains a hero of the Conservative Right. Unsurprisingly.
. Jack Lang. Premier of the Australian state of New South Wales. Earned the slogan, ‘Lang is Greater than Lenin’ for his opposition to British usury and capitalism during the Great Depression. A vocal supporter of White Australia.
. Ernst Neikisch. Leader of the German Revolutionary tendency, opposed to Hitler, during the 1920’s and 30’s. Communist and genuine German nationalist.
. Frank Anstey. Victorian socialist party member (godless commie by the standards of the Cold War right) and author of The Kingdom of Shylock – a groundbreaking work on usury and capitalism. A supporter of the White Australia policy.
This list could go on and on.. and we haven’t even considered the Strassers, Horst Mahler, Stalin – or Huey Long – who was compared to Mussolini while he pushed a ‘share-the-wealth’ campaign which was considered communistic at the time.
. New Resistance
. Communist Party of the Russian Federation. Gennady Zhughanov, lambasted by ((American)) media as a xenophobic racist.
. Institute for National Revolutionary studies
Leading figure of the Russian national bolshevik movement.
. Socialist motherland party UK.
The question of who is ‘us’ and who is ‘them’ really needs us to discard outdated and superficial ideas based on the simple polarity of left vs right. That outlook might serve as a useful gateway for some with nationalist ideas, but in the longer run it confuses white nationalism with the very force that most effectively works against it; capitalism.
Why go full communist when national socialism, national populism, fascism, Third Position, etc. exist? Makes no sense to me.
There’s much overlap between the tendencies you list.
Take for instance the CPRF. The direct heir of the Soviet Communist Party, Gennady Zhughanov, no longer supports the kind of total economic control by the state that characterised the USSR. His current combination of Russian nationalism and socialist/cooperative economic policy is very similar to the Third Position ideas put forward by Fiore, Griffin and Harrington. To my mind, these guys were decades ahead of the curve in terms of cutting edge political thought.
There aren’t many nationalists who still advocate going ‘full communist’, but there are still some who’d be considered full-blown godless commies by conservatives because of their complete rejection of capitalism.
For my own part, I describe myself as an Australian socialist. That being, an Australian nationalist in the old labour tradition. The ‘national socialist’ tag could be applied to any local nationalist interpretation of socialism (Maoism, Titoism, Castroism, Chavez etc) but unfortunately has become indelibly associated in the public mind with the Hitler period of German Nazism.
Thank you very much for this.
Why is the argument against women voting always based on them being less ethnocentric? As if that would even be an issue is an ethnostate, it was men who allowed our nations to become flooded with non-Whites in the first place. Really you might as well say in the ethnostates, that Jews and other non-Whites won’t be allowed to vote, as if they’d even be here as anything other than a tourist.
Not that I support giving all women the right to vote, I don’t support giving all men the right to vote too, at my most egalitarian it would be one vote per household (consisting of husband and wife with children), at my most ideal it’d be a small elite who have earned the right to vote through meritocratic means and shown loyalty to race, which would include both men and women, though of course more men would naturally be among this elite.
But as for feminism, the case of Mary Richardson is interesting, she went from suffragette who slashed works of art displaying female beauty, to become a woman leader in Mosley’s BUF, to leaving the movement as it wasn’t as subservient to her feminist goals…a feminist is always pro-female first, so no you cannot be both feminist and pro-White, you can think you are either, but one certain event/situation will out where your heart truly lies.
I greatly love derb’s writings and podcasts, so I think I know his mind as well as anyone. His stated political goals would be an America similar to the pre 1965 reversal of the immigration restriction act, that is, a white supermajority which allows for a smattering of exotics here and there. Since this scenario is probably far better than anything that could be realistically achieved at this point in any case, I opine that the ideological distance between CC and derb is negligible and without practical significance. Healthy civilizations like China and Japan do have some blacks and caucasians in them, after all. Fanatical, absolutist thinking’s is a danger.
The major difference between Taylor and derb and (even) more radical WNs is the willingness to discuss the JQ, which in reality is more than whether Js can be categorized as white. It’s a discussion of their power and influence and goals, and whether these are real or not. The former gets you deplatformed, while the latter gets you actively persecuted. Also, it is possible that these people wish not to alienate donors.
More excuses for race-mixer John Derbyshire. A negro married to another negro who otherwise supported our WN objectives would be more palatable and honest than making justifications for Derbyshire, a white man who willfully destroyed his genetic heritage and then has the gall to come to a WN event and promote his “Arctic Alliance” – in the hope that he could convince racially-conscious whites to say, “Hey, right on Derbyshire! Let’s unite mass populations of whites and Asiatics (like you did in your marriage) until they too interbreed (like you also did) and then we’ll all be one big, happy, mixed-race family!” How sickening.
The reality is this: John Derbyshire is far worse than any same-race black couple who supports our movement. For one thing, he has race-mixed and yet he’s met with warm and welcoming arms by the likes of Jared Taylor and others, clearly telegraphing the message at AR conferences that even if you race-mix (at least with Asians) you can still be embraced by the advocates of a white ethnostate – even rise above the average white at such gatherings as you’re showered with effusive praise by WN leaders like Taylor and others for being such “a really great guy!” What disheartening insanity.
In a world of justice, John Derbyshire should not enjoy white nationalist camaraderie. No, Virginia, he should not. Instead, he should be shunned and condemned for his racial betrayal. That those at AR conferences are not doing so only serves to expose just how deep the rot actually is….
You’re perfectly exemplifying the malaise Quinn is talking about. You’re maliciously strawmening Derbyshire, who NEVER advocated for race mixing with Asians and specifically said so himself on numerous occasions. If we were to shun every member of our movement or ally who was married or had sex with Jewish, Asian, or Indian women we’d be back to the dark days of barely articulate methheads raving about Hitler.
In Andrew Joyce’s recent review of Ed Dutton’s new book: ‘Race Differences in Ethnocentrism’ at TOO he writes:
“The data [from OKCupid dating site] suggest that, at least in sexual terms, White women were the most ethnocentric group, overwhelmingly preferring to date men from their own ethnic group.”
No voting for women, then no dating for men.
In the ongoing genocide of he white race, “we” is the mannerbundsphere and “they” are any and all bad actors opposing the mannerbundsphere. The mannerbundsphere arises to dissolve the feminist movement, rectify the deficiencies of the manosphere, destroy party politics and establish natural order civilization. This is based on the genetically determined characteristic of the male sex, operating as a mannerbund, to stake out a territory to defend and expand through reproduction and the expression of all creative characteristics of the human species. To the mannerbundsphere, everything that can be utilized for the creation of civilization is a useful resource and anything not useful is rejected. The currently neutered manosphere must awaken to the fact that there can be no natural order civilization without engaging and protecting the female in her primary natural order function of nesting. Since human beings, especially the male, are a hierarchically ordered predator species, the concept of an Imperial National Republic naturally arises from the operation of the mannerbundsphere. The Imperial National Republic is a monolithic structure composed of heterosexual males with no political parties wallowing in the quagmire of secondary interests and no female participants.
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.
Edit your comment