2,518 words

French version here

Part 1 of 2; part 2 here; part 3 here

Author’s Note:

The following text is based on the transcript of a talk delivered at the Northwest Forum in Seattle on June 9, 2018. I want to thank the organizers, the audience, and James B. for the transcription.     

I want to argue for three theses about white identity politics. The first is that it’s inevitable; the second is that it’s necessary; and the third is that it’s moral.

White identity politics is what happens when white people in a multiracial society start thinking of themselves as a group. Whites are distinct from other racial groups, which means that at least some of our values, interests, customs, and tastes will be different from other groups. Where group differences exist in the same geographical space, group conflicts are not far behind. Where there are group conflicts, there is politics. 

Politics always involves group conflicts: nation against nation, and within nations, class against class, party against party, or race against race. 

White identity politics makes no sense, of course, in an all-white society. In an all-white Ireland or Iceland or Denmark, political differences might be based on class or party but not race. Many white nations had no significant non-white populations until after the Second World War, but now all white societies have some non-white populations with equal political rights. This creates the possibility of racial identity politics. 

As a shorthand, I am going to use the word “identitarianism” to refer to identity politics. Just as libertarians put liberty first, identitarians put identity first. Just to be clear, I am using “identitarian” in a broad generic sense. There can be identitarians of all races. There can also be identitarians of all nations and ethnic groups. I am not speaking specifically about the Identitarian Movement in Europe, although it is an example of white identity politics. 

White identity politics inevitably takes different forms in different white societies. The French are different from the Poles, so French identitarianism will be different from Polish identitarianism. But all forms of white identity politics will have some things in common. As an American, my primary focus is the United States. But there are lessons here for all white nations facing demographic transformation due to non-white immigration. There are also lessons for non-white nations facing similar threats. 

White identity politics requires more than simple awareness of group identity, group differences, and group conflicts. Whites must also be willing to defend our interests whenever they conflict with the interests of other groups. White identity politics means that whites are going to collectivize, organize, and take our own side in the political realm.

The biggest taboo in politics today is against white identity politics. This is true throughout the Anglosphere and Western Europe. This taboo is the dividing line between identitarians and the rest of the political spectrum. The center-Right wants to draw the line there, and everybody to their Left draws the line there as well. 

If you organize as a white person for white people, if you speak as a white person for the interests of white people, and especially if you’re willing to act in the political realm for the interests of white people, that is crossing the line into thoughtcrime. It’s us versus the whole political system. 

Basic Distinctions

We need to make a few distinctions when we talk about identity politics. 

The first distinction is between explicit and implicit white identity politics. Explicit white identity politics is openly standing up for white interests. Implicit white identity politics is not openly standing up for white interests but “just so happening” to support policies that resonate more with white people than with anybody else. 

Basically every center-Right mainstream party in the white world is practicing implicit white identity politics. And a lot of Left-wing politics is also implicit white identity politics. The Bernie Sanders movement promoting Scandinavian-style socialism in America and the Green Parties throughout the white world are forms of implicit white identity politics. Only white people really care about these issues. It’s just a different kind of white identity politics.

Implicit white identity politics is ultimately based upon biology. As living things, we are wired to feel more comfortable around people who are genetically similar to us. J. Philippe Rushton was an evolutionary psychologist who developed what is called Genetic Similarity Theory and applied it to the argument for nationalism. [1] Rushton argued that science proves that harmonious relations between individuals are strongly correlated with genetic similarity. Increasing genetic similarity leads to increasing harmony. Increasing genetic diversity leads to increasing conflict. Since harmony strengthens and conflicts weaken a society, genetic similarity is a source of strength, and genetic diversity is a source of weakness. 

We know this from looking at the most striking cases of genetic similarity, namely identical twins. Identical twins have the most harmonious relationships among human beings because they are genetically the same. This means they can basically read one another’s minds and complete one another’s sentences. I met a pair of identical twins years ago, and one of them said, “We’re not so much two people as we’re one egg divided.” I thought that was a beautiful expression. “One egg divided” would be a great title for a book on identical twins. [2]

White people should start thinking of ourselves that way. We’re not so much individuals; we’re one race divided. We’re one race divided up into individuals, peoples, and states. But we’re part of one great genetic continuum, going all the way back to the Ice Age and before. If you have that sense of extended family, of unity, of community — it’s only natural that you’re going to start gravitating towards people who are like you. 

Implicit white identity politics, as practiced by conservative parties, is basically a swindle. They will “dog whistle” to us, meaning that they will signal in an oblique way that they understand our racial anxieties. They will propose universalistic legislation that “just so happens” to coincide with our interests as white people. But they’ll never explicitly court us. Indeed, if you accuse them of being interested in preserving the white race, they will angrily denounce you. They will do anything to avoid the stigma of standing up for their own people. 

I used to think that conservatives are unprincipled, but that’s not really true. Unfortunately, they are very principled. The trouble is that the principles they hold most sacred are provided by our enemies: namely, identity politics is wrong if practiced by whites but okay for non-whites; racism is bad when practiced by whites, but okay when practiced against us. The entire political mainstream holds this monstrous double standard to be sacrosanct. If conservatives act on those principles, they can only lose, and if we depend on them, we can only be destroyed.

White identity politics is quite a broad phenomenon if it can include Republicans dog-whistling to white voters all the way to self-described White Nationalists like me.

Another distinction we need to make within white identity politics is between white separatists, white supremacists, and a third category that I am just going to call uppity white folks. 

I am a white separatist, meaning that I want to live in a racially homogeneous society rather than a multiracial society. I want racially homogeneous homelands for all peoples, to the extent that is possible. 

White supremacists want whites to rule over other races, which logically presupposes the existence of a multiracial society in which whites are at the top of the hierarchy. If we must have multiracial societies, I would want whites and white standards to be supreme. But I recognize that such a society is oppressive to other racial groups, which is why I would prefer separate homelands for all peoples. 

White separatists like me are often labeled “white supremacists” by lazy and dishonest journalists who wish to tar us with associations to the Ku Klux Klan. We should insist that they respect our chosen nouns as piously as they respect the chosen pronouns of transsexuals. 

Uppity white folks are white people who are content — for now — to live in a multiracial, multicultural society but who are going to take their own side in ethnic conflicts. Uppity white folks are the largest group practicing white identity politics. They tend toward the implicit rather than the explicit end of the spectrum. They tend to be politically moderate. They aren’t willing to entertain radical new policies just yet. 

But they are starting to notice that diversity simply means white dispossession. They are tired of anti-white propaganda in education and the media. They are tired of anti-white double standards. They recognize that whites have interests that need to be defended. They are frustrated with conservatives who refuse to talk about white identity and white interests. And they are increasingly open to explicit talk of white identity and interests, as long as it is reasonable, moderate, fair to all parties, and not freighted with foreign symbols and ideologies. 

Uppity white folks are where white identity politics is growing. They are the people we can agitate and radicalize. The Left thinks that the nearly sixty million white people who voted for Donald Trump are uppity white folks. That’s an exaggeration, of course. But the Trump electorate is definitely our target audience. 

White Identity Politics Is Inevitable

White identity politics is inevitable because of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism means many different races and cultures living within the same system, occupying the same public spaces, accessing the same services, trying to determine the direction of policy. It’s a battle between groups for control of the state apparatus. 

There is no such thing as a common good in a multicultural society, because there is no single people. There are many peoples competing for control over a single state, a single economy, and a single set of resources. Once white people see their interests being threatened, it is inevitable that we will start organizing to preserve and advance our interests. 

To draw this conclusion, we don’t need to know anything about morality or Genetic Similarity Theory or the dynamics of multicultural societies. All we need to know is that if you attack someone, he will eventually react. If you push white people around long enough, we are going to push back. 

“Diversity” is just a euphemism for fewer white people. Why would any sane white person celebrate that? As soon as white people recognize that fact, a reaction is inevitable. We are that reaction. And the trajectory of that reaction is to move from implicit white identity politics to explicit white identity politics.

White Identity Politics is Necessary

White identity politics is necessary. More precisely, explicit white identity politics is necessary. Why do we have to go explicit? A lot of people don’t want to explicitly advocate for white interests. They want to be civic nationalists, Trumpian populists, or Western chauvinists. 

If you get such people in a quiet room and pour some liquor into them, they’ll assure us that they’re totally “based” and really on the side of explicit white identitarians. But then they will explain why they think openly standing up for white people is a dumb strategy. Our enemies will call us racists. Our cucky friends will disavow us. We might actually lose the support of white people. 

But if we soft-peddle appeals to white interests and instead uphold the universal principles of “Americanism,” we’ll keep white supporters — because they can always be taken for granted — and maybe we can split off 10% of the black vote! We can get Kanye West to save our race! And the beauty of it is, we don’t even need to talk about what we’re doing. We can overthrow the system while not endangering our place in it. Isn’t that clever? 

In the short run, it seems like a clever gambit. The trouble is that in the long run, it dooms us. Here is why if we don’t go explicit, we’re doomed.

Imagine American politics as a poker game. In this game, every group in our society — every racial group, every ethnic group — has a seat at the table and a stack of chips. Whites are the largest group in the society, so we’ve got the biggest stack of chips. But the way the game is played is that every other group has a wild card, namely the “race card,” the “identity card,” but white people don’t. 

We cannot play the identity card. We have to say, “This policy is for the good of all humanity, and it just so happens to be good for us.” And, of course, if people point out, “Well, it really just seems to be better for you than for other people,” you are forced into a choice. You can either say, “Yeah, so what? We’re going to take our own side. We want to win this round.” But that is to play the identity card. And if you are not willing to do that, you have to back off. You have to cuck. You have to give in.

If you play by those rules long enough — when they can play the “race card” and you can’t — you are going to lose. You would never consent to playing a game of poker where every other person at the table gets to use a wild card, but you don’t. By those rules, no matter how many advantages you have at the start of the game, every hand you play is going to put you closer and closer to losing it all. The only way not to lose that game is not to play it.

The way to stop playing that game is to give up the ridiculous taboo against white identity politics. White people simply need to say, “We represent the interests of white people. We built the country. We made it great. It’s our only homeland, and we’re not going to allow it to be taken away from us. We’re not going to be diddled out of a homeland by playing by these rigged rules.”

Of course the cucks will say that we should never give in to identity politics. We should just try to persuade all the other groups in society to stop engaging in identity politics. But why would any sane group of people voluntarily stop using a winning strategy? Why would any group exchange a winning strategy for a losing one? Will they do it if the losers ask nicely? We see how well that works for Republicans.

So in terms of long-term survival, we have to go explicit. But Republicans only think in terms of the short run. Because white identity politics is a taboo they will never break, they will not deal forthrightly with the anti-white demographic trends baked into the system today, which if unchecked will destroy their party. Non-whites vote more than 70% for the Democrats, and the high immigration and fertility of non-whites means they will be the majority in less than a generation, unless we reverse those demographic trends.

The short-term consequence of breaking the taboo on white identity politics is being called names by journalists. The long-term consequences are a Democratic one-party state and the destruction of everything that conservatives want to conserve. Intelligent and responsible people think about the long run. Foolish, irresponsible people think only about the short run. Strong people are willing to put up with short-term pains for long term gains. Weak people are not. Republicans are weak, foolish, and irresponsible people. They are letting the Left drag this country into the abyss and cement their power with a one-party state.

Republicans evade thinking about the demographic Armageddon facing their party by fervently believing in the myth of the “based” black or mestizo in a Trump hat. Maybe Diamond and Silk will save them. Maybe Kanye will miracle them into the White House or the Senate one more time. But, as I said to a Tea Party woman more than a decade ago, “There aren’t enough fiscally conservative black people in the world to save you.” I knew exactly how many black people supported the Tea Party, because they were always on the platform at any event. That’s not enough to save them. As the old joke goes, “What do you call the single black man at a Republican event? The keynote speaker.” This foolishness is destroying America.

That’s why explicit white identity politics is not just inevitable, it is necessary. We must go explicit; we must buck the taboos; we must deal with the long-term problem of white demographic decline. Or we will see all that we love destroyed by a Democratic one-party state ruling over an America that increasingly resembles Mexico or Brazil. [3]

Notes

[1] J. P. Rushton, “Ethnic Nationalism, Evolutionary Psychology, and Genetic Similarity Theory,” Nations and Nationalism 11 (2005): 489–507. 

[2] Nancy Segal, Born Together―Reared Apart: The Landmark Minnesota Twin Study (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2012).

[3] For more arguments for the necessity of white identity politics, see Greg Johnson, “In the Short Run,” The White Nationalist Manifesto, second ed. (San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2019) and It’s Okay to Be White: The Best of Greg Johnson (Hollywood: Ministry of Truth, 2020).