White Identity Politics:
Inevitable, Necessary, Moral, Part 1

2,518 words

Part 1 of 3

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 start thinking of ourselves as a group, distinct from other groups, with different interests from other groups, and we are willing to defend our interests whenever they conflict with the interests of other groups. White identity politics means that whites are going to collectivize, we’re going to organize, and we’re going to defend our interests—and advance our interests—within the political realm.

The biggest taboo in American politics today is against white identity politics. The line in the sand between White Nationalists and the Alt Lite is really just the issue of the legitimacy of identity politics for white people. Interestingly enough, that is the line in the sand between White Nationalists and the entire rest of the political spectrum. The cuckservatives want 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.

We need to make a few distinctions when we talk about identity politics, just to get started.

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 this stuff; 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. 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 conflict weakens 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 people who are genetically identical, namely identical twins. Identical twins have the most harmonious relationships among human beings because they’re 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—and I’m sure the other one was thinking it at the same time—“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.

White people as a race should start thinking of ourselves that way. We’re not so much individuals; we’re one people divided. We’re one people divided up into individuals. But we’re part of one great genetic continuum, going all the way back to the Ice Age and before. And 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 cuckservative 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 really not true. Unfortunately, they’re very principled. The trouble is that the principles they hold most sacred are provided by our enemies, and if they act on those principles, they can only lose, and we can only be destroyed.

So white identity politics is quite a broad genre if it can include Republicans dog-whistling to white voters and 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 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 the media and education. They are tired of anti-white double standards. They recognize that whites have interests that need to be defended. They are frustrated with cuckservatives 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 and antiquarian 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.

Why White Identity Politics is Inevitable

The first question is: Why do I think white identity politics is inevitable? It’s 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’s no such thing as a common good in a multicultural society, because there is no single people. There’s just the squabble of different organized ethnic groups for power. And it’s inevitable that, once white people see their interests being threatened, we are going to 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, they 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.

Why White Identity Politics is Necessary

The next point I want to make is that 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 with 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. I’ve used this analogy many times before, but it’s good, so I will use it again.

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’re forced into a choice. You can either say, “Yeah, so what? We’re going 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’re 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 and 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? Because the losers ask nicely? We see how well that works out 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 won’t 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 is less than a generation, unless we reverse those demographic trends.

The short-term consequences of breaking the taboo on white identity politics are 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 know exactly how many black people support the Tea Party, because they’re 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 have to go explicit; we have to buck the taboos; we have to 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.