Uppity White Folks & How to Reach Them

6,306 words

Author’s Note:

The following text is an extensively revised transcript of my talk in Gothenburg, Sweden, on Sunday, September 22, on the occasion of the publication of the Swedish translation of The White Nationalist Manifesto. I want to thank Pál Csató for the transcript as well as my Swedish hosts and audience.

Thank you. This is the sixth time that I’ve spoken in Sweden, which practically makes me a migrant. I keep getting invited to Sweden because I have a lot of readers here. In terms of Counter-Currents readers, the top country every month is the United States. Then usually you have the other major countries of the Anglosphere: the UK, Canada, and Australia, plus France and Germany trading spots in the top six. And then, after that, down around number seven you usually find Sweden. Sweden is a country of nine million white people. But it’s an honorary Anglosphere country because you all speak and read English so well. So it didn’t really surprise me that we had a lot of readers here. So I started developing friends and contacts here, and that’s what’s led me here all these times.

Sweden has also distinguished itself by being the country where my books have been translated first and most often. The White Nationalist Manifesto is my third book translated into Swedish. My first translation into any language was the Swedish edition of New Right vs. Old Right. Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country came out next. That is the first and only translation of that book into a foreign language. And this is the first translation of my Manifesto.

The Manifesto came out almost exactly one year ago. I’ve just put out a new edition of it in English; we now have the Swedish translation; there is a Ukrainian translation that is about to be launched; there is a fellow working on a Portuguese translation; German, Spanish, Norwegian, Dutch, and Polish translations are underway; and I’m looking to get translations done into French and Italian. Eventually, I would love to see it in every European language. But the Swedes were first. You guys are at the vanguard, and I very much appreciate that. So give yourselves a hand.

I want to thank everyone who’s organized this event: the publisher, the translator, the editors, the people who did the audio version of this book, and all of you for coming out and hearing me. I very much appreciate it.

Once the Manifesto was done, I didn’t want to look at it for a while. When I prepared the second edition back in August, I read through it again, for the first time in a year. I found two typos that stabbed me in the heart. How did these things get through? There was also a mistake in the index. But I was pretty much satisfied with it.

I don’t think this is the best case that could ever be made for white ethnonationalism. I’d like somebody else to come along and outdo it. But I feel it’s the best case that I can make for this particular argument. I’m going to keep this book in print. I’m going to keep bringing out new editions, if I figure out ways of improving it. I’m going to pursue new translations.

My next big project, however, is to take into account all the changes that have happened in the world in the last year. Because in the year since this book was first published there have been some dramatic changes, not just in the political world, but in the intellectual world. I want to talk about those intellectual changes and how they would change the way I would write this book, if I were to write it again today.

I’m actually working on another book now called White Identity Politics. White Identity Politics takes into account some very useful books that have been published in the last year. I want to talk about a couple of these books and give you a roadmap of that project. I want to share this with you because I think what’s happening is profoundly encouraging. This is a “white-pill” speech. I think there’s a lot of reason for optimism in our cause.

We’re here because we are far-sighted people, because we are looking down the road and seeing ominous trends that have to be changed. We don’t like the future that’s being prepared for us. We want to interrupt those plans. We want to create a better future.

Most people, however, are not far-sighted. Most people don’t think many years ahead. That’s why democracy is often a very bad political system. Democracy allows ambitious people to gain power by appealing to the masses. And the masses are always short-sighted. Thus people can gain power by proposing ideas that sound good in the short run, but have disastrous long-term consequences, knowing that relatively few people can think ahead to the disastrous consequences. The far-sighted few are outvoted by the short-sighted many. That’s the problem we face.

So one of the problems for us is how to explain White Nationalism to short-sighted people. People who only think a year or two ahead.

First of all, White Nationalism just means the independence, the ethnic self-determination of all European peoples in whatever homelands they have. So White Nationalism means Swedish nationalism in Sweden, and Norwegian nationalism in Norway. That’s all it means, as far as I’m concerned. So I am going to speak of Swedish nationalism while in Sweden, with the understanding that the same principles apply to all white peoples around the globe.

What does White Nationalism mean in Sweden? White Nationalism is the shocking, radical proposal for the state to ensure that next year the Swedish percentage of the Sweden’s population will be greater than it is this year, whereas the entire current establishment in Sweden—all the political parties—are committed to the position that next year there will be fewer Swedes in Sweden.

Imagine proposing the following to any Swedish politician. “The Swedish Arctic fox population has been steadily declining for a long time. If it continues to decline, at some point there will be no more Arctic foxes in Sweden. What policies do you propose to save the Arctic fox?”

I guarantee that there is not a single Swedish politician who would simply say he doesn’t care. A lot of them don’t care. But they would never have the gall to say it. Nobody has to give reasons to save the Arctic fox. And nobody has the gall to argue against it.

Now if you were to propose the radical idea of political policies that will make sure that next year there will more Swedes in Sweden, and the year after that still more, is there any really good argument against that proposal?

Sweden isn’t overpopulated, and we are not talking about increasing absolute numbers anyway, but simply the Swedish percentage of Sweden’s population.

That’s not the kind of proposal that an honest person can really oppose. The natural answer to a proposal like that is not “Why?” but “Why not?” Why wouldn’t we want more Swedes in Sweden next year than there are this year? Why wouldn’t we want the Swedish percentage of Sweden’s population to be higher next year than it is this year?

If you put Swedish nationalism in those terms, it’s what we call an easy sell. People are always saying, “Greg, you’ve got to tone it down a bit. White Nationalism is far too radical. It’s very hard to sell people on the idea of a homeland named Sweden for the Swedes. That’s very controversial and problematic these days.”

But I honestly think that if you propose Swedish nationalism to people in these simple terms—we want more Swedes in Sweden—it’s got to be the easiest sell possible.

The only reason to oppose it, frankly, is if you think Sweden would be improved by fewer Swedes. If you hate Swedish people and want them to die, you’ll want fewer Swedes in Sweden next year, and the year after that, and the year after that. Of course you want to blur the long term out, because the long-term trend means that eventually there’ll be no Swedish people in Sweden.

There actually are evil-minded people who think Sweden would be improved by fewer Swedes. So just ask them whether they want Sweden to be more or less Swedish next year. Don’t let them evade that question. It is good to get them on the record. It is also good to get politicians on the record about this question, because some of them actively promote such policies. Others just go along with them.

But few if any establishment voices will say that Sweden would be a better place by being more Swedish. And even then, you have to watch out, because one of the enemy’s tricks is to say that Swedishness has nothing to do with ethnicity. It’s all about tolerance and inclusion. They say the same thing about Englishness and Americanness. Basically, they want to redefine your identity as a willingness to be replaced by foreigners. If somebody defines you as replaceable, it is because he wants to replace you. But your identity is not to be a fool. Don’t fall for that.

The project that I want to work on now is how to connect present-day political concerns with radical, fundamental, and long-term thinking about white extinction, white genocide, and how to create white homelands. The problems that we fear and the solutions we propose will happen in the far future. How do we relate to people as they are right now, especially short-sighted people who only think a couple of years down the road?

The good news is that there’s quite a bit of evidence that our people are increasingly concerned about ethnic identity issues and ethnic displacement. We’ve been predicting for a very long time that as non-white immigration and race replacement grow, more and more people will become aware of it, and they’ll want to stop it. 

Eatwell and Goodwin’s National Populism

The first book I want to recommend to you is National Populism: The Revolt Against Liberal Democracy by two British academics, Roger Eatwell and Matthew Goodwin. It came out in November, 2018. I picked it up and added it to a stack of recent books on populism, thinking it would be another globalist establishment attack on National Populism. And I was very pleased at how wrong I was about this book. Even though the authors are men of the Left, it’s very clear they’re not liberal. They’re anti-liberal men of the Left. And they have a sympathy on some level for populism.

They see that liberal democracy, as it’s practiced today, basically means minority rule; minority rule, and an establishment that makes an art of never giving the public what they want. Basically, the people in every white society want a socially conservative state that will intervene in the economy to protect the working and middle classes. That is what National Populists stand for. The elites want social liberalism and untrammeled global capitalism, what Jonathan Bowden described as Left-wing oligarchy.

A wonderful example of liberal democracy in action is the UK since the Brexit vote. The British people voted for Brexit out of patriotism and a desire for a more responsible government that puts the British people first. The British establishment is doing everything it possibly can to not give the people what they want. That’s really the way that post-war liberal democracy is structured in every white country around the world. It’s a very clever system for not giving the people what they want.

People are becoming increasingly aware of this, and that’s causing the rise of National Populist parties, candidates, and initiatives all across the white world. Trump. Brexit. These were huge shocks to the progressive liberal establishment. They really believed there’s this thing called progress, that the arc of history bends in the direction of their wishes. And when Trump and Brexit came along, it shook them up. It suggested a very different narrative. If Brexit can happen, Trump can get elected. And if Trump can get elected, Marine Le Pen can get elected. And then it’s all over!

So progressives came up with coping mechanisms, little stories they told to convince themselves that progress is going to be back really soon. One story they told themselves is that National Populism is the last hurrah of angry old white people, especially white men, who are going to die off and be replaced by tolerant Millennials and vibrant non-whites, who will vote like liberal democrats want them to vote.

When progressives say that, it’s a vision of utopia. When we say that, it’s a “conspiracy theory” called the “Great Replacement.” The Left’s brilliant plan is to fill white countries with Muslims and Africans and Mestizos, and then we will see the final triumph of liberalism. Gay marriage, feminism, abortion rights, kindness to animals and trees, walkable communities, Green energy, and universal health care will finally be secured by a Third World majority. Of course, none of these things are valued in the Third World, but the rising non-white majority will always vote like the ever-dwindling population of white liberals wants them to. So we’re going to finally triumph over the forces of reaction and have our liberal utopia. It’s a highly delusional and questionable plan. But that’s the plan.

In America, the plan is to create a Scandinavian-style Social Democratic utopia—not by filling the country with Scandinavians, who have created such societies, but by filling it with Mexicans, who have created only kleptocratic dystopias.

Eatwell and Goodwin argue that globalization will not get back on track any time soon, and that all the liberal coping is based on false premises. They argue that the trend towards National Populism is not just a momentary glitch. Rather, it is a product of some long-term, deep-seated trends in all white societies. They call these trends the four Ds: Distrust, Destruction, Deprivation, and Dealignment. They are the Four Horsemen of the liberal Apocalypse.

Distrust for the establishment by the people has been growing tremendously in every white society. Populism is premised on the people distrusting the elites, feeling like the elites are disconnected and pursuing their own interests at the expense of the people. If you believe that, you’re a populist. And the number of people who believe that thesis grows every year, and it has been growing every year for decades now.

There’s no sign that the trend toward distrust is going to change, because people are increasingly aware that the establishment really doesn’t represent their interests, that it’s out of touch, that it’s contemptuous of the electorate, and that it wants a future where we have no future. The people will not suddenly get dumber overnight and go back to trusting the establishment—unless, of course, the establishment actually changes their policies and becomes populist. But they are bound and determined not to change their policies. They want to double down on their policies. Since the same causes give rise to the same effects, we can expect rising popular distrust well into the future.

Destruction refers to the results of immigration and multiculturalism. Eatwell and Goodwin admit that diversity is destructive. Many white people are experiencing that. They see that the societies they will die in will be utterly alien, ethnically speaking, to the societies they were born in. Increasingly, they are drawing the conclusion that this is wrong. A lot of people want to grow old and die in a country that somewhat resembles the country they grew up in.

Interestingly enough, Eatwell and Goodwin defend the idea that there’s nothing wrong with that. It doesn’t make you a bad person to want to preserve the character of your society, including the ethnic character of your society for yourself and for future generations. That’s what it is to have a homeland.

Now, what’s the first thing that Leftists will accuse you of if you say such things? Racism! They always go straight for the racism charge. And large numbers of people are very indignant when that happens. They don’t think there’s anything bad or racist about wanting to preserve your country from dramatic ethnic and cultural change. This is a growing consensus, and the racism word isn’t inhibiting people.

These people still believe that racism is a really bad thing, and they don’t want to be racist. But they don’t think they are racist, and so they’re quite angry when people call them this bad word, and say they are bad people with bad thoughts.

This suggests another way we can formulate our politics. Swedish nationalism is the view that the country you die in should be like the country you grew up in; that when you die, you’re not going to be surrounded by strangers—by thieving, abusive people from other cultures, who just want you to die and get out of the way. Swedish nationalism is the view that Swedes should preserve a homeland that they actually feel at home in, and pass a similar blessing on to future generations.

We aren’t opposed to technological change, although it is not always a blessing. Things that can be improved, should be improved. But feeling at home in one’s homeland is not a problem, and multiculturalism is not a solution. Multiculturalism causes alienation, mistrust, and the breakdown of society. Beyond that, one of the things white countries have lost through multiculturalism is precisely their technological optimism.

Deprivation just means the destruction of working-class and middle-class living standards in white countries by globalization: sending factories and jobs overseas, bringing cheap labor here. The destruction of working-class and middle-class incomes in First World societies is a trend going back to the 1970s. Many of you never lived in a society where the average Joe, the average working person, could expect a better future than his parents. A lot of people are getting really angry about that and are increasingly receptive to populist anti-globalization messages. This is especially true of the Millennials and Gen-Zers, who will supposedly vote progressives back into power when angry old white populists die off.

Dealignment simply means that people are no longer going to vote for the center-Left or center-Right option. Post-war politics in the white world is basically the following system: You’ve got a center-Left party and a center-Right party that trade power occasionally with one another. They will compete on issues like abortion or taxes or feminism. But there are certain things that they agree not to compete on. They have agreed not to compete on multiculturalism, immigration, and economic globalization. No matter what party you choose, they’re going to give you more multiculturalism, more immigration, and more globalization.

The most revolutionary thing that Donald Trump did in 2015, when he glided down the golden escalator at Trump Tower and announced that he was running for President of the United States, is that he broke that cartel, that gentlemen’s agreement not to compete on immigration and globalization. He didn’t have to do that. He could have still won the presidency by following the rules and not competing on those issues. He chose to compete on those issues, and therefore he had to fight a two-front war against the Democratic Party and his own party, to get the presidency.

That was revolutionary, because it showed that there were large numbers of people—sixty-plus million people in the United States—who really would vote for a nationalist candidate, a candidate who had an America first foreign policy, was anti-globalization, and was anti-immigration. That was terrifying to the establishment. He broke the gentlemen’s agreement. He broke the political cartel that’s been in place since the Second World War.

Now we see this dealignment happening all over Europe. In the last French presidential election, we had Marine Le Pen the far-Right candidate, the National Populist candidate, against Emanuel Macron. Macron was presented as a political “outsider.” He is actually an insider. He was a minister in the Socialist government who broke with them, ran as a “maverick,” and got elected. Why the charade of having a socialist run as an independent? Because the Socialist Party was cooked, basically. They had so little credibility after Hollande that the only way they could win was to put up this Macron character, this fake populist, this synthetic maverick. They had to run an establishment candidate as an anti-establishment candidate. The last French presidential election was as revolutionary and shocking as an American presidential election where there’s no Democrat and no Republican in the final running.

People are leaving the center-Left/center-Right charade behind. They realize it is a charade. They realize it’s a way of controlling the populace. They realize it is a way of not giving the people what they want. But democracy should be about giving the people what they want. When you actually get rumblings of real democracy, people call that “populism,” and they write ridiculous books, like Yascha Mounk’s The People vs. Democracy, on the terrible threat of populism.

Not only do Eatwell and Goodwin claim that National Populism is based on deep-seated trends that go back decades and will go on well into the future, they argue that establishment parties will only be able to hold on to power by adopting National Populist policies. Which means that globalization as the dominant political model is over, and that nationalism and populism are the future. That’s a very encouraging message, and it’s a surprising message for a couple of Left-of-center British political scientists, but I find it very convincing. So we need to figure out how to use Eatwell and Goodwin’s research to connect with the rising tide of National Populism.

Ashley Jardina’s White Identity Politics

Another book that I want to recommend is Ashley Jardina’s White Identity Politics. I was intending to write a book of the same title, and guess what, I still am. You can’t copyright titles, so my White Identity Politics book will someday eclipse her White Identity Politics book. I’m also going to write a book called The Great Replacement, because why not? It’s a great title and a great meme.

Jardina looks at polls that have been done of the American electorate over a seven-year period. The numbers are not extremely high: between around 800 to 1,200 white people polled. But they’re high enough for valid social science conclusions. I find her results very encouraging.

We’ve been predicting for a long time that as white dispossession increases, white racial identity will also increase. When whites feel like they’re running everything and are not threatened, it’s easy to think that we’re not even really a racialized group. We’re just human beings. And all the other human beings want to be just like us. That’s the default liberal assumption: that we don’t even belong to a race or a group. We’re just humanity. And everybody else wants to be just like us. It’s a deeply ethnocentric, supremacist attitude, but that’s really the liberal attitude—in this country and in America as well.

You would only expect people like that to become racially aware if their sense of being secure and simply representing humanity was somewhat challenged. And of course it’s being challenged. It’s being challenged by diversity. It’s being challenged by people complaining that even white liberals are racists. The people who don’t see race are now racists, too. There’s no redemption any more. Even if you are a white liberal who does everything possible to help out non-whites, they’ll still say you’re a racist. And I encourage this attitude, because it’s making more whites race-aware, and it is driving people away from the liberal universalist paradigm towards a more racialized consciousness.

I want to look at four questions on racial attitudes discussed by Jardina.

The first question is about the importance of white racial identity to Americans today. The top two categories are the people who think that racial identity is very important or extremely important to them. And if you add those two numbers up, between 28 and 42 percent of Americans say that their racial identity is very important or extremely important to them. Now if you add in the people saying it’s moderately important to them, you get 52 to 73 percent of white Americans saying that their racial identity is moderately to extremely important to them.

Now that’s very interesting. If you compare it with blacks, however, it’s kind of sobering. The number of blacks who say that their racial identity is very important or extremely important is 69 to 85 percent in the same polls, which means more than double the white rate. And the number of blacks who say that their race is extremely important to them, just that alone ranges from 45 to 61 percent. Racial identity is far more important to black Americans than it is to white Americans. But the fact remains that more white Americans now than in decades past are saying that their racial identity is important to them.

Another question is about pride in one’s race. Do whites think they have a lot to be proud of? Again the numbers in the various polls range from between 30 and 40 percent of whites saying that they think they have a lot to be proud of or quite a lot to be proud of, which are the top two categories. Those numbers should be a lot higher, of course, given the objective achievements of our race. But given that the entire culture and educational system are devoted to inculcating white guilt and denigrating white achievements, these numbers are encouraging.

The number of people who respond positively to the statement that they believe that whites are being discriminated against by the system in America is quite interesting. The system includes business, academia, the political establishment, and so forth. The number of people who deny that white people are being discriminated against by the American system today—which we are told by Leftists is a system of “white privilege”—the number of people who believe in white privilege is anywhere from 14 to 25 percent. That means that 86 to 75 of Americans believe that white privilege is not a real thing, and in fact it’s just the opposite, that whites are being penalized in America today.

The number of whites who believe that it is a good thing for us to collectivize and organize to protect white interests is also remarkably high. The people who say that white political mobilization is not necessary range from 16 to 23 percent. That means that 84 to 77 percent of white Americans believe that it is okay, and maybe a good thing to one degree or another, for whites to collectivize and organize to protect their interests.

What is it called when whites collectivize and organize to protect their interests? We call that white identity politics.

White identity politics ranges on a spectrum. On one end, there’s what we call “implicit” white identity politics, which is basically what Republicans have been doing for a long time. They get white votes by proposing policies that “just so happen” to fit the political preferences of white people. But they always frame these policies as good for humanity or good for America. They don’t explicitly court white people, but they will propose policies that white people regard positively.

On the other extreme is “explicit” white identity politics, which is what I’m arguing for in my Manifesto, and really, everything else that I write.

Then there’s a large and growing category in the middle. This is the category of people that the Republican Party doesn’t want to touch explicitly. But again, between 84 and 77 percent of the US populace believes that it would be okay for whites to organize to protect their group interests. They’re not necessarily envisioning White Nationalism, a white ethnostate, or an end to multiculturalism. But as long as there is multiculturalism, they’re damn certain that whites have to take their own side in the ethnic conflicts that exist in multicultural societies. A very large number of people believe that. But the Republican Party will not appeal to them. They simply will not appeal explicitly to white interests, but very large numbers of whites believe that it would be perfectly legitimate if they did so.

I call these people in the middle “uppity white folks.” They’re not ready to be White Nationalists, and yet they are ready for white identity politics within the context of a multiracial, multicultural society. That’s a huge number of people. That is where our movement can expect its growth.

Thus the great task that faces us is to get inside the heads of those people. I want to point out just one thing about their mentality that’s very unusual, and that Eatwell and Goodwin and also Jardina talk about. Jardina is especially useful because she actually has recent numbers that show that the populace of Americans who have positive racial identity and are willing to countenance white identity politics does not significantly overlap with the Americans who have negative attitudes about other races.

Let me repeat that. There’s a large population that thinks well of being white, and thinks that whites should look out for their interests. There’s also a population of Americans who have very negative views of other races. And those two sets do not significantly overlap. There’s only a small overlap between those groups—which is very peculiar.

Is she saying that there are lots of people who have very negative attitudes towards other races, but don’t have a positive view of their own race? Yes, that’s a possibility. There are a lot of cynical, nasty people who think that everybody is bad. They don’t like blacks, but they don’t particularly like white people either. That is a possible category of people. There are large numbers of people who might have negative attitudes towards other races but don’t think that it would be at all permissible for whites to organize politically. They might be so politically inert that politics doesn’t even enter their minds. They may just be annoyed with black people playing loud music, and that’s all there is to it.

I want to understand the people who are ripe for white identity politics and yet don’t really have any negative attitudes towards other racial groups. The question I basically have about these people is: Are they disingenuous, or are they clueless? Because if you believe that your group is a good thing and you strongly identify with it, and you believe that it’s under threat, and you believe that it’s okay to collectivize and organize to protect its interests, then exactly against whom are you protecting it?

If there’s an “us,” isn’t there a “them”? And if you’re really going to engage in identity politics, you’ve got to identify the “them,” and eventually you might start drawing conclusions about “them” that could be negative. At the very least you have to draw the conclusion that they have different conflicting interests than you, or there’s going to be no identity politics at all.

So something kind of peculiar is going on here. I think white people just want to be nice. They want to think well of everybody. I think Prometheus in the legend was a white person. When Prometheus was chained to the Caucasus, and every day a vulture came to chew his liver out, he’d tell himself, “Well, you know, that vulture just has different interests than me, and he’s got a nest full of little vultures at home he’s trying to take care of, and I don’t really blame him for what he’s doing, and I don’t want to have any negative anti-vulture generalizations.” He’d feel bad about himself for drawing conclusions like that.

But as that vulture came back again and again, I think Prometheus would start taking a dim view of vulturekind. He might start out wanting to think the best of everyone, but when you’re involved in an existential conflict, eventually you start feeling enmity towards other groups.

And right now white people are willing to engage in, or at least contemplate, identity politics, but they’re not willing to contemplate what identity politics entails, which is actually fighting against other groups for dominance in a society. They haven’t quite gotten there yet.

Now the big question that we face is: Is it possible to have valid white identity politics that actually advances our ethnic interests, without ever getting people to fundamentally own up to the fact that politics involves us and them, and conflict and harsh feelings?

Can we truly engage in identity politics and still be really nice? I think that’s what a lot of our people want to do. That’s my default preference. Can we get anywhere while leaving that preference intact, or are we going to have to radicalize people? Are we going to have to get them to be more serious about what it takes to actually preserve your interests in the face of ethnic displacement and ultimate ethnic annihilation?

The good news is that there are a lot of people who are now willing to consider white identity politics. The bad news is that they still want to be really nice. They want to think well of themselves. They want to think this isn’t really that serious.

And I guess the great question that we face is: How much do we want to burst that bubble? How can we do that? And how can we do it without just coming off as grim, depressive madmen and inescapably marginal people—evil-minded, bloody-minded fanatics?

I think the time has come for our movement to start doing our own empirical research. I’m a philosopher. We do everything a priori. We stand way back. We don’t do questionnaires. We don’t do science. We stand back and interpret what scientists do. That’s what I’m doing. I’m trying to put it in a larger political context.

But it’s time for us to get serious about understanding the minds of the people that we want to save, because they are moving in our direction. And what’s bringing them in our direction is not our brilliant, appealing websites and message. In fact, most of these people are totally unaware of us. If 80 percent of white Americans are saying it’s conceivably a good thing that whites should organize to protect their interest, believe me, that 80 percent has not been reading Counter-Currents. I see the numbers. We’re read by a tiny fraction of that population.

So what’s bringing them in our direction? It’s not the magnetic force of our movement, which is largely unknown to them. It’s the push of multiculturalism and globalization. The system is pushing people towards us.

There’s an implication of that which is very encouraging. The establishment wants to censor us. They think that the only reason multiculturalism isn’t working is nay-sayers like me having a YouTube channel, or a Twitter account, or a website. But that’s not true. Most of the people who are giving up on multiculturalism and globalization have never heard of us. They never saw a single tweet by Jared Taylor before Twitter shut him down.

What’s driving these people towards us is the system’s own policies, with their inevitable disastrous consequences and the lies and censorship required for the coverups. The system is not letting up on those policies. It continues to double down on them.  Therefore, white ethnic consciousness will continue to rise, even if the system successfully censors every single explicit white advocate. That’s a very encouraging thing.

Saving our people doesn’t all depend on us. It depends on the fact that our people are basically wired the same way we are. There’s a line from The Dark Knight where the Joker says, “We’re not monsters, we’re just ahead of the curve.” We’re not monsters for being ethnocentric. We’re perfectly normal. We’re just a little more sensitive than other people in our society. So ethnic displacement is bothering us first, but eventually it’s going to bother everybody else, because they’re fundamentally wired the same way that we are.

That means that even if we can’t reach them, they’re still going to draw the same conclusions when faced with the same data, and the data is increasingly inescapable. It’s increasingly hard to ignore the consequences of multiculturalism and globalization. So more and more of our people are going to be pushed in our direction.

But we need to understand what they’re thinking. We need to understand how to bring them further along, how to deepen their awareness, and how to make it politically potent, so that we actually create the changes that we want.

That’s my next project, and I think it should be a broader project of our movement. We now have trained academics who can do the same kind of analyses as Jardina and Eatwell and Goodwin. We need organizations, we need money, we really do need a think tank to try and lay the foundations for having a more scientific understanding of what’s happening in the consciousness of our own people, and how we can then lead them forward to freedom and salvation—because that’s ultimately what we want.

It’s shocking and shameful that people who manufacture silly things—bracelets made out of candy, selfie sticks—have a more rigorous and fact-based understanding of the minds of the people that they’re trying to reach and sell their product to than we, who represent the legitimate interests of our peoples, and are trying to save them from extinction. It’s because we haven’t done the research yet. We haven’t done the work. But there are interesting and encouraging clues that are coming out of academia that I think we can exploit. But we should build our own research on their foundations.