Counter-Currents
A Crimean Tatar woman. The Ukrainian government passed a law in July recognizing the Tatars as one of the indigenous peoples of Ukraine.
1,361 words
The popularity of anti-colonialism and the term “indigenous” speaks to our anti-white age. We’re told all white-founded colonial countries are stolen land and that the true owners were dispossessed. “Indigenous Peoples’ Day” now replaces Columbus Day. This discourse makes ordinary people think that land has a rightful owner, and that that owner is never white.
However, some Right-wingers think we can utilize this discourse for our own purposes. Whites can be indigenous, too, and we are victimized by colonialism, they argue. They think that by appealing to the zeitgeist, we can be more in tune with the times. A few may even think it might create a degree of solidarity with other “indigenous” peoples fighting against the imperialist menace.
But this idea won’t work. This framework is inherently anti-white. We’re not going to trick Left-wing indigenous activists into supporting our cause. Moreover, this would entail condemning our own past on behalf of a misguided political strategy.
Much of this was pointed out in a great article by one “Stone Age Herbalist” for the site Countere. Herbalist argues that this “indigenous” appeal is a poor strategy and that “we should instead be asserting that our nations and identities are legitimate precisely because our ancestors conquered, fought, and died for the land, not because we are mythically indigenous to it.”
He says that the best definition of indigenous is
a group of people who lived in a territory before the occupation of a colonial power; their separation from the main bulk of the population, both culturally and politically; people who have an ethnic and territorial distinction from the dominant social power and a lack of political power at the state level. Prior to all understanding of indigenous, and the main action upon which it rests, is the act of colonization.
This doesn’t sound like white people . . .
Herbalist combs through academic studies to assert that this concept is built on “the need for legitimate indigeneity to be exotic, unfamiliar, and marginal” — essentially everything that is the opposite of white. Herbalist notes that the framework of indigeneity is created by the European colonialism of the early modern era and obscures all other examples of human conquest and expansion. Human history doesn’t matter until Europeans conquered the New World, according to the colonialist mindset. “Thus indigenous as a category exists in an ontology of the world where Europeans are colonizers and everyone else is colonized, which is why the gatekeepers of international law will never allow Europeans to claim indigeneity,” Herbalist states.
He further adds:
It should be clear then, that anyone who looks to resist mass migration and multicultural social transformation by invoking indigenous status is falling into a trap. Europeans will never be indigenous. The very definition of indigenous requires a minority to be excluded and dispossessed by the state, to have their collective rights mediated by large, unaccountable international bodies, and to cede sovereignty over their territory. This is a disaster for any historical conception of ethnic identity.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s It’s Okay to Be White here.
The indigenous rely on the United Nations and other globalist bodies to protect their interests. This is not an option available to whites. The entire globalist order is built on giving away our resources and power to non-whites. The UN will listen to tiny tribes or dispossessed people in Third World countries; it will not listen to us. That is why Herbalist argues it is better to rely on the right of conquest to morally defend ourselves. Like all peoples who claim a homeland, America was purchased through the blood and toil of our ancestors. The fact that we won this land makes it ours, not through some appeal to a concept invented by Leftists.
He concludes:
States expand and collapse, ethnicities form and dissolve, alliances are made and broken. This is the norm for world history and the ossified nature of modern life is a product of both commercial and military globalization. The American aegis has made us complacent and unable to imagine governing ourselves in our own interests.
This article is a necessary corrective to the anti-colonialist temptation on the Right. It’s easy to fall for it when we feel subjected to the silliest empire to ever exist, but the Globalist American Empire is unfortunately our own creation. Many of its leaders and pawns are whites, and many whites happily benefit from it. It’s not a foreign system imposed upon us by an invading force; we — or rather, some of us — are the ones responsible for it.
Anti-colonialism leads to the trap of condemning all conquests. How can we say America is our land when we took it from someone else? How are we supposed to celebrate the great warriors and statesmen of our past when their glories came at the expense of the vanquished? How do we reconcile our entire national history with an anti-colonialist framework if we’ve always been the colonizers? All of these foundations are given away for the sake of a poorly thought out political strategy.
This idea is especially problematic for European-Americans. We clearly displaced another people to found our country. Europeans can at least claim that they’ve lived on their lands for most of recorded history. We do not have that benefit in our case. Our attacks on colonialism would undermine our own position in the United States. As stated above, it’s also harder to identify the colonizer in our struggle when we helped set up this system. It’s much easier for non-whites, who identify us as the colonizers.
The Empire we rage against is built on the moral framing that underlies anti-colonialism as well. America forced Europe to give up its colonies after the Second World War and competed with the Soviet Union to present itself as the true anti-imperialist power in the Cold War. The Empire forced Rhodesia and South Africa to surrender to their “indigenous” populations. It’s now forcing native whites to do the same in their own homelands. This is not an empire that will somehow decide that our complaints are legitimate.
The Dissident Right is fond of adopting Left-wing ideas in the hope it will make us more palatable to some mystery audience. This audience is imagined to be open-minded Leftists who would somehow overlook our “racism” and see us as an oppressed people. With the correct argument, these people could be won to our side – or so the logic goes. The same mindset explains why many on the Right think highlighting anti-capitalism or support for universal healthcare is a good strategy because it will win over this demographic. The problem with this is that this demographic does not exist. Leftists hate white people more than anything. They will never see us as an oppressed people worth saving. They will always see us as the colonizers. It makes no sense to expend so much energy trying to appeal to them.
The indigenous argument also does not appeal to potential sympathizers on the Right. Indigenous is a term firmly associated with the erasure of our heritage. Most people know it from “Indeigenous People’s Day,” an explicitly anti-white holiday meant to denigrate European settlement. They’re not inclined to see themselves as indigenous when that’s the other side’s identity. It’s an alien word that they don’t see themselves in.
All this strategy amounts to is a condemnation of European history for the sake of pretending that we’re the real Leftists.
Stone Age Herbalist is correct about the strategy to emphasize. The regime’s morality privileges victimhood and the oppressed. We must reject that. There is nothing shameful in conquest. This is how humanity has operated from the beginning, and it will continue to do so until we vanish from the Earth. It’s simply the way we are. No other people apologized for being victorious in war before the modern white man came along. The only shame comes from submission and loathing your own flesh and blood.
We have nothing to feel ashamed about. The right of conquest makes this land ours. There’s no need to defer to Leftist theories to uphold our birthright.
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.
- First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
41 comments
I think this is true for the United States, Australia etc. But I am inclined to think it has great currency for Europeans. Take for example Indigenous Peoples Day celebrated and encouraged by ‘Patriotic Alternative’ supporters in the UK.
https://www.patrioticalternative.org.uk/indigenous_peoples_day_2021
Perhaps we can both push and pull the narrative in our favor ?
Absolutely. Hampton makes a number of keen observations, but the article overall is deeply wrongheaded, beginning (but hardly ending) with how he ‘frames’ (anyone notice how the younger generation are obsessed with ‘narratives’, ‘frames’, ‘memes’, etc, instead of hewing to older white generations’ manly, classical – and Christian – pursuit of truth?) the definition of “indigeneity”. “Indigenous” has a legitimate moral component to it which we ignore at our racial peril.
I have for decades been referring to Europeans (in Europe) as “indigenes” (as did Guillaume Faye, if I’m not misremembering). That word simply refers to the first inhabitants of any given territory. Eurowhites should refer to themselves in this way, not because they delusionally think that antiwhites will suddenly respect their indigenous rights, or that other races will stop utilizing defective white (liberal, whether secular or incorrectly self-identifyingly “Christian”) ‘morality’ as a weapon to dispossess white polities and thereby conquer white nations via demographic dilution.
Rather, our target audience (as I keep saying in comments here …) consists in morally high quality, but ideologically misguided and racially neutral, whites – those whites who are not (yet) white preservationists (WPs), but also not ethnomasochistic race-cuck fanatics. The kind of whites genuflecting before black thugs are, again as I keep noting, evolutionarily defective at least at the sub-species/racial level, and the vast majority of this crowd will never be able to think its way out of its ethnomasochistic indoctrination, any more than I myself will ever attempt a ‘gender transition’. Although my guess is that there are, for the moment, far more white race-cucks than race-patriots, the vast majority of whites, in America and the world, remain simply race-neutrals, ordinary whites living their lives and pursuing their personal interests as best they can.
The natural (as well as self-interested) bias of the race-neutrals is, however, towards our side. This bias will only become more pronounced as the objective racial power situation of whites continuously weakens and thus worsens. If we’re serious about white racial perpetuity and cultural continuity, all of our arguments and activist work must obviously be tailored and directed towards this large group.
Whites are the world’s ethically best and most virtuous (as well as accomplished) race. White ethicality and allied virtues must be taken into account in any non-ideological, empirical analysis of how to save our people. White supremacists and neo-Nazis may dislike this aspect of their people, but there is no way around it; WPs must go through it. If we’re going to convert sufficient numbers of race-neutrals to race-reality and preservation, as we must, I’m convinced the only way to do so in time (ie, before our racial situation shall have become so dire that our only preservationist option will be calamitous race war, one in which by that point, moreover, there will be no guarantee of WP victory, and for which even many WPs will not have the stomach, given the horrendous personal cost, whatever the ultimate racial benefit) is by winning the moral debate about race. We must persuade vast hordes of race-neutrals of both the reality of passive white genocide (ie, that the conditions necessary to white perpetuity are being intentionally and systematically vitiated or eliminated), and, equally, of our moral right to take measures, including coercive ones, to resist and reverse it.
Thus, applying the concept of ‘indigeneity’ to European whites, where it is incontestably accurate, is another moral weapon in our arsenal, another way to reveal to indoctrinated race-neutrals that they are in fact victims of aggression and malice, and that therefore our WP cause is, according to white norms, just (at least in its less aggressive aspects – but to get to a position 5 miles away, you first have to walk Mile 1, then Mile 2, etc; racial redpilling will for many be a process of gradual radicalization, as most of those psychologically capable of epiphanies of racial insight can be expected, at this late date of visible and ever-compounding racial outrages, already to have had them). I’m convinced that many whites (a large subset of the race-neutrals) don’t like what’s going on, but do nothing to resist in part because they think resistance – ie, thinking and acting racially – is immoral (and especially, unchristian; it is among white Christians, including otherwise conservatives, that I have most frequently encountered this type of thinking). We must change the moral calculus, or most race-neutrals will just resignedly accept the prospect of white extinction as regrettable, but impossible to halt (by which they mean “impossible to stop within morally acceptable bounds”). {more on this below}
“Leftists hate white people more than anything.” Why? Because antiwhitism is the pinnacle motivation of the antiwhites who call themselves “leftists”.
Thank you for framing the article from the perspective that these hate filled lunatics are antiwhite. All of their garbage thinking is antiwhite and needs to be dismissed and denounced as such so that we as Westernkind may reclaim our destiny.
This argument of course also pertains to our attitude towards Israel. Should we “as anti-Semites” feel solidarity with the Palestinians and decry Israel as a colonial settler state? That is for example what David Duke does, while at the same time defending the settlement of North America by Whites as something that always has happened in history. We cannot have it both ways.
I think the best way to defend the existence of European settler states in America and the Pacific, is to point to the fact that these territories were sparsely populated by stone-age indigenous peoples, that the white settlers gave them their own reservations, where their numbers have increased. The rest of these countries were entirely developed by the white settlers, who are thus their legal owners.
“Going native” as an argument does indeed not work, especially with the anti-white coalition consisting of Jews, white self-haters and non-Whites.
I have zero respect for white nationalists who do as Duke does (on this point; he has always fought for whites, so I withhold overarching criticism). It’s like they’re trying to suck up to elements of the Left, instead of just forthrightly naming and challenging what they find objectionable about Jewry. White nations should remain rigorously neutral in ethnic conflicts among non-Europeans. I do think there are occasional cases to be made for supporting some groups which either share our values or interests: eg, in China’s struggle to subjugate Hong Kong, I think we should rhetorically take the Hong Konger side, in part because it is just, even if it does not involves whites, but also because China is a long term enemy of the West, which they if not our own leaders correctly see as coextensive, and indeed coterminous, with the white race (whatever antisemites on one side, and IQ fetishists on the other, might say to the contrary about the future racial possibilities of China).
I would better support Israeli Jews (who are mostly of European and Euroasian origin), and never support Arabs. Interesting, but so was the position of such prominent Türkish nationalists as Nihal Atsiz, the greatest national poet of the 20th century, and of colonel Alparslan Türkeş, the leader of MHP. In 1940s Atsiz said, that Jews “are our misfortune”, but after the creation of Israel he has become its strong supporter as of NATIONALIST state. And Türkeş is wellknown as have said, that the Philistinians and Arabs are the enemies of Türks ( “Filistinliler ve Araplar Türk Düşmanıdır”), which is correct.
Maybe it would be good to be just neutral in that conflict, but I do not see any valid arguments for the support of Arabs.
I thought it was clear enough to everyone that people who use the term “indigenous” to refer to ourselves do so in an attempt to highlight leftist hypocrisy. Who needed this article, anyway?
“The Dissident Right is fond of adopting Left-wing ideas in the hope it will make us more palatable to some mystery audience. This audience is imagined to be open-minded Leftists who would somehow overlook our “racism” and see us as an oppressed people. With the correct argument, these people could be won to our side – or so the logic goes.”
There is some truth to this statement, but most socialist types in our movement are “leftist” by their own accord and don’t care what other non-racially conscious leftists think. I don’t randomly key premium cars at 3 AM in order to impress the importance of white survival upon some imaginary Aymee Terese type. I do so because I despise the people who buy premium cars; and I want to inconvenience them. I don’t think most of them came upon the pecuniary means to afford a premium car by ways I would approve of, so I’m showing my discontent at the way things are in an admittedly childish manner.
The same mindset explains why many on the Right think highlighting anti-capitalism or support for universal healthcare is a good strategy because it will win over this demographic. The problem with this is that this demographic does not exist. Leftists hate white people more than anything.
Hmmm. The recent Amren poll would seem to suggest otherwise. From their article:
Among white Democrats, the top three most important issues are healthcare, the environment, and non-racial economic equality issues such as raising the minimum wage, helping the poor, and taxing the rich. Race-related issues are much further down the list — mentioned by just 17.9 percent of white Democrats.
Most White Democrats are not ethnomasochists.
Well, yes and no. Aside from the question of the methodological accuracy of that poll (anyone know anything on that point?), most white Democrats are indeed ethnomasochists, but simply care more about socialist healthcare and the climate scam, and of course, enviously making the “rich” (trans: white middle class) pay for all their schemes. Hampton may have been too extreme in his statement (though not necessarily about POC leftists – I think they hate white people more than they care about socialism or climate fanaticism, the latter especially being, like other environmental issues, almost exclusively a white concern), but the number of prowhite leftists these days is vanishingly tiny.
most white Democrats are indeed ethnomasochists, but simply care more about socialist healthcare and the climate scam, and of course, enviously making the “rich” (trans: white middle class) pay for all their schemes.
That wasn’t the impression I got from the article.
Perhaps surprisingly, however, white identity only modestly correlates with political ideology. Large numbers of white Democrats (43.1 percent) — and even white racial liberals (28.1 percent) — say their race is important to their identity.
Now, it is possible that some of these Whites’ sense of identity is negative, but the article frames white identity as a “conservative racial position,” so I don’t think we can assume that. If that were so, we wouldn’t expect to racial liberals to have the lowest numbers for racial identity, but arguably the highest.
because our ancestors conquered, fought, and died for the land, not because we are mythically indigenous to it.
“We cleared this land – it’s ours!”
– Robert Mitchum’s character in River of No Return.
It’s not enough to quell the natives. You have to build a civilization with your own two hands to deserve that land. And then your descendants have to keep it through their own efforts.
Conquest is just murder and theft. The idea that “conquest” grants “rights” is basically the “might is right” principle, which is actually philosophically indefensible. It basically says that whatever constellation of power exists at any give moment ought to exist, until someone changes it, and there are no arguments for or against it, because the only reason that matters is who has the most power. It is an attempt to remove moral arguments from politics while paying lip service to the fact that moral arguments are actually the coin of the political realm.
Does that mean I feel guilty about murders and thefts committed by other white people in the distant past? Do I feel guilty about slavery? No. But not because I deny that murder, theft, and slavery are bad things. I just see no reason to revisit them, much less be bound by them today. Thus I believe in giving complete blanket pardons to the white people of the past who did bad things. I also believe that a healthy society should not dwell on past injustices. So we should draw a veil over such history and punish people who try to reopen old historical wounds.
We need an Indemnity and Oblivion act for all the white slave owners and Indian killers of the past. But we need to persecute today’s antifa and BLM terrorists to the fullest extent of the law.
The idea that “conquest” grants “rights” is . . . actually philosophically indefensible.
Might isn’t necessarily right . . . but it can be.
Didn’t Hegel, one of your heroes, argue that rights only make sense in the context of a state? As the original ‘Native Americans’ were a backward, primitive people – savages – they would have been incapable of grasping the modern concept of rights. The arc of history (should that be a cap ‘H’?) meant they were destined to succumb when Europeans showed up; men and women who knew how to exploit the rich resources available and then build a high civilization.
In a similar vein, when the U.S. annexed California after the Mexican-American War, Marx wrote: “Without violence nothing is ever accomplished in history . . . Is it a misfortune that magnificent California was seized from the lazy Mexicans who did not know what to do with it?”
The state is the most reliable protection for rights. That doesn’t mean that murder, rape, and kidnapping are okay before there is a state.
If might is right, then whites have no basis for complaining now that we have lost control of our homelands and are being demographically replaced.
California is back in the hands of the Mexicans because they turned out to be more powerful in the end. Saying that it is better for whites than Mexicans to rule there is appealing to a consequentialist moral argument, which is beside the point if might is right.
“If might is right, then whites have no basis for complaining now that we have lost control of our homelands and are being demographically replaced.
California is back in the hands of the Mexicans because they turned out to be more powerful in the end.”
But do you really need a moral “basis” to fight for your own survival? We’re biologically programmed for survival. I see no reason to justify wanting to survive to the very people who are trying to wipe us out.
Also (and maybe this is purely semantic on my part) but is California really back in the hands of Mexicans because they are/were more powerful, or simply because native whites were too weak and/or guilt-ridden to do anything to prevent their takeover? I think few people would disagree we had the muscle to prevent them from taking back over; we just lacked the will. Maybe that’s what you meant by “more powerful,” though.
Europeans are not even allowed to claim to be indigenous in Europe! As soon as a white Briton has the temerity to use the term, up will pop a liberal media pundit such as the spiteful anti-white commentator Afua Hirsch (sic) or cretinous Black MP David Lammy to remind us that such talk is problematic and gives succour to the Far Right.
Besides, the UK has been multicultural from its aboriginal inhabitant, mesolithic Person-of-Colour Cheddar Man, through its 1950s reinvigoration by the Afro-Caribbean passengers of the SS Empire Windrush, right up to the soon-to-be-celebrated minoritisation of its residual white population.
The idea that Whites are not indigenous to Europe has some truth to it — in the sense that the first Europeans were not “White” — and it’s surprising that European Leftists have not promoted it more strongly.
Could you please elaborate more? I am not well versed in Paleolithic history.
An unrealistic hypothetical I know, and I certainly do not speak for others, but I would be content to return to my ancestral home of Western Europe on the condition those of non-European decent leave Europe forever and never return.
Non-Europeans will always blame us for colonization so we just need to ‘step over’ any feelings of guilt by association. There really isn’t any other way. Constantly trying to appease using financial means or lowering the bar just does not work.
Greg Johnson — “The idea that “conquest” grants “rights” is basically the “might is right”principle, which is actually philosophically indefensible.”
Those among the libertarian-X will agree, but it’s hard to forget the fact that the Right of Conquest is the only universally recognized right among men, and has been since the start. Once you beat the Hill Tribe, the hill is yours.
Easier to accept the idea’s universal nature. Such as Europeans in an “enriched” are seem to accept implicitly that there are No-Go Zones for them in their own nations. When the wheel turns and the No-Go Zones are destroyed (probably using criminal means) the areas will be ours again.
We only need to stress how universal it really is. I’m beginning a short but interesting volume, Jewish Conquistadors in the New World: The Early Years, by Juan Marcos Bejarano Gutierrez. Very recent (2020) and a white whale I’ve been chasing since Michael Bradley (RIP) mentioned that some 70% of “European” conquistadors were Jewish and that there were more synagogues in New Spain in the century after Columbus than churches of any kind.
The 1619 Project can get flipped in a very new direction if a small amount of the right information gets wide release. This makes the subject fluid; we can use this going either way.
But we don’t have to embrace “might makes right”, either to excuse the past or justify hard actions in the present. Our ancestors did absolutely nothing wrong (and even if they did, we their descendants have no reason to feel guilty about it – nor do any other descendants: guilt, where valid, applies to an individual’s own actions, not to those in the past over whom he had no influence). And we are the victims of our time; objective racial morality is entirely on our side (which is what’s wrong with both Hampton’s essay, and Johnson’s response: they both needlessly relinquish the moral high ground) .
Slavery was wrong. I see no reason to deny that.
I just think that demanding recompense for “historical injustices” is a swindle designed to create social unrest.
The way white people deal with past crimes when they threaten present peace is an amnesty and a ban on further discussion.
I have extended a blanket amnesty to the slave traders and owners. Now let’s prosecute BLM to the fullest extent of the law and shut down the journalists, professors, and activists who wish to rent seek and destroy society because of slavery.
Was slavery wrong, or are we being anachronistic? I agree slavery would be wrong today, within what I call the “morally legitimate aspects of modernity”. I think it morally acceptable to define slavery as a moral wrong (in a way that I do not think it morally acceptable to define opposition to gay marriage or miscegenation or abortion as morally wrong). Let us say the world has grown a bit in some of its moral conceptions (we’ve also regressed wrt other ethical issues).
But was slavery wrong in the antebellum South? It had been a near-universal institution across history, and it was practiced all over the globe at that time. Southern slavery was not remotely as brutal as Muslim and Barbary slavery, or even French and Spanish New World slaveries. Moreover, the Old South was a highly Biblical society. While St. Paul in one of his letters seems to condemn slavery (in the guise of including “enslavers” in a recital of evildoers), at another time he spoke about the respective duties between master and slave, failing to denounce the practice as a whole (apologies for lack of citations, but I don’t know the Bible very well; these are just passages I vaguely remember from church services). And Christ Himself never condemned slavery.
My larger point is that, whatever the moral status of slavery a century and a half ago, we whites have the moral high ground today, especially wrt discussions about “who [morally] owns America”. We do! Whites founded, settled, and built this nation. We therefore have an ethnocollective property right in the (our) nation itself. We don’t need Hampton’s quasi-“cop out” of saying might makes right (and anyway, few whites today would agree with that type of amoral language, which totally, needlessly concedes the moral high ground to our racial enemies). We must win the ethical battle in the public square, or, given the innate moral superiority of whites, we will lose everything. Whites only act when they feel they have an objectively righteous cause, which is what ours is. Generally, I hate “playing the victim”, but whites should do so, because we are the truest victims of this age.
Yes, slavery is and always was wrong. If slavery was such a good thing in the antebellum South, why didn’t George Fitzhugh sell his children into bondage (assuming he had them)? Why was it reserved to a race widely reviled as inferior? No white man who does unto others as he would have others do unto him can support the institution of slavery. It was wrong. But nothing is gained by dwelling on it today. Hence the general amnesty to past slaveholders and slave traders. Let’s focus all our punitive ire on BLM and antifa terrorists, i.e., the colossal ongoing crime of our time.
White people have been dispossessed of our homogeneous White countries, and we are undergoing a White genocide of policy, not violence.
Since the situation is that all institutions are anti-White and the majority of the youth are imported non-Whites or the descendants of imported non-Whites, it is too late for us Whites to rely on arguments that, at best, bless the status quo.
We need a comeback. We don’t need to ratify our conquest.
“Right of conquest” is not a principle that would help us even if it was accepted by the authorities that Whites would have a right to appeal to such a principle equally with other races.
I understood 30+ years ago that the primary task of white nationalist philosophy (as opposed to WN science, historiography, or activism) is to develop the ethical case for white coercion in resecuring white homelands. I’ve argued with too many deeply conservative (racially, as well as theologically) Christians who, while not at all ‘woke’, freely admit (to me) that allowing nonwhite immigration, as well as acquiescing in the legislating of totalitarian racial integration as well as the elimination of anti-miscegenation laws, was regrettable and probably dooms the white race to ultimate extinction (these types seem to hope and assume it will be gradual and passive, as opposed to exterminatory). But they then invariably throw up their hands and dismissively say, “What can we do now?” That is, to act to stop or reverse this trend towards eventual white extinction would necessitate unchristian oppression, aggression, and “hate”. So, we blew it. It’s over, and there’s nothing we can do.
I disagree on all levels. But my point is that it is in this societal group (prowhite, but non-white nationalist, conservatives; basically, normal, modal, white non-leftists) that our racial hope lies, and for whose possible future ideological conversion we must develop our racial nationalist philosophy (especially its ethics, which I find far more practical than any forays into the more difficult and less relevant field of ontology).
I think you raise the bar too high by talking about “coercion.” We simply need to change the laws. The laws we need, moreover, are not substantially different from laws that already existed in the US in living memory. For instance, we need to return to the pre-1965 immigration laws designed to preserve a white supermajority. Then we need to encourage remigration of post-1965 arrivals and their families. The US has also removed millions of Mexicans twice in the last century.
Thank you for the reply.
Perhaps this unconsciously reflects both my Christian upbringing, and early immersion in libertarianism, but I see no way to secure white homelands without some considerable degree of coercion. Of course, we (meaning all white nations) can and should 1) secure our borders (and ports, etc) against future illegal entry; 2) deport all illegal aliens (including rescinding generous asylum laws leading to vast amounts of bogus asylum claims); and 3) enact legislation forbidding residency (and probably even visitation rights for many decades as we stabilize and build up our racial-national strength) to any nonwhites.
But all that does is stanch the ‘bleeding out’. Such stopgap measures are very unlikely to restore white homelands. I see two gigantic tasks. First, all nonwhites should be expelled from Europe. Every European nation must once again become an ethnostate. Second, in the diasporic white homelands (defined as territories whose first human inhabitants were not white, but whose political nation-states were founded by whites, and whose subsequent civilization and infrastructure were built overwhelmingly by whites) like ours (and Canada, Australia, perhaps New Zealand, South Africa, and possibly Argentina and southern Brazil), prowhites should seek to carve white ethnostates out of as much territory as we can seize (or negotiate). {Russia is a special case, an old nation-state containing many whites often territorially intermixed with ancient quasi-whites or nonwhites. Whites there will have to work out their own modus vivendi. We certainly don’t want the white Russians to relinquish the vast resources east of the Urals, of Asiatic Siberia, etc.} To me, these are the ultimate strategic goals of white nationalism (with the ultimate goal being the prevention of white extinction and oppression).
I fail to see how any of this can be accomplished absent coercion. Should Europeans bankrupt themselves trying to pay their Third World settler-colonialists to go home? What will they do with those who refuse to leave? Perhaps European racial de-colonization should not be seen as “coercive”. I would argue that the Third Worlders who migrated there were the criminal accomplices of domestic traitors impermissibly betraying their own peoples and nations by engineering a foreign invasion. Thus, I have no need to develop a moral argument for Third Worlder expatriation from Europe. For those nonwhites born in Europe, their forced removal will be something of a tragedy, but no worse (and undoubtedly a lot better) than what white colonial expats suffered at the hands of Third World anti-colonialists – whether in Haiti, Algeria, Vietnam, the Congo, Mozambique, or Rhodesia and S. Africa this very day. Nonwhites expelled from “the only home they’ve ever known” will have a right to be angry, but the anger should be directed at their colonizer parents and the white traitors who abetted them, not at the (white) peoples justifiably liberating themselves.
But for the New World white nations out of which we will carve ethnostates, how can coercion be avoided? You write, ” … we need to encourage remigration of post-1965 arrivals and their families. The US has also removed millions of Mexicans twice in the last century.” First, the Mexican removals were of illegal aliens; that is, we enforced just, existent laws against lawbreakers. How can we “encourage remigration” of legal immigrants non-coercively? This was the part of your White Nationalist Manifesto which I found least persuasive. I recall thinking at the time that you were assuming away the real question. Beyond the fact that I don’t believe SCOTUS would sanction any such legislation revoking legal citizenship, forcibly removing such persons (assuming we could build up the white racial will to do so – a big assumption), who almost certainly would not wish to leave, would clearly constitute “coercion”. My intellectual interest lay in developing the moral arguments, from within a Christian worldview, to justify such coercion (at least wrt an amount of territory sufficient for building an ethnostate). I think this task is achievable, but not easy.
I’m certainly no academic, politician or intellectual, but I can’t see how the return of non-Europeans (non-Whites) will ever get off the ground without some form of coercion (whether state sanctioned or otherwise). Going back to pre-1965 immigration laws would be great, but given the decay and corruption over the last 60 years, this seems unlikely, especially in the United States.
I believe the White Nationalist Manifesto mentioned those returning non-Whites should and could sell their assets at market price to fund their return and help them set up their new life in their own homelands. This would be the only honorable path to take, but what do ‘we’ do when they refuse to be repatriated ? … economic leverage could perhaps be one answer – refusal to relocate tied to diminishing returns on sale of personal property etc. ?
Perhaps we can do our own ‘long march through the institutions’ to alter laws, but I feel without addressing the highly likely possibility on non-compliance, it only weakens our position.
“No other people apologized for being victorious in war before the modern white man came along. The only shame comes from submission and loathing your own flesh and blood.”
So true. Modern day Turks revere the Ottoman Empire and there’s a 131 foot statue of Genghis Khan in Mongolia.
And none of them are losing any sleep over the millions of whites the Mongols and Turks killed/raped/enslaved, etc.
True – but ‘they’ are not ‘us’. See my comment at the top of the page. For better or now worse, whites are different psychologically.
“we should instead be asserting that our nations and identities are legitimate precisely because our ancestors conquered, fought, and died for the land, not because we are mythically indigenous to it.” I couldn’t agree more, and I agree at a gut level –not at an intellectual level.
My great-grandfather participated in the genocide and total extermination of indians in a far away land –and I’m proud of him: he bequeathed me a country.
Because of this, I don’t agree with Mr Johnson’s position of extending a blank pardon to my ancestors, and I won’t acknowledge that they did bad things, no matter what. As the Godfather said: “never take sides against the family”: it weakens your frith.
Our American ancestors did nothing wrong. Our modern racial antagonists can’t stand the fact that our ancestors were superior to every other race (as we remain today) both in moral virtue, and, to the extent that they did things which cannot be squared with modern liberal morality (whose status as objective moral truth is highly debatable), martial strength. Nonwhites have a very difficult time accepting objective, universal ethics. They also are highly racially self-esteem-oriented. Thus, it really upsets them that whites kicked their asses in times past. The Chinese still dwell on Western colonialist humiliations. The Arabs still whine about the Crusades (which were not in the least bit morally problematic); Negroes about slavery; Indians about territorial dispossession, etc.
This is a great article and very thought-provoking.
Most Indians are nice people but I do find it extremely offensive to SACRALIZE them, especially as yet another tool for lambasting White people.
Just to get it out of the way, I don’t have any great deal of sympathy for Muslims and Palestinians either ─ the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.
But that is not my issue as long my country is not hijacked by a hostile alien diaspora to fund Israel and fight its endless battles.
However, as a descendant of Western pioneers, I think the key point here is that pre-Columbian demographics in what is now the United States were never very large ─ and this was particularly true of the vast expanses West of the Mississippi River where “rain does not follow the plow.”
White pioneers didn’t steal anything.
With the exception of some extremely violent Noble Savages who were never more in tune with the cosmos than when they were digging out the heart of a virgin or torturing a White explorer, the American Indians were not massacred, let alone Genocided.
Experts also disagree over how many actually died like flies after the Natives first traded syphilis for smallpox with the White Man.
Anthropologist (((Jared Diamond))) who tends to eschew agriculture as an oppressive hierarchical technology, says that about 50 million Natives were democided after First Contact in what is now the United States.
Not conceding that the White Man deliberately invented bad germs, I think that number is off by an order of magnitude.
I’ve noticed that Europeans, especially Germans ─ no doubt influenced by Hollywood cinema and kitschy Western novels ─ are particularly prone to see the American Indians romantically, as “keepers of the sacred land.”
They imagine the Redskins to have been far more numerous than they ever were when the White Man started exploring, prospecting, and settling the vast continental frontier.
I’ve seen far too many doe-eyed tourists along Arizona highways dancing along in joy as colorfully-plumed Native Americans play pan flutes, beat drums and wave sage and smoke.
As pensioners dump wads of cash into the tip-jar, you hear clichés like the following:
“These people are so in touch with Nature.”
“Oh why did they kill them and steal their land?”
“You cannot bury their souls.”
“We can learn so much from them.”
One would think that General Custer was Pol Pot.
In reality, before contact with the White Man, it was feast or famine for the Stone Age hunter-gathers. Native fertility might increase in wetter time periods when they could collect and grow more food, but for the most part climate change was not their friend, and for Sustainability they basically killed and ate each other.
This is confirmed by ubiquitous modern archaeological evidence, as unwelcome as it might be in academia. I am no expert, but Arizona State University was once a leader in this field. The dead bones show that Indigenous lives were “nasty, brutish, and short,” long before they first met Europeans and traded syphilis for smallpox.
I can’t think of any other American demographic that is entitled by law to reserves of “ancestral land,” assuming that these people sprouted out of the Earth like blades of grass instead of violently migrating to happier hunting grounds like everybody else.
And like everybody else, American Indians benefit from modern civilization and European-American technology such as irrigation and insulin, even on the Reservation. They can and do work regular jobs in Scottsdale, AZ or Billings, MT when they choose to. Nobody makes them drink Aqua Net or keeps them trapped on the Res.
Although the Indians were never Genocided, their numbers were never large, especially on the vast frontier West of the Mississippi River where “rain did not follow the plow.”
Today Indigenous numbers are not large enough to existentially threaten us in any case, and if we can humbly thank White Settlers and White Soldiers for that, so much the better.
Indigenous lives mattered so much to the Indigenous before the White Man, that in recent years staff in academia have been reciting this weird mantra or daily affirmation in routine memos and correspondence that pledges everlasting gratitude to the mostly-plant consuming cannibals “who inhabited this land for centuries before the University was founded.”
(I’m taking a little license with the high-fructose corn syrup here, but you get the idea.)
As part of Diversity, Inclusion and Equity, and to renounce the demon of White supremacy, as much civilization as possible is to be de-colonized and Indigenized.
And the odd thing is that it’s mostly White people doing the repentance and sickly fawning. (I am not sure who should be gassed first.)
One nice cisgender fellow on Zoom the other day, a youthful Paleface with a Hispanic-sounding surname, was asked to give a brief rundown of research that his department was working on.
Like a schoolboy called out to recite a page of Shakespeare, he proceeded to do his best as a disheveled alien-being to present a wildly-impassioned perspective, such as “what a pre-Colonial might have felt when seeing the Grand Canyon for the very first time.”
The pre-Colonial observer would have had nothing for transportation besides feet or maybe a canoe to get there (no horses until Columbus, Tonto).
“They” also would have had absolutely no benefit of oppressive colonial technology to influence “their” Grand Canyon ecstasy, e.g., no bulldozers, no sky-cranes, no reinforced concrete, no walkways of any kind, no aircraft, no photography, no telescopes, no surveying instruments, no metal tools, no GPS, no guns, no compass, no maps ─ not even paper and pencil.
The cosmic hitchhiker basically would have had nothing more civilized than oral history, the Great Spirit, and the skinwalkers who roam the night wanting to drink human blood.
It was convincing theater, and the cat-ladies cried.
My pioneer ancestors would not be amused by any story premised that they stole anybody’s land.
The pioneer life was full of hardships like getting crops to grow in the dry soil and coaxing valuable ores out of the mountains. They were enterprising folks with a deep respect for learning, and a healthy respect for knowing how to make soap, cut timber, cast bullets and put them on target.
White pioneers understood that the Conquest of the West did not mean mass-murdering helpless Indians, but instead creating Civilization and learning how to make the land support their people and their country. So sorry.
The pre-Columbians barely got past flint arrowheads and the demons haunting their dreams. If they had accomplishments, they are not ours, and why do they need our veneration?
🙂
‘Empire of the Summer Moon’ by S.C.Gwynne (recommended by a writer here at CC) was an interesting read for me as a non-American. … So much for peace-loving natives in tune with nature.
You should especially read Thomas Goodrich, Scalp Dance: Indian Warfare on the High Plains, about Indian attacks and warfare in the decade and a half or so immediately after the Civil War. I bet it’s more on target than the Gwynne book (which I have not read).
Thanks for the recommendation.
Scott: Very well said and argued. I agree that White conquerors/settlers have nothing to apologize for. Non-Whites don’t particularly care for moral arguments unless they can use them to further bash compliant Whites. They believe might does make right, along with purported earlier arrival. That’s the basis for their claim to mythical Aztlan, when no one but the Comanches roamed there and the Mexicans clung close to the river before inviting in White Americans to fight the Comanche on their behalf.
And as far as having some inherent right to a particular land due to arriving earlier than others, that (along with the purported gift by God) is the Jews’ argument for Israel – that they were there ‘first.’ Every nation uses different arguments, moral or fictional or philosophical, to justify holding the land they inhabit. We oughtn’t twist ourselves up or deny ourselves use of any argument that helps our case in a given situation. As Richard Chance commented above, we need no moral argument to fight for our own survival.
Thanks. And now I see my typos glaring at me. I wish this comment section had an edit feature, LOL.
🙂
But we have the moral arguments! And whites are, for whatever genetic reasons, the most ethical race. It is smartest to appeal to the bulk of our people in ways congenial to our own racial psychology. Whites founded, settled, and built America. The handful of savages here when our race arrived had done virtually nothing to build civilization or “improve” (in the Lockean sense) the land. They just happened to be here. Their only moral claims could apply to their specific “personalty” – clothing they made, teepees, animals they had hunted and killed, etc. And given that they repeatedly attacked, often tortured or raped, and killed our own peaceful settlers, one can argue that they forfeited any moral considerations on our part at all. We occupied land that was in a pre-civilized, wild state, and tamed and improved it via our labor and ingenuity. We thus became the moral owners of the land in a way the wild Indians never did.
As to the Aztecs and Incas, they did succeed in breaking through to civilization, but the civilizations they inaugurated (especially the former) were objectively evil, and thus unworthy of our respecting any moral claims their descendants might make on their behalf. These peoples’ descendants were blessed with the white man having brought Christianity to their ancestors. From a Christian ethical standpoint (which is the only one I recognize; if God does not exist, human moral claims – especially outside a kinship relation – are meaningless), therefore, they cannot make present claims against us, as we were responsible for their having been shepherded into a higher ethical state (we just might be able to against them, however, depending upon the number and severity of any problems they have inflicted upon us).
Very well said (could have used a bit of self-editing, however). The number of Amerindians was vanishingly small (in today’s US – I believe it was different in Mexico and Central America, where there existed a real if barbarous civilization). Common sense and a bit of ecological (or agricultural) knowledge easily proves this. The North American landmass cannot support 50 million people without civilized agricultural techniques (maybe at least 18th-19th century-level medicines, too), which the Amerinds lacked. There is only so much native fauna to support hunter-gatherers (and it wasn’t so easy to kill masses of buffaloes [actually, waste – the Amerinds were horrible butchers of the bison] before the white man brought horses and guns). Population explosions only come with agriculture, and even then take a long time in terms of the building up of the antecedent conditions which finally trigger the explosion. And even if there had been such explosions without agriculture, they would have given rise to new forms of ecologico-demographically stabilizing microparasites. In other words, why didn’t the Amerinds have diseases of their own to counter-decimate the European settlers? Because there were very few of them relative to the size of N. America. Thus, any mutational disease outbreaks (which are very rare outside of the more crowded and urban conditions of civilization; they are also very rare in ecologically temperate zones, which defines most of N. America), would peter out quickly, as the number of new hosts got rapidly exhausted (either via death or developing immunity). This was due to the uncrowded and mostly isolated living conditions of pre-civilized peoples, especially in N. America.
I read a book around 2000 debunking this idiocy about vast numbers of Native “Americans” killed by European diseases. It was Henige, Numbers from Nowhere (Univ. Oklahoma Press). It’s serious scholarship such as doesn’t get produced much any more.
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.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment