Reply to Gregory Hood

3,465 words

This is a continuation of the debate on one white state or many between Greg Johnson and Gregory Hood. Greg Johnson’s opening statement is here. Gregory Hood’s is here. 

Dear Greg,

I decided to collect into a single document my responses to your debate statement together with some afterthoughts and treatments of issues we did not have time to deal with during the debate itself. Since I was addressing you directly in the debate, I decided to preserve that mode of address in a letter.

My first thought about your opening statement was, “Wow. That’s very eloquent and well-delivered.”

But I found your ideas themselves unconvincing. You have very effectively summarized how badly things are stacked against us. You laid it on thick. But you don’t offer any real solutions. In fact, your solution is so removed from present-day reality that it can only discourage grassroots pro-white efforts in white countries around the world.

A Contradiction in Your Position

We disagree on several important philosophical points. But before I dig into them, I want to point out a contradiction in your argument.

You haven’t really offered an argument for one white state. Instead, you’ve basically offered an argument against organizing pro-white movements in any other place but America — and presumably also Russia, although such organizing would get you promptly Gulaged — on the grounds that smaller white states can’t say “no” to America.

When asked where you think a white state is most likely to emerge, your answer was “America.” But you haven’t given us any reason to think that pro-white politics will fare better in America than in other white countries.

Won’t the United States government say “no” to pro-white communities in America, too? Indeed, won’t it be easier for the US government to quash any such movement within its own borders and under its own jurisdiction — as opposed to outside its borders, under the jurisdiction of another sovereign state?

I know that you think that sovereignty reduces simply to power, which means only big states are sovereign. But if national sovereignty means nothing in the face of an American veto, then lesser jurisdictions within America mean less than nothing.

You put a great emphasis on local community building. But if nation-states can’t stand up to the US government, then neither can the Wolves of Vinland.

The only pro-white community that could not be vetoed by the US government would have to either control or abolish the US government — or, alternatively, control or abolish the American media, to which you sometimes ascribe sovereign power.

I think you need to explain how you envision going from grassroots community building to that level of power. And if it is possible in the US, why is it not possible in other historically white and putatively sovereign states?

Are you simply working on the assumption that someday the US government won’t be around to say “no”? In the long run, that’s a reasonable assumption, since all things must pass. But then why shouldn’t nationalists in other white countries organize based on the same hope?

The basic message you have for pro-whites outside of America is “Your enemies won’t let you win.” That’s pretty much the definition of defeatism. Enemies seldom let you win anything. But we’re not asking their permission. We simply have to beat them.

Why do you think that your enemies will let you win in America? If you think they can be beaten, how? And if they can be beaten in America, somehow, why can’t they be beaten in Europe or the Southern Hemisphere, which are further away?

Is America the Problem?

I also disagree that America is the central locus of the problem. Before Brexit, many Britons believed that the source of their ills was in Brussels. Since Brexit, the same problems have persisted because Britain is ruled by globalists as well.

Indeed, practically every historically white state is ruled by its own globalists. In Western Europe, a great number of these globalists regard the United States as retrograde and reactionary. They feel that the US is holding them back.

This is why sovereign states don’t exert their power to say “no” to the US. It  is not because they lack such power, but because they, too, are ruled by globalists who don’t fundamentally disagree with America’s establishment, and even wish it were more radically globalist.

The issue is less United States political hegemony but rather the intellectual hegemony of globalist ideas. If the US collapsed tomorrow, globalists would still be in control in most white states. Indeed, some of them would feel liberated.

Given that fact, I think it would be good for globalist elites to face grassroots nationalist challenges in all 52 historically white sovereign states. To raise up those challengers, we must sow the dragon’s teeth of ethnonationalist ideas. As always, the intellectual challenge must come first.

You mentioned the pride flag. Does that fly around the world because America mandates it? Or does it fly around the world because there are homosexuals in every country who argue for it based on the same Left-liberal premises?

The pride flag is a symbol. Let’s talk about something more substantive: the legalization of gay marriage, which is now policy in 35 countries, 27 of them historically white. Was this mandated by the United States? No, not even close. It was first legalized in the US in subsidiary jurisdictions in 2004 — after the Netherlands, Belgium, and Canada. It became national policy in the US only in 2015 — after Belgium, Canada, Spain, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland, Argentina, Brazil, France, Uruguay, New Zealand, and Luxembourg. As with the pride flag, gay marriage spreads because the same conclusions are drawn from the same premises which have been widely adopted around the world.

Why did Donald Trump lead the charge to legalize homosexuality in Africa? Why did alleged conservatives such as Charlie Kirk applaud such efforts? Because conservatives think people are more important than principles, and they are addicted to “owning the libs” by out-libbing them. They are too timid, or too superficial, or too dumb, to challenge the hegemony of liberal ideas. But, as I have argued elsewhere, “Principles are More Important than People.” They are also more important than regimes — even the American regime.

The Problem with Conservatives

You are right that the conservative Victor Orbán banned the 2014 National Policy Institute conference in Budapest, and that the conservative government of Poland banned Jared Taylor from the Schengen Zone, twice.

But I am still right that the primary constituency for white identitarian politics around the world consists of people on the Right.

As for conservative politicians and pundits, even the good ones, they aren’t really on our side. Many in our camp think that these people actually share our views, but they are just too cowardly to stand up for whites. After all, there are plenty of people in our camp like that.

But the deeper reason conservative types are our enemies, and always fail to protect their homelands, is intellectual. Conservatives accept — and we reject — the absurd idea that identity politics for whites, and only whites, is the worst possible thing in the world. It is the sin of “racism,” which is only a sin when practiced by whites.

Who on Earth thinks that white identity politics is the worst thing in the world? Jews, mainly. When conservatives such as Tucker Carlson argue that the Left needs to step back from identity politics, lest white identity politics be awakened — when conservatives say that they are the last line of defense against white identity politics — they are not speaking to blacks or mestizos. They are speaking to powerful Jews. They are arguing that they, not the Left, are the most reliable servants of Jewish interests. It would be nice if conservatives cared as much about their own people’s ethnic interests as they care about the ethnic interests of Jews. But they don’t, so we will have to change their minds.

Once again, the primary enemy is a bad idea that has enthralled conservatives around the world. If America disappeared tomorrow, this idea would still control minds and policy in white countries. How do we replace this bad idea with better ones? I think that we have to fight it everywhere it has taken root, in the context of whatever languages, cultures, and political systems that prevail there. This means that we have to encourage rather than discourage grassroots white activism in all white countries.

The Power of Ideas

How do powerless people challenge the powerful, especially when armed with mere ideas? If you think we need power to start with — if you think that only power can challenge power (as Burnham says) — then the situation is hopeless.

I believe that power rests on legitimacy, not the reverse. The powerful can’t rule by brute force alone. They need consent, and for consent, they need the imprimatur of moral legitimacy. Thus the powerless can overcome the powerful by challenging and impeaching their moral legitimacy.

This is why they spend so much time burnishing their moral credentials and blackening ours. This is why we spend so much time decrying the lies, follies, coverups, double standards, and other moral outrages of the establishment.

The less legitimacy the system enjoys, the less consent they enjoy, the less power they have, the more they have to resort to naked coercion. But coercion further erodes legitimacy, which can lead to a self-reinforcing downward spiral toward collapse. This is how the wagging finger of moralism can overthrow the most powerful states.

The same is true of the media. Their power rests not on technology, monopoly power, and censorship. It rests on their credibility. It rests on people’s willingness to take them seriously. Their credibility, however, is collapsing, and our efforts have a great deal to do with that, even though we have a tiny fraction of their money and personnel, and operate from the margins of society.

What Is Sovereignty?

If sovereignty simply reduces to power, then no one has sovereignty. If France is not sovereign because the US is more powerful, then the US is not sovereign, because the US is not more powerful than an alliance of the rest of the world against it. Thus the equation of sovereignty and power is reduced to absurdity.

What is sovereignty? It is a moral norm. It is analogous to the rights of individuals. Under international law, a sovereign state bears certain rights that are recognized by other sovereign states. Sovereign states control their own internal affairs. They have the power to say “no” to all lesser internal jurisdictions. They have the power to say “no” to other sovereign states. Sovereign states, large and small, have equal rights under international law, just as individuals big and small have equal rights. Sovereignty does not make a state autarkic or invulnerable, just as rights don’t make individuals bulletproof. But when a state’s sovereignty has been violated, it has been wronged, and it — and other states — are entitled to bring the aggressor to heel and to justice.

Do such norms matter? Yes, because no matter how cynical politicians are, they still at least pay lip service to them. No nation, not even the most powerful, can afford to dispense with them altogether, because no nation has the power to resist the whole globe in a game of pure power politics. Hobbes was right: If you are serious about power politics and take it to its ultimate extreme, you will be forced to take refuge in moral norms.

Ethnonationalism as a Right

You write:

. . . concerning the idea of ethnonationalism. Where does it start? Every people gets their own nation. Okay, well, does Cornwall get to secede? Does Wales? Does Northumbria? These are all secessionist movements that really exist.

Ethnonationalism is the idea of a world order in which every people that aspires to independence has the right to a sovereign state of its own. To that end, ethnonationalists support the rights of secession and irredentism, i.e. the rights of the same people, separated by artificial borders, to join together in a larger state. We also support the idea of population transfers to decrease diversity and increase homogeneity in regions troubled by multiculturalism.

When should this happen? Simply when there are two or more peoples sharing the same state? Not necessarily. Some peoples may be content with the current situation. For instance, the Romansch people of Switzerland have not had any significant agitation for independence since the nineteenth century, probably because they do not feel their language and identity to be threatened in the Swiss Federation.

For new ethnostates to be born, there has to be (1) a people with a distinct sense of identity that (2) believes that its existence as a people is threatened by the current order, and (3) believes that it would be better off under a different state. In those circumstances, a people should be able to exercise their right to exit and either join another state or form their own state.

Why should other states care about this? Ultimately, because blood will be spilled. Multiculturalism promotes conflict and the destruction of cultural and biological diversity, and the most elegant solution is to separate warring tribes into different sovereign nations.

Ethnonationalism should be seen as a right, not a duty. You are obligated to do your duty. You have the option of exercising your rights. The Cornish and Northumbrians are not obligated to have their own states. Is there even a Northumbrian people today? Or is it just an administrative division of England?

But if the Welsh or the Cornish feel that their existence as peoples is threatened by remaining in the United Kingdom, then they should have the right to exit, and no force on Earth should have the right to oppose them. Indeed, the international community should come together to support them and ensure that the process of redrawing boundaries and/or moving populations is orderly and humane, and consistent with the basic human rights of all people involved.

States vs. Nations

You continue:

But if you actually believe in your ethnic nation, at some point you’re going to want to draw the line, because in any such order, the country that can prevent the most secessionist movements and control the most territory is going to be the strongest.

You can say you want independence for your own nation, but if you’re willing to let groups within that nation break away, especially in marginal cases where you don’t have something like a 90% majority, I suggest you don’t actually love your nation all that much. You don’t want it to be powerful. You don’t want it to be strong. So do you really want it? And what’s the point of it?

 This is indeed the logic of empire. Your state becomes stronger and richer by adding territories and peoples. It remains so by preventing peoples and territories from breaking away. Diversity, apparently, is a strength now.

I believe the opposite: Every nation is better off by increasing its homogeneity, even if that means letting go of subject peoples and territories.  Unless, of course, you believe it is ethical for some states to reduce other peoples and their territories to simple repositories of natural and human resources. But if you believe that, on what grounds, exactly, do you object to what is happening to white peoples today?

What Kind of Unity?

You write, “The West works best at a time of unity, from the Greeks fighting off the Persians to the Crusades.” The Greeks fought the Persians and the Christians fought the Saracens as alliances of many different sovereign states. That’s a far cry from a single sovereign entity. Advocates of one white state frequently claim that it is the only way for whites to survive great geopolitical conflicts. But this is simply not true. Military alliances of sovereign states are sufficient to meet any challenge.

The New White Man

As an ethnonationalist, I believe in the one people, one state principle. You argue for one white state based on the fact that whites are becoming one people. Ethnic differences matter less and less due to globalization, and whites are attacked simply as whites.

But the erasure of cultural differences by globalization is largely superficial. Beyond that, the erasure of identity is nothing to embrace. It is just one more reason to fight against globalization. Moreover, the fact that our enemies see us merely as white is an error on their part, and it is certainly no argument for seeing ourselves simply as white.

I don’t believe that generic white people exist. All white people also belong to particular ethnic groups. Europeans think that White Nationalism is an “American” idea because they think Americans are merely generic white people, created by blending deracinated white stocks. I have argued against this view in my article “American Ethnic Identity.” Americans are a distinct people and as such require our own homeland. White Nationalism does not mean one nation for generic white people, but many nations for many distinct white peoples.

Why talk about biological whiteness at all? Because biological whiteness sets the outermost boundaries for assimilation into a white nation. Logicians make a distinction between necessary and sufficient conditions. Contra civic nationalists, biological whiteness is a necessary condition for being a member of any white people. A Somali with a French passport is not French. But biological whiteness is not a sufficient condition for being a member of any white people, because peoplehood requires a shared language and culture. Thus every Frenchman is white, but not all whites are Frenchmen.

I think it is possible to love yourself, love your family, love your community, love your city, love your culture, love your language, love your nation, and love your race. All these attachments are real. They radiate outward in concentric circles. They can also be balanced with one another.

But if all you care about is biological whiteness, that induces a kind of blindness. Replacement migration into a white country suddenly becomes fine if all the replacers are white. The destruction of white cultures and nations doesn’t matter, because at the end of the process we still have whites. Even white extinction can be soft-pedalled because in 200 years, there will still be Amish, and they are white, right? Frankly, it would be a tragedy if whites became one white people within one white state. But the tragedy would be invisible if all you notice is that the end products of homogenization have white skins.

The New White Statesman

I believe that the one white state you advocate depends upon a new kind of man who doesn’t exist. But I have to lay my cards on the table. My position requires a new kind of statesman in every white nation, and they don’t exist, either. Indeed, it requires a new model of international relations.

The ethnonationalist vision is of a new world order in which every people that aspires to independence has a sovereign homeland of its own. These ethnostates will live in peace because they will repudiate the bad old zero-sum, “beggar thy neighbor” nationalism, which I call imperialism. Instead, they will treat other nations as they would like to be treated themselves. They will respect one another’s sovereignty and interests as a necessary condition of peaceful trade and cooperation.

The states of the world have always lived in a state of anarchy vis-à-vis one another. But history shows that anarchy isn’t always chaos. There can be order without a common government. We owe it to ourselves to explore how this is possible. In international law, one finds the concept of the “comity of nations,” meaning the mutual recognition of independent sovereignties. It is a form of collegiality, in which independent agents work together for common goals without an overarching political command structure.

My vision is a world in which a college of white ethnostates follows certain basic rules. First, no fighting amongst one another. This could be enforced by the other states agreeing to come to the aid of any white state attacked by another. Second, no alliances with non-whites against fellow whites, which could be enforced in the same way. Third, no importation of non-whites into historically white territories. Fourth, no more white altruism to the rest of the globe. Trade yes, altruism no.

That’s a lot to ask for. It requires a change of consciousness in every existing white state. Hence the need for grassroots movements in every white state. But this has always been an intellectual battle first and foremost.

Moreover, I think such statesmen are more likely to emerge than the new generic white man. If you are Czech, it is possible to think of yourself as Czech first, because that’s most authentic. But it is also possible to have a broader civilizational and racial consciousness on top of that. That’s what we need to work towards, as the crowning achievement of grassroots white preservationist movements around the world.

* * *

Like all journals of dissident ideas, Counter-Currents depends on the support of readers like you. Help us compete with the censors of the Left and the violent accelerationists of the Right with a donation today. (The easiest way to help is with an e-check donation. All you need is your checkbook.)

For other ways to donate, click here.