400 words
1. Whites must comprise a supermajority — 99% or more — of any geographical territory they occupy. This is self-evidently true, as our failed attempts at multiculturalism have shown.
2. Whites must do our own work. We cannot import third-worlders to do it for us. This means not importing workers, and it means not offshoring jobs to the Third World.
3. Tribalism is eternal and immutable. There is no such thing as assimilation. Non-whites will always be hostile to our interests and therefore toxic to our societies.
4. Whites have a unique responsibility to defend our territories, because our territories are the most desirable. We have the power to construct the world’s most prosperous and beautiful societies. We also therefore carry the great burden of keeping non-whites out, and we must be prepared to do so at all costs. The alternative is oblivion.
5. Our people cannot worship celebrity, money, or individualism. We must have a conscious sense of culture and community in order to maintain a healthy society.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s It’s Okay to Be White here.
6. Whites cannot take seriously the complaints of non-whites. This leads to white supplication and acquiescence. Non-whites complain out of envy and resentment towards whites, so they are not to be taken seriously.
7. White guilt and self-flagellation is not virtuous; it is asinine and traitorous. Some whites have misguidedly adopted the principle that self-sacrifice is virtuous by advocating for the interests of non-whites. This is caustic to our morale as a people, and it must stop.
8. Tribal competition is a zero-sum game. The world is a place of limited resources, and the extent to which we give our time and resources to non-whites is the extent to which we deprive our own people. We are like lifeboat survivors escaping from the sinking Titanic. We cannot take all the others who are in the water aboard, lest we capsize our own boat. We cannot save the world. We can only save ourselves.
9. Whites are not morally responsible for the well-being of non-whites. This is perhaps our most fundamental principle. Certain malevolent actors try to persuade us otherwise by propagating white guilt. They do this, though, not because it is truthful, but rather as an ethnocentric tactic to suppress whites, whom they view as their enemy.
10. Women have no place in politics. Woman should not vote, hold political office, or participate in the military. We must stop masculinizing women and indulging their complaints in these areas. Men are to be our leaders.
42 comments
In the unlikely event that number 10 could be achieved the other 9 would largely take care of themselves.
Well, a loud Amen, sir.
In our current state, even trying to get Whites to take reciprocity as a measure of how to relate to other races would be a major advance: “In the wake of all our accommodations for them (non-Whites) and their well-being, what evidence do they give of having any consideration at for ours in return?”
Your clarity and forthrightness and unapologetic self-confidence is a pleasure to read.
I foresee little disagreement with your first nine points, but the tenth is a bit of a third rail. With respect to the individual women involved here and in other WN spheres, I note the following:
When men ruled, we engaged in two monstrously destructive brother wars. Yet we both rebuilt and repopulated after them. In the wake of female empowerment, societal participation, governing power and contraceptive technology, no White nation has a minimum replacement level birth rate.
Most points are mostly true, but you’ll lose a lot of people due to point ten. Yes, leftist women have done a lot of damage in politics due to their conformity, and acceptance of stupid ideas. But to assume they are naturally and permanently stupid, as point ten implies, will annoy them and deter them from supporting your other and more important ideas.
Male dominance in public affairs is not necessary because of the intellectual inferiority of women, but rather because of their different psychological makeup, which is geared towards altogether different biological functions. Their reproductive strategy and their role in the nurturing of offspring means that, regardless of intelligence,
they put saving face, being nice, social lubrication and approval above factual truth
they tend to be bad at abstract, systematic thought; in contrast they are solipsistic, self-centered, petty, small minded, myopic
they use feelings in the present as a compass to navigate reality, and can’t really compartmentalize and dissociate from feelings as needed to the degree men can; they are emotional beings
they see men as expendable and replaceable; when dealing with men, they expect to be taken care of, rather than take responsibility and make sacrifices, as opposed to men, who are generally protective of women (their reproductive value for the group) even to their own detriment
as they are physically weaker, they rely on psychological manipulation and deception to extract resources, status and protection from men, and they are only loyal to themselves and to whatever power they perceive as dominant in their social environment
I could go on, but I think you get the point.
Note that these characteristics are all somehow related to women’s biological imperatives of capturing a protector/provider for their offspring, caring for said offspring in the first few years of development, harmonizing close relationships, etc. They also make women unsuitable for the traditionally male roles, which are traditional precisely because of the male’s innate talents and tendencies, corresponding to his biological functions.
Besides, having women in these environments (politics, armed forces, academia, etc) changes the whole social dynamics among the men, massively reducing their overall effectiveness. And finally: NAXALT is, as usual, irrelevant, if nothing else because including even some exceptional women in public life and leadership positions would confuse the issue for ALL other women and distract them from their natural roles/environments.
In short: we want to exclude women from politics etc., not because we assume they are naturally and permanently *stupid*, but because we assume – we KNOW – they are naturally and permanently *feminine*.
In order for the tribe to thrive, their natural talents must be focused elsewhere, which means their freedom must be very much restricted. When given power and freedom, women simply cannot be counted on to protect the group’s interests, as the experience of the last 70 years or so amply demonstrates.
Women have been allowed to ruin universities because their ‘safe space’ mentality has been indulged. If you toughen up academia, get rid of the censorship, excess politeness, etc, the weak women will drop out and the smarter and tougher ones remain.
But a blanket ban of women in academia (and politics) is going too far. This sort of restrictive policy is exactly what most leftists think a right wing government is like, and they are entitled to dislike it and run a mile from it. With these sort of policies, you’ll never get into power, and I wouldn’t support you either.
Yes, many of these bad behavioural traits you list are real, but they’ve only been allowed to thrive because social institutions have become rotten. In a ‘healthy white society’ to use the author’s term, once you get the rot out of the institutions, women’s worse tendendencies will no longer be indulged and they’ll be forced to display the better parts of their nature.
I agree you don’t need women in the military, but they should be allowed into politics and academia as long as they’re held to exactly the same standards as men.
“This sort of restrictive policy is exactly what most leftists think a right wing government is like”
They are right to think so, because that’s what a true right wing government would do, and that’s the kind of government genuine right-wingers want. The kind of government that will create and enforce structures and boundaries capable of channeling the tribe’s energy towards higher, greater things. That is the number 1 thing I want from my government: put a stop to obviously harmful, socially disruptive or undermining behaviors, whether it be violent crime, drug abuse, mass immigration, feminism, race-mixing or whatever.
Here’s the thing: someone’s restriction is someone else’s liberation. The obvious example: you have to be VERY restrictive of the rights of non-whites in White societies for Whites to thrive, even to the point of excluding them completely. Now, let me assure you, most right-wing White men feel very, very restricted – undermined, humiliated even – in the current gyno-centric system, and seeing their government mandating and enforcing the natural roles of men and women would be a huge relief, a motivator and a morale-booster all rolled into one.
===
“A blanket ban of women in academia (and politics) is going too far.”
Compared to what? Points 1 and 2 in the article are essentially blanket bans, and they would be very popular if it weren’t for leftist censorship and tyranny.
===
“they should be allowed into politics and academia as long as they’re held to exactly the same standards as men.”
This position is to sex what civic nationalism and the whole “equality of opportunity” thing is to race, and it is invalid for similar reasons. Gender neutrality = race blindness.
What is the *point* of having a mixed race state? Who benefits, other than parasitic non-whites? Similarly, what is the *point* of having women in politics, universities, etc? What purpose does it serve? What’s the benefit, for either the tribe or the individual men and women? The only reason they ever got into politics, academia, and public life in general was the dogmatic ideological push for “women’s rights”,; these innovations were never justified with any practical benefits (except for our enemies), and they still aren’t.
===
“With these sort of policies, you’ll never get into power”
That’s a matter of opinion. Like I said, I think men in huge numbers are already more than ready for a complete reversal of feminists policies, and many more could join our ranks in the future. If we were truly free to argue for it in the public square, and explain the benefits to women, I believe many of them would be ready for it too. How many times do we have to see those charts correlating the increase in women’s rights with their growing depression, mental illness, infertility, etc?
Here’s a recent and very relevant article on Morgoth’s Substack.
https://morgoth.substack.com/p/hard-times-and-the-white-wargus/
In any case, neither the article nor my comment are proposing policies meant to gain us public support in the current year. We’re listing universal principles and ideals for a healthy white society.
So, in terms of universal principles: we don’t want to exclude women from these environments because they are insufficiently smart, tough, or whatever; we want to exclude them because they are *women*, and their mere presence as such alters the climate and social dynamics of traditionally male spaces, regarless of the individuals’ qualities or lack thereof. The point is ***having a woman-free space for men to work in***.
We’re not interested in women displaying the better parts of their nature in politics any more than we’re interested in cats displaying the better parts of their nature on a fox hunt. We have dogs and horses for that. The cats should stick to oppressing, terrorizing, and ethnically cleansing rodents back at the farm, and find their happiness in that. That is where they naturally thrive and prove most useful both to themselves and the farm as a whole (also, the horses would be useless at it). And even if some rare and curious specimen of cat happened to have more fun chasing a fox with a pack of baying hounds, and even if it were genuinely good at it, bringing the cat along on the hunt would be hugely distracting and confusing for the dogs and horses. Should we undermine the whole business of fox hunting to indulge the whims of a few outlier cats? I don’t think so.
We want the better parts of women’s nature to be expressed in their natural environment, i.e. in the small world of home and family, and possibly in the kinds of jobs where their feminine qualities and inclinations prove most useful.
This doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be allowed creative pursuits and just as much room for personal, intellectual and spiritual growth as men – as long as it happens in the private sphere. I would want my wife and daughters, and in fact all White women – my extended family – to have a rich, happy personal and social life. I’d want them to know and feel like they make important contributions to the tribe’s prosperity and advancement, and find a sense of purpose and meaning in that. And I believe they would be much more likely to do so if we, as men, contained and channeled their feminine energy towards suitable endeavors, away from both public/male roles, and the destructive and self-destructive behaviors typical of the average White woman today.
“This sort of restrictive policy is exactly what most leftists think a right wing government is like”
They are right to think so, because that’s what a true right wing government would do, and that’s the kind of government genuine right-wingers want.
Which is why White Nationalism needs to ditch the Right in North America.
The Right brings nothing of value to the table. For every ‘happy right-winger’ there are a thousand Whites who shun White politics because of its perceived association with the Right.
I see right-wing politics as a kind of parasite political faction on White Nationalist politics. The perception that ‘White Nationalism’ is a right-wing movement is a liability, not an asset.
Thanks for your answer, but I don’t think your solution will work. You said “someone’s restriction is someone else’s liberation.” The liberation seems to be all in your favour – that is the ability to enter various forms of public life, including university. But you also want to restrict women to “… their natural environment, i.e. in the small world of home and family, and possibly in the kinds of jobs where their feminine qualities and inclinations prove most useful.”
Many women might well be happy in that traditional role but there are plenty who would not be, and your answer would be Bad luck, that’s just the way it is.
I used to see pictures of leftist protesters dressed up in red like in The Handmaid’s Tale, and think they were being absurdly paranoid. However your vision justifies their paranoia.
You said: “Similarly, what is the *point* of having women in politics, universities, etc? What purpose does it serve? What’s the benefit, for either the tribe or the individual men and women? The only reason they ever got into politics, academia, and public life in general was the dogmatic ideological push for “women’s rights”.”
Your latter statement is wrong. Pushing women’s rights wasn’t the only reason they went into academia. Many women went to university for the same reasons you probably did – to develop their intellectual abilities and / or career-related skills. Yes, academia is riddled with cancerous leftist traits and ideas now, but it doesn’t have to be that way. If universities return to sanity and pro-western values and get rid of the rampant leftism, they could again become an intellectual arena for the benefit of both men and women.
However, if you insist that your ‘healthy white society’ confines women to the domestic sphere, your chances of coming into power are zero, and I’d personally rather become a leftist again than support it. Policies like yours are why leftism exists in the first place.
Your hopes for some kind of white ethnostate would be far more worthy of success, and more likely to achieve it, if you ditch or at least modify the policy on women. Many of today’s women would gladly return to a traditional role if they could, but the ones that don’t want to should not be forced into it, or denied the more expansive life that you also desire for yourself.
My take on this is similar to my take on homosexuality (and transvestitism, etc), careerism for women, childlessness in general, obesity, miscegenation, and the presence of non-whites. Promoted as norms or spread widely, these are all very destructive, but absolute bans on them do more harm than good. What we need are clear norms, promoted widely and unapologetically.
Not every coupling must be heterosexual, but heterosexuality must be the explicit norm. Not every woman must be a homemaker, but forming families and having children must be an explicit and celebrated norm – the default path. We shouldn’t ban obesity, but physical and mental fitness must be a norm. We don’t need a 100% white society, but it should be unapologetically white-normative.
Women in general should not spend their fertile years chasing a career, but some small percentage of women really can best serve society with their professional talents in lieu of having children, and there should be no absolute bar against them doing so.
You might argue that what we gain from the small percentage of exceptions is not worth it, but I’d argue that rigid bans create points of friction and dissatisfaction that cultural enemies can exploit. I believe that if we have the norms, we don’t need the bans, and bans won’t hold if we don’t have the norms.
That’s right. Conforming to leftists’ most paranoid fantasies and and therefore justifying them is hardly a good strategy. It just gives them legitimate reasons to hate and overthrow you, and who could blame them? It is also insane to think that all women would be happy to be confined to the domestic sphere, and would accept being restricted to that role.
“Women in general should not spend their fertile years chasing a career, but some small percentage of women really can best serve society with their professional talents in lieu of having children, and there should be no absolute bar against them doing so.”
This is an excellent example. So: how, exactly, are you going to make sure it is that small percentage of outlier women that chooses career over family? Are you going to trust all the rest of them to be aware of their condition and make the right choice? How did that work so far? Also: how are you going to prevent the inevitable subversive elements in society from inciting and organizing these women and push them into the wrong path?
Look, I agree in principle that extreme, categorical measures are bound to incite more opposition in some, and therefore lead to greater social tension, brittleness, etc. I agree that is an undesirable complication, and blanket bans are by no means a perfect solution. However, they are simple, immediate and definite. In a very complex, confusing and confused society, the lack of nuance in remedial measures can be a very effective way of cutting the knot.
Because: how do you establish something as “norm”? I assume you are talking about “soft” measures, such as supporting certain kinds of themes and stories in the entertainment industry, or giving positive and negative financial incentives to encourage the new norm, and so on. That could work, and the more of these measures you introduced, the more resilient the new norm would be, because where one fails, you still have many others supporting the desired norm. You have redundancy. Another advantage would be graduality; it would probably be easier to un-boil the frog if you did it bit by bit. I get it.
However: isn’t this softness, this blurriness of boundaries, this forgiving, generous, tolerant attitude, this plentiness of wiggle-room, precisely what allowed our enemies to subvert our societies in the first place?
If you have a law against any non-white presence save for diplomatic personnel and the like in White countries, it’s black and white. Being in a European country is illegal for any non-white person, period. Any infraction is easily spotted and recognized as such, and non-whites can never gain any kind of foothold, barring extreme events or the abrogation of the law itself. You now have a bottleneck, a Thermopylae, a portcullis, an iron gate where you can concentrate your defense. As long as the law stands, and the state has the will and means to enforce it, the desired result is almost guaranteed. Some people may protest, but they would be easy to contain, especially if you ALSO had a redundancy of soft incentives in place, which would be my strategy.
Of course, not all problems in society lend themselves to this approach, nor do they require it. In the case of childlessness, for example, I don’t believe any such law would be necessary. If Whites had hope and pride again, and if men could support a whole family with their work as it used to be, that would probably be enough to ensure replacement level fertility, just as it was in the past. No need to force the issue. I would still provide plenty of incentives and more granular laws for eugenic purposes, but we’d had our bases covered.
In other cases, such as homosexuality, I think a more oblique approach would be appropriate. Banning homosexual acts would be perceived as extreme and tyrannical, but banning the public *promotion* of gender ideology and anything that attacks or undermines the desired norm is easily defended and implemented.
In short: different issues would require different solutions. Whenever you can obtain the desired result organically, without force, I agree that it is preferable. I’m not insisting on draconian laws as THE solution to any and all problems. But on some issues, blanket bans/obligations and/or clear-cut separations, such as an IQ threshold for access to higher education, just make more practical sense. You allow no-fault divorce, or you don’t. You mandate paternity tests for all newborns, or none. And you can only provide men with the 100% male spaces they need to perform optimally if you ban all women from said spaces, can’t you?
However: isn’t this softness, this blurriness of boundaries, this forgiving, generous, tolerant attitude, this plentiness of wiggle-room, precisely what allowed our enemies to subvert our societies in the first place?
No, it’s not.
The history of the unfolding of the anti-White regime has very little to do with ‘softness’ or a ‘forgiving, generous, tolerant attitude’.
Rather, it’s the failure of the White ruling class to take the side of the White working class. The war over the value of labor to capital created all of the conditions necessary for non-Whites to ascend to positions of power.
It was the rigid determination of White capitalists to assimilate all profits to themselves while externalizing all costs to the working class that created a rift that destroyed whatever White racial solidarity that ever existed among North American Whites.
Whites have never had a non-White enemy that could defeat them without some Whites assisting them to do so.
In North America, the chief allies of the anti-Whites was the White ruling class. It still is (even while their being replaced by jews).
Right now, I consider the idea that ‘White Nationalism is a right-wing movement’ to be an idea that assists our enemies in their war on Whites because it adversely affects recruiting from the vast number of Whites who are not ‘right-wing’.
If the core of White Nationalism is ‘(Some) Whites judging the worth of other Whites’ then I don’t see how White Nationalism is any different from ‘conservatism’ or ‘liberalism’ or just jewish culture in general.
However, a White Nationalism that originates from the impulse of ‘White people (primarily) being nice to White people’ isn’t either liberal or conservative or easily co-opted to an anti-White purpose.
White Nationalism as a movement needs to earn the trust of Whites. But it also needs to be a serious movement rather than a dumping ground for fringe political beliefs.
A liberal pro-White is still pro-White.
Tribal politics is nepotistic politics. You cannot have political nepotism based upon excluding members of your tribe. It’s not just bad politics, it’s inherently contradictory.
One thing which is inexhaustible abundance is affection and generosity toward our own people.
But the Right want’s to put meter on than abundance and generosity and throttle it for their own interests.
I don’t see that as being in the interest of Whites.
And it’s certainly not in the interests of a pro-White movement just beginning to expand.
“We don’t need a 100% white society,…”.
Yes we do. We r done with this diversity, it has to b dead & buried. We have to embark on Our Breakaway Civilization In Perpetuity:
We don’t have to live like this. We’ve allowed a situation whereby recovery of our race may take multiple generations, we may even go extinct, there is no guarantee. Our future is our birthright. The one logical longterm solution is – Our Breakaway Civilization in perpetuity. A 100% segregation in perpetuity. This is not figuratively, this is literally. And, head back to the stars where we left off in 1972 as the explorers we are with our unquenchable thirst for knowledge. We have to see the bigger picture. Our Solar System alone has practically incalculable amounts of resources. One asteroid alone has enough precious metals to be worth more than the global economy at $10 quintillion. There is an unavoidable universe right above us, it begs to be explored. Imagine where we would be by now had we not conducted this failed diversity experiment. An Intersolar People, definitely. Remember, we went to the Moon using a slide rule. Now, instead of testing a new type of Intersolar spaceship with the latest propulsion system from our Moonbase to Mars, we have to prepare for what is coming – racial bloody large scale conflict, balkanization, hard times. If we survive this, there won’t be many of us left, perhaps 20-25%. Our destiny of a bright future will be further postponed. YET, if we collectivize today we can reclaim our homelands & avoid the nightmare that awaits us. However, I see no sign of any coming together to save our future.
“Nothing is ever irreversible, except the death of a people by genocide or miscegenation.”
Dominique Venner.
I agree with just about everything you said, but a few quick notes on number 5.
Whites did have famous actors, writers, and athletes in the past who were financially successful, who lived in Beverly Hills, and whom we admired, and they didn’t damage us. I don’t think celebrity culture is “inherently” bad for us, it just greatly depends on the degree, and who specifically we uphold as celebrities.
I’m not accusing, but I also hope that point number five isn’t a call for socialism or a jab at capitalism. Capitalism does work for whites, and is best for whites, but only with the notion that moral people have to be in charge of our economy, extremely strict immigration policies, etc. I’m ok with small safety nets to those who are truly disabled or who have hit hard times, and I’m also ok with means-tested things like social security and Medicare. But I don’t want pure socialism or any end to free markets, innovation, and wealth-building. A balance between 80% private sector and 20% public sector I think is doable.
Most non-whites in the continental 48 states DID come from somewhere else, and they could easily return. As far as the historical blacks, I say they either repatriate to Ghana, are given money to go somewhere in Asia, or we take the big island in Hawaii and build them a black homeland 3,800 miles away — maybe all 3 things Should be considered.
But yes, this multiracial country has been a failure even long before the 1965 immigration Act — but what we have today is akin to murder. Whites are going to have to wake up in such a way that they never have before, and it won’t be pretty, but this cannot continue any longer.
The health system is a massive drain on white countries, especially in the US which spends double (17 % of GDP from memory) relative to UK or Australia with no measurably better health outcomes. Some of that is due to you subsidising the world by being at the cutting edge of new techniques which you pay for and we benefit from but quite a bit is systemic rorting. I’d advocate a return to charitable hospitals for the poor without an expectation that the most expensive treatments will be offered except for the most deserving cases. For the rest health insurance with hefty co-payments by patients, 15-20%, to force providers to properly justify services. Of course the main thing is to have physicians who are altruistic in their outlook on their work and trained to deliver cost-effective care. If the patient is paying they will be constantly reminded.
‘Costs’ are an illusion. We can print all the money we need if we just choose to do so. As long as that money serves a productive end, it’s an asset not a liability.
Scarcity thinking is ineffective thinking.
Whites thinking about adopting a White Nationalist viewpoint need to know they’re not going to be trapped in making these kinds of trade-offs.
If Whites create technologies that help us survive health issues, then Whites should benefit from those technologies without conditions.
99% should be the long term goal but I think the 90% goal that is outlined in this essay/podcast is a strategic way to get things across the line initially.
https://counter-currents.com/2022/02/counter-currents-radio-podcast-no-415-greg-johnson-presents-the-uppity-white-folks-manifesto/
Highly recommend listening to this.
Agreed.
Whites were between 81-87% of the USA from 1920-1970 — and if you subtracted Alaska and Hawaii, they were likely 90% of the continental 48 states.
As recent as 1970, they were still 80% of California, and 81% of New York. And they were still about 70% of both Los Angeles and New York City.
Dipping below 90% had its consequences, but dipping below 80% (in 1977) has been a literal disaster. The continental 48 states being less than 80% white means having no control of the country, and 3rd world problems have been gradually surfacing since the early-1980s.
Getting back somewhere between 80-90% of the continental 48, and then working over time to get to 95-99% is ideal.
“Men are to be our leaders.” Yes, but, ONLY certain kinds. Soy, feminized, weak, too nice, types need not apply.
Ayn Rand would famously ask other people: “What are your premises?”
Of course most people stared back quizzically and open mouthed, the whole concept of having and acting on explicit, thought out premises being totally incomprehensible.
I used to do this to myself. What are my “premises” as a white person. This is what I came up with:
Whites are a distinctive race with separate and distinct racial interests.
Among separate and distinct white racial interests are white right to exist; white right to own territory; white right to countries in which whites are the numerical majority. white right to self defense; white right to determination; white right to Jew-free existence.
The ten point plan above is fantastic. I do think it comes down a little harshly on women and the 99% white country is probably pretty optimistic. Still it’s a great aspiration and I’m on board for it.
Jason Sullivan’s ten principles are good.
I suggest an eleventh principle. White leaders must be limited in the relations they have, the debts they contract, and the alliances they form with non-Whites.
Good list, but I’d like to argue that an eleventh principle is needed. I think a White society needs a strong religious and/or moral system in order to function optimally. I understand that there are many atheists among the dissident right, but I think we’ve seen the consequences of morally weak society with little religious participation. In contrast, for all of recorded history, Whites have adhered to a religious system with a sound moral code, be it paganism in the distant past or Christianity more recently.
Why aren’t reason and truth strong enough Western principles to form the basis for personal morals and social ethics?
Don’t hold your breath waiting for a reasonable or truthful answer to that one.
Jim, you’re channelling Debbie! Merry Christmas.
Because reason and truth are WHITE principles.
I think the main reason is that morality is ultimately subjective – a matter of opinion. There is no objective “moral truth”. At best you can say that as a social species we have biologically inherent propensities for certain kinds of “moral feelings”, such as fairness and reciprocity, a preference for our kin, and so on, but these moral feelings nonetheless vary among individuals (and between the races). Some small percentage of the population is composed of sociopaths, for example, and they’re apparently born that way. Your moral feelings don’t jive with their biological nature, and their moral feelings don’t jive with yours. So we can’t simply look at our human nature for objective human morality, or else there’s very little we can confidently conclude from it.
Outside of our biological human nature, there’s even less to be found of objective morality, but religion claims to provide it. Of course, religion is also subjective and mutable, but it has the “virtue” of at least pretending to be objective and absolute – delivered straight from the creator of the universe no less! Unfortunately(?), I think that ship has sailed. Even if not every individual does, society may in fact need shared moral sentiments to function most effectively – like Islamic societies have and Christian societies used to have – but it’s not clear where we’re going to get them from now that our God is dead. John Rawls? Peter Singer? Kant? Hobbes? That’s all a bunch of theorizing that won’t actually motivate a society.
Perhaps the best we can do is minimize the ethnic diversity in our society so as to minimize the variation in natural moral feelings…
I don’t see how imposing some sort of superstition code, or performance art surrounding cosmic contrivances, changes anything for the better.
🙂
As usual, the ‘Dissident Right’ fantasizes exercising power it does so much in it’s power to make sure it never has. #10 is ridiculous. It’s as if the entire Dissident Right operates within the frame of the homosexual male’s hatred of female bodies.
A genuinely White society seeks to make Whites as happy as they can be. If you’re ignoring the concerns or desires of certain portions of White people, like women who want to participate in politics, you’re doing the work of our enemies to immiserate Whites.
But a more salient objection is that White Nationalism will never move forward until it is perceived as a ‘White’ movement, and not a ‘Right’ movement.
@Hamburger Today. Thanks. I agree with you. The reality is that there are all kinds of women in this world, including those with a masculine character, and those could be well suited to involvement in politics.
Your complaint/accusation/criticism applies to all White societies prior to the last 50 years.
“The homosexual male’s hatred of female bodies” has nothing to do with it.
I don’t see any difference between the rather well-known disgust of homosexual males for the female body and the disdain that some heterosexual White men display toward women, especially White women.
We cannot have a pro-White movement based upon as much exclusion as possible among Whites.
The idea that ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident that no White women should be allowed to exercise political power’ is selling point for White Nationalism among White women is dangerous fantasy that serves our enemies’ interests far more than it serves the interests of Whites.
In order to have a viable White Nationalist movement and not just some kind of salon culture, every single idea espoused in the name of ‘White Nationalism’ needs to be vetted for utility, not self-comforting.
A pro-White movement that tells White women they’re politically worthless in any ‘White nationalist’ social order is a non-starter for virtually every White.
A movement that starts out excluding at least half of all the possible supporters either has a death-wish or is simply not serious about success.
And such a movement clearly cannot be trusted to look after the interests of all Whites.
It’s a fantasy to think that excluding women from political life as a matter of principle is good branding (or even good thinking).
White Nationalism cannot succeed as a right-wing movement. It simply can’t. Most Whites are some kind liberal, whether that liberalism is ‘conservative’ or ‘leftist’, rural or urban. The White Nationalist movement needs to be able to win the trust and, if possible, the support of as many different kinds of Whites as possible. But, most importantly, it needs to grow adherents.
I don’t think the movement can do that if it simply denies that White liberals will have any stake in any future White Nationalist political order.
There’s this idea that we can ‘correct the mistakes of the past’ with some kind of purity testing procedure.
We can’t.
What we can do is create new conditions where new solutions and new problems will present themselves.
Every action and ‘principle’ needs to be measured for its utility in the central task of getting Whites to care and trust each other to the extent that ‘White rule’ is not only possible, but inevitable.
1) #10 has been the undisputed norm for all but the last small bit of our long history, unless we’re counting queens, who still operated within an obviously patriarchal system.
2) It is false to equate the exclusion of women from the public sphere with hatred of women. On the whole, feminism has been massively harmful for women. As far as we know, they are less happy, more mentally ill and more self-destructive than they’ve ever been. It is the duty of men to keep women out of politics just as it is the duty of loving parents to keep small children away from wild horses, firearms and junk food.
3) Ignoring the demands of certain portions of the White population is good and necessary, if acquiescing to those demands would lead to harm. How about Whites eager to import the brown masses to signal their resplendent virtue? How about White capitalists ready to offshore all jobs to wherever is cheapest? For that matter, how about White criminals? White ≠ right.
4) White Nationalism is rightfully perceived as both a White and a Right movement, and IS, thankfully, very much moving forward as such.
#10 has been the undisputed norm for all but the last small bit of our long history, unless we’re counting queens, who still operated within an obviously patriarchal system.
Even is this were true, my response to this ‘argument’ would be ‘So?’ One of the weaknesses of the Dissident Right is a belief that ‘the past’ is argument. It’s not. At best it’s beginning of an argument, at worst it’s just the facade of an argument attempting to pass for one.
History is the playground of power. Whatever you find there is irrelevant to the present or the future unless you can show how it might be so. In my view, Position #10 is counterproductive to building a White Nationalist movement for the future.
It is false to equate the exclusion of women from the public sphere with hatred of women.
This claim would be more credible if you didn’t equate women with ‘small children’.
On the whole, I’ve found Whitewomen to be no more the bearers of bad ideas and bad habits than White men. To politically disenfranchise White women as a predicate to acquiring political power in the name of the White race, is self-defeating. Which I will note has been the lot of ‘the Right’ in North America for some considerable time.
Ignoring the demands of certain portions of the White population is good and necessary….
Hellova sales job. I can see every White person with any sense in their head wondering ‘Am I going to be considered one of those ‘certain portions of the White population?’ and simply taking a pass on the whole ‘White Nationalism’ concept.
As for ‘How about Whites eager to import the brown masses to signal their resplendent virtue?’ etc How about White capitalists ready to offshore all jobs to wherever is cheapest? For that matter, how about White criminals?’
Well, how about them? If White Nationalism isn’t at the very least a conversation among White factions regarding these very issues, then it’s really just a club for disaffected White racialist curmudgeons.
White ≠ right
White ≠ Right
White Nationalism is rightfully perceived as both a White and a Right movement, and IS, thankfully, very much moving forward as such.
The fact that ‘White Nationalism’ has been positioned as a ‘Right movement’ is at least one reason why many ‘concerned Whites’ who have default liberal beliefs reject the idea of ‘White nationalism’ entirely.
As for ‘moving forward as such’, I’d say I don’t see much ‘movement’ at all much of the time that isn’t driven by the mistakes of our enemies. The ‘movement’ doesn’t so much ‘win’ as it gratefully exploits the errors of our enemies to the best of its ability. In general, though, White Nationalism as a conscious movement among Whites hasn’t expanded at nearly the rate that the level of White frustration and disaffection has increased. And I think one of the reasons for that is the perception that ‘White Nationalism’ is exclusive domain of ‘right-wing’ ideologues.
Looking over the modern history of pro-White ideas from the 1950s forward, what I see is that the liberal ideals of Whites were used as weapons against White power and White culture. This is, I think, how ‘White’ and ‘Right’ got bundled together in the mind of even those ‘concerned Whites’ who wanted to make a course-correction on ‘race relations’.
In my view, then, the seemingly seamless connection between pro-White political positions and America’s political ‘right’ is simply an accident of history, easily amended. Since you’ve already agreed that ‘Ignoring the demands of certain portions of the White population is good and necessary’, I suggest that pro-Whites ignore the inclinations of right-wing Whites who wish to perpetuate the ‘White = Right’ error.
Whites with liberal and left-wing views are a sizable portion of the North American White population. In America, they’re about 60% of the voting public.
The idea that White Nationalism can be a legitimate pro-White movement without the movement addressing itself to left/liberal Whites in a manner that will at the very least make them less resistant to the idea of pro-White policies is, at best, counterproductive and, at worst, naive..
Your comments are excellent proof that a lot (not all) of our problems stem from the liberal, as well as “leftist” positions and people. Liberals think they can have their cake and eat it too. Life is not like that.
My comments are only proof that I hold these views. It’s not a proof of the failure of these views. In fact the overwhelming dominance of liberalism as compared to any version of ‘right-wing’ views suggests that the liberal view is the only really viable foundation for a successful White Nationalist movement.
If ‘liberalism’ stands for ‘having your cake and eating it, too’ then the overwhelming success of ‘liberal’ ideology for over three-hundred years combined with the endless retreat of everything ‘on the Right’ suggests that you’re simply wrong that you cannot have your cake and it too. In fact, people eat some of their cake and have some later all the time.
Scarcity thinking is how the losers of history think.
The winners think about abundance.
The only thing that matters is securing the existence of White people and a future for White children.
In order to achieve a world of the 14 Words, the entire left/right-conservative/liberal-rural/urban political paradigm has to be complete subsumed under the question of ‘Is this good for Whites?’
But in order to get the White Question as part of the national conversation, we first need the support of enough Whites to force the ruling class to fear not including the White Question in the national conversation.
And I can tell you right now, there aren’t enough women-haters and right-wing curmudgeons to accomplish that task.
Re: Point 10
This age of self destruction was ushered in men, not women. Women simply follow along to the standard set by men. While it is true that men generally make better leaders, removing women from the political sphere doesn’t necessarily solve anything.
While it is true that women must abide by the standards set by men when these stand firm, it is also true that it is their nature to tirelessly undermine those standards, insofar as they interfere with women’s instinctive drives. Left to their own devices, women are simply not good at building and maintaining civilization. That is why any action that will restore the natural order will have to be initiated by men, and it is also why we can’t ever hope to have the full support of women in these matters. We are as fathers, dealing with very cunning, deceptive, emotionally manipulative children who just won’t stop their mischief unless we force them to. The correct approach is the same: we must be loving, but very firm. And the last thing we should do is ask for their approval or permission.
===
“removing women from the political sphere doesn’t necessarily solve anything”
Well…it would ameliorate the problems caused or exacerbated by having women in the political sphere, wouldn’t it? No single policy is a perfect and complete solution to any complex problem, but this would be an important piece in the puzzle of White prosperity, and a huge step in the right direction.
I want everyone looking at Peter’s comments to realize that his approach completely hijacks the conversation of a pro-White movement about what’s best for Whites to a conversation about how to control and dominate and manipulate and marginalize women.
How is this good for Whites?
I consider myself to be a hard-Right Nationalist. I used to also consider myself a Progressive, but the word probably has too much Marxist baggage to be very useful nowadays. I certainly do not have any great appreciation for cringey “manosphere” obsessions like ending the 19th Amendment or birth control. I don’t want to throw out the baby with the bathwater, and some Classical Liberal ideas remain sound like freedom-of-speech and freedom-of-conscience. Clericals like E. Michael Jones who pretend to be pro-White, and anti-Semitic for its own sake, don’t speak for me.
🙂
What the last 300 years of continuous defeat at the macro political-economic level appears to indicate is that you cannot defeat progressivism with regressivism, no matter how you try to repackage the latter.
It’s clear I don’t consider myself ‘on the right’. I tried. The more I interacted with ‘right wing’ ideas and policy-recommendations, the less I found myself able to support ‘the Right’.
Pro-White politics is not fringe politics, but for over 50 years many (most) of the (supposed) advocates of Whites have also promoted ‘hard far-right’ views and Hitler apologetics. The result has been a continuous string of failures that have resulted in a worsening of the situation of Whites globally (because the US has been functioning as a global hegemon until very recently).
What I propose is that you can chose to have a politics on the pro-White/anti-White spectrum or you can choose to emphasize politics on the liberal/progressive/conservative/reactionary spectrum but you cannot do both.
The predicate for my political views is White Identity/White Nationalism. Based upon my reading of political-economic theory and study of non-violent movements within liberalism to expand what ‘liberal’ means (this is the essential mission of ‘progressivism’), my view is that a movement has different core tasks at different points in the development of the movement.
At this point, the goal has to be to appeal to as many Whites as humanly possible to create a moral, intellectual and economic barrier to the total subjugation of the race on the basis of ‘human rights’ for non-Whites.
If order to succeed at that current task, ‘pro-White’ cannot be identical with ‘pro-Right’ because this approach has consistently failed for 50 years (more like 70 years).
You either care about Whiteness first or you care about something else first.
If you care about something else first, you’re not pro-White enough to help move the ball down the field.
Principle #10 was obviously divisive. But, instead of being conciliatory toward other pro-Whites regarding Principle #10, Peter has just double-down. That’s not how grown-ups seek to resolve their conflicts and it also shows that subjugating women politically is the thing that matters to Peter, not developing effective a pro-White message.
If White Nationalism doesn’t mean Whites having a caring reasonable conversation about issues that matter to them as Whites, then it doesn’t really mean much.
There are very view Whites that have not experienced harm from this anti-White regime. Even those Whites who benefit from it also suffer from it.
North American White Nationalism should have something constructive to say to every White.
Principle #10 doesn’t rise to that standard as far as I am concerned.
Hamburger TodayDecember 26, 2023 at 10:18 am wrote:
“What the last 300 years of continuous defeat at the macro political-economic level appears to indicate is that you cannot defeat progressivism with regressivism, no matter how you try to repackage the latter.
“It’s clear I don’t consider myself ‘on the right’. I tried. The more I interacted with ‘right wing’ ideas and policy-recommendations, the less I found myself able to support ‘the Right’.
“Pro-White politics is not fringe politics, but for over 50 years many (most) of the (supposed) advocates of Whites have also promoted ‘hard far-right’ views and Hitler apologetics. The result has been a continuous string of failures that have resulted in a worsening of the situation of Whites globally (because the US has been functioning as a global hegemon until very recently).
“What I propose is that you can chose to have a politics on the pro-White/anti-White spectrum or you can choose to emphasize politics on the liberal/progressive/conservative/reactionary spectrum but you cannot do both.
“The predicate for my political views is White Identity/White Nationalism. Based upon my reading of political-economic theory and study of non-violent movements within liberalism to expand what ‘liberal’ means (this is the essential mission of ‘progressivism’), my view is that a movement has different core tasks at different points in the development of the movement.
“At this point, the goal has to be to appeal to as many Whites as humanly possible to create a moral, intellectual and economic barrier to the total subjugation of the race on the basis of ‘human rights’ for non-Whites.
“If order to succeed at that current task, ‘pro-White’ cannot be identical with ‘pro-Right’ because this approach has consistently failed for 50 years (more like 70 years).
“You either care about Whiteness first or you care about something else first.
“If you care about something else first, you’re not pro-White enough to help move the ball down the field.
“Principle #10 was obviously divisive. But, instead of being conciliatory toward other pro-Whites regarding Principle #10, Peter has just double-down. That’s not how grown-ups seek to resolve their conflicts and it also shows that subjugating women politically is the thing that matters to Peter, not developing effective a pro-White message.
“If White Nationalism doesn’t mean Whites having a caring reasonable conversation about issues that matter to them as Whites, then it doesn’t really mean much.
“There are very view Whites that have not experienced harm from this anti-White regime. Even those Whites who benefit from it also suffer from it.
“North American White Nationalism should have something constructive to say to every White.
“Principle #10 doesn’t rise to that standard as far as I am concerned.”
I agree with many of your points (e.g., about No. 10).
But I don’t see how a Pro-White Kumbayah movement can be created and come to power without at some point touching the political high-voltage. These are just not going to be easy discussions. We kid ourselves otherwise.
Politics by definition is drawing a friend/enemy distinction over what should be done, and how to wrest control from the Haves who set the agenda.
I don’t see much that has been done in the way of “Right Wing politics” since George Lincoln Rockwell was shot and killed in 1967. I don’t define Ayn Rand, Ronald Reagan, William F. Buckley, or the Tea Party, yada yada, as anything of the sort.
If by “Hitler apologetics,” you mean Fuentes catbois or Anglin-tier Scheissekopferei, then that is a fair point.
I consider myself to be on the hard-Right, but what does that really mean? I have no problem with a Nationalist version of Progressivism. The Nazis likewise had their own vision of Modernity, and it might (or might not) be different than a version that would appeal to an American reactionary from that time period or of today.
My version of Modernity and Progress will probably be different yet ─ but my objection is not to Progress, per se, but to a Marxist or Clerical hijacking of it.
A century ago Progressives were open to anti-miscegenation laws and disagreed with the consensus opinion that folks should be jailed for not fervently teaching Biblical Creationism in the public schools. Now it is whether Lesbos can be ordained to minister the Holy sacraments to trannies.
The venerable Jim Rizoli is a “Holocaust Denier extraordinaire, and proud of it,” but then he puts a bunch of Flat Earth crap up on his podcast and website. He doesn’t know anything about Flat Earth and isn’t actually arguing in favor of this; he is just practicing some sort of “epistemological nihilism,” as I call it, that validates his belief that governments always lie. In reality, the only thing that Mr. Rizoli, bless his heart, does believe in is the Four Gospels of Jesus Christ ─ the King James Version, I’m guessing.
And this is not “Right Wing politics” as I see it.
I just got back from a long Holiday season with lots and lots of my extended family in Idaho. These people mostly live in communities that are up to 95 percent White, depending on how “hispanic” counts as White, and they are nearly all co-religionists. I’m an exception here as an atheist who was raised Latter-Day Saint. Anyway, they all have very large families with lots of children; they marry relatively young, occasionally practice divorce, and do not eschew birth control. All of these women are educated, with some even having advanced degrees.
I have never been politically Conservative nor Libertarian, and I’ve always been racist. As Rockwell said, “Conservatism is trying to conserve what is already gone.” I was sending student mites in to the National Socialist White People’s Party and personally hungry for real political change since the 1970s. And this country that I came to fear-for was a very different landscape fifty or sixty years ago.
By my way of thinking, the American nation was on track until the early 20th century with the exception of some thorny and irresolute issues such as the Negroes and slavery. Then we went wide off track with the plutocratic ruling class completely embracing imperialism and globalism, and then intervening in two World Wars that were none of our business.
But we were stiill organically sound as a nation until about sixty or seventy years or so ago ─ and we went politically off the rails altogether with full-blown cultural Marxism.
In 1966, I started school in a Whitetopian oasis paradise founded by Mormon pioneers as a watering hole between Salt Lake City and Los Angeles, California. My Dad was an aerospace engineer who analyzed nuclear weapons test data, and the neon-lit town in question was named Las Vegas, Nevada. Today it is a crime-ridden mixed-race hellscape ─ fun to visit for a weekend but you probably would not want to raise your family there.
My parents could see the writing on the wall and voted for George Wallace in 1968. His was a rare voice of warning. Increasing race-mixing and cultural-bolshevism will burn the bridges irrepairably behind us, and the younger generations, they don’t even understand what was “not conserved” and is in fact already gone. They blame us for what happened.
Conservatism let us down but it wasn’t “Right Wing politics” that got us there. We needed a lot more of it, not less.
So I’m visiting my extended family this holiday season, and doing my best to behave ─ no talking politics or religion. These relations mostly live in a 95 percent White society now, but soon it will be a multikulti crime-sodden sewer just like that nation’s capital, or the streets that I walked as a kid toting an astronaut lunch box.
And if I warn against where we are headed as a society, nobody is going to understand nor appreciate this Boomer’s warning because they don’t want to be uncharitable to the poor Negro kid from Somalia who just moved into the neighborhood. “Not all X are like that.” We have an Anne Frank memorial in Boise now. Yeah, we Americans have really had our problems, but we would never gas the Joos.
Right now the big debate among the LDS is what stance is proper to have with the LGBT question. The more affluent and Liberal Mormons want maximal tolerance, even if these kinds of “families” do not fit into LDS theology. The question is, do the church leaders have feet of clay and will they bend on the issue in some more politically-enlightened future time ─ or will they hold to their fundamental standards and eschew these vices. Sodomy is never going to be a procreative sacrament. I predict it will be the former course of action though, because interpreting Christ’s teachings liberally is what Christians are all about. This means more race-mixing and more sodomy. Other denominations are already living the dream.
The point I’m trying to make is that I may advocate for “Hitler apologetics” but I am setting a pretty low bar. All I am asking for is discussion and debate not moral certainty.
I am willing to engage Jews in the debate in good faith, and I am not saying that one has to take a position like mine on the Holocaust or about a certain avuncular warlord.
But there does have to be a legitimate open-debate allowed in perpetuo. That is a basic litmus test for integral White advocacy. Otherwise, literally anything can be deemed violent Hate Speech and lawfully silenced. We start out as good Puritans carving the Turkey and giving thanks, and pretty soon Sqaunto is tossing the sportsball and raping the bridesmaids.
It is not acceptable to disallow criticism of Jews or Israel because it might be considered anti-Semitic. The Establishment is in a dither right now because they want to push their Marxist anti-White or anti-colonial narratives on behalf of Palestine. But then they get push-back if those anti-White narratives include criticism of Zionism, Israel, and Jews.
I like robust debate. But to keep the peace over the holidays, I tried not to get into political discussions with the extended family. We are a loving and supportive White family, but we still have to have a vision of where we want to go ─ as individuals, as citizens, and as a common people with kinship.
And those are ultimately POLITICAL discussions that can’t be ignored forever.
🙂
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber 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.