Counter-Currents
2,295 words
If there is a friendly divide within the dissident Right, it might very well be between White Nationalists and white advocates. The difference between the two groups should be plain: the former seek separation and self-determination, and the latter political advocacy in a multiracial country. Neither group has much cause to squabble, especially today when both find the present situation intolerable for roughly the same reasons. Both are open about white identity and race realism, both have no illusions about the dangers of non-white political leadership of white nations, and both have essentially the same enemies. Only their end goals, and perhaps the Jewish Question, remain as sticking points, with White Nationalists supporting various forms of counter-Semitism and white advocates remaining steadfastly Judeo-neutral — at least in public.
These are not impossible hurdles to overcome, largely because they are so superficial. In a future in which demographics make separation impossible, today’s nationalists and advocates would still work together. And in a future which shines on separation, there would be no reason why advocates wouldn’t become nationalists themselves. The famous quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin during the signing of the Declaration of Independence comes to mind: “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.” Anti-whites will see any differences between these groups as the sheerest of nuance and will press on against them regardless. Except in extremely rare and bizarre cases, White Nationalists and advocates make natural allies.
Assuming that both sides operate in good faith and eschew ulterior motives, what sets them apart aside from their stated aims? Speaking of the current situation in the United States, it seems that many white advocates are loath to part with their American identity. Perhaps they connect with the land or the rich American mythos? Perhaps their families have been in America for generations or are descended from the nation’s founding stock? Or perhaps they are optimists regarding the American dream, believing that with proper leadership, even disparate peoples can get along? America has been multiracial since its inception and still remains a place of great opportunity and high standards of living. Why won’t this continue? A bloody civil war was fought to keep this country together, and some 630,000 men have died for its flag since then. Are we to say they all died for nothing?
You can buy Greg Johnson’s Toward a New Nationalism here.
White Nationalists, on the other hand, have more of a post-American perspective. But a post-American perspective is not necessarily an anti-American one — and most often isn’t. White Nationalists typically don’t hate America the way the hard Left does because they don’t see white Americans as inherently evil due to the sins of racism, anti-Semitism, sexism, or the like. Many simply want to get away from America — and take as many white Americans as possible along with them — in order to start the country over the way the Founding Fathers had intended. A post-American identity could be seen as a return to the original American identity as envisioned over 200 years ago.
Yet, how much any functional white offshoot nation would resemble the original United States is an open question. Along with the freedom this post-American identity affords come some problems, which are noticeably lacking in the white advocacy camp. “Post-American” is a vague term and can include many kinds of identities beyond the original American one — for example, fascists, Nazis, Southern nationalists, Christian nationalists, anti-Semites, pagans, and others. This means that although White Nationalists may be united in terms of race, they might very well not be united when it comes to other important matters, not least being where and how to govern. This could lead to a certain amount of bickering, to say the least. White advocates quite naturally don’t have this problem since they are committed to working within the current system, which they hope to make less anti-white. This may or may not be a realistic goal, but white advocates should be commended for their single-minded pursuit of it.
As for our fighting men’s past sacrifices, however, nothing lasts forever. White Nationalists of all stripes are well served not to take this argument to heart. It could be said that the men who died in America’s twentieth-century wars did so for the sake of American international dominance. This could be for good or for ill, but according to this train of thought, it can’t be said that they died for nothing. America was internationally dominant for many years, after all. These men made sacrifices for their country as it existed at the time. But now, with American demographics changing so rapidly, it could justly be said that this is not the same country as it was even a mere 25 years ago. If the veterans of this nation’s twentieth-century wars could see how far twenty-first century America has fallen in terms of corruption and degeneracy, would they have gone to war? Probably not. White recruitment in the US military is at an all-time low, and rightfully so. After the COVID crackdowns, the Summer of Floyd, the stolen 2020 election, the January 6 gulags, and the advent of critical race theory and transgenderism in a US military already compromised by feminism and affirmative action, what is left to fight for?
It seems White Nationalists and white advocates also differ over practical concerns. To many, the very idea of the United States splintering — peacefully or not — into autonomous factions seems more like dystopian fiction than reality. White advocates seem comfortable banking on it not happening. And yet, how else could the United States end up? This is the dilemma I find myself pondering all the time. Yes, bad signs are everywhere, and they’re getting worse; people are fed up. But is it enough to force secession? It hasn’t yet. What is our threshold of tolerability? Will it require another depression? A major war? A nuclear attack? An artificial intelligence apocalypse? I have no answers. This is why I can never be too critical of a white advocate who’d rather correct a flawed system than dream of a better one. This flawed system is real, as opposed to a bona fide white ethnostate in North America — which, as of January 2024, is not. I have to respect this.
On the other hand, bone fide white ethnostates have indeed existed in North America the past, namely the 13 states which made up the original United States. We all know that the 1790 Naturalization Act restricted immigration to free whites of good character. White identity was baked so deeply into the cake back then that no one felt it needed to be sanctioned in an official document such as the US Constitution. Of course, the United States of America would be a white ethnostate. What other kind of state was there back then? So this, along with the brief and tragic life of the Confederacy and perhaps the pro-nativist 1920s, do establish a precedent.
As far as the future goes, the one way we can guarantee never establishing a white ethnostate in North America is by giving up on it now. Is this not what dreams are made of? And if we are going to dream, why not dream big? It’s fine to manage one’s expectations. But there is also nothing wrong with envisioning a drastic yet sensible solution to our current problems — a solution that works in accord with the biological realities of race. If we’re always thinking about it — and theorizing and wargaming it — then maybe we’ll be prepared to act when opportunities arise? Maybe we’ll have a better idea of what to do when the time comes? Or better yet, maybe we’ll know how to make those opportunities arise ourselves? Let’s face it, an ethnostate of 40 million racially-based white Americans with an explicitly pro-white constitution is the best solution to the surfeit of problems caused by globalism, multiracialism, and the Left’s cultural triumph. Why should we settle for anything less?
You can buy Spencer J. Quinn’s novel Charity’s Blade here.
Another practical concern — which is harder for a White Nationalist to disregard — is the issue of population transfer. How would one respond to a white advocate who’d rather not initiate changes that require millions to relocate, willingly or not? There’s no way around it. If a white ethnostate were to be formed in North America in this century, it would have to come on the heels of some great and tragic cataclysm, or as an evolutionary outcome of a non-racial separatist movement such as Red State Secession. In the former case, violence, deprivation, and mayhem would likely cause many on both sides to urgently relocate, thus doing the ethnonationalist’s work for him in a relatively short amount of time. This has precedent in the chaotic 1947 Partition of India and the subsequent war between India and Pakistan during which millions of Hindus fled east into India and millions of Muslims fled west into Pakistan. Yes, this is a solution, but not a happy one given all the bloodshed and trauma. I think I speak for many White Nationalists when I say I’d prefer a peaceful resolution to our troubles, one that does not involve warfare or ethnic cleansing.
This is why I want whites to pursue the latter option: Red State Secession. In other essays, I’ve discussed how a genuine grassroots White Nationalist movement can emerge in an independent red state. According to my ISEE Model of White Survival, whites need to escape first and then reestablish themselves in the friendlier milieu of a Right-wing, majority white state. “ISEE” stands for “Imbalance, Struggle, Escape, and Ethnostate,” and here is the flowchart for all you visual learners out there:
The advantages of the ISEE model is that it requires no violence, no ethnic cleansing, and allows for Greg Johnson’s “slow cleanse” to occur. In a peacefully-established ethnostate, non-whites would be forced to give up their political rights, but not their human rights. Furthermore, lack of opportunity would encourage them to leave. Over time, an ethnostate would emerge. Yes, the process will be slow. But would it be any slower than using political means to convince American blacks, Jews, Hispanics, and Muslims to give up on their winning anti-white coalition? A white advocate would have to answer for that.
Another major difference between White Nationalists and white advocates involves what I call the dignity of restraint — and this is both good and bad. Decidedly not talking about the Jewish Question requires a certain amount of discipline which seems to inoculate one against bad optics. This might be one reason why white advocates operate with so much class. This is not to say that White Nationalists cannot do the same. Many do, despite being able to talk about whatever they want. Unfortunately, however, many do not. White Nationalists seem to have looser rules about what they can and cannot discuss. This makes for a bigger tent, one that ultimately takes in all types.
But the dignity of restraint cuts both ways. The Jewish Question is the most confounding yet urgent issue of our time. Why not talk about it? It’s one thing to obsess over Jews. It’s something else entirely to speak reasonably and accurately about them. Avoiding the JQ leads one to a rather incomplete perspective on today’s world. This will prove disappointing for many, because the solutions presented by white advocates will be equally incomplete. A white advocate will often point to the ethnomasochism or oikophobia of whites themselves as the primary cause of our troubles. If whites could only regain their racial pride and lose the fear of collectively asserting themselves, then we will get much closer to a more sustainable future.
You can buy Spencer J. Quinn’s My Mirror Tells a Story here.
A white advocate may also view many, if not most, Jews as white. They certainly look white, in many cases. After centuries of living in Europe, they have also absorbed a great deal of Western culture in their everyday lives and accomplished great things. The significant Jewish contributions in classical music is a great example of this. Furthermore, it’s undeniable that some genetic exchange has occurred between whites and Jews throughout the centuries. Why alienate a certain group of people who may be more similar to whites than different?
All of this is reasonable. However, to ignore the fact that non-whites, and especially Jews, expend great time and energy limiting the freedom of whites and punishing those who displease them is to avoid a crucial reason why so many whites are submissive to non-whites to begin with. There is a tremendous amount of evidence pointing to the ways in which Jews in particular act with great malice against whites and promote all manner of dysgenic behavior in traditionally white countries that they themselves would never engage in in Israel. To ignore all this is to avoid finding workable solutions to today’s problems. Is this an acceptable tradeoff for the sake of good optics?
I think the core difference between White Nationalists and advocates is that the White Nationalist strives to be correct — and thereby takes the risk of being wrong. Meanwhile, the white advocate strives not to be wrong, thereby taking fewer risks in the first place. Pick your poison.
As for my stance on this, I choose White Nationalism while keeping a healthy respect for white advocacy. As with a lot of things, I follow my gut. Czeslaw Milosz would call it “a revolt of the stomach.” I simply have a visceral dislike of being ruled by racial outsiders. Non-whites, for the most part, do not have the same temperament and IQ distribution as whites. Their loyalty will always be in question — and, if history is any indication, are prone to behave as hostile elites. This does not mean I hate non-whites or wish them ill; I simply do not trust non-whites to act in white interests once they attain power — and ultimately, it won’t matter if whites advocate for themselves or not.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate at least $10/month or $120/year.
- Donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Everyone else 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. Naturally, we do not grant permission to other websites to repost paywall content before 30 days have passed.
- Paywall member comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Paywall members have the option of editing their comments.
- Paywall members get an Badge badge on their comments.
- Paywall members can “like” comments.
- Paywall members can “commission” a yearly article from Counter-Currents. Just send a question that you’d like to have discussed to [email protected]. (Obviously, the topics must be suitable to Counter-Currents and its broader project, as well as the interests and expertise of our writers.)
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, please visit our redesigned Paywall page.
39 comments
I’m flexible on some things as far as politics go but I’ll never consider Jews to be white/European. The ultimate goal must be total separation from Yahwehs lunatics, I don’t care if they’re secular or religious.
Yes. My own racial definition and taxonomy is that in order to be White it is necessary to have dominant European genetics. That is necessary, but not sufficient. What is also required is that you recognize a European homeland as your originary root. Identity is both physical and cultural.
Many Ashkenazis have a good dose of European genes, but as their annual Passover ritual makes clear, “Next year, in Jerusalem!” Their originary root, their ultimate national homeland is in Western Asia. Not Europe.
And despite this ancient goal and the availability since 1948 of a homeland, less than half of them returned. We owe it to them to fulfill their Passover prayer.
As well, all their histories show that they define themselves as victim-survivors of and against White Europe, not as a natural part of it.
(As all the non-Whites do in America, btw).
I imagine one of the reasons more haven’t went to Israel (for good) is because of the obvious safety concerns, being surrounded by hostile Arab/Muslim states. Maybe in the future they will be on friendlier terms/have peace treaties with more states. With the events of last October, I very much doubt that will happen anytime soon. I don’t buy the idea that “American” Jews have some deep connection to America. They will never be Americans no matter how hard they try. The Jew/Gentile distinction will always exist. This is one of the reasons why we shouldn’t stop trying to normalize anti-Semitism. Jews themselves are well aware that we can’t get along. Many of the well known Jewish ghettos from Europe were started by Jews as a form of segregation against those eeeevil Germans, Poles, etc.
Another reason many Jews do not return is inertia. They identify as diaspora Jews not Zionists despite their support for Zionism. Also, living in Israel is probably a bit harsher than in some places in the West. There are probably more opportunities in the West as well.
Aside from the much nicer lifestyle in Western countries, brought on by their ability to dominate finance, government, etc, there is the need to intensify the role of the court Jew into a large lobby that in fact controls the governments, to ensure that they support and protect Israel.
Although they are always crying out as victims on the verge of Holocaust 2.0, they have never been as wealthy, powerful, secure and influential in their entire history. Compared to them now, Solomon was tinpot local.
Well said, Dr. ExCathedra.
The future is opaque. Making hard-and-fast plans on what you think the future will be is most likely a recipe for failure. Therefore, we should keep our options open and as many people inside the tent as possible. I do not see whatever comes as coming without serious conflict. We might hope that the conflict will be as little as necessary, and act in ways that we think are likely to result in that outcome. But there will be conflict.
White advocacy is an essential part of White Nationalism. We must advocate and be of service to our people. Alternative/parallel education systems are of paramount importance and that act of service. This is a service white advocates can participate in building alongside WNs. We both benefit. Lawfare in the form of suing anti-white discrimination is another service activity where we can join together for mutual benefit. This lawfare gives us a chance to punch back, something we must do. It also has a strong potential to break the system apart faster and force people to take sides more quickly and more explicitly.
The work that Greg Johnson and others have done on the vision for peaceful separation is invaluable and important. There is a vision that has the moral high ground. Our current task is to build an education system and use lawfare as the current high priority and high value means of being of service to our people. The Gods are watching and they will reward us richly for doing so.
Thank you for a very good article. David Duke considers himself a racial realist and a white advocate. David Duke talks a lot about the Jewish Question and has written a book on the topic as well. Jared Taylor never talks about the Jewish Question and is also a white advocate. White nationalism is the most sensible policy for white people in the 21st century and is inevitable.
“White nationalism is the most sensible policy for white people in the 21st century and is inevitable.”
White nationalism is inevitable and morally right.
JT is definitely a white advocate. I would have thought that DD is a white nationalist and that the position on the JQ is what separates WNs from WAdvs.
I think it’s reasonable to have a strategy that doesn’t alienate Jews. Some smart Jews are an asset to any group, and certain Jewish scholars have won our admiration. So amren definitely serves a purpose. Vdare is sort of in this bracket too, the hbd crowd.
At a different level, publicly speaking on the jq is crossing a rubicon. This is when the gloves come off with hostility from the system. If a person has children that may want to go to elite schools or get good jobs in the system one day, he better keep his nose clean in the jq. I’ve noticed most of the people who speak openly on the jq are men without any such hostages to fortune. But for that there may not be amren conferences, too. Everyone chooses their own level of involvement.
On the other hand, sometimes amren gets a little repetitive and monotone by not addressing root causes. This is why I find myself at cc and Unz more. But for people at a certain stage of intellectual development sites like amren are very important.
Well said.
Surprisingly, in December last year JT spoke directly to Jews about their attitude toward Whites, connected to the hullaballoo (or mischegas…) about Ivy League responses to the current Israeli-Palestinian war. Not a breakthrough to our side, but the first time I’ve ever heard him confront the issue at all.
https://www.amren.com/videos/2023/12/its-not-antisemitism-its-white-hating/
Thanks. I should have remembered that and mentioned it in my comment. But at least you did
In America more than anywhere else Whites recognize each other as Whites, which is vital. (In Europe, Whites are all too willing to identify with the national flag and jingle, and hate brother Whites for being not German / not French / not English / whatever.)
Factual, scientific, Darwinist pro-White racial thinking is an American thing. For this reason, and because the White population of North America is so large, White Americans and the White American heritage are vital to pro-Whites who see our race in genetic and not merely cultural terms. America and Americans cannot be written off.
If we see things in this light, the right light, there is not a real conflict between White advocates who want to preserve White Americans as Americans and racial White nationalists who want to preserve Whites and are willing to pursue that goal in a post-American world. The radical and racial pro-White tradition is an American tradition.
Assuming that both sides operate in good faith and eschew ulterior motives, what sets them apart aside from their stated aims?
What sets them apart is not only their stated aims, but their actual aims. For White nationalists, the issue is, well, black and white; we want our own state. All of what White advocates have to say is, strictly speaking, irrelevant to that argument. Obviously, I don’t disagree with their arguments. I too wish that Whites were not treated as second-class citizens and scapegoats. But, ultimately, that’s not why I’m here. Just as if I am an athlete, of course I don’t want to be injured, but I don’t play the game to avoid injury, I play the game to win.
White nationalism is never going to make any progress until it pushes White advocacy aside, and takes its own side. I don’t mean that we should attack them, just that we need to stop imitating them. Our job is not to constantly fact-check the anti-Whites. If White advocates want to spend their days at that, good on them, I guess. But as our end is different than theirs, so should be our means. Whereas their argument against the system is an ever-evolving package of complaints, we have one concrete demand. For their purposes, maybe playing a quasi party-politics game of assembling coalitions and shifting the Overton Window is good enough. But White nationalism can’t play that game, for it to work it has to act like a movement. That is to say, it presents as loudly and publicly as it can an explicit demand (we want our own state), and then its entire argument is to explain why we want a state, why it is right that we should have a state, and how us getting a state would benefit everyone else.
In other words, WNs should lead and WAs will follow once we start making progress? On the other hand, could it be that WAs put their foot in the door so WNs can eventually push it open? Just spitballing here.
BTW, The Birth of Prudence. Are you that Ryan Andrews?
That’s not exactly what I was saying, but now that you mention it, I do think both of those things are basically true, especially the first part about WAs following WNs’ lead. Nowadays, there are a number of mainstream and near-mainstream right-wingers who will engage in something kinda like White Advocacy, but I presume you’re using the word to apply to dissident rightists, particularly Amren. And in that case, yeah, I think they’d definitely be on board. I’ve heard Taylor make explicitly White nationalist statements; if I remember right, he once said something about wishing for a country of our own, ‘even if only small one.’ Obviously, Hood is a WN.
As for WA acting as a camel’s nose for us, it can do that, but it can also be a dead-end. ‘White Guilt’ definitely functions as a preemptive restraint against our cause, and so it does need to be deconstructed. That kind of WA is necessary, but I think we allow that side to suck up way too much of the oxygen, taking attention away from the ultimate argument.
If you asked a decently-informed normal person what White nationalists believe, there’s a good chance he’s not going to even bring up the ethnostate, even though it’s pretty much in the name. He’ll say they’re bigots and racists, and if pressed for specifics, he’ll say those are the guys who complain about Blacks’ disproportionate crime and Jews’ disproportionate power.
I want the first thing they say to be, ‘Oh, those are the guys who want a White ethnostate. And they want it because da, da, da. Left-wingers say it is wrong because da, da, da. But they respond da, da, da. Other people say it is impractical for da, da, da. But they respond da, da, da.’ etc.
Aside from fact-checking the anti-Whites, we also spill a lot of ink passively speculating how such-and-such news story might affect us. What does Trump mean for us? etc. Which is fine, but we should also be attempting to actively direct conversation our way. One thing both the race grifters and the Bernie/DSA types know how to do is that. It doesn’t matter what the story is, whatever the problem is, they are there to explain why their ideological answer is the solution. We should be doing much more of that.
We can go about this a bit more tactfully than the DSA and race grifter types do—we don’t need to have an argument in place for why Margot Robbie getting snubbed by the Oscars proves there should be a White ethnostate—but there are so many places where we can plausibly insert our argument. The dominant political discussion of our times—political polarization and ‘our democracy’—is tailor-made for us. Ditto geopolitical issues such as Israel/Palestine/Yemen, Ukraine, and Taiwan.
And yes, I’m the same guy.
The idea of having our own ‘state’ is a highly European Right conception of White Nationalism. Historically, that’s where WN has drawn a lot of its inspiration and theory. However, I question whether ‘White Nationalism’ in North America will take that form.
What distinguishes WN from ‘White Advocacy’ is territorial control.
WA’s are happy (seemingly) engaging in struggle within the same territory as their (supposed) adversaries under the assumption that ‘winning’ for Whites is possible if ‘everyone plays by the same rules’.
Stated plainly, the central weakness of WA alone ought to be clear.
WA’s goal of ‘winning’ equality for Whites with non-Whites by shaming non-Whites into playing fair with Whites is unlikely to work for the same reason that non-Whites are not already complaining about the unfair treatment and diminished status of Whites (especially White men).
WA exists to help utterly deracinated Whites to gain a generically pro-White perspective but it cannot ‘run the table’ for Whites and give Whites what they need, which is territorial control: White spaces controlled by Whites in the interests of Whites.
When the special character of WN is directed to the territorial aspects of its North American conception, it should be somewhat obvious that while territorial control implies management of state functions in the interests of Whites, it does not imply a single unitary White State. It could be a thousand ‘states’ each in communication with one another and embodying a unitary pro-White ethos that facilitates cooperation and reduces friction without compromising autonomy.
As for White Europeans and their Petty Nationalism First, eventually the sheer chaos of Non-White Europe is going to do what those same people have been doing in the USA: Creating White Identity.
Nicely timed article with the Gov Abbot Memorandum.
They have a sort of hand/glove relationship. Every white nationalist is perforce a white advocate. We must cultivate diaspora strategies in addition to nationalist ones to cope with the reality of our plight. Some white advocates may not be full on white nationalists. Unless white nationalists are practicing some sort of perverse accelerationism, which is seen among Zionists at times.
There was a great article in Occidental Quarterly ages ago called Towards a Secession of the Mind that argued if enough whites were white advocates, physical secession might not be necessary. I’m sure you can find it online.
I think ultimate racial secession is necessary to secure white perpetuity. Let’s employ the Jewish justification for Israel. I actually once heard an aged Holocaust-avoider making this very argument: to wit, that the Holocaust proves that Jews can only be assured of their safety (defined by him implicitly as Jewish survival, survival of the “Jewish People”, not mere survival of individual Jews) by possessing their “own land”, a sovereign nation wherein they (Jews) are the majority. Is this not exactly what we want (especially, we white Americans; white Europeans should want their ancient fatherlands entirely restored to them, not mere ethno-reservations carved out for their zoological preservation)?
All white nationalists are white advocates (ie, defenders of the safety, rights, property, liberty, and interests of whites trapped in multiracial democracies). I expect most, but probably not all, white advocates are white nationalists. But white advocacy is only a stopgap measure. It’s what we can do now. For whites to be able to enjoy lives that are truly our own – truly in accord with our evolved psyches and natures – as well as simply to enjoy full dignity, community, cultural continuity, and assured civil peace, we must have our own lands, just like the Jews. We should be satisfied with nothing less.
If I “had” to compromise, Whites being somewhere between 75-80% percent of the USA, while not perfect, might be enough to at least have our country be moderately cohesive to run the government and our institutions — especially if Whites could be 60-70% of large cities again (believe it or not, they have increased in some cities in the last decade). An absolute barest minimum of 70%, is the lowest I can conceivably go.
I’d much prefer that Whites were 90% or more of the USA again, and who knows what the future “could” bring us, but I think if we could simply roll the demographic clock back 25-40 years, we’d at least be able to have our country worth living in.
I looked at an updated census record that adjusted a few previously incorrect numbers (counting Arabs, mestizos, and biracial people as white, etc) and it said that Whites were 81% in 1970, 76% in 1980, 70% in 1990, and 67% in 2000. So for whites to have control of national elections like they last did in 1984, it appears that 75% is the “sweet spot.” Going below 70% in the 1990s not only made Whites lose political power in many states and nationally, but it started to gradually show unrecognizable differences to our country, as well as some 3rd world conditions in many areas. And dipping below 2/3 around the middle-2000s has accelerated the decay beyond all comprehension. By my high school graduation in 2006, I truly felt like I was in a different nation.
If would only take 2 or 3 modest measures to restore Whites to 70-79% of the country again. This is a very reasonable compromise. Can we convince enough Whites of this fair bargain — especially for the sake of their children and grandchildren?
Where did you obtain those decennial racial estimates? Those are not the numbers I’ve known most of my life at all. From memory:
1970 – 89%
1980 – 84%
1990 – 76%
2000 – 70%
2010 – 64%
2020 – 57%
IOWs, the country only started changing racially in the 70s – once the 1965 “Treason Act” changes started to take real effect (ie, once “word got out” that it was easier to get into America). There was a huge change in the disastrous 80s. This was both caused and masked by Reagan’s capitalist (but, sadly, also neoliberal globalist) economic policies. Vast hordes of aliens, legal and illegal, poured into the country then (and ever since). People didn’t notice because the economy, after the hard ’82 recession, was very good, and we were still wrapped up in the Cold War, which we were by then winning. I myself noticed the immigration invasion, and constantly warned about it. But few people, even among conservative pals, really took what I was saying to heart. They dismissed my warnings as “overblown”, or “really a local California problem”, which it mostly was back then.
Anyway, your new numbers don’t make sense. Whites only fell by 3% across the 90s? Are you joking? That was an era of HUGE immigration.
What are your “modest measures” to restore whites to a 70% majority? That sounds like pure fantasy. What just might be able to be done in a purely physical sense (and this without violence: eg, by halting nonwhite legal immigration; deporting all illegal aliens; and opening up our door to maximal white immigration) is utterly impossible politically. Even pragmatically, I think pursuit of the Ethnostate is our best hope (with a massive amount of white consciousness-raising and white advocacy politics in the meanwhile).
But we want the Ethnostate for reasons far beyond mere sensible governance. It will be a place – the only place – wherein our people can truly be free to be themselves, and truly flourish in every way.
Non-White demographics are not really the central issue. The central issue is the ideology of a centralized federal authority. John C. Calhoun described exactly the state we’re in right now back in the 1840s and that was before any significant non-White immigration and the anti-White Civil Rights Act.
Calhoun saw that eventually some ‘faction’ within the USA political-economy would acquire enough power within the central government to tip the scales permanently in its favor and then the Federal government would become their instrument and not a genuine ‘people’s government’.
The War of Northern Aggression was fought to make sure that the dominant faction in the US would be the Northeast and that’s been the case since the 1860s. Now that the Northeast has been captured by hostile racial aliens, the Federal government exists to function as their instrument to use against all other factions.
Though Calhoun could not have imagined that ‘White people’ would become a abject faction, he was able to accurately predict that the flaws in the Constitution and the subsequent Amendments as he knew them would eventually lead to some faction controlling the continent via the federal authority.
The future for the White race in North America will not be had by focusing on the adverse effects of the presence of non-Whites on the continent. We have to see how the errors of the past made by Whites contributed to our current precarious situation and avoid perpetuating those errors.
White solidarity arises from Whites caring about Whites because they are White. It means advancing and supporting a culture of conciliation between White factions in the name of Whiteness and not ‘economics’ or ‘history’ or anything outside ourselves.
That ISEE graphic needs to be mass distributed on Twitter and Telegram. I haven’t seen it before but I was already aware of the strategy.
Thank you! I have included it in 5 or 6 essays now. But I always reinclude where it fits since it will always be someone’s first time seeing it.
Would you say the ISEE approach applies to Canada and countries in Europe too?
Good question. The ISEE Model applies best in diaspora nations like the US, Canada, Australia, and maybe South Africa one day. European whites have nowhere to escape to without losing a major part of their identity.
Another practical concern — which is harder for a White Nationalist to disregard — is the issue of population transfer.
Right now tens of millions of people are being moved from the other side of the world into the United States by the regime (government, NGOs, corporations, etc). If the population of Somalia can be transferred from Mogadishu to Minneapolis, or Afghanistan from Kabul to Kansas, then a similar logistical effort could be made to sort out the racial situation in America.
Let’s say the US breaks up into two countries, White America and Multicult America. People are then given an option: if you want to move to the “other” America, the government will issue a one time voucher to cover your expenses. An office can be set up to find the applicant with a new home, job, schools, and so forth (there are already in existence companies which assist people in such cross country moves).
If you do not want to move, then you live by the rules of the country in which you have chosen to stay. Example: if one wants to pillage a city over a thug offed by a cop, then move to Multicult America. If one wants to live by the rules of civil society, then move to White America.
There’s a precedent from the principal of cuius regio, eius religio which brought a semblance of peace to the Holy Roman Empire for a century or so following the Diet of Augsburg. Worked in the Reformation, can work in the 21st century.
Separating the USA will not change anything, nor is it fair to whites who built this country to cede any of their territory. It would even bring on a host of new problems. Look at the Gaza Strip and Israeli situation alone to see how it wouldn’t work.
Non-whites do not come to the USA to live in a “separate Chinese area” or a “black section” or a “multiracial area” that they can get back in their homelands — they come to live close to, and vicariously through, whites. They aren’t the brightest people, but they know that only whites can foster capitalism, 1st world healthcare, low-crime areas, etc. The one dot they refuse to connect (or can’t connect) is that this will eventually get rid of whites altogether, and the things they wanted to come to America for in the first place will be long gone.
A separate multiracial area would crumble in less than a year, and the white area would be safe, clean, economically prosperous, and healthy. They’d be enraged once again, and do whatever it took to get into the white area — like they do now. They wouldn’t let you do this in the first place, but even if you somehow did, it’s not a long-term solution.
Whites either take a stand in their entire country (at least the continental 48) or they don’t. These ridiculous half-measures should not be pursued. Almost all non-whites here did come from somewhere else/have places to go to, but we do not. Enough is enough
Separating the USA will not change anything, nor is it fair to whites who built this country to cede any of their territory.
What are you talking about? Cede any territory? We don’t hold any territory. The only question is whether we are going to be able to one day get some territory, or are going to continue to have no territory. That is the situation now, and that has been the situation for decades. People like Wilmot Robertson who were writing before most of us were even born took it for granted.
It would even bring on a host of new problems. Look at the Gaza Strip and Israeli situation alone to see how it wouldn’t work.
The Israeli dilemma is exactly the opposite of what you say. Their problem is not that they ceded too much land, it is that they stubbornly insist on ruling over a territory that they do not have the numbers to control. The Jews are only around half of the population of Israel (including Palestinian lands).
Here, the numbers are even more lopsided against us. You’re asking a population of maybe 10-20 million White nationalists (and this is to use the term loosely) to rule over a country of 330 million, and that is simply delusional. And, frankly, morally wrong.
A separate multiracial area would crumble in less than a year, and the white area would be safe, clean, economically prosperous, and healthy. They’d be enraged once again, and do whatever it took to get into the white area — like they do now. They wouldn’t let you do this in the first place, but even if you somehow did, it’s not a long-term solution.
What does any of this have to do with the price of tea in China? What do any of these claims have to do with the size of the ethnostate? Yes, the ethnostate needs a certain amount of resources and population to defend its borders, but it doesn’t take a giant superstate to achieve that. Little Israel manages to do it (recent exceptions, notwithstanding).
A separate multiracial area would crumble in less than a year…
I suppose ‘crumble’ is a relative term, but the world is full of non-White countries, and mixed White/non-White countries, and while many of these places are not overly prosperous, it’s not like they are constantly on the brink of mass famine. If they were, we should try to help them. But whether our help is enough to make the difference or not, I don’t count the misfortunes of others as reason for why we should not have our sovereign existence.
They’d be enraged once again, and do whatever it took to get into the white area — like they do now.
That’s not what they do now. They are being allowed to walk right in, and so many of them do. When Trump put in place fairly minor impediments, illegal entries cratered.
They wouldn’t let you do this in the first place, but even if you somehow did, it’s not a long-term solution.
They won’t let us carve out a European nation-state sized territory for ourselves, but they will let us take over the entire country?
To return to how I started, the mistake you’re making is you’re thinking of White nationalism as a project of conserving something, or reclaiming it, when it should be thought of as the creation of something new. The comparison I always make of White nationalists vis-a-vis America is that we are like fifth-sixth century France vis-a-vis the Roman Empire: a new nation being born out of an empire, and then separating from it.
“Little Israel manages to do it (recent exceptions, notwithstanding).”
Little Israel gets a LOT of help from Big America (USA); and, in fact, could not exist without it.
A fine article, Mr Quinn.
I am reminded of the very messy process which gave birth to America. Intra-group differences and tensions (and splitting) seems to be a universal quality of human projects. In the UK we have the Brits vs the Scots, and within the Brits, the North vs the South. In recently united (1870ish) Germany we have Prussia and Bavaria; likewise in Italy, the North and the Mezzogiorno. And within both sides of those oppositions there are more. There’s no escape from it.
We have to continually assess the situation and adapt in ways that serve the goal, which is primary. It’s why both brains and character are important, especially Aristotle’s cardinal virtues: world-wisdom, measure, hardiness and sovereignty.
Thank you, Dr EC!
Of course character is paramount. A nation can get by with a limited number of very intelligent people if both they and those they are directing are of high moral character.
On a small point of ethno-nationalist order I think where you have written Brits you really meant English. On the other hand as late as the mid-twentieth C. , it was not uncommon for historians to refer to England rather than Britain, when discussing world politics. A case of telling it how it really was?
“I simply have a visceral dislike of being ruled by racial outsiders.”
That’s it in a single sentence.
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.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment