Abadroa thinks it is a bad idea for advocates of a single white state, like Francis Parker Yockey or Gregory Hood, to call themselves “imperialists”:
First, we must categorically reject the term “imperialist” as a designation for someone who wants a single white nation. Francis Parker Yockey is far from representing the majority of this tendency’s supporters, and the word “imperialism” has a negative psychological charge due to its association with such concepts as one ethnic group imposing itself by force on others, or an absolute hegemony by one ethnic group over others.
Abadroa, instead, wishes to use the terms “White Nationalism” or “White Unionism.” I will use “White Unionism” here, since I call my own position White Nationalism. He stipulates that White Unionism won’t have the bad traits associated with imperialism, namely coercion, cultural homogenization, and the domination of one ethnic group over others.
Abadroa objects to my definition of White Nationalism as the right of all white peoples to their own sovereign homelands:
Let’s not forget that the term nationalist in our milieu is always accompanied by the adjective referring to that which the individual considers his or her nation. I consider the white race to be my nation, and therefore, I am a White Nationalist. But, if someone considers his nation to be that of a particular ethnicity, in what sense can he call himself a White Nationalist? To say, “I am a White Nationalist and I want independence for my ethnicity” is as contradictory as saying “I am a Spanish nationalist and I want independence for my Basque Country,” or for a Scot to say “I am a British nationalist and I want independence for my Scotland.” It just doesn’t make sense.
I don’t think my concept of White Nationalism is problematic, for two reasons.
First, a race is not a nation, it is a biological group. To be a nation, a group needs several traits.
- They must be biologically related.
- They must share a common consciousness, meaning primarily a common culture and a common mother tongue. (Mother tongue = first language.)
Whites are biologically related, but we do not share a common mother language. We have a common cultural heritage, but we also have many distinct cultures. Therefore, whites are not a nation. Whites are many nations. We call a group that is both biologically related and united by a common consciousness an ethnic group.
As an ethnonationalist, I believe that different ethnic groups are the proper bearers of sovereignty, as opposed to the many peoples encompassed in multicultural states. A sovereign people can live how they like in their own homeland. They don’t have to ask anyone’s permission to be themselves, and if outside forces interfere with a sovereign nation, such forces have done something wrong.
The sovereignty of peoples is a moral concept analogous to the rights of individuals: both concepts provide boundaries. These boundaries proscribe force, promote cooperation, and create zones of freedom where both nations and individuals can live as they see fit, consistent with the rights of others to do the same. (To understand how my idea of sovereignty differs from that of Abadroa, see my articles “Might, Right, and Sovereignty” and “Notes on Sovereignty and International Order,” which are chapters 5 and 6 below.)
A group’s culture can be likened to an individual’s personality. Individuals seek to have their own lives and their own spaces because sharing a household, a bedroom, or a kitchen with others can lead to needless tensions and conflicts that simply disappear when we have our own spaces. The same is true for different ethnic groups living in the same country, under the same rules. As William Blake put it, “One law for the lion and ox is oppression.” The solution is separation. This is why peoples who live in multiethnic nations seek independence.
Abadroa is simply wrong to claim that the world is trending away from nationalism. The number of sovereign states has increased dramatically over the last century. Beyond that, there’s nothing inevitable about globalization erasing national borders and identities. That might make it easier for shoppers and refugees, but states simply need to summon the political will to say “no.” We can share recipes and trade goods without erasing borders and peoples.
If you want the white race to become a single ethnic group, this is akin to declaring existing white ethnicities to be merely the raw materials from which a new people can be fashioned. Why would any self-respecting people consent to that? Making whites into a single ethnic group requires cultural and linguistic homogenization, which looks a lot like ethnic domination by the people whose mother tongue is being imposed. Moreover, such a program will create an inevitable backlash, at which point its advocates will either have to abandon it or resort to coercion. You may not wish to call this imperialism, but the substance is the same.
Second, there is no contradiction in saying “I am a White Nationalist, and I want a sovereign homeland for my particular people.” Why talk about race at all if you are simply a Spanish or an Austrian nationalist? Because of “naturalization.” Every state makes provisions for outsiders to become citizens. We are now being told that non-whites can become Spaniards and Austrians through naturalization. So we have to remind them that only whites can be naturalized as members of European nations (and only in small numbers, and only if they “assimilate” the local culture, a process that generally requires several generations). Just as there are Spanish civic nationalists and multiculturalists, there should also be Spanish White Nationalists to remind them that whiteness is a necessary condition for being part of any European nation.
The United States
Abadroa expresses some confusions about the nature of America and American nationalism. In such articles as “American Ethnic Identity” and “What Is American Nationalism?” I argue that Americans are a distinct European people, blended from different European stocks. We are not English. We have our own language (American English) and our own culture (for better or worse). Americans, I hasten to add, are a white nation. Blacks, Asians, Amerindians, and Mestizos living within America’s borders are not Americans. They are either distinct peoples (for instance, Indian tribes and black Americans) or members of other nations who have simply crossed our borders (for instance, Mestizos and various Asian groups).
As an ethnonationalist, I support a combination of partition and repatriation to solve America’s diversity problem. There should be at least one white American nation. There may be multiple ones, depending on how the current system crumbles. I would not object to the South rising again, but I wonder if there are enough actual Southerners left in Dixie for something like that to happen. There should be a nation for black Americans. The various Amerindian nations should be able to keep their reservations. I also support repatriation of post-1965 immigrant populations. Opening our borders to the world was a mistake that simply needs to be rectified. But it will be a “no fault” divorce. We won’t demand reparations.
Abadroa claims that ethnonationalist fears of cultural homogenization in a single white state can be handled with “federalism”:
. . . there is no reason why a federal nation could not grant autonomy in such matters to various territories within it. If China under the Communist dictatorship had special economic zones where capitalism was practiced freely as an experiment—and whose economic model has since been copied to a large extent by the rest of the country—then surely this autonomy can also be granted within a white nation, even at the most local level, such as cities or counties.
In fact, pilot projects are sometimes carried out in only a few towns or cities, and this is something that I believe should be developed to its full potential, especially as an excellent vehicle for reducing people’s sense of alienation. If it were to be decided, there is no reason why within each ethnic federated state there cannot be anarchist micro-societies, homosexual villages, Amish reservations, pagan communities, or anything else where there is sufficient demand. Therefore, a federal nation can be politically, culturally, and genetically as diverse as several independent ethnostates.
My issue is with this language of “granting autonomy.” Abadroa envisions a single white state “granting” local autonomy to distinct peoples to speak their own languages, celebrate their own holidays and heroes, and educate their children to do the same. Of course, existing nations do this as a matter of sovereign right. They don’t have to ask anyone’s permission. Why would they surrender their sovereignty to a centralized state from which they would then petition to be granted permission to do what they used to do as a matter of right? Why would a sovereign Italian nation accept the status of a mere Italian reservation, a status that can be granted or revoked by a central state?
Federalism is a very slippery concept. It is a hybrid of a confederation and a unified sovereign state with devolved powers. A confederation is a group of sovereign states that have delegated certain powers to a central government, for instance to organize common policies for defense, foreign affairs, money, weights and measures, etc. In a confederation, sovereignty remains with the states that enter into the agreement. A unified sovereign state can devolve (or concentrate) its powers at will, and such decisions do not hinge on “sufficient demand,” since that would imply that sovereignty is in the hands of any group that wants it, rather than in the hands of the central state.
Federalism is an attempt to split the difference. Federalists think they can give some sovereignty to the central government and some to lesser jurisdictions. But sovereignty cannot be divided. Sovereign states can delegate their powers to a central government. Or a central sovereign state can devolve powers to local communities. But sovereignty can’t rest in both places. What if the states disagree with the central government on a matter of great importance? Sovereignty lies with the party that takes precedence. Sovereignty lies with the party that can say “no.” If the central government can say “no,” then sovereignty resides there. If the constituent states can say “no,” then sovereignty resides there. What if a federal system does not anticipate such a conflict and makes no provisions for its resolution, perhaps out of a desire not to take a stand on where sovereignty ultimately lies? Eventually, such conflicts will be settled by force.
This is precisely the path America followed to its Civil War. In the South, the states believed they retained sovereignty and had the power to nullify federal laws they regarded as unconstitutional. In the North, the federal government, specifically the federal judiciary, claimed to be the highest authority on the interpretation of law. This conflict could not be solved within the existing constitutional framework, so the South seceded, and the North went to war to stop them.
Why would anyone create such an unstable “federal” hybrid? Short-sightedness and anti-intellectualism can’t be ruled out. Most politicians are more concerned with pleasing people than with intellectual consistency. Americans especially have a tendency to avoid tough decisions and force future generations to pay the price. For what it is worth, though, the anti-federalists feared that the new Constitution was merely the first step by which predominantly Northern and mercantile elites would create a consolidated, imperial state. It turns out they were right. The process of consolidation was completed by Abraham Lincoln, to the ruin of Constitution and Confederacy alike. The lesson is that sometimes, sovereign states enter empires voluntarily, often deceived as much by their own hopes as the imperialists’ guile. Force comes into play only when they want to leave.
The European Union
The European Union, like the United States before the Civil War, is an inherently unstable “federal” hybrid. It began as a confederation of sovereign states. But the eventual goal of the EU was clear from the start: to gradually strip the constituent states of their sovereignty and establish itself as a consolidated sovereign superstate. The EU is not a sovereign state yet, however, which is why the United Kingdom could leave and, arguably, why other states still wish to join. But as the EU’s drive toward consolidating sovereign power continues, it may set the stage for the next great European civil war. This is why I disagree with Abadroa’s views on the EU:
Despite not being governed by the people and political ideas we want, the closest example there is of a united white nation at present is the European Union. Not only has it been implemented and carried out peacefully, but it has itself greatly contributed to creating a lasting peace among a multitude of peoples who had previously continuously slaughtered each other in wars over ethnic differences, territorial disputes, religious conflicts, and so on.
The EU is not a sovereign entity (yet). It is a confederation of sovereign states with an obvious drive toward consolidation. Nations enter voluntarily on the assumption that they will retain their sovereignty. And as soon as that is no longer the case, they may have to fight to leave.
Beyond that, what has the EU done to promote “lasting peace”? It is not a sovereign entity. It does not have an army of its own. It actually has no power to prevent European nations from going to war against each other. Furthermore, NATO would do nothing to prevent its members from going to war against each other, as Greece and Turkey are well aware. So why has there not been a major war in the center of Europe since the Second World War? Largely, because there is a broad consensus, among elites and masses alike, that such a war is undesirable.
If, however, the EU can be shown to have contributed to peace, it has done so not as a sovereign entity, but as a confederation of sovereign European states. I welcome such news, because as an ethnonationalist, I am all for a confederation of sovereign European states that promotes conflict resolution among its members and a common defense of the continent. But to create such a confederation, the issue of sovereignty must be clearly settled, not fudged with a “federal” compromise.
 For more in this vein, see Alan Smithee, “Ethnonationalism for Normies,” Counter-Currents, July 1, 2016.
 See my essay “Why ‘White’ Nationalism?” in Toward a New Nationalism, 2nd ed. (San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2023).
 Greg Johnson, “American Ethnic Identity,” in In Defense of Prejudice, Foreword by Tito Perdue (San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2017).
 In Toward a New Nationalism.
 See Greg Johnson, “Restoring White Homelands,” in The White Nationalist Manifesto (San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2018).
 See Greg Johnson, “Irreconcilable Differences: The Case for Racial Divorce,” in Truth, Justice, & a Nice White Country (San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2015).
* * *
Like all journals of dissident ideas, Counter-Currents depends on the support of readers like you. Help us compete with the censors of the Left and the violent accelerationists of the Right with a donation today. (The easiest way to help is with an e-check donation. All you need is your checkbook.)
For other ways to donate, click here.