I know there is hope for Whites. I know it seems we are waking up late. But I know these things are in the hands of God and I know He is merciful. Most are familiar with His treatment of Israel of old. Consider what He does with other nations.

Ezek 29:12 “So I will make the land of Egypt a desolation in the midst of desolated lands. And her cities, in the midst of cities that are laid waste, will be desolate forty years; and I will scatter the Egyptians among the nations and disperse them among the lands.” 13 ‘For thus says the Lord God, “At the end of forty years I will gather the Egyptians from the peoples among whom they were scattered. “I will turn the fortunes of Egypt and make them return to the land of Pathros, to the land of their origin, and there they will be a lowly kingdom. “It will be the lowest of the kingdoms, and it will never again lift itself up above the nations. And I will make them so small that they will not rule over the nations.

These lessons are part of a wider study seeking to answer a timely but age old question:

Psalms 11:3 If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?”

God set boundaries to protect us from evil. Underneath each boundary lays a foundation. When evil men redefine biological sex (Gen 1:27), they strike at that foundation. When evil men redefine marriage (Gen 2:23-24), they strike at that foundation. When evil men redefine nation (Gen 10:5), they strike at that foundation. When the footing is shattered, people lose hope and become easy prey to evil forces.

When God freed the sons of Israel from Egypt (Ex 1:1) He continued His promise to make them into a nation (Gen 12:1-2). He taught them as they marched through the desert to the Promised Land. He gave them their first lessons on nationhood. He reminded them of their history and origin. In the first 11 chapters, and of first importance, were the definitions of nation, marriage, and biological sex. From chapter 12 on, to the end of the New Testament, God persistently impressed these definitions upon His chosen, but deviant, people. His definitions were not contrary to the nature of things. This was His plan and means of bringing the world a Savior and conquering evil. What would have happened had He not held to these definitions or worked against His own laws of nature?

I hope to bring light upon these questions and others like them in this series of studies called What is a Nation? To explore this broader topic I will review a number of books, the first of which is The White Nationalist Manifesto by Greg Johnson. I will add some comments and study questions to each post to turn them into short 10-20 minute lessons. To go to the beginning of this series click here.

White Nationalism Is Inevitable

White Nationalism is the inevitable reaction of whites who are being ethnically cleansed from our homelands^[1] Of course most people are not so vulgar as to explicitly call for the ethnic cleansing of whites. Instead, they use euphemisms like “diversity” and “multiculturalism.” Whenever a business, a church, a school, or a neighborhood becomes more “diverse” or “multicultural,” that simply means fewer whites and more non-whites.

Replacing non-whites with whites is never lauded as diversity or multiculturalism. When it happens in a non-white neighborhood, it is decried as “gentrification.” When it happens in a non-white country, it is condemned as “imperialism” and “colonialism,” or even “ethnic cleansing” and “genocide.” Non-whites get to keep their spaces, but whites don’t. What is theirs, they keep. What is ours, is negotiable.

Since diversity means nothing more than the replacement of whites with non-whites, which is ethnic cleansing, and all the leading institutions of our society are actively promoting diversity, obviously a reaction was inevitable.

To appreciate that fact, we don’t need to go into the arguments for or against diversity. We don’t need to talk about biology, history, sociology, or economics. We don’t need to know which side is right. All that can come later. Right now, all we need to recognize is that whites, like any other healthy animal, will fight back when we feel that we are being attacked.

When whites become aware that we are being attacked as a group, other political issues—including the most contentious issues that divide us—seem less important. Conversely, what we have in common—our racial and ethnic identity, the target on our back, which we can’t pull off because it is part of us—becomes more important.

In a homogeneous society, politics is about differing conceptions of the common good, because in a homogeneous society, citizens have a great deal in common. We often take this for granted. Indeed, we seldom even notice it until diversity and multiculturalism are thrust upon us.

In a multicultural society, the only things that people have in common are a territory and a political and economic system, in which organized groups that do share a common identity fight against one another for power and resources.

White Nationalism is identity politics for white people, and it will inevitably arise when formerly white societies become multiracial societies. It will only cease when multiracialism is replaced with racially and ethnically homogeneous white societies again.

White Nationalism, at minimum, is white identity politics within the context of a multiracial society. Whites will inevitably organize to preserve our wealth, power, and communities from non-white depredations. Such White Nationalist politics need not even be explicitly racial. In fact, when White Nationalism first emerges, it is seldom willing to directly confront the taboo against racial identity, so it embraces civic rather than racial nationalism and pursues white interests under the guise of universal principles like rights and legality.

Nevertheless, even the most sheepish and bashful, even the most self-contradictory and self-defeating White Nationalist sentiments were powerful enough to carry the Brexit referendum and propel Donald Trump to the US presidency. Indeed, such implicit White Nationalism is the animating principle of the growing populist-nationalist movements across the white world.

As populist-nationalists rack up victories, we will inevitably move from implicit to explicit racial advocacy, and we will switch from defense to offense. We will not just halt white dispossession, we will reverse it. We will demand nice white neighborhoods, schools, businesses, communities, and countries—and getting those requires replacing non-whites with whites.

At this point, White Nationalism will come to a fork in the road. The left fork will preserve multicultural societies, but put whites firmly in charge and restore white supermajorities. This is the white supremacist option, to which civic nationalists are logically committed, because to them the right fork is morally and politically frightening.

The rightward route embraces the deepest meaning and impetus of White Nationalism. It rejects diversity entirely in favor of the idea of the ethnostate. It is willing to move peoples and borders to create racially and ethnically homogeneous homelands for all European peoples who aspire to self-determination. This is the ultimate aim of White Nationalism as I conceive it.

Europe is the motherland of our race. No other race has any legitimate claim on it. Thus there is absolutely no reason why the nations of Europe should not remove all non-whites. In the case of the United States and other European settler societies, fairness demands some accommodation for the remnants of indigenous peoples and the descendants of black slaves, preferably by giving them autonomous homelands.

In the case of the US, I am willing to entertain civic nationalist approximations to the ethnostate as temporary, expedient compromises with political reality. For instance, I believe that White Nationalists should seriously promote a new immigration/emigration policy that aims to return to the ethnic status quo of 1965, which was in many ways the peak of American civilization. The goal would simply be to erase the catastrophic error of opening our borders to the Third World. This transformation could take place gradually, with 2065 as the target date for completion. This sort of proposal could even meet with the approval of many non-whites, because it gives a place to their kind in America’s future. As long as whites had complete freedom to disassociate with other races, the result would be a de facto White Nationalist society for the vast majority of whites.

But there is no guarantee that such a racially segregated society would not eventually grow complacent, then delusional and profligate, repeating all the mistakes that are destroying us today. Thus White Nationalists will have to keep moving the goalposts toward the complete realization of the ethnostate. There’s no reason for us to ever stop extolling the idea of a completely homogeneous society, because even the most timid civic nationalists know, in their heart of hearts, that America would be a better place with no blacks or Mexicans or Muslims whatsoever.

Whether White Nationalism ultimately leads to segregated white supremacist societies or homogeneous ethnostates depends on historical contingencies that cannot be predicted or controlled. It is also possible that White Nationalism will fail entirely in some countries.

But we can say that White Nationalism is inevitable, because it already exists, even though its ultimate victory is uncertain. We do not appeal to pseudo-scientific notions of inevitable historical progress, like Marxists. And although many of us take inspiration from Traditional and Spenglerian cyclical views of history, we also believe that it is our duty to fight for a Golden Age rather than to give in to decline or to count on historical forces to do our work for us.

In the beginning, White Nationalism is as inevitable as an abused dog biting its tormentor. Beyond that, victory is only as inevitable as we make it.

There is good reason for optimism, however, simply because racial and ethnic diversity within the same society are sources of disunity, conflict, and the erasure of distinct identities. Anti-white ethnic cleansing can only be maintained by lies and moral blackmail—and, when these fail, by intimidation and outright violence. One can flout reality for a long time, as long as you can make other people pay the price. But eventually, multicultural regimes lose their strength through division and chaos and their legitimacy through lies and broken promises.

By contrast, since White Nationalism is in harmony with reality, our strength will only grow, because we understand that it arises from racial and ethnic unity, and our credibility will only grow, because it is based on speaking the truth. Indeed, because the best evidence of our superiority will be provided by the system itself, White Nationalism will in essence feed off the system’s decline.

The current establishment is already working feverishly, at nearly 100% capacity, to suppress white identity politics and white racial consciousness, which are just beginning to stir. But this means that our ethnocentrism has far more room to grow than their capacity to contain it. Thus even a small spike in white racial consciousness might overwhelm the system’s ability to suppress it, at which point all bets are off.

Eventually the trajectories of their decline and our rise will cross, and when our rising consciousness exceeds their declining ability to control us, then we win.

Click on the "The White Nationalist Manifesto" tag below to see all the posts in this series. To go to the start of this series click here.

Questions & Notes

.

1. _________ _________ is the inevitable reaction of whites who are being ethnically cleansed from our homelands. ↑

Johnson gives some very helpful clarification between the Nationals Socialism and the White Nationalist movement.  What are the pros and cons of the Nationalist movements?  

These lessons are part of a wider study seeking to answer a timely but age old question:

Psalms 11:3 If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?”

God set boundaries to protect us from evil. Underneath each boundary lays a foundation. When evil men redefine biological sex (Gen 1:27), they strike at that foundation. When evil men redefine marriage (Gen 2:23-24), they strike at that foundation. When evil men redefine nation (Gen 10:5), they strike at that foundation. When the footing is shattered, people lose hope and become easy prey to evil forces.

When God freed the sons of Israel from Egypt (Ex 1:1) He continued His promise to make them into a nation (Gen 12:1-2). He taught them as they marched through the desert to the Promised Land. He gave them their first lessons on nationhood. He reminded them of their history and origin. In the first 11 chapters, and of first importance, were the definitions of nation, marriage, and biological sex. From chapter 12 on, to the end of the New Testament, God persistently impressed these definitions upon His chosen, but deviant, people. His definitions were not contrary to the nature of things. This was His plan and means of bringing the world a Savior and conquering evil. What would have happened had He not held to these definitions or worked against His own laws of nature?

I hope to bring light upon these questions and others like them in this series of studies called What is a Nation? To explore this broader topic I will review a number of books, the first of which is The White Nationalist Manifesto by Greg Johnson. I will add some comments and study questions to each post to turn them into short 10-20 minute lessons. To go to the beginning of this series click here.

15: The Relevance Of The Old Right

What is the relevance of what I call the Old Right—German National Socialism, Italian Fascism, and related interwar national-populist movements^[1]—to White Nationalism today? The question would not even arise, of course, if there were no connection at all. Many White Nationalist ideas are either direct descendants of Old Right ideologies, or they are their cousins, meaning that they share common ancestors, that they are branches of the same ideological tree.

No Necessary Connection

This is what I take from the Old Right:

How Nationalism Differs From The Old Right

White Nationalism differs from the Old Right in three principal ways.

First, we are universal nationalists, meaning that we believe that ethnonationalism is good for all peoples. Thus we oppose imperialism, whereas Old Right regimes practiced imperialism against their fellow Europeans as well as non-whites. Defending imperialism is basically telling your neighbors that you are not above a little murder and theft when it suits you. But that is no way to build solidarity among white nations or a peaceful planet in general, to the extent that these are possible.

Second, given that White Nationalists today are concerned with the well-being of our race, both as a whole and in all its constituent ethnic parts, it makes no sense to identify White Nationalism with any particular Old Right regime, since those regimes pursued their particular national interests at the expense of other European peoples.^[5] For instance, identifying White Nationalism with German National Socialism is a self-defeating tactic when dealing with Poles or Ukrainians, regardless of the fact that a minuscule minority of these nations are broadminded enough to share such attitudes, or at least tolerate them.

Third, the Old Right was born in the struggle against Bolshevism, and it adopted the Bolsheviks’ organizational model and tactics to beat them, e.g., the paramilitary party and the totalitarian state, including terrorism and mass murder as tools of policy. Imitating such policies today, however, is ineffective (to say nothing of moral considerations). The postwar hegemony of the Left was not established by Bolshevik means but through institutional and cultural subversion. Thus the New Right must combat them through institutional and cultural renewal. This is the basis for the metapolitical strategy of the New Right. New Rightists do not object to taking a gun to a gunfight, but we do object to taking a gun to what is now essentially a battle of ideas.

In sum, the Old Right is highly relevant to White Nationalism in terms of its analytical framework and political goals, but we reject imperialism in favor of universal nationalism and the Bolshevik organizational model and methods for metapolitics.

Think Critically

So how should White Nationalists today approach the Old Right? The same way we should approach any tradition or body of thought: with an open but critical mind. First, get enough education and experience to form your own worldview, understand who you are, and exercise adult judgment. Then, standing on that foundation, examine the Old Right, incorporate what is true and useful, reject what is not, and move on. This approach requires self-awareness, authenticity, and groundedness in one’s own identity and worldview.

The least productive engagement with the Old Right is when people who lack a worldview of their own go shopping for a complete and ready-made system of ideas that they can adopt as a package deal. Common examples in our circles include Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Traditionalism, and National Socialism. Old Right ideas are adopted essentially as religious dogmas, in which one defers to the thoughts and judgments of others rather than developing one’s own.

The danger is that such people will latch on to and repeat ideas and strategies that are no longer justified—if they ever were—and they will lack the experience and critical thinking skills necessary to get beyond them. They also lack the groundedness in present-day reality necessary to apply such ideas productively. The usual result is the strident, brittle, and quarrelsome people who populate Internet forums and comment threads. However, trying ideas on for size is part of intellectual growth and exploration, and exposure to experience and counter-arguments generally tends to mature such people.

Another unproductive engagement with the Old Right is not just adopting a ready-made system of ideas but imaginatively identifying oneself with the Third Reich or another bygone fascist regime. This goes well beyond learning the lessons of history to apply them to the present and instead becomes escapism, a way of fleeing from the present rather than transforming it, a way of re-fighting the battles of the past, which cannot be changed, and avoiding the battles of the present, in which our race’s future is at stake. To accuse such people of LARPing is usually an undeserved compliment, because such role-playing seldom leads to “live action” of any sort.

There is also something deeply inauthentic about identifying with a past regime, especially if it is a foreign one. White Nationalism is a form of identity politics. To be real identity politics, however, it has to be based on a real identity. We are not just creatures of our own time and place, since we reject the false and meaningless identities that the current system offers us: deracinated individuals, citizens of the universe, children of nowhere, defining ourselves by the products we consume and discard. Instead, our identity is defined by our whole biological and cultural lineage, which leads to the present day and cannot be re-routed to some other time and place.

We reject the modern “identity” because it is false, because it does not fit us, because it makes us miserable and base. But modern individualism can only be fake if we already have a real identity, although we might be largely unconscious of who we really are. Therefore, the answer to the modern malaise is to discover who we are and live accordingly, to be authentic rather than fake. It is no answer to simply replace the predominant fake identity with something equally fake but merely more eccentric or marginal. Adopting off-the-rack systems of ideas or living in the past are symptoms of rootlessness rather than solutions for it.

Fortunately, White Nationalists of every nation do not have to look too far back in the history of their own homelands to find prominent sages and statesmen who believed what we believe today. Many of the laws we propose were already on the books in most white countries. An authentic ethnonationalist movement needs to graft itself onto the living traditions of its own homeland, not exotic imports or toxic and highly stigmatized ideologies.

Contra those who would pretend that the Old Right never existed, it has much to teach us. But it is part of the past. It is dead, and it needs to stay that way. Those who would revive it are guilty of a number of serious errors: anachronism, because we are now in a battle of ideas; advocating patently immoral policies, such as imperialism; rootlessness and inauthenticity, for identifying with foreign ideologies and nations rather than seeking a basis for nationalist policies in their own political traditions^[6]; and finally self-marginalizing, self-defeating behavior at the very moment when the broad public has never been more receptive to our ideas. We need to get serious, before we lose the historical moment and our race slips beyond the point of no return. Many Old Right revivalists sense this burning urgency, but if we don’t have time to do the right thing, doing the wrong thing won’t save us anyway.

Click on the "The White Nationalist Manifesto" tag below to see all the posts in this series. To go to the start of this series click here.

Questions & Notes

1. What is the Old Right? ↑

2. Nationalism over _________. ↑

3. The common good over _________ _________. ↑

4. _________ is central to politics. ↑

5. True or False: The Old Right regime pursued their particular national interests at the expense of other European peoples. ↑

6. In the case of the Germans, however, they have to be highly selective about appeals to their own Rightist traditions. ↑

Calm and steady is the course. We'll deal with the waves and wind when they appear. Keep our destination in mind and you'll endure the hardship. All of this (in this chapter) calls for high moral character.

These lessons are part of a wider study seeking to answer a timely but age old question:

Psalms 11:3 If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?”

God set boundaries to protect us from evil. Underneath each boundary lays a foundation. When evil men redefine biological sex (Gen 1:27), they strike at that foundation. When evil men redefine marriage (Gen 2:23-24), they strike at that foundation. When evil men redefine nation (Gen 10:5), they strike at that foundation. When the footing is shattered, people lose hope and become easy prey to evil forces.

When God freed the sons of Israel from Egypt (Ex 1:1) He continued His promise to make them into a nation (Gen 12:1-2). He taught them as they marched through the desert to the Promised Land. He gave them their first lessons on nationhood. He reminded them of their history and origin. In the first 11 chapters, and of first importance, were the definitions of nation, marriage, and biological sex. From chapter 12 on, to the end of the New Testament, God persistently impressed these definitions upon His chosen, but deviant, people. His definitions were not contrary to the nature of things. This was His plan and means of bringing the world a Savior and conquering evil. What would have happened had He not held to these definitions or worked against His own laws of nature?

I hope to bring light upon these questions and others like them in this series of studies called What is a Nation? To explore this broader topic I will review a number of books, the first of which is The White Nationalist Manifesto by Greg Johnson. I will add some comments and study questions to each post to turn them into short 10-20 minute lessons. To go to the beginning of this series click here.

14: A Winning Ethos

The White Nationalist movement is more like a subculture than a political party. It is a network of individuals, web platforms, and organizations. It exists more online than in the real world. We hope this subculture will give birth to political change. But before we can change the world, we need to be the kind of movement that can actually do that. So it is worth asking what sort of ethos would make us more likely to win. Here are a few simple rules that will give us an edge. If we follow them consistently, they will make our movement increasingly formidable.

1. Populism & Elitism

White Nationalism is populist in the sense that we believe that a regime can be legitimate only if it represents the common good of a people, meaning the interests of the whole body politic, not just a single part. Populism does not mean engaging in folksy, lowbrow pandering to below-average people. That’s just an elitist parody. Populism represents the whole body politic.

White Nationalism is also elitist, because it turns out that the best way to represent the interests of the whole body politic is through an elitist movement. We need to attract the best of our people to fight for all of them.

Every society is ruled by elites.^[1] The only question is whether they rule in the interests of all, or in their own interests. Currently, white nations are ruled by the wealthiest, most powerful, and most diabolically evil elite in human history. When Plato and Aristotle compiled their catalogs of bad forms of government, neither of them imagined a regime so evil that it was dedicated to the replacement of its own population with foreigners. Our rulers are also astonishingly degenerate, delusional, and corrupt. But we are still no match for them in a purely political struggle.

To beat our current elite, White Nationalists will have to become an even more formidable elite. Therefore, all of our people will be better off if we can attract the best of our people to our movement. We want to recruit people who are above average in intelligence, education, idealism, altruism, income, taste, and social capital. We are not snobs. We will recruit the best people, no matter what their class origins. But we will not win if we imitate skinhead street gangs and other groups that recruit from the left side of the white bell curve.

How do we organize a movement that constantly attracts better and better people—a movement that continually reaches higher levels—and then surpasses itself?

The first step is to set high standards and maintain them. White Nationalists are often quite paradoxical. In theory, we are highly elitist. But in practice, we have almost infinite tolerance for profoundly defective people. The motivation is understandable: racially aware people are rare, so we treasure anyone who comes our way.

But we need to have more faith in our message: virtually all white people have the capacity for racial awareness and pride. We are just ahead of the curve. But people of quality will not be receptive to our message, much less contribute to our movement, if we coddle defective and repulsive people. Every inferior person keeps one hundred better people from joining our cause. And again, we will be more likely to build a movement that can represent the interests of all our people if we are highly selective about our membership.

Once we have set high thresholds for entry, and floors below which people cannot sink, we still have to think about ceilings. We don’t want them. We don’t want any upper limits on the evolution of our movement. This is why we need to be quite wary of would-be leaders, because someone who relishes the role of leader a bit too much will want to surround himself with inferiors—flatterers and flunkies—and try to run off genuinely superior people who might challenge his status. The best leadership material is someone who never seeks followers but instead seeks people he would like to follow.

Fortunately, the White Nationalist movement is not a unified, hierarchical movement that needs a single leader. Instead, it is a network of individuals and organizations. Every organization needs hierarchy and leadership. But the movement as a whole doesn’t. Not yet, anyway. Given the danger that a single leader would cap off the upward evolution of the movement, I would rather the average quality of movement people to be a lot higher before we risk that.

In the meantime, instead of waiting around for leaders, we should work to create a movement that can attract a genuinely great leader. Finding such a person is largely a matter of luck. It is not something we can control. But we can control whether or not we are a movement worthy of a leader. So until a leader appears, figure out how you can contribute as much as you can. Because if you are hanging back, watching and waiting for a leader before you start contributing to the cause, that might be self-defeating. Without your efforts, the movement may never attract the kind of leader you are waiting for.

2. Basic Courtesies

One of the highest priorities of the White Nationalist movement is to destroy the taboo against white identity politics. The only way to overthrow a taboo is to openly defy it. A taboo retains its power if people reject it in private but not in public. Thus, if the movement is to triumph, we need explicit White Nationalists.

However, there are serious social consequences for being explicit White Nationalists. People can lose their jobs, families, and social capital. Thus it is inevitable that the first waves of explicit White Nationalists will tend to be people who are psychologically eccentric and have little to lose.

The movement will never win, however, unless we can gain the support of people who are more average in their psychological profiles and above average in their education, income, social capital, etc. Unfortunately, these people have the most to lose from associating openly with White Nationalism.

Therefore, if our movement is to grow powerful enough to win, we also need to make a place for secret agents, who can contribute surreptitiously to the movement without destroying their normal lives. The movement would be weaker, not stronger, if everyone in a vulnerable position doxed himself and allowed the system to destroy him. To bring such people into the movement, we need to respect their desire for privacy by following two simple rules:

3. Promoting Cooperation & Avoiding Sectarianism

Right now, White Nationalism is a movement of the Right. But we will win when white identity politics becomes the common sense of the whole culture and the whole political spectrum, Left, Right, and center. That day will come sooner if we can cooperate with wider and wider circles of racially-aware whites. Some of the benefits of cooperation include:

4. Disagreement & Collegiality

The pro-white movement should be as pluralistic as the society we are trying to change. We will be united by our common goal of racial salvation. But we will have all sorts of differences on less essential issues, like style and tactics, as well as the inevitable personality clashes.

So how do we handle these disagreements?

One suggestion in our circles is that we should never fight among ourselves. We should never “punch right” or disavow one another but instead present a united front to the world. This seems reasonable. When you are under attack, you should strive to unify your camp and sow discord among your enemies.

But there are important caveats.

First, there is a difference between physical fighting and the battle of ideas. If our people are being assaulted, doxed, or persecuted by the state, we should always rally to their aid, regardless of differences of personality or principle. (Of course we should only come to the aid of innocent victims. If we come to the aid of reckless people with a record of getting into trouble, that creates a moral hazard, and we cannot allow such people to monopolize scarce resources.)

Second, in the battle of ideas, there is no sense in demanding that we present a united front, particularly on issues where there are real disagreements of principle. It is not “divisive” to sincerely disagree with someone. Again, our aim is the hegemony of pro-white ideas. We wish to change the whole cultural and political spectrum. Which requires that we engage the whole cultural and political spectrum. But this means that we cannot agree with each other on every issue, nor can we hide our disagreements. Indeed, declaring our disagreements is how we differentiate our approaches before the public.

Our movement needs to cultivate many different voices addressing many different audiences and employing many different strategies. So obviously they can’t all say the same thing. We have to disagree with each other openly. We have to set boundaries openly. We have to criticize one another openly. Being open and frank about our differences is, therefore, essential to the growth of our cause.

Moreover, our movement today is primarily intellectual and cultural. Spirited debate is the life-blood of such movements. It is what makes us more interesting and attractive than the cultural mainstream, where the life of the mind is stifled by political correctness.

But there are good and bad ways of stating disagreements. The good way is to adopt a civil and charitable tone, to give the most generous possible reading of an opposed position, and then offer sound reasons (facts and valid arguments) for the superiority of one’s own view. The bad way is to adopt a paranoid and aggressive tone, to give jaundiced readings of opposed positions, and to play fast and loose with facts and logic. There should be no taboos on criticizing other people and positions in the movement. The only taboos should be against bad ideas, bad arguments, bad manners, and bad faith.

Principled intellectual disagreement, defending yourself from attacks, and calling out people for harming the movement are all legitimate grounds for public debates. Pointless and merely personal vendettas are not.

But doesn’t refusing to shy away from disagreements in our ranks contradict the principle of avoiding sectarianism? Not really. Again, there is a difference between a political movement and an ideological sect. A political movement is defined by its goals and analysis of political realities. An ideological sect is defined by its first principles. It is possible for people to support the same political movement for many different reasons. Spirited but civil debate about those reasons actually makes our movement more attractive to the people we are trying to convert.

It only becomes a problem if people cannot set aside those disagreements when it is time to work on common tasks. The virtue of collegiality is what allows people with differing opinions to work together for the common good. Collegiality is particularly important in our movement, since it is the kind of cooperation that exists between independent actors, as opposed to people in hierarchical organizations, who can simply be ordered around^[3] Collegiality is what allows professors, prelates, and politicians to stop debating and start working together when necessary.

The lack of the concept of collegiality is one reason why people in our movement wish to enforce taboos against debate and disagreement, since they cannot grasp that intellectual debate can be combined with practical collaboration.

One reason our movement is so fractious and uncollegial is that we lack common projects and a sense of forward momentum. The Trump campaign was the high point of movement collegiality. Once we recover that sense of common purpose, momentum, and optimism, people will be more willing to work together.

5. Idealism, Dedication, & Self-Sacrifice

A perennial question debated by American Rightists is: “Why does politics continually drift to the Left?^[4] This indicates that Leftists have a systematic advantage over the Right. I believe that advantage is essentially moral.

But the Left is evil, and the Right is good, so how can the Left have a moral advantage over the Right? Because Leftists are capable of mobilizing moral virtues for evil ends. Leftists are on average more idealistic, dedicated, and self-sacrificing than Rightists. They are willing to work harder and sacrifice more to bring about their ideals. And other things being equal, the team that can muster these to a greater degree will win.

The main stumbling block of the Right is bourgeois morality. The bourgeois ethos holds that the highest good is a long, comfortable, secure life. By contrast, the aristocratic ethos holds honor as the highest value, to which the aristocrat is willing to sacrifice both his life and his wealth. (Bourgeois man, by contrast, is all too willing to sacrifice his honor to pursue wealth and extend his life.) The bourgeois ethos is also opposed to the willingness of idealists to die for principles, whether religious, political, or philosophical. The Left, even though its value system is entirely materialistic and unheroic, still manages to mobilize idealism and heroism because it contemptuously negates bourgeois man.

As a movement, we need to cultivate idealists who take principles seriously and warriors who are willing to fight and, if necessary, die for our people. Only these people have the moral strength to begin pulling the political spectrum back towards the Right—or, better, in a pro-white direction.

In his Dedication and Leadership, former Communist Douglas Hyde offers some valuable suggestions for recruiting and cultivating political idealists. (Douglas Hyde, Dedication and Leadership (South Bend, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1966).)

First, young people tend to be idealistic, so special efforts should be focused on recruiting them.

Second, if you want to get a lot from people, demand a lot from them. The US Marine Corps has no shortage of recruits because their recruitment propaganda emphasizes sacrifice and discipline, not the perks of membership.

Third, aim high. If one is going to ask people to commit their all, one has to give good reasons. Grandiose aims are only a problem if there is nothing concrete one can do in the here and now to realize them. But if one can forge that link, then even the humblest drudgery suddenly takes on a deeper and higher meaning.

I once asked a group of White Nationalists why they had gathered. There were many answers: meeting new people, networking, seeing old friends, etc. These reasons were good enough to get them there. But then I offered a better reason: to save the world. White Nationalists are not just struggling to save the white race, since the welfare of the whole world depends upon our triumph. If we perish, so will the whales, so will the condors, so will the tigers, so will the rainforests. So the next time you attend a White Nationalist gathering, remind yourself that you are saving the world. It will make the commute a little easier, the parking less of a hassle.

Demanding heroic dedication to a higher cause does not drain people but energizes them. It does not hollow out their personalities but deepens them. Those who live for themselves alone have less meaningful lives than those who dedicate themselves to a higher cause.

Fourth, be the best possible version of yourself. There is no contradiction between being a good White Nationalist and being good in every other area of one’s life. If you are going to be a good White Nationalist, you also have to be a good student, worker, employer, artist, spouse, parent, and neighbor.

One is a more credible and effective advocate for White Nationalism if one is well-regarded in other areas of one’s life. Personal relationships with exemplary individuals are generally more important than ideology in recruiting new people to a political cause.

Also, if one finds that political commitments are interfering with excellence in other areas of life, then one needs to scale back and regain balance. This prevents activists from burning out and keeps them in the fight.

Only idealism can jumpstart a movement. Only idealism can sustain it through hard times. But a movement that depends entirely on idealism will burn through people and fail. Thus we also have to build personal rewards into activism. We need to offer friendship and community; we need to pay people for their work, not just rely on volunteerism; we need to create economically self-sustaining institutions, not just charities; we need to counter the armies of professional blacks, mestizos, and Jews with some full-time professional white advocates.

6. The Intensity Gap

In “The Second Coming,” W. B. Yeats brilliantly describes a decadent culture on the brink of collapse. Two lines are especially relevant to our cause:

The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity.

For Yeats, civilization is always imperiled by the forces of chaos. The best are the defenders of civilization, the stoppers in the mouth of hell. The worst are the rabble that would tear civilization down if given the chance. What happens when the best no longer feel a passionate attachment to civilization? What happens when such men have to fight against a rabble animated by passionate intensity? Obviously, other things being equal, the underworld will be unleashed, the rabble will triumph, and civilization will fall.

The same disparity exists in our movement today. During my nearly two decades on the White Nationalist scene, I have seen disaster after disaster caused by energetic cranks and kooks. They could have been stopped. But the better men in the movement lacked the conviction and emotional intensity necessary to oppose them.

Our movement will never amount to anything unless the best among us learn to wed good character and judgment to passionate emotional intensity.

Today it is the modern multicultural system that is decadent and teetering on the brink of destruction. Today it is the worst—our ruling elites—who increasingly lack all conviction. This is an enormous opportunity. For if the best of us can put our movement on the right course, and muster sufficient emotional intensity, then—other things being equal—we can win.

Click on the "The White Nationalist Manifesto" tag below to see all the posts in this series. To go to the start of this series click here.

Questions & Notes

1. Every society is ruled by _________. ↑

2. The principal enemy of such cooperation is what I call _________. ↑

3. _________ is particularly important in our movement, since it is the kind of cooperation that exists between independent actors, as opposed to people in hierarchical organizations, who can simply be ordered around. ↑

4. See Greg Johnson, “Metapolitics and Occult Warfare,” in New Right vs. Old Right (San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2014). ↑

Johnson outlines what we can do in this final section of this chapter.  So much of this is the work of nature and instinct right now, but if it is to amount to the actual protection and preservation of Whites there is a long way to go.  If we can just hold our ground.

These lessons are part of a wider study seeking to answer a timely but age old question:

Psalms 11:3 If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?”

God set boundaries to protect us from evil. Underneath each boundary lays a foundation. When evil men redefine biological sex (Gen 1:27), they strike at that foundation. When evil men redefine marriage (Gen 2:23-24), they strike at that foundation. When evil men redefine nation (Gen 10:5), they strike at that foundation. When the footing is shattered, people lose hope and become easy prey to evil forces.

When God freed the sons of Israel from Egypt (Ex 1:1) He continued His promise to make them into a nation (Gen 12:1-2). He taught them as they marched through the desert to the Promised Land. He gave them their first lessons on nationhood. He reminded them of their history and origin. In the first 11 chapters, and of first importance, were the definitions of nation, marriage, and biological sex. From chapter 12 on, to the end of the New Testament, God persistently impressed these definitions upon His chosen, but deviant, people. His definitions were not contrary to the nature of things. This was His plan and means of bringing the world a Savior and conquering evil. What would have happened had He not held to these definitions or worked against His own laws of nature?

I hope to bring light upon these questions and others like them in this series of studies called What is a Nation? To explore this broader topic I will review a number of books, the first of which is The White Nationalist Manifesto by Greg Johnson. I will add some comments and study questions to each post to turn them into short 10-20 minute lessons. To go to the beginning of this series click here.

Margins To The Mainstream

How can white identity politics make its way from the margins to the mainstream? White Nationalists often debate “vanguardist” vs. “mainstreaming” approaches to politics. Vanguardists believe we have to lead the public to our views. Mainstreamers want to make our views closer to the public’s.

There are two things we can do to make our ideas more mainstream. We can change their substance, or we can change their style, i.e., the way we communicate them. Obviously, it is self-defeating to change the substance of our beliefs to fit the mainstream. Indeed, the whole point of our movement is to change the mainstream to fit our beliefs. The vanguardists are simply correct about this.

But although our core principles should be fixed and non-negotiable, we should be willing to be quite suave, supple, and pragmatic in the means by which we communicate them if we hope to convince the largest possible number of our people. In this, we have much to learn from the mainstreamers.

Four Political Absolutes

In my view, there are four political absolutes that White Nationalists cannot compromise on:

What We Can Do

How can White Nationalists change the whole of white society? We need to persuade as many of our people as possible of the points above. Then we need to mobilize them to change the political order.

To persuade as many whites as possible, we have to reach out to as many whites as possible. We need to convince whites from all walks of life: every age group, every social class, every religion, every ethnic group, every interest group, every subculture—everyone. We need to take stock of the full diversity of the white community. Then we need to craft a version of White Nationalism that appeals to every white constituency. White society is like a great coral reef, and White Nationalists need to colonize every niche with a customized version of our message.

Obviously, the best people to sell White Nationalism to every white subgroup are members of that group. Thus our movement must encompass the full diversity of our people, interact with and persuade the full diversity of our people, and then draw the whole of white society toward us.

It sounds impossible. But we know it is possible, because it has been actual. We don’t have to go too far back in the history of any European country before we find that the very ideas we advocate today were hegemonic.

Moreover, the historical moment has never been more receptive to white identity politics. More people are looking to us for answers than ever before. Thus we must develop new platforms, spokesmen, and messages to try to reach and convert them. And we must do it now, before the moment is lost.

So what can we do to accomplish this? How can we encompass such an immense and multifarious undertaking in a single movement?

To answer this, we need to make a distinction between hierarchical organizations and non-hierarchical social networks. The existing White Nationalist movement has many organizations, and would-be organizations, with internal hierarchies: leaders and followers, employers and employees. But these organizations are not the movement. They are mere nodes in a vast non-hierarchical network of organizations and individuals, which is the true movement.

This movement was not created and guided by some mastermind. Instead, it coalesced out of many independent voices that created platforms for themselves or colonized existing ones. Moreover, the growth of our movement has far more to do with the failures of multiculturalism than our own efforts at propaganda and organization. Events are arguing in our favor better than we are.

Again, we must always remember that some things are in our power, and some are not. None of us has the power to organize the movement from the top down. But all of us have the power to help the movement flourish from the bottom up, if we can discover and follow rules of behavior that will allow our movement to grow in power and influence, until it can turn the world around. This is the topic of the next chapter.

Click on the "The White Nationalist Manifesto" tag below to see all the posts in this series. To go to the start of this series click here.

Questions & Notes

Liberia and the U.S. have very similar written Constitutions, but our countries are vastly different. The best a Constitution can do is tame what is already there. Johnson convinces me that you must consider what is already there. This section explains why the Constitution, once affective, is no more.

These lessons are part of a wider study seeking to answer a timely but age old question:

Psalms 11:3 If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?”

God set boundaries to protect us from evil. Underneath each boundary lays a foundation. When evil men redefine biological sex (Gen 1:27), they strike at that foundation. When evil men redefine marriage (Gen 2:23-24), they strike at that foundation. When evil men redefine nation (Gen 10:5), they strike at that foundation. When the footing is shattered, people lose hope and become easy prey to evil forces.

When God freed the sons of Israel from Egypt (Ex 1:1) He continued His promise to make them into a nation (Gen 12:1-2). He taught them as they marched through the desert to the Promised Land. He gave them their first lessons on nationhood. He reminded them of their history and origin. In the first 11 chapters, and of first importance, were the definitions of nation, marriage, and biological sex. From chapter 12 on, to the end of the New Testament, God persistently impressed these definitions upon His chosen, but deviant, people. His definitions were not contrary to the nature of things. This was His plan and means of bringing the world a Savior and conquering evil. What would have happened had He not held to these definitions or worked against His own laws of nature?

I hope to bring light upon these questions and others like them in this series of studies called What is a Nation? To explore this broader topic I will review a number of books, the first of which is The White Nationalist Manifesto by Greg Johnson. I will add some comments and study questions to each post to turn them into short 10-20 minute lessons. To go to the beginning of this series click here.

Whitopia

“… the US Constitution poses no serious threat to our form of government.”
—Joseph Sobran

Utopianism is one of the most common objections leveled against White Nationalism, even from people who largely agree with us.

The word utopia literally means nowhere and refers to an ideal form of government that is not actually found anywhere in the world and may be impossible to realize. For the vast majority of persuadable whites, utopianism flatly disqualifies any political ideology, and the tiny minority that finds grandiose and impossible-sounding utopian visions appealing are overwhelmingly Leftists, the vast majority of them implacable enemies of white self-determination. Thus to own the label utopian is self-defeating in the extreme.

Fortunately, there is no need to paint ourselves into the utopian corner, because the ethnostate is no mere abstraction. De facto ethnostates exist on the planet today: Poland and Japan, for instance, are overwhelmingly racially and ethnically homogeneous, and although neither makes ethnicity the explicit legal foundation of citizenship, they consistently reject proposals to open their borders to mass immigration. Tiny Estonia, although afflicted with a large foreign population descended from Russian colonists, is a de jure ethnostate, for its constitution explicitly claims that the primary aim of the Estonian state is the preservation of the Estonian people for all time.

Within the United States, we know exactly what a homogeneously white society would look and feel like, because there are countless places in which there are no non-whites at all, or such tiny numbers that they do not alter the norms and functioning of white society. These communities include many of the suburbs and resorts favored by our anti-white elites. These “whitopias” are quite real, and they are routinely ranked among America’s best places to live. The goal of White Nationalism is Aspen, or Chappaqua, or Martha’s Vineyard for everyone.

Moreover, within the lifetimes of many present-day Americans, the kinds of laws and policies favored by White Nationalists actually existed, from immigration laws designed to preserve the white majority, anti-miscegenation laws to maintain racial purity, eugenics laws to improve future generations, and even mass deportations of Mexican invaders from border states. These are not utopian pipe dreams. They have already happened. Indeed, some of these laws even seem too radical for present-day White Nationalists.

Thus the first step to creating a White Nationalist America is to dust off these laws and policies and implement them once again.^[1] America could become a normatively white society again tomorrow. That is simply a matter of will. And once that decision is in place, we can adopt and improve upon tried and true policies to move from multiculturalism toward the white ethnostate. This process might take fifty years. But we could take our time to get it right, because whites would begin to reap enormous psychological benefits today, simply by knowing that our people have a future again.

The ethnostate is no utopia. We know that ethnostates are possible, because they are actual.^[2] The real utopia is the multicultural, multiracial paradise where diversity is a source of strength, not alienation, inefficiency, hatred, and violence. Pursuing the multicultural utopia is making vast parts of the white world into dystopias. Compared to multiculturalism, White Nationalism is sober, plodding political realism.

So if the ethnostate is a real possibility, aren’t White Nationalists obligated to spell out exactly what kind of society it will be? Will it be capitalist or socialist? Will it be democratic or authoritarian? Will the legislature have one house or two? What will the flag look like?

Many White Nationalists are dismissive of such questions, and for good reasons.

First, such questions are premature. It may be generations before we have white ethnostates in North America, and the task of designing institutions will fall to future generations. It seems hubristic to try to make decisions for them.

Second, it is naive to think that there is one right answer to these questions. A glance at history reveals an astonishing variety of different political regimes in white societies. Different white peoples find different forms of government attractive. A Scandinavian ethnostate might be much more socialistic than an American one, but they could be equally committed to the survival and flourishing of their citizens.

Third, it is imperative for the White Nationalist movement to unify as many whites as possible around the idea of the ethnostate. However, demanding agreement on the details of the ethnostate is the quickest way to get White Nationalists fighting one another. Thus the more specific our proposals for the ethnostate, the less likely we are to get any kind of ethnostate at all.

Fourth, such questions put too much faith in institutions and laws, and not enough faith in our people. Whites have a way of creating decent societies, no matter what political and economic systems we adopt.^[3] Conversely, as the history of post-colonial Africa proves so abundantly, even the wisest constitutions cannot produce good government if the people are not capable of it.^[4] Thus the most important thing is for white nations to regain control of their demographics and their destinies. Once this happens, we can simply trust the white genius for self-government to come up with a whole range of workable political models.

As convincing as these arguments are, however, White Nationalists still have to offer at least some specifics. White Nationalism will never happen unless we can rally as many whites a possible to our cause. But if we offer no concrete proposals, we are in effect asking our people to give us a blank check, and most of them will quite understandably balk at that.

How To Turn America Into An Ethnostate

Focusing, for example, on the United States, White Nationalists need to adopt the following policies to turn America into an ethnostate.

First, we need to close our borders to non-white immigrants.

Second, we must repatriate all post-1965 immigrants and their descendants to their ancestral homelands.

Third, we must deal with pre-1965 non-white populations by offering them, for instance, autonomous reservations, independent ethnostates, or resettlement in their ancestral homelands.

Fourth, we must create barriers to race-mixing. The best anti-miscegenation policy, of course, is simply creating a white homeland. But since it is impossible to prevent all interracial contact—due to tourism and trade, for instance—we also need strong social norms and even laws to discourage miscegenation.

Fifth, an ethnostate must institute pro-family policies. We must restore biologically-based and tradition-hallowed sex roles: men as protectors and providers, women as mothers and community builders. We must also make it affordable for men of all social classes and income levels to own homes and support housewives and children.

Sixth, we will have to adopt protectionism and pro-labor policies to promote the return of high-wage manufacturing jobs to America.

Seventh, we will have to reform our educational system, culture, and media to purge them of anti-white propaganda and to communicate the knowledge, skills, and virtues necessary both to flourish as individuals and perpetuate our civilization.

Beyond these specific policies, we can also predict certain features of future White Nationalist societies because they are already part of the White Nationalist movement today.

For instance, the White Nationalist movement is religiously pluralistic, so any White Nationalist society we create will be religiously pluralistic and tolerant.

The White Nationalist movement allows civic participation by women, so that will also be part of the society we create in the future.

Finally, the White Nationalist movement rejects the bourgeois idea that the highest values are material comfort, security, and a long life, because these values make people slaves of the anti-white system that rules us. Thus when we create a White Nationalist society, it will never allow bourgeois values to trump racial idealism.

All White Nationalist policies require government action. They are not going to happen simply by leaving people alone. The trends we are trying to reverse were created by bad government policies, and they can only be reversed by better government policies. White Nationalism by its very nature is statist rather than libertarian, collectivist rather than individualist, illiberal rather than liberal. We believe that there is a common good—the survival and flourishing of our people—which can only be promoted by government policy, and we believe that whenever private interests conflict with the common good, the common good must win out.

This much is obvious. What people want to know is just how far this collectivism and anti-liberalism will go.

The political mainstream, particularly in the United States, is divided between the Left, which has no trouble using government to promote anti-white policies, and the Right, which tends toward a naive distrust of government as such and a naive faith that social order can spontaneously emerge from the bottom up.

My Comment I happen to be reading through the Old Testament at the moment. Of course I am paying much attention to how God led Israel out of Egypt to make a nation. My the time you get to Numbers, God has already made it clear that man was made to overcome evil. He made man male and female. He made family to multiply the solution to evil. He made nation to protect family. Now, in Numbers the question on the mind is how does a nation protect family. As I began reading Numbers, I thought I needed to do a concordance search for family or families in the Old Testament. I was running into this term frequently. Does anything stand out to you in this chart? Then I began paying more attention to this term. Numbers 7:2 Then the leaders of Israel, the heads of their fathers’ households made… The organization of the families was a large part of nation building. Among the families leaders emerged and were called upon to perform specific duties on behalf of the forming nation. All so natural; all so organic; all so reasonable and doable. Yet, this was a top down organization. The command came down from God through Moses and Aaron. This was not a mafia in the making but a nation..

Our enemies on the Left will not attack our statism, they will attack our aims. Our enemies on the Right might even share some of our aims, but they will attack our statism, and they will do so by likening White Nationalism to the worst forms of totalitarianism: Stalin, Hitler, Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, etc.

The best response to this sort of straw man argument is to point out that all of the policies we advocate actually existed, to one extent or another, in the United States within the last century, when the country was far freer and happier than under the present, politically-correct multicultural system.

Indeed, although America’s current egalitarian civil religion has deep roots, the idea that the American nation was founded to promote equality for all mankind is a false, Left-wing revisionist construct—as I argue in my essays, “Is White Nationalism Un-American?” and “What Is American Nationalism?^[5] Indeed, Americans had the good sense to resist racial egalitarianism throughout most of their history.

The Declaration of Independence may state that “All men are created equal”—which is simply a denial of hereditary monarchy, not a statement of blanket human moral or factual equality—but Thomas Jefferson, the author of those words, believed that although blacks may indeed have the same inalienable rights as whites, the two races could not exist free and equal in the same society. Thus he supported repatriation of freed slaves to Africa.

The Declaration, moreover, is not a legal document. The fundamental law of the land is the Constitution, which says nothing about universal human equality and does not treat non-whites as part of the American people.

According to the Constitution, the purpose of the American government is not to promote human rights for all mankind, but to provide good government “for ourselves and our Posterity.” When the first congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1790, it specified that only free white persons could become part of the American people.^[6]

The United States did not allow blacks to become citizens until 1868. Foreign born blacks could become citizens only after 1870. American Indians who did not live on reservations could become citizens in 1868. Citizenship was granted to all American Indians only by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. Chinese immigration began in the 1840s but was banned from 1882 to 1943, and Chinese born in America were not considered citizens until 1898. Only in 1940 was naturalization opened to people of Chinese, Philippine, and East Indian descent, as well as Indians and mestizos from other parts of the Americas. But each extension of citizenship to non-whites was fiercely resisted. Probably none of them would have passed if the people had been allowed to vote on them directly. Moreover, until 1965, American immigration laws were designed to maintain a white supermajority with an ethnic balance based on the 1890 census.

A free, white homeland is every American’s birthright. And for all of America’s ideological errors and political compromises, most Americans enjoyed a de facto white homeland until the 1960s. But this birthright was stolen by capitalists who wanted cheap labor, liberal universalists who wanted to save the world, and Jewish ethnic activists who wanted to dilute the white majority. American White Nationalists are not utopians. We simply wish to restore every white American’s birthright.^[7]

White Nationalism is no mere abstract possibility. Everything we advocate has already been tried. We know White Nationalism is possible, because it has already been actual. Thus the burden of proof is on the advocates of multiculturalism—which has never improved any society anywhere—to prove that their vision will lead to anything but hell on earth for white people.

The US Constitution

The desire for White Nationalists to produce written constitutions also ascribes too much importance to written documents. The US Constitution is a masterpiece of political thought, but is it actually the foundation of the American political system? No, not really. The best way to appreciate this is to compare America and England, which are quite similar in their cultures, laws, and political institutions. Yet England has no written constitution at all. By contrast, the Constitution of Liberia that was in effect from 1847 to 1980 was based closely on the US Constitution, but Liberia hardly resembles the United States in its culture and government.

The foundation of the English system of government is not a piece of paper, but a people and its traditions. The American system is similar to the English because it is an offshoot of the same people and traditions. The US Constitution is less the foundation of the American system than an attempt to articulate and summarize important features of the English political tradition and its nearly two centuries of divergent evolution in the American colonies. This tradition, and the people who created and sustained it, are the true foundations of the American system of government.

This truth has been obscured by the idea that the Constitution is the foundation of our political system, although even the strictest constitutionalists admit that the Constitution cannot be interpreted without reference to the intention of the framers and the culture of the time.^[8] Moreover, the example of Liberia shows that there is no civilizing magic in the Constitution alone. The US Constitution could never be successfully grafted onto a radically different people, with radically different traditions of government.

The relative powerlessness of constitutions—both written and unwritten—is underscored by the fact that virtually every European government today has adopted policies of race-replacement immigration, a course of action so perverse that the wisest of legislators could not have foreseen and forbidden it. Indeed, they would have been mocked as insane if they had even suggested the possibility. Moreover, white genocide has become policy without fundamentally altering the written or unwritten constitutions of European societies. Time-hallowed parchments and institutions did not stop the rise of anti-white regimes. But, by the same token, they cannot stop the return of pro-white regimes either.

For pro-white regimes to return, however, we have to understand the true foundation of political power. Political constitutions are no better than the people who interpret and apply them. Political institutions are no better than the people who staff them. Thus politics depends on something that lies outside of politics, namely metapolitics, which is the topic of the next chapter.

Click on the "The White Nationalist Manifesto" tag below to see all the posts in this series. To go to the start of this series click here.

Questions & Notes

1. What is the first step to creating a White Nationalist America? ↑

2. We know that ethnostates are possible, because they are _________. ↑

3. Whites have a way of creating _________ _________, no matter what political and economic systems we adopt. ↑

4. As the history of post-colonial Africa proves so abundantly, even the wisest _________ cannot produce good government if the people are not capable of it. ↑

5. Both reprinted in Toward a New Nationalism. ↑

6. When the first congress passed the _________ Act of 1790, it specified that only free white persons could become part of the American people. ↑

7. White Nationalist simply wish to restore every white American’s _________. ↑

8. Is the Constitution the foundation of our political system? Explain. ↑

The American experiment, in my opinion, was an attempt to mix oil and water.  It had not been tried before for obvious reasons.  Why would someone want to mix oil and water as if they could some how coexist in a mixed state?  One would suspect a devious mind behind it all rather than wisdom from above.  Regardless of what they thought upfront, what was the result?  How did it turn out?  Johnson shows in this section how easy it is to separate the oil from the water or vice versa.  To do so, one does not have to claim one is superior to the other, but simply go along with God's intentional design, standards, and values. It is not too hard; we only lack the will.

These lessons are part of a wider study seeking to answer a timely but age old question:

Psalms 11:3 If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?”

God set boundaries to protect us from evil. Underneath each boundary lays a foundation. When evil men redefine biological sex (Gen 1:27), they strike at that foundation. When evil men redefine marriage (Gen 2:23-24), they strike at that foundation. When evil men redefine nation (Gen 10:5), they strike at that foundation. When the footing is shattered, people lose hope and become easy prey to evil forces.

When God freed the sons of Israel from Egypt (Ex 1:1) He continued His promise to make them into a nation (Gen 12:1-2). He taught them as they marched through the desert to the Promised Land. He gave them their first lessons on nationhood. He reminded them of their history and origin. In the first 11 chapters, and of first importance, were the definitions of nation, marriage, and biological sex. From chapter 12 on, to the end of the New Testament, God persistently impressed these definitions upon His chosen, but deviant, people. His definitions were not contrary to the nature of things. This was His plan and means of bringing the world a Savior and conquering evil. What would have happened had He not held to these definitions or worked against His own laws of nature?

I hope to bring light upon these questions and others like them in this series of studies called What is a Nation? To explore this broader topic I will review a number of books, the first of which is The White Nationalist Manifesto by Greg Johnson. I will add some comments and study questions to each post to turn them into short 10-20 minute lessons. To go to the beginning of this series click here.

11. Homogeneity

White Nationalists believe that that best form of society is the sovereign ethnostate that is racially and ethnically homogeneous. But is homogeneity really possible? The simple answer is: yes. We’ll deal with racial homogeneity first, then ethnic homogeneity.

Racial Homogeneity

We know that racial homogeneity is possible, since only a few decades ago, almost all of Europe was homogeneously white.^[1] Indeed, to this day, significant but shrinking parts of Europe and white diaspora societies—entire towns and entire regions—have no non-whites at all. So it is quite conceivable that within a few decades, by moving borders and populations, we can create racially homogeneous homelands for all European peoples.

But one might entertain some exceptions to complete racial homogeneity.

First, in white colonial societies, there might be non-white aboriginal relict populations that are too small and isolated to constitute independent, sovereign ethnostates. So one might wish to create non-sovereign, ethnic reservations with maximum local autonomy so they can lead their lives as they see fit. But it should be pointed out that there are no aboriginal non-white populations in Europe, so no such accommodations need be made there.

Second, white ethnostates will surely maintain trade and diplomatic relationships with at least some non-white societies, which will lead to both non-white visitors—such as tourists and business travelers—and non-white residents, such as diplomats. Since the republics of science, technology, arts, and letters deal with universal values, they are inherently cosmopolitan. Thus a white ethnostate might also wish to host students, scientists, scholars, and artists from non-white countries, for varying periods of time.

In both of these cases, however, a white ethnostate would keep such populations small enough to be manageable and segregated from the rest of the society, so that any citizen who so desires could completely avoid dealing with racial aliens. This would mean that such an ethnostate could guarantee de facto racial homogeneity to every citizen who desires it. Furthermore, every non-white living in such a society would accept and live by white norms of behavior. This is the exact opposite of today’s multiculturalism, in which whites are expected to abandon our norms and practices whenever aliens demand it.

This leads us to a threefold distinction:

Ethnic Homogeneity

Complete ethnic homogeneity, like complete racial homogeneity, is possible in principle, if one wishes to pay the price. But achieving ethnic homogeneity is much trickier than racial homogeneity. In Europe, one can simply repatriate all non-whites to their ancestral homelands. But that would leave a Europe in which political borders seldom map out neatly along ethnic borders. One could rectify this situation by breaking up multinational states and moving peoples and borders around. But all of these solutions are much more costly than removing non-white interlopers, simply because the primary costs must be borne by our fellow whites.

We believe that breaking up multinational states on ethnic lines—for instance in Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Belgium, Spain, France, or the UK—is the best way to resolve ethnic conflicts and preserve ethnic diversity. There are two ways of attaining this end: the easy way and the hard way, the velvet divorce of the Czechs and the Slovaks, or the wars and ethnic cleansing of the Balkans.

But as the Scottish and Catalan referendums revealed, many people’s nationalistic impulses are invested in preserving multinational states, even from the secession of peoples they disdain as backwards, inferior, Left-wing, and decadent. We can only hope that these sentiments ebb as the tide of ethnonationalist thinking continues to rise.

Imagine, then, a Europe in which the most serious ethnic tensions have been resolved by secessions, partitions, and—where necessary—population exchanges. Even in such a Europe, there will still be ethnic minorities: Swedes in Finland, Hungarians in Romania, Poles in Lithuania, etc. There will also be Europeans who wish to work and study in other European countries, Europeans who marry people from other nations, and Europeans who might wish to retire in warmer climes. Also, because misfortune can befall every society, international law should require every sovereign state to make provisions for refugees from natural disasters, wars, and oppression. Similar conditions will pertain in European colonial societies, with the added difference that they might also have non-white aboriginal relict populations.

What should our attitude be toward people from other white nations?

Ethnonationalists wish to preserve distinct European cultures and subracial types, which is the whole point of having distinct homelands in the first place. We do not want to see the emergence of a homogeneous European man or a white monoculture.^[2] Therefore, policies toward other white nations must bear this goal in mind.

The aim of preserving distinct nations dictates the following.

No white society should allow large populations of guest workers from other white societies, or create conditions that lead large numbers of its own people to search for work abroad.

Immigration between white societies should be limited. Practically all cases would be due to marriage. The naturalization process should firmly promote normative homogeneity, i.e., assimilation of the dominant language and culture by immigrants and especially by their children. It is possible for Europeans to join other European nations, and even if they might not be able to fully assimilate, their children certainly can.

Ethnic minority groups should be allowed to retain their own languages and cultures. There should be no forced assimilation, as there was under civic nationalist regimes, since this simply creates conflict.^[3] But by the same token, minorities create a great deal of resentment by refusing to learn the dominant language and demanding that the state cater to them by instituting bilingualism. Again, the principle should be normative cultural homogeneity, meaning that outsiders need to abide by the local language and customs. If they find this oppressive, they have homelands to which they can move.

Expatriates from other white nations should be allowed, in limited numbers, as long as they respect the dominant culture and the natives need not interact with them.

No nation can simply turn away refugees, because some day its people may need to seek refuge in other lands. But white nations are under no obligation to take in non-white refugees, which can go to other non-white countries. White refugees, however, should be welcomed and helped until such time as they can return to their homelands. In the case of refugees who have no homelands they can return to, like white Rhodesians and South Africans, they should be offered the chance to immigrate. Depending on their destination, they could be given the option of assimilating to the dominant culture or becoming a distinct ethnic minority.

As for tourists, business travelers, diplomats, students, scholars, artists, and scientists: the same policies should pertain to those from white countries as to those from non-white ones. Their numbers should be limited, they should respect the dominant culture, and the natives should be completely free to avoid them if they so choose.

To maintain racial distinctness, ethnostates should have laws against miscegenation. These are obviously more important in colonial societies with non-white relict populations, but they should exist in all white societies to prevent people from trying to bring home non-white spouses.

The main objection to compromising on absolute racial and ethnic homogeneity is that it seems like a slippery slope toward civic nationalism.^[4] But this is a mistake. Civic nationalists hold that people of radically different races and cultures can become part of the same society simply by professing a civic creed and taking an oath. That is a very thin conception of identity.

Ethnonationalists have a much thicker sense of identity based on both genetic kinship and enculturation. The primary cultural marker that sets ethnic groups apart is different native languages^[5]  But it is hard to become fluent in another language—and even then, it will never replace one’s mother tongue.

Civic nationalists believe that it is very easy to become a member of another society. Ethnonationalists believe that it is difficult if not impossible. It is impossible for non-whites to become members of white societies. It is difficult for whites to become members of other white societies. It is easier, of course, if an immigrant and his new homeland share the same native tongue and basic culture—for instance, the countries of the Anglosphere. But the greater the linguistic and cultural differences, the greater the difficulty of assimilation, to the point that full assimilation is often possible only for the children of immigrants, who should be raised to speak the dominant language as their mother tongue.

Not only do ethnonationalists think that cultural assimilation is difficult, they only insist on it for immigrants. For visitors and temporary residents, white and non-white alike, as well as for white minority groups living within their borders, ethnonationalists do not want or encourage assimilation. Instead, they wish different groups to maintain their cultural identities and simply accommodate the dominant culture by respecting its norms and by speaking the dominant language in public dealings. Of course travelers and temporary residents will have some latitude in these matters, but permanent residents should be held to higher standards. Not everyone within a given country at a given moment might be a citizen (which is homogeneity in the strict sense), but all of them should respect its laws and culture, which is the meaning of normative homogeneity.^[6]

Common Objections

One might object: Isn’t normative homogeneity just cultural chauvinism or supremacism? It is not necessarily chauvinism, because chauvinism is a conviction of superiority. We do not insist that foreigners speak our language and follow our customs because we think they are superior. We insist upon it simply because they are our own, and we set the rules in our homeland just as we set the rules in our individual homes. And as for supremacism: Can anyone explain to me why our language, culture, and norms should not be supreme in our own homelands?

One might also object: Isn’t the idea of de facto homogeneity just another version of the gated community, where people flee from diversity in order to enjoy life among their own kind? An ethnostate can indeed be likened to a gated community, but there’s nothing wrong with that. First of all, we need to have a proper understanding of what a gated community is. Even in gated communities, outsiders come and go: visitors, deliverymen, tradesmen, etc. But they have to follow the local rules, and they can’t enter private homes without permission. So residents don’t have to deal with them if they don’t want to. A normatively homogeneous ethnostate functions in the exact same way: outsiders come and go, but only by permission; they have to follow the local rules; and residents do not have to deal with them if they don’t want to. So within an ethnostate, even though there might be outsiders, the citizens come first, and there is a commitment to allowing them to live without any contact with outsiders whatsoever, if that is their choice. This is what it means to have de facto racial and ethnic homogeneity within an ethnically defined society.

To many, the idea of complete racial and ethnic homogeneity will seem utopian. As we shall see in the next chapter, this is untrue. To others, it will seem extremist, fearful, and ungenerous. This is indeed true. But the fear that motivates us is the prospect of racial and cultural extinction—a fear which, as we have seen above, is completely reasonable. A race facing genocide cannot afford to indulge in sentimentality, moderation, and half-measures.

At minimum, the survival of our race requires an end to non-white economic competition, political power, and the promotion of intermarriage in white homelands, and the best way to accomplish that is complete separation. Perfecting the ethnic homogeneity of white nations is a far less pressing matter. The price of not pursuing white homelands is extinction, and compared to that prospect, what we lose by going to extremes is negligible.^[7] What critics call going to extremes is simply what White Nationalists call erring on the side of caution.

However, once whites feel that we have a future again, we will be able to take the risk of accepting less than fully homogeneous societies, although they should always be on our own terms, meaning that we should always insist on normative and de facto homogeneity, which will still create levels of intelligibility, community, and belonging far beyond what most white people can enjoy today.

Click on the "The White Nationalist Manifesto" tag below to see all the posts in this series. To go to the start of this series click here.

Questions & Notes

1. How do we know that racial homogeneity is possible? ↑

2. _________-nationalist do not want to see the emergence of a homogeneous European man or a white monoculture. ↑

3. Forced assimilation was primarily foisted upon the host country rather than upon the migrants by which, ethnonationalist or civic nationalist? ↑

4. The main objection to compromising on absolute racial and ethnic homogeneity is that it seems like a slippery slope toward _________ _________. ↑

5. The primary cultural marker that sets ethnic groups apart is different _________ _________. ↑

6. All citizens should respect its _________ and _________, which is the meaning of normative homogeneity. ↑

7. The price of not pursuing white homelands is _________. ↑