Why I am not a White Nationalist

On June 14, 2013, in Analysis, Commentary, by natalt

by Timothy Wentworth

I have been asked by readers of the Nationalist Alternative site, NatAlt.Org, to elaborate on the ideas in my previous article, Rise Up, Southern Man – and Earn the Hatred of Our Enemies. Here I will do so, at the risk of repeating some themes.

We know that America has dominated Europe – or at least the Continent – since 1945; and that America has dominated Australia, the United Kingdom and Canada, since the 1930s (when the Commonwealth countries fell into America’s sphere of influence and became, in effect, vassals of Roosevelt and his Jewish-American “Brains Trust” – see Yockey’s The Enemy of Europe (1953)). This dominance is at the level of geopolitics, but, in one of the strangest developments in the past forty or so years, it’s an American ideology which has tended to rule the Far Right in Europe and its colonies (including Australia): “white nationalism” – which makes itself felt in the nationalist scene from Brussels to Toronto to Sydney to Berlin.

One can verify this for oneself. How many Australian Far Right activists describe themselves as “white nationalists”? Who know David Duke, David Lane, William Pierce, better than, say, any Australian nationalist intellectual (or, for that matter, any European nationalist intellectual, e.g., Yockey, Evola)? Who think that the (undeniably) Jewish-American control of the US media is responsible for all the pro-immigration, pro-multi-culti, sentiments in the Western culture today?

Overall, I would say that the influence is a good thing. The preoccupation of “white nationalism” with race is a response to America’s having a large Afro-American population. Traditionally, Europe – with the exception of France – has never had an African-descended population. The advent of multiculturalism as official state ideology practice in the 1970s and the resultant immigrant tsunami, changed the racial composition of Europe: the British, for example, experienced a tidal wave of Afro-Caribbean, and then Sub-Saharan African, immigration, and now London is over 50% immigrant, and will, in the coming decades, become a mixed-African and Indian city as the indigenous white British population is flushed out, evacuated, to the surrounding regions. It’s in this set of circumstances that American racialism comes in handy. Ideology, Yockey reflects, can be used as a weapon, and the American racialist ideology can, simply put, help us whites – especially the whites on the Far Right – prepare for the possibility of a Europe with a sizeable percentage of African-descended people in the population, especially the urban population. Nationalist activists in Europe can then take advantage of the opportunities which have presented themselves. The liberal whites in Europe, who chided America (and, in particular, the South) in the 1950s and 1960s for its segregationist and “bigoted” policies, will begin to see, first hand, who the “bigots” and “white supremacists” were up against, and the European nationalist activist can draw connexions, for his once-liberal white audience, between the behaviour of recent African immigrants in Marseilles, Oslo and Amsterdam and Africans (and their descendants) in Haiti, South Africa, and Chicago; he can hit his audience with facts derived from the American racialist websites, e.g., American Renaissance or Paul Kersey’s Stuff Black People Don’t Like.

Generally, fascist ideology isn’t that much use in the new to-be-Africanised Europe. One can find only a few statements from the Italian fascist leaders and intellectuals – e.g., Mussolini, Evola – on the African race. As for German National Socialism: it is, supposedly, a racialist ideology, and the Third Reich, as we know, passed strict laws on miscegenation. But the National Socialist Nuremberg laws were designed to prevent Germans from interbreeding with Jewish-Germans; and, what’s more, the thrust of German racialism was directed towards the Czechs and the Poles. The latter was a reflection of the very real fear that Poland and the Czech Republic would end up phasing out their German minorities (and, as we know, the Poles, Czechs, Russians, ended up expelling all the Germans in Eastern Europe after the defeat of Germany anyway). The National Socialist fears were very real at the time, but, today, are outmoded.

On that point, one can’t emphasise enough how unforeseen multi-culti, and the immigration tsunami, was to the participants in WWII. Monty and Rommel, when they were slugging it out in the desert in North Africa, had no idea that, in the future, Europe’s capitals would be Africanised. (Montgomery, in particular, would have been horrified: he was an imperialist, a monarchist, a colonialist, and a firm advocate of white rule in Africa. But such are the ironies of history…)

The American ideology – or at least, one subset of it, “white nationalism” – is not without serious defects, however. One of the persistent demands of the American racialist, white nationalist movement is for a “white republic”, a “white man’s republic”. The question is: where has this “republic” existed historically? In the same nation-states that the “white supremacist” ideology sprang from: the South (up to the end of the Jim Crow segregation laws), South Africa (up to the end of Apartheid), Rhodesia (up until the time Rhodesia ceased to exist, in 1980). The ideology flowed, organically, from the peculiar economic, cultural, social and racial circumstances of these nations. (Of course, such “white man’s republics” have existed before the 20th century – e.g., in the Caribbean states which practised slavery and instituted racialist laws (Barbados, Antigua, Jamaica and others)). In America, the real inspiration for the ideology of white racialism is the South.

If we are to take a survey, we see that restrictionist laws have existed just about everywhere in the white world, and that these laws were abolished by the 1970s: Britain got in early, passing a law in 1949 which allowed blacks from the Commonwealth countries to emigrate there; Australia abolished the White Australia whites-only immigration policy in the 1960s and began mass importation of Vietnamese and Lebanese in the late 1970s; America, as we know, abolished its whites-only immigration law in 1965. But restrictionist laws alone do not add up to a “white republic”. The ideal of the “white ethno-state” is somewhat nebulous – a point I will bring up later – but it seems to include some specific laws for segregation, the prevention of miscegenation and the like: in other words, Southern or Apartheid type laws. From this it follows that the real bible of the American racialist movement isn’t anything by David Duke or William Pierce (both of them Southerners) but a book like Theodore Bilbo’s Take Your Choice: Separation or Mongrelization (1947). (The Rhodesian “white nationalist”, Arthur Kemp, seems to have been largely inspired by Bilbo’s book in his March of the Titans: A History of the White Race (2006)). Bilbo, the former governor of Mississippi, wasn’t the only Southern racialist intellectual, but his views seem to be the most representative of his place and time. They are of a piece with the thinking of the other great 19th century Southern thinkers – Rhett, Calhoun, Jefferson Davis and others.

Normally, all this backtracking and historical investigating wouldn’t be necessary: that is, there wouldn’t be much of a point in tracing the history of an idea to its source, its genesis. Here it is necessary, because there is a schism in the racialist and Far Right movement – between what I call the empiricists and the theoreticians.

The empiricists (of whom I am one) look at politics organically, and try to divine how such-and-such a desirable political change can evolve, naturally, out of the circumstances, the conditions, of the age. It’s a historicist approach, very similar to that of Marx’s or Hegel’s. Suppose that one is a communist and wants to bring about a communist revolution: the first duty of a communist intellectual is to study the USSR and other communist states. Likewise, suppose one is a German nationalist: one should study the history of Germany during the Third Reich. It’s not a question of being a slave to history and circumstance: rather, it’s a case of looking at the real problems encountered in the past and also how one’s ideal became a reality. One looks at the conditions for the creation of a communist or nationalist state, uses that knowledge to interpret, understand, one’s own time, and detect any flows, any movement towards communism or nationalism, any political possibilities therein. One then embarks on a course of activism and uses one’s knowledge (gleaned from this study of history) to steer the masses towards one’s political ideal, to exploit opportunities as they arise.

What is a theoretician? Well, suppose someone declared himself to be a “National Socialist”, and held that “National Socialism” (as he understood it) was true for all times, all places (or at least, for all white peoples). He turns “National Socialism” into an abstraction, a Platonic ideal devoid of reference to the real German National Socialism’s contingent, historical features. He makes it into a fetish: he then proceeds to beat others in the nationalist movement (especially German nationalists) over the head with it: ‘You’re not pure enough, you’re not National Socialist enough’. If a real thinker in the German nationalist tradition emerges and makes some sensible suggestions as to how to implement, in part, some of Hitler’s ideas in today’s Germany – he will be accused of ideological impurity or perhaps even weak-kneed-ness and lily-livered-ness.

Fortunately, the above scenario – a self-proclaimed “National Socialist” turning National Socialism into a weird, ahistorical fetish – doesn’t happen that much. There are only two varieties of “National Socialism” at the moment: there is the Rockwellian, uniformed one (which still survives, in fragmentary form, in America), and then there is “white power” skinheadism, which is a mixture of Jamaican ‘rude boy’ gang culture, Duke’s white nationalism and the “National Socialism” of Rockwell, Savitri Devi, Colin Jordan. These two types of “National Socialism” don’t lend themselves to theoreticism. I suppose this is because representatives of the two types of “Neo-Nazism” don’t articulate themselves in writing at length on Internet message boards and forums very much and so one doesn’t tend to see intra-mural debates.

This is not the case, however, with American racialism. Not only are the American “white nationalists” all over the Internet – they are a textbook example of theoreticism. They are notorious for inventing fantasy “white republics” (complete with “white” constitutions) which have no basis in historical reality: that is, the “republics” aren’t a continuation of a national, historical tradition. In the Far Right, nationalist movement, the word nationalist is usually taken to mean someone who is a French, Swedish, German, British, Australian, Bulgarian, etc., nationalist who is on the Far Right, who is racialist and (more often than not) anti-Semitic and sympathetic to the 20th century fascist political project. This sort of nationalist has ideological commitments, usually some degree of theory, i.e., something abstract; but, in the end, his nationalism refers back to a really-existing, historical nation-state. It’s not merely white pride but German pride, Australian pride, Hungarian pride. Even the European nationalist’s theoretical commitments are a reflection of national history: the Italian nationalists, for instance, have a strong investment in fascism – which refers back to the historical Italian Fascism. But, the further one goes into “white nationalism”, the further one gets away from the nation-state. The American “white nationalists”, in particular, are not nationalists for America as such.

Why is this? The answer is, as Colin Woodard states, there is no one American nation: there is at least ten or eleven nations, in a continent the size of Europe. We know this intuitively: the residents of New York (Woodard’s ‘New Amsterdam’) don’t have anything in common with the Deep South; likewise, the Californians and West Coasters (Woodard’s ‘Left Coast’) don’t feel a sense of kindred with the rednecks, crackers, hillbillies of Woodard’s ‘Greater Appalachia’. Enmity between the nations dominates American discourse, and on more than a few occasions, those differences have led to war – the most famous being the American Civil War.

A pure all-American nationalism is hard to achieve in such circumstances. But America does have a kind of nationalist tradition which is still active today: Southern nationalism. (The nations which make up the South, in Woodard’s view, are greater New Orleans (‘New France’), the ‘Deep South’, ‘Greater Appalachia’ and ‘Tidewater’. ‘Dixie’ or ‘The South’ really is a federation).

The interesting thing – for those of us on the Far Right – is that Southern nationalism is inherently racialist. This racialism is not contrived, put upon, either, but came from a real sense of inter-white ethnic solidarity: it evolved spontaneously, naturally, out of the practicalities of running a slave state in which the white population was always in danger of becoming a demographic minority in a sea of African slaves.

In contrast to Southern nationalism, the “white nationalism” which is so prominent today in American Far Right circles is an anti-nationalism or internationalism, which has no basis in historical, cultural and national fact. Which is why it lends itself to abstractionism, universalism, idealism. It is this abstract, feature-less, a-historical and a-cultural quality which reminds me of two other universalist creeds: the liberalism of the French Revolution, and Christianity, particularly Protestantism, which emphasises an individual subjectivity (the soul, that is) which is detached from one’s cultural and historical environment. (Traditional Catholic doctrine, in contrast to Protestantism, is deeply bound up with authoritarianism, hierarchy, socialism and the state – all of which presuppose a nation). One could speculate that the reason why Americans vibrate in sympathy with “white nationalism” so much is that they have a heritage – of classical liberalism, drawn from the Enlightenment and Masonic doctrines of the Founding Fathers (many of them Tidewaterians) and also evangelical Protestantism. Americans, particularly on the Right, are obsessed by the American constitution – and it’s this obsession with what is an abstraction (viz., in this case, what is written on a bit of paper, as opposed to the reality of an organic nation) which helps to make “white nationalism” so congenial to the American temperament.

Normally, this wouldn’t be a problem. But politics is always about the battle of ideas, and what happens when one set of ideas (theoreticism) comes into conflict with another (empiricism)? We see a clash which is nowhere better expressed than in a recent manifesto posted by the Southern nationalist Hunter Wallace titled The Cahawba Solution. Wallace’s thesis is that Southern secessionism – i.e., the breaking-away of (what Woodard calls) ‘The Deep South’, ‘Greater Appalachia’, ‘New France’ [New Orleans], and ‘Tidewater’ to form an independent Republic of Dixie – will solve America’s racial problems, or at least the South’s racial problems. He writes:

I keep getting asked questions about what I would do with the black population in Alabama in an independent Dixie, and it occurs to me that my solution would probably just be cutting off the financial lifelines that artificially sustain places like Birmingham, Selma, and Tuskegee and allow those cities to find their own equilibrium between the capacities of their residents and the natural environment.
I would allow Birmingham, Selma, and Tuskegee to depopulate and “democratically” revert to the wilderness like Cahawba – Detroit is inexorably undergoing the same rewilding process – rather than sustain these zombie cities indefinitely on life support with neverending infusions of cash that are confiscated from White taxpayers elsewhere and misallocated there to sustain the illusion of economic viability.
In an independent South, Birmingham, Selma, and Tuskegee would be designated as “freedom zones” where the black population would be allowed to keep their voting rights and control the local government, but under the new system they would be expected to stand on their own two feet and generate the economy and tax base necessary to sustain their own public institutions.
In the new system, there would be no affirmative action, no welfare state (Section 8, Medicaid, Medicare, TANF, Obamaphone, Obamacare, EBT card, free lunches, free public schools, etc), no racial set asides, no federal civil rights laws, no “disparate impact” standard, no EEOC, no Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, etc. Instead, there would be complete freedom in a Southern Union, which includes freedom of association and the freedom to fail in life.
Black Run America (BRA) would be put to a swift end in the Republic of Dixie. The world would cease to revolve around black people and their myriad problems. We would no longer run every single institution in our society as a charity for the purpose of uplifting one chronically dysfunctional racial group.
Schools would revert to educating the young. Hospitals would revert to healing the sick. Courtrooms would revert to delivering justice. Police and Fire Departments would revert to their original public safety roles. Banks would revert to accepting deposits and providing credit. Businesses would revert to making money, providing useful goods and services, and creating jobs for the public.
It wouldn’t be necessary as some people imagine to violently round up African-Americans, detain them in concentration camps, and deport them to some distant location. It wouldn’t even be necessary to restore the Jim Crow laws. Finally, it is ludicrous to suggest that slavery would be restored in an independent South, which would have naturally faded out a century ago anyway.
After 50 years of Black Run America, black people could never accept the return of a normal society. If that system ever died in the South but survived in the North and West, there would be an even greater mass exodus than the Great Migration to the Northern states, which would respond to secession (and the departure of Southern “obstructionists”) by creating an even more comprehensive welfare state with higher taxes and even more civil rights, environmental laws, and labor laws.
America would bifurcate into the Northern paradise and the Sunbelt-based Confederacy on every conceivable issue. Liberalism would dominate public policy in America. Conservatism would dominate public policy in Dixie. African-Americans, who are the most liberal ethnic group in the country, would choose to vote with their feet and cast their lot with the Northern paradise.

The mistake most of us make is in assuming that America is a unified nation, when it is not – no more than Spain or Belgium are, or the former Yugoslavia was. The second mistake is that the white race, as such, in America is a political unity, when it isn’t, any more than the “yellow race” in the individual nation-states of Asia is. (Any “yellow nationalism” would translate into an Asian pan-nationalism, or internationalism, or even an anti-nationalism much like that projected by the anarchists or communists. As for “yellow nationalism”, so for “white nationalism”: both are opposed to nation-states and individual cultures. Fortunately for the Asian nations, however, no nationalistic Chinese or Japanese would take “yellow nationalism” seriously; in fact, any proponent of “yellow nationalism” would be laughed out of the room. It’s only in the West, which is prone to abstractionism and universalism, that the idea of a “white nationalism” could have taken root).

All of Europe is under threat from non-white immigration, and there is a potential for a coming-together of the disparate nation-states of Europe – a linking of arms between Greece and Sweden, Bulgaria and France – so as to confront this threat, just in the same way that most of the nations of Eastern and Western Europe came together to oppose Soviet communism in WWII. But one should not confuse this with a cessation, a ceasing to be, of the European nation-state and individual nationalisms. Bulgarian, Hungarian, French or British nationalism shouldn’t be put on the back burner simply to accommodate pan-European anti-immigrationism.

“White nationalism”, thoroughly applied, does lead to some awkward consequences: take the example of Britain, which has seen an extraordinary rise in the number of Eastern European immigrants – from Poland, Latvia, Estonia, etc.; “white nationalists” in Britain should welcome their “white brothers” from Poland with open arms, because nationality, language, history, etc., don’t matter, only race does; but the British Far Right, and what is left of British conservatism, fiercely opposes immigration from within the EU, just as much as immigration from without (e.g., from Pakistan, India and Africa, where most of the non-white immigrants to Britain are from).

To return to Wallace’s manifesto. As could be expected, it met with a furious reaction from the usual suspects: that is, American “white nationalists” who live outside the South. Their response, in reference to the Afro-Americans, is, ‘No, we’re not taking your [insert racial epithet here] for you’.

But what happened in the past can happen again, whether these “white nationalists” want it or not. Students of American history know that, from the period of the turn of the century to about 1970, millions of Afro-Americans emigrated from the South to the cities of the North: all-white cities like Detroit, Milwaukee, Washington D.C., Chicago (where Barack Obama hails from), Cleveland, Philadelphia, Baltimore (where the acclaimed TV series The Wire (2002-2008) was set) turned into bastions of Afro-America. Paul Kersey’s site Stuff Black People Don’t Like has the below table showing the change in the racial composition of Detroit over the past hundred years:

How or why did this come about? The answer is, mainly, because of economic reasons: advances in agricultural technology led to the phasing out of sharecropping, and so there wasn’t that much need for Afro-American menial labour in the South. Wallace’s argument is that the reason why so many Afro-Americans linger in the South is economic: that is, subsidies from the federal (Yankee-dominated) government. These subsidies are not only just welfare, but government jobs as well. Once the tap is turned off, the Afro-Americans in Birmingham, Memphis, New Orleans, Montgomery, Jackson, et al., will pack their bags and head to the North. And, by dint of the North’s ideology, the North must welcome these “refugees” from the evil, racist South.

(One shouldn’t underestimate the economic incentives which lie behind the non-white immigration to the West. Incredibly (or what seems incredible to Australians, at any rate), illegal immigrants in America or Britain can apply for, and obtain, welfare. If these “rights” were taken back, immigration to Britain or America would be much less than it is).
The main thing is sovereignty: as Nick Griffin of the BNP said in another connection, ‘You’ve got to have the power’. The first priority is for the South to gain its sovereignty – and that means secession.

To some of the wilder “white nationalist” / World Church of the Creator / Turner Diaries types, however, Wallace’s idea simply wasn’t good enough. For these people – who are devisers of fantasy “white republics”, “white ethnostates” that have never existed in reality (any more than the anarchist utopias have never existed) – a neo-Confederacy isn’t pro-“white”. The implication being that a) some new Jim Crow segregation laws have to be introduced or b) some forcible ethnic cleansing (like the ethnic cleansing of the Afro-Americans in California in The Turner Diaries) has to take place.

In response to these criticisms – and the question, ‘Why not just get rid of them all?’ – Wallace wrote

1.) First, getting rid of them all is an impractical fantasy, which would invite all kinds of civil rights theatrics, and the majority of White people would never go along with that anyway.

2.) Second, it would be used as a pretext by the Northern states to launch a military invasion, and a pretext by the international community to support them and/or deny us diplomatic recognition.

3.) Third, the priority would have to be securing our own independence from the USA, and making an unsuccessful attempt to get rid of them all, which would quickly degenerate into a televised debacle beamed to the entire world, would be a major obstacle in accomplishing that objective.


2.) That’s why it is best to do nothing … let them keep their rights, but give White people back their freedom of association and tax dollars. Create a normal society and places like Birmingham will “unwind” naturally when the magnets that changed their demographics are turned off.

If blacks respond by engaging in violence, put them on television for they will lose their halo among the people who don’t live among them.

We, in politics, are, of course, in the business of demanding the impossible; but we must always be sure to demand the right things in the right sequence. Otherwise, we end up becoming ultra-radicals – like the Trotskyites and anarchists, who demand revolution now and then proceed to embark on a course of revolutionary actions without thinking through the consequences.

The South is, in essence, conservative – which is why it votes, in huge numbers, for America’s conservative party – and so it is Christian, anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, anti-illegal immigration and the like. It is also implicitly racialist and practices segregation in secret: white people don’t choose to live in Birmingham, Alabama, but in beautiful all-white bastions of whiteness like Vestavia Hills (which is a white suburban paradise like Wysteria Lane in the TV show Desperate Housewives (2004-2012). (Paradoxically, parts of the North are just as ethnically homogeneous as Vestavia Hills – e.g., Vermont in Yankee New England is over 90% white – but these continue to vote Democrat, over and over, and tend to be in favour of illegal immigration). The American Far Right activist has to take this conservatism of the South into account. He can’t go around saying weird things: i.e., advocating the replacement of Christianity with Ben Klassen’s “Creativity” or William Pierce’s Cosmotheism. The rule is: one piece of radicalism at a time. The call for secessionism is radical enough as it is, without bringing “Racial Holy War” into it.
Paul Kersey – who is by no means an ultra-radical – wrote a post which is, apparently, a response to Wallace’s Cahawba manifesto: Why Must Black People Always Follow Whites? The Lesson of Birmingham and Why Secession is Not Enough. Here is the back and forth between Kersey and Wallace on this topic:

Paul Kersey writes:

“Black people will always follow white people wherever they may go, because the conditions found in a white community are preferable to the conditions found in a black community (even in a black-run city like Birmingham, the city that was so important to overturning white morality in not only Alabama, not only America, but the entire world).

White people can create thriving cities and school systems, but if black people can’t do the same in their communities, then they must move to (and eventually overwhelm) the white communities — then, they will vote as a monolith when their numbers rise and elect into power black candidates with a black-first agenda.

This is the future for Birmingham’s white suburbs.

Secession, of any kind, must be 100 percent racial in origin and motivation.
If not, it will fail. …”

As long as the Union exists, any scheme by Whites who are fleeing from black dysfunction (such as moving to Shelby County or Metro Atlanta) will ultimately fail because the places which they are moving to are just as answerable to the same master, which has the same political agenda, as the places from which they are fleeing.

In Vestavia Hills, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fair Housing Act of 1968, the EEOC, the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, the Voting Rights Act, the Immigration Act of 1965, the Great Society welfare state, the “disparate impact” standard, the Obama administration, Shelly v. Kraemer, Brown v. Board of Education, Loving v. Virginia, Katzenbach v. McClung – innumerable innovations imposed on the South by the federal government – are still in effect.

The master in this country is Washington which answers to the White majority in the Northern and Western states. Step by step, the White majority in the Northern and Western states have sent politicians to Washington – most recently Barack Hussein Obama in 2008 and 2012 – and charged them with the responsibility of taking “liberty” and “equality” to ever greater extremes with regards to race.

As long as the Union exists, Vestavia Hills and Alabama or Sandy Springs and Georgia or Franklin and Tennessee will always prostrate themselves before the set of politicians who rule in Washington, and resistance by Whites to the encroachment of black dysfunction will be proscribed under the law. Should the resistance by Whites ever go beyond mere grandstanding, Washington will send in the military like it did in Arkansas in 1957, Mississippi in 1961, and Alabama in 1962.

The cycle would be broken tomorrow if the real problem was addressed: a consolidated government of unlimited powers lorded over by Washington, which like a puppet master with strings attached to all its subordinate governments, forces every state and community in the country to submit to Black Run America.

To look at what Kersey says: ‘Secession, of any kind, must be 100 percent racial in origin and motivation. If not, it will fail…’. To this I would ask the question: what is the national anthem of the putative “white ethnostate”, the “white republic”, which shall emerge from the white suburbs outside Afro-American Birmingham? Has one national anthem for the “white republic” been penned? The answer is no. But the former Rhodesia, Apartheid-era South Africa, and the Old South had national songs.

The issue is really a political-racial one, not just a racial one. In 1965, the Voting Rights Act was passed by President Johnson, with Afro-American civil rights luminaries Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks in attendance. The intent of the act was to prevent the white Southern states from manipulating the electoral system so as to prevent Afro-Americans from voting. In effect, it means that no Southern states can change their electoral laws (e.g., introducing a law that voters need to prove their identity in voting booths by presenting photo ID) without approval from the Justice Department – which is, of course, has always been led by Yankees. (Now it is led by the Afro-American District Attorney, Eric Holder, who is a former leftist radical Black Panther / Black Power type). The Southern states, because of their history, are on permanent probation – much like Germany, which has to pay perpetual, never-ending restitutions to Israel and Jews because of alleged atrocities over 70 years ago. (One of the unforeseen consequences of the Act is the gerrymandering of the South into whites-only and blacks-only electoral districts, and the election and re-election of certain Afro-American candidates, no matter how incompetent or corrupt they are). So the problems of the whites in the South are federal, i.e., political, and can’t be solved by something ‘100 percent racial in origin and motivation’.

As stated at the beginning of the article, all this has a great deal of relevance to whites in Western Europe. Britain, as we know, has been inundated with Afro-Caribbean and Sub-Saharan immigrants from its former colonies: the anti-white elite in Britain, which has controlled British immigration and racial policy for at least fifty years, wants Britain broken up and given away to its former colonial subjects, as a restitution to them and as a punishment for the British. Other countries which had African and Afro-Caribbean colonies – e.g., France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Portugal, Italy – are also being inundated, and so are countries like Sweden and Norway, which never had any colonies in the first place.
It’s imperative, then, that the nationalist activists of the West study the American experience – and also the Rhodesian and South African experience – to get an idea of what a racialised society, split down the middle between black and white, looks like.

(Much of this sort of racialism, admittedly, isn’t that relevant to Australia: our problem is legal immigration from China and India. The elite which dominates this country wants to turn into a Malaysian or Singapore-style republic – part-Malay, part-Chinese, part-Indian – and make the national religions Islam, Buddhism, Confucianism and Filipino- and Vietnamese-style Catholicism. This new Asian-style republic will have immigration laws laxer than any other Asian nation: everyone will be invited – unlike in Malaysia, Indonesia or Japan, where the immigration laws are draconian by Western standards).

One of the ironies is that, in 2013, we are not only seeing the rebirth of old nations – the South and Catalonia in Spain – but also the birth of a new type of nation in Europe as well: that is, the part-white, part-black nation-state. The old South, and Rhodesia and South Africa, were frontier-nations which were formed either on the border of all-black nation-states or (in the case of the South) in imitation of the white-ruled Caribbean slave states. Now the frontier – between white and non-white nations – has come to Europe. Western European whites are now living side by side with black people in large numbers, for the first time in European history.

Perhaps, in the future, enclaves, like Vestavia Hills, or Montego Bay in Jamaica (an area for white tourists, which is cordoned off from the rest of the (highly dangerous) island), will be formed, in London, Stockholm, Paris and Rome (or, for all I know, are forming already). These areas will be prosperous, clean, safe, the sort of communities one wants one’s children to grow up in – while the outer areas will, in contrast, be dangerous, dirty, impoverished.
The window closed for the opportunity, in the South, for the repatriation of Afro-Americans (‘Why not just get rid of them all?’) to Africa a long time ago; it’s difficult to say, at this point, whether or not it has closed for Europe. The most pessimistic of nationalists say that it has, especially for Britain, which is a broken, demoralised country and no longer seems to believe in racial distinctions or even national borders. I am not willing here to speculate as to what the future of the New Europe will be. But I will advocate something which can be implemented right away: a recreation of the old slave plantation owner mentality or old Boer mentality.

The first step towards this is to acknowledge: immigrants from Africa, and their descendants, exist. They are on the streets of Europe. So what do you think of it? Do you look upon them as being your equals? Will you allow your daughters to copulate with African immigrant men and bear their children? Europeans, for the first time, will have to ask themselves these difficult, confronting questions… The future of the West depends upon how they answer them.

All this is in the context of existing nationalisms, i.e., French, British, Italian nationalism. The nationalist activists of the former colonial powers do not need to envisage “fantasy white republics”: they can look at the actual historical experience of their countrymen – in the colonies.

America’s problem – the problem of the “white nationalists”, “Creators”, Pierce-ites, Duke-ites, Metzger-ites and their ilk – is that it can’t acknowledge that their “white ethno-states” never existed, and perhaps never will, and that the closest thing that America had to such an ethno-state existed only in the South and nowhere else in America. The whites of the northern half of America – the ‘Yankees’, ‘New Amsterdamers’ and ‘Midlanders’ all abolished their anti-miscegenation laws by the end of the 19th century, without the help of Sumner Redstone and “Jewish-owned MTV”.

Tagged with:

4 Responses to Why I am not a White Nationalist

  1. This is a thoughtful article that makes several interesting distinctions. Still, with the late Samuel T. Francis I tend to see the primary division in the United States as being between the urban coasts and middle America. I’m originally from Washington state and liberal attitudes end very abruptly once you cross the Cascades. I lived in the South for several years and was never particulary impressed by the idea that Southern seccession was still a viable option.

    It’s true that there is little historical basis for white nationalism as such. It has its problematic aspects and may very well be rooted, as you write, in the same abstract universalism that has caused so much other mischief. Though I have my doubts and objections to it myself, don’t the breakdown of old religious and ethnic prejudices, common demographic pressures across white nations, and the widespread knowledge of English make it at least plausible that it could come about somewhere? Aren’t Eastern Europeans much more readily assimilated over a generation or two than Africans?

    As for Asia, at this moment in history pan-Asian nationalism is laughable. But liberalism and cultural Marxism, with all that attends them, are slowly creeping in the academic institutions and government agencies of many Asian nations. It’s brought like the plague by Western-educated elites, white liberal academics, and foreign NGOs. It’s hard to tell what the future holds for anybody.

  2. roger u says:

    I’m not a white nationalist, but I am a pessimistic Southern nationalist. The white nationalists are delusional, the history of Europe should tell them that a white ethnostate with no regard for ethnicity is impossible, or, at least, highly unlikely.

  3. I’m sympathetic to the plight of the American South, but I believe this kind of self-interested provincialism is potentially fatal to us all. Outside of Europe the basis already exists for something like white nationalism, though I don’t see it as the real solution, at least not by itself. Many whites are of mixed ancestry, and those who aren’t hardly go around believing that people of other European ethnicities are the primary threat to them. Identity is fluid and socially constructed to some degree–the Left is right about that–and whether someone is Catholic or is of Irish or Italian descent no longer has the same kind of divisive meaning it once had. I see no reason why things won’t continue to develop along these lines. Outside Europe you could say a new type has come to exist.

    What the partisans of Southern heritage and many other racialists and conservatives don’t seem to understand is that it is not all about them and their little group or corner of the world. Simple isolationism is not an option in our age; the powers that be won’t allow it. Even a secessionist South that left its minorities completely unmolested would be a pariah state in a liberal world. Our enemies think and operate globally, and the same kinds of people who favor massive non-white immigration to Western countries are all over the developing world promoting “gender equality” and other subversive poison. They have all the money, moral authority, and political and cultural power they require. Outmaneuvering them is going to require a comprehensive approach and a lot of sacrifice.

    If we want to keep what remains of our cultures and traditions intact at the regional and local level, we are going to have to cooperate with one another and with likeminded non-whites on the international level. It’s going to take the formulation of some new non-liberal political ideology and the creation of appealing artistic and cultural products to promote it. People like Alain de Benoist and Aleksandr Dugin (though we should be suspicious of his real agenda) seem to have valid ideas in this regard. People like Tomislav Sunic have the diplomatic skills and understanding of the international order to help implement it, but it’s not going to happen in our lifetimes.

    It’s true that the alternative global order I’m talking about can be criticized for its universalism, which seems to be an unduly terrible epithet among us owing to its association with a liberal universalism supposedly rooted in Christianity. The difference is that ours would be a universalism that recognized and respected the real differences between peoples.

    We can’t just ignore or run away from all-pervasive liberalism. It’s going to have to be propagandized against, discredited, and replaced with something else at the most essential level throughout the world. If thinking this way makes me a radical or a theorist with my head in the clouds, then so be it.

  4. roger u says:

    “Many whites are of mixed ancestry, and those who aren’t hardly go around believing that people of other European ethnicities are the primary threat to them. ”

    Just because they don’t beleive it doesn’t make it true. All political and cultural fights are between white people, we have all the power despite what white nationalists think regarding “The Joos”. White liberals are the problem, I’ll get even more specific below.

    “and whether someone is Catholic or is of Irish or Italian descent no longer has the same kind of divisive meaning it once had.”

    Not conciously, perhaps, but it still plays a part. See my post Oil and Water. Beginning in the 1830s we had a large wave of German immigration into our English/Scottish dominated nation. Those Germans settled across the Northern States in what would come to be called the Union States in the war that began 30 years later. Today, the German/British divide coresponds very striongly with the red/blue divide of election maps.

    “What the partisans of Southern heritage and many other racialists and conservatives don’t seem to understand is that it is not all about them and their little group or corner of the world. ”

    Yes it is. That’s nationalism, drawing distinctions. Beyond some kind words and a general support for nationalism, I have no influence in your corner of the world, nor should I, that’s your home.

    “Simple isolationism is not an option in our age; the powers that be won’t allow it. Even a secessionist South that left its minorities completely unmolested would be a pariah state in a liberal world. ”

    Here you make a jump from breaking off a region of the US into a seperate political entity to isolationalism. Dixie would just be independent, like Serbia after the break up of Yugoslavia, or any other nation that has broken off from an empire.

    As far as being a pariah in a liberal world, I doubt it. The US has a lot of enemies, either they would be our allies or the US would make sure we had US friendly allies like the do for Israel.

    Your final paragraph contains a truth that seems to be overlooked by a lot of nationalists in the US, propaganda is essential. We have such a negative idea of what propaganda is, probably from the Cold War associations, that we shy away from anything resembling it. We could reverse multi-culturism is 10 years if we had some good cartoons and tv shows. we don’t even need a tv station, just youtube and a well thought out internet site.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please enter CAPTCHA *