There seems to be a bit of confusion lately over White nationalism, on Twitter and elsewhere. All too often, I see the same misconceptions parroted and read the same questions or critiques over and over again, with only a hundred or so characters to try to respond with. It gets tiring tbh, fam. With that in mind, I wanted to create a simple Q&A style reference post about White nationalism as I personally interpret it, which I hope you goys will find useful in your outreach efforts and ideological formation. If not, have at it in the comments. And with that, the bait is set.
What is White nationalism?
White nationalism is the idea that the nation-state should exist or be brought into existence on the basis of race, for our purposes, the White race. The White race consists of the indigenous gentile peoples of Europe and those who migrated to her settler colonies around the world. Acknowledging that identity is inherent to all in-groups, White nationalists assert that a multiracial society leads to a multitude of identity-derived problems which are best solved by separating these groups as much as possible. This is especially true when one race is faced with demographic destruction in its own country while the others stand to gain. Majority rule means the majority will rule.
White nationalism serves as an expedient method of providing security and space for White people to survive and raise families in, and the family unit is the building block of civilization. This is crucial considering that the most basic impulse of any organism is survival, and the current configuration of many White majority societies around the world is such that they will become White-minority societies in our lifetimes. With that in mind, White nationalism is not an ideology of negation or hostility, but one of self-advocacy and collective interest in the face of those threats.
What about European nationalism(s)? Being White isn’t enough to warrant unity between Portugal and Ukraine.
On the Continent, yes, the basis for nationalism is different. There are long-established peoples with divergent histories, cultures, politics, etc. One’s ethnicity lines up with one’s nation almost exactly, with few exceptions, such as in Britain and Spain. In fact, the examples of Britain and Spain show that national unions have the potential to work, but with a greater amount of friction than otherwise. What holds across all of these nation-states is that they are White in terms of race. Hence, there is no incompatibility between the theory of White nationalism and its most obvious expression in Europe, which is that of the European nation-state.
What about Pan-Europeanism? Is that what White nationalists want?
Some do. I personally think a federated Europe of nations will not work and would prefer a sort of sacrosanct alliance that deals with external threats only, and allows each nation-state to manage its own affairs to the degree that it can without chafing against the others. In a federated Europe, much like the European Union we have now, it is obvious to all parties that one nation is the most powerful and the others are strung along; this fuels resentment and resistance. Additionally, the centralization and unaccountability of the EU make it a powerful tool for exporting degeneracy; something a confederation is at less risk of due due to decentralization and the autonomy of its parts. If one unit goes bad, it has less power to spread it to the rest if they are compartmentalized behind borders and different administrations.
If Brussels had its way, every country in the EU would take in as many Afro-Islamic colonists as it decreed. In the EU today, it is indeed the more nationalistic countries such as Poland and Hungary that resist multiculturalism and race-suicide the most and the federation that encourages those harms. Could a racially conscious Pan-European superstate work? Maybe. But that’s not a core goal of White nationalism in my opinion. More important is to secure any territory anywhere in Europe or the settler colonies where Whites can regulate their own affairs and exist without facing forced minoritization and extinction thereafter.
The United States doesn’t have an ethnic national identity like European countries do, it is a product of immigration. What national unity is there between Irish- and German-Americans, for example, if you reject Pan-Europeanism?
I believe there is a national identity, just a different kind. In European settler colonies like the United States, there are few ethnic differences between the components of the European-derived or White population after generations of mixture and cohabitation. While millions and millions of people claim different European national ancestries and sometimes several at the same time, it is highly LARPy to suggest an nth-generation Irish-American or German-American is actually an Irish person or a German person. They are native-born, English-speaking, White people of mixed ethnic origins, or what I like to call Anglo-Americans. A foreign-born European American who natively speaks his non-English ancestral tongue is another story, but those are in the minority and are extremely likely to be assimilated.
Another issue to consider is that these hyphenated identities largely exist in reaction to multiculturalism and the anti-White bias of our elite social, academic, and public institutions. Prior to the ascendancy of New Left in the 1960s, "American" was simply understood to mean a White person, domestically and abroad, as the country was nearly 90% White and immigration had been severely restricted for two generations. But under the new paradigm of Whiteness-as-original-sin, positive identification with Whiteness becomes an uncomfortable position. By claiming one or more ancestral European nationality as their primary identity rather than "White," one can try to special-snowflake their way out of being labelled and criticized as White. The joke is on them though. ((((Noel Ignatiev)))) and his ilk don't honestly think Irish- or Italian-Americans are non-White; the thesis is that they became White. We are in this together, potato goy.
These European ancestries, furthermore, can be found across the country. While some areas are more concentrated than others, every county in America almost definitely has Irish-, German-, and English-descended people. What largely dominates in the United States more than European ancestry/ancestries alone in terms of identification are regional cultures (e.g. Northeast, South, Appalachia, Midwest) which have their roots in the founding European settler population(s), historical events, and the social, natural, and political environment of each area. These differences, while significant, are not substantial enough to warrant separation in most cases since there is a common language, history, and shared racial origin that facilitates integration and assimilation across regional lines. With that in mind, Anglo-American nationalism is thus a very plausible implementation of the ideal of White nationalism in the context of the United States and the settler colonial experience.
Isn’t the United States too racially diverse for White nationalism to work?
Yeah and Algeria had too many Frenchmen, Italians, and Sephardim for Algerian nationalism to work. Just kidding, the West allows nationalism when the nation in question is non-White. Europeans had to leave most of Africa and Asia en masse during decolonization. Look, some people are going to have to go home. Some people might even have new homelands created for them. Personally I think the United States ought to be partitioned into ethnostates and multi-ethnic countries, or could face a Soviet-style collapse one day. It sounds distant now, but it's not impossible. You just need a new paradigm.
What about ethnic and racial minorities?
My perspective is as follows: 1.) most people live where they do because of economic incentives, and 2.) there has never been a totally homogeneous society larger than a village. These truths have consequences. First of all, if people came to the United States or Europe for shekels, they can be persuaded, convinced, and if need be cajoled into leaving, for shekels. And we don't care where they go, because as White nationalists our first duty is to our own people (which is how most of the non-Western world behaves, mind you). There is an old Arab proverb that goes something like, "me against my brother, me and my brother against my cousin, me and my cousin against the world." You get the idea; we have to take care of our own. We could pay countries to receive emigrants like Australia does with its neighbors in order to redirect kebab boat people away from their continent. If we're nice we could even pay people outright to go somewhere else as part of a colonization scheme (and you will find minority radicals who agree with this). We could also reduce their credit and employment opportunities to provide more incentives if need be, though that would be considered mean.
I think any one of these strategies or a combination thereof would result in most non-White people leaving, for perhaps their native countries or elsewhere in the colored world, which could no doubt benefit from an influx of Western educated and skilled migrants, or even unskilled labor. Our capitalists certainly thought importing them was a good idea. Who does this leave behind? Probably very few minorities (who are also potentially assimilable due to reduced numbers and their active decision to stay behind) and/or minorities who are relevant to diplomacy or business with foreign countries. Would it be unthinkable for a White nationalist state to have a 10-15% minority population in its ports or larger cities? No, it would be a regular country. And it goes without saying that they would be here on terms of good behavior and cordiality. Nothing less would be rationally tolerated.
Did you just say there would be minorities in a White ethnostate? REEEEEEEEEE!
Well, probably. A 90% White country with non-White immigration banned sounds like a really good deal to be honest. Unless we want to be landlocked into the Midwest with no routes to Europe or Oceania, there will be minorities (even the Midwest has those, actually). And such demographics would be temporary, because I guarantee you whatever circumstances led to the creation of White nation-states in North America, Europe, and/or Oceania would also lead to White immigration to those states. For comparison, the United States actually became Whiter over the 19th century by a similar process, with the predominately black non-White population losing share to the influx of Europeans. This was brought to a halt by the 1965 ((((Hart-Celler Act)))), which got rid of the quota system favoring immigration from Britain, Ireland, and Germany. Since then the United States has become increasingly colored, due to majority non-White immigration over the last few decades. You won't get what you want overnight; even the left knows this.
Is White nationalism the same thing as Nazism/fascism?
I must confess that I am not very well-versed in the minutiae of Nazism/fascism. But the simple answer is an emphatic no, they are not the same thing. Nazism, or national socialism, is a particular brand of totalitarian ultra-nationalistic right-wing populism that thrived in interwar Germany and Austria until the end of WWII. In practice, the Nazis set about helotizing other (non-German) nations, making it a kind of imperialism as well, and posited that the Nordic sub-race of the White race was the master race. None of this is inherent to White nationalism. Fascism is distinct from both White nationalism and Nazism, though closer to the latter but with less emphasis on Germany. Our opponents, out of malice, laziness, or both, automatically equate anything right-wing with Nazism/fascism anyway, so keep that in mind when you hear these terms lumped together. There are people who consider themselves both White nationalists and Nazis/fascists (the so-called 1488ers), but these are not the same thing, and one does not require the other.
This is something entirely different.
What about the Jews? Can't you cool it with the anti-Semitic remarks?
Greg Johnson has the most straightforward take on the Jewish Question that I have read:
The Jewish question is not distinct from ethnonationalism. It is ethnonationalism applied to Jews. Thus no ethnonationalist is entitled to abstain from it. Once one recognizes that Jews are a distinct people, the ethnonationalist solution to the Jewish question is Jewish nationalism, i.e., Zionism.
Of course, as is well-understood on the alt-right, contrary to anything ((((Milo)))) has to say:
The disproportionate influence of an elite Jewish minority in Western societies has been a net negative. Jews, who have a three thousand year history of regulating their communities to be as insular as possible among the nations whose territory they dwell in, have a consistent pattern of promoting the interests of their own ethnoreligious minority at the expense of the majority nation.
Jews are history's original tribalists, and they have their own well-fortified ethnostate, complete with border fences and majoritarian immigration policies. That so many political Jews oppose border control in the West and support anti-majority policies is a telling form of hypocrisy. But it doesn't have to be this way. They too can go home. That is what nationalism is all about.
This all seems very future-oriented. We clearly don't have any power to make policy decisions. What are White nationalists supposed to do right now?
This is a widely debated topic and different people propose different solutions. I am of the opinion that the most important avenues of attack for us are media and culture, not the political process or forming a party. In the United States, a White nationalist party would have to compete against the rigid two-party system. Furthermore, anyone running against a White nationalist candidate for office would essentially be given a blank check by the occupying powers to fund their campaign.
The strategy I prefer is metapolitical. Our ideas are the truth and we must evangelize our truth to our people through social, cultural, and literary means. This is how nationalism came to dominate societies before the victory of materialism over tribalism during the World Wars, and we in the 21st century are aided in our struggle by new media platforms that are decentralized and instantaneous. When the idea of White nationalism has taken root among enough of our people, the potential to demand, demonstrate, and act will be superior to what it currently is.
One interesting contemporary model that can be found overseas is in Egypt. Since the end of colonialism, Egyptian society has re-Islamicized away from what was a secular and ((((cosmopolitan)))) social order. This was not done through political parties, but institutions like the Muslim Brotherhood, which provides its members and their families with media, services, and camaraderie. We aren't there yet. But we do have media and meet-ups. We are trying to build meatspace connections and new social realities. What is the relevance between our situations, value judgments about Islam aside? In the West, we seek to regain the racial consciousness that once reigned, just as Muslim societies have tried to reassert their traditional religious principles. Our identity is suppressed by political correctness and the influence of ((((postwar German-American academics)))), just as their religion was suppressed by foreign conquerors. We can undo our situation, and we need to do it by changing minds.
I wouldn't be able to fully answer this question, however, without recommending that you send us some shekels. Hosting costs money. And the more we have the more we can expand our outreach and improve the quality and quantity of our materials. It's better than buying dildos or video game DLC. It's an investment in the future of White nationalist media and promoting racial consciousness.
Oh, and of course, get in shape, get skilled, and try to work on the whole "future for White children" thing. This entire project is all pointless if our resident EMT has to drive your bariatric ass to the hospital at age 35 because you became fused to your swivel chair after marathoning Chinese cartoons. Don't be the last man—be the first of a new line.