Could White Advocacy Exist in a Multi-Ethnic Society?

The media believes Donald Trump is a fascist who will destroy the United States, though he claims he will save it. Trump has repeatedly stated his credo is America First, a muscular variety of civic nationalism and nativism, which in terms of electoral support functions as an implicit form of White populism. As an ideology, it largely appeals to only the historical American nation. Because his platform is so visibly White, Trump is the most hated man in America, and his supporters the most hated class of Americans.

It’s a straightforward case of third worldism—if something is White it is inherently evil and needs to be fought against with a righteous and revolutionary fervor echoing the decolonization struggles of 1945-1994.

Trump, of course, has not come out as an explicit White advocate. He has never once said verbatim that he wants to represent the interests of White people or to defend them in the public space politically, morally, culturally, socially, economically, artistically, etc. But in practice that is largely what he is doing, and moreover what he is perceived as doing by the manufacturers of high-status opinion in this country, the lying press. The left and their opinion-setting extremists identify the United States as what the critical race theorist bell hooks calls “white-supremacist-capitalist-patriarchy.” Trump and his supporters, by threatening to put America first, are thus part of this structure that needs to be deconstructed.

Granted, on the Alt-Right we understand the United States is an occupation government that promotes White minoritization, also known as the third demographic transition. We’ve woken up from the American Dream. But since the left wants White people to become a minority, they aren’t going to raise the alarm. They can’t. They don’t see the United States as the enemy of White people (if they did they would love it); they see it as the epicenter of global White supremacy that must be fought and dismantled, an interesting example of how poorly they understand change over time. But ask yourself this: When was the last time the United States acted on behalf of the White race as its first concern in decision-making? That would be the most basic threshold of literal White supremacy, and to my knowledge it hasn't done it in years.

The left sees defending the United States as defending White supremacy, which really just means White-majority society and White political power. Anywhere those things exist you will get charges of “supremacy.” And if you are seen as representing the interests of White people, through the symbol of the United States, you are a nazi, a fascist, a White supremacist, a racist, or some other combination of loaded words that indicate you are a witch.

You don’t have to utter a single word explicitly in favor of Whites—you just have to support something seen as representative of them by the left, such as the flag, the military, the police, the southern border, the Constitution, the Christian religion, etc. That’s enough to bring the weight of the world against you. This is why all Republican presidential nominees are Hitler, and why Trump is Literally Hitler™—because most GOP voters are White. Wanting your country to be great, an innocent wish held around the world by billions of people in non-Western societies, is wrong for the people of the United States.

But what if someone did speak explicitly in favor of White people and their interests? What if he believed Whites ha./'d civil rights and sought to represent them in a society where they did not hold all the levers of power, and was conscious of the fact that if no one speaks up his people will either be neglected or persecuted by the authorities? What if you thought multi-ethnic society could work as long as each tribe had a suite of civil society groups to represent it politically, economically, culturally, and socially?

It would be very naive, bordering on idiocy even. White-inclusive multiculturalism is a tempting fantasy to be sure, playing off our longstanding attachment to fairness and reciprocity. We know that Black advocacy and Jewish advocacy, for example, are widely lauded and supported across the United States. You’d think that if group A is allowed to do something nakedly pro-A and group B is allowed to do something nakedly pro-B, group C would be allowed to do something even vaguely pro-C. But you’d be wrong. Because group C is White. And it is never okay to be pro-White.

This halfway solution, where every tribal group under the American Empire—including Whites—ends up with its own autonomy and legitimacy as a means of keeping the peace and prosperity, is never going to happen. White-inclusive multiculturalism is both lazy and wishful thinking. We won’t become an identity group that politicians explicitly court, and we won’t see “Whites for Candidate X” campaign stickers and t-shirts. Because as our numbers dwindle nationally and we lose political and demographic control of huge swathes of the United States, the potential to explicitly influence and bargain on behalf of our in-group (something we don’t even do currently) is going to collapse. We would be shut down 51-49 every time. We aren’t going to become first among equals or the kingmaker voting bloc. We will only be hated even more as demographic victory draws closer for our enemies.

If you have ever read any (((academic literature on anti-semitism))), you are probably familiar with the observation that few or no Jews need be present in a society for it to have anti-semitic attitudes. This is a huge issue for overseas Israelis, who don’t want to be repatriated or anyone to notice coincidences. But the bigger picture is that a society can be anti-foreigner (ethnocentric) without having a large amount of foreigners. Earlier I said that any White-majority society and White political power leds to the label of “supremacy.” But take it from the (((establishment climbers)))—you don’t need to have a majority to be hated. In a White-minority United States, Whites would be greater strangers in a strange land—more foreign—than they are now. It is unreasonable to assume that hatred of us and the unique opposition to our ethnocentrism would disappear simply because our numbers went down. I predict rather that those attitudes will intensify.

Like it or not, the solution will be White nationalism, and it will be chosen for us by world-historical forces independent of how Whites feel about nationalism now. In a non-White majority society, there will be two pressures acting upon us that select for nationalism. The first is simply rising anti-White sentiments among the majority of the population, who will no longer be us. Once it is obvious that many of the voices castigating us are not from people who look like us anymore, it will be much harder to side with them. And a growing number will reject them entirely. The second force is racial endogamy, which will not be a random choice in post-White America—random mating would result in most pairings being mixed marriages and the creation of miscegenated offspring.

I believe it is fair to infer that any White-White couplings will be the result of deliberately ethnocentric behavior. A left-wing post-White America would propagandize even more strongly for miscegenation than it does now, and present it as high-status and socially correct behavior. Anyone resisting that level of signaling and conditioning would be doing so for a reason. Their children would be born into a society where the idea of Whites coexisting as an organized tribe is verboten, certainly in practice if not legally by then as well. But they will also be born into explicit families of Whiteness. And families are the building blocks of civilization. The solution for them will not be meek White advocacy—it won’t be radical enough to make a difference. So if both the non-radical and the radical solutions are banned, why settle for compromise? Why not instead seek to achieve total independence and freedom for your civilization?

There won’t be an overt White advocacy movement and Trump is not going to set one off. The hegemonic left, with its moral authority to set what the right is allowed to do, is not going to allow it. We don’t even know if they are going to allow Trump’s deracinated compromise of America First to happen. We certainly know they don’t want it to happen—it remains to be seen how much violent obstruction would be unleashed if he wins in November.

And moreover, world-historical forces are against the emergence of simple White advocacy. Whites are declining demographically but poised to become more and more ethnocentric as a group as a result of persecution and endogamous selection. The weak, which we will be as a minority, do not exact concessions from the strong, who will derive their power in post-White America from their numbers. How delusional would the left have to be to give us the rope to hang them with, to let us openly embrace a positive tribal identity?

Third worldists are fundamentally right when they say White ethnocentrism would lead to us opposing them and their clients. They don’t see us as a valid identity group and they never will in a way that doesn’t end with condemnation or expressing mirth at our fading demographic relevance. These people are not going to tolerate explicit White advocacy any more than they tolerate implicit White advocacy. Obviously, they won’t tolerate White nationalism either. There could be a brief interim stage where advocacy for a parallel multiculturalism—between Whites and POC—is floated, but the logic of independence will crush it.

Nationalism is a better solution as it separates us from our enemies rather than seeking to coexist with them. Shouldn’t you separate yourself from people who hate you?

Also published at Atlantic Centurion

Author image
Another voice on the Alt-Right and a White nationalist. Macroaggression Consultant at Bagelbaum & Associates LLC. Like my effortposting? Gib e-shekels: 1HZ4mqdKyf4P6cZYEtQCEn85aVrSNfvatq
Amerikaner Free State Website