The largest obstacle to the victory of the cultural marxist left in the United States is probably civic nationalism, the deracinated attachment felt mostly by White people to the United States and "traditional" values. Even after decades of mass immigration and social poisoning, a massive bloc of the White population still loves its country. They have voted for a man who promises to restore it, Donald Trump, and to do so on a politically incorrect platform of nativism and protectionism. But President Trump cannot bring back yesteryear’s America. The country is too diverse and liberal now, as the policies of those in power the last few decades did what they were supposed to do. So ethno-nationalists offer a more radical solution: creating a White homeland.
The most obvious problem for White nationalists in the United States is that we do not live in a White country (well, not anymore). This can make our relationship to practical politics and policymaking quite estranged from mainstream concerns. Whatever our recommendations may be, skepticism comes as a natural response. Whites, while they lean towards one party over the other, are not nearly as tribal as non-whites. And what White nationalists are concerned with is tribe. Ethno-nationalism calls for the creation of a separate White homeland from parts of the United States proper, e.g. the Amerikaner Free State (1, 2). This would entail partition or balkanization of the Union, not something the average White normie is remotely interested in. Clearly, an ethnostate will not be happening in the short-run, leaving White nationalism in a metapolitical limbo.
As such, there is indeed a LARPy element to proposing an ethnostate. Much like proposing a Jewish nation-state to a late 19th century audience, White nationalism finds a deficit of both popular and elite momentum. The case has been made about why such a state would be beneficial, but it lacks a motivating context among our people. No truly paradigm shattering events have occurred for them to see the wisdom and utility of our plans and predictions. You can geographically move away from diversity (for now); you don't need full-blown separatism (yet). While being told they will become a minority makes White voters more conservative, does it make them more nationalistic? This is not the same as having one's illusions destroyed by dramatic events or feeling the boot of an exploitative oppressor (as opposed to a managerial one). National liberation movements feed on those sorts of things, and the occupation government is a delicate one. Perhaps more importantly, no powerful people in our society are active White nationalists.
Besides separatism, another nationalist pathway is through the Trump administration, which could establish an implicitly pro-White deep state to keep power in the hands of civic nationalists for more than two terms. Arguably it must accomplish this, or "Trumpism" will simply be a bad memory for the left in a decade. But this too is a bit of a stretch, and relies on President Trump having long-term visionary plans about the direction of the United States and executing on them. That's not to say he doesn’t have them, but there are obviously limits to how much he can do in our favor (especially given his particular cabal of advisors and courtiers). Populists are good at getting elected to be sure, but running (and rigging) the state is something entirely different. The potential comes from President Trump's nationalistic inclinations and experience as the executive of an organization. If ethno-nationalism is an extreme variant of civic nationalism, then whatever he does to move the country towards one moves it towards the other. But the movement must take place or else it remains pure speculation. Moreover, building a deep state is no easy task, let alone the cultural superstructure needed to eventually render it obsolete as a security measure. Executive actions are insufficient.
As outlined in a previous article, "What Will Become of the Empire? Visions of Late Modernity in the United States," the ethnostate or a nationalist deep state are far from the only trends the United States could move towards. There are of course other possibilities than the Alt-Right getting what it wants. Our enemies could just as well get what they want and make America browner than the day laborers in Home Depot's parking lot. A third way would be a middle-of-the-road outcome, where both the far-right and far-left fail to realize their goals. (People who are zealously into this stuff tend to overlook the center). But no matter what we end up with in our lifetimes, the task of taking our own side in politics, culture, and society remains unchanged.
The Civic Road to a Castizo Country
So while it is entirely possible for ethno-nationalism to become an important political force—because I do think the trends towards White ethnocentrism are there—the middle-of-the road outcome may happen instead. What that entails would be preferable for sure to the direction the globalist left wants to take us in, where all Western nations are destroyed in the name of diversity and social justice, but it won’t be ideal. That situation is as follows: What if Trump-style muscular civic nationalism wins in the United States? Referring back to my earlier post:
The borders are all but shut down. Patriotism, the English-language, and American culture are formally celebrated by the state, which seeks to instill a sense of pride and unity in all of its lawful citizens. Islam is suppressed. Marxist and third worldist excuses for violent crime are no longer tolerated, divisive appeals to identity politics-driven civil rights are not respected, and both popular and elite culture shift to be more nationalistic and conciliatory rather than rooted in critical theory. “America First” becomes a legitimate meme.
How does civic nationalism lead to a "castizo" country? In the old Spanish colonies, castizo referred to a caste of people who were of mostly European (Spanish) ancestry with some indio or negro, as opposed to the eventually more numerous mestizos, who were roughly half-European and half-Indian in ancestry. A slim majority of the American population will be non-white by the 2040s according to census projections. If civic nationalists are successful in creating in a society with a colorblind form of patriotism and no barriers to racial-mixing, it would be entirely possible to form an off-white majority in several generations, i.e. a castizo society. The average person would then become "mostly" White, though other races would persist as differentiated minorities. Mystery meat nationalism is thus the result of civic nationalism without a shift towards White nationalism. A new ethnogenesis of the American nation, if you will.
In a United States with the current demographic profile and rising rates of miscegenation, but one in which immigration has been throttled to a trickle, the American of the future would look perhaps more Argentine or Costa Rican than Scots-Irish or German. More than half of all children under five years-old in the United States were something other than “non-Hispanic White” in 2016. No immigration quotas will change this, and unless an explicitly eurocentric policy were enacted, most immigrants would still be from outside of Europe—there would just be less of them.
A brief survey of the racial stocks of the United States and their current trends is in order. According to the nearly out-of-date 2010 Census, the (non-Hispanic) Whites comprise 63.7% of the United States and number 196,817,552. The blacks comprise 12.2% and number 37,685,848. The Hispanics and Latinos (of any race) comprise 16.3% and number 50,477,594. The Asians comprise 4.7% and number 14,465,124.
Most babies born in 2015--50.2% according to a Census Bureau estimate--were non-white. Barring some huge baby boom among Whites or collapse of non-white fertility, or some extraneous and catastrophic event, we are now locked in to this demographic profile. Note that the general White population (over 60%) and its share of births are out of sync:
The USG has very sloppy racial and ethnic categories, I might add. Roughly speaking its designations are more geographic than truly racial or ethnic: what makes an Arab "White" but not "Asian"? Is he "White" if he is from Egypt but "Asian" if from Iraq?Mercifully there are not many of them and thus the "White" population is overwhelmingly of European stock. Then there's lumping everyone from India to Japan together as an "Asian" race. Hispanic, meanwhile, is treated as an ethnicity that any race can belong to, despite most American Hispanics being mestizos from Mexico or the Caribbean. In this view, "ethnicity" denotes having origin in the former Spanish empire, because no other ethnic categories exist beyond "Hispanic/Latino" and "not Hispanic/Latino," only races defined so poorly as to discredit human taxonomy entirely. In any event, it is safe to conclude that a plurality of births are to direct-descent Europeans and a majority to people of at least partial and visible European ancestry (Whites + Hispanics/Latinos). The trend however is for the total to shrink and the partial to grow as proportions of the population.
One caveat: in the United States the black minority has never been racially absorbed beyond the occasional family successively outbreeding beyond octoroon (not even the mulatto president managed to have whiter children). Even among the olive-skinned and bronzed peoples of Ibero-America, even when mixing with Africans has occurred (e.g. Brazil, Colombia, Dominican Republic), one still finds extant black populations. As a whole, they cannot be bred out of existence as a distinct group. The archaic type possess dominant traits. Moreover, the mulatto hates the society that made him possible. See also: Barack Obama, the Haitian revolution, or any number of today's #BlackLivesMatter activists. Africans cannot be assimilated as a group in any meaningful sense. Hence even in places like Brazil or Colombia, "Afro-" remains a prefix.
In a society then where the Caucasoid (Europeans, some "Asians," some Latinos), the Mongoloid (most Asians, Latinos of more pre-Columbian stock), and the already-mixed populations (along with a few Africans) aren't segregated and share the same strong civic ideology and culture, in time an off-white majority will emerge. Ask yourself if there is anything you can actually do to stop White-Asian and White-Latino pairings (which are less repellent to both normies and the racially aware than White-African) for example, and the answer is likely all involve using the state to enforce sexual behavior codes. Good luck. (To be clear, I not endorsing miscegenation, but describing the reality that millennials, the future of the United States, are not against it.)
Triumph of the Center?
What are the prospects for and implications of becoming who we aren't?
For one thing it is safe to assume the resulting society will have a reduced average IQ (at the very least relative to what it could have had) and lower levels of social trust, as well as take on the racial traits of other semi-mixed countries, like say Venezuela, Colombia, Syria, or Iran. There will still be racism/colorism, plenty of economic stratification, volatile politics, etc. But here the base population will still be of mostly White ancestry and majority Caucasoid, eking out an existence above Brazil or India but certainly beneath a White nation. It can work, and that's the challenge for opponents of the process that civic nationalism will set in motion. A multiracial monocultural society is certainly more stable than a multiracial multicultural one.
But for America to become a functional castizo country, civic nationalists have to win bigly. They must moderate the influence of White nationalists, who will become more numerous as nationalism becomes more mainstream and the White population continues to boil under demographic pressures. Civic nationalists would also have to stop the deep advance of the left and begin to roll it back to prevent the country from balkanizing and/or taking on more colonizers (dooming the civic nationalist project). For a united patriotic culture to be established, its adherents would also need to fend off demands from designated oppressed groups like blacks and Jews for special treatment (undermining the oneness of the proposition nation). They would also need a set of cultural, moral, and political paradigms that are both teachable to the masses and resilient to the culture of critique that pervades the country. Conservatives have thus far failed spectacularly at this and it remains to be seen what their civic nationalist successors on the right will achieve.
It is not clear yet whether Trump will be able to permanently reverse the damage done or set new paradigms that will. Moreover, polarization is a powerful force once unleashed, and President Trump's victory has unleashed it on both sides: nationalists and globalists, rightists and leftists, identitarians and cosmopolitans. The center may become a radical position within that context and thus lose its status as the simpler choice. The creation of a patriotic (and implicitly Eurocentric) off-white society, which will take decades if it does happen, will thus have challenges from both the third-worldist left and the ethno-nationalist right:
The castizo superpower scenario rests on a number of miraculous outcomes, the biggest being a political and cultural victory over the left. It is easy to imagine national populists taking over the country for a couple of election cycles, but unless they spark a major cultural shift or work to embed people in institutions dedicated to continuing their policies, they will not be able to check the rampant spread of marxism and third worldism. Indeed, so much dialogue today centers around not assimilating into White American cultural norms and rather destroying them that it is hard to imagine a United States where that kind of cultural and political polarization has been overcome. The notion of a multiracial Eurocentric culture does have an oxymoronic feel to it.
The entrenchment of third-worldism, viewing people of color and their interests as morally superior to those of Whites, will be the hardest for civic nationalists to overcome. This is arguably the religion of our ruling elites and they are not going to give it up easily. All major corporations have diversity initiatives to hire less White men. All human resources departments and colleges enforce multiculturalism as a social, economic, and ethical good. Our institutions of higher learning teach that the United States is a uniquely evil country founded on war, conquest, genocide, and exploitation. White people in this country take DNA tests hoping to find out that they are partially American Indian or black. If one were to suggest that Vermont, one of the whitest states in the Union, possessed a "White identity," its residents would shriek and howl about inclusion and tolerance and profess their undying love for diversity and immigration. Can we expect the coming mixed population to identify with Whiteness or European American culture and heritage, the implicit roots of American civic nationalism, if a sizeable share of the White population won't? The engine of assimilation requires fuel.
Moreover, history and contemporary American life is ripe with examples of half-breeds siding with their full-breed non-white cousins. It depends on how they are socialized and what values are imparted. Quite simply, there is a huge risk in assuming American civic nationalism could survive in a White majority country becoming a White minority country that would in time transition into an off-white majority country. If mixed people simply run away to become Indian chiefs rather than becoming American patriots, then the whole project is dead on arrival.
But a mixed-race civic nationalism is possible. Trump's share of the often sought "Latino vote" was much higher than anticipated (indeed, the pundit class had assumed he would lose the entire election). Asians are still considered the "model minority," and have high rates of exogamy and the highest median income among any census-designated race. More broadly speaking with regard to the civic nationalism of the White population, support for stopping illegal immigration, while high, is not a direct measure for the desire to stop legal immigration. As legal immigrants are mostly non-white, the White minoritization process will only be slowed, rather than halted or reversed (not that this matters to most civic nationalists or non-white Trump supporters). However, if immigrants arrive in a country which actually pressures them to assimilate rather than encouraging them to weaponize their identities for political gain against the majority population, civic nationalists may have found a compromise solution that would placate non-racialist nativists. That is to say, creating a castizo country by reforging the American identity in opposition to pluralistic identity politics.
To play diablo's advocate here, there certainly could be a victory over the third worldist left which does not involve ethno-nationalism. One could end the current program of relentless plantation with colonists from the global south and promoting anti-Whiteness without Aryan revolution. People certainly could be convinced of the necessity for immigration to return to historical norms in order to preserve society. A multiracial society with a fairly robust national culture (as in Latin American countries) could exist, but from the perspective of ethno-nationalists, be suboptimal.
If enough economic prosperity can be brought about to plaster over the tensions of diversity and immigration enforcement, Americans may simply wake up one day in a castizo country without having even given it much thought. The offspring of European-mestizo and European-Asian pairings might simply find more common ground with Whites than with their endogamous cousins or blacks, leading to a center-right nationalist society if governed properly (i.e., illiberally).
The question is really what would White nationalists do with such a country? The paths are much the same as they would be in our current predicament: secession or gradual internal revolution. The former is not much different theoretically from what would need to happen in the contemporary United States. Moreover, civic nationalist success in American politics will kill the appetite of most for racial secession. Let's take a look at the latter.
White Nationalism in an Off-White Society
A [White] nationalist deep state is in my opinion the most practical means of achieving a gradual internal revolution. The policies needed to shore up the White plurality and expand it would require strict adherence and enforcement over multiple administrations and insulation from the popular vote. That requires an illiberal government with lots of powerful, loyal, and unelected functionaries. The difference between becoming Brazil and becoming Chile is one of racial stocks, cultural values, and government policies. A failure to achieve progress on all of these dooms a castizo country to regression in the long run.
Lothrop Stoddard's chapter on Latin America in The Rising Tide of Color, "Red Man's Land," is instructive on what conditions prevail in mixed societies and attempts at "whitening" in the past:
Even more than by climate the Creole was injured by contact with the colored races. Pampered and corrupted from birth by obsequious slaves, the Creole usually led an idle and vapid existence, disdaining work as servile and debarred from higher callings by his European-born superiors. As time passed, the degeneracy due to climate and custom was intensified by degeneracy of blood. Despite legal enactment and social taboo, colored strains percolated insidiously into the Creole stock. The leading families, by elaborate precautions, might succeed in keeping their escutcheons clean, but humbler circles darkened significantly despite fervid protestations of "pure-white" blood. Still, so long as Spain kept her hold on Latin America, the process of miscegenation, socially considered, was a slow one...
The consequences of all this [the independence of Spain's American colonies] were lamentable in the extreme. Latin America's level of civilization fell far below that of colonial days. Spanish rule, though narrow and tyrannical, had maintained peace and social stability. Now all was a hideous chaos wherein frenzied castes and colors grappled to the death. Ignorant mestizos and brutal negroes trampled the fine flowers of culture under foot, while as by a malignant inverse selection the most intelligent and the most cultivated perished...
Some parts of Latin America did, indeed, definitety emerge into the light of stable progress. But those favored regions owed their deliverance, not to dictatorship, but to race. One of two factors always operated: either (1) an efficient white oligarchy; or (2) Aryanization through wholesale European immigration...
[In much of Latin America], the whites have consistently fought among themselves, invoking the half-castes as auxiliaries and using Indians and negroes as their pawns. The whites are still the dominant element, but only the first families retain their pure blood, and miscegenation creeps upward with every successive generation...
The aureole of white prestige has been besmirched by the near-whites and half-castes who have traded so recklessly upon its sanctions. Strong in the poise of normal hereolity, the Indian full-blood commences to despise these chaotic masters who turn his homelands into bear-gardens and witches' sabbaths. An "Indianista" movement is today on foot throughout mongrel-ruled America. It is most pronounced in Mexico, whose interminable agony becomes more and more a war of Indian resurgence, but it is also starting along the west coast of South America. Long ago, wise old Professor Pearson saw how the wind was blowing. Noting how whites and near-whites were "everywhere fighting and intriguing for the spoils of office," he also noted that the Indian masses, though relatively passive and "seemingly unobservant," were yet "conquering a place for themselves in other ways than by increasing and multiplying," and he concluded: "the general level of the autochthonous race is being raised; it is acquiring riches and self-respect, and must sooner or later get the country back into its hands..."
[T]he Spaniard did not seal his title-deed with the indelible signet of race. Indian blood remained numerically predominant, and the conqueror further weakened his tenure by bringing in black blood, the most irreducible of ethnic factors. The inflow of white blood was small, and much of what did come lost itself in the dismal swamp of miscegenation. Lastly, the whites quarrelled among themselves. The result was inevitable. The colonial whites triumphed only by aid of the half-castes, who promptly claimed their reward. A fresh struggle ensued, ending (save in the antipodean regions) in the triumph of the half-castes. But these, in turn, had called in the Indians and negroes. Furthermore, the half-castes recklessly squandered the white political heritage. So the colored full-bloods stirred in their turn, and a new movement began which, if allowed to run its natural course, might result in complete de-Aryanization. In other words, the white race has been going back, and Latin America has been getting more Indian and negro for the past hundred years.
But history need not repeat itself in the north. A castizo America with a White nationalist deep state, or even just an outright White nationalist administration, would have a much easier task in upgrading a civic nationalist off-white country (Trumpism) than it would a left-wing colored majority one (Clintonism). If one looks at castizo America as merely a stage in the process of an Aryan revolution away from Hart-Celler's America, it becomes clear that the role of the government would be to whiten the country like 19th century Latin American regimes had attempted to do with mixed results (pardon the pun).
More food for thought: one astute Politico writer observed last year that "Donald Trump tweets like a Latin American strongman." I guess there is something to be said for the prediction that importing Hispanics would lead to Hispanic politics.
The critical task for White nationalists in this brave new America would be to promote the fertility of the more White above the less White and to acquire European immigrants from anywhere they can, for a very long period of time. Otherwise castizo will regress to mestizo, and so forth.
The good news is that racial stocks can be improved through breeding and immigration, just as those same policies have been used inversely to degenerate them. Demographics are (almost) destiny, and they can be manipulated by the state. Latin America is an abortive example of this, one which we need only to exceed in competence and will to execute upon. Hart-Celler Americans could go the way of the Indian, and in the future people may speak of being Korean or Mexican the same way senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) is an Amerindian.
The bad news is that this process takes a while. The population may also lose track of their mission after several generations, leaving us with an alienated mass of mocha-colored citizens who backslide into being anti-white multiculturalists. In order for Lothrop Stoddard to not always be right, White nationalists in the United States would have to do things differently than their predecessors south of the border.
The future may hold solutions we today consider fantasy--e.g. designer embryos, eugenics, and genetically enhancing the population--but we must be open to using the means we are furnished with and exploring those yet to be implemented. The fields of education and of genetic engineering will thus take on increasing importance for White nationalists should they find themselves at the helm of an off-white state. Secession is really not on the immediate horizon but an off-white majority, President Trump, and better technology are. That is now the starting premise for all practical nationalist thought (though LARPing will always persist). If civic nationalists help start to raise the wreck of America, White nationalists may find themselves in a position to refit her, to the mutual benefit of most Americans really. But if we have to scuttle her then so be it.
Otherwise as Vox Day has [hopefully jokingly] suggested, Chinese scientists may have to regrow White people in a lab. Let's not end up on the wrong end of a science fiction plot. To be clear, I don’t think Whites are doomed to go extinct within a timeframe that would still have the Chinese existing. But our mastery of the world died on the fields of France a century ago. We are only just beginning to rediscover the eternal struggle which for too long we have slumbered through as a people.
Also published at Atlantic Centurion.