Banal White Nationalism

“Banal White Nationalism” is a concept used by the anti-Confederate, SPLC affiliated activist Edward Sebesta. He uses it to describe White Americans with a vague, unarticulated sense of belonging to a larger White nation, who don’t endorse the concept of a White ethnostate, but perceive “degenerate liberals” and non-Whites as ‘the Other’. These people tend to think of themselves as conservatives and would be furious to find themselves labeled White Nationalists. Sebesta believes that “Explicit White Nationalism” is the activation of a much larger body of “Banal White Nationalism” in American society. He uses this language to attack a large cross section of the GOP base.

Why bring this up? Ever since Barack Obama was elected, Jews, negroes and White liberals have been quick to sniff out this phenomenon in the opposition, especially in the health care debate. Frank Rich has devoted a number of recent columns in the New York Times to the racial paranoia of angry white men. It is now common wisdom on the progressive left that the teabaggers, birthers, and town hall mobs are nothing more than a bunch of Banal White Nationalists who can’t stand the fact that a black man is president. This refrain is repeated over and over again.

Is there such a thing as Banal White Nationalism? Discuss.

About Hunter Wallace 12380 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent


  1. Sebesta is a racist, pure and simple. He hates whites, and he uses “banal” as a racial epithet. Are there whites who have a “vague, unarticulated sense of belonging to a larger White nation” and who “perceive ‘degenerate liberals’ and non-Whites as ‘the Other’”? Duh. That’s like saying, “Are there whites who can still think?” Their numbers are growing rapidly, too, and that’s what scares Sebesta. The game is about up.

  2. I think that what Sebesta is calling “Banal White Nationalism” is the same phenomena that you’ve identified in the past as crypto-racialism (i.e. the implicit Whiteness of American conservatism).

  3. I’m surprising myself by agreeing with Sebesta (though I’ve never heard of him). Who he refers to, yes, are the white masses that are now being radicalized. Call them what you will, they’re the ones who’ll be bringing the pitchforks and rope….

    What’s more interesting is HOW they are being radicalized, and what the vanguard can do to move this radicalization forward. We should closely examine the role of FOX News and “conservative” talk radio, because these two forms of mass media lead the way in the radicalization of these same whites – who we have to understand are muddleheaded about the role of the Jew in their society’s collapse. They can, however, see the more visible racial angles: the darkening of their living spaces, the election of a black president, illegal immigration, affirmative action, etc…..and these are the exact issues Limbaugh and Fox News play up on.

    The question is – will the vanguard take over and complete the radicalization of the white masses, or will the philosemites (which is what Fox and Limbaugh appear at this point to be) capture or split the WN movement? I think this is a very real danger. Like the thoughts and ideas now circulating amongst the vanguard regarding the formation of the white ethnostate; the hard work of radicalizing the white masses in the right direction is a major, practical issue that needs to be addressed.

  4. Yeah, I think he’s right. The Left knows the Right better than the Right knows itself.

    Same with that DOJ report on prospective terrorists being former military types and so on who might plot attacks on the police. The likes of Mike Vanderboegh were outraged – outraged! – at such baseless accusations, then turned right around and kept on discussing how best to overthrow the Evil Obamahitler types and their tools in law enforcement.

    (I am not a fan of modern US police forces, but I am not a hypocrite either)

  5. If one describes the term or preceives it as meaning “there is an ethnic solidarity, long slumbering, that still exists among European-Americans and current events are fanning the flames of that almost-dead ember, bringing about a chance, if current trends continue, of an explicit European-American poltical organization along the lines of the NAACP or LaRaza at the least, and perhaps even an explicitly pro-White poltical party and movement, arising and demanding a seat at the table since all other races and ethnicities have dumped “colorblindness”, leading Whites to re-assess the inherent meaning of the United States with regard to their future”…..

    then, yes, there is a “banal white nationalism”.

  6. There are whites who watch NASCAR and who dislike their day-to-day interactions with obvious non-whites.

    However, these whites often fail to distinguish between Jew and non-Jew.

    Thus there is great danger that banal white nationalism will be a tool of outsiders, just as banal black ghetto-pride became a tool that outsiders used to prevent blacks from waking up.

  7. Kevin MacDonald has written about it many months ago (NASCAR, GOP, etc. stuff White people like, although why they like the GOP is a mystery). A case of plagiarizing a hostile source.

  8. How about when 80% of Jews and 100 of Negroes vote for Obama…what is vote blocking if not an expression of ethnic sensibility. Would this fellow write something about ethnics looking out for their interests? No, for the likes of him it’s only evil when Whites do it. Bah, but this is so old that one doesn’t pay any attention to it anymore. Liberals, ethnic or otherwise, are animated by a profound hatred of Whites.

  9. I can’t say I disagree. ‘Banal White Nationalism’ is merely White Nationalism at stage one, in its infancy.

    The fact anti-White bigots such as Rich and Sebesta are devoting so many column inches to the phenomenon is testament to their profound fear. White people are waking up. The blossoming of White Nationalism is inevitable. It will manifest itself in a thousand ways, the Tea Party demonstrations being just one (harmless and public) example. There will be others, many of which will shock and inspire observers.

    Sebesta, I think, has made a name for himself over the years by attacking Southern Partisan. Typical left-wing commie anti-White arsehole.

  10. For whites the chief advantage of Obama over McInsane is The Magic Negro’s aversion to attacking Iran. McAnus would’ve attacked long ago; the Negro clearly has no interest whatsoever in going after Iran, some of his rhetoric notwithstanding.

  11. McCain would have attacked Iran and pushed through “comprehensive immigration reform.” The million or so White suckers who turned out in DC to protest Obama would have felt compelled to support him because he has an (R) beside his name.

  12. The use of the word banal is odd. The dictionary meaning of banal is “devoid of freshness or originality; hackneyed; trite”. That meaning does not fit this statement from BREAKING THE WHITE NATION:

    One is the public stereotypes of what white nationalism looks like and a general unawareness of white banal nationalism. The second is that Neo-Confederacy has largely been able to represent itself as banal and not explicit nationalism. Third, Neo-Confederacy is accommodated by banal white nationalism in the general public.

    More likely it is being used to evoke the holocaust context of Hanna Arendt’s “Banality of Evil“:

    Arendt states that aside from a desire for improving his career, Eichmann showed no trace of antisemitism or psychological damage. Her subtitle famously referred to the “banality of evil,” and that phrase is used quite abruptly as the final words of the final chapter. In part, at least, the phrase refers to Eichmann’s deportment at the trial, displaying neither guilt nor hatred, claiming he bore no responsibility because he was simply “doing his job” (“He did his duty…; he not only obeyed orders, he also obeyed the law.” p. 135).

    In other words, “banal White nationalist” means “angry confused senior Whites who are really evil jew-hating racists, even though they don’t explicitly think of themselves as White and don’t dare criticize jews.”

    “BREAKING THE WHITE NATION” is described like so:

    It is a plan to break the white nation and substitute for it a multiracial or should I say a non-racial nation. It is a proposed plan of action.

    The plan is genocide.

  13. ” It will manifest itself in a thousand ways, the Tea Party demonstrations being just one (harmless and public) example. There will be others, many of which will shock and inspire observers.”

    ‘Let a thousand flowers bloom’ — Chairman Mao.

    We are truly living in dynamic times! What will happen next? White filled Tea Parties, the Jews at the SPLC ranting about re-emergent White Miltias… Man this is great! It is great to be alive RIGHT NOW!

    It wouldn’t surprise me if ‘Crystal Night: the sequel’ occurred shortly…

  14. “Banal White Nationalism” translates as Whites are banal in my book. Ever been stuck in football traffic or run a marathon? Ever been to a Jimmy Buffet concert or to an Ozzfest? How about the Olympics? Ever been involved in renovating an entire city in anticipation of this month long orgy of national mindlessness? Does your teenager insist on looking like a circus clown in giant tent pants, sideways baseball hat, pneumatic shoes and a diamond stud in each ear? Ever been to a dog , boat or car show, or to a county fair? The White people at these events are as banal as a quarter mile of portable green plastic toilets. I really don’t think they can be counted on to man the barricades in a coming race war because they’ll all be off that day lining up for World Series tickets and tribal tattoos.

  15. This “Banal White Nationalism” probably won’t lead to anything productive unless large numbers of these people can be converted to open White Nationalism and WN becomes better organized. We saw the same kind of phenomenon in the early 90’s. It lead nowhere.

    Some of the people on Stormfront think that hostility to Obama’s health plan is a sign that a white nationalist revolution could happen any minute. That’s delusional thinking, but so many racially conscious Americans have unrealistic fantasies that some kind of crisis will sweep us into power, when we don’t even have an organizational structure or leaders.

  16. “Don’t ignore or underestimate the influence of game or chaos theory on future events.”

    Meaning what? That we should expect some crazy unforeseen scenario to take place that ends with WN in control of America. I’m not holding my breath.

  17. WHAT do you get when you combine the worst economic downturn since the Depression

    Premeditated and initiated by Jews.

    with the first black president?

    Yeah couldn’t leave this out for the 1,456,324th time.

    A surge of white racial resentment,

    A just response to the overwhelming and aggressive anti-white activism of recent years.

    loosely disguised as a populist revolt.”

    It clearly is a populist revolt, it needs no disguise. And meanwhile the anti-whites like this Ehrenreich will become more and more fanatical, which will in turn give our movement more force.

  18. That we should expect some crazy unforeseen scenario to take place that ends with WN in control of America.

    The Russian Revolution was a “crazy unforeseen scenario” which ended with the Jews and their degenerate ilk completely in control of Russia (and later, much of the Eastern Hemisphere). And yet the same is unthinkable, in your opinion, with regards to WN?

  19. Yes, because the Bolshevik party was a very tightly organized group with a very specific ideological foundation, a fanatical cadre of men willing to die for the cause and charismatic leaders.

    An analogy to WN would be if the various socialists in Russia had no political parties, no real organization of any kind, no clear cut ideology, no charismatic leaders, no support from influential elements of the world’s intelligentsia, no mass support from the elements of the population and weren’t dedicated enough to actually pick up a gun and start fighting in large numbers(not just one of two lone nuts every few years).

    They would probably not have been able to take over the country in those circumstances. The Bolsheviks just barely managed to pull it off with a many advantages over modern WN.

Comments are closed.