In my commentary on the Northwest Front, I alluded to my own preference for a Southern ethnostate, but I didn’t expand much on this idea. The South has several advantages over the Northwest as the location for the White ethnostate. In the present political climate, I won’t argue that a Southern ethnostate is a realistic possibility, as I find that outcome unlikely to materialize. Instead, I will argue solely that it would be easier to carve out an ethnostate in the South than in other parts of the United States.
1.) Racial Consciousness
Southerners are far more racially conscious than Whites in the Pacific Northwest. There are still millions of Americans who cling to traditional racial values. The majority of them live in the South. In Alabama, I would argue that at least 1 out of 2 Whites are racially conscious to some degree. The rest have a high degree of “implict whiteness” that could be activated in the right conditions. More Whites voted against Barack Obama in Alabama than in any other state.
The strongest argument for the South is that racialists have a base in the region. The South is a fertile area for in reach activism. There are millions of Southerners who agree with us on race who have never heard of White Nationalism because of the media blackout. We have more human material to work with. We have more people who are potentially receptive to our message.
In some states, creating a racialist majority is not outside the realm of possibility. David Duke almost won some important races in Louisiana in spite of his Neo-Nazi and Ku Klux Klan baggage. A cleaner candidate with a professionally run campaign could conceivably become Governor of a Southern state. The Council of Conservative Citizens already have sympathetic elected officials in the Mississippi state legislature.
2.) Political Correctness and Multiculturalism
Political correctness and multiculturalism have invaded Southern college campuses. Every SEC college has an Office of Diversity and Multiculturalism or its equivilant. I would argue though that PC and multiculturalism have weaker roots in the South than any other region. Universities are commonly fortresses of liberalism, but Southern college students tend to be apathetic or apolitical.
It is not uncommon for Southern fraternities to ridicule political correctness. A huge controversy at Ole Miss is brewing right now over being forced to choose a new PC mascot. Contrast Ole Miss with UC San Diego. Outside the liberal college towns, White Southerners are even more likely to hold political correctness and multiculturalism in contempt. It would be easier to overthrow both in the South than in the Northwest.
3.) Liberalism
At least rhetorically, the majority of White Southerners are opposed to liberalism. They voted against Barack Obama and have since flocked into the Tea Party movement. In contrast, the Seattle-Portland urban corridor in the Northwest is a progressive stronghold. Washington and Oregon have voted for the Democratic candidate in every presidential election since 1988.
White Southerners get most of the conservative social issues: abortion, multiculturalism, illegal immigration, affirmative action, welfare, crime. In the South, White Nationalists still have to move the goal posts, but we don’t have to move them as far as in the Northwest.
4.) Culture
As everyone knows, racialism has deeper roots in Southern culture than in any other region of the United States. The South was committed to white supremacy for three centuries. Residual traces of that heritage still exist in the South. These embers could potentially be stirred up into a bonfire again. It would be easier to do this in the South than in the Northwest. We have more material to work with.
5.) Ethnicity
The South is unique in that the great waves of European immigration tended to avoid the region. The vast majority of European immigrants settled in the Midwest, West, and New England. White Southerners have deeper roots in America. The typical Southerner is more likely to be descended (in whole or in part) from the original White settlers.
Millions of White Southerners now identify as “Americans” on the Census. Their families have been in America for so long that they have “gone native” and shed European ethnic affiliations. Southerners are more patriotic because they have more invested in the United States. When your ancestors fought in the American Revolution, Mexican War, Civil War, Spanish-American War, WW1, WW2, and Vietnam, naturally, you feel a greater sense of connection to America, its history and heritage, and its destiny.
I have no doubt that Southerners are more willing to fight for their idea of America. It would be easier to persuade them to fight for a White ethnostate because they have more to lose. After moving from Alabama to Virginia, I can still sense that I am living among my own people. The accents and culture are familar. White Southerners are an ethnic group that occupy a huge contiguous geographic region. Virginians and Alabamians are blood relatives only a few generations removed from a common stock.
In other parts of country, that just isn’t true. Poles live among Irish, Germans, and Italians. Southerners are related by blood, soil, history, climate, and culture. They move less often. We have more in common than the disparate other groups who live elsewhere in the United States. It would be easier to mobilize White Southerners around a common political goal. There are less obstacles in the way.
I love that line from The Good Shepherd where Joseph Palmi says, “Let me ask you something … we Italians, we got our familes, and we got the church; the Irish, they have the homeland; Jews, their tradition; even the niggers, they got their music. What about you people, Mr. Wilson, what do you have?” And Wilson responds, “We have the United States of America. The rest of you are just visiting.”
6.) Tradition
The idea of a White ethnostate originated in the South. Specifically, it can be traced back to the Upper South in states like Virginia and Kentucky where Whites often lamented the presence of blacks and yearned for the day when they would be spirited off to Africa. The history of the American Colonization Society is well known in racialist circles. Maryland and Virginia colonized thousands of their blacks in Liberia. After the Civil War, there was a renewed push to deport blacks to the Belgian Congo led by Senator Morgan of Alabama. Theodore Bilbo of Mississippi pushed the idea in Congress in the 1930s and 1940s.
7.) Actual Examples
The South has a history of ethnic cleansing. Famously, the Five Civilized Tribes were deported to Oklahoma from the Southeast under the Jackson and Van Buren administrations. After the Civil War, the Ozarks region of Arkansas expelled its negro residents and became a de facto White ethnostate. In the Great Migrations, half of the blacks in America relocated to the North rather than endure segregation and white supremacy in the Jim Crow South.
8.) Geographical Proximity
How would Southerners thread the needle of Greg Johnson’s dilemma? You can’t have strong racial consciousness without multiracialism, but you can’t have a White ethnostate by including non-Whites? The answer lies in geographic proximity: if a White ethnostate was created in proximity to a negro ethnostate, it would define its own identity in opposition to its African neighbor, in much the same way that Germany defined itself against France. A Southern ethnostate would prove more enduring.
9.) Separatism and Secession
The South is the only region of America that has ever seceded from the United States, fought a bloody war against the U.S. federal government, and existed as an independent country. The Jim Crow South was essentially granted “home rule” for over half a century. No other region of the United States has such a strong independent sense of identity.
Southerners alone have an ethnic and national identity to fall back on. However attenuated that identity may be, it still exists, and in the right conditions could potentially be reactivated. Secessionist groups already exist in the South. A stronger feeling of anti-government sentiment prevails in the region. Given their heritage, Southerners are more receptive to the idea of secession than other Americans.
10.) Building Blocks
The South has the building blocks of a potential White ethnostate. I’m referring to the White Belts that exist throughout the region. In these areas, Whites are 90% of the population or more, but heavily black areas are nearby and the focal point of racial consciousness. Historically, the White Belts have been notorious for their aversion to blacks.
In the South, racial separatism could take the form of a migration of Whites from the Black Belts to the White Belts. The spine of a Southern ethnostate stretches down the Appalachian Mountains from West Virginia to North Alabama. Large portions of North Alabama, North Georgia, East Tennessee, Western North Carolina, Eastern Kentucky, and West Virginia are relatively White. It would be sensible to salvage these areas. They would be easier for Southerners to relocate to than to the Northwest.
In an upcoming post, I will respond to some of the criticisms of a Southern ethnostate. These include Christianity, nationalism, economic dependence on blacks, the popularity of multiracial college football, devotion to the GOP, and the spread of miscegenation, multiculturalism, and political correctness in the region.
Regarding Northern and Central European preservation in North America:
A good compromise is to entail full and equal rights for all Whites; while, those worried about their children marrying a ‘swarthy’ Southern European get the right to a parental veto. Parents could veto a marriage between a “Nordic” daughter and an olive-skinned Sicillian or Southern Spaniard.
I am not even endorsing this, but maybe it’s a fair compromise?
” Women are not going to vote for polygyny, as men are not going to vote for polyandry.”
Right. I made, in my arguments, the case for overweighting the vote of a *married* woman — and her husband. (I presumed without specifically stating it — perhaps I should have — that it would be one woman married to one man.)
I do realize the potential compromise does have flaws, though-as I prefer to preserve White American unity.
Reginald,
You seem to use “Nordish” and “Nordic” interchangeably, which gives the wrong impression.
McCulloch on this subject:
Someone e-mailed me this thread and asked me to comment here, and I just finished going through it all now.
Physical Anthropology was the “creation myth” of NS Germany, Matt? Are you serious? Did Carleton Coon work for NS Germany? Were Woltmann and Hooton also Nazi conspirators?
In an earlier post, you acknowledged sub-racial differences as valid, and I understood your position to be one opposed to a divisive level of Nordic-determinism, and NOT opposed to Nordish preservationism in general. Now you say you oppose it in the American context, and follow up by claiming the science behind it is shoddy and implying that sub-races are not legitimate biological entities.
Please note that I’m not trying to mischaracterise your views or create a false dichotomy for you. I legitimately don’t see how you can recognise the reality of sub-racial differences while “opposing Nordish preservationism” but only “in the American context.”
Please clarify.
Reginald: “Madison Grant’s Passing of the Great Race (pp. 354-360) said that Welsh, Irish, and to a somewhat lesser extent Scottish and Western English people are intermediate between Nordics and Mediterraneans.”
Landser: “The more apropos question would be for a lot of you guys: How much of your British ancestry is indeed MED??”
Reality: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2008/09/geography-and-genetic-structure-in.html
Robert,
I think Matt is trying to solve or deal with the problem of Med and Slavic introgression by promoting his “White American Tribe” memeplex. I can understand what he’s trying to do, and I don’t really have a problem with it provided it ultimately serves the greater goal of Nordish preservation.
Robert,
I’m speaking only in the American context. I’m certainly not suggesting that I would force Nordish Americans to marry outside of their sub-racial group. I’m saying that segregating the Nordish sub-race (or any other sub-race) from the emergent White American ethnonational entity would be politically and strategically foolish.
Are you saying Nordish people should be amalgamated into some giant, pan-European racial soup of “Whiteness,”[…]?
Yes. America is a pan-European racial soup of Whiteness. We need to focus on thinking of ourselves as a people while there’s still time. It’s understandable that my approach would be seen as some sort of Universalism Lite. It’s not. It’s an attempt at uniting as a new tribe, the White American tribe, to face the challenges which await us.
It’s no different than the Angles and Saxons uniting against a common enemy or the Nordic and Alpinic Germans setting aside their craniometric considerations to be Germans. It’s consistently tribalist and ethnonationalist, while being compatible with the contemporary situation. Tribes merge and separate over time. There’s nothing universalist in arguing that this particular tribe ought to be comprised of multiple related tribes merging into one.
Jews benefit from masquerading as White Americans and enjoy the benefits of shared tribal identity without reciprocating. Those who would maintain a Nordish identity in White America would similarly enjoy the benefits of shared tribal identity without reciprocating. Insisting that the people involved identify as a nation, a whole nation, and nothing but a nation is the quintessence of principled ethnic nationalism.
This is not a theoretical concern. There are people at this blog working toward restoring a White American nation and there are people at this blog who benefit from their efforts while planning to exclude them. The threat of political cuckoldry and pervading sense that they’re regarded as “less White” affects the morale and motivation of the tens of millions of White Americans who are at least fractionally something other than Nordish.
If you wish to embrace an exclusively Nordish identity, then I’m not opposed to that. In fact, I’m glad to offer you a fictional sovereign state in my fictional future’s fictional partition of the former United States. But I believe that a choice must be made between either being a Nordish Nationalist or a White American Nationalist. I believe that you should be explicit about your Nordish tribal identity and I believe that the White American movement should discourage the inclusion of Nordicists just as Nordicists discourage the inclusion of Slavs.
Matt,
The point of a broader White American entity is to unite against our common enemies and defeat them. Not to sing kumbaya, mix indiscriminately, and destroy every sub-race and sub-type following victory. If they are truly committed to the White race and its survival, the opportunity to unite against our common enemies and finally defeat them should be sufficient. Some lecherous Med who makes his loyalty and support conditional upon whether he has continued access to Nordic females obviously has other priorities and interests in mind ahead of the ultimate goal of the survival of the White race.
Blake: “Some lecherous Med who makes his loyalty and support conditional upon whether he has continued access to Nordic females obviously has other priorities and interests in mind ahead of the ultimate goal of the survival of the White race.”
We are not even talking about laws making it illegal for “Nords” and “Meds” to intermarry. We are discussing whether there should be a completely different nation in the US exclusively for “Nords.”
My question is, how is somebody obligated to support an ethostate that will exclude him?
blake,
Those who genuinely perceive Meds, Balts, and/or Slavs as lecherous weasels hellbent on Danish muffins, who see them in terms that derisive and otherish, would be uneasy with the White American tribe that I’m proposing. You’re envisioning an entirely different nation – one with an entirely different stock of people, set of myths, and probably even religion.
You’re absolutely correct that we should all unite in pursuit of our common goal. But that unity would need to be at arm’s length with those who would wish to expel a subset of us. We would need separate leadership, separate propaganda, and (eventually) separate living space.
I’m not looking to get too deeply into the white sub-racial debate, but I’ll offer a few thoughts on the matter. I realize that my solutions tend to sidestep some of the concerns that have been expressed here, but I think they are workable. Further, if we are to have our ethnostate, I think they are largely inevitable. My postion is something of a bridge. I definitely support the idea of the emerging White Tribe, a Tribe in its own right. American whites are in fact emerging as a new white ethny, and I don’t see this as a bad thing at all. However, that American white ethny has been predominantly Northern European, and should remain so. As such, you might say that I’m an advocate of a “regathering” of European peoples into a new tribe in North America, but with a definite Nordish bias (I’ll note that I hope the various White tribes in Europe maintain themselves as distinct peoples). My position has the added benefit of, more or less, corresponding to the reality of the situation. In that spirit, a few thoughts:
1. The Immigration Act of 1924 had it pretty much right. The emerging white tribe in North America has traditionally been, and should remain, predominantly of Northern European stock. Therefore, immigration to the coming white nation should reflect this. Immigration from Northern Europe encouraged, allowed in more limited amounts from elsewhere. Hot blondes from Eastern Europe ALWAYS welcome (sorry, had to throw that in). This would, de facto, preserve and enhance the dominant Nordish character of our tribe.
2. Just as we look back on the past, we must look to the future. DNA testing is, ultimately, an inevitability – white ethnostate or not. The advantages of widespread DNA testing is already proving enormous, for everything from paternity testing to screening for genetic defects. Again, this is going to happen with our without our ethnostate, so I’m not exactly breaking new ground here. There is no reason why we can’t harness this expanding technology for our own purposes. At the end of the day, we’re going to need a genetic dividing line on what counts as “white.” This may or may not be tough to draw, but it will have to be done. I don’t see any way around it (see caveats below). Yes, I advocate that the standard be pretty damn strict – the goal should be no detectable non-white admixture at all. As close as we can reasonably get to that at the very least. So for those Meds – or anyone else, for that matter – who actually have significant levels of non-white blood (some do, some don’t), the DNA test will take care of that problem. Those with significant mixture will not be allowed to immigrate. Those that are already here will remain as citizens in good standing, but will not qualify for generous parental subsidies for passing on mixed blood. Instead, they WOULD qualify for generous parental subsidies for NOT passing on mixed blood (whether by not having children at all, or using in vitro, or whatever – just don’t pass the crap on). To repeat, such Meds would still be citizens in good standing, with no legal disability whatsoever. Nobody but their chosen doctor, spouse, and the marriage/subsidy office (there should be very strict privacy laws on this matter) need to know, or should know. No employer should be allowed this information. We aren’t looking to make them second class citizens, but we aren’t going to pay for them to pass on their misfortune. Which brings me to the next point…
3. We are going to need a generous pronatalism policy to reverse not only our low birthrates, but the failure of our better elements to even meet the already too low average birthrate. In a sane society, this must lead to at least a de facto eugenics program. If we are to have generous family subsidies, are we to subsidize stupidity? Criminality? Serious hereditary disease? Why subsidize that? Why subsidize mixed genes either? No sane white society would subsidize misfortune in that way, and we hope to establish a sane society. If we are going to spend the big bucks, we will inevitably need standards on how to spend them – thus de facto eugenics. Those with the misfortune of mixed blood would be given every opportunity to NOT pass their mixed genes into the next generation, just as would those with serious genetic defects, etc. Again, these peoples’ privacy must be maintained, but we should not subsidize folly. Instead, we should provide them with a host of other options. It’s ultimately up to them what they want to do.
4. It should be a given that all sperm and egg donors be genetically screened to eliminate any measurable non-white admixture, not to mention being drawn from the top ten percent of the population in terms of health, intelligence, and character. God only knows what people are getting these days, one shutters to think. As part of this eugenics approach, procedures such as artificial insemination, in vitro, preimplantation genetic screening, and so forth should be FREE to all whites (I never said this would be cheap). All whites who wish to do so should be able to use this technology, not just the upper classes as is the case today. And for those with an unfortunate genetic pedigree, they should be paid an extra premium to utilize these technologies (or simply not reproduce at all) so as to not pass their misfortune on to future generations. This will surely dramatically reduce the passing of any non-white genes into the next generation. And since no immigrant with non-white admixture would be allowed, by definition no new non-white genes will be added into the pool. The negligible amount that is already there will be steadily reduced, perhaps quite rapidly. We don’t have to ruin the lives of otherwise decent whites in order to accomplish this, nor do we need to become a police state.
I might go into more detail in a future post, but that gives the general idea. What it boils down to, as I said at the beginning, is supporting an emerging American white ethny with a definite Nordish bias. This has been the historical reality of our people on this continent, and there is no reason why it shouldn’t continue.
However, I should also clarify what I’m NOT talking about above. I’m not talking about Gattaca or Brave New World. Opponents could easily take what I’ve written out of context in order to create a false impression. Instead, what I am advocating is well within the American historical tradition, but also utilizes new technologies that are on the rise anyway.
This isn’t your grandaddy’s eugenics with massive forced sterilization. That sort of thing is not desirable or necessary. Mostly the new eugenics will simply be about making technology available for all whites, not just the well to do. Also ensuring that the donors are of high quality, thus encouraging a gradual spread of higher quality white genes throughout the population.
And, just to be clear, no Med – even with detectable non-white ancestry – who is already part of the American nation would be booted out. He would simply be subject to the voluntary policies and incentives above. Our enemies love to paint us as DNA testing freaks eager to send someone to a concentration camp for the slightest non-white characteristic. That is most assuredly not what I’m talking about, and anyone who advocates that sort of thing is probably our enemy. I’ll also note that, from what I hear, the current generation of DNA tests are not all that great, and sometimes give ridiculous results. A sane eugenics program requires a reliable test that can provide the information that is required. Not sure we are there yet, but if not, we soon will be.
Trainspotter,
Many good points. Deep thoughts.
However, no matter how benevolently you treat the explicitly submissive and inferior Whites under your plan, you’re still declaring them submissive and inferior. The political reality is that our enemies would be eager to chip off as many chunks of our coalition as possible to turn against us. In fact, they’ve been doing this feverishly: chipping off the Irish, the Catholics, the Eastern and Southern Europeans, the females, the homosexuals, the union laborers, and so forth.
This refusal to vividly recognize the nature of the struggle and work to build a coalition has resulted in our current predicament: Being reduced to a handful of straight Nordish males. And why would females choose our team when our opponents are offering them equality and liberation from responsibility while we’re spitting venom at them? Why would homosexuals choose our team when many of us would prefer them dead? Why would union laborers choose our team when many of us entertain libertarian fantasies of turning the multinational corporations loose to do as they wish with the working class White men trying to support their families? Why would an Italian-American sign on to be a second-class citizen under your regime which is explicitly working to phase him out with economic hardships?
America is a pan-European racial soup of Whiteness.
No.
http://racehist.blogspot.com/2008/08/discrepancy-between-recent-european.html
…Some lecherous Med who makes his loyalty and support conditional upon whether he has continued access to Nordic females obviously has other priorities and interests in mind ahead of the ultimate goal of the survival of the White race. -blake
—
Hey Thor, just exactly what is your sub-racial background??
The Boasians started off by denying intra-European racial differences and attacking Nordicists like Madison Grant.
Trainspotter,
Excellent post. I concur with much of what you’ve written and I appreciate your emphasis on positive eugenics. Far too many WN play into the enemy’s hands by discussing compulsory sterilisation, euthanasia, etc.
Matt,
The media would have us believe that all Whites have mixed themselves into (White) Universalist oblivion, but this is simply not true; the majority of Middle Americans are still of Celtic or Germanic heritage, and large ethnic enclaves of Whites in America have been preserved to this day. I have some statistics on that, which I used to buttress an argument in an essay I penned a couple years ago, and I’ll try to dig it up and post it here.
If we choose to safeguard our unique cultural/ethnic identity, we should have the right to do, and your claim that Nordish preservationism would create dual identity issues similar to those found among Jews strikes me as a completely unfounded fear-mongering. Nordish preservationism is not about Chauvinism, or 19th century nationalism, or Nordic Supremacy, but rather entails preserving true HBD across the board. I argue that Nordish people are superior to other Whites in one respect, and in one respect only: reproducing other Nordish people.
Some personal history for context: I am not a deracinated “American” and I have never thought of myself as such. All 8 of my great grandparents were from the British Isles, and as a child I was often regaled with stories of banshees running wild in Scottish castles near the birthplace of my great grandmother. Although she’s been dead for over 15 years, I can still hear her sweet brogue resonating in my ears with magical tales of the old country. My grandfather was a Chaucer scholar who taught at a local University and would read Beowulf* aloud to me in Old English quite frequently, sparking my early interest in all things Germanic. My point is, I was raised with a strong sense of cultural/ethnic identity, of who I am and where I came from. I am not simply White; I am Northernkind and damn proud of it.
I don’t have any objection to your “American tribe” notion. It’s a bit ahistorical, but it could be a useful vehicle for generating racial consciousness and social cohesion. The lack of a common culture/heritage/identity has always precluded such cohesion and made it impossible for America to become a true nation. Such artificial nation-states are bound to failure by their very nature, which is why the USA will eventually be partitioned by separatists of different races. You cannot simply decree that you are creating a tribe, without the requisite bonds of blood, and expect success.
Trainspotter’s suggestions above are eminently reasonable, and I planned to respond with a very similar post, which he saved me the trouble of drafting. In my opinion, policies such as he outlines would be fair to Whites across the board: non-Nordish Whites aren’t left out in the cold, and Nordish people aren’t bastardised out of existence or forced to abandon their identity.
We will just have to agree to disagree on this, Matt. You can visit my sovereign Nordish state as long as you promise to leave Diablo Blanco and the other “lecherous Meds” at home. haha
“Europe is kein geographischer, sondern ein blutmäßig bedingter Begriff.” – AH
(Europe is not merely a geographical term, but rather a concept defined by blood.)
*My grandfather would also read Horace in Latin rather frequently, but I am less inclined to view that as an atavistic expression of racial acuity 😉
I wonder what will be done with British Americans of Mediterranean racial descent in Nordistan?
@222,
I assume you are talking about Atlantids, or Atlanto-Mediterraneans:
http://amorsite.110mb.com/index-filer/AtlantoMediterraneans.htm
Such people are peripheral Nordish types and they are assimilable into the Nordish racial core. Here is McCulloch explaining this by way of a simple assimilation scale:
It has been my experience that those pushing the “British people are actually descended from Mediterranean megalithic builder” meme are usually politically motivated and more interested in undermining the Nordish identity of the English than they are in pursuing truth. I tend to agree with Karl Earlson on the subject anyway:
My question is, how is somebody obligated to support an ethostate that will exclude him?
I support ethnostates for blacks, Jews, Hispanics, Mediterraneans, East Asians, and so on, even though those states will exclude me. I support the rights of other races to preserve themselves. It is a matter of reciprocity.
I was asked by someone in another thread, which I can’t find right now, to explain my own racial ancestry and where I would fit into McCulloch’s racial analysis. I am not sure how that is relevant to my arguments, or why anyone wants to know, but I have nothing to hide in that regard and I’m happy to answer the question:
According to phenotype, I am 100% Central Nordish. I am of English (primarily Anglo-Saxon, not Norman), Scottish, and Irish descent. Mr. McCulloch has told me that I am a slightly diffuse, generalised Nordish type corresponding most strongly to the Brünn category, a type that is very common in the British Isles and used to be very common in America as well. I am in the “2 — More Distinct” category on McCulloch’s Scale of Northern European Racial Assimilability, which I quoted above.
My fiance has an archetypal Fälisch appearance and comes in at “1 — More Distinct” on that scale, according to the man himself.
Trainspotter,
McCulloch is not only a brilliant man, but he’s also extremely warm, accessible, and generous with his time. I spent many hours picking his brain and it certainly paid dividends. If you ever have the chance to meet Richard or hear him speak, you won’t regret making the trip.
MGLS,
Indeed. We shouldn’t have to explain to *fellow nationalists* why people have a right to self-determination.
Matt, I understand where you are coming from. Your concerns are valid, and I share them. It’s true that some white nationalists have made it incredibly easy for our enemies to pry many of our natural allies away from us.
However, I think it is quite possible for us to create a real vision, a true vision, that would be very appealing to women, union workers, etc. Both white women and white union workers would be immeasurably better off with a white ethnostate than without it. Immeasurably. But for them to see this, we need a powerful, appealing vision. Once a dominant and positive vision emerges, including a viable platform of specific proposals, then the saboteurs will be neutralized. Unfortunately, for the time being, they can still muck things up. That will continue to be the case until we have a strong movement with a life of its own. Until that time, anybody can play barracks room lawyer, tinpot dictator, or wannabe Aristotle – and pretty much have as loud a voice as the next guy who actually has some sense. In time, that will change, and certain agreed upon principles will spread.
Part of the problem is that we are still in the critique phase, and are just getting started on the vision phase. Coming to the conclusion that we will require a land of our own was the first, essential step. This step has only been made fairly recently. Now we’ve got to create a vision for that ethnostate, we’ve got to flesh things out. We’ve got to start moving past critique and into creating a real alternative.
As I’ve written here before, I’m not terribly interesting in dealing with no win situations. For example, there will always be white homosexuals. Expel one group, another will be born with the next generation. Why bother? I’m not interested in never ending witch hunts, and I don’t think most whites are either.
But some issues we simply have to deal with, we can’t dodge them. Naturally, if we are talking about a “white” ethnostate, we must come face to face with what constitutes white. It’s the eight hundred pound gorilla in the room. It seems reasonable, even inevitable, that a white ethnostate would pursue policies that discourage the spread of non-white genes amongst its folk. We don’t have to tell people this…they already KNOW it. They know it because it only makes sense. What’s the point of having a white ethnostate if you don’t do that? No matter what we say, people are going to assume that’s what we want to do. In your case they might be wrong. In my case they are right.
So our challenge is to devise policies that are humane and reasonable. For example, I have no reason to believe that I am anything other than of purely European descent – mostly Scottish and German, some English thrown in. But if I found out that I had non-white ancestry, I would certainly be willing to consider alternatives to passing those genes on. So long as my privacy were protected, I don’t think I would see myself as a second class citizen. No career opportunities would be closed to me. I would not be made into a pariah. Almost nobody would know, and then only people I chose to tell. Yes, I might face some tough decisions, but they would be personal in nature. I don’t see that as a horror show. I see that as life. But Matt, you’re right, it’s a tough issue. I’m not claiming that what I wrote above is the final word in the matter, not at all. But I do think that some of the things that I covered are going to be a big part of the conversation, and some may even be inevitable. We’ll see.
I’ll also mention that, paradoxically, my vision on this is in part intended to allow us a bigger tent upfront. We can more readily allow that mostly white guy, who clearly has some Amerind ancestry, to be a part of the white ethnostate especially if we know that gradually the non-white genes will be washed out. Again, I realize this is a tough issue and will not be easy to explain.
And yes, even discussing these matters certainly opens us up to the standard line, a line that is used against us anyway, that only those with blonde hair and blue eyes are “Aryans.” Of course this is ridiculous, but we still have to counter it.
We need to make it clear that all whites in America are welcome in the coming white American ethnostate. Nobody who is on our side is going to be booted out because some non-white ancestry is found. David Lane’s looks white, acts white, fights white should be good enough for existing American whites. No American white need fear that he won’t make the cut. We must make this clear.
I realize that it may be a fine line, but I don’t think that this big tent approach necessarily precludes us from trying to do better over time, as with immigration policy and generous subsidies for those who choose not to pass on non-white genes. Frankly, it would be best not to go into this at all until we actually have an ethnostate. But is hiding our true agenda (if indeed this ends up being our agenda) worth it? Are we to be dishonest?
I’ll be frank. If dishonesty is what it takes to get an ethnostate, I’ll be dishonest. But I’d rather not. Not just because it doesn’t sit well with me at a gut level, and not just because it is dishonorable. But also because I think that we will be stronger as an honest movement without hidden agendas. However it may hurt us in some obvious ways, a strong and honest movement with a compelling vision will BELIEVE in itself, and that we need more than most things. We need that more than temporary advantage.
It should be noted that when I speak of honesty, I am referring mostly to non-hostiles. To our enemies, no honesty is required.
Anyway, this whole thing is going to take some skill, and we really haven’t come up with the winning message yet, but I think it’s doable. What I wrote above was meant for internal consumption, not external. Not that I’m trying to hide anything, and I don’t mind external eyes reading it. I just don’t think I’ve come up with the best way to present it to a wider audience. At some point we have to come up with better articulated material that can properly address matters to a wider audience, while remaining honest and true. Again, some issues you just can’t dodge. Nobody ever said this would be easy.
“McCulloch is not only a brilliant man, but he’s also extremely warm, accessible, and generous with his time. I spent many hours picking his brain and it certainly paid dividends. If you ever have the chance to meet Richard or hear him speak, you won’t regret making the trip.”
Richard, that is good to know. I hope that my criticisms of his map haven’t overshadowed my great respect for him. He is indeed brilliant, and I’d love to have an opportunity to speak to him. Maybe that will happen someday, but I’ve already learned much from him.
MGLS,
The Boasians started off by denying intra-European racial differences and attacking Nordicists like Madison Grant.
This post is the latest in a habit you have of implying bad faith. Please either accuse me of something or shut up. Thank you.
Robert,
I believe it’s a bit unfair of you to continue to refer to my vision of a White American ethny as “universal” and “deracinated”, especially after I’ve taken such pains to frame it in strictly ethnonational terms. I respect your unique heritage and don’t wish to relieve you of it. But I don’t believe that the very splintered patchwork of parochial fiefdoms you’re proposing has any real hope of threatening modernity or Jewish Supremacy.
I agree that we’ll probably just have to disagree and I’ll take pains to avoid friendly fire. I think we’re all benefiting from airing out and working through this concern.
Sorry, meant to to say “Thanks, Robert.” Getting late, you know.
Trainspotter,
You should keep in mind that quality of life is not a prime motivator. History proves over and over again that people prefer sovereignty and power over wealth and welfare. I would rather be my own man in a mold-rotted trailer than a second-class citizen in a luxury suite. Your claim that people would be better off under your model is probably true. I don’t really dispute that. But I think they would still rebel against it if they were judged to be inferior and lacked control of their destiny.
As for defining Whiteness in America, I contend that the net should be cast over White Americans of European descent who appear to be entirely descended from European peoples. It would catch some who are less than completely pure, but I believe that a White American ethnostate which is ruled by a benevolent indigenous elite would figure out how to implement practical policies to ensure a generally eugenic effect.
Another excellent post, Trainspotter.
Yockey said that the coming Imperium would not destroy the old nation-states and the peoples that created them — rather, it would affirm them in the highest sense — but they would be viewed as building blocks, and would no longer occupy our primary focus; we would no longer allow outmoded nationalist concerns to distract us from the bigger picture and preclude us from pursuing our greater collective destiny. I think this could be a good middle-ground to stake out with regard to our sub-racial situation here as well: people should remember who they are, but they must be willing to work with their racial cousins outside the Nordish racial core in order to achieve common goals.
There really are some among us — even intelligent, long-term activists — who truly ARE raging Nordicists. Robert Frenz, for example, believed that anyone who was not thoroughly depigmented (blond & blue/grey) were racially bastardised mongrels. I had some lengthy debates with him on this subject, and I was astounded that a man of his intellect and erudition could ascribe to such an absurd premise, but he really did.
However, the vast majority of Nordish preservationists, and even those who believe in Nordic-determined social policy, are sensible people who are not arguing anything of that sort. We’re not saying that we won’t unite with other Europeans to face out-group threats (we MUST do this), we’re just saying that we intend to remain who we are, ethnically and culturally, and we plan to bestow those gifts to our children.
If you try to strip us of our identity, to say that it doesn’t matter, it’s a slippery slope to complete Boasian race denial. After all, why not include negroes who feel that they are part of the “American tribe?” Aren’t we limiting ourselves by not doing so? What if they like Norman Rockwell and speak proper English?
When someone declares, “I am an American,” they are saying that they are citizens of the ZOG government of the United States, and nothing more than that. It has no ethnic or cultural implications. What is American culture? Who is the “American Tribe?” Most people will think you’re talking about Red Indians if you mention tribes in the American concept. Americans don’t think in tribal terms, because they’re not a true folk.
Americans have not had a relatively homogeneous population for quite some time. When it did have one, it was a Northwestern European population, which is something that you acknowledge, so this notion of an American tribe eludes me.
Matt,
I’m sorry if you feel my characterisations are unfair, but I am not deliberately misrepresenting you. I am legitimately trying to understand exactly where you’re coming from, how you define this “American Tribe,” and what steps you would take, if any, to stifle the assertion of Nordish racial identity, which you seem to view as a threat to the cohesion of said American Tribe?
If I am misinterpreting you, and you do not wish to take any such steps to strip Northern Europeans of their cultural and genetic legacy, then I have no problem with your suggestions and I would support many of them.
I don’t see this as friendly fire, but as a matter of essential hermeneutic, which we should be hammering out amongst ourselves in this way.
Once we have already come to understand each other on this issue, continued argument on the matter would be counterproductive, but right now I’m still genuinely trying to grasp your intentions. I’ve been reading your book, but I haven’t seen much on this theme of the American tribe developed.
Bear with me here, Matt, I’m not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
Speaking of America’s profound dearth of tribal identity, here is an interesting piece by Horst Mahler on the Fall of the Judeo-American Imperium:
I disagree with much of what Mahler writes here, but some of it is very insightful and I can certainly see why he was imprisoned. The piece was originally penned in German, so forgive the limitations of the translation.
This post is the latest in a habit you have of implying bad faith. Please either accuse me of something or shut up. Thank you.
Touchy, are we? A simple statement of historical fact (in a comment which neither addressed you, mentioned you, nor quoted a comment by you) is neither “implying” you are a Boasian nor “accusing” you of something. It is baffling that you could interpret it that way.
The point is that the denial of the reality of intra-European racial differences leads down the road to the denial of human races.
I think accusing physical anthropologists of practicing shoddy science and dishonestly using science to cloak their real goal of creating NS myths is an accusation much worse than anything I have “implied” on this thread.
As Mark said: “You complain about being called politically correct and using liberal memes, but then you keep providing more examples!”
Touchy, are we? A simple statement of historical fact (in a comment which neither addressed you, mentioned you, nor quoted a comment by you) is neither “implying” you are a Boasian nor “accusing” you of something. It is baffling that you could interpret it that way.
Matt doth protest too much.
But I believe that a choice must be made between either being a Nordish Nationalist or a White American Nationalist. I believe that you should be explicit about your Nordish tribal identity and I believe that the White American movement should discourage the inclusion of Nordicists just as Nordicists discourage the inclusion of Slavs.
White is relative to the native population, and for White North Americans, Nordish nationalism is White nationalism, as that’s who created our country, populated it, and still are the majority of Whites.
Slavic people are not being singled out, there are Nords among them.
It’s interesting that some of the same people who are telling us that Northern European racial preservation is too divisive are also heavily promoting polygyny, extolling sharia law, and praising the greatness of Muslim and Middle Eastern civilization and society.
Goes back to what I said in a prior thread, some here are more Semitic in their nature than Occidental.
Some lecherous Med who makes his loyalty and support conditional upon whether he has continued access to Nordic females obviously has other priorities and interests in mind ahead of the ultimate goal of the survival of the White race.
That’s amusing and true.
It’s similar to the reaction you get from non-whites and blacks, who become paranoid and enraged merely because you want to segregate your people from them and preserve your heritage. You deny them access to your women and they feel a sense of inferiority. Now, why don’t whites have this same reaction? Likewise, why do Mediterraneans behave in the same way when Northern Europeans want to preserve their own? I think we all know the truth.
Robert,
I believe that White Americans are a valid nationality with valid group interests. You believe that Nordish Americans are a valid nationality with valid group interests.We can agree to disagree on this.
I’m not threatening you or your identity. I’m not telling you what you can or can’t do. I’m not saying that Nordish Americans with Nordish identities must submit to my authority. What I am saying, though, is that it’s unfair for Nordish Nationalists to join White Nationalist organizations then push a Nordicist agenda within those organizations.
They’re going to need to establish their own parallel movement.
They consider themselves “more American” than non-Nordish White Americans. They openly plot devising systems where Meds and Slavs are allowed to exist, but are sanctioned against breeding in their future regime. They accuse Meds of being in it for the Nordish chicks. They badger people about their sub-racial heritage then use it against them if it’s not Nordish. They imply that their political loyalty is “White American” and for a “White Nation”, but one learns later that this is merely a flag of convenience. The non-Nordish Whites will be dealt with after the non-White and Jewish problems have been dealt with.
Now, I know you haven’t done any of the impolite things I’ve named above. But they’re happening all around us. You keep wondering whether I’m going to stand in the way of you and your ethnic identity. I’m not. But I want to know where those of us with a White American identity stand. The “About” at this site would lead an Italian-American to assume he’s welcome here and in the White Nationalist movement, as does the A3P banner below.
Is he? Is he a full and equal partner here? As this is an intellectual collective, it’s not really necessary for us to come to a complete agreement on this. But in my activist work, I will not invest my time or energy in a movement which fails to manifest my (perhaps delusional) vision of an emergent White American nationality. I will not abide people dividing up my meetings by declaring that this White sub-race is less welcome in our group than that one.
I won’t drive across town to the monthly Nordish Preservationist Club meetings and demand that they include my friend of Czech descent. I won’t get in the way of Nordicists. I’ll be glad to collaborate with them at arm’s length. But I’m not one of them and I’m rightfully anxious about working with them due to their record of being unwelcoming toward White Americans who don’t share their particular sub-racial heritage.
What I am saying, though, is that it’s unfair for Nordish Nationalists to join White Nationalist organizations then push a Nordicist agenda within those organizations.
Why would it be unfair when the vast majority in white nationalist organizations are Nordish? It would rather be unfair not to acknowledge it just to comfort a minority who aren’t.
Is it unfair for Mediterraneans and non-Brits in Britain that the BNP advocates for their native population? This doesn’t mean they’re enemies.
Just as conservatives are implicitly white, white American nationalists are implicitly Nordish. We shouldn’t be explicit about it because it hurts the feelings of the minorities is what you’re saying.
Robert,
Mark has been kind enough to demonstrate the mindset which many who claim to be White Nationalists have. They believe that White Nationalism is merely a euphemism for Nordish Supremacism. They believe that those who draw the circle at a racial rather than sub-racial boundaries are politically correct dissimulators with Semitic mindsets. They believe that non-Nordish White Nationalists are in it for the chicks.
They foster an environment which is hostile to the development of a White American movement.
The issue ought to be resolved so that Meds and Slavs know where they stand, know whether they’re welcome.
Mark,
You’re not merely implicitly Nordish. You foster an environment which is threatening to non-Nordish White Nationalists. You can try to push me into the Political Correctness corner by pretending that I’m all about avoiding hurt feelings or whatever. My case is simply that people like you are hostile to non-Nordish White Nationalists and Nordish White Nationalists who wish to welcome non-Nordish White Nationalists into the coalition. It is what it is.
They believe that White Nationalism is merely a euphemism for Nordish Supremacism.
Oh, so now I’m a supremacist. Who does that sound like? Another exhibit admitted to evidence.
My case is simply that people like you are hostile to non-Nordish White Nationalists and Nordish White Nationalists who wish to welcome non-Nordish White Nationalists into the coalition.
So merely advocating for subracial preservation means I’m hostile to others? Come on, Matt, you’re making this too easy.
I’m not against a political coalition at all, I’m for it.
I don’t see ethnic and subracial preservation as hostile or counterproductive to white nationalism as a whole.
Is the National Italian American Foundation hostile to white nationalism? Should I feel insulted? Not at all, I’m glad they honor their heritage.
Mark,
To the extent that the NIAF would seek to get in the way of developing and rallying around a White American identity, I do think it’s an obstacle to my objective. However, the statements from you and others aren’t merely affirmations of your heritage – they’re attacks on non-Nordish White Americans. It doesn’t really get more “us and them” than being alarmed that the “them” are lusting after our women.
If some Italian American were to come here and start going on about how his people discovered America and established the Roman Empire from which our Western Civilization is derived, it would be one thing. If he started going on about how the rest of us are barely civilized barbarians with vulgar tastes and mannish women, about how the future regime would allow Nords but with practical steps taken to assure they don’t run the regime or reproduce, then I would have the same objection that I’m having, now.
If some Italian American were to come here and start going on about how his people discovered America and established the Roman Empire from which our Western Civilization is derived, it would be one thing. If he started going on about how the rest of us are barely civilized barbarians with vulgar tastes and mannish women, about how the future regime would allow Nords but with practical steps taken to assure they don’t run the regime or reproduce, then I would have the same objection that I’m having, now.
I’ve heard something similar to this before actually. 🙂 It doesn’t bother me because it’s just false bravado. They’re living in our countries for a reason.
Like I said, thankfully the Latins didn’t colonize North America or they would have made a mongrelized mess of it like they did in South/Central America, which we’re being invaded by now.
I disagree that honoring the heritage of America’s founding stock and Northern European racial preservation in general is inherently hostile to others. NIAF is not hostile to non-Italians. This sort of knee-jerk reaction is typical of the anti-white, leftist media.
blake,
I would like to ask you again for the second time: What is your sub-ethnic AND sub-racial background?
Mark,
I would like to ask you as well: What is your ethnic and sub-racial background?
Mark,
I disagree that honoring the heritage of America’s founding stock and Northern European racial preservation in general is inherently hostile to others.
I’m not manufacturing or hallucinating the hostility and sense of superiority commonly exhibited in American WN circles toward Meds. You concur out of one side of your mouth that the non-Nords are lechers perving on our girls, then, out of the other side of your mouth, offer this politically correct sophistry about merely wishing to preserve your sub-racial diversity.
Once one becomes a consistent ethnonationalist, a neo-tribalist, one must find where to draw the circle. You, Robert, blake, and many others in the movement appear to have ethnonational identities which are either slightly (in your case) or dramatically (in Robert’s case) more parochial than the term “White American” or “European American” would typically define.
I don’t object to that. But you must see the compatibility problem from a simple game theory perspective. We White American Nationalists are unconditionally loyal to you while you’re only conditionally loyal (and often hostile) to us. It’s the whole “dual loyalties” thing. Jews claim to be Americans, Israelis, animals, minerals, or vegetables, as it suits them. They benefit from the loyalty and altruism they receive while refusing to reciprocate.
Your right to exclude Meds and Slavs comes with our right to exclude Nordish Separatists from our group/tribal identity. And why would we wish to do that? The first and obvious reason is that you, both generally and specifically, harass and disrespect key groups we desire the support of. The second reason, which even applies to respectful Nordish Separatists like Robert, is that we don’t believe that a tangle of ethnicities scattered across the North American continent can pose a threat to the current order or even secure its most basic defense.
Our overlords encourage us to celebrate St. Patrick’s Day. NordicFest carries on unmolested. The NIAF enjoys mainstream support and acclaim. Meanwhile, the system won’t even allow the concept of a White American nationality to exist. The system sends goons in to harass the professors who support that. It sends its goons to physically remove speakers who advocate for it. It has its goons call in death threats then refuses to take the basic step of finding and holding that terrorist accountable. I agree with the Jewish oligarchs in believing that White American identity poses an existential threat to the order of things while parochial ethnic clubs and identities are politically irrelevant distractions.
There’s a coalescence here (not a conspiracy) between the Jewish oligarchs who would refuse White America the right to rally together as a nation, and the adherents of European Traditionalist Schools who routinely attack Americans as Judeo-Masonic scoundrels in the same unfair way that Americans a generation ago attacked Russians as Judeo-Bolshevist scoundrels. I don’t care what the European intellectuals declare and I don’t care whether it’s ahistorical or incompatible with antiquated anthropological paradigms:
I’m a White American.
That’s my nationality, my only nationality, and my entire nationality. My past winds through the trailer parks of Kentuckiana, back through the dirt poor hills of Appalachia, and up through the highlands and villages of the Island Race. However, my future, and the future of my extended family, is the White American future. When I walk down the street, people see a White American. When I’m attacked, I’m attacked for being an advocate for White Americans. I tell White American jokes, wear White American clothes, and enjoy a White American diet.
“The second reason, which even applies to respectful Nordish Separatists like Robert, is that we don’t believe that a tangle of ethnicities scattered across the North American continent can pose a threat to the current order or even secure its most basic defense.”
Why do you assume that those who believe in Nordish preservationism, as a personal principle, would be unable or unwilling to work with other Whites who may not agree with that one specific principle? The ethnic and cultural differences between “Whites” are significant, but relatively minor when compared to true, extra-European out-groups.
Robert,
If it’s a truly personal principle, then I don’t have any standing to complain. I prefer and connect with hillbilly girls, myself. I intend to live and die in Indiana, among fellow Hoosiers. But I believe that will only be possible if we unite as a true nation, a band of brothers, against our aggressors. Do you not see how frequently wankers like Yosemite use their parochial identities as a division and a distraction?
I would like to ask you as well: What is your ethnic and sub-racial background?
British, Old American, Southern, and Central Nordish according to McCulloch and others. How about you?
I’m not manufacturing or hallucinating the hostility and sense of superiority commonly exhibited in American WN circles toward Meds. You concur out of one side of your mouth that the non-Nords are lechers perving on our girls, then, out of the other side of your mouth, offer this politically correct sophistry about merely wishing to preserve your sub-racial diversity.
I haven’t been hostile but you certainly have, as well as disrespectful.
I’m a straight shooter, you just can’t handle the truth.
You see, Robert, this is what I’m talking about. I make arguments people don’t like and then I’m attacked personally, and when I defend myself then they say I’m the bad guy and my posts are deleted.
I’m not going to walk on eggshells for you or anyone else, Matt. If you have such a fragile ego that humorous jibes bring you to tears then you shouldn’t be a white nationalist because it’s a rough road.
We White American Nationalists are unconditionally loyal to you while you’re only conditionally loyal (and often hostile) to us.
Don’t make promises you can’t keep, Matt. I personally haven’t seen any racial loyalty around these parts, much less unconditional. Rather most people are more concerned with cliques and ideological allegiance.
For someone who claims to be 100% British, you sure take this personally. Is your wife of Mediterranean descent?
We White American Nationalists are unconditionally loyal to you
What a crock. You pan-Europeanists refuse to allow us separation and demand that we be amalgamated out of existence. You want us to be “loved to death”.
Do you not see how frequently wankers like Yosemite use their parochial identities as a division and a distraction?
Most of the intra-European conflict on white racialist sites consists of attacks against “WASPs”.
As for defining Whiteness in America, I contend that the net should be cast over White Americans of European descent who appear to be entirely descended from European peoples.
Most white Americans are of Northern European descent.
European-Americans are not homogeneous.
Via n/a:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18208327
British, Old American, Southern, and Central Nordish according to McCulloch and others. How about you?
Mark,
Thanks for the response (we’ll see if blake responds as well).
I am your typical German – predominantly Alpine, with fairly significant Halstatt and Central Nordic, or Nordish, admixture.
“For someone who claims to be 100% British, you sure take this personally. Is your wife of Mediterranean descent?”
If she was, why would that make Matt Parrott oppose your plans?
It couldn’t be that those plans include deporting her to her likely death, could it?
You’ve really left your plans vague enough that the possibility cannot be dismissed.
“You pan-Europeanists refuse to allow us separation and demand that we be amalgamated out of existence. You want us to be ‘loved to death’.”
If by “death” you mean become about 17% Mediterranean and 3% Slavic, then perhaps this is indeed the horrible fate that awaits Nordish people in America, thanks to that genocidal maniac Matt Parrott.