White American Identity Politics

The American political arena and mainstream media is rigged against White American solidarity. Almost every single race or ethnicity has a political organization to serve its specific racial or ethnic interests. The glaring exception is a mainstream-credited or nationally-recognized political group dedicated to White American interests. There are groups dedicated to White advocacy, but they are invariably plagued by accusations of “extremism” or “hate” or “bigotry.”

The Preamble to the United States Constitution lists one of its purposes as to “secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” Perhaps this explicit dedication to the interests of the White founding stock means that no White advocacy groups are needed. Maybe the explicit mandate of the Constitution demands the protection of liberty for the posterity of the White race, so White advocacy groups are superfluous. Until the middle of the twentieth century, this view might hold water. In light of the onslaught of anti-White propaganda, legislation, indoctrination, and social policy that has since followed, this explanation is a recipe for White political suicide.

Under oppressive legislation, a hostile media, and an anti-White educational system, the interests of White people have been subverted in favor of a cacophony of minority voices, all of which are alien to the original aims of the Founding Fathers. White Americans can no longer rest assured that the Constitution means what it says, or that the United States exists to preserve the interests of its White founding stock and their progeny. Instead, White Americans must organize specifically and purposefully on racial grounds, realizing that all other groups are slowly destroying each liberty and privilege that White Americans used to take for granted.

White Americans have no choice but to participate in racial identity politics. If White Americans remain unorganized and without a unified voice of advocacy, they will eventually succumb to being nothing more than demoralized tax-producers for the growing entitlement class. Even worse, White Americans will face a perfect storm of skyrocketing entitlements, smoldering racial grievances, and violent uprisings emanating from the non-White racial groups. This will not be a safe or secure future for White Americans. Look to the fates of Whites in the formerly productive countries of South Africa or Zimbabwe for examples of what happens when Whites are subject to a ruling majority of non-Whites. South Africa used to be the jewel of Africa. Rhodesia (the predecessor to the failed state of Zimbabwe) was the breadbasket of Africa, exporting food to its neighbors. Now, South Africa and Zimbabwe are the rape and murder capitols of the world, and Zimbabwe cannot even feed itself, let alone its neighbors. More than five thousand Whites have been murdered since the transition to a black government in South Africa, and the numbers of rapes and robberies are too many to accurately list. American Whites need to take decisive and organized political action before they become a hated minority in their own nation.

Latinos, Hispanics, and mestizos– whatever the gatekeepers of morality decide to call them– are free to organize, protest, and advance political goals strictly on the basis of race or ethnicity. Consider some of the mission statements of these advocacy groups: The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) is busy “[a]dvancing the economic condition, educational attainment, political influence, health, and civil rights of the Hispanic population in the United States.” The National Council of La Raza “is the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States” and “works to improve opportunities for Hispanic Americans.” Note that the translation of “la raza” into English is “the race.”

Jews are free to advocate specifically and exclusively for other Jewish people. Among other goals, the Anti-Defamation League “defends the security of Israel and Jews worldwide.” The American Jewish Congress is “organized to defend Jewish interests at home and abroad through public policy advocacy– using diplomacy, legislation and the courts.” Similarly, Asians are free to rally around race. The Asian American Justice Center exists “to advance civil and human rights for Asian Americans.” Blacks have a multitude of race-based advocacy groups. A special group for black practitioners exists for almost every professional occupation. Furthermore, the Congressional Black Caucus exists as an exclusively black organization and is comprised of exclusively black Congressmen advancing exclusively black interests.

In fact, all “people of color” (meaning all non-White people) have an implicit license to politically organize according to racial identity. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) states: “The NAACP’s principal objective is to ensure the political, educational, social and economic equality of minority group citizens of United States.” Blacks, Jews, Asians, Hispanics, “people of color”– all of these groups advocate and organize on the basis of race or ethnicity. Yet White Americans may do no such thing without an onslaught of defamatory remarks, negative press coverage, and accusations of “hate” or “extremism.”

The knee-jerk negative reaction to a White identity organization is not natural. Suspicion regarding an explicitly White political group is the product of intense conditioning from a very young age. The origin and methodology of this conditioning is too complicated to adequately explain herein, but much of it stems from public education, globalist elites, and the corporate media. In short, from a very young age, White Americans are taught that love and admiration for the race and ethnicity of non-Whites is a healthy and sociable trait, but love and admiration for Whites by Whites is strictly forbidden. White Americans are conditioned to scorn their own heritage and to fawn over all other races. According to the ruling orthodoxy, admiration of non-Whites is tolerance and love but admiration of Whites is hate and bigotry.

No other group in America is taught or conditioned to have the same amount of self-sacrificial aims or self-loathing emotions. In fact, most other ethnic groups are encouraged to have a deep and profound sense of heritage and ethnic identity. Perversely, Whites are expected to enthusiastically jump on the non-White bandwagon while abandoning their own families. Whites must celebrate the achievements of every other race and ethnicity. Only Whites are forbidden from celebrating their own extended family, heritage, and history. Any sense of pride or identity stemming from a genetic origin must only be experienced vicariously for White Americans. An entire month has been dedicated to a celebration of the contributions to high culture, technology, art, philosophy, and civilization produced by black Americans. If someone protests that an entire month seems like immense favoritism towards blacks, then calls of “racism” are certain. Any opposition to the politically correct viewpoint is met with swift “justice” and the punishment is summary social execution.

The mere accusation of “racism” is enough to ruin a career, sink a political campaign, cancel an entertainment show, or alienate an individual. Perhaps this is a better explanation for the dearth of White political groups. Most of the nonsensical “truths” that modern Americans are forced to swallow are nothing more than shibboleths. If the shibboleth is met with anything other than the proper response, the “outsider” has been successfully identified, and swift countermeasures will be undertaken.

Instead of American spies inside Germany’s Third Reich being discovered by holding up the pointer, middle, and ring fingers to signify the number three, American citizens within the border are identified as racist outcasts by merely questioning the dubious notion that “diversity is our greatest strength.” Instead of asking a gringo to pronounce a Spanish word with a rolling ‘r’, ask the sociology professor who is up for tenure about her thoughts about the long-term viability of an increasingly diverse America. She had better work on her “accent” and toe the party line if she wants to have a successful academic career. Otherwise, she may infect future legions with the disease of critical thought, healthy dissent, or individuality. Heaven forbid, she may even fail in her greatest duty– to indoctrinate her pupils with the glorious fonts of wisdom which are Political Correctness and Tolerance for Diversity. Joseph Goebbels would be proud of this efficient method for political cleansing. A Soviet apparatchik would shriek with joy at the simplicity of this plan for purging the undesirables from the New Plan for Humanity.

As non-White Americans are free to create political organizations for the sole purpose of advancing the interests of a specific ethnicity, and White Americans are forbidden to do so, non-Whites enjoy fundamental rights and benefits which are denied to Whites. The logical implications of these thoughts and observations are non-controversial, but the act of drawing attention to it is definitely controversial. It might even be . . . “racist.”

As White Americans are prevented from organizing, thinking, or acting in a unified manner, and yet all other non-White groups are permitted and encouraged to do so, White Americans are at a distinct political disadvantage. Social pressure, media influence, legislation, and educational indoctrination combine to influence Whites against organizing or even thinking on the basis of race. This injustice must not stand. White Americans must organize to advance their own interests or they will fade into a dispossessed minority in the nation their forefathers carved from the unforgiving wilderness. White Americans must regain the political power they have implicitly relinquished. White Americans need not fear their own shadows any longer. Instead, White Americans must take back the reins and restore the conditions that made the United States of America into an exemplary society and a first-rate civilization.


  1. It’s the Tea Party that needs to read this, not us.
    Several years ago I asked my brother, a Tea Party type with a degree in history, what does it mean when a country discriminates against its best people, and promotes inferiors? He couldn’t answer, but that’s the sort of question that GOPers need to hear.

  2. No one advises waiting until you’re sick to buy health insurance, until you’re in a wreck to put on your seat belt, or until you’re robbed to put locks on your doors.

    But “antis” routinely deride the idea of white advocacy based on the idea that it’s ridiculous to advocate for a people that either isn’t oppressed (right), or is itself an oppressor (left).

    There are no significant white advocacy groups or even positions that are not tarred with the brush of “racism” and “hate.” The political class generally refuses to acknowledge morally acceptable white advocacy in theory, much less identify any real-world manifestations.

    It’s logical for Ethnopatriots to conclude that white advocacy in and of itself, to any degree, is morally unacceptable to the political class.

  3. Such as you decry is but a taboo, treat it with such contempt especially with those who enforce such. Try the Mantra

  4. White advocacy groups that are needed are ones that are simply Pro-White. Not more of these because we already have them:

    – religious
    – paleoconservative
    – has any interest in gay marriage or homosexuality
    – aryan, hilterian, nazi
    – anything to do with a theoretical “ethnostate”.
    – one that wears costumes
    – one that “hates those damn negroes and jews”
    – HBD

    I think Occidental Dissent achieved some popularity because for the most part Hunter and crew’s main focus wasn’t on any of the above (except for the ethnostate). The criteria for most articles was: “is it pro-white or anti-white?”

    We already have groups or white people focused on the listed issues. We need a general group that is attractive to as many White people as possible. Strength in numbers. Pro-White. Simple. Is an issue or social happening good for white people or is it bad for white people, that’s the criteria. It doesn’t matter if you’re a Christian or an atheist, a Swede or an Italian.

    I’m at the point where I define “white people” as people who show up at the Tea Parties or that silly Glenn Beck rally. I have no idea what ethnicity those white people were, but they looked white to me. I use this moderate definition because this late in the game being choosy and having arguments posting links and studies about “admixture” is a colossal waste of time. Nobody cares. You do not have to mate with these people. If an ethnostate is ones goal, cross that bridge when it looks in reach, but right now white people cannot even speak in public about an obvious injustice like affirmative action without dancing on the head of a pin, never mind forming some Northern European utopia. I say this as someone who is part Swedish.

    White people are desperate for leadership and ripe for it to these days. How did Glenn Beck get hundreds of thousands of White people to show up at DC? Because its all they have so they cling to it in desperation, wishing that perhaps he’ll eventually morph into the Great White Hope. In the past he had this vague implicit whiteness. Maybe? Possibly? Who knows, but its close enough for White people because they have no other alternative they’re aware of. At least no one with a bold, provocative and amusing personality like Beck. As we saw, Beck was yet another let down who caved and started pandering to MLK and the usual “I swear I’m not racist” rhetoric. This usually happens when you get repeatedly hit in the head with the “you’re a racist” sledgehammer, as Beck did. They broke him.

    They cling to Fox news for the same reason. While obviously not pro-white, Fox news is anti-liberal, and that in itself is pro-white by proxy. That’s the closest you’re going to get on TV so Whites watch. It’s all they have.

    Whites need leadership. Someone young, energetic, funny, charming, smart, bold with a moderate and reasonable delivery. Sounds like it’s asking for too much but at least a combination of some those traits.

    Is this too moderate? Watering down the message? Yes is it, but it’s not like it will be the only approach. We still have all the other individuals doing their thing, like Paleoconservative James Edwards and Andrew Yeoman’s group for example. This is just another approach. More practical. Simpler.

    I could be wrong but this looks like the direction Hunter is heading in anyway. I think it’s a good idea. Velvet glove, iron fist. You do not have to change your core beliefs, just your approach and presentation into something that’s more effective with more people.

    BTW I liked Gregory Hood’s articles. I’m wondering what happened. I liked how he wrote amusing articles about popular culture events from a pro-white perspective. Like the ones about Sandra Bullock adopting the black baby and Miley Cyrus on the stripper pole. People like pop culture shit, and it’s entertaining to read that stuff from a pro-white perspective. Not everything has to be so serious all the time.

  5. We were so naiive, so innocent to the influences of the Jewish mindset — we do not think like they do, and so we never saw it coming. Their destructive ideas arose in our society in ways we thought natural, and attached to natural movements of our own (like Boasian anthropology and freudianism patterned after and within our science movements). it was so insidious, so diabolical, over so much time that we could not see it. When I was in graduate school in behavioral neuroscience, we learned how slight differences in psychology or physical character over long time periods can easily eliminate one species over another. The character of what is being done to us in the same repeating perennial patterns over so many thousands of years –culminating in the “Jewish Century”– is the result of 2 different evolutionary strategies, 2 different destinies, coming into conflict.

    The pattern of Jews is destructive to our individualistic, truth-seeking, freedom-loving, and long-term bulding and bettering patterns. Anyone of our own people who acted like they do was shunned, banished, persecuted, and eventually eliminated or dropped down to low numbers among our people. They still arise from time to time, but we bred or cast them out in ourselves by our visions and desires and knowledge of what is good for our people over time. Their patterns were SINS to be eliminated for us. That is why even in relatively recent historical times they have been expelled from ever single country of Europe at least once. They are deadly to OUR patterns and dreams, deadly to our future as a people.

    For the same sorts of reasons, we have laws and traditions to preserve freedom, individualism, and law and order to encourage and give advantage to those who follow our higher plans and destiny in truth and higher man. Our codes of morality themselves were toward these higher things. People among us who stole, lied, killed for selfish reasons were considered criminals and also shunned, imprisoned, killed, or otherwise eliminated from the gene pool. One of our greatest strengths WAS that we saw the future in the differences between men and realized we must select what future we wanted. Freedom and truth, or lying, cheating, selfish impulsivity. The higher or the lower path. Our scientists continued this tradition when they looked at weathering mountains and saw the meaning of plate tectonics in them. When they looked at the flora, fauna, and fossils of the Earth and saw that these meant that our ideas of selecting out our best people were the very way that the creator had fashioned us. We saw meaning way beyond the present in the little things, and realized how important this was — and so we invented schools and universities.

    Other races are examples of what happens when you either do not think or care about these things. Jews did not select out for the same things we did. They are the living example of one path of darkness we did not want our people to fall into — incompatible with our destiny. Another example is the black people — they did not self-select out people who were mainly motivated impulsively by sex and violence and stealing, etc. These actually became ideals, became destiny to THEM. When people say “you do not choose your race” they are absolutely WRONG! Your race IS the result of choices your ancestors made — what path they set you on by what they saw, and what choices they made. Remember that OUR people arose because they LEFT Africa. We chose to get out — just like we choose today to live in the suburbs — to “white flight” to good schools and neighborhoods. It is a MORAL choice for us and for our meaningful, time-projected way of seeing the world of the highest order.

    We see, value, and choose differently than other races. It is who we are, all we have worked for. We built our race – it is the greatest work we have ever accomplished. No document we wrote, no structure we ever built, is more important than the people who did these things. They are jewels in the crown of our gene pool. WE are the standing stones – the figurehead and Stonehenge of all life on Earth. The sun sets and rises by us – by the devices and patterns WE discovered with our minds and their sciences. We thrive on accurate meaning, we are the universe-readers. To destroy us, as the Jews have been doing (and recruiting all the other races they can to help), is the highest crime against humanity and the children of the future imaginable. They have blinded us, and now seek to poison and destroy us while we unwittingly digest the cultural weapons they naturally make and distribute to us. It is time to wake up. There is nothing on Earth more important than to save the meaning, truth, vision, and future children of the white race. We need advocates, we need organizations. Our pattern alone is the hard one, the delicate one. A mud hut is easy, indolence is easy, it is easy to fall into the patterns of whatever works now to make you comfortable and survive. The cathedral is hard, and white culture, books, and sciences harder still… Saving us is saving the future of the world.

  6. This is very well said, moderate in tone, and persuasive. The idea of preserving ourselves as a people or at least as constituent part of America is so innofensive on its face, that to state it and see the reaction is to reveal the malevolent intentions of the multiculti cult.

  7. I may have asked this before here but I’ll ask again: both WNs and many paleos wish unhyphenated/white Americans to regain a positive group identity. That is a pre-requisite to re-establishing both the healthy American constitutional republic paleos wish to see as well as the white ethno-state of the WNs. My question is this: wouldn’t the problems that both paleos and WNs seek to address be more or less resolved if Americans were to regain that positive group identity and act and vote accordingly? It seems to me that the problem is not that there are unruly blacks and hispanics in our midst, it’s that our people have lost their souls and believe they should be dispossessed and displaced by those minorities.

    Which is to ask, if white Americans were to regain a positive group identity and act and vote accordingly (i.e. in the interests of their ethnic group(s)) would there still be a need, in your opinion, for a white ethno-state?

  8. @S.L Toddard

    “Which is to ask, if white Americans were to regain a positive group identity and act and vote accordingly (i.e. in the interests of their ethnic group(s)) would there still be a need, in your opinion, for a white ethno-state?”

    I’m not trying to be disrespectful but if you have to ask this question, apparently you’re the type who likes to keep playing with fire, even after being severely burned multiple times and ending up in an ICU near death.

    It’s a sign of stunted development brought on by a lack of spanking or discipline during childhood, followed by Mommy and Daddy bailing one out of trouble in adolescence/early adulthood. Someone who’s never had to pay the consequences of bad decisions or failure.

  9. S.L. Toddard,

    Racial dispossession is a symptom of Whites being stripped of a positive sense of identity. That was partially caused by the presence of non-Whites in the United States. It was partially self imposed. It was partially caused by the rise of a Jewish elite.

    This much is certain: every effort by Whites to regain a positive sense of racial identity will be vigorously opposed by the Left, by Jews, by non-Whites, the clergy, and by the GOP establishment.

  10. S.L. Stoddard: Should White Americans regain a healthy self-regard, a White nation would still be necessary, for three reasons:
    1. To preclude the possibility of any multi-cult resurgence. Our hospitality has been abused. Ingrates deserve no second chances.
    2. To rid ourselves of parasitic outsiders. In an increasingly competitive world, with declining resources, we don’t need a bunch of layabouts, dullards, and human predators living off our labor and interfering with our affairs.
    3. To spare ourselves the need to constantly keep track of the doings of seemingly productive non-Whites. No “Peruvian-American” associations passing themselves off as merely social organizations, no houses of worship to conceal treachery.

  11. This much is certain: every effort by Whites to regain a positive sense of racial identity will be vigorously opposed by the Left, by Jews, by non-Whites, the clergy, and by the GOP establishment.

    Agreed. But that positive sense of group identity must be instilled before you gentlemen could create a white ethno-state, no? I am sure this is a paradox or conundrum you are all familiar with, and I’m going over old ground for you, and I apologize for that. But you see what I’m asking? You cannot create the ethno-state until that consciousness is engendered. But it seems to me that people argue that one of the reasons a white ethno-state must be created is to foster that identity. At the same time advocating for a white ethno-state seems (to me) to make the task of fostering that group identity all the harder as it immediately restricts the audience to whom the message of positive group identity should be aimed.

    Discard’s reason #1 does make sense though.

  12. A quick thought: We all really need to disposes ourselves of the couch-potato mentality myth that putting a piece of paper in a box a couple times per year will solve our problems. None of our ancestors got out of trouble so easily.

  13. @S.L Toddard

    You’re beginning to show my theory on your upbringing as correct. Are you going to support you’re assertion with facts or resort to infantile tit-for-tats?

  14. “Which is to ask, if white Americans were to regain a positive group identity and act and vote accordingly (i.e. in the interests of their ethnic group(s)) would there still be a need, in your opinion, for a white ethno-state?”

    White Americans acting and voting in their own interests won’t prevent them from becoming a minority. Basically half of all live births are already to non-whites.

    I’m not a fan of Abraham Lincoln. But he does highlight another very important reason why racial separation is necessary:

    “A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation.”
    Abraham Lincoln, June 26, 1857

  15. S.L. Toddard: I had hoped that all three of my reasons made sense, but I guess not.

    Your question is, If we need an ethno-state to ensure a positive group identity, how do we develop the positive group identity necessary to establish that ethnostate? More or less?
    I would say that we don’t need for everyone to have a positive White identity in order to establish an ethno-state. Look at the countries of Eastern Europe for example. After WWI, all sorts of suppressed nationalist feelings came out, resulting in the establishment of Polish, Latvian, Lithuanian, and Estonian states, and the breakup of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Within these peoples, there had been small, active minorities of ardent nationalists, but most people had lived their lives resigned to the fact of national subordination. With the collapse of the USSR, the Baltic states re-emerged after 50 years of brutal political, economic, and social repression, and the Czechs and Slovaks parted as well. In all these countries, people had been forced to deny their heritage as a condition of advancement, and in some cases, a condition of staying alive. Yet the healthy attitudes persisted in enough people for new ethno-states to arise.
    In our own case, there is also a healthy core of “racism”, which the Regime works diligently to repress. We also have an advantage over the Eastern Europeans in that our replacements are unambiguously non-the same as us. We’re not being flooded with Canadians who arouse our suspicion because they don’t watch the NFL, but by inferior peoples who live off the society that we built, and by imported elites who despise us.
    What will bring most Whites to support an ethno-state is not racial pride, but resentment, fear, and economic interest. Most will not be drawn to our view, but driven to it. The positive group identity will come later, beginning with pride in having thrown off the fetters and restored our nation, just as the Slavs have.

  16. “You’re beginning to show my theory on your upbringing as correct. Are you going to support you’re assertion with facts or resort to infantile tit-for-tats?”

    Is that a joke? Your response to my question was that it demonstrated a “stunted development brought on by a lack of spanking” and that I have “never had to pay the consequences of bad decisions or failure”. One would be hard pressed to find a more infantile “argument” than that. Now you want “facts” to support my contention that you were incorrect? What – you want a note from my Ma?

  17. @S L Toddard

    Actually, you’ve proven yourself to be a troll. Your questions are asinine to the point of subversion:

    1) Why would reverting back to segregated, pre-Civil Rights AmeriKa work when it’s failed disastrously in the past?

    2) How can you have an ethno-state without first having ethno-consciousness?

  18. You’ll love this —

    White are, in fact, racist because they have given up their identity and they hold post-racialism up as an ideal for everyone.

    “ABSTRACT: Rather than treat post-racialism as a political trend or social fact, this Article argues that post-racialism in its current iteration is a twenty-first century ideology that reflects a belief that due to racial progress the state need not engage in race-based decision-making or adopt race-based remedies, and that civil society should eschew race as a central organizing principle of social action. Post-racial logic calls instead for a “retreat from race.” This retreat takes at least three forms: material, as the retreat from state-imposed remedies; sociocultural, as the retreat from white liberal/progressive deference to Black normativity on the meaning of racial equality and justice; and political, as the retreat from collective political entities organized along racial lines and agendas as a legitimate protest or reform vehicle. In this Article, I analyze postracialism as an ideology that both converges and departs from its predecessor “colorblindness,” identify four key features of the revamped ideology (racial progress or transcendence, race neutral universalism, moral equivalence, and political distancing), and map three of postracialism’s contemporary articulations in the legal, political and intellectual contexts. I conclude by offering some suggestions for how critical race and progressive scholars might approach their work to resist the new racial hegemony of postracial ideology.”

  19. 1) Why would reverting back to segregated, pre-Civil Rights AmeriKa work when it’s failed disastrously in the past?

    I don’t think that’s a sound argument. I have seen it argued on this site that the United States were created as a white ethno-state (or federation of white ethno-states). So why would reverting back to an American white ethno-state work when that failed as well? Because obviously one would retain some components of that system and not others. Anyway, my point was not to argue against a white ethno-state (that is not what I’m doing, I have no interest in doing that, so no need to lose your manners), it was to understand the logic of advocating for a white ethno-state. And your argument here exemplifies somewhat the paradox I’m talking about: you argue that a positive ethno-consciousness is not enough to unite a people in a multi-ethnic nation, yet you argue that a positive ethno-consciousness is a prerequisite to creating a white ethno-state. To create that white ethno-state whites must achieve a great measure of ethno-consciousness. Once that consciousness is achieved in this multi-ethnic nation, haven’t you answered the question whether a positive group identity is enough to unite a people in a multi-ethnic nation?

    2) How can you have an ethno-state without first having ethno-consciousness?

    That is my point. A reason some want an ethno-state is because white ethno-consciousness dies in a multi-ethnic nation (or at least this multi-ethnic nation, and please assume I mean that qualifier earlier as well). But ethno-consciousness must be a prerequisite for the creation of a white ethno-state. I do not come here to say that because I think you should all listen to what I say – I came here because I thought I could ask and about it and have it explained to me in a spirit of reasoned discourse. If my line of questioning agitates you just say so and I will retire.

  20. S.L. Toddard,

    “I have no interest in doing that, so no need to lose your manners), it was to understand the logic of advocating for a white ethno-state.”

    The logic would be something similar to that behind the current move to preserve a Jewish ethnostate — as opposed to creating a multicultural Israel. For examples, take Gadi Taub’s argument in the recent Nytimes articles, “In Israel, Settling for Less,” where he concludes that:
    “If a non-Jewish democracy is formally established, it is sure to be dysfunctional.”

    The logic is twofold. The first concern is that White ethnic identity, that is, White Western European identity, is not tolerated in the current multicultural US. Part of the idea here is that it can’t be tolerated, because if Europeans regained their ethnic consciousness, they would not be as accepting of many of social aspects fundamental to the new order. Refer to Paul Gottfried’s “Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt: Toward a Secular Theocracy” for the basic conceptualization of this. http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=220&sortorder=issue
    Another reason is that in a multicultural-democracy — as opposed to multi-ethnic hegemony — robust ethnoracial identity is seen as, and probably is, dangerous, so the state must hold up a post-racial ideal, which is nihilistic to traditional ways and forms of identity. (Note my post above yours — we’re not the only ones that see post-racialism as a state ideology).

    The second is that in absence of European ethnic consciousness, not only will White people as a people die out, individuals of European ancestry — particularly non liberal ones — will be unjustly abused. We see this in the case of affirmative action, which has largely become a spoil system in which non-European jockey for goodies. This is so blatantly obvious now that Gregory Rodriguez of the LA times has recently called for an end to Affirmative action, lest it riles many White people up.

    So, to answer your question, white ethnoconsciousness is seen as desirable for a number of reasons and it is seen as incompatible with the current post-national identity of the US. Currently, it’s simply not conceivable that the US could allow for a true plurality of ethnic identity. (This would be something like a Rand Paul libertarian view — which would require the dismantling of a good part of the state). As such, the idea is to push for a ethnostate.

  21. S.L. Toddard,

    In general, the desire is to keep and promote a positive ethnic European identity and to realize a situation where a robust Whiteness is possible. That means living in a society, for example, where Freddie Mac’s and it’s Chief Diversity Officer aren’t on the dole, and where the daily newspaper isn’t filled with sermons about the evils of European identity. You seem to suggest that such a situation could be had in the present state. What leads you to that conclusion, given the ubiquitous hostility to white ethnoconsciousness?

    That said, I agree the goal should be to keep and promote a positive ethnic European identity. Sociopolitical changes should be seen as a means to this. And the debate should be as to what changes are needed given those goals.

    I also agree that the issue you bring up is a conundrum. I mentioned the same things a while back. To get an ethnostate you need an ethnoconsciousness, but much of the unspoken impetus for an ethnostate, in this case, seems to be to shore up a dying ethnoconsciousness — which doesn’t bode well for getting the desired end. At best, the logic would be to get an ethnostate while there was still some consciousness left, and in the safety of that state, renurture the consciousness.

Comments are closed.