White Nationalism Contra Americanism

Editor’s Note: I found this letter in the P.O. Box. It is a long response to Greg Johnson of Counter-Currents from Northeastern Nationalist. I often get letters of support from Good Yankees (seriously, this is becoming a thing) who wholeheartedly support what we are doing in the South.

Personally, I have no animosity toward non-Southerners and have long encouraged White people who live in other parts of the country to reconnect with the own regional identity, their unique ethnic and cultural heritage and to question the reigning ideology of liberalism because our current deracination is hardly unique to the South. I’m not interested in refighting the War Between the States.

I’m told that Northeastern Nationalist will be launching his own blog soon. It will undoubtedly be one of my daily stops and will be linked on the sidebar.- HW

PREFACE

Three months ago I dispatched a copy of both President Jefferson’s 1808 State of the Union (SOTU) Address ¹ and President Monroe’s 1817 Treaty With The Cherokee ² to Dr. Greg Johnson, the Editor-in-Chief of Counter-Currents Publishing. The 1808 SOTU Address and the 1817 Treaty With The Cherokee undermine the foundations of Dr. Johnson’s “White American Nationalist” ideology (i.e. every Naturalization Act in force until 1870). The object that I had in mind when I sent the aforementioned material was the persuasion of Dr. Johnson that the foundations of “White American Nationalism” have been thoroughly subverted by the very Founders that he invokes and upon whose works his ideology is predicated. The 1808 SOTU and the 1817 Treaty With The Cherokee were accompanied by a work of my own entitled “Against Americanism, For A New Way Forward” wherein I recommended that the Counter-Currents webzine examine the authentic new White civilizations (e.g. the South, the West, Appalachia, the Northeast, and Quebec) that have emerged on the North American continent and become a platform “for the articulation of their unique civilizations and their national liberation struggles”. I have waited for (around) three months to see how Dr. Johnson would respond both to the information contained within President Jefferson’s 1808 SOTU and President Monroe’s 1817 Treaty as well as to the recommendations offered within “Against Americanism, For A New Way Forward”. I was quite disappointed to discover that Dr. Johnson appears to have no intention of giving the ideas expressed in “Against Americanism, For A New Way Forward” a fair-hearing nor has he deigned to even offer an attempt at a “White American Nationalist” refutation of the material contained within the 1808 SOTU and the 1817 Treaty. Dr. Johnson has contented himself with jabs at strawmen, most recently in his article “Wignats Whirr For War³“, such as “The inevitable wignat answer is that embracing American Nationalism and refusing to alienate the Trump electorate is merely inauthentic pandering to ‘normies,’ whereas they are authentic and only speak the truth. Of course this is sheer pretense. Every wignat disaster from Hailgate to Charlottesville springs from pandering to – or embracing – the false premise that the only authentic form of National Populism is Neo-Nazism. But being a Neo-Nazi in America today is not authentic. It is totally fake. It is a symptom of rootlessness and alienation, not a solution to them. So the real choice here is pandering to 60 million normal people – or a cringy fringe of freaks.” The intellectually serious opposition to “White American Nationalism” has hitherto come from Southern Nationalist publications such as Occidental Dissent and Identity Dixie (hardly Neo-Nazis”, moreover, White Nationalists should not be “pandering” to anyone as we are idealists – laboring on behalf of the preservation of the White races, ethnicites and ethnostates – not grifters running a con. I have decided to write a critique of Dr. Johnson”White American Nationalist” ideology and the feasibility (or lack thereof) of his National Populist approach within America as he has articulated both within his articles’ “Is White Nationalism Un-American?⁴“, “What is American Nationalism?⁵” and “Wignats Whiff for War” as well as, in the case of the latter, my understanding of Dr. Johnson’s conception of National Populism which he has offered in other articles whose titles I shall not cite (his review of Eatwell & Goodwin’s recent work of the same name chief amongst them). I will conclude with an exposition of the authentic alternative to the “White American Nationalist” chimera that no reasonable reader could regard as a mere reprising of German National Socialism.

Dr. Johnson’s Alleged Historical Basis For “White American Nationalism” In His Own Words

From “Is White Nationalism Un-American?”;

“Many patriotic Americans object to White Nationalism because they are told it is ‘un-American.’ America, they say, was always a multiracial society, dedicated to the proposition that ‘all men are created equal.’ Therefore, the White Nationalist idea of a society that bases citizenship on race is alien to the American tradition.

This viewpoint is false, based on a systematic misrepresentation of American history.

First of all, the claim that the United States is dedicated to the proposition that ‘all men are created equal’ is simply untrue. The phrase ‘all men are created equal’ comes from the Declaration of Independence of 1776. Whatever the intended meaning of this rhetorical flourish, its author, Thomas Jefferson, and many of the signatories, evidently did not think it was inconsistent with owning Negro slaves. In fact, ‘all men are created equal’ was simply the republican denial of the principle of hereditary monarchy and aristocracy. The intended meaning, however, is moot because the Declaration may well be an important historical document, but it is not a legal document of the United States.

The Constitution of the United States was written in 1787, ratified in 1788 and went into effect in 1789. It contains not a word about universal human equality, but it does prohibit a hereditary aristocracy. The Preamble makes clear that the Constitution was created and ratified by white men to provide good government for themselves and their posterity, not of mankind. The Constitution treats Indians as foreign nations, allows Negro slavery, and defines free and enslaved blacks as non-citizens, each one counting as only three-fifths of a person for the purpose of Congressional representation …”

“Second, the claim that America was always a multiracial society – with Whites, American Indians, and blacks present from the start of English colonization – is fundamentally false. From the beginning of the colonial period well into the history of the United States, there was a consensus that blacks and American Indians — and later mestizos and Orientals — might be “in” white society, but they were not “of” it. They were foreigners, not fellow citizens. They had no say about the character and destiny of white society.

The colonial consensus that blacks and Indians were not part of white society was reflected in the Constitution. It was further elaborated in the Naturalization Act of 1790, which defined who could become a citizen of the United States. Naturalization was limited to free white persons of good character. This excluded American Indians, indentured servants, free and enslaved blacks, Muslims, and later, Orientals.

From the start, American Indians were considered distinct, sovereign nations. American Indians who did not live on reservations could become citizens only with the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. Citizenship was granted to all American Indians only by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. …”

“Blacks, whether slaves or free, were not considered to be part of white society in the colonial period or under the constitution until the adoption of the 14th Amendment in 1868 …”

“Furthermore, extending legal citizenship to non-whites did not in any way alter the deep conviction that real Americans are white, and the naturalization of non-whites came with the expectation that they would live according to white norms …”

From “What is American Nationalism?”;

“Even in European colonial societies, where different European stocks have blended together, we do not have generic white people. If that were true, there would be no differences between Americans and Canadians. … Americans, Canadians, Australians, Quebecois, New Zealanders, etc. are all distinct white ethnic groups.

If Americans are a white ethnicity, then White Nationalists in America should be American nationalists, just as White Nationalists in Hungary are Hungarian nationalists, White Nationalists in Poland are Polish Nationalists, White Nationalists in Quebec are Quebecois nationalists, and so forth. …”

” … Since Americans are a distinct white ethnicity, American nationalism means turning America into a homogeneously white homeland.

The inevitable objection to American Nationalism is that America is not a white society with a common culture but a multiracial, multicultural society unified not by common blood, or by a common culture, but by a commitment to a civic creed — a central principle of which is the proposition that “All men are created equal” — as well as the “American dream” of ever-rising material standards of living. …”

Interestingly enough, this objection does not come from the far Left, which maintains that even today America is a “normatively white” and “white supremacist” society, regardless of the presence of other races on our soil. Instead, the civic interpretation of American nationalism is asserted primarily by people on the center-Left and the center-Right. But recently they have been joined by White Nationalists and Southern Nationalists, who argue that White Nationalists cannot be American nationalists, because American nationalism is somehow intrinsically and essentially civic nationalist. …”

“But even after America’s white supremacist immigration laws were scrapped in 1965, America still remained a culturally and normatively white society. …”

“American White Nationalism is far more likely to win the battle for a white homeland than anti-American forms of White Nationalism.  … They also tend to be conservative and patriotic. They identify with America and feel a strong attachment to American symbols. …”

“By contrast, anti-American White Nationalists will have to convince our people of all the same facts about race, diversity, and demographic displacement. But, as if that were not already enough of an uphill battle, they will also have to sell Americans a raft of anti-American ideas: cranky conspiracy theories about Freemasons, Southern Nationalism, and the like. The anti-Americans will also have to convince Americans of a whole host of historical revisionist theses about the Civil War, the Third Reich, and the Holocaust, none of them really necessary for white survival in America. Finally, the anti-Americans will have to explain away their use of symbols which are at best alien to Americans and at worst are freighted with highly negative connotations.

Both forms of White Nationalism communicate the same truths. But American nationalists relate them to ideas that feel authentic to our target audience, while anti-American nationalists link them to ideas that at best strike most Americans as alien and inauthentic and at worse seem downright repugnant.”

Dr. Johnson’s “White American Nationalism” Refuted (By Two Presidents and Multiple Nations)

Dr. Johnson shall find that the basis for the refutation of his “White American Nationalist” ideology – which I present herein – lies within the works of the very Founders to whom he appeals for justification. The 1808 SOTU and the 1817 Treaty With The Cherokee, two of the documents that I dispatched to Dr. Johnson, undermine his claim that “American Indians who did not live on reservations could become citizens only with the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868.” The 1808 SOTU Address – President Thomas Jefferson’s final State of the Union Address – includes language that is supportive of Amerindian naturalization as American citizens,

“With our Indian neighbors the public peace has been steadily maintained. Some instances of individual wrong have, as at other times, taken place, but in no wise implicating the will of the nation. Beyond the Mississippi the loways, the Sacs and the Alabamas have delivered up for trial and punishment individuals from among themselves accused of murdering citizens of the United States. On this side of the Mississippi the Creeks are exerting themselves to arrest offenders of the same kind, and the Choctaws have manifested their readiness and desire for amicable and just arrangements respecting depredations committed by disorderly persons of their tribe. And, generally, from a conviction that we consider them a part of ourselves, and cherish with sincerity their rights and interests, the attachment of the Indian tribes is gaining strength daily – is extending from the nearer to the more remote, and will amply requite us for the justice and friendship practiced toward them. Husbandry and household manufacture are advancing among them more rapidly with the Southern than Northern tribes, from circumstances of soil and climate, and one of the two great divisions of the Cherokee Nation have now under consideration to solicit the citizenship of the United States, and to be identified with us in laws and government in such progressive manner as we shall think best.”

Dr. Johnson’s reply to President Jefferson’s 1808 SOTU would indubitably be the same as the former’s earlier response to the phrase “all men are created equal” which is contained within the American Declaration of Independence, “The intended meaning, however, is moot because the 1808 State of the Union Address may well be an important historical document, but it is not a legal document of the United States.” The mestizo conception of the American national identity, as articulated by the third American President (a member of the Founding Generation) within the 1808 SOTU, would be given a legislative basis by the fifth American president (also a member of the Founding Generation) within the 1817 Treaty With The Cherokee. The segment of the Cherokee that President Jefferson described in the 1808 SOTU as having “now under consideration to solicit the citizenship of the United States, and to be identified with us in laws and government in such a progressive manner as we shall think best …” were granted naturalization as American citizens under the 1817 Treaty With The Cherokee,

“WHEREAS in the autumn of the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, a deputation from the Upper and Lower Cherokee towns, duly authorized by their nation, went on to the city of Washington, the first /B/ named to declare to the President of the United States their anxious desire to engage in the pursuits of agriculture and civilized life, in the country they then occupied, and to make known to the President of the United States the impracticability of inducing the nation at large to do this, and to request the establishment of a division line between the upper and lower towns, so as to include all the waters of the Hiwassee river to the upper town, that, by thus contracting their society within narrow limits, they proposed to begin the establishment of fixed laws and a regular government: The deputies from the lower towns to make known their desire to continue the hunter life, and also the scarcity of game where they then lived, and, under those circumstances, their wish to remove across the Mississippi river, on some vacant lands of the United States. And whereas the President of the United States, after maturely considering the petitions of both parties, on the ninth day of January, A.D. one thousand eight hundred and nine, including other subjects, answered those petitions as follows:

“The United States, my children, are the friends of both parties, and, as far as can be reasonably asked, they are willing to satisfy the wishes of both. Those who remain may be assured of our patronage, our aid, and good neighborhood. Those who wish to remove, are permitted to send an exploring party to reconnoitre the country on the waters of the Arkansas and White rivers, and the higher up the better, as they will be the longer unapproached by our settlements, which will begin at the mouths of those rivers. The regular districts of the government of St. Louis are already laid off to the St. Francis.

“When this party shall have found a tract of country suiting the emigrants, and not claimed by other Indians, we will arrange with them and you the exchange of that for a just portion of the country they leave, and to a part of which, proportioned to their numbers, they have a right. Every aid towards their removal, and what will be necessary for them there, will then be freely administered to them; and when established in their new settlements, we shall still consider them as our children, give them the benefit of exchanging their peltries for what they will want at our factories, and always hold them firmly by the hand.”

And whereas the Cherokees, relying on the promises of the President of the United States, as above recited, did explore the country on the west side of the Mississippi, and made choice of the country on the Arkansas and White rivers, and settled themselves down upon United States’ lands, to which no other tribe of Indians have any just claim, and have duly notified the President of the United States thereof, and of their anxious desire for the full and complete ratification of his promise, and, to that end, as notified by the President of the United States, have sent on their agents, with full powers to execute a treaty, relinquishing to the United States all the right, title, and interest, to all lands of right to them belonging, as part of the Cherokee nation, which they have left, and which they are about to leave, proportioned to their numbers, including, with those now on the Arkansas, those who are about to remove thither, and to a portion of which they have an equal right agreeably to their numbers.

ART. 8. And to each and every head of any Indian family residing on the east side of the Mississippi river, on the lands that are now, or may hereafter be, surrendered to the United States, who may wish to become citizens of the United States, the United States do agree to give a reservation of six hundred and forty acres of land, in a square, to include their improvements, which are to be as near the centre thereof as practicable, in which they will have a life estate, with a reversion in fee simple to their children, reserving to the widow her dower, the register of whose names is to be filed in the office of the Cherokee agent, which shall be kept open until the census is taken as stipulated in the third article of this treaty. Provided, That if any of the heads of families, for whom reservations may be made, should remove therefrom, then, in that case, the right to revert to the United States. And provided further, That the land which may be reserved under this article, be deducted from the amount which has been ceded under the first and second articles of this treaty.

I suspect that Dr. Johnson would reply that the provision for Cherokee Amerindian naturalization as American citizens – granted t those Cherokee Amerindian households that were desirous of American citizenship – was merely a “pragmatic” attempt to justify the acquisition of Cherokee land by an imperialistic American government and that, as he wrote in “Is White Nationalism Un-American?”, “… extending legal citizenship to non-whites did not in any way alter the deep conviction that real Americans are white, and the naturalization of non-whites came with the expectation that they would live according to white norms …” The American Founders’ motivation in granting naturalization to the Cherokee Amerindians, whether ideological or opportunistic, is irrelevant. The fact that the American Founders’ were willing to enact legislation that was subversive of the racial requirement (i.e. eligibility for naturalization was restricted to “White persons”) of the very Naturalization Acts that they promulgated reveals, at the very least, that they regarded the racial character of America as being up for negotiation (were it otherwise, the American Congress would have hardly passed the 1817 Treaty With The Cherokee), hardly the reliable foundation for the edifice of “White American Nationalism” that Dr. Johnson would have his readers believe⁶.

Dr. Johnson claims that Americans’ “… are a distinct white ethnicity …” America was, in fact, an empire from the beginning – containing multiple White ethnicities – wherein hegemony over the American Empire was contested between the urban, industrialized Northern nation and the rural, slavery-dependent, agrarian Southern nation. The earliest occasion illustrative of the imperial nature of the American polity occurred during the War of 1817 ⁷ The Southern nation, represented by the Democratic-Republican Party, favored a war with Britain and promulgated legislation completely prohibiting foreign trade, whereas the Northern nation, represented by the Federalist Party, were Anglophiles whose economic interests were predicated upon free trade with Britain. The governors of the Northern states, for the most part, refused to collaborate with the (Southern-dominated) American federal government in the latter’s prosecution of the war with Britain. The American federal government refused to provide for the renumeration of the Massachusetts and Connecticut state militias because the governors of the aforementioned states refused to subordinate their states’ militias to the federal War Department. President James Madison’s September 1814 request for Congress to pass legislation authorizing conscription would dominate the proceedings of the congregation of Northern representatives⁸ known as the Hartford Convention. The Hartford Convention did not call for independence, instead it published a series of proposed amendments to the federal constitution, though the Governor of Massachusetts, Caleb Strong, who was the architect of the Hartford Convention, had secretly dispatched emissaries to the British treating for a separate peace. The incipient Northern independence movement evaporated after the federal government brought the war with Britain to a close. The American Empire, during the period of 1815-1860 can be said to have had four White nations contained within it;

1. The North (the urban areas of Massachusetts, New York and Pennsylvania as well as some Midwestern states settled by their descendants): Urban, industrialized areas whose ruling class (i.e. industrial capitalists and finance capitalists) supported abolitionism throughout the American Empire, statism and Henry Clay’s American System of protectionist economic policies and federal interstate commerce development projects. The Northern ruling class was anti-imperialist,
2. The South (Louisiana, Florida, Texas, Georgia, Alabama, the Carolinas, Arkansas, Maryland, parts of Tennessee, Mississippi and Virginia): Rural, slavery-based agricultural areas whose ruling class (i.e. slaveholding agricultural capitalists) supported the extension of slavery throughout the American Empire and free trade. The Southern ruling class opposed federal interstate commerce development projects and were divided on imperialism,
3. Appalachia: Rural, smallholder agrarian-based society. The Appalachian people were clannish⁹, indifferent to slavery and favorably disposed toward Jacksonian popular sovereignty as well as imperialism,
4. The Northeast (New Hampshire and Maine): Rural, smallholder, agrarian-based society. Northeasterners were divided on slavery and imperialism but favorably disposed toward Jacksonian popular sovereignty.

The contestation of the Northern and Southern nations to gain hegemony over the American Empire was eventually into a Southern struggle for their national independence against the American Empire itself. The Southern Democratic Party, in the year 1860, refused to endorse the federal Democratic Party’s Presidential candidate, the Northern proponent of popular sovereignty Stephen Douglas, in favor of John C. Breckinridge. The election of the Appalachian-born (though ideologically-Northern) Republican, Abraham Lincoln¹⁰, was the catalyst for the Southern states’ legislatures’ secession from the American Empire and the unsuccessful War for Southern Independence that followed. Dr. Johnson would indubitably respond to the foregoing in the manner of “The distinct white American ethnicity that I wrote of in my article ‘What is American Nationalism?’ was created via postbellum European immigration and hte demographic transformation accompanying this phenomenon renders your case against White American Nationalism moot.” Dr. Johnson’s response, which is a de facto strategic withdrawal¹¹, hardly redeploys the forces of “White American Nationalism” upon superior ground. The ground upon which Dr. Johnson has redeployed¹², in fact, was the periods when the formerly enslaved Black population was granted naturalization as American citizens under the 1866 Civil Rights Act¹³ – “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States ; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime …” – and also the era in which the American Supreme Court handed down the Wong Kim Ark decision that extended eligibility for naturalization as American citizens to Mongoloid Non-Human Hominids. Dr. Johnson’s “White American Nationalist” ideology has been found to be devoid of any fundamentally reliable basis whatsoever.

The Implausibility of the National Populist Strategy Within Contemporary America

National Populism is an electoral strategy wherein Nationalists support a political party that campaigns for an office on a platform comprised of implicitly Nationalist concerns (e.g. immigration restriction, economic nationalism, market skepticism, strengthening the welfare state, traditionalism, pro-natal policies). National Populist parties do not overtly articulate Nationalist ideology, they are, rather, vehicles for the unconsciously Rightist sentiments of the indigenous ethnicity of their native countries’. Dr. Johnson believes that nationalists should engage in entryism into National Populist parties and that we should exploit the platforms provided by these National Populist parties to persuade the party membership to embrace Nationalism and thereby convert the National Populist behemoth into an authentically Nationalist leviathan. From “What is American Nationalism?”;

” … The white Americans who lean toward white identity politics, even implicitly, overwhelmingly vote for the Republican Party …”

From “Wignats Whirr for War”;

“If Trump had built the wall, deported millions of illegal aliens, eliminated systematic Democratic voter fraud, and reversed white demographic decline, he could have saved America as a prosperous, First World country. He could also have saved the American system of two-party democracy.

But Trump failed. Trump will be the last Republican President. And he will be a one-term President. Already, there are probably not enough sane white people in America to reelect him. What comes next is a Democratic one-party state that will resemble Mexico: a violent, corrupt, squalid, and socialistic non-white society ruled by a tiny white and Jewish elite of ultra-rich sociopaths mouthing Left-wing slogans. …”

“On election night, 2020, 60 million white Americans are going to finally experience what we have been warning them about for decades. They are going to see their country stolen from them through non-white immigration. They are going to see the beginning of the Democratic one-party dictatorship.

But when America becomes a banana republic, and democracy becomes an obvious sham, then why should white Americans abide by the results? Why should they allow their nation to be stolen from them? Why shouldn’t they take it back?

Now I have a serious question to pose to White Nationalists: If you want our movement to be in a position to mobilize the Trump electorate and turn it into a genuinely revolutionary National Populist movement, …”

“What should White Nationalists do about Trump? First of all, we need to understand the battle we are in.

• We’re the good guys, the National Populists who represent the interests of white Americans.
• The bad guys are the political establishment, including the Republican Party and Conservative Inc. (I support total war against these people.)
• The people we are trying to win over are the 60 million people who voted for Donald Trump, many of whom fervently support him. …”

“If we take this course, Trump voters will increasingly trust White Nationalists as the people who best articulate the National Populist vision they hold in their hearts. That will put us in the position to take up the National Populist standard when Trump goes down to defeat. But to win this game, we have to be in play as well.”

The oxymoronic of Dr. Johnson’s anti-GOP, pro-National Populist electioneering strategy – in light of his prior discussion of both the implausibility of electioneering and the fact that the very persons whom he believes that the “White American Nationalist” movement should seek to win over to a prospective National Populist party identify with the Republican Party (whose destruction he supports) – is unmistakable. The indigenous populations within the countries where the National Populist strategy has been successfully executed (e.g. Italy, Poland, Denmark, Hungary) comprise well over 80% of the total population within their respective countries whereas the “White alone (Not Hispanic or Latino)” population in America, per the 2010 census¹⁴, comprised only 63.7% of the total population of the American Empire. The “White alone (Not Hispanic or Latino)” population in America, per the 2000 census, comprised 69.1% of the total population of America. The surge of illegal immigration into America from the Amerindian Central American countries that has occurred in the wake of the last census (i.e. 22 million rather than 11 million) justify an estimate that the current “White alone (Not Hispanic or Latino)” population in America compromises no more than 58.3%¹⁵ of the total population of America. The White population in America voted 57%¹⁶ for the Donald Trump presidential ticket in 2016 and 54%¹⁷ for the Republican candidates within the 2018 midterm elections. The average percentage of the White population that votes Republican in elections – ascertained by both the addition of the foregoing two percentages and the subsequent division of the sum total thereof by two – is 55%. The utter failure of the White electorate to have racialized and established a National Populist party decades ago (i.e. when such a strategy was demographically feasible) combined with the lack of any trend toward racialization amongst the contemporary White electorate serve to incontrovertibly refute Dr. Johnson’s tepid endorsement of a National Populist electoral strategy.

The Alternative

The Alternative to the “White American Nationalist” delusion – far from vantardism, “Neo-Nazism” and “pandering to … a cringy fringe of freaks” – is, in fact, support for the national liberation movements of the White ethnicities that are presently incorporated within the American Empire (e.g. Northeastern [White], Southern [Anglo-Celtic], Westerners [Celtic and Germanic], Appalachians [Scots-Irish]) in their struggles for national liberation from the American Empire as independent ethnostates. The Northeasterner should focus on Northeastern liberation, the Southerner on Southern liberation, etc., and each ethnic nationalist movement should show solidarity with the national liberation struggles of the other ethnic nationalist movements. The current imperial deficit of the American polity, the prospects for it’s further metastasis as well as the unsustainable Keynesian deficit-spending capitalist foundations upon which the American economy is predicated are the greatest repository of hope for both the preservation and the national liberation of the White ethnicities (who are presently held in bondage to the oligopolistic capitalist class dictatorship that owns the American Empire [which is governed by the latter’s cronies]).

APPENDIX: Against Americanism, For a New Way Forward

I have enclosed two documents which should make it clear that Americanism and White Nationalism are incompatible. President Jefferson’s 1808 State of the Union Address and President Monroe’s 1817 Treaty With The Cherokee Agency reveal that the American founders’ conception of the forthcoming cultural and biological foundations of America was that of a mestizo country. The early Naturalization Acts that delimited naturalization as citizens to “White persons” – the theoretical foundations of the “White American Nationalist” ideology – are thereby subverted by the very men whom the “White American Nationalist” regards as intellectual forebears (demonstrating the fundamentally unreliable character of the aforementioned foundations of the “White American Nationalist” ideology). I hope that Counter-Currents
¹⁸ examines the authentic new White civilizations
¹⁹ that have sprung up on the North American continent and becomes a platform for the articulation of their unique civilizations and their national liberation struggles²⁰. The adoption of the foregoing recommendation would place Counter-Currents at the forefront of a regenerating movement, breaking new theoretical ground and creating an ideological basis for the activists that will create the White ethnostates which shall emerge from the ruins of the American Empire.

1. State of the Nation 1808 (www.let.rug.nl).
2. Treaty With The Cherokee – 1817 (www.firstpeople.us). The text of the 1817 Treaty With The Cherokee that I sent to Dr. Johnson, however, was directly from the website of the Cherokee Nation.
3. Wignats Whirr For War (www.counter-currents.com).
4. Is White Nationalism Un-American? (www.counter-currents.com).
5. What is American Nationalism? (www.counter-currents.com)
6. The Confederate States of America also granted naturalization to the Cherokee, a problem that Southern Nationalists (if indeed they regard the Southern identity to be an Anglo-Celtic identity) will need to confront.
7. Some might claim that the Whiskey Rebellion was the first illustration of the imperial nature of the American polity because it pit two distinct ways of life – rural agrarians against urban industrial and mercantile interests – against each other. I believe that the Whiskey Rebellion was much broader than a conflict between two or more ethnicities (i.e. the tax on interstate commerce was opposed not only by the Appalachian ethnicity but also by much of the rural North as well [the rural Northeast, in particular, tended to vote for the Democratic-Republican Party])
8. Some of whom had been dispatched by their state legislatures, others had been sent on the initiative of their countries.
9. They still are.
10. The election of the Northern nation’s candidate was a foregone conclusion because of the split within the Democratic Party that was precipitated by the Southern branch of the Democratic Party.
11. Perhaps Dr. Johnson would take issue with my ascribing the following hypothetical responses to his person but I believe that if the aforementioned material (i.e. the 1808 SOTU, the 1817 Treaty With The Cherokee, the contestation between different White nations within the American Empire for hegemony over the federal government) were presented to him, in the order that I have undertaken within this article, he would almost certainly reply in the manner that I have indicated. I don’t believe that I am caricaturing Dr. Johnson – he is an intelligent man who is nevertheless endeavoring to defend an ideology constructed upon unreliable foundations.
12. 1865-1965.
13. THIRTY-NINTH CONGRESS. Sess. 1. Ch. 31. 1866. (memory.loc.gov). The formerly enslaved Black population were granted naturalization as American citizens by the 1866 Civil Rights Act, not by the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment (as purported by Dr. Johnson).
14. The White population: 2010, Table 1. White Population: 2000 and 2010 (www.census.gov).
15. How Groups Voted in 2016 (ropercenter.cornell.edu).
16. The 2018 midterm vote: Divisions by race, gender, education (www.pewresearch.org).
17. Assuming that the level of immigration, legal and illegal, remained (at least) unchanging between 2000 and 2020.
18. I have considerable respect for (and have been influenced by) your articulation of the object of White Nationalist ideology as being the preservation (rather than the homogenization) of the White sub-races (I used the taxonomically inaccurate term of “sub-races” rather than “races” only because I was endeavoring to persuade Dr. Johnson of my thesis) and ethnicities. Counter-Currents has (to the best of my knowledge) been the only Anglophone publication to actually undertake the critique of culture and philosophy (i.e. utilize the methods of the European New Right) generally.
19. Against the American and the Canadian Empires.
20. Examples include the South (Anglo-Celtic), the West (Celtic and Germanic), Appalachia (Scots-Irish), the Northeast (Whites), and Quebec (Franks).