Personally, I believe a Southern ethnostate (an independent “petty nationalist” state for my beloved Anglo-Celts and our tapestry of other minority European ethnic contributions such as the Cajuns in Louisiana) would be ideal (the closer that citizens are related by blood and the more history that they share in common the better), but since I am being called out by name here I will defend the concept of a White ethnostate. A race-based ethnostate would definitely have more issues, but the case against it is exaggerated and especially when coming from liberals. What exactly holds together the liberal state? Is our current boiling cauldron of racial, ethnic, religious and class animosity a better model?
“According to the staff of the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the phrase “White nationalist” is relatively new by linguistic standards since it only started to appear in print during the first half of the 20th century.”
The idea that America is a “White Man’s Country” was the dominant view of American identity until the post-World War II era. Americanism wasn’t disentangled from whiteness until the 1950s and 1960s. Americanism wasn’t disentangled from Anglo-Saxon identity until the 1930s and 1940s. The concept of “White Nationalism” as a project that is separate and distinct from American national identity grew out of this shift in national identity among liberal elites that occurred after World War II.
“The concept of a state by, for, and populated with White people by design, however, is much older within the United States. For instance, the Naturalization Act of 1790 — among the earliest immigration laws in the United States — extended a path to citizenship to “any Alien being a free white person” after a two-year residence while not giving that same path to members of other races. Later on, the Oregon Black Exclusion laws of the 1840s prohibited free Black Americans from entering the northwestern territory, and the Immigration Act of 1917 banned the vast majority of immigration to the United States from Asia. The concept of the United States as a White nation is woven into the earliest legal fabric of its identity. It is by no means a new idea.”
Yes, this is the oldest and arguably the most American of all ideas. Unlike the infatuation with Enlightenment liberalism or Romanticism which were fads that were imported from Europe, it organically grew out of the English colonial experience in North America. It emerged as a result of chronic frontier warfare with Indians and living in close proximity to black slaves. From the beginning of the Republic, there were Americans who disliked racial diversity and who regretted slavery and who aspired to racial homogeneity and who wanted to remain English and expel the Indians and resettle the blacks in Africa. The feeling was strongest in the Upper South and the Border states where state legislatures appropriated funds to resettle blacks in Africa shortly after the ratification of the Constitution.
“What might be legitimately more novel are the attempts to crystallize the U.S.’s role as a White ethnostate, or at the very least to designate part of what is now the United States as such a state. These attempts go further than the restrictive immigration policies of yesteryear. Formal proposals like the Northwest Territorial Imperative or informal propositions like those put forth by the likes of Bradley Dean Griffin, Jason Kessler, and Jeff Schoep are mainstays of the far-right ideology of the present day, but their aims are different than those of before.”
The “novelty” of our views derives from the fact that we have given up on the United States and would prefer to live in our own separate state. Even this isn’t really an original idea though. The Confederates had the same grievances. The Confederates were also the trailblazers in dissolving the Union. Confederate citizenship was based on state citizenship which was based on whiteness. The Confederates were exasperated with other White people who had radically different ideas about race, culture and constitutional government. They rejected the idea that social equality was progress.
“For them, a White ethnostate is a state founded on their belief in the superiority of and an imagined threat to “Whiteness,” White people, White Christianity, and “the West,” and that anything not sufficiently in those categories is to be denigrated. …”
If I may speak for myself, I don’t believe in white superiority, nor do I have any desire to lord it over anyone else. Quite the opposite. My ideal is self government. Unlike the U.S. federal government, I don’t support imperialism and militarism with an eye toward world domination. I don’t have any desire at all to dominate other nations or project military force abroad. I love my own race, ethnicity and culture. I would like to recognize my grandchildren and preserve our traditions and heritage. I’m a racial and cultural conservative. Also, the idea that I denigrate everything non-White, non-Western and non-Christian is absurd. In fact, I spend most of my time criticizing other White people like Bobos who have stupid ideas.
“To quote possibly the most infamous 21st-century White nationalist, at least before his apparent about-face in 2020, Richard Spencer stated in a 2013 interview stated that his vision “is a new society, an ethnostate that would be a gathering point for all Europeans.”
This was one of Richard’s better formulations.
A White ethnostate is an aspiration, an ideal or a goal to work toward. It is based on the belief which is heresy to our liberal elite that homogeneity, not diversity, is a strength. The strongest nations are the places that have the most internal cohesion and the strongest social fabric and the least racial, ethnic, cultural, class and ideological divisions. China and Japan are examples of this ideal. No one in China thinks that they would better off with 40 million African immigrants living in their biggest cities.
“Putting aside the fact that a “unified Western culture” is less of an intrinsic identity and more of a modern invention, a White ethnostate is quite literally a rehashing of Nazi ideology for America. …”
To my knowledge, a White ethnostate wasn’t a part of Nazi ideology. The Nazi ideal was German unification or the creation of a pan-Germanic empire. Irish, Poles, Swedes, Italians, Greeks, Spaniards and so forth were American citizens and were accepted as White during World War II. American racial ideology was much more inclusive than the Nazi version. Jews were a blindspot for Americans.
“Yet there is more to it than that. It is not just that the nationalistic plans of these people are morally reprehensible. A White ethnostate in the 21st century would fail. And it would fail spectacularly.”
Why would a White ethnostate fail in the 21st century? There are plenty of modern states which are based on shared religion and ancestry. Those states are also more stable and less dysfunctional than the United States where nothing unites the people anymore including shared ideology.
“To begin with, founding a White ethnonationalist state on current American soil would prove to be a nearly impossible task. There are, theoretically, two ways by which such a nation could gain legal rights to the land on which to found their country: by legal secession or by force.”
No, there is a third way.
We could build on the precedent set by Indian reservations. There are over 500 federally recognized tribes who live on over 300 Indian reservations in an area the size of Idaho. The entire state of Oklahoma used to be set aside as an Indian territory before it was admitted to the Union. There is no reason why similar areas couldn’t be created for other races who wanted to live among their own kind.
“Legal secession has been argued within the American legal system before, most notably in the 1869 Supreme Court case Texas v. White. By a 5-3 majority, the court’s decision was clear: States cannot secede from the union. No meaningful challenge to that ruling has come up in the past century and a half since it was decided, and it is relatively unlikely that the Supreme Court as it stands today, even with its conservative bent, would be willing to uproot that particular precedent.”
The Supreme Court has overturned its precedents in the past like the Plessy decision in Brown v. Board of Education. If necessary, it could do so again to defuse racial tension.
“A slight variation on the above idea might be a new entrant into the United States that is designed for White people. This would be similar in design to Oregon’s original status, specifically after the Black Exclusion laws were passed. Perhaps this is what Patriot Front founder Thomas Rousseau meant when he wrote, “A nation within a nation is our goal.”
There are millions of Whites who are racial conservatives. There are far more White people who would prefer to live around other Whites than there are American Indians in the United States.
“Unlike wholesale secession, the partition or formation of a new state from an existing state within the Union is legal and has precedent, with examples like Vermont, Maine, and most notably West Virginia, provided that there is the “Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.” However, such a plan would necessitate a change in legislation to allow stronger borders between states, which is unlikely to be approved today as it would violate Supreme Court precedent, and getting Congress or any individual state on board with this plan is equally implausible.”
We already have these racially autonomous zones which are organized under their own sovereign tribal governments. They are called Indian reservations.
“A White supremacist may argue that “nations within nations” already exist in the United States in the form of Indigenous nations and reservations, which are treated as somewhat separate entities from the U.S. federal system. However, there is a difference in kind here. The Indigenous nations were not newly established states with the intention of excluding outsiders by design; they are better understood as legal recognition of preexisting nations that existed on the American continent before the U.S. was founded. It is difficult to argue that an exclusionary construction should be treated with equal sovereignty to a marginalized nation, especially predating the United States. …”
No, there isn’t.
Indian tribes migrated all over North America. The Creek Indians who were relocated to Oklahoma from here in Georgia and Alabama in the early 19th century were themselves created out of the remnants of even older groups. Oklahoma also used to be Indian Territory. It was set up as a racially based ethnostate for Indians. In the case of White Americans, this would be even easier to do because there are far more racially conservative Whites, higher capital and there are fewer tribal divisions.
“That leaves the option of taking the land for a White ethnostate. True, there are military aspects to many White nationalist organizations, but trying to fight the U.S. military in any capacity on home soil is a nearly insurmountable task. It is quite literally playing with fire; the state could not be founded by force. …”
Granted, this scenario is less plausible, but the U.S. military has been fighting to draws or outright losing wars since World War II. In any case, the division and hostility within the United States is growing worse with each passing year due to its loss of homogeneity. Creating a White ethnostate based on the precedent of Indian reservations would defuse racial tension by creating an outlet that is a proven success.
“For the sake of argument, let’s assume that the barriers to creating the White ethnostate described above are surmounted. Let us suppose that through some means, whether rhetorical, legal, or martial, a White ethnostate is founded on American soil. Even if we waive all these issues, the state in question would still fail. …”
Why would Whitemanistan fail?
There is plenty of empty space in the United States where a White ethnostate could be created. The only thing stopping this from happening is the zoning.
There are millions of racially conservative Whites who would rather live in a racially based ethnostate than under American liberalism. The intensity of the culture war is proof of this.
5 out of 10 people in Washington and Oregon were born out of state. 6 out of 10 people in Arizona and Florida were born out of state. There is no reason why White people wouldn’t uproot themselves to move across the country which they already do every day.
White people move out of cities and states and into new cities and suburbs every single day to avoid racial diversity. They are already doing this. It is a huge financial waste.
Sure, you could say that Whitemanistan might lack a common culture, but why would that be an obstacle to its success? The residents of Whitemanistan would share a common ideal which is more than can be said of most cookie cutter suburbs where White people only share the same income level.
“To begin with, an ethnostate of this design could not live up to the economic power and productivity of the previous United States. It is a well-documented fact that a significant portion of the U.S.’ economic prowess and growth can be ascribed to the amount of immigrants we let in, the vast majority of whom are people of colour. …”
The purpose of creating a White ethnostate would be to restore the racial, ethnic and cultural homogeneity that has been lost under American liberalism. Those who want to live in the economic zone that is modern America could always choose to live there. Some people would rather have grandchildren that look like them and share their culture than live in a McMansion.
“From the very beginning, the United States’s economy was built on the backs of immigrant and native-born people of colour, and to eliminate non-White people is to make a huge economic mistake which will have devastating effects on the proposed ethnostate finances. …”
Is it unjust to live in an economic zone and exploit the labor of immigrants and BIPOC people, OR, to give up those proposed benefits for the sake of a higher ideal? Surely, it can’t be both? Aren’t there people who would gladly give up these alleged benefits of diversity to have grandchildren who look like them?
“Furthermore, a state of this design would not only struggle to get on its feet economically — especially if it is trying to replicate the U.S. — but also it would likely struggle to receive the aid and collaborations of other nations as well. The United States would be in direct opposition to such a state and would exercise its power as such, just like it did during the Civil War to the Confederacy. This fact, combined with a foundation of such uniquely racist principles, would likely result in the state being virtually unrecognized by the international community as a whole, specifically by the United Nations. …”
If such a state is really doomed to failure, then that should be all the more reason to give it a shot for those who are committed to this ideal could finally see the error of their ways and the wisdom of Harvard University. It would strengthen the argument against White Nationalism to give it a trial. Why are those who are so confident that such a state would fail unwilling to allow the experiment to take place?
“Beyond the political fallibility of such a project, it is important to recognize that the culture of a White ethnostate within America would sow the seeds of its own collapse as well. Central to the beliefs of White ethnonationalism is a sense of White supremacy and racial purity; after all, what is the point of creating a state for White people if White people are not something to be cherished? …”
No, not really.
Racial conservatism (the desire for racial and cultural continuity across generations and a dislike of novelty) is what is central to White ethnonationalism, not a superiority complex. The idea is no more complicated than wanting to pass on your genes and culture and understanding that this requires limits and boundaries that liberals habitually dissolve. You don’t have to feel “superior” to anyone to want to remain European.
“It was David Eden Lane, popularizer of the Northwest Territorial Imperative plan for an ethnostate, who argued, “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children.” In such a state, Whiteness, unsurprisingly, must be protected, in this case from a perceived threat of extinction, at all costs.”
Yes, it is natural to want your race and culture to continue. It is perverse to want your race and culture to go extinct as self-hating White liberals do.
“A movement and a nation built on the exclusion of the other must always find new others to exclude. When the “us” in an “us vs. them” mentality is something as nebulous and frankly modern as “Whiteness,” this constant search for the “other” can prove self-destructive. …”
By definition, nations and states have limits and boundaries and an “us” and “them” and distinguish between citizens and foreigners. This is true of all nations. This is the norm across most of the world. Cosmopolitans, however, distinguish between themselves and the out-group which is their own people.
“When the original other is expelled, the energy is pointed at those deemed “not sufficiently White.” In the past, such groups have included Jews, Irishmen, Italians, Catholics, and so on. Eventually, such a state becomes an ouroboros: A snake that eats its own tail until nothing is left and the ethnostate collapses under the weight of its own struggle for purity. …”
Is that what happened in this country?
At what point were Jews, Irish, Italians and Catholics ever excluded from American citizenship for being insufficiently White? The trend across American history was that whiteness became more inclusive, not less. In the South, it was always thought to be of less importance given the staggering racial divide between blacks and non-blacks. Nothing else mattered.
“White ethnonationalism is more than just an ethical nightmare. It is an idea that, if attempted, would face incredible obstacles at every single turn …”
If that is the case, then why shouldn’t the people who want it be allowed to try it? Why should everyone be forced to live under American liberalism against their will including those who would rather opt out of it?
“The legal, financial, national, and systemic issues that would plague such a proposal outweigh the current ability to implement that proposal. We must remain vigilant, but in the grand scheme of racism in America, this particular facet is not likely to go far”
The American Empire which is tottering on the brink of insolvency and collapse has far more serious issues to deal with. It elevated free market economics and liberal ideology above everything else in life. It is One Nation, Under the Dollar. Millions of people of all races will never be satisfied with a vision of national life that is purely economic and narrowly based on material consumption.