A Time for White Leadership

Will the last American kindly turn  off the Shining City on a Hill?

With the passing of Rush Limbaugh, this feels like the right moment to reflect on the legacy of talk-radio conservatism—an “alternative right” which preceded us—and to consider how we might succeed where they failed. In their bones, millions of right-leaning Americans know that the time of ‘standing-up for America as founded’ has passed. Our job is to prevail upon them that now is time for White America to stand-up as Whites, and stop fighting with half-their-brains-tied-behind-their-back.

But if we are going to fare any better than populist conservatism at bringing the necessary intellectual leadership to our people, we must be clear on our purpose—the ethnostate. We, as English-speaking Whites, view ourselves, rightly, as a nation. And as any other, our nation has a moral right to a state of a size commensurate to accommodate its numbers. This must be our message, stated just so plainly. Along with our ideal, we need a basic outline of how we can go from here to the ethnostate in a fashion morally acceptable to reasonable people. Otherwise, we are just wasting ours and everyone else’s time. Make America White Again is just as ridiculous as Make America Great Again. The fundamental flaws were (1) ideological misdirection/incoherence and (2) overestimating numbers and potential numbers. We should not make the same mistakes.


I’m not here to bash Rush; he was a supremely talented American original who faced his impending end admirably. I was never a dittohead, but I certainly get why so many were. A lot of other people did what he did, and he was a lot better at it than any of them. And there are many more nice things that may be said of the man, but I cannot be uncritical. It must be said that superior political insight—the ostensible purpose of his program—was not among Rush’s gifts. Though he spent his entire career railing against it, “the big voice on the Right” never did quite comprehend the magnitude of what we face, and even if he had, it’s not like he had any great ideological vision to counter it anyway.

He was just an American-style conservative, along with all the nonsense and futility that that entails. At the end of the day, his worldview amounted to a cruder version of that of the National Review. Plus, the Dems are the real racists. This, combined with his inimitable style, won him millions of loyal fans, and hundreds of millions of dollars, but it made not a dent in the Left’s relentless advance in the “culture war.” In the year Rush’s show went into national syndication, the GOP won the presidency for the fifth time of the last six elections (winning at least 40 states four times, and 49 states twice). Since then, the Democrats have won the popular vote in seven of the last eight presidential contests. “They used to get away with it.” Then Rush came along, and they still get away with it, but then, they’re the majority now anyway.

Their City is Gone.

The contradiction at the heart of talk-radio conservatism has always been an exaggerated love of “America” combined with a deep-seated opposition to all of America’s major institutions. It sounds ridiculous to us now, but forty-odd years ago, when Rush was a young man, it would have had some surface plausibility. In 1980, the country was still 80% White, down a bit from what it had been at mid-century, but the same as it had been when the first census was taken in 1790. Demographic changes were surely noticed around the edges, but it still looked like home. To the average low-information conservative, everything was fine until the pampered boomers came along. Then we got soft, and let the hippies and the bleeding-hearts infiltrate positions of power. Luckily, the ‘silent majority’ had reacted strongly against the excesses of 60s counter-culture. And then Ronaldus Magnus came along and warmed the cockles of their little hearts. Maybe we had learned our lesson. We just had to be more vigilant about “leftist wackos” going forward.

Well, we see how that worked out. During the “racial justice uprising” of this past summer, we received a particularly vivid illustration of how well that’s worked out. (Take note, an uprising is totally not the same as an insurrection, even if said uprising involved attempting to storm the White House, resulting in the evacuation of the president to an underground bunker. It is a false equivalency to compare storming the White House with storming the Capitol, and is just the sort of disinformation that we must get a handle on if we are to protect our democracy.) While many conservatives were aghast over the summer that Trump did not invoke the Insurrection Act to quell the “mostly peaceful” racial reckoning, Rush speculated that Trump worried about losing face, because the military leadership might well have refused to follow such an order. My friends, when it’s come to this, we can no longer speak in terms of our institutions being compromised. At such a point, there is no longer any “we” to speak of; there is only an us and a them.

The silver-lining, for us, in the contradictory talk-radio conservative worldview is how definitively it draws a friend-enemy distinction between the Left and the Right. Rush in particular never tired of expounding on why there can be no compromising with Leftism. Not only did Rush paint the Left as the implacable enemies of liberty and the American way, he went further, characterizing the psychology of Leftism in essentially the same terms as Edward Dutton does. The Left, Rush would explain, are not like you and me. Every aspect of life is political to them, they insert ideology into everything. And they are never happy, always resentful. We might take pity on them if not for the fact that their resentfulness fuels a relentless hostility toward us. They are always on the attack. In other words, they are spiteful mutants. Amidst all his silly denunciations of “environmentalist wackos” and “feminazis,” this hard friend-enemy distinction was the true essence of the Rush phenomenon. Whether he pushed that way in the interest of securing audience engagement/investment or out of genuine conviction (I think both), is of no concern to us. What matters to us is that he did push that line, and in so doing, molded the entire populist wing of conservatism into that mindset.

What he ultimately sowed with this is something close to the opposite of his purported intent. His stated aim was to save America from liberalism, to not rest until every American agreed with him. What he actually accomplished was the division of America into separate nations. He so thoroughly alienated his audience, and much of the populist Right, from the rest of America that they have become a sort of amorphous proto-nation. It turns out he really was on the cutting-edge of societal evolution.


To me one of the most extraordinary developments which I have not seen remarked upon elsewhere is the emergence of the Trump 2020 flag. At the rallies, on cars, and hoisted up residential flagpoles, Trump partisans have a flag for their cause. As far as I can recall in my lifetime, this is a first in American politics. Supporters of American political campaigns have bumper stickers, yard signs, and campaign pins. They wave signs at campaign rallies. They don’t have flags. Nations have flags. The populist Right in America is already at least sub-consciously aware of itself as a separate nation. What defines them as a nation, and what they want for their nation, that they do not yet know. Their leadership has utterly failed them in that regard. In the grand scheme, all the wacky conspiracy theories that float around the mainstream populist Right are testament to Conservatism Inc’s failure of leadership. The stupid, and frankly sad, conspiracy theories of the Right are a direct result of conservative leadership being too weak and stupid to unequivocally rebut the conspiracy theories of the Left.

We live in a country in which every major institution has explicitly favored non-Whites over Whites for the better part of three generations, a country in which reducing Whites’ share of the population has long been official policy. And yet, the Left, and its mainstream media, is able to push the conspiracy theories of “White privilege” and “systemic racism” virtually unchallenged by mainstream conservatives. Sure, they will argue that the Left goes too far. Some of them will say that the leftist racial narrative is wrong altogether. But never do they give it the serious attention it deserves. Either they don’t comprehend the depths of the issue, or they just don’t care.

The concept of “White privilege” is not just one of many eccentric narratives floating around the leftist blogosphere. It is the Left’s very reason-for-being. They, and well-nigh the entire American establishment, stand on opposition to Whiteness as the foundation of their legitimacy. And it is a racial blood-libel, one that is for all intents directed squarely at the Right’s voter base, and aims at delegitimizing their cause at the root. And still, conservatives can hardly be bothered to address it.

Talk-radio is right when it tells conservatives that they are under-attack, but the attack is primarily against them as Whites. And the conservative establishment will not defend them on that ground, nor advance their interests on that ground. This is where we come in. We are the ones to defend them as Whites, we are the ones to advance their interests as Whites. We need to tell that, if they so choose, they, as English-speaking North American Whites, are a nation. Our job is to provide (1) the moral justification for why they ought to see themselves as a nation, (2) the moral vocabulary for them to assert their right to be a nation, and (3) explain  the moral means by which we might have a state for our nation. In other words, our job is to fill the leadership void on the American Right.

Naturally, weening them off of Americanness is a prerequisite to their embracing Whiteness as their nation. In the long run, this should not be too difficult. The America of their dreams is utterly implausible. The reality of America moves further away from their vision of America everyday. The very existence of talk radio is implicitly based on this fact of American life. The other side’s numbers grow every year, your side has won the popular vote for president once in the last eight cycles; do the math. Virginia and Colorado are deep-blue states. Even if you can cobble together a majority, do you really want to live in a country where a substantial share of the population bases its politics around hating you and everything you stand for? Your country should feel like home; you shouldn’t need to live on knife’s-edge every election cycle.

Meanwhile, this negative message is twined with our positive message for the ethnostate. You and yours were White long before they were American. The White race has been our peoples’ nation since before we had even conceived what a nation was. As an individual, race is your foundational group identity. Your ancestral membership in this group goes further back than any other group identity that separates you as distinct from others. It is your true nation not because its members share common values or tastes with you, but because it simply is you, you at scale.

You may have been mislead to think that collective identity necessarily imposes on individual liberty, especially if it is an inherent identity such as race. With other collective identities, that may be true, but not with race. The fact that race is inherent, the fact that you did not chose it, is precisely what makes it so conducive to individual liberty. If race is the basis on which your nation-state defines itself as a nation state, then there is no inherent need for the state to coerce you into conformity. You conform with the nation-state by your very existence. You are free to do whatever you like with your life, and it will not change the fact that you will conform to the nation’s definition of itself from the second you were born until the second you die.

If you still want something else, whether that be Americanism or whatever, so be it. Unlike the Left, I do not wish to force you into ideological conformity. You are right that nationalism should be based on ideas. But it is not the nation that hands the idea down to the individual. That would truly constitute a harmful collectivism. Rather, it should be the individual who makes his idea into a nation. As a good, freedom-loving American, I believe every individual has an inalienable right to the nation of his choice. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are a dead letter if the tyranny of the majority can suppress the nationalism of the individual. 

To most ethnonationalists, this all looks very unrealistic at first glance, but think deeper, and outlandish idealism of this kind is the only realistic path. Our “nation” is scattered all across the fruited plain, everywhere a minority, yet all together we are several millions. There is certainly potential for us to grow our numbers, but it is pretty safe to assume that we will always be a minority. Not least because barely more than half the country is even White, and that share is going down all the time.

Let’s say we nationalists, as 15-20% of the population (we are likely not half that, but that is probably about what we need to be for anyone to pay attention to us), identify as a separate nation, and request the right to go our own way. To that end we ask for a viable area of some 3-5% of the country’s territory, home to an even smaller share of the country’s population, for ourselves. And as recompense we announce our willingness to pay the U.S. an x-amount share of our GDP for an x-number of years, as well as pledging to remain in military alliance with them. Most Americans, eventually,will support our cause, provided we are loud and visible enough.

In principle, most people have no moral objection to the notion of an ethnostate. If some number of people want to go and live that way, fine. The only moral problem they have with it is, but how? What about the people already there? It’s all well and good to talk of “raising consciousness,” but public consciousness never becomes public acceptance until we answer this question. Besides, answering the question of how is in effect an aspect of our moral argument ,and thus is of a piece with raising public consciousness.

There really is no good argument against us, other than, “But we hate you, and you deserve nothing.”

What about the people who already live there, and want to stay in America? The other 95+% of America is still there for them. If moving 100 miles down-the-road is too great an inconvenience, then it must not be that important to them after all. You can help them with their moving costs with the money we’re already paying you. What’s really inconvenient is not having your own country at all. What about the non-White population there? Same goes. And if they live inland that would become part of the ethnostate, then the odds are they already live around a bunch of White people anyways. What’s a few more?

Yes, majority support is not the same as elite support. The establishment is unlikely to be moved by the righteousness of our cause. Opposition to our cause is their cause. So we have that going against us. But things can change.

Having majority support is not everything, but it gets the ball rolling, it builds consciousness. If it is the right majority, it becomes difficult to ignore. If we are 15-20%, and 70% in total support our cause, including a large chunk of the organized non-White and far-Leftist base who just want the racists out, meanwhile increasing numbers of the Right are joining with us, then pressure starts to build in our favor.

Combine that with where our politics appear headed over the next decade. The federal government has run-up an enormous deficit over the past year. The Democrats’ base is impatient for even more spending, for an ever wider and deeper social safety net. To those in the beltway, $50-100 billion a year is not worth losing a France-size chunk of territory over, but activists may well see it as leaving money on the table that could go to social programs. Meanwhile, the conservatives have been making their own murmurs about the possibility of a national divorce. No less than Rush himself hedged in that direction recently. Conservative Inc’s first instinct would be to suppress us as hard as they can, but the base is likely to continue entertaining their own ideas of national divorce. Suddenly there’s a lot of moving parts in play, and maybe, eventually, the establishment decides a state for us is their least worst option. They can decapitate red state secessionism, and pacify the proles with some gibs in one move.

Maybe our message never breaks through here, but what about Canada or Australia? Like the US, those countries have run up huge deficits during the pandemic. Unlike the US, their currencies are are not the global reserve currencies. They may be in for some lean economic times. Canada also is planning to increase their already outlandish immigration totals for the coming years. You never know who’s going to rally to your flag until you unfurl it.

If you want to sit around, all coming up with reasons why the elite will never permit us an ethnostate, that’s your affair. Okay, maybe the ethnostate doesn’t have much to offer the establishment. That is all the more reason why we must appeal to the moral sympathies of the people. The morality of our cause is the only card we have to play

“Be realistic. Stop LARPING”
This sounds pie-in-the-sky, but our ideal is already pie-in-the-sky. Embracing that is our most realistic option. “More realistic” people on our side claim the path to our salvation is infiltrating the GOP/conservative movement, or boycotting the electoral process, or attaching White identity to an economic populist program.
Infiltrate the GOP? People have been attempting this for years, and it’s gotten nowhere. Hell, conservatives have been at that game for even longer.
As for boycotting the electoral process, would anyone even notice? If every one of us had sat out the last election, voter turnout still would have been higher than it was in the 90s. Rather than delegitimizing the establishment, lower voter turnout might just as easily be interpreted as a sign of relative social content. And while economic populism may well be useful as a cudgel for bludgeoning the GOP, it is certainly not going to Make America White Again. And if your ultimate aim is a separate ethnostate, then economic populism is a dishonest line. The ethnostate is not going to be in a position to provide a lavish social welfare system. If it’s gibs you’re after, best to stick with Team America.

But whatever the merits of these or any other strategies, they would “put the cart before the horse.” The self-styled realpolitik tacticians of our side who would sneer at my naïveté betray their own misapprehensions of how power works. They fundamentally misunderstand our position. Strategies are for actors, and we are not an actor, we are an ideology.

States, sports teams, chess players; these are actors. They have strategies. They are actors because they already went through the ideological part. They already know who they are. We are not like them. We are a still-forming idea. It is a still-forming idea because, even if we here know who we are, 90% of the members of our would-be nation do not know who we are. Many Whites are ethnonationalists ‘who just don’t know it yet.’ Subliminal entryism is not going to get them there. The first step is to define to our people what we want, and why we should have it. Otherwise there is no “we” in the first place.

Sorry folks, just saw the word count, and I’m long here, but we’ll be back before you know it.
Reposted from Affirmative Right, with permission. Ryan Andrews is the author of the forthcoming book The Elective Nation.
45 replies
  1. Tim Folke
    Tim Folke says:

    This is truly an all-encompassing article that all our folk should read.

    In regards to White leadership, let us not make the same mistake we have in the past, so many times, of having just one or two strong leaders. For when those leaders passed on, they simply left a void. We need many, many White leaders (women as well as men), and we need to make good provision for the continuance of their work when they leave life’s stage.

    Sometimes when a parasite is not checked the host will die. We are seeing this now in the West. I am sure others can give better advice than I on how to avoid being entrapped in the collapse, but one piece of advice I will tender, especially to young White families, and it is this: if you are in a big city, GET OUT.

    • Leon Haller
      Leon Haller says:

      That is not enough. Prowhite whites need to relocate to a handful of already heavily white, fairly to heavily conservative states (eg, Idaho, Utah, Montana, Dakotas, Iowa). The more who move, the more will follow. States are important because they are actual political actors already. We don’t need to invent new leadership structures whole cloth. The more prowhites who ingather, the easier it will be eventually to elect OUR kind of prowhite leadership. We must gradually build up our own proto-ethnostate ‘sotto voce’. As things stand, not even the Federal Government can stop me, you, and those like us from moving to the same few contiguous states.

      • Tim Folke
        Tim Folke says:

        Actually I agree wholeheartedly with you, Leon, and have voiced the same thing for over a decade now.

        The issue is this: Most of our folks just do not want to relocate. Those in New England want to stay there, those in the Midwest want to stay there, those in the Deep South want to stay there. Much of the reason is simply this: Where they live is their home. Home includes ancestral history, being close to your kids, friends you grew up with, etc. I can appreciate that.

        Personally, I do not care where our new home would be, though I would say we would need a generous coastline to accommodate, um, other help and support. Again, and this is just me personally, I have been back East and in the Deep South and that is why I prefer the Pacific Northwest, as you alluded to in your comment.

        I prefer wolves over alligators, pines over palms, and mountains over hills. And, I have a hard time with humidity. Yeah, I’m still scratching my head on this one, for as far as I know every secession movement to date has had the question of geographic definition as one of its foundations – except for us.

    • Crush Limbraw
      Crush Limbraw says:

      Tim – you’ve touched upon several issues which form the reason for my presence on the net, even down to the language of it.
      First – Western Civilization rests on 3 pillars as I’ve learned from history: Christianity, Graeco-Roman legacy and it’s growth and development in Europe – which means White Europeans. That’s just FACT! There was an excellent article on feudalism just a few days ago on this very site, on which I commented that Christendom was the term often used to describe the era we call Middle Ages.
      The Enlightenment claiming credit for WC is pure BS – it is busily engaged in its very destruction as we speak today.
      Second – politics is downstream from society and culture – and we have been infested by a constant encroachment from a source which Jesus Himself defined as the children of DaFather of Lies.

      Trump was trumped by those who control the political infrastructure – plain and simple!
      We’ve had well over 100 years of steady and relentless infestation of our house by termites, to the point that when we call for pest control, more termite planters usually respond.
      The question is – why?
      Answer – those whose responsibilities include maintaining culture and education have slept in our comfortable homes and churches – while gradually losing them all to our ‘friendly’ infestees.
      We’re too freaking lazy and stupid to do the hard work necessary – as clearly outlined by our instruction book. Read Ephesians 6 sometimes – all of it – with special focus on verse 12. Then read Hebrews 5 and 6 – especially 5:11 through 6:2. You don’t go to war and expect to win with an army of infants.
      Our purpose here on earth is not to have Jesus be our Divine Butler – we are His bond servants – not Trump’s or any other earthly messiah’s.
      When we become serious about our mission as outlined in Matt. 28:28-20, the blessings of God will abound according to our faith and diligence – and most of all, His grace.
      That is the only purpose of my life and yours – which I have discovered after wandering in the desert of life most of my days.
      Better late than never – read the rest at you know where – my website – and get to work!
      Bottom line – there can be no Western Civilization without all 3 of its pillars, especially Christianity, not to be confused with Churchianity!
      We start with family, church, community and build up – that’s where we lost it and that is the only way we get it back.
      Forget earthly messiahs – they’re just opportunists – useful up to point, but still passing meteors that flame out.

    • bruno
      bruno says:

      This is truly an excellent article. I take my hat off to the author. I remember reading several times about a zyd from Paris. He advocated that Lloyd George and the English support efforts to create a zydowski (J) State in Palestine. The words he utilized are those I will never forget. He said, I have been French for only so many years. I have been a Jew for 4,000 years. We of EuroMan have to think in the same manner.

  2. Some White Guy
    Some White Guy says:

    We are not going to vote our way out of anything – they clearly steal elections when push comes to shove.

    We have no power over the hegemony of those in control of all communication means – they crush anyone who speaks truth.

    We are facing a tidal wave monetary force which aims 95% of world wealth at our destruction – we have pennies by comparison.

    Live your life as an example to others and surround yourself with other like minded folk. Tune into Jason Kohne’s message, get rid of your white guilt and Go Free.

  3. Richard McCulloch
    Richard McCulloch says:

    I was very favorably impressed by the first half of this essay but when Mr. Andrews began to describe his solution it struck me as very deja vu in a very disappointing way, in fact very much like Michael Hart all over again, whose 1996 solution I discussed in the third part of my TOO essay “Saving the White Race: The Problem and Solutions,” posted on January 27.

    Mr. Andrews estimates 15-20% of the population would join his seceding ethnostate. This would number 50-66 million, which would be 26-34% of the White population. Hart’s most optimistic scenario had 32.4% of the White population joining the White nation in his partition plan, toward the higher end of Mr. Andrews’ range.

    Mr. Andrews would claim only 3-5% of the country’s territory for his ethnostate, although it would have 15-20% of the country’s population. Hart, although Jewish, was much more generous to us on this point, allowing the White nation a share of the country’s territory, determined by value, proportional to its share of the population.

    Regarding the existing non-White residents of the territory claimed by his ethnostate Mr. Andrews states:

    “What about the non-White population there? Same goes. And if they live inland that would become part of the ethnostate, then the odds are they already live around a bunch of White people anyways. What’s a few more?”

    This indicates he would allow resident non-Whites to remain in the territory of his ethnostate, which again is similar to Hart, although he was more explicit on this point. But then it no longer qualifies as an ethnostate, as per the definition of Wilmot Robertson, who originated the term, who stated that “The basic sine qua non of an ethnostate, the prop on which it succeeds or fails, is racial and cultural homogeneity.”

    My criticisms of Hart’s plan also apply to Mr. Andrews’ similar proposal.

    • Richard McCulloch
      Richard McCulloch says:

      On another point, that is not similar to Michael Hart’s proposal discussed in my previous comment, Mr. Andrews’ states regarding social benefits such as welfare:

      “And if your ultimate aim is a separate ethnostate, then economic populism is a dishonest line. The ethnostate is not going to be in a position to provide a lavish social welfare system. If it’s gibs you’re after, best to stick with Team America.”

      This is probably true for his preservationally-insufficient, and even still multiracial, rump ethnostate, but not for a “National Premise” ethnostate with a three or four times larger all-White population and 15-25 times more territory.

      • Leon Haller
        Leon Haller says:

        Ryan Andrews is correct on this point, though perhaps for a different reason. The first decade or two of the Ethnostate might well involve some lean times, paradoxically requiring a great deal of, let us refer to it as “mutual aid”, not “welfare”. We will be somewhat akin to our pioneer ancestors of old, settling a new frontier.

        But eventually, once the founding and settling period has passed, we will still be facing a huge number of threats, including a jealous USA wanting back its territory. We will have to have an exceptionally dynamic and growing economy. That doesn’t just happen because its participants are white (whites are the best race, but we aren’t *that* great, especially not today’s degraded populace). White nationalists tend to be overly dismissive of centuries of hard-won conservative insight and wisdom simply because postwar conservatives have been evasive and cowardly about race. But much of the conservative agenda is correct, its elision of the race issue notwithstanding. One aspect that is decidedly right is that of the superiority of free market capitalism to every form of “social{ist} democracy”. Plenty of whites can be welfare bums, too, as well as persons placing selfish personal interests ahead if the national/racial interest. This is especially so over time. Most, eg, American famers are, overall, very fine and necessary people. That doesn’t stop them from sure loving their several hundred billions dollars in agricultural subsidies. We won’t be able to afford those kinds of “rent-seeking” inefficiencies (as well as injustices) in the Ethnostate, where we must have maximum capitalist dynamism in part because we may face waves of white refugees entering our new nation, and will need to incentivize the private sector creation of vast numbers of new jobs for them, and where we will also need to generate robust tax revenues earmarked for ethnostatist military defense and weapons research, as well as natalist subsidies to encourage maximum white birthrates, at least in the early years, to build up our population against what will become an ever increasingly nonwhite and hostile Remain USA, one which past generations of stupid whites will have allowed to have inherited our very expensive and nuclear-armed military.

        Finally, the welfare state has played a role as both cause and effect of the weakening of white racial will. Different political orders create different population characteristics. The welfare state creates a cringing, parasitic, passive comfort seeker, whereas what we will need for ultimate racial, as well as proximate ethnostatist, survival is a much tougher, more self-reliant, and resilient population. We can have some kind of welfare minimum – for the aged, orphaned, sick, and disabled – but beyond that, people must take care of themselves, or else appeal to churches or neighborhood charities, as in the old days. With a laissez-faire market economy with very minimal regulation, that shouldn’t be too difficult, once past the tense founding period.

        • Richard McCulloch
          Richard McCulloch says:

          Your points. like those of Mr. Andrews, are based on the assumption that the White ethnostate will by a rump secessionist state containing a small fraction of the country’s territory and White population, which would then confront a much larger and more powerful multiracial state that would still contain the great majority of the White population and nearly all of its economic and military strength, including the nuclear arsenal, and, by the way, would be the continuation of the United States. This is all very similar to Michael Hart’s proposal, and based on this assumption your points are well taken. But they are not valid for a “National Premise” (as Wilmot Robertson called it) White ethnostate realized by partition, in which the conditions of relationship between the White and multiracial states noted above would be reversed.
          See https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2019/05/25/161830/ and https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2021/01/27/saving-the-white-race-the-problem-and-solutions-part-3-of-3/

          It is interesting that so many pro-Whites, in which I presumptively include both you and Mr. Andrews, seem to exclusively conceive of the White ethnostate in the rump secessionist form, and do not consider, or ignore, or are unaware of, other alternatives such as the “National Premise” concept that would be far more advantageous to Whites and their interests and not place them in such desperate circumstances when much better options are still possible. Certainly we should all want the best for our race, which the rump ethnostate concept decidedly is not, as your own points make very clear.

    • Leon Haller
      Leon Haller says:

      The creation of the Ethnostate will be a gradual then sudden process (imo). Prowhites must spend the rest of the first half of this century building towards it via white metapolitics, white consciousness raising (of racial reality, our true racial and national history, and then how we are exploited, abused and ever more threatened), and prowhite physical relocation to a handful of contiguous states (see my comment above to “Tim Folke”). As more of us converge on a few states, we can begin slowly electing our own to state legislatures, as well as accelerating and intensifying the internal new nation-building process. The more we are, the more we can build up an increasingly “undoxxable” local economy – and the yet more attractive we will become to ever more persecuted whites outside the ingathering territory.

      This process, running along multiple parallel lines, will intensify until such time as we can elect our own to state legislatures, and then to governorships (in the same way that various black cities – Atlanta, Detroit, Baltimore – are controlled by blacks). Then the consciousness raising (and survivalist stockpiling – and child producing and rearing!) just keeps on going and growing until such time as there is a national crisis of state legitimacy and/or governmental control. When that happens – when the FedGov is facing multiple unresolvable crises – we peacefully secede (one hopes after already having had several non-binding popular ballot referenda on secession pass). Once we are sovereign – a big “if” – but not at all impossible, then we begin aggressively “Occidentalizing” the ethnostate: renaming streets after OUR admired historical figures; demulticulturalizing school curricula; removing any illegal aliens (and revoking lawful US visas held by nonwhites); outlawing miscegenation; removing laws against racial discrimination in employment and housing (and then privately encouraging our people to only “hire white” and “rent white” and even “sell white, and at least shaming those who disobey) and club association; and openly encouraging nonwhites still resident in the Ethnostate to immigrate to the remaining USA (as I believe a majority would within the first decade). We could take other nonviolent-aggressive measures, like forbidding nonwhites to serve on juries or in the police or even to vote. Without breaking true laws or even being unchristian (as would be the case with physical violence or property confiscation), we could create the conditions which would effectively cause most nonwhites to leave of their own volition. Even if no one were harming you, would you want to live in an area where the majority of people shun you, refuse to buy from you or sell to you, hire or do business with you, etc, especially if you were perfectly free to take your possessions and sell your property and move away 200 or 500 miles? I’ve lived in CA and New England and NYC – what’s the big deal about relocating within or to the USA?

      • Richard McCulloch
        Richard McCulloch says:

        All worthy tasks, but it sounds like it will take far more time than we have, and even then be insufficient, achieving far less than we need to achieve. In brief, a case of too little and too late. We should not distract ourselves with plans that take 30 or more years, but focus on accelerating events so they can happen before it’s too late for them to do us any good. The way events have been accelerating the last five or so years is reason for hope that things will come to a head much sooner and more suddenly than many of us considered possible.

  4. the watcher
    the watcher says:

    Sorry to say but your mish/mash of ideas and language: “Whiteness” (the language of our enemies) seriously? is not going to help us succeed and would help legitimize such ludicrous terms! As for “Leftism” another outdated and meaningless term favoured by conservatives – who conserve nothing, except the economic/power structures of our nations: Federal Reserve anyone? If we start to self-censor or adopt the enemies words then we have already lost, as we no longer have the confidence in our own beliefs or the language associated with it!

  5. Heinrich Metelmann
    Heinrich Metelmann says:

    Very interesting. The Frankfurt-School-type cultural Marxism that has been fiendishly unleashed upon the West by a certain group of people for what now has been several generations and its powerful influence on the average Western psyche will never allow, I believe, a peaceful negociation and establishment of an ethnostate. No one would even sit down at the negociation table. I may be pessimistic or overly negative, but I do not believe in a viable non-military solution to the racial problems of the West. By military I do not necessarily mean by bloodshed, but a by a show of force, Pax-Romana type. It will either be done manu militari as the Romans would say or I believe it will never be done. I hope someone can convince me that I am completely wrong.

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      You are no doubt correct about the fact that sheeple could not ever nor will ever establish a WN ethnostate . Sheeple can only provide essential infrastructure support .

  6. SC
    SC says:

    The ethnostate will not be accepted by our Anglo-Jewish ruling class and their nonwhite minions. How did peaceful secession work for my Confederate ancestors? Yankees and their northern European ilk would much rather slaughter racially aware European Americans than allow a racist ethnostate to be peacefully established. The ethnostate as ideal ignores the required massive population transfers and ethnic cleansing that would be anything but peaceful, Christian inspired, or aligned with Enlightenment liberal values. To survive, European Americans will have to invert their present value system from slave morality to master morality. The future of this continent will be either European supremacy or Jewish supremacy. We already function as tax and sex slaves for Jewish oligarchs who expect us to fight wars for Israel and fund welfare payments for nonwhite invaders. Violent revolution and eventual conquest is the only solution to our plight. All other peaceful alternatives amount to impotent fantasies. This author clearly indulges in them. We did not vote our way into this state of enslavement, and we will not vote our way out of it. GOP infiltration will fail for the nth time. Multiracial working class conservatism will function as Bush-era compassionate conservatism. In the process, we should expect GOP leaders to advance Zionist wars and to cut taxes for their donors while calling out the left for being racist, homophobic, and antisemitic. Most European Americans enjoy their slavery through Christian or Liberal values and hate their kinsmen who reject their slave morality in favor of blood and soil ethnonationalism. The left will never tolerate successful political action by racially aware European Americans. A cataclysm much like the 30 years war will meet us soon. I do not advocate for violence by non-state actors. I do not see blacks ruling America. Rather, I imagine that a racially mixed Castizo/Asian population will overthrow degenerate Jews over a long period of conflict. This process will take hundreds of years. Hispanics, East Asians, and some Europeans in America do not like the Zionist occupation. European Americans hate themselves and may improve through breeding with Mongoloids who do not share this congenital altruistic spirit or empathic drive for self-annihilation. We should adapt and focus on our enemy: the Jew.

    • Heinrich Metelmann
      Heinrich Metelmann says:

      No ethnostate of any kind will be possible without military power. The situation in the West (North America and Europe) must get much much worse, to the point of utter despair, before anything will happen.

  7. Karl
    Karl says:

    I would use the terms European, European heritage, and the like instead of White. There are probably other good terms to use as a way to get our “foot in the door.”

    It is probably possible to write articles in mainstream media about how European heritage is being pushed aside by minorities and how this is unfair and even racist.

    I am hearing this message from conservative radio hosts.

    You see, we need to start the conversation in a way that is acceptable. Be nice. Don’t say things in such as way that the radio program (as one example) will hang up on you. Be caeful of what you tell the program’s screener so that you will get on.

    Act victimized. Be charitable toward Blacks, Hispanics, and (if you dare) Israel (not “Jews”). Be intelligent. Be acceptable.

    Increasingly conservative media are becoming aware of the bias against Whites. Build on that.

    For example, Coca Cola is asking its employees to be “less White.”


    Act hurt by that. Play the victim. Out-victim the professional victim class. Identify with blue collar workers, parents, and families. Point out who the victims of crime are and who the perpetrators are.

    Point out that people of White European heritage are being marginalized and treated unfairly.

    It’s a start.

    • SC
      SC says:

      Why play the victim and operate under slave morality? When European Americans cry that they are victimized, they are only mocked by our enemies. This would demoralize us. You need to understand that this is a fight for our survival not some drama designed to make our enemies sympathetic.

    • Tim Folke
      Tim Folke says:

      You are right. ‘European’ is preferable to ‘White’. While we are the true ‘People of Color’ (and not just variants of dark) that title has already been taken by the People of Brown. ‘Aryan’ on the other hand has, for the time being, been stigmatized.

      The rest of your advice is excellent as well. Thanks, Karl, for giving us solutions! And, while we at times get tired of restating the problem, I do believe there is still a vital place to continue to vocalize the problem, but only for those newly awakening who are contemplating their first red pill.

  8. Otto Dydact
    Otto Dydact says:

    Man, I was really hoping for some insight. (It’s been a long day, so I’ll reread your essay tomorrow with fresh eyes.) But my first impression is: Ho F—ing Hum. Get to the point and offer practical solutions. That’s the problem with the internet…everyone gets an opinion…(me included.) And if I end up eating ‘crow’ cuz you did pose practical steps and a vision forward, well, it won’t be the first time. I hope dolts like me don’t ruin your day, you obviously spent some time putting this piece together. Every splinter group known to man is trying to live in our collective heads and compete for space, and the constant filtering gets old. I’d like to end by saying “thank you” for taking the time and making the effort to type your thoughts instead of making one more insipid video. Life is about to get very interesting in the good old USA.

  9. John Lash
    John Lash says:

    Some time ago, last year, I noted an article discussing the need for a master narrative for the white races… an issue that relates closely to this article. I have set out my thoughts on that issue in this talk:

    This is the first post I’ve contributed so it would be appropriate for me to introduce myself. Here is a short bio:
    As a comparative mythologist, I often have occasion to consider the question of race. Doing so, I am always strong on advocacy for protecting the 8% white minority in the global population. In some circles I am gaining the reputation of a leading “white supremacist,” for what that’s worth. My book Not in His Image contains a frontal attack on judeochristian master race ideology. It also presents the master narrative/origin myth created by the Aryan/Caucasian racial stock of ancient Persia, the Fallen Goddess Scenario:
    I would like to participate on this platform and I would appreciate some acknowledgement that I have made an appearance and perhaps some direction is how to fit into the discourse. I currently live in northern Spain.
    with regards,
    John Lamb Lash

    • Leon Haller
      Leon Haller says:

      Welcome aboard! Your book looks quite interesting. I may even buy it as an intellectual challenge, though I have a lot of unread books.

      That said, as both a Christian and a white preservationist, I would oppose you, not personally, as I’m tolerant of anyone of any background who wants to help prevent white extinction, but theoretically and pragmatically. Christianity is most certainly NOT a “master race” ideology. (Neither is it an ethnomasochistic nor anti-tribal preservationist one.) I suspect your understanding of the Faith is shallow, and based more on personal resentment than deep theological study.

      Furthermore, anti-Christianism and/or unscientific neopaganism is not going to fly in America, or maybe anywhere across Europa. Christianity may or may not be ontologically correct, but I assure you, all forms of paganism (and non-Christian spirituality, with the possible exception of a kind of Enlightenment monotheistic Deism, which is also plausible) are simply empirically invalid.

      Moreover, even if the atheists are right, and Christianity is false, American conservatives of all types – the kind of people who MUST be won over to the white preservationist cause, if only due to the dearth of white non-Christians, especially ones who also care about the race (most white atheists are also liberals) – are in fact overwhelmingly Christian. If tactically stupid white preservationists – say, of the atheist Darwinian ethnonationalist, or neopaganist, or neo-Nazi persuasions – force the Christian majority of white America to choose between their race and their religion, almost all of them will choose their religion. I cannot conceive of a dumber, more self-limiting strategy that forcing white Christians to have to make such a choice. There is nothing anti-Christian about non-exploitative and non-exterminatory white preservationism; after all, WE are the racial victims! WE are the race which founded, settled and built America, and who are having our nation stolen from us, as well as being turned into (if we aren’t already) second class citizens. WE are the ones deserving of racial justice!

      Someone like you cannot approach the vast bulk of at least American whites in any way that would have a reasonable chance of making white preservationist converts. You’ve lost the battle at the outset. What must be developed is a theoretical approach which demonstrates the theological and moral compatibility between Christianity and white preservationist politics. Obviously, any position that starts out impugning or insulting the Faith is a surefire loser. This is why people like you can be tolerated, but not indulged. Preach your views to your fellow pagans; make prowhite converts out of them. But stay the hell away from the modal, Christian white majority.

      • Tim Folke
        Tim Folke says:

        Hello again, Leon.

        I too am a Christian and White preservationist. I agree with what you say, though I can empathize with John Lash as it is the mainstream Christians (specifically Christian Zionists a la John Hagee) who have been so instrumental in blinding our folk, especially in regards to the USA (Usual Suspects Anonymous).

        Oddly enough, I know some diehard National Socialists (Nazis if you will) who follow Christian principles in spirit if not in name to a far greater degree than most professing Christians. I believe actions speak louder than words, and I believe that is how we should regard others, and expect others to regard us.

        • John Lash
          John Lash says:

          Hi Tim. I am curious about what “Christian principles” might be. Can you cite, say, three simple examples? To the best of me I have not been able to work out anything unique in so-called christian morality. Except of course for the toxic, anti-humane elements embedded in the NT by the yehudins who wrote it.
          Also, can you briefly say something about the distinction, “in spirit and in name”?

          That would be appreciated, thanks.

      • moneytalks
        moneytalks says:

        …” force the Christian majority of white America to choose between their race and their religion, almost all of them will choose their religion.”

        No doubt .

        No other major race has that problem
        since none are predominantly Christian .

        A majority of USA White Christians choosing in favor of their religion ( which could not care less about preserving any White racial group nor preserving any material genetic facts of life ) and against White preservationism is the main reason for serious doubts about whether Whites/Aryans/Caucasians/Indo-Europeans can avoid extinction from the ongoing global zio-jew-masonick ILLuminati driven genocide against them .

        The two biggest divisions of Christianity are both subservient to Judaism . Protestantism was pro-jewish from the beginning of it . Crypto-jew Freemason Jesuits infiltrated the RCC 1964 Council II and eventually succeeded in capturing the Vatican into subservience to zio-judaism .

        Whites need a new religion not a Christianity ( nothing against JC ) that cannot protect them from being relentlessly genocided to extinction .

      • John Lash
        John Lash says:

        Leon Haller: I don’t dialogue or argue on blogs. I am making an exception, tentatively, to see if I can engage with some white nationalists who may be, either open-minded christians who are not afraid of criticisms of “the Faith,” or non-christians. Warning: I do not suffer atheists kindly.

        Clearly, I have considerable contempt for the christian faith apparently due to my shallow views and lack of deep theological study. I wonder how you knew that already. Never having seen my work. Perhaps you are a christian clairvoyant.
        I won’t be arguing with you, by the way. In 15 years no one has challenged or refuted the Gnostic argument against christianity developed in my book, Not in His Image. And it won’t start with you — unless you want to undertake, say, 20-30 years of study of the primary and secondary sources of Gnosticism, history of religions (start with Eliade’s three volumes), comparative mythology, Pagan philosophy and ethics, the Mysteries, entheogenic shamanism, cultural anthropology, ethnogenesis (Lev Gumilev) and ethnography, The Mythology of All Races (12 volumes), The Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics (another 12 volumes), The Encyclopaedia of Religion and Nature (2 volumes, shamefully apologetic), noetics, Stoicism, The Ante-Nicene Library (24 volumes), cognitive psychology, parapsychology, Hermetics, The Dead Sea Scrolls, theocratic ideologies and the secret journals of Bugs Bunny.

        As an opening move, I would inquire of anyone in this dialogue, Are there any white nationalists here who are not Christians?

        Your response breathes the spirit of christian charity and tolerance. “Stay the hell away from modal white christian majority.” Well, damn, I didn’t know they would have me around. Anyway, is that a threat? My toes are curling. Please do not bash them with your keyboard.

        • Leon Haller
          Leon Haller says:

          Obviously, I’m making two separate points, which perhaps you missed. The first is that either Christianity (in some version, perhaps one yet to be fully articulated, though I do think Catholicism is correct, but that the Church needs to be ideologically de-marxified) is right, or atheism is. Maybe some type of deism could be the ultimate truth. But nothing else can withstand logical challenge. Paganism?? Please. I happen to believe in God, but certainly pagan myths are at best projections of the psyches of particular peoples. There is no ontological reality to them. Do serious atheist/secularist philosophers challenge … pagans? Not that I’m aware of. They target theism broadly, and then usually Christianity specifically. This is because Christianity is so much intellectually stronger than other faiths. Professional philosophers of religion do not declaim against pagan belief systems because they are simply beneath their notice. They don’t take paganism seriously (at least as an intellectual system; maybe sociologically or anthropologically).

          You don’t need to debate *me* on apologetics or philosophy of religion. I’m erudite generally, but I’m a professional, not a professor. OTOH, there are vast numbers of highly intelligent and incredibly learned Christian scholars of many different denominations (and political persuasions) working within theology, philosophy, and history. Do you need names? These real scholars generally argue against atheists, or sometimes other religions, or occasionally intra-religiously (though old battles between Catholics and Protestants are uncommon today). Like their atheist antagonists, they stopped arguing with pagans centuries ago.

          My second point is sociological and political. I thought I’d already made it. Movements of political change must work within their historical situations. I can’t speak for other historically white nations, but in America, most white conservatives are Christians. Most atheists are on the left. Most liberals today also are the most “illiberally” liberal when it comes to race. Race is their issue of greatest ideological intransigence, the one I believe where the modal liberal is least likely to switch from liberal to white preservationist.

          I have developed these points in greater detail at other times, but my core assertion is that white preservationists have only one large untapped pool of potential new converts to the causes of racial realism and preservation, and that pool consists in white non-liberals, a majority of whom are Christian as opposed to secularist. How can we appeal to these people, how can we awaken them? By developing Christian doctrine so as to reveal its inherent compatibility with white preservation. I don’t think this is all that philosophically difficult. Whites have extremely rich indigenous ethnocultures worthy of preservation, and such preservation requires territorial and political apartheid. Non-association is not oppression, and cannot logically be shown to be such.

          However, I do know that associating the moral cause of white preservationism with either anti-Christianism or neo-Nazism is a surefire loser. Neo-Nazism causes us to surrender our ethical stance and superiority, and anti-Christianism alienates the only large group of potential converts we have. If you cannot grasp the obvious truth of these latter points (we are wholly theologically neutral), you are not worth reading or listening to.

          • Leon Haller
            Leon Haller says:

            I wish there were a way to edit comments, as with Disqus. In the final sentence of the comment of mine immediately above, I meant to write . Perhaps that could be fixed before posting, and then this followup comment eliminated.

          • John Lash
            John Lash says:

            Leon Heller, I appreciate your civil and informative response. It would be inappropriate to use this space to argue theology so I won’t. Nevertheless, I do consider that the issue of “christian faith” is crucial for White nationalists and may well be decisive in how things play out now, facing what I call the Coviet Regime.

            Two quick points: The opposition of Xtianity and atheism is for me a false dichotomy. There is a third way, in fact, a variety of third ways. I am an animist. The Sophianic paradigm is animistic.

            Second, and this may be an issue to be debated in appropriate ways here: I hold strongly that repudiation of the label Nazi is a predetermined fail for what I call white partisans. No matter how tainted you may consider it to be, there is no advance into effective war strategy without honoring and incorporating that name and that ideology. May I assume that you and others here are versed in historical revision? That being so, how can anyone concede to the nefarious lies about WWI and WWII by repudiating the Nazis? If it is a stigma then I would suggest that it is as essential as the fabled stigmata of the crucified savior. The cause of white nationalism is wounded. I for one will not renounce anything associated with German heroism and the true narrative of history. That is simply my personal stance.

            Apart from that, no arguments about theology for me. I have made my case in Not in His Image. I would still like to see coming from someone here at least a couple of examples of the spiritual principles or morals unique to Xianity. The request is not disingenuous or tricky. I simply don’t see how anyone can claim that Xian faith carries unique any moral values.
            respectfully, JLL

        • Pierre de Craon
          Pierre de Craon says:

          Mr. Lash writes,

          I don’t dialogue or argue on blogs.

          Argument and dialogue may be off the table, but he is plainly not averse to a bit of strutting and sneering.

    • Edmund Connelly
      Edmund Connelly says:

      Mr. Lash. Welcome aboard indeed. When I saw your name and comment, my jaw nearly dropped because I have been utterly intrigued with your pursuits for many years now but have had no opportunity to discuss your ideas.

      All of my exposure to your work has come in your numerous interviews with Henrik Palmgren on Red Ice Radio, and for me your go-to interviews revolve around “White Genocide & The Archontic Infection,” which I believe can still be found here:
      or here (Aug. 4, 2014)

      I listen to this interview at least yearly, and last year in particular — perhaps it was the onset of the Corona Affair — I was unusually inspired by what I heard from my earpiece on a walk on a spring day.

      I actually went home and took notes, podcasts being notoriously ephemeral, especially to an old-school bibliophile like myself. For the benefit of our TOO readers, I’ll share a few of the notes I took from your interview:

      — Gnostics warned us: “You’ve got an extraterrestrial predator on your back. The Archons.”

      — There is a racial faction who made a pact with the Archons, so there is a supernatural agenda

      — In plain English, the Jews who follow the agenda of racial are proxies of the Archons.

      — @47:30 toxoplasmosis, Robert Saplosky, dopamine and “eldopa”, resemples “The Mind Parasites” by Colin Wilson, stated …

      — (unsure of this note): Fictious New Film — AI, “Archonic Infection” Plot: The human species has been infected by an off-planet virus

      — @55:00 Infection could have occurred to any race

      Huge determination to work out Problem of the Jews. Jewish identity and Jewish agenda. Reference to film Chinatown: “She’s my daughter and my sister.” “Is it genetic or ideological?” It’s both. (sounds like linking KMAC to Mike Jones)

      I mention E. Michael Jones, the Catholic thinker and writer, because his spiritual approach, as exemplified by his tome “The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit,” provides evidence almost as compelling as the work of our editor Kevin MacDonald in his trilogy on Jews, particularly “The Culture of Critique” but in subsequent writings as well. In my long but modest academic career, my writing has been extremely marginal, but my ambition has been to attempt a synthesis between MacDonald’s materialism and Jones’ spiritualism (Catholicism). In short, “Is it genetic or ideological/spiritual?” Your reply that it is both is stunning and, I believe, absolutely needs to be explored.

      Through TOO, we must make contact. I look forward to corresponding with you and hope other TOO writers and readers will explore your work as well.

      PS: I write as Edmund Connelly and have nearly 100 essays on this site going back to 2008.

      • bruno
        bruno says:

        Ah, Dr. Connelly,

        As you have admired Mr. Lash, over the years I have been a connoisseur of your pen. I knew immediately, yes immediately, that you were using a nom de plume. It’s only logical. For over half a century I also have utilized a nom de guerre. It’s a decent means as protection for our children and grandchildren. KMac has amazed me with his stance. Then again, he has taken terrible abuse while employed. Even one of my idols, “Wilmont Robinson” did not dare to subject family. Even the great Mr. Hood, of AmRam, has followed the path of those unable to openly speak out in the land of free speech.

        How strange it is that our country has evolved into a Lefty paradise. I left Amdom during the age of busing and was as happy as could be in Warsaw. Just ambulating amongst a sea of whiteness is beyond what most Americans can comprehend. But, life is situational. There was a revolution that coerced a return to the country that’s become a Zydowski raj. And, here’s what this note to you is all about.

        Dr. C., when returning I purchased an iron hoss (motorcycle) and for one year traveled all around the USA. Later, I would do that for a few weeks each year, for decades. I’ve seen the country change as perhaps no one else. (or very few). Doc, Amdom already has ethno states. These are City States (Detroit, etc.) thanks to LBJ, we even have nigganomics. He made it unofficially official. Without such how could Oakland, Flint or Bulletmore survive?

        Nigfested cities full of niggativity (crime) can be found from coast to coast. All they need to be is closed off. However, it’s easier said than done due to, as you know, Negropeans, corporatists, MSM and you know who. Whitey doesn’t need to devise all these dreams of Whiteopia. Simply rearrange the structure of states.

        • Ed Connelly
          Ed Connelly says:

          Bruno, nice to hear from you. And thank you for the comments. Yes, America is a big place, and you can of course still find White areas — but they’re being targeted all the time. Usual suspects (along with the usual useful idiots). BTW, didn’t you used to also comment on Lasha Darkmoon’s site?

      • John Lash
        John Lash says:

        Hello Edmund. Your genial and amiable response comes through like a cool breeze of refreshment. I am grateful to see that you know your way around my established work which also includes hundreds of hours of talks on the internet. You’ve cited some really imperative issues in my work — for instance, toxo and the Archontic infection.
        I will look into your contributions on this platform to get the feel of your values and perspectives. Email me directly if you wish.

        My issue with christianity goes quite deep but basically I encapsulate it in this way, as a proposition of metanoia, mental revision: “What happens when values depart from faith?” My opening question to alleged christians is, How do the values you hold (“spiritual principles”, morals, rules of behavior) depend on faith in supernatural matters — or could your values stand independently of faith?

        As to white nationalism, I am certainly for recovering and enforcing it along the lines of NASDAP policies and programs. (The leaders detested Christianity, by the way. Steigmann-Gall’s book on The Holy Reich is deeply misinformed and misleading.) I also use the badge WMA, white minority advocate. So I advocate for the interest of all white races in total representing what is it, 8% of the world population? In fact, some years back I launched a manifesto playfully designated ADL: Aryan Defence League.
        Haven’t had the opportunity for discussion or feedback regarding that venture. Perhaps I’ve found a place where that can happen…


  10. anonym
    anonym says:

    The “left” and “right” dichotomy is a mistake, I think. The “right” is just as compromised, with jewish neoliberalism, neoconservatism, “free trade”, usury and the “Israel uber alles” jesus dupes. All whites are white nationalists, at least on a personal level (most whites move or want to move when neighbourhoods become more than 5 percent non white), and writing off half the whites as “lefties” seems a mistake. They are kind, naive, polite and gullible, and therefore easy to manipulate by jewish propagandists (the same way most of the “right” has been manipulated via “civic nationalism”, “free markets”, “freedom hating islamic terrorists” etc.).
    The right wing nationalism visions about a white nation state usually ends up in dreams about a military garrison controlled by psychotic jesus dupes, spending most of their time yelling about “sodomites”, “leftists” and “liberals”, which at most ends up in a little compound in the middle of nowhere, a sandbox where they can play with pipe bombs and larp Hitler and co.
    Imagine if you manage to wake up the kind but gullible white”lefties”, especially the Germans – how do you think they are gonna react when they finally really understand what´s being done to them? That´s when we become a force to be reckoned with.
    I used to be one of those lefties, and the main reason it took so long before I woke up was precisely this: normal people don´t wanna live in a military garrison run by psychotic jesus dupes, we want a normal democratic nation state.
    Don´t get me wrong, we need resolute leaders and clear speak about all the weird jewish things, but I think it can be done in a more inviting and reasonable way, that will appeal to the masses.
    Ironically enough, Hitler, from one aspect, might be an example on it. Hollywoods portrayal of Hitler as “the evil madman” who hated weak people and the entire left – which has been embraced by much of the white nationalists – is hardly accurate. On the contrary, he focused mostly on the working and middle classes, and did everything he could to unite left and right wing whites.
    As to the Jews: the best tactic seems to be to criticize everything they do, without mentioning them explicitly, and then let them accuse us of “anti semitism”, thereby pointing themselves out as who they really are.
    My two cents, anyway.

  11. Armoric
    Armoric says:

    The article mentions the shortcomings of conservatives and nationalists, as well as the anti-White madness of the left, but fails to mention the central problem behind it all: Jewish power and influence.

    Western countries used to be phony democracies dominated by Jews. By now, they are turning into Jewish-run dictatorships. There are no firing squads yet, but the authorities are complicit in the attacks on Whites by non-Whites and the antifa. The dictatorial nature of the regime is more and more obvious, but most White people still don’t realize that the government is run by Jews who want us dead.

    White people may become unruly in the years to come as their situation keeps worsening. More of them are going to leave the anti-White coalition. That’s why the Jews want to speed up the non-White invasion and reinforce the censorship and repression against us. I hope the polarization between the Jewish dictatorship and the White resistance will help people realize who’s in power and wants us gone. It could lead to a collapse of Jewish power. I think that is the only path to the creation of an ethnostate. Jewish power is also what prevents discussion and negotiations between Whites and non-Whites.

  12. Fenria
    Fenria says:

    Excellent article. Exactly what I come to TOO for. The key to having an ethnostate is simply to have it. Not to overthink or meta-think it. Pick a red state, move there. Buy land, encourage other whites to buy land next to you. Create unbroken, contiguous stretches of white owned private land. Create tribal based infrastructure, commerce, and schooling. Keep wealth in the community. Branch out into local politics when the time is right. Ignore any (((leftist))) threats and keep on rolling.

  13. HamburgerToday
    HamburgerToday says:

    White Nationalists just need to focus on what’s important. How many years were Zionists beating the drum for their own country before they got a a chunk of land to call their own? A century? Two? Three? Whites are embarked on the same course, but North American Whites are just confused because they still think the country of their ancestors is *their country* when it’s not. ‘America’ has become everybody’s country and undoing that is probably not in the cards. We are here, though, and the way for us to seize territory is obliquely, by integrating White Nationalist sentiment into networks of loyalty and creativity into nullification projects, communes and ‘mutual aid societies’.

    As to the ‘moral’ question, our cause is just. We don’t need to be anything other than White and loyal to our Whiteness to reject attacks on our race.

    ‘Territory’ is both time and space. It can be hard or virtual. Whites command territory right now, they just don’t have the leadership to defend and enhance those territories for the White race. The leadership we need doesn’t care about your religion or anything else, it cares about our race and your expression of that race as *loyalty to your race*.

    Can you ‘act out’ loyalty to your race or not? If you can then you can both lead and follow. If you’re unable to be loyal to your race if the person accepts supernatural premises that you do not, then the simple truth is that you’re not yet loyal enough to your race to lead.

    Start with love for your race and end with love for your race and build a future out of love for your race.

Comments are closed.