“White Identity Politics” by Greg Johnson, Part 1 of 2

Since he founded the Counter-Currents website over ten years ago Greg Johnson has been one of the most prolific writers in what I would call the “pro-White” movement, and since his active involvement began some ten years before that it is probably safe to regard him as one of the “Old Hands.” Most of his output has appeared originally in the form of essays and lectures, many of which have been compiled into a series of books. The first seven chapters of his latest work, White Identity Politics, are a compilation of lectures from 2018–2020. The eighth and last, “The Uppity White Folks Manifesto,” was written especially for this volume. Johnson is a master at describing the many facets of our problem and their effects both proximate and ultimate, and this mastery is on full display here. He is also a fertile source of ideas on the important subject of solutions, which he appropriately saves for the end.

One of the continuing problems within the pro-White movement is the term or label we choose for ourselves and our ideas. There has been a series of labels that have come and gone, with “Alt-Right” being the best known recent example. Our antagonists, of course, have many labels for us, usually employed as ill-defined epithets, with “racist,” “white supremacist,” “neo-Nazi,” “anti-Semite” and “hater” being among the most common. Whatever we choose to call ourselves is also adopted by our antagonists, who redefine it into yet another term of opprobrium. That is why I try to limit my self-labeling to mutually consistent phrases that are self-defining, and thus much more resistant to misunderstanding or misrepresentation, such as pro-White, White Preservationist, or White Separatist, but these phrases lack the emotive resonance or “catchy zing” we would like to have in the name of our movement.

Greg Johnson has for some years labeled his position as “White Nationalism,” a label also adopted by many other movement writers. Unfortunately, White Nationalism has become another term of invective and condemnation, and even of accusation as it is added to law enforcement’s list of supposed terrorist threats. More recently, as shown in these essays, Johnson has labeled his message as “white identitarianism.” This label is associated with the leading pro-White movement in Europe, where it has recently begun to suffer from a campaign of delegitimization, demonization and suppression, but in America it is still new enough to be relatively free of preconceptions. Johnson seeks to link White identitarianism with the populist movement that has surged with the Trump phenomenon and Brexit into the primary opposition to the establishment and its globalist agenda, with many aspects that are consistent with White interests, and so at least implicitly pro-White. The main threat to this goal is what Johnson discerns as establishment conservative efforts “to coopt national populism and channel its energies into establishment conservatism. This is what befell the Trump administration and the MAGA movement.” (p. 2)

At the beginning of the first chapter, Johnson notes that White identity politics is subjected to condemnation and censure.

The biggest political taboo today is against white identity politics. … If you organize as a white person for white people, if you speak as a white person for the interests of white people, and especially if you’re willing to act in the political realm for the interests of white people, that is crossing the line into thoughtcrime. (p. 8)

The main threat to White identity politics, as to the populism Johnson seeks to link it with, is from establishment conservatism and its long but unproductive history of implicit White identity politics.

Implicit white identity politics, as practiced by conservative parties, is basically a swindle. They will “dog whistle” to us, meaning that they will signal in an oblique way that they understand our racial anxieties. They will propose universalistic legislation that “just so happens” to coincide with our interests as white people. But they’ll never explicitly court us. Indeed, if you accuse them of being interested in preserving the white race, they will angrily denounce you. They will do anything to avoid the stigma of standing up for their own people. (p. 10)

Considering the scale of our problem is one of continued existence, implicit is just not up to the job. “[I]n terms of long-term survival, we have to go explicit.” (p. 15)

This is how Johnson summarizes his own position and how it relates to the populist constituency he terms “uppity white folks,” who in many respects seem to overlap with those Sam Francis called “Middle American Radicals.”

I am a white separatist, meaning that I want to live in a racially homogeneous society rather than a multiracial society. I want racially homogeneous homelands for all peoples, to the extent that is possible … . Uppity white folks are white people who are content— for now—to live in a multiracial, multicultural society but who are going to take their own side in ethnic conflicts. Uppity white folks are the largest group practicing white identity politics. They tend toward the implicit rather than the explicit end of the spectrum. They tend to be politically moderate. They aren’t willing to entertain radical new policies just yet. … [T]hey are increasingly open to explicit talk of white identity and interests, as long as it is reasonable, moderate, fair to all parties, and not freighted with foreign symbols and ideologies. Uppity white folks are where white identity politics is growing. They are the people we can agitate and radicalize. The Left thinks that the tens of millions of white people who voted for Donald Trump are uppity white folks. That’s an exaggeration, of course. But the Trump electorate is definitely our target audience. (pp. 11–12)

In a sub-section titled “White Identity Politics is Moral,” Johnson gives a discourse on the importance of morality in political matters that is unique to whites.

The biggest question that we must deal with before people are going to accept white identity politics is not whether it is inevitable or whether it is necessary but whether it is right. People will refuse to bow to the inevitable if they think that’s the wrong thing to do. They will refuse to do what is necessary if they think that’s the wrong thing to do. White people are highly conscientious. That’s one of our strengths. … But that is also a great weakness if people can hack our conscientiousness and turn our moral fervor and moral idealism against our interests. That is basically what is driving white dispossession today. So we have to know that white identity politics is moral. (pp. 16–17)

I myself have stressed the importance of morality since I began writing, both the morality of our goal and the morality of our actions, or methods and means. I addressed the former in my essay “The Moral Battle”  and the latter in a much earlier essay in the August 1989 issue of Instauration titled “Creating a Moral Image.”  Johnson has repeatedly addressed the latter in a standard essay condemning counterproductive acts of violence which he posts whenever one of these acts occurs, merely changing the names, locations and other details of the particular event. Kevin MacDonald has repeatedly analyzed and addressed the evolutionary origins of our unique morality, most comprehensively in his recent book Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition.[1] In brief, our unique sense of morality, as well as individualism and objectivity, is a product of our remote ancestors’ evolutionary adaptation (both cultural and genetic) to the particular conditions of their existence in northern Europe. We now live in very different conditions, but our tendencies toward establishing moral communities, and toward individualism and objectivity are still in us, part of us, as selected over many millennia by the pressures of survival. In multiracial conditions we coexist with races who evolved in very different environments, where groups were selected to have a very different sense of morality—morality as beneficial to the ingroup—as well as collectivist social structures and subjectivity. In such multiracial conditions our sense of morality, individualism and objectivity place us at a disadvantage. But we cannot change them, nor should we want to, for we would no longer be us, no longer the creators of the unique civilization those traits enabled us to create. We must accept it as it is and work with it, to turn it to our advantage and make it a source of strength rather than vulnerability.

In his critique of multiculturalism—the euphemism for multiracialism he employs in this collection, he emphasizes the importance of “collective self-actualization,” which is best realized in homogeneous rather than diverse societies.

When a people is free to express its collective identity, it stamps its identity on the public realm….it creates a homeland. A homeland is … a realm of shared meaning, in which people understand one another, feel comfortable with one another. … This is why multiculturalism cannot really work. Cultures with opposed conventions cannot exist comfortably in the same system. … Multicultural societies basically force you to either fight constantly with other groups about conflicting values and customs, or stop caring about them, so you don’t fight. … Multiculturalism creates a society in which everyone feels alien. That’s no way to live. … We have a right to a land where we feel at home, where we are comfortable … where we can understand and trust strangers because, in the end, they’re not all that strange. So, from the point of view of collective self-actualization, we need to own up to our ethnic identities and ethnocentric preferences. Then we need to create ethnically homogeneous homelands where we are free to be ourselves. In short, white self-actualization requires white identity politics. (pp. 23–25)

One wonders why Johnson, who is talking about race, as made clear by the reference to “white” in the last sentence, uses the euphemism multiculturalism instead of multiracialism. This is not typical of his work. As these essays came from lectures, I suspect he considered the term more appropriate for his Norwegian, Swedish and Lithuanian audiences, where the racial threat is largely from non-European Caucasian (NEC) Islamic invaders whose cultural differences pose a very serious additional problem to their racial problem, but a footnote explaining this would have been helpful, as the difference between the two terms is important. Multiculturalism is the term used by those who refuse to recognize the existence of different or multiple races and claim that we are all one single race. If race does not exist then the problem is merely cultural—not racial, not physical, not biological, and not genetic, and therefore not existential in importance and scale, and thus totally different and far less serious.

But the problem is a racial one, and therefore biological, genetic and existential, and much more serious. If we had just one culture, as we effectively had before 1965, we would still have essentially the same racial problem. In Gunnar Myrdal’s very influential book An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy (1944) he clearly and correctly defined the problem as racial. The term multiculturalism came into vogue with the postwar rise of the Boasian school of cultural anthropology which denies the importance or even the existence of race and minimizes or trivializes the problem to one that is not racial or existential. I took upper division courses in both physical and cultural anthropology and they are very different things. The latter is ideologically loaded with the dogma and agenda of cultural relativism and egalitarianism that devalues Western civilization, while the former, at least in 1970, focused on the physical facts of racial, biological, genetic and evolutionary reality.

Ultimately, the problem is based on the threat and reality of racial intermixture and its destructive effects on the White race, with the result of changing or shifting its genotype and phenotype in the direction of the races with which it mixes. Thus, ultimately, the problem is a matter of White racial preservation. This was Jefferson’s concern when he asserted that the non-White population “must be removed beyond the reach of admixture.” It was the concern Lincoln addressed when he asserted his support for racial separation as “the only perfect preventative of amalgamation,” which he later made clear—as he explained in a meeting with Black leaders—meant living in separate countries. It was the concern of Southern Whites when they instituted the “Jim Crow” system of racial segregation and White control called White Supremacism. It was the concern of Lothrop Stoddard, Theodore Bilbo and countless other Whites who care or have cared for the preservation or continued existence of their race in its existing form. In every intuitive, rational, logical, subjective and objective sense they have understood that different races inhabiting the same territory eventually intermix into a single blended race. And all the historical and genetic evidence indicates they were right—that populations sharing the same territory will blend together into a racially mixed or hybridized population, as has been recently reaffirmed by Harvard geneticist David Reich (2019, 43), who states

[W]hen one population moves into a region occupied by another population with which it can interbreed, even a small rate of interbreeding is enough to produce high proportions of mixture in the descendants.[2]

Therefore, to advocate or accept a population that is part non-White, in whatever proportion, is to advocate or accept that the population that ultimately results from their blending will be that proportion non-White. To accept a population that is 5% non-White is to accept the White race becoming 5% non-White, and accepting a 10% non-White population would mean the White race would become 10% non-White, a 5% or 10% shift away from being us and toward being them. Such a genetic shift is racially destructive and hence anti-White. The European-American population’s current genetic average is 98.6% European, or 1.4% non-European, with 94% of European-Americans having no genetically measurable non-European ancestry. (3)

After a 5% mixture with non-Caucasians, we would not really have a White race in the European sense of the term. So if we don’t want our race to become 5%, 10% or more non-European then we must not allow our country to be 5%, 10%, or more non-European. That is why Enoch Powell’s 1968 “Rivers of Blood” speech, made when Britain was still less than 5% non-White, had such an emotional impact.

Returning to the subject of morality, Johnson focuses on the concept of universality, which holds that true standards of morality should apply equally to everyone.

[T]he idea that true moral principles are universal has a great deal of intuitive appeal. If something is true, that means it is true for everyone. If something is right, that means it is right for everyone. Immanuel Kant argued that a principle is not moral unless you can will it to be a universal law. … But there is nothing un-universalizable about the principle that you take care of your own first, and you let other people take care of their own first. There is nothing un-universalizable about the principle of individuals and groups actualizing their unique potentials for excellence and letting other individuals and groups do the same. (p. 26)

Western political morality and ideology has elevated the most fundamental interests of the individual to the status of rights, with the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness or well-being even being regarded as “unalienable” and God-given. A race has interests that are similar to those of an individual, most importantly including life, liberty and well-being—or continued existence, control of its own existence, and what Johnson terms “flourishing.” The essence of pro-racial morality and ideology is the recognition and extension of these same interests and rights of individuals to races. So long as this is applied equally to all races, with all races allowed the same rights to continued existence and control of their own existence in their own separate homelands or countries, this pro-racial morality, that is pro-racial preservation and independence, is fully consistent with the principle of moral universality. This kind of universal morality, that recognizes the interests of races and nations as well as individuals, would recognize as universal the right of every race and nation to existence and control of its own existence.

But the world really works more on the basis of competing interests, at the level of both the individual and the group, than on the principles of morality and rights. And the group interests of non-Whites within White countries are diametrically opposed to the group interests of the White population, to the extent of dispossessing, subjugating, replacing and inevitably destroying them and their existence, without respect for the universality of equal interests, but denying or condemning White interests that stand in their way.

Johnson discusses the universalist moral concepts of fairness and the golden rule, and their relation to Identitarian principles. (pp. 28–30) Again, in actual practice these are moral concepts and values followed by Whites acting against their interests but not reciprocated by non-Whites. And what happens when these concepts conflict with vital or even existential racial interests, such as independence or even continued existence? That is where a line should be clearly drawn. But short of that line, the rules of fairness should be our guide, provided the same rules apply equally to everyone, reciprocated rather than taken advantage of and exploited to our disadvantage.

The basic Identitarian principle is to plant one’s flag and say, “This country is ours; this is our homeland; invaders and colonists must leave.” There is nothing unfair about that, because the invaders and colonists have homelands of their own.

But the current situation, in which whites—and only whites—are being asked to accept replacement levels of immigration from the Third World, while Third Worlders keep their homelands, is totally unfair. What’s theirs, they keep. What’s ours is negotiable. That’s a morally outrageous proposition. Repatriating invaders and colonists is not, however, unfair, because at the end of the process, everyone has a homeland.

There are good and bad kinds of nationalism. Bad nationalists seek to secure the sovereignty of their own people, but they are willing to deny the sovereignty of other peoples. They refuse to treat others the same way they wish to be treated. They defend their own but do not allow others to do the same. They create a world of oppressors and the oppressed. … Good nationalists believe in nationalism for all nations. They treat other peoples as they would like to be treated themselves. (p. 29–30)

Johnson turns to the ethical theory of Consequentialism to further buttress his case for identitarianism, asserting “We should justify moral principles by their consequences.” The consequences of the moral principles of multiracialism are anti-White, ultimately to the point of White racial extinction.

Under the present … order, all white nations are in demographic decline. If this decline is not reversed, whites will cease to exist as a distinct race. What would reverse these alarming demographic trends? … Suffice it to say that governments would have to make white preservation and flourishing the overriding goal of public policy. (p. 30)

Johnson even appeals to the longer-term and larger-scale best interests of non-Whites by arguing that the continued existence of Whites is in the best interests of the non-Whites themselves, because of Whites’ civilizational and scientific capabilities—capabilities that all races benefit from. “If we want to save the world we have to save the whites.” (p. 31) But in their focus on their own group interests, non-Whites tend to be far too subjective, and thus far too lacking in the objectivity required to grasp this concept.

Regarding the significance of race, Johnson states that “we’re part of one great genetic continuum going all the way back to the Ice Age and before,” an observation that provides the context to appreciate the enormity of the historically very sudden White racial dispossession, replacement and destruction that is now occurring. (p.10)

[T]he distances between the great continental races and subraces—whites, blacks, Asians, Amerindians, non-European Caucasians, Australoids, and Capoids—are significant enough that radically different forms of societies suit them, which means that societies with multiple races suffer from conflicts that do not afflict racially homogeneous societies. … This is why some globalists declare that we will have a stable global society only when all racial and cultural differences have been erased. … Thus to construct a single world state, they wish to construct a single, mongrelized humanity. So much for diversity. … [I]nstead of destroying all existing peoples to create a world state, we wish to preserve all of them by giving them their own sovereign ethnostates. (pp. 38–39)

In reply to those like David Reich who claim that historical racial intermixture, even if it occurred many thousands of years ago, justifies current and future intermixture and delegitimizes preservationist opposition to it, Johnson states that “Race-mixing in the past is never an argument for increasing diversity in the present. In fact, one reason race-mixing took place in the past is to overcome the problems of diversity, i.e., of multiple races living in the same society.” (p. 39)

The idea that a nation is a pure social construct means that kinship is not an essential characteristic of nationhood. In concrete terms, that implies that the French people are no longer essential to the enterprise known as France. The French people are replaceable by foreigners, as long as their replacements pay lip-service to the designs of the ruling elite. Cultural and credal forms of nationalism are organically connected to race replacement. … When elites define you as replaceable, that’s because they intend to replace you. (p. 43)

In a subsection by that title, Johnson introduces “Love of One’s Own” (p. 46) as the force that makes identity politically potent, making a people “willing to assert itself, to take its own side in a fight.” Willingness to fight is the third pillar of white identity politics that gives it “its fighting spirit.” This is similar to what I call “wanting my race to live.”

Johnson describes his concept of racial love:

We don’t love our race because it is the best but because it is ours. And unlike chauvinists and supremacists, we can love our own without denigrating others who love their own as well. Indeed, we can understand why they do so, and neither party need feel threatened by the other. (p. 53)

None of this is visible to the modern liberal. … From that point of view, there are no nations. …  They have no homelands … and human borders are illegitimate.

In practice, this means that all men are interchangeable, which means that you are replaceable with foreigners. The Great Replacement is merely the political expression of a world-destroying blindness … : the decision to see the world—and ourselves—as merely a stockpile of interchangeable resources.

The globalists have not refuted nationalism. They are simply blind to us and our concerns. When confronted with human differences, they airily declare that they do not matter. Identitarians beg to differ. In fact, we insist on it. In fact, we’ll fight to preserve our differences.

The answer to the Great Replacement is simply to say “No.” We will not jump into the melting pot. We veto the globalist dream. (p. 53–54)

I would develop the concept of racial love a bit further. Emotions and values can supersede socially and politically constructed moral codes and ideologies. Loving, valuing and caring for our race, and so wanting it to live and be free, can be used to supersede constructed anti-race and anti-White moralities that conflict with these emotions and construct a new pro-race and pro-White morality consistent with them, which could be applied universally to and by all races. Constructing such a morality, and instilling it in as many Whites as possible, could arguably be regarded as our most important task, the foremost mission of what Johnson, following Houston Stewart Chamberlain, terms metapolitics (p. 131), but could also be described as the “winning of White hearts and minds.” A pro-race morality would extend the same interests and rights to life, liberty and well-being to races as it does to individuals. It would recognize the right of every race to its own homelands and self-rule, and regard any kind or degree of multiracialism as immoral and evil.

Why is multiracialism immoral and evil under a pro-race morality? Because it is an engine of racial destruction, the destroyer of races. More specifically, from our perspective as a race suffering multiracialist destruction, because it is contrary to the most fundamental White interests of racial preservation and independence, meaning our continued existence and control of our own existence. The pro-race and pro-White morality and ideology we need to instill in our people is simply that pro-White is moral and good and anti-White is immoral and evil. Multiracialism is diametrically opposed to and destructive of the most vital or life-essential White interests. It is therefore anti-White in the ultimate degree, and therefore it is immoral and evil. An effectively monoracial or all-White society protects and preserves the existence of the White race and is therefore pro-White, and therefore moral and good. The essence of this morality and ideology, and its attitude toward our race, could be summarized in the four words “love, value, preserve and protect.” We preserve and protect that which we love and value, so the love and value come first and the preserve and protect naturally follow.

In an essay titled “The Very Idea of White Privilege” (p. 55ff) Johnson addresses the false concepts of “white privilege,” “white fragility,” and “systemic white racism.” He deconstructs so-called “white privilege” as just more racial gaslighting, as is the concept of “white fragility” to describe those who deny it. He shows how fifteen of the fifty examples of “white privilege” listed in Peggy McIntosh’s 1989 essay which began it all “are simply aspects of having a homogeneous homeland.” Another fourteen examples can be “described as the absence of the disadvantages of being black.” He describes black social delinquency, criminality, and racial IQ differences in sufficient detail to refute the claims that systemic racism is the cause of Black problems.

Having brought up the concept of having a homogeneous homeland, perhaps the object of desire Johnson has referred to elsewhere as “a nice white country,” he warms to the subject:

Every human being deserves a home, where he can be himself free of the interference of others. But we should feel at home outside our front doors as well. We should be able to live among people who share our language and values, our history and destiny, the whole litany of “white privileges.” We don’t just need homes. We need homelands. Not alienating, bewildering, multicultural bazaars. … There is no moral imperative to destroy our homelands to accommodate strangers….This planet is big enough for all races and nations to have places they can call their own. This is the ethnonationalist version of utopia. (p. 67-68)

The goal of linking populism and White racial identitarianism appears to be the main focus of this compilation, with the earlier essays laying the groundwork and the essay “In Defense of Populism” beginning our journey into the matter itself with a description of the anti-White establishment’s reaction to it.

The populist uprisings of 2016—Brexit and the election of Donald Trump—aren’t epochal events like the revolutions of 1789 and 1848. Not yet anyway. But you wouldn’t know that judging from the panic that swept through Western political elites. … Populism seeks to rescue popular government from corrupt elites. (pp. 69–70)

Johnson notes that populism is distinct from White identity politics, although both are opposed to the existing liberal elites and their globalist order. But the two do sometimes overlap, and they do “complement one another, so that the strongest form of white identity politics is populist, and the strongest form of populism is identitarian.” (p. 70) Identitarianism has an ethnic conception of peoplehood that is based on “blood,” i.e., race. A civic conception is a pure social construct “that seeks to impose unity on a society composed of different ethnic groups. … Ethnic nationalism draws strength from unity and homogeneity.” (p. 72)

Civic nationalism, on the other hand, draws its strength from an imposed civic ideology which could be based on multiracialism, diversity and inclusion.

Why do populists need to appeal to white identity? It all comes down to what counts as the people. Is the people at its core an ethnic group, or is it defined in purely civic terms? Populists of the Right appeal explicitly or implicitly to identitarian issues. Populists of the Left prefer to define the people in civic or class terms and focus on economic issues. Since … both identitarian and economic issues are driving the rise of populism, populists of the Right will have a broader appeal because they appeal to both identity and economic issues. The great task of white identitarians today is to destroy the legitimacy of civic nationalism and push the populism of the Right toward explicit white Identitarianism. … Liberalism triumphed not by rejecting popular sovereignty but by subverting it. This is one reason the elites are so hysterical about the rise of populism. It puts them on the spot. If they affirm popular sovereignty, then populism is the only logical outcome. (pp. 81–82)

In the next essay, “National Populism is Here to Stay” (p. 83ff) Johnson claims that National Populism, which combines populism with implicit White identitarianism, is the wave of the future. What matters to the ultimate fate of the White race is that this “National Populism” moves in the direction of explicit White Racial Populism and becomes a vehicle for White racial interests.

Johnson next discusses “the Four D’s”—the four trends that contribute to the rise of national populism: distrust, destruction, deprivation and dealignment. Ethnonationalists “must exploit and intensify the existing tendency towards distrust of the establishment.” (p. 87) And Johnson lists ways this can be done.

I think our most important role is less in raising consciousness than in deepening consciousness. We have explanations of why multiculturalism creates alienation and conflict. We can explain who is behind globalization, immigration, and multiculturalism and why. We defend the moral legitimacy of white identity politics against the widespread notion that white identity politics, and only white identity politics, is immoral per se. That moral taboo is the great dam holding back the tide of national populism. If we can breach that dam, it will unleash the flood-waters of white identity. Finally, we can offer workable and humane alternatives, not just Right-wing civic nationalism, which basically is just lying about diversity in a different way. (pp. 91–92)

Regarding deprivation, “to reverse globalization, national populists need to overthrow the existing elites and institute protectionist economic policies. We need to reindustrialize the First World.” (p. 92)

Destruction refers to the destruction of identity through multicultural (i.e., multiracial) and immigration policies imposed by elites on the population. “National populists, however, promise to restrict immigration and preserve distinct national identities from multicultural erosion.” (p. 89) It’s therefore noteworthy that all of the destructive changes we see have been enacted by elites, often in the teeth of popular opposition. As MacDonald noted in The Culture of Critique,  “the sea change in immigration policy in the Western world occurred at approximately the same time (1962–1973), and in all countries the changes reflected the attitudes of elites rather than the great mass of citizens. … A consistent theme has been that immigration policy has been formulated by elites with control of the media and that efforts have been made by political leaders of all major parties to keep fear of immigration off the political agenda.” Otis Graham (Unguarded Gates, 2004: 88) corroborates this for the U.S. in the context of debate over the 1965 immigration law: “There was emerging on the immigration question a pattern in public debate that could be found on many issues: elite opinion makers selected a problem and a liberal policy solution, while grassroots opinion, unfocused and marginalized, ran strongly the other way.” The anti-populism of top-down elite control championed by Jewish intellectuals in earlier decades (Ch. 5 of CofC) had come to fruition.

Dealignment refers to the polarization of the electorate as voters abandon centrist politics in favor of more radical politics of both the left and the right largely in response to the divisiveness, alienation and cultural changes caused by multiracialism and White replacement.

Dealignment is basically the breakdown of the post-World War II political system in which power was traded between center-Left and center-Right parties, while Western societies drifted steadily toward cultural Leftism, bigger and more intrusive government, and the loss of sovereignty to globalization….The main factor behind dealignment is the increasing realization on the part of voters that there aren’t really any fundamental differences between the parties. There is no real competition. Instead, there is a political cartel. … The different branches of the establishment agree on all important matters. … A lot of people naïvely think that political power primarily means beating the other team in political contests, like elections. But there’s a deeper form of political power that determines all the things that the parties don’t fight about and that are never put to the choice of the voters. That’s real power. … Election after election, the people send their tribunes to the capitals, only to see them absorbed by the establishment. Thus when there is a conflict between the public interest and elite interests, it is impossible to believe that our representatives will side with the public. … [W]e are never allowed to simply vote for what we really want. (pp. 93–95)

Go to Part 2 of 2.

[1] Kevin MacDonald, Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition: Evolutionary Origins, History, and Prospects for the future (Seattle: CreateSpace, 2019).

[2] David Reich, Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past (New York: Vintage Books, 2019), 43.

21 replies
  1. Joe
    Joe says:

    We do not participate in a Democracy, it is a Race-ochracy, with racial identity paramount and supreme of all values.What race box does the government force you to check on the Census? We must be racialized in America.
    They should have an alternative choice rather than ‘White’, they should allow you to check ‘Nobody’. In our Raceocracy form of government ‘White’ is not a racial category of any standing whatsoever.

    Harvard law professor Randall Kennedy who said in a 1997 Atlantic article, ‘My Race Problem-and Ours.’ He wrote about whites organizing as a race.
    “I find it difficult to accept that it is wrong for whites to mobilize themselves on a racial basis solely for purposes of white advancement but morally permissible for blacks to mobilize themselves on a racial basis solely for purposes of black advancement.”

  2. Panadechi
    Panadechi says:

    Whites are at a point of racial inflection, which could be defined as a global problem of white survival, therefore it must be analyzed and generate optimal strategies to face globally, by the still existing white community, and face together to the hostile anti-white establishment. That’s the next step to take, or it will be too late.

  3. John
    John says:

    Perhaps White Supremacy/Nationalism would be better accepted if it were named other things, such Eurocultural Primacy or EuroChristian Sovereignty.

    That’s just two possibilities.

    It’s difficult, in these multicultural times, to protest the use of the word “Euro.” It’s more acceptable.

    One can hold a EuroChristian cultural festival, for example, but it’s harder to hold a White cultural festival.

    • Jenny Heller
      Jenny Heller says:

      We did not label ourselves “White Supreeeeeemists.”
      That is the term that the small hats invented for us, as well as “racist,” “domestic terrorist,” etc.
      The Jews never tire of coming up with new and clever names to demonize us….it’s called blood libel.
      The actual truth is that we suffer under a system of Jewish Supremacy; the Jews always project their own darkness onto innocent white people.
      I have never met a white supremacist as they do not exist. None of the leaders of the pro-white movement have ever expressed any desire to rule over other groups; the Jews are the only group that actually seeks to dominate all of humanity.
      No matter what name we call ourselves, white advocates or race realists or whatever, the Jews will simply demonize that term and connect the term to imaginary violence or false flag events, etc.
      No matter what we do as far as the paranoid nose is concerned, we will always be naziswhowanttokillsixmillionjews.
      Even kindly Jared Taylor is treated as if he is some kind of mad dog killer.
      Our situation is absurd/surreal.
      Any decent human being would have to admit that people have the right to exist and the right to self-determination, but the Jews will not even acknowledge that we deserve to have any voice whatsoever.
      So, this being the case, given that Jews disavow our humanity and our God given rights, there isn’t much you can say about them except that they are pursuing the path of evil.

    • Tim Folke
      Tim Folke says:

      With all due respect (and I am sure you are sincere) it is not about names or labels. It is the epitome of the emasculation of Whites, Aryans, People of Light, whatever… that we are worried about what we are called or what we call ourselves.

      Get this: our enemies DO NOT WANT EQUALITY – THEY WANT US DEAD.

      Let them call us what they want – racist, Nazi, bigot, or whatever. Then thank them for noticing and then tell them what they can kiss.

    • Right_On
      Right_On says:

      That might be a route worth taking. Can’t do any harm.
      ‘David’ on this site made a not-dissimilar suggestion when pointing out a way to make it more difficult for anti-Whites to attack us without showing their agenda. Why not say : “We people of European descent can learn something from other peoples of the world, such as a respect for our ancestors and our greater family, our tribe, our people.”

  4. James Bowery
    James Bowery says:

    Civilization’s dissolution of the masculine is a regression to the precambrian more-feminine life pattern. The appearance of multicellular predators thence male intrasexual selection—mano-a-mano—did more than merely select for skeletal remains that give the appearance of an explosion in the fossil record. Male intrasexual selection created boundaries within which speciation could occur more rapidly

    Thence, The Cambrian Explosion of life forms.

    Throughout evolutionary history, the more successful attempts to extend mano-a-mano violence to group violence have ended in females parasitically castrating their offspring to produce sterile workers as extended body parts—eusocial species: Ants, termites, bees and naked mole rats that engage in perpetual war.

    Civilized man is clearly heading in that direction and is doing so at the expense of the most individualistic races — especially the heterosexual men of those races.

    Any racial appeal to the individuals of an individualistic race must emphasize the moral superiority of their race as an individualistic race — a race that says “Yes!” to that which created not only them, but the diversity of life.

    And May The Best Win

    • Adûnâi
      Adûnâi says:

      > “Civilization’s dissolution of the masculine…”
      Does it happen outside the Aryan race? Will you call Stalinian people feminine because they made their women work in the factories in the mass production of the weapons of war? Is the fierce competition of a purer capitalist society feminine? Modern American values are clearly degenerate Christian idealism, quite removed from the genocidal materialism of race and of the chthonic fires of technology.

      > “…the more successful attempts to extend mano-a-mano violence to group violence have ended in females parasitically castrating their offspring to produce sterile workers as extended body parts—eusocial species…”
      Don’t humans have group violence? Isn’t the essence of racism group violence, genocide?

      > “…Ants, termites, bees and naked mole rats that engage in perpetual war.”
      Isn’t it a state of existence among all human populations – total collectivist war? And how is it feminine? Westerners are castrated not by feminism but by Christianity (check Juche Korea for a case of feminism without Christianity). If man is ever be truly cucked, it will happen by futuristic reproductive technology which would substitute the DNA with an efficient machine algorithm, and females will suffer more.

      > “And May The Best Win”
      That sounds anti-Christian. The best wins by definition. Losers deserve nothing but scorn. Nature decides the prerequisites. The dead have no agenda (the dead lineages, obviously, collectives, races.)

  5. no one important
    no one important says:

    There’s probably no point in coming up with new terms, e.g. White identitarianism. They’ll just get thrown onto the pyre with the rest.

    IMO, a better approach would be to just start using the “lefts” terminology. Just call it “White identity politics” or “White identity political activism”. Then you put them in a position where they have to justify why that special form of identity politics isn’t allowed. By their logic of allowing some groups to ethnically/racially advocate for themselves, it paints them as obvious anti-White hypocrites for the public to see if they denounce it.

  6. Eric
    Eric says:

    I believe most Whites are not just unwilling to unite in order to promote White interests, they are psychologically incapable of doing so. I see little reaction among Whites to the rising tide of anti-White hate expressed in the media, pop culture, Hollywood, politics, the fine arts, etc. I suspect that, even in South Africa today, most Whites of Christian heritage are not inclined to unite in order to defend themselves.

    If Whites are going to defend themselves, it will have to be on some basis other than being White. What might that basis be? To answer that question, we need to look at things in the past that have united Whites. They didn’t unite them AS Whites, but they DID unite them.

    Those two things have been Christianity and the American Revolution.

    The countries in Europe that are the least devoutly Christian are the ones most quickly being devoured by multiculturalism and an Islamic invasion. I am thinking of Sweden, Great Britain and Germany.

    Countries that are the most devoutly Christian, by contrast, are the least susceptible to those problems. I am thinking of Russia, Poland and Hungary.

    Secularism has not been a boon to White people. The less Christian a country with a majority White population is, the more quickly it is likely to succumb to the Great Replacement.

    The United States managed to maintain an 85% White nation until about 1965. Then what happened — from a Christian point of view?

    Evangelical churches became “Christian”-Zionist, which is to say, no longer Christian at all.

    Vatican II took hold, which not only pushed the Catholic Church in a more secular direction, but allowed Jews veto power over Catholic doctrine.

    Mainstream Protestant denominations liberalized their doctrine.

    Not coincidentally, we saw the decline of the traditional White family, an increase in White infertility and abortion on demand, and a “do your own thing” attitude that eroded the social fabric that had previously held Whites together.

    This process culminated in the replacement of Christianity with a new secular faith: the highest moral action a White person could take was no longer to conform to the will of God, but rather to apologize to blacks and Jews.

    That is the “replacement religion” for Christianity in the United States today: apologizing to blacks and Jews, and agreeing to abolish substantive Christianity and even Whiteness itself.

    I will not deny that this dissolution of traditional values — which occurred during the sixties when I was young — was not in many ways liberating, fun and seductive. But so are a lot of bad things. We needed social restraint, and we didn’t get it. We dissolved essential parts of our own being, and now we complain about being replaced.

    So much for Christianity. What about the American Revolution?

    Just look at what happened on January 6, 2021. Hundreds of thousands of White people descended on Washington, D.C., hoping that Trump would lead them in a Second American Revolution to return America to its founding principles as outlined in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.

    Yes, the Declaration talks about equality, but what inspired the “deplorables” was more the idea of freedom and a government that answers to the people instead of to the elites.

    Pastor Chuck Baldwin connects Christianity to the founding fathers and the founding documents. He even goes so far as to say that there would not have been an American Revolution without the American preachers who supported it and the interpretations of scripture by such men as Charles Spurgeon and Matthew Henry.

    The church in America has a long way to go in order to return to the authentic Christianity preached by those men, who had no truck with Jews and clearly saw that Christianity was anti-Jewish to its core.

    A reform of the church combined with a return to the founding principles — which have not been respected by either major political party — is the path to White survival in the United States. I see no other.

    If you want to be around other Whites, go to church. Churches are still the most segregated institutions in America, and the non-Whites who are in mostly White churches are not the problem. They have no hostile intentions whatsoever towards White people.

    Of course, all of this must take place in a context of populism, nationalism and traditionalism. That is what at least half the country craves right now. And the numbers will increase, not just in the United States, but elsewhere as well.

    So what about non-Whites? The more Christian they are, the easier it will be to get along with them. The only really unassimilable groups in the United States are Jews, Muslims and American blacks (with exceptions, of course).

    Latinos are half-white, Christian, hard-working, and not a problem as far as I’m concerned. Plenty of Asians are Christian. And they are the model minority.

    The children of mixed Latino-White and Asian-White couples are not unattractive.

    American blacks will always be our burden. Too many of them are not suited to a civilized way of life and are unable to take care of themselves — although this could be changed with less molly coddling.

    I think Americans are suspicious enough of Muslims that we will not be taking them in in great numbers.

    So that leaves Jews, who are really the biggest problem. They are the ones stirring up hatred of White people. They need to be called out and named. That will take courage. Let’s see what develops.

    • Mel Vaughn
      Mel Vaughn says:

      The churches at one time did unite our people. But now the churches have been cucked. I have been to many churches and all of them accept the globalist diversity policies. The churches have been Jewed.
      As to the claim that it’s okay to mix with Latinos and Asians…..that’s what the Jews WANT for us. They want our people to race mix and disappear.
      In my experience, both Latinos and Asians are very ethnocentric and anti-white, because this is what the Jewish media has taught them. All of the non-whites have been turned into enemies by the Jews. The actual reason the non-whites have been brought in is to wreck every white nation on earth. Notice that Israel refuses to take refugees and Israel is “for Jews only..”
      If you accept race mixing on any level then you have given in to the Jewish agenda. It mixing was a natural thing they would not have to promote it so heavily. Mixing is actually a form of genocide brought on by massive immigration.

      • Eric
        Eric says:

        Yes, the churches need to change. There are some good churches, and they are developing a decent following. Example: Liberty Fellowship in Kalispell, Montana.

        We’ve been handed some lemons. Let’s deal with the facts as they exist and make some lemonade. The facts as they exist are: We can’t turn back the clock. The powers that be won’t let us turn America into a White ethnostate — or even allow us to secede into a White ethnostate of our own, short of a civil war that I do not yet see happening.

        Above all, the great majority of White people do not want to defend themselves. They’ve had 60 years-plus to rebel against forced racial integration, affirmative action programs that discriminate against White males, mass non-White immigration, and “hate Whitey” messages in the media.

        To use a cliche, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink. And it hasn’t been for lack of trying, as people like David Duke will tell you.

    • BjornThorsonn
      BjornThorsonn says:

      The churches, based on a semitic religion (sorry mate, but it is), shall unite us?
      Galatians 3:28 pretty much destroys that.
      ‘Blut und Land’ has no real place in either christianity or islam. Well, in christianity it has – for the jews.

      As to the book that almost all of you use:
      NOTHING in the Bible that is original is true — and nothing that is true in the Bible is original.

      • Eric
        Eric says:

        If by “Semitic” you mean “Jewish”, then you are wrong. The tribe of Judah was only one of the twelve tribes of Israel. In Genesis, God made an irrevocable covenant with Abraham (who was not a Jew, but a Babylonian from Ur of the Chaldees – Gen. 11:31). That covenant was with both Abraham and his “seed” (Gen. 12:1-3; Gen. 17:1-7). Abraham’s seed is “the body of Christ” (Jesus and the Christians who follow him: Gal. 3:16). God condemns the Jews in Jeremiah 7:30-31 — just one of many condemnations. Jesus condemns the Jews as well (Mat. 21:33-43; Luke 3:7-9; John 8:44-47). Jesus himself is not a Jew (John 8:56-58).

        The most you can say is that Jews are involved in Christianity. They were a small fraction of the Israelites, and the most rebellious of them.

        God, acting through Vespasian and Titus, destroyed their Temple and the city of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

        When the Roman emperor Julian the Apostate tried to rebuild the Temple, he was unable to. Mysterious fires and explosions made the task impossible. That is a matter of historical fact. Even with the Jews controlling Jerusalem today, the Temple cannot be rebuilt. To be properly rebuilt, it would have to be in the same location where it was before. But a mosque is on that location, and the Jews dare not destroy that mosque. In the meantime, Christians have churches in Jerusalem, and the Jews dare not tear those down either.

        Gal. 3:28-29: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”

        I have no problem with Jews who sincerely renounce Judaism and become Christian. Why? Because such Jews no longer do the evil things that have led us to complain about them. Such Jews would no longer be tribal. They would intermarry with Christians to the point where their descendants had only a tiny percentage of Jewish blood in them. Even Hitler did not object to people who were, by blood, less than half Jewish.

        There is nothing in Christianity that stops us from having a “nice White country.”

        God did not want anyone to mush together the different races, nationalities, ethnic groups and religions (Gen: 10:5; Gen. 11:4-9). We only have multiculturalism and multiracialism in the West because Jews and their goy minions have pushed for them.

        Do not make the mistake of transferring your dislike for Jews onto Christians. You might as well say, “I don’t like White people because Jews influenced them and were involved in the development of their religion.” This is a case of purity spiraling — of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

  7. Karl Austin
    Karl Austin says:

    What about White Separatist/Ethno-Statist? Or if you prefer something tamer Racial Preservationist/Ethno-Statist. The enemy has already encapsulated us under the term “Whiteness” A recent writer said we must eliminate “Whiteness” and White Supremacy by eliminating the bodies that incubate it. That is a call to genocide.

  8. James J O'Meara
    James J O'Meara says:

    Arguing for a return to “old time religion” is that it is a cargo cult mentality: we had traditional religion then, and a pro-White society, so going back to traditional religion will bring back a pro-White society.

    It has a certain plausibility, since religion has become one of the principle forces of anti-Whiteness.

    However, this ignores the question of Why or How religion became anti-White. The key is that religion is irrational. Once you give up rationality, you can believe anything. That’s how the change was made: “The Pope says immigration is holy” or “The Prophet [an actual title of the head of the Mormons] has had a new revelation, black folks are OK,” etc.

    On what basis do you say, for example, that the Pope is wrong, or the Mormon Prophet? Well, because [reasons the new beliefs harm White folks, well known to folks here at OO], and the assumption that is bad; if P then Q. But wait, “reason is a whore” (Luther), merely another broken, sinful aspect of man’s iniquity.

    There is no REASON for the churches to change. (For example, the Episcopal Church is woking itself into extinction, but they’re OK with that because God tells them to be woke; consequentialist arguments about “that policy will destroy the church” are meaningless in the face of God’s command).

    If we have arguments and proofs of 1. how Whites are dying off and 2. why that is bad, we should be promoting MORE reason, so as to make those arguments forceful, not LESS.

    • Bernard Taylor
      Bernard Taylor says:

      The churches became anti-white due to several factors regarding Jewish influence. First of all you have the obvious effect from the media and academia, the constant barrage of anti-white propaganda.
      Also, the Scofield Bible turned many Christians into Christian Zionist lunatics that place the Jews above all other people. The CZ’s basically worship the Jewish people and Israel, so whatever comes from the mouth of Jews is accepted as holy….and most of what emerges from the Jewish megaphone is anti-white propaganda.
      Our people live inside a false Jewish consciousness. EMJ says the Jews have become our super-ego…..we censor our thoughts and speech to please our Jewish overlords even though they are trying to wipe us off the map.
      The situation is really quite insane and nearly impossible to believe for most people. Our people don’t want to believe that this hostile group is out to get us, because our people don’t have the same sort of thought process.
      Our people are gullible and trusting and sometimes downright idiotic. To me, it is crazy obvious that some force is mobilized to harm white people specifically….maybe it takes a certain degree of intelligence and pattern recognition.

    • Eric
      Eric says:

      The Bible demands we be reasonable. If anything, it is anti-anti-rational. God is the Logos incarnate, which is reason and truth (first chapter, Gospel of John). Luther was wrong.

      There is nothing to stop irrational and false doctrine from being preached in the pulpits. There is also nothing to stop irrationality from infecting science — covid and “climate change” being prime examples. It takes study and discernment to understand the Bible. Passages taken out of context will lead you astray. The context is the whole of the Bible as well as our knowledge of ancient history.

      How many people understand the “Jewish” Old Testament anticipates Christ and the New Covenant from the very beginning?

      When I studied philosophy, I only gained understanding when I was able to compare how different philosophers approached the same problems. It wasn’t enough to know what each one had said. I had to know the history of philosophy from beginning to end before I could gain any insight.

  9. William Gruff
    William Gruff says:

    ‘I am a white separatist, meaning that I want to live in a racially homogeneous society rather than a multiracial society. I want racially homogeneous homelands for all peoples, to the extent that is possible … ‘

    It isn’t possible. Why do you think the non-whites causing our problems will be content to remain in their new White-free homelands to enjoy a degraded lifestyle identical to that which prompted them to leave their ancient homelands? Wherever we go (and where is there to go) the societies we create will be attractive to those who covet what we have built yet are incapable of creating it for themselves, and they will follow us and create the same problems they create at present.

    The belief that we can separate ourselves and live in peace and prosperity is a suicidal delusion.

  10. Some White Guy
    Some White Guy says:

    There are terms already in use which work: we are white-positive Westmen who support and advocate for white well being.

    Stop using the terms listed by the oligarch run government agencies as terrorist labels because it simply gets you placed on their lists.

    Tune into the work Jason Kuhne is doing at No White Guilt and Go Free.Get out of the anti-white narrative and find the tools you need to survive the psychological attack of antiwhitism.

Comments are closed.