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

Go to Part 1.

Johnson’s Suggestions

Johnson has been very involved with the European scene, making many trips there to address conferences (two of the essays in this compilation are from lectures he made in Sweden and Lithuania and another is one he was prevented from delivering in Norway) and meet with European identitarian activists, perhaps more than any other prominent figure in the American White identitarian movement. It would not surprise me if he has more contacts in Europe than in the U.S. This provides an international perspective on our racial situation that is of critical importance for our movement but is too often ignored.

In the essay “Uppity White Folks & How to Reach Them,” originally a lecture delivered in Sweden, Johnson makes the important observation about democracy that “[t]he far-sighted few are outvoted by the short-sighted many. … So one of the problems for us is how to explain White Nationalism to short-sighted people. People who only think a year of two ahead.” (p. 104)

The project that I want to work on now is how to connect present-day political concerns with radical, fundamental, and long-term thinking about white extinction, white genocide, and how to create white homelands. The problems that we fear and the solutions we propose will happen in the far future. How do we relate to people as they are right now, especially short-sighted people who only think a couple of years down the road? (p. 106)

The most revolutionary thing that Donald Trump did in 2015 … is that he broke … [the] gentlemen’s agreement not to compete on immigration and globalization. … He chose to compete on those issues, and therefore he had to fight a two-front war against the Democratic Party and his own party, to get the presidency. That was revolutionary, because it showed that there are large numbers of people—sixty-plus million people in the United States—who really would vote for a nationalist candidate, a candidate who had an America-first foreign policy, was anti-globalization, and was anti-immigration. That was terrifying to the establishment. He broke the gentlemen’s agreement. He broke the political cartel that’s been in place since the Second World War. (pp. 111–112)

I would add that the 2015 revelation of broad White support for implicitly pro-White positions, especially on immigration, was as pleasant a surprise for me as it was a terrifying surprise for the establishment. This was not only revealed by the response of the Republican party’s base to the Trump candidacy, but also by a study released that year showing 55 percent of White survey respondents (38.2 percent of the total sample) supported stopping illegal immigration, deporting illegal immigrants, and greatly reducing or halting legal immigration.[1] Such a response is as radically pro-White as the questions on any survey ever allow, and only a very few allow this much. These were among a number of indicators of a wave of White popular sentiment that the Trump campaign rode to victory but did not create.

Johnson defines his “uppity white folks” as

a large and growing category in the middle. This is the category of people that the Republican Party doesn’t want to touch explicitly. But again, between 84% and 77% of white Americans believe that it would be okay for whites to organize to protect their group interests. They’re not necessarily envisioning White Nationalism, a white ethnostate, or an end to multiculturalism. But as long as there is multiculturalism, they’re damn certain that whites have to take their own side in the ethnic conflicts that exist in multicultural societies. A very large number of people believe that. But the Republican Party will not appeal to them. They simply will not appeal explicitly to white interests, but very large numbers of whites believe that it would be perfectly legitimate if they did so. … They’re not ready to be White Nationalists, and yet they are ready for white identity politics within the context of a multiracial, multicultural society. That’s a huge number of people. That is where our movement can expect its growth. Thus the great task that faces us is to get inside the heads of those people. (pp. 116–117)

I agree that this is the constituency where our movement can expect the greatest numerical growth, but we should not surrender the primary purpose of our movement to do so by abandoning its raison d’être to accommodate the presently ill-informed ideas, beliefs and preferences of the majority of our people. Our primary task, as Johnson says, is to “get inside the heads” of these people, to educate and inform them and thus move them over to our position—the position of their racial interests, the position advocating the continued existence of their race and its control of its own existence, and not for us to win them by moving over to or compromising with their racially incoherent, insufficient, and ultimately even harmful positions. That would be a possibly fatal defeat for our race, not a victory.

In a subsequent essay, “The Uppity White Folks Manifesto,” the only one written specifically for this volume, Johnson again steps forward on the path to victory, but then he again takes some steps backward.

White people are ready for white identity politics. This is clear from the rise of populist and nationalist politicians and parties around the white world. … [S]ignificant numbers of white Americans have positive racial identities, believe the current system is anti-white, reject white guilt, and think it is appropriate for whites to politically organize to protect their collective interests.

This … means that the metapolitical conditions for white identity politics are crystallizing. Center-Right parties, however, refuse to cross the line into explicit white identity politics because they are part of a globalist elite that regards white nationalism and populism as the top threats to their hegemony. But that is also encouraging news, for it is an opportunity for genuine white identitarians to establish themselves as a political force. … But the vast majority of people who are ready for white identity politics are not ready for full-on White Nationalism. … I use the phrase “uppity white folks” for the people who are ready for white identity politics but not (yet) ready for White Nationalism. … If you don’t aim at a white ethnostate, then you are committed to some form of multiculturalism. So you need to make it work for you. (pp. 137–138)

This backstepping to accommodate what he perceives as the limit to which Whites are now willing to go was heralded in this passage in the Introduction

“The Uppity White Folks Manifesto,” … outlines a policy agenda to appeal to the vast constituency of what I call “uppity white folks” who think that white identity politics is inevitable, necessary, and moral, but who are not quite ready for full white ethnonationalism. (p. 5)

This is where Johnson seems to falter and backstep on the program he advocates elsewhere. That is, he accepts “multiculturalism” (by which he means multiracialism, the real object of our concern, because without multiracialism there would not be enough multiculturalism to be concerned about) in a reduced degree with pro-White modifications to make it work better for Whites. He thus adopts a Fabian or “creeping” approach to eventually achieve an ethnostate. This is supposedly to minimize the difficulties and opposition entailed by a complete and more abrupt racial separation. In the previous essays in this volume Johnson has built a strong case for complete racial separation to attain his elsewhere expressed desire for what he calls “a nice white country,” as he did in his previous manifesto. However, in “Uppity White Folks” he materially deviates from that position.

He describes his “uppity white folks,” as “not quite ready” or “not yet ready for White Nationalism.” (p. 5 and p. 138 quotes above) The “yet” and “not quite” are important. They imply Johnson believes that in time, when they are better educated and informed on the racial situation and alternatives, they would be ready for 100% White Nationalism, as they appear to already be at least borderline ready for the 90% variety. In other words, their preferences are a moving target, based on levels of consciousness and situational awareness that are subject to modification and change with additional education and information. Providing that education and information, based on facts, a powerful sense of morality, and ideas, is our basic task—the winning of the hearts and minds of our people that is the essence of metapolitics. Yet to gain their support Johnson proposes to accommodate their current ill-informed and misinformed racial, political and moral beliefs and values, however false and harmful they may be, by abandoning preservationally-sufficient 100% White nationalism in favor of preservationally-insufficient 90% White nationalism. He does not consider that a little more information and education on the vitally important differences between these two options might move most, or enough, of these folks over to the preservationally-sufficient position. Sometimes holding out a little longer for a little more makes a huge difference.

To make multiculturalism work for the founding population, they need to assert their special privileges as the founding stock and resist the demographic and cultural erosion of their status. … An American identitarian movement should make three basic demands.

First, the American state must halt and reverse the demographic decline of Americans in America. And by “Americans” we all understand white Americans, the founding stock of the country. In 1965, when America opened its doors to non-white immigration, it was 90% white. Today, the white population is barely over 60%. Because of non-white immigration, low white American fertility, and high non-white fertility, with each passing year, those numbers get worse for white Americans.

American identitarians should demand that, each year, the white American percentage of the American population be a bit larger than the year before. This would entail social and political programs directed specifically to the demographic benefit of white Americans and not other groups.

For instance, the American state would reduce the immigration of non-whites and increase their emigration (for instance by repatriating refugees and reunifying immigrant families in their homelands). It would also reduce incentives for white Americans to emigrate. If white American birthrates are below those of non-white populations, the state should create programs to specifically increase white American birthrates.

Once such policies are in place, the creeping decline of America will be replaced with a creeping renewal. It took half a century to make America into a multicultural dystopia. It might take half a century to fix it. In the meantime, Americans can go about their business as usual, but with the optimism that comes from knowing that their progeny have a bright future ahead, not decline and extinction. (pp. 140–141)

How credible is this half-century program of “creeping renewal?” Can we have enough confidence in it to stake the future survival of our race on it? It raises many questions that need credible answers. First, how will the demographic decline of Whites be halted and reversed? As the plan outlined here involves the gradual demographic replacement of non-Whites by Whites rather than some form of separation or “divorce,” as Johnson has advocated elsewhere, halting and reversing this decline is obviously required for the plan to work. It’s one thing to say “the state should create programs to specifically increase white American birthrates” but in actual practice birthrates have proved to be remarkably unresponsive to government action, even when the means used involved a degree of regimentation and compulsion far beyond what White Americans would tolerate. Second, how will the demographic increase of non-Whites be halted and reversed? It would not be enough to “reduce the immigration of non-whites,” nor even to totally halt their immigration, as projections consistently show very substantial non-white increases even with zero immigration. There is no mention of programs to specifically decrease non-white birthrates, which, to be effective, would have to be truly draconian. Third, how will racial intermixture, which decreases the number of whites while increasing the number of non-whites, be prevented. There is no mention of a program to do this, which, to be effective, would have to involve a degree of racial segregation far stricter than that of the “Jim Crow” era, or the apartheid system in South Africa, again requiring severe social regimentation. Even then, it would seem any measures short of mass non-White sterilization could not accomplish a restoration of the 1965 racial status quo ante in “half a century.”

Such measures, of course, would qualify as genocidal under the United Nations’ definition. Also, in order for such measures to be implemented, explicitly pro-White forces would first have to be in total, even totalitarian, control, as their effectiveness would require near zero noncompliance. And if pro-Whites were in such total control, they could implement any solution they wished, including a total racial separation by partition of the national territory into separate White and non-White nations that could be completed in less than a decade without genocidal measures (e.g., restricting non-White reproduction). It would not require programs to decrease the numbers of non-Whites, just their movement or relocation to the territory allotted to their new country by the partition.

What would be the final goal, the final numbers or proportions of Johnson’s proposed solution, or how much would the non-White population have to be decreased to reach the solution? He addresses that question in the sub-section titled “Ninety-Percent White Nationalism.”

If an American identitarian movement were to propose reversing the demographic decline of white America, they would need a target number. If the public is not yet ready for homogeneously white ethnostates, that target number must be somewhere under 100%. As an American, I would choose 90%.

As for the ethnic breakdown of the non-white percentage, … I would … make it clear that it could contain representatives of all currently existing non-white groups. This is important to reduce opposition.

[M]any whites who are ready for some form of white identity politics will not accept it unless you leave some room for “based” minority outliers, mail-order brides, indigenous minorities, hard-luck groups like refugees and the descendants of slaves, and the purveyors of their favorite ethnic cuisines. (pp. 142–143)

Including non-Whites in our country because they purvey some Whites’ favorite ethnic cuisines? Johnson has elsewhere dismissed this objection to racial separation as petty compared with the White interests involved. Indeed, it is on a par with such objections as “who will pick up the trash” or “who will cut the grass.” Why is he now not just taking it seriously but actually accommodating it?

Leaving room for non-White “mail-order” brides in the supposedly 90% White nation would logically also include all non-White spouses or partners of Whites, and all of their half-White children, which could number as many as 15 million born in the last fifty years, unless there is some persuasive reason for including foreign non-White spouses and their children but not American ones. Including “the descendants of slaves” would add over 40 million Blacks. “Hard-luck groups like refugees” would also number many millions of  non-Whites. Sounds like the goal of even 90% White Nationalism has already been abandoned with just the turn of a page as the circa 200 million Whites are now still tied to somewhere over 60 million non-Whites. Just like with Tar-Baby, it’s hard to break free.

Second, leaving some space for all existing outsider groups would reduce resistance among such populations.

Intelligent non-whites … would resist white identity politics if no provision were made for their kind in the future. (p. 142)

Johnson seems to be trying to attract non-White support at the expense of alienating White support, by accommodating less-than-vital non-White interests at the cost of vital White interests. Wasn’t that one of Trump’s bad moves with his “platinum plan?” To achieve pro-White ends, it would seem advisable to focus on maximizing White support—the only support we can rely on when there is a conflict of racial interests, which there will be in abundance, as Johnson has amply shown. Pandering to non-Whites for their support is self-defeating for it will come at too high a price, sacrificing White interests, and even endangering our racial existence, in an attempt to accommodate and curry favor with non-Whites to reduce their opposition. To paraphrase Johnson’s own words from page 67 quoted above, “There is no moral imperative to destroy our race to accommodate other races.” It should be accepted as a given that non-Whites of all types will totally oppose a partition of the country into a White nation and one or more non-White nations as they want all of the homelands that were once ours, not just a part of them. To hope non-Whites might be allies in a partition is to chase a mirage. We cannot serve two masters. We cannot save the White race and restore its possession of its homelands and also give non-Whites what they want—possession and control of those same homelands. Our one and only natural constituency is Whites. Winning their support is the decisive battle, starting with those who already possess a fair degree of situational awareness and want their race to be saved. The others will need varying degrees of “consciousness raising,” and that is our task. The non-Whites will not help us. They are and will remain our most determined opponents for the simple reason that our goals of racial preservation and independence are contrary to their racial group interests of subjugating us and dispossessing us of our country and our existence.

Multiculturalism is just the white majority being gaslighted into a long, drawn-out suicide. (p. 143)

Here Johnson returns to his position in the first 136 pages, and again uses multiculturalism as a euphemism for multiracialism, as references to “white majority” and “suicide” make sense in the context of race but not of culture. But isn’t the idea of 90% White Nationalism nothing more than Whites being gaslighted into an even longer and more drawn-out suicide, and distracted from non-suicidal alternatives?

This kind of policy seems fair to all parties. Majorities get their homelands back … and historically established minority groups have a place as well.  (p. 143)

Would somehow reducing non-Whites to 10% of the population, or in the U.S. from 130 million to circa 20 million, really give us back our homelands? Did the English still have their homeland in 1968 when non-Whites were still less than 5% of the population and Enoch Powell gave his “Rivers of Blood” speech to warn their presence was fraught with danger? Did White Americans have a racial homeland when Wilmot Robertson was writing The Dispossessed Majority in Johnson’s supposed racial halcyon age of the 1960s? If not, as my own teenage-self believed at the time, then reducing the non-White presence to 1960s U.S. levels, or even to the less than 5% of 1968 Britain, would not constitute getting our homelands back.

Johnson does not define who the “historically established minority groups” are, and does not say what their “place” would be, but even if they only include “the descendants of slaves” referred to above, then 90% or even 80% White Nationalism would already be a lost goal.

I admit to some confusion about how Johnson proposes to reach his goal of a 90% White country. The quotes from pages 140–141 propose reversing demographic trends to gradually increase the White population and decrease the non-White population over fifty years or more. Is this his method to achieve 90% White Nationalism, to reduce the current non-White population of 130 million plus to circa 20 million? The only credible way to do this in anything close to fifty years would require the draconian and even genocidal measure of mass non-White sterilization. But in the quotes from pages 142–144 he seems to indicate his 90% White goal would be achieved by a territorial racial separation or partition of the nation’s territory, which would involve the removal, presumably into the territory allotted to their own non-White country or countries, of ~110 million of the 130 million non-Whites.

Ninety-percent White Nationalism can even deliver a reasonable facsimile of 100% White Nationalism. The ethnostate is the idea of a racially and culturally homogeneous homeland for a particular people. But how homogeneous is homogeneity? … I distinguish three senses of the term: 

Strict homogeneity—meaning there are no racial and cultural outsiders at all

De facto homogeneity—meaning that outsiders are present, but citizens are not forced to deal with them, so if one wants, one can live as if one inhabits a strictly homogeneous society

Normative homogeneity—meaning that if outsiders are present, they accept and live by the norms of the dominant group. (p. 144)

Wilmot Robertson, who coined the term ethnostate, stated that “The basic sine qua non of an ethnostate, the prop on which it succeeds or fails, is racial and cultural homogeneity.”[2] He did not divide homogeneity into different senses, but clearly meant it in the standard sense of “having a uniform structure or composition throughout,” corresponding to Johnson’s “strict” sense, as did Rudyard Kipling’s references to being of “one sheaf” and “one vine” in his poem “The Stranger.” Johnson seems to be stretching, and so diluting, the standard definition and concept of homogeneity to include two additional “senses” or types that allow him to claim his suggestion is a form of homogeneity. But in the biological and genetic terms of racial preservationism racial homogeneity is synonymous with monoracialism, and any degree of multiracialism recognizable as such would not qualify.

Most white societies will reject strict homogeneity. (p. 144)

This last assertion turns the assumption already made on page 5 and pages 137–138 (quoted above), that his targeted “uppity white folks” constituency is “not yet ready” or “not quite ready” for full White ethnonationalism, or a totally White country, into an absolute and permanent rejection of it. This is important because Johnson bases his proposed solution of 90% White Nationalism on this assumption, which I have not previously encountered, causing me to wonder what its source might be, or if it is original to him. But is this assumption correct? Is there a vast constituency of the White electorate, whose will we cannot alter and thus must be accommodated as determinative, who would support reducing non-Whites to 10% of the population but not less than that, and if so, why? Is it because they have been so indoctrinated with anti-White ideology, values and morality that they believe an all-White society is immoral and evil? That the racially creative and preserving condition our ancestors evolved in and lived in for uncounted millennia until modern times and in their European homelands until the last century is immoral and evil? Must we accept that a society has to be at least 10% non-White as the minimal standard for the threshold of multiracialism in order to be morally acceptable? To acquiesce to this is to recognize this level of multiracialism as morally acceptable when our most important metapolitical task is to instill in Whites the conviction that any kind or degree of multiracialism is contrary to the fundamental White interests of racial preservation and independence, therefore anti-White, and thus immoral and evil. Those Whites who support multiracialism in any degree that qualifies as such are denying the independence of their race and endangering its continued existence. It is our job to make them see this.

Actually, we do not really know what the great majority of populist or Trump-supporting Whites think on this subject, and therefore whether Johnson’s assumption is anywhere near correct. Polls and surveys do not ask anything like the questions that would provide an answer. This is probably just as well because the general public, and even many White Identitarians, are very poorly informed about both the realities of the racial problem and the possible alternatives or solutions to it, with the most common solutions advanced by pro-Whites advocating giving up on America, surrendering the greater part of it and its White population to the non-Whites, and putting their White ethnostate and its residents in very desperate circumstances. This is like the English giving up on England and surrendering it to the non-Whites, or the French, Germans and Swedes giving up on France, Germany and Sweden and surrendering them to the non-Whites. Fortunately, European Identitarians are not yet ready to surrender their countries. I wish the same could be said for the White identitarians in America.

I think this all comes down to a matter of moral and intellectual leadership. The primary task of racial metapolitics should be to provide that leadership, not abdicate it. Our people have been misled and taught wrong. They have essentially followed the path of error since 1619. Our task is to teach them right and lead them on the correct path. It would be a failure of leadership to accept and accommodate their erroneous beliefs rather than correct them.

Some of the most vocal opponents of 90% White Nationalism will be advocates of the 100% variety. The poison pill for them is the Jewish question, for Jews are long- established minorities in practically every white society. Jews are the leading proponents of multiculturalism and race-replacement immigration. If these policies are rejected, most Jews will feel uncomfortable. Many might even emigrate. But some might remain among the 10%. That possibility might reduce Jewish opposition to 90% White Nationalism, but it will guarantee the opposition of hard-core anti-Semites. Such opposition might, however, improve the overall political prospects of 90% White Nationalism. (p. 145)

The rather offhand remarks in this paragraph are the only mention of Jews and anti-Semitism in the book, and as an “advocate of the 100% variety” of White preservation, separation and independence, or the 100% White solution to our racial problem, which I would regard as essential to qualify as “hard-core” pro-White, I think they should be examined. First, is anti-Semitism, as defined and used in the mainstream culture, a valid concept, or is it merely a ploy to advantage Jews and shield them from criticism? Johnson doesn’t define what he means by “hard-core anti-Semites,” but the context indicates he means those who want to be totally separate and free from Jewish control and power, which as a practical matter requires effective separation from Jews themselves. Second, Jews have been the primary causative agents of multiracialism, non-White immigration, and our ongoing subjugation, dispossession, and replacement. All the evidence of history, and especially of the last century as Jews have ascended to hegemony and played the leading role in promoting, guiding and enforcing the causes of our racial destruction, as Johnson himself admits in this paragraph, proves that White independence, or control of its own existence, requires that Jews be removed beyond the reach of power or influence, just as racial preservation requires that Blacks and other non-Whites, to quote Thomas Jefferson, “be removed beyond the reach of admixture.” Simply put, Jews and other non-Whites (i.e., non-Europeans) are in an adversarial relationship with the White “Founding Stock” population. So why advocate a solution that would keep millions of such racial adversaries in our country?

If we allow that Johnson’s target of 90% White Nationalism is achievable, whether desirable or not, the question then is how would it be maintained, or is it even realistic to assume it could be maintained, other than by a permanent continuation of the draconian measures which would probably be required to attain it. To assume the proportion of non-Whites could be kept at 10% and intermixture prevented is to assume the racial situation could be held in a stable and permanent state of stasis, which many thought was the racial situation in the U.S. through the 1950s. But the racial revolution of the 1960s made it clear that the true racial situation was an unstable state of suspension, a temporary prevention or delay of a major change in the situation that can never be permanent. A similar transformation occurred in South Africa after the assassination of Prime Minister Henrik Verwoerd in 1966, when his “purist” vision of “Grand Apartheid,” in which “vertical” or total racial separation would be accomplished by the division of South Africa into multiple ethnostates, was effectively scuttled by the delaying and temporizing tactics of the usual anti-White elements, whose supposedly permanent policies of “petty apartheid” stasis proved to be only a temporary suspension when they were undone by the revolutionary election of 1994.

Our proposed solutions are a very important matter which should be given careful consideration for at least three reasons. First, our solution, the alternative we offer, along with our goal and our motive, is what defines us. If we do not define it ourselves then we fail to define ourselves, and by our default we allow our opponents to define us without challenge—most probably to our detriment. Second, our solution, if successfully presented as necessary, effective and moral, and certainly much preferable to our present situation, should help attract support which would be lost if potential supporters were only offered a leap into the unseen and unknown. Third, if we do succeed in gaining control and implementing our solution, it will have a major effect on our racial situation for many, perhaps all, the generations to come. So we should be careful what we wish for, and be sure to get it right, for it could be permanent, meaning we should only advocate solutions that we want to be permanent, which would exclude solutions that create a racial situation that is in a state of suspension.

In my view a well-considered solution should be sufficient, credible and acceptable. The first condition means sufficient to achieve its purpose and motive. My purpose and motive is White racial preservation, independence and security, and I judge or measure the effectiveness of solution proposals by this triple standard. Preservation means the continued existence of the whole of our race, complete in all of its diverse parts, types and nations, and not only a small fraction of it. Independence means control of its own existence and freedom to serve its own interests, not subjugated to the will or subservient to the interests of another race. Security means the credible ability to defend the existence, independence and interests of our race against any threat or danger, whether near or far, in all of its homelands in every part of the globe. As in every age, this requires resources, population size, and military and economic power on a scale able to withstand and overcome the most powerful potential adversary.

In the final subsection titled “Medicare for All Plus Slurs” Johnson considers how to “put together a winning political coalition” to achieve the goals he has set out. (p. 145) For this he suggests that the White identitarian movement align itself with the populist agenda as a way to gain political support by “giving the people what they already want.” (p. 145) It also helps that the constituency that supports populist issues largely coincides with the constituency that is more supportive of implicitly white policies, such as opposition to non-white immigration. (p. 148) I believe that Johnson himself favors these policies, as do I, except I don’t share his enthusiasm for a welfare state so massive that it would consume all resources and incapacitate the military, and I have reservations about Medicare for all, as I have doubts about socialized medicine’s efficiency and its ability to sustain medical progress. I would, however, strongly advise against making any prior commitments for our future ethnostate to any ideological or political agendas or movements other than the racial agenda of preservation and independence, which we should focus on as its primary and singularly essential purpose—in short, an ideologically minimalist approach, to go in clean with as little baggage as possible. This would limit our pre-ethnostate determinations to the bare necessities, including the demarcation of the ethnostate’s racial and territorial boundaries, and guidelines for the methods and means of conducting the separation, but not much else. Once the ethnostate is achieved the newly all-White citizenry should not be bound by prior commitments that would limit their sovereign prerogative to choose their own social, economic and political policies. Whether they choose a largely populist agenda, or something else, the essential point is the choice should be theirs to make.

Johnson is to be commended for addressing the subject of solutions to our racial problem, something too few do. He might sometimes seem to get ahead of himself and neglect specifics that would clarify his multiple proposals, but this is all to the good as it both stimulates and provokes thoughtful, constructive, and hopefully fruitful discussion of this vitally important matter.

[1] Richard McCulloch, “White Racial Interests and the Trump Candidacy,” The Occidental Quarterly 16, no. 2 (Summer 2016): 21–54, 41.

[2] Wilmot Robertson, The Ethnostate (Cape Canaveral, FL: Howard Allen Enterprises, 1992), 16.