Was the founding generation of America full of white nationalists? This is a claim popular with some white nationalists. They argue that North America was settled by white people who set out to create a new society for white people and once they achieved independence from England, they created a white society. They will point to statements and actions that suggest that early Americans consciously and deliberately planned a society exclusively for white people.
Oddly, this is the exact same claim made by anti-whites in support of the demands for reparations and what they call “restorative justice.” The starting point for understanding the anti-white argument is their take on the social contract. They claim that because civilization was created by white men, it must have been created to serve the interest of white men, which must have come at the expense of non-whites. In other words, they agree with the white nationalists on this point.
Putting aside the claims by the anti-whites, which are all ex post facto arguments to support their current thirst for vengeance, are the white nationalist correct when they claim the Framers as their own? There is no disputing the fact that the European people of the 17th and 18th century had little interest in other races. They certainly did not think the races should mingle. They thought it perfectly normal to own human beings, so their views on equality were, at best, narrow and rhetorical.
The best argument in favor of the white nationalist claim about the intention of the Framers is the preamble to the constitution. “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
The word “posterity” is critical. Then as now, this word means future generations of the current people and the people who chose that word were white. They chose to capitalize it, which in that age was a form of emphasis. They were making clear to the people of the states that the point of the new government was to protect and promote the people and their descendants. The Naturalization Act of 1790, one of the first acts passed by the new government, drives home this point.
The problem here is that Congress repealed this five years later in favor of the Naturalization Act of 1795. They kept much of the original bill, but then three years later they modified it again with the Naturalization Act of 1798. More changes followed as Congress wrestled with how best to solve the main problem, which was the lack of human capital to exploit the country’s natural resources. 18th century America was rich in natural resources, but short of people.
In other words, the point of these acts was not to protect white people or keep out non-whites, but to manage the problem of how to bring in new settlers – and that is what was needed – but to do so without undermining the current population. Race and ethnicity were not the primary reason for these acts. In fact, the people of this age could not image what we think of as a multi-racial society. Such a thing not only did not exist, but at the time it could not exist. It was simply not a consideration.
That brings us to the main problem with this line of reasoning. The people of this time had different conceptions of race. This is not to say race is a social construct, but that the meaning of words change over time. For 18th century man, words like “white”, and “race” were used differently from today. For the Framers, white often meant English, while race meant ethnicity. Our modern idea of “white”, meaning broadly European, would have seemed strange to Thomas Jefferson.
Further, the concept of white nationalism would have puzzled the people of this age because it is a solution to a problem they could not imagine. If you went back in time and told them that millions of non-whites would be flowing into the country every year, they would have thought you were insane. The movement of millions of people, regardless of race, was inconceivable. There were only four million people in America when the Constitution was being debated.
Now, the white nationalist would no doubt argue that if the Framers could understand the problems that modern Americans face, they would certainly embrace the concept of white nationalism as a solution. There is no way to prove or disprove it, so it is merely a gratuitous assertion. It is fair to assume that the Framers assumed and expected, therefore would have wanted, the country to look like them in terms of race and religion, long after they were gone. They wanted this for their posterity.
There is a deeper issue at work here. Like the anti-whites who claim original sin as justification for their present behavior, the white nationalists pointing to the Framers are looking for a moral authority. They think that the Framers are unassailable, in moral terms, so if the Framers were white nationalists, then it follows that white nationalism is a moral good. What are you going to do? Take down the statues of the Framers and strike their names from the history books?
That aside, the mistake is to assume a person can be a moral authority. The Framers were not gods or God’s representatives. They were just men sorting through the challenges of their age with the knowledge of their age. They were not moral authorities then and they cannot be moral authorities now. The challenges of this age will need to be sorted by the men of this age. Their moral authority is simply their collective will to create a safe and prosperous society for their posterity.
Maybe white nationalism, however it is defined, is the right answer. Pinning white nationalist down on what the term means is not always easy, but maybe in there is the right answer for the plight of white people in North America. That will be determined as all such things are determined. Can it actually meet the challenge and are the trade-offs acceptable to the people adopting it? This is not a question for the dead, but for the white people living in the here and now.
If you like my work and wish to kick in a few bucks, you can buy me a beer. You can sign up for a SubscribeStar subscription and get some extra content. You can donate via PayPal. My crypto addresses are here for those who prefer that option. You can send gold bars to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. Thank you for your support!
Promotions: Good Svffer is an online retailer partnering with several prolific content creators on the Dissident Right, both designing and producing a variety of merchandise including shirts, posters, and books. If you are looking for a way to let the world know you are one of us without letting the world know you are one one is us, then you should but a shirt with the Lagos Trading Company logo.
The Pepper Cave produces exotic peppers, pepper seeds and plants, hot sauce and seasonings. Their spice infused salts are a great add to the chili head spice armory, so if you are a griller, take you spice business to one of our guys.
Above Time Coffee Roasters are a small, dissident friendly company that roasts its own coffee and ships all over the country. They actually roast the beans themselves based on their own secret coffee magic. If you like coffee, buy it from these folks as they are great people who deserve your support.
Havamal Soap Works is the maker of natural, handmade soap and bath products. If you are looking to reduce the volume of man-made chemicals in your life, all-natural personal products are a good start.
Minter & Richter Designs makes high-quality, hand-made by one guy in Boston, titanium wedding rings for men and women and they are now offering readers a fifteen percent discount on purchases if you use this link. If you are headed to Boston, they are also offering my readers 20% off their 5-star rated Airbnb. Just email them directly to book at
sa***@mi*********************.com
.
Immanuel Kant, the most influential intellectual of the time, was using the term “race” in the exact same way we do today. This also applies to Hume and Locke, who actually had a direct influence on the Framers. Any reasonably smart person is aware that until recently, “race” had many colloquial usages, like ethnicity (e.g. the English race), or group in general (e.g. that unfortunate race of troglodytes, the gunners of the lower decks). The proper usage of “race” back in the 18th Cent was the one established by Linnaeus, which is the same we have today. This is the… Read more »
*”The people of this time had different conceptions of race. This is not to say race is a social construct, but that the meaning of words change over time. For 18th century man, words like “white”, and “race” were used differently from today.”
Congress indicated its intent as what we would now call white nationalism in 1790:
The 1790 Naturalization Act set the new nation’s naturalization procedures. It limited access to U.S. citizenship to white immigrants—in effect, to people from Western Europe—who had resided in the U.S. at least two years and their children under 21 years of age. It also granted citizenship to children born abroad to U.S. citizens.
If someone looks White, acts White, and fights White then I will consider them of my nation. Everyone else leaves. Anything other than this ends in our genocide. Or theirs.
There is not much of note in the collected papers of Button Gwinette on race. Apparently he did not ponder it since in his era race was not a topic that surfaced very often. He took the colonial society of America for granted. It was majority white, blacks were slaves who would probably be freed at a future date but returned to their continent of origin which seemed only natural. When a people form a nation from various groups and divisions there are certain qualities which are held in common. Race is generally one of those. It is not to… Read more »
It would be perfect if there was a website “The Framers,com” and you go to the “contact us” link where you fill out a form and give them your email address etc. You register your complaint and expect a good customer experience …
Yes and no. The so-called white nationalist argument is a response to the post-1945 idea that America is a creedal or credal nation. One based on an idea, making race and ethnicity redundant. That always was BS.
The other complexity with “whiteness” as America’s founders understood it was that it meant Protestant, too. The Alien and Sedition Acts had an early anti-Catholic element.
Agree tho that the Framers of the Constitution would not have understood the term “White” as it is in the present. Nor is there much point looking to the Eighteenth century to address problems of the Twenty-First.
The salient question for White people in North America is not ‘What would the Framers do?’ but ‘What do we want to do?’
Keep non-white foreigners foreign. That is, keep them out.
Immigrant-huggers are operating on the assumption that non-White Latinos will become Americans like them.
The people giving them their orders know that their plan is turn the former United States into a South American banana republic flying a yellow-White flag.
Most of the clashes between different groups of humans comes down to violence. The problem is, the violence being perpetrated against White people is somewhat amorphous, and mostly cultural in nature, so it is difficult to galvanize White people against it. If White’s as a group cannot be made to to what is being done to us is violence, and if we cannot break free of the guilt this culture inculcated in us from birth, we will simply disappear through diminishing birthrate and intermixed. Rights truly have nothing to do with it, the will to survive is all that matters… Read more »
It’s not that the violence against Whites as a group is amorphous, it is very real. It is that a vast majority of Whites do not see themselves as a group. Making this to be true was a big part of the cultural violence you reference.
There’s a certain amount of truth to the Woke claim that America’s government, or Western European’s, etc. are “products of institutional white supremacy” or whatever the latest fashionable charge is. As such, it’s quite plausible, and in many cases documented, that minority or outsider populations would be marginalized. In our nation’s history, the Native American and the Negro come to mind. But while those arguments have some ring of truth, they fail completely in the limiting case: What about those cultures that are in fact homogenous, 100% of the same race (Caucasian) or nearly so? Of course, North America never… Read more »
First, they spent the better part of a century defining white supremacy as the most dastardly evil, so that no living generation had not been so indoctrinated. Only then, and after the GR had made substantial gains, was the founding cast in this accursed light. Whether this was by design or emergent, I couldn’t say. Whether it was all inspired by revulsion of an Austrian artist, I couldn’t say, although that’s definitely part of it. But each step along the way was necessary to get where we are now. The big question is can they maintain this definition of white… Read more »
Well put. I’m glad you referenced “plurality” because that, more than “minority,” is the reality. Hence, it would take much more of a buy-in by whites of their intrinsic evil for this to be pulled off. The starting position will not be of great numerical strength, as you also point out, but it will not be with the far weaker hand that appeared likely not so long ago. I now don’t think the Regime can finesse this although it can do horrible damage–even more than thus far–to our people. Whites actually have caught a few lucky breaks in the last… Read more »
If you build a house for your family to live in and expect guests to to show respect and deference to you and your family, is that familial supremacy? I guess in the twisted rotten mind of the Jew it is. But the Jew has right to every thing under Heaven. He is God’s chosen.
The evolutionary strategy of the shapeshifters is different.
We take and hold territory for our familiar progeny, as do most creatures.
The unholy mix, the broken branch, are nomadic gene harvesters.
Their different sub-clades reflect the local building material- whiter, blacker, asian. One can be religious or not, live in any nation, wear any name; yet at the root, one will always identify first and foremost as a J**.
Slaves. Slaves will always be the target of these vampires, not land.
Land is but a tool.
“The Biological Jew” by Eustace Mullins helped me to understand what jews really are. Parasites, not as a negative connotation, but the biological definition. There are a number of species of plants and animals that have a sub-species that can interbreed with them yet exists by parasitizing on the main species.
Which also explains why pogroms are actually part of their lifecycle; it’s how they spread their genes to different host societies even as individuals within the original group die en masse.
Your last point is something evangelicals cannot get through their thick Judeo-Christian heads. Jews were God’s chosen, but they broke the old covenant, and now deny the new covenant. You will never hear a Jew say “Judeo-Christian”, because the second word is abhorrent to them. If they took the new testament seriously, they would understand why Jews are no longer chosen.
It is a funny thing.
The Talmud calls Jesus a false profit and sorcerer.
Islam views Jesus as the second greatest prophet, born of the Virgin Mary, and ascended into heaven.
Yet so many Christians have been brainwashed into thinking we’re the Jews’ little brothers.
Not that I love muslims, but at least they don’t have outright contempt for Christianity.
There are many overlapping grounds where Christians and Muslims could/should form transactional partnerships to deal with the (((problem))).
White/european founded societies are built on safe behavior and an above average IQ. By definition, only whites and northeast asians have the average ability to contribute to those societies. So yes, i believe we have a white supremacist society. We’ve tried to privilege and provide handicaps for POCs, but they will never survive or thrive on their own ability.
Mechanics matter. Societal problems are endless and evolving solutions can be messy, as history shows. Prolonged affluence has robbed us of the raw gauntlets that normally produce strong leaders and thereby lead to optimum remedies; such as was accomplished by our founders. It should now be perfectly clear that we in the West have never been more poorly led that at the present time. As such, disaster awaits, and is a necessary step on the road to redemption. The elites want to create a circumstance in which the bottom of the social pyramid turns on each other in violent acts… Read more »
This sort of post is self-defeating, demoralizing and a waste of time. If we can bring people this way by saying the Founders were white nationalists, it is stupid not to. This thing isn’t a disseration defense, it’s an existential struggle. Winning through survival and self-determination is the only thing that matters. If we wait until everyone holds correct notions of past, present and future — which no one can hold as Z would rather cat-post than finish his book — we’ll all be under the ground together, laughed at and lied about for eternity. But at least we didn’t… Read more »
Your comfort with lying isn’t as universal as you think.
Your comment isn’t as demoralizing as you think that it is.
My objection to your point is that identifying to larger movements will be fruitless. I think we are better served by building tight community bonds of those near us. Any hope of a white identity, in terms of a national group, based on or in opposition to WN is a fruitless endeavor. Build local bonds.
Orania is the way. Orania + knewks.
I agree with your point, but disagree that this is what Z intended. The audience for this post isn’t the normie, it is those who already understand the nature of the conflict. The sad truth is a vast majority of people either don’t understand that truth or don’t care about it. Nothing will change this. Der ewige normie. I would disagree with your implication that we should be preaching WN to normies, for the same reasons you say Z shouldn’t be preaching FF historicity. 1. You tell normies what they want to hear so we get influence and power. 2.… Read more »
“It is fair to assume that the Framers assumed and expected, therefore would have wanted, the country to look like them in terms of race and religion, long after they were gone.” In other words, it is fair to assume the Framers were retards who couldn’t fathom their new country would be no different than empires of bygone eras. I think it was antidem who pointed out the Founders were idiots for not understanding Plato’s point that democracy not only leads to a dictatorship, but the people will clamor for a dictatorship to save them from their own folly. What… Read more »
As always I struggle to speak for “the founders,” but I feel certain that they were constructing a system that they themselves could live with in the there and then, and were not thinking 200 years ahead. Which is probably impossible for anyone, of any era, to do. What happens 200 years hence is a problem for the people of that time.
Rome and the GAE were probably 2 of the 3 greatest empires to ever exist. Calling them trashy and ill conceived strikes me kind of like saying real socialism hasn’t been tried yet.
You enjoy tossing out insults: retard, idiot, trashy. Something tells me they apply more accurately to the author than his intended targets…
I don’t venerate the Founders–at all, but they were not supporters of empire and imperialism. Those who immediately followed them did not share that sentiment.
Smiley face for the howler.
“as trashy and ill-conceived as the Roman one”
Yup, he was kangz
If you bothered to study what you speak of, you’d know the Founders did try to take those things into account. You may have heard it mentioned that we aren’t a democracy, but a republic. This was explicitly to avoid the problems of a democracy. President was supposed to be similar to a monarch, Senate to an oligarchy, and House to a democracy. I think they owed a lot more to Machiavelli than many suspect. The reason the USA fell to shit was all the things we allowed to be changed about that original set-up. Senate as popularly elected, women… Read more »
The real problem with the American constitutional system is that there is no effective way to overrule the bad decisions that the retards on Capitol Hill make.
Jury nullification doesn’t do it.
The issue that the US was a multicultural country from the onset. A truly homogeneous country doesn’t have a brutal civil war ending with one side subjugating & tribally cleansing the other with forced diversity less than a century after it’s founding. Can’t have a moral consensus with people who are wired differently, White Nationalism fails to address the fact that some Whites are always going to be subversive. People like to point the finger solely at jews but the radical leftists in the north invented what would later be called feminism & practiced a form of christianity would evolve… Read more »
“…the fact that some Whites are always going to be subversive.”
This gave me the interesting thought that when Jamal-in-the-hood accuses a successful black of “acting white” — Jamal is actually accusing the successful black of social subversion, of the same sort as we see from subversive white leftists.
Most of the leftists are easily lead. Do you really think they came to those subversive thoughts on their own? They were lead and financed by those whose interest the subversion served.
“Do you really think they came to those subversive thoughts on their own?” Yes, people have agency, Quakers didn’t get mind controlled by jews & modern people gravitate towards ideologies that they instinctively agree with. Its ridiculous that it’s commonly accepted that non Whites are genetically hardwired to have certain political views but Whites are uniquely blank slates subject to outside influence.All of this amounts to absolving Whites of culpability to blame some external force. Take Swedes for example, in Minnesota they’re overwhelmingly leftist & import somalis just like they do in the homeland. Occam’s razor tells me that they’re… Read more »
It’s the conservatives who are easily led because of their acceptance of authority. The Leftist personality is much different, and it is something that only developed in Northern Europe due to the unique conditions there.
Great post. I’ve spent a lot of thought on exactly what you speak of, and the only thing I can come up with is giving individuals the right to execute on the spot anyone espousing certain beliefs. I’m sure some innocents will be mistakenly killed, and the would-be racial patriot might have to be punished. But those negatives are infinitesimal compared to the the negatives avoided. For example, there needs to be a 0th Amendment: “only citizens can have rights including the right to vote and only Whites can be citizens; anyone who publicly argues against this loses their citizenship… Read more »
It’s regrettable that this wasn’t codified in the constitution from the get go, if there was a defined legal process to do something like this or leave the union for that matter then civil war could’ve been avoided. Even if it wasn’t at least the civil war would’ve been explicitly illegal & the resulting government officially fraudulent. Instead it was decided by biased judges to interpret it however they saw fit & we’ve seen how virtually every single one of those court decisions have played out: it always going in one direction & one direction only. If this was done… Read more »
RVIDXR:
Here here!
So what you describe (separating subversive whites from the rest of us, who will be admittedly smaller in number, at least in the beginning, u til the subversives notice that we have plumbing and electricity that continually works…)…
… will require those “aware” among us, to develop multiple, multiple “shit tests” (of varying degrees, Like a teacher starts with basic concepts and then moves on to more complex ones) to verify that the subversives don’t infiltrate easily.
That’s a great plan, I can’t tell you how many people I’ve encountered who seem to be on the same page but later reveal themselves to be a subversive of some sort. I’m often blindsided by these reveals, having an “official” system to test people would put an end to such unpleasant surprises. It’s always the ones who aren’t consciously subversive that slip past my radar, that’s my own personal flaw of projecting goodwill onto people. I know I’m not alone in having that problem so having some sort of system in place that can weed those types out before… Read more »
I responded to you but my comment went into the black hole so just in case it never appears I just wanted to say that series of tests is a brilliant idea & I’m glad you posted it.
I wrote quite a bit more than that in my original comment but that was the gist of it, I’m too lazy to rewrite it again in a way that won’t get moderated, hopefully it’ll show up but in case it doesn’t this will suffice. Thanks for the reply.
Secret societies have been doing such shit tests for… well, as long as such societies have existed. The sign of the cross was originally a ‘shit test’ for Christians to be able to identify each other, for example. The word ‘shibboleth’ was a password that couldn’t be pronounced by an enemy who didn’t have the ‘sh’ or ‘th’ sound in their alphabet, as another example. Jim of ‘Jim’s Blog’ has developed a shit test for banning subversives on his site. He claims those collecting a paycheck aren’t allowed to even state the forbidden positions, so all you have to do… Read more »
Not to sound too autistic, but I disagree that people appeal to the Founders’ intent as some kind of moral authority, but rather as technical experts for the appropriate functioning of this republic they created.
I mean, if you want any machine to function correctly, shouldn’t you reference the operational manual provided by the manufacturers who built said machine?
Mr. Generic: I realize it could be merely stylistic, but even capitalizing “The Founders” nowadays implies nobility of thought or action. They were not atypical of men of their time and class. And if one may assume you are referring to ‘muh democracy’ or even ‘muh republic’ by the ‘machine’ you mention, one might consider the operational manual the constitution. Which, in the opinion of a few of us here, has proven wholly unsuitable and insufficient to safeguard the wellbeing and/or ‘rights’ of White people. In which case, appealing to “The Founders” or “The Constitution” as a moral authority and/or… Read more »
The imperfections of the Constitution do not make those who admire it Grillers. That document functioned exceptionally well for almost two centuries–no mean feat. But it was insufficient to account for declining social capital and the intellectual flaccidity that seems inevitably to accompany extreme prosperity. But those flaws could certainly be ameliorated in a constitution of a future Whiteland. In fact, I would be surprised if the US Constitution doesn’t serve as a model that gets modified.
That document functioned exceptionally well for almost two centuries…
No it didn’t
The original founders were horrified by Marshal’s power grab in Marbury v Madison.
Then there’s that whole civil war thing a few decades later.
The United States did well for two centuries despite the constitution, not because of it.
I’d consider the constitution to actually be part of the system that was engineered. I am interested in knowing what it would take to get the most out of that system.
For instance, when Adams mentioned that “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people..”, I’d see that as comparable to my car’s manufacturer telling me for best results to use fully-synthetic oil in the engine. I don’t think I would be a good person for using synthetic, or a bad person from using standard, but that I would expect better results from the synthetic.
What Adams was getting at, essentially, is that no system can function well if the people owning and running it are crap.
On the other hand, good people owning and running a system can even make do with crappy systems – the Scandies made a decent run at socialism lite as long as there were only Scandies as part of the system. Iceland, now that it has it’s first synagogue, is about to find out the hard way.
“White Nationalism” will never happen and it is pointless to discuss it. At best, it could be an alliance between different White peoples. Perhaps the EU and NATO (2 evil institutions) are the biggest expressions of White Nationalism. Problem is, who are White people? IOW, how many White people in the US think of themselves at an identity level as being White? What language do “White people” speak? What denomination do we follow? Other than being attacked for being White, we have no shared identity. Bottom line, White is not an ethnicity, it’s a race. We know we’re being attacked… Read more »
“…how many White people in the US think of themselves at an identity level as being White? “ Good one. However, I postulate more than you imagine. “The love that dare not speak its name” is not homosexuality, it is *race*—in this case the White race, but also most all races as well. To this effect, look to where and how White’s live. Even in those vaunted *diverse* cities we decry, one can walk about from one neighborhood to another and distinctly discern what race congregates therein. The issue here is not so much that Whites don’t identify as Whites,… Read more »
Hi Tars – We are being given that identity. Even Ivy League females are remarking that white male graduates are struggling to find jobs while POCs are getting hired immediately. This is no longer affecting the dirts alone. This will go in phass. As cloud and cloud adjacent and even white women are shut out, they will have no choice but to form an identity as white as it was chosen for them. This first phase will be purely self interest and an immediate expression of the survival instinct. You are correct that a deep and positive identity is a… Read more »
“As cloud and cloud adjacent and even white women are shut out, they will have no choice but to form an identity as white as it was chosen for them. This first phase will be purely self interest and an immediate expression of the survival instinct.” I suppose this is why Christians were well known for denouncing Christianity to avoid being thrown into the lion’s den? In general, identity has to be instilled at an early age. Those White women will never embrace being White as an identity, mostly because you can’t. Identity is not a choice and cannot be… Read more »
I began consciously identifying as a white only at the age of 43 when I realized my country had become expressly anti-white. And I daresay my identity as a white man is every bit as deep and puissant as if I had been raised in a family of Klansmen.
And, to amplify the difficulty, one White ethnic culture will have to kick the ass of other White tribes before we can even get to nonwhites.
That’s what we’re seeing now with the Left Conquest.
Being a punching bag is a pretty powerful identity, and the pummelling of whites has increased in scope and intensity over the last 60 years. In other words, those incessantly demonizing “whiteness,” and “white privilege,” and claiming X is “too white” are creating what they dread most, white identity. That said, it’s a misnomer to think all whites must rally together to create a white identity movement. On the contrary, if a mere 20 percent of whites decide that it’s not only OK to be white, but that it’s OK for whites to work on their own behalf as whites… Read more »
There are enough WNs and far more than enough normies who follow along with whoever promises them safety and security to form a White nation. Vast swathes of North America are still 80+% White, including much of the food-producing regions.
If someone looks White, acts White, and fights White, I count them as my brother or sister. Simple.
@Zman, “Was the founding generation of America full of white nationalists?” Easy one. No. Nationalists existed, sure. Hamilton, for example. But the majority of that generation had no interest in a new nation, but rather a federation of states. They had no desire to traveling for days or weeks to a national capital to petition their government for redress of grievances. Not when the alternative was if some damnfool neighbor who harmed you in the name of the “common good” could be dealt with that same day using tar and feathers and a split rail, and you could get right… Read more »
They ignore the bits about our shared English ancestry. A Slav and Italian were White too, but not one of the founding fathers would have considered them the same ethnicity.
Nevertheless, I suspect they would have been much happier living next door to a Wop than a Hutu.
I don’t think there is any good alternative to WN for Whites in North America. People of every other race are shamelessly promoting their interests, while Whites are either blind or too afraid. Promoting White interests is WN. And White interests should be promoted and fought for simply because it’s good for Whites. No other justification is necessary.
Yep, but the follow on effects are pretty good as well for all the other races herein. Look at any city run by non-Whites. All examples of failure.
Compsci: I am not the least bit concerned with how White interests ultimately ‘benefit’ non-Whites. They are not my people. They hate me and mine. They would prefer to kill me and take all my ‘stuff’ as well as my history and heritage.
I would prefer that non-Whites not benefit at all from the ‘follow-on effects’ of White rule, because they ought not be permitted to live in White societies.
That was not my point (Whites caring, or not caring, etc). The point was whether or not minorities should be so intent on replacement of Whites as a good thing, or in their self interest. It obviously is not. The remark is one based on current mixture, not what we want in an idealized (White) society.
You believe they want what you want. They don’t. They may very well want a higher standard of living, but they don’t want to live like White people. Look at the places they come from. That is what they want. It is a “revealed preference” They want what they had back home, just at a higher income level. The way I see it, I would much rather live in a poorer version of White America than a richer version of Japan. Income is important, but so is culture. So is it that I live in a community with my fellows… Read more »
Tara, you make a good point. I’m operating under the assumption that most non-Whites would like to live in a functioning environment—water, electricity, police protection, minimal corruption.
I still believe some of this is true. I don’t believe however, that how we (Whites) see such an environment is the same as non-Whites. I definitely need to think this over given your remarks.
The issue for non-Whites (if they can understand it) is if Whites act in White best interest, by definition the non-Whites aren’t going to be around to benefit from the follow-on effects you mention.
Just so. I’d like to hear better alternatives from the WN skeptics. It’s easy to pick nits. Not so easy to come up with a plan of your own.
Perhaps the founders were so based in their whiteness that they didn’t even need this concept to exist, like putting training wheels on Lance Armstrong’s bike. Imagine them sitting down to dinner and some pickaninny decides to open her yapper and give some political opinion as she serves the soup. What would they have said? It just never would have happened. Racial problems were nipped in the bud. A time when white men were perfectly sure of themselves.
The pickaninny wouldn’t have spoken up because she couldn’t have read. And certainly wouldn’t have been able to add anything of value to the conversation while Jefferson and Adams recited Cicero and Tacitus to each other. Also slaves of any era – the white ones in Greece and Rome too – didn’t say anything pointed for fear of being beaten, at best. Though I would bet that our FF didn’t whip Miss Jemima for interceding with an “Aye sho’ don’ know bout nachrul rights Missah Juffason, but aye rekkon one day we gon’ have a Niggra as Vice Pressiden!” They… Read more »
True. But I’ll bet the ones from the Carolinas would have given them something to think about after dinner.
“Can it actually meet the challenge and are the trade-offs acceptable to the people adopting it? This is not a question for the dead, but for the white people living in the here and now.” Like most, I fully realize that the label “white nationalist” is clunky at best. And, not surprisingly, Europeans find is bizarre. But we are trying to find a solution to our problem, not the problems facing Germans or English or French. In America, we use the term “white” because it generally works. It works because most American whites generally identify as white though applying their… Read more »
Excellent comment. We also need to make sure that Whites don’t include (((Fellow Whites))), because their interests are in direct opposition to our own.
“It works because most American whites generally identify as white though applying their own local culture to the term” I disagree. While most White people will put themselves into the category of “White” if asked about it, hardly any think of themselves as White in any way similar to how someone might think of themselves as “Italian” or “German” An Italian might try to keep the language alive and make Italian dishes like grandma used to make. They might even be devoted Catholics and tell stories of the “old country.” This thinking does not exist in any White people in… Read more »
Wasn’t there a line or two about that in Full Metal Jacket, where the drill sergeant says something to that effect regarding the Vietnamese?
Inside every gook there is an American trying to get out?
Yep, that which we acquire cheaply, we do not hold dear.
I disagree. There’s a reason whites overwhelmingly move to white neighborhoods and have white friends. They may not be able to verbalize it, but they are white. Go live overseas. Go live in a black or Hispanic or, even, heavily Asian neighborhood. You’ll very quickly begin to understand that American whites are a distinct people with distinct ways of doing things. We just don’t notice it because it’s always around us, like water to a fish. As to “American,” I agree. It means nothing. American whites still believe that it means them. It doesn’t. They will either learn that lesson… Read more »
I wouldn’t necessarily disagree that we are a de facto ethnic group. The problem is, without the identity and language to define the “us,” there is no defining “not-us.” A person who is a de facto White nationalist will never object to a “diverse” person moving in or dating their son or daughter. Another thing that differentiates de facto White Nationalism from a proper ethnic group is it’s just a set of preferences. These preferences can create de facto White neighborhoods which will be more pleasant for these people on average. But it cannot be defended. Most progressives live in… Read more »
“A person who is a de facto White nationalist will never object to a “diverse” person moving in or dating their son or daughter.”
Man, you’re smoking some heavy stuff today, Tars. A white nationalist would expressly forbid precisely those things because those people are clearly not white. We don’t need your academic definition of white to know it when we see it and to defend it with gusto.
@Ostal
You misunderstood every word I said.
A “de facto White Nationalist” is not a white nationalist at all. It’s just a person who does what a WN would do, but for different reasons. You know how we joke that progressive are undifferentiated in their nesting and mating habits from the KKK? That’s what I mean by de facto white nationalist.
I’ve encountered quite a few Hispanics who use the terms white and American as synonyms. They don’t consider themselves Americans because they are not white.
I believe if you check dictionaries from the 1930’s – 1950’s, part of the definition of an “American” was “Anyone who’s genetic lineage can be traced to the countries of north and western Europe.” I’m paraphrasing but that’s pretty much part of what it said.
“This thinking does not exist in any White people in the US.” From this and other comments you have made, I would theorize that you are an urbanite bugman who recently became conscious that he is an urbanite bugman. Congratulations on your Ascendance, I hope you continue learning and growing. However, your experience is not the norm in America. There are a fair number who identify as White, and a large number that don’t want anything to do with non-Whites. “The survey included 3,038 non-Hispanic white respondents. Among these respondents, only a minority expressed high values on any of the… Read more »
In the early days of America, Whites thought the distinctions between the Anglos, the Germans, and the Dutch were more significant than the American Indians, who just saw them as White.
The Indians saw themselves as Iroquois, Sioux and Comanche. Whites also noted their tribes, but also saw them generally as Indians in a way the Indians didn’t see themselves, until I suppose, the Whites became a bigger threat.
It’s important to know how your opponent views you. We are attacked as Whites, therefore we must band together to defend ourselves as Whites.
Me against my brother; me and my brother against my cousin; me, my brother and my cousin against the world.
I’ve always felt that I gained a unique perspective (somewhat) growing up a fair number of American Indians around. You see with your own eyes that it can all be taken away.
Granted, in my wildest dreams, I didn’t think that it would happen to us. But I always saw immigration through the eyes of an American Indian.
Whether it comes through immigration or conquest, heteronomy is a fact of human existence, and you don’t really want to experience it.
Europeans baffled by (or pretending to be baffled by, or socialized/propagandized to say that they’re baffled by) “white” is a recent phenomenon. Americans arrived here from Europe with an already established concept of whiteness and, when relevant, wrote it into law—without explanation. It was always a broad, meta-ethnic category. Contrary to the lies of Ignatiev et al., the category has significantly *narrowed* over time. The first Portuguese explorers of Japan described the people they found there as white, and they meant the same thing we’d mean if we said it today (if we said it in unironically): They’re us.
I doubt they still do, but in decades past, academic historians taught classes called Western Civilization I and Western Civilization II. Although politeness forbade anybody from saying so, these classes could just as easily have been called White Civilization I and White Civilization II. The people who comprised and created this discrete and unique civilization were almost all genetically Indo-European, and they all had comparatively pale complexions. And the historicans didn’t just conjure something ex nihilo; they gave intellectual form to a civilization that actually existed. Whether you lived in Nova Scotia in 1902, Queensland in 1802, Finland in 1702,… Read more »
Western Civilization in olden times really meant north western European civilization, with a head nod to Spain and Renaissance Italy. Basically the Hajnal line with the souther half as an appendix.
Greece and other orthodox christian areas were definitely out. Points further east – fuggedabodit.
Which means maybe 30% of caucasians were part of Western Civilization. Except for the Irish – most considered them barely better than negros.
Bollocks. The classical world has always been considered the bedrock of western civilization. As for Scandinavia and Eastern Europe/Russia, I imagine you have to go back pretty dam’ far to find the point at which they were not considered part of western civ.
Whatever mental contortions White nationalist come up with does not matter a bit so long as Jews control the media and the educational systems. It really is that simple. Jews showed up on boats from eastern Europe. They immediately went to work in an organized way to seize the social high grounds. Now you have generations of Whites brought up on false principles. Even if they could magically be brought to our cause we are now outnumbered by POC. The White race got out-played.
We most certainly did. But we are where we are – and we are in a very bad spot.
It’s going to be a long fight back. The good news is that Jews are slowly (quickly, even) extinguishing themselves in the states via mixing with whites and low birth rates. They also, stupidly, imported competitors.
Just a guess, but I suspect that the Jewish grip on power is loosening. Regardless, we can’t rely on others failing so that we might win.
It’s a long road back.
Jewish power has probably already peaked. In hindsight, the day Iraq was invaded was probably the zenith. But that doesn’t mean the immediate dropoff is precipitous. In 10-20 years I expect the difference will be a lot more noticeable. It’s noticeable now to any non-stupid person who is paying attention. Most of their support is among older people who won’t be around much longer.
Jeffrey Zoar: Those ‘old people’ are also, unfortunately, the largest cohort of Whites in AINO. As they die off, the starkness of our demographic plight will be far more visible to far more people – most of whom are our enemies. Being a persecuted minority can leave one with paranoia and/or rage. It is not generally conducive to good mental health. Consider those White children suffering in majority non-White schools. Not merely physical suffering at the hands of joggers or mestizos, but mental suffering from the arrogance and insularity of the east and south Asians. Yes, curse their parents, but… Read more »
Yep. I’d say that Jews really grabbed full control of all the commanding heights ~2000. Sure, they were gaining control for a long time before that, but there were still some of the old guard around until around that point. It’s amazing what a mess of things that they’ve made in just 20 to 25 years. They really are bad at running the show. As I’ve joked, not surprisingly, the con man doesn’t make a great CEO. There’s no doubt that among the younger generations, especially kids in their 20s, Jews aren’t as much of a force. They’re still there,… Read more »
Well said CoaSC. Despair and surrender are not an option. We have models and situations that are far more grave than this one: Alfred and Wessex; Aleric’s posterity and Asturias in Hispania; the Gates of Vienna … …
Our ancestors would have laughed at what we’re facing – and cried at what pussies that we’ve become.
But they had something we don’t: Identity.
Sad but true. They aren’t that smart. Anymore.
I don’t think it’s as long as some might think. We already have enough Whites who are pro-White, just none in any positions of power due to the jew control. Get control a region consisting of a few states, evictions, fend off federal overreach. We’ll get stronger as they get weaker.
Yes.
Take heart, Friends. My children are Based, smart and can run all the party tools needed to throw a great party.
We will win.
Ps. Their friends appear far down the Paying Attention road, too. Encouraging!
Yes, early American leaders would have never comprehend why we should want to flood our country with other races then teach them to hate us. But here we are. The real problem is that we have a hostile tribe with significant power in running the country. I doubt the founders could have invisioned: 1. That hostile tribe setting the moral guidelines most whites, including most Christian religious leaders, follow. 2. The role of women in the culture and politics especially given how easy they are brainwashed and how much they want to appeal to the powerful. All white nationalism, talk… Read more »
The first immigration act was limited to “white men of good character”…then the Bankers started to take over, soon joined by the proto-industrialists, which included the plantation owners, looking for cheap labor…The End…
The founders also never could have imagined TV and movies as weapons aimed at drilling nonstop progaganda about racism and equality into our minds.
The problem with your statement is neither of those things can be dealt with until we are in power…
What is needed is for us to get in power or at least be influential locally, then state, then region. Do what each of our abilities allows in our area. We shouldn’t openly espouse WNism, just common-sense things that dog-whistle WN.
No need to go back into antiquity and the mists of time for “original intent” from dusty old documents written by white men. Debating the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, Ted Kennedy (“Lion of the Senate”, notoriously bad dater) said this: “Our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually… ..the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset.” This wasn’t considered controversial at the time, it was considered basic common sense. No matter how explicitly laws are written or sold, it’s all pointless if our ruling elites ignore the letter and the spirit of the laws… Read more »
So why didn’t the stupid Republicans repeal it?
Bunch of limp-wristed dumb asses.
In two little words, cheap labor, and further the ability to undermine the working class’ solidarity when they were under serious challenge, and in disregard of their genuine contributions to the health and safety of the Republic.
Viewed historically, that was the vision of the genuine driving wheels of the Republican party at its inception, Yankee supremacists as they all were, and aspired to be in perpetuity.
Boarwild: Because it serves their paymasters’ interests. They wouldn’t hold elective office – would never even have been candidates – if they had any integrity.
Don’t look to electoral or party politics for any help or solution.
The problem is, the ruling cartel ALWAYS ends up ignoring any laws that conflict with their goals…And their goals currently are total supremacy, and 99% of us reduced to serfdom….
Agreed that it’s self-serving to interpret the past anachronistically. In Federalist 2, John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and later Governor of New York, wrote, “Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people — a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs…” Which, as pointed out, isn’t and couldn’t’ve been an endorsement of current strains of white nationalism. The main conundrum has to do with assimilated Jews. Their racial… Read more »
imbroglio: You are being dishonest and deliberately confusing the lines between race, genetic ancestry, and ethnicity. While meti Indians may be called Aryans, no White of European ancestry would consider them part of his race. And Jews, whether superficially ‘assimilated’ or not, have also never been considered a native part of what was White, Western Christendom, from which heritage America was born.
Jews were not traditionally regarded as white Europeans, but rather a separate racial group..and they acted like it, allying the Moslems against white Europeans….
It’s a weird thing. One side basically fetishizes whiteness, the other side anathematizes it. I think it’s because neither has a white identity. You don’t think about this stuff if you have it. Of course you want to provide for your descendants. Duh. That’s natural and good.
Maybe it’s a reach, but I often get the sense of whites parroting the arguments of non-whites, so to speak. This is how out group people talk about the in group— either critical, or wanting to be part. Idk.
Generally, I see it as another symptom of whites’ alienation from themselves.
Agreed. There are those of us who innately recognize who we are, are good with it and don’t dwell on it. But others are lost in a sea of conflicting ideas.
We who know who we are will not be easily swayed … and that is, in my opinion, what the opposition fears most.
“Our modern idea of “white”, meaning broadly European, would have seemed strange to Thomas Jefferson.” Modern white nationalism is a US phenomenon, and Europeans can still not quite fathom it — they have Irish nationalism, Scottish nationalism, French nationalism, Greek nationalism and so on, which for over a century have been largely defined as in opposition to other European nationalisms. The concept of a common European ethnicity still sits uncomfortably there. This held even in the USA, where many of the 19th and 20th century European immigrants to the USA were not held as equal to those already here —… Read more »
“One of the reasons why the founders could not have conceived of large-scale non-white migration to US shores was that the world was a less crowded place back then.”
One of life’s sad ironies is that White medicine, technology, and food production is a primary reason these places have become so crowded.
It’s interesting to consider what would happen to Africa if Whites withdrew their support. The population explosion would reverse itself rather quickly due to disease, starvation, violence, and the occasional bouts of cannibalization. But hey, it’s Whitey keeping them down.
“One of life’s sad ironies is that White medicine, technology, and food production is a primary reason these places have become so crowded.”
That is true. A family might have six or seven children and have two reach adulthood. The infant mortality decreased because of Western medicine (vaccinations and other health practices). Likewise for food production.
Arshad Ali: The ‘Green revolution’ ennabled the non-White world’s population explosion and killed the traditional family farm in favor of agribusiness and chemical additives.
I’ll keep penicillin, but happily jettison most of the rest of ‘modern’ medicine – particularly ‘reproductive’ medicine.
“They have made themselves as Gods . . .” and have become the Devil’s servants.
If whites totally withdrew from Africa it would revert to its sixth-century self in 75 years. And the savages would be wandering through the ruins of Capetown and Mombassa marveling at the gods who built the original structures.
isn’t that phenomenon usually called “we wuz kangz”
“…occasional bouts of cannibalization.” There are occasional bouts of cannibalism now. If food stopped being imported, it would be a combination of “Night of the Living Dead” and “Quest for Fire.” “The two Ugandan-backed movements routinely enslave pygmies to forage for forest food and prospect for minerals, a UN official said. Hunters returning empty-handed were killed and eaten.” “Much of the vast forested area is controlled by the Mayi-Mayi, a loose grouping of tribal militias united by their magical beliefs and taste for human flesh. On a recent assignment in eastern Congo the Guardian correspondent saw many Mayi-Mayi fighters wearing… Read more »
I’m too lazy to look up the numbers but wasn’t another “issue” that whites were the biggest group by far at that point in time. This was really a mindset that went well into the modern age, that white people were the only game in town, even though it stopped being true over time. In other words, the founders wouldn’t have considered other groups because there were no other groups to consider. This thinking can be witnessed in real time in a place like China where they view their ascendance as inevitable and that losing some Han is no biggie… Read more »
“I’m too lazy to look up the numbers but wasn’t another “issue” that whites were the biggest group by far at that point in time.”
I think in the year 1900, one person in three was of European descent. Whereas today it’s probably one in twelve (or even more). The populations of Asia, Africa, and Latin America have exploded. White populations in North America and Europe increasingly feel under siege. And this at a time when their own economies are under stress and they are facing declining living standards year in, year out.
If they’re living in parts of the world that are uninhabitable it’s because they made them that way. If they want the grass to be greener let them plant seed. Our job is not to take every even brown person from around the world and put them on unemployment and give a hotel room.
Also hence the depop agenda, but you can’t say it, because Hitler! Let’s be honest: eugenics has been a Germanic thing. Not exclusively, but influential in the US, UK, and Germany until some big wars sorted it out. Now we pay the price for our sin of preferring quality over quantity, good and hard. Is it evil? I think abortion is an abomination, but I have mixed feelings about contraception, tbh. Good breeding? That’s all royalty and nobility did forever. What’s wrong with it, provided you take care not to become inbred? I’m glad my family was also at least… Read more »
I think you meant quantity over quality.
I think abortion is an abomination, but I have mixed feelings about contraception, tbh. Good breeding?
Contraception is an abomination, but not because it leads to good breeding. In fact, the opposite. It disassociates act from consequence and purpose, leading to promiscuity and elevation of passion over reason and discipline. Even if it never “fails”, those who use it show a lack of discipline / control, and that lack will get passed on.
Just to be clear, I am all in favor of good breeding, but contraception does not promote it.
I’m not quite there yet, but I think your point is probably correct.
I always thought of myself as half Italian half Irish until middle age when blacks at the VA Hospital referred to me as the white guy.
Yep. You don’t become white until you’re around people who aren’t.
Can’t say it any better than this: “It will probably be asked, Why not retain and incorporate the blacks into the state, and thus save the expence of supplying, by importation of white settlers, the vacancies they will leave? Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature has made; and many other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race. –To these objections, which are… Read more »
“in imagination they are dull, tasteless, and anomalous”
Jann Wenner said basically the same thing recently, and of course got canceled for it. As much as an old has been like Wenner who isn’t doing much anymore can be canceled. But nobody even tried to refute him. They no doubt thought the refutation was self evident, in light of all the hugely successful rap “artists.”
I think this is overcomplicating things. Did the FF ever imagine opening up America to the whole world? Obviously not. But then neither did George III ever envision an English minority London. What we are doing today is so insane that it would never have occurred to them.
I disagree that men can’t be moral authorities. I think that’s how people often decide morality, whether or not that’s a good idea. But “daddy’s always right” seems to be built into the brain code. Whether or not that is “true morality” is a long, deep and probably endless discussion.
I was in London in 1986. It was still a white city. I cannot comprehend how a great city was destroyed that quickly. Insanity.
Thus also, and by the same means, was New York destroyed.
Absolutely, things are moving fast. Millennia are happening in decades demographically
Maxda: I was in London in 1980. It was already heavily infested with brown and black people. And the older industrial cities up north were even more infested. I saw my first Indonesians (fully veiled tiny asian women) in England.
London was over 90% white in 1980. The UK as a whole over 97% white. You must have been in New York.
UK was 93% white in the mid ’90s.
London was not heavily infested.
Americans mostly assume the worst about England; I suppose it goes back to the war or old ethnic hatreds.Or maybe a coping mechanism for their own miseries.
I remember visiting Hoxton in 1996 and being surprised at the “diversity” but having been born and raised in south London I was used to non-whites being a small minority.
I rode the London Underground (tube) in ‘68. At a stop strolled in a Black man in full British suit with bowler hat and the typical gentleman’s umbrella. Odd thing was, this man was facially scarified. Yep, tribal scarification all over his face and it showed. Would have loved to hear his story, but I got off at the next stop. I chalked it off to the legacy of colonial Britain in Africa.
It’s still majority white.
New York is about 30%
25%, if you discount The Chozen.
It always pisses me off when leftards in particular foist the current thinking and morality on those of the past. They thought the way they did and acted the way they did because that’s just the way it was. It wasn’t necessarily better or worse than today, just a different time and place. But the tards will always say it was far worse because it was the evil White man just being his natural raciss self for excluding the noble black, red, yellow and bean man as part of our “Posterity”. I suspect at some point in the not-too-distant future,… Read more »
> It always pisses me off when leftards in particular foist the current thinking and morality on those of the past.
The disingenuousness of the left is personified in the “WWII soldiers were Antifa” meme, like the average soldier wouldn’t have defected and fought with the Germans if they caught a glimpse of modern existence.
Hell, they would have defected and joined the Germans if they knew what was really going on in the 1920s-30s.
If Antifa were truly anti-fascists, they’d all intentionally overdose on Fentenyl.
> main problem, which was the lack of human capital to exploit the country’s natural resources
Main problem for who?
https://burnedoverdistrictobserver.wordpress.com/2017/07/10/joseph-sobran-on-why-they-hate-us/
Sobran’s famous quote goes here. Other than slaves, it probably never occurred to the Founders to import non-whites, much less gift them with citizenship and voting rights. They knew where they stood in relation to the rest of the world and did not have decades of public school education to not believe what their own eyes told them.
The word racism didn’t even exist until coined by Magnus Hirschfeld of Die Institut für Sexuellewissenschaft (the Institute for Sexual Research) in Berlin, in the late 1920s. Asking the Framers to think about race in terms we in the modern world understand it would basically be asking them to time travel. Go back and you’ll see references in the past to America being a place of multiple races, by which they meant the Polish “race” and German “race” and French “race.” This made some sense as, again, these men couldn’t look into their crystal ball and see NGOs sending boats… Read more »
” You have what rights you can physically defend.” This is the bottom line. For example, we know Abbott and DeSantis are not serious men because they have not developed weapons of mass destruction and the willingness to use them (they are frauds for many other reasons but this is relevant to the immediate point). Mao ultimately was correct. “Rights” are the pretense that there are things more relevant than raw power. Andrew Jackson was correct. “Law” simply is state force and the willingness and ability to use it. For a very limited time a homogenous people with shared beliefs… Read more »
I discovered this to my dismay just recently when I tried to run off a couple Recent Arrivals To our Shores from trespassing onto my neighbors property while she was at work. “we are just looking for work senor”. “no comprende senor”. I stood my ground and spoke firmly, repeatedly telling them to leave and that they had no business to be there. They lingered around the edges of the property for almost an hour, apparently hoping I would tire and go away since they obviously had no place else to go, but I was persistent, THEN an hour later… Read more »
It’s a fairly thin line between you and the McMichaels
“while I called 911 and tried to report what they were doing.”
Yes. Indeed: your first mistake, I’m afraid to say. Whilst confronting these people is commendable, especially if you can vouch for your neighbour, involving The System is a backward step.
Of course, if your neighbour happens to have BLM signs in the yard, then perhaps offering assistance is something reconsider…
Yes. Normalcy bias compels particularly our peoples, steeped in rich histories of law and justice, to trust a system that no longer exists. The differences with cargo cultists are minimal. There are ways to handle such situations but they predate the written rules that once bound us.
The WN argument WRT the FF is not difficult to grasp and for the most part valid, despite the term WN not existing at the time. WN was the default state of every euro descended polity at the time, just as Christian was the default religion. Wokester swarthy winges are irrelevant to the issue. The WN appeal to authority is generally an appeal to tradition and white self interest, from what I see. The FF are part of this but not the sole component. I am not quite sure why Z keeps riding this hobby horse. Sure, when examined in… Read more »
WN use the FF words to try to convince Normies to join the cause. It’s not a bad idea, but if Normie hasn’t figured things out yet, I doubt some words from Jefferson are going to get him over the hump. Personally, I don’t care what the FF said. Sure, it’s nice that they agree with me, but if they hadn’t, I wouldn’t say, “Oh well, Jefferson said that he loved blacks and didn’t like distinguishing between the races, so I guess that I’ll give up viewing myself as a part of the American European people.” We solve the problems… Read more »
Well said. I haven’t read Greg Johnson’s manifesto but I probably should. I am familiar with Jared Taylor’s arguments. My takeaway from his argument is that he does invoke the Posterity, first immigration act as a part of his argument. He makes two other arguments that ultimately I find far more persuasive. 1. We face an existential threat and that we have a sacred duty to our ancestors and our posterity to preserve our race. Our race is beautiful and wonderful in its creations and it is ours. It is here because of the sacrifices of our ancestors to preserve… Read more »
“you look at Jared Taylor’s arguments and you realize that he is just giving word to the argument that the avowed enemies of the white race are making for us.”
Poorly said. I meant to say that Jared Taylor is merely formulating the proper reasoning and response to the argument that the avowed enemies of the white race are making for us. They are calling for our subjugation and ultimately our annihilation.
A fine summary RR. I’d like to add an argument for those who don’t feel a duty towards their ancestors or posterity:
Non-whites see you as white and many feel hostility towards you because of that. There is nothing that you can do to alter that.
A group will always beat an individual over time.
Therefore, if you want to save your skin, you must join your tribe.
Whites, whether liberal or conservative, who tried to be allies to non-whites are finding that this maneuver only buys them a temporary reprieve.
Your response reminds me of the videos I’ve seen of ex convicts describing their first days in prison. Regardless of race, the prison gangs (based on racial divisions) recruited them easily. The choice was made apparent quickly—tribe up or die.
“Like the anti-whites who claim original sin as justification for their present behavior, the white nationalists pointing to the Framers are looking for a moral authority.” It has not been my experience that WNs who point out the racial themes in the work of the Founders are doing so because these believe in the moral authority of the Founders. Rather, they are trying to persuade social conservatives that a racial understanding of the world is not immoral because the Founders did it too. (A similar and fun experience for me was showing an older conservative who deified Lincoln as the… Read more »
It is not immoral because these are people who are treated as moral authorities, or thought to be treated as moral authorities, held these ideas. White nationalists would nothing to say about the Framers if they did not think referring to them added moral heft to their arguments. As you say, the people doing this think it works on civic nationalists. I think this is a mistake and has the opposite effect. It is like telling a Muslim that Mohamed actually liked Jews.
Yeah, that time is long past where CivNats could allow themselves Old America’s great men. Of course, they never understood them anyway. Dwight Eisenhower had a portrait of Robert E. Lee in the White House and deployed the 101st to Little Rock at the same time.
Eisenhower – a man who held esteem for General Lee, who had stood for the dignity of his State enough to recognize the threat posed by the anti-Republican “Republicans”, while simultaneously he forwarded those very same tyrannical, homogenizing, moralizing goals that Lee abominated through reimposition of Radical “Republican” Reconstructionist tactics of force.
Huh. So “Republican” was, from the beginning, used in the same way as the Spanish Civil War, that is, like “Democratic” in the Democratic People’s Republic of (North) Korea.
Would the best White Nationalist definition Zman, simply be a person who likes Greg Johnson and agrees with his views? He is the only figure I know of who openly says I am a White nationalist.
Best definition I’ve seen is from the same guy who coined the 14 words. It went something like, “anyone who looks White, acts White, and fights White I will consider my fellow White.”
Anyone who is a CivNat/conservative at this point is a fraud and/or cargo cult member. There is no reasoning with them, only marginalization. National Reviewtards richly deserve to die in the extermination camps their racial enemies plan for them.
I wish I wasn’t as pessimistic as you, but yeah when I saw the regime tearing down the Civil War reconciliation monument the other day I had the thought that anyone who still believes in this pig-system at this point is a hopeless cause.
I mean, going through the motions is okay, as it’s not like we live in a free society, but actually acting like the “motions” mean something is…delusional.
If the destruction of that monument accelerates the trend of young white men refusing to debase and degrade themselves with military service, it will have been worth it.
The heart rending problem of the tearing down of the monuments to great (White) men of the past, is the erection in their place of mediocrities to be celebrated instead.
John Jay meant exactly what he said in 1787-
“…Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people–a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.”
I remember reading that some sociologists argue that there is something called the American civil religion. Basically it’s a concept that certain civil artifacts like the constitution and declaration of Independence are treated almost like sacred texts, and the founders are also treated with a certain degree of reverence. In the absence of a firm belief in God as the final authority we often fill the void with historical figures and their documents. The anti-Whites and the White nationalists are both appealing to a human centered locus of authority. It’s gotten to the point that a Western political movement that… Read more »
Centering God as the moral authority solves nothing because most living Christians believe that making decisions based on race is forbidden by God.
If Christians who have believe in a muscular, historic Christianity can persuade today’s Christians of their views then I will be impressed.
I think some Christians think this, but I am not sure it is a majority much less most. I think the bigger issue is that Christianity has been supplanted by civic nationalism for most white people as the moral framework of their politics. They have been conditioned to leave God out of their politics and in many cases, out of their lives altogether. I am sympathetic to the plight of Christians, but I do not think an explicitly Christian political message is going to much better this time than when it was tried in the 70’s and 80’s. Instead, it… Read more »
I quite agree with this
I’ve said it many times. Our salvation almost certainly runs through combining race and religion – and I’m not religious.
From what I’ve seen, of the whites who have awoken, the Christians are the only with the most fight and willingness to organize and take the punishment doled out by the usual suspects.
We’re fighting a religion. It’s hard to win if you don’t have a religion of your own.
That religion provides a parallel economy; it even has credentialed, academic, service, and curator branches.(plus some pretty stunning monuments of its success, like the Notre Dame and St. Jude Cholren’s Hospital.)
It’s a refuge as we would wish to be.
This is the best answer to the, “what do we do about religious affiliations and potential divisions”, question that I have ever heard. This is spot on. I think a post addressing this topic, heck it could just be a copy-pasta of this post, would be great. Very well thought out and expressed.
I remember Hunter Wallace posting something at his blog awhile back about a white Christian couple in which the wife was artificially inseminated by a poor African. This was supposedly the height of altruism, carrying this impoverished foreigner’s baby to term. Reading that I felt like Ripley in “Aliens” when she stumbled on the queen’s nest of eggs. It’s seriously sick, some convergence between figurative cuckoldry and something more literal. The Orthodox and some of the emergent Christian nationalists seem untainted and compatible with what we’re trying to do. The rest—especially the prolife for everyone contingent—just want to protect the… Read more »
The Orthodox are the way they are simply because they’re a smaller sect (except for parts of Eastern Europe and Russia) and therefore haven’t been targeted by Globohomo, and also tend to take pride in their Byzantine aesthetic. I’m not so sure the Orthodox are naturally based though, and are vulnerable to the same disease that the RCs have. The Greek Orthodox Church is the largest Orthodox church in the West, and as a result has been bitten by the neoliberal bug. (Just bitten, not overtaken like the RCs; but there will be more bites…) Bishop Elpidophorus, for example, has… Read more »
That is disgusting.
“Centering God as the moral authority solves nothing because most living Christians believe that making decisions based on race is forbidden by God.” More generally, it solves nothing because most living Christians simply do not accept the spiritual importance of This One Life (i.e., one long trial, a learning experience). Many just seem to lack Faith, outright. You try to speak to one of them about the afterlife, about loving Christ, about self-sacrifice and the nature of Evil; you’ll get a blank stare. A man must first have Faith in Christ. Then he must do his utmost to not sin… Read more »
After the onset of the Industrial Revolution, God was replaced, not simply forgotten. He was replaced by Science (yes, I agree, man—not another god). The point is that material wealth was confused with spiritual health. But all is not lost as we are now seeing Science as the “god that failed” and there is a position open. We shall see who/what replaces Science.
The point is that material wealth was confused with spiritual health.
Indeed. Saw a license plate on a fancy Mercedes that read “blessed”. Guess they all forgot about that rich man, eye of a needle thing.
That’s why I’m making a pitch for the real, literal science of religion, or religion as a science.
No more of this running around, mewling and groveling and trusting.
The young want the truth, truth one can hold, truth one can feel.
(None of that wuvvy-dovey “transend!” biz, either. Too girly.)