Why do I call myself a White Nationalist? As an American of European descent, my primary concern is the survival of my race, both on this continent and around the globe. In every white homeland, more whites are dying than being born, and our people are being replaced by highly fertile non-whites. If these trends are not reversed, our race will become extinct. As I have argued, the best way to save our race is to create homogeneously white homelands, with pro-natal, pro-eugenic policies. And this means that race must be the basis for defining who belongs to our nation and who does not. Hence White Nationalism.
Now consider the alternatives: civic nationalism, which defines the nation legally; creedal nationalism, which defines the nation in terms of a common belief system; linguistic or cultural nationalism, which defines the nation in terms of a shared language and culture; and ethnonationalism, which defines nationality in terms of both common descent and a common culture. White survival requires the political separation of whites from other races. But civic, creedal, and cultural-linguistic forms of nationalism cannot discriminate between white and non-white, for different races can share legal citizenship, a creed, or a language and culture. Therefore, these forms of nationalism are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
But what about ethnonationalism? How is this an inadequate vehicle for white survival? I think that ethnonationalism usually is a good vehicle, but it has certain important limitations. Therefore, I also call myself an ethnonationalist, with certain qualifications.
First, in the United States and other European colonial societies, old world ethnic identities are increasingly irrelevant as different European stocks blend into a generic white identity. Generally, when an American identifies himself as Irish American or Italian American, it is simply because he has an Irish or Italian surname. But I know many Italian Americans who are more Irish than Italian, and vice-versa. And even two Americans who have unmixed Irish or Italian ancestry still have more in common with one another in terms of language, culture, and even diet than either of them do with Irishmen or Italians in the old world. Thus it makes sense to talk simply about a generic white or European American identity.
Second, colonial societies from the start involved racial distinctions between European colonists and indigenous non-whites. In some cases, African slaves and South and East-Asian coolies were added to the mix. In such an environment, it is natural for whites not to see different nations and tribes (Aztec, Mayan), but simply different racial groupings (Indians, blacks, etc.), and it is equally natural for non-whites to see Europeans of different national origins simply as whites. Indeed, in the context of racial polarization and struggle, when whites must present a unified front, the remnants of old-world ethnic differences are actually harmful to white interests.
Third, within Europe itself, simple ethnic nationalism is not always sufficient to ensure either narrow national or broader racial interests. It is perfectly natural, normal, and right for individuals and nations to take care of their own people first. And when multiethnic empires or multinational bodies like the European Union work against the ethnic interests of specific peoples, then the “petty” nationalism of Scotland or Hungary or Poland is entirely legitimate. However, when petty ethnic nationalism or imperialism lead to wars between European nations, or prevent coordinated European responses to common threats, then a broader sense of pan-European racial solidarity becomes necessary to secure racial survival and flourishing.
Fourth, now that Europe is being colonized by non-whites, the colonial process of racial polarization is taking place there as well. Blacks, Arabs, and South Asians in Europe do not see Frenchmen, Englishmen, and Germans. They simply see white men. And we simply see blacks and browns. Our differences do not matter to them, and their differences do not matter to us. As racial tensions increase in Europe, our people will realize that they are not being attacked as Frenchmen or Germans, but simply as white men. And when Europeans resist ethnic displacement, they will increasingly regard their race as their nation and their skin as their uniform. The sooner we see ourselves as white people, united by common enemies and challenges, sharing a common origin and a common destiny, the sooner we will be equal to the tasks facing us.
Fifth, even though being French or Spanish is about more than simple generic whiteness, being white is still a necessary condition of belonging to any European ethnic group, and simply adding that requirement to the naturalization procedures of all European states would have revolutionary positive implications.
But just as I am an ethnonationalist on the condition that it is qualified by a broader white racial solidarity, I am also a White Nationalist on the condition that this preserves rather than undermines distinct white ethnic groups. A broad sense of pan-European solidarity should never become an excuse for the political unification and the cultural and ethnic homogenization of Europe. Thus I fully support the desire of different European peoples to preserve their cultural and biological distinctness. The best vehicle for this is the creation of homogeneous sovereign homelands for all European ethnic groups. The best vehicle for securing pan-European interests is an alliance or federation of sovereign states.
Within colonial societies like the United States, does the emergence of a generic white humanity imply a single white state? Not necessarily. The ethnic unity of white Americans would certainly not stand in the way of such a state. It is perfectly conceivable that the United States might become a homogeneously white society while maintaining its present borders simply by removing its non-white populations.
But White Nationalists should have no prior commitment to maintaining something so arbitrary as the present borders of the United States and Canada. Our only absolute goal is white racial preservation. By what means? By any means necessary. Thus if the opportunity arises for states or regions to split off from the United States, perhaps made possible by a collapse of the Federal government or the national economy, White Nationalists should seize upon it.
This is why I have long recommended Harold Covington’s Northwest Novels as a stimulus and guide to thinking about how a white homeland might emerge. I don’t necessarily think that Covington’s particular scenario will play out. Our ability to predict and control events is very limited. Thus, instead of investing a great deal of imagination elaborating a single grand design that probably will never happen, we should explore a whole range of possible scenarios, so that no matter what fate sends our way, we can always turn it to our advantage. Our metapolitical task is not just to make White Nationalism desirable, but to make white homelands conceivable outcomes in a whole array of different circumstances. The only fixed goal is is the creation of white homelands. On all other matters, we should be ruthlessly pragmatic.