If you want to put the program of the North American New Right on a bumper sticker or a yard sign, we stand for “Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country.” The political mainstream, by contrast, stands for lies, injustice, and mixing up every white nation into a multicultural, multiracial pigsty.
In what sense do we stand for truth? White Nationalists tell the truth about the differences between the races, the sexes, and national identities. We tell the truth about the differences between the normal and the abnormal, the healthy and the sick, the good and the evil, the just and the unjust.
The rest of the political spectrum, however, is premised on telling lies about these distinctions or ignoring them completely. Political correctness is just a species of lying: lying about fundamental human differences.
In what sense do we stand for justice? And in what sense is the rest of the political spectrum opposed to justice?
Mainstream politics today, Left and Right, is ruled by political correctness, which boils down to making false excuses for privileged groups, who aren’t responsible for their failures, and leveling false accusations against whites, who are presented as a virtually omnipotent and uniquely malevolent race that is responsible for the failings of everyone else.
So what would justice look like, if we stopped lying about human differences?
Aristotle distinguishes between retributive and distributive justice. Retributive justice deals with punishment. Distributive justice deals with rewards.
Retributive justice requires making the punishment fit the crime. Under the reign of political correctness, however, criminals are falsely excused and innocent whites are falsely accused for their crimes.
Distributive justice requires that rewards be proportionate to merits: equal people should be treated equally. Unequal people should be treated unequally. But Aristotle also pointed out that justice requires that unequal rewards be proportionate to unequal merit. There is no justice if a man who is 10 times better has 100 times more.
Justice in an unequal world means rewarding unequal people unequally. And that means that there will be hierarchies in society: some people will have more power, more responsibility, more wealth, and more honor than others. Justice means that in every field of endeavor, there will be elites: the best singers, the best athletes, the best civic leaders, etc.
3. Elitism and Hierarchy?
I think it is a mistake for people on the right to reject equality as such and to endorse “hierarchy” and “elitism” as such.
Treating unequal people equally is injustice. As William Blake says, “One law for the lion and ox is oppression.” But it is also unjust to treat equal people unequally. (Two laws for two lions is oppression as well.) In short:
- We are not opposed to equality as such, but only to unjust equality.
- We are not for hierarchy as such, but only just hierarchies.
- We are not for elitism as such, but only for just and deserving elites, elites based on merit rather than money or birth or political corruption.
When White Nationalists praise hierarchy and elitism as such, it is natural for people to wonder, “What’s in their elitism for me?” After all, there can be corrupt and evil elites. There can be arbitrary and unjust hierarchies.
Thus White Nationalists should stand first and foremost for justice. With the understanding that distributive justice in an unequal world will lead inevitably to just hierarchies and merit-based elites.
4. The Common Good
White Nationalism, as I have argued, should be both populist and elitist.
White Nationalism is populist, because a social system is just only if it pursues the common good — the good of the whole people. An unjust social system is ruled for the benefit of factional interests, whether of one man, a small elite, or the majority.
White Nationalism is elitist, because the common good is best pursued in a society ruled by the best — meaning the most intelligent, idealistic, and public spirited, not merely the rich — and the best people are always a minority, an elite.
But to make sure that such an elite does not become corrupt and start to rule in its own interests at the expense of the common good, there should also be a popular, “democratic” element of government as well, to counter-balance the factional interests of the ruling elite.
5. An Elitist Strategy for a Populist Movement
The white race is currently leaderless. We have no group looking out for white interests in the political realm. If a White Nationalist society is to come into existence, it will need a leadership caste. To bring a White Nationalist society into existence, we need to start creating that leadership caste today. That means that our movement must aim at creating a racially-conscious, racially-responsible elite. We must search for whites of higher than average intelligence, morality, and taste — whites who are above average in courage and public spiritedness. But as a populist movement, we believe that this new elite can and must be recruited from all social classes within the existing society.
6. A Nice White Country
A friend of mine recently used a phrase worth stealing to describe what we want: a nice white country. Terms like the “ethnostate” are, of course, useful because they are precise: what we want is to create sovereign nations for all distinct white ethnic groups. But it is much easier for people, particularly Americans, to relate to the idea of a nice white country.
After all, Americans are constantly searching for nice white schools, nice white suburbs, nice white churches, nice white restaurants and parks and playgrounds. Many may not be willing to own up to their racial motives. Not yet, anyway. But the desire to feel comfortable among our own kind, particularly when we have children, is what has been driving half a century of suburbanization and exurbanization.
When whites finally wake up to the fact that the system will no longer let us have a separate peace — that we can no longer run away to find nice white schools and nice white communities — but that we have to finally stand and fight for a nice white country — then White Nationalism will be a political possibility.
Until then, we need to keep laying the metapolitical groundwork for that moment: we need to spread our ideas and build our community. We need to aim for the day when every American finds the idea of a nice white country at least morally and politically conceivable. We need to aim for the day when every American, if he does not know an actual White Nationalist, at least knows someone who does — preferably someone who does not correspond to negative stereotypes of our kind.
Laying those metapolitical foundations is where projects like Counter-Currents come in.