What do we want? A white ethnostate. Much has been written about this elusive state, and I am sure there is much controversy and difference of opinion about it, so I won’t attempt to define it here. Suffice to say that the ethnostate will be a nation state founded by whites, for whites, and it will be free of the racial chaos and strife which has come to characterize multi-racial societies. White Nationalism may have many goals, but the ethnostate is the first and most important one, and to achieve it will be to win. So far so good.
We could spend time explaining why whites must separate from other races. We could point to the low average IQs and the high rates of crime among blacks and Hispanics. We could argue that Muslims from North Africa and the Middle East are not immigrants but invaders who wish to establish a caliphate wherever they go. We could also question the motives and loyalty of higher-IQ people from various parts of Asia. John Derbyshire once quoted a Chinese man who described America not as a country but a place you go to make money. Can we trust the Chinese and the South Asians to hunker down with us and fight the blacks, Hispanics, and Muslims once we’re outnumbered 3-to-2? Or will they all flee to their homelands as soon as the going gets tough? I would bet on the latter, given that their loyalty to America is mostly based on economic opportunity. If they could do better in their home countries, they probably will.
These arguments and others lead to excellent reasons why whites are better off going it alone, and constitute what I call the Reactionary Argument for White Nationalism.
But the Reactionary Argument is not the most persuasive argument for White Nationalism at this point in time. Imagine a racial sensitivity bell curve for the white (or any) population. One end consists of the people who are most sensitive and defensive about their own race (that would be the Alt Right and everyone to the right of us), the other end consists of the people who are excessively critical or self-loathing about their race (for example, extreme leftists and social justice warriors). In the middle, to varying degrees you have the people who are less concerned about race. That is, the majority of the population.
The Reactionary Argument works wonders on the extreme ends of the curve. And yes, the Left has its own version as well. Where on the Right, we say, “Look at all the problems non-whites create. Let’s form a white ethnostate!” On the Left, they say, “Look at all the historic problems whites have created. Let’s destroy the white ethnostate!” So, a person who is born with a certain racial sensitivity will naturally incline towards either version of the Reactionary Argument, even when multi-racialism is at an incipient or otherwise less-than-consequential stage.
A great example is Wilmost Robertson’s nigh-forgotten magazine Instauration, which, by the 1980s, was promoting abortion as a way to limit the American black population. Joe Sobran, when he was a senior editor for National Review, wrote that Instauration “is openly and almost unremittingly hostile to blacks, Jews, and Mexican and Oriental immigrants.” Sobran went on to say that Instauration “assumes a world of Hobbesian conflict at the racial level: every race against every race. Knowing racial harmony is hard, Instauration takes a fatal step further and gives up on it.”
This was written in 1980s, back when whites made up a significantly larger proportion of the American population than it does now. Imagine how sensitive to race one would have to be to subscribe to such beliefs back then!
The further one travels up the bell curve towards its bulging center, however, the less effect the Reactionary Argument will have. Whether the argument is sound or unsound, or true or false, is irrelevant. People in the middle of the curve tend not to like thinking about race unless they have to, and we are not yet at that point in history which will force everyone to think about race for their very survival. Therefore, coming at such people with something along the lines of, “Goddamn kikes! They’re at it again!” will have no persuasive value. Just the opposite, actually.
This point was perfected illustrated in an interview Gavin McInnes had with actress and cartoonist Emily Youcis back in October of this year. I consider McInnes, as an online comedic personality and contributor to Taki’s Magazine, a member of what Vox Day refers to as the “Alt West.” Along these lines, Michael Bell included McInnes in the Third Tier of his “Caste System of the Alt Right,” published by Counter-Currents this past September. Third Tier Alt Westers are essentially race-realist, Right-wing, Western chauvinists who are still normie enough to shy away from their white identities and not look too critically at diaspora Jews. They are a little higher up on the bell curve than the Alt Right is.
Based on her behavior during the interview, however, Youcis is a red-pilled member of the Alt Right. She had been invited once before on McInnes’ show, and the entire conversation was friendly, even flirty, as McInnes complemented Youcis on her looks and repeated several times that he liked her not just as a friend. (Unrelated: perhaps this kind of frank voyeurism is not quite as edgy as McInnes thinks it is, but I still find it endearing, both on his part, and on Youcis’ who was a good sport about it.)
When these two met on McInnes’ show in October however, Youcis ambushed him with the Jewish Question midway through. Right away, McInnes became extremely uncomfortable. He admitted to liking Jews and held up Ezra Levant as a particularly righteous example (I agree. Levant is a Mensch). No matter what Youcis tried to tell him about the negative effects of Jews upon the white race, McInnes wouldn’t budge.
There was something else just as telling. They discussed interracial adoption, whites couples adopting black babies. Youcis was predictably against the practice, while McInnes had no problem with it, given the dearth of white babies available for adoption. Now, in this aspect, McInnes is correct. Parents who wish to adopt white babies often have to wait years to find one, whereas black babies are more readily available. Still, as part normie, McInnes was loath to reject the practice as malum in se. A White Nationalist would reject it, of course, on the grounds that, despite the humanitarian concerns (which are not nothing) interracial intimacy of any kind is counter-productive to the stated goals of White Nationalism. Therefore, white couples should not adopt black babies. McInnes does not agree with this because he does not (yet) see the necessity of White Nationalism. He still seems to think that whites and blacks and other races can get along indefinitely, despite their genetic differences.
When Youcis pressed him to recite the famous “Fourteen Words,” McInnes did, but when it came time to say “white” he interpolated the word “western.” For those who don’t know, here they are, all fourteen of them: “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.” Nothing to object to here, right? Only, McInnes sort of did. He just could bring himself to identify strongly with his own race. As with most on the Alt West, McInnes is more anti-anti-white than explicitly pro-white, which we all know is not the same thing.
After the interview, McInnes summed it up by saying that Youcis had “OD’ed on red pills.”
So how to get through to these people? This is an important question because it could ultimately save lives. I have always stated that White Nationalism is a perspective of peace because it is the only perspective which attempts to stave off the coming civil war in America. This multi-racial business cannot stand indefinitely. Once whites become a minority in America, we will finally see the ugly faces of the non-whites we have enfranchised in our society. Mark my words, they will oppress us, just like they oppress their own kinds in their own countries. By that point, most whites (including our skittish friend Gavin McInnes) will be identifying as white by necessity, but by that point there will more non-whites than whites in our country. This state of affairs will require a lot of bloodshed to sort out, blood that will be spilled by our children and grandchildren. And there is no telling if the whites will emerge victorious from that struggle or not.
Put simply, we cannot afford to wait on historical evolution to bring us to White Nationalism. Instead, we have to anticipate this evolution in order to control it and steer it in a more humane direction. White Nationalism today (and not mañana) will allow the current system to correct itself, with strict immigration laws, mass-deportations, mass-self-deportations, and a return to a self-conscious white identity being the proper and dominant identity of the United States. Donald Trump’s victory last month over Hillary Clinton could possibly represent an inchoate version of this—time will tell.
To achieve White Nationalism now, we need to increase our numbers in order to increase our influence and financial strength. And the first people we need to convert are the people closest to us, namely, the Alt West: race-realist, conservative, Right-wing white people who are partly Alt Right to begin with. If we can’t convert these people, then we can’t convert anyone. But how do we do this when the Reactionary Argument fails with them every time we use it? How can we bring them to our way of thinking without sacrificing any of our principles?
We do it with a new argument, an argument which I call the Axiomatic Argument for White Nationalism. It focuses on the positive aspects of whites rather than the negative aspects of non-whites. It basically goes like this:
The white race, like all races, is inherently a Good Thing. Therefore it must be preserved at all costs. Multi-racialism in historically white nations—through the tribal and bellicose nature of all humans, through the temptation of miscegenation, and through the accelerated breeding patterns of many non-whites, among other things—threatens the survival of white people. It threatens to make them minorities in their own countries. And from there, if historical patterns hold up, whites will find themselves oppressed, despised, and eventually bred or hounded out of existence. Although this could take a long time, it is reasonable to conclude the process will be impossible to reverse after a certain point.
I don’t think that the eventual genocide of any race can be applauded by any rational person. Thus, the Axiomatic Argument concludes that if the end result of multi-racialism is evil and if we can show how multi-racialism leads to such an end, then we can confidently claim that multi-racialism in itself is evil even when certain specifics of it are not evil. McInnes’ white couple’s adopting that black baby, for example. It may seem like they’re doing something noble, but they’re really not.
Note that it is not necessary to hate non-whites to hold this view. In fact, our opinions of non-whites are completely irrelevant to the Axiomatic Argument. One can theoretically have great admiration for the Chinese, the Indians, and yes, even the Jews and still be a White Nationalist in good standing . . . as long as one supports the idea of racial identity, racial self-determination, and ethnonationalism. Once the separation occurs, it really doesn’t matter what we think of other races, does it? Love ’em or hate ’em, it doesn’t matter.
Of course, I must add the caveat that a white ethnostate—or any ethnostate for that matter—which wages war on other races for imperialist reasons violates the very idea of ethnonationalism. I never get tired of saying this: White Nationalism is an ideology of peace. White Nationalists don’t want Nigeria to be any less Nigerian. We don’t want Japan to be any less Japanese. By the same token, we don’t want Europe or the United States to be any less European. We have lost the arrogance of our forefathers who colonized the non-white world in an effort to make it more white. But now that these efforts are boomeranging back towards us, we see that the arrogant ones today are the non-whites who wish to make white world less white. Essentially, multi-racialism cannot continue for the same reason that European imperialism could not continue. It violates the idea of ethnonationalism.
I believe that the Axiomatic Argument will prove more palatable for the Alt West because it does not reflect badly on other races. In fact, it can be applied equally with them as it can with us. The closer people are to the center of the bell curve, the more they will appreciate both of these points. They are both reasonable and reveal that we don’t have an ax to grind. And I assure you, nothing is uglier to a normie than a white person with a racial ax to grind. I’m not saying some axes shouldn’t be ground. I’m saying we probably shouldn’t lead with our ax when speaking with the Gavin McInneses of the world the way Emily Youcis did. It will scare them off, and make no mistake, they have great fear of us, two world wars worth of fear. But since the Axiomatic Argument is less scary but no less true than the Reactionary Argument, why not lead with it?
The Axiomatic Argument applies nicely with most races, given our obvious phenotypic and temperamental differences. But its great sticking point, of course, will be with the Jews. It will always come down to the Jews, which, unfortunately, will be a deal breaker with most in the Alt West. Any whiff of anti-Semitism from us will send them running. “Aren’t Jews white?” The typical Alt Wester will ask in protest. “Don’t the Jews also deserve a place in the great white ethnostate?”
Of course, the answer has to be no . . . as much as it would be with any non-white race in a white ethnostate. The Reactionary Argument will bolster this assertion by providing a list of all the negative qualities of Jews we’ve all heard a thousand times before (they’re clannish, they’re disloyal, they’re left-wing, they promote immigration, they wield disproportionate control, etc.). Therefore, to avoid all this bad stuff, Jews gotta go.
But consider how much more deftly the Axiomatic Argument handles this question and how it universalizes the answer in order to cater to people who aren’t obsessed with race. To the question “Are Jews white?” the Axiomatic Argument answers in the negative and then reverses the question: “Are whites Jews?” If you ask this of a Jewish person, or, even better, an Israeli, their answer will also have to be no. Don’t white people also deserve a place in the Jewish ethnostate? Well, of course not. Any Jew, Israeli or no, will have to answer in this fashion. Furthermore, whites certainly don’t take it personally for being excluded from Israel. It’s not like excluding whites from Israel according to the dictates of ethnonationalism can be considered anti-Gentilism, right? So then, by the same token, why is it anti-Semitic for whites to also exclude Jews? Whites are only doing unto Jews what Jews do unto them.
In its last-ditched resistance, the philo-Semitic Alt West may ask, “Well, how do you know Jews are a separate race from European whites? They look so much like us.” It is this phenotypic resemblance and the Jews’ expert facility at assimilation which may make it difficult for some whites to part with them. This is perfectly understandable.
However, if we can scientifically prove that Jews and whites are racially heterogeneous, then that will go a long way to strengthen the Axiomatic Argument while making its proponents seem more persuasive. Fortunately, with advanced DNA sequencing, we can now do this. According to Nicholas Wade in chapter eight his 2014 book A Troublesome Inheritance:
DNA analysis shows that Jews are a definable set of populations and that Ashkenazi Jews, at least, can be distinguished genetically from other Europeans. With each Jewish community, there has been some intermarriage with local populations but at a very slow rate. This neatly explains the observation by Jewish anthropologists that Jews from all over the world resemble one another yet also resemble their host populations.
Wade writes later:
As to European Jews, or Ashkenazim, genetics show that there has been a 5% to 8% admixture with Europeans since the founding of the Ashkenazi population in about 900 AD, which is equivalent to 0.05% per generation. Researchers using a SNP chip that tests the genome at 550,000 sites report that they were able to distinguish with complete accuracy between Ashkenazim and non-Jewish Europeans. This is a test applicable to populations, not individuals, since it depends on seeing how individuals cluster together in terms of statistical differences in their genome sequences. Still, it shows that Ashkenzaim are a distinctive population and therefore could have been subjected to forces of natural selection different from those acting on other Europeans. [Emphasis mine]
Conclusive evidence like this places the onus back on philo-Semitic whites to prove that Jews and whites belong to the same race. And I predict they won’t be able to do it.
Remember, the point of all this is to win, to achieve that white ethnostate. In order to do this, of course, we must unite whites under the same White Nationalist banner. And in order to do that we must answer the Jewish Question. The Reactionary Argument tries to do this by bringing up all the bad things Jews do. But this argument can be countered by bringing up all the good things Jews do. And what follows is invariably an ugly mess.
The Axiomatic Argument, on the other hand, takes an Alexandrian sword to this Gordian knot. It shows us that the best way to answer the Jewish Question is to simply not ask it. As members of a different race, Jews will be treated in the same way as all non-whites. How can that possibly be anti-Semitic? Who cares if a non-white in a non-white homeland is Jewish or Arab or Chinese or whatever? The Axiomatic position is all about being pro-white, a position which is good in of itself.
The best analogy I can think of for replacing the Reactionary Argument with the Axiomatic Argument is that by doing so whites could finally get their cake and eat it too, only with a different flavor of icing and a different message on top. Either way, the cake gets eaten.
Small price to pay for winning.