I’m always thinking about how to express my reasons for supporting White Nationalism. Of course, there are many. But when you think about it, there really aren’t any reasons at all.
Does a human being really need to express reasons to have a home? A bed? Shoes and clothing? Food and drink? Personal effects and belongings? Basic freedoms and rights? I guess if you’re studying social studies for the first time in middle school, it might be useful to categorize the basic human needs and enumerate the objective grounds for meeting them. But in all other instances, such reasoning is trivial. Life is good and we all want to survive in order to partake in it. Not a deep thought, I know. Nonetheless it is true. A truism, perhaps, but still, all the reason you will ever need.
As with all forms of ethnonationalism, White Nationalism is like that. It’s up there with food, shelter, and clothing. It doesn’t require a reason, and we certainly shouldn’t be required to justify it unless we wish to bore people with trivialities. Hendrik Verwoerd, the great South African Prime Minister, perhaps said it best:
Every nation has the right of survival. It is the most basic human right. It is a fundamental right to maintain your nation and to protect your identity as a folk.
Yet living in a world which considers such a basic need taboo, we must come up with reasons to explain our circumstances. I have done this numerous times, most recently with “The Hard Sell” and “Reframing White Nationalism,” both of which received much positive feedback and constructive criticism from our readership. This article can be considered the latest installment in my Reasons for White Nationalism series, one that delves into an aspect of science which liberals claim to revere: Darwinism.
My idea stands upon two axioms:
Axiom 1: Different races and ethnic groups generally occupy different places along the human evolutionary timeline, which has much bearing on critical racial characteristics such as intelligence and temperament. To prevent a circular argument, I must admit that this axiom rests upon a partially-constructed pedestal of faith. Despite a constantly growing body of supporting evidence, conclusive genetic proof for this axiom has not yet been discovered. However, like the great Russian chemist Mendeleev pointing to empty squares on the Periodic Table, I predict one day soon, it will be.
Axiom 2: One of the primary duties of all forms of government is to draw a fine line between too much freedom and not enough freedom for its citizens. Perhaps this is a truism as well, but I point to the presence of enforceable laws and customs in all human societies which either restrict or enhance individual freedom as evidence that this point is indeed self-evident. Furthermore, this idea comes from Edmund Burke, as channeled through Russell Kirk in his opus The Conservative Mind.
It follows from this that different races which possess different essential characteristics will require lines drawn in different places along this Freedom Axis in order to have peaceful and productive societies. The cultural and governmental distinctions between, say, late-eighteenth century France in the throes of the Revolution and nearby Calvinist Holland may have been shocking to Europeans at the time. But the fact remains that these differences were trivial compared to the vast cultural and governmental differences between Europe and contemporaneous non-white societies, such as the militantly theocratic Ottoman Empire, primitive and violent Sub-Saharan Africa, India under the Mughals, the solipsistic and isolationist civilizations of the Far East, and the peripatetic indigenous tribes of America.
According to this logic, Axioms 1 and 2 necessarily led to the wildly different societies found among the different races of the world around 1850, before widespread westward emigration began. From this, I conclude that multi-racial societies face serious problems that uni-racial or ethnocentric societies do not. It’s always easier to draw only one line along the Freedom Axis and expect everyone to abide by it. But different races in the same society will gravitate towards their own lines due to their own genetic exigencies, regardless of where the “official” line is drawn. This, of course, courts chaos as populations accustomed to greater freedom must deal with populations which require less freedom in order to thrive.
What’s worse, pressure from one race can change the natural placement of the Freedom Line of the other. Muslims from the Middle East attempting to enforce elements of Sharia law upon whites in areas of Europe provides an excellent example. Obscenity laws are another. They were once upheld quite vigorously in the West. It is no coincidence that many of those who did the most to upend obscenity laws (Allen Ginsberg and Lenny Bruce, for instance) were all professed admirers of Negroes. This is one main reason why the segregationists of the American South drew separate lines along the Freedom Axis, one for whites and one for blacks. The architects of South Africa’s Apartheid took it one step further: physical separation, so that both whites and blacks had the freedom to draw the line where it best suited them and yet could continue to coexist. In both cases, it worked.
But there was a problem. Of course there was a problem. Separate lines along the Freedom Axis not only added an additional layer of complication, they also contradicted the prevailing and inherently Marxist racial egalitarianism of the twentieth century. By the 1970s, almost no one could graduate in good standing from a major Western university and actually approve of the state of affairs in South Africa or the segregationist South.
As the snide Yankee satirist Tom Lehrer sang in his 1953 song, “I Wanna Go Back to Dixie”:
I wanna go back to Dixie,
I wanna be a Dixie pixie
And eat corn pone till it’s coming out of my ears.
I wanna talk with Southern gentlemen
And put my white sheet on again.
I ain’t seen one good lynchin’ in years.
The land of the boll weevil
Where the laws are medieval
Is callin’ me to come and nevermore roam.
This is what the mid-century elite really did think of the racial laws of the South: medieval, outdated, backwards. Anyone who supported them might as well have been knuckle-draggers. Never mind that the segregationists had it right, and that their laws were both ancient in their respect for human nature and ahead of the curve in terms of scientific understanding. Never mind that segregation and South African Apartheid actually produced more peaceful and orderly societies than their integrationist contemporaries and multi-racial successors. None of that mattered to the liberal elites. All they cared about was dogma. The races were equal, according to Leftist cant, so only one line along the Freedom Axis should be drawn, damn the consequences. To object to this makes one a racist, which for the past seventy years has been tantamount to heresy.
To my knowledge, there has been only one pop culture rejoinder to the contemptuous attitude expressed in “I Wanna Go Back to Dixie.” In 1974, Randy Newman’s fascinating song “Rednecks” seems to put the carpetbagging Lehrer in his place. Truly, it’s a remarkable piece of satire and belongs with the Kinks‘ “Black Messiah” and the Clash’s “Safe European Home” as one of pop music’s few honest treatments of the problems caused by multi-racialism.
The song begins with Georgia Governor Lester Maddox being laughed at by a “smartass New York Jew” while appearing on a television program. Offended, the song’s narrator decides to write a song which defends both Maddox and the South. Its chorus:
We’re rednecks, we’re rednecks.
We don’t know our ass from a hole in the ground.
We’re rednecks, we’re rednecks.
And we’re keepin’ the niggers down.
And then, after poking fun at white Southerners for most of the song, Newman takes us to the crux of his satire. And it is devastating:
Now, your Northern nigger’s a Negro.
See, he’s got his dignity.
But down south here we’re too ignorant to realize
That North has set the nigger free.
Yeah, he’s free to be put in a cage in New York City.
He’s free to be put in a cage in the South Side of Chicago (and on the West side).
He’s free to be put in a cage in Roxbury in Boston.
He’s free to be put in a cage in Hugh in Cleveland.
He’s free to be put in a cage in Filmore in San Francisco.
They’re gatherin’ up from miles around
And they’re keepin’ the niggers down.
Newman’s point, however, is not that two lines are better than one. That would have been the Forbidden Truth and landed him in a lot of trouble, even back then. Instead, he demonstrates how Northerners hypocritically promote one line, but in reality have two. A valid and interesting point, no doubt. It’s always nice when someone skewers the Left for not living up to its own standards. But Newman still falls short of defending the peculiar customs of the segregated South as a positive thing and, really, the best way to manage a multi-racial society.
Nonetheless, Newman’s satire does demonstrate the fatal flaw of multi-racialism. Different races in large enough numbers living alongside one another will ultimately draw their own lines along the Freedom Axis, and then have to contend with each other over where the official line should be drawn. This will invariably lead to unrest as whole populations struggle violently over the true meaning of “justice for all.” Such an edifice cannot stand for long.
Only ethnocentric societies and nations avoid such problems. Only ethnonationalism allows a government to neatly draw one line along the Freedom Axis, thereby allotting its citizens enough freedom to be happy, yet not enough freedom to infringe upon the happiness of others. Songs such as “I Wanna Go Back to Dixie” and “Rednecks” would be unthinkable in uni-racial societies, and would be understood as artifacts of bygone days in a future white ethnostate.
Strong societies require that only one line be drawn along the Freedom Axis. The way in which different races living in close proximity threaten the placement of this line is all the reason you will ever need to support White Nationalism. It’s a shame that in our current age, all the obvious reasons are not enough.
1. I’m sure there are many sources to support this axiom. A Troublesome Inheritance (New York: Penguin, 2014) by Nicholas Wade, I have found, is a great place to start.
2. Here is the paragraph from The Conservative Mind (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2001, Chapter 2, p. 60) to which I refer (emphasis mine):
“Government is a contrivance of human wisdom to provide for human wants,” says Burke. “Men have a right that these wants should be provided for by this wisdom. Among these wants is to be reckoned the want, out of civil society, of a sufficient restraint upon their passions. Society requires not only that the passions of individuals should be subjected, but that even in the mass and body, as well as in the individual, the inclinations of men should frequently be thwarted, their will controlled, and their passions brought into subjection. This can be done only by a power out of themselves; and not, in the exercise of its function, subject to that will and to those passions which it is its office to bridle and sub- due. In this sense the restraints on men, as well as their liberties, are to be reckoned among their rights.” The extent of this restraint will vary with the degree of civilization and of religious veneration in a society; it cannot be settled upon abstract rules.