Listen on iTunes, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Podcast Addict, and RSS.
In this episode, we talk about white nationalism.
Participants: Yassine, Walt Bismarck, TracingWoodgrains.
Links:
Why I'm no longer a White Nationalist (The Walt Right)
The Virulently Unapologetic Racism of "Anti-Racism" (Yassine Meskhout)
Hajnal Line (Wikipedia)
Fall In Line Parody Song (Walt Bismarck)
Richard Spencer's post-Charlottesville tirade (Twitter)
The Metapolitics of Black-White Conflict (The Walt Right)
America Has Black Nationalism, Not Balkanization (Richard Hanania)
Recorded 2024-04-13 | Uploaded 2024-04-14
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Well, you could take this arbitrarily far. We can agree that it would be unreasonable for you to demand the extension of the word in the form of a complete list of names. On the other extreme, you could simply rely on common sense. I suppose the only reason that anybody can be won over to the far right is that they find the everyday use of the word "white" good enough for government work (or rather, good enough for anything but that). As I pointed out in my previous comment, they have that in common with leftist race agitators. For some reason, people rarely feel the need to own the leftists by trying to stump them with "define white" (or "define black" for that matter) or pretend that their ideas can't be seriously engaged with until those minutiae have been tied up in a bow.
(If I had to guess why, I'd say that, besides the left having succeeded in keeping the Overton window decidedly left of center so that centrists are less willing to give right-wing radicals as much leeway on anything, the left usually doesn't openly call for things that sound like anywhere near as significant a departure from the status quo as a "white ethnostate". The exception that proves the rule is reparations, whose critics are often keen to know whether white people who do not descend from slaveowners will be on the hook. Then again, as far as I know the answer is "yes", so they're still left with the problem of having to provide an objective definition of "white".)
The resemblance between left and right extends to their ambivalence towards the Jews. As a non-leftist, my response to their ambivalence is not to buttonhole some leftist on social media, ask him what the left's real final solution to the Jewish problem is, and walk away in a huff when he doesn't give me a straight answer. Instead it's to recognize that there is indeed a natural tension, observe how various types of leftist are dealing with it, and draw my own conclusions about how the left's relationship with Jews is likely to evolve over time (not that Jews are a monolith either).
In the interest of letting you have one concrete WN point of view, I'll give you mine without any obfuscation or proselytizing. Let's define "white" and "ethnostate", starting with white. I am of NW European extraction and feel the most kinship with that group of people. But there are no prospects in uniting behind that identity while strictly excluding other white people. White ethnic particularism in the US is on the wane, white people are too mixed both individually and collectively, and I would be proud to belong to any civilization that could be considered the heir of European Christendom (emphasis on European). In practical terms, that means basically anyone who has roots in the European continent is in. Bosnians are in, ethnic Russians are in, southern Italians are in. North Africans are out. Caucasians, not sure (who cares). Turks and others whose national identities don't align well with race might have recourse to being judged on their appearance and/or genetics. Or, what would probably be safer even though it would unfortunately come with false negatives, they could be excluded en masse. It's not an important question to me, so my attitude is wait and see.
The Jewish question is more important but more nuanced. In my opinion, they are a net negative in spite of their scientific accomplishments. (To digress slightly, other than the more frequently encountered arguments about their harmfulness in the cultural sphere, a) their scientific advantage is gradually petering out, and b) people often forget to factor in the opportunity costs of fraudulent scientific paradigms that set progress back for as long as decades, and that probably only succeeded because of persuasive but intellectually dishonest Jews like Chomsky, Marx, Freud, (Joseph) Greenberg, Yudkowsky, Levi-Strauss, Mead, Gould, Lewontin, Witten, etc. My pet theory is that white scientists are more inclined towards exploring large amounts of data and noticing patterns, whereas Jews are more liable to have their "one big idea" that they will then defend to the death -- which generally serves them well in rigorous disciplines where raw cognitive horsepower is the limiting factor and their imaginations are less free to run wild. More succinctly, breadth vs. depth. Of course, their higher g probably makes them better at both approaches on average, and I concede that science is probably ahead of where it would have been now if Jews had never existed.) There are enough who are strong allies to Western civilization to give me pause, but it's hard to imagine them ever not being a huge collective nuisance. Ideally, the Jewish identity would be expunged. Failing that, they would be treated the same as other non-whites, but monitored extra closely.
Now, "ethnostate". For me, it's not just a question of demographic composition (although it goes without saying that both legal and illegal immigration must be reduced to a tiny fraction of their current levels), but how the nation sees itself. Ideally, only white people should be considered Americans in the fullest sense, the same way that being raised in Korea and fluent in Korean don't suffice to make an Englishman Korean. This was, in fact, how most non-white immigrants and their children were informally viewed in the US until very recently. The problem with that arrangement wasn't that it was synchronically bad, but that it was unsustainable. The temptation for foreigners to stab their hosts in the back -- to gain power by shameless guilt-tripping out of one side of the mouth and mockery out of the other, a tactic that could only work on the people that least deserved it -- proved to be too strong, and will only grow stronger the longer we allow it to continue.
Purely demographic diversity is not necessarily unworkable, but it can only work if there is one ethnic group that is universally agreed to be the backbone of the nation. In the same way that a white man who moves to China and gets a job there tacitly understands that he is meant to be working for the benefit of Chinese people, minorities who reside in a white ethnostate must know they are there for the benefit of white people. As of now, they can't be trusted to fulfill that expectation. So at the very least, they can't vote. They can't run for office or make political donations. They can't become lawyers or judges. They can't move money out of the country as flexibly as they can now. Their participation in professions such as journalism is capped at a low percentage. Their participation in more valuable professions where their strengths complement those of white people, i.e. certain areas of STEM, is capped at a somewhat higher percentage. (Not to dismiss the untapped white talent in this area, whose chances to develop their skills are artificially hamstrung by making worse students than researchers/practitioners.) All the preceding restrictions are introduced slowly. They are ineligible for pronatalist incentives (mainly targeted at UMC white people). White people are not paid more for doing the same work. There are restrictions on freedom of expression that are onerous by today's standards, but more transparently enforced.
History lessons that involve clashes between white and non-white people are taught predominantly from the white perspective. The contributions of minorities past and present are given due recognition (i.e. some, but without the distortions endemic to most textbooks today); they are to be neither celebrated nor demonized (with the exception of blacks, see below). The classics are resurrected but their stewardship no longer falls to academics.
Interracial relationships will ideally not have to be outright banned, as even now, miscegenation is not a serious threat to the existence of the white race, and will presumably fade away on its own. The children of whites and other light-skinned races are perhaps given some leniency in deciding who they identify with; children that are 3/4 white, 1/4 East Asian are white; half-black and half-brown children are black and brown. The thing we call "black culture" is eradicated. Blacks are expected to keep their heads down and work, or leave. They are made to understand that they will achieve less and have less as their natural condition. Capital punishment makes a big comeback and is extended to underage black teens in accordance with their more rapid maturation. Illegal immigrants at the Mexican border are shot on sight. Illegal immigrants already residing in the country are given notice to leave, after which rewards will be posted for reporting them to the authorities (who will deport them at their own expense, or kill them if they lack the wherewithal). (This could be relaxed depending on the state of the economy at the time, I'm well aware that what I'm proposing would already be crippling in the short term.) Formerly outspoken white race traitors are closely monitored and/or subjected to regular public humiliations. Formerly outspoken non-white enemies are deported if possible, otherwise killed.
Full steam ahead on AI and robotics research, in part to weaken the case for imported labor. The social sciences are purged. I have other ideas in this area that are less within the purview of white nationalism but are intended to reinvigorate the natural sciences.
Honor culture is reinstated among white men. Greater men are expected to show noblesse oblige, lesser white men are encouraged to be humble. The signature aesthetics of our culture are derived from those of the (new) elite, not from mass entertainment, which may still exist but is widely understood not to mix well with status. (Entertainment is purged of Jewish influence, which is not just pernicious but straight-up inferior -- music and storytelling are not among their many gifts.) If there is still a democracy, incompetents are unable to vote, but the state has a duty to treat them with dignity and love. The culture will be conformist at first, but only out of necessity because we presently lack the cultural depth to do anything worthwhile with independence. The ideal to be aimed for in the long term is something like the Renaissance, where the cultural backdrop provided men and women with no little inspiration to pursue independence in ways that, though often evil, added something back to the cultural ferment better than the tawdry nihilism that has infected 99.99% of the world's cultural output (superficial variations in emotional valence aside) in the last 50 years.
Goes without saying that a violent revolution is the most likely path to this highly unlikely scenario.
This is just my personal vision of a white ethnostate. Others are likelier to support blanket deportations, which might have better prospects for the long term. That would be my preference too, but I think it'll take some time before we are ready to stand on our own. I also acknowledge that a lot depends on the pace of AI development.
More options
Context Copy link