Why do discussions of white nationalism always feel the need to explicitly mention rejecting violence? It implies this is the drive that animates them, a hatred of strangers. Literal xenophobia, which conjures up images of racial superiority or a drive to subjugate others.
Most white nationalists view themselves as reluctant realists. They are in most cases pattern recognizers, not the racist stereotypes the Left love to promote. They look at mixed societies and conclude different people with different evolutionary paths have inherited different physical and mental traits. This makes living together difficult for all parties.
Some of those traits mesh well with European societies (the high IQs and restraint of East Asians), and some do not (ethnicities with significantly poorer self control and shorter time horizons). As multicultural societies mature we observe these traits are persistent. Third generation Chinese are still restrained and clever; other groups can live in Western nations for centuries and continue to behave like their distant cousins on another continent no matter what we do with education and quotas.
Whites also look at examples of what a diverse population endures, from Brazil and America to natural experiments in artificially reversing emergent power structures. In Rhodesia and South Africa a tiny number of whites ran systems for a black-majority nation, with all the apartheid and related phenomenon most find distasteful. Even the king of the Zulus laments what blacks have wrought in South Africa, although this cannot be reported in the Western press. His comments about the Bantu are actively ignored and are more explicitly racist than anything whites ever say.
Much "white nationalism" is based on one simple observation - they are coming here; we are not going there. It is their job to assimilate not our job to agonize over the failure of them to do so.
Even more important, when the imperial era came to an end those who were there left when asked. India, the African nations and others cleared out their Europeans. Jamaica was handed over wholesale to the former slaves. The Haitians acquired their country in a manner more violent than even the liberals claim whites to be today. In modern terms all these nations rejected multiculturalism which they viewed as unnatural.
We are being held to standards no one else cares about and that even seeps in to articles like this, with the need to reassure everyone else our concerns about losing our cultures and territory are seen as an aberration. We have to guard against those questioning the status quo and explicitly reassure people violence must be rejected which plants a seed that curiosity about this subject is dangerous.
Finally, white nationalists look at the cultural tropes in the nations people are leaving to come to our nations. Pakistan and Arab countries do not tolerate foreigners emigrating to their countries. Pakistan have just expelled 1.7m Afghans, most Sunni muslims with similar social mores to Pakistanis, because they are "prone to criminality and terrorism." No hand wringing, no agonizing over "Pakistani nationalism." They couldn't assimilate despite Pakistan's best efforts so they were sent packing.
Nobody in Pakistan emphasizes only a tiny proportion of Afghans misbehave. Some of them do and the Pakistanis refuse to expend resources filtering through their population to find the bad ones. They had their chance and the safety of the natives trumps everything.
I get the need to be neutral, to be decent. But a big drive for people seeking out the data and the hard facts is this constant framing of homogeneity as being unusual or distasteful despite the fact 90 percent of the world's population views it as normal.
I think these polls misunderstand most so-called white nationalists don't think of themselves as white nationalists at all, and nor do they think of themselves as white supremacists who need to get armed in preparation of an insurrection. They just see what their own locale now looks like and politely investigate. This investigatory impulse is, if anything, the polar opposite of the violent xenophobe caricature that is always mentioned. They seek to understand, often in an attempt to improve conditions for everyone.
Believing the blank slate mantra and then observing something quite different is hard to make sense of. In primitive societies we would see something like the violent xenophobe reaction Western nations worry about. In European societies we see the opposite, with people very reluctantly concluding this may be going wrong. Lets find out, lets test, lets look around and see where culture mixing has actually worked and try that. Then we discover it doesn't seem to work anywhere. Even worse we find out almost no one thinks it makes sense. China is for the Chinese and India is for the Indians.
We all know the use of white nationalism is a euphemism for white supremacist or violent thugs who hate people that look different. The need to remind us of this potential for violence retards the genuine discussions we desperately need to try to make this all work or to abandon it completely.
"Notwithstanding these low numbers, there have been a number of deadly terrorist attacks by individuals who could reasonably be described as white nationalists. So concern over white nationalism is understandable, even if the threat is exaggerated."
Yes, there have been a few attacks against blacks by whites, but the vast majority of racial attacks are blacks against whites and Asians.
"Yes, I consider it odd that white nationalists find living among non-white people so intolerable that they’d rather go off and live by themselves."
Blacks self-segregate. Perhaps you should spend some time on the south side of Chicago. Black neighborhoods are the most crime-ridden areas in the country. When it comes to crime, blacks reign supreme.
I have a Dream. In my - outrageously unrealistic - dream, a major politician in a Western nation would get up on their platform at election time and say: "You know what, I have to be honest with you voters....a large part of you are absolutely full of shit... and if I get elected I'm going to do my very best to make you get real...or at least a bit MORE real ". Or words to that effect.
Might be even more weird than you present it: principled and consistent free association advocates get labeled as white nationalists, while groups like the ADL, that support a definition of racism based on a racial hierarchy, get treated like human rights advocates.
Great post. In my opinion, so long as you aren't harming others, you should be free to live your life how you see fit (even if it is separation). Though of course determining unacceptable harm is unfortunately contentious.
Isn't there some research showing that different ethnic groups interacting with one another reduces racism? If so, that might be a benefit of non-separation. But then again, there's Robert Putnam's diversity and community research.
“I know many non-white people and have no desire to be separate from them”
Your non-white friends/acquaintances are likely high IQ and conscientious but that is hardly true of most non-whites (excluding Orientals). Hanania recently dubbed the GOP the “low class” party and we understand what he means (never mind that Vice President Kamala Harris recently celebrated the cultural contribution of rap music by blacks). But like the progressive whites you write about, Hanania and his libertarian-ish open borders crowd don’t want to live anywhere near low class non-whites either while celebrating their contribution to the GDP (less their welfare use and the costs of crime).
Yes, we can all “build our own bubble” (Bryan Caplan) but we don’t really have a choice under a PC regime that is now 60+ years old. But the externalities are real (the destruction of white homelands across the West) and “economists” like Caplan simply ignore them while they celebrate a low trust society as a means to avoid socialism--as if a homogeneous white society (WEIRD) could never figure out that socialism doesn’t work (like Sweden did in the 90s). Sure, Hanania et al. are brave enough to publicly say blacks have low IQs and are more crime prone but they, like the Left, are afflicted with their own form of Negrophilia when it comes to immigration.
Ironically, mass non-white immigration would not even be feasible under Caplan’s libertarian anarchy because the PC state would not exist to prevent whites from excluding most non-whites from private roads, streets, businesses, etc. But instead of allowing the state to deliver what we would get under libertarianism, Caplan et al. prefer to treat the roads, streets, etc. as if they’re owned by the world (i.e., socialism). This is a case of elitism that ignores the preferences of millions because it allegedly flouts sound economics, but this is false. It’s what people would likely choose under libertarian anarchy.
Hanania blames the law for Wokeism and the destruction of freedom of association but the loss of freedom of association (no insignificant matter!) is another political externality at least partially attributable to the mass immigration of a huge wave of very influential Leftist, pro-minority, Jews and non-whites. This gets swept under the rug by simply treating it as a general form of illiberalism disconnected from immigration.
Just had this debate with a family member. We’re a multi racial/ethnic family comprised of Jews, Black Caribbean and euro South Americans. My Black family members are adamant that white nationalism is rampant 😂 As do my secular non-religious Jewish family members. Yet the more religious Jewish family and the more visible minorities such as my self are more aware of the data provided in this Substack piece. I look outside and it’s not SS shooting or firebombing the shul or schools in Montreal. Is see Islamists and leftists.
I've also done a deep dive on white nationalism. Anyone interested in the intellectual aspects of White Nationalism should check out Greg Johnson's CounterCurrents. There isn't a shred of violence called for. Most White Nationalists want to separate, while the Left wants to overthrow our constitutional order and make the U.S. a polyglot nation of unassimilated varied ethnicities who fight with each other nonstop. Gosh, the Left sounds FAR worse.
I have no problem morally with white folks who've had it with the hate and blame shoved at them nonstop, and now the increasing real institutional discrimination they experience. None. It seems a reaction born of self-respect and dignity while the rest of my fellow white Americans seem to be fine with being crapped on nonstop. Me? My plan is to leave and live on a boat roaming the world, cuz I don't want to live in this society or in a white nationalist society. It's over, we blew it. We let the commies destroy our country from within. A pickle is never going to become a cucumber again...And we are pickled at this point.
Most liberals want a community that is about 80% white where everyone is upper middle class and the remaining 20% is mixed. Most would prefer this over 100% white, but it can only be created with lots of active and defacto discrimination.
Wherever it gets above 20%, especially if its of one ethnicity or lower class, they flee.
When they try to build their own communities that is what they come up with.
Socioeconomic status keeps being inflated with "race." When I lived in Orange County, California, I was "white" in a community that was, by the time I left, majority Asian-American (Korean heritage, to be specific). There were "white," "Hispanic," and "African-Americans" angling to move in to the area, largely because the schools were good, the crime rate was very low, and there was easy access to shopping, industry, entertainment, a state university, two community colleges, and the beaches. How did the Korean-Americans do so well to live in a high-cost area? They worked their butts off, valued learning, had virtually no illegitimacy or young parenthood, whooped their kids into good shape from the get-go, and avoided toxic pop culture and the prevalent entitlement mentality. It's not always about race. More often than not, it is about culture and values...
Surely liberals should support white nationalism?
Why do discussions of white nationalism always feel the need to explicitly mention rejecting violence? It implies this is the drive that animates them, a hatred of strangers. Literal xenophobia, which conjures up images of racial superiority or a drive to subjugate others.
Most white nationalists view themselves as reluctant realists. They are in most cases pattern recognizers, not the racist stereotypes the Left love to promote. They look at mixed societies and conclude different people with different evolutionary paths have inherited different physical and mental traits. This makes living together difficult for all parties.
Some of those traits mesh well with European societies (the high IQs and restraint of East Asians), and some do not (ethnicities with significantly poorer self control and shorter time horizons). As multicultural societies mature we observe these traits are persistent. Third generation Chinese are still restrained and clever; other groups can live in Western nations for centuries and continue to behave like their distant cousins on another continent no matter what we do with education and quotas.
Whites also look at examples of what a diverse population endures, from Brazil and America to natural experiments in artificially reversing emergent power structures. In Rhodesia and South Africa a tiny number of whites ran systems for a black-majority nation, with all the apartheid and related phenomenon most find distasteful. Even the king of the Zulus laments what blacks have wrought in South Africa, although this cannot be reported in the Western press. His comments about the Bantu are actively ignored and are more explicitly racist than anything whites ever say.
Much "white nationalism" is based on one simple observation - they are coming here; we are not going there. It is their job to assimilate not our job to agonize over the failure of them to do so.
Even more important, when the imperial era came to an end those who were there left when asked. India, the African nations and others cleared out their Europeans. Jamaica was handed over wholesale to the former slaves. The Haitians acquired their country in a manner more violent than even the liberals claim whites to be today. In modern terms all these nations rejected multiculturalism which they viewed as unnatural.
We are being held to standards no one else cares about and that even seeps in to articles like this, with the need to reassure everyone else our concerns about losing our cultures and territory are seen as an aberration. We have to guard against those questioning the status quo and explicitly reassure people violence must be rejected which plants a seed that curiosity about this subject is dangerous.
Finally, white nationalists look at the cultural tropes in the nations people are leaving to come to our nations. Pakistan and Arab countries do not tolerate foreigners emigrating to their countries. Pakistan have just expelled 1.7m Afghans, most Sunni muslims with similar social mores to Pakistanis, because they are "prone to criminality and terrorism." No hand wringing, no agonizing over "Pakistani nationalism." They couldn't assimilate despite Pakistan's best efforts so they were sent packing.
Nobody in Pakistan emphasizes only a tiny proportion of Afghans misbehave. Some of them do and the Pakistanis refuse to expend resources filtering through their population to find the bad ones. They had their chance and the safety of the natives trumps everything.
I get the need to be neutral, to be decent. But a big drive for people seeking out the data and the hard facts is this constant framing of homogeneity as being unusual or distasteful despite the fact 90 percent of the world's population views it as normal.
I think these polls misunderstand most so-called white nationalists don't think of themselves as white nationalists at all, and nor do they think of themselves as white supremacists who need to get armed in preparation of an insurrection. They just see what their own locale now looks like and politely investigate. This investigatory impulse is, if anything, the polar opposite of the violent xenophobe caricature that is always mentioned. They seek to understand, often in an attempt to improve conditions for everyone.
Believing the blank slate mantra and then observing something quite different is hard to make sense of. In primitive societies we would see something like the violent xenophobe reaction Western nations worry about. In European societies we see the opposite, with people very reluctantly concluding this may be going wrong. Lets find out, lets test, lets look around and see where culture mixing has actually worked and try that. Then we discover it doesn't seem to work anywhere. Even worse we find out almost no one thinks it makes sense. China is for the Chinese and India is for the Indians.
We all know the use of white nationalism is a euphemism for white supremacist or violent thugs who hate people that look different. The need to remind us of this potential for violence retards the genuine discussions we desperately need to try to make this all work or to abandon it completely.
"Notwithstanding these low numbers, there have been a number of deadly terrorist attacks by individuals who could reasonably be described as white nationalists. So concern over white nationalism is understandable, even if the threat is exaggerated."
Yes, there have been a few attacks against blacks by whites, but the vast majority of racial attacks are blacks against whites and Asians.
"Yes, I consider it odd that white nationalists find living among non-white people so intolerable that they’d rather go off and live by themselves."
Blacks self-segregate. Perhaps you should spend some time on the south side of Chicago. Black neighborhoods are the most crime-ridden areas in the country. When it comes to crime, blacks reign supreme.
I have a Dream. In my - outrageously unrealistic - dream, a major politician in a Western nation would get up on their platform at election time and say: "You know what, I have to be honest with you voters....a large part of you are absolutely full of shit... and if I get elected I'm going to do my very best to make you get real...or at least a bit MORE real ". Or words to that effect.
As usual a terrific post from Noah.
Might be even more weird than you present it: principled and consistent free association advocates get labeled as white nationalists, while groups like the ADL, that support a definition of racism based on a racial hierarchy, get treated like human rights advocates.
Great post. In my opinion, so long as you aren't harming others, you should be free to live your life how you see fit (even if it is separation). Though of course determining unacceptable harm is unfortunately contentious.
Isn't there some research showing that different ethnic groups interacting with one another reduces racism? If so, that might be a benefit of non-separation. But then again, there's Robert Putnam's diversity and community research.
“I know many non-white people and have no desire to be separate from them”
Your non-white friends/acquaintances are likely high IQ and conscientious but that is hardly true of most non-whites (excluding Orientals). Hanania recently dubbed the GOP the “low class” party and we understand what he means (never mind that Vice President Kamala Harris recently celebrated the cultural contribution of rap music by blacks). But like the progressive whites you write about, Hanania and his libertarian-ish open borders crowd don’t want to live anywhere near low class non-whites either while celebrating their contribution to the GDP (less their welfare use and the costs of crime).
Yes, we can all “build our own bubble” (Bryan Caplan) but we don’t really have a choice under a PC regime that is now 60+ years old. But the externalities are real (the destruction of white homelands across the West) and “economists” like Caplan simply ignore them while they celebrate a low trust society as a means to avoid socialism--as if a homogeneous white society (WEIRD) could never figure out that socialism doesn’t work (like Sweden did in the 90s). Sure, Hanania et al. are brave enough to publicly say blacks have low IQs and are more crime prone but they, like the Left, are afflicted with their own form of Negrophilia when it comes to immigration.
Ironically, mass non-white immigration would not even be feasible under Caplan’s libertarian anarchy because the PC state would not exist to prevent whites from excluding most non-whites from private roads, streets, businesses, etc. But instead of allowing the state to deliver what we would get under libertarianism, Caplan et al. prefer to treat the roads, streets, etc. as if they’re owned by the world (i.e., socialism). This is a case of elitism that ignores the preferences of millions because it allegedly flouts sound economics, but this is false. It’s what people would likely choose under libertarian anarchy.
Hanania blames the law for Wokeism and the destruction of freedom of association but the loss of freedom of association (no insignificant matter!) is another political externality at least partially attributable to the mass immigration of a huge wave of very influential Leftist, pro-minority, Jews and non-whites. This gets swept under the rug by simply treating it as a general form of illiberalism disconnected from immigration.
What do I like most about Noah Carl? The way he brings a fresh perspective to these old issues.
Just had this debate with a family member. We’re a multi racial/ethnic family comprised of Jews, Black Caribbean and euro South Americans. My Black family members are adamant that white nationalism is rampant 😂 As do my secular non-religious Jewish family members. Yet the more religious Jewish family and the more visible minorities such as my self are more aware of the data provided in this Substack piece. I look outside and it’s not SS shooting or firebombing the shul or schools in Montreal. Is see Islamists and leftists.
What am I missing?
I am not white. I am an English man. Americas racial politics is pure cancer.
I've also done a deep dive on white nationalism. Anyone interested in the intellectual aspects of White Nationalism should check out Greg Johnson's CounterCurrents. There isn't a shred of violence called for. Most White Nationalists want to separate, while the Left wants to overthrow our constitutional order and make the U.S. a polyglot nation of unassimilated varied ethnicities who fight with each other nonstop. Gosh, the Left sounds FAR worse.
I have no problem morally with white folks who've had it with the hate and blame shoved at them nonstop, and now the increasing real institutional discrimination they experience. None. It seems a reaction born of self-respect and dignity while the rest of my fellow white Americans seem to be fine with being crapped on nonstop. Me? My plan is to leave and live on a boat roaming the world, cuz I don't want to live in this society or in a white nationalist society. It's over, we blew it. We let the commies destroy our country from within. A pickle is never going to become a cucumber again...And we are pickled at this point.
Most liberals want a community that is about 80% white where everyone is upper middle class and the remaining 20% is mixed. Most would prefer this over 100% white, but it can only be created with lots of active and defacto discrimination.
Wherever it gets above 20%, especially if its of one ethnicity or lower class, they flee.
When they try to build their own communities that is what they come up with.
I could never be a white nationalist. Most of my enemies are white.
Socioeconomic status keeps being inflated with "race." When I lived in Orange County, California, I was "white" in a community that was, by the time I left, majority Asian-American (Korean heritage, to be specific). There were "white," "Hispanic," and "African-Americans" angling to move in to the area, largely because the schools were good, the crime rate was very low, and there was easy access to shopping, industry, entertainment, a state university, two community colleges, and the beaches. How did the Korean-Americans do so well to live in a high-cost area? They worked their butts off, valued learning, had virtually no illegitimacy or young parenthood, whooped their kids into good shape from the get-go, and avoided toxic pop culture and the prevalent entitlement mentality. It's not always about race. More often than not, it is about culture and values...
I would like to interview Noah Carl at Counter-Currents. Noah, could you please email me at editor@counter-currents.com? Thanks