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.
An absolutely excellent comment and explanation, of the maleficence and hypocrisy of those who are intent on ignoring, not only their own liberal/leftist penchants for self segregation (away from poverty, crime, aesthetic squalor), but as you point out, this is the case around the world - in countries populated by, the ever oppressed brown people.
The buried lead/story here should be, why, when American non-whites "make it big", do they choose to move to mostly or all white neighborhoods. It's certainly not to elevate the plight of all brown and black people. If it were, they would take their new found wealth/income and move into the projects - using every penny to lift their oppressed neighbors standard of living. But they don't. Likewise, Bernie, the Obamas, Clintons, the twat squad, the leftist race baiters, all celebs in hollweird, and entertainment are not nestled into the inner city hell holes they administrate over and perpetuate. Show me Oprah's inner city luxury 2 bedroom apartment in the projects. Likewise, you don't see white, brown or black libs selling their Georgetown brownstones and Beverley Hills mansions to relocate to the equitable CHAZ Utopias, they fomented or the crime ridden streets of SF, Portland or Chicago's southside.
For those screaming white-nationalist xenophobia, I have 2 words for you - Martha's Vineyard.
Funny no one is complaining about the xenophobia and self segregation along racial, intimate social and economic lines, of social justice, super heroes and iconoclasts Schwab & Soros. You'd think they would at least keep an apartment or two, in liberal hell holes around the world, for appearance sake - but nope and no one is clutching pearls about them.
I will give this post credit for asking "WHY???"
And now we see lib sanctuary cities, whining that they are being flooded with - get this - the very same down trodden brown people, they said they would take. But of course, they expected the "white nationalist" states, to absorb triple their monthly totals, on a daily basis.
When the liberals and race baiters of the world explain why, they don't live in the inner city utopias - the projects, and ghettos, they perpetuate, for "their people" - then we can have a conversation. Until then, it's just divisive rhetoric and hypocritical political/ideological xenophobia on their parts, meant to raise the brown and white liberal, SJW donor/voting base numbers, while keeping the brown/black people they "advocate" for, but live no where near - economically and socially enslaved.
Alas, minorities moving to predominantly white areas support the broad narrative. They technically increase multiculturalism even if we condemn them for abandoning their own people.
A secondary effect is to further reinforce this kind of ethnic and cultural mixing among elites. It works for them, they say. My own neighborhood has whites, blacks, hispanics etc. Why can't you make it work?
What they fail to convey is the superficial diversity is secondary to the underlying homogeneity. Everyone in Martha's Vineyard has made it. They all live there for the same reason the wealthy join country clubs, and it isn't because of the golf. They get to hobnob with their peers with whom they are virtually identical, even if they have a variety of ethnicities. Everyone is a successful person because the filtering is accomplished with the house prices few can afford.
Actual diversity is a different beast with literally nothing to tie people together. Any sociologist or anthropologist can explain why this causes tension, something they used to do regularly.
A great example is Vivek Ramaswamy. He pitches himself as an Indian immigrant. But he is in fact a Brahmin. He comes from India's elite. He went to expensive prep schools and Ivy League universities. He slotted right in to America's young elite and was a big earner quickly. He had the connections. That is a lot different from a poor neighborhood trying to cope with an influx of foreigners with an average IQ of 82 who are all competing for the same pool of jobs, none of which pay well.
All these observations can be made by anyone. To talk of them is forbidden. Diversity is our strength.
he's probably thinking of the prison gangs that are created for self-preservation. Prison gangs are inherently violent because they're composed of criminals.
"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.
I do think it unrealistic any Western politician would do this. But I do wonder if it might actually be popular. Not with everyone of course. But I could see a solid majority going for it.
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.
Indeed. The standard in Anglosphere countries. Everything is permissible unless explicitly verboten. Very much at odds with our technocratic managerial societies today. The experts know best.
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.
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.
Just like progressives often do, you are seeing race when you should be seeing class. Nothing progressives love more than mixed race, more affluent neighborhoods. The anti-woke are increasingly becoming more a opportunistic parody than a needed critique of identity progressivism with two tendencies 1)”I hate victimhood politics but also we are the real victims” and 2)”I hate exaggerated claims of racism but also you are the real racists”.
"Not so fast! The stereotypes do remain true. Apart from dangerous black ghettos, white liberals do live and socialize in diverse environments, per the stereotype, while white conservatives much less so. The liberal D.C. suburbs where I live have a lot of interracial marriage and you often see white kids hanging out with their non-white peers. But in the more conservative / less urban areas, there are a lot fewer interracial relationships, and white kids hang out in all-white groups. It's a visible contrast."
Seems right.
"Americans are five times more likely to marry someone of a different race or ethnicity than in 1967 (and other stats on racial progress since the 1960s)." 2017, the Pew Research Center
Using the author's logic, we could say to those who oppose affirmative action in universities: "Surely you should support Jim Crow! Don't you want less blacks on campus?"
For white nationalists, being surrounded with whites is not an outcome, it is the goal itself. They argue that whites should live by whites as whites.
You're probably thinking of the prison gangs that are created for self-preservation. Prison gangs are inherently violent because they're composed of criminals.
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.
An absolutely excellent comment and explanation, of the maleficence and hypocrisy of those who are intent on ignoring, not only their own liberal/leftist penchants for self segregation (away from poverty, crime, aesthetic squalor), but as you point out, this is the case around the world - in countries populated by, the ever oppressed brown people.
The buried lead/story here should be, why, when American non-whites "make it big", do they choose to move to mostly or all white neighborhoods. It's certainly not to elevate the plight of all brown and black people. If it were, they would take their new found wealth/income and move into the projects - using every penny to lift their oppressed neighbors standard of living. But they don't. Likewise, Bernie, the Obamas, Clintons, the twat squad, the leftist race baiters, all celebs in hollweird, and entertainment are not nestled into the inner city hell holes they administrate over and perpetuate. Show me Oprah's inner city luxury 2 bedroom apartment in the projects. Likewise, you don't see white, brown or black libs selling their Georgetown brownstones and Beverley Hills mansions to relocate to the equitable CHAZ Utopias, they fomented or the crime ridden streets of SF, Portland or Chicago's southside.
For those screaming white-nationalist xenophobia, I have 2 words for you - Martha's Vineyard.
Funny no one is complaining about the xenophobia and self segregation along racial, intimate social and economic lines, of social justice, super heroes and iconoclasts Schwab & Soros. You'd think they would at least keep an apartment or two, in liberal hell holes around the world, for appearance sake - but nope and no one is clutching pearls about them.
I will give this post credit for asking "WHY???"
And now we see lib sanctuary cities, whining that they are being flooded with - get this - the very same down trodden brown people, they said they would take. But of course, they expected the "white nationalist" states, to absorb triple their monthly totals, on a daily basis.
When the liberals and race baiters of the world explain why, they don't live in the inner city utopias - the projects, and ghettos, they perpetuate, for "their people" - then we can have a conversation. Until then, it's just divisive rhetoric and hypocritical political/ideological xenophobia on their parts, meant to raise the brown and white liberal, SJW donor/voting base numbers, while keeping the brown/black people they "advocate" for, but live no where near - economically and socially enslaved.
Alas, minorities moving to predominantly white areas support the broad narrative. They technically increase multiculturalism even if we condemn them for abandoning their own people.
A secondary effect is to further reinforce this kind of ethnic and cultural mixing among elites. It works for them, they say. My own neighborhood has whites, blacks, hispanics etc. Why can't you make it work?
What they fail to convey is the superficial diversity is secondary to the underlying homogeneity. Everyone in Martha's Vineyard has made it. They all live there for the same reason the wealthy join country clubs, and it isn't because of the golf. They get to hobnob with their peers with whom they are virtually identical, even if they have a variety of ethnicities. Everyone is a successful person because the filtering is accomplished with the house prices few can afford.
Actual diversity is a different beast with literally nothing to tie people together. Any sociologist or anthropologist can explain why this causes tension, something they used to do regularly.
A great example is Vivek Ramaswamy. He pitches himself as an Indian immigrant. But he is in fact a Brahmin. He comes from India's elite. He went to expensive prep schools and Ivy League universities. He slotted right in to America's young elite and was a big earner quickly. He had the connections. That is a lot different from a poor neighborhood trying to cope with an influx of foreigners with an average IQ of 82 who are all competing for the same pool of jobs, none of which pay well.
All these observations can be made by anyone. To talk of them is forbidden. Diversity is our strength.
For the mythical greater good, mind you.
I'm reading Adam Johnston's post on multiculturalism. It's quite adept, at tying together much of what I've read in the past.
Glad to find you both and your perspectives, here.
Cheers. Someone has to say something. And it is entirely possible without trashing other cultures or people. Everyone deserves a homeland.
I agree that White nationalism is not violent.
he's probably thinking of the prison gangs that are created for self-preservation. Prison gangs are inherently violent because they're composed of criminals.
"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.
Oh, reality will do that anyway. In about 10 years or so. Maybe sooner. It's not going to be pleasant.
Lionel Shriver's _The Mandibles_ is looking more and more prophetic....
"You know what, I have to be honest with you voters....a large part of you are absolutely full of shit..."
While that would be speaking the truth, most Americans are not interested in reality...they love bread and circuses.
Are you trying to tell me transphobia doesn't cause climate change?
"Are you trying to tell me transphobia doesn't cause climate change?"
I thought everything caused climate change.
Blocking roads doesn't. That SOLVES climate change. As does rising taxes, lol.
😜
I do think it unrealistic any Western politician would do this. But I do wonder if it might actually be popular. Not with everyone of course. But I could see a solid majority going for it.
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.
Indeed. The standard in Anglosphere countries. Everything is permissible unless explicitly verboten. Very much at odds with our technocratic managerial societies today. The experts know best.
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.
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.
I am not white. I am an English man. Americas racial politics is pure cancer.
Alas you are condemned as white.
Alas I care naught
You know it has been imported into Britain.
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.
There is some truth to that. They want some mix. Although I do know some liberals who cheer whites becoming a minority. So that is troubling.
Just like progressives often do, you are seeing race when you should be seeing class. Nothing progressives love more than mixed race, more affluent neighborhoods. The anti-woke are increasingly becoming more a opportunistic parody than a needed critique of identity progressivism with two tendencies 1)”I hate victimhood politics but also we are the real victims” and 2)”I hate exaggerated claims of racism but also you are the real racists”.
A thoughtful comment from a white nationalist:
"Not so fast! The stereotypes do remain true. Apart from dangerous black ghettos, white liberals do live and socialize in diverse environments, per the stereotype, while white conservatives much less so. The liberal D.C. suburbs where I live have a lot of interracial marriage and you often see white kids hanging out with their non-white peers. But in the more conservative / less urban areas, there are a lot fewer interracial relationships, and white kids hang out in all-white groups. It's a visible contrast."
Seems right.
"Americans are five times more likely to marry someone of a different race or ethnicity than in 1967 (and other stats on racial progress since the 1960s)." 2017, the Pew Research Center
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/05/18/intermarriage-in-the-u-s-50-years-after-loving-v-virginia/
I disagree with the reasoning.
Using the author's logic, we could say to those who oppose affirmative action in universities: "Surely you should support Jim Crow! Don't you want less blacks on campus?"
For white nationalists, being surrounded with whites is not an outcome, it is the goal itself. They argue that whites should live by whites as whites.
White nationalism is not violent.
You're probably thinking of the prison gangs that are created for self-preservation. Prison gangs are inherently violent because they're composed of criminals.