Some Thoughts on White Nationalism and Its Viability

A post on In Mala Fide prompted this post.

The White Nationalist (WN) movement is an interesting movement in the US. It has a large presence online, however, this misconstrues its actual support offline. In meatspace, these folks seem to have little to no presence.

The WN’s are really derived from the White Supremacists (WS) of a while back. Before that, they were part of the Segregationists, primarily Southerners, who challenged integration and the nascent Civil Rights Movement.

For a few decades after Civil Rights, they existed as WS. WS have an agenda of “take back the US.” Generally nowadays it means something like ending all non-White immigration, expelling all post-1965 non-White immigrants, and Whites taking back most of the US, possibly with separate states for non-Whites, defined on White terms. The more unreasonable ones have always talked of throwing out most or all non-Whites from the country.

With White demographic decline, WS became less and less viable, so they moved to White Separatism. White Separatism is a notion that the US is gone and not worth saving, and they are saying that they want a divorce from America.

Other White Separatists envision large White states in the US along with smaller Black and Hispanic states.

The name change from WS to WN was done to soften the tone of what is a virulently racist movement. WS leaves a bad taste in people’s mouths. When you say WN, most folks say, “What’s that?” It doesn’t sound so nasty. The racism stayed the same, they just gave themselves a fancy new paint job.

The WN’s has some curious heroes and notions about American history. American Renaissance is probably the more moderate end of the movement. From reading its pages, we can see that even moderate WN’s:

1. Gleefully support the invasion and colonization of America by Whites.

2. Fully support the conquest of the Amerindians and the theft of their land.

3. Apparently support slavery, though generally, they just don’t mention it.

4. Fully support the Confederacy in the Civil War and hate Lincoln and the North.

5. Despise the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution, which gave freed slaves equal rights among other things.

6. Support Jim Crow and segregation in the South from 1865-1965. The biggest WN heroes are the most obnoxiously racist and recalcitrant segregationists of all like George Wallace and Strom Thurmond.

7. Believe, incredibly, that only Whites are real Americans. All non-Whites (including Amerindians?) are not real Americans, regardless of how long they have been here. This view is actually a hallmark of WN thought, and even the most moderate types of all such as Ian Jobling hold fiercely to this point of view.

8. Oppose, vehemently, the Civil Rights Movement, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, the Housing Rights Act, etc.

9. Regard Brown vs the Board of Education as one of the darkest days in American history.

10. Oppose, ferociously, the little-known 1965 Immigration Act, which removed quotas mandating that 90% of all US immigration come from Northern Europe.

Just looking at those 10 points right there is startling. I have known many Whites in my life, from liberal to conservative, but hardly one of them accepts any of the 10 views above. For California Whites to support any of the WN positions above, with the possible exception of #10, is simply outrageous. Here in California, even the most reactionary Reaganites don’t think like that.

At the same time, this movement is insistent that they are going to “win.” They are going to win over the majority of US Whites to their wild, ultra-racist cause. One wonders seriously what drug these people are on.

As far as White Separatism goes, I would be surprised if 5% of White Americans support it in that they would like to move to a White state, though it would be nice to see a poll. Support for the positions 1-10 above must be small, with the exception of #10, but most Whites probably don’t even know what the 1965 Immigration Act is.

What about lesser positions?

15% of US Whites would never vote for a Black for President. That’s clearly a WN position, and it could be argued that this is a potential support base for these tools. But still, that’s only 15%.

25% of US Whites “oppose miscegenation,” whatever that means. Most of those 25% probably oppose Black-White breeding. That’s another clear WN position. Me? I’ve hardly ever met a White person who “opposed miscegenation.” They barely exist in California.

So there’s 15-25% of the White population as a base that could possibly be radicalized enough to support WN and a separate White state. But you would need more than that. You would need the support of 81% of US Whites, since, realistically, you are going to get the support of ~0% of non-Whites. Every couple of years, as the White % of the population declines, you will need a greater and greater % of Whites. In two years, 82%. In three years, 83%. It’s crazy. There’s no way they can do this.

However, even the 15% and 25% figures are surely slowly declining every year. How do we know this? Because White racism has been in slow decline for 45 years now, accelerating in recent years.

How can these crazies possibly get a majority of US Whites to agree to a separate White state, along with buying the ideological program #1-10 above? It doesn’t seem possible. They would have to radically increase racism among US Whites. But it’s been on a long-term decline for decades now. How are you going to turn that around?

The best that the WN can hope for is that maybe the nation will let their 5% crazy faction of the Whites secede. The rest of the country might get sick of them and say be gone with you. In 20 years, they might be lucky to get a slice as big as Rhode Island, but even that is a real outside shot.

How many Whites would actually want to go live in the White state? I wouldn’t mind living with normal White people, but there won’t be any normal Whites in the White state. Your neighbors would be Don Black, Jamie Kelso, Tom Metzger, David Duke and Alex Linder. The heck with that. I’d rather live with these illegal alien Mexicans I’m living with now. They’re more civilized. Plus the economy would stink.

Which reminds us of another WN agenda: It’s clear that they are trying to make White racism acceptable again.

One great thing that we anti-racists and liberals have done since the 60’s is we have completely stigmatized White racism. Most Whites nowadays would probably rather be dead than racist. It’s a long-term trend that builds on past gains with each new year and seems to be accelerating with time.

It goes along with increasing White-non-White marriage. Many White families are now dealing with non-White in-laws for the first time. Here in California, most Whites are handling this quite well. They love their non-White in-laws and especially their mixed-race grandchildren.

One gets the feeling that the WN’s are in a mad Race against Time. Time is not on their side, nor is history. The trend in human history is towards progress, not reaction. History moves forwards, generally not backwards. Sure, things move a bit back for a time, but then the powerful Wand of Time reasserts itself. The WN’s are reactionaries who are trying to make clocks run backwards. They are up on the levee, sandbagging against the roaring floods of human progress. Their mission, like that of other reactionaries around the globe, will be futile.

Fukuyama was wrong. History did not end in 1989. There was no end of history, and there will be no end of history. Times marches forwards, and so does the human race. Progress is as inevitable as the next sunrise.

There’s a reason for progress. Generally, “the good old days” actually stunk. “Let’s go back and live in the past” is typically not a very good idea. The Luddites and the Taliban just plow ruts in a muddy field, and all they do is sink.

Please follow and like us:
Tweet 20

54 thoughts on “Some Thoughts on White Nationalism and Its Viability”

  1. Robert, you need to do a post on your own particular brand of anti-racism. As I’ve pointed out, you’re nothing like Tim Wise or other prominent anti-racists.

    Also, and I’m not trying to sound like a smart ass here, but opposing WN doesn’t exactly signify courageous anti-racism.

    Certain neo-cons, including Dinesh D’Souza (author of the infamous The End of Racism, which is misleadingly titled) and hypocritical liberals (such as those at the ADL) have denounced WN’s such as Sam Francis, KKK type organizations, etc.

    Your brand of anti-racism seems to consist of mainly denouncing white nationalist movements.

    However, many other anti-racists (like the Wise and Jensen types) would argue that WN’s are really not that important and that “institutional racism” does far greater harm to “people of color” (mainly blacks). Tim Wise even denounced the SPLC as an organization that collects money from its “teaching tolerance” programs while not actually doing anything to tackle real problems of racial inequality.

    But yes, a separate post on your brand of anti-racism would be great, because perhaps I’m just not entirely grasping your position on this issue.

  2. Hey Robert, why would the economy suck in a White state? Would you rather have the economy dominated by low-skill, low-IQ mestizos and blacks?

  3. Hey Robert, I came across a news article on Jeff Rense website (don’t know if you’ve heard of him) where a Bengali living in Canada is about to be charged for “inciting genocide” against jews. Could you please go through all my comments on your blog and see if I’ve made any comments that cross the line legally? Just want to make it clear, no matter how much I detest the stinkin kikes, I don’t advocate nor do I plan to commit myself, any violent or illegal acts on them. I’m not crazy. Before I posted as anon, I think I made two comments under ‘John Kil’, my real name.

    1. You don’t live in Canada. You’re in the US. I even know what state you are in. Don’t worry about it. You can say anything you want here. Even incite genocide if you wish last time I checked.

        1. Well, not exactly anything.

          If hate speech (and speech in general) has the possibility of inciting imminent lawless action, then it’s not protected by the 1st Amendment.

          But otherwise, anything goes.

          By the way, Hate Speech laws in Europe and Canada are BS.

    1. I don’t think it exists. Hate crimes are not speech crimes. It’s just an enhancement. If you beat someone up, that might be a crime, but if you beat him up yelling, “You fuckin Jew!” and he’s a Jew, that’s a hate crime enhancement. You have to actually commit a crime.

      1. To me, the whole notion of “hate crimes” is absurd.

        If you beat someone up or kill him, then just charge it as a regular murder.

        Whether or not you yell “you fuckin Jew!” or “you fucking asshole!” doesn’t make a difference. The guy is still dead.

        Perhaps if Hate Crime laws were consistently applied, I might consider supporting them.

  4. So you’re saying I’m not gonna end up on some watch-list or have the Feds visit me, not be able to board an airplane, shit like that? I just wanna make clear that I’m in no way shape or form a violent, out-of-control person who would do some crazy shit.

      1. So you’re saying you think I’m not gonna be on such a list? I’m planning to go to East Asia pretty soon.

      2. I’ve heard of non-Muslims being on that no-fly list, including people like the late Senator Kennedy.

  5. I agree that Europe and Canada’s laws are BS, but what exactly constitutes inciting imminent lawless action?

    1. Who knows? Canada has Hate Speech laws. Seriously fucked up stuff. The Jews have been trying to put them in here, but it’s never going to work, at least in the forseeable future. The Leftists tend to like them too. Assholes.

      1. That tells you a lot about “leftists”. If Stalin could see what’s called the “left” these days, ie. cultural Marxist trash, he’d puke in his grave.

  6. I find it funny how the kikes are all about “spreading democracy” through bombs and bullets around the world, yet they want to outlaw free speech here. Typical hebe hypocrisy.

  7. I agree with what you say mostly about WN’s. I’m not a WN because I don’t hate other races. I do, however, like the West, and I do like intelligent people and intelligent peoples and think they should flourish and thrive. My main problem with WN’s is that they like to parade our Western Heritage when, if you really think about it, they hate so many of its unique virtues (toleration, education, rationalism, environmentalism, progress, fairness) and want to see their destruction. They seem to think we need to become more like the ethnocentric Judeo-Islamic world to fight off the others, and that we must reject universalism and huddle into our ingroup and be for them only.

    Well, that repudiates about everything the renaissance achieved.

    They’re as symptomatic of the time as any other virulently anti-Western philosophies that are now prolific in our universities, on our streets, in our TVs and in our minds, and if they win, it will be no different than if the Islamic terrorists or Black nationalists win–except that I’m white, and they won’t kill me. And we’ll WIN, DAMN IT.

  8. I read AmRen, and I think most of what the site itself writes is reasonable enough, although the commenters are off their nut.

    I’m exactly the kind of tepid-WN that Carol Swain describes in The New White Nationalists. If their issues were discussed rationally in mainstream forums, that’s where I’d be reading and debating. But journalism, academia and politics (arenas where participants CLAIM facts are pursued, evidence gathered and multiple positions debated) treat ideas like genetic IQ variation or even the superiority of Western society as absolutely forbidden.

    Instead, people in those fields seriously advocate the idea that things like fatherlessness, drug abuse, AIDS and homelessness are caused by racism. sexism and classism, instead of people who can’t or won’t get their act together. No one ever confused me with a conservative until about ten years ago; but 70% percent fatherlessness is not something whites did or can stop. There must be big cultural self-justification for it, which is why I say I’m a white culturalist — this is a society built around white’s values, which is why it’s the best in the world, and if you want to live here you need to participate in the dominant culture.

  9. “The trend in human history is towards progress, not reaction. History moves forwards, generally not backwards. Sure, things move a bit back for a time, but then the powerful Wand of Time reasserts itself. The WN’s are reactionaries who are trying to make clocks run backwards. They are up on the levee, sandbagging against the roaring floods of human progress. Their mission, like that of other reactionaries around the globe, will be futile.”


    You can’t be seriously be suggesting that all reactionaries will lose?

    That seems extremely unlikely when you consider that the forces of “progress” outside the United States are often propped up by an increasingly foundering US Military.

    You say what the Taliban is doing is futile, but guess what?

    They’d be the lords of Afghanistan if it wasn’t for the US Military.

    And when the US Military is made a shadow of itself, the Taliban will be the lords of Afghanistan again, most likely.

    Who won the last election is Iran?

    Muslim Countries, at least, seem quite resistant to “Progress” (thankfully).

    I’ll close with the recent words of the historian Neill Ferguson:

    “I’ve just come back from China — a two-week trip there — and the thing I heard most often was, ‘You can’t lecture us about the superiority of your system anymore. We don’t need to learn anything from you about financial institutions and forget about democracy. We see where it has got you.’”

    1. I read over the proposals of Jobbik that you have laid out. There is absolutely nothing whatsoever reactionary about any of that. Actually post of those are progressive proposals, paying mothers to stay home, paying mothers to be housewives, making it easy for mothers to work, tax incentives for parenthood, taxing of advertising, community media projects.

      This is a progressive project. None of that stuff was done “back in the good old days.”


      1. “This is a progressive project.”

        Yeah, but it’s the GOOD kind of progressiveness, and its all tied into a old fashioned idea of group welfare and a healthy disdain for foreign influence.

        Jobbik wants OUT of the EU, wants out of the whole Globalist project of turning every Country into one big Country with no identity, heritage, or sovereignty.

        That isn’t what I think of when I think of progressives.

  10. I guess it all depends on how you define progress.

    Perhaps its inevitable that the future will be even less like our past than our present it.

    But that would only be on average, and there could be some areas were the future will be more like the past than now is.

    Just look at how the Jews went from almost none of them speaking Hebrew to millions of them doing it.

    1. “Perhaps its inevitable that the future will be even less like our past than our present is.”

      Though I’m not sure why we should necessarily conclude this. Recent Western History has been very Anti-Traditional, to be sure, but that doesn’t mean that Non-Western cultures will all follow the same route, or that parts of the West may not arrest their progress away from the past, or perhaps even reverse it.

      1. You know Robert, I have always wondered about how Hebrew was revived between the 19th and 20th centuries. After all, Yiddish had been such an important language for Jewish folks in Europe for centuries, and it has all but vanished into the bins of history.

        Obviously both the holocaust and the creation of Israel played a major role in this. Yet still, how was a language that was basically only used by Rabbis and in religious settings, brought back as the national language of a new nation state, full of people from all over the place?

        That seems like an incredible feat to me.

  11. Interesting post.

    I would rather not live with illegal mexicans especially the ones shouting “viva la raza”
    and “Gringos go back to europe this is our land.”

    How about a post on racism coming from latinos?

    In this vid, mexicans tell some blacks to
    “leave THEIR continent”

    So its ok for a mexican to tell a white person to leave the country but if you’re white and you do that you get called a nazi! LOL

    1. Around here they are a mix of poor to low income illegal aliens and Hispanic legal immigrants and citizens. They have no politics whatsoever other than a rather progressive one. Most of them simply do not vote at all. They don’t go around yelling La Raza in general or telling Whites to go back to Europe.

      What most folks don’t realize is that those views are a bourgeois indulgence by some Latinos who have some money, went to college for a bit and took some Latino Studies courses. What people don’t realize is that most of your poor to low income working class Hispanics, legal or illegal, do not give two flying fucks about radical Latino politics.

      1. The reality is, they don’t give a damn about whites or blacks and once they get into power we are in BIG trouble.

        They are not your friend.

        Not only do they believe in the ethnic cleansing of blacks they want whites to
        “go back to europe.”
        Its not just a “gang thing.”

        Some people are good some are bad,
        but i don’t pretend to not see what’s going on.

        MOST ARE the viva la raza types and ESPECIALLY in california.
        They continually disrespect the american flag and the country in general by waving the mexican flag and burning our flag to put their own in place.

      2. What most folks don’t realize is that those views are a bourgeois indulgence by some Latinos who have some money, went to college for a bit and took some Latino Studies courses. What people don’t realize is that most of your poor to low income working class Hispanics, legal or illegal, do not give two flying fucks about radical Latino politics.

        Excellent point, Robert. The same thing can be said of many black radicals. Your average working class or poor black guy isn’t railing against “white privilege,” “colorblind racism,” etc.

        Whether these radicals are black or Hispanic, they always tend to be middle or upper middle class and college educated. And even not all blacks or Hispanics who fit that demographic are super radical.

        It’s really just a small group of agitators.

      3. I have noticed that as well, at least her in Cali. Lets face it. All the “La Raza” assholes are for the most part American born, first or second generation(if not more), and have been indoctrinated by out confused and inefficient educational system. Victimolgy at it’s finest.

        What shocks me is how I meet folks from Mexico and Central America, and they are really first exposed to the concept of a unified “Latinoness” here. In out country.

        Go figure.

        Before that, they viewed Peurto Ricans, Argentinians, and Peruvians like we view the Brit’s and Australians. Same language with a funny accent, but nothing “unifying” about them.

        It all kind of reminds me of the Arab Nationalism of the 60’s and 70’s. Except, it seems mostly fueled by people living in the U.S. Of course, I would suppose that one could argue the Arabs received their ideals for nationalist thought from the schools of Europe. Similar dichotomy, perhaps?

        1. How many different kinds of Arabs would you say there are? I would divide them into 3 groups: Levantine/Mesopotamian Arabs (ie., north of Saudi, below Turkey), Peninsular and Gulf Arabs (ie., real Arabs), and finally North African Arabs (ie., Arabized Berbers & Egyptians).

        2. Well Anon, the Arab League aside, with it’s 23 or so countries.

          There are the Gulf Arabs, of course, which roughly follows the GCC. No surprise there. Yemen is the odd man out on the Arabian Peninsula. They are rather unique. Still, I would count them in that group. This is the “Spain” of the Arabic speaking world, if you will. This is where it all started.

          The Levantine Arabs are of course another major grouping. Syrians, Lebanese and even Palestinians are pretty close. I’m told the Jordanians, not so much. Maybe a little too much connection to Bedouins there. Still, I would group them as Levantine. To us outsiders, they are pretty much the same. Iraq is funny. I would say Mesopotamia is it’s own thing, so influenced by outsiders. The Sunni Iraqis are supposed to be closer to Syrians and Jordanians, depending on tribal affiliation. Of course, the majority Iraqi Shia are kind of out there. They could be almost there own thing. Still, if I had to lump them in…Part of a greater “Syria-Levant” belt, I suppose. Kurds aside.

          The Egyptians are just that. Egyptian. They like to claim Libya to be in their “fold,” but I always figured the Libyans were more Berber. So, Egypt is another grouping.

          Then there is the Maghreb. Tunisia and Algeria are culturally very close. Morocco, not so much. Still, I would count them all together as as yet another “Maghreb” divide. They really are different from the Arabs of the East Mediterranean and Arabian Peninsula in many ways. From the intelligibility of their Arabic, to the way they dress, to even their physical appearance.

          So, at a minimum, four major Arabic speaking groupings. Realistically, more than that. Perhaps six or more. Four really divides the cultural realms rather well, I think. It just will never be realized, at least practically.

          Then, there is the fact that I always figured the entire Eastern Mediterranean to be kind of the same “cultural sphere.” That is just my theory, though, but with plenty of backers.

        3. I think Palestinians are simply descendants of ancient Hebrews who stayed in Israel and converted to Islam. I also read somewhere that Jordanians are basically Palestinians. The British grouped both Jordan and what is now called Israel into the Palestinian Mandate when they colonized the region.

        4. How do the Maghreb Arabs differ in physical appearance from the other Arabs? Do they look more Negroid?

        5. Anon, well yes.

          The Palestinians are basically the ancient
          locals, be they Hebrews and whatever else tribes were in the ancient area. Just like the Lebanese probably are the Phoenicians descendants. No doubt about it. The Muslims and Christians of today, were the Jews of past, at least to some extent.

          To my understanding though, Palestinians have a slight African infusion in their ancestry, which is not found in modern Jewish populations, minus the so-called “Ethiopian Jews.” You can kind if see it, if you’ve been around Palestinians a lot. I would attribute that to the later Arab conquests, and various slave trading Muslim dynasties that ruled the area, and lasted for over a millennium.

          For the record, I have seen that black physical trait in both Christian and Muslim Palestinians. They literally look no different in any way I could tell.

          As for North Africans from the Maghreb, the looked like Mediterraneans types to me. Just not the same as the East Mediterraneans, and namely the Arabs I’ve known. Just a different look. Some had more African features, for sure. I remember one North African guy in France that a friend of mine from Louisiana swore was a Creole. The spread of phenotypes in not universal, though. Most looked like Mediterranean people to me, of not of a darker variation I guess. Just not “Middle Eastern” Mediterranean as I’ve known it.

    1. Basically, anything a white person does that non-whites disapprove of is racist.

      And with the Obama Administration suing Arizona, this isn’t going to change anytime soon.

      As much as it pains me to say it, if the Republicans tackle the immigration issue and resolve to seal the border, I might vote for them in 2012, as much as I dislike the party.

      From what I’ve observed, Democrats and Republicans are just two sides of the same coin. Whoever decides to tackle immigration and other important issues will have my vote, regardless of their ideologies.

      To me, terms such as “liberal,” “conservative,” and “independent” are all meaningless.

  12. Robert,
    Just a few decades ago, who could have imagined that gay marriage would become serious mainstream policy? I imagine that a survey would have shown that 90% of Americans find the idea disgusting or laughable. There are things about a culture that can’t change within a few decades – like the Christian and White Supremacist nature of the Anglo-American people.

    But it can be inverted almost instantly! Atheists adopting AIDS orphans are inverted avatars of Christian White Supremacists, mimicking the Christian behavioral patterns without Christ and twisting WS into a belief that our race alone is responsible for the welfare of the inferior races.

    We certainly have a steep uphill climb, and we certainly have some spiritually sick creepers that we would do well to cast off. But we’re still in the game. I think you’ll be amazed how quickly a healthy respect for their common heritage will be revived once they recognize that they share a common destiny.

  13. Fact is, white nationalism has had a harder road to hoe in the U.S. because of one thing: space.

    Erstwhile white nationalists largely escaped the encroaching forcibly integrated nation in the 1960s
    by moving. When the room or financial resources run out, game on.

    (WNs have a “large presence online, however, this misconstrues its actual support offline. In meatspace, these folks seem to have little to no presence.”

    As an activist in the early 1970s well before the internet age, I concluded real quickly. If a movement can’t put men on the streets
    apropos to the circumstance, there is no movement.

  14. Having said that, “official” “White Nationalism”
    should probably develop as a subset within a somewhat broader Party/ideological structure, guided, ultimately by cultural nationalists.

  15. economic depression, financial crisis: Bernanke, Blankfein

    world war III: AIPAC, neocons, Israhell

    Anything in common? hmm…………..

  16. WN is indeed a joke, a cyber-playground for race hustlers and wannabe Fuehrers, but yet I can’t help but think that your 45 years of “racial harmony” would almost instantly go down the tubes if there was ever, say, an economic collapse. How much faith do you have in those running the establishment to keep this skyscraper of cards from falling in the wind?

    But just because the system is running on empty doesn’t mean I have high hopes for the future of our race. Personally, I think the West signed its death warrant in 1941 and there’s nothing left for us to do now but pay the piper. The prerequisite to a political movement is that whites actually want to defend their interests and their posterity, and the white race has clearly lost its will to survive. The Alex Linders of the world can bitch and moan and blame it on the jews all they like, but that doesn’t change the reality.

    Give it another 60 years and the U.S. will resemble Mexico or Brazil; the change will have occurred gradually enough that no one will remember what things used to be like and they won’t care, having no other standard to compare to. We’re not going out with a bang, but with a whimper.

    Even if the white race suddenly did regain its will to live, I doubt there’s much that could be done at this point. The New World Order isn’t imminent; it’s already here.

    1. I actually agree with nearly everything you said here, sir.

      The part of California I live in already looks something like Brazil or particularly Mexico. It’s the New Normal. It’s not so bad once you get used to it.

      The White Race simply lacks the will to survive and perpetuate itself. In that case, in time, it will go out. I do not know what the consequences of that extinction or transformation will be. I doubt if it will be catastrophic, but anything is possible.

      All this blaming the Jews is tiresome. Whites are their own worst enemies. Anyway, most Whites are effectively “Jewish” in the US anymore anyway. We are all Jews now.

      I don’t know what to say. The future, as always, will be interesting.

      Oh, and thanks for a fine piece of writing, sir.

        1. In what ways are white Americans “Judaized”?

          I’m sure there’s a good Edmund Connelly article that explains this.

          Or Kevin MacDonald.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)