White Nationalism – What Is the Nature of the Project?

I’ve gotten some complaints for talking about these guys so much, but the truth is that in some ways this is the anti-White Nationalist blog. I am fascinated with them as Carol Swain is, and come from a similar POV (Carol Swain is an anti-racist Black woman who is fascinated by White Nationalism and has written books on it).

In a previous post we went over the prospects for the White Nationalist (WN) movement in the US. The prospects are dim to nil and fading fast. Their only chance is that the rest of us might get so sick of them that we give them a little slice of land just to be rid of them and get them out of our hair. Even that seems quite dubious.

But what exactly is it that they want?

The project is quite diffuse, and so are its goals. The White Separatist project aims to slice off a section of the US as a Whites-only state, and then partition the rest of the US in various ways – a Black state in the South, an Hispanic state in the Southwest, and maybe a mixed state in between. There are also advocates of making almost the entire US a White state, with only small states for the rest.

Many WN’s continue to advocate throwing many or all non-Whites out of the US. Their leaders lie and say that no one ever says this, but that is not true. I am on their sites, and they say this all the time.

The expulsion project is quite difficult in the US where we are down to 65% White. The WN’s claim that it can be done nevertheless.

Sounding like Zionists, they talk about the large “population transfers” of the 20th Century. That these wildly racist ethnic cleansings were accompanied by horrible violence and mass killings is usually not mentioned. As the population transfers of the past were bloody and involved huge violence and mass killings, it seems that any major ethnic cleansings or expulsions in the US would have to be also.

It’s going to be a bloody, violent affair. A war if you will. Think the Balkans in the 1990’s. In fact, disgustingly, the Balkans cleansings are held up by WN’s to exemplify the viability of their project. There are lesser versions of the project, such as throwing out all of the post-1965 immigrants (And their descendants?), throwing out all of the anchor baby citizens of illegal immigrants, etc.

There are also versions of the project that do not involve throwing out the non-Whites in the White state. Instead, they would disenfranchise them along apartheid lines similar to apartheid in South Africa and Zionism in Palestine. The objective would be, as in Palestine, to make conditions so unpleasant for them that they take off.

Other proposals call for the non-Whites to be stripped of their rights to vote – a sort of Jim Crow version.  That way, Whites could stay in the White state, but they would have no say in political matters, so they would be irrelevant. Interracial breeding and probably dating would be banned in the White state. It seems clear that the White state would have to be an authoritarian and highly anti-liberal project. It would look a lot like a fascist state.

For Europe, the WN’s clearly talk about throwing out all of the non-Whites, not partition, since Whites are over 90% in most European countries. As long as there are few non-Whites, throwing them out or at least denying them the right to vote should be relatively easy, they say.

Lesser goals for the project include the ending of all non-White immigration to the US. Even this is going to be almost impossible to put in place.

We can’t even get rid of the illegal immigrants here in the US, forget the legal ones. The state refuses to throw the illegals out in large numbers. Many cities have been declared nearly off-limits to federal immigration agents. There is almost zero crackdown on employers of illegal aliens, and after raids, many illegals are simply released to the community with no followup.

All state and local efforts to deal with the matter are thrown out in court as unconstitutional. They are ruled unconstitutional, as immigration is solely a federal matter. Yet the Feds refuse to do anything about it. And there are repeated efforts, with increasing urgency over time, to legalize the 12-20 million illegals in the country.

The trend over time seems to be to legalize the illegals. Given that we can’t even get a handle on the illegals question, how can we possibly eliminate non-White legal immigration?

Before one eliminates non-White legal immigration, one might want to start with at least reducing legal immigration of all types, White and non-White. But even this does not seem possible. For some insane reason, both political parties are dead set on over 1 million immigrants to the US a year. There is almost zero resistance to this in the US government, and there are even efforts to increase the numbers. Well-known opponents of illegal immigrants like Lou Dobbs cheer on legal immigration, even calling for upping it to 2 million a year.

Perhaps you recall the furor when Rand Paul, candidate for Congress,  said he wanted to get rid of one of the articles in the Civil Rights Act forbidding private employers from discriminating on the basis of race in terms of employees or customers. This is actually a hallmark of Libertarian theory, and Paul has Libertarian roots. The fact that Libertarians want to get rid of all anti-discrimination legislation is why so many WN’s and other racists have gone Libertarian.

The WN movement cheered wildly when Paul opposed this part of the Civil Rights Act, and the issue was even discussed in the media at all. This was seen by them as a breach in the wall. Later, John Stossel of Fox News agreed with Rand Paul. Nevertheless, the Civil Rights Act appears pretty secure for the forseeable future.

I do agree with the WN’s that their project should be discussed in the national media. They claim there has been a media blackout of them, this blackout being led by those nasty Media Jews. I think that the people in power in general, Jews and Gentiles, simply do not wish to see the various issues the WN’s bring up discussed in public. Why?

I think they are afraid that if the project is openly discussed, its support will increase, that is, more Whites will come on board. The WN’s probably will gain some support by having their views discussed, but not enough to matter. On the other hand, putting their views out in the fresh air for everyone to see will also probably dramatically increase the opposition to their project.

The BNP is a British nationalist project in the UK that has support from many WN in the US. They abandoned White nationalism a while back in favor of British nationalism instead. They are a major political party and are in the news all the time. In the last election, they didn’t even win a single seat. Their support is around 5%, and their project is much milder than the ones the US WN’s push.

Still, there is something undemocratic about “let’s keep these folks out of the media lights since others might start agreeing with them.” And we liberals are after all democrats.

Please follow and like us:
Tweet 20

27 thoughts on “White Nationalism – What Is the Nature of the Project?”

  1. There is no such thing as White Nationalism in terms of actual political power. The movement is full of boneheads, halfwits, thugs and Nazi fetishists, which is difficult to hide even when they wear a suit and a tie. Where is the respectable politician who adheres to their views? It’s not impossible to imagine such a figure, but the troglodytes would besmirch him by agreeing with him.

    I’m guessing their only hope is a form of entryism into the Tea Party movement or into Republicanism.

    1. I believe Pat Buchanon and Glenn Beck are white nationalists though they’d never come outright and say it.

      1. What is your definition of WN? Don’t all WN want a separate state these days? There are those who want a White state and those who want to take back the US and throw out a bunch of non-Whites. Is there some other kind I don’t know about.

        Make a case for my why these guys are traditional WN. I mean, they use some of the language of it, but they are not real WN if you ask me.

        1. Buchanan wrote that book The Death of the West which is pretty compatible with anything David Duke would say. I don’t even know if Duke would work for a separate state for whites because I’m sure he knows it’s simply unfeasible.

          However, if someone gave any of these guys a magic wand that would create such a state overnight, I have little doubt they’d have any qualms about waving it. Just because someone doesn’t openly advocate a white state doesn’t mean they don’t consider it desirable. But Beck and Buchanan have mainstream careers and have to work within those confines. Listening to them over the years, I’m pretty darn sure that Buchanan is a WN. Beck MAY be one, or at least sympathetic to it. I look at the way he craftily stokes white racial resentment in the most subtle and insidious ways. I can only imagine what he thinks in private.

        2. I also think in theory I might like the idea of a WN state or reservation, though not for the reason they want it. I think it would be great if all the crazies went there. Better they live there than around me. Then at least you know where they are and don’t have to be around them.

          However, no such thing will ever happen. I mean are we supposed to ask the people of Idaho and Montana to give up their state to make David Duke their president? I don’t even think most of them would want that.

        3. Check the link.

          Definition: White nationalism is a political ideology which advocates a racial definition of national identity for white people, and a separate all-white nation state. White separatism and white supremacism are subgroups within white nationalism.

          Almost all WN’s are White Separatists. A few are White Supremacists who want to take back the US and throw out all non-Whites. White Separatists want a separate White ethnostate (secessionists). You’re either one or the other. If you don’t agree with either of those two projects, then you can’t be a White nationalist.

          There are still plenty of old variety White Supremacists out there you know, who are not WN. And lots of Whites are simply racists. I don’t believe that either Beck or Buchanan support the WN project as defined above. Sure, they use WN language, but lots of White racists do.

          I believe that Duke is a White separatist, but I am not sure.

          Just because someone doesn’t openly advocate a white state doesn’t mean they don’t consider it desirable.

          Now you are inventing definitions and reading minds like Joe McCarthy.

          But Beck and Buchanan have mainstream careers and have to work within those confines.

          Reading minds again.

          Listening to them over the years, I’m pretty darn sure that Buchanan is a WN.

          Unless he fits that definition, you can’t call him that. A lot of White Americans think America is a White country and want it to remain a White country into the future. That’s not WN. I’m not even sure if it’s racist really.

          Beck MAY be one, or at least sympathetic to it. I look at the way he craftily stokes white racial resentment in the most subtle and insidious ways.

          Well tulio, White racists do that stuff. They’ve been doing that stuff as long as they have been in the US, long before there was any lunatic WN movement.

          I don’t see what’s wrong with calling both of them White racists (especially Beck). I can’t comment too much on Buchanan, although he is an anti-Semite. 🙁

        4. Dude, the whole WN project is so fucking batshit raving lunatic insane that I can’t see any way it could possibly happen. Well, maybe it could. If they could get the support of 15-25% of US Whites, things might really get interesting. I doubt if they even have 5% support among US Whites right now.

          They already have a White separatist project called Orania in South Africa. It’s been going on for 20 years now, and it has 600 whole residents! And it’s in South Africa, where you think Whites would be swarming due to all the Black crime.

          WN is a pitiful, laughable joke. For now anyway. As far as the future, let us see.

          I would very much like to see this issue polled. I’m really curious to see how much support they have.

        5. Hmm, well the thing is, there are many black nationalist that aren’t moving to Africa or advocating to carve out the south for blacks. The Black Panthers were definitely black nationalists but I IIRC, geographic separation wasn’t part of their agenda. To many black nationalist, “the nation” is more a mindset(Pan-Africanism) than something geographically defined.

          Couldn’t whites be white nationalists without advocating a white only territory? What about the segregationists of the past? They might have had blacks amongst their midst because relocating them was unfeasible, but we essentially had a white nationalist nation where blacks could exist as second-class citizens.

        6. Well, we have to go by the definitions that we have. We can’t be calling the old White Supremacist racists of the US South in Jim Crow days White nationalists either.

          Couldn’t whites be white nationalists without advocating a white only territory?

          Guess not.

          What about the segregationists of the past? They might have had blacks amongst their midst because relocating them was unfeasible, but we essentially had a white nationalist nation where blacks could exist as second-class citizens.

          Those are just old style White Supremacists. Not White nationalists. Let’s not confuse terms here. There’s way too many of these idiots as it is. Let’s not increase their numbers please.

  2. I agree that the complete WN platform is a no-go, but I think SOME of their (more worthwhile) goals could come true in an improved environment.

    You are precisely right that America needs to start treating their opinions as at least legitimate. Current practice is to treat Rand Paul, Charles Murray and Peter Brimelow as a straight line to George Wallace. BTW, the point made on the other thread about there being no “bodies on the ground” is largely due to the lack of respect these opinions are accorded among those with the ability to punish incorrect speech, and whose ears the minorities have.

    Step one is to get rid of offensiveness codes geared toward preventing speech not in the political interest of Democratic party constituencies.

  3. The BNP is not ‘White Nationalist’. Its ideology is British Nationalism, which comprises both ethno-nationalism and civic-nationalism.

    The party abandoned racial nationalism some years ago – partly because it was incompatible in the current political climate; namely, the arrival of 600,000 white eastern Europeans on British soil. The party couldn’t campaign against this whilst the official ideology equated to: “If it’s white, it’s all right”.

    Read some of the real White Nationalist websites. They regard the BNP and Nick Griffin as an ideological sell-out.

    1. All very true.

      The thing is, to be a viable and accepted alternative to the mainstream parties, the BNP has to tone down it’s ideas and beliefs to such an extent that they lose the support of WN’s (i’m not a WN myself, though I am an anti-Zionist, anti-Globalist and am opposed to large-scale immigration).

      Nick Griffin (the leader of the BNP) is/was a buffoon, and cocked-up several opportunities to capitalise on situations. He was certainly no public-speaker and was a poor choice of leader. Perhaps if he didn’t look such a train-wreck on Question Time he would have got somewhere.

      As for Eastern Europeans, go to anywhere in Western Europe, and the Eastern Europeans cause problems. In my native Britain, they have taken jobs, driven wages to an all-new low, they commit a LOT of crime, and they DO NOT assimilate. I’ve known non-Whites that I have genuinely got on with and respected (my best friend of fifteen years is Black). I cannot say the same for Eastern Europeans. They are also horrible people in general. I’m sorry, but I have yet to see one smile or use a friendly or welcoming tone of voice (and i’m not talking about the E.E’s in their own lands).

      The irony is, the large Islamic presence in Europe is causing Nationalist groups to ally with the Jews, who should be their main enemy. These groups are Zionist-formed efforts at killing two birds with one stone; they get to get back at the Arabs, and they get to be in control of Nationalist movements and divert the attention from the Jews and Zionists.

  4. (Carol Swain is an anti-racist Black woman who is fascinated by White Nationalism and has written books on it).

    I don’t know about that, Robert. Sure, she’s studied WN’s. But I would hardly call her an anti-racist. In fact, she’s mainly conservative, and has even identified herself as such. She’s even been called an apologist for white supremacy.

    I guess we’re just arguing over rhetorical definitions here.

    Robert, you seem to think that anti-racism means opposing WN.

    And again, I don’t want to sound like a wise ass, but opposing WN hardly signifies courageous anti-racism. Even well paid neocons denounce WN. By your definition, most Americans are anti-racists.

    Most anti-racists themselves, however, have a different view of anti-racism. They think that it’s their duty to fight “institutional racism,” “white privilege,” “colorblind racism,” etc.

    Many of them don’t even care that much about WN’s.

    And Robert, as a self-identified white advocate, I think more posts criticizing radical anti-racists, who are truly enemies of whites, are in order.

  5. Also, White Nationalism is blighted by infighting.

    The only thing that they can agree on is the Fourteen Words (and even that can get divisive as the inevitable ‘Who’s White?’ debates get going).

    As mentioned around these parts, their presence is almost entirely online. Sites such as Stormfront are absolutely plagued with ‘reds’, Zionists, State infiltrators and the like. The actual WN’s on these sites tend to be either typical, lowly-educated ‘rednecks’, as you Yanks call them. There are some more ‘impressive’ ones, but they are in the minority. How they are achieving anything by debating between themselves on the Internet I do not understand. None of them seem to be eager to do anything in reality.

    Don Black and Stormfront is full of it, any way. Nationalists of several decades who have met him and had dealings with him have said that he is himself a sell-out and is only in it for what he can get (the money from ‘Sustaining Members’, for one). Some SF moderators have also been found giving WN’s details to the Establishment. There are numerous fallings-out, and stupid hierarchy and a lot of division, especially for a racially-united WN site. In short, after myself studying WN some, it is a mess and a joke of a movement.

  6. You do not have to expel non-whites to create a white nation, or at least a mostly white nation, over time. Cut off welfare, end affirmative action and all immigration from non white nations, maybe increase it from Eastern Europe, and in a few decades you could be back to say 85-90% white. Which I think would be a fine place.

  7. Portland Realist, your name reminds me of this:
    Portland is by far the whitest city (if you mean the centre of the city) in the US. White Nationalists would be better off moving there, rather than the wilds of Montana.

    Ironically, Portland is a hotbed of liberalism. In this sense it can be compared to Scandinavia… relatively white and monocultural, but very liberal.

    1. Ironically, liberalism may be the white races’ greatest gift to humanity, and it’s totally lost on “white nationalists.”

      1. That is strange. But one guy, Ian Jobling, was forming a WN movement that was based on liberalism. As liberal as a movement that wants to get rid of anti-discrimination laws can be. He’s also a ferocious opponent of anti-Semitism and fascism in the movement. He had a number of Jews on his board. After a while, he renounced WN. But he eventually closed his shop down.

        Interesting guy for a racist.

      2. This is kind of where I am. I support the kind of liberalism that’s pro-worker, consumer and reasonable environmentalist. What I detest is they way both political parties have become beholden to extremist core constituencies. The housing bubble (business gave terrible loans to NAMs who bought houses they shouldn’t) and illegal immigration (cheap labor in exchange for government benefits) are two issues that crystalize the way there’s no party for the average guy.

        The Democrats claim minorities live in a world of inherent oppression in which whites owe minorities whatever they claim. The Republicans think business doesn’t need to be regulated by anything but the free market.

        We need a government dominated by the interests of the guy (or gal) who does real work for a living.

    2. Yeah, funny the whitest place is the most liberal. Rumor has it we had the single largest turnout for Obama when he came to town, 75,000!


      Literally you cannot find a full size pick up for miles, except for mine of course. It’s a strange strange place. Chocked full of white guilt. Black people are moving here though, once they find out they are treated like royalty by the white douchebags here. That is except for the police, hee hee hee. The monoculture here is none other than niggerworship, for lack of a better word.

      Also, we have very low crime, hmm, I wonder why?

      1. Mikelevine,

        From the link you posted:

        “Portland’s lack of diversity means it is less cosmopolitan, less dynamic and at risk of being less competitive than other metro areas, worries David Bragdon, president of the Metro regional government.”

        So portland is too white at 78%. L.A. is 77% non-white, if we were to criticize that as “not white enough” we would be evil Nazis but it is the same exact criticism in reverse. Racism sure is ugly.

  8. Quick comment on Pat Buchanan as a “white nationalist”: strange that he chose Ezola Foster, a black woman, as his running mate in 2000.

  9. “Bay Area Guy
    You’re right, we do have hearts of stone when it comes to blacks.

    We don’t like you, and we never will.

    So for all those blacks who lament the fact that suburbs are not diverse enough, or that we don’t genuinely welcome blacks into our midst, you might as well stop trying to bother with us.

    And I think all whites should be required to read your blog and other black blogs.

    If they knew what blacks truly thought of them, they would disabuse themselves of their naive “can’t we just get along” racial liberalism, and start to adopt a pro-white mentality.

    So Abagond, keep up the good work! Thanks for letting us know exactly what your kind thinks of us!”

    BAG Hit the nail on the head with this one!

    We should unite instead of always worrying about whether we look or sound racist or not to blacks.

    THEY hate us, the majority of blacks and even if we try to be “better” in their eyes it would still never be enough.

Leave a Reply

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


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)