Apr 19, 2016

White Nationalism FAQ

via Atlantic Centurion

There seems to be a bit of confusion lately over White nationalism, on Twitter and elsewhere. All too often, I see the same misconceptions parroted and read the same questions or critiques over and over again, with only a hundred or so characters to try to respond with. It gets tiring tbh, fam. With that in mind, I wanted to create a simple Q&A style reference post about White nationalism as I personally interpret it, which I hope you goys will find useful in your outreach efforts and ideological formation. If not, have at it in the comments. And with that, the bait is set.

What is White nationalism?

White nationalism is the idea that the nation-state should exist or be brought into existence on the basis of race, for our purposes, the White race. The White race consists of the indigenous gentile peoples of Europe and those who migrated to her settler colonies around the world. Acknowledging that identity is inherent to all in-groups, White nationalists assert that a multiracial society leads to a multitude of identity-derived problems which are best solved by separating these groups as much as possible. This is especially true when one race is faced with demographic destruction in its own country while the others stand to gain. Majority rule means the majority will rule.

White nationalism serves as an expedient method of providing security and space for White people to survive and raise families in, and the family unit is the building block of civilization. This is crucial considering that the most basic impulse of any organism is survival, and the current configuration of many White majority societies around the world is such that they will become White minority societies in our lifetimes. With that in mind, White nationalism is not an ideology of negation or hostility, but one of self-advocacy and collective interest in the face of those threats.

What about European nationalism(s)? Being White isn’t enough to warrant unity between Portugal and Ukraine.

On the Continent, yes, the basis for nationalism is different. There are long-established peoples with divergent histories, cultures, politics, etc. One’s ethnicity lines up with one’s nation almost exactly, with few exceptions, such as in Britain and Spain. In fact, the examples of Britain and Spain show that national unions have the potential to work, but with a greater amount of friction than otherwise. What holds across all of these nation-states is that they are White in terms of race. Hence, there is no incompatibility between the theory of White nationalism and its most obvious expression in Europe, which is that of the European nation-state.

What about Pan-Europeanism? Is that what White nationalists want?

Some do. I personally think a federated Europe of nations will not work and would prefer a sort of sacrosanct alliance that deals with external threats only, and allows each nation-state to manage its own affairs to the degree that it can without chafing against the others. In a federated Europe, much like the European Union we have now, it is obvious to all parties that one nation is the most powerful and the others are strung along; this fuels resentment and resistance. Additionally, the centralization and un-accountability of the EU makes it a powerful tool for exporting degeneracy; something a confederation is at less risk of due due to decentralization and the autonomy of its parts. If one  unit goes bad, it has less power to spread it to the rest if they are compartmentalized behind borders and different administration.

If Brussels had its way, every country in the EU would take in as many Afro-Islamic colonists as it decreed. In the EU today, it is indeed the more nationalistic countries such as Poland and Hungary that resist multiculturalism and race-suicide the most and the federation that encourages those harms. Could a racially conscious Pan-European superstate work? Maybe. But that’s not a core goal of White nationalism in my opinion. More important is to secure any territory anywhere in Europe or the settler colonies where Whites can regulate their own affairs and exist without facing forced minoritization and extinction thereafter.

The United States doesn’t have a ethnic national identity like European countries do, it is a product of immigration. What national unity is there between Irish- and German-Americans, for example, if you reject Pan-Europeanism?

I believe there is a national identity, just a different kind. In European settler colonies like the United States, there are few ethnic differences between the components of the European-derived or White population after generations of mixture and co-inhabitation. While millions and millions of people claim different European national ancestries and sometimes several at the same time, it is highly LARPy to suggest an nth-generation Irish-American or German-American is actually an Irish person or a German person. They are native-born, English-speaking, White people of mixed ethnic origins, or what I like to call Anglo-Americans. A foreign-born European American who natively speaks his non-English ancestral tongue is another story, but those are in the minority and are extremely likely to be assimilated.

Another issue to consider is that these hyphenated identities largely exist in reaction to multiculturalism and the anti-white bias of our elite social, academic, and public institutions. Prior to the ascendancy of New Left in the 1960s, “American” was simply understood to mean a White person, domestically and abroad, as the country was nearly 90% White and immigration had been severely restricted for two generations. But under the new paradigm of Whiteness as original sin, positive identification with Whiteness becomes a uncomfortable position. By claiming one or more ancestral European nationality as their primary identity rather than “White,” one can try to special-snowflake their way out of being labelled and criticized as White. The joke is on them though. ((((Noel Ignatiev)))) and his ilk don’t honestly think Irish- or Italian-Americans are non-white; the thesis is that they became White. We are in this together, potato goy.

These European ancestries, furthermore, can be found across the country. While some areas are more concentrated than others, every county in America almost definitely has Irish, German, and English descended people. What largely dominates in the United States more than European ancestry/ancestries alone in terms of identification are regional cultures (e.g. Northeast, South, Appalachia, Midwest) which have their roots in the founding European settler population(s), historical events, and the social, natural, and political environment of each area. These differences, while significant, are not substantial enough to warrant separation in most cases since there is a common language, history, and shared racial origin that facilitates integration and assimilation across regional lines. With that in mind, Anglo-American nationalism is thus a very plausible implementation of the ideal of White nationalism in the context of the United States and the settler colonial experience.


Isn’t the United States too racially diverse for White nationalism to work?

Yeah and Algeria had too many Frenchmen, Italians, and Sephardim for Algerian nationalism to work. Just kidding, the West allows nationalism when the nation in question is non-white. Europeans had to leave most of Africa and Asia en masse during decolonization. Look, some people are going to have to go home. Some people might even have new homelands created for them. Personally I think the United States ought to be partitioned into ethnostates and multi-ethnic countries, or could face a Soviet-style collapse one day. It sounds distant now, but it’s not impossible. You just need a new paradigm.

What about ethnic and racial minorities?

My perspective is as follows: 1.) most people live where they do because of economic incentives, and 2.) there has never been a totally homogeneous society larger than a village. These truths have consequences. First of all, if people came to the United States or Europe for shekels, they can be persuaded, convinced, and if need be cajoled into leaving, for shekels. And we don’t care where they go, because as White nationalists our first duty is to our own people (which is how most of the non-Western world behaves, mind you). There is an old Arab proverb that goes something like, “me against my brother, me and my brother against my cousin, me and my cousin against the world.” You get the idea; we have to take care of our own. We could pay countries to receive emigrants like Australia does with its neighbors in order to redirect kebab boat people away from their continent. If we’re nice we could even pay people outright to go somewhere else as part of a colonization scheme (and you will find minority radicals who agree with this). We could also reduce their credit and employment opportunities to provide more incentives if need be, though that would be considered mean.

I think any one of these strategies or a combination of would result in most non-white people leaving, for perhaps their native countries or elsewhere in the colored world, which could no doubt benefit from an influx of Western educated and skilled migrants, or even unskilled labor. Our capitalists certainly thought importing them was a good idea. Who does this leave behind? Probably very few minorities (who are also potentially assimilable due to reduced numbers and their active decision to stay behind) and/or minorities who are relevant to diplomacy or business with foreign countries. Would it be unthinkable for a White nationalist state to have a 10-15% minority population in its ports or larger cities? No, it would be a regular country. And it goes without saying that they would be here on terms of good behavior and cordiality. Nothing less would be rationally tolerated.

Did you just say there would be minorities in a White ethnostate? REEEEEEEEEE!

Well, probably. A 90% White country with non-white immigration banned sounds like a really good deal to be honest. Unless we want to be landlocked into the Midwest with no routes to Europe or Oceania, there will be minorities (even the Midwest has those actually). And such demographics would be temporary, because I guarantee you whatever circumstances led to the creation of White nation-states in North America, Europe, and/or Oceania would also lead to White immigration to those states. For comparison, the United States actually became Whiter over the 19th century by a similar process, with the predominately black non-white population losing share to the influx of Europeans. This was brought to a halt by the 1965 ((((Hart-Celler Act)))), which got rid of the quota system favoring immigration from Britain, Ireland, and Germany. Since then the United States has become increasingly colored, due to majority non-white immigration over the last few decades. You won’t get what you want overnight; even the left knows this.


Is White nationalism the same thing as Nazism/fascism?

I must confess that I am not very well-versed in the minutia of Nazism/fascism. But the simple answer is an emphatic no, they are not the same thing. Nazism, or national socialism, is a particular brand of totalitarian ultra-nationalistic right-wing populism that thrived in interwar Germany and Austria until the end of WWII. In practice, the Nazis set about helotizing other (non-German) nations, making it a kind of imperialism as well, and posited that the Nordic sub-race of the White race was the master race. None of this is inherent to White nationalism. Fascism is distinct from both White nationalism and Nazism, though closer to the latter but with less emphasis on Germany. Our opponents, out of malice, laziness, or both, automatically equate anything right-wing with Nazism/fascism anyway, so keep that in mind when you hear these terms lumped together. There are people who consider themselves both White nationalists and Nazis/fascists (the so-called 1488ers), but these are not the same thing, and one does not require the other.

This is something entirely different

What about the Jews? Can’t you cool it with the anti-Semitic remarks?

Greg Johnson has the most straightforward take on the Jewish Question that I have read:
The Jewish question is not distinct from ethnonationalism. It is ethnonationalism applied to Jews. Thus no ethnonationalist is entitled to abstain from it. Once one recognizes that Jews are a distinct people, the ethnonationalist solution to the Jewish question is Jewish nationalism, i.e., Zionism.
Of course, as is well-understood on the alt-right, contrary to anything ((((Milo)))) has to say:
The disproportionate influence of an elite Jewish minority in Western societies has been a net negative. Jews, who have a three thousand year history of regulating their communities to be as insular as possible among the nations whose territory they dwell in have a consistent pattern of promoting the interests of their own ethnoreligious minority at the expense of the majority nation.
Jews are history’s original tribalists, and they have their own well-fortified ethnostate, complete with border fences and majoritarian immigration policies. That so many political Jews oppose border control in the West and support anti-majority policies is a telling form of hypocrisy. But it doesn’t have to be this way. They too can go home. That is what nationalism is all about.

This all seems very future-oriented. We clearly don’t have any power to make policy decisions. What are White nationalists supposed to do right now?

This is a widely debated topic and different people propose different solutions. I am of the opinion that the most important avenues of attack for us are media and culture, not the political process or forming a party. In the United States, a White nationalist party would have to compete against the rigid two-party system. Furthermore, anyone running against a White nationalist candidate for office would essentially be given a blank check by the occupying powers to fund their campaign.

The strategy I prefer is metapolitical. Our ideas are the truth and we must evangelize our truth to our people through social, cultural, and literary means. This is how nationalism came to dominate societies before the victory of materialism over tribalism during the World Wars, and we in the 21st century are aided in our struggle by new media platforms that are decentralized and instantaneous. When the idea of White nationalism has taken root among enough of our people, the potential to demand, demonstrate, and act will be superior to what it currently is.

One interesting contemporary model that can be found overseas is in Egypt. Since the end of colonialism, Egyptian society has re-Islamicized away from what was a secular and ((((cosmopolitan)))) social order. This was not done through political parties, but institutions like the Muslim Brotherhood, which provides its members and their families with media, services, and camaraderie. We aren’t there yet. But we do have media and meet-ups. We are trying to build meatspace connections and new social realities. What is the relevance between our situations, value judgments about Islam aside? In the West, we seek to regain the racial consciousness that once reigned, just as Muslim societies have tried to reassert their traditional religious principles. Our identity is suppressed by political correctness and the influence of ((((postwar German-American academics)))), just as their religion was suppressed by foreign conquerors. We can undo our situation, and we need to do it by changing minds.

I wouldn’t be able to fully answer this question, however, without recommending that you send us some shekels. Hosting costs money. And the more we have the more we can expand our outreach and improve the quality and quantity of our materials. It’s better than buying dildos or video game DLC. It’s an investment in the future of White nationalist media and promoting racial consciousness.

Oh and of course, get in shape, get skilled, and try to work on the whole “future for White children” thing. This entire project is all pointless if our resident EMT has to drive your bariatric ass to the hospital at age 35 because you became fused to your swivel chair after marathoning chinese cartoons. Don’t be the last man, be the first of a new line.

Why Do "Anti-Racist" Republicans Hate the Free Market?

via The Right Stuff

A few months ago, Ben Shapiro went on record advocating for hunting down racists and harming their careers.
“It would be idiotic to think otherwise. Of course there are legitimate racists and we should target them and we should find them and we should ruin their careers because racism is unacceptable.”
Rightly so, actually right-wing voices like Vox Day (who has had Shapiro’s number since the early 2000’s) called Ben out on his authoritarian baloney.

Flash forward a few months, a hoax and a resignation from Breitbart later, Shapiro has responded to the right wing’s rejection of his anti-racist framework. In the article "BREAKING: Apparently, I’m Now A Social Justice Warrior!," Shapiro makes the argument that what he said was fine because he meant we should harm the careers of those who enact racist ideas instead of those who just express racist ideas. This is absurd and runs counter to his supposed love of the free market.

Let’s pretend a widget business is run by a fellow who refuses to hire Blacks. If that is an irrational policy, a similar company—without these horrible racist rules—can swoop in and outcompete the other company. It will have a bigger pool of talent to pull from, and as such, customers will move from Company Racist to the functionally better Company Perfect Equality.

However, if Company Racist (CR) continues to thrive and outcompete Company Perfect Equality (CPE), the wrongthink policies of CR must better reflect reality than CPE’s policies.

Why, then, should we enact Ben Shapiro’s vision of social justice on Company Racist? If their policies are wrong, they’ll lose out naturally. If their policies are working and they’re thriving, why should they be hunted down by the mob and harmed? It’s just good business. In America’s capitalist market, there is no need for the pearl-clutching anti-racists to tinker around.

Let’s put it in terms that Ben may better understand. For argument’s sake, let’s say a Jewish barber lives in a town where a bunch of evil White nationalists exist. These White nationalists are so horrid, they think that White people have the right to live in a country without any Blacks, Asians, or Jews. Currently, these monstrous White nationalists live in peace–albeit through gritted teeth–with Blacks, Asians, and even Jews.

The Jewish barber, understandably uncomfortable around White nationalists, should be allowed to ban whites from entering his shop. Yes, such a policy would be racist. That’s OK! If the barber doesn’t create enough value for the rest of the community, his business will fail. If the business doesn’t fail, that means the barber is still creating value.

If there is enough demand, an inclusive barber shop will pop up. The racist Jewish barber is happy, the new barber shop is happy, and the evil White nationalists are happy. There’s nothing wrong with discrimination.

Perhaps Shapiro and his authoritarian ilk are ignorant regarding basic economics. Maybe they wish to control discourse and set the boundaries of acceptable political discourse. It’s probably a mix of both. Either way, they don’t bother to make an actual case why their version of the PC police is any better than the current version of the PC police.

Is all of Conservatism, Inc. this lacking in intellectual rigor? No wonder the last thirty years have consisted of nothing but failure for the self-proclaimed voices of the right.

The War on Afrikaans: A Fight about Language Is Really a Fight about Race

via American Renaissance

Two months ago, student demonstrators burned two buildings at the all-black Mafikeng campus of South Africa’s North West University. One was the main administration building, which housed all university records. The administration was forced to close the campus indefinitely. Ironically, the black students immediately asked if they could then be housed at the university’s majority-white Potchefstroom campus, where heavy security was put in place to stop any would-be arsonists.

At about the same time, the University of Pretoria was closed for at least two weeks after clashes between white and black students over what was euphemistically termed its “language policy.” Trouble started in late 2015, when examinations had to be postponed by one week.

Troubles of this kind are a sharp departure from the tradition of South African universities. The University of Pretoria is not like Europe’s left-wing universities with their graffiti-covered walls. Its manicured lawns and pristine buildings testify to a seriousness and austerity that barely tolerates student politics.

One would have to go back many years to find a political disturbance even remotely like the kind we see today. In 1919, an Afrikaner-nationalist student, W.J. Erlank, burned a British flag at the University of Pretoria and was expelled for it. He later became a famous Afrikaans poet under the pen name of “Eitemal,” but not even that incident disturbed the rigid succession of semesters and examinations.

“Eitemal” in a marble frieze of the Voortrekker Monument.

The growing presence of black students has clearly changed our campuses. Black hostility towards the Afrikaans language derives from a variety of causes, but it is often claimed that Afrikaans is “associated with Afrikaner rule and with apartheid.” However, underneath the surface there are various other reasons why blacks and leftists resent Afrikaans. Whether blacks study in English or in Afrikaans, they get lower grades and have higher dropout rates. This leads to resentment of university administrations and of whites generally.

On the English-language campuses black failure is normally ascribed either to white racism or the lingering effects of their parents’ or grandparents’ “deficient education.” But on the Afrikaans campuses, where most blacks can also take classes in English, there is a theory that “whites do better because they are studying in their mother tongue.” Since 1976 onwards, South African blacks have explicitly rejected any form of mother-tongue education because of its association with “Bantu education,” or the form of segregated black education that had evolved during the 20th century under white governments.

Blacks saw English as a kind of magic ticket to American-style consumerism. Under the administration of President Jimmy Carter, there was an American “information campaign” in Soweto to get local blacks to adopt the US discourse of civil rights which, of course, was all in English. If they spoke global English, all black children would grow up to become politicians, bankers, or businessmen, and not carpenters, plumbers, or auto mechanics communicating only with their lowly brothers in the so-called townships of South Africa.

Prestige and social status play a huge role in Africa. Presidents in Mercedes-Benz S-class vehicles escorted with flashing lights have perhaps become the symbol of postcolonial Africa and South Africa is no exception. What goes for cars, goes for languages, and global English is seen as the Mercedes of languages. Many aspiring middle-class South African blacks are actually ditching their own languages to speak English to their children.

So anti-Afrikaans hostility is at best a paradox. On the one hand, blacks tend to see Afrikaans as “just another local language,” which of course it isn’t. Although standardized in South Africa in the 19th century, it is a European language sharing 95 percent of its vocabulary with modern Dutch. However absurd this may sound outside (and even within) South Africa, Afrikaans is seen by blacks as a kind of “upstart white language” and bearer of “white privilege.” According to many blacks, Afrikaans students perform better because they enjoy a “better rapport with lecturers.” Blacks and leftists also claim that Afrikaans culture is inherently “racist” and leads to segregation.

In my view, these are mere rationalizations for a deep racial resentment against whites. The real reason blacks wish to “abolish Afrikaans” at universities is that it would be a way of hurting Afrikaners by taking away something they obviously value. In the background, there are white liberals and leftists whose own power has always depended on inciting black racial narcissism and resentment. As in the United States, white liberals relish the sight of black mobs causing mayhem which they may blame on white racism and “exclusion.” Such whites find Afrikaans an expedient target and they have used it with success to focus black rage on their enemies: those “racist” or “right-wing” whites who still cling to some kind of Western or European identity.

Apart from demanding no annual increase in college fees, or no fees at all under the slogan “Fees must fall,” blacks have issued a new ultimatum: “Afrikaans must fall.” Before the ANC came to power, the University of Pretoria, for example, was an all-Afrikaans university, but mindful of government pressure, it now offers lectures in both Afrikaans and English.


A dual language policy is not enough, however, for black radical groups on campus. One such group is the youth branch of Julius Malema’s Afro-Marxist Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF). It styles itself as a kind of urban guerilla movement. Its members wear red shirts and military-style berets, and call themselves the EFF “Student Command.” Together with other groups such as PASMA (Pan-African Students Movement of Azania) and UPrising, it claims that Afrikaner students are “advantaged” by being able to study or write exams in their own language while blacks must contend with English. Naturally, every white or even Indian English-speaker is equally “advantaged” by being educated in his home language, but somehow that does not count.

Another argument for “abolishing Afrikaans” is that since African languages are not developed enough to be used at university level, Afrikaans should not be “privileged” in this way either. This is like saying that because there is no Inuit-language university in Canada, no courses should be taught in French. Also, blacks say they do not feel welcome in places where they hear Afrikaans, especially in university dormitories where “Afrikaner culture is forced upon them.”

The sense of black entitlement in South Africa has come to resemble that of the blacks at Princeton who recently invaded the office of president Christopher Eisgruber, where they shouted, “We own this place, it is ours!” Most blacks consider South Africa’s universities to be “theirs.” The whites who founded and developed them are passing tenants who should soon be issued eviction orders. So it is often claimed that white Afrikaners (who pay far more taxes on average than blacks) are “wasting our money on maintaining their language.” In addition, most whites pay their own way to study at university, while blacks get scholarships or government loans–which few ever repay.

The assault on Afrikaner heritage can be violent. At the Pretoria campus, white male students blocked off menacing blacks and kept damage to a minimum, but not so at the University of the Free State in Bloemfontein and the University of Cape Town, where black mobs have attacked statues and torn paintings from walls and burned them.

One statue destroyed was that of Charles Robberts Swart, who replaced the British monarch as titular head of state when South Africa became a republic in 1961. The Commonwealth threatened to impose black rule even then, prompting prime minister Hendrik Verwoerd to withdraw from that body. C.R. Swart was a lawyer and farmer who founded the Voortrekkers, the Afrikaner equivalent of the Boy Scouts. He offended no one and eventually retired to his farm “De Aap” (Dutch for “The Ape”) in his beloved Free State. However, his statue on the Bloemfontein campus was attacked by a black mob armed with metal bars who toppled it from its plinth and lit a bonfire around it. I doubt anyone in the mob had actually researched Swart or even knew who he was. He was simply a symbol of South Africa’s white past and therefore anathema.

C.R. Swart’s statue was vandalized more or less with the acquiescence of the university’s president, the coloured (mixed-race in South African parlance) Jonathan Jansen who self-identifies as “black,” and his vice president, a white Argentinian left-wing lesbian by the name of Lis Lange.

One would think that the Spanish-speaking Lange would have some tolerance for a non-English language such as Afrikaans, but no. She has been in the forefront of attempts to ban Afrikaans from lecture halls at the University of the Free State. Because of a kind of university executive decree, barring a court ruling to the contrary, from 2017 there will be no more Afrikaans instruction at the University of the Free State. The Free State is arguably the most Afrikaans-speaking province in South Africa; even the Sotho-speaking blacks speak it among themselves as a lingua franca. But such is the racial and cultural poison that has now taken possession of South Africa.

Hostility has reached the point that even the leader of the South African Communist Party and Minister of Higher Education, Dr. Blade Nzimande, has warned against “the danger of racial conflict” that could come from “anti-white chauvinism.” He was referring specifically to the slogan, “Kill all whites,” worn on T-shirts by black students at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, but he also reaffirmed the ANC regime’s stance of not being officially hostile to Afrikaans. As he explained in an interview:
We are not fighting Afrikaans. Afrikaans is one of our official languages. But what we are against is for Afrikaans to be used to exclude students who do not actually speak the language, at a university level. That is what is a problem.
Of course, all languages “exclude” others. The Russians, the French, the Japanese, the Italians, the Poles, for example, have universities in their own languages, and produce books and films that “exclude” anyone who can’t speak those languages. But in South Africa, the argument is that any institution that does not bend over backwards to accommodate black students in their preferred language–usually English–“excludes” them.

In the United States, we can imagine Hispanic students demanding that the University of Texas offer all courses in Spanish as well as English so as not to “exclude” them. If that demand were met, white students would still get better grades, so the next step would be to demand that English be abolished and that all courses be taught in Spanish. That would “level the playing field” and “bring diversity to the student body.”

For black students in South Africa, Afrikaans is a target because it is a language few of them speak. But the larger target is whites. Blacks vandalized the statue of the English-speaking imperialist and statesman Cecil Rhodes at the University of Cape Town with the same anti-white ardor as the bronze image of C.R. Swart. As I wrote a year ago on the first wave of violent protest against white symbols:
The actual removal by truck and crane (of Rhodes’s statue) was a considerable victory for the anti-white side, as it was broadcast on national television, with pictures in all the newspapers. Excited young blacks climbed onto the statue as it was being lifted, throwing paint on the old imperialist, as if vicariously attacking the entire white population and everything it has done for four centuries.
The reason South African blacks are so “besotted with English,” as I have put it, has nothing to do with it being the language of England and America, and therefore a repository of Western culture. They see it instead as an instrument of power and status. English goes with an S-class Mercedes, a Rolex watch, or a pair of Gucci shoes.

At Johannesburg’s biggest shopping centre, the 1,380,000 square-feet Sandton City complex, there is a whole corridor devoted to luxury European brands: Gucci, Louis Vuitton, Armani, Prada, Dolce & Gabanna, Cartier, etc. One hardly ever sees white people at these temples of luxury; the store assistants are black and the customers are black, except for a few Asian tourists perhaps staying in the nearby five-star hotels. The world of that kind of status is already black. Increasingly, I am beginning to understand why stoicism became a popular philosophy among patrician Romans during the days of Empire.

Africans are very aware of status and rank. Joseph Mobutu, the long-time dictator of Zaire, officially changed his name to Mobutu Sese Seko Nkuku Ngbendu Wa Za Banga, which means, roughly, “The all-powerful warrior who, because of his endurance and inflexible will to win, will go from conquest to conquest, leaving fire in his wake.” He also bestowed titles on himself, such as “Father of the Nation,” “Messiah,” and “Savior of the People.”


Fourteen whites bow before Idi Amin in 1975 and pledge to fight for Uganda.
Idi Amin Dada’s full title, as announced by Radio Uganda in 1977, was “His Excellency President for Life, Field Marshal Alhaji Dr. Idi Amin Dada, VC, DSO, MC, CBE.” The last abbreviation stood for “Conqueror of the British Empire.”

If one digs a little deeper into the racial conflicts on South African campuses, one finds a constant interplay between superiority and inferiority. Just as Amin felt that he had “conquered” Britain, South African blacks interpret F.W. de Klerk’s haphazard surrender in 1994 to the ANC and South African Communist Party as a “grand victory” after years of “heroic struggle.” There is about as little factual evidence for this as of Amin’s conquest of the United Kingdom, yet this delusion is recited every day in the media. Mr. de Klerk thought he was negotiating a settlement, but according to the black version, or the white-liberal one–which amounts to essentially the same thing–he was negotiating the terms of white surrender.

And yet one arrives at a paradox: The son or daughter of a Mercedes-driving, Gucci-wearing, English-speaking black person, displaying all the accouterments of Western status and success, would still have a sense of “inferiority” when encountering a group of middle-class white kids engaging in some minor Afrikaner student ritual at one of the university residences. Either he would feel “excluded” from it, or if he participated, he would feel that it was being “imposed” on him.

Another argument frequently heard about statues and names of lecture halls, is that they remind blacks–and their white-liberal lackeys–of a “painful past” or of “white-supremacist history.” Likewise, the Afrikaans language itself is often called, even in the American and British media, “the language of apartheid.” Given that white-run South Africa was an officially bilingual country, like Canada or Belgium, English was also “a language of apartheid,” but somehow that does not count. For blacks, Afrikaans is the linguistic enemy, whereas they praise English as a “global” or “international” language.

The mainstream media of South Africa never refer to it, but there is an additional source of frustration on campus: black failure. In order to get a matric or a high-school diploma these days, one needs a 30 percent score in three subjects and 40 percent in another three. It is almost impossible to fail, yet many blacks still manage to. Those who do get the matric arrive all starry-eyed at some university where they are completely overwhelmed by the complexity of the material, and almost invariably drop out within the first six months. Then they have a government-sponsored loan to repay or they might even owe money to the university. They become ready recruits for the army of “activists” or “protesters” in and around the universities. They agitate against statues and Afrikaans or in favor of being given a second chance at passing their first year.

Although the universities maintain a blanket of silence over pass rates for the different races, here and there it is admitted that the black dropout rate is substantially higher than the white rate. A whole panoply of reasons is advanced for this, including “being disadvantaged by substandard schools,” a “lack of resources and encouragement at home,” “the legacy of apartheid and segregation,” and not being able to study in their own African languages.

If anyone announced to blacks that from tomorrow on they were to study in their home language they would surely burn the campus down. In fact, the famous black school riots of 1976 were against having African languages in the classroom, “mother-tongue education” being one of the ideas of the old white government’s educationists. Recognizing early on that relatively few blacks benefited from a strictly academic education, so-called “Bantu Education” used elements of German-style vocational training in order to give blacks marketable skills. It was also thought that blacks could evolve their own educational systems in their own languages, with schools and universities in black languages such as Zulu, Xhosa, Sotho, Tswana, Pedi, Venda, and Tsonga.

Scene from the 1976 protests.

Speak to any Québecois, and he will extol the virtues of education in his native French. Suggest the same thing to a South African black and he will accuse you of racism and trying to deprive him of global English, that magical language.

And yet, this lack of home-language instruction is often cited to explain the achievement gap. This then leads to the notion that, at least at the universities where Afrikaans is still used, Afrikaners enjoy an advantage over blacks by getting instruction in their home language. Afrikaans should therefore be “abolished” in the name of “equality.” Prof. J.C. or “Jaap” Steyn, who is an absolute fount of knowledge about South Africa’s tortured linguistic history, called this the quest for “an equality of misery.”

At least until recently, white students who spoke English as their mother tongue benefited from predominantly Afrikaans universities because they offered a serious, Western education, as opposed to the decidedly left-wing instruction of the former English universities: Natal, Rhodes (in Grahamstown), Cape Town, and Wits (the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg). Many conservative, English-speaking parents preferred to send their children to an Afrikaans university, rather than turn them into Marxists, feminists, or drug addicts–South Africa was still coping with the aftermath of the hippie era.

Afrikaans universities have therefore always been very tolerant and helpful towards non-Afrikaans speakers. Even before black rule, at some Afrikaans universities up to 20 percent of the students were English-speakers. They would attend lectures in Afrikaans, but use English textbooks and often write exams in English.

Unlike in Canada or Belgium, which are divided by language, English and Afrikaans whites generally get along very well and are bilingual to varying degrees. Only a small, virulently liberal elite eschews Afrikaans completely and hates the language for being associated with “white supremacy,” “patriarchy,” “heteronormativity,” and all the other clichés. So the initial influx of English-speakers at Stellenbosch caused no real problem.

At all-English universities, change was rapid after blacks took over. The University of Natal (now Kwazulu-Natal) was one of the first to be “Africanized,” and quickly slipped out of the top 500 universities world-wide. A liberal academic, R. W. Johnson, has described the reign of its fundamentalist black principal, Malegapuru Makgoba, who once claimed that blacks had surpassed whites on the evolutionary scale. Prof. Johnson says Africanization under Makgoba has been “calamitous.”

The result was white flight on a massive scale. The mostly English-speaking population of Natal province started sending their children to the University of Stellenbosch, which then changed from 100 percent Afrikaans to moderately bilingual Afrikaans-English. Only a few years ago, the government and liberal media complained bitterly that 94 percent of “Maties” (pronounced “maaties”) as the students are colloquially known, were still white.

I once had an online conversation with an English-speaking student from Natal province at Stellenbosch who said she enjoyed learning Afrikaans and interacting with Afrikaner students. Growing up in Natal, it was easy to get the impression that South Africa was an English-speaking country, but Stellenbosch had shown her how widespread Afrikaans culture was in most other provinces.

Black students campaign for an end to Afrikaans instruction at Stellenbosch.

Black students campaign for an end to Afrikaans instruction at Stellenbosch.
There was similar “white flight” in Johannesburg, though it was the Afrikaans-speaking university that succumbed first. There used to be two universities in Johannesburg, one English and one Afrikaans, within walking distance of each another. The Rand Afrikaans University (RAU) was long vilified by liberal academics from the English University of the Witwatersrand for being reactionary and even racist because it had few, if any black students. Its beautiful, modern campus, built during the 1970s, was even described as “fascist architecture.”

As soon as the ANC came to power, then-Minister of Education, Kader Asmal, merged RAU with two low-grade black institutions, ensuring a large black student body. Within a few years the campus went from white and Afrikaans to black and English. Some white students left to attend the rural University of Potchefstroom and some to the University of Pretoria. RAU is now called the University of Johannesburg.

Liberal, English “Wits” continued unscathed for a while, until its student body started to change, too. Towards the end of last year it bore the brunt of the student riots during the so-called “Fees must fall” agitation, with its principal, Adam Habib, being more or less held hostage by black students in the main administration building, where he was forced to “listen to their demands.” Most English-speaking whites in Johannesburg have now deserted Wits in favor of the University of Pretoria, which also used to be exclusively Afrikaans-speaking.


So we see that white students are now clustered in a handful of universities: Pretoria, Stellenbosch, Potchefstroom, and the Free State, all four of which were previously Afrikaans-only. There are also the University of Cape Town and the small Rhodes campus in Grahamstown, both exclusively English, which have also managed to maintain a student body that is more or less half white. Except for Rhodes, which does not make much national news, all the others have become “theaters of racial and cultural conflict”–because of fights over statues, paintings, names of buildings, the Afrikaans language, or other signs of white history.

The parallels with the United States are obvious; the only difference is that South Africa is further down the road to “the great replacement,” as French author Renaud Camus calls it. Eventually, all whites could be replaced by other races and their institutions changed or “transformed,” to use the politically correct South African cliché, into places where even the memory of the founders is “offensive” to the new owners.

At the same time, there is a sense among blacks that whites must be prevented from getting degrees. In the face of draconian affirmative-action laws and de facto discrimination against whites at all levels, a white child’s only hope is to get a sought-after degree that will enable him to get a job, regardless of racial quotas. Not surprisingly, one of the complaints against white students by blacks is that “they do not protest,” and that they complain when black threats or rioting bring the university to a standstill. For blacks, just wanting to study is an aberration.

The media are also to blame for the almost constant upheavals on campuses. As one liberal academic, Robert Morrell of the University of Cape Town, recently put it:
Campus violence has up to now occurred with virtually no action taken against perpetrators. They have operated with impunity. I cannot speculate about the reasons for the lack of consequence that has attended the perpetration of violence but the widespread sympathy of the media has contributed to the view that students are “right” and that their actions are therefore justified. In this sense, the media are complicit with the perpetration of campus violence because they contribute to a climate that legitimizes it.
Some whites are starting to fight back. On February 22, during a rugby game between the University of the Free State and another university from Port Elizabeth on the East Coast, a group of black student protesters forced their way onto the pitch, where they sang and danced. Normally, because of the climate of tolerance toward black violence and protest, such an incident would have passed without consequences. However, perhaps because one young black man hit a white woman over the head on his way to the pitch, some of the white student spectators and their rugby-keen fathers stormed onto the field and started beating up the protesters. A video of the battle showing blacks running away from the white spectators soon went viral in South Africa.

The rugby match went ahead as planned, and the UFS team won. The moral of the story is that whites will have to learn to resist the relentless drive for a kind of territorial domination that seems to characterize much of the conflict at South African universities. Only when whites stand their ground and fight back, be it an intellectual contest or a physical brawl, will there be any hope for the future.

Much of what happens in South Africa is so absurd that it sounds like an April Fools’ joke. But given the demographic possibility of an African planet, Europe and the United States could eventually find themselves in the same predicament. As Africa exports its burgeoning population, we can imagine masses of penniless Africans who want to study at Europe’s most prestigious universities. They will “demand”–that is the operative word–scholarships, loans, and admission to the Universities of Bologna, Heidelberg, Utrecht, Karolinska Institute in Sweden, Charles University in Prague, etc. Universities will not only accommodate them, but reduce and finally abolish instruction in Italian, German, Dutch, Swedish, and Czech in favor of English, French and Arabic, the three main educational languages of Africa. Statues of whites at those universities, as well as Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard and Princeton, will be vandalized and eventually removed, since they would remind blacks of a “painful past” of colonialism and white supremacy.

Apart from Islam, antiracism is the most powerful religion in the world today. If not countered, it has the power eventually to dissolve the cultures of the West. The attack on Afrikaans is just a foretaste of what could come if we do not fight back.

Strategies of Combat

via Inglinga

I am wholly against living in the past, as I have so often stated, since this is counter-productive and gets nowhere. But I am all for learning from the past, and for improving ourselves through the knowledge of the past. In regard to this a knowledge of our Anglo-Saxon and Viking past can come in handy, as I am going to show. Those who take part in Anglo-Saxon and Viking re-enactment will be one step ahead of me on this, and will certainly know more about this than I do. 

It is also useful to have a knowledge of the writings of other cultures, and learn from these as needed. One of the most famous books associated with the tactics of war is the Chinese work The Art of War by Sun Tzu. Firstly I am going to go through some of the wise words from this ancient work. Then we shall employ Norse and Anglo-Saxon Lore to add more knowledge.

"An ancient book of military order says, 'Words are not heard, so cymbals and drums are made. Owing to lack of visibility, banners and flags are made.' Cymbals, drums, banners and flags are used to focus and unify people's ears and eyes. Once people are unified, the brave cannot proceed alone, the timid cannot retreat alone - this is the rule for employing a group."

Master Sun.

Comment - Drums, banners and flags are used to unify the group and to raise the adrenalin of the individuals. Master Sun goes on to say that at night fires and drums should be used. These things are useful for marches and parades, indeed essential. 

"Therefore when it moves swiftly it is like the wind, when it goes slowly it is like a forest; it is rapacious as fire, immovable as mountains.'

Master Sun

Comment - I will deal with this in a later section but for now it is enough to say that an attack must be as swift as the wind, and a defence as immovable as a mountain. 

"Unless you know the mountains and the forests, the defiles and impasses, the lay of the marshes and swamps, you cannot move with an armed force."

Master Sun.

Comment - You need to know the 'lay of the land', know your surroundings well. Use other local people if you are in an area that you do not know. 

"Therefore victory in war is not repetitious, but adapts its form endlessly'.

Master Sun.

Comment - You need to adapt your tactics according to the situation in hand, and how your opponent faces up.  Attack is made to the weakest point. 

"The consummation of forming an army is to arrive at formlessness. When you have no form, undercover espionage cannot find out anything, intelligence cannot form a strategy.'

Master Sun.

Comment - Formlessness means not having any form that can be perceived by the enemy; without a strict form they cannot find anything out about you. 

These are just a few of the things stated in this lengthy book of war tactics; we can add that a small group should never attack a large group head-on, but use guerilla warfare. It is also obvious that such warfare should be done under cover and not in the open. 

I have given these few examples as situations in warfare, but they can easily be adapted to street-activity and also security at activities etc. We shall now look at the problems of being classed as 'racist' in today's world - a term used to incite hatred against anyone who opposes the Old Order. As a religious movement it may appear that this does not apply to us in our religious activity, but history has proven that religious beliefs are subject to the harshest oppression, so we need to be prepared for anything. Indeed, as the cracks within the Old Order develop to such an extent that they become desperate they will start to attack any opposition whatever it is. 

The police today have formed into a para-military group which has been trained to quell 'riots' - what we see today of its use is very often practice for more serious uprisings. This is why the authorities welcome clashes between 'left' and 'right' or the 'anti-global' riots - they provide practice. The 2011 riots in England seem to have been used in a similar way, since there was no action at the start to stop what was happening. The above photo shows that the police are trained and provided with safety equipment so harm to them is minimal.

The reason why the police have this gear is because they are subjected to having bricks, bottles and other vicious objects thrown at them. This is also true of those who take part in marches, rallies and other activities where they are attacked by the Rent-a-Mob. But they have no protective gear. Below we see a Swedish Resistance Movement march where they are using a form of shield which also acts as a 'banner' showing who they are -

A look into the future with the ever-escalating violence on our streets would perhaps see others having to introduce shields and other protective gear to ensure the safety of those who march. Here I am going to move to Norse and Anglo-Saxon Lore and bring into play some very ancient tactics within our own Northern Tradition.


The Shieldwall ensures that the whole group is fully protected, and if made up right it can be invulnerable. It is, of course, a defensive strategy used against an advancing force. Note the similarities with the above photo of the Riot Police - they use the same type of formation. The shields need to be 'locked' together to make the whole thing tight. This is what is meant when Master Sun tells us of the 'immovable mountain' - in this defensive tactic the whole unit should be immovable, even when subject to a greater force. In the above, of course, we see one straight line, but when we look at the same thing portrayed in The 300 film we see that this is the front line of a force, and it is held firmer through the ranks behind -

The tactics of the 300 Spartans in setting the place of battle at a point where a large advancing army had to funnel through a narrow gap ensured that this gap was held for far longer than anyone would believe. Indeed, it was only through treachery and attack from the rear that the Spartans were defeated. The tactics of linking closely together, and being responsible for the defence of the man next to you has worked since ancient times. 

THE SPEAR OF WODEN - Some people may not be familiar with a strategy actually given to the Germanic Tribes by Woden himself. This is called the Spear of Woden as well as the Boar's Snout, both names being applied to an offensive tactic in which an advancing force moves in the formation of a spear-head, arrow-head, or the snout of a Boar (Sacred Animal). 

The use of this formation was to attack the most vulnerable part of a facing force; to attack in a line means to clash head-on and thus the fight would be rather evenly matched. To use a spear-head formation means that the ranks go to a point, and the 'point' attacks the most vulnerable area of an oncoming force. We can see the natural effect of this if we smash two metal plates together, when neither will be affected in any real way; if we ram a point into a piece of metal it will be dented, because it is being hit by a force concentrated at one particular point. The more vulnerable the area is the more damage will be inflicted. 

A reading of The Art of War shows that the author was not unaware of the esoteric side of things, and Chinese Philosophy works through the concept of Tau which is usually translated as 'The Way' but this does not cover all aspects of this concept. In Esoteric Wodenism we would use the concept of The Wyrd since this refers to the idea of Becoming - something that is coming into being. If we see this in a similar way to how the Chinese viewed The Tau we can recognise two distinct and opposites forces that come into play -

FIRE - this is the active, fast-moving force - Ken-Rune.

ICE - this is the static immovable force - Is-Rune. 

Ice represents the 'immovable mountain' or 'immovable tree' which is firmly rooted to the ground. This is the basic concept of the stance in Martial Arts, which must be firmly rooted into the ground, like a Great Tree. The symbolism of Ice is used because it is an element that 'melts' under heat (energy) and turns into water - which flows. We have here the idea that any force can move straight forward, swiftly like a raging fire, or it can flow and move in any direction where needed as an attack. Ice represents the Shieldwall

Fire represents the fast-moving force of attack which is aimed at one particular vulnerable point - the weakest point in a force. The force is concentrated into the 'tip' of the Spear-head or Boar's Head, and the weight of the numbers behind, built up like a pyramid, smashes through the weakest point of the enemy force. Again, we can liken this to certain aspects of the Martial Arts; when the weight is placed upon the back foot the forward movement acts as a 'spring' that propels the body forwards and makes the strike that much more powerful. The movement is through the soles of the feet, the legs, the hips, the chest, the shoulders and finally the arms and hands. This force can be mimicked in the Spear of Woden where the force should move forwards from the rear, moving through the whole structure. Fire represents the Spear of Woden.

Woden, of course, does not actually take part in any battles; he is the leader and thus guides and directs - that is his role in war. This should be meditated upon since there is a need in any conflict for someone to be free to recognise the weaknesses of the opposing force and to assess what action needs to be taken. This is how the police work, they have senior officers to assess what is needed to be done and who give the orders for action. If this is not done there would be total disorder and nothing achieved. Although anarchists maintain they have no leaders, there are always leading figures who guide and direct The Mob. 

It is well recorded how the Red Rent-a-Mob handled the National Front March in Lewisham which took place on 13th August 1977. Having the time to prepare, they caused the march to be delayed and halted due to the overwhelming numbers that turned out to oppose it. Not only that, they carefully planned the attack on the rear section of the march, knowing full well that the Honour Guard at the front were hardened street-fighters - they would not face them, even with the greater odds. 

"A skilful military operation should be like a swift snake that counters with its tail when someone strikes at its head, counters with its head when someone strikes at its tail, and counters with both head and tail when someone strikes at the middle."

Master Sun.

Lessons should be learned from past experience, and even today it seems that some marches have a strong force at the front protecting the leaders, whilst the centre and the back are vulnerable to attack. Both the front and the rear should be protected. Since today there seems to be the trend towards smaller groups, groups made up of the most courageous and strong activists, then the problems faced by large marches do not come into the equation. 

Woden's Folk is not a street-active movement, it is a religious movement. But the above applies at all levels of this struggle, and religious parades are part of many different cultures. Ours is a Warrior Religion and a Warrior Order so these points are relevant to what we do. Street-action is a necessary part of the recruitment of the Young Folk, since they yearn for action, excitement and the thrill of battle - even in these days. The louder the noise the more the adrenaline flows; the more energy is generated the less courageous bond to the more courageous and a fighting unit is created. Today there is a growing militancy in these Young Folk, and a determination to defy the Old Order, and if necessary sacrifice themselves for the Sacred Blood Struggle. When such a movement grows strong enough it will be unstoppable.

That "Time" Magazine Article

via Radix

“Time” is a new start-up that’s processing the Internet through dead trees in order to achieve a more tactile experience. 

Just kidding, it was your grandfather’s favorite magazine. But it certainly means something that the bastion of establishment print media is reporting on the Alt Right. And just imagine how many people will be Red Pilled while waiting to see the dentist!

The article is behind a paywall, but here are the key sections.

The Billionaire and the Bigots

How Donald Trump’s campaign brought white nationalists out of the shadows

By Alex Altman

Time, April 25, 2016

The men eased past the picketers and police barricades, through a security-studded lobby and up to the eighth floor of a federal building named for Ronald Reagan. Inside an airy rotunda, guests in jackets and ties mingled over pork sliders and seafood tacos served by black waiters in tuxedos. There were celebratory speeches during dinner, crème brûlée for dessert. Apart from the racial epithets wafting around the room, the Saturday-night banquet seemed more like a wedding reception than a meeting of white nationalists. The event was sponsored by the National Policy Institute (NPI), a tiny think tank based in Arlington, Va., dedicated to the advancement of “people of European descent.” NPI publishes pseudo-scientific tracts with titles like “Race Differences in Intelligence,” runs a blog called Radix Journal (sample post: “My Hate Group Is Different Than Your Hate Group”) and holds conferences on topics like immigration and identity politics. This time it had gathered a group of 150 sympathizers in downtown Washington to discuss what the rise of Donald Trump has meant for the far right. Since the start of the 2016 campaign, Trump has built a broad coalition of supporters, attracting voters with his forceful personality and his willingness to challenge party doctrine. And while the vast majority are driven by reasons other than race, Trump has also emerged as a hero to white nationalists. “Trump has energized us,” says Richard Spencer, president of NPI. For the first time since George Wallace in 1968, far-right activists in the U.S. are migrating toward mainstream electoral politics, stepping out of the shadows to attend rallies, offer endorsements and serve as volunteers. “It’s bound to happen,” Spencer says of white nationalists’ running for office one day.
“Not as conservatives but as Trump Republicans.”

Extremists have latched on to Trump as a rallying cry and recruiting tool. Attendance at NPI events has jumped 75% over the past year, Spencer says.

[ . . . ]

The Alt Right

A billionaire mogul from multicultural Manhattan makes an unlikely tribune for a white-grievance movement. But in more than a dozen interviews, extremists described why they feel galvanized by Trump’s candidacy. They love his calls for walling of the southern border and barring Muslim immigration. They find his salvos against political correctness refreshing. And they interpret his laments of national decline as a dog whistle about demographic change.

Now they’re hoping a powerful and ubiquitous messenger can spread their ideas. “It used to be that nobody would say these things,” says Richard, a Maryland resident in his 20s wearing a wispy beard and a black knit tie. “Trump has opened the door to nationalism in this country—not American nationalism but the white race. Once that door has fully swung open, you can’t close it.”

Trump’s ascendancy comes at a moment of reinvention for the far right. A new generation of leaders like NPI’s Spencer are trying to recast white nationalism as a 21st century movement steeped in social media. The NPI meeting was dominated by young men under 30, many of whom said they were part of an online network known as the Alt (for Alternative) Right. Originally rooted in antipathy to mainstream conservatism, the Alt Right has morphed over the past year into a virtual pro-Trump army. It’s a loose collection of furies who range from provocative Twitter trolls to white-rights activists, garden-variety anti-Semites, proto-fascists and overt neo-Nazis.

Like any other movement that peddles belonging to the alienated, the Alt Right has developed its own lexicon. The protesters holding anti-racist signs on the sidewalk below were classic “SJWs” (a derisive acronym for social-justice warriors).

Establishment Republicans are known as “cuckservatives,” a term designed to connote emasculation. Both groups fall into the category of people whom members of the Alt Right refer to on Twitter and in blogs like the Right Stuff as “ovenworthy.”

Though they often disagree on tone and tactics, members of the Alt Right are bound by a few core beliefs. They regard most Republican politicians as Zionist puppets, captive to corporations seeking cheap labor. They tend to be protectionist on trade, isolationist on foreign policy and unmoved by cornerstone conservative issues like free markets or the Constitution. They reject the benefits of diversity and view demographic trends as an existential threat.

Over $10 cocktails at the NPI event, white nationalists described U.S. population dynamics with a sense of dread. “In a democracy, the majority rules,” said Jefrey, a 27-year-old soap entrepreneur from Louisiana. “If we become a minority in our own country, we will be stripped of our power.” Others suggested that they could face systemic persecution if white birthrates remain low and immigration isn’t curtailed.
“Diversity brings differences, and sometimes those differences are so irreconcilable, they cause conflict,” said Nathan Damigo, a 29-year-old student from Oakdale, Calif., who blogs about incidents of alleged anti-white bias. To Damigo, a former Marine who fought on the sectarian battle fields of Iraq, the rise of a candidate like Trump was inevitable. “This is what happens in all multiracial, multi-religious, multiethnic societies,” he said. “Identity politics trumps everything else.”

[. . . ]

The White Ethnostate

Richard Spencer is ready to seize the moment. Spencer, 37, has devoted much of his adult life to forging a new path for white nationalism. “We need to present ourselves as serious and attractive,” he explains. “The type of people who can rule a country one day.”

Spencer is clean-cut, polite and solicitous. He spends his days on Twitter and Slack and peppers his paragraphs with academic jargon picked up during postgraduate studies at Duke and the University of Chicago. At the NPI meeting, where the tables were decorated with images of Trump’s golden mane, he wore a dark suit, a purple vest over a pink dress shirt and a distinctive haircut—shaved on the sides, longish on top—that has been widely mimicked by white nationalists.

Spencer strives to soften the edges of his ideology. He says he rejects white supremacy and considers slavery “abhorrent.” He calls himself an “identitarian,” a belief system that emphasizes racial identity and has much more in common with European far-right movements than anything cooked up by William F. Buckley and his cohort. But the preppy demeanor belies a radical vision: the establishment of a whites-only “ethnostate.”

It’s still just a fantasy, Spencer admits. But he’s not wrong to suggest that the rise of Trump, coupled with demographic trends and social crosscurrents, has imbued this cause with new momentum. The Black Lives Matter movement that took root in Ferguson, Mo., has fed a broader white-persecution complex. About 4 in 10 Americans—and nearly 75% of Trump supporters—say discrimination against whites is now as big a problem as discrimination against blacks, according to a November study by the Public Religion Research Institute.

Attempts to stifle free speech on college campuses—where students seek out “safe spaces” and complain that chalking “Trump 2016” on the quad is an act of intimidation—seem to validate the candidate’s jeremiads against political correctness. Meanwhile, the GOP’s perpetual pursuit of policies like free trade, entitlement cuts and lower taxes for the wealthy has widened the gulf between party bosses and the base. “Conservatism is committing suicide,” Spencer says. “We want to fill that space.”

In the age of Trump, the emergence of a new nationalist third party no longer seems impossible. The GOP front runner has shattered so many taboos, smashed so many conservative idols, that to Spencer it feels as if a movement rooted in race and identity, rather than the Constitution and capitalism, is gathering steam. It may take years of fitful progress, he predicts, capped by some seismic shock—a sudden war, a stock-market crash. Or maybe just the arrival of a candidate like Donald Trump.