Home Blog Essays Features Sites Links Books

White Nationalism
an Introduction

Note: this author encourages debate of his facts and figures and welcomes a good challenge. See the Home page for contact details

White Nationalism is racial nationalism for white people. White Nationalists believe that white people should have an identity as a group (or meta-group) sharing a relatively common genetic and cultural heritage, and work towards common interests. These include, inter alia, advocacy for policies favored by a majority of white people, and the establishment of advocacy blocs to promote issues important to white people, similar to advocacy groups already existing for other racial groups such as the NAACP. Specific policies may include defending the teaching of European history and culture in schools, opposition to affirmative action and similar policies on the basis that they discriminate against white people, anti-discrimination laws on the basis that they abrogate the right to freedom of association, and the like.

White Nationalism is currently a minority political-cultural movement, but it is experiencing rapid growth according to some outside observers such as Professor Carol Swain, author of Contemporary Voices of White Nationalism in America (for more White Nationalism in the words of White Nationalists, see One Sheaf, One Vine: Racially Conscious White Americans Talk About Race). Professor Swain's theory is that as identity politics play an ever-increasing role in American public life and the interests of whites are displaced in favor of those of non-whites, White Nationalism will enjoy a correspondingly greater appeal to white people. The mass dissemination and decentralization of information made possible by the Internet are seen by observers and White Nationalists alike as vital enabling factors of this growth.

Table of Contents








The Impetuses of White Nationalism

One of the major driving forces behind White Nationalism is a reaction to what White Nationalists see as a broad-based assault on group identity among European-derived peoples throughout the world, an assault that has been gaining momentum since World War II. They perceive as prevalent a double-standard in western civilization that allows, even encourages racial and ethnic nationalism among non-whites, and suppresses and pathologizes it among whites. They also perceive widespread bias in the media, particularly with regard to reporting of the racial aspects of crime.

Open-borders Immigration

Another driving force is the nearly universal phenomenon in western civilization of the increasing demographic displacement of its founding peoples. In America, tens of millions of non-whites have immigrated as a result of the 1965 Immigration Act, and tens of millions more have immigrated illegally, mostly Mestizos from Mexico and Central and South America. As a result, the demographic composition of America has changed dramatically in favor of non-whites. Prior to 1965, America was approximately 90% White. As of 2004, America is approximately 65% white. Studies of the demographic trends predict that by 2050, America will be less than 50% white. In Europe the trends are less clear due to the widespread taboo on collecting racially relevant data, but the overall directions seem to be the same.

Whites in America and Europe have shown in poll after poll and survey after survey that by a wide margin they view the open-borders immigration policies in a generally negative way, ranging from trepidation to outright hostility. White Nationalists believe that the problem will continue until the stranglehold of political correctness is broken and whites are allowed to express openly their ethnic interests in controlling the demography and nature of immigration and in opposing the collective corporate interest in low-wage labor and the liberal interest in non-white voters.

For more on immigration from a White Nationalist perspective, see White Nationalism and Immigration (forthcoming).

White Flight

Closely related to the immigration issue is the issue of "white flight." It is well known among demographers that "white flight" has been concomitant with black civil rights and desegregation. As whites find themselves increasingly unable to assert their own ethnic interests in determining their living environments, they have increasingly fled areas inhabited by non-whites. Legislative measures to prevent even this defensive brand of "racism" are not unknown.

Varieties of White Nationalism

American White Nationalism

America is part of the West, and as both a political and cultural order, is not "based on a creed" or "derived from a proposition." America is neither a "universal nation" nor an "experiment" concocted by ideologues. America is the unique and irreplaceable product of centuries of specific racial, historical, and cultural identities. America and its cultural and political identity will endure only so long as the identities that created it and sustain it endure, and when they die, America will die. We do not wish this to happen and will work to ensure it does not.

--The Editors, The Occidental Quarterly, A Statement of Principles.

This quote in particular, and the Occidental Quarterly's Statement of Principles in general, go a long way towards capturing the essence of American White Nationalism. White Nationalists believe that western civilization is a product of the peoples who created it, rather than a product of luck or happenstance.

American Renaissance and the Council of Conservative Citizens are two leading examples of the more mainstream White Nationalist institutions in the United States. The National Alliance [1] is the foremost explicitly White Nationalist advocacy group in the U.S.A. Some critics of mainstream conservativism in the United States claim an undercurrent of White Nationalism exists in right-wing politics (i.e Willie Horton, Pat Buchanan, Pete Wilson) - a charge most conservatives bitterly contest.

European White Nationalism

In Europe, the prospects for White Nationalism are at once brighter and gloomier than in the U.S.A. On one hand, European parliamentary systems (and to a lesser extent the lack of white guilt over slavery and colonialism) have allowed moderately White Nationalist parties to make significant gains in government. Several "far" right political parties such as the British National Party, France's Front National, and the Austrian Freedom Party have won fairly wide support based on platforms often characterized in the media as advocating racial separatism in addition to traditional nationalism. On the other hand, the generally stronger European trend toward acceptance of socialism and statist power (in the form of "racial hatred" and "hate speech" laws) have had a chilling effect on the more explicit forms of White Nationalism popular in the U.S.A.

White Nationalism vs. White Separatism

Many White Nationalists support white separatism, the belief that white people should be allowed to live separately from non-whites, either in separate all-white nations, in separate white enclaves, or in communities within existing multiracial nations. Contrary to popular belief, the vast majority of white separatists (and separatist White Nationalists) do not seek to enforce an across-the-board separation of the races, and recognize that forcing a large population of anti-ethnocentric whites to live in a white separatist state would doom that state to failure. Most white separatists welcome a parting of the ways between anti-ethnocentric whites and ethnocentric whites. In fact, a great many White Nationalists and white separatists identify the white anti-racist ruling class of the western world (characterized as safely ensconced in its limousines whilst traveling between its all-white gated communities and its cloisters) and white anti-racists in general as their most powerful political enemies.

Critics of racial separatism almost universally assert that violence, indeed genocide, will inevitably result from any attempt to form a racial nation within the current borders of a multiracial nation. This assertion cannot withstand scrutiny. There is a whole host of legislative means that governments could employ to encourage ingroup immigration and outgroup emigration. "Tax segregation" could earmark all taxes for social welfare (including publicly funded schools, health care, pension plans, social security, etc.) from a group to be used only for and by that group, thus derailing the current parasitic gravy train present in the U.S.A. (a form of disparate impact curiously ignored by western media), or social welfare and government programs could be denied to outgroups altogether. Tax rates could be increased for outgroups. Tariffs, fines, levies, duties, and tolls of all kinds could be imposed on or higher for outgroups, tax breaks could be withheld, etc. ad infinitum. A comprehensive set of policies of this kind would rapidly serve to compel outgroups to seek greener pastures, in nations amenable to multicultural multiracial bliss.

Racial segregation is as inevitably genocidal as racial integration - less so if one views enforced integration (and its concomitant miscegenation) as a form of genocide.

One often overlooked benefit of racial separatism is that it provides for a state relatively free of racism. White separatists are fond of pointing out that "white privilege," "institutional racism," and supposedly endemic white racism and exploitative behavior would be largely eliminated in a white separatist state.

White Nationalism vs. White "Supremacism"

White Nationalism is linked in the minds of many to white "supremacism". Many modern White Nationalists explicitly deny being white supremacists, arguing that they merely wish for each group of people with shared heritage, including white people, to be allowed to promote and preserve its heritage, and do not desire to oppress or dominate other races as racial supremacists do. Many of their critics charge that White Nationalism is simply white "supremacism" in disguise.

There is of course an exceptionally easy litmus test for distinguishing between White Nationalists and white supremacists: white supremacists are by definition unable to accept at face value any data that evince non-white superiority (e.g. relatively higher East Asian or Ashkenazi Jewish average IQ, lower East Asian propensity for violent crime, West African dominance in short distance running, etc.).

Critics of White Nationalism (or, more accurately, those who smear White Nationalism - honest criticism is hard to come by in the mainstream media) often tar all White Nationalists with the same brush, conflating a wide range of thought and opinion with into a single demonized "group," when in fact the lion's share of White Nationalist thought is not currently generated by National Socialists or the likes of the Aryan Nations, but by conservatives such as found in the links section below.

White Nationalism and Race

Race & Identity

White Nationalism, unlike egalitarianism, argues that race is real and entails significant human group differences in behavioral genetics and social identity. [2][3] White Nationalists believe that these differences lead to inevitable conflicts of interest between racial groups living in the same society. They argue that multiracial and multicultural societies are inherently less stable than monoracial and monocultural ones, and that the only way to minimize ethnic and racial conflict is to minimize ethnic and racial differences within nations. To White Nationalists, race is nation - they believe that a healthy nation is one based upon a common culture and heredity, rather than simply on borders and laws. Many White Nationalists reject the label of "racist" in favor of "racialist" or "racial realist" due to the popular misconception that racism requires racial hatred. [4]

Contrary to popular belief, White Nationalist beliefs concerning race are informed by modern science. Steve Sailer [5] is one excellent example of a journalist whose writing reflects racial realism [6] [7]; Jon Entine is another. White Nationalist beliefs are also informed by the work of scholars like J. Phillipe Rushton, Richard Lynn, Richard Dawkins, Arthur Jensen, Steve Pinker, John Hartung, Richard Herrnstein, Charles Murray, Vincent Sarich, Frank Miele, Christopher Brand, Michael Levin, and many others.

The racial left often asserts that racism is a morally bankrupt belief system that bases identity on surface racial differences like skin pigmentation, that "racism is based on skin color." This assertion approaches the status of mantra in the public consciousness. In truth, there is no basis for the idea that White Nationalists elevate surface racial differences beyond their proper domain. Racial realists in general see these surface differences essentially as markers for race, not as the important substance of race. On the other hand, social identity theory tells us that these surface differences are socially very important in and of themselves.[8][9][10][11][12][13]

Definition of White

White Nationalists generally define whiteness more narrowly than is common in the vernacular. In the latter, white is taken as coterminous with Caucasoid, but many White Nationalists hold a definition of whiteness that is narrower in terms of genetics and also employs cultural and historical criteria: one oft-cited rule of thumb is that a white person is a "descendant of European Christendom." Only a small minority of White Nationalists use strictly genetic criteria, without cultural distinctions. Jews and Muslims are rarely considered white by White Nationalists, even if they appear to be European, mostly for historical and cultural reasons: many White Nationalists argue that both groups are already represented by their own forms of racial nationalism and group identity, and that those forms conflict with White Nationalism. Others exclude them based on the "descendants of European Christendom" cultural-genetic criterion. Even among White Nationalists, the question "who is white?" is a source of much controversy.

Racial Hatred

Racial hatred, while certainly present among White Nationalists, is not a requirement of White Nationalism. Love of one's own race is required, not hatred of another's. The idea that White Nationalists hate all non-white races simply because they are different is an overwhelmingly false one. White Nationalists, following their belief that race and ethnicity are vitally important human categories, tend to form their judgements of non-white races on a case-by-case basis, rather than base them on the currently popular equalitarian assumption of equivalency. Accordingly, there is a much greater tendency among American White Nationalists for animosity towards blacks and Jews than towards east Asians. European White Nationalists tend to view Middle-Easterners and Arabs as a greater threat to the integrity and stability of their native lands than Americans do, and often view Jews as a relatively lesser threat.

White Nationalism represents a rejection of the political correctness dominant in public life in western societies, and as a result the "thought crimes" among White Nationalists are much more apparent than among the rest of society. In other words, White Nationalists openly express feelings and thoughts that many whites feel and think, but are afraid to express because of dominant taboos.

White Nationalism and Jewry

The issue of "the Jewish question" as seen by most White Nationalists is a complex one. Historically, Jewry has opposed White Nationalism. One reason for this is the connection most Jews perceive between White Nationalism and the Jewish holocaust of World War II, but this is insufficient as a complete explanation because Jewish opposition to white non-Jewish ethnocentrism existed long prior to Hitler's Germany. Contrary to what many people believe, White Nationalists see Jewry as more than a religious body. They see Jewry as a group with cultural, ethnic, religious, national, and racial [14][15] connotations, and this view is echoed by the beliefs of many of the founders of Zionism. There are nearly as many White Nationalist views of Jewry as there are White Nationalists to hold them, however there are many common threads to those beliefs.

The work of evolutionary psychologist Kevin MacDonald is held up by many White Nationalists as the best current explanation of Jewry's significance to ethnocentric whites. Professor MacDonald's theses on Judaism as evolutionary strategy are too complex to engage here - his work on this subject is contained largely in three books (summaries and reviews can be found at his Website):

Although the above works are recommended for their comprehensiveness, Professor MacDonald has also penned the first two parts of a planned three part series called Understanding Jewish Influence, which may serve as an introduction of sorts:

To put it succinctly, most White Nationalists see Jewry's interests and goals as contrary to and in competition with their own, and reject Jews as potential White Nationalists based on cultural and historical arguments, if not on racial ones. They see Jewry as generally opposed to their desire for white racial and cultural awareness and solidarity. On the other hand, there is no monolithic White Nationalist position concerning Jews. Some, like Jared Taylor, classify Jews as white and make no distinction between the two.

One key example of this conflict of interest can be found in the immigration debates carried on in America from the fin de siecle up until the passage of the 1965 immigration act, in which Jews played a dominant role. [16][17] [18](PDF) [19][20]

Other examples include largely Jewish movements and ideologies such as Critical Theory, the Frankfurt School, Freudian Psychoanalysis, and Boasian Anthropology.

Race & Crime

The non-white propensity for violent crime is a source of much concern to White Nationalists, both in Europe and in the U.S.A. Although the subject is verboten in the public arena, the statistics are readily available in the United States through the Department of Justice. Blacks, and to a lesser degree mestizos, are significantly more prone to violent crime than whites. Blacks are roughly eight times as likely to be convicted for murder as whites [21], and this trend holds true for violent crime in general. Liberals eager to justify their belief in human group interchangeability explain this away by arguing that poverty motivates crime, and that poverty afflicts a greater proportion of the black population than the white. The numbers do not bear this out - when normalized for socioeconomic factors, the numbers still show that blacks are several times as prone to violent crime as whites. White Nationalists argue that the discrepancy is due largely to heredity - that blacks, with their relatively low average IQ and impulse control, and relatively high aggressiveness, are inherently more predisposed towards violent crime than whites. Anti-racists respond by saying that the correlation between race and crime does not prove causation. Racial realists counter that race has predictive value, independent of any discussion of causation.

Given the emerging science pointing to a genetic influence on propensity for violence, and the nature of Darwin's theory that demands different gene frequencies among populations, it is reasonable to assume that the races do indeed vary in their average inborn predispositions toward violent behavior. [22][23][24]

Readers interested in saving time analyzing the violent crime data vis-a-vis race can also reference The Color of Crime: Race, Crime, and Violence in America. [25]

Also of interest is this study (PDF), which shows that white criminals are sentenced to death at a higher rate than black criminals.

Media Bias

White Nationalists perceive racial bias and double-standards as pervasive in public life in western society. An excellent example of a double-standard related to this one can be found in the Wichita Massacre [26]. When three white men (Shawn Berry, Lawrence Brewer, and John King) dragged a black man (James Byrd, Jr.) to his death in Jasper, Texas in 1998, the story caused a months-long nationwide media frenzy and even inspired a 2003 TV movie.* When two black men (Reginald and Jonathan Carr) murdered three white men (Brad Heyka, Aaron Sander, and Jason Befort) and two white women (Heather Muller and Ann Walenta) after committing a variety of sex crimes against them (including sodomy and rape) in December of 2001, the story got no further than local media outlets in the region.

It could be argued that the distinction between the two cases is that in the former there is explicit evidence of a racial motive, and in the latter there is not. This is not the case with Ronald Taylor, a black man who murdered three white men and injured two others specifically because of their race in Wilkinsburg, Pennsylvania in March of 2000. [27] That case received all of a single day of "media frenzy."

Nor was it the case with Clifton McCree who murdered five white people in February of 1996 in Fort Lauderdale Florida, referring to his victims as "racist devils" (that last tidbit is was not reported by the major outlets). [28][29]

* "Curiously," typically, the following tidbit managed to fly under the mainstream media radar:

John King became famous for dragging a black man to death in Jasper, Texas, in 1998. He became a byword for white “racism,” but with some luck and savvy he could have turned the tables and made the case one of black brutality. Before he killed James Byrd, he had just spent 21 months for burglary in one of Texas’ toughest prisons, the Beto Unit. He was 5 feet 7 inches tall and weighed only 140 pounds when he was sentenced, and reportedly had no pronounced racial views. He emerged covered with white-power tattoos. His lawyer said rape by blacks had deeply affected Mr. King, but that he rarely talked about it.

Hard Time, by Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, Apr. 2002.

The mass media constantly and rhetorically asks (often via the old "man on the street technique" - that is, ask fifty people the same question and air the three replies you like, regardless of how well they represent the answers overall) "why the hate?" Perhaps such omissions explain why the question is so constant and so rhetorical; answers are unwelcome.

For more on prison rape, and how blacks and Hispanics systematically rape whites in the American prison system, see No Escape: Male Rape in U.S. Prisons, published by Human Rights Watch.

More on the issue of interracial violent crime can be found in the article 'Hate Crimes' Not Big Problem in Race Relations, originally published in The Washington Times.

It is difficult to reconcile the extraordinary public interest in the crimes of the Manson cult, the son of Sam, and serial killers in general with the relatively unknown "Zebra Killings" in San Francisco in the early 70s, in which a cult of black supremacists took more than seventy lives, targeting their victims because they were white. The popular misconception that whites are overrepresented in the ranks of serial killers is especially frustrating to White Nationalists, in light of the double-standard in question. According to two articles published in The New York Times, black are overrepresented in the ranks of serial killers:

"Blacks compose about 12 percent of the American population and there have been two studies of blacks as serial killers," said Scott Thornsley, an assistant professor of criminal justice administration at Mansfield University in Pennsylvania. "One study indicates that 13 percent of serial killers are black and the other says that about 16 percent of American serial killers are black."

THE HUNT FOR A SNIPER: AN ASSUMPTION UNDONE; Many Voice Surprise Arrested Men Are Black

There have been few studies of the race and ethnicity of serial killers, but the handful that have been done suggest that black serial killers occur in roughly equal - or even slightly greater - proportion to the number of blacks in the population. These studies estimate that between 13 and 22 percent of American serial killers are black.

RETRACING A TRAIL: THE SNIPER SUSPECTS; Serial Killing's Squarest Pegs: Not Solo, White, Psychosexual or Picky

It is worth noting that the first story's abstract at The NYT Website reads "what studies there are suggest that proportion of black serial killers tends to mirror percentage of blacks in country's population," and the second story's article states "black serial killers occur in roughly equal - or even slightly greater - proportion to the number of blacks in the population" while omitting the reference to the actual percentage of the population that is black, which is included in the first article. Thus, in the very articles that show clearly the overrepresentation of blacks in the serial killer population, we also see blatant examples of the double-standard and bias in question: the high value in the second article is nearly double the black share of the population (12%), but it is characterized as "slightly greater."

For more on the biases prevalent in the mass media with regard to racial matters, consider Coloring the News: How Crusading for Diversity Has Corrupted American Journalism, by William McGowan.[30]

Links

White Nationalism

  • Stormfront is a discussion board "for White activists," and easily the largest White Nationalist forum on the Web.
  • American Renaissance is probably the most popular White Nationalist opinion organ.
  • Yggdrasil's WN Library is the place to start for intelligent readers interested in learning about White Nationalism. To call Ygg's writing compelling is to make an egregious understatement.
  • The Occidental Quarterly is "a journal of western thought and opinion."
  • National Vanguard is the online news and opinion Website of the National Alliance, America's largest White Nationalist organization.
  • Chuck Pearson is a raging anti-Semite, but I find his merciless lampooning of Jewry both penetrating and hilarious.

Conservatism, Intellectual Heterodoxy, and Racial Realism

  • VDare is a conservative Website that...well, read their explanation.
  • Majority Rights is a conservative group blog that, in my opinion, regularly borders on White Nationalist.
  • Steve Sailer's Website and blog is a great place to get a dose of racial realism from an non-ethnocentrist.
  • Gene Expression is a thoroughly race-realist group blog that is currently just as thoroughly hostile to White Nationalists. It is run by two non-white fellows, so its critics will have to come up with a smear other than "white supremacist." In my opinion, GNXP is the best place on the Web to discuss human biodiversity.
  • Upstream is "a home for the intellectually heterodox, the politically incorrect and other independent thinkers."
  • The Last Ditch is a Website for "views on liberty and civility you won't find elsewhere no matter how much you dig."
  • Stalking the Wild Taboo is a Website for "for socio-political thinkers unfettered by submission to the power of the pejorative."
  • La Griffe du Lion is the nom-de-plum of a (presumably) non White Nationalist race-realist.
  • NeoEugenics is Matt Nuenke's Website devoted to the science of race, and consists primarily of reviews of books.
  • Pinc-Politically Incorrect: "an occasional magazine issued on the Internet, pinc confronts political correctness, taboo subjects and latter-day shibboleths."
  • The Jewish Tribal Review is the single best (and most thoroughly documented) critique of Jewry on the Web. It has recently returned from a hiatus; in its absence, much of its material was mirrored at the JTR Archive.
Note: this article was created from a base article at Wikipedia. Little of the original remains, but this text has been posted by the author at Wikinfo and is thus part of the public domain. Since the article has been subjected to numerous less-than-erudite attempts at revision at Wikinfo, it has been placed here where it can remain free of vandalism.