Editor’s Note: It is a great pleasure to announce the winning essay of the first annual TOQ Essay Contest: Michael O’Meara’s “Toward the White Republic.” We had 20 entries. One was subsequently withdrawn. Of the 19 remaining, I judged this the best, but there was close competition, and in the end I hope to publish nine other entries in TOQ, beginning with the Winter 2009-2010 issue. The prize essay appears below without notes. The full, annotated version will appear in the print edition. For information on the second TOQ Essay Contest, click here. Congratulations, Dr. O’Meara, and thank you.
“Breathes there the man with soul so dead,
Who never to himself hath said,
This is my own, my native land.”
– Walter Scott
One.
Some time in the second half of the 1990s, a terminological change occurred in the racially conscious community.
Many who previously identified themselves as White Power advocates, segregationists, separatists, supremacists, survivalists, neo-Confederates, biological realists, etc. started calling themselves “white nationalists.”
At the time (and I didn’t know much about these things then), I thought this reflected a changing political consciousness.
For what began after 1945 as a “movement” to maintain the integrity of America’s racial character and prevent alien races from intruding into its various “life worlds” had, by the 1990s, ceased to be a realistic project — 30 years of Third-World immigration, “civil rights” legislation, and various measures imposed by the federal government to subordinate white interests to those of nonwhites had irrevocably transformed the American people so that it was increasingly difficult to characterize them as even a majority-white population.
As a consequence, “white advocates” in the late 1990s started making traditional nationalist claims for secession and self-determination because the United States, in their eyes, had become a threat to their people.
Two.
This interpretation was not at all unreasonable. But, alas, it didn’t quite accord with the facts.
I’ve since learned that those calling themselves “white nationalists” are not necessarily nationalists in the sense of wanting to secede from the United States in order to form an independent ethnostate. Most, I think it’s fair to say, are racially conscious conservatives who want to work through the existing institutions to regain control of the country their ancestors made — in order, ultimately, to dismantle the present anti-white system of preferences and restore something of the white man’s former hegemony.
By contrast, white nationalists in the strict sense (i.e., those favoring secession) have no interest in restoring the old ways, let alone regaining control of the central state, whose authority is already slipping and whose rule is increasingly dysfunctional. Indeed, the American state system, as its more astute supporters acknowledge, is now beyond reform.
Instead, white nationalists aspire to create a counter-elite to lead disaffected white youth in a movement to found a whites-only nation-state somewhere in North America, once the poorly managed enterprise known as the United States collapses in a centrifugal dispersion of its decaying and perverted powers.
Without an organizational presence in the real world and with a “public” largely of computer hobbyists, white nationalists at present have no hope of actually mobilizing the white populace in opposition to the existing anti-white regime. Rather, their immediate goal is to prepare the way for the development of a revolutionary nationalist vanguard to lead the struggle for white liberation. They aspire thus not to recapture the rotting corpse of the US government, but to free themselves from it — in order to be themselves, in their own land, in their own way.
White nationalists, as such, politically define themselves in wanting to create a sovereign state in North America. They endeavor, therefore, not to “put things back the way they were,” as conservatives wish, but to rid themselves of them completely.
A National Revolution, they hold, will alone restore “the white man to his rightful place in the world.”
Inspired by the birthright handed down by the blood and sacrifice of ancestors, their project, relatedly, is not about restoring the Third Reich, the Confederacy, or Jim Crow, as leftists imagine, but about creating a future white homeland in which their kind will be able “to pursue their destiny without interference from other races.”
Three.
White nationalism is a variant of historic ethnonationalism, what Walker Connor calls nationalism “in its pristine sense.”
All three — racial, ethno, and pristine nationalism — define the nation in terms of blood.
The creedal or civic nationalism of the present regime, which makes loyalty to the state, not the nation, primary, is “nationalist” only in a narrow ideological sense, confusing as it does patriotism (loyalty to the state or affection for the land) with loyalty to the people (nationalism). It thus defines the nation in terms of certain abstract democratic principles, seeing it as a collection of individuals, each more important than the whole.
Though ethnonationalists privilege the nation’s spirit above all else, they nevertheless define it organically, in terms of blood, as an extended family, an endogamous kin group, or a genetic commonwealth.
Unlike European nations, formed around long-established ethnic cores (which had developed in the Middle Ages, as Germanic and other tribal confederations evolved into larger political, regional, and cultural identities), American national identity was, historically, defined in explicitly racial terms.
As Sir Arthur Keith characterized it: “In Europe the stock has been broken up into local national breeds; in America the local breeds have been reunited.”
In both cases, a national identity grew out of a real or imagined blood relationship linking the nation’s members to inherited customs and institutions.
Because the American form of racial nationhood lacks the ethnic dimension distinct to European nationalism, it is a source of some misunderstanding, especially in its purely negative expression as anti-Semitism or Negrophobia.
For example, even Euronationalists who struggle for a continental nation-state tend to reject white nationalism — because it seems to imply the typical American leveling of cultural and other identities by subsuming them under a homogenizing biological concept that negates the particularisms of European nationhood and subjects them to Anglo-American hegemony.
In this, however, our European cousins misunderstand the aim of white nationalism, though some white nationalists in their one-sided reaction to nonwhites may, admittedly, have given cause to their misunderstanding.
White nationalism is a distinctly American (or, better said, New World) nationalism, not a European one, and the two are analogous only at the highest level, where the national community, defined ethnically or racially, affirms it right to control its own destiny.
This is not to say that American racial nationalism — which makes white European racial ascriptions the basis of American identity — has no ethnic or historic component.
The country’s original settlers were largely of Anglo-Protestant descent and this had a formative effect on American institutions and folkways.
The organic basis of the American nation, however, was less English ethnicity than “whiteness.”
Even before the War of Independence (the first American war of secession), more than a quarter of the population was of non-English, mainly North European stock: Scots-Irish, German, Dutch, French Huguenots, etc. By about the mid-eighteenth century, the “American English” were increasingly referred to as “Americans,” a people “selected by a whole series of ordeals which [had] killed off the weak and worthless” and conferred a distinct vitality on their laws, attitudes, and local institutions
The bitterness of the War of Independence and the War of 1812, US-British acrimony and rivalry, which lasted late into the 19th century, in addition to the nationalist compulsion to celebrate an American identity independent of the English — all tended to minimize the significance of the colonists’ original national origins, as they were reborn as pure Americans. In fact, American nationalism arose on the basis of a certain popular revulsion against the English.
Nevertheless, English-Americans were the original native Americans, and all the rest of us have since become American by assimilating something of the ethos derived from their unique genos.
Though Anglo-Protestant ethnicity continues to animate the inner reaches of American culture, it wasn’t, however, the genotypical basis of American identity. Rather, it was the racial experience of transplanted Englishmen in seventeenth-century Virginia, then the “exotic far western periphery . . . of the metropolitan European cultural system.”
In the New World part of this system, the ever-looming presence of African slaves, considered “by nature vicious and morally inferior,” and “savage” red Indians, who posed an ongoing threat, could not but foster an acute racial consciousness.
Given that economic opportunities, vast expanses of virgin land, and new fortunes prevented the old European social hierarchies from forming, these racial bearings acted as the one fixed hierarchy ordering colonial life.
Forged, thus, in conflict with nonwhites, the colonists’ early racial consciousness served to mark the boundaries of the emerging American identity. The historian Winthrop Jordan claims that “Anglo-Americans” were already identifying themselves as “whites” rather than “Englishmen” as early as 1680.
National or ethnic differences in this racially mixed environment were simply less meaningful than differences between Europeans and non-Europeans.
These differences were institutionalized when the American colonists declared their independence, for they declared in effect their intent to become a self-determined people in the evolutionary sense, by becoming a nation, an organic body with its own sovereign state and its own laws of growth.
Then, following the revolution, as republican principles were gradually extended to all white males, the country’s Herrenvolk democracy posed an insurmountable obstacle to the extension of these principles to nonwhites — for the new, explicitly white nation was based not on the liberal fiction of “humanity,” but on the assumption that human nature is a product of blood and race.
Indeed, the white egalitarianism of the early republic, shaped largely in opposition to the Toryism of anglophile Federalists (who represented the bourgeois interests of liberal market society and its connection to British commerce) was premised on the Negro’s otherness and the primacy of white racial ascriptions, all of which further contributed to the nation’s self-consciousness, coherence, and communality, as British and European Americans, largely under the leadership of Indian-fighting, pro-slavery, and expansionist Southerners, came to share not just the same horizontal sense of right and identity, but the same vertical qualities and dignities of their stock.
Different in ways from ethnicity, race formed the psychological bonds that joined American whites and differentiated them from nonwhites, just as the language, customs, and early institutions of the original Anglo-Protestant settlers established the cultural-linguistic framework in which white Americans became a self-conscious nation.
Four.
The ethnogenic process that gradually imposed a common culture and identity on the former colonists, as they became Virginians and New Englanders, and more generally, Americans, was interrupted in the 1840s by the mass influx of Irish and German Catholics — the former seen almost as an alien race. Then, in the late 19th century, this was followed by a second great immigrant wave, from Southern and Eastern Europe.
Today the Third World invasion is taking the ethnogenic process to a new extreme, as the state, with its inorganic definition of the nation, endeavors to “transcend” the perennially white, Christian character of the American people for the sake of its oxymoronic “universal nation.”
At each nodal point in this demographic transformation, except the most recent, native Americans, however resistant to the newcomers, succeeded in assimilating them on the basis of their racial ascriptions, as the Anglo-Protestant character of American identity became progressively more “ecumenical.”
Indeed, it’s increasingly difficult today to talk of “hyphenated-Americans,” given that the different European ethnic strains making up the white population have so extensively intermarried that many now no longer know their ethnic origins. As one historian writes: “Ellis Island whiteness” has come to replace “Plymouth Rock whiteness.”
But there were obvious limits to assimilation. As Woodrow Wilson put it: “We cannot make a homogeneous population of a people who do not blend with the Caucasian race.” Against this view, many “new,” especially Jewish immigrants, advanced the cause for greater ethnic diversity, as if America’s vocation was to become a boardinghouse to all the world’s peoples. The Old America, though, would have none of this, and, in Stoddard’s words, dismissed such claims with the insistence “that America is basically ‘made’ — and that it shall not be unmade.”
When the post-1945 National Security State, armed with its newly acquired “mandate of heaven,” endeavored to turn Roosevelt’s liberal-managerial state system into a world empire, premised on the belief that it was based on an idea, not a people, it launched what amounted to an assault on America’s historic identity — an assault whose overarching aim has been to undermine the population’s racial consciousness and promote ethnocidal practices facilitating its “demographic” reconstitution. The state’s “anti-racism” came thus to serve as an instrument of its social engineers, who sought to turn whites into herds of “tamed sheep [who] care not in which flock [they] are driven.”
It was only natural, then, that once the shearing got under way the most racially conscious whites began to see themselves as an oppressed nation in need of their own sovereign state.
Five.
Racial conservatives have offered numerous criticisms of nationalists advocating secession from the United States. The most common of these — made in a period which has witnessed successful secessionist movements (in the former SU, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, etc.), as well as other popular movements resisting a despotic, leveling centralization in the name of regionalism, devolution, and the defense of historic identities — is that the prospect of creating a white ethnostate in North America free of the United States is totally unrealizable . . . a fantasy . . . pure and utter folly.
But this, they fail to realize, is hardly criticism at all.
For those with the courage of their convictions, it’s never a matter of calculating the odds and going with the winning side, but of doing what needs to be done — like that Roman soldier of Pompeii cited by Spengler in Man and Technics, whose Aryan sense of duty kept him at his post, as Vesuvius exploded in fire.
Six.
Viewed “objectively,” neither secession nor a white conservative reconquest has a chance, not one in a universe of infinite possibilities. Both are figments of a few white minds troubled by the prospect of their people’s imminent demise.
But that’s the way all great movements begin.
If a presently unattainable ideal is not first articulated as a mythic possibility, it remains unrealized, for its idealization is part of the process that quickens its realization.
In 1774, only a few believed in American independence. After 1776 it was a critical mass.
Secession, as such, cannot be submitted to the usual criticism, for it’s not a fact or even an idea so much as it is a way of being — or a wanting to be.
Central to its realization, therefore, is not the objective forces opposing it, but the subjective will seeking its triumph.
Many things, of course, would have to change before either secession or reconquest become remotely realizable (though our postmodern age, the Kali Yuga of the Traditionalists, is an age in which time and events have greatly accelerated, as all things hurtle toward the inevitable crackup, the Ragnarok, which precedes every rebirth).
The thought, nevertheless, of whites breaking free of the United States, in this period when the multi-cult empire has experienced the first of its death agonies, seems, from a secessionist perspective, somewhat less of a fantasy than trying to reform it, which sixty years of experience suggest is unreformable.
Seven.
Almost every criticisms that can be made of secession is to be found in Sam Francis’s “Prospects for Racial and Cultural Survival” (1995).
Sam, who I have paid high tribute to in the pages of this journal, was an important transitional figure in the development of a white nationalist outlook.
Though one of his feet was solidly planted in the white nationalist camp, the other, however, was never quite freed from his former “new right” and paleocon beliefs. Divided, his critique of secession reflected an old-fashioned patriotism unwilling to break from the US — though, perhaps, if he had lived, he might feel differently, now that the dusky helmsman has begun steering the ship of state perilously close to the shoals of what promises to be an even more horrendous fate.
As an anti-secessionist, Sam considered separation from the United States tantamount to surrender — surrender of the country our ancestors created, surrender of its history, traditions, interests.
But Sam was wrong.
Secessionists surrender nothing but the slow death of their people. For among other things, secession is about survival — and the prospect of being able to fight another day.
To do that, one must live. But where, how?
For all practical purposes whites have lost the United States. Though still a near majority, we are surrounded by armed forces seeking our destruction; we are running out of ammunition, and the ground troops are being ordered in to clean up the remaining pockets of resistance. It looks as if we’re doomed.
Secession is a way of avoiding the deadly pincers closing in on white life.
In the last sixty years, absolutely NOTHING — not one little thing — has been accomplished to interrupt the programmed destruction of European America.
Nevertheless, the critics of secession drone on: “Why give up the country when you can take it back?”
These two-fisted patriots who think this is the most powerful argument against secession are likely to be singing the same song in the not too distanced future, when colored novelists start writing about “The Last of the Europeans.”
But even if feasible, what self-respecting white man would want to take back the United States, this monstrous, bureaucratic Leviathan whose Jewish, race-mixing, homophile, feminist, fraudulent, anti-Christian, and degenerate practices stand as an affront to everything his ancestors stood for.
The hard truth is that it’s gotten to the point where the US can no longer be defended as “my mother, drunk or sober,” only repulsed as an alien body-snatcher.
To this end, secessionists emulate the proud Danes, who said after the loss of Schleswig-Holstein in 1865, that “What has been lost externally will be gained internally.”
But more than refusing to abide the state responsible for their dispossession, secessionists see this “abomination of desolation” as their principal enemy. Only by freeing themselves from it and acquiring their own land under their own sovereignty do they see a future for their kind.
One might call this “surrendering large parts of the country to nonwhites” — though these aliens already occupy large parts of it and will continue to do so until whites are completely replaced.
The secessionists’ ultimate consideration, then, is not what will be lost, but what gives whites the best chance to survive.
“Any proposal for separation,” Sam argued, “would simply alienate the most patriotic and nationalist loyalties of American whites and lead them to see separatists as un-American.” Most whites would also “refuse to abandon their allegiance to the US or forsake its territory.”
Here Sam confused loyalty to the state with loyalty to the nation, paying tribute, in effect, to Caesar in his own coin. Given the logic of his argument, one might question what his position would have been in 1774, when secession from the Mother Country was originally proposed? Or what his position would be if the United States should start following in the footsteps of the former Soviet Union? And, finally, one wonders how patriotic most Americans are going to be once they discover that their grandchildren will be paying off the debts of the present US government — at a time when American citizenship will probably be little more than a form of Chinese peonage.
Secessionists don’t care if most whites would refuse to abandon “their” country. “Most” whites, de-Ayranized as they are, allowed a Negro to become president.
Only those who care for their kind and are willing to fight for them can possibly found a new nation.
The flag-waving, Constitution-worshipping types — who know nothing outside the ideology of liberal democracy, old (”conservative”) or new (”progressive”), and who believe that there is something sacred about the unholy United States — will never be mobilized for the sake of “racial preservation”; that ship has sailed.
In secessionist eyes, it’s better to lose a bit of territory and shed the race’s detritus than to lose whatever remains of the white nation — especially in view of the coming age, which is certain to be filled with cascading catastrophes, set off by the imploding contradictions of liberalism’s dystopian regime.
In the context of such a possible secession, Sam wondered how the races could possibly be separated and what would prevent them from “unseparating.” Here again he didn’t see what was coming. Since the end of the Second World War there have been numerous population transfers by partitioned states (the most important of which were sanctioned by the US). These transfers occurred in the recent past, will undoubtedly occur again, and already occur in little ways every day in the US, as the relocation of nonwhites forces whites out of their neighborhoods.
Secession implies both population transfers and territorial partition — historically justifiable measures, sanctioned by US precedent, and executable with a minimum of force, unlike the pipe dreams of anti-secessionists, whose imagined “reconquest” would be of a state with a hundred million nonwhite citizens, all with their hands out.
In its desire for cheap labor, Sam thought a separate white nation, would simply repeat the process that got whites into the present mess — as if the struggle for secession (and all it will entail) wouldn’t lead to an explicitly racial definition of nationality, to an inversion of the market’s primacy, and to a spiritual triumph over the materialism that has corrupted so many whites.
As a conservative, he couldn’t see that white secession (unlike the secession of the Confederacy) is a revolutionary project premised on a rejection not just of the illegal alienations of the federal government, but of the entire social, economic, and moral order sustaining its ethnocidal rule.
A white breakaway state, Sam also claimed, would be surrounded by hostile powers, vulnerable to invasion, and unable to defend itself against the rising demographic tide outside its borders. Again, these are non-criticisms. Any region seceded from the United States would have all the resources necessary for its survival. More crucially, the racially homogenous populace of a seceded white republic would be imbued with the nationalist fervor and irrepressible convictions that are the inevitable offshoots of newly forged nations.
To think that a mutilated United States, with its warring racial factions, welfare politics, and rubber-spine army would be able to crush an armed, autonomous white republic is to abandon the realm of logic. Even at the height of its expansionist powers, National Socialist Germany never thought of invading tiny, mountainous Switzerland, where every citizen was armed and ready to defend his nation. The US Army, need it be said, is no Wehrmacht.
Eight.
European Americans will not survive many more generations under the present regime.
Racially-conscious conservatives are counting on a future white backlash to mobilize in defense of white interests. Through such a mobilization, and a much talked about, though little practiced, “march through the institutions,” they hope to raise white racial consciousness, counter the demographic threat posed by nonwhites, and introduce political and legal reforms to curtail nonwhite power — all of which, of course, are totally desirable.
But they expect to arrive at this Utopia without explaining how they would counter a population half of which will be nonwhite in 33 years (2042); without explaining how they would challenge a government that criminalizes white dissent; without explaining how a system can be fundamentally changed without fundamentally changing the institutions and powers that govern it and make it what it is; without any of these things, racial conservatives mock the notion of secession, as if their own not particularly successful project is the sole conceivable alternative.
Nine.
Unlike their critics, secessionists have a plan, a simple, straightforward one, that offers whites an alternative to an unreformable system and an inescapable death.
This plan has the advantage of being (a) eminently political, (b) based on proven historical precedents, and (c) imbued with the power to generate a will to nationhood.
Given the increasingly totalitarian nature of the existing system, where the mere mention of “race” can be taken as an incitement to crimes against humanity, this aspect of secession, ought, perhaps, to be discussed in historical rather than explicitly programmatic terms.
Much of the history of European nationalism speaks to the American situation today, especially (in my admittedly partisan view) Irish nationalism.
In the 1870s and ’80s, a generation after the An Gorta Mor (the Great Hunger), revolutionary and conservative nationalists agreed to be allies in the common struggle for Irish nationhood. The revolutionary Fenians, preeminently in the form of Michael Davitt’s Land League, which led the rebellion in the countryside, gave the constitutionalists in Parnell’s Irish Parliamentary Party the social leverage to force concessions from the English at Westminster — concessions that eventually won back many Irish lands. Then, once the constitutionalists had gone as far as they could, by about 1912 or 1914, the revolutionary, physical-force wing of Irish nationalism took over, completing the nationalist project.
We American secessionists want whatever works best for the future of our people. If our “constitutionalists,” perhaps in the form of a third party, can create dissension and vulnerability among the “English” in a way that promotes American interests, they are to be supported. But if they should fail, others are likely to turn, as did the Irish, to the methods of Connelly and Pearse.
Those who know Hibernian — or any other European — nationalist history also know the immeasurable power of the nation, especially the nation rising to nationhood.
This is the spirit we secessionists hope to stir in white Americans.
The situation today may be totally grim, but politically there is no more feasible or marketable of strategies to awaken our people, especially as they become aware of their approaching minority status and all it implies.
Imagine, then, for a moment, a white homeland in North America, free of the alien-dominated US government, with its colored multitudes and parasitic institutions: In my mind, this one image says everything, explains everything, promises everything.
The powerful imagery of an autonomous white nation also possesses the mythic potential that the General Strike has in the thought of Georges Sorel.
All great movements, Sorel saw, are driven not by rational arguments or party programs, but by their myths (which “are not descriptions of things, but expressions of a determination to act”).
For it is myth — and the memories and hopes animating it — that shape a nation, that turn a “motley horde” into a people with a shared sense of purpose and identity, that mobilize them against the state of things, and prepare them for self-sacrifice and self-rule.
A Sovereign Independent State, as the Irish called it in 1916 — the White Republic, as I call it — is the secessionist myth, symbolizing the determination of white men to assert themselves as a free people somewhere in an all-white America.
29 Comments
U.S. population in 1890:
Germans 2,666,990
Irish 1,618,567
English 842,078
Italian 655,888
Jews 400,000
“Reconquest” need not be “conservative.”
It was the revolutionary William Pierce, after all, who proclaimed: “It’s time to take it back—all back.” Indeed, he was almost certainly thinking not just of the United States when he uttered those words, but of the entire former white world—the U.S., Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Southern Africa.
Whether white survival ultimately takes the form of secession, reconquest, or even some newly-evolved type of genetically-based, non-territorial “peoplehood” (all of which, at present, seem equally conceivable and [un]likely) is less important, perhaps, than the realization of the obsessive hatred of the System for the white race.
Whites can actively or passively accept it—and die—or they can fight it.
The essential thing is to recognize with absolute clarity the uncompromising, nonnegotiable, genocidal character of the alien, anti-white System, and to oppose it with every fiber of one’s being on moral grounds.
Therefore, for me, one of the most thought-provoking passages in the essay was the following:
The passage reminds me of a thought I formulated for myself long ago: “Revolution is a state of mind.”
By which I meant: for now.
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/41708942.html
“Many of today’s nonstate groups do not aspire to have a state. In fact, they are considerably more capable of achieving their objectives and maintaining their social cohesion without a state apparatus. The state is a burden for them, while statelessness is not only very feasible but also a source of enormous power. ”
As the Land League and Irish Parliamentary Party interacted, likewise groups motivated by O’Meara’s myth of a white republic are likely to utilize multiple small organizations. It is likely that some of those organizations would not aspire to have a state, but would rather be dominated by idealists who would brook no compromise.
State power is less important then people power, the networked tribes willing and able to make changes in accordance to their will in the areas they inhabit. I call these spaces National Autonomous Zones and aim to foster the environment where the State is bled dry of any claim to legitimately representing the people it claims to as citizens. Thus isolated from the people that live within it’s lands, the State hollows into a mere referee of various National factions vying for dominance in the community. This is not an abstract struggle taking place on the Internet but in the very real neighborhoods and streets where you live.
I am a common man. I’m not very sophisticated but I do understand what is happening to my race.
What do I do to help? Where do I move to?
Secession could be an intermediary step in the complete reconquest of North America, i.e., the removal of all or most non-Whites from North America.
Tim,
What I would suggest is that you first start reading about the issues at hand to get a clearer picture of what is happening around you. This is a good place to start:
The Fame of a Dead Man’s Deeds: An Up-Close Portrait of White Nationalist William Pierce
Other than that you should get to know other nationalists, and just start from there. Build a family and move to a healthy area.
dagezhu:”statelessness is not only very feasible but also a source of enormous power.”
Yes – Jews have realized this for centuries: they see statelessness/rootlessness as an asset, not a liability. A main reason Jews are so powerful is that they exist without defined territorial limits, unlike nearly all other groups in the world do; Jews are a ‘transnational’ group of rootless cosmopolitan internationalists.
This is a brilliant essay Mr. O’Meara.
Thank you very much for your work and dedication toward the pro-White cause.
Tim, the first order of business, something everybody can do (for now, at least), is don’t miscegenate: don’t marry or procreate outside the race. Second, do not remain childless: have children. Third, be a good husband and father and move your family to a community with fewest non-whites. Fourth, teach your children not to miscegenate. That last is hard, because of the brainwashing today, but you have to try.
Those are things every white man can do right now.
Great essay!
Also it is nice to see that the late Jean Thiriart and Sam Francis have not been lost down the memory hole!
A Great Task lies before us!
I have to comment on Jewish population numbers. For my entire life I’ve always heard, seen, read that these people are a mere 1.5% — 3% of the US population. Yet this is not true. The numbers do not add up with school admissions (admittedly many admissions are rigged for the self-chosen to be blunt, but that’s another topic). The figures we are given do not add up with population numbers in various areas of the US, numbers in various occupations, etc, even taking the well known hyper-ethnocentrism, complete and utter ethno-cronyism used by Jews in hiring and so on. When I was at UCLA a Jewish professor once remarked to me during a conversation, with some glee I might add, that there were really “… three times as many of my people here in the US,” than is admitted publicly. He quickly said that they just hide their numbers to avoid “anti-Semitism.” As a youngster, I wasn’t too interested in politics at the time. I didn’t give it much thought, until I woke up politically. If I weren’t at work, I could pull up a link I found a couple of years back that had Jewish(!) researchers remarking on how many more Jews there were in the US than people thought. Why this hasn’t been made a bigger deal or why no one has picked up on this I do not understand. However, my whole point is that if Jews are 6 — 8% of the population, they are in fact one of the larger ethnic groups in what used to be the United States. Food for thought. Their peculiar, almost hive-like mindset and cohesive, larger than advertised population are nothing short of an occupying army. That’s what AIPAC is in DC after all. While not all Jews are “in on it” almost all will blindly support their “leaders” when push comes to shove.
I have encountered naysayers on this, but they have no real ammo. All their numbers are from Jewish sources. Most “numbers” we now have are from Jewish sources or have been run through Semitic filters. Here in Los Angeles, huge areas of the Hollywood Hills, Beverly Hills, the West Side, Bel Air, Brentwood, Encino, Woodland Hills, etc. are seemingly majority (as in overwhelming, near total) or completely Jewish. Jewish sources would have us believe they are but a sizable minority in these areas, going against what one can see with their own eyes. In the early part of the 20th century Jewish leadership told Jews to hide their ethnicity from census takers. This is easily looked up. We’ve been seeing the same 1.5% — 3% numbers for about 100 years. Sure. Just like there’s only 12 million illegal indios/mestizos roaming the US. There are that many here in L.A. County, no exaggeration.
What may be a true catalyst for Whites to find their opening, to rebel without fear of looking back and seeing no one behind them, is a full economic collapse, as simplistic as that may appear. Once some pot-bellied PC brainwashed, NFL following White fool is scrambling to find a quart of milk for his children while seeing Uncle Sam take care of non-whites to ensure their breeding, along with comfortable, arrogant Jews who will not be able to abstain from rubbing it in, all bets are off. I have been surprised over the last 18 months as to how many “regular people”, Whites whom I would not have thought aware of the level of Jewish responsibility for our current situation, remark privately on things that show they do have a grasp of what’s up, and who’s the major force behind it. People need a situation as catalyst, they need to feel a good number of people are in it with them, and they need leaders. Right now, it is tough for Whites to speak up, as “The Machine” goes in high gear against them. There goes your job. There go your friends. They might agree, but they have to feed their kids.
The situation is reaching critical mass, but I don’t see true leaders. Yet. Kevin MacDonald has gone into what that will take and what they will face. In the end, I am actually optimistic as to the eventual outcome for Whites. But I believe that there will be much pain, suffering, and yes, death, before Whites as a whole correct their situation. To me, much of this is history repeating itself in a fashion on a vastly larger scale. It reminds me of a conversation I had with a teenager from Germany, 16 years ago. He was visiting some friends where I was working at the time, a film studio as a matter of fact (the stories I could tell) and he was watching everything with a highly critical eye for such a young person. Barely two minutes into the conversation he looked me dead in the eye and said “this place”, the US, was a “… giant version of Weimar Germany.” He saw a lot of similarities. So do I.
A lot of the hopelessness aware Whites feel has been instilled in them by the hypocrites in charge. They know they can’t make everyone fall for their lies, but they can try all kinds of approaches, lots of ways to create unease. People forget “they” watched us for a long time, and understand a lot elements that make up our psychology. Better than a lot of whites do. That’s OK. I’ve been watching them and realize that I understand a lot of theirs. And I’ve been able to use that to my advantage. They truly are self-deceptive and in many ways unable to grasp or admit their own mistakes until well after the fact. That will be one of things that will help Whites out when things really go into high gear and some of the true the haters behind the curtain decide to take of their masks. I should mention that when I speak of psychology, I am in no way remarking on the disingenuous lies and garbage promulgated by Freud and his crew. That was merely the creation of a weapon to be used against Whites.
Just I was getting to ready to wrap up this overly long comment, it’s on the radio that our police chief, LAPD Chief William Bratton has decided to resign. He’s such a tool that he must have gotten the orders to get out. The folks pulling the strings want riots — and more — we all know why. And they’ll get them too. Probably within 18 months here in L.A., probably faster. Soon they’ll be coming your way. Laugh now at my “silliness,” but keep your powder dry. It isn’t going to be easy, and we’re going to have to be as resolute, and ruthless, as the Jews.
Tim,
This is not necessarily directed at you, just at people who are itching to “do something” but have not a clue as to how to begin.
I have written a few short entries on what each of us can do. The first, the most basic, thing is to change our attitudes, to direct our attentions to being the best, most noble people each of us can be. Sounds pollyannish and simplistic, I know, but this is the only place to start. Expecting change to come from political organizations without first fixing our present, soft, flabby selves will get us just as far as it has gotten the conservatives — nowhere. We must first change ourselves before we can expect things to change around us. Here’s the general spirit I believe we need to promote in ourselves:
http://rustymason.blogspot.com/2009/08/mythos-and-aristocratic-ideal.html
The only reason that this will not work is because too few will do it. And if a man will not do even this simple thing, what chance has he at changing bigger, more complex things which are much further removed from his control or influence? Yet, should he do this simple thing, he will find that all others will be added unto him.
Thank you for posting this and thank you Mr. O’Meara. Above everything else, and there is a lot else, his essay was an inspiration. I doubt even those who disagree with what is said in the essay would deny that it was a very stimulating read.
I firmly believe that one can not live fully today with an historicized consciousness. For this reason we need a grasp of our situation, where we are, how we got here, and what we want for the future.
Otherwise we might transfer some of our errors on to the next place. Wherever that might be. As Emerson once said, “We owe to our first journey the fact that PLACE is nothing” (emphasis mine).
If one were to ask me what has distinguished, and, to a lesser extent, continues to distinguish Whites as a Race, it is the Spirit’s longing, or more simply, Spiritual Growth. NOT stagnation and conformity.
I doubt if other Races suffer as much from stagnation and conformity simply because it seems to be such a betrayal of who we are. And we have stagnated to the extent we’ve locked ourselves in the role of enabler to the many dependents who seem to think they can live the double life forever, i.e., violating the very people they are dependent on!
Perhaps that is why I have never felt very comfortable with the Left or Right.
In any event, I don’t think we should get in the habit of blaming others. Let them do that. After all, isn’t their constant complaining one of the things about them that turns us all off. Isn’t their addiction to shaming and blaming us why we need to get away from them? Isn’t it why, in spite of one’s initial sympathy with them, they have become so repellent and obnoxious? So let’s identify the culprits, by all means. But we should not use that as an excuse to shirk our own responsibility in the matter either. We are guilty of resting on our laurels and of not having an updated relationship with ourselves, and we need one. We have betrayed ourselves in this respect.
From this perspective it’s clear that in as much as cultural stagnation, moral and intellectual complacency, and cultural and social conformity, has effected us, to that extent our — OUR — institutions have suffered. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the family, which spreads out into our society like the pattern of a seed that repeats itself in the roots, branches, and leaves, of a great tree. But if the seed is bad, or the tree is neglected, then the roots get tangled, the ground cracks, and the tree rots and dies.
I think this is the result of us not having an updated relationship with ourselves, and also, for a certain lack of self-reflection and accountability.
While working for a bit on a fishing boat in Cape Cod the Captain used to say, “A clean ship is a happy ship.” The same goes for the Soul. Not a perfect one, just a clean one. That should start with some, well, Soul-Searching.
We need to clean up some messes of our own as best we can. Not wait til their done before we do anything. But get them started.
As Goethe said, “Action has magic, power, and grace.” And if we begin to take action that much needed Organizing Principle will begin to take shape and call out the best in us, and serve as something we can truly rally around.
But first things first.
It may be true that we, more than any other Race, represent Spiritual Growth, or, at least its potential. But to make that potential actual we first need a context. A place where that growth can begin.
In that respect Mr. O’Meara’s fine essay is an giant step in the right direction.
http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/myth_and_self_interest_in_the_creation_of_a_white_american_republic/
Ethnic cleansing is much easier than Dr. O’Meara knows. Ethnic cleansings are real processes for me. I have lived through several.
As a small boy I used to amuse my parents by resting my leg on my shoulders, behind my head, in imitation of Mahatma Gandhi. I heard about it, over the radio, when he was murdered. I knew about the partition of India while it happened.
As a college student I had a girl friend whose father tried and failed to book passage on Wilhelm Gustloff, so that he, his wife and daughter could escape being murdered by Poles, Russians and Jews who were ethnically cleansing Germans from the Poland, East Prussian and the Baltic states. Several million Germans died during that cleansing.
Negroes ethnically cleansed my own family from Minneapolis in 1956. Beginning about then, with the co-operation of Minneapolis newspapers and TV stations, young Negro men methodically cleansed Minneapolis of whites. They drove the population of Minneapolis down from 521,000 whites to 385,000 people of various races, at a time when 100,000 Negroes were moving into Minneapolis from the South, in response to recruitment by the DFL Party, which wanted reliable left-wing voters.
Active young Negro criminals in Minneapolis — actually ethnic activists — murdered between 300 and 400 whites in the years after 1956. They robbed, raped or battered a proportionate number of other whites, too. All it took for them to do this was the equivalent of two .38-caliber revolvers, seven or eight boxes of bullets, some butcher knives, and several Louisville Sluggers.
These young Negro ethnic activists were drawn from a pool averaging fewer than 9,000 Negro males.
By doing extensive ethnographic interviews of a series of middle-aged white men I discovered compelling evidence that Negro communities choose specific young Negro men to work at ethnic cleansing. I also discovered that they maintain safe houses for ethnic activists fleeing murder scenes.
Minneapolis Negroes and their Jewish and white-leftist allies got an immense payoff from such a trivial investment in violence — the political control of a first-class city and a massive real estate windfall.
Right now, Hispanics are ethically cleansing Negroes from Southern California. Again, it’s being done quietly, off screen, almost in silence, by a few dozen Hispanics wielding pistols, clubs, and knives. Hardly anyone is aware of this cleansing, but maps of the process show extraordinary success.
The left-wing establishment is at a loss about how to handle this cleansing, because both parties, Who and Whom, belong to the left-wing, anti-white coalition.
“Who? Whom?” Lenin asked.
It’s time for whites to decide.
Au contraire, Fred, teaching your children not to miscegenate doesn’t have to be difficult: home school them, right from first to 12th grades. It’s doable, millions are doing it — except for Germany, where it’s illegal — and I can assure you that they will find a mate of their own kind.
Sorry to say I found more clarity in the comments this time. When will those of you blessed with the intellectual brilliance address the solutions, not the history and underlying causes?
You had one commenter, Tim, who asked “What can I do?” and may I please add. . . “What can I do now?”
Ulf Larsens’ comment was the quintessential answer to someone like me and Tim: “you should get to know other nationalists, and just start from there. Build a family and move to a healthy area.”
Although their may not be any “safe areas” with available employment options, what my grandfather and father (who didn’t finish high school) understood was you are safer in a neighborhood of those like yourself. So what is the impediment to two or three families buying homes close to each other and forming safe areas where they can pool resources watch each others’ backs and children?
Federal law prohibits considering race in selling or renting! Is there a creative way to help families avoid violating that prohibition and facilitate rebuilding a small insular community where they trade labor, knowledge, and security to build power in their associations and safety so that they can raise children without interference? Answering that type of problem would be practical.
Another commenter Baird Peterson made a point that most intellectuals aren’t ready to engage yet: the cleansing is already here; it’s just that we are the target.
To respond to Fred and Gina. . . You could double the amount of white births for a generation, but without the ability to raise your children without the brainwashing present every where today you would end up raising potential Acorn volunteers or liberal democrats who grow up to adopt black babies to eradicate racism. Those who home school are targets, and “the man” is sharpening his aim every year. I did it one year, the IRS audited me for seven years in a row.
dagezhu Stated a simple point and avoided the false dichotomy of the essay. Virtually all of our European ancestors that immigrated to the United States found eventual success starting from insular social and business practices and loyalty to their kind with no State help or sympathy.
Please consider an essay contest on a practical small step for the common white man trying to make a difference in his lifetime for his race, protecting his family and building power for future long term solutions. May I suggest the points/solutions addressed in the essay contest could be of value to White citizens for either:
Economic growth
Psychological strength,
Family unity,
Political power,
Security
And that you further limit those suggestions to small steps with no legal liability or illegality, available to low or moderate income families or single people, doable with measurable progress in less than six months that do not subject them to greater government scrutiny.
Try to focus on the practical and disregard the academic for a few years. If we are still here and the internet is not blocked, you can return to ivory tower analysis and document our winning strategy for the history books.
Here’s a websit I’ve found interesting, both from the prospect of insurgency and defending against it:
http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/
Get his book. It makes interesting reading.
As far as where to move goes: Maine 97% white*; New Hampshire 94%; Vermont 98%; New Brunswick? Nova Scotia? (why limit it to the US?) Rather than Washington 34% non-white; Oregon 27%; etc use census statistics, include “2-or-more-races as non-white.
*includes jews, unfortuneately
Dave, the majority of folks who do home school their offspring don’t get audited 7 years in a row, if at all. And so long as you are not tax avoiding or evading, you have nothing to worry about, do you? It is true that, at least in the USA, the beginnings of persecution of home-schoolers has begun. But then there is the H.S.L.D.A. to offset that. Nothing worthwhile is easy.
http://www.hslda.org/about/
If there is a better way to avoid having your children indoctrinated than keeping them out of the public or private school system, I would like to know what it is. I am speaking from experience.
Dr. O’Meara,
I request an interview with you concerning your winning essay.
Yours Truly,
Jim Giles
Radio Free Mississippi
http://www.radiofreemississippi.net
It’s the sad truth that you speak, Seeker. How to explain the decline, you wonder. Easy enough: everything that goes up eventually falls down. It’s our turn, now, that’s all.
Seeker:
It appears that you are weak and have already given up. Why add to your disgrace by demoralizing someone like Gina?
Keep up the good work Gina. Your children will love you for it.
.
Wow.
Nice write-up.
Grab a cup, read up, wise up, wake up.
.
I agree with many that ‘Nationalism’ is more a state of mind than material,
at least in its initial realization. The act of trying to reform the existing political
order is as futile as attempting to breath life into a rotting corpse, but time
is running out for Whites in this country, and it’s time they started thinking
the unthinkable.
Thanks for the excellent essay, as you put into words what I certainly feel and what a growing number of us know to be the right path. Just knowing others are out there seeking a white homeland gives us encouragement.
To Tim, comment 5, posted 8/2:
Here are two excellent websites which may help to answer your questions:
http://www.northwestfront.org/
http://www.northwestfront.org/blog/
Above somebody, supposedly racially conscious, in responding to writing to Tim, said family formation is something that can be done right now.
Family formation is not the issue. Most white men will produce white children, even the sheeple. Aren’t we more adavanced in our thinking than sheeple males?
What is in desperate short supply is white men and women and teens who will stand up publicly for their race.
The MOST IMPORTANT THING TO DO is to come out into the open and join a local group of race conscious activist whites.
There are supposedly about 200,000 white nationalist on Storm Front alone.
That means in any community that has 10,000 white’s there should be 10 members of stormfront.
START PM’ing each other on your favoirte site. This primarily will have to be storm front. THEN GET OUT AND MEET EACH OTHER.
I’m on recon here in Washington state from Florida. I’ve already met a couple of guys face to face several tmes now. They are helping me here logistically.
GET OUT FROM BEHIND YOUR KEY BOARD AND MEET OTHER WN.
Sex is enough motivation to most young white men to raise children.
I am so mad I could spit!
“Family Man?” wrote:
“Tim, the first order of business, something everybody can do (for now, at least), is don’t miscegenate: don’t marry or procreate outside the race. Second, do not remain childless: have children. Third, be a good husband and father and move your family to a community with fewest non-whites. Fourth, teach your children not to miscegenate. That last is hard, because of the brainwashing today, but you have to try.
Those are things every white man can do right now.”
Scots Irish,
The problem is that the reasons they so confidently strut around even when a vast majority of people are against them is (1) they have people (and ideas) siloed via their control of information. Nationalists do not realize that they have a lot of company. The perception, rather, is that they are in isolation, which is in itself debilitating, because, despite cowboy typology we are social creatures. We are stronger with reinforcement. The Jews lie, lie, lie, and don’t care, care, care. They use the Hegelian method to blow the steam off any discoveries of truth or movements.
The second method is like the first. In the first, a false, dissimulative issue is created to redirect energy. In the second method, an actual one is. By this I mean, as a final resort, the funding of enemies of revolutions that go against the Jew’s program of supremacy, like the United States has been doing to other countries for the last 110 years while we’ve been sitting on our asses.
So, with this revolution you are expecting, don’t just expect hard time with a bunch of angry white people eventually successfully removing the Jews to a newly-created low rent condominium complex on a newly-established reservation on Hudson’s Bay. Look for a rather difficult time as they all move to Indonesia and Australia with their gold, wreaking havoc on the US in global financial markets, all the while financing some crazy in Mexico who is hell bent on destroying our nation with half a trillion dollars in brand new weaponry. Meantime, refugees and mercenaries colonize the remainder of America. History is definitely a guide on this.
Where we went wrong was going along with any of this evil in the first place. We should have protested not just against mass immigrations but the Jewish-sponsored wars against other lands that made them want to come here is the first place, dialectical wars where you had ‘oppressors’ and ‘oppressed’. The situation demanded your Jewish-borrowed dollars over there and your open borders over here. Some people got ‘rich’ and ‘saved their jobs’, swallowing this whole pill with a little bit of ‘economics.’ You see, you’ve got to go against the whole Jewish program, not just the parts you don’t like at the moment. Those Jewish-sponsored wars were a way to destroy this country that was not so readily apparent.
There are two avenues to deal with the Jew. One is to out-Jew the Jew. Unlikely. The other is to be opposite of that, which, I take, is something like being true to ourselves. Most of the people in this country have not been honest with themselves most of the time. There is much room in our ’self improvements’ that could move things a long way for us on and of itself.
My view is that in some sense all gentiles are in the same boat vis-a-vis the Jews for the reason that nearly all the Jews are against all the gentiles. This is why the nations of Europe were fighting each other in the World Wars instead of dealing with the Jews who started them.
It is also my view that nationhood has an inherent moral imperative. Among my reasons for believing this is that the chief thing the Jews work to destroy and divide are nations and cultures.