1. Q. What is White Nationalism?
A. The idea that Whites may need to create a separate nation as a means of defending themselves.
2. Q. Do White Nationalists feel they are superior to other races?
A. No. The desire of White Nationalists to form their own nation has nothing to do with superiority or inferiority.
3. Q. Do White Nationalists seek to dominate other races?
A. Not at all. In fact, formation of a White Nation removes any possibility of White dominance of other races, as well as the plausibility of the accusation that Whites wish to dominate others.
4. Q. Do White Nationalists seek to insulate themselves from competition from other races?
A. No. A separate White Nation would establish a policy of free trade with its new neighbors. Labor markets are global, and the formation of a White Nation would not protect Whites from economic competition.
5. Q. Well if White Nationalists don't feel superior, don't want to dominate others, and don't seek protection from competition, then why would they want a separate nation?
A. To avoid exploitation.
6. Q. Exploitation? This is rich! So how is it that Whites are exploited?
A. It is a long list. Burdensome racial preference schemes in hiring, race-normed employment tests, racial preference schemes in university admissions, racial preference schemes in government contracting and small business loans. Beyond quotas there is the denial of rights of free speech and of due process to Whites who are critical of these governmental policies. We have special punishments for vandalism and assaults committed by Whites if the perpetrators have a history of anti-egalitarian thought. In addition, Whites pay a proportion of the costs of the welfare state that is disproportionate to what they receive in benefits.
But the most exploitative aspect of the situation is that neither the racial quotas, the business preferences, the loss of freedom of speech, nor the disproportionate contributions to the welfare state have managed to sate the appetites of non-whites living in the United States.
The more Whites sacrifice, the more non-whites demand. Many Whites are beginning to believe that no amount of tribute, other than mass suicide, would satisfy the non-white demands.
If our presence stirs up that much hatred in the hearts of non- whites, then the only sensible course of action is to separate ourselves from them.
8. Q. You claim that non-whites are the aggressors and haters in race relations. Aren't you afraid that most Whites will think this is ridiculous?
A. Not in the slightest. For the past 30 years most Whites have taken part in a mass migration or "white flight" away from neighborhoods inhabited by non-whites. Aggressors don't flee. For example, on a per-capita basis, blacks are 49 times more likely to assault a White than a White is to assault a black. The best measure of racism is the number of non-economically motivated attacks. Whites score low in this regard, non-whites high.
The fact is that non-whites are clamoring to enter this country in droves. Whites are fleeing en masse to less densely inhabited areas to escape these new arrivals.
9. Q. But how can Whites be exploited when it is whites who have enacted these racial preferences, the taxation, the welfare payments and the immigration laws?
A. Excellent question! It is true that Whites are exploited by their fellow whites. In fact, we do not expect any resistance to the formation of a separate nation from non-whites. We expect white integrationist elites to resist. They are the ones who have a great deal to lose.
10. Q. If life in America is so bad for Whites why don't you just move back to Europe?
A. We are a majority. We do not have to move back. We can resolve to defend ourselves against this onslaught. We have the option of peacefully ceding lands already inhabited by non-whites to separate non-white nations. We would save money, and could restore our civil liberties and free ourselves from constant threats of violence by so doing.
11. Q. What would your separate state look like?
A. The truth is we don't know yet. Our separate state would follow the geographic outlines of White flight. The model for this state would be the modern gerrymander created by the Voting Rights Act to create majority non-white congressional districts. We would simply cede these to a separate nation. The mechanics of this process will be explained more fully later in a post entitled "sweating the details."
12. Q. Would all Whites be welcome in your separate state?
A. Absolutely. There would be no restriction by country of origin, and no genetic tests, skin color or hair color tests or any nonsense like that. The only restriction would be that those who wish to recreate the present system by importing non- whites and then encouraging their hostility would not be welcome. They would have to remain in or move to the lands ceded to the non-whites.
13. Q. Would Asians be welcome in your separate state?
A. Unresolved. As a general rule, Asian-Americans show very little aggression towards Whites, either personally or politically. Thus, there is no reason to exclude them. There is no desire on the part of White Nationalists to insulate themselves from competition from non-whites who are already here, and who get along well with us.
14. Q. Would the same hold true for hispanics?
A. The census bureau classifies half of all hispanics as White. White Nationalists generally feel the same way. That portion of the Hispanic population that blends in and displays no hostility of a personal or political kind may remain. The "Mecha" members who want to see the Southwestern U.S. annexed to Mexico would not be welcome.
15. Q. You are proposing that inclusion and exclusion be based on ideology and feelings. Won't your act of nation splitting turn into a witch hunt?
A. For white liberals it is definitely going to feel like a witch hunt! When the time comes, those who are guilty of "integrationism" should do the sensible thing and flee. It will spare us all a lot of pain.
16. Q. Is this White Nation something that you intend to pursue right away?
A. No. The White Nation is, by most accounts, about 20 years off. When the rest of the U.S. begins to look like Southern California it will happen more or less automatically, without much of a push from us.
16. Q. Why do you use the term "European-American"?
A. All Whites are descended from European immigrants. The term European-American has political significance for two reasons. First, it recognizes that most people in the U.S. of European extraction have intermarried to such an extent that it is no longer possible to identify american Whites as "Irish" or "German" or "Italian". But more important, use of the term "European-American" is intended to recognize that white elites in the United States have exploited differences based on religion and European national origin to divide European-Americans, with the intention of rendering us unable to defend ourselves against non-white demands.
17. Q. What is White separatism?
A. A White separatist will agree on most points with a White Nationalist, except that he may not see a need to establish a separate nation within the present territorial boundaries of the U.S.
18. Q. What is a White supremacist?
A. That is a White who wishes to subjugate other races by force, ordinarily by military conquest. White supremacists are very rare in 1994, and there is no visible trend or base of support which would allow them to carry such a political program into effect. White supremacists are generally an embarrassment to White Nationalists.
19. Q. Do White Nationalists think of Adolph Hitler or National Socialism as a model to emulate?
A. White Nationalists do not seek to recreate the German experience of 1936-1945. Hitler's Reich is not a model for White Nationalism. White Nationalism is defensive. It is not externally aggressive. It would most likely be a government of very limited powers, with a federal structure that assures localities considerable latitude to experiment with moral and social laws, with the idea of fostering traditional communities and traditional religions in places where the overwhelming majority of people want such things - and secularism where the majority wish to have that as well.
However, within the ranks of White Nationalists, there are some significant differences of opinion about the _historical_ significance of Hitler, and whether he was a help or a hindrance to the cause of White survival. Also, there are those who argue that Hitler's military exploits were a defensive reaction to the ethnically motivated slaughters by (predominantly jewish) Marxists in Russia. This debate among White Nationalists can get emotional at times, but has little to do with the practicality of White survival or the probable characteristics of any new White Nation today.
20. Q. Are White Nationalists anti-semitic?
A. That depends on what you mean by "anti-semitic". Most White Nationalists believe that Jews are not monolithic in their views and should not be viewed as a racial or ethnic enemy. However, the activities of Jewish organizations are another matter entirely. From Jewish organized and financed bolshevism, to the Frankfurt School and the AJC, various Jewish financed and managed "civil rights" organizations such as the the NAACP, various Jewish pro-immigration groups, the ADL with its vicious anti-white "hate crime" laws, to AIPAC and the various Jewish Neo-Con think tanks advocating pre-emptive wars, collective guilt and the slaughter of civilians - the activities of organized Jewish political groups are the primary cause of all the political and policy ills of which White Nationalists complain. Because of this, most White Nationalists feel that there is no way out of the ugliness and injustice of multi-culturalism except through vigorous opposition to organized Jewish political groups and their agendas. Indeed, White survival depends on successfully countering the power and influence of organized Jewish groups.
21. Q. What is the difference between political conservatism and White Nationalism?
A. Surprisingly little. White Nationalists generally diagnose the problems of the United States in exactly the same way as do most paleo-conservatives. Indeed Thomas Sowell's treatise on the universality of racial strife worldwide and the tendency of governments worldwide to aggravate that strife are the factual raw material for the White Nationalist argument.
Conservatives generally believe that different races can live peacefully in a single country as long as the government has limited powers and serves as a "loose confederation" guaranteeing individual rights. White Nationalists are very sympathetic to this conservative viewpoint.
However, White Nationalists will point out that there is no existing example of such a loose confederation in which racial autonomy and peace has been achieved, nor is there any reason to believe that a government (such as the United States Government) which starts out as a loose confederation with limited powers will remain so for long if subjected to the competing demands of different races.
White Nationalists believe that the urge to use governmental power to gain racial advantage is so great that the safest and most humane choice is to break up multi-racial empires and place each race under a separate government. In broad outline, Russia is headed in the right direction in preventing ethnic conflict by allowing different races their own separate governments.
Conservatives assume liberals are motivated by good intentions, and that the destructiveness of their policies should be forgiven. White nationalists believe that liberals are motivated by a lust for power and carefully cloaked ethnic and cultural hatreds and that their destructive social policies achieve their real (as opposed to their stated) aims. Because our federal and most state governments are dominated by liberals, those governments are illegitimate and the people have the right of immediate rebellion.
White Nationalists, believe that liberal elites will never tolerate the loss of power that comes from stripping down the U.S. Government to its original conception of a loose confederation, and that liberals would resort to any and all means including electoral fraud, suspension of freedom of speech and of the press, warrantless arrests, suspension of habeas corpus, inciting racial violence, and inciting mass migrations into the United States to avoid any such loss of power.
Most White Nationalists view our liberal elites as extremely dangerous, - as vicious and manipulative in the use of police power as they are cowardly in their personal lives. Most White Nationalists also view the "Waco" incident not as an aberration, but as the preferred response of liberals to dissident religious or anti-egalitarian Whites, and are convinced that the result of this incident represents the preferred outcome from the liberal perspective. It is clear that liberal elites think of dissident religious or anti-egalitarian Whites as, at best, a form of undesirable "property" and would view any unilateral secession attempt as a convenient excuse to order the military to undertake a general slaughter.
Since it is clear that many Americans approve of our current politicians and judges, most White Nationalists would prefer to minimize conflict with the liberal elites and their racial allies by ceding to them the 10% to 15% of the U.S. in which they and their racial allies are concentrated and then declaring the independence of the remaining American land mass from liberalism.
This may sound far-fetched now, but if present trends continue, conditions will get worse and the attitudes of the average voter will change.
Back to Main Page | Stormfront White Nationalist Forum
(c) 1996 Yggdrasil. All rights reserved. Distribute Freely.