Setting the record straight.
As part of her moronic speech attacking the Alt-Right, Hillary Clinton – as well as all the “experts” and “watchdogs” who piled on after the speech – asserted the oft-told lie that White nationalism is the same as White supremacy, that White nationalism is just a euphemism for White supremacy, and that White nationalists are just White supremacists trying to use clever language to hide the truth about what they are and what they really believe.
Others have previously outlined the clear difference between White nationalism and White supremacy, between the idea of separatism and that of supremacism.
I would like to make some statements about my beliefs, and why I find the comments of Clinton and the watchdogs and other racial liberals and anti-racist nitwits so offensive.
I would hope that even some of my “movement” opponents – who have criticized me vociferously over the years on a number of matters – would at least agree with the premise that I am not dishonest. “Wrong, misguided, crazy, paranoid retard, etc. etc. etc.” – all these and other negative comments have been made – but at least admit that I believe what I write. So, now, believe me when I say this, as someone who prizes honesty and despises “mainstreaming” – I am a White nationalist, but NOT a White supremacist, and there is a very clear distinction between those two descriptions, clear to anyone who is not some sort of dishonest mendacious toad themselves.
I am someone who self-describes as a (radical) national socialist; I have no interest in using clever euphemisms to disguise my beliefs. Therefore, rejection of “White supremacist” has nothing whatsoever to do with an attempt to evade the truth; on the contrary, it is born out of a desire to be as truthful and as accurate and precise as possible. If I am not a White supremacist, then why should I accept that label? To do so would be dishonest and would obfuscate the facts and impede a truthful and frank discussion of the issues at hand. Indeed, one would think it obvious that someone who writes about White inferiority, about the “objective worthlessness of the White race” (from an adaptive fitness standpoint), that such a person is not, and could not be, a “White supremacist.”
Some would argue that a desire for separation implies a belief in supremacy. That is strange: I assume that those making that argument prefer to live on their own in a home or apartment rather in a communal dwelling; are they supremacists? Another analogy would be ecological. Ecologists and environmentalists are interested in preserving endangered species and subspecies. Some of the dangers facing such organisms are similar to those facing Whites – for example, competition from invading species and subspecies and/or hybridization with those invading competitors (note: contrary to popular belief, there does not have to be reproductive isolation between closely related species of the same genus, and sub-species are typically completely reproductively compatible). Insofar as I know, these ecologists and environmentalists do not express their concern in the language of supremacy, but rather stress the preservation of the diversity of life. One here is interested in difference, in distinction, not with superiority or inferiority. How much more urgent then should be the preservationist impulse if one is talking about danger facing one’s own group! There is obviously no logical connection between preservation and supremacy.
Further, even in the absence of an immediate danger to your group, it is perfectly natural and healthy to prefer those genetically closer to you; that is adaptive fitness, and is exemplified by family ties and familial interests. Parents, for example, do not typically express their interest in their children in terms of supremacy (despite the fact that they may sometimes brag about their children’s accomplishments). Concern for kin, at either the familial or ethnoracial level, is not “supremacy.”
Now, to be honest, there are of course some White nationalists who really are White supremacists – but a significant fraction of these are more concerned with supremacy of certain types of Whites over other types of Whites than with Whites compared to non-Whites. And, yes, it is certainly true that White nationalists like myself do believe Whites are superior by certain criteria, just as we believe Whites are inferior by other criteria. But this fact-based weighing of racial strengths and weaknesses does not constitute the foundation of our racial nationalism, which is based instead on genetic and cultural kinship, and a desire to promote the preservation and advancement of our race, without necessarily doing harm to other groups. Indeed, many of us promote Salter’s idea of “Universal Nationalism” and grant other peoples the same rights of existence and self-determination that we claim for our own people. Therefore, in the last analysis, for our type of White nationalism, the idea of some sort of general and fundamental “supremacy” simply does not exist.
So, I have no desire to use euphemisms for my beliefs. I am a White nationalist, a fascist, a national socialist, whose overall ideology can be called pan-European national socialism. I object to the label of “White supremacist” for the very simple reason that it is not true, it is a fundamentally dishonest distortion of my beliefs, and to support truth and honesty, I want a clear accounting of what it is I believe or do not believe. It is not for political opponents to impose labels on others as part of a strategy of emotional button-pushing. They say “White supremacist” in order to conjure up images of White plantation owners and Black slaves, of the alleged indignities of the Jim Crow South and of apartheid-era South Africa, of violence against civil rights protesters, of “good old boys” with their Confederate flags and juvenile acting out. They want to avoid people thinking about nationalism, about separation, about folks just wanting to be left alone to pursue their own destiny in their own nations.
So: White nationalism, yes; White supremacism, no. Not any sort of euphemism or covering up of the truth, but a reflection of the truth itself.