“Breathes there the man with soul so dead, Who never to himself hath said, This is my own, my native land.” – Walter Scott
by Micheal O’ Meara
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 integrityof America’s racial character and prevent alien races from intrudinginto its various “life worlds” had, by the 1990s, ceased to be arealistic project — 30 years of Third-World immigration, “civil rights”legislation, and various measures imposed by the federal government tosubordinate white interests to those of nonwhites had irrevocablytransformed the American people so that it was increasingly difficultto characterize them as even a majority-white population.
As a consequence, “white advocates” in the late 1990s started makingtraditional nationalist claims for secession and self-determinationbecause the United States, in their eyes, had become a threat to theirpeople.
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 “whitenationalists” are not necessarily nationalists in the sense of wantingto secede from the United States in order to form an independentethnostate. Most, I think it’s fair to say, are racially consciousconservatives who want to work through the existing institutions toregain control of the country their ancestors made — in order,ultimately, to dismantle the present anti-white system of preferencesand restore something of the white man’s former hegemony.
By contrast, white nationalists in the strict sense (i.e., thosefavoring secession) have no interest in restoring the old ways, letalone regaining control of the central state, whose authority isalready 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 leaddisaffected white youth in a movement to found a whites-onlynation-state somewhere in North America, once the poorly managedenterprise known as the United States collapses in a centrifugaldispersion 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 presenthave no hope of actually mobilizing the white populace in opposition tothe existing anti-white regime. Rather, their immediate goal is toprepare the way for the development of a revolutionary nationalistvanguard to lead the struggle for white liberation. They aspire thusnot to recapture the rotting corpse of the US government, but to freethemselves from it — in order to be themselves, in their own land, intheir own way.
White nationalists, as such, politically define themselves inwanting to create a sovereign state in North America. They endeavor,therefore, not to “put things back the way they were,” as conservativeswish, 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 ofancestors, their project, relatedly, is not about restoring the ThirdReich, the Confederacy, or Jim Crow, as leftists imagine, but aboutcreating a future white homeland in which their kind will be able “topursue their destiny without interference from other races.”