Considering the case for white nationalism

Click to enlarge

I read The White Nationalist Manifesto by Greg Johnson partly because I am annoyed at the casual way the word “racist” is thrown around, and I thought it would be interesting to discuss the ideas of an actual unapologetic racist.

I read it partly because I can remember when white racist ideas such as his were acceptable, and I see nothing in the nature of things to prevent them from becoming acceptable again.

And I read it partly because, as John Stuart Mill once said, “he who knows only his own side of a case knows little of that.”  If I believe in equal rights for all, I should be willing to confront the strongest arguments of someone who believes the opposite.

I take Greg Johnson’s arguments seriously and will respond to them in a civil manner.  I hope nobody accuses me of being an apologist for white nationalism because I do not use abusive language..  An insult is not an argument..

Greg Johnson starts out with the assumption that there is a genetic difference between white and non-white people that is so fundamental that they cannot live together in peace.  He then goes on to point out two facts.

  • The birth rate in majority-white countries, including the USA, is below the replacement rate (an average of 2.1 per woman).
  • All the countries in which the birth rate is above the replacement rate are non-white.  These are the countries that would be the predominant sources of immigration.

If non-white immigration and the declining birth rate continue indefinitely, white people will in time become minorities in their homelands and possibly be replaced altogether.  That’s a matter of logic.  Johnson calls this “white genocide.”

He mentioned the recent rise in “deaths of despair”  (suicide, drug overdoses, alcohol-related liver disease) among the American white population, which he attributed to the stress of living in a multi-racial society.

He believes that two things are necessary to prevent this:

  • White women of child-bearing age must have at least three children.  To ensure this happens, feminism must be rejected, abortion and birth control outlawed and LGBT persons not tolerated—at least among white people.  Men should be protectors and providers, women should be wives and mothers.
  • Immigration from non-white countries must cease and, over time, non-white immigrants and their children be returned to their homelands.  Jews should be sent to Israel.  In majority-white countries outside Europe, separate territories should be provided for indigenous peoples and “perhaps” for descendants of non-white slaves.  Aside from this, the long-range goal is to get rid of the non-white people.

Johnson distinguished white nationalism from white supremacy.  He did not advocate that white people subjugate and rule people of color, as in the pre-Civil War American South or apartheid South Africa.  He rather wants to exclude people of color as much as possible.

He also distinguished white nationalism from German Naziism and Italian Fascism, but here he had to tread carefully because neo-Nazis are part of his constituency.  He praised the Nazis and Fascists, whom he calls the Old Right, for their racism and anti-semitism, but added that white nationalism does not require a totalitarian police state or wars of extermination.

But while while nationalism is not totalitarian, neither is it a philosophy of individual freedom.  Johnson wrote:

White nationalism by its very nature is statist rather than libertarian, collectivist rather than individualist, illiberal rather than liberal.  We believe there is a common good—the survival and flourishing of our people—which can only be promoted by government policy, and we believe that whenever private interests conflict with the common good, the common good should win out.

Johnson endorsed the basic idea of identity politics as he sees it—that you should stick up for members of your own ethnic and racial group, regardless of merit or the facts of the individual case..  White nationalism is identity politics for white people.

The last thing he wants is a colorblind society, in which African-Americans, Hispanics and other non-whites assimilate and intermarry with the majority population.

In the USA, he wrote, much could be done by simply restoring all the old segregation laws, anti-miscegenation laws, eugenics laws, voting restrictions and bans on non-white immigration. These laws all existed once, he wrote, and there is no reason why they couldn’t exist again.

If a non-white person is found guilty of a crime, that person should be imprisoned and paroled in their country of origin, he wrote.  Welfare payments to non-white people should be contingent on them leaving the country.

Immigrants and descendants of immigrants should be taught in the language of their homelands, not in English, and should be given scholarships to study outside the United States.  When they graduate, he wrote, they should not be allowed back in the country

Greg Johnson

All this would obviously be of considerable expense, but Johnson said it would be worth it to free white people from the stress and the social problems created by the presence of non-whites.


The usual explanation given for the decline in birth rates in advanced countries worldwide is what’s called the “demographic transition.”

The idea is that as a nation becomes wealthier and better educated, and women acquire more rights and better knowledge of birth control, the birth rate will fall, even in Africa, south Asia and other regions where it now is high.

As the map shows, the demographic transition so far has affected both white and non-white countries.  Johnson said it is the strain of multiculturalism and immigration that causes white people to despair and cease to reproduce.  But Brazil is the world’s prime example of a multi-racial society and Japan is as racially homogenous as you can get, and both countries are going through demographic transition.

It’s not crazy to think that as sub-Saharan African, south Asian and other high-birth rate countries progress, they, too, will go through their own demographic transition.

I have progressive white friends who look forward to the day when the U.S. white population drops below 50 percent, and the balance of political power will supposedly change.  I’ve read the same ideas in magazines and on-line.

Such talk is naturally alarming to conservatives.  But I don’t think white Americans will become a minority anytime soon and, if they do, I don’t think this guarantees political success for progressives.

Throughout American history, the majority group has redefined itself so as to stay in the majority.  White Anglo-Saxon Protestants became white Protestants and then non-Hispanic whites.  The next step is to broaden the majority group so as to include white Hispanics and light-skinned people of mixed ancestry who identify as white.  I don’t think this is necessarily a good thing, but I think it likely.

Also, political loyalties of ethnic groups are not fixed.  I can remember when you could assume that any random Irish-American Catholic was a Democrat.  There was a time before that when you could assume that any random African-American voter was a Republican.  Times change.

Liberal and conservative white Americans are further apart on questions of race, ethnicity and immigration than black and Hispanic Americans as a group are from white people as a group.  African-Americans and Hispanics are culturally more conservative, on average, than liberal white people.  They are not necessarily political allies of liberal whites or, for that matter, of each other.

To return to Greg Johnson’s argument:  I think most people feel more comfortable among their “own kind,” but “own kind” can be defined in various ways—same background, same social class, same religion, same race and ethnicity, same occupation, same interests or same moral values.

Speaking for myself, I’ve met people of different races and different nationalities than my own for whom I have more respect and feel more in common than some of the people in the small town I grew up with.  I would hate to have missed the chance to meet such people.

I think the United States should admit immigrants based on national needs and humanitarian concerns, but I don’t insist on any particular number.  If you think the number of immigrants should be zero, I won’t call you a racist or xenophobe.

Driving out the non-white immigrants who are already here is another matter.  When in history has ethnic cleansing ever been carried out in a humane manner?

Living in Johnson’s world would mean averting my eyes and shutting my mouth to savage cruelty.  It would mean taking away resources from education, scientific research and industrial development to maintain racial purity.  And it probably wouldn’t even work.

Johnson advocated exiling people of color to their supposed countries of origin on various pretexts  What reason is there to think that these countries would accept them?

He advocated disenfranchising people of color, but giving them the full protection of the law.  When have disenfranchised people ever enjoyed the protection of the law?  Whenever people are disenfranchised, we see a Stanford prison experiment in real life.

In short, I don’t share Johnson’s goal.  Even if I did, I would balk at the means necessary to achieve it.  American freedom and democracy are more important to me than racial homogeneity.


A conversation with Greg Johnson for American Renaissance.

The Idea of Homogeneity by Greg Johnson for Counter-Currents Publishing.  {Added 8/3/2019]  Read the comment thread.  Genocide is being discussed as an option to consider.

Tags: , , , ,

2 Responses to “Considering the case for white nationalism”

  1. whungerford Says:

    The idea “that there is a genetic difference between white and non-white people that is so fundamental that they cannot live together in peace” is blatant nonsense. There is no evidence of any such genetic difference; there is only one human race.


  2. Nikolai Vladivostok Says:

    I appreciate that you’re trying to see things from the point of view of the right, but this really is about as extreme as you can get. Most on the far right would be happy with reduced immigration.
    For more mainstream dissident right thinking I suggest you listen to John Derbyshire’s podcast or follow Steve Sailer’s blog at Unz. The Z-man blog might also interest you, as might that of Tim Neuman.
    Thanks for putting me on to Naked Capitalism – I am finding 70-80% of their content sane.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: