[3,577 words.]
Advocacy for group self-determination is fraught with internal conflict. For example, those who engage in promoting White Identity, even passively, discover that much is lost in translation between European movements and North American movements, especially over the definition of “White.” A jungle of misinterpretation stretches to each end of the compass. Ethnicity vs. Race, Communalism vs. Individuality, and History vs. Progress frequently waterlog these agitators in circular firing squads. More time is spent debating what Whiteness is among its purported vanguard than strategizing against its threats.
Proponents of identity oriented survival who have been in the game for any substantial amount of time are aware that the first wall they hit is their own kinfolk, typically their own families and friends. This is the first autoimmune response that isolates the advocate and frequently leads to their burnout before long.
This kinfolk will proclaim such an identity too complex to ever understand. The definition of White used to preclude the Irish, they will say. Europe is too nuanced to ever share a cohesive identifier, they cry. The concept of race is the product of liberalism, they sneer. There are many rhetorical obstacles that work exclusively on those bred within the same cultural milieu, and most of these are accurate to say the least.
These intellectual conundrums ought to be deprioritized in light of the more urgent matter at hand.
In my view, the most practical strategy should be attacking the enemies of Whiteness rather than pounding wedges into its fault lines. It is much easier to identify those individuals and groups – institutions, even – that want to abolish Whiteness than it is to resolve its blurred edges. These enemies are overt, vocal, and identifiable. Even if White people cannot reach a consensus on their own qualifiers, the rest of the world seems to understand. This becomes unignorable when placed in multicultural environments.
There is no organic unity summoning the heading of “Asian” from the bottom-up unless these historically contentious groups are in a room of Non-Asians. They are able to identify the perilousness of their situation, as we all must in a globalized world. It’s prison rules on this prison planet.
To add another layer of complexity, there are many organizations that seek to center identities that want nothing to do with them. In America there are several that point towards the founding stock of the nation being largely White Protestants of one denomination or another, with the exceptions being the spiritual wilds of the South. Be that as it may, these groups can find themselves arguing for a group in the abstract, from a distance; White Protestants apparently to have little interest in exercising their own collective will for ethnoreligious survival, meaning these vanguards must do so on their behalf, as enemies.
That’s an interesting word: enemy.
Carl Schmitt’s “Friend/Enemy Distinction” is an important concept and one that enjoys ongoing relevance to anyone who endeavors to engage in realpolitik. If you want to strategize at all it’s important to know who your friends are, and what qualifies them as a friend. Many will merge this with “the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” and right here is where it mutates into something dangerous. It results in one-way friendships, like Europeans seeing Muslims as their comrades – or even brothers – because they share a common enemy in the state of Israel.
These people will spy a global conflict and pick a side to support remotely, not engaging directly or negotiating an alliance. This negotiation is essential: making a friend of your enemy’s enemy requires a handshake accord after discussing the terms. If it is just being a cheerleader for a foreign struggle, it is highly unlikely that they will see this support as anything other than transitory naiveté.
This is the lowest-effort version of brotherhood, something more akin to consumerism. You find yourself window shopping for friends and simply hoping your currency is recognized at some later date.
The worst-case scenario is you befriend an existential enemy, a group that absent any legitimate treaty will immediately pivot against you at the earliest convenience. Indeed these clusters may be working against you presently. Can you really be allies with a group that in every other instance views you as part of The Great Satan and feels no compulsion to see you as any different than the rest of the cursed empire? What rewards do you believe they will bestow upon you in their moment of victory?
Why should they see you as special upon the moment of their victory?
Without getting too deep into it, let us simply ask one question: if the Palestinians were relocated to Western Europe, would they take a stand against the Muslim “grooming gangs” that have raped countless White girls for a generation at least? Or would they endorse these gangs? Perhaps they would signal their compliance through silence.
The friend/enemy distinction we must embrace now is whether or not people believe your identity should survive. It’s a yes or no question. Folkishness has been defined as family before tribe, tribe before race, race before nation, and nation before globalism. There are many populations around the globe that would answer with a resounding “no.” Having spoken with many of these supposed comrades in arms, I have encountered no rung on this ladder that they would not have an interest in subverting. As previously mentioned there is a not-insignificant number of people within your own tribe that would answer the same.
The friend/enemy distinction indicates that both of these examples should be treated the same, and any short-term allegiance that affords them more power in your realm will be reckoned with blood before long.
Aren’t you tired of seeking allegiances with people who want you dead?
We have a lot of experience with that here in Canada, and it is the root of what has made our situation so dire. For many generations this nation has been controlled by a political and business class that sees national self-determination as a cursed prospect. The story of Canada throughout the 1800s is one of intense military and economic conflict with the United States, culminating in the surrender to American interests and a complete inability to advocate for itself. This would not have been possible without traitorous interests in our midst.
It all begins in Quebec. The French settlers had opposed the king’s attempt to call their country New France, insisting they were not French but rather a new breed of people known as Canadiens. According to David Orchard in his classic work “The Fight for Canada,” the American colonies broadly agitated for war to drive the French out of North America. Britain agreed, and in 1755 over 2,200 soldiers under General Edward Braddock and Colonel George Washington set out to take the Ohio Valley from the Canadians. For three years, from 1755 through 1757, the French, Canadian and Indian allies were winning. The British and Americans did not achieve a single goal, except for the expulsion of the Acadians.
This was a trend that would continue over the subsequent centuries. Later, the U.S. failure to take Canada in the War of 1812 carved deep memories of resistance to U.S. aggression and determined the shape of the nation thereafter.
“The conquest of Canada … was essentially an American idea […] And although advanced British opinion adopted it as a political program, it nonetheless remained American in its conception.” – Guy Frégault, Historian
Having failed to take Canada by force, the Americans attempted diplomacy. After the success of the American revolution, chief U.S. negotiator Benjamin Franklin opened talks by suggesting that to allow the Americans and the British to be “perfectly reconciled,” Canada should be entirely transferred to the United States. Britain was anxious to regain the goodwill of her former American colonies and was willing to make hitherto unthinkable concessions. Under the resulting treaty, Canada lost forever all its territory between the Ohio and Mississippi rivers which had been surveyed by the great explorers and represented an essential trade route for Canadian exports. The Dominion of Canada remained a prize ripe for the plucking, a sentiment that reemerges in cycles.
Diplomacy gradually lead to economic imperialism, frequently lead by Americans residing within the borders of Canada operating in concert with homegrown business magnates. One such example is the Montreal Annexation Association, an unlikely alliance of English Tory businessmen and French-Canadian radicals, which ran candidates for the legislature arguing that political union with the United States would improve Canada’s economy. Its president was sugar tycoon John Redpath. Other officers included brewery owner William Molson.
The annexationists failed to win support among the general population in their mission to make Canada part of the United States, but it was just one of many attempts driven entirely from within Canada. The discourse was more or less left to simmer the entire time.
Canada’s economic relationship with the United States is not primarily due, as is often claimed, to their strong trade ties. It’s more about corporate integration and ownership, the citizenry unaware of how much national control has been bartered away.
As Kari Levitt explains in “Silent Surrender: The Multinational Corporation in Canada,” Canada’s concern about the degree of control exercised by U.S. corporations was first expressed when economic boom of the 1950s was followed by three years during which per capita income did not rise at all. U.S. economic control was concurrently growing and there was a dramatic series of purchases of old-established Canadian businesses. Expressions of concern were dismissed by business, government and the academic community.
These controlling interests did not want the public to fully understand the decisions on investment and expansion of Canadian industry were made in New York, Detroit, or Chicago.
“The satellitic status of Canada is reinforced, as in the old mercantile system, by the network of exclusivist favours, preferences and privileges negotiated from a position of weakness vis-a-vis the United States.” – Kari Levitt, Silent Surrender: The Multinational Corporation in Canada
Canada is experiencing the simultaneous process of decolonization and recolonization. It grew to independence and nationhood in a brief historical era in which goods, capital and people moved in response to economic forces operating in relatively free, competitive international markets. This is not the ecosystem we currently inhabit. American-based multinational corporations have purchased, replaced, and suppressed the operations of the earlier European-based mercantile venture companies through a network of branch plants and leadership positions.
Present-day Canada may be described as the world’s richest underdeveloped country, driven by legislation crafted to make the nation an ideal landing place for American capital creating a cascading effect that resulted in most large corporations being owned or run by Americans. This has resulted in formalized trade that greatly favors America and has positioned Canada as a fragmented vassal state incapable of controlling its own manufacturing base. While the tide may be turning on this sentiment in light of the recent tariff war between these nations, the legacy of economic servitude animates the entire political structure. Sovereignty is deprioritized against getting the best deal.
Geostrategists such as Peter Zeihan are accurate when they point out that each province of Canada has a stronger trade relationship with the US than any other province, the horizontal trade dominance pioneered by Prime Minister Sir John A. Macdonald a distant memory. Every component of the system wants to make Canada tantalizing for foreign investment, viewing nationalism as a direct threat. Forget finding support for ethnic nationalism, the government will not even tolerate civic nationalism. More migrants to prop up the GDP and more foreign investment to maintain the façade.
When reformers speak of the measures that must be taken to fix the system they might imagine a surgery undertaken upon a living patient. This is an apt analogy because during surgery the patient must be rendered unconscious in a zone of total control otherwise the body will sensibly react as if it is being attacked. If you lack a zone of total control, this reaction will be outrageous. Furthermore, the sheer amount of work that must be undertaken combined with the amount of corrupted flesh that must be removed is tantamount to gutting a fish. How many traitors must be removed from the bureaucratic structure, how many politicians and entrenched interests must be removed, how much of the Canadian business community must be exiled? 60%? 80%?
The Nationalist Operation can be mistaken for taxidermy when one considers the severity of the illness.
Returning to the Friend/Enemy distinction: many Canadians see America as its existential enemy. They define their identity at least in part by their opposition to their Southern neighbour. While history is clear that they stand as an all-encompassing adversarial empire, do they really count as an eternal foe or simply a competitor adhering to the rules of straight geopolitics? Sovereignty cannot be granted; it can only be seized. If a subject is unwilling to exert its territorial sovereignty through sheer collective will, why wouldn’t America simply move in? Forget America, why not China? Why not Russia? Why not Japan?
I once wrote an article for the Old Glory Club titled “The Annexation of Canada.” A sensational title to be sure, the content was more calculating, especially for an American Nationalist outlet. The piece detailed a plan to secure provincial sovereignty in the event (likelihood) of state collapse, arguing that negotiations could be met along the existing trade routes as long as new regional governments emerged. This would be in the interest of both sides. It was written more as a call to establish provincial power centers driven by emergent groups creating parallel systems under the staggering, wheezing, utterly inept Elite Political Machine.
You only own what you can defend, and Canada is riddled with tumors that are auctioning it off to the highest bidder. Canada being oppressed into an economic zone could not have occurred without the political class and prominent business sectors enthusiastically trading it away. In this author’s view, America does not stand as an existential enemy, but rather as a political adversary. This is an opponent that can be met in the field of collective sovereignty and brought to terms. The conflict between the West – alternatively termed Europe and its colonies, or the White World – and the Global South, on the other hand, can enjoy no such accord.
Africa is a great example of what I am referring to. One of my favourite examples of Third Worldist Marxism is “How Europe Underdeveloped Africa” written by Guyanese radical Walter Rodney. African revolutionaries adore narratives that cast the entire continent as randomly oppressed, destined for Wakandas from sea to sea if only the wretched claws of the entire world would leave them be. The theme of the book is that while trade with Europe absolutely benefitted the regions economically, it just wasn’t enough. They were denied sufficient advantages that would have undoubtedly allowed them to “catch up,” seeing technological development as steps on a ladder anyone can climb.
African warlords enslaved their conquered opponents and sold them to the first big ship that showed up, but who’s fault is that? Why it was Europe’s for giving them the idea to do slavery, which purportedly never existed before Europeans stepped foot on African soil. Well, it did of course, but African slavery was nicer (or so we are told,) whereas Europeans used it to do capitalism, a hostile magic that made Africans want to get as many guns and shiny beads as possible.
What did they do with all these advanced manufactures? Let’s say extraterrestrials showed up one day and gave you mind-warping tech, what’s the first thing you would do with it? That’s right: you’d break it or make it into a hat. You would blame the Europeans for not making schools to develop the minds of the populace so as to fully exploit these new ideas, hold the fort they did build schools, and roads, and ports? Well, Africans going to school was just so they could be indoctrinated into capitalism, which as we have established was hostile magic. The White Man should have given Africans twenty trillion dollars so they could have witch doctor hukka hukka chukka ayyyyyayyyyyy oooooh ah-hukka chooka verbal history universities.
That’s how you get the floating pyramids cruelly denied by the Sons of Yakub.
“It would be extremely simple-minded to say that colonialism in Africa or anywhere else caused Europe to develop its science and technology. The tendency towards technological innovation and renovation was inherent in capitalism itself, because of the drive for profits. However, it would be entirely accurate to say that the colonization of Africa and other parts of the world formed an indispensable link in a chain of events which made possible the technological transformation of the base of European capitalism. Without that link, European capitalism would not have been producing goods and services at the level attained in 1960. In other words, our very yardsticks for measuring developed and underdeveloped nations would have been different.” – Walter Rodney, “How Europe Underdeveloped Africa
The causes responsible for Africa’s current state, of course, are so multitudinous that the aggregate might as well be metaphysical. Despite all the history and all the data and all the financial spigots opened over the continent, they believe they were denied the chance of securing placement upon the upward curve of social development. This misconception persists to this day, where in reality there is no bespoke system of education or mountain of technology, tactfully woven into the fabric of existing folkways as they must be, that would result in the continent “catching up.”
The problem is there is no civilizational drive comparable to Europe, and its leaders are not electrified by an enchanting time horizon. There is no amount of money that can fix Africa, and strategies to develop them will always be viewed as imperialism.
In Jean Raspail’s “The Camp of the Saints,” a chilling fiction detailing a near-future where a ship filled with the human detritus of India is bound for the shores of Europe, one could be mistaken for thinking the antagonist is the hoard of insane murdering rapists. As the book spends its first half explaining, the true villains were the subverters, the radicals, and the traitors inside Europe herself who halted every process set in place to prevent the oncoming race war. The ship would never have made landfall unless the entire political apparatus was staffed by ambivalent corpses bewitched by ideologues yearning for a more equitable world and seeing the West as the necessary sacrifice to achieve it.
Europe effectively had to die before it was murdered, pillaged, raped. A civilizational yearning for destruction so deep that God felt it necessary to intervene. The book captures the racial malaise permitting the invasion coupled with the paranormal forces that set the stage, called to action by the terminal cancer afflicting Europe. The traitors met their brutal ends the same as everyone else, but by that point who would be left to say “I Told You So?” as the legacy of European natives is gradually rewritten inked in their own blood? On what grounds would these people be your allies, they who blame you solely for enslaving them and condemn you for unilaterally ending slavery thereby threatening their profits?
There is no reasoning with this position. America doesn’t look so bad, you just need to bring a big enough gun to the table.
Many in our political milieu still seek unidirectional friendships and endorse geopolitics as optimistic spectator sport, blind to the full gamut of their enemies, assuaged by the belief that the bioweapon deployed by one foe will appreciate the narrative support at a later date and surrender their conquered territory.
There exist groups that have nothing but absolute contempt for who you are, what you represent, and your entire history. The friend/enemy distinction can be ascertained by one question: do you believe my people should be able to exist in their own space? The only correct answer is “yes,” any performative confusion at the question is admission to the negative. Even if you lack the confidence to fully draw the schematic of your identity, the rest of the world knows exactly who you are and knows exactly what the question implies. They see your self-determination as a threat to their designs. These can be foreigners and fellow countrymen alike. Friendship with these people cannot be entertained without the threat of force.
What we are speaking of are the metaphysics of survival, and there is eventually a tipping point where the spirit is unwilling to maintain its status and the problems proliferate too fast. It is not one enemy driving the decline, it is several. In a neorealist world driven by self-interest, it is not the legacy of slavery animating the bitter rebellions of Africans or other viral diasporas. There are traitors within the city walls, and their allegiances cannot be persuaded otherwise, even if at some undetermined future date their rhetoric shifts to echo your own. Their spirits are devoid of this necessary electricity and they will launder their sickness in new and horrible ways.
It’s easier to identify who wants to destroy you than who would adhere to your acutely defined values in a perfect world, a world where we can finally breathe. We can identify who even desires to inhabit that world right now, and who will be eternally and covertly opposed.