The Virgin Ethnostate vs. The Chad White Sovereignty

I never talk about an ethnostate. You won't find the term anywhere on my website, nor in the FAQ, nor on the sidebar.

And yet, of all the questions we get asked, the most common deal with the concept of an "ethnostate."

There are dozens of boring threads all repeating the same question. "I'm an X person. What would happen to me in your ethnostate? Why can't I stay in America? What about Hawaiians? I was born here and lived here, this is my home!"

This type of question gets repeated so often it should be an obvious clue to our side that the opposition considers it a winning point of contention. And they are right.

Most of the people posting these questions are not asking because they are honestly curious about our views. Most of them are people who hate us, and they ask these questions repeatedly because they recognize that it is the most obvious weakness of the alt-right, an angle that they can use to attack us. If they can get a half dozen alt-righters to say "we are going to deport all non-whites," they know without a doubt that is a victory for their side. This kind of rhetoric is a total joke and makes us look like fools, particularly because we don't have a fraction of the power necessary to invoke such a radical agenda. And so it sounds like the same stupid, larpy attitude that socialists have when they talk about "smashing capitalism" while posting from their ipads.

So let me lay out the reasons I never talk about an ethnostate.

1) It is a vague, undefined concept. An empty vessel.

Empty vessel concepts are not good. Your enemy will always fill them with the worst images imaginable. You want to use terms and ideas which are clear and which control the narrative in our favor.

Based on the posts here, most people think an ethnostate means a "100% white" nation. And most assume the ethnostate we propose must encompass the entirety of the United States. And so the obvious conclusion from those premises is mass violence. There is no other obvious way to achieve such an ideal.

Now for the majority of sane alt-righters, this is a straw man of our ideals. But we ourselves fuel the straw man when we use the term ethnostate. You can repeat arguments about balkanization all you like. You can point out again and again that other ethnostates like Israel and Japan are not 100% ethnically homogeneous. You can talk about other peaceful methods to maintain a white supermajority. But so long as you use such a vague and poorly misunderstood term, you are opening yourself up to be misunderstood and straw manned.

2) The term "ethnostate" will always evoke images of violence, mass deportations, stripping of citizenship, etc.

Every time you use the term, you are handing the enemy the exact frame they need to turn the masses against us.

The way the Left has held power is through fear. "If you are pro-white, it will be another holocaust. If we elect Trump, he will turn into another Hitler. If the alt-right gains power, they will mass deport millions of citizens."

Our goal is to break down these false narratives, to make them seem sensational and paranoid. But if your official, public position is mass deportations even for legal citizens, you justify the Left's fear-mongering. And if you don't support mass deportations of citizens, your use of the term "ethnostate" still evokes that perception.

3) We aren't even close to having the power to enact an ethnostate. At this point it is a utopian pipe dream.

This is actually Richard Spencer's argument in favor of the ethnostate. He says the alt-right must have grand ideals, utopian visions, because nothing else will inspire the kind of action necessary to make a change.

And I agree with his reasoning. We do need grand ideals that will inspire. It is obvious that building a movement based on "defending demographics" is not very inspiring or attractive. It isn't sexy, and we need sexy.

But here is the problem: If you have power, you can propose potentially unpopular, alienating policies. If you don't have the power to enact such policies, you are only wasting social capital by advocating them.

We lack power, and we lack popular appeal. These are the two things we are seeking. And to gain these two things, we must take a pragmatic and realist approach. I have my gripes with Nick Fuentes, but one thing he gets absolutely right is his pragmatism and realism.

What good does it do constantly investing time and energy to justify an alienating ideal which at this point is nothing but a hypothetical?

If we are going to have an inspiring vision, it must also be inspiring to the people we need to convert to make that vision a reality. This is the crucial element missing in the concept of an "ethnostate."

Killing Two Birds With One Stone: "White Sovereignty"

Credit to Sven (SeventhSon) and the goys at TheRightStuff for hashing out these concepts in detail.

There is another term the Left uses against us repeatedly: "white supremacy."

But if you listen to their descriptions of white supremacy, all they really are describing is white sovereignty.

Japan has a government which protects the ethnic Japanese. They have a culture and policies which advantage the ethnic Japanese over foreigners. This is simply a representation of Japanese sovereignty in their own country. It is only sensible and rational the Japanese would be dominant in Japan.

White countries are not allowed to have sovereignty. White countries are not allowed to advantage whites. White countries are not allowed to have overwhelming white presence in the institutions of power. All of these things are described as white supremacy and racism. White countries are supposed to be countries for everyone. We are uniquely denied the right to sovereign nations.

We can kill two birds with one stone by using the term "white sovereignty." Both "ethnostate" and "white supremacy" are negative euphemisms for what is essentially encapsulated in this superior term. We simply want to have sovereign nations which protect and advantage the dominant and foundational ethnicity.

There is another brilliant argument we can use to get the notion of white sovereignty across to the public. "Access to white nations is not a human right." Alternatively, "access to white people is not a human right."

Notice the difference here... "Ethnostate" is an empty vessel with largely negative connotations. You will constantly be forced to defend the term. But a term like "white sovereignty," or a statement like "access to white nations is not a human right" are very clear and precise, and controls the narrative in our favor. To be a quality propagandist you must recognize how these subtle changes can turn a previously reprehensible idea to a self-evident and widely acceptable idea.

We must think about the way we speak, the terms we use, the narratives we apply. The Left are masters at controlling speech and controlling narratives, and we must not make the mistake of falling into their frame and arguing from their terms.

Date of publication: December 15, 2017