White Identity Threatens The Existence Of The State

Submitted by Emmanuel Spraguer


Being a White nationalist, or a White advocate, or a White person who doesn’t want to suicide himself or his civilization, is something like being a Muslim or a Jew in 16th Century Christendom. It means holding beliefs that the state considers a threat to itself and its very existence.

I distinctly recall mulling over the writings of Sam Francis in my formative years, and I remember thinking repeatedly that this concept of “anarcho-tyranny” he was so fond of always seemed a tad abstruse. More than a decade later though, if I was forced to describe the anarcho-tyrannical state model, it would be to say that such a state is one that is no longer premised upon protecting basic rights, permitting essential freedoms and safeguarding the interests of its subjects, and is instead premised or primarily focused on protecting its ideology and ensuring its own survival. In that sense, the US Government is not wrong to think, given the demographics of the nation and the distribution of armaments, that White identity/nationalism/separatism is indeed a very real threat to the state itself and the state religion of diversity that animates and justifies it. Indeed our very existence is in some sense an act of revolutionary defiance.

As a society fractures and fractures again along predictable lines, power structures will often step in to bind the people together through bromides, state propaganda and enforced modes of behavior that simulate natural, free and rational bonds. The state seeks to become the culture where the culture has collapsed in other words. This is an integral facet of the anarcho-tyrannical state. Any state that begins to push the legitimate bounds of state authority by entering the realm of thought control and social engineering is almost invariably teetering on the brink of illegitimacy. Governments do not do this and will not do this unless they need to because it is really never proper for any government to be enforcing a kind of state religion/ideology. It is inherently statist/totalitarian. For decades the power structure in America was able to maintain order through mainstream media propaganda. However, where a people’s natural bonds dissolve further and softer methods of control like media propaganda begin to falter, force naturally fills the void. Of course, Cultural Marxism has always depended upon state violence and coercion. After all, you don’t get “integration” and “desegregation” without the use of state force. One very prominent item of sheer propaganda the mainstream media has used to great effect over the last few decades has been to persuade Americans not simply to unite (whatever that means) but to deny racial divisions and differences ever existed, or to claim that they were power structure engendered and artificial originally to the extent they did, rather than perfectly natural and healthy, which they, in fact, were. Of course, racial differences and divisions always existed and likely always will exist, but grand, pleasant illusions, really big lies as it were, work wonders for governments of marginal legitimacy.

These phenomena are of course not unique to American politics. Consider governments that rely on harder forms of totalitarianism than do Western governments, like North Korea. The North Korean regime was founded as a pretty hard-line communist state, but in recent decades its ideological orientation has been harder and harder to pin down, and this is no accident. The North Korean government is first and foremost concerned with its own survival, and although a strictly enforced ideology is useful to ensuring that survival we mustn’t think that the ideology comes first. Generally speaking, it does not and ideologies will often evolve over time in ways that best serve the government and secure its power. This evolution is not passive either. Indeed, over time governments improve their ability to weaponize ideas and they actively use their ability to shape or control public opinion in ways that cement their own power, especially when crises arise. Thus, totalitarian governments, with fewer limits on their wielding of power and with little concern about violent revolt or democratic uprising always become essentially pseudo-ideological. The state ideology is only the state ideology insofar as it works for the state. Thus, the only real ideology is the ideology of state interest. The people come to believe whatever the state wants or needs them to believe to ensure the state maintains control.

The same principles hold, by and large, in America. Ideology is generally useful to serve the state, but if need be it can be cast aside to serve the overarching purpose of the US Government, which is protecting the US Government. However, this can really only happen one click at a time in a quasi-democratic society. Where the state religion becomes symbolic of the state, or the justification for the state’s very existence, the state ideology and the goal of state survival can become effectively inseparable, even as the survival of the state can sometimes still override ideology when the need arises. If we see the ascendancy of Cultural Marxism in America as a replacement for culture and the organic social structures and hierarchies that once punctuated American life, and also as a vehicle to justify state power, the state religion and the state itself become in some sense inextricable, even as we may still see the state religion of diversity as being essentially consequent to state power, rather than antecedent to it.

This is how “White nationalism” and like worldviews become not just heretical but essentially treasonous because the state religion becomes permanently or semi-permanently fused to the state itself. As such the rejection of the state religion/ideology is effectively the rejection of the state itself and its legitimacy. However, frequently in such scenarios, the state becomes partially dependent upon the state religion/ideology rather than vice versa and may ultimately have difficulty standing on its own should the church collapse or defectors multiply. Thus, in this way, when our despicable leaders apologize for Islam in the aftermath of a terror attack or deny bail to “Nazis” and “racists” accused of low-level crimes, like Christopher Cantwell, it is not mere virtue signaling at work or the reflection of fools in power holding misguided ideals, but constitutes the reinforcement of the rigid, rogue Marxist ideology that predominates in the West, which constitutes the foundation for governmental legitimacy in the West.

Likewise, when they attack Alt-Righters for acts that may very well have been acts of self-defense, our leaders are not just serving an ideology, they are also protecting a government of the vaguest legitimacy. And that actually makes some sense because the US power structure, whether it admits it or not, is terrified of the Alt-Right. We are the intellectual vanguard of a mass-scale defection from the state religion of diversity, a religion/ideology erected on falsehoods and absurdities of epic magnitude, and no less destructive than Islam, Nazism, or traditional Marxism.

Moreover, you can see with the utmost clarity in such instances how the basic purpose of government, to protect its citizens and even the essential rights that we like to think protect us all, like the right not to be denied bail for holding the “wrong” ideas, are all in fact subordinate to the state religion, which is itself arguably subordinate to but also bound to the interests and survival of the state itself in an anarcho-tyrannical system. All the ideals you hear about on television concerning America and its character and its nature, and all the noble principles of the Founders, are demonstrated to be nothing more than idle chatter. The primary purpose behind the laws and the exercise of power in America is to protect the government, not the people. That is abundantly clear.

Now, our overlords can be thankful that there is no conflict yet between the state religion of diversity and the interests of the state, but if such a conflict should arise, the state will in all likelihood side with itself over ideology. That is typically the most promising path to state survival and the one North Korea has chosen. Some states do not do this, like Venezuela, which has clung for the most part to ideology, which is partially why the Venezuelan government is so utterly unstable. On the other hand, going the other route poses its own risks. Consider the Soviet Union, which in its later years began to adopt some Western features, norms, and values. By going this route and deviating significantly (or drastically) from the state religion/ideology the state has theretofore enforced, a government may inadvertently undermine its own legitimacy.

That can be a big problem as well.

It so happens that in some core realms the US power structure cannot do what it would like to do to people such as us, in the Alt-Right. It can not control defection and dissent as North Korea does. It would like to put us in camps or just kill us, but it can not. Nor can it directly prosecute us for our words or our ideas because the Constitution won’t let it. Thus it is relegated to cutting legal corners to jail us, not protecting us when mobs descend upon universities or city centers, punishing us when we protect ourselves, deliberately failing to prosecute those who assault us, shaming us through joint resolutions, slandering us in the media, censoring us on the web, and sidelining us by soft totalitarian means rather than hard ones. The very notion of a government trying to essentially crush ideas should disturb any right-thinking person, but since most Americans have adopted the state religion, most Americans are ipso facto not right thinking people. Upholding the state and the state religion of diversity are not only lamentable features of Western governments today, they are the defining features of those governments.

Thomas Fleming described anarcho-tyranny as “law without order: a constant busybodying about behavior that does not at all derive from a shared moral consensus”, and that is basically accurate. Indeed, that “constant busybodying” seems to have picked up steam in the modern age, since cameras are everywhere, the internet renders us all interconnected and PC culture has run amok to a degree that seems outside even the range of customary cases of collective hysteria. Also, “moral consensus” seems a pipe-dream in an era as politically polarized as ours. Likewise, Sam Francis once wrote that anarcho-tyranny could be summed up in this way: “we refuse to control real criminals (that’s the anarchy) so we control the innocent (that’s the tyranny).” And that seems largely accurate as well in an age where Christian bakers are vilified (and lose their businesses due to fines and state persecution) and violent thugs like Michael Brown are glorified.

But if you’re interested in finding out if you live in an anarcho-tyrannical state or a constitutional republic, just observe how your government operates. Does the intelligence community exist to protect the American people or the American government? Does it investigate criminals or does it pay for dossiers on democratic candidates who are a threat to the established order? Is the law used to protect basic rights or is it basically a weapon in the hands of a quasi-feudalistic power class guiding us to dhimmitude and determined to crush those among us not so ready or willing to lie down like dogs before Muhammad’s army of nutjobs? Do you get the truth about Charlottesville or Baltimore or Ferguson or Berkeley from the US media organs or do you get Orwellian level propaganda? Observe how your government operates.

The answer is staring you right in the face.


Guest Writer
the authorGuest Writer