Facts Every 'Strategy' Must Address:

Occidental Dissent is closing down, after deciding that white nationalists are basically bad people and white nationalism basically a dumb and futile plan. I agree and disagree. I don't think creating a pure white ethno-state is a high priority. Nor do I think people get excited and rally to a movement for the sake of being racially homogeneous. For one reason, good and evil don't segregate themselves on the basis of race. There are good non-whites and evil whites. So why should we segregate ourselves by race, instead of by merit and ideals? This makes even less sense when people already have non-white friends or family members and would be forced to separate from them just because they don't fit into the right category.

Proposition nations make more sense than ethno-states. In one case, everyone is on the same page. They hold the same values, want the same laws, treat each other like allies. But even if you are the same ethnicity, there can be nothing but hatred and war between, say, libertarians and communists. Or Christians and Atheists. Or any other ideologically divided group living in the same state. I want states divided by merit and ideology, such that everyone carries their own weight and everyone is pushing in the same direction. In this manner, everyone can live in a society most suited to himself. Do I really have an objection to a black who carries his own weight and pushes in the same direction as me? No. By definition, no. What on Earth would I resent him for?

But this doesn't mean a proposition nation should be 'non-discriminatory.' There are still facts on the ground that make white nationalism more true than any mainstream alternatives. Any philosophy has to accept these facts to be taken seriously. Any 'strategy,' 'plan,' or 'path' to a better world has to pass through all of these facts, or just be another delusion that will never succeed.

The facts are simple:

White nations, historically, have been prosperous, free, accomplished and happy. Non-white nations, historically, have not.

Many non-white nations still to this day cannot get their acts together, no matter how much we try to help them. They seem innately incapable of living like us: prosperous, free, accomplished and happy.

These non-white nations have low IQ.

IQ is heritable. According to twin studies, IQ is 50-80% genetic. The IQ differences between the various ethnicities of the world are, therefore, also genetic and unchangeable.

Low IQ minorities living in the midst of high IQ majorities automatically form an underclass. This underclass is a net negative for society. It causes crime, votes for bad policies, consumes tax dollars, calls us names, even riots or engages in terrorist attacks against the majority.

Accommodating low IQ minorities requires that everyone lie and say it's the majority's fault. It requires we abandon the concept of merit and resort to fraudulent practices like affirmative action. It trains people in crimethink and extends government tyranny, as we can no longer speak freely on what's directly in front of our eyes, or act in a rational, self-interested manner concerning hiring and firing, or who we choose to mingle with socially.

A majority low IQ minority country that comes about via mass immigration or higher birth rates will be less prosperous, free, accomplished and happy than the original majority white country the minority populace replaced.

Majority white countries have below replacement birthrates.

Low IQ countries tend to have above replacement birthrates.

Low IQ minorities inside white countries tend to have above replacement birthrates.

Currently, mass immigration is allowed into every single white country on Earth.

Most immigrants are low IQ.

If nothing is done, every white country on Earth will become majority non-white.

Even high IQ non-white immigrants cause conflict. They tend to show ethnic loyalty to each other and resent the white majority, for real or imagined crimes against them. Often, they will unite with low IQ minorities because they feel being a 'minority' is more relevant than their IQ scores.

People instinctively prefer genetically close people to genetically distant people. They like their family more than non-family, their ethnic group over a different ethnic group, and their race over another race. It is easier to get along, as a group, the closer a group's genes are.

Islam is a dangerous and evil religion that stifles prosperity, freedom, accomplishment and happiness.

Non-whites tend to be the primary carriers of Islam.

If we keep all these facts in mind, deviating far from white nationalism becomes problematic. These facts are like lego blocks. We can take these lego blocks and build anything we want with them, but the ultimate design is constrained by the nature of the legos we have to work with. Something rational has to emerge out of the lego scaffolding of the facts Nature has provided us with.

It's easy enough to say 'I don't care about race, just merit and ideals.' But caring about merit and ideals inevitably forces people to care about race again, because merit and ideals are not distributed evenly between the races. Discrimination, disproportionate impacts, will still occur between the races. At that point, people will accuse you of being a racist or an anti-semite, and you will be thrown into the same camp as the 'neo-nazis' despite all of your protests. Someone who discriminates on the basis of 'merit' and 'ideals' would, functionally, discriminate in almost the exact same manner as someone who discriminated on the basis of race. It will be very hard to tell, in the real world, any difference between said plans.

Furthermore, there is the bugaboo that family, ethnicity, race matters. It's stupid, it's just some silly evolved preference, it makes no philosophical or objective sense, but it's still there. Can different races really get along? Can we love each other? Can we be color-blind? I wouldn't say any nation has succeeded in such a project. The idea is noble, but what's the use if the execution is lacking? A nation must be set along lines that secure the happiness of the individuals living within it. If these individuals have an instinctive love for their own and an instinctive hatred for foreigners, there's no use making them unhappy by saying those instincts are 'silly' or 'wrong.' If they can't overcome those instincts, it doesn't matter how wrong they are, they still must be accommodated. Communism made the same mistake. Even if it's silly and nonobjective to care more about yourself than someone else, modeling a society after that idea just leads to ruin. Countries must be modeled after the raw materials we have to work with. if people simply have to be self-interested, the law codes must adapt themselves to the facts on the ground. We cannot adapt human nature to fit our law codes. That way leads tyranny, misery and ruin.

Perhaps people can overcome their natural preferences when it comes to race, and be a color-blind community. Perhaps shared beliefs are more important than shared genes. Perhaps inter-racial friendships and marriages would become common and no one would care anymore. Some inter-racial friendships happen. Some inter-racial couples are happy. It's within human potential to be a color-blind, multi-racial society. So perhaps the goal is so noble and important that it's worth all the pain. We must overcome this instinct at any cost, as a moral imperative, because it's just so beastly and repulsive to not be color-blind. However, to be color-blind, we at least have to be strict in our other discriminatory categories, so that the ONLY difference between groups is skin color: Merit and Ideals must be the EXACT same. Otherwise, race ISN'T about skin color. It's about merit, ideals, AND skin color.

A country that said, "Everyone must have 115+ IQ," could afford to be color blind towards individuals who stem from low IQ ethnic stocks. We would know that they aren't 'that type of black, hispanic, southeast asian, Indian' etc. They're the normal, meretricious, smart and reasonable type that could be your best friend without a hitch.

A country that said, "Everyone must agree with this carefully laid out constitution that covers all vital laws to be a citizen of this country, laws which are impossible to change," could afford to include racial divisions. Because they would be the only divisions. There wouldn't be jews trying to impose liberalism, or secularism, on a republican, Christian majority. There would be jews who loved, adored republicans and converted to Christianity themselves. All the jewish media would report every day on how great the military and Christ was. It makes you smile, doesn't it? But that's how it would have to be, because those who disagree with the basic legal, constitutional, philosophic nature of the community are shown the door. No matter what an ethnic group 'usually' or 'traditionally' believes, if they live alongside you, they believe the same thing as you. They are on your side. They could be your best friend. They'd die protecting you in the trenches. That's the sort of loyalty they would have for your constitution, the same starry, teary eyed love of country that you yourself would have for your utopia.

At this point, we could abandon white nationalism. We could say, "Oh, that's for kooks and losers. White Nationalism is all about hate. We just want rational societies that unite around common ideals." But the project is infinitely harder to achieve. It may be more socially acceptable. It may get you thrown out of fewer cocktail parties. But really? Countries with shared merit and ideals? The lines on the map of the whole world would have to be abolished. Everyone would have to move to some far-off place to find their new 'countrymen.' Families that have different ideals would no longer get to live in the same country together. Economic systems would be shattered by all the chaos. And endless numbers of 'left out' people would constantly be demanding they not be left out from the lands of milk and honey just because they don't measure up. It won't Offend anyone to have this dream, because everyone instinctively knows it's a silly and unworkable dream. An ethno-state, however, is possible. There are tons of them all around us, like Croatia. Grouping by ethnicity doesn't cause chaos and family division, because ethnicities mostly live in the same geographic area anyway, and families naturally all share the same ethnicity.

It's quite the dilemma. Have a socially acceptable, unworkable plan. Or a socially unacceptable, workable plan. In America, of course, it's both socially unacceptable and unworkable, because America is too mixed a nation to have any ethnic borders left. It's no wonder Americans would give up on white nationalism. But I do not think Europeans should. Giving up on an ethno-state, which functionally tends to create shared cultures and shared abilities, because IQ is so closely tied to genetics, and beliefs can be learned from age-old community standards, for a silly pipe dream of constitutional city-states that are perfectly color-blind but still perfectly discriminatory. . . Well, a bird in the hand is better than two in the bush. Then if things get too bad, white Americans could always move to European ethno-states. How reassuring such a 'home base' would be!

If white nationalism succeeded, it would give the people within it happiness. White nationalism has a higher chance of succeeding than a color-blind but race-realist splinter group, because it preserves families and historical, traditional nations. It doesn't take on the forces of inertia like color-blind race realism does. It moves with the flow instead of against it. But white nationalism would be wise to loosen its standards somewhat, to include whoever happens to already live there, because all of those people will have white friends and family members, who will not want to see them go.

The real potential for a better philosophy than white nationalism is over the horizon. If we invented spaceflight, we could settle a new planet with people who all Wanted to move, without disrupting any current existing borders on the world map. These pioneers would be eager to embrace change. Philosophically united, color-blind colony ships could succeed where political movements on Earth would fail.

Alternatively, robots, not belonging to any race but looking however we please (hopefully like the robots from anime), could be programmed to have a shared philosophy and to naturally be color-blind, because they never had an instinct for ethnic loyalty in the first place.

Alternatively, genetic engineering could erase all functional differences between the races, so that equality of outcome could finally be achieved and discrimination of any sort could be a thing of the past.

Since these inventions are all probably coming within the next century, white nationalism is myopic. I mean think about it. There is currently no support for white nationalism. If it takes fifty years to go from a hated minority to the ruling party of a new ethno-state, that only leaves 50 years for white nationalism to be relevant before it's obsolete due to scientific progress. Is an entire life of sacrifice and heartbreak for an unpopular cause worth a stopgap, a mere footnote in history because it is so quickly overtaken by science? White nationalism may well be the best political movement in the world, currently. But if it can't be implemented before it's too late to implement, there's no point even trying. Perhaps white nationalism was worth talking about in 1980. But when computers are winning Jeopardy and the singularity is right around the corner? And in the face of this much anti-racist headwind, to the point that racism is the most reviled belief on Earth? Sometimes discretion is the better part of valor.

In conclusion, I don't think white nationalists are bad people, or that they are pursuing a bad dream. I think given the facts we know, it is the only logical conclusion. But I do think that it's a bad lifestyle, and however logical white nationalism is, it is not necessary. Everyone would be better off if they gave up the 'movement' and argued each fact separately -- for instance, opposing mass immigration, or affirmative action, 'just because.' They wouldn't have to alienate themselves from the rest of their friends and family and countrymen this way, and they'd do just as much good. Everyone would be even better off if they welcomed our new robot overlords, like the player on Jeopardy did. It's a better dream than white nationalism, and a possibility closer to realization anyway.