White Nationalism is Anti-White

The White Globalist Manifesto

Earlier this year I published an essay entitled Why I’m no longer a White Nationalist, which more or less brought me back as a public figure when

TracingWoodgrains

gently roasted the piece in a Twitter thread that ended up going viral.

On one hand this was quite a lucky break for me, as my audience exploded basically overnight and that spared me from having to Reply Guy my way into some eceleb’s good graces. But the reaction that ensued was also somewhat frustrating, as it quickly became apparent that most of the people reading the tract lacked the metapolitical savvy to understand what I was doing (Trace himself being a notable exception).

See, I first conceived of this article in late 2023, when I witnessed

Richard Hanania

survive his cancellation and retain credibility as a thought leader even after getting outed as Richard Hoste. This event was significant because while Dr. H *did* disavow his past, he refused to show his belly or grovel like a Picciolini. Instead he emitted the right status signals by describing how improvements in his personal life emotionally facilitated his journey out of extremism, and he created additional runway for himself by antagonizing wignat chuds on Twitter. As a result he was able to keep writing edgy things about civil rights law and Sydney Sweeney’s knockers without losing influence.

I immediately saw the brilliance in Hanania’s strategy, and adopted basically the same approach for my comeback earlier this year. But I also went one step further, and in my own renunciation of WN made a point not to disavow anything I did in 2016.

You’ll notice that nowhere in the piece linked above do I say the Alt Right’s goals were in any way illegitimate; instead I emphasize that White people *were* under attack at the time, and maintain that everything we did during those years was both entirely justified and ultimately successful—so much so that a racially maximalist approach to politics is no longer necessary and it behooves us to address competing priorities like gerontocracy, dopamine traps, and a skyrocketing incel rate.

Yet this conclusion was never meant to totally obviate the need for White identity politics. Indeed, a major point in both subsequent writings and my follow-up convo with Trace was my desire to cultivate a new kind of political Whiteness—one that isn’t seen as hateful (or even outside the bounds of mainstream politics) and can help wypipo peacefully pursue our collective interests in a transactional accommodation with other races as we gradually adjust to our now-inevitable minority status.

It goes without saying that this is an entirely fair and reasonable impulse, and that only a hysterical and dissolute freak could see anything objectionable in it. But I got lots of pushback all the same—and not even from libtards so much as from tedious “colorblind conservative” types unable to realize methodological individualism is suicide in a country where ninety percent of brothas vote Democrat.

Hell, some of these guys even went so far as to insist I was still a White Nationalist—an irritating reaction to be sure, but an understandable one given that any talk of “White interests” could fall under what I called “Soft WN” in my original essay.

The thing is when I discuss “White interests” these days I will typically have a radically different focus from what guys like Jared Taylor have in mind, and I’m clearly not just a “moderate” version of a conventional WN either. It’s more that I approach the political expression of White identity from a completely different direction—one that distinguishes me from both WNs and their adversaries.

Which at long last brings me to the thesis of this piece: I’ve very genuinely come to believe that White Nationalism (which I’ll define in the hard sense as “the desire for a White ethnostate,” and in the soft sense as “a general racial isolationism that seeks to insulate White people from external pressures and influence”) runs deeply counter to White interests and values, and should therefore be considered anti-White.

---

What is it that makes White people special?¹

It may surprise the normies in my audience to learn a lot of White Nationalists hate that question. But it actually makes perfect sense when you think about it; if racial solidarity is merely contingent it leaves the moral foundations of any particularist worldview in a great position to get shredded by the wheels of neoliberal meritocracy.

That’s why most WNs will maintain that they’d still be WN even if White people were completely lame and unexceptional. To such fellers racial ingroup loyalty is simply an extended kin bond, and doesn’t require a meritocratic justification any more than one must justify housing his own child over the valedictorian.

I used to take exactly this line myself—though in my case it was more a performative response to peer pressure. Because the truth is I don’t even like my family, and stopped talking to them years ago. And if I’m ghosting my cousins, can I really in good faith profess my loyalty to a far looser genetic ingroup?

Obviously I’ll always retain *some* instinctive tribal kin-sense (to the extent I’ll always root for the white boxer and so forth), but if I’m being honest this impulse just isn’t very strong, and any deeper racialism within me has always been mostly ideological.

More significantly, it’s highly conditional. I love the White race as a father loves his children. That means there’s certainly *some* hard core that will always exist no matter what, but contra maternal love there’s a very real sense in which this sort of affection has to be earned. And the obvious corollary is there will likely be offspring (or in this case, societies) who earn your love a lot more effectively than others.

When reviewing White civilizations the golden children are obvious: Alexandrian Macedon and its Hellenistic successor states; Rome during its late Republic and early Empire; Christendom during the High Middle Ages; Europe from the Age of Discovery through La Belle Époque; and America through most of its history, with certain regions of the coastal Sun Belt maintaining this distinction into modernity.

As for the failsons? Modern Europe is a candidate, as there’s some chance its population was permanently traumatized by the World Wars into abandoning Faustian aspirations of greatness for The Good Life. And obviously Flyover Country is just as sclerotic in its own way, hence my infamous screed against Nebraskans.

But what criteria am I even using to make these assessments? What are the truly essential elements of normative Whiteness?

So glad you asked! I would define them as follows:

Risk Taking and Novelty Seeking

Compared to other races it seems as though White people have this very innate drive to roll the dice and try out crazy and novel shit.

You often see this mentioned in standup sets from black comedians, who’ll often opine ”wypipo crazy” when they see us e.g. skydiving or climbing Mount Everest.

Such jokes are ostensibly derisive, but always carry a palpable subtext of admiration. And once you do a bit of digging you’ll quickly discover other races expressing this same kind of respect a lot more overtly:

I don’t pretend to understand the science as to why we’re like this—if I had to guess I’d say it’s just a Cold Winters thing. Or perhaps it has to do with our ancestors adopting agriculture more recently? Should probably ask

Sebastian Jensen

.

The point is a good White man ought to be a risk taker. He should have a healthy appetite for danger, an insatiable drive to test out unconventional life scripts and asymmetric strategies, and above all a deep-seated desire to chart out the unknown. He should be the type to follow Vasco to India and Elon to Mars.

Taking this back to the macro level, we can observe that the most vital and impressive White civilizations typically thrived by creating an open and freewheeling incentive structure wherein ambitious and agentic elites were able to gamble on conquering a powerful neighbor to bring riches to themselves and glory to the state. Think the depredations of Pompey and Caesar during the Late Republic, the wars of Alexander and Frederick, or the expeditions of Cortes and Pizarro (and on the less fortunate side of the coin toss you might think of Crassus and William Walker).

The upshot of this is that to properly actualize the White man’s best qualities you really need some kind of outlet for exploration or conquest.

But this requirement isn’t especially compatible with White Nationalism, which tends to entail a very rigid isolationism. Most WNs—particularly those hailing from our interior regions—will instinctively reject overseas adventures, and maintain that empire is by necessity a waste of blood and treasure (probably because they don’t understand how the Petrodollar works). Oftentimes they’ll even advocate pulling back from all overseas commitments wholesale and focusing entirely on domestic matters.

Such a route wouldn’t just impoverish our economy— it would impoverish our spirit! Because the White man has never been inward-looking. He is an empire-builder.

Yet White Nationalists would turn us into Ming China or Tokugawa Japan—societies that ended up being too sheltered and sclerotic for Asians.

How the fuck are White boys supposed to live like that?

Brutality

One thing I find annoying in WNs is their tendency to paint Whites as particularly gentle or peaceful compared to other races, which I’d attribute to two causal factors.

The first is that WNs are paranoid about being infiltrated by glowies bent on egging their men into violent criminal activity, which leaves them artificially pacifist in their sensibilities and prevents them from properly integrating their own capacity for violence. I’ll admit I don’t have a great solution to this problem other than “don’t hang out with ‘tards who might get baited into violence,” which obviously isn’t particularly scalable. But that very limitation actually hints at where I’m going with this.

The second factor is that black crime is a massive issue in America today, and there’s still a lot of alpha in propagating information re: the racial breakdown of FBI crime stats. And to that end advancing the proper narrative probably requires leaning into the simplistic dialectic of barbaric criminal black vs. gentle civilized white.

But this framing also has atrocious second-order consequences, like contributing to the idea that black men are “tougher” or more masculine than us—a transparently silly narrative given that we were the ones who conquered and subjugated them (it’s also worth noting that for nearly all of history until several decades ago blacks were stereotyped not as hypermasculine but as unusually childish and easy to subdue).

Fortunately if you leave the inane bubble of American culture you’ll quickly learn that basically no one else has our attitude, and nearly everywhere on the planet recognizes that the White man is more capable at violence than any other group by a country mile. Of course WNs remain petrified to talk like that, because they remain trapped in a slave morality mindset, but there really seems to be something in the White man’s character that enables creative brutality on an industrial scale.

On that count Asians can certainly *emulate* us with sufficient grit… but they’re never really on the cutting edge of cruelty, are they? They’re simply too pragmatic for that—a bit less willing on the margins to step past the precipice and into that great abyss—and as a result their sadism never really aggregates to anything more than a cheap knock-off of ours. Sure Mao might *technically* have a higher body count than Hitler or Stalin… but does anyone *really* see him as in the same league?

Even with crime every true Boogeyman is a White boy. There’s never been a black Bundy or Kaczynski. Whitey Bulger was called that for a reason. And everyone knows white ethnic mafias are a billion times scarier than black street gangs.

Hell, even the exaggerated bravado you often see in black men is really just a shadow of the White man’s brutality. They’re basically overcompensating because we spent centuries emasculating them. Recall how their average White admixture got so high.

Honestly there’s a good reason they call us the White Devil—when the White boy gets off his leash he is genuinely terrifying. Call me a theater kid if you want, but I always thought this ERB clip summed up the dynamic I’m talking about almost perfectly.

At any rate, there’s obviously two sides to every coin, and our brutality needn’t serve an evil end. The wypipo tendencies I explored above are ultimately what ended the global slave trade and liberated much of the world from Islam, and it’s likely we’ll need to call on those same instincts sooner than we’d otherwise prefer to ensure the Chinese are never permitted to impose their dour Confucian mentality on the world.

My main point here is that White Nationalists need to stop framing our race as a bunch of lamo goody-goody Hobbits when we literally descend from pirates and raiders.

And I know you’re paranoid about the FBI or whatever, so let me clarify: I’m obviously not telling you to fedpost. What you ought to do is channel that psycho Hyperborean Sea People Energy against Russia and China in some way instead of actively rooting against your own country due to some bizarre maladaptive accelerationism. Instead of supporting foreign kleptocrats you should join your humble Disney parodist and the Richards Spencer and Hanania in supporting America and NATO and Ukraine.

Because once you’re rooting for Leviathan you can be as bloodthirsty as you want.

Pluralist Chauvinism

Looking back at my list of golden boy civilizations one theme that really stands out is that the best White societies were able to balance racism and multiculturalism.

To maintain a vital and prosperous civilization you really need both impulses existing simultaneously in a healthy tension with one another. You absolutely require some degree of racism to make sure foreigners don’t get uppity and immigrants maintain a healthy respect for the native stock, just as you need some level of multiculturalism to bring in novel ideas and provide libertarians with dating options.

As usual Rome provides the master class: Classical Romans were some of the most bigoted people around—hell, they actually fought a civil war because they were a bit too racist against other Italians—but they were also a very multicultural society, and knew how to do business with people from different backgrounds without it causing a race war or requiring a gay diversity seminar. There were tons of Jews and random brown people all over Rome, and the Romans probably didn’t like them too much… but they sure loved the money they brought, so they learned to deal with it.

Rome was also exceptional at stealing the ideas of its enemies: Carthaginian naval tech, Gallic metallurgy, Greek philosophy / mythology… you name it, the Romans stole it. And one of the reasons they were able to do this so efficiently is that Rome heavily incorporated foreign auxiliaries into their legions, as well as foreign slaves into their civil society (and oftentimes bureaucracies as well). It wasn’t an issue to do this because Romans were so fanatically aggressive about their own cultural superiority that they never felt threatened; by shoring up the strength of the majority culture, Rome’s chauvinism made it more possible to leverage the talents of outsiders.

To my mind the only society that’s managed to execute something similar is the US—obviously not in all places or at all times, but definitely enough to count. I for one can certainly attest that the flame burns bright here in Florida; there isn’t a drop of political correctness left in this state, and I feel at liberty to speak to people IRL as candidly as I might on Substack. That freedom is fantastically sweet—really what makes it tolerable to live amidst crowds of vaguely hostile Puerto Ricans (who aren’t bad themselves honestly; their presence actually has a pleasing anonymizing effect).

That said America is clearly diverse enough, and if I could press a button that would shut off immigration for all time I obviously would. Hell, I’d also push that button if it deported half of all immigrants since 1965 and all their descendants, because clearly I’d like the country to be significantly whiter than it is today (Y2k-era demographics feel optimal for a White Empire ). But I don’t want a homogeneous ethnostate either!

There are lots of reasons for this, so I’ll just list them sequentially:

• Limited multiculturalism allows eccentrics to arbitrage a personality that’s less valued in Culture A for better friendship / romance opportunities in Culture B

• Befriending Hindus can help White people understand their ancestral pagan faiths in a more authentic and embodied way, and this might eventually serve as a vector for a less LARPy and gay Hellenic or Norse revival movement

• At a few of my jobs I would trick East Asian women into doing my work for me; they always did a really good job and were usually quite gullible and weak-willed

• Competing with Jews and Brahmins in the market makes White guys sharper

• MENAs occupy a useful position in the American racial schema, and in practice seem to influence White people to be more racist against blacks in useful ways

• I have a fetish for Jewish women, who are like elves in that they’re implicitly higher status than normal humans/goyim, which means when I seduce a Jewess it feels like a big accomplishment. But sans Jews everyone would be beneath me.

• Cultural interchange with black people probably does make us a little cooler, and they invent a lot of art forms we end up improving (think Elvis or Eminem)

• Hispanics can be fantastically handy for gentrifying black neighborhoods if there aren’t enough homosexuals around

• MENAs make Jews scared / more likely to negotiate in good faith with flyover goyim (they’re kind of like dark-type Pokémon to the Jew’s psychic-type).

• Saying the n-word gives white people tremendous catharsis that would likely disappear in the event of a political partition from Black America

Those are just the first ten things I thought of. But I could keep riffing all day.

Look, the thing to keep in mind here is that White boys will always be the main character. We know that and so does everyone else. Sure, from time to time the rest of them will bitch about it, but ultimately they feel most comfortable with us in charge.

They love being special snowflakes in our Justice League while we’re just Superman.

And at the end of the day it’s our job to protect them. Because in truth there never was a real threat to our position. The genuinely capable among us have always known that.

You can’t kill Superman.

---

Walt’s Message for the Dissident Right

Last Friday I appeared on Millenniyule (thanks again

Millennial Woes

for having me) to discuss my reemergence in the scene and promote The Tortuga Society.

And I’m happy to report it generally went well—we’ve already added several guys to our ranks, and my Substack has swelled mightily over the past week.

But I think it would be productive at this juncture to reflect a bit on some of the pushback I received from the Dissident Right during our stream:

These sort of comments were hardly surprising, and are more or less in keeping with the caliber of discussion I’ve come to expect from the Dissident Right’s people on literally any platform other than Substack.

But they also proved useful in drafting the following list of critiques I have for the modern Dissident Right as an Alt Right oldhead.

1. If something as simple as *talking fast* automatically codes as Jewish to you, it’s a pretty embarrassing sign that you don’t know any verbally sophisticated people. Look, I don’t mind being roasted, and the AR certainly would have roasted me to hell and back. But they would have called me a sperg or fixated on something substantive in my pitch. Whereas you guys just heard me talking about money at a rapid cadence and thought “Jew.” Because you’re broke and verbally untalented.

2. Had you fellers listened to a single word of my discussion with Woes, you’d know I’ve been offering everyone the chance to explore The Tortuga Society themselves and then collect a full refund if they’re unsatisfied. You’d also know I’ve posted hard proof that Tortuga isn’t a grift and we are helping our boys acquire six figure remote jobs. At this point accusing me of fraud is straightforwardly just libel.

3. There is precisely nothing wrong with plugging things if you are offering a wholly legitimate product for an entirely legitimate need. The DR’s anti-commercial impulse is pretentious and hugely self-limiting. Your tendency to chastise leaders and content creators for monetizing things is a massive impediment to the scalability of your movement and proof you have zero organizational skills.

4. It’s legitimately a massive albatross around your neck that the DR enforces this blockheaded stigma against casually promoting one’s business. If you aren’t old money or some shit thinking that way is just suicidally retarded.

   PROTIP: One reason Jews are rich is they don’t have that stigma, which makes it much easier for them to throw each other business or “know a guy.”

   (this is something you’d know if you were friends with Jews)

5. Speaking of that, you guys are frankly obsessed with the JQ and it’s embarrassing. Look, I’ve almost certainly been double-crossed by Jews more than the rest of you chuds combined (assuming they even exist where you live). But I’ve also had a lot of really great experiences with them—particularly with the ones who ended up double crossing me! And in both cases I always gave it to them as good as I got it.

   It’s ultimately retarded to make the JQ your north star. At the end of the day Jews respond to incentives just like anyone else; they’re just a bit more ruthless and manipulative about it (but also funnier and more empathetic, so it balances out). And with a tribe of high highs and low lows it’s better to have ‘em on your side.

---

Anyway, that’s all from Walter for now. But lots of Tortuga shit coming next week.

Don’t forget we’re doubling the fee to $500 on 1/1/2025.

If you want in at the beta price of $250 now is the time to buy.

1. Some folks are “colorblind individualists” who don’t believe that clinally distributed genetic groupings have any essential characteristics worth discussing. These people are wrong.