Could White Advocacy Exist in a Multi-Ethnic Society?


The media believes Donald Trump is a fascist who will destroy the United States, though he claims he will save it. Trump has repeatedly stated his credo is America First, a muscular variety of civic nationalism and nativism, which terms of electoral support functions as an implicit form of White populism. As an ideology, it largely appeals to only the historical American nation. Because his platform is so visibly White, Trump is the most hated man in America, and his supporters the most hated class of Americans.

It’s a straightforward case of third worldism—if something is White it is inherently evil and needs to be fought against with a righteous and revolutionary fervor echoing the decolonization struggles of 1945-1994.

Trump, of course, has not come out as an explicit White advocate. He has never once said verbatim that he wants to represent the interests of White people or to defend them in the public space politically, morally, culturally, socially, economically, artistically, etc. But in practice that is largely what he is doing, and moreover what he is perceived as doing by the manufacturers of high-status opinion in this country, the lying press. The left and their opinion-setting extremists identify the United States as what the critical race theorist bell hooks calls “white-supremacist-capitalist-patriarchy.” Trump and his supporters, by threatening to put America first, are thus part of this structure that needs to be deconstructed.

Granted, on the Alt-Right we understand the United States is an occupation government that promotes White minoritization, also known as the third demographic transition. We’ve woken up from the American Dream. But since the left wants White people to become a minority, they aren’t going to raise the alarm. They can’t. They don’t see the United States as the enemy of White people (if they did they would love it); they see it as the epicenter of global White supremacy that must be fought and dismantled, an interesting example of how poorly they understand change over time. But ask yourself this: When was the last time the United States acted on behalf of the White race as its first concern in decision-making? That would be the most basic threshold of literal White supremacy, and to my knowledge it hasn’t done it in years.

The left sees defending the United States as defending White supremacy, which really just means White-majority society and White political power. Anywhere those things exist you will get charges of “supremacy.” And if you are seen as representing the interests of White people, through the symbol of the United States, you are nazi, a fascist, a White supremacist, a racist, or some other combination of loaded words that indicate you are a witch.

You don’t have to utter a single word explicitly in favor of Whites—you just have to support something seen as representative of them by the left, such as the flag, the military, the police, the southern border, the Constitution, the Christian religion, etc. That’s enough to bring the weight of the world against you. This is why all Republican presidential nominees are Hitler, and why Trump is Literally Hitler™—because most GOP voters are White. Wanting your country to be great, an innocent wish held around the world by billions of people in non-Western societies, is wrong for the people of the United States.

But what if someone did speak explicitly in favor of White people and their interests? What if he believed Whites had civil rights and sought to represent them in a society where they did not hold all the levers of power, and was conscious of the fact that if no one speaks up his people will either be neglected or persecuted by the authorities? What if you thought multi-ethnic society could work as long as each tribe had a suite of civil society groups to represent it politically, economically, culturally, and socially?


It would be very naive, bordering on idiocy even. White-inclusive multiculturalism is a tempting fantasy to be sure, playing off our longstanding attachment to fairness and reciprocity. We know that black advocacy and Jewish advocacy, for example, are widely lauded and supported across the United States. You’d think that if group A is allowed to do something nakedly pro-A and group B is allowed to do something nakedly pro-B, that group C would be allowed to do something even vaguely pro-C. But you’d be wrong. Because group C is White. And it is never okay to be pro-White.

This halfway solution, where every tribal group under the American Empire—including Whites—ends up with its own autonomy and legitimacy as a means of keeping the peace and prosperity, is never going to happen. White-inclusive multiculturalism is both lazy and wishful thinking. We won’t become an identity group that politicians explicitly court, and we won’t see “Whites for Candidate X” campaign stickers and t-shirts. Because as our numbers dwindle nationally and we lose political and demographic control of huge swathes of the United States, the potential to explicitly influence and bargain on behalf of our in-group (something we don’t even do currently) is going to collapse. We would be shut down 51-49 every time. We aren’t going to become first among equals or the kingmaker voting bloc. We will only be hated even more as demographic victory draws closer for our enemies.

If you have ever read any (((academic literature on anti-semitism))), you are probably familiar with the observation that few or no Jews need be present in a society for it to have anti-semitic attitudes. This is a huge issue for overseas Israelis, who don’t want to be repatriated or anyone to notice coincidences. But the bigger picture is that a society can be anti-foreigner (ethnocentric) without having a large amount of foreigners. Earlier I said that any White-majority society and White political power leds to the label of “supremacy.” But take it from the (((establishment climbers)))—you don’t need to have a majority to be hated. In a White-minority United States, Whites would be greater strangers in a strange land—more foreign—than they are now. It is unreasonable to assume that hatred of us and the unique opposition to our ethnocentrism would disappear simply because our numbers went down. I predict rather that those attitudes will intensify.

Like it or not, the solution will be White nationalism, and it will be chosen for us by world-historical forces independent of how Whites feel about nationalism now. In a non-white majority society, there will be two pressures acting upon us that select for nationalism. The first is simply rising anti-White sentiments among the majority of the population, who will no longer be us. Once it is obvious that many of the voices castigating us are not from people who look like us anymore, it will be much harder to side with them. And a growing number will reject them entirely. The second force is racial endogamy, which will not be a random choice in post-White America—random mating would result in most pairings being mixed marriages and the creation of miscegenated offspring.

I believe it is fair to infer that any White-White couplings will be the result of deliberately ethnocentric behavior. A left-wing post-White America would propagandize even more strongly for miscegenation than it does now, and present it as high-status and socially correct behavior. Anyone resisting that level of signaling and conditioning would be doing so for a reason. Their children would be born into a society where the idea of Whites coexisting as an organized tribe is verboten, certainly in practice if not legally by then as well. But they will also be born into explicit families of Whiteness. And families are the building blocks of civilization. The solution for them will not be meek White advocacy—it won’t be radical enough to make a difference. So if both the non-radical and the radical solutions are banned, why settle for compromise? Why not instead seek to achieve total independence and freedom for your civilization?

There won’t be an overt White advocacy movement and Trump is not going to set one off. The hegemonic left, with its moral authority to set what the right is allowed to do, is not going to allow it. We don’t even know if they are going to allow Trump’s deracinated compromise of America First to happen. We certainly know they don’t want it to happen—it remains to be seen how much violent obstruction would be unleashed if he wins in November.

And moreover, world-historical forces are against the emergence of simple White advocacy. Whites are declining demographically but poised to become more and more ethnocentric as a group as a result of persecution and endogamous selection. The weak, which we will be as minority, do not exact concessions from the strong, who will derive their power in post-White America from their numbers. How delusional would the left have to be to give us the rope to hang them with, to let us openly embrace a positive tribal identity?

Third worldists are fundamentally right when they say White ethnocentrism would lead to us opposing them and their clients. They don’t see us as a valid identity group and they never will in a way that doesn’t end with condemnation or expressing mirth at our fading demographic relevance. These people are not going to tolerate explicit White advocacy any more than they don’t tolerate implicit White advocacy. Obviously, they won’t tolerate White nationalism either. There could be a brief interim stage where advocacy for a parallel multiculturalism—between Whites and POC—is floated, but the logic of independence will crush it.

Nationalism is a better solution as it separates us from our enemies rather than seeking to coexist with them. Shouldn’t you separate yourself from people who hate you?

This entry was posted in America, Politics and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Could White Advocacy Exist in a Multi-Ethnic Society?

  1. reluctantreactionary says:

    I’m not so sure whether or not there will be an explicit white advocacy movement. For the last 40 years whites have always been able to move away and create new white areas. If the exits are closed the behaviors will change. A nice, friendly, family dog may bite when cornered.


    • The point is that there won’t be. I think we will jump to nationalism very quickly within a generation or so of White-minority society.


      • TheFashySwede says:

        What I fear is a meek surrender; civilization ends not with a bang, but a whisper. It’s already happening in city centers. Looking at the whites who somehow still survive in these areas, it’s apparent they are all cucked to hell and back. I’m not sure if a stand will ever happen, and if so, it will be too little too late.

        I keep hope alive for what you’re saying though, because I have to.


  2. BroncoColorado says:

    The lead pic sends out the wrong message. Only 2 kids! That fine couple could bless the nation with at least 4 children.


  3. Bar Tar says:

    It’s the intersection of reality and signaling. The current paradigm works because the cost/benefit ratio is such that toeing the party line seems the obvious choice. The country can go to hell as long I get to keep *my* political and financial power and live in *my* White neighborhood.

    But as the rising tide creeps upward into the middle-class and becomes more visible to the upper-middle-class, they will find it harder and harder to disbelieve their lying eyes.

    The shift will be swift and severe. It may even raise fertility rates, which seem to be increased by foreign occupation.

    Do note that these “minority” groups are really just used as a club. The USG is run, if not lead, by White people. Only Whites, Jews, and (to a somewhat lesser extent) NEAsians can run organizations effectively.


  4. Rifleman III says:

    Reblogged this on .


  5. Joe Putnam says:

    Another thought stimulating post. As a hard core admirer of the Founding Fathers, I keep hoping to reboot the free white republic they established. That being said, I doubt that it can be rebooted as long as we have a large minority population, and it definitely could not be rebooted when the white population is a minority -unless there were a peaceful break up of the current U.S.A. with the whites keeping the (currently ignored) Constitution and name U.S.A. for their portion of territory.


  6. Consigliere says:

    Your perspective regarding Trump is sensible; many on our side are too hopeful. The problems (opportunities) are just beginning to present themselves.

    The Current Year is both frightening and exciting.

    For me, 11/9 is the most important day – we will know the percentage of White American men that stand with us.


  7. Pingback: Scoring Trump on Immigration | ATLANTIC CENTURION

  8. Gray Liddell says:

    I see most whites as sheep, dutifully obeying the Authority they are shown on ‘The View’ or a major network or the big papers. In the Milgram experiment, repeated many times since, roughly 2/3 of humans follow authority.
    People hate the results because is shows them the truth…they are monkeys who can talk and live in a big monkey troupe. But independent thinkers? No way, they screech and chirp in unison most of the time.
    And really why would you go against the grain?
    At best you are shunned, at worst your HR Dept gets you fired.
    Sheepness is incentivized in our society, just keep moving out further YT. Out here we are still polite.

    Logically whites should have rights, especially in a globalized world where they are about 15% of the world population. As a minority in the world we should get the same as every other ethnic group. If globalization is the future, we are a fading minority with a boatload of recessive genes that get darkened by mixing with the others.
    If you like Diversity, you should preserve YT’s recessive genes and give us rights just like everybody else. La Raza(THE Race) gets rights, NAACP gets rights, what about us? Preserve global Diversity. Give YT rights.


  9. Well, it all depends on what is meant by ‘multi-cultural’.

    I would say we should support multi-culturalism for the time being, especially among the non-whites because multi-culturalism is essentially separatist. Indeed, we should argue against race-mixing on the basis of multi-culturalism. Multi-culturalism is ANTI-ASSIMILATIONIST. It says various minority groups shouldn’t assimilate into the ‘oppressive’ and ‘conformist’ melting pot of the majority. They should maintain their own rich & unique cultures, values, and identities. I say FINE and YES. The more non-whites stick to their own cultures, the less they will mix with whites.
    We don’t want miscegenation, which is what assimilation comes to.

    The funny thing is that the PROGLOBs(progressive-globalists) push both multi-culturalism and interracism. On the one hand, they say that non-white minorities shouldn’t be pressured into adopting Western, European, or white identities, values, and norms. They should be allowed, even encouraged, to keep their own identities and values. But then, these very PROGLOBs advocate all races to mix into a vast mulatto or mestizo race, thus making all of the West look like Mexico or North Africa.
    Why the contradiction? Well, Jews see value in both multiculturalism and interracism. Jews don’t want non-whites to identify with white greatness and instead see whites as the oppressors, the enemy. That way, non-whites won’t politically side with whites against Jewish elites who got the most privilege. Instead, Jews can use non-whites against whites. That is why multi-culturalism is useful to Jews.
    But Jews also want to weaken white identity; and race-mixing does the trick. After all, if both your parents are white, you will imprint on whiteness as your identity from the moment you open your eyes. You will look upon your white father as the figure of authority, affection, and respect. Your mind will imprint on his face, voice, and manners as the essence of your identity. But suppose your mother had sex with a Negro. You will imprint on the Negro man as the figure of authority, power, and identity. You will grow up seeing his face and hearing his voice as the essence of what you are. Of course, you will also identify with your white mother, but the male is always the bigger figure of authority in the house — after all, even feminists look for alpha men who are manly and proud than wimpy and dorky. So, growing up with a black father and white mother, you will come to assume that the black race is superior since your white mother rejected white men and offered her womb for a Negro dude to plant his seed in.
    A person’s father plays a very big role in one’s psycho-politics of identification. Obama was abandoned by his black father and raised by white people, but he still sought out his father’s identity to declare himself black. So, fatherhood is very important to identity. When a baby opens his or her eyes, he or she imprints on the first things he or she sees. Not as powerfully as ducklings do, but humans do imprint onto things at an early age. So, if you’re a young child and the first thing you imprint on is a jiveass Negro as father who kisses and hugs a white woman, you will mainly identify with blackness(as dominant) and you will grow up to believe that white wombs exist only to serve black seed(while banning white seed)… .like your mudshark mama done.
    And then, as you grow older, you will look in the mirror and gain self-consciousness as a darker-hued nappy-headed boy or girl, and you will see that you’re not white. And then, PC education will fill you with sanctimonious narratives of how noble blacks are and how wicked whites are, and so, even if you’re half-white, you will identify fully as black. Mudsharks are the worst creatures in the universe. They are race-traitors, the benedict arnolds or bananadick anns of heredity. If traitors in espionage hand over secrets to the other side, traitors in sex hand over wombs(home of life) to the enemy race. White women are acting like Saigon women during Vietnam War. They have no sense of loyalty to race and culture. They are just cheap sluts who will even betray their own race for their thrills. In FULL METAL JACKET, we see two Vietnamese whores who act just like white girls today. But the last woman is real patriot as she guns down US invaders. She doesn’t put out to the invaders but fights them for her homeland. The white race needs more women like that sniper-bitch at the end of FULL METAL JACKET. Sadly, so many white girls in the West are mental slaves of Jews, and body-slaves of Negroes. With millions of African men headed to EU and with cucked out EU elites encouraging white women to have babies with the invaders, the West is faced with an existential crisis of titanic proportions. Of course, much of this invasion is sweetened with hedonism. It’s like the US seduced the Vietnamese with candy bars, cigarettes, sunglasses, and all sorts of fun stuff. So, even though South Vietnam was reduced to whoredom to the US, the people could drink Coca Cola and listen to pop music. The collaborators got hooked to the goodies. Likewise, the invasion of EU is sweetened with rap music, porn, and sports where black men are promoted as heroes and champions.

    Anyway, by supporting multi-culturalism, the Eurospherists should make the case that interracism goes against the spirit of multi-culturalism. If indeed the whole point of Diversity and Multi-culturalism is to maintain the distinctness and uniqueness of various peoples with different identities, values, and interests, then race-mixing muddles everything up and confuses the meaning of culture. After all, if someone is 1/8 African, 1/8 Chinese, 1/8 German, 1/8 Arab, 1/8 Jewish, 1/8 Turk, 1/8 Hindu, and 1/8 Amish, what would his or her culture be? It would be just some deracinated globo-cosmo crap that means nothing and has no roots or heritage in anything. If you’re everything, you’re nothing. You have no core loyalty. Surely, even Jews must know this. If every Jew were only 1/16th Jewish, very few Jews(who are only 1/16th Jewish) would care much about Jewishness as identity, tradition, territory, and history.

    It might also help to stop using the term ‘American’ for whites because it confuses matter. America is really just New Europe or Neurope. It is a mere extension of Europe. It was not the development of a new civilization but the mere outgrowth of European civilization. By rejecting the notion of ‘American’, white Americans or Neuropeans will come to identify more with Europeans, their racial brethren, than with non-white Americans. The notion of ‘American’ creates the illusion that white Americans have more in common with non-white Americans than with Europeans. But in fact, even liberal white Americans will fit in better in Europe than in Black America or Mexican-America. Even a white Liberal American will feel more at home in white Germany or white Netherlands than in Hindu-America or Muslim-America or Chinatown-America.

    So, we should see White America as just New Europe or Neurope. There is Old Europe(or First Europe) and New Europe(or Second Europe). The hell with ‘America’.
    America should just mean the land mass of the United States. But white Americans should think in terms of creating their own cultural space called Neurope in America.

    Indeed, this is why Jews are not only hellbent on undermining White America but White Europe. As long as Europe remains white and as long as ‘European’ means whiteness, white Americans will have a particular, unique, and special identity and tradition to hark back to. But if mass migration and race-mixing turns Europe into a land mass teeming with Negroes, Muslims, Arabs, and Hindus, what is a ‘European’? Look at the Olympics. Even Ukraine and Azerbaijan have black athletes representing them. In European track events, so many representatives of nations are black. So, if African is the New European, then white Americans don’t even have white Europe to look back to as a historical and cultural model. Jews are indeed very devious and venal in pushing this horribleness. And notice that Israel has an almost no-Negro-migration policy. Deep down inside, Jews know that blacks are trouble.

    Anyway, for the time being, we should support multi-culturalism and the cult of Diversity as a means to thwart assimilation and melting-pot-ism. As America becomes
    less white, the last thing we want is assimilation and melting-pot-ism since it will just muddy up the races and turn more and more children of white race-traitor parents into mestizos, mulattos, eurasians, and etc.

    There was a time when assimilation and melting pot ideal were good for America. Until the 60s, almost all immigrants were white. Even though there are subtle(and even not-so-subtle) differences among the various white ethnic groups(Germanics, Celtics, Latins, Slavs, Finns, Baltics, Greeks, etc.), they are more or less similar. So, even though many white immigrants of yesteryear were not Anglo, by adopting Anglo-American culture, manners, and ideas(and by intermarrying with Anglos), they could become more or less like any other white American. They couldn’t be Anglo but could be Angloistic. If a Polish American or Croatian American learned English and picked up Anglo-American ways, he would be mostly like an Anglo-American. So, the melting pot ideal was good for America when most immigrants were white and European. Even though some Anglo-Americans purists rejected the assimilation of ‘lesser whites’ with Anglo stock, time has proved that most white Europeans, if adoptive of Anglo ways, could be almost as good as any Englishmen, in some cases even better(as some Anglo types in both UK and US have fallen into ‘white trash’ culture). Also, back then, melting pot mostly meant the racial mixing of white ethnic groups. There were strong social taboos and even legal bans on race-mixing with the ghastly Negroes.

    Today, things are different. Because of the mass arrival of the Hindus, Muslims, Africans, Asians, Mexicans, Central Americans, and all sorts of different peoples from every corner of the world(as well as promotion of miscegenation with Negroes), the ideal of the melting pot will simply destroy whiteness.

    If an Anglo-American has a kid with a Polish-American, Russian-American, or even Italian-American(some of them tend to be a bit swarthy), the kid would be white like any other. But if whites mix with the darkies from non-Europe, the next generation will not be white, and this is especially true with blacks.

    Because of some degree of racial similarity between whites and Arabs, a child of white and Arab might be someone like Steve Jobs. Acceptable. And some Latinos are white or mostly white. But blacks are a totally different race, almost verging on a different species.
    And because they are tougher and more aggressive, they pose an existential threat to white males. Black men have the power to beat up and pussywhip white men, take away their manly pride, and conquer white wombs to create mulatto-Negro chillun. Negroes are the biggest existential threat to the white race, and Jews know it, which is why Jews especially encourage the mixing of black males and white females. This existential threat is psychological and physical. Indeed, the two are related. Once white ‘boys’ come to psychologically admire black males as superior, they get to thinking, ‘May the best man win. Since the Negro can whup my ass and has a bigger dong, he DESERVES to have the white girl while I should meekly accept my role as cuckaroo.’ Look at the white kid in the movie SPECTACULAR NOW. He surrenders his blonde white girlfriend to a bigass Negro and just pees in his pants about it. If you destroy the psychology, you destroy the physical will to fight and defend one’s race and honor. It’s like a warrior without the will to fight will not fight for his land. South Vietnamese had more war material than North Vietnamese, but they lost because they had no will to fight. France had more war material than Germany in 1940, but they lost because they had no will to fight.

    In a way, the idea of ‘multi-culturalism’ is right-wing in origin, and it became ‘leftist’ due to accident of history.
    There was a time when the Marxian left had no use for culture. It saw Culture or Kultur as atavistic, irrational, particularist, traditional, tribal, and close-minded. In contrast to Kultur, there was Civilization of universal, rational, and enlightened ideals, values, and methodology. Karl Marx was no romanticist of cultures around the world. He thought there was only one purpose to history: economic history that would eventually lead to capitalism, wealth creation, revolution, communism, and equality for all. And he posited this Hegelian process as the one that all societies would or should go through. The West was the most advanced and was best positioned to undergo revolution first. But the rest of the world would eventually go through the same process fueled by class antagonism and materialist dialectics of history.
    Also, even though Marx found imperialism to be exploitative, he saw value in its spreading of rational, materialist, and scientific values all over the world where non-whites were trapped in backwardness, local tyranny, savagery, barbarism, religions, superstitions, stupid customs, crazy rituals, and etc.
    Marx thought there was only one truth for all mankind. And so, for much of the first half of the 20th century, the Left emphasized universalism of ‘rational, scientific, and materialist’ values for ALL mankind. The Left saw Culture or Kultur of all peoples to be obstacles to progress and enlightenment.

    But then, universalism got a bad rap. It came to be associated with Western Imperialism, not least because Europeans justified invasion and plunder on the basis of bringing light of civilization to the rest of the world. Also, the rise of anthropology as a discipline led to the romanticization of non-westerners, especially the primitives. There were already elements of such in Romanticism and Impressionism(consider artists like Gauguin) , but anthropology gave intellectual sheen to the idealization of non-white folks(especially those living in close proximity with nature) as noble savages. Also, the rise of Modernism in art led to rejection of Western Traditions(that became associated with the bourgeoisie, snotty upper classes, and insecure philistines seeking respectability) and fascination with non-Western art, e.g. Picasso’s fascination with African Art. Also, the trauma of WWI and WWII shook the West’s confidence in its morality and values. So, Westerns thought maybe the answer was with the non-whites in exotic cultures that were idealized as more ‘spiritual’ and ‘living in harmony with nature or something’. Also, the rise of popularity of ‘black music’ made Western music sound stuffy, dull, and boring by comparison. Black music made whites feel black in soul. Consider the reverence for the blues in the UK that led to Stones, Eric Clapton, and Led Zeppelin. Also, with the prospect of atomic clouds hanging over the world during the Cold War, people began to wonder about the goodness of Western Science.

    Also, after WWII, there were so many anti-imperialist struggles all over the world. So, the core of leftism went from “spreading radical scientitic-materialist universalism all over the world” to “idealizing third world anti-imperialists as brave heroes at war with the Technological West as the cancer of history.” Side with the Indians(or Ewoks) against the Cowboys(or the Empire). Though Western leftists tended to sympathize most with Third World Marxists, they also sided with Asian-Indians against the British, Algerians against the French, Palestinians against the Israelis(seen as outpost of Western imperialism), and the Iranian Islamists against the Shah(who was seen as a US puppet).

    So, the Western Left, which had at one time denounced Culture or Kultur(as irrational, atavistic, and backward), suddenly found great value in it. It was the precious property of non-whites whose way of life, values, and rich customs were threatened by the West with its soulless science, technology, materialism, greed, commoditization, and etc. In the 60s, so many Western leftists idealized India as some holy place filled with wise gurus strumming sitars and making profound statements about spirituality, cosmos, love, and peace. Go see Sexy Sadie for the truth. John Lennon, ever the cynical wit, caught onto this BS quicker than most(though too much drugs and Yoko made him fall for more frauds in the near future).

    (We should have a song contest in the Alt Right against sacred cows like MLK that phony pile of turd.)

    Well, since the Left ‘stole’ or appropriated the idea of Kultur from the Right for their own purposes(to use as weapon against the West), it is about time for the Right to re-appropriate the idea of Kultur back from the Left. The Right should not only accept but support the Ideal of preserving different and separate cultural identities. The more non-whites stick to their own identities and communities, the less they will mix with whites who can then maintain their own identities and communities. And the more non-whites feel hostile to whites, the more whites will be ‘red-pilled’ and join the community of white identity, history, and unity.

    Look at Mormons. They are just a small percentage of Americans, but they have a rich and powerful world to themselves because they have a tightknit community of shared identity and values. (The Mormon effort to convert non-whites is the stupidest thing it came up with, and it may eventually finish off the community, just like the darkie-ization of the Catholic Church pretty much destroyed it.)

    Now, the term ‘white’ is too generic, bland, and blank. So, we need a new term that delves into the history, mythology, and the legend of the West. Since the core of High Western Civilization began with the Greeks, maybe whites should call themselves Neo-Hellenists. It is the Greek Fire that is still passed down generation after generation in the Eurosphere.


  10. Pingback: Dreaming of Diversity: What if America was New York City? | ATLANTIC CENTURION

  11. Pingback: Alt-RINOs, Those Who Incur the Wrath of Kek | ATLANTIC CENTURION

  12. Pingback: Physical, Legal, and Virtual: The Wall Against Time | ATLANTIC CENTURION

  13. Pingback: Jim Webb’s Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America | ATLANTIC CENTURION

  14. Pingback: Lawrence Murray on Jim Webb’s Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America | Counter-Currents Publishing

  15. Pingback: Milo’s Alt-Right | ATLANTIC CENTURION

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s