census demographers that non-Hispanic whites will become one minority in a nation of minorities sometime around 2042—depending on immigration numbers and birth rates. By any objective count, it would then be difficult for white people (qua white people) to easily maintain the privileges of majority status in our winner-take-all society. And white nationalists have been preparing for more than a decade to fight this future battle.
To their chagrin, however, the changes in political dynamics have happened much faster than they previously had thought possible. And white nationalists have been caught without any fully formulated strategy in response. They remain without a usable electoral vehicle. The Republican Party still nominates presidential candidates such as George W. Bush and John McCain, who white-ists regard as either Zionist stooges or pro-big business immigrant-lovers, or both. They have failed to build a viable third party alternative. In this regard, consider that David Duke, who twice won a majority of white votes while running as a Republican for statewide office in Louisiana, and was forced into a position of supporting Ralph Nader’s candidacy in the last election.
Although individual acts of violence have continued largely unabated, there is little sign of any newly-organized, clandestine army of Aryan warriors, despite the multiple calls in the recent past for a “race war.”
Yes, the election occasioned a great howling and gnashing of teeth on white nationalist websites, as noted by others. But a close look at these on-line forums reveals the dilemmas they now face. On one website, largely devoted to the promotion of various “scientific” and “genetic” theories of white superiority, American Renaissance chief Jared Taylor compared the recent election to the end of white minority rule in South Africa. While 68% of white South Africans, including a majority of Afrikaner Boers, had voted for democratic reforms, Taylor noted that only 43% of white people had voted for “black rule—pardon me, for Barack Obama.” Taylor continued: “The election of a president most whites did not want is a jarring symbol of lost autonomy. If their numbers continue to decline, whites will not get the schools, the neighborhood, the culture—and ultimately, the country—they want.”
Leaving aside the specious nature of his statement about “black rule,” and his claim for white “autonomy,” Taylor succinctly stated the white nationalist argument. It generated about 50 comments in response within the first twelve hours of his posting and many more in the weeks immediately following. The tenor of these was overwhelmingly pessimistic, sadly noting the large number of whites who had voted for Obama. But on the crucial question, “what is left that we can do,” asked by the first respondent, the postings were noticeably quiet.
Just days after the election, at David Duke’s European American Unity and Rights conference in Memphis, the tone was a bit less mournful. Certainly, Duke had bewailed the election of Barack Obama. But in his mind Obama was a sign of “Jewish supremacism” as well as an occasion to note the loss of Aryans-only rule over the United States. During that day’s proceedings Duke also warned against any move by white nationalists towards starting a race war. Bullets would not advance his cause. Instead, he promoted the recent election of Derek Black to a committeeman’s seat on the Republican Party of Palm Beach County, Florida. Derek Black, the 19-years old son of long-time national socialist Don Black, was already known in movement circles. He ran a stealth campaign and received 167 votes out of the 287 votes cast in his district. In the weeks after the election, however, the Republican Party locals, alerted to Derek Black’s affiliations, refused to certify his election. Such a sequence of events hardly seems to auger for a successful white nationalist strategy in the future.
There is every reason to believe that some white nationalists will continue trying to carve out a niche among Republicans—the Council of Conservative Citizens has long been well ensconced in the Mississippi party, for example. But it would be a mistake to maintain that in the two months since the election they have made any great new strides in that direction. In fact, most racists and anti-Semites who claim that Obama’s election will engender a great upsurge in Aryan activity located those events in the future. And on that point, they might be right.
Although attempting to predict the future is not my particular forte, at this point, it looks as if white nationalists will pursue two different directions in the months and years to come. On the one hand, there will be a tendency to pull away from engagement with the larger white public, and to care for and solidify their current base. As part of this trend we should hear an increase in calls for some type of secessionist or enclave-type of whites-only territory. We might also see some type of organized militia-style violence from this direction.
On the other hand, we should expect some type of very deliberate attempt to broaden the white nationalist base, particularly if a more wide-spread conservative Republican or Christian right opposition to the Obama administration gets any traction. In this case, white nationalists will look for an expanded following from among the five percent of white voters who told pollsters last summer that they could never vote for a black person for president.
If you start looking for these developments now, then you won’t be surprised by them later.
TZF