MENU

Uncle Sam wants us to negotiate with the system.

How Whites Should Negotiate With the System

Loading word count...
Listen to this article

In the era of the rising Social Justice Warriors, somewhere after Obama’s second election, it became fashionable for first the left to declare the end of white men. According to these people, society had simply outgrown the need for white men. At the time, they said it with so much smugness and overconfidence that white men reacted defensively. It appeared to really be in the cards. But today, in 2024, things stand a little differently. The system is facing a lot of pressures, internal as well as external, and to me it appears that it either already is or will soon try to negotiate with white men. It is inevitable that when such an offer is made, there’ll be a temptation or drive to negotiate with the system, so even if we ultimately choose not to, we should have a plan on how to negotiate with the system. In this essay, I’ll attempt to outline some basic rules on how to negotiate with the system. 

Let’s first look at the reasons why the system would negotiate with us as well as indicators that the system might be moving towards a state where it’d be ready to negotiate with white men. Whereas in 2012 the system was reasonably confident that it had vanquished all external opposition and in particular, that it had made friends with its primary geopolitical adversaries, those being Russia and China, in 2024, the system faces the prospect of a new cold war against these adversaries and the possibility of a Chinese invasion on Taiwan or a spillover of the Russo-Ukrainian war into a broader Russian-European war. The Russo-Ukrainian war in particular has also dispelled some myths about modern war. Whereas in 2012 the system believed that it could streamline its armies and military industry and run endless brushfire wars as part of the Global War on Terror, the Russo-Ukrainian war has shown that a near peer conflict requires good old fashioned mass conscription and vast military-industrial complexes churning out ammunition and equipment at scale. In 2024, after two years of intense combat in Ukraine, it is now clear that a single SOF soldier cannot replace a platoon of infantry, as was believed during the GWoT years. Of course, if western countries want to have armies and military-industrial complexes worth the name again, they must reach out to white man to staff them. They need us. 

This need became apparent to them not only due to the Russo-Ukrainian war, but also in the wake of the coronavirus vaccine, when many white men chose to opt out of the various armed forces rather than take the vaccine. Already we are seeing the Canadian military, which steadfastly purged its white members for either failing to take the vaccine or supporting the 2022 trucker convoy, panicking as it fails to make up the shortfall with Indians, Chinese or blacks. Turns out that the Great White North can only remain great if it remains white.

Having followed the discourse of liberals and security agencies catspaws on social media, I can also reasonably conclude that many of them have already repudiated Obama-era foreign policy, openly calling the former US president a dilettante who indulged Russia and mollycoddled China. They’ve even dipped their toes into the dangerous water of wondering whether it was such a great idea to indulge the college left domestically, seeing as how a dearth of white men in the military and industry leaves the West in a weakened international position. The changing foreign situation almost forces a change in domestic policy. 

But what really convinced me that the regime is ready or getting ready to negotiate is a recent direct appeal to white nationalists by a self-proclaimed former white nationalist to just drop the WN and integrate with the system. It also repeats some usual GOP/BAPtard bullshit about Latinx being based and fans the balls of notorious brownoid Richard Hanania, but the crux of it is that they want us to reintegrate. The text looks to me like a last-ditch attempt to get us to reintegrate into the system on the system’s terms because time is running out. Pretty soon, any reintegration of white men will have to either be negotiated or happen exclusively on our terms. 

With all of that said, let’s imagine that we’ve come to the negotiating table and are now engaged in a back and forth with the system. They want us for their armies and industries. What do we demand? How do we present it. The crucial thing when negotiating is to recognise what you can give away, and what is core ground that cannot be given away. Another thing to keep in mind is to understand that while we may have an ultimate goal, we also have intermediate goal and our intermediate goals should not only be in the service of the ultimate goal, but also be good in of themselves and be such that if attained, can constitute real and tangible victories. So, let’s get into it. 

It is my belief that the ultimate goal of white identitarianism must be the establishment of white ethnostates, which is to say states whose explicit constitutional reason for being is the existence of the various white nations and a future for their children. So, for example, in the British context, the goal of the British identitarian nationalist is to reform the UK/Britain into precisely such a state. White identitarianism also only recognises biological identity as valid identity, and as such, has no patience for such fictions as “black British” or “British Asian.” These people may be Jamaican, Pakistani or Chinese, but are not British, those being the indigenous inhabitants of the Isles, specifically the WISE (Welsh, Irish, Scottish and English) as well as the various regional and subnational identities. The blacks, Asians and others should all return to their various ethnic homelands and only henceforth be accepted into Britain as tourists or otherwise temporary residents. This is the ultimate goal of a British white identitarian ideology. So, what should be an intermediate goal for such an ideology? Under what circumstances should white British men consider dealing with Whitehall again, serving in its armed forces and staffing its institutions? The answer is, white idenitity politics within the context of a multiethnic state. 

By white identity politics within a multiethnic state, we understand white rights, or collective rights of white people similar to the collective rights currently enjoyed by nonwhite ethnic groups. This should include negative rights, such as for example freedom of association and freedom of speech for white men and in particular for white advocates and white identitarians, as well as a collective and individual right for whites to remove nonwhites from private institutions. For example white pub owners should have the right to bar nonwhites from entering and white landlords or homeownership associations should have the right to exclude nonwhites from residing in domiciles under their control. But more than this, we should also aggressively seek positive rights, such as for example the right to mandatory representation in institutions of the state, state funding for pro-white cultural and political projects, state support of white businesses etc. 

Our terms for a return to the system should also include a rehabilitation of all white identitarian activists and politicians who’ve suffered deplatforming, financial loss, harassment and imprisonment. At the very least, all white people serving prison time for “hate crimes” should be released, unless they’re guilty of actual crimes rather than just making a minority feel threatened. However, white people who’ve committed actual crimes against nonwhites which have been deemed hate crimes, such as for example a white man who’s beaten up a Pakistani, should nevertheless have their sentences reduced to one appropriate for assault and battery, rather than the long and onerous sentences given out for “hate crimes.” Any such crimes which have been prosecuted under the UK terrorism act or similar legislation in other countries should be re-litigated under normal criminal codes.

Finally, our reintegration into the system mustn’t be merely as grunts and floor workers. No, if the system wants the labour and input of white men, it must also accept white leaders. In the military context, this will mean white officers and in particular white officers who are also politically aware and hopefully active as white identitarians. In the civilian sector, this will mean managerial and executive staff for both public and private institutions which is white identitarian in its political outlook. In academia, it means white positive and white identitarian professors and administrators and so on. We should also secure the right of white men and in particular white identitarians to occupy these positions of power and influence and not be disturbed, removed or otherwise undermined by the system for their ideology. 

Now that we have a general idea of what we want, we should also devote some thought to what we shouldn’t ask for. White identitarianism should be a concrete and reified ideology, but sadly, it isn’t. It has accumulated no end of hanger-on ideologies and tendencies and is still dragging a lot of baggage from conservatism and libertarianism. I’ve discussed these barnacles clinging to the hull of the good ship White Nationalism in my essay on Core White Nationalism. From the text:

It appears to me that in the year 2023, the people calling themselves white nationalists no longer form a movement which advocates for the establishment of nation states for the various white nations which are defined as homelands for a specific people and the exclusion of racial and national outsiders, but rather are primarily concerned with physical fitness, glorifying illiberalism, cheering on non-nationalist figures within the political mainstream which appear illiberal in some performative way or another, opposing homosexuality and transsexualism and waging a crusade against certain foods and behaviours. Now, far be it from me to describe any of these activities as bad or pointless, but they hardly seem like core ideological tenets to me. I’m sure that their adherents will find ways to declare them essential to white survival and indeed, I’ve heard most of the arguments. Suffice to say, I remain unconvinced.

Nicholas R. Jeelvy, Core White Nationalism.

The negotiations with the system should not be sidetracked with dead end culture war issues. The old conservative bugaboos of homosexuality, transsexualism, feminism, nor the newfangled DR fixations of dietary restrictions, doctrinaire illiberalism or worship for Russia and China. When we get to the negotiating table, we will have to be focused on the rights of whites and what we can do to advance white wellbeing. Any other concerns will have to be handled by interest groups of their own. We likewise should not give in to the temptation to advocate on behalf of “based” blacks or browns, but rather focus laser-like on rehabilitating whites and securing rights for whites as individuals and as a collective. 

Of course, the negotiation for an intermediate goal do not mean that we cede our ultimate goal. We remain committed to our demands for white ethnostates throughout the world. However, the intermediate goal is the bare minimum before we as white men consider returning to society in a productive manner. Until then, I exhort all readers to follow the BANTS model, which is to say Be A Nigger To the System. Do not contribute to it, do not work for it, take as much as you can out of it, do your own thing and remember, BANTS is not BAN. 

Negotiations of course imply negotiators. Sadly, for the time being, no one man or entity could speak for the entirety of the white race. No one man or entity could claim to speak even for a significant proportion of whites even in a single party. There is no white Al Sharpton or David Lammy. The absence of such a white representative might be the single largest factor holding up the negotiation. Even if the system were on its knees begging white men to come back, it has no-one to negotiate with who’d be respected by enough white men to make a difference. Alas, this is a problem of movement cohesion and unity, but we’ll address it in another essay. For now, it’s important that we understand that the system is ready to negotiate and that we need a coherent ideological framework, described here, in order to negotiate with the system. 

Post Author

Leave a comment

4.3 3 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
2 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

advocate on behalf of “based” blacks or browns = negrophilia
“based” blacks or browns = uncle tom
Toms sound real good but they always work to get access to White women.

I liked Jared Taylor as the representative of white men is the only one who wins sit up there and scream about the *** **** Jews which is important but not as important as white writes
also in the long term non whites should have absolutely no political power or ability to threaten white countries for this reason Europeans should reestablish their colonial empires.

I’m a white nationalist in the sense that white English speaking people should control as much as the world land mass is humanly possible there should be 500 billion white people by the year 3000

2
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x