A Future to Believe In - Director's Editorial
A Future to Believe In - Director's Editorial
Political change requires a vision of the future
Many long time readers and listeners will know that in the early days of my own political awakening I worked on the 2016 Bernie Sanders campaign in the Midwest. It was an experience I will never forget and one which I still look back on with an immense amount of fondness. I was surrounded by other young Whites, in fact the only group Bernie carried over Clinton in 2016 were White Americans, and it was a blast. Many of these Whites were young, straight, and male just like myself. We were fighting for a political cause which we believed would guarantee us a better future, and many of us were on the right side of the spectrum.
I was already race aware at the time, and I very much wanted to prevent another neoliberal president (Hillary Clinton) from destroying my country. Bernie was anti-immigration, and a great deal of his supporters moved to Trump after the 2016 primary ended. I was one of the 12%-14% of Sanders supporters who did so, removing my “Feel the Bern” gear and dawning a MAGA cap—anything to keep the political revolution alive.
It is here that I should say I hold no illusions about Mr. Sanders. In 2020 he was pro-illegal immigration, wanted to give healthcare to fresh off the boat arrivals, was very in favor of the LGBT agenda, and just generally abandoned all the 2016 platform promises which enticed young men like myself. Still, I learned a great deal from both the Sanders and Trump campaigns which believe nationalism must adopt and integrate—that is, develop a new, positive vision for the future.
One of the reasons I started White-Papers is to give the public a positive vision of what a nationalist future might look like for Western civilization and its White, native stock. We cannot simply point to a period of the past and declare that said period is the desirable era to emulate—we are not reconstituting the past. Nationalists who want to win over our fellow Whites must present them with a vision that most people can get on board with.
A key example in the ongoing “culture wars” is the role of women and the general displacement which young men feel in modern society. I worry a great deal about young men, perhaps because I am one. Many are very lost, lack opportunity, and both the state and private institutions treat the White male population as though it is surplus to requirements. We must offer these young men a positive vision of the future. Nationalists can outflank the Andrew Tates of this world by assuring young men we want their help in building a great civilization.
And while we want young men to be the core of our political project to save our civilization, as men always are, we also need to present a vision for women which is realistic and desirable. Women are incredibly unhappy in modern society. Study after study and article after article points out how women are more stressed and more miserable with each passing year, and with each passing year the solution is the same “be more selfish, act more like a man, be less feminine.” This never works of course.
Nationalists need to present women with a better alternative. One of family, community, and serving a higher purpose as a key piece of our civilization. The concept of Republican Motherhood, the wife and mother as the pillar of a family and society’s virtue, offers a good place to start. We cannot look back to Victorian times as our guide to the future—we won’t get buy in.
Our solutions must be presented and packaged in the same revolutionary rhetoric which Sanders, and in some ways Trump, have been using for decades and which have mobilized millions.
Millions of Whites in Europe and America are socially isolated. We can offer a vision of community to these people. Millions more worry about their job and educational opportunities. Repatriation/remigration is a major part of the solution to this. We want to rebuild the family, and we value keeping alive the traditions which people still cherish such as Christmas or a national holiday. Just look at how much people still enjoy Australia Day despite the immense propaganda against it, or Canada Day, or the 4th of July. We must present defense of tradition as integral to the future.
Another key area where nationalists have an advantage and should make use of that advantage is that of national self-reliance. In Britain a majority of the public consistently wants to have a secure domestic food supply and to rely far less on energy imports. The neoliberal elite have no desire to side with the public on these issues, and so nationalists must do so and do so loudly.
The public sides with general nationalist predispositions on a number of these “bread and butter” issues, and we must take full advantage. We are not going to win over the public by attempting to litigate the place of AI in our societies, nor will we be able to able to convince the public that monarchism or Catholic Theocracy is the solution to all of their problems. We must operate closer to the concerns of everyday Whites.
As our White brothers and sisters in the masses cry out for solutions we must present nationalist ideas as a “path to a better future” rather than as a “harkening to the past.”
History is meant to inform you of the context which led to the present, not to be a guide for the future.
Support White-Papers:
Zelle: whitepapersinstitute@protonmail.com
Linktree: https://linktr.ee/wppi
Snail Mail: White Papers Policy, PO Box 192, Hancock, MD 21750
Ding Ding Ding! This is only the beginning. Heaven will show your way with golden strings leading to golden dreams.
Utlimately, it's not *ideas* that the normal alienated White wants. It's *policies*. Think about your own reasons for politically engaging. Was your interest driven by grand unifying 'ideas' or was your interest driven by the *policies* connected to those ideas.
What I'm trying to say is that we don't even need a unifying idea like 'nationalism' in order to say 'We support policy X' and 'We support policy Y'.
My sense is that the political 'right' is mostly involved in theory, metapolitics and in-fighting precisely because the Right knows that saying what policies they would promote would be the kiss of death.
Let's assume for a moment that our purpose is to give our people what they want, *not* what we think is 'good for them', but actually what they want. Most people's desires have been completely colonized by ideologies designed to get their desires to align with the interests of the ruling class. Marx called this 'false consciousness' but it's really *false desiring*.
What Trump (and apparently Bernie and before either of them Ralph Nader) tapped into was an expression of *policies* that were closer to the *desires* of a lot of people than had been offered in a long time. And you saw the reaction among the normal, decent White person.
What are the policies we'd like to see implemented in work and family?
I don't think women are willing to trust men to provide for them like they used to. It's not that women want to be working, but without work they don't control their own finances and can find themselves 'stuck' in bad relationship situations. The same can be said for men. (This is one of the reasons why I support UBI in some form or another. No one should be without the financial resources to live safely on their own.)
And then there's the role of family courts in the total demoralization and destruction of fatherhood.
This is a round-about way of saying that I'd like to see the WPPI develop an 'ala carte' menu of policy proposals that resonate with the White public. Something that our people can pick and choose from - or triage from.
For example, my first choice would be complete racial segregation. My second choice would be what Greg Johnson has called '90% White Nationalism'.
What are the trade-offs that Whites would have to accept to get more happiness out of life? Can we get a UBI and not create an inflationary spiral? How do our people feel about rationing if the result was more leisure hours and getting more opportunites for White youth to enter the workforce?
How do our people feel about compulsory public education?
In politics it seems to me that you don't need for *every* policy to be a 'winner' as long as the 'losers' in the list are not something that creates a huge backlash.