Racially-based identitarianism will fail. My proposal to instead focus on faith-based identitarianism.

I have spent the weekend listening to various Richard Spencer interviews and podcasts. I think he’s an intelligent guy, seems personable, and I agree with his sentiment on “blackpillers” constantly disavowing everyone and everything being ridiculous and not worth out time. I emphasize the last point because I am going to take his invitation to have conversations about the things important to us to have a conversation where I strongly disagree with him. Disagreement in conversation is natural. I’m not here to disavow him and hopefully no one says that they now need to disavow me.

(N.B. I’m not really someone who takes notes and mostly listened to these things while on a couple long drives. I am going to randomly refer to things he’s said without properly sourcing. I’m going to do my best to keep my reference to things he’s said, which by virtue of going off my memory will be paraphrasing, contextualized well enough or referred to in good faith. My intention here is not to put words in the man’s mouth.)

Richard Spencer is not a racist. His definition of what it means to be “white” is, I think, a considered combination of genetics/culture/faith. He gave an example of this that I really liked. Someone of direct Aryan descent so that their genetics are “100% pure” the way a race purist might identify it, but are living in Afghanistan in a Muslim community, practicing Islam, etc. would be strange to hold up as an example of whiteness over, say, a Mediterranean guy born and raised in Italy that goes to a Christian Church and has a wife and kids, just because his skin is darker. (Anyone forgetting how dark an Italian’s skin can be quickly reminded by the fact that Indians can sometimes pass for Italian.)

Richard puts a big emphasis on Europeanism, so I think that’s what is driving him to “make the call” in favor of the Italian guy with the intense suntan – that the man shares a history and presumably similar hopes for the future with his fellow Europeans. I’m going to refer to this sentiment as pan-Europeanism.

I make the same “call” as Richard – the Italian is the “white” guy, but I want to contrast that I’m doing it in favor of the Italian because my emphasis is on his Christianity. I think we still would have common ground because I would assume Richard would agree Christianity has informed a lot of European history and he is very comfortable with “cultural Christianity,” which as much as Roland Martin got upset by that phrasing in another interview, is a pretty well-understood term and it is really just referring to a set of baseline values that the Church encourages in society and we mostly all have been ok with save the last few decades – monogamous heterosexual marriages, 2.5 kids, a sense of community, charity, etc. However, cultural Christianity on its own has its flaws because it does not have enough momentum on its own. Look at the way society has developed negatively at the same time that church attendance has dwindled and less and less people identify themselves as people of faith. Cultural Christianity isn’t enough. You need actual Christianity and faith in society.

I’m going to explain why I think an identitarian movement roots in pan-Europeanism would fail by, certainly controversially, suggesting that the collapse of the pan-Slavic state of Yugoslavia would be an effective blueprint for how to destroy a “white ethnostate.”

Yugoslavia is a mess of a country to explain but it existed in a rudimentary, awkward form prior to WW2, and as a communist country after the fact. The controversy kicks in already because people are going to object to calling a communist country a pre-cursor “ethnostate” but the country formed a geographic and populist alliance between Croatians (predominantly Catholic Slavs), Serbians (Orthodox Slavs), Macedonians (Orthodox Slavs), Montenegrins (Orthodox Slavs), Slovenians (Catholic/Protestant Slavs), and Bosnians (Catholic/Orthodox Slavs). Also can be identified are Muslims, etc. but they were Slavic and included in this pan-Slavic union. All these identities and several other identities I’ve glossed over were grouped together on the basis of being “slavs”. There was a bloody start to the country in terms of killing some people of faith and there are several significant instances of the communist government harassing clergy and church-goers, but it’s somewhat of an exaggeration to say religion was outright suppressed. Yes, you were probably watched and your name in some dossier somewhere as a result, but you could still go to church if you wanted.

Yugoslavia legitimately did ok for a good period of time. It’s even an exaggeration to call it a communist country as such as it experimented with free market principles, criticized the Soviet Union several times throughout the years and essentially almost got invaded by the Soviet Union for not ‘adhering to communism’ enough, etc. But it used similar mechanisms in terms of secret policing, said discouragement of religion, etc. This isn’t something to go into depth here because it’s not relevant to the point I’m trying to make, but Croatia under communism is very similar to elements of the “alt right” under liberalism, empathizing with Croatian nationalism was enough to be labeled a Nazi the same way Richard’s pan-Europeanism gets him labeled a Nazi. There was a PC-esque culture in this regard. Anyone even remotely familiar with Balkan history is going to be aware of the, god I dunno, “feuding brothers” Croatia and Serbia are, so the solution to avoid them fighting and collapsing Yugoslavia was to do their damndest to suppress Croatian nationalism. They essentially had to bear “fascist guilt” the same way we now have “white guilt.” I’m pissing off the Serbians in the audience right now because it’s not quite that simple, but it’s something the interested can look into.

Anyways, Yugoslavia ultimately collapsed. A poor economic situation allowed lingering differences between all these different identities that were lumped together on the basis of all being brothers in “Slavdom” to be taken advantage of by opportunistic politicians. Despite the official policy of “brotherhood and unity”, and despite anyone trying to blame it on the Muslims, Croatians shot at Serbians and vice versa. Ethnic cleansings, et al. Both of these groups are classified as white. Both would be grouped together in a “white ethnostate.” It does not seem impossible that they could then, in the future, go to war again. Why? Because even your utopic white ethnostate is going to have economic difficulties, sociopathic politicians, etc. and togetherness in being “white” alone will just not be enough, the same way it has been proven “slav” isn’t enough.


A fantastic element of what Richard Spencer has done is allowed the parameters of what’s acceptable and unacceptable conversation. I can say “as a white person I strongly prefer to marry another white person” and yeah liberals will call me a Nazi, but others who agree with me are actually going to speak up and we’ll have a conversation. We’re talking about those ‘dirty little secrets’, if you like.

If I can air another dirty little secret, I’m white, but I don’t really like the English. There’s something about their way of looking at the world that just rubs me the wrong way. I don’t hate them, but I am wary. If a white ethnostate asked me to send my kids to school for ‘community education’ and it just randomly happened that all the teachers there were English/Anglos/whatever word you liked, I’d have pause for concern. That we’re both “white” isn’t enough.

So what –is- enough for me? Is where I suggest Christianity.

I think Christianity alone is what can unify people. We have seen this in the Holy Roman Empire. We have seen the unifying force of Islam in the Ottoman Empire. Hell, we see it today with Islam in ISIS. Not to praise the enemy, but they’re doing a hell of a job in the name of their beliefs. Religion is a powerful force.

Communist countries are doomed to fail because they try to elevate humans to this pantheon of perfection they can’t actually meet. I am proud to be white, European, etc. but I also acknowledge I’m imperfect. My imperfection can’t be complemented/negated by forming a brotherhood, even with other white, Europeans, etc. because the imperfection is consistently present, metaphorically, as a steady percentage. Whether it’s 10 Europeans or 100, there’s still a base imperfection, fallibility, etc. and religion doesn’t eliminate it, but it is a better unifying force than being white. Again, I’m personally more affable to be loyal to a Christian nation than a white nation.

This line of logic has serious implications that people are going to disagree with me and that I want to address. A black African-American Christian is ok with me. My utopia does include this man because we share common values, a common faith, and I think as long as you don’t differentiate him on the basis of race, he’s not going to feel isolated and thus feel different and be driven to radical left ideology. Morgan Freeman has a popular Youtube clip where he insists on being identified as a man first and foremost. There is validity to what he’s saying. My suggestion is that the problem is being identified, as a ‘man’ isn’t enough because being a man is to be flawed. Identifying yourself as a person of common faith is the greater unifier.

It also means an international brotherhood with Christians. We do have an international responsibility to people in the middle-east, but also preferentialism – there are entire groups of Christians that have been ethnicially cleansed by al Qaeda, ISIS, etc. and not assisted because virtue signaling western politicians did not prioritize them in immigration quotas. This is a failure on our part to look after our own.

It does mean, internally, an “otherization” of non-Christians. Atheists/agnostics would do well to not take positions of power in the Christian identitarian utopic state, even if they are ‘culturally Christian’, because we’ve seen the acts of cultural Christians. Barack Obama. Hillary Clinton. It is one thing to identify, another thing entirely to follow through. I want an identitarianism that puts faith before genetics. I also want Richard Spencer to go to church next Sunday.


This entire textdump begs the question - does the identitarian Christian utopic state allow difference between Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Protestantism, pick one and mass-convert the exceptions? But that's a question we can't even start to seriously discuss until we're willing to shift from pan-European identitarianism that IS doomed to fail, to an identitarianism of faith that DOES lead to greatness.