Posted on January 16, 2022

Embracing Multiculturalism: The Path to White Nationalism

Louis Andrews, The Occidental Quarterly, Fall 2010

Editor’s Note: Below is an abridged version of an essay that first appeared in The Occidental Quarterly.

Peaceful coexistence of different ethnic groups within one state is certainly possible if none of the groups need fear the domination of others, more generally if none finds itself in a situation of interethnic competition. This is best achieved when each group owns its own land and enjoys sovereignty over its own affairs as is the case in Switzerland. — Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt

Erecting walls that separate ‘us’ from ‘them’ is a necessary correlate of morality since it defines the scope within which sympathy, fairness, and duty operate. The chief wall is the family/clan/village, but during certain historical periods ethnicity defines the wall.The great achievement of Western culture the Enlightenment is to make many of us peer over that wall and grant some respect to people outside it; the great failure of Western culture is to deny that walls are inevitable or important. — James Q. Wilson

I wish to address the question of how a homeland for Whites can be created on the North American continent. I shall not address the demographic problems of Whites in Europe and elsewhere, since their solution requires an entirely different approach.

Before stating my proposal, however, I must put my readers in a receptive mindset. In the 1930s, in the midst of the National Socialist revolution, a Berlin Rabbi, Joachim Prinz, wrote the following:

We want assimilation to be replaced by a new law: the declaration of belonging to the Jewish nation and the Jewish race. A State built upon the principle of the purity of nation and race can only be honored and respected by a Jew who declares his belonging to his own kind . . . [Italics in original]

Rabbi Prinz escaped the slaughter of the European Jews and later became head of the American Jewish Congress. In America, Rabbi Prinz adopted a diametrically different view of the ideas of national and racial purity. Perhaps the most dramatic evidence of this is the speech he gave immediately before Martin Luther King, Jr. took the podium to deliver his famous “I Have a Dream” speech at the Lincoln Memorial in 1963. This was the high point of American assimilationism, when Nathan Glazer still believed that blacks could fully assimilate. Rabbi Prinz changed his tactics dramatically because times had changed dramatically. So must we.


For the first 350 years after the European (primarily English) settlement of the present United States, we insisted on assimilation for all new immigrants. Americans saw themselves as “modified Englishmen,” and all European newcomers were required to modify them-selves accordingly. Blacks were excluded because it was assumed that they were a special case and clearly impossible to assimilate into our society. Conversely, assimilation of non-English Whites was expected and often forced, as discussed by Benjamin Schwartz:

Sinclair Lewis recognized the melting pot, in Main Street, as a means by which “the sound American customs absorbed with-out one trace of pollution another alien invasion.” Americanization, then, although it did not cleanse America of its ethnic minorities, cleansed its minorities of their ethnicity.

Since 1965, however, the United States has opened its borders to massive legal and illegal immigration by non-Whites who, like American blacks, will not or cannot assimilate. Because of this, the spirit of the age has become multiculturalism and multiracialism.


Why then does the right oppose multiculturalism and insist on assimilation? The Left also formerly supported assimilation to create the new American citizen. Some leftists, like Todd Gitlin, lament the fact that multiculturalism is destroying traditional leftist universalism and warn that America is lost unless we drop our obsession with group differences.

It is time for the right to discard assimilationism. First of all, it is not possible to assimilate non-Whites. Second, the establishment is not even trying to assimilate them. Third, continuing to insist upon assimilation prevents us from focusing on stopping the flow of non-assimilable immigrants, while we wait for the establishment to insist on assimilation, which is impossible anyway. Fourth, while non-Whites cannot assimilate our culture, Whites seem all too able to assimilate their culture, much to our detriment. Fifth, the presence of large populations of unassimilable non-Whites increases miscegenation, i.e., genetic assimilation, which destroys all distinct races that participate in it. Finally, the only way for Whites to preserve their cultural and racial distinctness in a multicultural society is to embrace multiculturalism and insist on our right to be and remain distinct.

Embracing multiculturalism will have many positive consequences for White Americans.

Multiculturalism promotes stronger group identities for those who perceive themselves as belonging to a specific group. Based on social identity theory, we should also expect increased group conflict and polarization.

Multiculturalism will also increase the desire for individual and group freedom from perceived oppression and control by more socially powerful groups. There will also be an increased desire by successful groups for freedom from blame and the costs of servicing groups that seem unable to participate in the “American Success story” without continued assistance. Once we stop thinking of America as a normatively White country, the backwardness of other groups will no longer look like a social problem we have to solve and more like a cultural difference we have to tolerate.

The net result is that once we start thinking of ourselves as a distinct group with distinct interests, Whites will be more willing and able to hold our own in ethnic competition.


Another long-term consequence of Whites embracing multiculturalism is that it will contribute to the dissolution of the United States and the formation of a White homeland in North America. Consider these words from Ron Unz:

A social ideology that allots to blacks and Latinos and Asians their own separatist institutions and suggested shares of society’s benefits cannot long be prevented from extending itself to Whites as well. Especially as Whites become merely one minority among many minorities. Before it is altogether too late, those who support this status quo must realize that the diversity prescription contains the seeds of national dissolution.

Mr. Unz wrote that in the pages of Commentary and deplores the idea of national dissolution, but that does not affect the soundness of his analysis.


What are the political options for multicultural societies? I suggest that there are only four.

  1. Assimilation: The American tradition except for blacks. This is no longer viable due to the massive non-White immigration since 1965 and the failure of the once all-powerful Anglo-American majority to enforce assimilation or to prevent non-White immigration. Indeed, it is not even desirable given the current demographics of the country.
  2. Domination: The American tradition with blacks under slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow. This is no longer viable due both to massive non-White immigration, the change in American sensibilities, and the loss of will by the Anglo-American majority.
  3. Libertarianism: Basically this is just letting the chips fall where they may, what Michael Levin calls “The Clark Gable Solution.” Of course, it is not a solution at all, but simply an abdication of responsibility, the decision to let others deter-mine our destiny as a people. What are the chances that such a destiny will be anything but the short-run subordination and long-run destruction of our people?
  4. Multiculturalism: Two forms of multiculturalism are possible. A) The first is what we have today: multiculturalism in which Whites do not recognize ourselves as a group and take our own side in struggles with other groups. The result is a transfer of power and assets from Whites to non-Whites. Given race differences, this will require a permanent imposition of Affirmative Action and a continued willingness by Whites to accept blame for black and Hispanic failure, until we exit the stage of power and influence entirely. B) In the second form of multiculturalism, some Whites recognize ourselves as a distinct group, take our own side, and hold our own against other ethnic groups. This should be our goal, because while all multiculturalisms are unstable and prone to breakup, at least this one will al-low us to participate in the breakup as equals or better.

Assimilation is no longer desirable, domination no longer possible, and libertarianism concedes the game. That leaves only multiculturalism, which, if we embrace it and play our cards right, will result in national separation, which is the desired goal.


We must foster White ethnic self-consciousness. Some years ago Sam Francis pointed out that as a group we Whites exist objectively but not subjectively. This phenomenon is common for dominant groups in most societies and should change as we become less dominant. But obviously it would be better for Whites to become self-conscious before we reach minority status. How do we make that happen?

  • We must insist on the importance of biological, psychological, and behavioral genetics research to public policy, including the writings of Garrett Hardin, Raymond Cattell, and Frank Salter. We should discuss and promote the idea that ethnic and race competition and conflict are normal and predictable features of our evolutionary history and stress they will continue on some level — seen or unseen — no matter how much the preachers and politicos talk of universal love and brotherhood. Though now somewhat dated, the contrast between the visible emotional White and black response to the O. J. Simpson verdict as depicted in photographs in Newsweek and Time is a good example of what I mean.
  • We should promote white Americans as a specific group with specific interests and contrast those interests with the interests of other groups.
  • We should acknowledge as valid the legitimate group interests of other groups and show where and how their interests are often incompatible with our interests. Kevin MacDonald’s works should be a guide for similar approaches to explaining White/black and White/Hispanic conflict.We should attempt to redirect social/cultural pressures such that “social justice” will include justice for our group of Americans.
  • We should use Jews as an example of a group that desires both biological and cultural survival. Given their recent history, is it difficult for most people to call them Nazis or racists because they wish to preserve their biological peoplehood. It will be hard to argue that what is positive for Jews would be a bad thing for Americans.

We should support and promote the following issues, ideas, and programs — some of which some of us now oppose:

  • Because of the differential demographic impact of abortion, all who can should support it.
  • We should support bilingual education.
  • Black and Hispanic history.
  • Ethnic Studies and departments. Any type of traditional historical/cultural activities, whether real, such as Scottish Games, or fabricated, like Kwanza.
  • Any type of exclusionary organization, process, or activity by any group whether White or non-White. For example, Bill Gates’ billion-dollar scholarships scheme for blacks and Indians despite its anti-White bias. In fact, we should support any activity that increases group polarization that does not otherwise weaken us.
  • We must enthusiastically support the first attempt at a breakaway state. I suspect it will be either Hispanic/Mexican or Hawaiian. We should support that precedent in a fashion that will make our own separation less difficult.

We should continue to oppose certain programs:

Granted it is a bitter pill, but if indeed multiculturalism is the most potent force available, then we must swallow it to move on to create a homeland exclusively for Whites on this continent.