BAP had a quote a few years back that by the time whites achieve racial solidarity they'll be too small to ever become a majority again. Even in Brazil they're not there yet.
Did he post a number? Would it be when we are under 40 percent of the US population? I tend to think the 2030’s decade the White kids growing up in the 2030’s will know they are a minority in all public schools. To survive, they will have to band together more. Especially the later 2030’s as our minority status approaches by 2041.
The furthest projection I see is to 2060. Whites in America are 42 percent if Immigration is high, 45 percent if in the middle, 47 percent if low, and 50.7 percent by 2060 even if immigration is zero. I feel the plan B is our solidarity the baby boomers didnt have. Keeping our majority long term, just does not seem feasible anymore, no matter what we do about immigration.
50.7% by 2060 actually ain’t bad. I’m not saying immigration will be that restricted until then though. It will deportations that make or break this whole project.
I’ve lived in the Western United States, where this has been a reality in many states for years (California for 30+years now) and this is absolutely not the case. If anything, it is the opposite.
By the time Generation Alpha grows up? Gen Alpha I believe is people born in 2012 up to 2025. By the time they are in their 20's we will see more Whites identify as nationalists.
I am very proud to be white. Without white people America is just another third world dystopia. I call out white racism at every opportunity. I regularly name the Great Replacement and all those who perpetrate it.
But I have a half mexican niece, a half black nephew, and I have no interest in advocating for an all-white America
A non-white America is just bearing the label. It may be a decently livable place (I'm not optimistic) but it's not really America, same as Hamatramck, Michigan is bearing the label now that all the Polish Catholics have been replaced by Arab Muslims.
I see that I did not make myself clear in my original reply. I titled it Why Scott Greer Should be a 'White Nationalist' (in quotes) rather than Why Scott Greer Should Call Himself a White Nationalist. I have never liked the term and never use it. I call myself a white advocate.
What I objected to most in Mr. Greer's essay was the trust he seems to put in the GOP and in "conservatism." Neither is "pro-white," as Mr. Greer suggests, and neither will safeguard the legitimate interests of the dwindling number of white Americans.
Neither article I wrote dispensed with racial awareness or the desire to preserve America's historic character. Demographics are the most important matter for America's future.
The purpose of both articles was to clarify why I'm not a white nationalist. The term is used to marginalize immigration restriction and other ideas and is a useful to Left. I don't want to be described as such. You appear to agree with me on that, which makes the point of your article confusing.
I would not say I have trust in the GOP, which neither article claims that. Healthy skepticism of the GOP is a must for serious political engagement. But we must recognize it as our primary vehicle for change.
Conservatism, as I argue in my book and other writings, is a completely different beast today from the cuckservatism of the recent past. It offers unprecedented opportunities to advance nationalism and once-forbidden topics. I think the best way to advance these ideas is to present as normal conservatism, which they now basically are in 2026.
This not a call for everyone to be like Breitbart and start devoting themselves to electing Republicans. I don't even do this. As this article makes clear, there's plenty of space for AmRen and other places to discuss ideas Republicans (and many conservatives) won't touch. It's a great thing that figures such as yourself will say what they believe regardless over whether it's good for politicians to say. I do the same.
But it's unwise for people who care about these issues to try to form a real-world political movement independent of conservatism and normal politics. The Alt Right tried this, and it was a complete failure. Hence, my discussion of LARPing, which is what the Alt Right's activism amounted to.
If people are going to be involved directly in politics, the best avenue is conservatism.
Then perhaps the question becomes what you *should* call yourself. It is true that "conservatism" has made real progress, but being anti-anti-white isn't enough.
Perhaps one area of disagreement between us is that I think the GOP is ripe for at least local candidates who -- whatever they call themselves -- openly defend the interests of whites. If that day never comes, our dispossession may slow, but it will never be reversed.
Our biggest enemy is the mainstream media and groups like the ADL, and though they are finally being defeated the SPLC as well. They will always go after any local GOP politician who does that. I wish the SPLC would not only go bankrupt, but would have to pay restitution to victims like Jared Taylor and American Renaissance, and some of their former leaders arrested.
Frodi should setup a debate Jared, you and Scott on this issue. I think the only disagreement is how far GOP will go. There is a feeling they will stab White people in the back again like they always end up doing.
I think there is a lot of truth to all this, though I was pretty upset over birthright citizenship not being addressed. There is a huge problem with conservative selecting the wrong judges. Selecting a women who adopted Haitian's is just do boneheaded.
What does the Jew have to do with nominating a Catholic woman with seven kids?
The problem is that without an explicit understanding of white racial interest you’re going to default to race neutral libertarian-ish legalize.
Why is birthright citizenship a problem when we are all equally capable of assimilating into being “Americans” in the end? Why should Amy adopting Haitian kids be a sign of not understanding white interests and racial differences instead of an expression of her Christian compassion?
You’re right. Christianity in America is thoroughly subverted. Both Protestant and Catholic. The question to ask is why? Look back to the 1930s to see what group systematically rewrote nursery books and study bibles to make them more colorblind. There were incentive structures in place for the churches - they get rich, but agree to tone down the type of Christianity that built Europe.
There is a recognizable pattern among certain right-wing writers and commentators who carefully manage their public image to appear as respectable, high-status figures capable of influencing ordinary audiences without becoming fully radioactive or persona non grata.
Scott Greer is a clear example of this approach. He maintains obvious intellectual and social proximity to figures and outlets associated with explicit white nationalist or white-advocacy circles—people such as Greg Johnson, Kevin DeAnna, Ann Coulter, Sam Hyde, Gavin McInnes and the broader American Renaissance orbit—yet he works to present himself as unconnected to those milieus. At the same time, his writing and commentary repeatedly engage the same themes, personnel, and ideas, creating a deliberate gap between the networks he actually operates in and the more mainstream, “respectable” persona he projects to a wider audience.
Jokes aside, the above poster is right. You are in fact a white nationalist (nothing wrong with that) by virtue of advocating for a majority-white, white-culture US. In other words, you are not a white pluralist -- there are people like that who are OK with multiculturalism, as long as whites are a legitimate identity group within multiculturalism, with their own rights and freedom of association, but otherwise in a diverse society. An example of someone like that is another blogger named Robert Stark. But you advocate for a majority-white nation where whites aren't a minority identity group. This viewpoint is mainstream, and in line with MAGA, Trump, and FOX News.
I think the whole chat wishes Jared would just appear with Scott and discuss these points one by one. For sure would be an interesting and entertaining show.
I would define white nationalism as wanting whites to get special recognition as the core ethnoracial group if the country and special consideration in terms of immigration. The national character would derive from white culture and identity but other peoples could be participatory in that identity and culture, and some historic minorities could be given their own recognition as a historic nation within a nation. Obviously white majoritarianism is necessary for this to work.
It's the only way it can work. In a multicultural empire there is only ever room at the top for one tribe. The Trump administration is actually pretty doggone white; that's who built this system after all. When non-whites run it, it will be a different system.
Scott can you do an article covering the historic origins of the DSA left? I've seen some good articles that pinpoints its fervor in the John Brown left of the 1800s and radical new England abolitionism of a Quaker and unitarian universalist variety.
White nationalism is a dead end because what most people in America want is fairness. That means no protected classes, no arbitrary restrictions or preferential treatment based on race, and no two-tier systems like the ones emerging in the UK. White nationalism is telling groups of people that no matter what they do, no matter how willing they are to assimilate, no matter how much they want to be good Americans, they can't. And that's unfair.
It's good that you're pushing back against these people. If we don't nip fringe elements that make us poison to the average voter in the bud, we'll end up like the Democrats getting subsumed by the third worldists and marxists in the DSA because even though their ideas are trash they energize that group of people enough to swing a primary.
The problem with the proposition nation is that the "nationhood," the asabiyyah, disappears once people no longer agree on the proposition. The last time this happened we killed 600,000 of each other.
Except the Civil War happened because an entire economic subsystem was built on unwilling servitude. There was no simple solution and the can had been kicked down the road for close to 100 years. As Trump has demonstrated, we can easily close the borders to illegal immigrants, restrict the number of legal immigrants, and start dismantling the most bullshit provisions of the Civil Rights act like disparate impact and DEI. There's no need for a Civil War, just making a compelling case to voters and going after the institutional rot is enough.
Is it though? It seems to me that the more rot gets pulled out, the more entrenched the left becomes to defend what led to it. There’s been constant criticism with ICE, Trumps “tyranny”, defense of Anthony Karmelo, etc. There’s been no introspection on how BLM was a total sham, just a very quiet removal of all mentions of it. I think both left and right want very different things right now, the right wants a place where they feel comfortable with their friends and family, mostly their kin, and the left wants a diverse and open society where everyone can become anything. They’re polar opposites in term of policy, laws, etc.
My impression is the Left is vigorously doubling down. The sexual alphabet people, the magic negro, Marxist economics, climate change, all of it.
Having said that, people do have their light bulb moments. I had mine in my late 30s. James Howard Kunstler, Naomi Wolf, Megyn Kelly, Lara Logan all had their light bulb moments at even older ages than mine. Elridge Cleaver of all people had his light bulb moment and died a conservative Republican. But I think this is way more uncommon than not.
Politics are umbilical not logical. Mayor Mysterymeat in New York City has doubtless heard all the free market and classical liberal arguments. He's still a socialist Muslim supremacist and a lot of dumb, deracinated white people agree with him. The whole idea of proposition nationhood is itself a completely Anglo-American construct.
Race Realism makes a lot more sense than White Nationalism. I recall John Derbyshire mentioning that one out of every six black people have an IQ equal to or greater than the average white. This fact — as well as its five out of six corollary — is a strong argument for de jure colorblindness. Treat individuals as individuals. Look at race differences when you need to make descriptive or prescriptive observations about social outcomes.
"America is a stable society without the turmoil needed to create the conditions for such a revolution."
America is stable on what time-scale? On a time-scale of months and years it is stable. On a time-scale of decades it is going down a slippery slope that gets steeper with time, and descends to a valley of black and brown bio-trash.
I appreciate Scott’s work. But I have to say we should keep the ends in mind. Disagreement on means in the near term are trivial. It’s a big world, and we need to make advancements on all fronts. Carlson is doing great work in his sphere. So is Joseph Jordan and folks in between. Even Devon Stack, despite being Blackpilled, helps to change the collective white zeitgeist.
The “why I’m not/no longer a white nationalist” line is geared toward people already in the know to pull them into the same methodology (in this case). Others are more subversive trying to deradicalize those to their right.
If the target is indeed normies, then just keep focusing on them and don’t get twisted wasting time arguing with people you could already consider allies working toward the same ends.
Anthony Cumia is one of my favorite commentators because he is Pro-White but in a funny way and not 100 percent political. He can reach the sports betters, video game playing audience better and now that he is teaming with Jim Norton, his reach should expand even further. He spoke at AMREN with Jared Taylor but I dont think the majority of his listeners consider him a White nationalist. He speaks to those ideas though and promotes Jared to a degree. I just wish he'd have Scott on his program.
I like Greer, but he probably isn't high profile enough for Cumia. Although I think Greer should have better standards and avoid the bald happa in the future lol just my opinion.
I would say that both you and Jared Taylor are in the same orbit, which I would call "mainstream white nationalism." As opposed to something like X and the New Right, which is different. Also, there are some white pluralists/multiculturalists who are also different.
I would in fact call you a white nationalist because, unlike while pluralists (who want white freedom of association but without necessarily a white-majority culture), you do insist on a white-majority and white-culture US, so that is white nationalism. Contrary to what you wrote, this is actually a mainstream idea, it's represented by Trump, MAGA, Fox News etc.
Things are different in Europe, where their nations have no history of immigration and strong traditions in fascism and/or monarchism. They have much less reason to compromise. To be clear, compromise is not a bad thing, I'm just talking pure pragmatism.
I'm a bit confused. What is the main goal of restricting immigration if not to ensure America remains as white as possible?
I don't think anyone is saying otherwise. That's part of preserving America's historic character.
He's saying regional carve outs and giving up national power is ill advised
It also can raise some wages and empowers low skilled labor.
That is what I said
I think whites will become nationalist when whites become an ethnic minority, one generation hence.
BAP had a quote a few years back that by the time whites achieve racial solidarity they'll be too small to ever become a majority again. Even in Brazil they're not there yet.
Did he post a number? Would it be when we are under 40 percent of the US population? I tend to think the 2030’s decade the White kids growing up in the 2030’s will know they are a minority in all public schools. To survive, they will have to band together more. Especially the later 2030’s as our minority status approaches by 2041.
Sub-30% iirc
The furthest projection I see is to 2060. Whites in America are 42 percent if Immigration is high, 45 percent if in the middle, 47 percent if low, and 50.7 percent by 2060 even if immigration is zero. I feel the plan B is our solidarity the baby boomers didnt have. Keeping our majority long term, just does not seem feasible anymore, no matter what we do about immigration.
50.7% by 2060 actually ain’t bad. I’m not saying immigration will be that restricted until then though. It will deportations that make or break this whole project.
Yea just look at South Africa.
I’ve lived in the Western United States, where this has been a reality in many states for years (California for 30+years now) and this is absolutely not the case. If anything, it is the opposite.
Things change when you are an abused national minority.
The future is Rhodesia, which will be a wakeup call to say the least.
There are still liberals in South Africa
Religious beliefs are strongly held.
You're seeing a sort of survivorship bias. Thirty thousand people a year vote with their feet against California.
By the time Generation Alpha grows up? Gen Alpha I believe is people born in 2012 up to 2025. By the time they are in their 20's we will see more Whites identify as nationalists.
So now is the time to make the ways straight for them, so that their youthful energy is as potent as possible!
I am very proud to be white. Without white people America is just another third world dystopia. I call out white racism at every opportunity. I regularly name the Great Replacement and all those who perpetrate it.
But I have a half mexican niece, a half black nephew, and I have no interest in advocating for an all-white America
A non-white America is just bearing the label. It may be a decently livable place (I'm not optimistic) but it's not really America, same as Hamatramck, Michigan is bearing the label now that all the Polish Catholics have been replaced by Arab Muslims.
Dang man wtf I’m assuming your sisters are all race mixers? That’s rough…..do you at least have white kids yourself?
none of your business, but I don’t have any mixed race kids
I see that I did not make myself clear in my original reply. I titled it Why Scott Greer Should be a 'White Nationalist' (in quotes) rather than Why Scott Greer Should Call Himself a White Nationalist. I have never liked the term and never use it. I call myself a white advocate.
What I objected to most in Mr. Greer's essay was the trust he seems to put in the GOP and in "conservatism." Neither is "pro-white," as Mr. Greer suggests, and neither will safeguard the legitimate interests of the dwindling number of white Americans.
Neither article I wrote dispensed with racial awareness or the desire to preserve America's historic character. Demographics are the most important matter for America's future.
The purpose of both articles was to clarify why I'm not a white nationalist. The term is used to marginalize immigration restriction and other ideas and is a useful to Left. I don't want to be described as such. You appear to agree with me on that, which makes the point of your article confusing.
I would not say I have trust in the GOP, which neither article claims that. Healthy skepticism of the GOP is a must for serious political engagement. But we must recognize it as our primary vehicle for change.
Conservatism, as I argue in my book and other writings, is a completely different beast today from the cuckservatism of the recent past. It offers unprecedented opportunities to advance nationalism and once-forbidden topics. I think the best way to advance these ideas is to present as normal conservatism, which they now basically are in 2026.
This not a call for everyone to be like Breitbart and start devoting themselves to electing Republicans. I don't even do this. As this article makes clear, there's plenty of space for AmRen and other places to discuss ideas Republicans (and many conservatives) won't touch. It's a great thing that figures such as yourself will say what they believe regardless over whether it's good for politicians to say. I do the same.
But it's unwise for people who care about these issues to try to form a real-world political movement independent of conservatism and normal politics. The Alt Right tried this, and it was a complete failure. Hence, my discussion of LARPing, which is what the Alt Right's activism amounted to.
If people are going to be involved directly in politics, the best avenue is conservatism.
Then perhaps the question becomes what you *should* call yourself. It is true that "conservatism" has made real progress, but being anti-anti-white isn't enough.
Perhaps one area of disagreement between us is that I think the GOP is ripe for at least local candidates who -- whatever they call themselves -- openly defend the interests of whites. If that day never comes, our dispossession may slow, but it will never be reversed.
Slowing an onslaught of your side is good.
Blackpilling using words like "never," you've already lost.
Thank you for your fighting spirit, Mr. Taylor! We could never repay you for all your hard work! 👌
Our biggest enemy is the mainstream media and groups like the ADL, and though they are finally being defeated the SPLC as well. They will always go after any local GOP politician who does that. I wish the SPLC would not only go bankrupt, but would have to pay restitution to victims like Jared Taylor and American Renaissance, and some of their former leaders arrested.
Frodi should setup a debate Jared, you and Scott on this issue. I think the only disagreement is how far GOP will go. There is a feeling they will stab White people in the back again like they always end up doing.
I think there is a lot of truth to all this, though I was pretty upset over birthright citizenship not being addressed. There is a huge problem with conservative selecting the wrong judges. Selecting a women who adopted Haitian's is just do boneheaded.
Because GOP and conservatives have to abide the Jew. More like short term gain for long term pain.
What does the Jew have to do with nominating a Catholic woman with seven kids?
The problem is that without an explicit understanding of white racial interest you’re going to default to race neutral libertarian-ish legalize.
Why is birthright citizenship a problem when we are all equally capable of assimilating into being “Americans” in the end? Why should Amy adopting Haitian kids be a sign of not understanding white interests and racial differences instead of an expression of her Christian compassion?
https://www.clemensandblair.com/catalog/jewry-in-america-and-other-essays
You’re right. Christianity in America is thoroughly subverted. Both Protestant and Catholic. The question to ask is why? Look back to the 1930s to see what group systematically rewrote nursery books and study bibles to make them more colorblind. There were incentive structures in place for the churches - they get rich, but agree to tone down the type of Christianity that built Europe.
There is a recognizable pattern among certain right-wing writers and commentators who carefully manage their public image to appear as respectable, high-status figures capable of influencing ordinary audiences without becoming fully radioactive or persona non grata.
Scott Greer is a clear example of this approach. He maintains obvious intellectual and social proximity to figures and outlets associated with explicit white nationalist or white-advocacy circles—people such as Greg Johnson, Kevin DeAnna, Ann Coulter, Sam Hyde, Gavin McInnes and the broader American Renaissance orbit—yet he works to present himself as unconnected to those milieus. At the same time, his writing and commentary repeatedly engage the same themes, personnel, and ideas, creating a deliberate gap between the networks he actually operates in and the more mainstream, “respectable” persona he projects to a wider audience.
Wow. This is quite the conspiracy you've uncovered.
::Greta Tuneburg voice:: "how dare you!"
Jokes aside, the above poster is right. You are in fact a white nationalist (nothing wrong with that) by virtue of advocating for a majority-white, white-culture US. In other words, you are not a white pluralist -- there are people like that who are OK with multiculturalism, as long as whites are a legitimate identity group within multiculturalism, with their own rights and freedom of association, but otherwise in a diverse society. An example of someone like that is another blogger named Robert Stark. But you advocate for a majority-white nation where whites aren't a minority identity group. This viewpoint is mainstream, and in line with MAGA, Trump, and FOX News.
I think the whole chat wishes Jared would just appear with Scott and discuss these points one by one. For sure would be an interesting and entertaining show.
I would define white nationalism as wanting whites to get special recognition as the core ethnoracial group if the country and special consideration in terms of immigration. The national character would derive from white culture and identity but other peoples could be participatory in that identity and culture, and some historic minorities could be given their own recognition as a historic nation within a nation. Obviously white majoritarianism is necessary for this to work.
It's the only way it can work. In a multicultural empire there is only ever room at the top for one tribe. The Trump administration is actually pretty doggone white; that's who built this system after all. When non-whites run it, it will be a different system.
Scott can you do an article covering the historic origins of the DSA left? I've seen some good articles that pinpoints its fervor in the John Brown left of the 1800s and radical new England abolitionism of a Quaker and unitarian universalist variety.
White nationalism is a dead end because what most people in America want is fairness. That means no protected classes, no arbitrary restrictions or preferential treatment based on race, and no two-tier systems like the ones emerging in the UK. White nationalism is telling groups of people that no matter what they do, no matter how willing they are to assimilate, no matter how much they want to be good Americans, they can't. And that's unfair.
It's good that you're pushing back against these people. If we don't nip fringe elements that make us poison to the average voter in the bud, we'll end up like the Democrats getting subsumed by the third worldists and marxists in the DSA because even though their ideas are trash they energize that group of people enough to swing a primary.
The problem with the proposition nation is that the "nationhood," the asabiyyah, disappears once people no longer agree on the proposition. The last time this happened we killed 600,000 of each other.
Except the Civil War happened because an entire economic subsystem was built on unwilling servitude. There was no simple solution and the can had been kicked down the road for close to 100 years. As Trump has demonstrated, we can easily close the borders to illegal immigrants, restrict the number of legal immigrants, and start dismantling the most bullshit provisions of the Civil Rights act like disparate impact and DEI. There's no need for a Civil War, just making a compelling case to voters and going after the institutional rot is enough.
Is it though? It seems to me that the more rot gets pulled out, the more entrenched the left becomes to defend what led to it. There’s been constant criticism with ICE, Trumps “tyranny”, defense of Anthony Karmelo, etc. There’s been no introspection on how BLM was a total sham, just a very quiet removal of all mentions of it. I think both left and right want very different things right now, the right wants a place where they feel comfortable with their friends and family, mostly their kin, and the left wants a diverse and open society where everyone can become anything. They’re polar opposites in term of policy, laws, etc.
My impression is the Left is vigorously doubling down. The sexual alphabet people, the magic negro, Marxist economics, climate change, all of it.
Having said that, people do have their light bulb moments. I had mine in my late 30s. James Howard Kunstler, Naomi Wolf, Megyn Kelly, Lara Logan all had their light bulb moments at even older ages than mine. Elridge Cleaver of all people had his light bulb moment and died a conservative Republican. But I think this is way more uncommon than not.
Politics are umbilical not logical. Mayor Mysterymeat in New York City has doubtless heard all the free market and classical liberal arguments. He's still a socialist Muslim supremacist and a lot of dumb, deracinated white people agree with him. The whole idea of proposition nationhood is itself a completely Anglo-American construct.
Race Realism makes a lot more sense than White Nationalism. I recall John Derbyshire mentioning that one out of every six black people have an IQ equal to or greater than the average white. This fact — as well as its five out of six corollary — is a strong argument for de jure colorblindness. Treat individuals as individuals. Look at race differences when you need to make descriptive or prescriptive observations about social outcomes.
"America is a stable society without the turmoil needed to create the conditions for such a revolution."
America is stable on what time-scale? On a time-scale of months and years it is stable. On a time-scale of decades it is going down a slippery slope that gets steeper with time, and descends to a valley of black and brown bio-trash.
Yeah it didn’t seem too stable in 2020 when downtown Seattle was an autonomous zone with an African warlord
I appreciate Scott’s work. But I have to say we should keep the ends in mind. Disagreement on means in the near term are trivial. It’s a big world, and we need to make advancements on all fronts. Carlson is doing great work in his sphere. So is Joseph Jordan and folks in between. Even Devon Stack, despite being Blackpilled, helps to change the collective white zeitgeist.
The “why I’m not/no longer a white nationalist” line is geared toward people already in the know to pull them into the same methodology (in this case). Others are more subversive trying to deradicalize those to their right.
If the target is indeed normies, then just keep focusing on them and don’t get twisted wasting time arguing with people you could already consider allies working toward the same ends.
Anthony Cumia is one of my favorite commentators because he is Pro-White but in a funny way and not 100 percent political. He can reach the sports betters, video game playing audience better and now that he is teaming with Jim Norton, his reach should expand even further. He spoke at AMREN with Jared Taylor but I dont think the majority of his listeners consider him a White nationalist. He speaks to those ideas though and promotes Jared to a degree. I just wish he'd have Scott on his program.
I like Greer, but he probably isn't high profile enough for Cumia. Although I think Greer should have better standards and avoid the bald happa in the future lol just my opinion.
I would say that both you and Jared Taylor are in the same orbit, which I would call "mainstream white nationalism." As opposed to something like X and the New Right, which is different. Also, there are some white pluralists/multiculturalists who are also different.
I would in fact call you a white nationalist because, unlike while pluralists (who want white freedom of association but without necessarily a white-majority culture), you do insist on a white-majority and white-culture US, so that is white nationalism. Contrary to what you wrote, this is actually a mainstream idea, it's represented by Trump, MAGA, Fox News etc.
Things are different in Europe, where their nations have no history of immigration and strong traditions in fascism and/or monarchism. They have much less reason to compromise. To be clear, compromise is not a bad thing, I'm just talking pure pragmatism.