I have never found white nationalism attractive. Though I follow the reasoning - that ethnic identity is adaptive for our genes (Salter 2007) - I just don't have it.

Still, I defend white nationalism against slander, on the grounds that truth is better than falsehood.

I also defend the right to white identity on the grounds of freedom. Opponents of the First Amendment attack unpopular ideas first, then, when these have been made illegal, move on to ban other ideas they disagree with. An obvious example of this process is the attempt by green activists in Germany to extend the laws against "holocaust denial" to ban "climate change denial" too (Knott 2012).

According to the "anti-racist" left, this is a white nationalist society, so you might expect white identity to be commonplace. The fact that it is the one identity regarded, almost universally, as uniquely pathological, might seem to constitute a major rebuttal of their position (Krenshaw 1996). But it makes no difference - they carry on about "racism" as if nothing has changed since the lonesome death of Hattie Carroll (Dylan 1963).

The USA has what might be called an "anti-hate industry". Well-funded organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center, academic departments, and politicians, work together to try to make us see racial prejudice where none exists.

A dramatic illustration of this followed the recent death of a black teenager in Florida. The white man who shot him is on trial for murder. He says it was self-defense. I don't know which of these is true, and neither do you. What we can be sure of, though, is that not a shred of evidence of racial motive has been produced, despite a major effort by the media to do so. Still, just because the dead boy was African-American, and his killer white, politicians, including presidents past and present, the media, and the anti-hate industry, joined together to make us think that Trayvon Martin was a modern Hattie Carroll.

One can find this vulturine activity all over the country. I'll choose for my example a recent opinion piece in the Register-Guard, a daily newspaper in Springfield, Oregon, with the accusatory title "Ignoring hate crime same as condoning it" (Rodley 2012). This article repeats the familiar refrain that Florida teen Trayvon Martin was a victim of racial profiling, despite the complete lack of evidence beyond the color of his skin.

The piece starts by trying to tug our heartstrings, claiming that evil men entice children by attaching candy to leaflets claiming "whites are quickly becoming the minority — our entire culture as white Christians is at stake." It then says this message is "white supremacy". "Anti-racists" always claim that any expression of white European identity is "supremacist". We are encouraged to believe that a person who identifies as white, or expresses concern that whites will become a minority, will inevitably want to dominate members of other ethnicities, and that this tendency is unique to white people.

The authors of the article try to sit on the fence on the issue of freedom of expression versus protecting people against ideas that make them feel unsafe:

Notice how they derive, from a leaflet objecting to demographic trends, 'harm', 'hate speech' and hate activity', then without missing a beat, 'threat' and 'violence' toward a 'protected class'. "A protected class" means everyone except white heterosexuals.

There is no middle ground between American-style freedom of expression and European-style suppression of thought crimes. In US law, you are allowed to say you are "unapologetically committed to the interest and values of the white race", even if it makes someone "feel unsafe".

There are already laws against speech or writing which would make a reasonable person feel threatened. In November 2009, when someone in Kennett, Missouri left cards in a restaurant saying "You have been paid a social visit by the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. The next visit will not be social.", the police removed them, and tried to discover who had left them. It's worth remembering that extremism in America is riddled with informants and provocateurs.

The leaflets handed out in Springfield were not threatening. They merely expressed the opinion that traditional white European Christian culture is under threat, and its adherents might wish to protect it. This is no more threatening than defending any other ethno-religious collective. In fact, labeling it as inherently hateful is itself hateful. Discussing what's really behind this hate is another article. Notice that the article ends by urging people to report 'hate speech' to the police.

Like I said at the beginning, I feel no urge to preserve white America, and less than none to support Christianity; the only American values I defend are freedom of expression and presumption of innocence. It just happens that the enemies of first two are closely linked to the enemies of the others.

   Crenshaw, K., et. al. 1996. Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings That Formed the Movement. The New Press.

   Dylan, B., 1963. The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll. http://www.bobdylan.com/us/songs/lonesome-death-hattie-carroll

   Knott, J., 2012, March 20. In Denial - the politics of global warming. http://www.deliberation.info/in-denial-the-politics-of-global-warming

   Rodley, K., et. al. 2012, April 24. Ignoring hate crime same as condoning it. Register-Guard http://www.registerguard.com/web/opinion/27960625-47/hate-springfield-speech-activity-done.html.csp

   Salter, F., 2007. Genetic Interests. Transaction Publishers.