There is No White Nation Without White Communities

There is No White Nation Without White Communities

By Karl Nerger

In 2007, I was captivated by Congressman Ron Paul’s campaign for Presidency. His foreign policy made the most sense of that of anyone whom I had ever heard of running for President.  His economic ideas of libertarianism seemed to be the right medicine for the liberal pro-government intervention in domestic matters, as well. But, I had a major problem with Dr. Paul’s ideas about immigration. His idea of simply eliminating welfare programs to solve our illegal immigration problem seemed incomplete. In fact, two years before I had heard Jared Taylor debate Tim Wise, which shaped my view that the key problem of immigration stemmed more from multiculturalism than it did from individuals actually breaking the law. By 2011, I was openly discussing the ideas of multiculturalism with libertarians who seemed just as indoctrinated with the libertarian open-borders mindset as any liberal was with the need for welfare programs. That was “racism” and “dividing people by race was the government’s main agenda,” so they would tell me. I was finally told by one lady that “if I think that a exclusively white community was such a good thing, then no one was stopping me from doing that.” Now, evidently she has never heard of such things as “fair housing” laws, but nevertheless her challenge did strike a chord with me. And an all-white community is not against the law, even if done so intentionally. The only thing that is against the law is discriminating in sales of your property when you decide to do so. The challenge came around 2013 and it was shortly after that that I decided that my mission in life would be doing what I could to create an all white community in Arkansas.

I know that there are some people who will read this article who have experienced the same epiphany decades before I did, and this article is not intended to be any sort of claim of a novel idea. I realize that I am a Johnny-come-lately and I am humbled by the work of William Pierce, Jared Taylor, Billy Roper, Joe Sobran, and others whom I’ve never heard about but who have made actual sacrifices for the ideas of white nationalism. This essay is simply my ideas with regard to moving from ideas to implementation. I watched a video of Matt Tait, formerly of the British National Party, give a speech at the American Renaissance conference two years ago where he made the statement, “We don’t want to say that we are going to have the best schools [when we are in control], we will have the best schools.” In other words, let’s create the best schools now and not wait for others to implement our ideas. And in order to create our own institutions, we will need to be able to work together with frequent face-to-face meetings and planning. We will need a “safe space” (dare I use that term) to defend from others who don’t agree with our views.

I don’t think that we who have taken the proverbial Red Pill should wait for some societal epiphany in mass so that our ideas will be implemented as some people think. In studying history and politics, one learns that broad changes rarely come about by a simple changing of a majority of people’s opinions- they come about by a “tireless minority” as Samuel Adams put it. The liberal anthropologist Margaret Mead made statements about minorities of people being the only groups that ever really effect changes. In politics, it is common practice to focus a campaign on those who vote already rather than trying to convince people why they should vote now for this or that candidate. So that is where my focus takes me- to those who are already Red Pilled but who aren’t sure about what to do from here, forward.

The problem as I see it with forming an intentionally white community is primarily selecting a location where people who have varying jobs and job skills and already live in various places within the state to agree to move to a location that is both sufficiently remote yet allows for some conveniences. The location would need to be remote so as to be able to buy large tracts of land at a reasonable price in order to grow our own food and oil producing crops. Oil producing crops such as soy beans, rapeseed, and other climate friendly crops would allow for mass production of oils with which to provide energy for diesel powered generators. A remote location would also be helpful in avoiding unwanted media attention and allow for land growth with new members. Most recently, Craig Cobb in Leith, ND formed a community but his penchant for media attention worked against him and the community might as well not exist at this point.

Other problems in forming an all white community are how would such a community be formed, how would the community be governed, and what would the sanctions be for those attempting to sabotage the community. People who participated would have invested a lot in time, effort, and financial resources, and it would be very disappointing to have one or two disgruntled former members expose the group to media attention and potential government sanctions. If you would like to see what can happen to people trying to form all white communities, simply do a web search for Silver Beach Gardens or Edgewater Park of the Bronx, New York City. I suspect that this is where previous efforts to do what I am proposing have failed.

My proposal for the problem is for members to sign commitment documents to become voluntary members of the community, but to exclude any explicit written documentation that the community is based on racial segregation. Contained within such a document would be the expressed written consent that, in order to be a member of the community, you will not rent or sell your property to anyone who is not a member of the “homeowners association” without majority vote of the association, and the expressed written consent from the group subsequently. Through such an agreement, no mention of the race or any other identifiers would be necessary. In fact, there might be some whites that members would prefer to avoid such as sex offenders or career criminals.

Such an arrangement would make selling the property difficult. Members wanting to rent or sell their property could not involve public advertisement, which expressly forbids discrimination of any kind. Therefore, members would have to understand that their property could not disposed of  without a thorough exit strategy involving word-of-mouth advertising.

But, the advantage would be some sense of recourse for members who must deal with a disgruntled member who has turned malicious. If any attempt is made to sell the property without community consent, the community could sue to enforce the contract and nullify any sales or rental agreements, or seize the proceeds of the unlawful sale. The membership contract could specify a clause that enforces a mandatory sale to a community corporation that the community could then resell at their convenience, if a member became insolvent or otherwise wanted to leave untimely. The major flaw is I see it in other attempts to manage all white communities has been twofold: 1) members did not own their own property but rather belong to a collective that owned the property, and 2) without having private property as a basis, the communities experienced problems such as marketing the organizational nature to others, and having no means of proving that the community was not engaging in ethnic discrimination. The Edgewater/Silver Beach Gardens case involved public advertisement and a community-property cooperative structure.

There could also be a clause that restricts public disclosure of the community although this would be much more difficult to define and enforce. However, with a covenant that restricts behavior on the front end, community members might be able to minimize disruption of the community. What are your thoughts? If you can identify flaws to the plan, support your assertion with legal precedent not speculation. Please comment with constructive criticism.


Karl Nerger

Please follow and like us:
The following two tabs change content below.
A devout Dual Seedline Christian Identists, Pastor Paul R. Mullet has made it his mission to bring forth a Christian Identity, and White Nationalism unification. Thru his website, he and his partners in Yahshua the Messiah, have found common ground in combating jewdeo-Christianity, and have formed a new battle axe for Yahshua the Messiah (Jesus Christ). Pastor Paul R. Mullet is considered by some within the Dual Seedline Christian Identity Theology as a very powerful speaker and writer, a fast moving up and comer. His tireless devotion to his family, farm, faith and kinsmen are clearly heard within his sermons and writings. He lives with his wife and two children, on a modest hobby farm in southern Ohio, some would say the border of what will be the New America for the white race.

Pastor Paul R. Mullet

A devout Dual Seedline Christian Identists, Pastor Paul R. Mullet has made it his mission to bring forth a Christian Identity, and White Nationalism unification. Thru his website, he and his partners in Yahshua the Messiah, have found common ground in combating jewdeo-Christianity, and have formed a new battle axe for Yahshua the Messiah (Jesus Christ). Pastor Paul R. Mullet is considered by some within the Dual Seedline Christian Identity Theology as a very powerful speaker and writer, a fast moving up and comer. His tireless devotion to his family, farm, faith and kinsmen are clearly heard within his sermons and writings. He lives with his wife and two children, on a modest hobby farm in southern Ohio, some would say the border of what will be the New America for the white race.

pmullet has 346 posts and counting.See all posts by pmullet

2 thoughts on “There is No White Nation Without White Communities

  • December 19, 2016 at 6:27 pm

    Greetings! Very helpful advice in this particular article!
    It’s the little changes which will make the largest changes.
    Thanks a lot for sharing!

  • June 21, 2017 at 9:59 am

    White Nationalists (herein WN) need to give up on the concept of a white nation. That ship has sunk. The next logical step is as you write, a white community. White people are beaten, down trodden, and in need of help. Everywhere we look, we’re the bad guys. White folks need something to look to as a beacon of hope. Something that shows them that this isn’t over and we are making strides to retaining our cultural identity, and a white nation isn’t that because it simply can’t happen. Not right now. And if we keep spinning our wheels for that cause, we’ll just end up tired with no progress made. But an all-white community? That’s possible. That’s doable.

    I’ve done an exhaustive amount of research on utopian movements within the US, from the 1600s till today, and the WN movement is really no different. As you so rightly mentioned, the biggest challenge with forming a community — any community — within the public domain are laws that prohibit discrimination when selling property or renting it out. This makes it impossible to have an all-anything community so long as someone else wants to move there. [Especially if this community is all-White, you can rest assured that some Leftist group in New York is going to bankroll them getting into your community and then sue you when you don’t accept them (in fact they want to sue you so they can drain your resources)].

    So, how do you defend against some Leftist suing you into bankruptcy from his penthouse in Manhattan? Easy. Private land. Here’s a foreword and a couple ideas:

    FOREWORD: Private Land is understood to mean one mega-piece of land, privately owned by one person or one private group/church. The huge piece of land is then parceled out either unofficially or through a contract, with ultimate property ownership rights always residing with the one person or one group/church. For more information on this, read up on how people build “Co-Housing” projects and how they go about buying the property and buildings. The reason this way is superior to picking Random Town, USA and buying property there is because when you rely on public land that you each individually purchase, when one of your members puts their land up for sale or rent, it will fall under the purview of the equal housing laws and you expose yourself to be sued by some leftist hack with a ton of money. Equally troubling, you likely can’t buy all the property in the town, and even if you could you couldn’t stop someone from coming through public roads and hanging out in your town. It’s a public town and protected under public law.

    OPTION #1:
    Purchasing land through a trust or one individual. If its one person who buys the land then allows people to live on it as he so chooses, so long as you’re following the local zoning laws you’re OK. The danger here is if he chooses to kick you off, you have little recourse. If you purchase through a trust, everyone pitches in their share to buy the land and build the buildings. Then if someone wants to leave and wants to sell their share, the rest of the group has first dibs on whether or not they want to buy, which can effectively keep it a closed community. This happens often in intentionally created co-housing projects and works very well.

    OPTION #2:
    Purchase the land through a non-profit or church. For this example I’ll go with a church. You establish a church, “Odin’s Temple,” and you purchase land through the church. You designate the land as a retreat or monastery of sorts, and then move ‘church faculty’ onto the land. You, as church leadership, maintain ultimate control over everything, finances and property included, and you determine who may come on the property and live there. The added benefit here is that as a church you don’t pay taxes or property tax. You have some requirements to live up to, but otherwise that’s it. It’s a small community that is effectively one big piece of private property, and you decide who lives there, and who can even come on the property to begin with. The added benefit here is that you could have each of your members living on property paying 50% in donation to the church. Why 50%? 50% is the maximum allowable in donations. Your income is cut by 50%, meaning less taxes paid, and the church doesn’t pay taxes at all. Then the church turns around and uses that money to build buildings, buy food, pay utilities, etc. effectively doing everything your members were going to do anyway, except tax-free and for the entire group. The remainder of their 50% they can spend any ole way they please. Of course you can choose to amend those numbers as you please, but the point stands, and you get maximum benefit from doing it at 50%. The downside here (and one that has caught a lot of people in jail) is that churches or non-profits are NOT FOR PROFIT. You cannot take church tax-free money and buy yourself a car. You can, however, buy the church a car and then use that doing “church business,” and if driving around town smiling and waving to folks is church business (public relations), then you’re good. But it can never be for personal use. Oh yes, you also get a free house you don’t pay taxes on (known as a hermitage). But that’s the church’s house and for church leadership only. Of course, you run the church with an iron fist and theres no way anyone could get rid of you — you’d know, you wrote the bylaws — so its basically your house so long as you’re in charge of the church.

    Regarding the trouble with location. Yes, ideally you want to be close enough to something with jobs yet far enough away to get privacy. That begs the question — does everyone really need a 3 bed room 2 bath house? If the idea is community, why not truly strive to create a community? This concept is truly novel, so make it so. Instead of everyone having their own home, why not look towards the idea of the 60’s and 70’s communes? Each family could have a small home, but there is a community kitchen where everyone gathers to eat, there is a community garage, community entertainment area, etc. Houses can be much smaller, even individual room houses clustered up, and everyone can go to work on the compound growing food in the garden, taking care of the animals, doing maintenance around the property, etc. Others can work from home via the Internet. There is no reason people need to have $100,000 a year incomes and huge mortgages and huge car payments and massive debt just to be happy. That idea is toxic to the idea of a true community.

    Imagine waking up when the rooster crows, you go out to the barn and meet up with your two other work partners. You three do your job and then at lunch time you all gather with the rest of the community for a shared lunch and fellow ship. If we want community, lets make a community and stop having one foot in modern, mainstream society mentality and one foot in fantasy land.

    It’s all in or nothing.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *