In-Group vs. Out-Group Dynamics in a Multicultural Democracy
I want to discuss the nature of in-group versus out-group dynamics in a multicultural democracy such as the United States and the West in general. I have spent many years critiquing Jewish power in the form of Jewish supremacy, and the Jewish people—and I say “the Jewish people” with qualification, because Jews are not a single unified group. They are composed of many different sects that are constantly in conflict with one another internally, as we have seen throughout their history.
However, like any other group, when Jews are attacked externally, they unify on a common front against what they percieve is antisemitism. This reactive solidarity is what makes them appear as though they are all participating in some massive coordinated conspiracy, when in reality, they are simply doing what any threatened group does: closing ranks.
This does not mean, however, that there aren’t Jewish people who do form groups that do conspire to gain power or achieve political aims, because those certainly do exist and are problematic. Jews are the most organized minority on planet earth, and they do have institutions, such as the World Jewish Congress, that spans across six contenients and has offices in over 100 nations. But not every Jew is a member of this group.
Regardless, Jewish supremacists do exist. And Like any White supremacist group, there are in fact Jewish supremacist groups that have an agenda which is a threat to all non-Jews. But again, the idea that every Jew is by default one, or part of these networks, is what can be dismissed as irrational.
One group that I consider a Jewish supremacist group is the ADL. This group weaponizes the term antisemitism, extending to even mean things that are not truly antisemitic, in order to silence political opposition who they consider antisemites. Ironically, the more they demand Gentiles to submit to their demands, while claiming to represent the Jewish community, the more they actually increase antisemitism. Their constant calls for censorship and cancelling of people is seen as a form of Jewish supremacy—and it is.
II. The Universal Pattern of Group Solidarity
But such a monolithic-like defense can be observed in every group. Black people, for example, are not a monolith. In fact, Black communities are so divided, they experience the most devastating levels of internal violence: the number-one killer of Black people is Black-on-Black crime. Yet when Black people are attacked as a group, nearly all of them respond in a similar fashion. They all stand up collectively against anti-Black racism, and they would certainly oppose any policies that would threaten their civil rights. There are several pro-Black groups that do demand censorshp and cancellation of those they percieve as racist. One such group is Black Lives Matter. Although there is no World Black Congress and no conspiracy behind that unified reaction, their unification on any level is instinctual.
And to prove my point: we are now seeing this same racial and ethnic consciousness emerging among White people, who are experiencing the consequences of Karl Popper’s Open Society. Although Whites have held dominant positions in Western society for centuries, they are now facing a unique form of oppression that is dissimilar to that physical and mental oppression Black Americans or Jewish communities have endured.
It has been since the 60s that Whites in the West have been experiencing anti-White policies that have disenfranchised them in several ways: the most dangerous are immigration policies that guarantee their demographic displacement in countries that they founded. Such policies have certainly been pushed by Jewish powerbrokers driven by a “Never Again” agenda. But this would not be possible without the help of Whites who reinforce and promote such policies with a suicidal altruism that is not found in any other group.
So, Whites, instead of defending themselves as a monolith, have been committing suicide as a monolith. Notice: this is without any conspiracy among them to do so. There is no White World Congress telling them to do it, and no White person I know wanted this to happen. So how did it happen?
Whites, who have been a mostly indiviulistic-minded people, thought that conforming to the anti-White social norms installed by Wokeism would benefit them individually. And for a while, it did. However, the system that rewarded this pathological autrism for decades can no longer hide its devestating effects on Whites collectively. Whites, who are projected to become a minority in every country they founded, are now starting to think and act like minorities in order to survive what is coming.
III. Minority Coalition-Building as Rational Self-Interest
So with this understanding of social dynamics, we can see why Jews, Black Americans, Indian Americans, Muslims, and others minorities in America all share the same underlying behavior: it is organizing to protect and advance their interests within a democratic system that structurally disadvantages them.
Being a minority in a democracy is a political disadvantage by definition. Numerical inferiority means reduced electoral power, reduced representation, and reduced cultural influence. Minority groups compensate for this disadvantage by forming coalitions. Jewish organizations have historically led these coalitions, which is not suprising coming from a long-persecuted community with deep institutional experience navigating hostile majorities. This experience has made them the masters of organization.
Another group that is following in their footsteps nearly as effectively are Indians coming to America who are now doing the same, organizing to gain media representation and combat Hinduphobia. Muslims do the same. Every minority does the same. What appears to critics as conspiracy is, in reality, instinct—driven entirely by self-interest and the will to survive and thrive.
IV. The Majority’s Legitimate Discomfort
The majority population sees all these groups forming coalitions, and when they see that these minorities considering them a “threat” to the very democracy they founded, is becomes extremely problematic. This is clearly the number-one driver of political friction. White people, who are the current majority of Westerners, have every right to be concerned for their future, and minorities should realize their concerns are valid.
Consider a hypothetical senario: imagine tens of millions of White people emigrating to China. Once there, they begin forming advocacy groups because they are the minority. They demand equal rights, legal protections, media representation, and a voice in government. Some may complain that locals are being hostile and racist toward them, forming advocacy groups against anti-White racism. The Chinese majority would almost certainly view this with suspicion and resentment, and we would understand why, because any majority population reacts this way when it perceives its cultural and political dominance being challenged from within, especially when they let minorities come into their country as guests.
If we accept that minority organizing is as rational and justifed self-interest, intellectual honesty requires us to extend the same charity to majority discomfort, even while rejecting supremacist responses to it. To not do so would be hypocritical. But in the West, the White majority is not allowed to organize without being condemned as racist or White supremacist.
V. Diversity and the Inescapability of Identity Politics
The root issue is not that diverse peoples are evil, wrong, or bad as individuals. The root issue is forced diversity and multiculturalism, especially when the majority never asked for it. When groups with fundamentally competing identities—racial, religious, and political—are forced to share the same political space, conflict is not an accident; it is inevitable. Its inevitability is structural, as it is literally baked into the cake. This is why a color-blind meritocracy will aways fail, because it rejects the most fundamental human identity: the physical self, which is driven by genes to survive and replicate, and also the psychological self, which is driven to adhere to its metaphysical principles.
All politics, at its core, is identity politics. Identity operates on multiple levels simultaneously: your race and ethnicity, your politics, and your spiritual or religious beliefs. The interplay of these factors and one’s enviorment is what creates a culture.
But not every individual weights these dimensions equally. Mixed-race individuals will care less about racial preservation than those who are not mixed. Secular individuals will care less about religious continuity than devout ones. This internal heterogeneity within groups adds further complexity, but it does not dissolve the underlying tension. The competition remains, and it will remain as long as groups with different wills are governed by the same political structure. This compeition becomes hostile when such groups are forced to compete for survival, not only on a indivdual level, but on a cultural level.
VI. The Solution: Neofederal Unifism and Ethostates
The answer to this problem is self-separation through living spaces. I have developed a framework I call Neofederal Unifism, which proposes the creation of what I term “ethostates” within the United States. These are communities composed of people who share the same fundamental character—people who agree on politics, on physical identity, and on spiritual identity. These ethostates would be formed around the genuine needs of groups who wish to live among their own kind, governed by their own values, without being forced into endless competition with groups who have a different ethos. Whether a given ethostate is racially homogeneous or religiously homogeneous would depend entirely on the group forming it. But the one prerequisite for stability would be political homogeneity. A multiparty state will always be in conflict and should be avoided.
The key principle everyone should agree upon is that every group deserves a safe living space—a community where their collective will is executed locally, among their own people, without being overridden by the competing will of others. We currently have the complete opposite of this, which is why America has become a coliseum of warring tribes rather than a nation of unique people collaborating for a greater good.
The federal layer of my model, operating loosely on the principle of the Roman Imperium’s administration of diverse peoples, would serve as the coordinating structure. It is the point at which all these distinct sovereign communities converge and work together on matters of shared national concern. The Roman’s governed a multicultural, multiracial, and polyglot society for millenia. America is the new Rome but has failed to maintain order.
What does everyone ultimately want? They want to come home after work to a neighborhood where they feel safe, where the community reflects their values. The workplace can be multicultural, multiracial, or whatever it needs to be. But the home, the community, must be a place of stability and belonging. These communities must form organically, not driven by a delusional Utopian fantasy which has created this disaster we now live in.
Neofederal Unifism provides the structure to make that possible for every American.
VII. The Book Revision and the Shift Toward Solutions
This framework is also the reason I have taken my book, Our Struggle, off the shelves. The original work devoted too much of its focus to critiquing Jewish power and engaging in a poetic and LARPy antisemitism, without reflecting equally on Gentile corruption and self-destruction. It needs to be renamed and revised.
The fact I only gave a single chapter to the solution outlined above, took away the most important part of my work. The revision will shift emphasis decisively toward solutions—toward a practical, empathetic, and structurally sound vision for how every group in America can actually prosper. This means abandoning the reactionary nostalgia that characterizes much of the discourse on the right—the fantasy of returning America to the 1940s or some other idealized prior era, while also rejecting the impossible progressive idealism of the left. We must find balance.
America is what it is now. The question is, how do we work with what we have? No one is thinking about this; instead, they appeal to impractical fantasies and non-solutions because they are driven by emotions. Granted, such emotions are justified, because what is happening is traumatizing and problematic, but we cannot solve our problems with complaints or feelings. I went through that phase myself until I realized it’s futile and self-destructive path.
We must focus on being constructive. We must be logical and just. We must protect the innocent, and punish the guilty. The communities that have been present in this country for generations are not going anywhere. That is the reality, and any serious proposal must begin there. However, those who have entered America illegally must leave, and we must secure our borders.
VIII. Sovereignty Without Supremacy: A Vision for America’s Future
The vision I am proposing is straightforward and is based on a simple concept: sovereinty. No group holds supremacy over any other. Not Jewish supremacy, not White supremacy, not Black supremacy—none. Every group is sovereign within its own community, represented by its own people at the local level, which is the ethostate. From there, these sovereign communities convene as fellow human beings at the federal level, no different in principle from how sovereign nations interact on the global stage, except that here they share a common national framework and a common commitment to one another’s right to exist and self-govern. This is what our forefathers envisioned, except they never foresaw what kind of disaster America would become.
If America continues down the path of minority-versus-majority warfare without a structural resolution, the country will become unrecognizable and will ultimately collapse under the weight of its own internal contradictions.
The insanity must stop, and we are the only ones who can stop it.
We must look at America honestly, for what it actually is, and for what it could become if every group accepts this simple principle: sovereignty among your own, connection as a network, and shared humanity at the center.
I will not be the America that many wish it would be, but this is the only way I can see how America can be saved without civil war, massive bloodshed, and complete bulkanization.