“Socialisme fasciste” is the title of an essay by Drieu La Rochelle. Fascist socialism, though, has been largely symbolic, since it is more an idea than a record of actual achievement.

At certain points, all fascist movements had to come to terms with socialism. And all took inspiration from it: Hitler’s party was the National Socialist German Workers Party, Mussolini was a socialist school teacher, José-Antonio Primo de Rivera was a symbol of national-syndicalist socialism, Codreanu’s Iron Guard was a movement of students and peasants, Mosley in England had been a Labour Minister, Doriot in France was a former Communist and his PPF emerged from a Communist cell in Saint-Denis.

Historically, fascist movements were liberation movements opposing the confiscation of power by cosmopolitan capitalism and by the inherent dishonesty of democratic regimes, which systematically deprive the people of their right to participate [in government].

With the exception of Peron’s Argentina, circumstances have always been such as to prevent the realization of fascism’s socialist vocation.

Those fascist movements that succeeded in taking power were compelled, thus, to reconstitute an economy ruined by demagogues, to re-establish an order undermined by anarchy, to create ways of overcoming the chaos besetting their lands or to repel external threats. These urgent and indispensable tasks required a total national mobilization and dictated certain priorities.

Circumstances, in a word, everywhere prevented fascists from realizing the synthesis of socialism and nationalism, for their socialist project was necessarily subordinated to the imperative of ensuring the nation’s survival.

These circumstances were further exacerbated by another difficulty: Fascist movements were generally reluctant to destroy the structure of capitalist society.

Given that their enemy was plutocracy, foreign capital, and the usurpers of national sovereignty, the immediate objective of these movements was to put the national interest above capitalist interest and to establish a regalian state capable of protecting the nation, as kings had once done against the feudal powers.

This [fascist] policy of conserving ancient structures may have transformed the prevailing consciousness and shifted power, but it did not entail a revolutionary destruction of the old order.

Fascist nostalgia for the old regime has, indeed, been so profound that it routinely reappears [today] in neo-fascist movements that are national-revolutionary more in word than in deed.

This phenomenon is evident throughout Europe, in Italy and Germany, in Spain, in France . . .

Is it, then, a contradiction distinct to neo-fascism that it has been unable to combine the conservation of hierarchical structures upon which Western Civilization rests with measures specifically socialist?  Or do neo-fascists simply — unconsciously — express the impossibility of grafting measures of social justice onto a civilization profoundly foreign to their ideal . . . ?

We need at this point to turn to [first] principles.

Every new vision of social relations rejecting Marxism rests on a certain number of postulates, which, I believe, are common to all radical oppositional movements.

1. The first of these condemns political and economic liberalism, which is the instrument of plutocratic domination. Only an authoritarian regime can ensure that the nation’s interest is respected.

2. The second postulate rejects class struggle. Class struggle is native to Marxism and [inevitably] leads to the sabotage of the nation’s economy and to a bureaucratic dictatorship, while true prosperity benefits everyone and can be obtained only through a loyal collaboration and a fair distribution.

3. The third protects the nation’s “capital” (understood as the union of capital and labor) and represents all who participate in the productive process . . . It is a function of the [fascist] state, thus to promote labor-capital collaboration and to do so in a way that does not put labor at the mercies of capital.

4. Given that the nation’s economy is a factor crucial to the nation’s independence, it, along with the Army and other national institutions, are to be protected from all forms of foreign interference.

5. Since modern nations have become political-economic enterprises whose power resides in those who control the economy as much as it does in those who make political decisions, the nation must play a leading role in the economic as well as the political systems. The instrument appropriate to such participation in the nation’s life have, however, yet to be invented. . . .

6. Above all, the nation’s interest must take priority over every particular interest. . . .

There is nothing specifically “socialist,” as this term is understood today, in these principles, since contemporary socialism is nothing other than a form of social war whose inevitable culmination is the rule of those bureaucratic entities claiming to represent the workers [i.e., national union federations].

Nevertheless, these principles accord with another conception of socialism — one that favors a fair distribution to all who participate in the productive process. This is not the underlying idea, but the consequence thereof, inspiring our postulates.

A fair distribution, however, will never result from sporadic, recurring struggles challenging the present degradations of money. Instead, it is obtainable only through the authority of a strong state able to impose conditions it considers equitable.

In order to develop the TOQ network further in the direction of being a virtual think tank, we instituted an annual essay contest which offers a prize of $1,000.

The first contest was on “Secession and Racial Nationalism.” It was a resounding success. I am in the process of putting together the best essays as a special issue of TOQ. A number of these essays have already been published at TOQ Online. TOQ Online also contains extensive additional discussions of secession, and the topic will continue to be a focus in the future.

When the Soviet Union disintegrated, most Americans likely had never heard of Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan or Turkmenistan.

Yet the ethnonationalism of these Asian peoples, boiling to the surface after centuries of tsarist and communist repression, helped tear apart one of the great empires of history.

There swiftly followed the collapse of Yugoslavia.

Yet, if one knew nothing of the Habsburg and Ottoman empires or the First and Second Balkan Wars of 1912-1913, one would likely have been surprised by the sudden emergence of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Macedonia, Montenegro and Kosovo on the map of Europe.

What the splintering of the Soviet Union and of a Yugoslavia whose baptismal certificate dated to the Paris peace conference of 1919 revealed was the accuracy of Arthur Schlesinger’s insight in his 1991 Disuniting of America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society:

“Nationalism remains after two centuries the most vital political emotion in the world — far more vital than social ideologies such a communism or fascism or even democracy. … Within nation-states, nationalism takes the form of ethnicity or tribalism.”

Ethnic ties, Schlesinger wrote, might prove more powerful and historically important than the forces of globalism and democratism, which then seemed ascendant. He only neglected to mention religious faith as often a “far more vital” emotion than ideology.

. . .

Globalization is no longer on the march, but on the defensive. Economic nationalism is rising. Across the Third World, we see an upsurge of ethnonationalism and fundamentalism, especially among the Islamic peoples. From Nigeria to Sudan to Mindanao, Muslims battle Christians, as Christians are persecuted in Egypt, Iraq and Pakistan.

In India and Thailand, Muslims battle Hindu and Buddhists. In the Northern Caucasus, they fight Russians.

Ethnonationalism, that relentless drive of peoples to secede and dwell apart, to establish their own nation-state, where their faith is predominant, their language spoken, their heroes and history revered, and they rule to the exclusion of all others, is rampant.

In China, Tibetans fight assimilation and the mass migration of Han Chinese into what was their country, as do the Uighurs in the west who dream of an East Turkestan breaking away and taking its place among the nations of the world.

In speaking of the rising tribalism abroad, Schlesinger added, “The ethnic upsurge in America, far from being unique, partakes of the global fever.”

Indeed, separatism and secessionism seem to be in the air.

Read the whole article.

Introduction

The work of Dr. Frank Salter is of great relevance to racial nationalism and secession. Dr. Salter correctly identifies genetic interests as ultimate interests. Population group interests are ethnic genetic interests, the importance of which is amplified by the large numbers of people who constitute ethnic and racial groups. These interests are threatened by mass immigration and by the multicultural state. Every population group requires a territory in which the continuity of that group can be ensured. Introduction of alien peoples into a territory eventually fills its carrying capacity and diminishes the numbers of the native group. Therefore, the optimal situation for genetic continuity is the ethnostate, in which territorial carrying capacity is utilized for a specific group’s advantage.

In the United States, mass immigration and a multiracial population is highly maladaptive for the genetic interests of European-Americans (“white Americans”). Therefore, it is rational to consider secessionist ideas for safeguarding European-American genetic interests. In this essay, I will evaluate several ideas regarding secessionism, submit my own tentative proposal, and conclude with some final thoughts.

“Reconquest” and “Citizenism”

One school of thought rejects the idea of secession and instead proposes “reconquest,” that the white majority retake control of America.  This “reconquest” would entail turning back the clock to a time of no Third World immigration (legal or illegal), no affirmative action, and no “civil rights” legislation. In the typical version of this scenario, America would still have a large non-white minority population, but that population would become politically quiescent, and the white majority more politically active. Whites would impose laws designed to both maintain their status as the demographic majority as well as reaffirm the principle of freedom of association in employment, housing, and schooling. The most notable proponent of this view was Sam Francis.

While some claim that this scenario is more “realistic” than secession, one wonders if it actually is. Given the rapid decline in white demographics, and the certainty that most non-whites would oppose “reconquest,” this scenario would require a large majority of whites, including white liberals, to support strongly pro-white policies and political candidates. It would necessitate forcing mobilized minority groups, emboldened by decades of multiculturalist advantage, to fade into the background and accept a reversal of their growing power. It would require strict immigration control, at a time when Americans cannot even stem the flow of illegals, and it would require that the white population increase its birthrate to retain its numerical advantage over minority groups.

This scenario would require constant vigilance, guarding against changing demographics, unrest amongst the disgruntled minorities, as well as the possibility of whites agreeing to restore the multicultural regime. To avoid inter-racial crime as well as miscegenation, strict segregation would have to be maintained. Thus, “reconquest” would entail enormous continuing costs, and while such a regime would be superior to the current multicultural system, a large and potentially dangerous minority population would remain. The race-culture problem would not be solved, merely adjusted and made more tolerable.

Granted, some versions of “reconquest” stipulate that all non-whites living in America be repatriated to their ancestral homelands. While this option would maximize territory for the white population, it likely will be more difficult to achieve than the more politically feasible option of ethnostate formation. While repatriation of alien elements is absolutely essential for our crowded European homeland, which is after all the birthplace of the white race, in my opinion the cost-benefit ratio for racial preservation on the North American continent generally favors the ethnostate solution. Separation would be more palatable to all involved, and would result in less damage to the white population and to the nation’s infrastructure, compared to a “reconquest” requiring full expulsion of non-whites.

I also oppose the “citizenist” concept of Steve Sailer. Sailer promotes the idea that our “ingroup” should be that of “fellow American citizens” and that we should build an aracial American identity, focusing on “what’s best for Americans.” Unfortunately, that is already the mindset of most white Americans, and that is exactly the formula for continued dispossession and displacement. Despite Sailer’s claim that “citizenism” is more “realistic” than “white nationalism,” it is folly to believe that ethnocentric non-whites will agree to eschew ethnic identity politics and work for what is best for “most Americans,” when “most Americans” are still white. Real differences in ethnic interests cannot be plastered over by a legally defined status of “citizen.” The only people who would play the game of “citizenism” would be whites, putting them at a competitive disadvantage against organized, ethnocentric minorities.

“Citizenism” does not solve the race problem. In fact, if we are all “equal citizens,” what justification is there for maintaining the homogeneity of a neighborhood or opposing miscegenation? If “high-IQ” Asians are “productive citizens” like white Americans, and if the Asians superficially mouth (but not actually practice) the platitudes of “citizenism,” why not accept mass Asian immigration and displace white Americans? To say that such immigration would not be “best for most Americans” is to imply that “most Americans” have an inherent interest not to be displaced by biological and cultural aliens. Thus, one would need to identify the differences that would make that displacement maladaptive for “most Americans,” and these differences are those of race and culture. In the end, differences of ethnic interest trump patriotic idealism; actual biological and civilizational group membership trumps a manufactured legal group membership. “Citizenism” is exactly the opposite of what we require, which is for whites to defend their specific group interests.

Michael Hart’s Partition Plan

Professor Michael Hart deserves credit for proposing a separatist plan that incorporates a degree of freedom of association, in that an “integrated” state is set aside for those who prefer to live in a multiracial society. That is fair and reasonable. Integrationists do not have the right to force their ideals on separatists; similarly, separatists do not have the right to enforce their views on those who sincerely value diversity. Of course, the decision between separatism and integrationism must be informed, made with all the available facts, and within a free and open marketplace of ideas.

The fundamental problem with the Hart plan is that he proposes only three states: the Integrationist State, a Black Separatist State for those African-Americans who reject integrationism, and a White Separatist State (WSS) for whites who likewise choose greater homogeneity. What about Asians, racially mixed Hispanics, non-European Caucasians, and others who are neither “white” nor “black,” and who may not wish to live in the integrationist state? They have no state or states of their own. Worse, Hart asserts that the so-called WSS may actually include “Asians and others.”

Essentially, Hart is proposing a multiracial, “diverse” “white separatist” state. According to the Hart plan, while African Americans will be given the choice of true separation and homogeneity, European-Americans (as well as Asian-Americans and Hispanic-Americans, Arab-Americans, and others) will not have that choice. The only real separation Hart allows for these latter groups is separation from African-Americans. This is quite clearly unacceptable–promoting diversity within a plan for separatism–and means that an enormous amount of political, social, and economic sacrifice will be made for very limited gain: separation from African Americans but not from any other group. Although the Hart plan has one strong point, that those who value diversity be allowed their choice, the rest of the plan is extremely flawed. We need to look elsewhere for more serious ideas concerning racial nationalism and secession.

The New Racial Compact Partition Plan

In the first draft of this essay, I presented some collegial and constructive criticisms of Richard McCulloch’s “Racial Compact” partition plan. However, it became necessary to rewrite this section, since Mr. McCulloch has updated his Racial Compact plan, as stated in the comments section of TOQ Online:

The revision now basically includes all Gentile Europeans in the same country, instead of proposing separation from the more hard-core distinct Mediterranean types that make up much of the population of southern Europe. This makes my proposal consistent with the “official” TOQ definition of our racial “in-group” although at a racial cost to the northern European racial identity of the country. Still, it has reached the point where it now seems totally unrealistic, even quixotic, to try to separate the hard-core Mediterranean elements in the US population from other Europeans, as so many of them are now largely assimilated, and even more difficult to draw some line between assimilable and unassimilable elements in the Italian-American, Greek-American, or Spanish-American populations. Of course, in Europe itself we still could and should encourage the preservation of the different racial groups in their own historic nations, even perhaps northern Italians as distinct from southern Italians, but in the European-American population it now seems that the political cost of promoting such an effort would exceed the racial benefit.

I essentially agree with these comments (including the points concerning Europe), and see this as a positive development. The updated racial partition map (as of mid-March 2010) at the Racial Compact website now proposes a more general European-American ethnostate, which consists predominantly of white Americans of northern/northwest European ancestry/racial type (termed “Nordish”), with smaller populations of “Alpine-Dinaric-Ladogan” types (essentially central and some northeast Europeans) and “Euro-Mediterraneans” (essentially southern Europeans). This updated partition plan is generally consistent with the “alternative plan” I had outlined in my original partition essay (which is also included in the present revised essay, see below), with a few, relatively minor, differences.

With this new Racial Compact partition proposal, increased possibilities exist for cooperation between various European-American and European peoples on racial preservationist endeavors. I am confident that preservationist activists can incorporate the racial interests of all European-descended peoples in plans for the survival and rebirth of the West. Therefore, besides the actual details of specific separation proposals, it is equally important that all peoples of European descent have a “seat at the table” where decisions about the fate of the West are decided–whatever those decisions end up being. Although history may lead us in directions somewhat off course from carefully laid out plans and proposals, what will lead us to eventual success in achieving our objectives is a sense of teamwork and of a shared destiny.

Preeminence of Core Founding Population and Similar Groups Must be Maintained

Of course it is legitimate to seek to defend narrower ethnies and ethny characteristics which one admires or identifies with. And of course different European populations have some different characteristics and varying levels of genetic kinship. Therefore, for example, it is reasonable for Germany to reject Spanish or Italian immigrants and vice versa. I don’t see that retaining national identity in this way endangers peace or unity in the name of shared interests. However, this position, while appropriate for the homelands of Europe itself, cannot reasonably be fully extended to the United States, where extensive intra-European ethnic intermingling, and assimilation of varied European subgroups/ethnies, has occurred.

I think the 1924 national origins act had it generally right. The core American population is drawn from all parts of Europe, but most of all from England, then Britain, then Germanic (northwest) Europe, then, lastly, southern and eastern Europe. The relative predominance of northwest European populations to America’s white ethnic makeup is a fact, and it is understandable to protect the preeminence of these groups (i.e., British first and then other northwest Europeans). Hence, Lothrop Stoddard, while advocating assimilation of the “white ethnics” in Reforging America, was absolutely correct to assert that maintaining the preeminence of the older, northwest European stocks was a prerequisite for any assimilation of the “white ethnics.” I fully agree with Stoddard’s views in that regard. Indeed, one can argue that acceptance of Stoddard’s prerequisite is a “litmus test” for “ethnic” assimilation into white America. The northwest European core population should assimilate the “ethnics” and not vice versa; the demographic, sociopolitical, and cultural-traditional dominance of the former group must be maintained throughout the assimilatory process. And, if there are some “ethnic” elements who, by their behavior and other characteristics, prove to be truly unassimilable (here I have in mind Jersey Shore types and their equivalents), these can be justifiably excluded from the preservationist project. However, “ethnics” of good stock who are assimilated can be productively included.

An Alternative Plan

I agree in principle that those who strongly believe in the multicultural model should have the chance to live according to their beliefs and life choices; thus, limited territory set aside for an integrated state is included in my plan. It is expected that, given the free marketplace of ideas and dissemination of racial facts that would precede separation, the vast majority of European-Americans would choose to live in an ethnostate; the integrated state would be a relatively minor entity suitable for those “white malcontents” whose presence in an ethnostate would be disruptive and untenable.

A more fundamental part of this plan deals with (normal, non-integrationist) European-Americans, who are here defined as American citizens (and permanent residents) of indigenous European ancestry. First, all European-Americans who wish to be separated from persons of non-European origins would be so separated. Thus, all European-Americans must have the option to live in an ethnostate. The predominant territory of the present United States will serve as the European-American homeland. It would be premature to discuss in detail the particular boundaries of this homeland, but it should include coastal regions, particularly the East Coast which faces Europe. Non-European peoples will be able to form their own ethnostates, with territorial size being proportional to population; in all cases, every attempt will be made to provide groups with ecologically viable niches.

Therefore, the first round of separation will divide the American landmass between a general European-American homeland, various non-European ethnostates which can subdivide as they wish, and, possibly, an integrated multicultural state. It may well be that separation can stop here, which is likely to be the most politically feasible and palatable outcome for most white Americans.

However, in theory, there could also be a secondary phase that would allow further separation amongst the European-Americans; those who have a strong identity with a narrower focus, and who desire greater homogeneity, could also have their own autonomous territories, proportional in size to population. While many possibilities exist, it is most likely that a separatist plan analogous to the revised Racial Compact proposal and/or the general European-American homeland described here, would turn out to be the optimal combination of political practicality and racial preservationism.

At the same time, the traditional peoples and cultures of Europe must be preserved in their specific homelands, and ethno-regionalism within a broader confederation will be an effective way of maximizing ethnoracial preservationism in the white homeland. Therefore, keeping in mind the ties of kinship and of civilization that exist between European-derived peoples, this plan envisions that all of the Euro-ethnostates (America, Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) would be confederated. Through economy of scale and synergistic cooperation for defense and other large scale projects, the confederation idea more easily allows regionalism to be maintained. Any small and isolated Euro ethnostate is unlikely to successfully stand alone in the world arena, particularly when confronted with civilizational blocs opposed to the West (e.g., China, Islam).

However, behind the protective shield of the confederation, regionalism can flourish, allowing for the creation of ethnostates representing more concentrated pools of genetic interest. Such a confederation does not imply panmixia, migration between confederated states, or a lack of local independence; the states making up this confederation would have full local autonomy, and would police their borders in order to safeguard their unique biological and cultural characteristics.

Whatever is ultimately decided, the plans should be conducted within the framework of pan-European comity and cooperation, according to an honest appraisal of all the biocultural facts, without violating any group’s racial identities and racial rights, and in the context of a broader Western Confederation that can preserve and defend our greater race and civilization. The fundamental approach is to realize that broader and narrower racial and civilizational concerns need not be mutually exclusive. They should in fact be complementary.

This global plan is generally consistent with the description of pan-European ethnic genetic interests as a concentric series of circles, in which greater genetic interest is with those groups most similar, while lesser, but still real, genetic interests exist in more diluted form for more distant groups. The scheme outlined here on the one hand recognizes the fundamental similarities, kinship, comity, and cultural cohesion between varied European peoples; however, on the other hand, it recognizes differences and allows for these differences to be preserved, when desired and where practically possible.

In summary, a comprehensive Western nationalism needs to preserve and defend the racial interests, identities, and rights of all persons of European descent. This by no means implies global intra-European panmixia, but requires taking seriously the racial identities, racial interests, and racial rights of all European-derived peoples

Components of Identity

Questions of group identity are fundamental in formulating the ingroup boundaries of prospective ethnostates. What characteristics are particularly important for group identity? As Salter makes clear in On Genetic Interests, genetic interests are ultimate interests. The neo-Darwinian synthesis defines fitness and adaptive behavior in terms of genetic continuity and genetic representation in future generations. Thus, the ultimate striving of biological organisms, the driving force of the development of evolved life, is toward reproducing the genotype; the phenotype is the vehicle by which this is accomplished.

The foundation of ethnoracial identity is based upon kinship and ancestry in an extended family tree encompassing one’s co-ethnics. While there is certainly a rough approximation, particularly on a group level, between genetic and phenotypic distance, it is the former which is the more direct and objective measure of kinship and ultimate interests. After all, the best measure of genetic interests is genetic information itself. Therefore, while of course phenotype and culture/civilization are crucially important factors to be considered, I view as flawed any racial nationalist worldview that does not give primacy to the ultimate interest of genetic continuity.

However, that said, genes are not all there is to identity. Genetic interests may be ultimate interests, but proximate interests are important as well. More to the point, ultimate and proximate interests cannot be truly separated, as they influence each other. Behavioral traits that influence culture are likely heritable. Conversely, proximate issues such as culture, religion, and sociopolitical beliefs influence the pursuit of genetic interests.

Traditional Christians who identify with the Occident are more likely to promote European genetic interests than are Buddhists, Hindus, or Muslims who identify with the Orient. It is highly likely that the Turkish gene pool is further from the European median than is the Greek. However, it is theoretically possible that a given individual Greek and a given individual Turk may not be genetically significantly different. But this is not the whole story. A traditionalist Greek of European Christian background, who identifies with the West, is likely to have a quite different view of European genetic interests than an Asian Turk who identifies with the East.

Culture matters. The civilizational divide of “the West against the Rest” matters. Even if the genetic gradients between certain areas are not very steep, superimposed on top of these genetic differences are profound differences in civilization and culture. The whole composite picture distinguishes the “Men of the West” from others. It is not biology alone, although genetic interests are paramount. It is not ethnic identity alone, or culture/civilization alone. It is all these things together, reinforcing each other. The organic solidarity of the West can be our shield and our sword, protecting our genetic interests from those non-Western competitors who threaten us all.

Practical Possibilities

Of course, the practical aspects of secessionist plans are questionable. However, secession represents a long term goal to which we aspire. Further, articulating a separatist plan, even one that has little chance of attainment in the foreseeable future, has an important symbolic importance. Defining the boundaries of “us” for the purposes of separatism also defines the boundaries of “us” for everyday activism, and for various forms of sociopolitical organization within the present multicultural establishment.

Even if a given separatist plan seems to have no immediate prospects of success, the specifics of the plan, particularly the “in/out” designations, provide the foundation upon which activists, reasonably seen as “in,” can cooperate to achieve their mutual interests. A proper separatist proposal will provide a framework in which activists–even those who prefer specific narrower ingroups—can still cooperate in a collegial manner, since such a plan will not violate any group’s legitimate identity, nor marginalize the group by a de facto ejection from membership in the Western family of peoples.

Obstacles

The reader is likely familiar with the varied obstacles to secession, and I will only touch upon some of these here. Virtually the entire American establishment–politicians, celebrities, academics, businessmen–speaks in one voice in favor of the multiracial, multicultural experiment. Further, we are told that race is an “illusion,” and that “socially constructed” racial groupings do not differ in innate intelligence or in any other meaningful traits. Dissident voices are suppressed; readers are familiar with the problems of individuals such as Kevin MacDonald, J. Philippe Rushton, and James Watson.

The Republican Party serves as a safety valve for white discontent and directs traditionally minded whites toward dead-end issues. Even among those more familiar with the race problem, one may encounter a patriotic resistance to secession; thus, a maladaptive “rally around the flag” mentality, geared to aracial constitutional patriotism, short-circuits any sense of ethnic identity politics. Some people draw away from secessionist ideas because of the perceived economic and social costs; some may fear civil war. Foreign policy concerns must be considered; an America in the throes of a secessionist break-up could not effectively oppose the aggressive objectives of, for example, a resurgent China.

There is no easy way to get around these obstacles. I would suggest a sustained effort to legitimize and mainstream “white identity politics” and secessionism; perhaps this can be initially achieved by political campaigns at the level of local congressional districts. It is absolutely crucial that these politics replace the dead-end of “implicit whiteness” with an open and explicit call to defend specifically white (European) American interests. It will be essential to bring Salter’s ideas to the thoughtful fraction of the population; it is high time the debate shifted from proximate issues to fundamental concerns about demographic displacement and the continuity of our people. Translating the work of Salter into practical biopolitics is a challenge that must be met.

Finally, given the choice between “balkanization” and “citizenism,” we must always choose the former. As Salter states in On Genetic Interests, for a people being displaced, the only thing worse than a multiculturalism that does not work is one that does. “Citizenism” is nothing more or less than a “repair and reform” job to make destructive multiculturalism more workable and sustainable.

Conclusion

It is unlikely that any of the separatist schemes discussed here will be achieved in the foreseeable future. This is not defeatism, since I propose that we pursue the objective of secession despite the odds; I believe that the separatist option is the only way to ensure the long term survival of Europeans on American soil. However, it is crucial to understand reality as we face the future. While we must constantly strive for the separatist solution, it is important to realize that, if this goal is ever achieved, few if any of those reading this essay will get to see this “promised land.” Each generation has its own battles to fight. We will do what we can today.

However, we should understand the benefits of current discussions of secession. The short-term and medium-term objectives that we will set and meet will themselves have inherent value, even independent of the final goal of secession. We will organize. We will articulate a vision for the future. We will enter the sociopolitical realm, to the extent possible, and promote agendas consistent with the interests of peoples of European descent. We will delineate the boundaries of our varied ingroups and establish cooperative networks when and where interests overlap.

The point of this essay is not to detail the specific characteristics of a separatist ethnostate, but to establish a general framework within which individuals and groups can find their proper place in this endeavor. We need to lay the foundation for the short-term and medium-term projects that fall within the scope of the lifetimes of the present readers of this journal.

Forward looking people of many ethnic backgrounds can see major conflicts on the horizon in which the white majority will fight back. We can expect the number of white nationalist groups to multiply as market demand grows for this brand of politics. Therefore, different people, with varying agendas, will attempt to define the mass white nationalism that is likely to arise in the next 20 years in one form or another. Discussions of separatism and secession, albeit premature from a strictly practical standpoint, are part of this attempt to define the future movement. Some of these directions will prove unfruitful. Some of the emerging groups will fail, some will merge, and some will split. Many will apparently achieve little or anything of value, but to the extent that they may get some serious and thoughtful individuals involved in the process, some good may come of it. People they attract will be primed for more authentic ideas.

It is not possible to completely separate proximate and ultimate interests. The memes which we will formulate need to be forged into the intellectual weapons required to defend our genes. It is hoped that this essay will constitute a positive addition to our memetic arsenal.

The most problematic feature of the Northwest Quartet, like The Turner Diaries, is the author’s penchant for genocidal fantasies, directed not just at non-whites, but at white people as well. The most famous such passage in The Turner Diaries tells of the “day of the rope” in which white race-traitors, particularly those who engaged in inter-racial sex, are lynched by the thousands.

Covington makes clear that the creation of a white homeland would not, and indeed could not, require the mass killing of non-whites, even though moral qualms about mass murder of civilians tend to be set aside during warfare. Such killing would be logistically impossible for a small guerrilla army, and it would be unnecessary, since Covington thinks that most non-whites could be induced to flee simply by destroying their employment and social support networks through targeted killings, beatings, and property destruction, mostly aimed at the whites who profit from and facilitate their presence.

He is less surgical and discerning in choosing his white victims, both during the war of liberation and the subsequent “cleanup.” Covington’s death list contains not just white operatives and allies of the regime, but three whole categories of individuals: lawyers, race-mixers (meaning anyone who has had interracial sex, regardless of issue), and homosexuals. This is problematic, because if white nationalism begins making progress in the Northwest, these views will be broadcast far and wide to scare white people away from white nationalism and into conformity with the system that is killing us. Beyond that, these lapses are at odds with the generally rational and pragmatic character of Covington’s political thought.

First, spare the lawyers. Although killing lawyers has the authority of the Bard, and everyone enjoys a good lawyer joke, among white nationalists of my acquaintance, lawyers are the best represented profession. Thus it seems foolish to treat all lawyers as enemies, since this will drive otherwise sympathetic and useful individuals into the arms of the system for protection.

Second, it is easy to understand why white nationalists see homosexuals as enemies, since the organized homosexual community is an integral part of the anti-white governing coalition. Beyond that, white nationalism is steeped in a right-wing, conservative subculture with strong currents of anti-homosexual sentiment, which are constantly stoked by the organized homosexual community.

But Covington’s stated rationale for murdering homosexuals is that homosexuality is a mental illness. I think that homosexuality is neither a sin (an offense against the God of the Jews) nor an illness, but rather it is something that might be called a “natural suboptimal condition,” like baldness or myopia or a propensity to pack on the pounds.

But let’s just grant Covington’s premise for the sake of argument. So what about all the other mental illnesses? Covington does not mention if melancholics, manic depressives, schizophrenics, paranoiacs, compulsive liars, kleptomaniacs, alcoholics, and other sufferers of mental maladies will be marked for death.

The reason for this is obvious: homosexuals are marked for death not because they suffer from a mental illness, but because the Bible—the Jewish Torah—tells us so. This is probably the source of the extreme animus toward race-mixers as well. It is, to put it mildly, a rather astonishing lapse. It makes it all too easy to parody white nationalists as Bible-thumping hayseeds and hillbilly psychopaths.

It also serves to drive otherwise sympathetic and useful individuals—who might be guilty of nothing more than an experimental homosexual or inter-racial dalliance while in college or the military, where such experimentation is common—into the arms of the system for protection.

What would Aryan reason, as opposed to Jewish superstition, dictate in dealing with homosexuals and race-mixers?

First, it is no policy or solution to postulate that when a white nationalist state is founded it will simply chase away or kill the homosexuals on its territory, for inevitably new homosexuals will appear (it does not matter whether by nature or nurture or both). Furthermore, these individuals will manifestly not be “one of them” (the anti-white ruling coalition) but “one of us” (a racially-conscious white person, raised in a racially homogenous and self-conscious society).

On Covington’s premise, the policy a rational society adopts to homosexuality is an instance of the larger policy it should adopt toward mental illness. The appropriate attitude toward mental illness is not hatred but pity and compassion. It is reasonable to fear the unknown, but unreasonable to persist in one’s ignorance. The idea that homosexuality should be treated as a crime is a relic of benighted times when people thought that other mental illnesses were evidence of witchcraft or demonic possession and should be “treated” by torture and burning at the stake.

Mental illness is not a crime. If mentally ill people commit crimes, we punish the crimes, not the illness. Thus it would be inhuman to exile or kill our relatives simply because they suffer from manic depression or paranoia. It would be arbitrary to treat homosexuality any differently. If homosexuality is a mental illness, not a crime, then it should be treated as an illness. If it can be cured, then cure it. If it cannot be cured but can be lived with, then live with it. If it is genetically determined, then screen for it and try to decrease its representation in the next generation. (If homosexuality has a genetic component, then homosexuals should not be encouraged to “pass” as straight and pass on their genes to their children, but to live as homosexuals and take their genes out of the next generation.)

In a healthy society, people should, of course, be free to associate with or avoid homosexuals just as they are free to associate with or avoid people who suffer from other mental maladies. But to determine rational policies and attitudes toward homosexuality, one would have to compare it to other such illnesses. One would have to determine whether homosexuals are more or less reliable friends, colleagues, and comrades than, say, manic depressives, alcoholics, or compulsive liars.

Of course there would be no problems excluding homosexuals from the pup tents of boy scouts, the locker rooms of school children, or the barracks of the military. There would be no nonsense about homosexuals marrying or adopting children, which seeks to erase the distinction between the normal and the abnormal. Should society also be expected to provide everyone who thinks himself Napoleon a coronation and everyone who thinks himself Jesus a crucifixion?

The question of race-mixing is more complicated. First, the problem is not interracial sex or marriage per se. The problem is interracial babies. Of course there are no interracial babies without interracial sex, but not all interracial sex produces babies. The problem with multi-racial societies is that inter-racial sex is inevitable, because it is perfectly natural and normal for people to take advantage of a wider range of possible mates and sexual partners.

Many racialists claim that they are immune to inter-racial attractions, that they have some sort of genetic aversion. This may well be true of a tiny percentage of people, but it is surely not true of most. There may well be an instinct for mating with one’s kind, but there is no reason to think that this instinct will always trump the other instincts under certain circumstances, particularly given the power of the sex drive.

For instance, the person who had the single greatest influence on my awakening on race and the Jewish question obviously had a great deal of instinctive feeling for his own kind. But that feeling was insufficient to trump his conflicting desires for a home and a family with a woman who has not corrupted by feminism and American junk culture. So he ended up marrying a woman from the Philippines. The marriage was without issue, thank goodness, and it did not last. Now he is married to a white woman who has given him three sons. Yes, he made a potentially terrible mistake, but the idea that this man has committed a capital offense is ludicrous.

Interracial sex is not only inevitable in a multi-racial society, it is being relentlessly promoted by every organ of the establishment. (The same is true of the normalization of homosexuality.) The propaganda is particularly intense on college campuses, where sexual experimentation has always been more common. The number of college students who have had interracial dalliances is already quite high, and if present conditions continue, it will rapidly reach the point of saturation. (We will soon have a better idea if some are genetically immune to the lure of exotic flesh.)

But the percentage of these dalliances that turn into long-term interracial relationships, much less marriage and child-rearing, is still small. Indeed, some such encounters may be the first steps down the road to a full racial awakening. (This is true of one young woman of my acquaintance, who was raped by her black boyfriend.) Again, the idea that these people have committed not just a mistake but a capital crime is offensive to reason. These people are victims of our present regime, not criminals.

What then should be the attitude of a white nationalist regime to race-mixers? First, all whites who produce offspring with members of other races have, in effect, left our race for another. One cannot mix one’s blood without mixing one’s loyalties. We cannot reasonably expect that such people will be more loyal to their extended racial family than to their mixed-race children, and no white nationalist would ask them to. They could not, therefore, be citizens of a white ethnostate (much less would-be white nationalist leaders). Whites who have married non-whites without offspring or prospects of offspring clearly belong to a different category, but it is not clear that a different policy should apply.

As for whites who have had sexual relations with non-whites, or who married but then divorced non-whites without producing children: they should be able to become citizens of a white ethnostate without penalty. But this would not be possible without somehow addressing the irrational yet powerful antipathy they arouse in some racialists.

For the offenders, there needs to be a process of confession, contrition, cleansing, and atonement to incorporate them into a self-conscious white nation. Ideally, such a truth and reconciliation process should be modeled on a religious ceremony (how about a bath, for starters) rather than a legal proceeding if the atonement it produces is to be heartfelt and enduring.

But racialists need to change too. There is a larger principle here that applies to more than just sexual matters. A healthy new society can be made only by and from the products of today’s sick society. White nationalists are not an Elect, chosen by genes or by God to be immune to the corruptions of our age, thus licensing us to smugly look down upon and condemn the rest of humanity.

If there is any hope of our people at all, then most of them are capable of seeing the light, and the only thing that sets today’s white nationalists apart from them is . . . time. We saw first, but we will never be saved until they see as well.

This means that there is no room self-righteousness and much room for compassion. Indeed, the leaders of any revolution are likely to be worse rather than better than the average person in important respects. Not only are they imperfect to begin with, but given the dark necessities of revolution, they are likely to be monsters in the end. They may be creating a better world—but not for themselves.

Covington shows that he understands this in many subtle and funny ways. For instance, in The Hill of the Ravens, he remarks on how the veterans who created the Northwest American Republic shock their own grandchildren with the vulgar language and tastes inherited from Amurrica. Also, Covington’s self-portrait as “the Old Man” is hardly flattering and shows that he too is out of place in the republic he helped create.

Until we breed a race of flawless Nietzschean Supermen, we will have to muddle through with people who have a short list of essential virtues (honesty, courage, intelligence, loyalty, good-judgment, initiative) and a rather longer list of inessential flaws and past mistakes. No, I am not recommending that we try to get mileage out of creeps and kooks. Just virtuous, talented, committed, imperfect people.

Within the movement, we need to be willing to tolerate inessential flaws and past mistakes on the condition that people are honest and transparent about them. One can build with flawed materials, but only if one knows where the flaws are. We don’t want to put the guy who is hiding his dyslexia in charge of editing, the guy who is hiding his agoraphobia out distributing literature, an insecure buffoon in charge of picking up a VIP, or a creepy compulsive womanizer among the wives and daughters of comrades, etc.

A weakness is compounded by concealment. It does not become a virtue by being flaunted. But when one is willing to acknowledge one’s flaws, that is the first step toward rising above them. It is an opportunity for moral growth, a way of strengthening one’s character. Thus we have to penalize concealment and reward transparency.

For a white nationalist revolution to have any moral authority, its leaders must not just lead us to regaining control of our racial destiny. They must also lead us in self-criticism, self-purification, and atonement with the greater racial body.

Bibliographical Note:

The novels of the Northwest Quartet are:

The Hill of the Ravens
H. A. Covington
Lincoln, Nebr.: 1stBooks Library, 2003

A Distant Thunder
H. A. Covington
Bloomington, Ind.: Authorhouse, 2004

A Mighty Fortress
H. A. Covington
Bloomington, Ind.: Authorhouse, 2005

The Brigade
H. A. Covington
Philadelphia: Xlibris, 2008

Many would put themselves at grave risk of being fired from their employment, as the examples of Sam Francis, Kevin Lamb, Michael Regan and countless others show.

Some organizations, as the erudite Wilmot Robertson observed, consist of nothing more than a weird collection of undercover government agents, informers and oddballs.  I recall attending some National Alliance meetings several years ago and thinking that some of the attendees mirrored his observation.

I think this is a very harmful state of affairs.  Some deal with “activus interruptus” by simply drifting away.  Others may deal with it through foolhardy outbursts that accomplish nothing.

One acute problem is this:  there are countless implicitly white efforts that never go anywhere (conservatism in general being the chief example) because they don’t state the issues clearly.  And then there are the kamikazee pro-white efforts that never go anywhere precisely because they do state the issues clearly (the National Alliance might be an example).  Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.  We’re too hot to handle, but we can’t stay silent.

I don’t have a handy solution to this problem, but I wanted to name it.  I thought “activus interruptus” was a fitting phrase.  And I wanted to throw some thoughts out.

1. I don’t think it’s true that implicitly white activism, like being active in the GOP, is totally useless.  I recommend erring on the side of doing something instead of nothing.  If all you can safely do is participate in the GOP or donate to the NRA (because your husband is a federal judge, for instance), that’s all you can safely do.  Don’t quit doing that just because it’s not explicitly white.  Of course, you shouldn’t lull yourself into thinking that’s it:  look for any and all opportunities to push and persuade.

2. Inside all areas of life, there are opportunities to advance the white cause.  If you’re elected to the local school board, you can vote for the less-PC history textbook, for instance.  Small beer, sure — but it’s something.

3. Don’t assume that joining a group is the same thing as advancing the cause.  Or starting a group.  Whites feel compelled to create groups with names and then run a flag up the pole.  Are the groups having an influence?  Sometimes, individual action — like running for office — might do more good.  Let me emphasize:  groups are always going to disappoint you.  The Democrats, as an organization, are very disappointing to many individual Democrats.  This doesn’t stop them, however.

4. On the other hand, you might ask yourself whether certain types of activity really are that risky.  We sometimes buy too much of the notion that we’re so marginal that we really do need to “crawl under a rock”, as our opponents like to tell us.  Run through the possible consequences and ask what’s likely to happen, or not.  If you’re called to step out there more, step out.  If you need to rearrange your life in certain ways to make yourself more protected as an activist, do it.  Think long-range.  Self-employment is an obvious answer to the risk of being fired.

5. Use the system.  Yes, the system is against us.  Our goal is to change it.  But that doesn’t mean we can’t use it to our benefit in the meantime.  I think the legal process is a good example of this.  Don’t equate use of the system with validation of the system.

6. Don’t worry that you’re being watched.  Of course you are being watched — by “civil rights” ninnies, radical leftists, the media, the government.  But don’t get too excited about this.  The government doesn’t like anyone who rattles the status quo, and they infiltrate all kinds of radical groups.  The government probably had the “civil rights” movement totally infiltrated, but it was ultimately successful.

7. Keep moving.  Don’t become static.  Things like cancellation of AmRen are a blow, but that should be your cue to get flexible and think, write, speak, meet, connive, conspire, strategize and maybe do a little (legal) sabotage of your own.

8. De-emotionalize the white cause.  In the end, it’s about inevitable group conflict and how we as whites will deal with it.  If you’re convinced that whites as a group have a right to self-determination, you’re there.

We need changed minds and changed policies.  No bigger changes are going to happen without that groundwork.

The Occidental Observer, March 15, 2010

The Republicans are not even a useful opposition on issues of limited government; indeed, the most likely presidential nominee in 2012 passed some form of socialist health care in his own state. Republicans can also not be counted on to be of any use in the looming battle over amnesty, as many of the most “extreme” conservatives (Dick Armey, Grover Norquist, and Sarah Palin) are all on the other side.

Conservatism, as an electoral force, is finished. The constituency for it is disappearing and the social order it once exemplified has disintegrated. The battle to restrain the size of the state has failed massively, and as National Review columnist Mark Steyn notes in an excellent column, once an entitlement like health care is passed, there is no going back. Similarly, regardless of whether amnesty for illegal aliens is passed this session or in the future, the demographic battle has already been lost. California, the state that gave us Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon, will never again elect anything resembling a conservative governor. Within fifteen years, Texas will be similarly lost to anything resembling conservatism.

There are essentially three responses about what to do with the large rump of white, conservative voters that will still be in an America that they no longer have any chance of governing through democratic means. The first is what the conservative movement will undoubtedly do, which is continue its program of foreign wars, cheap labor, deficit spending, and blaming the bigotry of its own supporters for its failure to win any minority votes. Conservatives are incapable of promoting white interests even for reasons of self preservation.

Hence, we get GOP head Ken Mehlman (Jew) apologizing for the “Southern Strategy,” which delivered innumerable victories to the Republican Party. We get Michael Steele (token Negro) installed as the new head of the Republican party, who promptly blows millions on a comically bad website filled with token minorities. He then manages to shovel money to failed candidates that endorse the Democrats and alternatively insults both the blacks he’s trying to recruit and the gullible whites that prop him up.

We get Mel Martinez, a Latino who attacked the GOP’s own base to try to win amnesty for illegal immigration.

We get silly buffoons like Dick Armey, leader of FreedomWorks and self appointed Tea Party pontiff who declares that his number one foreign policy priority is to protect Israel (not America) and who thinks that if all the anti-immigration members of the Republican Party are kicked out, socially conservative Hispanics (who for some reason have higher rates of out of wedlock birth, abortion, and crime) will vote for the party of tax cuts for millionaires. Not even the average Mexican illegal immigrant, who has less than a high school education, is as stupid as Dick Armey.

The second response is more interesting, and clearly the movement that is growing right now. This is the radically anti-state Right, exemplified by Ron Paul and the Campaign for Liberty and the less respectable elements such as the various constitutional militias and media figures such as Alex Jones. The problem with this movement is obvious.

For one, the culture of a “free state” would likely be even more degraded and degenerate than that farce of a culture that we have today, which is at least restrained by the timid remnants of a conservative, Christian, bourgeois society. However, even ignoring the question of culture altogether, libertarianism contains within it the seeds of its own destruction. Libertarians refuse to recognize the existence of race, they are just as defensive and cowardly as the Republicans when it comes to issues of political correctness, and they simply do not have the constituency that can actually lead them to victory. Leftists are fundamentally correct when they note that the Constitution and the abstractions about “rights” that libertarians hold to be sacred are manifestations of white privilege. They are. They were created by white men for a white nationalist society. They do not work and do not apply in any other context.

In a libertarian society that has no recognition of race, a colored underclass would quickly develop as the facts of racial difference in intelligence manifest themselves in the economy. Many Whites, absent civil rights laws and the fist of the managerial state, will associate with themselves and exclude blacks, Hispanics and Asians from certain establishments. While race mixing and miscegenation would undoubtedly continue, it would be far less prevalent. Class divisions would be even more associated with racial divisions than today. The white working class that would exist would have little stake in preserving a system that offers no guarantees for unemployment, medical care, social security, poverty relief, food stamps, or other social services, that, for better or worse, workers have come to expect and which serve as a deterrent from socialist radicalism. Absent these services, left wing extremists would be far more able to co-opt the white working class.

Ultimately, the libertarian society would need an active domestic security force and a radically limited franchise in order to prevent the colored masses from either voting in socialism or overthrowing the system. To his credit, paleolibertarian Murray Rothbard (Jew) noted that the truth about racial differences should be shouted from the rooftops in order to preserve a libertarian society. He stated that “if you scratch an egalitarian, you will find a statist” and held that opposition to Martin Luther King Jr. was true mark of a libertarian. He even endorsed something approaching the ethnostate.

Unfortunately, this paleolibertarian movement that Rothbard exemplified is dead. As the leftward migration of LewRockwell.com shows, even the better libertarians feel the need to mouth politically correct platitudes about racial egalitarianism. Today, they overtly champion the Hispanic Conquest of the American Southwest and mass immigration. They deny racial differences because there are no races, only autonomous “individuals” that sprang fully formed from the ether.

(Racial identity for non whites, however, is ok.)

They champion Rothbard only so far as he remains within the boundaries of permissible debate. When challenged, they fall all over themselves in their willingness to prostrate themselves before the gods of egalitarianism.

It has been said that a capitalist will sell a rope to a Communist on Friday, even if he will be hanged with that rope on Sunday. Capitalists will always give in to their lust for cheap labor (read, colored labor) even if it dooms them in the long run. A society that has as its only standard of morality the profit motive will not be able to resist the profit motive. Any libertarian utopia that did exist would not last very long.

There is only one realistic alternative to the problems facing the white masses that built this country. That alternative is white nationalism. White nationalism is not racial realism, or conservatism, or immigration restriction. Realizing that race exists and that there are differences between them means that you have transcended ignorance, but does not make you a white nationalist.

White nationalism is far more radical. It is a political, cultural, and social movement that demands, as a matter of right and survival, an ethnostate that is explicitly designated for white people.

Despite this radicalism, it is far more practical and realistic to work for a white homeland than to be a moderate reformist. White victory will be difficult, and, frankly, our odds are not good. That said, a Southern homeland, or a Midwestern homeland, or even an Aryan empire in the Northwest led by Harold Covington will happen long before “true conservatives” do something like secure the border, or scrap the income tax, or even cut entitlements in the most trivial way. All the scribblers and self appointed philosophers simply are irrelevant. Conservatism, libertarianism, and the rest of these reformist approaches are not just immoral, they are fundamentally impractical. They have never worked, and they will never work. Conservatism and libertarianism were tried and they failed. They are only useful insofar as they serve as stepping stones to the white republic.

That is not just the Sorelian myth that we need. That is simply reality.

Occidental Dissent, March 17, 2010

“The best way to make a movement, if you really care, is to courageously follow and show others how to follow. When you find a lone nut doing something great, have the guts to be the first person to stand up and join in.”

Sivers is not pro-white, and presumably not even conservative (statistical odds). He is a musician and music entrepreneur with more than a dash of idealism—although his video isn’t about that.

In 1997 he founded an online music store called CD Baby to sell his own CD. But he invited other independent musicians to sell through his website as well. His utopianism, or idealism, can be seen in the ground rules he set for his new company, which he ran from his bedroom in Woodstock, New York: “The musician will be paid every week. The musician will get the full name and address of everyone who purchases their music. The musician will never be removed from the system for not selling enough. The site will never accept advertising or paid-placement.”

Sivers’ idealism manifested itself again when he sold his company for $22 million in 2008. He first transferred ownership of the firm to a charitable trust for music education. The trust, rather than Sivers, then actually sold the business. He did this because “I already have enough” (”Why I gave away my company to charity,” Dec. 4, 2009).

The Dancing Man and His First Followers

“Leadership Lessons” is a poorly-shot, out-of-focus home video containing no sound other than Sivers’ narration. It shows a shirtless young white man dancing on the edge of a crowd of twentysomethings on a hillside at what appears to be a music fest. First one young man joins in, then another, and very quickly the whole crowd rushes forward.

But it is Sivers’ narration that is the eye-opener. He brilliantly distills the essential dynamic of the scene as he perceives it. Among his observations are the following:

“A leader needs the guts to stand alone and look ridiculous.”

The first follower joins in

“Now comes the first follower with a crucial role: he publicly shows everyone how to follow. Notice the leader embraces him as an equal, so it’s not about the leader anymore—it’s about them, plural.”

This first follower is seen on tape signaling others, encouraging them to join: “It takes guts to be a first follower! You stand out and brave ridicule, yourself. Being a first follower is an under-appreciated form of leadership. The first follower transforms a lone nut into a leader.”

“The 2nd follower is a turning point: it’s proof the first has done well. Now it’s not a lone nut, and it’s not two nuts. Three is a crowd.”

“A movement must be public. Make sure outsiders see more than just the leader. Everyone needs to see the followers, because new followers emulate followers—not the leader. Now here come 2 more, then 3 more. Now we’ve got momentum. This is the tipping point! Now we’ve got a movement!”

Finally, Sivers makes an extremely important point. “As more people jump in, it’s no longer risky. They won’t be ridiculed, they won’t stand out, and they will be part of the in-crowd, if they hurry. Over the next minute you’ll see the rest who prefer to be part of the crowd, because eventually they’d be ridiculed for not joining.”

Listen to Sivers’s excellent narration, and closely observe the behavior of the dancers and crowd in the video that accompanies it.

The Crowd

Let’s think about this a minute. The validity of Sivers’s observations is readily apparent. But qualifications are also necessary.

What sort of group are we dealing with? To borrow Kevin MacDonald’s term, it’s a “face-to-face” group. It is not an impersonal, atomized television or newspaper or Internet audience, for example. So there are dynamics specific to that fact.

The group is larger than a “small group” (a jury, say, or the 6-8 participants in one of Jewish psychologist Solomon Asch’s conformity experiments), but smaller than a mass audience, like attendees at the Super Bowl. It qualifies as a “crowd” in the terminology of French psychologist Gustave Le Bon (1841-1931), who examined group behavior. Different psychological and behavioral dynamics apply to each of these distinct categories of face-to-face groups.

What about race and gender? The portion of the crowd we see appears to be white by a large margin. The dancer (in Sivers’s terminology, the “leader”) is also white—and male. But, interestingly, the all-important first and second followers—also males—appear to be non-white (though not black) as far as we can tell. Why two minority members in an overwhelmingly white crowd should be the first to step forward is unclear. On the other hand, it does not seem wholly irrelevant either. The very important third and fourth joiners are white males. The “3 more” that immediately jump in include the first females, also white.

The Thug

There is no “Thug” in the video, as there is in our real world movement. A Thug is anyone, anything, or any set of rules that effectively erects a barrier between the “lone nut”/leader (which could also be small, marginalized groups or “sets of individuals”) and potential followers.

The Thug possesses the all-important capability of shielding the leader from the sight and consciousness of the crowd, of distorting or misinterpreting his message in the minds of the crowd, of ridiculing the leader and early followers, of jailing, killing, censoring or otherwise removing the leader and his followers, and of threatening or punishing members of the crowd.

The Thug, in other words, guarantees that there will be enormous risk—near-certain risk—that otherwise-motivated individuals will be ridiculed, stand out, and never be part of the in-crowd if they make any move whatsoever to join the leader or contribute to his legitimacy.

The Thug has innumerable mechanisms at its disposal to accomplish its objectives. Among them are the media of mass communication. To quote academic writers on cultural transmission: “The media act as a powerful type of one-to-many cultural transmission [a single source sending a single message to a mass audience] that can effect rapid cultural change.” On top of that, “many-to-one” transmission [a different type of transmission] consists of many persons or institutions “transmitting the same idea or practice to one individual,” resulting in social or peer pressure. “Because this many-to-one transmission is concerted, with every transmitter giving the same signal, this group effect provokes powerful conformism.” (Stone and Lurquin, A Genetic and Cultural Odyssey [2005], 101.)

The Thug is super-sensitive to crowd dynamics. Recently the ADL and SPLC, powerful racist groups with deep and extensive ties to the government, have busied themselves erecting a barrier between white racialists and the conservative Tea Party movement. They will stop at nothing to forestall a tipping point like the one depicted in the video.

For example, the SPLC instructs government officials and other elites that the “anger” and “rage” of conservatives (overwhelmingly white tea partiers), whom it paints as “revolutionaries,” hearken back to the bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building that “left 168 men, women and children dead.” “The Oklahoma attack was the culmination of political anger against the government. Today the fury is building again,” the SPLC slyly insinuates. In part this is due to “the country’s changing demographics.” Tea partiers are “laced with extreme-right ideas, conspiracy theories and racism.”

The SPLC describes tea party groups as “nascent.” The whole purpose of the organization’s vociferous defamation of tea partiers, of its massive assault on the fragile, struggling movement’s freedom of speech and assembly, is to prevent the outcome that Sivers’s video so powerfully depicts.

The Lesson

Collin Wynter, dancin' fool

“Followers” are also leaders! They set a powerful example for others when they stand up for the values they believe in, no matter how unpopular. With stakes so high, every person has a moral duty to step forward and join the dance.

For more than fifty years, the menacing Thug has jealously retained sole power to mediate reality. More than any other factor, The Thug has thwarted every attempt by Americans and other Europeans to halt the downward spiral of our historic people into planned oblivion.

If enough people join the dance, the bad guys will get a taste of their own medicine. Social change can occur swiftly and unexpectedly once the tipping point is reached.

The 13 principles of Richard McCulloch’s “Separate or Die”(1) are a beautiful and perfect plan for white survival through secession. He is convincing and persuasive about why his plan is superior to a clunky unworkable secession plan proposed by Michael Hart.(2) McCulloch’s plan is so beautiful and perfect it reminds me of the better worlds science fiction envisions for us, those where star ships take off to other galaxies from ordinary airfields and smaller craft fly in and out of gateways to buildings so tall their summits are lost in clouds. The only problem with such beautiful visions is that the technology to build them doesn’t exist because of formidable physical constraints. Craig Bodeker’s exploration of white people’s negative attitude toward their survival(3) reviewed in the same TOQ issue suggests political constraints on implementing McCulloch’s plan are also formidable, which he acknowledges. It is unfortunate but likely true that right now far more white people are motivated to hunt down and kill rather than join the tiny minority of their kinsfolk ready and willing to secede. Far too many whites seek their ethnic heritage’s destruction through amalgamation with other races. Until this amalgamation of the mind prevailing among whites is fixed by replacing it with secession of the mind, physical secession is not possible. When it is fixed, physical secession may not be necessary.

Does the behavior of biological entities ever reduce their chance of survival? It happens all the time. So does extinction. Moths fly into flames they mistake for light signaling a path to a mate.(4) Eagles gliding on the wind through mountain passes like their ancestors did for millennia suddenly confront the deadly blades of wind farms.(5) Social parasitic species(6) like Brown-headed Cowbirds (Molothrus ater) induce many North American bird species to neglect their own offspring in favor of baby cowbirds and thus collaborate in their own significant demographic decline.(7) Many other social parasites behave similarly worldwide.

Such self-destructive behavior isn’t confined to animals dependent on instincts that can be fooled and become counterproductive. It is also common among people. In 1857, for example, South Africa’s Xhosas destroyed all their cattle and food crops because a young girl prophesied this would bring revenge on the white man and provide better food from heaven. The immediate consequence was mass starvation and an estimated population fall in affected chiefdoms from 105,000 to a mere 37,000.(8) During the reign of Russia’s Catherine II (1762–96) sect of skoptsy or self-castrators became wildly popular especially among wealthy Moscow merchants and military leaders denied access to inner circles of her court, which generated hostility because of her foreign origins and its promiscuity.(9) The origins of the skoptsy were in “the rejected radical Protestantism of Central Europe [which] was to find roots in eighteenth-century Russia second only to those it found in America,”(10) which may be why sects similarly rejecting their genetic heritage have been especially notorious in the United States. Shakers, for example, practiced total celibacy because they completely rejected sex.(11) Their membership peaked at 6,000 in 1840 and then went into slow decline, causing their upstate New York “Mother Church” to be sold in 1947 when they were virtually extinct.(12) Recently other American sects rejecting life came to more sudden ends when the People’s Temple practiced mass self-poisoning in 1978 and was copied by Heaven’s Gate in 1997.(13)

The current tendency of American whites to embrace their self-destruction clearly resembles past suicide cults but is a phenomenon on such a vastly larger scale that it even dwarfs the fratricidal slaughter of World War I trench warfare.(14) Its origins are no mystery since Kevin MacDonald thoroughly and brilliantly described them.(15) They are almost entirely a direct consequence of a Jewish Establishment and its supporters gaining increasing dominance of American intellectual discourse and media during the last century. That Establishment’s motivation is clear. It sought what it perceived was good for Jews: destruction of ethnic consciousness among the majority in America, where it is a permanent minority, and promotion of ethnic consciousness in Israel, where Jews are numerous enough to rule directly.(16)

Less explored is why America’s white Christian majority so readily accepted concerted attacks on their self-worth. Self-hatred among white Christians and their non-Christian descendents is often dismissed as mere “white guilt,”(17) but it is a far more complex phenomenon critically linked to Christianity itself, which, next to race itself, is the most significant ethnic characteristic of the European homeland of whites, which has long been also known as Christendom.(18)

People live and die by stories, which can evolve a little like species.(19) Sir James Frazer, for example, a pioneer in archeology of stories, implied Europeans were preadapted for Christian theology because they were agricultural people, and many farmers sacralize the crops that die to give them life at fall harvest time before being reborn the next spring to begin the cycle anew.(20) Preadaptation is when traits that evolve in one environment have a different function when the environment changes.(21) Moths, for example, are preadapted to fly into flames. Since America’s founders were mostly Protestants,(22) they brought a Protestant story to America, which goes like this: mankind is burdened by original sin, a weakly developed concept in earliest Christianity. It was made a very strong element of Western Christianity by Augustine of Hippo (354–430), who explicitly identified it with human procreation. Catholic theologians during the Middle Ages preserved original sin but gradually began decoupling it from Augustinian identification with sex.(23) Then came the Reformation, which was largely a rediscovery of Augustine.(24) Original sin as sex came roaring back if it had ever left, and sin was punished by eternal torture by demons in a very real Hell. Until Christ returned to earth and ended sin, the only hope for escape from the tortures of Hell as well as a sin-filled world was Christ’s suffering at Calvary, which offered hope of escape to eternally blissful Heaven.(25) While it is evident how this story could be a slippery slope to self-destructive extremes, it mostly functioned fairly well for white survival till quite recently.

Now the old Protestant story has been thoroughly replaced by a new anti-racism story. Sin is passé. Television heroes can now be drug dealers (Kingpin), Mafia bosses (The Sopranos), and even serial killers (Dexter). But what they never are, and can never be, are white nationalists. Racism now irrevocably taints all whites as much as original sin once tainted their ancestors. Just as those ancestors were once reminded of their sinfulness each Sunday morning, their descendents are reminded of their racism each day by a media cacophony. And its logic is impeccable. Since racial equality is as unquestioned as God once was and evidence of inequality is everywhere in non-white poverty, crime, low achievement, and general misbehavior, the only possible explanation is white racism. Just as sin only ends with Christ’s return, white racism can only end when non-whites become so equal to whites they are like them in every way, two events so hypothetical and unlikely they can be disregarded in the real world. Just as the only route to the eternal bliss of heaven in the old story was death, the only path to a blissful utopian future of racial equality in the new story is death of the white race.(26) In the old story sin brought eternal torment by demons in a lake of fire. In the new story racism brings torture by sadistic Nazis in Auschwitz. Torture is not eternal in the new story, however, since in it Auschwitz is both Hell and Calvary, the place Jews died and then were resurrected to save mankind from racism.

Any similarity between the old and new stories is not coincidental. The old was clearly preadapted to morph into the new with the help of social engineering. The media expose all Americans to bits and pieces of the new story every day. The more advanced their education in academic humanities, the more they receive it in pure form and must assimilate its verities to succeed. This is especially true at prestigious theological seminaries providing clergy to mainstream Christian churches. There they learn “Auschwitz becomes the analogue to Golgotha (Calvary) and once more the Servant [sic] suffers to bring redemption. For some, this is evidenced in the establishment of the State of Israel”(27) and “support for the State of Israel and its right of self-defense is seen as something of a litmus test of Christian seriousness about a new age of post-Holocaust Jewish-Christian relations.”(28) Replacement of the old story by the new is a significant reason why mainstream Protestant churches are hemorrhaging members to Evangelical churches more true to the former.(29)

Since prestigious universities propagate the new story in its purest form and also provide entree to high incomes, it is not surprising belief in the new story tends to increase with income among white Christians. It also continues to provide them functional benefits long after college. It obviously helps their relations with the culturally, politically, and economically hegemonic Jewish Establishment, but that’s not its only function. Like the old story may have helped successful Protestant entrepreneurs see their wealth as evidence of salvation relative to sinful masses,(30) the new story frees its believers from guilt for impoverishing American workers through layoffs, union-busting, outsourcing, downsizing, and plant closures. They can take comfort that their victims are mostly just white racists anyway, and therefore scum of the earth. Meanwhile they, like Bill Gates, demonstrate righteous belief in the new story by sending billions of dollars to Africa so its population can grow even farther beyond its carrying capacity and continue slaughtering each other to make room.(31) His actions, like those of movie stars adopting third world children, are ostentatious acts of faith in the new story’s god of racial equality. It’s no accident the favorite philosopher in these elite circles is the former wannabe Protestant minister John Rawls,(32) whose A Theory of Justice contributed significantly to the new story by simultaneously justifying extremes of racial equality and income inequality.(33)

It is evident the white race’s survival will take more than physical secession by the tiny minority that still value it. It will take a race war of ideas in which the First Amendment is critical and the Second just a distraction. To win, the new story must be defeated. It’s an elusive opponent that’s never been fully named till now and yet is as pervasive as Christian belief when America was first settled nearly 400 years ago. Like then, entities like the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center exist to enforce orthodoxy and attack heresy.(34) The new story’s very elusiveness presents both opportunities and challenges. Since it lacks a name or a real institutional infrastructure, it could disappear overnight like Mao’s Cultural Revolution. Nevertheless, its very invisibility makes it difficult to attack directly. Since it exists in the shadows, the first key steps are exposing and explaining its nature.

Since the new story is built on lies, the most effective weapon against it is scrupulous respect for truth. It’s a mistake to accept less just because falsehoods can sound more pleasant and convenient. Truth is an important weapon for regaining the moral high ground among our kinfolk, which is crucial for success. Also basic is appreciating arts of salesmanship and persuasion from Dale Carnegie to the latest texts in social marketing, which emphasize the importance of proper branding. Getting exposure on a program called The Political Cesspool may be convenient, for example, but its name’s reinforcement of negative stereotypes could be counter-productive. An example of negative branding is use of “hate” by enemies of white nationalism to describe it even though it exists because it loves its race. In recent American history gratuitous hate is most evident among Jews for the white gentiles who sacrificed so much to save them during World War II, a phenomenon graphically and sympathetically portrayed in the little-seen 1995 film Unstrung Heroes. On the other hand, it may be time to stop running from the term “racist” and start flipping it the other way. Since it’s been so widely applied to all whites that it’s now drained of meaning, why don’t those for whom race matters proudly claim it? If bad things were done in its name, what belief can’t say the same?

Since Auschwitz is such a basic part of the new story, Germany’s behavior in World War II is an unavoidable issue. Despite the new story’s portrayal of it as the quintessence of racial consciousness, the Third Reich never practiced white racial nationalism. Its nationalism based almost exclusively on language, which it consistently confused with race in its rhetoric, explains its abominable behavior toward its own racial kin like Slavs and other ethnic groups speaking non-Germanic languages.(35) Further evidence is its alliance with Japan, which practiced race war against whites throughout Asia and the Pacific.(36) That it never authentically taught its population about race is even evident in post-war eagerness of its women to fraternize with black American occupiers when that was still stigmatized in the United States.(37) America has been a white nationalist nation at various times, particularly from 1830 to 1855 and from 1900 to 1925. Australia was one from 1890 to 1945,(38) as was South Africa from 1948 to 1989.(39) Germany, however, was never a white nationalist nation.

Since the Third Reich was hostile to Jews, and Americans fought it for mostly different reasons, it is politically advantageous for America’s Jewish Establishment to use its vast media dominance to constantly emphasize these events(40) and deemphasize those distracting from this association. Among such deemphasized events are the Pacific War, German atrocities against non-Jews, Communist atrocities against anyone, and the Armenian and Rwandan genocides. The exception proving the rule is media interest in Darfur, which is located in Sudan, a Moslem country hostile to Israel.

The role of Jews in creating and profiting from the new story is readily demonstrable historical fact. A natural and reasonable response when discovering this is to blame “the Jews” for America’s ills. Unfortunately this just reinforces the martyrology on which their power depends. It is better to clearly name the Jewish Establishment, which consists of organizations represented by the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations(41) as well as its many collaborators among all ethnicities. Then its current collective activities can be identified as aberrant ethnic attacks on other ethnicities analogous to those by Germany’s Third Reich. That’s a comparison Americans can understand. They know every German didn’t support the Reich, and they don’t believe every Jew does harm either.

Modern science is ultimately the best friend of white racial nationalism as well as all other races. Despite resistance, the human genome’s exploration is finally revealing the deep structure of why each race is distinctive and valuable. Discovery of genes correlating well with known distribution of intelligence is only the beginning.(42) Radical equalitarians seek to block such research, but their efforts are futile. Understanding the genome is too critical for finding cures to diseases like type 2 diabetes caused by complex gene-environment interactions.(43) The world is also increasingly concerned about loss of biodiversity, of which human racial diversity is an important part. Conservation biology, an entirely new science, has developed to accomplish the important task of preserving earth’s biodiversity.(44) Contrary to myth, however, biodiversity doesn’t flourish when biological entities are forced together. That causes extinction.(45) Biodiversity is highest where barriers to mixing are maximal and opportunities for secession greatest. That’s why diversity of plants, animals, races, cultures, and languages tends to be greatest in mountains, where high ridges and deep canyons are barriers reducing the possibility of extinction through mixing.(46)

Cultural renewal is important as well as science. In 1976 the replica voyaging canoe Hokule’a was sailed from Hawaii to the Society Islands using traditional sailing methods. Its success as well as further voyages contributed to a renaissance of traditional culture among Hawaiians,(47) a people dispossessed in their ancestral homeland much like white Americans. The journal Tyr is leading a similar cultural renaissance among America’s whites.

As white nationalism resists the anti-racism story, it must replace it with a better story. Since the old story never recognized human diversity, it was preadapted for replacement by the new story’s destructiveness. The Establishment can even now use the old story for attacking the threat it faces from science.(48) With a new better story guided by love of its people, however, white nationalism can help all people preserve their unique value, which globalization threatens everywhere. Even now that better story is being written in publications like The Occidental Quarterly and Tyr and in actions by groups like European Americans United. For it to win, smart adaptive management will be required as events and the Zeitgeist changes, but ultimate success is likely because truth is on its side. No matter what comes, keeping all eyes on the prize of racial survival is necessary to ensure that success.

That success will come when secession of the mind, the collective desire of a critical mass of whites to preserve their race, is achieved. Just as physical secession is unlikely to be successful without mental secession, achieving it may make physical secession less necessary. The British did a decent job of bringing order to the world in an Empire lasting as long as they believed in themselves and stayed aloof from those they conquered.(49) Jews have survived far longer by preserving their mental secession.(50) Whites are a race of Volkerwanderers, pioneers, and explorers. Confining them to one place may be like bottling lightning. With secession of the mind, their survival doesn’t depend on that.

1. Richard McCulloch, “Separate or Die,” The Occidental Quarterly 8, no. 4 (2009): 15–38.

2. Michael H. Hart, “Racial Partition of the United States,” in Jared Taylor, ed., The Real American Dilemma (Oakton, Va.: New Century Books, 1998), 107–18.

3. Greg Johnson, “The First Word,” review of A Conversation About Race, a film by Craig Bodeker (Denver, New Century Productions, 2008),” The Occidental Quarterly 8, no. 4 (2009): 109–114.

4. Valerio Sbordoni and Saverio Foresterio, Butterflies of the World (New York: Times Books, 1984).

5. Brian K. Wheeler, Raptors of Western North America (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003).

6. Jeffrey L. Brown, The Evolution of Behavior (New York: W. W. Norton, 1975).

7. Jeffrey V. Wells, Birder’s Conservation Handbook: 100 North American Birds At Risk (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007).

8. T. R. H. Davenport, South Africa: a Modern History, 3rd ed. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1987).

9. James H. Billington, The Icon and the Axe: An Interpretive History of Russian Culture (New York: Vintage Books, 1970).

10. Billington, The Icon and the Axe.

11. David Hackett Fischer, Albion’s Seed: Four British Folkways in America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989).

12. John Bowker, ed., The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997).

13. Robert Jay Lifton, Destroying the World to Save It: Aum Shinrikyo, Apocalyptic Violence, and the New Global Terrorism (New York: Metropolitan Books, 1999).

14. David Starr Jordan, War and the Breed, abridged reprint of original published in 1915 (Washington, DC: Cliveden Press, no date).

15. Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth Century Intellectual and Political Movements (Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 1998).

16. MacDonald, The Culture of Critique.

17. Shelby Steele, White Guilt: How Blacks & Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era (New York: HarperCollins, 2006).

18. Judith Herrin, The Formation of Christendom (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987).

19. Charles J. Lumsden and Edward O. Wilson, Genes, Mind, and Culture: The Coevolutionary Process (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1981).

20. Theodor H. Gaster, ed., The New Golden Bough: Sir James Frazer’s classic work on ancient and primitive myth, magic, religion, ritual, and taboo. Revised and edited in the light of recent scholarship by Theodor H. Gaster (New York: Mentor, 1959).

21. Mark Ridley, Evolution, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell Science, 1996).

22. Fischer, Albion’s Seed.

23. Richard P. McBrien, ed., The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism (New York: HarperCollins, 1995).

24. Diarmaid MacCulloch The Reformation: A History (New York: Viking, 2003).

25. MacCulloch The Reformation.

26. David R. Roediger The Wages of Whiteness, revised ed. (London: Verso, 1999).

27. Bowker, Oxford Dictionary of World Religions.

28. Jonathan Z. Smith, ed., The HarperCollins Dictionary of Religion (New York: HarperCollins, 1995).

29. Thomas C. Reeves, The Empty Church: Does Organized Religion Matter Anymore? (New York: Touchstone, 1996).

30. MacCulloch, The Reformation.

31. Jared Diamond, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed (New York: Viking, 2005).

32. Luke Coppen, “Rawls at the Crossroads,” American Conservative 8, no. 8 (2009): 31–32.

33. J. R. Pole, The Pursuit of Equality in American History, 2nd ed., revised and enlarged (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993).

34. John George and Laird Wilcox, Nazis, Communists, Klansmen, and Others on the Fringe: Political Extremism in America (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1992).

35. Richard J. Evans, The Third Reich at War (New York: Penguin, 2009).

36. Meirion and Susie Harries, Soldiers of the Sun: The Rise and Fall of the Imperial Japanese Army (New York: Random House, 1991).

37. Giles MacDonogh, After the Reich: The Brutal History of the Allied Occupation (New York: Basic Gooks, 2007).

38. Graeme Davison, John Hirst, and Stuart Macintyre, eds., The Oxford Companion to Australian History, revised ed. (Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press, 2001).

39. John Drexel, ed., The Facts on File Encyclopedia of the Twentieth Century (New York: Facts on File, 1991).

40. Norman J. Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering (London: Verso, 2000).

41. Howard M. Sachar, A History of the Jews in America (New York: Knopf, 1992).

42. Nicholas Wade, Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of our Ancestors (New York: Penguin, 2006).

43. Ramzi Cotran, Vinay Kumar, and Tucker Collins, Robbins Pathologic Basis of Disease, 6th ed. (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1999).

44. Edward O. Wilson, The Diversity of Life (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992).

45. Judith M. Rhymer and Daniel Simberloff, “Extinction by Hybridization and Introgression,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 27 (1996): 83–109.

46. Daniel Nettle and Suzanne Romaine, Vanishing Voices: The Extinction of the World’s Languages (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000).

47. Alan C. Ziegler, Hawaiian Natural History, Ecology, and Evolution (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2002).

48. John G. West, Darwin Day in America: How our Politics and Culture Have Been Dehumanized in the Name of Science (Wilmington, Delaware: ISI Books, 2007).

49. Lawrence James, The Rise and Fall of the British Empire (New York: St. Martin’s, 1994)

50. Kevin MacDonald, A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy (Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 1994).

That hasn’t happened. The Frumbots lashed out. Imagine 2050 and Red Jeffrey piled on. I’ve addressed them all in previous posts. Some idiot called E.D. Kain (who no one knows) wrote another hit piece yesterday evening. Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs chimed in last night. The house negro at Republicans United whined about racism. I felt his pain.

More of this is coming down the pike. This is good news for a brand new website! Alt Right’s enemies have inadvertently created a lot of buzz and publicity for Spencer’s project. I know it is a cliché by now to point this out, but conservatives are reliably stupid. The smart thing to do would have been to enforce “dynamic silence” and contain the brush fire to the racialist community. Maybe Alt Right would have died a quiet death in obscurity.

The temptation to respond proved irresistible for several reasons: 1.) In the introduction video, Richard Spencer twisted the nose of David Frum, and the bots were ordered to respond. 2.) The VDARE connection was fodder for left-wing conspiracy theories. 3.) Red Jeffrey religiously follows our sites and would have commented anyway. 4.) Alt Right is aesthetically superior to other “hate sites.” 5.) Charles Johnson is obsessed with sniffing out fascism in the conservative movement and this fits into his ongoing narrative of right-wing evil. 6.) Alt Right uses a discourse unfamilar to braindead liberals and conservatives who have been living in a bubble for the last twenty years.

A cursory glance at the negative reviews leaves me convinced of the superiority of the “Alternative Right.” This is a genus larger than Spencer’s website. Tim Mak, for example, doesn’t seem to know that we have never called ourselves “racists” and “sexists.” These are terms of abuse imported from the left. Imagine 2050 thinks Alt Right is Peter Brimelow’s website and that Chronicles is a “White Nationalist” magazine. E.D. Kain and Charles Johnson ramble on about “human biological diversity” (read: “human biodiversity”) and reveal their total ignorance of the subject.

A common charge from the Faux Right is that Alt Right uses a “politically correct terminology” to whitewash “racism.” Terms like “human biodiversity,” “evolutionary psychology,” and “sociobiology” have been around for decades. Scholars like E.O. Wilson have written important books in the natural sciences about these subjects. “Racialism” dates back to the early twentieth century and was in use years before “racism” appeared in the 1930s. A subscriber to “human biodiversity” believes the average differences in racial groups are partially attributable to heredity, but such a person is not necessarily a “racist,” as HBD does not imply a vertical hierarchy of “superior” and “inferior” races. Most HBD types are libertarians, not White Nationalists. This distinction is lost on Beltway conservatives whose worldview was formulated on a diet of trash like Comeback: How Conservatives Can Win Again or How to Talk to a Liberal if You Must.

There is a large group of – how should I put this, young men of the right – who were intelligent enough to see through this garbage many years ago or never bothered with it. I stopped reading Ayn Rand when I was 21 years old. There is little of interest in the American conservative canon. Most of the best titles (admittedly, there are a few classics worth reading) were written decades ago and have no relevance to the neocon dominated Beltway conservative movement. Libertarianism has a stronger intellectual tradition, but like so much of philosophy, it is ultimately nothing more than empty sand castles in the air based on allegedly “self evident” axioms like the non-aggression principle. Try running that one by the Neanderthals.

There is no “one true system” of social science analogous to the laws of physics. The liberal arts and social sciences like political science, sociology, philosophy, psychology, anthropology, and history can collect data, discover patterns, and inform our actions with practical advice, but they will never prescribe the “one true model” of human behavior. The Enlightenment and Christianity have sent us on this fool’s errand. At the end of the day, human behavior is still largely governed by custom, habit, and tradition.

Even more primordial forces are at work. Human behavior is far too predictable to be learned. We eat, drink, sleep, blink, breathe, fuck, fight, marry, reproduce and much else without giving much thought to our actions. We experience a range of emotions that produce instant value judgments. Humans evolved these behaviors because they were adaptive to our survival in the real world. Traditions persist across generations when they are adaptive to present environmental conditions and foster reproductive success.

This concept of adaptiveness gives us a measuring stick which we can use to analyze competing intellectual traditions and behaviors. We can see right off the bat that feminism, homosexuality, abortion, and birth control do not foster high birthrates. Expressive individualism leads to high divorce rates and low parental investment. Excessive materialism is a strong deterrent to family formation. Third world immigration floods Western nations with hostile aliens who do not share our heritage or ethnic interests. The guilt cult of multiculturalism doesn’t inspire confidence in our civilization and its future.

Let’s travel further down this road. High taxes punish young White families and depress birthrates. Affirmative Action takes jobs away from White males in their reproductive years. Transfer payments to non-Whites (welfare and government healthcare) take money away from White families and disproportionately redistributes their wealth to hostile fecund minorities. Whites are forced to subsidize inferior public schools for negroes and Hispanics and pay again for schools for their own children. Whites pay inflated prices for housing in distant suburbs to avoid the costs of non-White violent crime. Free trade and outsourcing suck highpaying American jobs overseas and force potential mothers into the workforce. Dysgenic foreign wars to “spread democracy” abroad kill off the most heroic and masculine White males in their prime.

The “Alternative Right” cannot be accused of intellectual vacuity or inconsistency. Our worldview is based on a careful analysis of the American cultural and political scene from the perspective of self interest. We reject flighty universal abstractions in favor of visceral concrete ideals – blood, soil, nation, and faith – that produce adaptive behavior in the real world. We endorse customs, habits, traditions, and public policies that work for us. We want to lift the minds of America’s deracinated White youth out of gutter and give them a sense of purpose.

What does the Faux Right have to offer the American majority? In his response to Richard Spencer, E.D. Kain talks about “respect for tradition,” but never explains what is meant by this. He says in the comments of his article that John Derbyshire is “deserving of the ash heap of history” for his rejection of feminism! Kain also wrote to Charles Johnson - the deranged leftist proprieter of Little Green Footballs – to encourage him to attack Richard Spencer. There is a seamless transition between the far left and the neoconservative right. They are one of the same force. The Charles Johnson-Frum Forum connection proves it.

The sole purpose of the Faux Right – Frum Forum being a prime example – is to introduce retreads of the most crazy leftist ideas from twenty years ago into the conservative movement and push the national political spectrum to the left. The whining and crying about “racism,” “sexism,” “homophobia,” “nativism,” and “reactionaries” reflects their leftist agenda. I suppose a secondary purpose would be to provide careers in politics for useless Beltway hacks who cannot contribute to society in a more productive way.

The Faux Right doesn’t believe in racial, national, or cultural preservation. They are not carrying on any discernable American tradition. These people despise pre-MLK America. They seek to “transform” the United States into a nation that reflects progressive ideals (read: a minority-majority country). To his credit, Charles Johnson has at least openly stated his allegiance to the left, which somewhat limits his effectiveness. The neocons at Frum Forum share his radical anti-White agenda, but are smart enough not to discuss it openly.

Charles Johnson is right about one thing. White Nationalists are on the march. We’re going to smash the Faux Right in Washington one way or another. The future existence of our people demands it.

Occidental Dissent, March 14, 2010