Even a casual glance at the American scene shows Rand’s influence is growing. Sales of Atlas Shrugged are brisk, and Rand’s magnum opus is consistently ranked in polls as one of the most influential books in Americans' lives, just behind the Bible^[1].

Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, is unapologetically selfish. Rand proclaimed “greed is good” well before Gordon Gekko. Family, religion, nation, and race were all collectivist “mysticism” that a free man must ruthlessly wipe aside. Objectivists heaped scorn upon the very concept of race, declaring that the individual holds no allegiance to anything except those loyalties that are freely chosen. Background is an accident; heritage an irrelevance. The Russian Jewess Ayn Rand (real name Alisa Rosenbaum) seems a bizarro version of Emma Goldman designed to wean the American Right away from White racial nationalism. Objectivism, in theory, is a mortal threat to White racial identity — another rabbit hole for White Americans to fall down in their never ending quest to pursue every ideology, party, or platform except the ones that might allow them to take their own side. In fact, Objectivism denies that they have a side at all, or even that there is a “they.”

And yet, despite it all, for a surprising number of White advocates, it usually begins with Ayn Rand. The journey from the world of the heroic architect Howard Roark to Jared Taylor or even Julius Evola is not uncommon. Strange as it seems, the writings of an anti-racist Jewess have real value to White nationalists even beyond serving as a stepping stone to greater truths. A closer examination of Rand’s life and work reveal that some of the assumptions behind Objectivism can lead to White advocacy. It may seem contradictory to interpret Alisa Rosenbaum as some kind of proto-White nationalist. However, as Francisco d’Anconia said in Atlas Shrugged, “Check your premises. Contradictions don’t exist.” The answers we find might surprise us.

* * *

To answer the question, “Who is John Galt?” one must first know “Who is Ayn Rand?” Alisa Rosenbaum was destined to create a philosophy of deracination, as her own roots were shallow. She was the daughter of a pharmacist in St. Petersburg who nursed a quiet hostility for Bolshevism. The Rosenbaums, middle class Jews in the midst of tsarist Russia, were an oddity, and the young Rosenbaum had an economically comfortable but isolated early life, with no participation in Jewish religious life, the resentment of the peasantry, or the Orthodox Russian upper class whose glittering existence she could only glimpse. Rand’s family was non-observant but even the ultimate individualist had to be aware of a distinction between her Jewish family and the Orthodox masses of Holy Russia.

Rand, even at an early age, was recognized for her fierce intelligence and aloof attitude towards those she considered intellectually beneath her. Family was never terribly important to Rand, with even a real relationship to her father dependent on intellectual agreement. It is also not surprising that Rand despised what she saw as the “mystical” soul of her Orthodox homeland and looked west, especially to England and America, for a place that fit what she called her “sense of life.” Perhaps reading into the Anglosphere what she wanted to see, she viewed the English-speaking world as a bastion of reason, liberty, and science in contrast to the Oriental despotism of Russia. She was proud of her westward looking home city of St. Petersburg, calling it a “monument to the spirit of man.” Rand supported the downfall of the Tsar and the rise of a parliamentary regime, identifying her first hero in Alexander Kerensky. Unfortunately for Rand and for Russia, the Kerensky regime was only a placeholder for the more disciplined and dedicated Bolsheviks.

The Bolshevik Revolution destroyed what order existed in Rand’s world, with her “bourgeois” father’s wealth confiscated and his shop destroyed. Rand genuinely respected her father and saw with shock how the work of a lifetime was destroyed in the name of revolution. Rand’s life was a nightmare world of grinding poverty, constant hunger, and creeping terror that at any time she would be denounced or arrested. Rand was also forced to study Marxist ideology as part of her education. The Revolution became the formative experience of her life. Rand could justifiably state that she thoroughly understood Communism as both theory and practice.

Rand’s unique background combined with her oppression at the hands of the Bolsheviks provides the key to understanding her work. Rand’s Jewish heritage and scorn for Russian culture prevented her from conceiving of the Communist Revolution as a hostile or “foreign” movement. Rand could not identify with any resistance to the Bolsheviks couched in terms of traditionalism, Orthodoxy, or Russian patriotism or identity. However, Rand’s “bourgeois” background ensured that she also did not conceive of the Revolution as liberation or as revenge for anti-Semitism that she never experienced. She and her family suffered horribly at the hands of their supposed co-ethnics amidst the Bolsheviks, a persecution she could only explain as a product of class hostility divorced from considerations of race or religion.

Rand’s forced education in the historical dialectic also affected her interpretation of Bolshevism. Rand boasted that she had never been affected by Marxist propaganda and “learned in reverse” by critically analyzing everything she was taught and formulating reasons as to why the Communists were wrong. The dialectical method of education emphasized the interplay of philosophical principles with economic and social factors that led to “inevitable” conclusions. Thus, Rand viewed history as the conflict of abstractions in the real world. She created her own dialectic, in which “values” determine the success or failure of societies and individuals. Rand absorbed much of the Marxist method — she just changed the conclusions. For a society — or a person — to succeed, it was simply necessary to have the correct principles and all else would follow, systematically and inevitably.

Thus, because of her background and education, Rand did not view the Russian Revolution as an ethnic struggle between Jews and non-Jews, the byproduct of a poorly waged war, the victory of professional revolutionaries or even the end product of a host of complicated factors. Instead, it was the inevitable result of mistaken philosophy, the real world manifestation of an abstract ideological battle. Indeed, decades later, Ayn Rand would say to the graduates of West Point, “politics is not the cause, but the last consequence of philosophical ideas.”^[2] Hence, Rand would later say that the “most evil man in history” was not Marx, Lenin, or Stalin, but Immanuel Kant.

A central premise of Rand’s worldview is control. Rand tried to “name her path, to grasp it, to conceptualize it, and, most important, to put it under her conscious control.”^[3] The moral man guides himself through the dispassionate application of his reason to his chosen goals, sweeping all else before him. He is therefore successful. If a person neglects to choose any particular course and simply follows everyone else (a profoundly immoral act in Rand’s view), he will be condemned to flail wildly throughout his life, a victim of circumstance and the machinations of “collectivists” and “mystics” that seek to exploit him. The immoral, irrational man will be a failure.

Of course, Rand’s own life was heavily affected by the uncontrolled. Her own intellectual outlook was at least partly a product of her background. The fact that she was able to get an education only occurred because the Communist Party spared “bourgeois” students in her school years while purging them the next year. She also was fortunate in securing her escape from Russia. Her family randomly received a letter from relatives in America in 1925. Seizing the opportunity, Rand announced her intention to leave Russia and stay with her relatives, thus beginning a nearly impossible bureaucratic struggle to obtain the proper paperwork from Bolshevik authorities. Her family also raised the necessary money for the journey, an almost insurmountable obstacle in its own right. Rand lied on her paperwork and was not caught, and also noticed a minor clerical error that would have prevented her from leaving. Only through luck, unchosen family ties, and the sacrifice of others was Alisa able to emigrate from Russia.

Her parents were not so lucky — they would never obtain permission to leave Russia and died in the Siege of Leningrad. However, this narrow escape did not seem to affect Alisa Rosenbaum’s emerging worldview, nor did it challenge her conception of herself as entirely self-made. Her American relatives were perturbed at her seeming indifference to their existence and lack of gratitude, and she quickly moved to Hollywood where she worked as a screenwriter and costume designer. She also began her writing career, formally adopting the nom de plume Ayn Rand, breaking even in name from her Russian past and Russian family.

Rand’s first novel, We the Living, is an autobiographical tale of a young woman trying to survive in the new Soviet Union. In many ways, it is her best work, with complex characters and plot details that can only come from someone who has lived the experience. The heroine, Kira, falls for a free-spirited bourgeois man named Leo. Ultimately, the relationship collapses under the harsh reality of life under the Bolsheviks. Intriguingly, the most admirable character in the book is probably Andrei, a loyal, honest, and dedicated Communist who falls in love with Kira. Kira, who values him as a friend, becomes his lover in order to secure treatment for Leo’s tuberculosis. In the end, the book ends in tragedy, as Leo abandons Kira to become a gigolo, Andrei commits suicide, and Kira is shot while trying to escape Russia.

Anthem, a dystopian novella, is about a collectivist future in which even the word ‘I’ is banned. Uniquely for such a novel, technology has degenerated and the world is far more primitive than our own. A man named Equality 7-2521 rediscovers electricity but is punished by his society for doing so. Escaping from his society and joined by a woman he loves, he finds books that contain the word ‘I’. Inspired, he prepares to chart a new cause for humanity.

The Fountainhead is the work that made Ayn Rand a household name. It focuses on Howard Roark, an architect of genius who struggles to find work in a world ruled by compromise and cowardice. He falls in love with Dominique Francon, who is so disgusted by the world that she would rather destroy greatness than see it corrupted. Ellsworth Toohey, a socialist architecture critic, manipulates the culture to defeat Roark because he does not want to see greatness survive anywhere. Gail Wynand, a newspaper owner, had the potential to be a great man, but pursued power and is defeated when he finds that such a path leads to him being ruled by the masses, instead of ruling. In the end, Roark triumphs through the force of his genius.

Finally, the monumental Atlas Shrugged is about a strike by “the men of the mind.” As America sinks into socialism, men of ability around the country are mysteriously vanishing. Dagny Taggart, a beautiful female railroad tycoon, struggles to hold her railroad together. Eventually, she meets John Galt, Rand’s ideal man, a scientific genius who is deliberately withdrawing the men of ability from the country in order to collapse the collectivist system. In reality, though Taggart and Galt share the same values, they are enemies, as Taggart fights to keep the country going, and Galt wishes to see it destroyed in order to be reborn. In the end, Taggart admits Galt is right, and the country collapses as the lights go out in New York. The novel ends, however, on a note of hope, as the men of ability prepare to return.

Rand presented her worldview through her work. However, are her novels really “Objectivist?” Ayn Rand’s early experiences show a clear tendency on her part to reinterpret her experiences and views in order to be consistent with her abstract ideology. As Objectivism crystallized, Rand ultimately put more demands for obedience on both her readers and ideological followers, outlining the correct moral choices on matters such as politics, architecture, music, and even sex.

Few of these choices can be justified purely through reason, as Rand’s own life would later demonstrate when she would try to rigorously apply her philosophy to her life. Rand married a bit actor named Frank O’Connor. However, in order to fit into her own self-conception, she ludicrously proclaimed that O’ Connor was not a failed actor but a misunderstood hero “on strike” against the world. Actually, O’Connor allowed Rand to dominate the relationship, reversing what Rand held to be the ideal. Later, the much older Rand began a sexual affair with the already married Nathaniel Branden, her chosen intellectual heir. Because sex was held to be an inevitable outgrowth of deeply held metaphysical principles, Rand forced the affair to be approved by O’Connor and Nathaniel’s wife Barbara.

Of course, it ended in disaster. Branden’s marriage was destroyed and O’Connor desperately cried out that he wanted to leave Rand but he had been so beaten down he couldn’t. When Nathaniel could no longer maintain his sexual attraction to a much older woman and began a relationship with someone younger, Rand interpreted the rejection as intellectual betrayal, expelled Nathaniel from all Objectivist organizations, removed the dedication to him in Atlas Shrugged, and practically gutted the emerging “official” Objectivist movement, a sad consequence of the attempt to subordinate sex to ideology.

A careful reader can see the premises that contradict Rand’s own ideology even within her own books. Even though the novels are often castigated as being simply collections of speeches by characters who serve as either Objectivist mouthpieces or collectivist straw men, the truth is more sophisticated and complex. Of course, as Francisco d’Anconia of Atlas Shrugged, tells us, “Check your premises. Contradictions don’t exist.” Rather than adopting a premise and using reason to arrive inexorably at one corollary after another, Rand’s approach is more akin to arriving at a desired conclusion and then retroactively rationalizing the philosophic steps needed to get to that point. In her fiction, it is actually the world presented, not the rationalizations created to get there, that are attractive to so many readers. Let’s check Ayn’s premises. The result actually shows that Rand might have more to teach White nationalists than libertarians.

A term often used by Ayn Rand to describe herself, her followers, and her enemies was “a sense of life.” This refers to the value judgments and emotional responses that a person has to the things he encounters. Ultimately, these derive from the philosophical principles a person implicitly believes or consciously chooses. “A sense of life” is a Weltanschauung as observed through the prism of Objectivist theory and the premise that such reactions can always be determined by rational choice. Hence, if a piece

of music, a book, or another person created a positive or negative emotional reaction in someone, one could analyze that person’s deepest beliefs and character according to those likes or dislikes. If we accept this premise, we find Rand’s sense of life is similar to what would one expect for any White nationalist.

Rand’s first literary hero was the character Cyrus from an adventure story called “The Mysterious Valley.” Cyrus was a handsome, dashing British officer who foiled a plot by superstitious Indian natives to overthrow the British Raj and ravish a young blonde English girl. Cyrus rescues the girl and uses dynamite to blow up a dam, flooding the natives and killing them all. Cyrus triumphs through daring, intelligence, and courage, easily outsmarting the colored masses and laughing in his victory. One can compare Cyrus to John Wayne fighting Indians, the stories of Rudyard Kipling, or even to Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. If Edward Said, author of Orientalism, read this story, he would surely grind his teeth in rage.

However, Rand was thrilled by the story and later told a biographer, “the kind of feeling I had for [Cyrus], it still exists, it’s in essence everything that I’ve ever felt for Roark, Galt… or all my values.” Barbara Branden comments, “Howard Roark in The Fountainhead was Cyrus, John Galt and Hank Rearden and Francisco d’Anconia in Atlas Shrugged were Cyrus.”^[4]

Rand’s hero-worship of the Aryan peoples had much to do with simple aesthetic appeal. One of the most important experiences in Alisa Rosenbaum’s life was when she saw a young girl named Daisy Gerhardi from England, who wore stylish clothes and played tennis, which was unheard of for young Russian girls. She would later say, “It amazed me. … it was a creature out of a different world, my idea of what a woman should be. I can still see her today, a very active, tall, long-legged girl in motion.”^[5]

It is therefore not surprising to us, but surprising to those who accept Rand’s individualist rhetoric at face value, that all of the heroes of Rand’s novels are clearly, even comically Nordic. Howard Roark, the heroic architect of The Fountainhead, is described as having “hair neither blond nor red, but the exact color of ripe orange rind” and “a body of long straight lines and angles, each curve broken into plains.”^[6] His great love, Dominique Francon has grey eyes and pale gold hair.^[7] The great love of the hero of Anthem is simply referred to as “The Golden One.”

In Atlas Shrugged, the heroine Dagny Taggart , has grey eyes and brown hair.^[8] The heroic steel plant owner with whom she has a torrid affair, Hank Rearden, is described as having eyes with “the color and quality of pale blue ice” and ash-blond hair, with prominent cheekbones.^[9] Ragnar Danneskjold, the Scandinavian pirate who raids foreign aid ships in order to fight against the collectivists directly, has “gold hair and a face of… shocking perfection of beauty.”^[10] John Galt, the ultimate hero of Atlas Shrugged, the scientific genius and ideal man, has “chestnut-brown” hair, “the loose strands of the hair shading from brown to gold in the sun… his eyes were the deep, dark green of light glinting on metal.”^[11] He has “angular planes” for cheeks, once again, suggesting a Nordic phenotype.

There is one possible non-Aryan hero in Atlas Shrugged — Francisco Domingo Carlos Andres Sebastian d’ Anconia. However, even here Rand writes, “Nobody described his appearance as Latin, yet the word applied to him, not in its present, but in its original sense, not pertaining to Spain, but to ancient Rome. … His features had the fine precision of sculpture. His hair was Black and straight, swept Black. The suntan of his skin intensified the startling color of his eyes: they were a pure, clear blue.”^[12]

Most revealingly, Rand inserts herself into the book in an Alfred Hitchcock-like device. In Atlas Shrugged, the heroes that oppose socialism have a secret hideaway called “Galt’s Gulch” where they live “on strike” from the rest of the world and wait for it to collapse. As John Galt and Dagny Taggart walk by, a “writer who wouldn’t be published outside [Galt’s Gulch]” looks up at them. “She wore slacks, rolled above the knees of her bare legs, she had dark disheveled hair and large eyes.” As she looks at Galt, her glance contains “hopelessness, serenely accepted.”^[13] Though this worship was rationalized by Rand, clearly the Objectivist “sense of life” prizes the Aryan physical ideal — an ideal the Jewess Alisa Rosenbaum could worship, but never possess.

In contrast, rather than the Aryan supermen cum corporate overlords that are the heroes of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, Rand’s villains are some of the most brutal character sketches of the liberal elite ever written. Howard Roark’s antithesis in The Fountainhead is Ellsworth Monkton Toohey, who has a “thin little body” like that of a chicken just emerging from the egg, in all the sorry fragility of unhardened bones”. A great forehead dominated the body. The wedge-shaped face descended from the broad temples to a small, pointed chin. The hair was Black, lacquered, divided into equal halves by a thin White line… the nose was long and thin, prolonged by the small dab of a Black mustache. The eyes were dark and startling.”^[14]

Toohey is an architectural critic but is also much more. He organizes writers, architects, artists and others into various councils which do nothing but mouth leftist pieties. His writings promote equality and human rights, but in a witty, ironic, self-deprecating way that communicates that everything should be mocked and nothing should be taken seriously — except the destruction of the dissenter. Toohey is a murderer who never lets his victims see what it is that has destroyed them. He explains, “Don’t you find it interesting to see a huge, complicated piece of machinery, such as our society, all levers and belts and interlocking gears, the kind that looks as if one would need an army to operate it — and you find that by pressing your little finger against one spot, the one vital spot, the center of all its gravity, you can make the thing crumble into a worthless heap of scrap iron?”^[15]

It is impossible for White nationalists to not laugh at the portrait of respectable society that Rand draws. Toohey states, “Mr. Alvah Scarret [a worker at an anti-socialist paper], the college professors, the newspaper editors, the respectable mothers and the Chamber of Commerce should have come flying to the defense of Howard Roark — if they value their own lives. But they didn’t.”^[16] Replace Howard Roark with White advocates, and you have the situation today.

Similarly, the best scenes of both The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged take place in the drawing rooms and cocktail parties of polite society. Empty headed society women honor postmodern literature and new age spirituality for seemingly no other reason than fashion — fashion created by culture distorters such as Ellsworth Toohey. Meanwhile, men of genuine accomplishment and serious works of literature, art and music are destroyed, not through real criticism, but through mockery and the refusal of the average person to even comprehend what is being done.

In defiance of the egalitarian parasites she portrays, Rand advances a proudly inegalitarian creed. Her heroes are described as “ruthless” with “contemptuous mouths” that react to difficulty with suppressed emotion. Randian heroes are classic Nordic character types in both appearance and behavior. If the primary virtue of the Left is to be defined as “equality,” the works of Ayn Rand firmly maintain that men are not equal and that human lives are not of equal value.

According to Objectivism, no man has the right to initiate force against the use of someone else. Despite Rand’s supposed condemnation of force, her books show that her definition of “initiate” is somewhat flexible. Rand argues that not intervening to help the less able, even to save their lives, is a moral necessity. The entire plot of Atlas Shrugged focuses on the men of ability withdrawing their talents from an immoral society, condemning millions to starvation or violent death. Even if the argument of “sin by neglect” is rejected, the first edition of her 1936 novel We the Living has the heroine proclaim, “What are your masses but mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned for those who deserve it?” Though this was removed from a later edition, it is questionable whether there was actually a real transformation in Rand’s thought. When Dagny Taggart attempts to rescue John Galt from a government prison near the end of Atlas Shrugged, she calmly murders a guard because he can’t make up his mind what to do.

Rand’s views on the non-White world are also quite clear. She heaps scorn upon the idea that anyone owes the Third World anything. Angelina Jolie claims to be a fan of Ayn Rand, but she obviously missed John Galt speak on how “random females with causeless incomes flitter on trips around the globe and return to deliver the message that the backward peoples of the world demand a higher standard of living. Demand — of whom?”^[17] In Jean Raspail’s classic The Camp of the Saints, the activists who hurry to welcome invading immigrants cry, “We’re all from the Ganges now!” In Atlas Shrugged, John Galt asks, “Which is the monument to the triumph of the human spirit over matter: the germ-eaten hovels on the shorelines of the Ganges or the Atlantic skyline of New York?”^[18]

Most critically, Rand outlines an important concept — the sanction of the victim — that all White nationalists would be wise to adopt. In John Galt’s climatic speech, he outlines again and again the incredible accomplishments of the modern world and asks who makes it possible. Since it is obviously not the liberal literati or the champagne socialists, why are they able to direct the vast majority of the energy and wealth of the world, as well as determine the culture? According to Rand, it is because the productive have let them. “Your destroyers hold you by means of your endurance, your generosity, your innocence, your love — the endurance that carries their burdens — the generosity that responds to their cries of despair — the innocence that is unable to conceive of their evil and gives them the benefit of every doubt, refusing to condemn them without understanding and incapable of understanding such motives as theirs… in the name of your magnificent devotion to this earth, leave them, don’t exhaust the greatness of your soul on achieving the triumph of the evil of theirs.”^[19]

Such words can easily be directed at the Whites who serve the armies of an America that despises them, who pay the taxes to fund welfare programs for non-Whites, and who keep America going while receiving nothing but scorn in return. Who cannot think of the acceptance by Whites of the catch-all explanation of “racism” for every racial discrepancy in crime, education, income, or intelligence? Regardless of the Jewish media, White Americans are in the situation they are in today because they have given “the sanction of the victim.” Who makes this world possible? Like Dagny Taggart and Hank Rearden, White Americans have to say, “We do.”

It is an obvious point to state that Rand’s world of capitalist Übermensch, like libertarianism in general, is premised upon a White world, a world where uniquely Western values such as individualism, the rule of law, and limited government are taken for granted. Rand does not address how such a world of rugged individualists would survive in a country besieged by millions of hostile ethnics who practice ethnic solidarity. Nor does she explain how her childless heroes will build a world that could last more than a generation. Of course, oppressed White individualists could “go Galt” and withdraw their productivity — but as the example of Zimbabwe shows, the new non-White rulers probably don’t care. It is also obvious to point out that Rand’s rejection of the reality of race or the importance of unchosen, immutable genetic characteristics or facts of background blinded her to any real understanding of the world.

That said, the greater truth here is that Ayn Rand’s “sense of life” is deeper than her own superficial ideology. It assumes not just a White world, but an Aryan code of achievement, appreciation of hierarchy, and a robustly defended philosophy of greatness. Rand lays out a forthright defense of excellence as opposed to equality, not just in the realm of economics but throughout all human existence. Rand’s heroes are intelligent, productive, courageous, taciturn, admirable and attractive — and they are all obviously of Aryan heritage to boot. While White nationalists often look to past warriors, the Randian heroes show how Whites at their best could act in a peaceful, modern world.

Rand also shows the depravity of the left wing elite, showing their motivation, appearance, and operations. While she obviously doesn’t address the question of Judaism, her novels remain one of the most powerful portraits of America’s parasitic rulers ever created.

Finally, Rand, through her concept of the “sanction of the victim” identifies the key moral precept that keeps White Americans in chains, and suggests that withdrawing it could blow apart the entire system that mandates our genocide.

Because of Rand’s background and personality, this essentially healthy worldview was turned into a universalistic abstraction. Nonetheless, a heretical kernel of a White nationalist “sense of life” endures in her novels. As with libertarianism in general, it remains for White advocates to “check Rand’s premises” and take her ideas to conclusions she could not have expected, including White identity and racial nationalism. In the end, the closest thing to Rand’s valley of heroes, “Galt’s Gulch,” might be found in the White Republic of the future.

1. “‘Atlas Shrugged’ 50 Years Later,” Christian Science Monitor (March 6, 2007). [Link]
2. Ayn Rand, “Philosophy: Who Needs It.” Lecture given at West Point, 1974. [Link]
3. Barbara Branden, The Passion of Ayn Rand (New York: Doubleday Books, 1987).
4. Branden, 12.
5. Branden, 9.
6. Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead (New York: Signet, 1996), 3.
7. Ibid, 105.
8. Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged (New York: Plume Reprint Edition, 1999), 20.
9. Ibid, 34.
10. Ibid, 690.
11. Ibid, 643.
12. Ibid, 114.
13. Ibid, 660.
14. Rand, The Fountainhead, 231.
15. Ibid, 356.
16. Ibid, 357.
17. Ibid, 955.
18. Ibid, 963.
19. Ibid, 979.

At the urging of a friend who is a hedge fund manager I sat down to watch the documentary “Page One, Inside the New York Times”. At about 30 minutes into this movie – after watching the morning editor’s meeting – you begin to see clearly that every reporter and section editor carries with him a shared set of unspoken beliefs and assumptions about politics, the newspaper business, and the importance of “journalism”, which, of course, makes the process of selecting “all the news that fits” those assumptions very quick and efficient. The vast and far reaching sub-texts left unmentioned by the participants at the meeting were glaringly obvious. But the signal that runs much deeper than that visible subtext is the central point that truly important shared beliefs and assumptions are never to be mentioned, much less questioned.

You will never land a job at the New York Times, much less get to the page one editors meeting, unless you share all of those assumptions. But even more important, you must also have the ability to channel the social signal that the shared assumptions and beliefs are so important that they must not only never be questioned, but they must never even be mentioned. After all, to mention an assumption or belief is to topple it down from the pantheon of received truth and place it in contention with other beliefs and assumptions that are up for grabs in “the market place of ideas.” Thus the mere mention of a shared belief, even to defend that belief, has the inevitable effect of demoting the belief and assumptions that underlie it down to the level playing field of equality with other contenting beliefs. Thus, “debate” decides nothing, because the truly important ideas and values are utterly beyond debate.

In truth, they are beyond being named.

And that is a fundamental reality of the world of employment at every large company or institution in the United States. The interview process will be designed primarily to detect those who carry with them the belief systems and assumptions of the rest of the existing work force and thus present, as the HR people like to say, “a good fit”.

The hedge fund manager friend and I often debate and disagree about the consumer fad stocks or  “cocktail party” stocks – broadly defined as the stocks yuppies buy because the company produces whatever new gadget that fills yuppie hands – or his or her coffee cup – or wastes the most yuppie time surfing the internet at the moment.

Recently, perhaps as a sign of a bullish psychological extreme in the markets,  the phenomenon has moved downscale to decidedly middle class and lower middle class pursuits such as Harley Davidson (HOG), Sturm Ruger (RGR) and Smith and Wesson (SWHC) for the middle, and most stunning and surprising, Dollar Tree (DLTR) and Ross Stores (ROST) for the very bottom of the socioeconomic ladder. These stocks are all moon shots that will make boat loads of money for those smart enough to “get the hell out of Dodge” before the inevitable carnage begins. With the exception of DLTR and ROST, they all have very large pools of “fan boys” who will keep buying as the institutional managers distribute stock to them. The moon shots of DLTR and ROST are bets on a metastasizing welfare class in the U.S., and exponential growth of federal deficits to fund the transfer payments to keep them shopping and off the streets.

Of course, my friend and I talk about and debate these stocks a great deal, largely because we don’t understand the psychological drivers that move them and thus are unable to peg tops and bottoms based on valuation. And  DLTR and ROST are fundamental bets against collapse and for uninterrupted growth in federal deficits – bets that we both think are foolish. Naturally we spend no time at all debating the “BTUs in the ground” theme that we do invest in. We do spend time analyzing those “BTUs in the ground” investments, and in particular gathering information on the expectations of the major investment players in that market and their propensity to herd and get the timing wrong.

But most important, these companies are all in a despised “goy” commodity industry with no sex appeal or irrational fan boy crowds pushing prices beyond relatively predictable extremes. And because they are commodity businesses, they do not purchase retail advertising from the media, which means that they are constantly open to media attacks which can produce bargain prices.

But the unifying characteristic of all of these fad stocks we enjoy friendly arguments about is the social isolation of those who participate in the fad. For example, my friend and I love to debate Apple (AAPL). Of course he owns the iPhone, and as he waxes euphoric over ” the tremendous quality of Apple products” I chuckle. Like my hedge fund friend, my daughters all own iPhones and tablets. They all have professional jobs and these devices allow them to monitor their portfolios, send and receive emails while they are commuting or tending to other daily chores such as shopping or eating out. On weekends these devices allow them to put to productive use those intermittent 20 minute slices of time between errands or the kids soccer practice. In short, the smart phone and the tablet are quintessential time savers for busy yuppies – manna from heaven for recouping some of the commuting time lost to suburban White flight and the loss of the traditional sexual division of labor when both spouses must join the labor force.

My wife and I are both cell phone Neanderthals. We need only mobile phone capability, and I prefer older technology which cannot be tracked passively when the phone is turned off.

But several weeks ago my wife’s phone entered its death throes, and she decided to go to the AT&T store and get a new iPhone 4 advertised for less than $100. However, when the clerk began processing the order my wife discovered that between the added data charge and the added texting charge, the bill for our family would increase $60 per month or $720 per year. She walked out of the store. I refrained from cheering and high-fiving her until we were safely out of view of the store. My daughters who all have iPhones tell me their service plans cost $1,200 per year. As retirees, the iPhone doesn’t free up time worth an additional $720 per year above what we now pay and its “entertainment” potential which seems to attract morons with money to burn is entirely irrelevant. It is that simple.

Note to all Apple fan boys! There is a limit to how many people on this planet can afford $1200 per year for a cell phone.

In his latest weekly missive, John Hussman delivers a profound and very valuable metric for judging consumer fad stocks under the title “Notes on exponential revenue growth” in the following post.

Hussman is spot on with his conclusion that unit sales growth slows once a new product has penetrated 30% of the ultimate market. Revenue and earnings misses are sure to follow.

He is also spot on about Apple, factoring in not only a demand curve related to market size but also a curve representing the rate of change in the average rate of replacement – or upgrades to the next version of the product. In this respect the “quality” of the Apple product is a liability for the stock price, because the rapid replacement cycle caused by the fan boys lining up over night to participate in the street theater of buying the latest iPhone or iPad at an Apple store nearby – and to revel in the sensation that an overpriced consumer purchase can produce social connection – however fleeting – creates a huge aftermarket of used product – an aftermarket that will more than satisfy demand from those who are not reliant on the latest iPhone for status display, but only for the time saved by the ability to conduct business while doing daily chores and eating meals.

The truth is that smart phone users tend to interact almost exclusively with other smart phone users. They are likely to fall victim to the idea that the entire world is just like them, and therein lies the danger of social reinforcement for fan-boy investing and overestimation of ultimate market size. And in this respect we of the WN persuasion have a significant edge.

My hedge fund managing friend tells me that a Jewish hedge fund manager he met told him that Blacks in South Central L.A. could easily teach themselves physics and the nuances of Shakespeare if we would just give them all laptops.

I had always believed that most liberals – and certainly Jews – were far too smart to actually believe nonsense about human equality. After all, intelligence – being the product of a physical organ – is as heritable as lifting power or running speed, which are also products of physical organs. I have this tendency to assume that they must be lying to us about something so obvious for political reasons, but that when their own money is on the line, they must recognize reality and adjust world wide market size expectations by subtracting the vast populations with IQs below 85 in Africa, Latin America, and South East Asia (Malasia, Viet Nam, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, the Phillipines and much of India) who will not have the capacity to add enough value to their economies to afford $1,200 per annum for an iPhone.

But my hedge fund managing friend assures me that only one out of about 60 or so fund managers he has spoken with is even aware of the low IQ issue as a limiting factor in economic performance. The overwhelming majority have never heard such a thing mentioned or even thought about the possibility.

Time to clam up about the issue among the investoriat if we wish to keep our advantage!

As I was finishing up the movie “Page One” it occurred to me that the vast subtext of unmentioned and unmentionable belief has a significant bearing on our own outreach to our fellow Whites.

What if the “Implicit Whiteness” that is so glaringly obvious in White flight to the suburbs, The Big Sort, the Tea Party and the racial composition of the Republican Party is – like the beliefs and values the infuse the New York Times – beyond debate and beyond mention?

What if, in the minds of our liberal, integrationist Whites, explicit mention of what we can all plainly see with our own eyes, namely race differences, merely topples what we all see and know  “down from the pantheon of received truth and places it in contention with other beliefs and assumptions that are up for grabs in the market place of ideas.”

Stop and think about it! Think for a moment about the fundamental unspoken assumption undergirding the 1950′s and 1960′s Supreme Court decisions on busing and racial integration of schools and neighborhoods from the perspective of the White justices who rendered those decisions. Isn’t the subtext underlying these decisions a belief that Whites are so wonderful, so smart, so beautiful, so caring and good, and so vastly superior that extensive contact with Whites will have a transformative effect on the blacks and browns once Whites are forced to associate with them? Seriously, how could the liberal, integrationist White justices possibly have believed or felt anything else – or entertained any other subtext that could justify such a decision?

Liberal judges are just like any other professional group. They tend to associate almost exclusively with other liberal attorneys. After all, the legal professions is, from a pure economic perspective, a parasitic trade primarily engaged in wealth transfers from those that have to those that have not. It stands to reason that most attorneys will need to escape the tawdry economic reality of what their trade actually accomplishes and create for themselves, as much as for the public, an elaborate mythos about “justice” and “fairness” all of which will serve to justify their position and power. Is this any different from the remarkably arrogant and elitist mythos on display at the New York Times? – their mantra of the overarching public importance of “professional journalism” which is ever so evenhandedly neutral and so essential for informing the public and so diligent in suppressing error and misinformation?

The public does not need the myths and most likely does not take them at face value. It is the employees of the New York Times who need to feel good about themselves and their work that is the source of the myths.

And isn’t a second and much deeper unmentionable subtext that liberal Whites are so superior that they are justified in imposing the burden of the supposedly ennobling and transformative contact with blacks and browns upon on the lower orders of their fellow Whites?

Isn’t the unspoken premise behind the notion that extensive contact with Whites will transform the black and brown races really the one and only true White Supremacy? How could one wade through Arnold Toynbee’s “The World and the West” without realizing that the suffocatingly sentimental sense of noblesse oblige oozing from every page could lead otherwise than to the unspoken and unspeakable subtext that we are so superior that the poor wogs must envy and hate us.

Look at the social isolation of policemen, of university professors and indeed of most of the working population that now tends to socialize almost exclusively with those they meet at work.

We tend to think of the racial agenda of liberals and of globalists as anti white because the practical effect of these agendas has been anti White. We tend to infer that the practical effect is intended and that the subjective intent of liberals and globalists must be malevolent. In effect they are conspiring to destroy the White race.

But their reality is quite different.

Virtually all people conspire. They do it all the time.

But they conspire to craft and adopt belief systems that will make them feel good about themselves.

University professors feel that they are saving the world. Employees of the New York Times feel that they are saving the world. Lawyers feel that they are saving the world. Police and Judges feel that they are the last bulwark against social breakdown and chaos. The management of international corporations believe that they are raising living standards all across the planet. Jews feel that their control of the media and entertainment has allowed them to benefit us goyim by freeing us from a sexually repressive and tyrannical religion, namely Christianity. By and large, they sincerely believe that through their benign guidance they have improved our lives.

And like all socially isolated groups, destructive effects and negative outcomes are attributed to chance or are ignored entirely.

The employees of DHS cannot imagine where right wing Americans could possibly get the idea that they were preparing concentration camps for the purpose of imprisoning defenders of the black letter text of the Constitution. Nevertheless the camps are being built and DHS along with NSA is actively spying on them (and us), saving and analyzing every electronic communication.

Similarly, the employees of TSA are going to believe that they are protecting Americans by the airport searches, xray scans and crotch groping. They can’t imagine why anyone would be opposed.

The fact that these measures have not caught a single terrorist does not alter the view of employees on the inside about the vital importance of their “services”. Given the fundamental disconnect between the population being searched and the stated purpose of the searches, is it any surprise that outsiders naturally will look for alternative malevolent motivations? Could the real purpose of the sociopaths that very often rise to the top of such organizations be to condition the upper middle class to routinely submit to searches absent probable cause, or even statistically reasonable suspicion?

But you protect American citizens by spying on their enemies, not by spying on Americans. By definition, Americans cannot possibly be enemies of the state even as they disagree about what the state ought to be doing.

The internal rationale is that many Americans are “anti-government” and must be watched. But then democracy cannot possibly work unless large numbers of Americans are vehemently opposed to what the government is doing. After all, the fact that all the special interest legislation coming out of Congress concentrates the benefits on the few but diffuses the costs by imposing them on the many does not alter the fact that a multitude of diffused costs and burdens are being imposed on the citizenry who are not organized to defend themselves through the political process.

Rather than spying on citizen discontent, it is the duty of these police forces and security agencies to concentrate their resources on disrupting the flow of special favors and thus minimizing the burdens being imposed on the disorganized citizenry. Thousands of such opportunities presented themselves during the financial crisis but were never pursued.

The broad point here is that the delusions that arise out of the need of most humans to feel good about themselves and their work will, in the majority of cases, to be objectively wrong and thus appear venal to outsiders. The wrong-headedness of such internal rationalizations will be particularly strong when the insiders paychecks and economic security are at stake.

This universal human tendency has significance for us in the movement.

First, offering a benighted institution a new mission or a new focus will be infinitely easier than attacking it as evil and driven by bad motives. The latter course will provoke the maximum opposition from the institution, its employees and any outside constituencies that it serves.

But a more important danger that can arise from our own social isolation – beyond the obvious limits it will impose upon our opportunities to convert those outside our circle – is the tendency to craft ideologies and intellectual abstractions that will make us feel good about ourselves and thus “sell” within the group, even though they have no practical utility for conversion and growth outside our group.

There is within our movement an intellectual recognition of the need for the  “metapolitical project” which means a broad scale undertaking to rework of the popular culture of White people world wide. The theory behind the metapolitical project or “meta-politics” as it is called, is that the culture must change first and that the desirable political outcomes will then follow.

Perhaps.

But when viewed in terms of allocation of currently available human and financial resources within our movement, the meta-political project is so vastly beyond our means as to appear whimsical. To the extent that the meta-political project is an implied criticism of what I call the “conference model” – an essentially 1930s model of giving motivational speeches to crowds -  I tend to agree that discussion of the idea and the fleshing out of proposed details of implementation might be useful.

But I should note that none of those wishing for a transformational meta-politics seems to have a clear view of evolving external reality outside of our movement.

None seem to have noticed that the project has already begun in fits and starts in response to external market demand. In movies, the trend is unmistakeable. For example BBC has clearly learned that if you want to make money, you must provide a White, middle class audience with an escape from the tension, stress and aesthetic ugliness of multiculturalism. One need only look at the fabulously successful series Downton Abbey for a classic example of a period piece escape from the stress of multiculturalism. Other recent examples are the new film versions of the Jane Austin novels, all of which were profitable. For a film which goes beyond the aesthetic that we crave and delivers a conditioning message consistent with our view of group conflict, rent or stream the movie “An Education.” Another in the same genre is “Water for Elephants” which features a remarkably unflattering image of the Jewish boss.

For further confirmation, all you need do is review and watch the filmography of Robert Pattinson, the young Brit who has vaulted into the rarified atmosphere of the $20 million a year actor. While the Jewish talent agents in Beverly Hills are unlikely ever to admit it, if you want to get rich as a White actor, turn down all scripts that will include black actors in roles other than dangerous enemies and turn down scripts that are heavily laden with Queer or explicitly Jewish themes. Pattinson’s films routinely gross over $700 million and routinely get bad reviews from the critics.

Rather than playing “inside pool” within the movement, anyone interested in the meta-political project needs to find the head of a studio that is in financial trouble (as was RKO Pictures back in the 1930s) and find a modern day equivalent of Pandro Berman and give him a script that will offer the audience an hour and 40 minutes of pleasing escape from the stress of multiculturalism -  the stress of having your eyes always diverted to the potentially threatening and unpredictable black squares on the black and white checkerboard that is the multicultural film.

While at financially struggling RKO, Pandro Berman produced a number of films that contain outstandingly constructive conditioning messages for Whites. If you haven’t seen “Allegheny Uprising” – the ultimate militia movie – you have really missed out. If you have not watched the entire Fred Astaire – Ginger Rogers set of films that kept RKO financially afloat throughout the 1930′s you cannot be serious about your WN aesthetic.

While movies from the 1930′s take a bit of getting used to, there is no question that Fred and Ginger, under the direction and financing from Pandro, introduced the American middle and working class to images of elegance and grace in a way that has never been equaled, and produced such classics as “Top Hat” and “Swing Time”. I defy anyone to find a movie scene with more grace and charm than the Fred and Ginger dance number “Lets Face the Music and Dance” in the movie “Follow the Fleet.”

In fact, there are hundreds of films already in existence that condition White audiences in ways that we find agreeable.

But to get in on the game now, one need never announce that one’s politics are WN. You just need to prepare and sell a script that will make money and find an agent or a studio willing to produce it.

One need only join an existing trend.

But beyond culture we need smart political organization.

For over 20 years we have been herding relatively large numbers of middle aged men who could afford to spend upwards of $800 into gatherings in which they spent most of the day as a captive audience listening to motivational speeches. The implied assumption behind this activity was that the attendees, after being so motivated,  would somehow spontaneously go out and set up the necessary political structures to change our society and our laws.

Similarly a huge volume of internet posts have come online in the past 15 years that seem to have the same underlying assumption, namely, that if enough people accept the ideology, that they will go out and spontaneously establish the necessary political, social and economic structures to improve our society.

The propagation of ideas is important, and the internet has been a godsend to us, as has the crippling of the print media. But a lot of difficult and tedious work is required in order to convert ideological enthusiasm into political and economic muscle in the real world. Far more work, effort and skill is required than one should expect to see flower spontaneously from the aftermath of a speech.

But at those many conferences the uniform message of the attendees during the breaks and around the bar in the evenings was that they came for the social contact and the opportunity to network and make friends among normal people.

We have learned over the years that gathering resources through anonymous direct snail mail, email and web based appeals is like pulling teeth. However there were a few visionaries who did listen to our “customers” in the corridors of those conferences and have, after a decade of trial and error, produced a real world social model of face to face contact that, if cloned throughout the country, could realistically produce human, organizational and financial resources sufficient to reverse the legislation and court decisions that now threaten our collective survival, and in the process, provide participants with an opportunity to enjoy life in the company of like minded friends at the same time and at modest expense.

The beauty of this effort is that we do not have to “convert” all 180 million whites and then hope that they organize themselves to accomplish something useful. All we need to do is find and identify those who agree with us. And – setting aside for the moment the significance of some infrastructure investments that will speed the process – the identification process is remarkably easy.

All you need do is ask “Are you worried about how your grandchildren will be treated 40 years from now when they become a minority in America?”  If the answer is yes, they are with us. If the answer is “Of course, they will be fine,” or “I don’t know, haven’t given it much thought” pass and go on to the next contact.

Simplicity itself!

And the beauty of the social model is that, unlike anonymous appeals from strangers for money or volunteer effort, we get nearly a 100 percent response rate within the social model.

DHS and Mossad-Amdocs have built a list of from 10 to 20 million whites who agree with us, more or less, based on profiling and mapping the neural networks of who communicates with  whom. All we need do is a) find the 1 or 2 million of them that seek social interaction with realistic people and b) promise security to those who need anonymity, and we can can easily control Congress on our issues and then begin to work on reforming the political complexion of the Federal judiciary (the second legislative branch of our government).

Of course highly articulated ideologies that have the effect of making us feel remarkably good about ourselves and increase our social isolation at the same time will only slow down or halt the effort.

We must learn to identify the basic and very simple impulse behind group survival and organize around that impulse.

Anyone interested in joining this project should email me and include your postal zip code.

I readily agreed to review Jared Taylor’s new book, White Identity. How could I refuse? During the last two decades Taylor has greatly influenced my thinking about racial matters.

Taylor has said that his book will be a success “if at least a few readers … become open to the possibility that … people of all races generally prefer the company of people like themselves; [that] racial diversity is a source of conflict, not strength.” He hopes to persuade readers to break away from racial assumptions that have become con- ventional in modern America. He aims to revive opinions that are akin to the views of most of the America’s Founding Fathers, to the beliefs of the men who are commemorated on Mount Rushmore, and to the ideas of the great majority of White Americans up until the 1950s and 1960s.

Effecting this “renaissance” requires tact and strategy as well as a thorough knowledge of the relevant history and science. In White Identity, Taylor does not mention “the Jewish question” that is often discussed in The Occidental Quarterly, and recent discoveries about evolution and advances in genome science receive less attention in Taylor’s new book than in his magazine, American Renaissance. Some critics have taken exception to the omission and soft pedaling. Nevertheless, White Identity is the single best summary of the evidence against racial sentimentalism and for race realism.

I am one of Taylor’s converts and, that being so, the story of my conversion may shed light on the prospects for a revival of White identity. My hope is that, since Taylor’s goal is to bring over people from one belief to another, an account of my awakening will be more than a self-indulgent reminiscence. My hope is that a recounting of my personal journey will provide some insight into what needs to be done to make additional converts.

From 1944 until 1956, I attended Catholic schools in Los Angeles County. During those years, my life revolved around activities at either the schools or at my local parish. At my high school, St. Francis High School near Pasadena, most of the teachers were Capuchin priests from Ireland, and never since have I known a better company of men. In 2002, I dedicated one of my books to the memory of five of these teacher-priests.

Although I spent my youth within the orbit of Catholicism, most of the people in my family’s neighborhood were White Protestant Christians with traditional cultural values and conservative views on politics. Edgar W. Hiestand was the local Congressman, and Hiestand was an avowed member of the John Birch Society. So was John Rousselot, the Congressman from the neighboring district in San Marino. At one town meeting I heard Rousselot scoff about his critics, saying, “Some of them say I think there is a Communist under every bed. That’s not true. Sometimes there are two of them!”

When I left Pasadena in 1956 to go to college at Stanford, my mother warned that the professors there would say that people like my parents and most of their friends were suffering from fright fantasy. The professors would say there was no Communist subversion in Washington. They would say that investigations of this matter were the products of a feverish “Red Scare.” The professors would rail against “McCarthyism” and “witch hunts.” And so they did.

Some years later I thought of my parents when I was reading We Now Know (1997), a book by historian John Lewis Gaddis. By then my parents had passed on, but I could imagine quite a scene. “What’s that book about?” they would have asked. Then I would explain that thanks to conclusive evidence in the former Soviet archives, the Venona files that had been closed prior to the 1990s, scholars now knew that during the presidencies of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman the U.S. government had employed hundreds of people who were spying for the Soviet Union. “Heck,” Mom and Dad would say, “We knew that all along.”

Although my background was conservative in its views about religion, culture, and Communism, the prevailing views on race and civil rights were ambivalent. My parents and their friends regarded Blacks as a distinctive group that should be kept at a distance socially. They gave me to understand that there were boundaries, the most significant being a taboo against inter-racial dating or marriage. At the same time, my parents and their friends also believed that Blacks were often treated unfairly, and they wanted to end the abuses. They were opposed to discriminating against Black workers or to disparaging the Negro race. They were opposed to laws that required segregation.

Any tension that might have resulted from this ambivalence was obscured at the time, for America was a predominantly White country then, and everyone assumed it would remain that way. In these circumstances, the significant adults in my world believed that the courtesies of life could be exchanged across the color line without any danger to the established order. Formal segregation was not needed, but only because there was an informal consensus that Blacks and Whites, while interacting in public life and in the world of work, should live in different neighborhoods and remain separate in most things social.

I was exposed to different views during the years when I was an undergraduate student at Stanford and a graduate student at the Uni- versity of California, Berkeley (1956—1965). On these campuses, the prevailing beliefs were that Blacks had not just been treated unfairly but were, in addition, as capable as Whites when it came to intellectual aptitude and the ability to develop and maintain civilizations. One of my favorite professors, Kenneth M. Stampp, summed up this view in memorable language, “Negroes are after all only White men with Black skins, nothing more, nothing less.”

When it came time for me to write a doctoral dissertation, I asked Charles Sellers to be my major professor. I did so because Sellers was both an outstanding historian and a civil rights activist who was then serving as the president of the Berkeley chapter of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE). I joined Professor Sellers in one demonstration where I carried a sign that urged Blacks, “Don’t Buy Where You Can’t Work.” Later I participated in demonstrations that urged upscale restaurants to hire Blacks as waiters and car dealers to employ Blacks as salesmen. As had been the case when I was a teenager, during my twenties I went along with the views that prevailed among those who had become the most significant adults in my life.

Yet there was an abiding ambivalence. I had left Pasadena for Berkeley, but I retained many middle-class values. One was a conventional desire to get ahead in my chosen profession and eventually to support a family. I decided to write a dissertation on a racial matter — how African Americans were affected by the policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal. But that choice was influenced by more than sympathy for the civil rights movement. I also calculated that this subject would be a good way to “make it” in academe. I was betting that racial topics would be in vogue during the years to come, and my choice of the New Deal and the Negro was confirmed in 1963 when I learned that there were thousands of hitherto unexamined letters and other documents in the files of the NAACP. I was 25-years old at the time, and I reckoned that even if I did not have the maturity to analyze the New Deal or to illuminate race relations, I could make a contribution to knowledge simply by summarizing the contents of those documents. To this day, I continue to urge young graduate students to work with neglected primary sources. Since the 1970s, however, I have warned that most universities discriminate against White people when it comes to filling positions that deal with racial matters.

My ambivalence was also manifest in my personal life. In 1962 I married a young Berkeley graduate who had been reared as a Southern Baptist. By then Mary and I had moved away from the religious milieu of our youths, but we were married in a Catholic church, and we never embraced even a smidgen of the lifestyle liberalism that was coming into fashion. We cringed when we heard about feminist consciousness-raising sessions. When we were blessed with three sons, we spent time with traditional activities like scouts and youth sports. We sent our boys to a predominantly White Catholic high school and, after having lapsed for several years, we began to attend Mass every Sunday. When we were able to buy a summer home on the water, we eschewed trendy Rehoboth Beach for the Chesapeake Bay, where our neighbors relaxed with boating, hunting, and classic American cars.

Meanwhile I forged through the academic ranks. My dissertation received favorable notice when it was published in 1970, and another book of 1975 received even better reviews. At the age of 36, I was promoted to the rank of full professor at the University of Delaware, and I began to think about research for yet another book. At that time, civil rights lawyers had brought a lawsuit seeking metropolitan busing for racial balance throughout the northern portion of my home county, New Castle County, Delaware. From reading the local newspaper, I learned that the nearby city of Wilmington had been one of the first five jurisdictions that the Supreme Court, in Brown v. Topeka Board of Education (1954), had ordered to desegregate its public schools. Wilmington complied immediately, but desegregation led to inter-racial scuffles and a decline in cultural and academic standards. This touched off White flight, and enrollment in Wilmington’s public schools went from 73% White to 90% Black. I then learned that much the same had happened in three of the four other “Brown districts” — in Prince Edward County, Virginia, in Summerton, South Carolina, and in Washington, D.C. Only in Topeka, Kansas, where Blacks made up 8% of the students, had a sizeable number of Whites continued to patronize the public schools. And desegregation had been problematic even in Topeka.

In The Burden of Brown (1984), I told the story of how education had fared in these five school districts where desegregation began. In the introduction and conclusion, and in a few statements that were interspersed in the text, I maintained that the misbehavior of Black students had created serious problems and that federal judges had made matters worse be redefining desegregation to mean something quite different from the original understanding. When the implementation order for Brown was handed down in 1955, “desegregation” was understood to mean that students should be assigned to public schools on a racially non-discriminatory basis. Then, beginning in the mid-1960s and continuing for about 25 years, federal judges required assignment by race to ensure that the mix of races at individual schools would be approximately the same as the proportions that existed in a larger region or state. The constitutional mandate had thus been changed from prohibiting racial discrimination to separate the races to requiring racial discrimination to mix them.

The body of my book, however, was a straightforward account of how things had worked out in the five school districts. One reviewer has described my style as “of the Sgt. Joe Friday school of analysis (for those too young to remember the TV program Dragnet, Joe Friday was the hard-boiled detective known for his ‘Just the facts, Ma’am’ style.)” Another reviewer praised this detail for showing “what the ruling meant to real people in real schools.” A third noted that in addition to analyzing the rationale of the federal courts, I showed “what those august deliberations did to real children in the classrooms, and hallways, and lavatories.”

In a field where upholding the unalloyed benefits of integration was the official party line, there were some critics. One disparaged Burden as a “biased ideological brief” that had been disguised “in the garb of careful scholarship.” But most reviews were favorable, and one senior scholar said that my “depressing thesis … probably represents the new ‘prevailing wisdom.’” The American Bar Association, which previously had supported everything the federal courts had required in the name of desegregation, seemed to second this opinion in 1985 when it gave its annual Silver Gavel Award to The Burden of Brown. Civil rights activists picketed the awards dinner and said the book was “clearly racist in sentiment and tone.” But the awards committee stood by its decision, explaining that “the award was made for literary merit and for shedding interesting light on legal history and issues.”

In retrospect, it may seem that I was destined to embrace the views that Jared Taylor propounds. Prior to the 1990s, however, I had never heard of Taylor. I was a tenured professor at a good university. I was familiar with major historians of the United States, but I knew nothing about race realism, evolutionary biology, DNA, or the critique of culture.

My awakening occurred by chance. In 1993 my publisher sent me a review of a paperback edition of The Burden of Brown. The review had appeared in American Renaissance, a magazine that was unknown to me then, and the comments were so lively and insightful that I want- ed to know more about the magazine and its editor, Jared Taylor. Reading American Renaissance turned out to be a fateful step on my road to Damascus. The magazine exposed me to racial views that differed markedly from the opinions that prevailed in the mainstream of academe. American Renaissance offered a modern defense of racial views that had prevailed in America before the 1960s.

What lessons are to be learned from my experience? Perhaps the most important is that one must get out the word if one wishes to make converts. For half a century, the schools and mainstream media have been indoctrinating students and readers with the view that racial differences are insignificant and that anyone who says otherwise is a deplorable racist. In my case, Jared Taylor broke through what might be called “the paper curtain” of racial correctness. But this happened quite by chance.

To make more converts, Taylor must reach a larger audience. Yet, as can be seen by the publication imprint for White Identity, this is no easy task. Taylor is, in the words of Peter Brimelow, “arguably the most brilliant of the leaders of what is now sometimes called the ‘Alternative Right.’” Nevertheless, “two literary agents … attracted by the manuscript’s undeniable skill and power, spent years trying to place it before giving up in surprised despair.” White Identity was finally published, to be sure, but by a small foundation rather than by a major commercial press. It is only because of the internet and new developments in publishing technology that one can hope that Taylor’s views eventually will reach a large audience.

White Identity is a polished compendium of many of the views that have been the standard fare of American Renaissance. Taylor begins by challenging the belief that racial diversity is a positive good. He concedes that it has become commonplace for American leaders to celebrate diversity. He notes that Barack Obama has declared, “the vast diversity of race and ethnicity is fundamental to our nation’s strength” (p. 53). He quotes a statement of George W. Bush: “Diversity is one of America’s greatest strengths.” He notes that Bill Clinton announced a new national goal: “We want to become a multiracial, multiethnic society … to prove that we literally can live without … having a dominant European culture” (p. xii).

Taylor challenges the assumption that underlies these statements — the assumption “that [race] is a trivial distinction it is our destiny to transcend.” Taylor maintains, rather, that “diversity is a weakness” and that it is natural for people “to prefer the company of people like themselves” (p. xvi).

In making his case, Taylor takes exception to two social science theories that provided a rationale for what eventually became the politically correct conventional wisdom about race. One was the sociology of Swedish scholar Gunnar Myrdal, the author of An American Dilemma (1944). When the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Court celebrated Myrdal’s book as the epitome of “modern authority” on the relevant social science.

As Myrdal saw it, White discrimination and low Negro standards caused one another. Segregation and discrimination depressed the Negro’s standards of living and morality, and Whites then pointed to the poverty and immorality as justification for segregation. According to Myrdal, segregation damaged Blacks, and the extent of the damage was reflected in the way Blacks lived. “The instability of the Negro family … the emotionalism of the Negro church … provincialism … high Negro crime rate … and other characteristic traits are mainly forms of social pathology which, for the most part, are created by the caste pressures.” Conversely, Myrdal believed that if society was desegregated, the behavior of Blacks would improve. Then White attitudes would improve further, and Blacks would continue to make progress. Myrdal thought the United States could reach a higher level of civilization and social justice if the vicious cycle were turned into a virtuous cycle (p. 23).

Another influential concept emanated from Harvard University, where psychologist Gordon W. Allport developed the “contact theory” of racial attitudes According to Allport, the vicious cycle could be broken if society was not just desegregated but, in addition, was integrated so as to encourage interaction among Blacks and Whites. If Whites and Blacks of similar status interacted frequently, Allport predicted, each group would discover a common humanity, and each group would form a favorable opinion of the other.

Taylor, on the other hand, maintains that racial and ethnic consciousness is deeply rooted in human history. “Much of our evolution as a species,” Taylor writes, “took place before the invention of agriculture, during the millions of years our human and proto-human ancestors lived in hunter-gatherer bands. The members of small bands were usually related to each other, and it was important for them to cooperate and even sacrifice for each other.” In these circumstances, “strangers were potentially dangerous competitors for food and territory” (p. 114) and groups that did not defend territory against intruders were less likely to survive.

Of course our lives today differ from those of hunter-gatherers, but Taylor maintains that many basic instincts remain unchanged. To support this point, he cites the work of several modern scholars. One is Finnish political scientist and evolutionary biologist Tatu Vanhanen, who has written that “ethnic nepotism evolved in the struggle for existence because it was rational and useful” (p. 23). Another is University of Washington anthropologist Pierre L. van den Berghe, who maintains that “the degree of cooperation between organisms can be expected to be a direct function of the proportion of genes they share” (p. 114). A third is Harvard sociologist Robert Putnam who, after studying 41 different American communities that ranged from the extreme homogeneity of rural South Dakota to the very mixed population of Los Angeles, reported that there is a strong correlation between homogeneity and trust, social cohesion, and civic engagement. Putnam was so troubled by the politically incorrect implications of this research that he delayed publication for five years while he checked his findings and tried in vain to find something other than racial and ethnic diversity that would explain “why people in Maine and North Dakota trusted each other more than people in Los Angeles” (p. 130).

Whether or not wariness and hostility toward strangers is a legacy of mankind’s evolutionary past, Taylor shows that it is alive and well in the modern world — and not just among humans. Taylor notes that animals also “have a preference for close kin, and study after study has shown that they have a remarkable ability to tell kin from strangers” (p. 114). Chimpanzees, “our nearest living relatives … live in bands within territories and show a ferocious in group-out group consciousness” (pp. 114–115). So it is also with ants, frogs, and squirrels. “Even bees know who their relatives are. In one experiment, bees were bred for 14 different degrees of relatedness — sisters, cousins, second cousins, etc. — to bees in a particular hive. When the bees were then released near the hive, guard bees had to decide which ones to let in. They distinguished between degrees of kinship with almost perfect accuracy, letting in the closest relatives and chasing away more distant kin” (p. 115).

Taylor reports that human beings have the same instincts. Like E. Raymond Hall, a professor of biology at the University of Kansas and the author of a well-regarded book on American wildlife, The Mammals of North America, Taylor believes that the races of man are biological subspecies and, quoting Hall, that “two subspecies of the same species do not occur in the same geographic area.” Taylor notes that Hall has further written, “to imagine one subspecies of man living on equal terms for long with another is but wishful thinking and leads only to disaster and oblivion for one or the other.”

The Berkeley sociologist A. James Gregor has similarly observed that “social creatures throughout the animal kingdom” have manifested a “disposition to identify with only select members of [their] species.” Hence, “anything more than a casual or temporary contact between widely diverse races” has led, at the least, to “prejudice and discrimination and a subsequent rationalization for felt preferences.” On many occasions, mixing has led either to subordination or extermination. According to A. James Gregor, the nature of the racial separation or subordination has varied from place to place, but true amalgamation has occurred only rarely — and then only over the course of centuries.

Taylor drives this point home with a quotation from the Roman writer, Horace: “Though you drive Nature out with a pitchfork, she will ever find her way back” (p. 115).

Assaying the lives of ordinary Americans, Taylor presents a mountain of evidence to show that people of every race will go to great lengths to limit familiar interaction with members of another race. Countering the argument that racial consciousness will dissipate if people with different racial ancestries come together, Taylor shows that the presence of interracial acquaintance, not its absence, leads to increased racial consciousness and tensions. To prove his point, Taylor builds a temple of facts, brick-by-brick.

James S. Coleman and other sociologists had previously documented the pattern of White avoidance with respect to school integration, where the rule of thumb is that an increase of 5% in Black pupils will cause about 10% of Whites to depart. But Taylor shows that this pattern extends far beyond school enrollments. He shows that racial separation occurs in almost every area where Blacks and White have a choice. It is evident in their choice of the churches they attend, in their choice of TV shows and other entertainments, in their choice of names for children, and in their preference for living in racially homogeneous communities. Taylor cites a Florida study that reported that although Blacks made substantial economic gains in comparison to Whites during the 1990s, “it was particularly surprising that we saw no [neighborhood integration] effect from the growing convergence of Black and White incomes” (p. 36). He cites a Berkeley study that reported that majorities of Whites, Hispanics, Blacks, and Asians agreed with the statement, “People are happier when segregated” (p. 41). He quotes a Black Berkeley professor who said integration “has not been approached or achieved because nobody wants it. Blacks have always wanted to associate with themselves” (p. 44). He cites a New Jersey study that reported that “of the 13,000 Black families in the area making more than $114,000 … two-thirds chose to live in mostly Black neighborhoods.” He mentions a Black journalist’s account of a backyard gathering in an affluent Black suburb of Atlanta. “The party suddenly went silent when a realtor’s car bearing a White couple, cruised down the street. ‘I hope they don’t find anything they like,’ said one of the guests; ‘otherwise, there goes the neighborhood’” (p. 42).

During the 1960s and 1970s, when there were a number of race riots and when federal courts demanded racially balanced mixing in many school districts, the national press devoted a good deal of attention to friction between Blacks and Whites. Those tensions (and the accompanying media accounts) have subsided, thanks to White flight and a new jurisprudence that came to the fore during the tenure of Supreme Court Chief Justices William H. Rehnquist and John G. Roberts. “Now that the Supreme Court has virtually ruled out race-based student assignment,” Taylor notes, “the country is reverting to what was common in the North before the Brown decision: neighborhood schools that reflect segregated housing patterns” (p. 35). Yet there is one difference. To get away from Blacks, Whites have had to move farther and farther out into exurbs and small towns.

Of course many people who lack economic wherewithal have had no choice but to live near predominantly Black inner cities, and this situation has ensured the persistence of strife in some schools. Taylor devotes several pages to discussing the conflicts between Blacks and Hispanics. Since there is a large population of both groups in Los Angeles, the schools and neighborhoods there should be “a showcase for diversity’s strengths.” In fact, however, Hispanics and Blacks have “stubbornly defied the expectations of those who praise diversity.” For decades, the schools and neighborhoods in Los Angeles have been virtual battlegrounds.

The failure of integration has been especially evident in the nation’s prisons, where inmates have no choice but to submit to official dictates. By now, Hispanic inmates outnumber Blacks and racial tensions have been mounting. Incarcerated Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics all regard sticking together as “’Rule No. 1’ for survival,” and Taylor opines that, for prisoners and guards alike, segregation would be a blessing. “It would save lives, relieve tension and probably … improve race relations on the outside by sparing convicts racial violence that permanently embitters them.” Nevertheless, “because the United States is committed to integration, we ignore those who have the strongest case against it” (p. 75). We insist that prisoners must be racially integrated.

White Identity contains three hundred pages of evidence demonstrating that humans “prefer to live in homogeneous communities rather than endure the tension and conflict that arise from differences” (p. 135). Given the extent of this evidence, one might expect the advocates of diversity to present concrete evidence to show that heterogeneity is beneficial. Yet this has not been the case. There are occasional references to the contributions of individual immigrants, but there is no extensive research to show that diversity increases community cohesiveness or that diverse countries are happier and more peaceful than homogeneous ones. Some observers have expressed the hope that diversity of race, language, and ethnicity might become an advantage for the United States in the emerging global economy. But so far homogeneous nations like China, Japan, and South Korea have fared better than diverse rivals like Brazil, Indonesia, and the U.S.

The most persuasive argument for diversity does not come from systematic research in history or social science. It comes, rather, from an analogy — the assimilation of millions of ethnic White Americans who immigrated to the United States during the years from about 1840 to 1920. Most of these newcomers hailed from non-English speaking European countries, and they initially identified themselves by nationality, such as “Italian” or “Polish.” Eventually, however, these immigrants inter-married and became amalgamated. A new ethnic group has emerged among Whites, who now have little lingering identification with a geographic homeland and view themselves simply as “European Americans.”

Taylor attributes the successful amalgamation of different European ethnic groups to the fact that they were of the same race. He might have added that this amalgamation was also facilitated because America’s leaders at the time were committed to amalgamation for Whites but only for Whites. Theodore Roosevelt, for example, worked assiduously to unite disparate groups of Europeans into one American people, but Roosevelt insisted that the reformed population had to be White. Israel Zangwill, the author of the famous 1908 play The Melting Pot, similarly celebrated America as “God’s crucible, where all the races of Europe are melting and reforming!”

Taylor considers the modern American celebration of multi-racial diversity a form of misguided national “cheerleading” (p. 135). He writes that “almost as an accidental by-product” of the immigration reform act of 1965, “the U.S. opened itself to large numbers of non-White newcomers who are now the primary source of diversity” (p. 136). As a result of its new immigration policy, the United States, which previously been a bi-racial society that ranged from 80 to 90 percent White and 10–20 percent Black, is destined to become a multi-racial society in which no race will be a majority. In these circumstances, criticism of diversity “raises the intolerable possibility that the U.S. has been acting on mistaken assumptions for half a century” (p. 135).

Taylor nevertheless reminds readers that “even orthodoxies crumble when they are obviously wrong” (p. 137). He notes that communism failed for many reasons, “not least because it was a misreading of human nature” (p. xvi). The communists failed because they built their society on the mistaken assumption that selfishness could be abolished.

Taylor insists that America’s current leaders have also embraced “mistaken assumptions about race [that] are leading us in dangerous directions” (p. xv). The Soviet Union imploded after about 70 years, and Taylor expects that politically correct assumptions about race and diversity eventually will lead to the demise of the United States. Some readers will find it hard to accept this prospect. After all, as Taylor writes, “Americans are proud of their country and do not like to think it may have made a serious mistake” (p. 135). Taylor, however, presents himself as a teller of hard truths. For years the masthead of American Renaissance has featured Thomas Jefferson’s statement, “There is not a truth existing which I fear or would wish unknown to the whole world.”

Most modern Whites are loath to acknowledge the importance of race and ethnicity, but such has not been the case with Blacks and with recent immigrants from Latin America and Asia. “Racial identity comes naturally to all non-White groups,” Taylor writes. Thus “Blacks call each other ‘brother’ and ‘sister’ and do not hesitate to work for explicitly racial ends” (p. 290). There is general acceptance of the Black Congressional Caucus and of the fact that in general elections the great majority of Blacks, regardless of their socioeconomic or educational backgrounds, vote the same way.

“Like Blacks,” Taylor writes, “Hispanics simply put their people first.” They call their people la raza and affirm solidarity in their slogans. One group, the Chicano Student Movement proclaims, Por La Raza todo, Fuera de La Raza, nada. “For the race, everything. For those outside the race, nothing” (p. 137). Even Asians, who in the past generally tried to assimilate as individuals, have recently begun to adopt “the tactics that other groups have found successful” (p. 203). Thus one pan-Asian organization whose founders included a former lieutenant governor of Delaware and a former chancellor of the University of California, Berkeley, aims to deliver a massive 80 percent of the Asian vote to candidates who agree to its demands (p. 209).

Whites, on the other hand, “have a consciousness of race that is very different from that of minorities. They do not consciously attach much importance to the fact that they are White, and they view race as an illegitimate reason for decision-making of any kind.” Most White leaders have professed “color-blindness” as their goal, and some influential writers and scholars see the White race “as uniquely guilty and without moral standing.” Among Whites, Taylor writes, the “current assumptions about race are a dramatic reversal of the views … of the Founding Fathers [and] of the great majority of Americans up until the 1950s and 1960s” (p. 217).

The turnabout with respect to miscegenation has been especially notable. “Since colonial times the great fear of Whites was that if other races were not held at a distance the result would be a mixing that would denature the [White] race.” Today, however, many White intellectuals, on the right as well as the left, regard miscegenation with favor. Thus Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom have written that the “crumbling of the taboo on sexual relations between the two races [Black and White]” is “good news.” “My great wish,” the conservative pundit Michael Barone has written, “is that 50 years from now we will be so mixed there will be no more racial categories” (p. 237).

Writers on the left have been especially outspoken. The masthead of one publication, Race Traitor, promotes the slogan, “Treason to Whiteness is loyalty to humanity.” One of the journal’s lead editorials was entitled, “Abolish the White Race — by Any Means Necessary.” The editors did not mean that Whites should be physically eliminated, but that they should be converted to the idea that race is purely a so- cial construct and that Whites should be denied any sense of common identity (p. 230).

Mainstream writers have picked up on this theme. Thus science writers Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman regard ethnic pride is an important way to promote self-esteem among minority groups. But they draw the line at Whites: “It’s horrifying to imagine kids being ‘proud to be White.” Writing in The New Yorker, journalist James Traub similarly declared that when it comes to any discussion of race, Whites must acknowledge that they are the offending party, the perpetrators “of innumerable past hurts and misdeeds.” And Joe Klein, in New York Magazine, wrote that Whites should begin any conversation about race with a confession: “It’s our fault; we’re racists” (pp. 231–232).

The Black writer Shelby Steele included some especially forceful comments in his book White Guilt (2006). “Beyond an identity that apologizes for white supremacy, absolutely no white identity is permissible. In fact, if there is a white racial identity today it would have to be white guilt — a shared, even unifying, lack of racial and moral authority.” By way of explanation, Steele called attention to “the extraordinary human evil” that Whites have exhibited at one time or another. Steele made light of instances of slavery, conquest, genocide, and repression by non-Whites — instances that persist to this day in parts of Africa and Asia. Instead, he wrote, “no group in recent history has more aggressively seized power in the name of its racial superiority than Western whites. This race illustrated for all time — through colonialism, slavery, white racism, Nazism — the extraordinary human evil that follows when great power is joined to an atavistic sense of superiority and destiny. That is why today’s whites, the world over, cannot openly have a racial identity.”

Many commentators have noted that the civil rights movement initially focused on eliminating non-merit based discrimination but later shifted to the goal of promoting “diversity.” Demands for “equal opportunity” eventually were supplanted by demands for “equality of results.” Until recently, I focused on this transition when I thought about my own estrangement from the civil rights movement. I had begun with the belief that it was wrong for the government to discriminate among citizens on the basis of race. And I had also opposed racial discrimination by private companies that were doing business with the general public. But I never questioned the right to discriminate in choosing one’s friends, and I was opposed to affirmative racial discrimination.

More recently, as a result of reading White Identity and seeing some of the statements that have been chiseled in stone at the Martin Luther King Monument in Washington, I have had additional second thoughts about the civil rights movement. The statements point to the universalist elements in King’s thought. One proclaims. “Our loyalties must transcend our race, our tribe, our class, and our nation; and this means we must develop a world perspective.” Another declares, “Every nation must now develop an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole.”

In point of fact, as Taylor shows, whatever Martin Luther King may have intended, King’s rhetoric eventually led to yet another transition in the civil rights movement — from eliminating racial discrimination to destroying White identity. As Taylor explains, it turned out that “Whites — but only Whites — must never take pride in their own people. Only Whites must pretend they do not prefer to associate with people like themselves” (p. 290). Non-Whites may “celebrate their growing numbers — just as Whites once did.” But contemporary White people, “not only in America but around the world, [must] cheerfully contemplate their disappearance as a distinct people” (p. 239).

Of course Whites are not yet extinct. In the United States, they have not been completely dispossessed. But Taylor notes that White Americans have already been compelled to surrender many jobs to the beneficiaries of affirmative discrimination. Whites have been required to bear the expense of providing education and welfare and medical care for increasing numbers of non-Whites. And as more cities come to resemble Detroit and more of the countryside resembles Mexico, Whites have come to feel ill-at-ease in growing portions of the United States. If Whites do not regain a sense of unity and confidence, Taylor opines, the dispossession will continue and Whites will be “pushed aside by people who have a very clear sense of their interests” (pp. 291–292). “Americans must open their eyes to the fact that a changing population could change everything in America. The United States could come to resemble the developing world rather than Europe — in some places it already does” (p. 286).

Taylor finds some solace in the phenomenon of implicit Whiteness. He notes that most Whites, although not openly challenging the precepts of racial correctness, nevertheless take comfort with their own people. “Their actions betray them,” Taylor writes. Whites “leave long-established neighborhoods and institutions when their numbers drop below a certain level of comfort” (p. 290). Whites also cluster together when it comes to choosing restaurants and entertainments and vacation destinations. America’s modern leaders “insist that ‘diversity’ is a great strength, but for most Americans this is mere lip service. They rarely seek diversity in their personal lives, living instead in homogeneous islands that look nothing like the racial and cultural mix this country has become. Anti-discrimination laws ensure integration at work, at school, and in public, but in private the races generally separate. A dinner party, poker game, wedding reception, church service, or backyard barbecue is rarely a multi-racial mosaic” (p. xiv).

At a subconscious level, Whites understand that “the deeper loyalties of most people are to their own group —their extended family.” They implicitly understand that, just as members of a family are close because they are related biologically, so “race is the largest extended family to which [people] feel an instinctive kinship” (p. 290). Taylor’s goal is to make these understandings explicit.

A nagging question arises. If group consciousness is instinctive and deeply rooted in mankind’s evolutionary past, why have Whites, at least at a conscious level, been so acquiescent with respect to their own deracination? Many readers of The Occidental Quarterly have found the answer in the work of Kevin MacDonald. In The Culture of Critique (1998) and Cultural Insurrections (2004), MacDonald has shown that Jews, driven by both an evolutionary strategy and an historic sense of grievance against White Christians, have relentlessly criticized White societies and have pathologized White identity (and only White identity).

In the United States, Jews have also used their disproportionate wealth and influence to promote the immigration law of 1965, which created the conditions that, within a few decades, will result in non-Whites becoming a majority of the American population. Jewish spokesmen regarded this “reform” as a great victory for their ethny, with Charles Silberman explaining that many Jews harbor a belief — “one firmly rooted in history — that [they] are safe only in a society acceptant of a wide range of … ethnic groups.” Earl Raab has further explained that, thanks to the immigration of non-Whites, “we have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country.”

Changing America’s immigration policy was but one of several methods by which influential Jews undermined the hegemony of Whites. Other methods included fostering the civil rights movement, gaining control of the major media, and exercising disproportionate influence over financial institutions and several academic disciplines.

There has been much discussion of the “capture” of some of these fields — from anthropology to Hollywood to Wall Street — and a similar development has occurred in my own area of expertise, history. In his 1962 presidential address to the American Historical Association, Carl Bridenbaugh noted that “many of the younger practitioners of our craft, and those who are still apprentices, are products of lower middle-class or foreign origins.” As such, Bridenbaugh observed, these newcomers found “themselves in a very real sense outside in our past and feel themselves left out.” Bridenbaugh wondered if this rising generation of alienated young scholars would appreciate the values of those who had led America in the past, or would a new generation of self-consciously ethnic scholars transform academic American history into a critique of the nation’s shortcomings.

Time has proved that Bridenbaugh was on to something. Since he spoke in 1962, the plot line in major textbooks has shifted from the rise of the American nation to a critique of historic failings and a celebration of ethnic diversity. “The growth of the American republic” has given way to particularistic discussions of “race, class, and gender.” In another presidential address to the American Historical Association, in 2008, Gabrielle M. Spiegel discussed a related development — a growing focus on “questions of diaspora … and the rapidly developing field of transnational history.” Spiegel welcomed her colleagues’ celebration of the fact that, instead of regarding themselves as essentially “Americans,” a growing number of U. S. citizens — especially Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians — had begun to emulate the approach of some Jewish sojourners. They were developing “de-territorialized identities.” They no longer identified with their “hostlands” but instead regarded themselves as part of dispersed ethnic communities.

My experience as an historian thus predisposes me to agree with Kevin MacDonald. It seems to me that Jews have played a major role in shaping the understanding of identity in modern America. They have fostered the growth of a diasporic consciousness among immigrants from Africa, Asia, and Latin America while, paradoxically, finding fault with American Whites and stigmatizing a resurgence of White identity.

Jared Taylor sees things differently. He finds it hard to believe that a group that makes up less than 3 percent of America’s total population can exercise decisive influence. [...]

By Charles Murray
New York, NY: Crown Forum, 2012

Reviewed by F. Roger Devlin

At 416 pages, Coming Apart is Charles Murray’s most substantial offering since 2003’s Human Accomplishment. It continues a theme familiar to readers of The Bell Curve: increasing American social stratification. Murray focuses on whites because otherwise the social trends he describes might lazily be explained away as effects of demographic change; he demonstrates that the trends are almost wholly unaffected by race or immigration. As he notes, a constant focus on how racial minorities ‘lag’ whites serves to distract attention from important changes in the benchmark population itself.

The author begins with a description of American life on the eve of the Kennedy assassination, highlighting everything which would shock the younger generation: just three TV channels; no Thai restaurants; ‘coffee’ meant Maxwell House. If you missed a movie when it was in the theaters, you would not get to see it at all.

The products of the entertainment industry still usually validated American norms. Subjects such as abortion and homosexuality were never touched upon in television shows, only rarely and disapprovingly in movies. Most liberals were willing to say that extramarital sex was wrong. Only three and one-half percent of American families were headed by a divorced parent. In many neighborhoods, houses were left unlocked and children could go about unsupervised.

But American women had “much to be outraged about,” the author tells us, such as being expected to marry and have children! If Murray gets portrayed as a ‘hard-rightist,’ it is only because presenting data honestly is now all such a designation requires or implies.

Such class differentiation as existed in 1963 was only reluctantly acknowledged: ninety-five percent of Americans described themselves as either working class or middle class. Poor people refused to think of themselves as lower class, and rich people were almost as reluctant to be considered upper class. A typical house in exclusive Chevy Chase, Maryland cost only twice as much as the nationwide average. People who could afford luxury cars often refrained from a fear of seeming ‘ostentatious’ – an old protestant pejorative which has now mostly disappeared from American English.

This was still recognizably the American society observed by Tocqueville one-hundred-thirty years before: “In the United States, the more opulent citizens take great care not to stand aloof from the people. On the contrary, they constantly keep on easy terms with the lower classes: they listen to them, they speak to them every day.”

The people who had risen to the top in 1963 had little in common except their success. Most had grown up in middle-class or working-class families, and they retained the preferences and tastes of those milieus. Their status was precarious, and often not successfully transmitted across even a single generation. In other words, America was ruled by a rapidly circulating elite, not by an upper class. (The “old money” families of Philadelphia, New York and Boston were an exception, but their numbers were tiny and as a class they had no influence on the nation’s destiny.)

Coming Apart tells the story of how this equilibrium was upset in the years that followed. Murray first discusses the rise of a new upper class; then, turning to the opposite end of the social scale, he shows how the white working class has deteriorated into a proletariat.

The new upper class is a product of our higher-tech economy, which relies heavily on people with exceptional cognitive abilities. A young person with outstanding mathematical ability might formerly have aspired to become a college professor; today he can make a killing writing code or managing a quant fund. Business decision-making has also become more complex and the stakes are higher. “Today, if a first-rate attorney can add ten percent to the probability of getting a favorable decision on a regulatory ruling worth hundreds of millions of dollars, he is worth his many-hundreds-of-dollars-per-hour rate.”

The more efficient exploitation of cognitive ability has created enormous new wealth, but the benefits have been concentrated heavily at the very top of the income distribution. For over half of America, income has remained flat in real terms since around 1970.

American Family Income Distribution

Economic change alone cannot explain how this new elite has become a self-perpetuating class. For this we must look at postwar developments in higher education.

At one time, geography largely determined where most people went to college; even the Ivy League catered to the Northeastern social elite rather than the cognitive elite of the entire nation. Since the 1960s, however, our higher education system has come to function as a sorting mechanism for grouping youngsters according to intellectual ability. An American’s cognitive ability can, with ever-increasing exactness, be inferred from the college he attended.

Murray defines the cognitive elite as the top five centiles of cognitive ability. By 2000, just forty-one schools took in half these students. Today, “the typical classroom in an elite school has no one outside the top decile of cognitive ability, and many who are in the top hundredth or thousandth.”

As the author notes, most Americans’ notion of meritocracy is that all the brainy kids scattered across the fruited plains should be offered the same chance to develop their talents. The social class of one’s parents is not supposed to matter. This is not how things worked out, for two reasons: 1) cognitive ability is significantly heritable, and 2) it is now the major determinant of social status.

College education occupies young people during their prime mate-seeking years. Combine this fact with the cognitive sorting now performed by the college admissions process and you get intellectual homogamy: people marrying those with similar cognitive ability. This level of ability tends rather strongly to get passed on to their offspring. Most children within the cognitive elite have parents with an average IQ of 117 or more. Only about 14 percent of them are produced by parents from the bottom half of the distribution.

So while the brilliant son of a plumber from Podunk will still occasionally break into the Ivy League, there will never be enough others like him to determine the character of those schools. Most of his classmates will come from affluent families, and a disproportionate number from the new upper class itself. American meritocracy has ended up producing something like a hereditary upper class.

As Murray acknowledges, this new class has its virtues: they are well-mannered, make good neighbors, seldom get divorced, are devoted parents, careful about their health, and make sincere efforts to be socially responsible. At times, such virtues are driven to comic excess. The obsessive parenting of the new upper class has earned them the nickname “helicopter parents” from harried college administrators. Certain members insist upon drinking their fair-trade organically-grown coffee only from recycled mugs. Others not only jog and take the latest vitamin supplement daily, but react with moral abhorrence to second-hand smoke and saturated fats. The author recommends David Brooks’ Bobos in Paradise as a witty anthropological description of this new ‘bourgeois bohemian’ class.

“The culture of the new upper class carries with it an unmistakable whiff of ‘we’re better than the rabble,’” observes Murray. So, as a technical term to designate that class’s members, he suggests “Overeducated Elitist Snobs.” (The small-town Iowa boy still shows through Murray’s Harvard varnish.) He even includes a quiz by which the reader can gauge his own level of elitist snobbery. If you don’t know who Jimmie Johnson is, you may be in trouble.

Like everyone else, Overeducated Elitist Snobs prefer to live near others who share their background, tastes and concerns. Once they concentrate in significant numbers in any neighborhood, they inevitably begin to reshape it in their own image.

When Murray was at Harvard between 1961 and 1965, he reports, the students and professors of Cambridge, Massachusetts did not command the necessary critical mass. The town had some funky bookshops and folk-music joints, but the local eateries still catered to the working class majority. Harvard kids still rubbed shoulders with ordinary Americans.

Over the following generation, the working class was driven out by high-tech professionals and research organizations. Greasy-spoon diners gave way to gourmet espresso bars. A geographical and mental bubble grew up around the inhabitants of Cambridge.

The same process has been occurring in other college towns, the Philadelphia suburbs, Austin, TX, Seattle and elsewhere. These places have become the ‘Bourgeois Bohemian Paradises’ where you can find asiago-encrusted focaccia served with tarragon-infused olive oil after midnight.

To define such neighborhoods objectively, Murray created a scoring system that combined average income with percentage of college graduates. Then he ranked zip code areas nationwide. Those with scores in the top five centiles he designated “SuperZips.” There are 882 of them in America.

As of 2000, the SuperZips were still eighty-two percent white (including Jewish), while the percentage of whites in the rest of the country had sunk to just sixty-eight. Asians were eight percent in SuperZips, three in the rest of the country. Blacks and Latinos were three percent each in SuperZips, but twelve and six, respectively, elsewhere. A second edition of Coming Apart will update these figures from 2010 census data.

SuperZips tend to cluster together. The four largest clusters surround New York, Washington, San Francisco and Los Angeles, which together account for thirty-nine percent of America’s SuperZip inhabitants. Smaller clusters are associated with Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Dallas and Houston. Large swaths of America contain no such zip codes.

Why is the clustering of SuperZips important? “A class that makes decisions affecting the lives of everyone else, but doesn’t know much about how everybody else lives, is vulnerable to making mistakes.” They think having cheap Central American gardeners and nannies is terrific. It doesn’t occur to them that the policies which provide their servants also result in Blacks shot dead in the streets of South Central Los Angeles or less affluent White families forced to flee to Colorado. (My example, not Murray’s)

It will come as no surprise that a class so alienated from the lives and concerns of ordinary Americans tends to be liberal. This tendency is especially strong in the four largest SuperZip clusters around New York, Washington, San Francisco and Los Angeles. Conservative SuperZips of a sort can be found elsewhere, but the inhabitants are reading The Wall Street Journal, not The Occidental Quarterly. Murray emphasizes that the shared culture of the new upper class is remarkably constant across the political spectrum.

After a hundred-odd pages on Overeducated Elitist Snobs, Coming Apart shifts its focus to the bottom end of the social spectrum: the new lower class. In the older America, ‘lower-class’ referred only to blacks, “the broken down denizens of the Bowery and Skid Row, or the people known as white trash.” Apart from blacks, such people were numerically insignificant. The working class was something altogether different. Indeed,

for most of its history, working-class America was America. In 1900, 90 percent of American workers were employed in low-level white-collar or technical jobs, manual and service jobs, or worked on farms. Even in 1960, 81 percent of workers were still employed in those jobs.

Most of America’s ‘poor’ were simply working-class people who didn’t make a lot of money.

Since the 1960s, white working-class America has suffered a catastrophic decline in virtue. Referring explicitly to Aristotle, Murray defines virtue as the habits which people require to live satisfying lives and which communities require to function as communities. A well-policed authoritarian state may be able to carry on after a fashion, if not prosper, in the absence of the virtues. America, however, has traditionally allowed its citizens a large measure of personal freedom:

Americans were subject to criminal law, which forbade the usual crimes against person and property, and to tort law, which regulated civil disputes. But otherwise, Americans faced few legal restrictions on their freedom of action and no legal obligations to their neighbors except to refrain from harming them. The guides to their behavior at any more subtle level had to come from within.

Such internal principles are precisely what the now-unfashionable term ‘virtue’ signifies. Murray distinguishes four virtues which have been especially important in the history of America: industriousness, honesty, marriage, and religiosity.

Industriousness refers to “the bone-deep American assumption that life is to be spent getting ahead through hard work, making a better life for oneself and one’s children.” Henry Adams pointed out that the spirit of industriousness affected those on the bottom of American society more powerfully than those on the top:

Reversing the old-world system, the American stimulant increased in energy as it reached the lowest and most ignorant class, whirling them upward as in the blast of a furnace. The penniless and homeless Scotch or Irish immigrant was caught and consumed by it; for every stroke of the axe and the hoe made him a capitalist, and made gentlemen of his children.

America was understood by both natives and immigrants as a land of opportunity, and the most characteristically American of virtues was the industriousness which permitted Americans to take advantage of their opportunities.

Honesty is a necessary precondition for a republican constitution and a free market. One Scottish visitor remarked upon the tedious regularity with which Americans would ask him whether he did not admire “the extraordinary respect which the people pay to the law.” Our limited data indicate a very low crime rate in early America: one study of Middlesex County, Massachusetts, found an average rate of prosecution for theft of 2.7 per 10,000 population between 1760 and 1810. Tocqueville remarked upon how few public officers were charged with apprehending crime. Sympathy for criminals was nearly non-existent.

Marriage is properly an institution rather than a virtue, of course, but it involves the exercise of certain virtues: loyalty and sexual temperance at a minimum, usually patience as well. There is little explicit evidence for the importance of marriage in early American society because the matter was regarded as self-evident; indeed, our current confusion about the nature and purpose of marriage has no precedent in history.

Some observers, however, did remark on the seriousness with which Americans took their marital vows. Tocqueville wrote that Americans “consider marriage as a covenant which is often onerous, but every condition of which the parties are strictly bound to fulfill.” And the Austrian-born immigrant Francis Grund said: “I consider the domestic virtue of the Americans as the principle source of all their other qualities.”

When Murray named his fourth American virtue ‘religiosity,’ I suspected it might be simply an unforthright way of saying ‘Christianity.’ Yet it is not specifically Christian doctrine he has in mind. In part, religiosity consists in the ethical monotheism bequeathed to Christendom by the Old Testament. John Adams, who was fully cognizant of America’s debt to Greece and Rome, wrote:

I will insist that the Hebrews have done more to civilize men than any other nation [by propagating] to all mankind the doctrine of a supreme, intelligent, wise, almighty sovereign of the universe, which I believe to be the great essential principle of all morality, and consequently of all civilization.

Religion is also a crucial source of what sociologists call ‘social capital.’ Robert Putnam (Bowling Alone) has noted that “nearly half of all associational memberships are church-related, half of all personal philanthropy is religious in character, and half of all volunteering occurs in a religious context.” But this is not all: religious persons also account for a disproportionate share of social capital which is not explicitly religious:

People who say religion is very important to them are much more likely than other persons to visit friends, to entertain at home, to attend club meetings, and to belong to sports groups; professional and academic societies; youth groups; service clubs; hobby or garden clubs; literary, art, discussion and study groups; fraternities and sororities; farm organizations; political clubs; nationality groups; and other miscellaneous groups.

And Putnam is referring to religion’s role in society today!

The decline in the four American virtues was preceded, as the author points out, by a subtle change in American thinking:

The belief that being a good American involved behaving in certain kinds of ways, and that the nation itself relied upon a certain kind of people in order to succeed, had begun to fade [by 1950] and has not revived. It came to be tacitly assumed that the American system itself would work under any circumstances as long as we got the laws right.

Murray then documents that decline, restricting his study to white Americans between the ages of 30 and 49 (‘prime age adults’), who have normally completed their educations and are engaged in careers and/or raising families. Within this set, he defines the working class as those with no more than a high school diploma, who work in blue collar, service, or low-level white collar jobs, or are not working. In 1960, this class included sixty-four percent of prime age Whites; by 2010, it had shrunk to thirty. The author’s principle finding is that the decline in the four American virtues has been steepest among this class.

According to a widespread perception, more prosperous Americans have become highly secular, while those in modest circumstances have tended to remain religious. Murray’s data do not bear this out. According to the annual General Social Survey (GSS), unbelievers account for twenty-one percent of the working class, slightly higher than the figure for the upper middle class.

But besides outright unbelievers, there is a larger set of people who may feel they ‘ought’ to be more religious, and who state a religious preference, but also acknowledge they do not attend worship services more than once a year. Murray denominates this group the “de facto seculars.” It is here that the decline in working class religiosity becomes especially apparent. Adding the two classes together, we find the total level of secularization approaching sixty percent. For the upper middle class, the figure is still around forty, though also growing.

Of working class whites who remain religious, an increasing share has turned to fundamentalist denominations. Such groups are more inclined to wear their religious commitments on their sleeves. Murray believes the increase in these high-profile believers explains the misperception that the working class as a whole has remained religious.

Criminal statistics show a large rise in crime affecting the white working class. Murray computes the proportion of prisoners in the adult working class population and finds that between 1974 and 2004 it grew by a factor of five. The corresponding statistics for the upper middle class are extremely low and remained largely unchanged during the same period.

There has been a well-publicized forty percent drop in crime since 1991, but this does not necessarily reflect a decline in criminality. The American prison population has exploded during the same period. We may just be getting better at locking criminals up.

Criminal statistics clearly do not tell the whole story of the decline in honesty. As Murray observes: “It would be nice to know if there have been trends in the consistency with which people keep their word, insist on taking personal responsibility for their mistakes, and tell the cashier when they have been given too much change.” But it is not easy to find data of this type. He does mention that the “a quadrupling of personal bankruptcies over a period [1986-2005] that included one of the most prosperous decades in American history looks suspiciously like a decline in personal integrity.” He was unable to disaggregate this data by social class.

Murray illustrates his statistics with anecdotes concerning a largely white working class neighborhood in Philadelphia called Fishtown. Back in the early 1970s, the place was the despair of social workers, who could not understand why residents would be disinclined to have governmental ‘help’ administered to them; one concluded they were “psychologically unable to face up to their social, cultural and economic deprivation.” Unfortunately, Fishtown has made a lot of progress since then.

In earlier days, the neighborhood was strongly Catholic. Most children attended parochial school, and “the church’s teachings—among others, that the home is a domestic church—gave validation to the core values of Fishtown.” By the late 1990s, one sociologist described religious observance thus:

Typical attire for most men at mass [includes] blue jeans, sneakers, and “Eagles” jackets with hoods. Older people and some younger parents in their 20s and 30s genuflected before entering the pews. I did not see any children performing this ritual, or saying any prayers for that matter. Most were standing around with their coats on throughout the service; they looked rather blank.

One Fishtown parochial school closed due to low enrollment in 2006; a second followed in 2011.

Crime was not much of a problem in earlier days, when residents sometimes administered rough justice without resorting to the police. If you found your car broken into, “you went to where the [glue sniffers] hung out, bashed some heads and found out who did it easy enough.” Even the local gangs “were kind of like vigilantes—beat the crap out of thieves, dopeheads, etc.”

When intact families were the rule in Fishtown, there was a great deal of solidarity between them:

If a neighbor saw a child misbehaving, it was considered appropriate for the neighbor to intervene. The parents would be grateful when they found out, and they would take the word of the neighbor if the child protested his innocence.

The increasingly common unmarried and divorced Fishtowners are less likely to behave this way today, and many parents try to curry favor with their children through lax discipline. One Fishtown woman’s apathy at the deteriorating situation has become so conspicuous that it has earned her the nickname “Not-my-kid Sue.”

Perhaps the biggest changes to come over white working-class neighborhoods like Fishtown in recent decades has been a decline in marriage. In 1960, over eighty percent of prime age working class whites were married; the figure has since plummeted to around fifty. Meanwhile, the number who have never married has risen from under ten percent to about twenty-five. He claims the increase “was driven mostly by the retreat of men from the marriage market.”

The decline in marriage has impaired the happiness of adults, but it has been catastrophic for the rising generation. Whether one considers delinquency, criminality, school problems, physical or emotional health or early mortality, children do best when raised by biological parents who remain married and worst when raised by a single mother (results for children of divorced parents fall in the middle).

The number of children born to white, unwed mothers has skyrocketed from three percent in 1960 to nearly thirty percent today. For mothers without a high school diploma, the figure is now around sixty percent. Many of these mothers are teenagers, and their children often end up being raised by the grandparents. Yet among mothers with a college degree, the proportion of unmarried births has yet to rise above three percent.

As marriage has declined, so has male industriousness. White men with only a high school education began dropping out of the labor force in the 1970s; the figure stood at twelve percent on the eve of the current recession. Since the 1980s, working class men have also become more likely than the American population as a whole to be unemployed (but seeking work), and twenty percent of them with employment of some kind are working fewer than forty hours a week. Murray sees no explanation for this, merely noting that it mainly affects the working class. I shall offer some thoughts of my own below.

One small but telling statistic concerns working class men who claim to be unable to work due to a physical disability. As the author notes, this figure must have gone down since 1960, given medical advances and the proliferation of labor saving devices. Yet it has risen from two percent to an utterly incredible ten percent. Disability has become a racket.

A time-use study cited by Murray reveals that “between 1985 and 2005, men who had not completed high school increased their leisure time by eight hours a week.” The greatest share of this increase was devoted to television viewing, followed by sleeping.

Murray recognizes the strong correlation between the declines in marriage and in male industriousness. Unmarried men are over three and a half times more likely to be out of the labor force than married men, between two and three more times likely to be unemployed but looking, and at least half again as likely to be working fewer than forty hours a week. Some of this difference is due to the preference of women for hardworking men, but more is probably due to the effect on men of marriage itself.

These patterns are also apparent in the history of Fishtown. One local mother reported that her sixteen-year-old daughter had been to six baby showers in four months—just a modest fraction of her fifty-two pregnant classmates. The mother estimated the comparable number from her own youth at around four per year.

A nun teaching at this same Catholic school remarks that some women in the neighborhood are married to men who seem less like husbands than extra sons: “There are women with two bags of groceries in their hands, children hanging on to both sides of their coats, and the husband with his computer game walking behind her down the street. There’s something wrong here!”

One group of Fishtown men calls itself the Sunshine Club. They work summers on the Jersey Shore, then get “some stupid job for a couple of months just to get time in to collect unemployment for the rest of the year until summer rolled around again.”

Another set of men prefer to live off their girlfriends‘ welfare checks; they are known as ‘runners,’ because they must constantly move to keep one step ahead of child support collectors, the police, their girlfriends or their children.

Murray writes that “being a single mother is tough, and it is appropriate to sympathize with women who are in that situation.” He does not say it is appropriate to be sympathetic to the manchildren of Fishtown, and most readers will be left with the impression that what they need is a good kick in the pants. Yet I wonder whether the same factors did not produce the undesirable behavior of both men and women that he notes today.

In the America of 1963, a high school graduate might expect to find a job which would allow him to marry and permit his wife the leisure to stay home raising a few children. He could buy a freestanding house and a car, and still afford to take the family on a two week vacation every summer. The wife would have been reared with a view to preparing her for the duties of marriage and motherhood; she may even have taken ‘Home Ec’ in school.

Then gradually, beginning in the 1960s, women became convinced marriage was an imposition to be ‘outraged’ about. Helen Gurley Brown began whispering in their ears that an independent career path could be filled with exciting romances involving attractive men, free of the ‘drudgery’ to which marriage consigned their mothers. The family income was abolished in favor of ‘equal pay for equal work.’ The law was changed to permit women to divorce their husbands unilaterally and without grounds. (Wives are responsible for around ninety percent of divorces.)

None of this much affects the men at the top of the income and status hierarchy. They make enough money that even women with personal incomes perceive them as supporters and are willing to marry them. If a wife leaves after the baby is born, child support payments are manageable and a replacement wife is easily found.

The Fishtown girls who might have married working men in 1960 may well be earning more than such men today just by sitting at desks entering data. They can obtain higher quality sperm from more desirable men without submitting to the constraints of lifelong monogamy; the ‘ex’ and/or the taxpayer is made to provide for any resulting children. They even enjoy the sympathy of male commentators for the terrible hardship all this supposedly represents. Is it any wonder such women are reluctant to devote their lives to raising the children of ill-paid construction workers?

The contemporary Fishtown man, his wages reduced by female competition and the ever-decreasing market value of upper-body strength, has correspondingly slim chances of earning enough to make himself an acceptable suitor to any woman with an income of her own. These men are not ‘retreating from the marriage market’; they are being driven from it as a matter of deliberate policy.

Even if a particular working class man beats the odds and finds a girl to marry, he cannot expect the satisfaction of supporting her; she may well end up supporting him. And what self-respecting man wants to end up like that poor sap uselessly tagging along behind his wife who just bought all the groceries?

But this is still not the worst. Prospective husbands stand a good chance of losing everything in the divorce settlement within a few years of the wedding. Child support is not so easy when it must be paid through low-skilled labor. Even if you avoid being jailed as a ‘deadbeat dad,’ you will certainly not have enough left over to contemplate a second marriage.

In short, the American dream of a home and family through honest labor is now far out of reach for an increasing number of low-status men. Under these circumstances, what is such a man to do with his life? I’d say an unconstrained bachelor existence with plenty of time for amusements looks very much like a rational choice. The male commentariat may make you out to be a bum, but that sure beats years of performing all the hard work traditionally required to support a family and then not getting the family.

Aristotle understood that certain virtues have social presuppositions: liberality, for example, can hardly be expected from persons living hand-to-mouth. Male industriousness, I would suggest, also presupposes certain social arrangements. Monogamy and the family wage system give you the Irish immigrant who strives to make gentlemen of his children with every blow of his axe; liberated women earning equal pay for their equal work bring forth the men of the Sunshine Club.

So single motherhood and the decline in male industriousness our author describes cannot be spirited away simply by getting men and women to the altar. ‘Outrageous’ though it may seem to a generation steeped in feminist propaganda, the natural economic basis of marriage must also be restored. White men are programmed by evolution to be providers. If you deliberately rearrange society to render this function superfluous, do you have any right to complain when men stop knocking themselves out to perform it?

Murray goes on to describe “the selective collapse of American community”—selective because, so far, it has largely spared the upper middle class.

One of the best known passages in Democracy in America discusses how ‘Americans are forever forming associations,’ and a look at almost any American locality one hundred years ago reveals a complicated interweaving of fraternal, charitable, educational, civic and religious associations busily engaged in all sorts of activities. Biographies of eminent Americans of years gone by are apt to include so bewildering a variety of memberships that the modern reader is left wondering how anyone could have found time for all of them.

Another defining quality of American society was the extent of its neighborliness, i.e., voluntary assistance among unrelated people who happen to live alongside one another. This made the community in which one grew up an important aspect of an American’s identity. One reason the Fishtown of years gone by was so dear to the people who lived there was that neighbors helped one another, looking out for one another’s children and informally exchanging services.

By the 2000s, seventy-five percent of Fishtown residents were socially disengaged, meaning that they no longer belonged to any “sports clubs, hobby clubs, fraternal organizations, nationality organizations (e.g., Sons of Italy) or veterans groups.” Eighty-two percent were civically disengaged, meaning they belonged to no “service groups, youth groups (e.g., being a Scoutmaster), school service groups or local political organizations.”

Much of this decline is due to the erosion of social trust: the expectation that the people around you will do the right thing. Whites’ estimation of the trustworthiness, fairness and helpfulness of others has declined across the board, but that of working class neighborhoods has declined more steeply and from an already lower base.

Robert Putnam’s research has demonstrated that social trust erodes as ethnic diversity increases. This erosion occurs even within each particular ethnic group in a multi-ethnic neighborhood. (Putnam suppressed these results for several years, embarrassed that they contradicted liberal happy-talk.)

The author expresses the hope that the distrust which has accompanied ethnic diversification will diminish over time, but acknowledges that this is only a hope. Of course, we never had to take the gamble: it was decided upon for us by irresponsible elites who have bought their own way out of all the negative consequences.

Murray moves on to a fine discussion of happiness in the spirit of Aristotle. He identifies four principle factors that go to make up a successful human life: family, vocation, community and faith. It is not difficult to see how each of these components of the good life is related, respectively, to the virtues of marriage, industriousness, honesty and religiosity. Easy as it is to ridicule the old Stoic doctrine that virtue equals happiness, it is also easy to demonstrate a high correlation between the two, especially on the level of society as a whole. A hardworking nation of harmonious families actively involved with one another and living according to the tenets of a generally accepted religious teaching—this is about the closest approach to blessedness compatible with the human condition.

Crunching the data on reported happiness, Murray finds that marriage and vocation are the two most important factors. There is also a strong synergy between them: the benefit from a satisfying vocation (often but not always one’s paid employment) combined with a happy family life is greater than the sum of each considered separately.

It seems reasonably clear that religion plays a significant role in human flourishing, but the precise nature of its role remains elusive. In Murray’s data set, only twenty-three percent of those who never attend religious services describe themselves as ‘very happy.’ This figure gradually rises in tandem with frequency of attendance, reaching forty-nine percent among those who attend more than weekly. Mere belief does not seem to do anything for people apart from participation in worship services and the life of a congregation; on the other hand, Murray’s data do not support Pascal’s famous recommendation that merely going through the motions will cure unbelief.

I can think of one significant fact which seems to fly in the face of the religiosity-happiness correlation: Denmark, with the highest self-reported happiness in the world, is also the most secular nation in Europe. I have no explanation for this.

High levels of community involvement also correlate positively with reported happiness. Volunteering and charitable giving make the biggest difference, but group membership and activities, informal social interaction and even electoral politics also produce benefits.

Income, once it rises above the subsistence level, does not correlate well with reported happiness: “there is no inherent barrier to happiness for a person with a low level of education holding a low-skill job.” But all the virtues that do promote happiness are presently deteriorating among lower-income Americans.

Toward the end of the book, Murray integrates nonwhites into his data. “It was a surprise to me and perhaps it will be a surprise to you: Expanding the data to include all Americans makes hardly any difference at all.” From this he infers:

We are one nation, indivisible, in terms of whites and people of color. Differences in the fortunes of different ethnic groups persist, but white America is not headed in one direction and nonwhite America in another.

I don’t believe this optimistic conclusion is warranted, for two reasons. Firstly, it is contradicted by Robert Putnam’s evidence that racial diversity adversely affects social trust. Murray’s warning—“don’t kid yourselves that we are looking at stresses that could be remedied by restricting immigration”—is unconvincing in this context. Stopping and reversing ethnic diversification might not restore the American sense of community all by itself, but there is every reason to expect it would do a great deal of good.

Secondly, racial conflict tends to express itself politically, and hence tends not to show up in the sorts of social surveys from which the author derived his data set; in Murray’s terminology, it is an artifact of the study. It is true whites have begun suffering from a number of problems formerly associated with the black underclass, but this newfound community in vice and social pathology no more makes whites and blacks indivisible than our pre-existing solidarity in wearing shoes or watching television. If anything, a mutual decline in virtue is likely to intensify political conflict over government benefits.

America in the early twenty-first century is still a powerful and prosperous country but, as the author observes, it is rapidly losing the special qualities which made it a distinctive nation. He compares the process to the transition from republic to empire in ancient Rome:

In terms of wealth, military might, and territorial reach, Rome was at its peak under the emperors. But Rome’s initial downward step, five centuries before the eventual fall of the Western Roman Empire, was the loss of the republic. Was that loss important? Not in material terms, but for Romans who treasured the republic, it was a tragedy that no amount of imperial splendor could redeem.

By analogy, the soul of America was the unprecedented freedom it granted private citizens to shape their lives as they wished, leaving them to face the consequences of their own behavior. The very fabric of American society grew out of such freedom, as Murray explains:

Marriage is a strong and vital institution because the family has the responsibility for doing important things that won’t get done unless the family does them. Communities are strong and vital because the community has the responsibility for doing important things that won’t get done unless the community does them. [From such responsibility,] an elaborate web of expectations, rewards, and punishments evolves over time that leads to norms of good behavior that support families and communities in performing their functions. When the government says it will take some of the trouble out of doing the things that families and communities evolved to do, the web frays [and behavior deteriorates].

In essence, this is what is happening to America, and the poorest, least educated class has been first to feel the effects. The disease is progressive, however, since the welfare state inevitably tries to palliate the unfortunate results it produces by assuming still greater responsibilities. But this process cannot go on forever, and eventually civilization becomes unsustainable.

Can America expect five hundred years of imperial grandeur before the final curtain? Apparently, Murray thinks so. Nothing in Coming Apart surprised me as much as the following passage which occurs early on:

The economic dynamics that have produced the class society I deplore have fostered the blossoming of America’s human capital. These dynamics will increase, not diminish, our competitiveness on the world stage in the years ahead. Nor do I forecast decline in America’s military and diplomatic supremacy.

I take this to mean that the new economy’s success in turning high intelligence to account more than makes up for the inefficiencies of the welfare state and military adventurism.

Many nationalists treat it as axiomatic that the Washington regime’s ability to squander its subjects’ wealth, courage and ingenuity will eventually overcome any possible economic arrangement. If Murray is correct, however, the post-collapse strategy recommended by nationalist luminaries such as Guillaume Faye and Yggdrasil could prove dangerously mistaken.

Murray has his own version of the ‘worse is better’ strategy, however, involving the increasingly obvious unsustainability of the welfare state. When the large nations of Northern Europe begin falling into chaos of the sort Greece has recently experienced, it is just possible that Americans will reconsider their options and change direction in time. Alternatively, the irrationality of our own welfare system may soon become apparent to even the dimmest social democrat. Whatever the merits of the welfare state’s core goal—providing a basic income for all American adults—it could now be achieved simply by cashing out all current income transfer programs. (See 2006’s In Our Hands for an argument that this could be done while leaving Americans responsible for their own lives.)

Murray’s final hope is for what economist Robert Fogel has called a ‘Fourth Great Awakening.’ Historians commonly speak of three “Great Awakenings” in American history: in the 1730s, the early decades of the 1800s, and the period 1880-1910. Each was characterized by charismatic revivalism and brought otherwise unforeseeable political change with it. The last Great Awakening ushered in the progressive era, whose message of uplift for the poor is repeated by liberals to this day. But, as Fogel says, such slogans have little resonance for an age when “even the poor are materially rich by the standards prevailing a century ago and where many of those who are materially rich are spiritually deprived.”

Amen to that. Murray remarks upon how many persons of our day seem to live according to the principle that “the purpose of life is to while away the time between birth and death as pleasantly as possible, and the purpose of government is to make it as easy as possible to do so.” Many are happy to pay the taxes on which the underclass subsists as long as it frees them from any personal involvement with such people.

The author does not try to predict the specific form a new Great Revival would take, but he expects a return to civic engagement may form a part of it: “age-old human wisdom has understood that a life well-lived requires engagement with those around us.”

As Murray acknowledges, many among our elites behave reasonably responsibly on a personal level, including staying married and investing in their offspring. But a healthy and self-confident elite would do more: they would ‘preach what they practice’ and set a better tone for the rest of society. They would demand more of themselves than a life of eating health food and being ‘tolerant.’

If the present elite experiences no Great Awakening soon, perhaps some other class of men will. They might even end up providing America with its next ruling elite.

Therefore, I invite you to copy the essay below and send it to a student you know. Block copy the text to your word processor, save it and attach it to an email! Or, if you wish, send a link.

But more importantly, subscribe to The Occidental Quarterly so that you can copy, attach and send important articles on a regular basis to students, friends or family who may be sitting on the fence. I prefer the hard copy, because I seem to have a longer attention span if away from the computer for a while. And a hard copy subscription also includes the ability to download the digital copy immediately, all or a portion of which you can copy, attach and send to your favorite student.

We are not going to let our copyright get in the way of your activism and outreach!

Take advantage of the activism opportunities that an Occidental Quarterly subscription provides. Buy a hard copy or digital subscription. Read it and pass along those articles you think are important and convincing to students, family and friends.

The political philosophy of libertarianism has recently attracted a wave of support in the United States among the mainly White Tea Party movement, and the supporters of Ron and Rand Paul. The catalyst has been the perceived failings of the Obama administration’s response to the global financial crisis and subsequent recession: a response characterized by an ideologically-driven expansion of government ownership, spending, and regulation of the US economy, with a corresponding decline in individual liberty. To espouse free market libertarianism in this context seems a rational corrective to Obama’s neo-Marxist agenda, given the libertarian commitment to the maximization of individual liberty and minimisation of the state – at a time when a bloated dysfunctional state seems to lie at the heart of the problems facing White people.

While there is a spectrum of libertarianism that straddles the left-right binary of contemporary politics, in today’s world, libertarianism is primarily associated with the commitment to market liberalism that was the hallmark of the Austrian and Chicago Schools of economics. A watershed moment in the history of post-war libertarianism was the awarding of the Nobel Prize for Economics to the libertarian theorist Friedrich von Hayek in 1974. For the preceding thirty years the economic theories of the British economist John Maynard Keynes held sway throughout the West. Keynesianism, involving state intervention in the economy through deficit spending to stimulate output and employment, is based on the idea that governments can and should act to eliminate the worst vicissitudes of the business cycle. Through manipulation of the federal budget a government can, theoretically, engineer economic outcomes.

Keynesianism emerged as a midway position between free-market libertarianism and socialist state-planning. However, the stagflation crisis that emerged with the OPEC oil crisis of the early seventies threw the post-war Keynesian consensus into turmoil. It set the scene for the re-emergence of political support for free-market libertarianism, and ultimately for the election of Margaret Thatcher in Britain and Ronald Reagan in the US — and, subsequently, their legions of political imitators throughout the world. At the forefront of this renaissance of libertarian thought, alongside Hayek, was a group of Jewish intellectuals whose ideas and advocacy were key to this achievement, and to libertarianism’s subsequent and enduring appeal. The most prominent and influential of these figures were Ludwig von Mises, Milton Friedman, and Ayn Rand.

“The nation will be heavily dependent on workers from minority groups ‘for the productivity and labor skills and the political willingness to pay taxes to support an aging population that will be largely white,…”

“Maybe we need a new GI bill for this segment (minority groups) of the population.

“But the spending will not be possible, he said, without the approval of the aging white population. ‘It will be up to senior citizens, with their tremendous political clout, to protect their benefits like Medicare and Social Security and also invest in a new diverse, younger population,’ he said.”

Thirty years from now, the black and brown coalition plans to pit its new brown majority against aging whites, threatening to cut off Social Security benefits (ie, make it a means-tested benefit) unless the retired white baby boomers vote for exorbitant taxes on their minority, middle-class offspring.

The black and brown coalition is going to pit the older generation of whites against the younger generation of whites to pay the future bills for welfare and education for America’s new Third-World majority.

So the ongoing struggle within the Republican Party over immigration becomes critical. Realistically, the Democratic party is the party of black and brown. If we are to protect ourselves through the political process, the Republican Party will have to be the vehicle.

It is going to be a tough and ugly road ahead.

As the editors of National Review state in their March 25, 1996 issue (page 18) concerning the fate of the immigration reform bills:

“And there is a danger of defeat-posed, curiously, by Washington’s conservative establishment. It mounts two sets of arguments against the reforms: first, that immigration is a clear continuing benefit to American society; second, that reduced immigration would damage GOP and conservative political prospects. To which we reply: if you believe that, you’ll believe anything.”

As NR points out, the Republican establishment is bent on offending its own natural constituency:

“The socio-economic case was put in a ‘Manifesto for Immigration,’ written by Malcolm Wallop (Steve Forbes’s campaign manager), Spencer Abraham, William Bennett, and Jack Kemp, and published (where else?) on the Wall Street Journal editorial page.”

They claim, quoting Julian Simon, that “the studies uniformly show that immigrants do not increase the rate of native unemployment.” Not so. For example, David Jaeger at the Bureau of Labor Statistics has published a study demonstrating that roughly half the decline in real wages of native dropouts is caused by immigration.

They argue, quoting Bill Gates, that limits on skilled immigration will damage American companies and U.S. inventiveness generally. But Norman Matloff of the University of California at Davis shows in a new report that a) almost all the major technical advances in computers have been made by U.S. natives; b) U.S. universities are turning out more domestic graduates each year than the computer industry needs; and c) skilled foreigners are hired simply because they are cheaper.

But the real problem is that so many in the Republican Party are driven to political fantasies about all these new immigrants voting Republican. As the editors of National Review point out, this will be politically fatal:

“And in most elections Hispanics vote Democratic over Republican by 70 to 30.”

“Population projections, moreover, suggest that continued high levels of immigration pose a real threat to the GOP’s fragile national majority. The Census Bureau estimates that, if immigration continues at present levels, Hispanics will account for between 20.2 and 24.6 per cent of the U.S. population in 2050. If their political loyalties remain unchanged, that would give the Democrats a clear national majority. Hispanics would need to shift massively into the GOP column before that demographic shift was even negated, let alone reversed.”

But the worst problem is that Republican leaders are so ready to alienate whites by refusing to represent them. The Democrats blatantly appeal to the racial interests of blacks and browns, but somehow it is “unclean” for Republicans to appeal to the racial interests of Euro-Americans.

The Republican leadership would rather lose elections that give up its vision of integrationism.

The ability to deny racial consciousness among minorities is very important for many Republican leaders because they find defending the racial interests of Euro-Americans socially repellent.

In truth, they are so threatened by the prospect of being perceived as “white trash”, that they cannot bring themselves to represent whites politically. Thus, they can only be leaders of a de-racinated fantasy land that exists nowhere except in their own minds.

It is more important for them to uphold patrician rituals of manners than it is to recognize reality and save Western Civilization in North America.

And it is this powerful Republican status fear that produces such ridiculous ideological inconsistencies. For what these “free market conservatives” are forced to insist, by stubbornly clinging to their integrationist vision, is that each immigrant is “new socialist man” who loses any racial consciousness upon crossing our borders. It is a vision of blacks and browns as raceless automatons, conveniently stripped of racial aggression and instantly remade into the bolshevik ideal of creatures motivated solely by economic calculations.

Now what exactly is it about American capitalism that makes it able to precipitate Marxist cultural results with such dispatch? The truth is that such a transformation occurs not in the real world, but only in the minds of Republicans with status insecurities that render them unfit to lead.

The truth is that integrationism is a failure. The minority coalition will settle for nothing less than victory and dominance. It promises nothing but conflict.

The Republican Party has two choices:

1. Preserve the Euro-American majority in a peaceful political process now, or…
2. Allow Euro-Americans to slip into a permanent minority status in which their interests can only be defended through violence and secession.

That is it.

There are no other choices!

We then coincided at a brunch that was held the morning after the event. As I was to take a flight back to the United Kingdom in the afternoon, and as his base is on the way to the airport, he suggested I take an early cab and stop by for a visit later in the day.

I accepted his invitation, and ordered a cab to collect me from the hotel at the appointed time.

The cab driver was a 46-year-old immigrant from Egypt, tall, slender, dark, with a lightbulb head. He had been in the United States for 16 years, during which time he had become a citizen, having previously worked for a five-star hotel in Saudi Arabia. From what he told me, he had been involved in the services industry all or most his working life, first in the hospitality business, and later in his present occupation, transporting live humans.

He told me that he had moved to the United States in order to rake in the cash, that he had sent his wife and children back to Egypt in order to spare them the West’s corrupting influence, that he intended to bring them over to America once they completed their secondary education, that he would put them through university there, and that he intended them to remain in America, where they would become citizens, so that they too could rake in the cash. As to himself, he would eventually return to Egypt and start a business there. He added that although living in the United States had transformed his life for the better, his heart was and would always be in Egypt. He put his palm over his cardiac muscle and looked to the sky as he thought of his homeland.

In due course this amiable conversation turned to more pressing matters, as the cab driver got lost. Without a satnav, and relying on a printout from Google Maps, he drove us in the wrong direction for lightyears, perplexed by Google’s elliptical instructions, before finally turning around and stopping at a petrol station to ask for directions. (While I waited, I noticed prognathous Hispanics, shod in rubber flipflops, idling in the parking bays immediately in front of the shop, joking casually and munching snacks; they only moved when the cab driver shoved them aside with his Lincoln.)

Armed with new instructions, my Egyptian driver headed towards Jared’s green and pleasant woodland suburb. There, however, he got lost again, and he drove us up and down a main road four times, forsaken by Google, until he telephoned my host to get further instructions. The situation became comical, since poor Jared, otherwise an accomplished linguist and polyglot, could barely understand the driver, who butchered every street name in his heavily accented English.

‘Menrod. Am in menrod,’ he said.

The Egyptian had to repeat himself twelve times before his pronunciation could be decyphred.

But, eventually, we made it.

I asked for a discount to my fare, which was granted—I think the driver was about to offer it anyway. I caught a crease on his brown forehead as he turned to leave, shaking his head, annoyed with himself.

‘I thought a lot about you on the way here,’ I told Jared. Indeed, the incident seemed an oddly appropriate staging for White Identity, the Virginian’s most recent book, which I obtained during my visit.

White Identity: Racial Consciousness in the 21st Century is a sequel of its author’s earlier book, Paved with Good Intentions: The Failure of Race Relations in Contemporary America.

The book is everything I expected it to be: elegant, measured, well argued, accessible, and vacuum-packed with information.

The latter is, without a doubt, the tome’s most salient feature, for the author backs up his theses with such a profusion of examples that it becomes impossible not to see it as missionary zeal, despite the sober prose. The examples range from the infuriating to the grotesque, and in some cases the situations or incidents described are so ridiculous that they would be risible, were they not so tragic.

White Identity contains little about White racial identity. This is because these days there is generally no such thing. There is plenty, however, about Black and Hispanic identity in it, which the author argues is normal, natural, and good—except, of course, for Whites in the United States. Because said Whites have unilaterally disarmed themselves while simultaneously arming their competition out of fondness for universalist abstractions.

The main argument of White Identity is that in a world where everyone else thinks in terms of race and pursues their racial interests, Whites will need to rediscover theirs if they are to avoid being eaten alive by racially conscious groups.

In turn, the main assumption behind the book is that it will be read by Whites and that enough of them will be persuaded by its contents to reassess the value of an egalitarian diversity ideology. This assumption belies a secondary one: that anger at and frustration with the negative effects of diversity will eventually cause Whites to develop racial consciousness. The more fundamental assumption, therefore, is that humans think and act rationally.

But of course, this is not the case, as otherwise there would not have been any need to write White Identity.

Consequently, there is a depressing contradiction between the book’s cause and its intended effect. This broken causality chain means that, for all its merits, the book will fail to achieve its objectives: it will be read by those already favourably predisposed to its author or his worldview, by the author’s existing fans, and by ideological enemies seeking to scare people away from identifying with its theses; and readers outside these categories will, if they are ever allowed to catch a glimpse of the book, content themselves with imagining what it says based on what they know or think they know about the author.

The lack of a way forward has already been noted by another reviewer, and results from an ultimate belief in the rationality of man.

That aside, White Identity makes two valuable contributions.

Firstly, and as has already been noted, it collates in a convenient, single volume a wealth of data from innumerable news and scientific sources. It is, in fact, fully comprehensive on diversity as a weakness. This makes it a powerful armamentarium for anyone desiring to impress debating this issue. It is very much its author’s brainchild, as Jared Taylor’s effectiveness in debate results from, besides his polish and intelligence, his ability endlessly to back up his arguments with precise data.

Secondly, it implicitly articulates the notion that Enlightenment ideals are only viable in homogeneous societies composed of White Westerners. This was not the author’s intention, but follows from his historical overview of White racial consciousness in the United States.

For the author, two centuries of coexistence between White racial consciousness and the Enlightenment ideals of the U.S. constitution rules out fundamental contradictions between them, and in quoting statements by the country’s founders he seeks to illustrate that they never intended to create a universal proposition nation, as Marxist revisionists and forgers pretend. Jared Taylor’s point is that they were racially conscious as Whites and that this consciousness was normal and natural up until fifty years ago.

Yet, it is clear from their statements that the founders did not think their Enlightenment project was compatible with a racially heterogeneous society, for they generally advocated either segregation or shipping the Black labourers back to Africa. They were enlightened in that they knew humans are different and are best in free societies that reflect their innate temperament and abilities because they are governed by people who are similar.

And it was not simply that the country’s founders thought genetically distant peoples could not be assimilated into a White European society, but also that their Enlightenment values were dangerous in the presence of Blacks, for, as some noted, Blacks did not internalise these values and only took advantage of the Whites who lived by them.

Thus, while White Identity does not directly address the question of why Whites lost their racial identity, it does glimpse an answer supplementary to those presented by Pat Buchanan in The Death of the West and Kevin MacDonald in the Culture of Critique. The latter author, particularly, stresses how enlightened rhetoric was hijacked by ethnic activists on the radical Left.

The problem lies not so much in ideological enemies or racial competition, for these are facts of life that will never go away. The problem lies with the Enlightenment values themselves, for their inbuilt universalist logic, irrespective of how they were interpreted in the past by Whites who had racial consciousness, in time inescapably leads to borderless, multiracial proposition societies. And this, in a world of instant mass communication, rapid motorised transport, globalised electronic commerce, exploding Third World populations, and ever more intense competition for resources, is a mechanism for self-destruction.

This is perhaps why White Identity cannot, rather than simply does not, show a way forward: it is ultimately predicated on Enlightenment values, while the way forward would necessitate abandoning those values, which in the United States would mean also abrogating the country’s constitution and rethinking it all from zero—inconceivable without secession or a total systemic meltdown.

What to do, then?

Some Americans have proposed secession and founding a White ethnostate. But this is only applicable in the United States and seems unlikely without Whites regaining their racial consciousness, followed by another civil war. And Whites will not regain any racial consciousness so long as it remains socially unacceptable for them.

Others, both in America and Europe, have pursued identity politics. This, however, is unlikely to prosper since politics makes possible only what is already widely accepted within the culture—it does not change the culture on its own.

In all cases, these proposals are flawed because they seek to change outward forms before changing inner substance.

Before White identity can be revived and political solutions can grow, it will be necessary to seed the culture with a different set of concepts, principles, and ideals, and to fertilise it with the right combination of emotional triggers: creative movements, intellectual currents, organising strategies, alternative self-reinforcing networks and status systems, and so on.

It is worth noting that if völkisch politics were successful (if flawed) in the past, it was only after dozens of artists, novelists, musicians, philosophers, sociologists, scientists, and mystics, not to mention a plethora of study groups, societies, clubs, and other organisations, along with publishers and publicists, had spent a century laying the groundwork. It was a slow, organic process that built an alternative society from the bottom up—an alternative society that was technologically advanced, but with long roots in ancient tradition.

Of course, we do not have the luxury of a hundred years, as they did, or as did the Left, who had no demographic sunset to contend with, but we do have the technological means to do the good work within a shorter timeframe. In a technologically advanced society, history is constantly accelerating. It will, nevertheless, take time to develop the synergies.

As the Enlightenment project, deformed as it is, continues to rush towards its logical extreme, the means will have to be found to retard its progress, for only when the cultural ground has been made viable for any kind of White identity will such an identity be viable enough to become a political force.

I have never seen this argument work with anyone outside of the racialist Right. At best, ordinary White folk outside the movement are left cold by appeals to their collective self-preservation; at worst, they react negatively, and dismiss the appeal as hateful nonsense, Nazism, and a rationale for genocide.

This is baffling, and it is certainly frustrating, at least for those of us who care about the future of the White race, but there are good reasons for this.

Firstly, Western civilisation is highly individualistic—individualism being, in fact, one of the principal traits that contribute to the uniqueness of Western civilisation.

This is particularly true among Anglo-Saxon folk, probably the most individualistic Westerners of all, responsible for extremist ideologies like Liberalism, and thanks to whose fanatical attachment to universalist abstractions has caused individualism across the West to be exacerbated to the point of fundamentalism.

Both the cause and the result of this is that White folk, already weakly ethnocentric by nature, have become culturally much less ethnocentric, much less racial, than other peoples of the world.

Western man sees himself as an autonomous, or sovereign individual, as a generic man, who may be from a town, a state or county, or a country; who may support a football team; who may belong to a leisure subculture; who may belong to a church, or a religious denomination; who may work for a given company, or work in a given industry. Very rarely—and only because minorities, politically correct politicians, and the multiculturalist media remind him—he remembers that he happens to be White.

In fact, when he develops friendships with non-Whites, he often forgets that the non-White is not of the same race as he is. The non-racial nature of his identity and self-concept is such that even drawing attention to Whites in private conversation is socially awkward.

This is not to say that he is incapable of a White racial identity, because the various identitarian political parties in Europe and the various forms of White advocacy in the United States are proof that he is. But, it requires a much higher level of existential threat, real or perceived, for Western man to adopt such an identity. Before he does so he is more likely to adopt all manner of other collective identities, a racial one being the very last resort.

It is only those who are contrarian by nature, obdurately independent, or unusually principled, who adopt racial identities today.

Thus, an appeal to racial self-preservation means nothing to someone for whom his race is so unimportant.

And it means even less when the surrounding culture only sanctions a negative White identity as part of a narrative that depicts Whites as privileged enslavers and oppressors.

Secondly, the threat of racial extinction seems so remote to most White folk as to appear but a preposterous delusion. Many Whites remain unaware of the extent to which their homelands have been colonised because the different races have automatically—explicitly or implicitly—self-segregated into ethnic or racial communities, and diversity is something they only encounter in the unreal worlds of television, airports, offices, and the public spaces of metropolitan areas, while commuting to their all- or nearly all-White peripheral enclaves.

What is more, while most White folk are aware and will openly acknowledge that the ethnic composition of their native countries has changed, the change, which in most cases he has witnessed from afar, and which in many cases began before he was born, has taken decades to occur. Racial extinction, therefore, seems to them so far off as to be of no personal import. ‘I won’t be here to see it, so what do I care?’

There is also a certain normalcy bias. So far most Whites, and almost all the Whites with meaningful power in our societies, have successfully avoided most of the unpleasantness of diversity. To them the prospect of extinction seems doubly remote.

Equally remote is the unpleasantness they would experience as a dispossessed minority, following a change in the balance of power away from the Whites. Comparatively few Whites, except some of those now residing in former colonies like South Africa, have any real experience of life as a dispossessed minority. The experience of those in highly diversified Western cities, like London or Los Angeles, is relatively recent and can be conceived in ways other than as an ontological threat as a race: it can be conceived in terms of political correctness being a nuisance; immigration being a requisite for economic growth, propping up state pension funds, and ‘doing the jobs that Whites refuse to do’; and muggings, rapes, and murders being part and parcel of living in a large city, easily avoided through sensible precautions.

This makes it easy for White folk to believe the narrative of the radical Left, which explains the extinction scenario as a concoction of paranoid, fear-mongering haters.

Thirdly, preservation is about the past, and appeals to something of the past in a culture that prizes progress and modernity is a marker of irrelevance.

To frame the battle against the radical Left in terms of preserving the race is to cast oneself as a conservative. And a conservative is always easy pickings, because he negates the new without ideas of his own; he represents stasis, ossification, museology—concepts linked to old age.

Against him the radical Leftist can easily cast himself as a force of innovation, as the voice of the future, because he does have an idea of his own: his is an act of affirmation. What he affirms may now be old, decrepit, orthodox; it may have been exhausted, it may be bankrupt, and, because of its inherently destructive nature, it may offer no way out; but an affirmation is always more appealing than a negation, and the Leftist’s affirmation, though of an old idea, is newer than the idea defended by the conservative, which is even older.

Worse still, conservatives seek to conserve the ideas of superseded radicals, so he is by implication a dealer in antiquated, second-hand goods.

Hence, why scribblers of the radical Left strain to portray their enemy’s events as gatherings of superannuated pensioners, consigned to irrelevance and reduced to waving an arthritic fist at a world that has left them behind.

Hence, why the radical Left loves the racial preservation argument. For the reasons given above, its ideologues and supporters understand better than anyone the degree to which said argument is an own-goal for their enemies. After all, it was the radical Left that campaigned to move the goalposts further apart, and to hire a midget for a goalie.

The racial preservation argument is only good for 1) endangered non-White ethnic groups, and 2) racialist Right-wingers in need of self-justification.

White racial preservationism is dead.

What, then, is the alternative?

As I said earlier, it is always better to affirm rather than to negate; to be for something rather than against the opposite.

Therefore, rather than speaking in terms of preservation, we need to speak in terms of destiny; not in terms of what we are, let alone what we were, but in terms of what we can be, of what we ought to be, of what we must be.

Rather than lament the loss of the West, we must pursue its future glory; we need to imagine it, to daydream, to fantasise about it, and we need to project our visions out there, in the most seductive manner possible, with the most modern media, methods, and techniques.

If we are not masters of the present it is because the radical Left defined it in the past as their glorious future.

We can only be masters of the future if we define it ourselves.

Framing our proposition in terms of destiny is utopian, and implies regeneration and rebirth. In other words, it implies a renaissance.

And after so many decades of misery under the Left; after so many decades of broken promises, failure, and decline; after so many decades of disillusion, scepticism, cynicism, guilt-mongering, and forced apologies, people in the West are crying out for a renaissance, for strength, for pride, for glory.

A renaissance, or rebirth, goes well with a traditional outlook. Tradition is the ongoing affirmation of the archaic, which is endlessly regenerated and renewed, always rooted in the past, but also always futuristic.

Hence, why a radical traditionalist outlook is also called archeofuturist.

Framing our proposition in such terms also avoids the negativity of a preservationist argument, with its implied fear and pessimism. Because it implies fear and pessimism, such an argument is the marker of a losing faction, of people who have lost power and are en route also to lose their future. And with good reason, according to the Left, since those who talk about preserving the White race are an evil anachronism.

As no one wants to be part of that, doing away with the fearful and pessimistic preservation argument further eliminates the risk of denial, for most find living in denial preferable to being sober realists.

One additional advantage: a utopian conception of destiny cannot be deconstructed, cannot be disproven, because it is about belief; whereas arguments about preservation can be subjected to forensic investigation, to case-making, because there is a historical record that can be used and interpreted as evidence to support any imaginable position, including the revisionist slander preferred by the Left. Facts can be neutralised with other facts, logical arguments with other logical arguments, and rationalisations with other rationalisations, ad infinitum; but belief cannot be paralysed in this fashion because it is transcendent, metaphysical, not of this world.

Ultimately, to get us from here to there, we have to know in our hearts, and visualise in our minds, what there could, ought, must look like. It is about ideals—about ideals that give life meaning, that cause individualist man to reach outwards, higher, beyond. It is, in short, about being Westerners.

Ready to Subscribe to The Occidental Quarterly Now?

The drop off point for our discussion is the war in Kosovo and the central question that no commentators have seen fit to ask. Cohen, Albright (Korbel), Berger, Clark (Nemerovski) and the rest of the inner party crew embarked upon this war to impose multiculturalism on Serbia. From press reports it appears that all of the principals believed that Milosevic and the Serbs were cowards and that they would surrender within 3 days.

The question is, how could they entertain such an idea?

Suppose Israel lacked nuclear weapons and we were to bomb them from 15,000 feet over some policy disagreement. Would the geniuses of the inner party assume that the Israelis would give up in three days?

Are we to assume then that in the minds of the inner party Serbs and Israelis have fundamentally different human natures?

In truth, the Inner Party doesn’t know a thing about the Serbians. They think they do because Milosevic seemed “biddable” when dealing with the fate of irredent Serb populations in Croatia and Bosnia earlier in this decade. However, the notion that he would be equally biddable once the bombs began falling on Serbia proper was inexplicably naive.

But it was more than Naive.

The visceral inner party hatreds against Serbia are driven by the perception that Serbia is a nationalist state that defines itself as existing for the benefit of a distinct people. Thus, the very quality that provokes hatred from the inner party should logically compel the conclusion that Serbia and its leaders would resist fiercely, as would the Israelis under similar circumstances. After all, both are racial states (albeit in thinly costumed drag, for the benefit of the media and pubic opinion).

On the surface the critic might be tempted to conclude that this expectation of easy victory is one more evidence of irrationality by the inner party – and on one level it is. But this fundamental misjudgment tells us something much more important about the inner party.

In fact, the assumption that Serbia would quickly surrender tells us more about the inner party’s opinion of us – the Euro-American sheeple with which they are familiar – than of a Serbian nation of which they are obviously ignorant.

After all, it is certainly true that Connecticut would have surrendered in three days!

The inner party believes that Euro-American racists are cowards, so why wouldn’t Serbs be cowards as well? As professor Kevin MacDonald has pointed out, the evolutionary psychology of the inner party causes them to believe their own propaganda. Belief prevents Freudian slips and has survival value for minorities living in diaspora. Unlike the claptrap we were fed as undergraduates, Professor MacDonald’s theories have predictive and explanatory value in the real world of current events.

The living members of the inner party simply never encounter racially aware members of the Euro-American majority in their daily lives. They cannot imagine a European elite that would suffer along with their own kind to ensure their ethnic independence and integrity, because they never meet such people in The U.S.

To the inner party, Euro Elites throughout the world protect their own power and economic status as individuals or as members of a class. Thus, the fundamental message of the Kosovo war is that, in the eyes of the inner party, any interest the Euro peoples of the world may have in cultural or racial survival is unrepresented. Thus, in the minds of the inner party, the natural state of Western Cultures and Western societies is decapitation. They are leaderless and defenseless.

The very thought of a renegade European state – Serbia – that has not been decapitated – that is not leaderless or defenseless – is an affront to the inner party. It is a threat to their hegemony over the European peoples of the World.

Having described a modern instance, it is time to move to the very core problem.

But by way of introduction, I must discuss the three basic strategies of the inner party for coping with exposure.

If the facts underlying the exposure are wrong, the media will quickly carry stories from the university professor contingent of the inner party and demonstrate that the facts are false.

If the facts underlying the exposure are true, then the inner party will use its anti-defamation forces to demonize the one doing the exposing. The argumentum ad hominem is the most important visible tool in the inner party’s defensive arsenal.

However, the most damaging forms of exposure typically are those that would threaten the cooperation of the elites of the outer party and thus endanger inner party’ control over these elites. The inner party has a strategy for handling such exposures. They are ignored. I call it the “blackout” strategy.

Thus, the most interesting and important facts about the inner party are those which are unmentioned and ignored. Truly dangerous critics of the inner party are routinely subjected to the blackout. Gore Vidal slipped down the memory hole a long time ago.

And indeed, the most important intellectual quality that we can develop – the most important for the long run survival of our people – is to detect a “blackout ” and pursue its mysteries until the underlying riddle is understood.

And the “holy grail” – the mother or all inner party blackouts – is the utter void of information or meaningful commentary about the process by which the members of the inner party were maneuvered out of the top ranks of the Soviet Hierarchy from 1928 through about 1940.

How could the inner party, who’s members occupied 90% of the top positions in the Soviet Union in 1924, including virtually all the top positions in the secret police, concentration camp system and intelligence agencies ever be displaced by Stalin and his badly outnumbered allies?

Inquiring minds want to know.

It is the central puzzle of the Twentieth Century. Solve that puzzle and we will – for reasons I shall explain later in this essay – gain significant insight into the odds of our survival.

Put bluntly, the central question is whether it is possible for the inner party to sustain, over any considerable period of time, a cohesive multi-cultural elite which will allow them to rule over us behind a universalist mask.

The truly fascinating thing, from an anthropological perspective, about the 1930′s changes within the Communist party was that these changes involved the composition of a relatively small group of people – sixty or so – who knew and interacted with one another. All of them shared a powerful universalist and anti-nationalist ideology that demanded a multi-cultural elite.

But once these people from different backgrounds began struggling for power within that elite, a wondrous thing happened. The dominant nationality – the inner party – was exiled or killed in a series of purges that eliminated them from the upper reaches of power.

So then the question arises whether this result was a random event – one that would not necessarily be replicated under similar circumstances – or whether it was an inevitable result of the friction generated by the differing evolutionary psychologies of the participants. Did those different methods of thinking and communicating inject a modicum of mistrust into a tense environment in which small amounts of mistrust were fatal? Powerful support for this thesis can be found in “Stalin’s Letters to Molotov” Lih, Naumov, and Khlevniuk (Yale University Press, 1995). See especially pp. 18 – 26.

To the particularist within the inner party, the question is best framed by asking if these purges were one more proof that Theodor Hertzl was right? Or more universally, does professor Kevin MacDonald’s thesis have overarching predictive power in the real world of political affairs?

Or in the words of the ole Ygg, – Is this idea of a multi-cultural elite just an inner party delusion?

The Jewish Encyclopedia states that the inner party did quite well in the Soviet Union until 1948 – the beginning of the cold war – and that anti-semitism wasn’t a factor in Soviet life until then. And while it is true that the inner party continued to occupy a hugely disproportionate number of desirable occupations and positions within the Communist party until 1953 (The doctors’ plot), their exclusion from the upper-most reaches of power had been completed by 1938 or 1940.

The mystery is why the organs of the inner party fail to attribute this earlier displacement to anti-semitism.

Given the stakes involved, and given that this first displacement enabled the second to begin in 1948, the silence is deafening. It is the quintessential blackout.

In an attempt to get answers I began re-reading Anatoly Sudoplatov’s “Other Tasks.” Sudoplatov was in charge of the assassination of Leon Trotsky, an inner party competitor of Stalin’s who had been exiled to Mexico. Ideally, there should be no better source of insight than an insider who participated in the events of the time.

But like the first time through, Sudoplatov disappointed. He and his co-authors, a son entitled through his mother to Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return, and Jerrold Schecter, the inner party Moscow bureau chief for Time Magazine, obviously feel no obligation to provide a convincing explanation of the events which set the stage for the anti-semitic purges of the inner party nomenclatura from 1948 to 1953. He attributes it all to Stalin’s personal ambition and insecurity, giving no special note of the near uniform ethnic identity of those purged prior to 1940.

In frustration, and as if by fateful accident, I picked up Walter Sanning’s revisionist classic “The Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry,” a book I have owned for some time but never read, to see if it contained any clues.

Sanning’s essential thesis is that, because of the well documented evacuation of Jews from Western Soviet territories prior to  Germany’s attack in 1941, Germany never had more than about 3.5 million Jews under its control from 1938 through 1945. Given the 900,000 to one million Jews alive in the camps at the end of the war, the maximum number that could have been killed appears to be about 2.5 million and not six million. Sanning then goes on to produce a number of very complex estimates and calculations in an attempt to show that the number unaccounted for after the war was far less than 2.5 million.

To my surprise, I found buried within Sannings work the “holy grail” – hard statistical evidence of how communist society actually worked – its very core and essence exposed for all to see! Surprisingly, Sanning himself apparently missed its true significance.

In preparation for war with Germany, Stalin build huge factories in Siberia – half of them empty – to supply his war effort if Germany should thrust into Russian territory and capture it. In addition, he developed plans for the movement of manufacturing equipment and the evacuation of key industrial personnel in the event that the industrial cities in Poland, Belarus, Ukraine, the Baltic republics and Western Russia should be captured. The publicly stated idea was to preserve Soviet industry in the event of successful attack and to deny that industrial capability to the Germans if the Western Russian territories and republics should be overrun.

But, of course, there was a second unspoken purpose to this evacuation program as well. In this evacuation approximately 55% of the urban or city population was evacuated along with the industrial machinery.

The entire rural or agricultural population was left for the Germans to capture along with about 45% of the urban population.

Ok, so who stays and who goes?

Answer that question and you have captured the essence of communist society – its actual deeds and not its words. From page 81:

“Ukrainians were a minority in their own cities; only 47.4% of all city people in the SSR Ukraine were Ukrainians and the remaining 52.6% were largely accounted for by Russians (25%) and Jews (23%). Both of these latter two nationalities occupied most of the important positions in industry, party and administration; in the eyes of the Ukrainians they represented the long and heavy hand of Moscow. The entire grotesque situation is depicted in the professional structure of the Ukraine’s pre-war population:”

Click to Enlarge

When the Germans “liberated” the Ukraine, they found a decapitated society, largely incapable of producing the essentials of civilized life, or indeed, of feeding themselves. In the words of a German officer responsible for performing a quick census [page 62]:

“The Russian and Jewish upper classes withdrew together with the Red Army. The leading Ukrainians have been partially deported and, if they held leading positions in administration and industry, they were also forced to move east of the Dnieper. Numerous tractor and other specialists on the countryside met the same fate. In June, many young men were called up and put in garrison in the interior of the USSR…. Because of this development there is a tremendous scarcity of people capable of assuming responsible positions in administration, industry and agriculture in the Ukraine…”

Similar patterns of packing minorities into the upper middle classes of the ethnic republics can be seen in the Baltic Republics (Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia) as well as Belarus.

Indeed, it appears that the very essence of Communism is ethnic manipulation and population transfer. It is a pattern that holds true even at the top of the communist party structure. In the early days following the revolutions of 1917-1918, none of the top officials in Moscow were ethnic Russians. In fact, a large number grew up in New York. Most of the top leaders felt compelled to change their names to conceal their ethnic origins. Among the first politburo, inner party members like Leon Bronshtein (Trotsky), Hirsch Apfelbaum (Zinoviev), and Lev Rosenfeld (Kamenev) felt compelled to change their names. Lenin himself was a mix of German, Swedish, Jewish, Kalmyk (Asian) and Russian ancestry – the very poster boy for a world in which nationality had been abolished – or so it would seem. Nevertheless, the inner party had a compelling need to cover up his ancestry and paint him a pure-bred Russian (instead of the grandson of a well-to-do Jewish Doctor).

At the center in Moscow it was Georgians (Stalin, Beria), Latvians (Berzin) and Ukrainians (Kruschev) supported by a large cast of inner party members who shape party decisions by controlling the information flow. In the ethnic provinces the local administration consisted of ethnic Russians along with the inner party members.

The entire Communist system was based on manipulation of race and national origin for control – and the central mechanism for maintaining that control was decapitation – the extermination or the mass transfer of the leaders of an ethnic group, and the total dependence of the remaining native population upon imported or native minorities who managed the government and the business enterprises and dominated the learned professions.

The important point is that all forms of inner-party communism, the violent Bolshevik variety and the newer “democratic socialist” variety invented by the Frankfurt school, direct their demographic engineering effort at the elites – not the ordinary working people.

The sine-qua-non of inner party power is a multi-cultural elite alienated from its tribal and racial kinsmen.

It is the native elites – the indigenous leaders who might resist the inner party’s drive for power – that are always the target.

To the inner party, the masses of any nation are at all times totally irrelevant to their goal of acquiring and keeping power. The masses of the nations were important in the Soviet Union as labor, a fungible factor of production in an economic system focused on output. The Marxist concept that each hour of their labor was of equal value tells you all you need to know about the inner party’s regard for them.

And in war time, the masses were readily abandoned, as the real nation proved to be a relatively small and mobile alliance of minorities and uprooted majority careerists.

For the reform version of communism developed by the Frankfurt School that now dominates the ‘liberal democracies” and the NWO, the masses of the nations are important as consumers – cogs in the machinery of debt creation and credit card impulse purchases. The masses of the nations are to be manipulated by television and opinion polls – Annie the Analyzer of Radio Project fame and focus groups to pre-test manipulative messages.

What remains relevant to the inner party are the inner party’s potential competitors, the native national elites with community ties to their brethren.
In the Soviet Union, the inner party elites (using Lenin and Stalin as their cover) resorted to murder and forced resettlement to remove the native national elites, a fast, direct and brutal form of decapitation.

In the “liberal democracies” the inner party uses a slower and less visibly brutal method of decapitation. Thus, in the liberal democracies of today we have “affirmative action” – a set of laws that places tremendous pressure on private businesses to displace native elites at the top with minorities who will be less plausible targets of discrimination lawsuits. These laws exist everywhere in the European world, and with the exception of the U.S. were enacted long before any significant minority constituencies (other than the inner party itself) existed to lobby for their passage.

The entire program of displacement and decapitation within the liberal democracies was carefully drawn up and explained in “The Authoritarian Personality” by Theodor Adorno, et. al.(1950). It is a prescription for identifying any person who displays any bond of obligation to his own kind and the will to resist those who threaten the interests of his kind.

Such “authoritarian personalities” are to be denied university admission and consigned to low status occupations, which is precisely what the laws of affirmative action and social rules of political correctness accomplish.

Indeed, as I read the tables from the 1939 Soviet census published in Sanning’s work I recalled my own research showing that the inner party, representing 2.4% of the U.S. population comprises 28% of the student body at Harvard, while the descendants of European Christendom comprising 70% of the population supply only 28% of the students. The American Majority has been effectively displaced at Harvard. Relative to their share of the Population, they have 2.4 times fewer students than do the inner party’s Afro-American coalition partners.

In the top 15 national universities in the 1997 ranking by U.S. News, the results are similar. The inner party has 22% of the students, while the descendants of European Christendom have only 32% – roughly half of their share of the population.

The United States Department of Labor has maintained a tracking study of 12,000 young people who were between the ages of 14 and 22 in 1979 known as the National Longitudinal study of Youth (“NLSY”). The CD Roms with all the data can be purchased from Ohio State University. These data show that at each given level of IQ (all participants were tested) the income and educational attainment of the descendants of European Christendom is much lower than for Blacks, Hispanics and Inner party members of the same IQ.

In what will surely be a surprise to most middle and upper middle income Euro-Americans, the effects are most pronounced at the highest IQ levels. In other words, it is the majority elite that suffers the widest disparity in income and education when compared with Blacks, Hispanics and Inner Party members within the same IQ range. When the effects are broken down by sex, we find that among males the disparity is most pronounced in the highest IQ ranges and disappears entirely by the time you descend to the 50% mark. The widest disparity exists among the top 2% of the population (those with IQs above 130).

Majority males with IQs below 100 earn the same or slightly more than their Black, Hispanic and Inner Party counterparts.

It is among the female descendants of European Christendom, those most likely to support “affirmative action”, “women’s liberation” and the other demographic engineering efforts of the inner party, that we find the widest and most shocking income disparities. Among females, the disparity is not confined to the top half of the IQ spectrum, but persists from top to bottom at consistent levels at each IQ range.

Indeed, if one were to view these data as the result of a purposeful system, then the object of the multi-culturalist enterprise is clearly two fold – first to displace and disadvantage majority males at the top of the IQ spectrum and second, to exploit majority women from top to bottom. At each level of IQ they are paid dramatically less than their Black, Hispanic and inner party counterparts with the same IQ.

Displacement of majority elites might not be as complete in the U.S. in 1999 as it was in The Soviet Union in 1939, but the trend is clear and runs in the same direction.

Indeed the most important data reproduced in Sanning’s little book are tables setting forth the demographic composition of towns and cities in Central and Eastern Poland and statistics on the distribution of occupations from a 1931 Polish census:

Click to Enlarge

Click to Enlarge

Click to Enlarge

These tables are important because Poland was not a part of the Soviet empire at that time, and the demographics did not result from Soviet policies of forced removal and forced decapitation as they did in Eastern Ukraine.

The data shows that in eastern Poland (which, along with Moldova, Belarus and Western Ukraine [the "Pale of the Settlement"] formed the very cradle of the inner party) the Polish majority population had existed in a “decapitated” state in 1931, and almost certainly for the preceding 200 years as well. These areas were owned and governed by a thin class of nobles sharing supposed ethnic and religious kinship with peasants consigned to the poverty of agricultural labor. A majority of the middle class and an overwhelming majority of the professional occupations were held by the inner party ethnic minority.

Viewed from the perspective of these statistics, it seems that European Communism (in its orthodox Bolshevik form as well as its reform “liberal democratic” variety) is a thinly disguised effort to force upon the entire European World the ethnic status and occupational relationships existing in Eastern Poland and the Pale of the Settlement at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution – relationships in which the inner party had a commanding share of the middle class and professional occupations and a ready supply of shiksas as servant girls – relationships which guaranteed the inner party safety because economic life and the tax base which sustained the nobles would collapse without them.

Indeed, the emancipation of the serfs and the industrial revolution presented a profound threat to their comfortable world of ethnic dominance. The new factories brought hundreds of thousands of very rough and threatening peasants to the towns and cities. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, the inner party got warning of peasant revolts because the peasants had to gather in the countryside and march to the towns. Because of the industrial revolution, these dangerous people lived right next door and attended the same schools.

In the words of Irving Howe, in “World of Our Fathers” p. 21:

“The emancipation of the serfs had a damaging effect on those Jews, not large in number but still important in the Jewish economy, who had worked as agents of the nobility or as economic middlemen disposing of the peasants’ produce. Jewish petty officials and traders tended to be squeezed out, and as a result many rural Jews were compelled to seek employment in the cities.”

To make matters worse, out of every million Polish peasants drawn to the cities and educated in the schools, twenty thousand had IQs above 130; and over 160,000, a full 16%, had IQs above 115, matching the distribution of IQ of the top half of the inner party. It was a nightmare. The inner party could easily be displaced. It was no longer indispensable. In fact, some of these peasants actually started factories of their own and became wealthy. Being only one or two generations off the farm, there was always a threat that they might use this newfound wealth to organize their fellow peasants.

The Inner Party developed ideologies of “human equality” as weapons to preserve the status quo ante. According to this ideology, intelligence was a product of the environment, which justifies socialized, middling incomes for the peasants. Socialized incomes mean middling environments, which, in turn, justify the attribution of equal and middling intelligence to their children. This ideology provided the moral cloak that would allow the inner party to exclude the children of these new arrivals from the schools and universities they controlled (including the art academy in Vienna), and confine them to middling occupations. Each hour of their labor was worth the same, thus stripping the talented of any means of upward mobility and depriving them of any opportunity to compete with and displace the inner party. For the unwashed new industrialists there was the progressive income tax and the inheritance tax, all designed to prevent them from converting economic power into political power.

The entire program stood in militant opposition to Horatio Alger’s “Struggling Upward.”

The demonstrably false beliefs of liberalism, which appear so perverse and illogical to loyal opposition conservatives, serve a very rational and logical purpose once you take the trouble to answer the question “how will these principles be applied in practice, and who benefits?”

And it is trouble indeed if you have the temerity to answer that question in public.

For the demonstrably false ideologies of liberalism are all essential to the program of keeping the nations of the world in an impotent and leaderless state.

In the orthodox Communist model, the inner party grabbed power by force. To the extent that the talented children of peasants were needed to administer and manage an increasingly complex society, they were transferred to some alien place where they would not identify with the local peasants and could not stir up rebellion based on ties of kinship or nation.

In the reform model of Communism adopted in all liberal democratic societies, power was seized more slowly, by breaking the chains of the genetic and religious isolation imposed upon the inner party by Orthodoxy, and by mixing aggressively with the potential leaders of the nations and aggressively influencing their social and cultural perceptions. By this means, the inner party placed itself in a blocking position within the culture and the arts so as to prevent expressions of racial and national awareness among the native elites. In addition, the inner party recognized that accepting lower returns on their investments in the press and the media was the least costly and most effective means of converting economic power into political power. This strategy guaranteed the inner party a blocking position sufficient to prevent these organs of public opinion from being used to organize the new arrivals from the countryside to challenge the inner party.

Once the industrial revolution rendered the closed and ethnically stratified society within the Pale of the Settlement untenable, there arose a passionate commitment to the “open” society, an ideological construct in which individual upward mobility would be extolled in words, but would be prevented in fact by central economic planning and high marginal tax rates, and where “freedom of thought and expression” would be extolled in words, but where massive social and economic pressure would be brought to bear on any thought or expression that identified the speaker as an “authoritarian personality.”

It was essential to identify the talented newcomers and then alienate them from their roots just as the Polish nobles had been alienated. Like the nobles, majority elites could be taught contempt for their less prosperous brethren, and liberated from any sense of ethnic or racial obligation by attacking the traditional religious faith they shared and replacing the moral restrictions and obligations of those traditional religions (that had preserved them over the centuries) with the vices of the cosmopolitan city packaged in ideologies of “freedom” and “choice”. Again, those who resist the blandishments of vice and degraded culture are called bigots, homophobes, fundamentalists, racists, etc. and are banished to occupations in which they have no power or influence.

The central reality of Communist action is racial and ethnic engineering. It is all slaughters and mass transfers of various Christian nationalities behind a universalist mask which denies even the slightest consciousness of these nationalities’ existence.

The program continues to this day. Cuban exiles in Miami tell me that the population of Cuba was 70% white in 1956. After 40 years of Castro’s Communism, it has fallen to 30% (in their estimate). Like Lenin, Castro is, according to his daughter Alina, an inner party half-breed.

By now you should be asking, what does all this have to do with undergraduate admissions at Princeton?

As it happens, the answer is, a great deal.

At the beginning of this post, I asked whether the idea of a multi-cultural elite was just an inner party delusion. I suggested that the ease with which Stalin maneuvered the inner party from power might be a warning that this idea of a multi-cultural elite may be a chimera.

Indeed this is the central thesis of Benjamin Ginzberg’s masterpiece “The Fatal Embrace,” in which he argues that the philo-semitic posture of the native elites in the U.S. is conditional and will last only so long as these elites continue to benefit from their philo-semitism and liberalism.

Implicit in the act of writing and publishing that work is the idea that these native elites no longer benefit. Ginzberg gives us a stunningly detailed and frank portrait of the process by which the inner party seized political power in the U.S. and he marvels at the ease with which it was done. So easy in fact that Ginzberg suspects a trick, namely, that governmental power may no longer be as relevant or significant as it once was, and that controlling government, if not a waste of time, might be dangerous because of the potential for mistakes and blame.

In any event, aside from the followers of Theodor Hertzl, who have forthrightly volunteered to plow the fields and sweep the streets of their own nation, the rest of the inner party desperately wishes to continue its charmed life free of such chores and has adopted (perhaps in response to the experience with Stalin) a decentralized strategy of acquiring and keeping power through private activity.

As I mentioned in the previous essay “what it would take to cleanse Serbia”, a necessary consequence of this strategy is a multiplicity of unplanned and conflicting initiatives driven by visceral emotion – a fertile field for the very visible blunders and mistakes which Ginzberg fears.

A second drawback of that strategy is that the laws of demographics and large numbers apply in spades to the exercise of power through private activity. The fact that the number of inner party kids enrolling at Princeton has fallen from 18% in 1973 to 9% in 1995 is very significant news. In 1973 the inner party filled about 45% of the seats at Harvard. In 1997 they filled only 28%.

Even more stunning is the statistic that “Jewish students represented only 6.3 per cent of the freshmen at private colleges in 1996, down from 16.8 per cent in 1973, according to a survey of freshmen conducted annually by the Higher Education Research Institute at the University of California at Los Angeles.”

The inner party faculty members at Princeton suspect invidious discrimination – and this despite the fact the the President of Princeton is an inner party member. So once again we hear the primal scream of the inner party with its hands on the reins of power: – If only we were really in charge!

But the reason for the decline is much simpler and more obvious.

I checked the NLSY-1979 sample (a group that has mostly completed their child bearing years), and it appears that the fertility rate for inner party females is a dismal 1.2 per woman (it is a very small sample so the possible error is in the 15 to 20% range). For the descendants of European Christendom, the number is 1.6 – a troublesome number but much better than that of the inner party.

The reason that there are so few inner party kids at Princeton is that the kids are not being born in the first place.

Professor MacDonald argues that the evolutionary psychology unique to the inner party is so strong that no amount of out-marriage and no degree of infertility will threaten their group survival nor change the essential characteristics of the group. However, the issue here is not group survival (an outcome I concede as readily to the inner party as to every other race or nation on earth – there is room for all of us!). The issue here is power – and more specifically the inner party’s ability to hold political and social power based on a strategy of displacing native elites.

It is a collective and cumulative political power that is ultimately dependent on numbers.

The consequence is clear. A complex society requires a large number of intelligent people to manage its functions. To exercise power effectively with a decentralized displacement strategy you need large numbers – numbers sufficient to place representatives in every office to spot and censor every instance of politically incorrect thought and behavior.

The smaller the numbers, the more difficult control becomes.

While Professor MacDonald may be right that a small and intense core of the inner party can reproduce itself; nevertheless, it is equally clear that the strategy of fanning out into and controlling an “open” society by corrupting the culture has poisoned the inner party at the same time.

Sir Arthur Keith was the first to recognize that the extension of the ideals of compassion, equality and brotherly love beyond one’s own tribe or racial nation (where they are necessary for collective survival) and the universalization and application of those ideals to all of mankind inevitably means that such ideals are being used as aggressive tools of retribalizing elites engaging in hostile, race forming behaviors intended to set themselves apart as a separate class from their kinship group, while rendering members of their kinship group unsuspecting deracinated targets. Modern liberalism always has a subconscious malevolent driver.

And indeed this central insight of Keith’s makes him more dangerous to the inner party than any other social critic of this ending millennium. It justifies his academy award level blackout treatment as well as the heavy posthumous doses of slander and calumny which he will wear as badges of honor forever. For Keith’s analysis tears the Marxist mask from “class conflict,” thereby conferring automatic moral legitimacy on any future “peasant revolts” while making clear what programs must be followed to restore nature’s order and prevent an immediate recurrence of the multi-cultural disease.

And indeed, portions of the small, native Polish middle class (along with native elites throughout Europe) were indeed attracted to the Marxist ideology as a means of “managing” the mass migration of peasants to cities.

Thus, the theoretical underpinnings of Marxism – environmental determinism of ability, equality of reward for work, and central planning and allocation of opportunities and rewards, were perfectly rational as weapons to forestall the threat of upward mobility and displacement inherent in the migration of peasants to cities in the industrial revolution. Further, it was perfectly rational for the inner party to spread these doctrines among native elites as a means of preserving their dominant position.

If you are a tiny minority elite living scattered among your host, prosperity is only assured by acquiring the power to retain your own rent seeking position within the economy and not by producing generalized economic growth and prosperity for all.

Thus, orthodox Marxism was remade into its reform variety, wherein ethnic and racial identity is used to motivate minorities to join political coalitions with the inner party as a means of controlling political outcomes in the “liberal democracies.” Reform Marxism also requires immigration of additional minorities as a means of augmenting inner party political power. This basic strategy of ethnic and racial engineering for political advantage is reinforced by a system of punishment for any form of explicit racial defense among the majority European group. These punishments consist of social and economic sanctions that now exist throughout the European world, as well as laws criminalizing all such expressions in all European countries except for the U.S. and Russia.

This mirror image of the orthodox Communist program, adapted to democracy, is completely rational from the perspective of the inner party.

But that part of the reform Communist program which seeks to estrange the outer party European elites from their racial kinsmen by corrupting them is fraught with danger – dangers that are quite obvious in retrospect. And it is this part of the program that has split off a small group of inner party dissenters known as neo-conservatives.

Before the inner party decided to undertake a public campaign to seduce the outer party elites though prosperity and vice, it should have checked to make sure its own members had taken the vaccine!

This is especially critical when power depends on numbers. Before it began its attack on Christianity and its promotion of “women’s liberation” and “alternative life styles” such as unmarried motherhood, lesbian and gay lifestyles, and self-absorbed childless yuppie consumerism, it should have carefully shored up its own cultural defenses.

And as the falling numbers of inner party college students attest, the inner party has no vaccine. Truth be told, they never even thought through the consequences before the onslaught began. It is another one of those inner party delusions driven by visceral emotion.

There is one central and overwhelming aspect of this attack in particular that should have caused the inner party to reconsider. For seducing the outer party elite to vice could only be accomplished with the image of the Aryan, blonde female flooding through an endless stream of advertisements and movies over 50 years. As sir Arthur Keith noted, ethics are a tribe’s rules of survival. If you can destroy those ethics you can destroy the tribe or race.

But Keith also noted that aesthetic preferences and images of beauty and sexual attraction are equally important to group survival. And when the inner party sought to destroy our ethics and morals by drowning us in exceptionally rare and beautiful images of the blond Aryan female, they made a classic mistake.

While recoiling viscerally at the implications of Darwin’s idea of natural selection, the inner party neglected to consider carefully the mechanisms of that selection. Within human groups, sexual selection is by far the most important mechanism, more important than mortality from disease, starvation or combat. Ironically, by dramatically decreasing mortality from disease and combat, modern life has made sexual selection paramount. Prior to the inner party attack, Christian ethics restrained the effects of sexual selection. The attack opened the floodgates.

Call it the survival of the prettiest.

Unwittingly, the inner party has dramatically accelerated the pace of natural selection.

When my teenage daughters compare themselves to the ideals thrust upon us by the inner party media and advertising moguls, models such as Claudia Schiffer and Heidi Klum, they realize that they do not quite measure up. But at the same time they instantly recognize that they are visibly of the same tribe as those stars – tall, slender and light hair. They are second round draft picks, which is about as good as it gets in the real world away from the Hollywood images.

But once the typical inner party teenage girl from Brooklyn discovers how totally enthralled the inner party boys are by these Aryan images, she knows she is doomed. The ones who look like young versions of Madeline Albright or Dr. Ruth Westheimer must lower their sights, or, like Monica Lewinski, accept the most demeaning of competitive poses.

Most fly like moths to the flame of women’s liberation, thereby politicizing the personal, blaming failure on impersonal societal forces (which is indeed true, relative to the reproductive success that they would have enjoyed back in the Pale of the Settlement before World War I), and finding comfort in the company of others similarly situated.

The average consequence shows clearly in the fertility numbers.

The inner party attack is a disaster for us and a worse disaster for them. Who knows; perhaps they really believed those idiotic studies conducted by Franz Boaz in 1911 which argued that immigrants heads changed shape shortly after arrival on these fair shores.

Indeed, the Aryan ideal of female beauty is overpowering. Ben Stein writes a “life and style” type column in the neo-conservative American Spectator. In one column he recalls a stroll on the Venice Beach boardwalk and a chance encounter with a shockingly beautiful blond Slovak or Romanian girl on roller skates. Stein comments that he wanted to take over the INS and admit only girls who looked like her. A darker treatment of the power of this same image can be found in Eldridge Cleaver’s “Soul on Ice.”

But there is a second aspect of this aesthetic conditioning that is never discussed – except perhaps in my own writings, and that is its effect on majority males.

In a tribal or pre-industrial society, the ideas of aesthetic attraction we are born with are influenced and refined exclusively by the real women we actually see in our neighborhoods. The slave boy in the dialog The Meno, was shown a puzzle by Socrates and taken through two erroneous proofs. He recognizes their falsehood after hearing explanations by Socrates. But the slave boy instantly recognizes that the third proof is correct and defends it against later sophistical arguments against its validity. So too, the presentation of rare Aryan images of female beauty are “true” to young majority males. The endless repetition of that image gives it supercharged power.

The exact dimensions of this phenomenon first struck me when I saw a brochure produced by some National Alliance boys at the local University. They had selected for the cover of their brochure an incredibly beautiful, slender blond woman playing with her two preschool children. There were no words or argument. None were needed. It was simply understood that this image was under attack. It was this image that they and their organization were fighting to defend. In hoc Signo Vincet.

It was a very effective brochure.

Ironically, they lifted the image from an ad published by the local phone or electric utility. The commercial advertiser knew that this image would cause customers with a particular evolutionary psychology to identify positively with the company and buy its products.

What I had not clearly recognized before was the obvious; – that this aesthetic image of beauty propounded by Hollywood has created for millions of young white males an image of our race that has never before existed.

If you stop and think about it, a race is a very difficult thing to conceptualize. It is quite doubtful that any humans carried around an image of their race in their heads prior to the twentieth century. After all, there is a great deal of individual variation within the extended tribe, and humans cannot conveniently synthesize mental images of thousands of their varied kinsmen into a unified whole.

In the past, they carried images of different looking strangers, but not a single unified image of themselves as a race. Indeed, you can search European literature and find scant mention of the idea of race until the 19th Century. And even then, race was defined only in reference to the different look of the stranger. The stranger is a specific type. Be WE are not a race. Rather, WE are the one true universal man, and those alien others are “races”.

In this sense, race is a uniquely modern idea. In the past, all humans (with the exception of the inner party) whether organized by tribe or nation defended a territory. Patriotism demanded sacrifice for the defense of a strip of land from which the tribe or race obtained sustenance. In the past, we did not carry around in our heads a uniform aesthetic ideal of beauty we were defending. Our own death and defeat did not deprive life on earth of a living aesthetic symbol of overarching and transcendent value.

Inadvertently, the inner party bosses of Hollywood and the advertising industry, with explicit theoretical blessing from the Frankfurt School, have given us something unique. It is an image of our future, the map of our evolutionary destiny. It is the image of what we can collectively become.

It is an image that has replaced territory in its power. It is an image that millions of young males would fight and die for.

And that, folks, is not particularly good news for the inner party.

I should also note a second process of de-territorialization that has potential consequences.

The vast majority of successful business executives I met during my working career were, like myself, essentially two generations off the farm. We all thought of ourselves as sophisticates when it came to identifying the interests of the business and defending those interests in the political process. But in the pit of our stomachs, we all viewed the political system as alien, mysterious, irrational and dangerous. In truth, none of us had a clue how it really worked or even the right questions to ask.

Like me, many of these executives were plucked from the wrong side of the tracks by the standardized test, moved about the American Empire hither and yon, landing in corner offices in our own de-territorialized diaspora of the glass towers.

Like all Europeans of Christian heritage, our own evolutionary psychology is bound up in the defense of land. For thousands of years, large hosts have periodically gathered and invaded. We needed to develop and encourage the skills of violence and war to defend against such hosts. But we also needed habits of courtesy and civility so that we could maintain good relations with hundreds of neighboring tribes over a large enough area to encompass an army sufficient to defeat the largest alien host.

And we needed a sense of obligation, duty and loyalty to those neighboring tribes so that we could respond to an attack on their land as if it were an attack on our own.

But as a byproduct of success in the modern world, we have become de-territorialized. The proof is in white flight to the suburbs. When our surroundings become unpleasant we vote with our feet and flee. It is the South African “chicken run” in which flight defines us and territory is repeatedly abandoned.

But when we flee, we are fleeing to a gathering of people very similar to ourselves. The statistics say that only about 12% of American women can afford to stay home and raise the kids. And as a guilty participant now in a number of “chicken runs” I must tell you that the women who manage to land a job as “stay-at-home mom” are a shockingly uniform bunch. They can be seen walking with their young children during the day in expensive new suburban developments, and I must stay that they are uniformly slender, tall, and very attractive. Their husbands, on the other hand, are good deal less uniform in appearance but probably just as uniform in their earning power.

When life gets unpleasant we flee not to a place, but to that image. And yet we are torn by our own evolutionary psychology and the deep betrayal that the chicken run implies for the less fortunate left behind.

In the process of de-territorializing us, filling our heads with alien multi-culturalist philosophies, and destroying our traditional culture, the inner party has inadvertently created an even more powerful replacement as the object of our desires and defensive impulses.

Without realizing it, the inner party has implanted deep within our psyches an easily visualized and universally embraced image of our future and our potential.

The reaction will be swift and cataclysmic once cultural decay directly and visibly threatens the de-territorialized chicken run enclaves in which the image is now become deeply enshrined.

In the twentieth century, we Europeans of Christian heritage nearly destroyed ourselves in two immensely destructive wars to expand or defend our land based empires. One can argue whether the encouragement we received in this madness from the inner party was conscious of the destructive consequence. But one thing seems clear. We have been de-territorialized to the point that we are most unlikely to participate in any similar disaster in the future.

But the combative instinct still exists. Its object is in the process of being transferred from the defense of land to the defense of a people. Thanks to the inner party, we all know clearly what it is we will defend. What we lack in our de-territorialized diaspora, is a uniform vision of the triggering threat.

In the old days, the sight of an armed host on the horizon would provoke an immediate and unanimous response. But in our new diaspora, we all have individual thresholds for action.

As reluctant as I am to hand to the snooping agencies in Washington another flag to wave at Congress come budget renewal time, I am nevertheless constrained to remark that an inevitable consequence of our slow process of de-territorialization is our growing awareness and understanding of the borderless war.

Without going into excessive detail, imagine a time 20 years from now when working age populations are falling throughout the entire G-8 plus China, worldwide demand is falling (in 1999 it is merely stagnating), and in the U.S. the baby boom generation has already begun selling their stocks to support themselves in retirement and has driven prices to 40 year lows in the process. The boomers are becoming desperate about support from Social Security. Tax revenues are falling and La Raza has started a guerrilla war of secession in the southwestern U.S. Our institutions no longer have the resources to buy them off. Similar low intensity conflicts bubble from time to time in our cities. Imagine also that a solid 10 to 20% of the majority population now has a clear picture of the threat and is committed to jury nullification on behalf of their defenders.

And suddenly there are two thousand Eric Rudolphs running around loose with lists of meaningful targets. The original Eric Rudolph severely taxed the system. Several hundred at once would overwhelm it.

It is becoming increasingly clear that politicians and political institutions are constrained by the forces around them. There is no need to attack or threaten those political institutions. They are as irrelevant in this particular borderless war as the military and the police. Only very tiny minorities lurking in the shadows support bombing defenseless countries into submission to impose a multi-cultural ideology. Only tiny minorities in the shadows work towards displacement of majority elites and racial and ethnic engineering. These people cannot even describe these activities in public without crippling their program. Given the issues involved and the utter lack of public support for them, the programs of ethnic displacement and culture destruction are “personnel dependent” and will simply go away as soon as the personnel working them go away.

Reshape the forces in the shadows (either by competition or by conflict) and suddenly a different kind of politician wins office and different messages flow from our media.

The process could be largely invisible to the great mass of sheeple, and need not inconvenience them in any significant way.

A fundamental frailty of government by wire-puller is that it functions flawlessly as long as the stakes are financial favors to special interests. As long as the stakes are limited to money, the wire-pullers can remain safely in the shadows.

However, ethic displacement and culture destruction are just too heavy a load to place upon the system. The stakes are too high. In the information age, the participants who are using the system for such a purpose can be identified and located with relative ease by the victims, and the government cannot protect them at public expense without exposing them and the reasons for their protection to a much wider base of the population. Any attempt to guard them would make clear in the most graphic, physical and intrusive way the distinction between the controllers of government and the facade of government.

Further, it is unlikely that the government can figure out who to protect. A quick perusal of some of the data tells me that a large fraction of the relevant players cannot be identified by ethnic origin (despite my use of the term “inner party” in an exclusive ethnic sense heretofore in this essay).

Further, self-identification is impossible because there are millions of paranoid and ideologically overdosed people who would want expensive armed escorts. Many of the most important players would not self-identify, because, as any good evolutionary psychologist would predict, they are in denial about what they are doing.

And so we wait and watch.

In between now and that hypothetical scene 20 years from now, the U.S. will need to educate a far larger number of intelligent young people to run our complex society than the upper middle class, with its disastrously low birth rates, has produced. Our society is going to have to do a much better job of finding and motivating the 50% of our kids in the U.S. with IQs above 130 who do not attend college.

Inevitably it will involve combing the hills of West Virginia and East Tennessee, as well as Iowa, Nebraska and Utah. Our society will have to search these haunts for high IQ just as diligently as it now does for fashion models and actresses.

We shall see how the inner party adjusts.

I am always amazed when I hear people claim that Airport security has to search Whites because they are not allowed to do racial profiling. The trouble with this rationale is the assumption that the searches serve an underlying meaningful purpose,  which is to search Arab terrorists, and that searching Whites is merely an additional “cost” we impose on ourselves to demonstrate our racial benevolence.

The State of Israel, confronted as it is with a very high risk of retaliatory violence, profiles and searches only a very small subset of Arabs – those who come to the attention of their intelligence agencies for professing, through speech or conduct, obvious markers of probable intent to carry out attacks.

That is exactly how a nation under real threat operates if its purpose is to prevent attacks.

So obviously, U.S. airport security must have a larger and more comprehensive purpose than merely stopping terrorism. For the multicultural true believer, the searching of Whites at airports is a convenient, state sponsored, taxpayer financed opportunity for them to engage in a spectacularly wasteful public display of their moral superiority.

And the fact that there has never been a single instance of White terrorist activity in an airplane makes the display all the more powerful. The removal of all traces of practical utility renders the symbolic content absolute, pure and unmistakable.

What most observers of the contemporary scene miss entirely is the simple fact that this display (financed at your expense) would confer no status whatsoever if all races performed the same self effacing ritual. At bottom, for the multicultural true believer, the airport search is a race-specific display of their moral superiority—the one form of white supremacy they really care about, and the one form of white supremacy that the Jews joyously tolerate, as the race which it fears most destroys itself at its own expense.

One might argue that these conspicuous displays of racial generosity might be intended to blunt the anger of Muslims whose nations we are invading. But Muslims are not fooled by any of this. Indeed, given the fact that Christianity is as dead as a dodo (if not hated outright) by and among the elites who run this country, the “Crusader” label used by the Muslim nations makes sense only if they see these self righteous public displays for exactly what they are: the moral and ideological justification for a race-smothering, culture-destroying crusade to produce a single, world wide, homogenized race of human consumers for the globalist economic engine.

While the irrationality of the airport search might appeal to the Mrs. Jellyby (of Bleak House fame) in the gentile multicultural true believer, it is clear that the paranoid architects of the policy at Homeland Security have no such illusions. It is the murderous, pogrom-inclined, white gentile who is the real target.

Never mind that there has never been a pogrom in the U.S. There is always a pogrom lurking below the surface; and for those who set policy at Homeland Security and their ethnic kinsmen to feel safe, they must begin to condition the great white gentile herd to accept being searched randomly and for no apparent reason.

They must be searched so often and so regularly that being searched feels ordinary and natural to them.

After all, using the public infrastructure of the air traffic system is a privilege and not a right, and thus by using that public infrastructure, you give up your rights under the Fourth Amendment and must submit to a search.

But then the same argument will apply just as well to the public infrastructure of our public highways and public sidewalks. Once the glass tower and air travel-using gentile population is conditioned to submit to constant searches and pat downs, it is only a matter of time before the searches and pat downs leap the firewall of the airport and infiltrate down to the train stations, the bus stops, the highways and the sidewalks.

2. The Texas Chicken Run

The Texas legislature passed a law criminalizing as sexual assault any Airport security officer’s touching of the private parts of an airline passenger.

Homeland Security then threatens to shut down all the airports in Texas.

Then Governor Perry causes his Lieutenant Governor to veto the bill.

What a moron!!

There is no way that Homeland Security would shut down all the Airports in Texas. The Airlines would have screamed bloody murder and would provoke Congress to intervene and make Homeland Security back off.

Texas has a huge amount of arrival and destination air traffic as well as two or three times that amount to hub transfer traffic. Shutting down Texas would have disrupted nearly a third of the airline traffic in the U.S.

Besides, criminalizing genital groping by Airport security was largely symbolic in any event. County prosecutors would have a serious problem with scienter if they had attempted to bring any actual criminal prosecutions under that act. Guards ordered to search people as part of their jobs do not normally intend to assault or sexually molest those they search by touching their private parts.

Governor Perry should have called Homeland Security’s bluff.

They would have caved.

It is clear that states do not understand the scope of their power to shape national policy. For example, no state has yet figured out that they can easily recoup banker bailout bonus money attributable to the bank’s share of the bank’s revenue derived from that state simply by taxing the bank on that state’s slice of the bailout revenue.

Similarly, the states can impose an income surtax, or an excise tax, on revenues produced in the state with the amount of the tax based on the number of U.S. Jobs destroyed and moved overseas.

These taxes would be wildly popular politically. Imagine the Federal U.S. Attorney having to sue to block a tax that protects the American worker from having his job exported to China!

Rather than enacting a criminal statute, Texas should have imposed an excise tax, just like they impose on cigarettes, gasoline and liquor, on any person who gropes another person’s genitals or breasts in a public place – no scienter problem at all. The U.S. Attorney would have a devil’s time challenging an excise tax under the Supremacy Clause, and the challenge would be litigated in the Fifth Circuit, where the Court of Appeals would be sympathetic to the State’s position.

The problem at the state level is two fold.

First, most of the legislators are people who could not make it in law practice and simply want a job. They are risk averse.

Second, they rely on political consultants who were taught as undergraduates that to maximize consulting revenue, you must maximize the political contribution take of your politician clients from special interests. Protecting the average middle class voter is at best a waste of time and effort if your objective is to raise special interest money. And more often than not will be seen as a threat by those special interests.

Once again, you get risk aversion.

Until we get very intelligent volunteer legislative analysts educating the mediocrities that inhabit our state legislatures, America will continue down its current path.

This is, in a sentimental chestnut, the vision for America’s future which has replaced the traditional vision upheld by our forefathers. It’s an inversion of it, one in which America is not only something other than a great nation – it’s the anti-nation. The flag no longer symbolizes the founding values, values by and for a specific nation of people from throughout Europe who were integrating into a shared Anglo-American identity. The flag symbolizes the singular vision of the tens of millions of foreigners of varying legal statuses stampeding in: a free lunch at our expense.

Obama assures us that they’ve embraced our ideals and precepts. While most who parrot the recent idea that America is a “notional nation” shy away from explicitly defining the national notion, he came right out and admitted it: “opportunity”. “Pursuit of opportunity” is a euphemistic way of saying “pursuit of self-interest”. They’re here to get stuff, not to embody Enlightenment ideals, practice the Protestant work ethic, and watch the big game alongside the buffoons they’re replacing. They’re doing what’s in their interests by coming here, just as our hostile elites are doing what’s in their interests by inviting them here.

What’s curious is why so many ordinary White Americans are inviting them here. By what logic would we knowingly and willingly give up our inheritance, our infrastructure, our power, and our very future to an ever-growing horde of intruders who no longer even pretend to take assimilation seriously? America’s media and academia encourage and promote this madness, but there’s a method to the madness beyond the influence of our enemies. It’s a mindset ripe for this sort of manipulation.

It’s the mindset of a cat lady.

America has become the world’s cat lady, throwing its door wide open to whoever wants in. Cat ladies are motivated by an unthinking sentimentality that does the cats more harm than good in the long run. The cats don’t care if it’s sustainable or even tolerable for the lady, they just want in from the cold and in on the free lunch. The promoters of amnesty and open borders can’t define a point at which America’s charity would stop – because there isn’t one. Expecting the illegal immigrant to consider the welfare of his host country is as absurd as expecting a cat to consider the welfare of the old woman.

Ultimately the act which feels like charity becomes intolerable for all involved, including the parasites. Before you know it, they’ve taken the place over, refuse to be domesticated, and even threaten and attack their hosts. Obama openly mocked the growing number of Americans who are concerned about border security with jokes about “moats with alligators”, he spoke to the largely Hispanic crowd as a cat among the cats which have taken over the house, offering  up citizenship to the untold tens of millions here and the untold tens of millions on their way here.

We’re right, both logically and morally. We can’t, however, walk into the trap our enemies have set for us of being the heartless villains intent on being cruel toward immigrants. It’s both impossible and wrong to strip our fellow White Americans of the spirit of charity and sacrifice. White folks, especially the well-fed ones in their suburban subdivisions, can’t think the way the rest of the world thinks: in simple and stark selfish interests. Even if one could beat the Christianity out of us, the Christian themes and attitudes carry on in the mind long after God dies. It’s probably innate, as our pagan forefathers were already abstract, idealistic, and altruistic long before those impulses found expression in Christ’s message. The problem isn’t with charity, per se, but with the unthinking and unsustainable charity typified by the neighborhood cat lady.

If foreigners have a natural disaster, we’ll chip in. If their people are starving and we aren’t, we’ll do our share to help alleviate their suffering. But the solution these non-Whites want is to move over here, and that’s no solution at all. They aren’t escaping the problems in their home country. They’re bringing them here. The Mexican drug cartels are also spilling across our border, and you are guaranteed that they’ll bring their turf wars, their street gangs, their grisly murders, and their kidnappings for ransom with them. The legal ones will bring along the illegal ones, and the law-abiding ones will harbor the fugitives.

They obviously don’t respect our laws, or they wouldn’t be over there defying them and mocking us for trying to enforce them. They obviously don’t plan to integrate, or there wouldn’t be entire regions in America where the signs, businesses, and conversations are all in Spanish. If they’re sincerely loyal to this country, then why do they send tens of billions of dollars “back home” every year? Why do they wave Mexican flags, have Mexican flag bumper stickers, and show up in force at rallies to promote the interests of a foreign country in broad daylight?

Obama won’t seriously answer our objections to open borders. Sure, he’ll call us some names and try to guilt trip us with sob stories. But he won’t answer our objections. He won’t answer our objections because he can’t.

Our hostile elites will not allow an open debate on open borders because it’s an open and shut case of them working against the interests of ordinary White Americans. They’re hoping you’ll see their little signs depicting pathetic children begging not to be deported and take pity on them. They’re hoping you’ll be like the cat lady, and just keep letting a few more of them in until our entire home, our entire homeland, is completely overrun. That’s not hyperbole, that’s an official Census Bureau projection.

Mexico’s Southern border is guarded by armed soldiers who shoot to kill. This is how fiercely Obama’s adoring fans in El Paso protect their own border. Now, I’m not suggesting we stoop to their level. We should be guided by Christian charity in our actions. And when I say charity, I mean true charity, not the unexamined and self-destructive charity of the cat lady. I mean deporting them humanely, each and every last one of them. To do less would be to treat our own children and our children’s children inhumanely, because a nation that fails to define and defend its borders (especially a nation as bountiful and beautiful as this great nation of ours) is bound to fall.

We must not become refugees in a crowded third world madhouse dominated by the very people we once gave refuge. I’m proud to say that our advocacy group here in Indiana, Hoosier Nation, helped pass some of the toughest illegal immigration legislation in America. We can’t afford to wait for the federal government to do its job. We have to engage the political process and set an example for our White American peers of a morally confident and tactically competent resistance to the anti-White biases and anti-White policies that are designed to make us unwelcome and uncomfortable strangers in the land our forefathers fought for.

Our victory certainly wasn’t enough, and “politics as usual” aren’t enough to get us out from under this boot. All Indiana, Arizona, and the handful of other states passing these laws have done is decrease the force and frequency of the boot stomping us into oblivion. What we really need is a radical restoration propelled by a moral and spiritual vision capable of inspiring a true crusade. What we need is to redirect that boundless spirit of sacrifice of so many White Americans from feeding and supporting these ungrateful and undeserving intruders toward a cause and a nation worth sacrificing for.

Editor’s Note: This is the introductory article from the Spring 2011 issue of The Occidental Quarterly. To read the entire issue, please purchase a subscription.

Greg Johnson, the previous editor of TOQ, had the wonderful idea for an issue on how Libertarianism intersects with issues of White racial nationalism. The topic is an important one. Unlike explicit assertions of White identity and interests, libertarianism is considered part of the conservative mainstream. It doesn’t ruffle the feathers of the multicultural powers that be. Indeed, as discussed in several of the articles here—particularly the article by Simon Krejsa, libertarianism is an ideology of national dissolution that would greatly exacerbate problems resulting from immigration.

IGNORING THE REAL WORLD: LIBERTARIANISM AS UTOPIAN METAPHYSICS
Several prominent libertarians have advocated open borders except for immigrants clearly intent on violating personal or property rights. As Krejsa notes, libertarians ignore the reality that the peoples crowding our shores often have powerful ethnic ties and that they are typically organized in well-funded, aggressive ethnic organizations. These ethnic organizations have a vital interest in a strong central government able to further their interests in a wide range of areas, from welfare benefits to foreign policy. In other words, they act far more as a corporate entity than as a set of isolated individuals. Further, the immigration policy advocated by Libertarians ignores the reality of racial and ethnic differences in a broad spectrum of traits critical to success in contemporary societies, particularly IQ, criminality, and impulsivity. Social utility forms no part of the thinking of Libertarianism.

In reading these articles, one is struck by the fact that libertarianism is in the end a metaphysics. That is, it simply posits a minimal set of rights (to ownership of one’s own body, ownership of private property, and the freedom to engage in contracts) and unflinchingly follows this proposition to its logical conclusion. The only purpose of government is to prohibit the “physical invasion” of another’s person or property. It is a utopian philosophy based on what ought to be rather than on a sober understanding of the way humans actually behave. Not surprisingly, as Simon Lote and Farnham O’Reilly point out, there have never been any pure libertarian societies. There are powerful reasons for that.

Indeed, libertarianism philosophy reminds me of Kant’s categorical imperative which states that one must “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.” The imperative defines a conception of moral obligation, but it certainly does not follow that others will behave in a moral way. One would be naive indeed to suppose that a philosophy of moral obligations would make people nicer. Kant would never have said that we should arrange society on the supposition that people will behave in the ways that they are morally obligated.

Similarly, the libertarian idea that we should alter government as if the governed are an atomistic universe of individuals is oblivious to the fact that a great many people will continue to behave on the basis of their group identity, whether based on ethnicity or on a voluntary association like a corporation. They will continue to engage in networking (often with co-ethnics) and they will pursue policies aimed at advancing their self-interest as conditioned by group membership. If they have access to the media, they will craft media messages aimed at converting others to agree with their point of view—messages that need not accurately portray the likely outcomes of policy choices. Media-powerful groups may also craft messages that take advantage of people’s natural proclivities for their own profit without regard to the weaknesses of others—a form of the unleashing of Darwinian competition discussed in the following.

This minimal list of human interests is grounded in neither theology nor natural science. A focus of Trudie Pert’s essay is the conflict between libertarian philosophy and traditional Catholic collectivism with its group-protecting function based on the concept of natural law. From the standpoint of evolutionary biology, a society engineered according to libertarian ideology would unleash a Darwinian struggle of competition between individuals and groups. Since, as Vitman Tanka notes, there is nothing in libertarian ideology to prevent voluntary associations, people in a libertarian society would naturally band together to advance their interests. Such groups would see their own interests as best satisfied by a strong government that is on their side.

The libertarian utopia would thus be chronically unstable. Indeed, Krejsa quotes Peter Brimelow who notes that a libertarian society with completely open borders would result in enormous pressures for powerful state control — immigration as the “Viagra of the state”: “Immigrants, above all immigrants who are racially and culturally distinct from the host population, are walking advertisements for social workers and government programs and the regulation of political speech — that is to say, the repression of the entirely natural objections of the host population.”

A libertarian utopia would also unleash exploitation of the weak and disorganized by the strong and well-organized. Both Pert and Krejsa point out that a libertarian society would result in violations of normative moral intuitions. For example, parents could sell their children into slavery. Such behavior would indeed be evolutionarily maladaptive, because as slaves their reproductive opportunities would be at the whim of their master. But such an option might appeal to some parents who value other things more than their children as the result of genetically or environmentally induced psychiatric impairment, manipulative media influence, or drug-induced stupor in a society lacking social controls on drugs.

Moreover, in the libertarian Eden, regulations on marriage and sexual behavior would disappear so that wealthy men would be able to have dozens of wives and concubines while many men would not have access to marriage. Sexual competition among males would therefore skyrocket.

In fact, the social imposition of monogamy in the West has had hugely beneficial consequences on the society as a whole, including greater investment in children and facilitating a low pressure demographic profile that resulted in cumulative investment and rising real wages over historical time.^[1] In other words, progress.

Admittedly, benefits to the society as a whole are of no concern to libertarians. But, from an evolutionary perspective, they ought to be. An evolutionary approach has the virtue of being solidly grounded in a science of human interests, both explicit and implicit, whereas Libertarianism relies on metaphysical assertions. The fact is that dysfunctional societies are ultimately non-viable and likely to be pushed aside by more functional groups. Without the economic expansion brought about by the social controls on sexual behavior, the West may well have not embarked on the expansion and colonization beginning in the 15th century. Ultimately, social controls on sexual behavior benefited the vast majority of Whites.

The same can be said of social controls on sexual behavior. Social support for high-investment parenting has always been a critical feature of Western social structure until the sexual revolution of the 1960s. Since then, all of the markers of family stability have headed south — including divorce rates and births out of wedlock for all races and ethnic groups. (Nevertheless, there are very large differences between races and ethnic groups in conformity with J. Philippe Rushton’s life history theory of race differences.^[2])
But this relative lack of social support for marriage has had very different effects depending on traits like IQ. For example, a well-known study in behavior genetics shows that the heritability of age of first sexual intercourse increased dramatically after the sexual revolution of the 1960′s.^[3] In other words, after the social supports for traditional sexuality disappeared, genetic influences became more important. Before the sexual revolution, traditional sexual mores applied to everyone. After the revolution, genes mattered more. People with higher IQ were able to produce stable families and marriages, but lower-IQ people were less prone to doing so. These trends have been exacerbated by the current economic climate.

The triumph of the culture of critique therefore resulted in a more libertarian climate for sexual behavior that tended to produce family pathology among people at the lower end of the bell curve for IQ, particularly an increase in low-investment parenting. This in turn is likely to have decreased the viability of the society as a whole.^[4]

COULD WHITE ADVOCACY BE THE OUTCOME OF VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS?
It is interesting to consider whether a vibrant White advocacy movement could be the outcome of voluntary association in a society constructed along libertarian lines, as proposed by Tänka, who uses the Amish as an example. That is, Whites could come to realize that they have a natural interest in forming a voluntary association to advance their interests as Whites, much as Jews have done since the Enlightenment. (In traditional societies, Jewish groups were tightly controlled to prevent defection and “cheating,” i.e., engaging in acts such as undermining Jewish monopolies or informing on other Jews that were deemed harmful by the Jewish community as a whole. Traditional Jewish society was the antithesis of libertarianism.)

Such an outcome is theoretically possible but (like the rest of the libertarian wish list) would be unlikely to occur in the real world. In the real world, media-powerful groups and groups able to dominate prestigious academic institutions would indoctrinate people against identifying as Whites bent on pursuing White interests, as they do now. In the real world, there would be financial inducements to avoid White advocacy, including well-paid careers opposing White advocacy and economic consequences meted out by powerful voluntary associations, especially associations dominated by non-Whites hostile to White identity and interests — also the case now. A White advocacy movement would therefore have a great deal of inertia to overcome.

And yet, voluntary association is the only way that a powerful White advocacy movement could develop. We are seeing the beginnings of such movements, especially in Europe with the rise of explicitly anti-Muslim and anti-immigration parties.

However, if a White-advocacy movement gains power, it would be foolish indeed to retain a libertarian political structure of minimal government. As noted by Farnham O’Reilly, the rights of the individual must remain subservient to the welfare of the group. If indeed White interests are worth defending, then furthering those interests must be the first priority. That would mean acting against media-powerful interests that produce messages countering White identity and acting against voluntary associations (such as the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League) that mete out economic penalties against Whites who identify as White and wish to pursue their interests as Whites. (It is noteworthy at of the nine authors of this issue of TOQ, seven use pseudonyms. The exceptions, Robert Griffin and I, both have tenure and thus have protected positions.)

Indeed, one might note that the greatest obstacle to the triumph of a White advocacy movement now is that current Western societies are organized along (imperfectly) libertarian lines. That is, the Western commitment to economic individualism (which allows vast concentrations of wealth by individuals) combined with the legitimacy of using that wealth to influence government policy, control media messages, and penalize White advocates, has allowed the creation of a semi-Darwinian world where very powerful interests have aligned themselves against White advocacy. This in turn is leading to natural selection against White people as they become overwhelmed demographically by non-Whites. In such a world, Whites, especially non-elite Whites, will eventually be at the mercy of hostile non-White groups with historical grudges against them — a category that at the very least includes Jews, Blacks, and Mexicans. Again, there is no reason whatever to suppose that a society engineered along libertarianism lines would prevent associations based on ethnic/racial ties. The racialization of American politics in the semi-libertarian present is well advanced, with over 90% of Republican votes coming from Whites, and increasing percentages of Whites voting Republican.

LIBERTARIANISM FITS WITH THE EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY OF WHITES
Nevertheless, having pointed to the pitfalls of libertarianism, it must be said that the individual freedom and liberty that are the hallmarks of libertarianism “feel good” to us Europeans, as emphasized by Simon Lote and Robert Griffin. All things equal, we would rather live in a society with minimal restraint on individual behavior.

(However, all things may not be equal, as Simon Krejsa points out, since the vast majority of Whites would prefer to live in a non-libertarian society that was predominantly White rather than a libertarian society that was predominantly Black. Race matters.)

In my view, individualism is an ethnic trait of Europeans — the only group to have invented individualistic societies. (Ironically, for the reasons set out above, the semi-libertarian structure of contemporary Western societies may ultimately be the demise of the West.) This judgment is based on a variety of data.^[5] For example, European family patterns indicate that Europeans, far more than other groups, have been able to free themselves from clan-based social structure (a form of collectivism) and develop societies with a high level of public trust needed to create modern economies.

That’s perhaps why reading Ayn Rand has been so exciting for so many of us, as emphasized by Gregory Hood in his prize-winning essay. We thrill to the idea of talented, productive, competent people who are able to create their own worlds and are not bound by the petty conventions of society — who seem larger than life. It is, as Hood points out, a White World, peopled by heroic Nordics, with “an Aryan code of achievement, appreciation of hierarchy, and a robustly defended philosophy of greatness“; it is “a world where uniquely Western values such as individualism, the rule of law, and limited government are taken for granted.”

I confess that when I first read Atlas Shrugged in high school, I was very much taken with it. Readers of her work naturally cast themselves in the role of John Galt or similar Randian super-person. Her characters appeal to our vanity and our natural desire to live free of burdensome constraints and to be completely in charge of our own destiny. I recall when driving across the country shortly after reading it that I took special notice of all the signs of eponymous businesses— Johnson’s Lumber Co., Hansen’s Furniture, Mario’s Pizza, Ford auto- mobiles. All were the creations of individuals with drive and ambition — people creating their own worlds.

It’s an attractive image, but as an evolutionist I understand that humans must think in terms of the larger picture — what Frank Salter terms “ethnic genetic interests.”^[6] And to effectively further our ethnic genetic interests, we must take account of the real world and accept the need for restraints on people’s behavior, as argued above. The good news is that, as Hood notes (see also Tänka’s essay), the road to a sense of White advocacy and a sense that Whites have interests often begins with Ayn Rand and libertarianism.

The European tendency toward individualism is also associated with moral universalism (as opposed to moral particularlism, famously, “Is it good for the Jews?”) and science (i.e, inquiry free from in- group/outgroup biases, with each scientist an independent agent unattached to any ingroup). The tendency toward moral particularism is especially important when thinking about Libertarianism. The European tendency toward moral universalism implies a relatively strong commitment to principled morality — that is, moral principles that are adhered to independent of cost to self or family.^[7] This contrasts with non-European societies where there is a much greater tendency for family and kinship ties to color moral judgments.^[8]

This devotion to principled morality is most apparent in the Puritan tradition of American culture — likely the result of prolonged evolution in small, exogamous, egalitarian groups in northern Europe.^[9] An egregious example is Justice John Paul Stevens who recently vacated the court, allowing President Obama to replace him with Elena Kagan, an undistinguished law school graduate who benefited greatly from Jewish ethnic networking and who is likely to reflect to values of the mainstream left-liberal Jewish community.

Stevens therefore is the ultimate non-ethnic actor, allowing himself to be replaced during a Democratic administration that would be very unlikely to appoint someone like himself. This lack of an ethnic sense is reflected in his writing:

“The ideas of liberty and equality have been an irresistible force in motivating leaders like Patrick Henry, Susan B. Anthony, and Abraham Lincoln, schoolteachers like Nathan Hale and Booker T. Washington, the Philippine Scouts who fought at Bataan, and the soldiers who scaled the bluff at Omaha Beach,” he wrote in an unusually lyrical dissent [in a 1989 flag burning case]. “If those ideas are worth fighting for—and our history demonstrates that they are—it cannot be true that the flag that uniquely symbolizes their power is not itself worthy of protection.^[10]

Ideas are worth fighting for, but Stevens has no interest in advancing the cause of WASPs as an ethnic group. Here he idealizes non-White Filipinos fighting alongside Whites to secure a set of principles. He has no concern that there will be no more WASPs on the court for the foreseeable future, presumably because he thinks that what’s important is that certain ideas will continue to guide the country.

The multicultural left should build statues to Stevens and David Souter also appointed by a Republican president and replaced by a non-White [Sonia Sotomayor] in a Democrat administration) as heroes of the hopeful non-White future. Their principled sense that ideas matter and that race and ethnicity are not at all important is exactly how the multicultural left wants all Whites to behave — WASPs as the proposition ethnic group heralding America as the proposition nation.

This devotion to universalist ideas is a strong tendency in the liberal WASP subculture that has been such an important strand of American intellectual history.^[11] (The exception was during the 1920s when the Protestant elite sided with the rest of America when they led the battle to enact the immigration restriction law of 1924 which drastically restricted immigration and explicitly attempted to achieve an ethnic status quo as of 1890. Even then, there were substantial numbers of WASPs who opposed immigration restriction.)

In the 19th century, this liberal WASP tradition could be seen in their attraction to utopian communities and their strong moral revulsion to slavery that animated the cause of abolition.^[12] Ideas matter and are worth fighting for, even if more than 600,000 White people died in the battle — ”Let us die to make men free” as the “Battle Hymn of the Republic” urged. They had the idea that people are able to fashion moral ideals and then bring them into being as a result of political activism, a view that is certainly borne out by contemporary psychology.^[13] They were individualists who saw the world not in terms of in-groups and outgroups, but as composed of unique individuals. Their relatively tepid ethnocentrism and their ethnic proneness to moral universalism made them willing allies of the rising class of Jewish intellectuals who came to dominate intellectual discourse beginning at least by the 1930s. Even by the 1920s, the triumph of Boasian anthropology meant that appeals to WASP ethnicity would fall on deaf ears in the academic world.

Libertarianism thus fits well with this tradition. Indeed, Eric Kaufmann labels one of the 19th-century liberal American traditions “libertarian anarchism,” typified by Benjamin Tucker, publisher Liberty, a journal devoted to unfettered individualism and opposed to prohibitions on non-invasive behavior (“free love,” etc.). Moreover, as noted above, libertarianism is nothing if not strongly principled. Indeed, libertarianism is addicted to its fundamental principles of individual freedom no matter what practical costs may result to self, to others or to the society as a whole. The sign of principled behavior is that other interests, prototypically self-interest (paradoxically enough in the case of libertarianism), are irrelevant, and that is certainly the case with libertarianism.

IS LIBERTARIANISM A JEWISH INTELLECTUAL MOVEMENT?
Finally, we must ask, “Is it good for the Jews?” Simon Lote notes that libertarians tend to be “cosmopolitan White males [who] are led by a smaller but more eminent group of Jews who are attracted to the political philosophy for entirely different reasons.” Jews are attracted to libertarianism because

[the] cosmopolitan universalism at [the core of libertarianism] is a mighty ideological weapon to weaken White identity and loyalty and so ensures that Jewish interests are better preserved and advanced. After all, if one regards property rights as sacred, the idea of breaking the Jewish stranglehold over the media by government anti-trust legislation would be considered abhorrent. Libertarians also tend to be in favor of massive non-White immigration which is also favored by Jews as an ethnic strategy aimed at lessening the political and cultural influence of Whites.^[14]

Indeed, Trudie Pert begins her essay with the following quote from The Culture of Critique:

Jews benefit from open, individualistic societies in which barriers to upward mobility are removed, in which people are viewed as individuals rather than as members of groups, and in which intellectual discourse is not prescribed by institutions like the Catholic Church that are not dominated by Jews.^[15]

Libertarianism was not reviewed as a Jewish intellectual movement of The Culture of Critique, although the discussion of the Frankfurt School as a Jewish movement in Chapter 5 emphasizes that it pathologized the group commitments of non-Jews while nevertheless failing to provide a similar critique of Jewish group commitment. It noted that

a common component of anti-Semitism among academics during the Weimar period [in Germany] was a perception that Jews attempted to undermine patriotic commitment and social cohesion of society. Indeed, the perception that Jewish critical analysis of non-Jewish society was aimed at dissolving the bonds of cohesiveness within the society was common among educated non-Jewish Germans, including university professors …. One academic referred to the Jews as “the classic party of national decomposition.”

In the event, National Socialism developed as a cohesive non-Jewish group strategy in opposition to Judaism, a strategy that completely rejected the Enlightenment ideal of an atomized society based on individual rights in opposition to the state. As I have argued in [Separation and Its Discontents] (Ch. 5), in this regard National Socialism was very much like Judaism, which has been throughout its history fundamentally a group phenomenon in which the rights of the individual have been submerged in the interests of the group.

Further:

The prescription that … society adopt a social organization based on radical individualism would indeed be an excellent strategy for the continuation of Judaism as a cohesive, collectivist group strategy. Research … on cross-cultural differences in individualism and collectivism indicates that anti-Semitism would be lowest in individualist societies rather than societies that are collectivist and homogeneous apart from Jews. A theme of [A People That Shall Dwell Alone] (Ch. 8) is that European societies (with the notable exceptions of the National Socialist era in Germany and the medieval period of Christian religious hegemony—both periods of intense anti-Semitism) have been unique among the economically advanced traditional and modern cultures of the world in their commitment to individualism. … The presence of Judaism as a highly successful and salient group strategy provokes anti-individualist responses from [non-Jews]. Collectivist cultures [like Judaism]… place a much greater emphasis on the goals and needs of the ingroup rather than on individual rights and interests. Collectivist cultures develop an “unquestioned attachment” to the ingroup, including “the perception that ingroup norms are universally valid (a form of ethnocentrism), automatic obedience to ingroup authorities, and willingness to fight and die for the ingroup.^[16] These characteristics are usually associated with distrust of and unwillingness to cooperate with outgroups.” In collectivist cultures morality is conceptualized as that which benefits the group, and aggression and exploitation of outgroups are acceptable.^[17]

People in individualist cultures, in contrast, show little emotional attachment to ingroups. Personal goals are paramount, and socialization emphasizes the importance of self-reliance, independence, individual responsibility, and “finding yourself.”^[18] Individualists have more positive attitudes toward strangers and outgroup members and are more likely to behave in a prosocial, altruistic manner to strangers. Because they are less aware of in-group-outgroup boundaries, people in individualist cultures are less likely to have negative attitudes toward outgroup members.^[19] They often disagree with ingroup policy, show little emotional commitment or loyalty to ingroups, and do not have a sense of common fate with other ingroup members. Opposition to outgroups occurs in individualist societies, but the opposition is more “rational” in the sense that there is less of a tendency to suppose that all of the outgroup members are culpable for the misdeeds of a few. Individualists form mild attachments to many groups, whereas collectivists have an intense attachment and identification to a few ingroups.^[20]

The expectation is that individualists will tend to be less predisposed to anti-Semitism and more likely to blame any offensive Jewish behavior as resulting from transgressions by individual Jews rather than stereotypically true of all Jews. However Jews, as members of a collectivist subculture living in an individualistic society, are themselves more likely to view the Jewish–non- Jewish distinction as extremely salient and to develop stereotypically negative views about non-Jews.

Pert’s article suggests that libertarianism functioned as a Jewish intellectual movement for at least some of its main Jewish proponents. (No one is saying that libertarianism is a Jewish movement to the extent that, say, psychoanalysis was in its early years, when virtually all its practitioners were Jews. For the reasons indicated above, libertarianism is very attractive to Europeans.) In order for a movement to qualify as a Jewish movement, participants must have a Jewish identity and see their work as furthering Jewish interests. Particularly interesting is the animosity shown by Ludwig von Mises toward Christianity and particularly toward the Catholic Church as enemies of freedom. (One might also note Ayn Rand’s one-sided and impassioned defense of Israel and her denunciations of Arabs as racist murderers of innocent Jews indicate a strong Jewish identity and an unwillingness to condemn Jewish collectivism, either in Israel or in traditional and to a considerable extent in contemporary Diaspora societies. She also remonstrates against the “racism” of U.S. foreign policy prior to FDR, again suggesting views that are highly characteristic of the Jewish mainstream.^[21])

For the reasons indicated above, there is little doubt that Judaism would benefit from a libertarian social order. In addition to lowering anti- Jewish attitudes, Pert notes that Jews as an well-organized, highly networked elite would be likely to be able to exploit non-Jews economically because non-Jews would not be protected by the state and because non-Jews would not likely be able to form cohesive protective groups in the absence of state involvement. (I have proposed that in the 4th century, voluntary associations centered around the Catholic Church served a protective function against Jewish economic domination, particularly the enslavement of non-Jews by Jews.^[22] As expected, this protective society then attempted (and succeeded) in obtaining political power by seizing control of the state.

In other words, these Catholics actively fought against a social order in which there were no safeguards against the exploitation of non-Jews by Jews. (To the extent that it permitted slavery of non-Jews by Jews, the previous social order was libertarian.) The libertarian rationalization of voluntary servitude is particularly noteworthy given the reality of Jewish economic domination in several historical eras.

¹ Kevin MacDonald, “What Makes Western Culture Unique?” The Occidental Quarterly 2(2), 9–38, 2002.
http://www.toqonline.com/archives/v2n2/TOQv2n2MacDonald.pdf;

Kevin MacDonald, “The Establishment and Maintenance of Socially Imposed Monogamy in Western Europe.” Politics and the Life Sciences 14, 3-23, 1995.
http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/Monogamy1995.pdf

² J. Philippe Rushton, Race, Evolution, and Behavior (New Brunswick, NJ, Transaction, 1994).

³ M. P. Dunne, N. G. Martin, D. J. Statham, W. S. Slutske, S. H. Dinwiddie, K. K. Bucholz, P. A. F. Madden, and A. C. Heath, “Genetic and environmental contributions to variance in age at first sexual intercourse.” Psychological Science 8 (211–216, 1997).

⁴ Kevin MacDonald, “The Dissolution of the Family among Non-Elite Whites.” The Occidental Observer (April 9, 2010).
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2010/04/kevin-macdonald-the- dissolution-of-the-family-among-non-elite-whites/

⁵ MacDonald, “What Makes Western Culture Unique?”;
Kevin Mac Donald, “Eric P. Kaufmann’s The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America.” The Occidental Observer (July 29, 2009).
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/MacDonald-Kaufmann.html

⁶ Frank K. Salter, On Genetic Interests: Family, Ethny and Humanity in an Age of Mass Migration (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 2006; originally published by Peter Lang [Frankfurt Am Main, 2003]).

⁷ Kevin MacDonald, “Evolution and a Dual Processing Theory of Culture: Applications to Moral Idealism and Political Philosophy.” Politics and Culture (2010[Issue 1], April).
http://www.politicsandculture.org/2010/04/29/evolution-and-a-dual-processing-theory-of-culture-applications-to-moral-idealism-and-political-philosophy/

⁸ Kevin MacDonald, “Psychology and White Ethnocentrism.” The Occidental Quarterly 6(4) (Winter, 2006–07, 7–46).
http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/WhiteEthnocentrism.pdf
J. G. Miller and D. M. Bersoff, “Culture and Moral Judgment: How Are Conflicts Between Justice and Interpersonal Responsibilities Resolved?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 62 (541–554, 1992).

⁹ MacDonald, “What Makes Western Culture Unique?”

¹⁰ Jeffrey Toobin, “After Stevens: What Will the Supreme Court Be Like without Its Liberal Leader?” The New Yorker (March 23, 2010).
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/03/22/100322fa_fact_toobin?curr entPage=all#ixzz0tJXKtDE6

¹¹ Mac Donald, “Eric P. Kaufmann’s The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America.”

¹² Kevin MacDonald, “American Transcendentalism: An Indigenous Culture of Critique.” The Occidental Quarterly 8(2) (Summer 2008, 91–106).
http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/Gura-Transcendentalism.pdf

¹³ Kevin MacDonald, “Evolution and a Dual Processing Theory of Culture.”

¹⁴ Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique (Blooomington, IN: Authorhouse, 2002; originally published by Praeger [Westport, CT, 1998]), Chapter 7.

¹⁵ Ibid., xxix.

¹⁶ Harry C. Triandis, “Cross-cultural studies of individualism and collectivism.” Nebraska Symposium on Motivation 1989: Cross Cultural Perspectives (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1990), 55.

¹⁷ Ibid.

¹⁸ Harry C. Triandis. “Cross-cultural differences in assertiveness/competition vs. group loyalty/cohesiveness.” In Cooperation and Prosocial Behavior (ed. R. A. Hinde & J. Groebel; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 82.

¹⁹ Ibid. 80.

²⁰ Triandis, “Cross-cultural studies of individualism and collectivism,” 61.

²¹ “Ayn Rand on Israel and the Middle East.” You Tube video of a public inter- view from 1979.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uHSv1asFvU

²² Kevin MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism. (Bloomington, IN: 1stbooks Library, 2004; first published by Praeger [Westport, CT, 1998]), Chapter 3.

To read the rest of the Spring 2011 issue of TOQ, please purchase a subscription.

I didn’t arrive at a Jew-wise, racial realist worldview because my forefathers fought for the Confederacy or because I want to make things awkward at dinner parties. I arrived at it because it’s the single most predictive model of reality; the simplest and most reliable framework for explaining not only how things got to be, but how they’re going to be.  I could have stood before Congress in 2001 and warned them that No Child Left Behind would fail. I can predict with a negligible margin of error that the next educational fad will flop, Detroit will continue deteriorating, Japan will bounce right back from its string of disasters, and the organized Jewish community will churn out more pop culture that’s hostile toward White America’s Christian majority.

While we may lack political power, as an ideological and philosophical force we have strength beyond our numbers. Why? Because we have the truth on our side. Our racially aware frame of reference gives us the power to find demonstrable truths and to falsify popularly accepted dogmas. Only a handful of dissidents hold the Jew-wise and race realist line in institutional academia, but the Bell Curve dealt a body blow to politically correct psychology.

Mearsheimer & Walt’s “The Israel Lobby” created a major row in policy circles. Steve Sailer’s humble blog often provokes responses from rarefied masters of multicult dogma like Malcolm Gladwell.

Personally, I believe many in our movement diminish the credibility of our fundamental insight by indulging in conspiracy theories and wild speculation. Our truth, opposed as it is by the near universally embraced secular religion of equality, can be made to sound like a crank’s conspiracy theory, and our enemies are all too eager to frame it as such. When we as individuals dive headfirst into the latest idle speculation about Obama’s birth certificate or the Bin Laden assassination “hoax”, we do more than merely set ourselves up to look like fools when the establishment trots out the long-form birth certificate and graphic photos of what’s left of Bin Laden’s head. We make it that much harder for ordinary people to take seriously  our decades of peer-reviewed research on differences in intelligence, or volumes of meticulous work on how the organized Jewish community is subverting their host population.

We set ourselves up to be even less trusted than the establishment. The establishment lies and deceives the public all the time, of course. They do it most often by omission and diversion rather than making bold statements that could be contradicted by dozens if not hundreds of different people scattered throughout multiple organizations and institutions.

No proposition should be suppressed, per se. If you’ve got proof that Obama was born in Kenya or that Bin Laden was killed a decade ago, make your case. If you know that colloidal silver has healing properties, direct us to a trusted reference to learn more. For all I know, fluoride may be poisoning us all and vaccines may be causing the spike in autism diagnoses. Conspiracies have happened in the past and are probably happening right now, but the same standard of skepticism should be applied to them as is applied to the establishment line.

For instance, shortly after Obama released the long form birth certificate, I was forwarded the video of the man explaining how the PDF document was a forgery because it contained “layers”. He never explained what were in the additional layers, leaving one to envision numbers and names being altered, damning stuff being excised, and such. He didn’t show us the layers, which on further examination were perfectly typical for some scanning software and didn’t contain anything that even appeared human generated.

While it’s appropriate to be skeptical about Obama’s birthplace, the skepticism has to cut both ways. There is far more evidence that he was born in Hawaii than in Kenya. For him to have been born in Kenya and to have pulled off this deception for this long would have required a pretty elaborate effort fit for jewel thieves. Sure, it could have happened, but is it the simplest and most likely explanation? No, I don’t trust Obama, but don’t we have more verifiable or at least more relevant points of fact to focus on?

The simplest explanation for his reluctance to disclose his birth certificate was the prominence of his middle name “Hussein” which he wanted concealed by the media during the presidential election.

Later this week, when the White House trots out their gory images of Osama’s body, few if any of the people who were claiming that this is an elaborate hoax will publicly recant. They’ll just move on to the next conspiracy theory, perhaps declaring that the images were doctored or that the concrete coffin dropped overboard contained a dummy. For all I know, any of that could be the case, though it seems pretty elaborate and it’s also pretty tangential. Whether or not Osama was already dead, was recently killed, or resides among the reptilians in a far away galaxy doesn’t make much of a difference, does it? Does it make enough of a difference to stake our credibility on it?

While at the AmRen 2008 Conference, I enjoyed Michael Walkers’ definition of a crank, which has stuck with me…

Many who point out unwelcome truths are called cranks. For those heavily invested in the conventional wisdom, anyone who denies that wisdom can be viewed as cranky and disagreeable. However, my definition of a crank is someone who cannot confine discussion of his dissenting or “cranky” views to appropriate settings and audiences. It is one whose views are either so persistent, so emphatic, or so extreme as to cause embarrassment in “normal” company. If you feel you might be embarrassed by, say, having someone to dinner with friends or relatives—especially relatives—then he is likely to be a crank.

Women have a better nose than men for cranks – those who lack awareness of socially appropriate boundaries and the reactions of others -  and women are less afraid to call a spade a spade. Some years ago I went with my wife to a meeting in Germany organized by a man who edited a publication I read regularly and enjoyed. When we arrived a little late he was in the middle of addressing a meeting in exactly the terms one might expect of someone who had just achieved supreme power. In fact he had reached about paragraph 20 of what he called the “Constitution of the Fourth Reich.” My wife was pitiless: “Quite definitely a nutter,” she told me.

I emphasize that one must distinguish between “cranks” and dissidents who are merely derided as cranks. There’s a very real difference. Walker at Amren 2008  described the crank as one who’s an embarrassment around normal company. That’s a pretty succinct working definition, but I would like to extend that with one observation: overclocked pattern recognition. We’re all designed to detect patterns in nature and in our social interactions. We couldn’t function without that capability, but we sometimes detect patterns where none exist: the man on the moon, the Virgin Mary on the grilled cheese, or the guy who’s trailing you because he happened to turn in the same direction you did an unlikely number of times.

As an example, the net effect of Jewish influence on its victims may feel like it was  the unanimous action of all 15 million members of that race organized by elders gathered from time to time to fashion and execute meticulous plans and protocols. But it is not. It’s the emergent effect of a group evolutionary strategy which has evolved and adapted over centuries to exploit weaknesses in a group that is unable to organize themselves to resist that influence.
It is the weakness of that host group that allows small and detached groups of Jews with similar interests to dominate whole industries and institutions and to shape the popular culture.

I am reminded of an amusing parody, “Local Jew Feels Left Out of Worldwide Jewish Conspiracy“. To believe that Jews could impose upon all members of their race the obligation to labor for and take orders from the ADL or SPLC is to believe that humans are far more submissive, loyal, discreet, and organized than they are. And if you talk to a crank long enough, you’ll often learn that this pattern of thinking isn’t limited to politics. They’re often into “numerology”, obsess over calendrical coincidences, and suspect close friends and family members of micro-conspiracies against them. They rarely if ever attribute anything to mere happenstance or seek a simple innocuous explanation.

There can be no worldwide Jewish conspiracy of the sort lampooned in the Onion article, because not even Jews are capable of the level of secrecy and organization necessary to pull that off. What they have is a milieu within which countless little conspiracies can succeed unopposed, such as the conspiracy to drag the US into the Iraq War, the conspiracy to bring as little attention as possible to the embarrassing relationship between Obama and Jeremiah Wright, or the conspiracy to ignore his illegal immigrant aunt.

There was evidently a conspiracy within Pakistan’s military elite to hide Bin Laden. While Pakistan’s military elite probably didn’t conspire as a cohesive unit to hide Bin Laden, it was sufficiently sympathetic to Bin Laden – and interested in continuing the foreign aid which his continued existence secured – to create an environment in which that large elite could ignore the small handful who did conspire to hide him for a long time. A couple neighborhood kids here and there probably knew about it, and others here and there probably knew or guessed. Some of the servants were probably in on it, as well. But it was the kind of subculture where “omerta” prevailed and people didn’t tend to turn in “freedom fighters” to the imperial Yankee invaders.

Conspiracies exist. After all, every profit making enterprise that employs the efforts of more than one person is a “conspiracy” of sorts. Most “conspiracies” are benign or beneficial. We tend to call them “conspiracies” only when they are doing something illegal or destructive and thus depend upon secrecy and deception for success.

But conspiracies are subject to the same rules of inquiry as any other subject. As Professor MacDonald has demonstrated with his trilogy and Mearsheimer and Walt have demonstrated with their report, it’s very possible to expose those conspiring against us with the illuminating glow of skeptical inquiry and methodical peer-reviewed research. If we divert our energy into “chemtrails”, obvious hoaxes, faked moon landings, or Kevin Trudeau’s nature cures then we invite our opponents to use such easy to understand foolishness to diminish our work and our message.

Perhaps, but the primary purpose of what we call “retail political activism” is not necessarily to transform local or state governments – although that would be nice – but rather to condition our own people to assert their interests, both individual and group interests.

We need our White race to be conditioned to exhibit behaviors conducive to survival rather than to passivity and defeat.

That is what matters. We must turn as many of our people as possible into pushy activists, and it must be done through direct social contact so that there is social support. We must help them break through the unspoken barriers imposed by the secular religion of human equality, and confront its blatant inconsistencies.

For example, why are we subjected, on one hand, to a massive media and governmental campaign of hate against brown skinned Muslims half way around the world,  but at the same time to a campaign of love and tolerance toward  those very same people we are required to allow into our own country?

The multicultural creed that we are forced to follow in the Western World would have us believe that the threat from these people arises not from anything we are doing to them, but rather from the soil on which they stand – a proposition so nonsensical that everyone can see it.

So as a result of the hate campaign, we must spend a trillion dollars to kill these people on the other side of the planet, while here at home people of European heritage must undergo full body scans in order to respect the delicate sensibilities of Muslim immigrants who might take offense if they alone were profiled and subjected to scans based on the perfectly rational correlation between the desire for revenge and Muslim religion or national origin.

We could have bought an awful lot of oil from them for a trillion dollars. And we could have built a lot of high speed rail and nuclear power plants to reduce our dependence on their oil with that money while creating millions of new jobs in the U.S.

Unlike borrowing to finance productive infrastructure, fighting wars half way around the world hurts us by piling up unproductive debt for military expenditure. Allowing those Muslims to immigrate to America hurts us by displacing American workers, while increasing the welfare support costs for those Americans who are displaced.

The entire mix of policies is insane and very damaging to the future of our children and grandchildren.

Current government policy creates mortal threats to our safety – both financial and physical – that cannot benefit us.

In order to move our race realism into the mainstream, we are going to have to demonstrate to our people that we are fit to govern.

That means we must come up with policies that our people will clearly see benefit them, as those policy suggestions demonstrate to them our competence and our fitness for leadership. Championship of these policies is the only thing that will induce our fellow Whites to change their behavior and become outgoing social and political activists.

Take for example the Republican mantra of lower taxes. In its simplest form, this very popular and universalist position stirs up the hope in most Whites that by restricting government revenue, the burden of welfare and government imposed on Whites employed in the private sector will be limited more or less automatically.

But the devil is in the details of our tax laws. The ultimate question for tax policy is: Cut taxes for whom, exactly? And which groups will have their financial and political power enhanced and which weakened by the particulars of a tax cut or tax increase?

I would suggest to you that the insane and highly destructive policies described above would never have happened if the tax laws had been different.

There can be no question that economic resources control political outcomes in the United States. Thus, the key to reforming the politics of the system is not changing people’s ideologies, so much as moving wealth and savings into the hands of those people who want different outcomes than those we witness, and then providing them with the channels that will effectively deploy those financial resources into the political arena.

In other words, irrespective of income, a person who lives from paycheck to paycheck with no savings will be an impotent political actor, just as will every high income earner who is captured by the siren song of consumerism and spends every nickel that he or she earns.

Political change inevitably follows a change in comparative group economic resources.

And once a political revolution occurs, of course, you would expect the victors to use the tax laws to protect and enhance their financial and political advantages.

Historically, during the gold standard (when money held its value) and absent income and estate taxes, the processes of getting and keeping political power were quite different from those at work today. Vast fortunes could be amassed and passed down from generation to generation, provided that heirs with less financial acumen had the discipline to live on the interest and not to invade corpus. The occasional talented heir might then increase the fortune.

In his 1972 classic “Genetics and Education” Arthur Jensen points out that the offspring of very intelligent parents tend to deviate back toward their population mean. So assuming that one population has a mean IQ of 100 and another a mean IQ of 115, one would expect that the group who’s offspring deviate back toward 100 would have a more difficult time maintaining family fortunes created by a bright parent than children of wealthy parents who deviate back toward a population mean of 115.

The potential for downward mobility is a consistent theme in all of Jane Austin’s novels, and the sexual selection process as it existed in 1815, with its extreme mix of IQ and talent within families and  the imprecise and laborious (from a romantic standpoint) means of measuring intelligence and self discipline form the plot lines of her novels. Perhaps the most brilliant treatment of this “downward mobility fear” is seen in the movie “Metropolitan” about the debutante scene in New York in the late 1960′s or early 1970′s written, produced and directed by Whit Stillman.

Below is a chart of the cross sectional samples or four racial groups from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 displaying the probability of downward mobility by racial group in graphic detail.

The above chart has immense explanatory value, for you can see that anger over downward mobility, and the demand for preferences that protect against that downward mobility, will be strongest among the African and Latin American Indian populations of the U.S. The powerful mating preference for light skin within those groups serves as a marker of enhanced probability of their offspring being able to hold on to the parents’ occupational and financial positions.

The income tax and estate taxes began in 1913, after the great fortunes of DuPont, Rockefeller, Ford, Carnegie, and so many others had been amassed.

Below are graphs of the top marginal income tax rates by year since 1913:

Next we have the estate tax rates by year since 1916:

As you can see, the huge non-wartime increases in income and estate taxes began under the Presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt. His Secretary of the Treasury, responsible for structuring the tax legislation, was Henry Morgenthau. Harold Glasser was director of the division of monetary research. Other Treasury officials included Irving Kaplan and Solomon Adler.

Of course, this same crew at Treasury was instrumental in the Gold confiscation/dollar devaluation scheme in 1933, and for preventing individuals from preserving wealth by owning gold.

FDR was notorious for obtaining copies of the tax returns of his wealthy Republican political rivals and gloating over the immense sums he was extracting from them. During those Roosevelt years the tax system was enforced by collectors of internal revenue who were given patronage appointments to those positions by FDR. Thus, the enforcement of the tax laws was highly political in those days, and this did not change until 1952, just before Eisenhower was elected.

Thus, from 1936 through 1976 — 40 years, we had the confiscation of fortunes built up prior to 1929, and the confiscation of incomes that could build comparable new fortunes.

However, not all employees and shareholders were similarly situated as respects tax enforcement. Employees of large corporations had their incomes reported to the tax authorities and to the Social Security Administration just as they do now. Dividends paid by those large corporations on stocks and interest on bonds were also reported.

However, those alien owners of retail clothing stores, restaurants, auto dealerships, liquor stores, pawn shops, and other retail outlets had significant opportunities for skimming the cash receipts and avoiding tax at both the corporate and individual level.

Roosevelt’s financial attack on the old Wasp money was rather unique historically. In the past, nobles rather than commoners always paid taxes to the king. But in exchange, the nobles wrote the laws and their councilors fashioned the King’s edicts in such a way as to secure their position and enable them to collect the ground rents from commoners that ultimately financed the King’s taxes.

This sudden separation of political power from money power under Roosevelt was unique, and in large measure a function of downward mobility within the old Wasp elite. Once the alien obtained a toe hold in the Ivy League and began teaching Marxist doctrines, it was probably quite easy for the Ivy League to admit the mediocre scions of wealthy families, make them acutely aware of their mediocrity, and thus instill in them guilt over their  “unearned privileges.” This guilt would drain them of the will to assert their interests, as wealth had asserted those interests from time immemorial.

There was a brief window of three years during the Hoover administration during which top marginal rates remained low, and the old Wasp elite could easily have established charities that could have handed out relief to their ethnic kinsmen with political strings attached, and especially farmers in the sparsely inhabited Midwest and West, resulting in control of the U.S. Senate. But it was not to be.

The old Wasp elite was unable, perhaps because of their contempt for labor, to rally a super-majority voting block within  their own ethnic group, just as most of today’s Whites fail to understand how important it is to rally a super-majority voting block within their own race.

In any event, a very cohesive tribe made them pay dearly for their de-tribalized class consciousness.

After thirty years, the shift in financial and political power had reached a climax as the cultural revolution hit with full force in the mid 1960′s and Lyndon Johnson, backed by tribal money, would enact non-White race preferences with the Civil Rights acts of 1964 and 1965, bust up White urban neighborhoods, and trigger white flight to suburbs with the Open Housing Act of 1965, and open the flood gates for a rising tide of color into our country as a result of the Immigration Act of 1965.

By the mid 1960′s, Jewish power was becoming readily apparent, and a decade later, the income and estate tax rates began to fall. In the meantime, the legislation embedded in decisions of our Supreme Court as well as the administration and Congress under Lyndon Johnson, had crippled the power of the majority to use neighborhoods or profit-making economic institutions to organize resistance to the cultural revolution.

In three more decades we reached the point where, according to most sources, Jews provide 80% of the money to the Democratic Party and 40% to 50% to the Republicans. Beginning with Bill Clinton, 80% of his cabinet officers and advisers were Jewish, slightly less for Bush, and up to 80% again for Obama.

According to most sources, more than 50% of the world’s billionaires are Jewish. The average White will watch a movie like “People I Know” and think it is a fantasy, but that is exactly the way our political system works. Jewish billionaires pick our U.S. Senators. They control our politics not only with soft dollar contributions to the parties, but with bundled contributions to candidates as well as independent expenditure campaigns on behalf of candidates. Even more potent is their threat of independent expenditure campaigns against incumbents who “misbehave”.

Below is a chart of the 90^th through 97^th percentile by IQ of four racial groups from the 1979 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY).

Think carefully about the above chart. These people are all in the same age group, so it is corrected for age.  They are all in the same high IQ range, so it is corrected for IQ. Each group should have the same educational and economic opportunities, but it is obvious that they do not.

There is no explanation for this distribution of wealth other than racial discrimination of the wealthiest in favor of their fellow tribesmen. Even at the relatively early ages of 36 through 44 (generally before they inherit from parents), the huge disparity in wealth would give one group enormous political clout relative to the others. It is a disparity that would only increase with increasing age.

What you see in the chart above is a fundamental threat to democracy.

Unfortunately, the influence of billionaires is not limited to politics. They have enormous influence over the universities and policy think tanks as well. In practical effect, the current estate tax is voluntary, particularly for those who have a political agenda. Billionaires escape it by giving their money to a private foundation.

The Internal Revenue Service gives wide latitude to these organizations to advocate policy. Private foundations can also set up special think tanks and research centers affiliated with universities to pad the salaries of favored advocates of Tikun Olam (which, loosely translated, means remaking the goy into new socialist man.)

Setting up a private foundation is an excellent way to make sure that the kids don’t fritter away the fortune frolicking on the Riviera, shopping in Milan or gambling in Monaco. And while you cannot hire your own kids to run the private foundation, you can always hire your friend Bernie’s kids who you know are committed to the cause. And of course, Bernie’s foundation can hire your kids, if they are similarly committed. Connections at the Jewish Community Center and at the “Squid” really matter in the great game of power.

Ok, then! How do we democratize America through tax policy?

Simple!

First, we need to bring back the 90% top marginal income tax rates – the same ones that applied to Old Wasp money in the 1930′s through the 1960′s. They should apply to all income in excess of $5,000,000 per annum, including any capital gains which cause total income to exceed that level. Of course, much lower rates would be applicable to income below that level. The key point here is that small businesses generate 70% of the new jobs in this country so the confiscatory rates should not apply to those small business owners and entrepreneurs. The objective here is to “flatten” the bell curve of political power such that far less is concentrated in the hands of just a few hundred people at the right tail of super wealth.

Next we should raise the estate tax maximum rate to 75% on amounts in excess of $100 million, and limit the charitable deduction for decedent’s estates to $1,000,000. Public foundations – those that receive broad public support – would not be harmed much by this million dollar cap. In effect, there would be no escape from the estate tax on estates in excess of $100 million.

Finally, in order to democratize wealth, all estates would be entitled to an exclusion for the first quarter million they gave to any natural person who is a U.S. Citizen with a job, without dual citizenship, and with a net worth below $500,000. Thus, a billion dollar estate could end up escaping the estate tax entirely by giving 4000 middle class individuals each a quarter million dollars.

You might want to ponder for a few minutes how most billionaires would react to this tax incentive and how they might go about selecting recipients.

All amounts would be indexed to CPI but without the hedonic adjustments and the other Boskin Commission adjustments that understate inflation.

We often hear Congressmen advocate tax credits for new jobs. But these tax credits for job creation are largely political theater because most corporations pay little or no tax. From a 2004 article in the Boston Globe we see that “The GAO report showed that 61 percent of US corporations paid no federal income taxes from 1996 through 2000, a period of rapid economic growth and rising corporate profits. * * * An estimated 94 percent of US corporations reported tax liabilities amounting to less than 5 percent of their total income in 2000.”

In order to create middle class jobs we need to create an alternative minimum tax for corporations with generous tax credits for each additional job paying over $15 per hour and a larger credit for each additional job paying above $60,000. Employers who increase profits by firing American workers or by outsourcing jobs to Asia get hit with the alternative minimum corporate tax.

The higher tax rates on the super wealthy and on corporations are needed to fund social security and Medicare and thus keep working families from having to support their parents in old age.

These tax changes will be wildly popular with middle class Whites and they are the kind of policy options we should be talking about rather than droning on about race differences.

We should also remind our fellow middle class Whites that the best middle class jobs would be created by government funding of infrastructure such as high speed rail up and down the East and West Coasts of the U.S. and by the construction of more nuclear power plants, both of which would reduce the need for imported energy.

Show them the infamous Robert Reich video where this spokesman for the Obama administration states that Congress must make sure that the new jobs do not go to White males. That is the real spirit that motivates the Democratic Party and is the reason why no productive infrastructure projects are built: White males might be needed to build them.

It is true that more Whites will be caught up in the highest tax rates than Jews. But the problem is that White billionaires – like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates – are pathetic and clueless, giving their money away to charities that pursue ridiculous liberal causes, typically frittering the money away trying to teach Africans birth control or some such scheme.

And even the right-wing super wealthy end up having their private foundations taken over by the aliens that dominate the ranks of profession non-profit managers. Just look at what has happened to the Ford Foundation, the MacArthur foundation and many others. Each has become a profound enemy of the ideals and the race of the original donor.

You may remember that Putin had to expel from Russia 3500 of these NGO’s funded largely with American money that were interfering in Russia’s national politics. These organizations ran the elections in Ukraine and sponsored and organized the revolution in Georgia which turned that country into an ally of Israel and enemy of Russia.

Ironically, there are laws that make the kind of interference that Russia experienced a felony, but as far as we can determine, nobody has ever been prosecuted under these laws except Don Black of Stormfront.

Middle class Americans would be much better off if billionaire tax money were used to reduce the deficit than having it frittered away on Tikun Olam and other world improving and revolution provoking schemes of the super rich.

De-funding the left begins with a rework of the tax laws to take away their funds.

Producing a White super-majority voting block begins with talking about policies that benefit the American middle class while crippling the enemies of the American middle class.

Discussing these themes with our fellow Whites and their local representatives – the benefits they would get from the policies we could adopt – will raise the aspirations of our people and lead them to expect more from their government.

That is the ultimate objective of retail political activism.

And why is it that nobody ever talks about the identity of the buyer or buyers? Indeed, as far as I know, I am the only one who ever asks the question. Given the years that have passed and the events that have taken place since those huge and probably fateful purchases, it seems obvious that the buyer has an extraordinarily long term investment horizon and is supremely confident of the outcome of his investment.

If we knew the identity of the buyer, we would probably know a great deal more about the probable course of this rally in the precious metals. Given the utility and value of that inside information, I am more than amazed that the identity of that buyer is still shrouded in mystery.

But the video below gets the actionable advice exactly right for the individual investor.

You see, gold soars independent of the whole inflation-deflation argument. Gold is about power and control – not inflation or deflation.

Corrections are engineered to shake loose supply. /Caveat vendor/

But I would like all of you to take a step back and look at the bigger picture.

We all react powerfully to the videos of helicopter gun ships blasting groups of supposed “terrorists” on the ground in central Asia. We react equally to videos of very expensive munitions fired from drones that slaughter groups of these supposed “terrorists”.

I say “supposed” for the simple reason that the men being slaughtered happen to be half way around the World from us, and have no visible means of getting to our shores unless we provide the means. Indeed, if the population of the U.S. were entirely homogeneous and light skinned, there would be little fear of terrorism simply because we could not see any of these central Asian Muslims around us.

Thus, the fear of terror would be implausible, and support for trillion dollar expenditures to support a vast anti-terror bureaucracy is very much at risk, unless that anti-terror bureaucracy—coincident with the bombings and slaughters—imported relatives of the victims to circulate among us and make the threat of domestic terror visible, and hence support for the anti-terror machine and its trillion dollar budgets plausible.

As usual, multiculturalism is always and everywhere a means by which a minority can impose its will and its system of social control by pitting one group against another.

But the key to survival in this modern world is to see the pieces of the puzzle that are in plain view right in front of you and from their shape, accurately deduce the shape and nature of the pieces of the puzzle that are not visible.

For example: is it necessarily true that the regime would use helicopter gun ships and air to ground rockets fired from drones to exterminate domestic revolutionaries? Would the regime need to “go loud” like this and risk alarming the neighbors and waking them from their stupor?

So what is it about the populations that do get bombed and strafed that might differentiate them from us. After all, while they get bombed and strafed, racialists in the U.S. are free to fly unhindered; we are treated with extraordinary courtesy during traffic stops; and are typically let go with a smile and a warning (no snickering or winks and nods from the Cat 3 peanut gallery please!). Despite early attempts to shut down racialist web sites, the powers that be are allowing them to multiply like mushrooms in spring rain during recent years.

In similar fashion, there is a huge commerce in firearms—mostly assault rifles—that the regime tolerates with total equanimity.

Is there a unifying characteristic of those differing people who get bombs dropped on them from safe altitudes? Anything beyond the simple fact that they hate the regime because they supposedly “hate our freedom”, while we hate the regime because of our loss of freedom?

Let me make a radical suggestion.

The populations of Iraq, Afghanistan and Serbia do share a common characteristic. And it is obviously not the Muslim religion or brown skin color. Serbia is the “Ethiopian in the fuel supply” that tips us off to the shape and nature of the puzzle pieces that are not visible.

Serbs are as White as Austrians, and they are Eastern Orthodox Christians, heroes who for centuries have repelled invasions of numerous Asian and Muslim hordes seeking to invade Europe.

But at the time of our most excellent adventure over the skies of Serbia, they maintained an autarchic economy and did not participate in the Western banking system. In short, while Serbia, Iraq and Afghanistan may have had local banks, and while varying percentages of their populations may have had bank accounts and credit cards—scaling from perhaps a majority in Serbia, to a minority in Iraq, to a miniscule number in Afghanistan—neither the Serbian, the Iraqi nor the Afghan banking arrangements were within the reach of Interpol or the FBI (which, curiously, seems to operate worldwide).

One day several years ago I walked into a branch of Wells Fargo and sat down to chat with the branch manager. I asked her whether the FBI could simply erase my checking account, and if so would they have to notify the bank first. She said that the FBI has a direct electronic connection to the accounts at that bank and every other bank that is a member of the Federal Reserve System and they can delete or freeze an account at any time without ever having to notify the bank.

Then I said, “How about my investment account with your brokerage subsidiary? Same answer. They can delete or freeze it electronically and they do not need to tell us why. (Same with your credit card and debit card, by the way.)

If they were to do that, the victim could not sell his house and collect the proceeds, and he would not have the means to hire a lawyer and file for relief in Federal Court. He would be immobilized, unable to purchase an airline ticket, and unable to fill the gas tank in the car or buy food.

What could a fellow do under those circumstances? Go complain to the neighbors that all his accounts have been deleted by the government and risk getting himself committed to a mental institution? From the regime’s perspective it sure beats having a helicopter gun ship scare the crap out of the neighbors by strafing and demolishing someone’s house, killing him with 20mm cannon fire!

Lets back out for a larger look at the numbers.

In the U.S., we have approximately 55 million adults who are on welfare and we have another 30 million adults who are receiving and are dependent upon Social Security/Old Age benefits. This group is completely under the thumb of the regime. A cancellation of the automatic deposit or a failure to reload the plastic food card would cast any individual revolutionary in this group into the hedge rows to starve. And the government knows exactly who these people are.

Next, look at the number of people with credit card debt. Odds are overwhelming that these people are loyal “consumers” and have no stash of cash or precious metals that could see them through an account deletion. Again any dissident individual in this category could be immobilized and would starve in the hedge rows.

The gold dealers and gold bug websites estimate that only one half of one percent of the population owns physical gold or silver. All large purchases of gold or silver must be made by wire or credit card, so the regime has a pretty good handle on who has substantial stashes of the metal. There may be some extraordinarily disciplined savers that buy a few hundred dollars worth of silver rounds every month with cash, but those are almost certainly confined to those who have no credit card debt, narrowing the pool in which to search for suspects.

Similarly, cash withdrawals from banks are monitored, and any sudden large cash withdrawals must be reported as suspicious by the teller. An army fights on its stomach, as the saying goes, and it would take massive amounts of cash or sales of precious metals in order to finance the movement of a few thousand men to the Pacific Northwest. Why do you think that in the latest “Patriot” Act the government required 1099 filings for sales of precious metals back to dealers?

They are watching for this, and any sudden pattern of cash withdrawals or physical metal sales would be detected and correlated with lists of known dissidents and with the individuals who show up on the carefully mapped neural networks of persons who call or email these known dissidents. The regime doesn’t care what you say, they only need care who you are saying it to.

So it seems completely clear to me that the reasons for the helicopter gun ships, the missile launching drones, and the bombs falling from safe altitudes half way around the world are two-fold.

First and foremost, Iraqis and Afghans are not “consumers” tied to the credit system, and therefore there is no way of controlling them other than by armed force. And second, the broadcast of carefully selected videos of these slaughters serves to impress upon the public mind the terror that the regime, in all its majesty, can inflict upon those who are not addicted to cable TV and going into debt to buy expensive toys and expensive vacations. These slaughters serve the same purpose as was served by the Coliseum in Rome and the gladiatorial amphitheaters constructed throughout the Roman Empire and are, in the eyes of the regime, worth the trillions that the videos cost.

Given the new tools that modern technology and modern consumer behavior have bestowed upon the regime, it seems clear that they can control us without violence, and I would bet big money that they have no intention of ever blasting us wrong-thinking “consumers” with helicopter gun ships or missiles fired from drones.

Even if we were to begin funding a mass movement of men and arms, we would be picked up quietly, most likely on the road or outside a store with little or now show of force and most likely with the same solicitude that Cat Threes are greeted on the highway. After all, there is no way the regime would be stupid enough to start a panic and trigger copy cats by using our pathetically inadequate movement of funds and men to signal that an armed revolution is afoot. To do so would be to allow us to leverage their resources to our purposes.

What would lead any of us to believe that the regime has not learned the lessons of Ruby Ridge and Waco? Americans are not going to be entertained by videos of neighbors who have always left them alone being burned to death or shot to pieces by helicopter gun ships. As long as you are not a “public figure” and have no swastikas or rebel flags on the wall, the regime is unlikely to sacrifice its image by frying you or chopping you into hamburger meat in public. Unlike the helicopter gunship videos from Afghanistan which show the targets only at a distance, such a slaughter on U.S. soil would result in close up cell phone videos of the corpses all over the Internet.

Dead veterans wearing their old dog tags would be a deeply troubling propaganda disaster for the regime.

Now let us back out and look at the puzzle pieces before us from an even more distant perspective.

Each new layer of complexity designed to increase efficiency and reduce costs in our economy increases its fragility and renders it more vulnerable to black swan events. Our just-in-time delivery systems give us about five days worth of food and about ten days of gasoline. Bernanke’s loss of control over long term interest rates—that QE-2 was intended to lower—could lead to a series of financial catastrophes that destabilize our society and leave our population cold and hungry.

The real danger to the regime is a military coup as a result of one or more of these catastrophes.

But a coup by the military would only capture and disable the facade of government—the elected and appointed officials in Washington. In fairness to the military, they do know that they would have to get control of the radio and TV stations, turn off the satellite feeds, and get control of the broadcasts.

But it is very unlikely that the the officer corps would have any idea how to identify and capture the real government of the U.S.—the people in New York and Los Angeles who would oppose their takeover, turn their coup into a propaganda disaster, and likely defeat them unless quickly deprived of their power—which would almost certainly require our help. We are the only ones who could identify the moles who would do everything in their power to subvert the coup and topple the military.

Once we were given access to the computers of the surveillance state, a few well designed database queries would give us a list of the real government, and all of them could have their bank, brokerage and credit cards erased or frozen, which would then immobilize them and cast them back into the lowly and dependent “consumer” status that they have so carefully crafted for us while avoiding a bloody mess and the feelings of revulsion that would turn the people against the military.

Few would have to be detained. For a coup to succeed, one must understand the levers of power that inhere in the surveillance apparatus of the state.

A far more likely scenario is a slow withering away of the regime’s resources, and a gradual abandonment of functions it can no longer afford.

Secession happens slowly, by degrees.

First there are the noticeable stresses and fissures that become visible: rising unemployment, falling real incomes for our children, and government policies that deprive us of secure savings opportunities.

In this case we would be wise to stay where we are and make ourselves useful to local officials: the county sheriff and the elected state representatives, those with the power to quietly and unobtrusively reverse the policies which unfairly burden our people, as we transform ourselves from an educational charity to a welfare organization that helps our people through rough times, provides teachers and schools for the gifted (when these programs are canceled for lack of funds), organizes medical care as the insurance system collapses, and provides emergency food and shelter for those most likely to rebound and contribute. These are all activities that, through selection of recipients, provide help in ways that reverse the wildly dysgenic effects of the welfare state on the fitness of our people.

Already serious strains are showing up in state and local finances that put the local authorities at odds with the Feds. Most of the states have elected representatives who actively solicit educated, unpaid volunteers to serve as legislative analysts. Since most of the TOQ crowd have college degrees, and many have graduate degrees, we are particularly qualified to take advantage of these stresses by helping our elected state legislators.

If you have a Republican state representative, call him or her and volunteer. With every analysis you are asked to do, you prepare an estimate of the impact of the proposed legislation on Republican voters, a useful proxy for Whites capable of being salvaged. This will condition your Republican representative to actually think about the interests of their Republican voters—something which Republicans generally are not inclined to do. Of course, you never mention WN, but you should constantly remind them that a Republican must motivate the base, and that real political motivation requires not just remote benefits to a universalized “everyman”, but benefits us and not the identifiable “them” who oppose us and our interests.

In Texas, we have a part time legislature and those elected to serve in the Texas House (as opposed to the Senate) have no budget for staff beyond a lone secretary/receptionist. It will be the same in most other states. So the opportunity for meaningful activism is there. Carpe diem!

Now is also the time to declare independence from the consumer culture:

• We cancel our cable subscriptions.
• We stop watching professional sports.
• We sell the big house and trade down to a smaller house (and do it early to beat the rush).
• We cut up our credit cards, start saving money, and begin buying silver rounds for cash as insurance against a total collapse of the monetary system.
• We boycott brand-name goods in favor of generics.

In short, we starve the beast.

The good news is that millions of Americans are canceling their cable, and millions more have stopped watching pro sports (the NBA has begun playing White basketball players even though any idiot can see that the black players do what they can to avoid passing them the ball).

We need to recognize and ride these trends. We need to pace our fellow Whites and encourage the above behaviors.

Most of all, we must be good and useful neighbors to our fellow Whites, building awareness and understanding,  always making ourselves helpful and useful.

A good way to see this is to analyze the military, political and social problems that Harold Covington’s Pacific Northwest secession movement would face. He suggests that Whites gather in Idaho, Oregon and Washington and use guerrilla warfare to form an independent homeland that is free of non-Whites.

He describes the homeland and the guerrilla warfare, in The Brigade, a tense, suspenseful thriller (Harold A. Covington, The Brigade [Bloomington, Ind.: Xlibris Corporation, 2008]).

The first critical problem with the homeland is that it would be too weak to survive. There are several test cases for this. These are small countries, not much different in size from the Pacific Northwest homeland.

The three Baltic countries, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia have a combined population of just over 8 million people, similar to the number that the Pacific Northwest homeland would have. (Today the combined population of Idaho, Oregon and Washington is under 12 million.)

Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia once were parts of the Russian Empire. They seceded after the collapse of the Romanov dynasty, during the period of confusion, weakness and disorganization that the Russian Revolution caused. Joseph Stalin annexed all three of these countries in 1940. All it took him was a few meetings and phone calls. See Anatol Lieven, The Baltic Revolution: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and the Path to Independence (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994).

Finland is another good test case. Like Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, it was part of the Russian Empire until it collapsed. Then Finland seceded, too. Finland, a larger country than Estonia or Latvia or Lithuania, was able to hold off a Soviet invasion for a while during the Winter War of 1939-1940.

Finland started with some big advantages. It had a large territory. It had deep snow and dense forests that confined Soviet invaders to roads. It had soldiers who could travel cross-country on skis, surround road-bound columns of Soviet troops and kill them. It had an excellent submachine gun which its soldiers used against Soviet invaders armed with outdated bolt-action rifles. It had an army with great courage and patriotism. Plus, Stalin had recently annihilated his army officer corps in a bloody purge.

Finland still had to sue for peace after a few weeks.

So, how powerful must a secessionist movement be in order to survive? How much industrial power must it have? How much territory? How many people?

Here in North America, the Northern conquest of the South is a definitive test of the possibility of secession.

By 1860 the South had lost control of the Presidency. It had also lost control of the House of Representatives because the voting population of the North was larger than the voting population of the South. The South still retained control of the Senate by a narrow margin, because the number of senators depended on the number of states.

Southern planters feared that, if they lost control of the Senate, the North would prevent them from expanding slave agriculture to any new states. They also feared that the North would outlaw slavery, once it took control of the Senate. See Marc Egnal, Clash of Extremes The Economic Origins of the Civil War (New York: Hill and Wang, a division of Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2009).

Southern plantation agriculture wore out the land. Planters abandoned worn out land and resettled new lands, further west. This made it very important to them that they could freely bring their slaves to new states.

Unable to solve this political problem, the South seceded. Lincoln decided that he must have his tariffs, so he called for 70,000 volunteers and launched what is so far the bloodiest war ever fought in the Western Hemisphere. The South was enough weaker than the North that it could not afford to make political or military mistakes. But it made them.

Four years of bloodshed proved that the South was not strong enough to secede without the permission of the North. It steadily and gradually lost, militarily, a battle that it had already lost politically before it seceded. Had the South been strong enough to secede without permission, it would also have been strong enough to defend its political interests without seceding.

Secession is an attempt by the politically weaker of two parties to solve, by leaving the field, a political problem that it is too weak to solve, either politically or militarily.

Only the weaker party in a political conflict would want to secede. Only the stronger party would be strong enough to secede without the permission of the other. However, the stronger party would not want to secede because it could force the weaker party to do whatever it wanted.

Covington suggests that military disaster at some distant part of the empire might make the United States too weak to hold on to the Pacific Northwest in the face of guerilla warfare. Maybe so. But this would give the homeland the kind of temporary safety that a Thanksgiving turkey enjoys.

Any place where a secessionist might want to live would be too valuable for the larger, stronger party to give up.

The Pacific Northwest, in particular, is far too valuable to secede in peace. It has valuable hydroelectric power, in a world hungry for cheap energy. The Columbia, its most important river, is 1,243 miles long. Puget Sound gives the Pacific Northwest well-sheltered, world-class harbors. It has a major naval base. Nuclear submarines silently travel its waterways.

What tactics would the United Sates use to keep anyone from forming any independent homeland in such a valuable place, without its permission?

Anything.

Writing in a neocon publication, US Army Colonel Ralph Peters (Ret.) said, “The point of all this is simple: Win. In warfare, nothing else matters. If you cannot win clean, win dirty. But win.”

Anyone who hopes to secede from the United States should expect it to use the same tactics that it has used before, whichever ones promise to work, whatever they might be.

What are these tactics?

Guatemala is a model case. Niall Ferguson, writing in The War of the World, described what happened there after a carefully-planned CIA coup d’etat that overthrew a democratically-elected Guatemalan government. (Niall Ferguson, The War of the World Twentieth-Century Conflict and the Descent of the West [New York: Penguin, 2006], 610-617.)

Paramilitary death squads, the Mano Blanca, roamed the cities and countryside. In the 30 years after the 1954 coup, some 40,000 people disappeared. Mayan Indian tribes were relocated and forced into “strategic hamlets.”

Ferguson says hundreds of villages identified as ‘red’ were obliterated and their inhabitants tortured, raped and murdered. Surrounding forests were burned. He says there was mass slaughter of civilians. By the end of the 1990s the death toll had reached around 200,000. Because there were so many Mayan victims a UN commission deemed that these deaths were genocide.

Afghanistan and Pakistan are two more models that we can use to predict what the United State government would do to secessionists. Eric Margolis, writing in World News Daily Information Clearing House, said that “Pakistan finally bowed to Washington’s angry demands last week by unleashing its military against rebellious Pushtun tribesmen of North-West Province . . .”

He said, “The Obama administration had threatened to stop $2 billion US annual cash payments to bankrupt Pakistan’s political and military leadership and block $6.5 billion future aid, unless Islamabad sent its soldiers into Pakistan’s turbulent NWFP along the Afghan frontier.” Pakistani armed forces used heavy artillery and gunfire from helicopters to kill Pushtun civilians.

Results came quickly.

Andrew Buncombe, writing in The Independent, said that as many as 2.4 million people fled Swat Valley. One man, aged 90, said that,” because there had been no warning to leave, when the gunfire erupted around them they gathered what they could carry and fled.”

The speed of the displacement, as helicopter gun ships fired on civilians fleeing the Swat Valley, reached 85,000 a day.

This terrorist tactic-firing heavy artillery at little villages and then pursuing fleeing villagers with gunfire from helicopters-could empty out every village and small town in the Pacific Northwest in a few weeks.

Where would refugees go after they were driven from secessionist villages and towns? They would go to camps, drawn there by promises of food, shelter and safety.

Most of these camps would be open-air prisons like the Gaza Strip, or the city of Fallujah, in Iraq, or the concentration camps where the British Army put Boer women and children during the Boer war. There would be harsh control of the perimeters of these camps, using earthen or concrete walls, razor wire, guard dogs, electrified fences, towers, mine fields and high-powered search lights.

All of these tools have been perfected and used. Any guerrilla fighters who remained outside the camps would be pressured to surrender when the women, children and old men in the camps began to die after being deprived of food, water, medicine and sanitation.

Torturers and assassins would visit the camps to cull interesting prisoners. They operated this way during the Phoenix Program in Vietnam. The founder of the Phoenix program, CIA officer William Colby, told a Congressional committee in 1971 that the Phoenix operation had killed 20,587 Vietcong suspects in two years (Hayden, 2008).

Writing in Small Wars Journal, Lt. Col. David Kilcullen advocated a world-wide Phoenix program. He went on to become chief strategist in the State Department’s counterterrorism office in 2005 and 2006 and was chief adviser on counterinsurgency operations to General Petraeus, in planning the 2007 US troop surge in Iraq.

Justin Raimondo reported that high officials at the top of the United States Government have operated an assassination ring. He says that Defense Secretary Gates, acting under the authority of President Obama, has appointed the operational leader of this assassination ring, Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, to head U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

It is a huge piece of good luck that government strategy and tactics would make secession impossible. Secession would be a terrible, self-inflicted disaster.

Secession gives the enemy the location of a small, compact target where it can land a fatal blow. It lets the enemy organize its own territory without interference and then use all of the resources of that territory for aggression.

Secession always means the voluntary loss of valuable territory. It loses strategic depth for fighting a war. It loses rivers, ocean front and harbors. It loses road grids and railroad networks. It loses power stations and hydroelectric dams. It loses minerals and arable land. It loses defensible terrain features such as mountain ranges. It loses industrial plants and built up areas.

Secession also loses people. For example a Pacific Northwest homeland would leave out most members of the largest White ethnic group — Germans. They mostly live in a huge semi-circle of land in the middle of the United States, with its diameter on the Canadian border. Their key cities are Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Indianapolis, Milwaukee, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis.

A Pacific Northwest homeland would also leave out most of the next-largest white ethnic group–the Irish. Oregon and Idaho are not even mentioned on the Wikipedia list of the twenty states with the largest population of Irish-Americans. Washington State has the 20th largest number of Irish-Americans.

And so it goes with all whites, whether they call themselves just plain Americans or mention descent from a specific white ethnic group. All whites are important. So any population transfer to implement any secession plan, of any sort, would be impossible. And that’s a good thing because secession would create hostile borders that would splinter families, kindreds, and ethnic groups.

There are three good, recent models for this: Berlin was partitioned into East- and West Berlin. Germany was partitioned into East- and West Germany. Korea was — and still is — partitioned into North- and South Korea. All of these have had — or still have — hostile borders that featured guard towers, road barriers, barbed wire, death strips enforced by mines, machine guns and guard dogs, passport & visa requirements, body searches and other snooping, as well as confiscations, arbitrary arrests and mysterious disappearances.

Borders destroy social capital. Population transfers from one place to another also destroy social capital. There are two different cases here. In the first case, a border partitions an area, leaving a population divided in two, with large numbers of people passively staying in place. In the second case, numbers of people respond to special appeals to move to an area that plans to secede.

People who would be willing to move, as single individuals, to some distant place where a movement is afoot to secede are especially likely to be loners, High Plains drifters — people not tied down by strong emotional commitments to others. They are especially vulnerable to exploitation by agent provocateurs, because so many of their interactions are with strangers.They can be entrapped by honey pots. Their social networks are likely to be relatively impoverished and easily penetrated by malicious strangers. Collections of them are likely to lack small unit cohesion.

People who stay in one place for several generations are likely to be embedded in a rich network of social relationships. Groups of these people have Einheit, the mutual trust and common outlook built by shared experience. They have agreed frameworks for doing things. They have a capacity for deep emotional attachments to each other. Their social arrangements are based on ancient acquaintance, so they are hard for malicious strangers to penetrate and exploit. People who stay in one place have rich mental maps of their physical and social territory. The value of their social networks is very high.

This makes them difficult for a social parasite to exploit.

A lot of thought and effort has been spent to destroy the social networks of American whites, to ruin our Einheit, make us flee from the centers of our cities and turn us into atomized individuals or tiny nuclear families. The key to this destruction has been alien control of the mass media.

Decades of hate speech about whites, in the mass media, has enraged Negroes and made them more and more bold in attacking whites. Mass media participated in these attacks by motivating them, giving them ideological cover, and carefully concealing their nature and full extent from whites. Monopoly ownership of mass media made it impossible for whites to organize a hue and cry to prevent further predation.

As a result, unorganized, individual white families fled from violent crime near the centers of cities to suburbs on the distant outskirts. They abandoned center-city land worth as much as a million dollars an acre, in today’s dollars, for land at the outskirts worth ten-thousand dollars an acre today. The economic loss to whites from this one factor alone is in the trillions of dollars. Typically whites sold sound, sturdy old houses on extremely valuable center-city land and bought brand-new houses on small parcels of nearly-worthless semi-rural land. Then their new houses began to depreciate to zero, while the land that they had abandoned in the center city skyrocketed.

The loss of social capital shows up in the reduced roaming radius that parents allow their children. A while ago, I talked with an older white man who probably was 65- to 70-years-old at the time we talked. He said that, as a 12-year-old boy, he rode his bicycle four or five miles to a hardware store. There he bought a 12-gauge shotgun for himself. Then he held it on his bicycle’s handlebars and rode home. Nobody thought anything about it, he said.

This would never happen now.

The loss of social capital also shows up in the loss of informal play. Mothers drive their children from one carefully-protected, formally-scheduled activity to another.

White flight — the individual search for safety from ethnic cleansing — has spread from cities to whole states. For example, whites are fleeing ethnic cleansing in California.

Secession is white flight extended to multi-state regions. Flight to a promised Pacific Northwest homeland, for example, is white flight to a multi-state region.

No matter how large the region to which whites flee, it cannot work. A key reason is that white people are wealth, like herds of cattle or flocks of sheep. White people provide valuable habitat and nourishment for parasites of all kinds. So these parasites follow us everywhere.

South Africa is a fine example. The first major permanent white settlement anywhere in Africa started in 1652 when the Dutch East India Company built a supply station for its ships in the vicinity of present-day Cape Town, South Africa. At that stage the nearest Bantu tribes were more than 1,000 kilometers from the Cape.

By the time the British occupied the Cape for the first time in 1795 it had a white population of about 26,000, an estimated Cape Colored population of 20,000 and a slave population of around 30,000.

During the lifetime of the Republic of South Africa Bantu colonists also flooded South Africa, drawn by labor contracts.

South African farmers — the Boers — fled from British control. Everywhere they went, the British followed them and annexed their territory as soon as they had done the hard, dangerous work of settling it. The Boers and their territory were too valuable for the British to leave alone.

In the beginning South African whites had a chance to create an all-white country of their own. However, relying on non-white labor gave white habitat away to non-whites. It gave non-whites a chance to out-breed whites and displace them.

The very slow, slow growth of the white population in the pre-Revolutionary thirteen colonies, of North America, is a measure of how hard and dangerous it is to convert wilderness to urban, improved habitat.

It took 150 years, from 1650 to 1780, for the population of the 13 colonies to grow from 4,600 to 2,780,000.That is an increase of only18,502 a year.

It took just 30 years, from 1970 to 2000, for the Hispanic population of the United States to grow from an estimated 9.6 million to an estimated 35.3 million. This is an increase of more 856,666 Hispanics a year, a mark of how free, easy and safe their increase is. http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/hispanic/hispanic.html

Early America offered slim pickings for Jews, except in the slave trade. There were an estimated 1,243 to 3,000 in the United States in 1790. When Whites finished the difficult, dangerous work of settlement, the Jewish population suddenly leapt from 230,000 to 280,000 in 1880 to 1,508,000 to 2,349,754 in 1910. This was just three years before they took control of the United States banking system with their Federal Reserve system. (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/usjewpop1.html)

None of these millions of newcomers paid their share of the cost of developing a high technological civilization in North America. None had built any roads, laid any railroad tracks, or built any bridges, dams or tall sky scrapers.

We Whites have helped non-whites dispossess us by giving our habitat away for free, after developing it at such cost. If we keep doing this, we will be extinct.

We must stop helping non-whites dispossess us. We must stop running away. We must stop giving free habitat to those who seek to dispossess us. We must take back our land.

This essay was originally published on Sep 3, 2009

Our top priority with this redesign was to provide an easier, more streamlined method for readers to purchase and manage their subscriptions to our journal—which I will give a summary of below. As I’m sure you have already noticed, our other priority was to greatly improve the overall aesthetic allure of the site. We wanted the design to be sleek and modernized, yet have a powerful, rugged, and charmingly dangerous appeal. It is our sincere hope that what you see and experience on the new site is not only a welcome change to the same—if I may—lifeless, soporific websites you visit everyday, but also an encouraging vestige of the unrelenting ascension of our movement.

TOQ Subscription Changes

The Society has adopted a new pricing structure for The Occidental Quarterly:

• $30 for a “download” subscription worldwide.
• $60 a “hard copy” mailed anywhere in North America.
• $80 a “hard copy” mailed outside of North America.

What You Get

When you purchase a download subscription, you will be able to log into our new subscriber access area where you can download all issues less than one year old in high-definition PDF format (including the full-color cover). Currently, new subscribers will be able to download three issues.

The next issue of TOQ will be made available for download as soon as it is sent to the printer (typically one month before the hard copy would land in your mailbox).

Both the domestic and international hard copy subscriptions include access to the PDF downloads as well.

Members of the Society will soon receive an email with their login credentials for accessing the PDF downloads in addition to their hard copy subscription.

Why We Changed the Subscription Prices

1. Escalating costs of postage and printing, especially outside of North America.
2. The increasing preference for reading documents online.

We hope that the download subscription will create a compelling value proposition for students, for those living outside of North America, and for those who prefer to read online.

Another important overhaul we undertook was a complete redesign of our data and communications infrastructure. It has been expertly engineered so that all communications with us are made through a secure, 256 bit, SSL-encrypted connection on a dedicated server that we control. Your secrecy and privacy are extremely important to us and we have taken great measures to ensure your information is protected. We will never reveal your identity or contact information to anyone.

In addition to the online security protections we have set up, from this point forward all hard copies of The Occidental Quarterly will be mailed first class; the only form of mail that cannot be searched or have addresses on the outside of the envelope copied without a warrant.

We take the utmost precautions to protect you, your job and your business from ideologically motivated reprisals. We have done our homework, and the new website reflects best practices in security and privacy.

And now, with Kevin MacDonald as editor, we think The Occidental Quarterly offers a compelling content value coupled with a delivery system and a community of like-minded souls that you can join with complete confidence.

New Site Features

Our developer has implemented hundreds of new features and improvements on the site, so I’ll leave it up to you to discover most of them. Here are a few of the biggest and best changes we hope you’ll like:

• Subscriber Access Area – This new panel allows TOQ subscribers to manage their subscription level, access downloadable issues of the journal, update contact/shipping/billing information, and we’ll even be adding a community/chat area in the near future. Click here subscribe
• Email Subscriptions – Receive updates when we post something new to the blog sent right to your inbox. Just enter your email address in the form located in our sidebar.
• Online Donations – We now offer our faithful supporters the ability to make easy, secure online donations on a one-time or recurring basis. All the information entered in our new donation form is transmitted securely via a 256-bit, encrypted connection. If you’re feeling generous right now or perhaps even curious, please head over to our secure donation page.
• New Bookstore – Our fancy, new bookstore is definitely something you’ll want to check out. It offers the full functionality of an online e-commerce shop and makes purchasing our books online fast and easy.
• All-Purpose Contact Form – Now, instead of listing bunch of email addresses, we have a single contact form that will handle article submissions, subscription inquiries, and any other comments or questions you have. Depending on the selections you make, the form will automatically send your message directly to the appropriate person/department here at TOQ.
• Mobile TOQ – TOQ Online now has special version of the site specifically optimized for mobile devices! It looks great on any iPhone, iPod, BlackBerry, or Android phone as well as many other devices. Just visit our website from any smartphone and it will automatically display the optimized version (there is an option to view the normal version as well).

We certainly hope you’ll enjoy the new site and of course, we would love to hear your comments and feedback.