I’ve been appointed as the caretaker of TOQ Online. Samuel Phillips has already introduced himself as the new webmaster. This website will serve as a repository for articles from back issues of the journal. The plan is to post an article a week. I will probably be posting these articles on the weekend while everyone is off work and has the time to read them. It is unclear whether additional material will be posted on a daily basis.

There will be a few other changes. A new section will be created that will allow TOQ subscribers to download a PDF version of the journal as soon as each new issue is released. There has been a spirited debate in our community as to whether TOQ should shift entirely from print to digital media. The new online version of the journal should provide some valuable feedback and help us resolve this question.

Greg Johnson has a new radio show on Voice of Reason. He is the Editor or a new website called Counter Currents. You can reach him at his new email address. I’m sure these two new outlets will develop into a content rich source for his prodigious energies. I’m told he will soon be publishing some great new books about the European New Right. Look out for those.

Note: There will be some technical changes coming soon. This website might go offline for a few days as we complete the transition.

If there were a button that would instantly and painlessly annihilate alcohol, nicotine, marijuana, and all other addictive recreational drugs, I would push it, simply because nothing has done more damage to the people I love, including my race as a whole.

I do not think that our enemies could have pushed the destruction of the white race to this point if we were not so prone to turn our anger inward and numb ourselves with drink and drugs. Without them, white people would be a whole lot meaner and harder to push around, and that would be a good thing.

I would push the button, even though I am not immune to the pleasures of alcohol. In fact I love it, albeit in moderation. Some of my friends call me a teetotaler and a killjoy, but that is only because they are alcoholics.

But let’s wrench ourselves away from such a utopian vision and turn our attention to Realpolitik. When a white homeland is established in North America, its founders will eventually get around to the issue of drug laws.

I think that a white ethnostate should consider junking most of America’s drug laws. I think we should consider making alcohol, nicotine, marijuana, cocaine, opiates, psychedelics, uppers, downers, and the like available for purchase without special taxes and restrictions, save two: first, to buy and use such drugs, one must be a responsible adult (18 or over and of sound mind) and second, there should be strict penalties for those who become addicted to drugs and thus cannot fulfill their familial and social responsibilities.

Why do I favor such sweeping liberties regarding drug use? Let me first make it clear that I am not a libertarian. I don’t believe that human beings have some sort of natural “rights” to the maximum amount of liberty possible, consistent with the equal liberty of others. Nor do I believe that the sole legitimate function of the state is to insure the freedom of social atoms to pursue their individual goals.

I am not an individualist, but a racial collectivist, a racial communitarian. For me, political philosophy begins with the question of what institutions, laws, and customs are necessary for the survival and flourishing of race. It just so happens that a good deal of individual liberty makes sense in the context of a white society.

In particular, I believe that today’s drug laws just would not make sense in a healthy and homogeneous white society, simply because such a society would lack the two main reasons why present-day drug laws exist: (1) a culture that encourages selfishness, hedonism, irresponsibility, and prolonged adolescence, and (2) the presence of non-white groups with strong genetic predispositions to drug and alcohol abuse and inferior capacities to control their appetites and impulses.

Individual liberty makes sense only if people are responsible enough not to abuse it. Today’s white Americans—from the boomers on—are perhaps the most immature and irresponsible generations in our history. Liberty is not just wasted on us, it is an actual danger. So all talk of drug legalization in the present context is grossly irresponsible. It would just make a bad situation worse.

But this rampant hedonism and irresponsibility is largely artificial. It is the typical product of cultural decadence, in this case a decadence engineered by cultural aliens out to destroy us. But one does not have to go back too many generations to find white men and women who were mature and responsible enough to start businesses and begin families before today’s kids are even allowed to graduate High School.

In a White Republic, adolescence would not be prolonged, and hedonism and selfishness would not be encouraged. Men and women would be ready to assume adult responsibilities by the age of 18, including decisions about using alcohol and other recreational drugs. A White Republic would be all about empowering youth: about giving them what they need so that they can begin independent and productive lives as soon as it is biologically possible.

But what if some of them develop problems? Then society would intervene, on the grounds that individuals are not mere atoms and their problems are not merely private. Drug abuse—whether of drugs that are legal or illegal in today’s society—interferes with the ability of individuals to fulfill their responsibilities to their families, to their race, and even to themselves. Addicts would be forcibly dried out and barred from buying drugs. Repeat offenders should probably be sterilized.

But, by the same token, a society that seeks to cultivate personal responsibility should not deny everyone access to certain substances merely because some people abuse them.

Drug legalization advocates love to point out that many drug laws were racially motivated, and this is true. Laws against opiates were directed at the Chinese. Laws against marijuana and cocaine were directed at blacks.

A homogeneously white society would have no need to use drug laws to target non-white populations. There may, of course, be other reasons to ban such drugs. But at the very least, a homogeneously white society should look for good reasons rather than uncritically carry over laws that are artifacts of the multiracial societies we are struggling to leave behind.

Some people will dismiss such talk because drug legalization is “liberal” and they are “conservatives.” Of course, if one turns the clock back far enough, one will find an America without drug laws and other aspects of the nanny state. So why not conserve that America? Today’s conservatives are often just clinging to the consequences of yesterday’s liberalism.

Others simply have silly racial prejudices about drugs. Alcohol is for white men. Pot is for blacks. But if that is the case, then a society which outlaws blacks will have no need to outlaw pot as well.

Such discussions are, of course, a bit premature. But we will never get from here to there unless we have a pretty clear image of what “there” will look like. Thus there is a place for speculation about the possible laws and institutions of a White Nationalist society.

Although nobody knows how to have fun better than some White Nationalists I know, our enemies have successfully established the image of White Nationalists as dour jackbooted totalitarians. Many of our friends have helped them, truth be told. Thus it is useful to emphasize anything that conflicts with that stereotype.

I submit that there is a lot of appeal to the image of a society in which children of the sun are equipped with the independence and responsibility of adulthood in the full bloom of youth, so that they can enjoy the freedom to explore, create, and celebrate life. Jackboots optional.

That said, since alcohol is already a major problem in today’s White Nationalist movement, the last thing we need is an influx of drug enthusiasts. Thus although I favor drug legalization in the White Republic, as far as the White Nationalist movement is concerned, I am all for Harold Covington’s General Order #10: Nobody working for a white homeland may use drugs or alcohol for the duration of the struggle.

Let’s save the toasting for the white homeland, comrades. Or for Valhalla.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bibliographical Note:

The novels of the Northwest Quartet are:

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

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

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

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

James Edwards

The Political Cesspool can be heard live each Saturday night from 6pm-9pm Central Time on AM 1380 WLRM in Memphis, Tennessee, and on the AM / FM affiliate stations of the Liberty News Radio Network.

Richard Spencer

I have been glued to the same website for hours today: Richard Spencer’s new webzine Alternative Right, which was launched on Monday, March 1 with an excellent lineup of articles by Richard Hoste, E. Christian Kopff, Kevin Deanna, Steve Sailer, Paul Gottfried, and Robert Weissberg, among others.

Perhaps the nicest thing I can say is that most of the articles are good enough to steal, beginning with Richard Hoste’s, which appears below. The site is also attractively designed, complete with video and audio features, not to mention coffee mugs and t-shirts.

I hope that Alternative Right will attract the brightest young conservatives and libertarians and expose them to far broader intellectual horizons, including race realism, White Nationalism, the European New Right, the Conservative Revolution, Traditionalism, neo-paganism, agrarianism, Third Positionism, anti-feminism, and right-wing anti-capitalists, ecologists, bioregionalists, and small-is-beautiful types.

Hoste’s article “Why an Alternative Right is Necessary” indicates that acknowledgment of Human Biodiversity (biological race and sex differences) have an important and secure place at Alternative Right. Steve Sailer’s article on “The Dispossessed Elite” indicates that Alternative Right will broach the Jewish question (having resolved my questions, I prefer to call it the Jewish problem). These are important advances on Taki’s Magazine (which, by the way, I still read regularly and enjoy).

The presence of articles by Robert Weissberg and Paul Gottfried indicates that Alternative Right is not a clone of TOQ or The Occidental Observer. (Not that anybody expected that, although some might applaud it.) But that is fine with me. It is more important to have a forum where our ideas interface with the mainstream that to have another Occidental something-or-other.com.

I urge all TOQ Online readers to put Alternative Right on your daily reading list. I predict it will rise rapidly toward the top. Congratulations Richard, and good luck.

I can’t praise Craig Bodeker’s path-breaking 58 minute documentary A Conversation About Race too highly. As I explained in my TOQ review, it is an excellent tool for getting white people to begin thinking about the most important issue of our time: the preservation of the white race.

In my review of A Conversation About Race, I suggested that Craig Bodeker make more of the raw interviews available. Bodeker’s new DVD More of . . . A Conversation About Race is pretty much what I had in mind.

The original documentary is a stand-alone feature. The new DVD is not. It clocks in at 38 minutes and is one of those “bonus” discs containing deleted scenes, behind the scenes footage, and director interviews that are often packaged with movies.

Fans of A Conversation About Race need to see More of . . . A Conversation About Race. Bodeker left us wanting more, and now he has delivered.

But More of . . . is not essential for first-time viewers of A Conversation About Race, which can stand on its own and is probably more effective at only 58 minutes.

Film watchers tend to be naive and film-makers tend to be disingenuous about the power of editing to take people’s words and use them to advance the film-maker’s agenda. Craig Bodeker is refreshingly honest about this.

In making A Conversation About Race, he chose clips that illustrate the incoherence of the conventional wisdom about race. Here he shows some of the material he left out, which allows us to get a fuller and fairer impression of his interviewees.

A lot of the material simply could not be used for technical reasons. Sometimes the interviewees stutter or gibber. One time the camera man’s cell phone rang, and Bodeker rebuked him for it, for apparently this was the fourth time it had happened. Sometimes there were small problems with focus or sound.

The most regrettable glitch was the crying baby that interrupted an interview with a young woman who appeared to be an American Indian. (Craig tells me she is from the Philippines.) The baby in her lap was blonde-haired and blue-eyed. (I thought she might have been a nanny.) She began like many of the interviewees by claiming that she thought that racism was all pervasive, then the baby started crying and nothing  after that point made it into the first film. In the More of . . . DVD, she goes on to reveal that she had lived around whites her entire life and had never experienced any racism, save for the time when someone asked her if she was Chinese! The baby turned out to be her adopted child, and she was in an inter-racial marriage. Quite a story!

We get glimpses of how Bodeker set up and conducted the interviews. There were two kinds of interviews: impromptu man-on-the-street interviews and studio interviews.

At the end of one of the street interviews, he engages in shameless flattery to get his subject to sign the release necessary to use his interview. The standard procedure is to have the release signed before the interview, to prevent people from backing out afterwards if they do not like their performances.

In the studio interviews, Bodeker warns the interviewees that he is going to ask them questions that might make them angry. He apparently allowed them to read over a list of sample questions. At least some of them were asked to prepare a statement of their views on race.

Two sequences stand out as my favorites.

The first is a segment of Bodeker’s interview with Ruben, a Mexican national who in A Conversation About Race appeals to his rights as an American citizen until Bodeker gets him to admit that he is not one. In More of . . ., Bodeker sets up the segment by telling us that Ruben got under his skin. In the segment, Bodeker is not just asking questions, he is pressing an argument. His passion is apparent, but I detect no anger, and to my surprise he manages to get Ruben to concede his point. Bodeker again demonstrates that one can persuade people of quite radical ideas as long as one is soft-spoken, reasonable, and does not allow oneself to be pigeonholed as a skinhead or one of “those people in Idaho.”

My other favorite segment is a montage near the end called “Words of Wisdom” in which the interviewees make some very sensible and admirably candid remarks. Bodeker sets this segment up by saying that it is easy to use editing to poke fun a the views of his subjects. But he reminds us that the incoherence of their views reflects the incoherence of the received wisdom on racism. I liked his tone and message here, but unfortunately he undermines it in the earlier part of the DVD with some snide, sniping comments, for example putting one person’s profession (actor) in “scare quotes” and making fun of the coinage “extinctuate” (it was a white person who came out with it, by the way).

The style of More of . . . differs from the original A Conversation About Race. The original is in black and white and has a minimalistic style. The new DVD is shot in color and includes flashier editing and special effects, including rewinds of clips from the original movie, that I found annoying and obtrusive.

As this video came to an end, two feelings were predominant.

First, I liked and respected Craig Bodeker and pretty much all of his interviewees. I particularly liked a couple of the blacks. It is refreshing to see people who are not burdened by “white guilt” speaking frankly and unapologetically about their racial interests. All the subjects had, of course, been well-catechized in the conventional wisdom about racism. But most of them had the potential to see beyond it with a little prodding.

Which leads me to the second feeling this DVD evoked, namely hope. Our system is based on lies: the lie of human equality, the lie of unique white depravity, the lie that diversity is a strength. These lies are so preposterous, so utterly contrary to human experience, that the system it has to create an unsleeping, all-pervasive regime of propaganda and brainwashing to prevent people from looking at reality and thinking for themselves.

But it did not stop Craig Bodeker from creating A Conversation About Race. It did not stop him from putting an ad on Craig’s List, interviewing people with an inexpensive camera, creating a documentary using inexpensive equipment, and promoting it with the internet. It did not stop him from opening the minds of his interviewees and countless viewers around the world.

As I said in my initial review, Craig Bodeker is a talent to be encouraged and emulated. Encourage him by buying his videos. Encourage him to do a new documentary. (I vote for A Conversation About Diversity.) As for emulating him, if there are any aspiring White Nationalist documentary film-makers out there, please contact me. Perhaps we can put together a workshop.

You can purchase More of . . . A Conversation About Race for $20, including first class postage in the US, directly from Craig Bodeker’s website, http://www.aconversationaboutrace.com/part_2.asp. You can purchase both DVDs together for $30.

People from across the United States and a number of foreign countries were set to converge on Dulles Airport on February 19-21 to listen to a stellar lineup of speakers, including Nick Griffin of the British National Party, filmmaker Craig Bodeker, writer David Yeagley, Professor Raymond Wolters, white community organizer Sam Dickson, American Renaissance editor Jared Taylor, and others. In addition to providing a feast for the intellect, every AmRen conference is also a valuable opportunity for fellowship and networking.

But the cancellation also provides lessons and opportunities.

Whenever some Third World dictator cancels elections, shreds a constitution, or persecutes his political opponents, we all know what is happening. Given the choice between preserving the legitimacy of the system or preserving personal advantage, he chooses personal advantage and discards the props of legitimacy as just that: meaningless props.

America’s ruling establishment now faces a similar choice.

The American Renaissance Conference was an entirely legal gathering. AmRen, its speakers, and its guests were exercising their Constitutionally guaranteed rights to freedom of speech and freedom of association.

The conference was canceled because the hotel management feared that the system could not protect its staff and guests from death threats. The hotel may be private organization, but freedom of speech means nothing if private organizations do not feel that they can safely host gatherings of controversial groups.

Thus the ruling establishment — the government, law-enforcement agencies, and the press — have to take a firm, public stand against terrorism and for freedom of speech and association. The hotels have to know that the full weight of the law will fall on those who seek to disrupt such gatherings.

Also, the hotels have to know that the establishment — as represented in the mainstream media — cares about freedom of speech and assembly as a matter of sacred principle.

The terrorists have to be publicly shamed. And so do the hotels for giving into them.

But shaming the hotels will not work unless they are reasonably sure that the moral stand is also the most practical one. And this means that the government must give plausible assurance that the terrorists will be punished.

I spoke to Jared Taylor today. He emphasized that the AmRen Conference was an entirely legal gathering, protected by the Constitution itself. He also went on to stress that anyone who thinks in terms of principles can see that “If AmRen can be shut down this way, then anyone can be shut down. The meatpackers meeting can be shut down by PETA.” This can be prevented only if the establishment takes a strong and decisive stand against terrorism and for freedom of speech and assembly.

Taylor fears, however, that the government and media will greet the cancellation of AmRen with silent gloating rather than howls of righteous indignation. After all, Jared Taylor and his readers are heretics, dissenters from our secular religion of racial egalitarianism and multiculturalism. By shutting down AmRen, the terrorists remove a challenge to the establishment’s power. The only problem is that by remaining silent, the current establishment preserves its power while undermining the system’s legitimacy.

We will be watching the response of politicians, law enforcement, and the media.

The terrorists, and potential terrorists, will be watching as well.

If AmRen is shut down with impunity, then left-wing terrorists will repeat their winning strategy.

But right-wing terrorists may also be encouraged.

Within the White Nationalist community, American Renaissance stands for gentlemanly debate and strict legality. The underlying assumption of this approach is that White Nationalists can work within the American system. America was a de facto White Nationalist society. America became a multiculturalist society within the system. And America can be reborn as an explicitly White Nationalist society within the system as well. The American system is not so broken that it cannot be fixed.

But there is another faction in the White Nationalist movement: those who feel that the American system cannot be reformed and must simply be replaced. And before it can be replaced, it must be destroyed. Some are banking on the system destroying itself. Others are hankering to lend a hand. Call this the revolutionary faction.

If American Renaissance can be shut down with impunity, the ranks and influence of the reformist faction will shrink as those of the revolutionary faction grow.

Furthermore, as with all revolutionary movements, left and right, White Nationalism’s revolutionary faction has a largely sociopathic fringe just itching for opportunities and excuses for violence. This fringe’s influence will grow as well.

I asked Jared Taylor if he thought that a soft response or non-response by the establishment to the shutdown of the AmRen Conference might encourage violence from White Nationalist fringe elements. Taylor said that he hoped not, but feared this it might happen: “That is a danger. If people think that the game is rigged, they might be tempted to just kick over the table. I hope that doesn’t happen.”

White Nationalists need to do more than just wait for the establishment’s response. We need to encourage it. There are three things we can all do:

1. Contact the media and demand coverage.

2. Contact political figures and law enforcement and demand justice.

3. Contact your friends and acquaintances and spread the word about this outrage.

Finally, I have a personal recommendation for Jared Taylor, and I am sure I speak for many others as well: fight.

Keep my registration fee. But I would feel better about it if you used it to actively fight. Don’t wait for the press to call you. Hire a press agent and get this publicized. Take out full-page advertisements in the New York Times and the Washington Post. Don’t wait for law enforcement to track down the perpetrators of this crime. Offer a reward for information that leads to the arrest of the terrorists. Hire a private investigator to conduct a perfectly legal search. And when you find the perpetrators, don’t wait for a criminal prosecution. Look into a civil suit too.

There is no better proof that multiculturalism is bringing on a new Dark Age of scientific obscurantism, moralistic fanaticism, and political repression than these low and frantic attempts to abort an American Renaissance.

I usually observe MLK Day by taking the trash to the curb just like any other Monday.

But how should White Nationalists observe Black History Month?

Hunter Wallace of Occidental Dissent has an excellent suggestion:

I’m going to use this month to deepen my knowledge of the White Republic. Some of you might want to consider purchasing a book or two about European history. I enjoyed Christopher Tyerman’s God’s War: A New History of the Crusades. The hardcover edition is 922 pages long and should last you through February.

Other excellent books can be found in the TOQ Online bookshop. I recommend in particular Wilmot Robertson’s The Dispossessed Majority; Sam Francis, ed., Race and the American Prospect; and Kevin MacDonald’s Cultural Insurrections: Essays on Western Civilization, Jewish Influence, and Anti-Semitism.

Please share your thoughts and suggestions for observing Black History Month below.

Professor MacDonald’s research threatens the cultural and political hegemony of the organized Jewish community by exposing their ongoing subversion of Western civilization. This research has made Professor MacDonald a target of persecution by Jewish individuals, organizations, front groups, and their dupes for nearly a decade.

This persecution has intensified of late because of Professor MacDonald’s affiliation with the newly-formed American Third Position political party, which threatens Jewish hegemony by explicitly representing the interests of white Americans, who are being culturally and politically dispossessed by Jews and their non-white allies.

Student agitators affiliated with Jewish front groups called “Students Fight Back” and the “Party for Socialism and Liberation” entered Professor MacDonald’s classrooms on the first day of the Spring semester and passed out propaganda to induce students to drop his classes. The agitators also threatened to circulate a petition calling for Professor MacDonald’s dismissal.

See Douglas Kauffman, “Long Beach students boycott fascist professor Kevin MacDonald,” on the website of the Party for Socialism and Libertation and Sonia Scherr’s “Student Activists Confront Anti-Semitic California Prof” on the website of Professor MacDonald’s long-time persecutors the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Professor MacDonald has commented on the latest round of harassment on The Occidental Observer Blog: “The multi-cultural left’s broad definitions of ‘racism’ — and aggressive tactics” and “The academic left’s involvement in politics.”

Professor MacDonald’s enemies try to cloak their radical agenda in standard liberal pieties, but whether from cynicism or mere stupidity, their attempts are so clumsy that any child can see through them.

For instance, one of the agitators, Marylou Cabral, is concerned that Professor MacDonald’s research and political commitments might color his teaching. The fact that she does not apply the same standards to politically engaged leftist professors, indeed to entire politically engaged disciplines — women’s studies, black studies, gay and lesbian studies, etc. — shows that her objection is not to academic political engagement per se, but merely to Professor MacDonald’s views.

Another agitator, Douglas Kauffman, said: “Our campus is one of the most diverse in the country, and that really flies in the face of having a Nazi as a professor.” Student Shavanda Williams echoed these sentiments, asking: “Why is he here if he has these white supremacist ideas?”

Genuine liberals should find such statements dismaying. After all, “liberal education” is not supposed to mean education by a bunch of dogmatic liberals who all think alike. Liberal education is an education that expands the horizons of students by exposing them to a variety of different viewpoints.

Thus, although it really is not fair to characterize Professor MacDonald as a Nazi or a white supremacist, even if he were, the presence of a faculty member with such unusual viewpoints would make CSLB more intellectually diverse

Of course Kauffman, Cabral, & co. are not liberals. They are left-wing totalitarians. For them, “diversity” is merely a euphemism for the stigmatization and dispossession of whites by Jews and non-whites.

“Diversity” does not mean diversity of opinion. It means black leftists, lesbian leftists, Asian leftists, mestizo leftists, feminist leftists, etc. all working under the tutelage of Jewish leftists to root out every possible form of white racial consciousness.

“Diversity” does not mean that all races and ethnic groups should take pride in themselves and watch out for their interests. No, when whites do that, it is not “diversity,” it is “hate.” And the fanatical persecution of “hate” is what leftists call “tolerance” — and, presumably, “love” (they are all just snarling and sputtering with love).

Before Kevin MacDonald is nailed to the cross of tolerance, I hope we will hear some voices of protest from the genuine liberals — faculty, administrators, and students — at his university and in academia at large. Academia being what it is, we can’t expect anything much better than sincere liberals. But genuine liberalism should be enough to protect Kevin MacDonald’s freedom to think, write, teach, and exercise his political rights as he sees fit.

We will be watching.

Zeskind notes that there has been an increase in discussion of secession and racial partition. He mentions the creation of Harold Covington’s Northwest Front, but predicts nothing will come of it because of Covington’s controversial past.

Zeskind also mentions TOQ and our “Secession and Racial Nationalism” essay contest:

The Occidental Quarterly, with half a dozen PhDs on its advisory board, has emerged as the central address for the most advanced strategic thinking among intellectual antisemites, scientific racists and anti-immigrant white nationalists.

Zeskind then mentions Michael O’Meara’s prize essay “Toward the White Republic.”

I have been editing our special issue on Secession and Racial nationalism, and I have been again impressed by the quality of the entries. Dr. O’Meara’s prize essay was the best, but the best in a crowded and highly competitive field. Of the 19 entries, nine will be published in TOQ, including the prize essay, and a tenth has already been published on TOQ Online.

The purpose of TOQ‘s essay competitions is precisely to solidify our position as “the central address for the most advanced strategic thinking among intellectual antisemites, scientific racists and anti-immigrant white nationalists” by encouraging the best minds in our movement to apply themselves to issues of vital importance to our people’s survival and flourishing.

Click here for details on our next essay contest, on “Libertarianism and Racial Nationalism.”

For reviews of Zeskind’s Blood and Politics: The History of the White Nationalist Movement from the Margins to the Mainstream, click here and here.

The party’s program seems crafted to appeal to and promote the interests of white Americans, but not too explicitly. We shall see if this formula, followed by the British National Party, will work in this country. I have the highest respect for Kevin MacDonald and William Johnson, so the party is in good hands.

Mainstream media coverage has been predictably scathing. See here (be sure to read the comments — and add a few of your own) and here.

The emergence of American Third Position is a hopeful sign, and we will follow the party closely on TOQ Online.

Here are some of my public goals and resolutions for 2010:

1. Continue to publish TOQ. Maintain our high standards and work upward from there.
2. Continue to publish TOQ Online. Maintain and raise the quality of the contents.
3. Incorporate audio and video features into TOQ Online.
4. Expand TOQ Online‘s critical engagement with popular culture.
5. Expand the number of TOQ Editor’s Dinners around the country. The goal of these meetings is to foster real-world networking. Improve on the follow-up networking, so we do not fall into the meet, eat, and retreat trap.
6. Continue and expand efforts to network with and cultivate high quality writers, activists, and organizers. Do not neglect the character dimension. Talent and ideological commitment are not enough.
7. Be less tolerant of weakness in myself and others.
8. Prune my existing network of problematic people: those who are defeatist, inactive, unreliable, squeamish, neurotic, two-faced, dishonest, etc.
9. Cultivate and encourage a culture of frankness within my network. One of the major weaknesses of the movement is the inability to communicate openly about matters of great importance. It is a problem of character.
10. Work on my public speaking and interviewing skills to become a more effective advocate for our cause.

As you decide on your goals and resolutions for 2010, ask yourself: Will our race be another year closer to victory or oblivion on December 31, 2010?

What do you plan to do for the white race in 2010? Feel free to share your ideas below.

Happy New Year!

TOQ: I really enjoy your novels. I have reviewed the Northwest Quartet, and I have also read Slow Coming Dark, Fire And Rain, and most recently The Stars In Their Path, as well as the collection Other Voices, Darker Rooms. Who are your main literary influences? Which of your works are your favorites and why?

Harold Covington: My father was a reader of pulp science fiction back in the 1950s and 1960s, and he had these big cardboard cartons of old sci-fi paperbacks in the basement, including a lot of the old Ace doubles that went for 50 cents in those days and would probably go for a couple of hundred bucks apiece today if you could get hold of an intact copy. They were written by all the sci-fi greats of the 50s and 60s: Robert A. Heinlein, Brian Aldiss, Philip K. Dick, Alfred Bester, Edmond Hamilton, Alan E. Nourse, Andre Norton, Ray Bradbury, etc. Those were my first bulk reading, and then starting about age 14 I somehow (don’t remember how) discovered H. P. Lovecraft, and that was love at first sight. I still lug around three-volume Arkham House set of his complete works with me wherever I go.

My Northwest novels are purely political polemics, wherein I say things that wouldn’t be politic to say openly in any other context. They are for the purpose of imparting ideas and disseminating practical information using what Lenin called “Aesopian Language,” the language of fable. My actual fiction as such, novels like The Stars In Their Path, The Renegade, Vindictus, etc. aren’t really “influenced” by anyone or anything. They’re just stories I get into my febrile brain and which I have to purge by telling them and letting them out.

As to my favorites, excluding the Quartet, which don’t count because they’re not really novels in the true sense of the word, I’d have to say that The Madman and Marina [in Other Voices, Darker Rooms] is the best short piece I’ve ever done. It may possibly even be the best piece, period—I once had an e-mail correspondent in St. Petersburg tell me he didn’t believe that my name is Covington, that I had to be a Russian writing under an American pseudonym, because only a Russian could produce such a Dostoyevskyan story. I consider that to be the best review I’ve ever had.

Personal favorite among the long novels? The Stars In Their Path, I’d say. Like all my other books it tells a story, but I use reincarnation as a device to keep on telling the same story over and over and over again, a different way each time and with different characters, rather than draw the same plot out to 100,000 words of padding. I think that was neat, if I do say so myself.

TOQ: In the Northwest Quartet and Fire And Rain, I was especially impressed with how you can blend intense drama with light comedy, classical eloquence with pop-culture slang and vulgarity. Joss Whedon and Quentin Tarantino came to mind. Do you pay attention to popular culture? Do you watch movies or television? Name some favorite writers, directors, movies, TV shows.

Harold Covington: I don’t watch television any more, and haven’t for a long time. It’s not just that it’s Judaized to the max and politically nauseating, it’s just stupid. Moronic. I glance over hulu.com every now and then, and I don’t see anything on there that prompts me to get cable again. Why pay $75 a month for drivel?

Movies are another matter. DVDs from the Blockbuster bargain racks are about the only form of recreation I can afford, besides a library card. In that sense yes, I have managed to keep up with enough popular culture, especially among young White people (negrofied though that culture is) so that I can make my young characters believable. I think so, anyway. None of my youthful readers have complained so far.

There are certain movies that just plain creep me out, like Naked Lunch, and there are certain flicks I find fascinating because they’re just plain bizarre, like Dark Star and the American version of Kingdom Hospital, which IMHO is the just plain weirdest thing ever shown on television. My own DVD collection includes Henry the Fifth, (Kenneth Branagh version), Zulu, The 13th Warrior, The Outlaw Josey Wales, and a few oddballs from the 70s like Time After Time and Absolution. I gave some friends of mine the first five episodes of Sharpe’s Rifles. I like a lot of escapist swashbuckling stuff, as you can tell.

TOQ: Do you plan to write any more novels?

Harold Covington: At this point I would say probably not. I’m pretty much NVA’ed out. There is a limit to what can be accomplished through fantasy and the creation of a fictional mythos. If I have not yet succeeded in imparting a vision of possibility to our people in the four Northwest novels already extant, I probably never will. I am concentrating henceforth on trying to turn the vision into reality through the Northwest Front, the “Party” of the novels, and it’s a five-star bitch. Getting “our” people to peep out from behind their computers and commit a real live physical act out here in the real world is like pulling teeth. Half of my contacts I can’t even get to respond to an e-mail.

I still have some bits and pieces of novels and stories lying around in manuscript form and on my computer, plus some ideas I’d like to play with if I ever get the time and the right situation (like the long prison sentence on some ridiculous fabricated charge which I’m sure our lords and masters would like to oblige me with). The main one is a kind of adult version of the Harry Potter series where a secret society of powerful Aryan spirits operating in a kind of nether world one step above this dimension use their magical powers to try and reverse the destruction of our people wrought by the Sauron-like Jewish overlord of the Dark World, although it would hopefully come across a little more convincing than that. I doubt I’ll ever get around to it, though. I need to concentrate what time I have left on building something in the real world.

Read Part 4 here.

Harold Covington: The internet is a reality of 21st century life. I understand and accept that. It can no more be un-invented than gunpowder or nuclear power can be un-invented. The Net has become a necessary evil, but an evil nonetheless, in my opinion.

For one thing, the internet is largely sterile politically. It produces almost nothing except more Net. Somebody sees a great pro-White web site and they are inspired with enthusiasm—to build another web site. There is this immense disconnect between what is essentially a fantasy world in cyber-space and the real world out here where White people are unemployed and foreclosed White families are beginning to live in tent cities called Obamavilles.

The internet gives the White male a feel-good factor which he doesn’t have to earn. He sits down at his computer after work with a bowl of nachos and a few cold brewskis, he plays around on VNN or surfs the web looking for racial stuff, maybe he makes a post or two, and then at the end of the evening he gets up and staggers off to bed with the feeling that he has accomplished something, but he hasn’t. All he has done is to generate words, and words are no good on earth if they never translate into physical action.

The internet provides the White male with a substitute for action, and with a place where he can hide. Yes, I understand that most of us have jobs and families and homes we have to protect, but the fact remains that at some point in time we are going to have to stand erect once more, like men, and not with our heads hung down and our eyes lowered and our feet shuffling in the presence of our Jewish and liberal lords and masters. The internet does not facilitate the strengthening of the one ancient virtue of our people which we need most of all to re-discover: simple physical courage.

Finally, the internet provides something that our highly dysfunctional people cannot resist: consequences-free misbehavior. This is not just a Movement phenomenon; it’s a White thing. The internet is a looney bin, and everyone knows it. The internet is where sick and twisted and often quite deranged people go to vomit. I have never seen anything like some of the filth, the depravity, the idiocy, and the just plain raving madness that I find on the internet every day. I know quite ordinary and apparently stable, functional, and successful people who sit down behind that keyboard, and all of a sudden they get a visit from Mr. Hyde. You’ve heard of discovering one’s Inner Child? It’s like the lure of consequences-free misbehavior on the internet unlocks some people’s Inner Nut.

All of this having been said, the internet remains the only medium of mass communication we have access to, the only place that provides anything remotely resembling a level playing field, which is probably why the Jews and the government hate it so much. Love the internet or hate it, we seem to be stuck with it.

TOQ: Many of our people dwell on negative signs, and there are plenty of them. Do you see positive signs? Do you think there are good reasons for hope?

Harold Covington: Oh, yes, certainly. So long as one doesn’t confuse hope with optimism.

For one thing, it is a historical truism that nothing last forever. This Francis Fukuyama rap about liberal democracy being the “end of history” is horse dung. Everything ends, and the present Zionist world order will end as well, quite possibly within the lifetime of those now born. It may not end the way we want it to end, and it may drag the White race and Western civilization down with it, but oh, yes, it will end. Our task in this and coming generations is to make sure that we survive the collapse of this massive evil, along with at least some semblance of Western civilization.

For another thing, for all our weaknesses and flaws we are still the most intelligent and potentially the bravest and most hardy race on earth. It takes more than 100 years of liberal brainwashing, political correctness, and McDonalds’ Happy Meals to contaminate and extinguish a whole human genotype. Deep down we are still the men our ancestors were, it’s just sometimes it’s so deep down we can’t read our genetic script.

We can do this thing. We can beat these bastards, any time we so choose. The question is, will we so choose? The Weltfiend is counting on his ability to obscure our racial light in a murk of questions, indecision, introspection, corruption, and apathy, to drag the whole world into the shades of grey in which the Jew thrives. If we can achieve moral clarity in our souls we will recover our courage, and when we recover our courage we will rip their hearts out.

TOQ: One of the things that most struck me about your Northwest Quartet is the attitude of high moral seriousness that these novels communicate, which I think is a valuable corrective to the movement’s general ethos of emotional self-indulgence. But you are better at communicating this than I am. Most white nationalists accept that our race is facing oblivion. What more do they need to get serious?

Harold Covington: The stock answer to that is that things have to get so bad that every White man, woman and child is personally affected in their own lives by the current crisis of civilization. They must lose their houses, their jobs, their SUVs and their plasma TVs and all that nice cold beer in the fridge. This is certainly true as far as it goes, and it is now at long last beginning to happen during this onset of the Obama Depression.

But I believe that more has to happen. There has to be a genuine spiritual awakening that burns away the past several generations of excrement that the Jews have caked around our souls. Our people must once more learn to value something higher than their own private lives and their own creature comforts. I personally found this in National Socialism, others find it in religion, but one of the advantages of turning this into a colonial war is that it allows for the creation of a new (or rather old) idealism in our hearts, a secular nationalism that aspires to the creation of a new country, free of alien oppressors. That will work. Ask the Irish.

TOQ: Early in your career, you were an avowed National Socialist. How has your thinking changed since then? In your view, what are the enduring truths in National Socialism, and what are its limitations?

Harold Covington: I am just as much a National Socialist now as I ever was. The enduring truth of National Socialism lies in one slogan: “Our race is our nation.” National Socialism affirms the primacy of race over lesser aspects of human existence such as religion and nationality.

I have, however, come to realize that most Americans are totally spiritually unequipped to accept such a doctrine. They don’t speak the language. They simply haven’t been engineered that way, and of course 70 years of Jewish hate propaganda, misrepresentation, and distortion hasn’t helped. Back in my youth in the old Party, we had the idea that through a process of long and slow education we could wean a sufficient number of our people away from the Jewish narrative and make them see the truth, but we didn’t do so hot at that, and now we are out of time. Simply and starkly, it’s about racial survival now, and that has to take first place in our strategy.

In order to convince people, you must first put yourself on a credible basis of communication with them, and you can’t do that by immediately confronting them with symbols and ideas that they have been conditioned from birth to reject. Every essential principle of National Socialism has a perfectly reasonable and understandable circumlocution that can be used within the American context so as to bypass the socially-engineered rejection mechanisms which have been implanted in White people’s brains. Call it National Socialism Lite, if you will. I don’t like it, but the urgency of our racial crisis overrides my personal feelings.

TOQ: What are the books, writers, and historical events that have most shaped your particular version of white nationalism?

Harold Covington: Besides National Socialist works and history? First and foremost there is the life and work of Commander George Lincoln Rockwell. There’s the American Civil War, of course. I was born and raised in the last of the Old South, when it was considered entirely normal to have Confederate flags on one’s possessions and when it was still possible to see Confederate heroes positively portrayed on TV and in comic books, etc.

Easter 1916 and the Irish War of Independence is another obvious example. I think the situation in Ireland in the 1920s is probably as close a parallel to our situation today as can be drawn. Later on we may draw some insight from the Spanish Civil War, which I always liked—the last war the good guys actually won.

My main Movement mentors were Major William Gaedtke, the last head of the old America First Committee (the Lindbergh one) and Pastor Robert Miles. They taught me the ropes. I learned a lot from Matt Koehl as well. I never thought I’d say this, and I still don’t agree with what Koehl did to the NSWPP, but after three decades I now understand why Koehl did a lot of the things he did.

Read Part 3 here.

Read Greg Johnson’s review of Harold Covington’s Northwest Quartet here.

Harold Covington: I was born in Burlington, North Carolina in 1953. I had my first dose of racial reality at age 15 when I was thrown into an integrated high school in Chapel Hill, NC which was bad by the standards of the day (1968) but which of course was a kindergarten compared to the racial situation that exists in our schools today. All we had to worry about back in my time was blacks with knives rather than organized gangs and drug dealers armed with semi-autos, and of course there were the hippy-dippy SDS type radicals, many of whom I noticed even at the time appeared to be Jews. Homosexuals didn’t even come into the equation back in those days, and the drugs at school were just beer and grass and LSD, not ecstasy or coke or crack.

I won’t go off into a long digression about the various horrible racial experiences I had in high school, but on the day I finally left there, I looked back and made a silent personal vow that I would devote my life somehow to making sure that no young White person ever again had to go through what I had to go through in that place. Again, I didn’t realize how relatively mild my problems had been and how terrible things would become in my lifetime.

For reasons I won’t get into, basically having to do with the fact that my father was a psychopath, he ordered me out of the family home and I went into the United States army at 17. My experiences in the military provided a further dose of racial reality, although once again I understand they were nothing compared to what young White enlistees go through nowadays when the military has in desperation lowered the recruitment criteria to include drug addicts, criminals, gang-bangers, etc.

I did my basic at Fort Polk, Louisiana and then was sent for infantry training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina and Ranger School at Fort Benning, Georgia. At Fort Jackson I picked up a paperback book in the day room called The Order of the Death’s Head, by a German named Heinze Höhne. Rare among studies of the Third Reich, the book was actually reasonably objective, and it had the effect of more or less converting me to National Socialism. I remain a National Socialist in my personal outlook to this day. While I was stationed at Schofield Barracks, Hawaii I joined the National Socialist White People’s Party (NSWPP), which was founded by George Lincoln Rockwell, and was then run by a man named Matt Koehl. I formed a unit of a Party front group called the White Servicemen’s League and ended up getting discharged early, albeit under honorable conditions. Nowadays, of course, I’d probably end up in Leavenworth for it.

After I got out of the army I served on permanent NSWPP staff at the headquarters in El Monte, California under the now-legendary Lt. Joseph Tommasi, who was murdered in 1975. I then became editor of the Party newspaper White Power in Arlington, Virginia. In 1974 I worked for a construction company in Johannesburg, South Africa for about six months, and then went to Rhodesia and joined the Rhodesian Army. In 1976 I was deported from Rhodesia for my activities with the proto-NS Rhodesia White People’s Party, along with two of my fellow Americans, Eric Thomson and Jeffrey Spencer. That’s an interesting example of conservatives being our true worst enemy. I was deported on the personal orders of Ian Smith, and we all know what Mr. Smith’s conservatism did to Rhodesia.

From then on it was the usual long Movement history of different groups, different approaches, all of them pretty much dead ends because there basically isn’t anything that can be done on an all-America basis in order to reverse the terminal decline of Western civilization on this continent, at least not without the use of a level of armed force which practically speaking, the Movement will never have at its disposal.

In 1982 I more or less went on the run for five years due to a legal situation which I’m still not certain it’s completely safe for me to get into, given the paranoid nature of our lords and masters these days and their eagerness to find something, anything, to use as an excuse to plop me down in the cell next to Bill White and Matt Hale. I ended up in Ireland, which at that time had no extradition treaty with the USA, due to the embarrassment and political complications for the Dublin government which would be caused by possibly extraditing IRA men back and forth across the Atlantic.

I learned a lot in Ireland. I didn’t just hang out in pubs guzzling Guinness; I read all the newspapers and watched RTE and BBC Northern Ireland, I made trips into the North, I talked to certain people (very carefully) and I sat quietly in certain known IRA pubs nursing a pint or two of Smithwick’s, listening and observing very carefully. Basically, in Ireland, I saw how it’s done in the modern world, not in 1930s Germany, and it was an invaluable education.

It’s true the IRA didn’t win in the main sense of the term, but Communists though they are (and I know that) this small band of dedicated White working class men and women fought a major Western democratic military power to a standstill, and forced the Brits to buy them off instead of crushing them. Like Rocky Balboa, they went a full fifteen rounds with Godzilla and they were still standing at the end of it. The lesson I draw from this and other events in the past 20 years is that it can be done.

In 2000, in the aftermath of what Morris Dees did to Pastor Butler, I finally came out openly for territorial White separatism in the form of the Northwest Imperative.

TOQ: Can you explain the Northwest Imperative, and tell us how you came to believe in it?

Harold Covington: The Northwest Imperative is based on the conviction, an accurate one, that the United States of America in its present form is doomed, and that it is necessary to the physical survival of the White race that we establish a Homeland for all of our people worldwide somewhere on the North American continent. Economics, demographics, and logistics dictate that the best location for such a Homeland is here in the Pacific Northwest. In addition, we have a long history here of commitment and martyrdom here in the Northwest: Bob Mathews and the Order men, Sam and Vicky Weaver, Gordon Kahl, and our latest martyr from the Northwest Front, Jeff Hughes of Vancouver, Canada.

The essence of the Northwest Idea is to reduce the problem to manageable proportions. We are simply too weak, disorganized, and too few to take over the United States, and we need to accept that just ain’t gonna happen. Instead of a whole huge continent and 300 million mostly hostile people to worry about, we reduce the problem geographically and demographically to three and a half states with about 12 million people, mostly White. Given the inevitable coming implosion of the United States and the collapse of the central authority in Washington D.C., when they run out of money to pay their mercenaries, bureaucrats, and enforcers, the Northwest Imperative is do-able in a way that no other plan we’ve ever come up with is do-able.

The Northwest Imperative also reduces the problem to that of a colonial war, and there are numerous models from the last century as to how to wage and win a colonial war. The objective is to make the disputed territory ungovernable and turn it into a massive rathole down which the occupying power bleeds money, manpower, and resources until it can’t stand the hemorrhage any longer and cuts its losses. The most important statement in any of my Northwest novels, so important that I have various characters say it over and over again in all four books, is this: “In a colonial war, it’s never the generals who surrender. It’s the accountants.”

TOQ: Can you tell us what you are doing to promote the idea of a Northwest homeland and to prepare for its concrete realization?

Harold Covington: We have formed the “Party” of the Northwest novels, called the Northwest Front, although it isn’t really a Party yet and probably won’t be for some time. Right now it’s just what the name says, a broad front rather than a party. We have participation from people who are involved with other groups and from people who are involved with none. There is no formal membership status, no chain of command, and no hierarchy. We provide what support we can to anyone who lives here or who is willing to come here to the Homeland and work for Northwest independence.

Eventually that will have to change, of course. Eventually there must be a disciplined, fighting revolutionary Party of political soldiers, but that’s going to take us a while. White Americans are the sloppiest, laziest, most narcissistic and most undisciplined people in the world, and they simply can’t wrap their minds around a European concept such as the political soldier. Not yet. They will have to change, or they will perish from the earth.

Read Part 2 here.

Read Greg Johnson’s review of Harold Covington’s Northwest Quartet here.

Tea Party tells the overall story of the Tea Party movement, but it is not just a bloodless recitation of facts. It also seeks to build personal relationships between its audience and the Tea Party movement by focusing on particular activists, most of whom seem to be from the Atlanta area, where the director and producers are also located.

According to the film, the first stirrings of the Tea Party movement were near the end of the Bush administration in the waves of right-wing discontent with the massive bailouts of banks and other large, powerful, well-connected companies that were deemed “too big to fail.”

All of these companies were fierce advocates of private enterprise when they were making profits. But when they were losing money, they were only too eager adopt a kind of negative socialism in which the public only shares the losses, never the profits.

The bailouts just kept getting bigger after the election of Barack Obama, and with the signing of the profligate and corrupt “stimulus” bill on February 17, 2009, protests broke out around the nation.

The first specifically “Tea Party” protests took place on February 27, 2009. Almost 30,000 people participated in 50 events all over the country. These numbers are particularly impressive, given that the events were organized in only five days.

On April 15, 500,000 participated in 850 Tea Party events around the country.

After that, sporadic Tea Parties took place all over the country to protest various big government initiatives, from taxes to bailouts, Cap and Trade, and health care reform.

More large scale Tea Parties took place July 4 and July 17.

The July 17 protests were focused on Obama’s health care reform initiative. My favorite segment of the documentary follows a group of doctors who went to Washington to lobby Congress against Obamacare.

At one point, they entered a hearing on health care reform chaired by black Democrat John Conyers. We get a glimpse of the snake oil being peddled as reform. An unidentified speaker lauds a single payer system as the “magic solution” for the nation’s health-care needs in the condescending tone of someone addressing school-children.

Conyers, in a truly classy gesture, invited the Tea Party doctors to participate, even giving one of them—a very impressive Armenian named Vahan Kasabian—the lectern. It almost made me think that our system can still work.

But then Conyers scotched the whole discussion by asserting that the only reason for opposing Obamacare is the racist desire to defeat the first black president. Yes, it is childish. But remember we are dealing with a black man here.

The culmination of the documentary is the September 12 march on Washington, in which some 75,000 people from all over the United States converged to demonstrate the Tea Party movement’s steady resolve and growing numbers. After a montage of sound-bites from the speakers, the documentary ends with members piously visiting various monuments and memorials around Washington.

The activists profiled include Jack, a forty-something white suburban dad; William, an older white minister of a black church who is also a painter and military re-enactor; Dr. Fred Shessel, a Jewish doctor who gets a lot of screen time because Jews are discomfited with the overwhelming non-Jewishness of the Tea Party movement; Dave, a white guy with a grin and big biceps; Jenny Beth Martin, a white suburban mother of two who lost her business to the recession and her house to foreclosure because she was not “too big to fail”; and Nate, a black Tea Partier who gets quite a lot of screen time because liberals, observing the overwhelming whiteness of the Tea Partiers, predictably accused them of being racists.

All of these activists are likable, sincere, and articulate. But I was most impressed by Jack and Jenny Beth.

Jack’s unassuming but forceful calls to activism and his Aryan insistence that he does not deserve thanks or praise for merely doing his duty were quite powerful. The guy has the power to motivate people.

Jenny Beth Martin impressed me with her organizational skills and commitment. No, she is not a great orator. Yes, she talks in earnest about “tweeting” things. But she comes across as real, and sincerity is a rare and shining quality in politics today.

Other people who get screen time are Matt Kibbe of FreedomWorks, a libertarian/conservative non-profit organization; Georgia Representative Tom Price; and Joel Aaron, a talk radio personality.

I highly recommend Tea Party. It is a very good introductory documentary for people who know nothing about the Tea Party movement. It presupposes no background knowledge, and it is very easy to understand and follow. Tea Party should also be seen by anyone interested in right wing politics, grassroots political organizing, and documentary film-making.

In many ways, Tea Party is a model political documentary. It does not just inform and entertain. It motivates. People who see it will try to change the world.

It is encouraging to see just how much technical competence, artistic talent, good taste, and hipness can be found a little to the right of mainstream. As someone still further to the right, I realized just how much we have to learn, but I also feel hopeful that we can eventually do work of this quality as well.

You can purchase Tea Party: The Documentary Film here. But skip the trailer, which is laughable. It makes the film sound like a monster truck rally or the latest release by Michael Bay.

Weak Tea

Patrick Buchanan thinks that the Tea Party movement may save the Republic. But I have read The Death of the West, so I know better.

Sure, in the short run, the Tea Parties might lead to the election of more Republicans and stall some of the worst excesses of Obama and the Democrats.

But the Republicans can produce no lasting change.

The Republicans are the natural party of America’s disappearing white majority. The Democrats are the natural party of America’s emerging non-white majority. Whatever power the Republicans can wrest from the left in the next few elections will inevitably be taken back unless the erosion of the white majority can be halted.

And nobody in the Republican party—or the Tea Party movement, or the Ron Paul movement, much less the Libertarians—even wants to do that. If the idea has crossed any of their minds, none of them has had the guts to utter it.

Furthermore, the ideas of the Tea Partiers—like those of Ron Paul—appeal only to a vanishingly small minority of the disappearing white majority. For every person who showed up at a Barack Obama rally, there were 100 potential voters who did not. For every person who showed up at a Ron Paul rally . . . well, they were pretty much the whole Ron Paul electorate.

The Tea Party movement has somewhat broader appeal, but people intelligent enough to understand its message and self-reliant enough not to be threatened by it are a small and shrinking minority.

I found myself smiling whenever Jenny Beth Martin raised her shrill voice seeking to energize the Tea Partiers with the mantra of “fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, and free market economics.” It would be nice. But it will never compete with “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,” much less “Welfare, Food Stamps, and Affirmative Action.”

The Tea Partiers constantly invoke the US Constitution, but they have a largely mistaken view of its nature and its relationship to the American people. The Constitution did not create the American people, the American people created the Constitution.

Who are the American people? White people who came from Europe, settled this continent, and eventually decided that they could better govern themselves. The US Constitution was just one white American experiment in self-government. Nothing like it has ever been created by other races. Nothing like it has ever been successfully adopted by other races.

The Constitution and everything else that is good about America was created by white people. When white people disappear, all those good things will disappear with them.

Nobody is going to save the Republic without explicitly working to save the white majority.

And the Tea Partiers are not doing that.

Designed to Fail

But it gets worse. The Tea Partiers, like the Republicans, actually obfuscate the necessity of preserving the white majority by playing by the rules of political correctness.

I’ll bet there were all of five blacks at the September 12 march. Why do I think that? Because all five of them were featured in the documentary.

I’ll bet there was one Latina at the march. Why? Because she was on screen too.

I suspect that the Jew, Dr. Fred Shessel, was highlighted in the film for similar reasons of diversity.

I am sure that the producers and director simply wished to immunize themselves against the predictable charges of racism by highlighting non-whites. Since they sincerely believe that they are selling universal, race-neutral ideas, they saw no downside to it.

But they have to understand: the rules of political correctness are designed by the left to make effective right-wing resistance to their agenda impossible. The enemy knows that the only way the right can win is by preserving the white majority.

Therefore, the left have bullied the right into adopting the politically correct premise that white racial consciousness and white racial advocacy are simply immoral. Once rightists have accepted that premise, all of their efforts will be in vain. The mainstream right in America has accepted parameters that are designed to make them lose.

The Tea Party movement is overwhelmingly white. It manifests a great deal of what Kevin MacDonald calls “implicit” white racial consciousness. This is why its enemies have branded it racist. To combat this charge, the creators of this documentary go out of their way to showcase non-whites.

But by showcasing non-whites, the Tea Partiers are fostering the same folly that helps the Republicans evade facing up to their inevitable demographic Armageddon.

They hope that significant numbers of non-whites will somehow decide—perhaps by repeating the magic mantra of “fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, and free market economics” till their lips go numb—to stop riding on the system and start pulling it instead.

You see, Republicans and Tea Partiers are so terrified of defending the white majority that they have pinned all their hopes on fiscally responsible, law-abiding, hard-working . . . blacks.

The trouble is: there just aren’t that many of them, and they’ll have an uphill battle convincing the other 99.7% of their people.

The same is true of other non-white groups: there just aren’t enough sensible ones to support the policies favored by the Tea Partiers.

If the Tea Partiers are going to win, they are going to have to break the taboo on explicit white racial consciousness and start working to preserve the white majority.

When that happens, they will have arrived at White Nationalism, which is a whole new cup of tea.

“Why Anti-Semitism?”
Antisemitica, December 12, 2009

Why label yourself an anti-Semite? Isn’t that adopting the discursive terms of the enemy? Why not use terms like “Jew-wise,” “Jew-aware,” or “Judeophobe” instead? This is a common strategic objection made by White Nationalists.

My answer:

1) The charge is true. An anti-Semite is a person “who discriminates against or who is hostile toward or prejudiced against Jews.” I advocate discrimination against Jews. Therefore, I am an anti-Semite.

2) Appearing disingenuous. I don’t want to appear disingenuous. I believe in calling a spade a spade. It is better to be honest and upfront about my views.

3) The charge can’t be successfully dodged. Jew criticism will always be labeled “anti-Semitism.” Since I am advocating the expulsion of Jews from North America, the charge of “anti-Semitism” is highly likely to stick.

4) The term hasn’t always had negative connotations. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, anti-Semitism was popular in respectable circles. Critics of Jews openly labeled themselves anti-Semites. I wish to recapture this sense of the term.

5) Discourse poisoning. The charge of being “anti-Soviet” is laughed at today, but was once taken quite seriously in the USSR. Sometimes the best response to smears is ridicule and defiance. “Anti-Semitism” is a verbal bomb that can’t be avoided. It has to be defused.

6) Morality. Dodging the charge of “anti-Semitism” suggests there is something immoral about discimination against Jews. I believe this policy is both ethical and rationally justifiable.

7) PC. I don’t want to see liberal political correctness replaced by a racialist version. I use the term “anti-Semite” for the same reason I avoid using “European-American.”

Jean Sibelius, 1865 - 1957

I am a great admirer of Finnish composer Jean Sibelius, who along with Richard Strauss and Ralph Vaughan Williams, was one of the last generation (so far) of great European Romantic composers. Thus my attention was drawn to a  November 29, 2009 article about Sibelius in the Chronicle of Higher Education, “A Composer’s Ties to Nazi Germany Come Under New Scrutiny,” by Peter Monaghan.

I love exposés like these. I have devoted intense study to the long list of great composers, writers, philosophers, psychologists, conductors, film-makers, and artists who were in some way linked to National Socialism and fascism in all its varieties: figures like Martin Heidegger, Ezra Pound, Wyndham Lewis, Ingmar Bergman, Arno Breker, Herbert von Karajan, Julius Evola, Mircea Eliade, Carl Schmitt, Ernst Jünger, Knut Hamsun, Gabriele D’Annunzio, Filippo Marinetti, C. G. Jung, Sir Reginald Goodall, Louis-Ferdinand Céline, Henry Williamson, Wilhelm Furtwängler, Anthony Ludovici, and many more.

As a Jew-wise racial nationalist, I am always on the lookout for great minds who share some or all of my concerns, in the hope that they might add both light and luster to our cause. Although such figures arrive at their political views by different routes, they all have their reasons, motives, and goals, which repay study. Interestingly enough, none of them wanted to conquer the world, exterminate the Jews, or plant their boot on a human face forever.

With this in mind, I eagerly perused the Chronicle article. I learned that Timothy L. Jackson, a professor of music at the University of North Texas, argues that “Sibelius was culpably entangled with Nazi Germany, and should join Pound, Richard Wagner, and Louis-Ferdinand Céline in the select group of artists who have been cast into anti-Semitic ignominy.”

The article informs us that he makes his case in a long essay to appear in the first half of 2010 in a book entitled Sibelius in the Old and New World: Aspects of His Music, Its Interpretation, and Reception. This book has been co-edited by Jackson and three of his colleagues and is being published by Peter Lang Publishing Group.

When last I checked, Peter Lang was pretty much the bottom of the academic publishing barrel: a press that would take virtually any manuscript and turn it into a book that is poorly edited, poorly produced, and richly overpriced. I have no idea if Jackson and his colleagues actually paid Lang to publish their manuscript, but the fact that he himself is one of the co-editors already makes it an exercise in self-publishing. (How much do you want to bet that Jackson’s co-editors also have articles in the collection?)

I love the grab-bag title. I challenge you to find an article on Sibelius that could be excluded from a collection with that title.

All this gave me pause. But then it occurred to me that perhaps I was being a snob. The deciding factor should be the evidence, after all. So I pressed forward to see what evidences of “anti-Semitic ignominy” were marshaled by this University of North Texas musicologist in his self-published article in his Peter Lang volume. Here is the evidence that the Chronicle presents.

1. “Sibelius’s early fascination with Finnish mythology and nationalism resonated with Nazism.” Finnish myths are not the same as German myths. Finnish nationalism is not the same a German nationalism. But being a Finnish nationalist with an interest in Finnish mythology somehow “resonates” with Nazism. If there is an argument here, it proves too much. For instance, it proves that every Jew who is fascinated with Jewish mythology and concerned with Israel also “resonates” with Nazism. Does Dr. Jackson believe that Zionism is like Nazism? What other links does he have to the PLO?

2. Sibelius received royalties for the publication and performance of his works in Germany during the Third Reich. This makes Sibelius an anti-Semite, because presumably no royalties were paid to the Mahler estate, since his works were not being published and performed in the Third Reich.

3. “Sibelius in 1935 accepted a Goethe Medal that Adolf Hitler confirmed with his signature.” This makes Sibelius an anti-Semite, because Arnold Schoenberg was presumably not in the running for a Goethe Medal at that time. Heads of state often sign off on important national prizes. In itself, it proves nothing. It would be interesting to learn how many other national prizes Sibelius won and if any of them were also confirmed by heads of state.

4. “From at least 1941, [Sibelius] drew a German pension that was worth half the average German annual income.” Half the average German income? High cotton indeed. Notice that we are not told anything about the source of this pension, but we are left to believe that it was for services to the Reich. What sort of services? We are not told. But perhaps we can infer that they were at least half the average services.

5. “In 1942, Third Reich officials approved the founding of the German Sibelius Society.” This makes Sibelius an anti-Semite, because presumably no German Mahler Society was approved by Third Reich officials.

6. “No single event more clearly illustrates Sibelius’s empathy with the Nazi ethos, Jackson believes, than his reneging on his promise to help a young, part-Jewish composer, Günther Raphael. In the years 1931 to 1936, Raphael implored Sibelius repeatedly, urgently, and obsequiously to help him to retain his teaching position in Germany at a time when Jewish artists were being dismissed from their posts.”

This makes Sibelius an anti-Semite, because only an anti-Semite would say no to a Jew, even a Jew who is obsequious and pushy (five years of repeated, urgent requests is definitely pushing it). I would love to know the nature of Sibelius’s “promise.” I would lay odds that is was something politely non-committal, like “I’ll see what I can do . . .,” that was then turned into the occasion for five years of badgering and emotional blackmail.

Finnish Sibelius scholar Vesa Sirén dismisses this accusation, claiming that it “ignores that the composer received, and rejected, hundreds of such requests, and by the 1930s had had enough. In fact, says Sirén, Sibelius had given out so many recommendations, motivated by politeness rather than informed by their recipients’ qualifications, that ‘he now felt that he was in the middle of a nest of lies.’” (It is heartening to learn that all of Jackson’s charges are being vigorously disputed by Finnish Sibelius scholars as distortions and smears.)

7. “In mid-1942 . . . when it still seemed that Germany might win the war, Sibelius agreed to be interviewed at his home in Finland by Anton Kloss, an SS war reporter who had most likely taken part in war atrocities.” Sibelius apparently gave many interviews to reporters, so in itself this proves nothing.

I would love to know why Jackson thinks war reporter Kloss “had most likely taken part in war atrocities.” Was it just because he was a member of the SS? Or just because he was a journalist? Did he write a savage review of a restaurant in occupied Poland? Did he stab a résistance fighter with a fountain pen?

That’s it. That’s all the evidence of Sibelius’s “anti-Semitic ignominy” that the Chronicle finds fit to print. Clearly, Professor Jackson is operating with Joe Sobran’s new definition of an anti-Semite. The old definition of an anti-Semite is someone who hates Jews. The new definition is someone whom Jews hate.

I don’t know if Professor Jackson is a Jew, a part-Jew, or simply an unscrupulous non-Jew trying to advance himself in our Jew-dominated culture. But I do know that if he ever loses his academic job, he is definitely qualified to churn out smears for the ADL and the SPLC.

David Duke: I think only a very few have done so. Even more unfortunately, most of them had no real organization, woefully inadequate finances, and very little political savvy. Often they ran for offices far beyond their reach, such as US House of Representatives, rather than local races or what I think is the best starting point: the state legislature.

TOQ: What would you recommend for young nationalists who are thinking of getting involved in politics?

Here are a few of the guidelines that I think are essential for political success for our advocates.

1. Build a strong local organization such as EURO first so that you have at least a hundred dedicated volunteers and supporters. I had a local organization of about 1,000 supporters when I made my first race.

2. Pick the right race at the right time. Run for an office where you can actually touch the hands of a majority of the voters in your district. Establish residence in a district that has the right demographics and where a politician is vulnerable or a seat is opening up. “The right race at the right time.”

3. Run as a member of one of the major parties, not third party. Third party candidacies have huge disadvantages and also bring the perception of an inability to win, which is politically fatal.

4. Make sure you are an expert at campaigning. Go to Republican or Democratic political schools. Read the books on the subject. More importantly work in some campaigns and learn the science of campaigning. Have the latest voters list from the registrar of voters and get it paired with telephone numbers. Strategically develop a plan for you to conceivably knock on every door in your district, and your volunteers at least twice more singing your praises.

5. Make your candidacy very visible. One of the biggest tasks you have is to appear viable. The best way to do that in district is with yard signs. When I campaigned I walked the main thoroughfares and access roads in my District first, getting yard sign commitments. 60 days before the actual election came up, my yard sign crews went out one day and night and put up over 1000 signs. It looked like everyone was for me, and that changed the psychology of the election. Suddenly, people became unafraid to say that they were voting for me as they could see, thousands of others were.

6. Make your program true to our principles, but focused on issues that will get you votes, not cost you votes. Issues that will separate you from the crowd and give the most people strong reasons not to vote for you. For instance, even though you may favor a different US policy in the Mideast, that is not a vital issue in a state race. Why alienate people who are not educated on that issue? This is a campaign not an ideological journal like TOQ.

If something like comes up in an state election I would simply say, “Foreign policy is not an issue in a state race, but sure, I favor a policy that always puts American interest first and favors no special interests,” and then move on and say something like, “The ‘foreign policy’ that affects our state the most is the illegal alien and immigration policies that lead to more crime, more taxes and destruction of our traditional communities.”

Go with issues that have the most support among our people that are consonant with our views. For instance, hit hard against the racial discrimination of affirmative action, the cultural attacks against our people, destructions of our schools with forced integration, busing, rap, crime, etc. Hit hard on the welfare rip-off of the middle class taxpayer, the huge rip-off by the politically connected corporations, and the terrible taxes paid by our hard-pressed middle class to support these two parts of the economic vice squeezing our people.

My literature is available for everyone to see and the issues presented by it are certainly still valid. For some presentation advice read my threads on Stormfront critiquing Nick Griffin’s appearance on the BBC debate. There is a lot to be learned from those threads.

7. Note: It is vital that one does not sell out our basic concepts, yet at the same time present our views in way that is appealing rather than unattractive or disingenuous. It is tightrope that you must learn to walk if you take part in the political process.

8. Be super presentable, lose those extra pounds, or gain some muscle if need be. Physical strength and a well-dressed and well-groomed appearance are essential.

9. Attend every community election forum and usually there are dozens of them. If you do your homework you will shine above all the rest and give the people in attendance a real motivation to vote for you.

10. Operate a phone bank where you have 10 or more people who can call for you. Skype makes this very easy. Have them work the voters list. Promote a key issue or two, ask for their support, ask for a yard sign placement, and identity the favorable voters so you can get them out on election day.

11. If you are serious about the race, you need to take a leave of absence from your work, or let someone else run your business and be prepared to spend at least 5 months working 15 hour days on the project. For a local legislative house race you must raise at least $50,000 with $100,000 more desirable. If you have a good organization you can raise that kind of money. Voters are prepared to contribute to candidates, they want access to their representative.

12. Also important in preparing for a run for office is long-time community involvement. Become vocal long before the election on issues that come up which dovetail with our views. Make sure you are community active. You should be active in a number of community organizations such as Kiwanis, Red Cross, Lion’s Club, Rotary, etc. Not only can you do good work for your fellows, such involvement destroys the stereotype the media tries to portray of us. And over the months, and preferably years, the people in these organizations will respect you, many will help in the campaign, others will contribute and your membership in those groups will give a lot assurance to people who are suspicious of you because of media attacks.

13. One last thing. Go to church. Find a large church and a pastor or priest that you find the most agreeable. You might be surprised but you can almost always find a pastor who is sympathetic (usually quietly) to our views. Get involved in Church activities. And by the way, never be afraid to offer a differing view in Sunday School if some of the lessons stray into political and racial drivel. Just do it in decent way and you can have the whole class agreeing.

Because the media portrays people like us to be strange, anti-social, etc. it is more important for you to engage in these activities than for almost any other politician. And almost all successful political personages do this whether they believe or not. Bill Clinton in church has to be one hell of a joke.

Your viewpoints will set you apart and the media will try to characterize you in stereotypes, so it is vitally important for you to set deep community anchors that refute those stereotypes to the people you must reach to win political office.

Those are just a few concepts that I have learned over the years. I was elected to the House of Representatives in Louisiana in race with 5 opponents who were all millionaires. I received over 60 percent of the White vote in two statewide elections for US Senate and Governor and was elected to the Republican Executive Committee in the largest Republican district of Louisiana, and then subsequently elected chairman by the other 14 elected committeemen. If I can do that with the constant media attacks on me for my affiliations decades earlier, your road is much easier. Just standing up for our people’s rights and heritage will garner a lot of publicity on its own, and if elected on that platform you will become a nationally known political figure.

It is disgrace that there aren’t at least 1000 of our people in state legislatures across America, and at least a hundred in Congress. As of now there is not one elected politician in America would say “I am proud of the fact that I defend the rights of heritage of European-Americans.” Not one. Let’s change that!

Good luck!

TOQ: How would you respond to someone who would say the following: “Dr. Duke, you have political talent and skills equal to anyone in the US Senate right now. Why did you not pull out all the stops, do anything, say anything to get there? Why didn’t you renounce racism, kiss black babies, hug Oprah and blubber about your change of heart, anything to get real political power?”

David Duke: Again, it is the art of walking the tightrope. I did make it clear again and again that my beliefs weren’t the stereotypical White racist beliefs and slanders presented by the media, but I wasn’t going to renounce my core beliefs of preserving our heritage. Politics and mass democracy in the land of MTV is distasteful, and there are a thousand cuts at your integrity necessary to get elected. You are no longer a private person who can share every thought or every belief, otherwise at some point you would alienate in some way every voter. That goes for a David Duke, a Bill Clinton, or a Barak Obama. It’s the political reality of an alien controlled media.

I did whatever I had to do to get the votes I needed, but I could not and will not ever compromise the essential issues of our people’s survival. As far as I was personally concerned, I thought I had compromised too much in quest of a victory and power that could have served our Movement so much.

Also, understand, even if I would have recanted all, it would have made no difference, because the Jewish extremists who dominate the media and political process never forgive and never forget. They still would have launched all their forces against me and in reality, showing political cowardice on the key issues would have taken the wind from the sails of the thousands of dedicated people who worked day and night in my campaign.

We had an historic 42,000 supporters of the campaign in Louisiana, and 5000 volunteers. I got over 6 out of 10 of the White voters, but needed 7, and I did everything I could to get to 7, but my radical past (with photos) caused media induced prejudice among too many White voters.

The biggest factor in the race as boasted by Jewish researchers, was the economic blackmail against the state. We lost at least 2 out of 10 White folks because of that fact, they thought their jobs would be lost, their businesses driven to ground if I were elected.

Many people think they understand the incredible power of our Jewish supremacist enemies, but they have no idea of the true extent of Jewish power until they pose a real threat to system, then they unleash all their power in a torrent that few can withstand. I have endured years of constant, vicious Jewish lies and slanders, as would any man who threatened their power. Yet, I have endured and still fight for our people every day of my life. They couldn’t afford my presence among the most powerful 100 men in the world: the United States Senate. They knew that would have started a revolution, not just in America but across the Western World.

I hope young patriots can build on what I have accomplished and take the next step upward. I am there to advise or help anyone who is really serious.

Craig Bodeker

TOQ: In A Conversation About Race, you explain how you came to be a believer in “white guilt.” How did you come to be a disbeliever? How did you become racially-conscious?

Craig Bodeker: By traveling. From my early experiences in the American South and in Hawaii. I was able to see firsthand the differences between racially homogeneous areas — like Minnesota in the 1970s, and these more racially diverse areas. In the South, I learned that many African-Americans call each other “nigger.” This amazed me. I was brought up to believe that this word was actually more offensive to blacks than ANY of those seven words one couldn’t say on television, yet here were American blacks calling one another that infamous epithet at will.

If I would have suggested, in my Minnesota classroom, that African-Americans freely call each other that offensive word, I would have been ridiculed and corrected. I was learning that there’s a large disconnect between the real world, and the classroom, on the subject of race.

In Hawaii, I learned that for all the blather about how “diversity is strength,” it’s still white men that carry most of the state’s financial burden. The State of Hawaii levies what’s called a General Excise Tax of 5% of one’s GROSS INCOME — (in addition to the already sky-high state and federal tax liabilities one incurs while living there). But this special tax is applied only to specific professions. Realtors, insurance reps, bankers, accountants, lawyers, and others are all subject to this “special-tax.” These are all arguably, areas where whites excel, and this is illustrated by the number of whites in Hawaii that work in these professions. But targeting positions where whites are a majority for special-taxation, according to Hawaii, is not a matter of “disparate impact” against whites. No, it’s just how it has to be, in order for Hawaii to survive financially . . .

TOQ: Have you sent copies of A Conversation About Race to Mr. Lee and Mr. Dragland, the schoolteachers you mention whose brainwashing turned you into a believer in white guilt?

Craig Bodeker: No. I left Minnesota at 18, and have no wishes to return, or to try to educate Minnesotans. Mr. Lee and Mr. Dragland — (from the film), chose to emotionally abuse 5th graders in their charge, with their “lesson” on “racism.” I’ve learned that in the Religion of Multiculturalism, there are Believers and there are Priests. Although Mr. Lee was supportive of me in other ways during the 5th and 6th grades, both teachers must be considered Priests of the PC Church. And as such, cannot be responsive to reason or logic. Efforts at persuasion are wasted.

Minnesotans seem to enjoy the moral superiority so many of them preach, even as they’re politically represented by the likes of Keith Ellison and Al Franken, and Islamic Somalis fill their welfare rolls and their jails.

TOQ: How did you decide to make A Conversation About Race?

Craig Bodeker: It was the disconnects in logic. Every day they seemed more obvious. Before Obama’s election, many American’s believed that we would never elect an African-American as our President, and that this “fact” was proof of America’s “racism.” Yet no one is saying now, that “racism” is dead, due to Obama’s election.  Whites who vote for white candidates, as opposed to “diverse” candidates, are just more proof of our racial-bias. But when non-whites vote for fellow non-whites, it’s NOT proof of their racial-bias . . .?

When I first began posting short videos on Youtube, I learned that on the Internet, there is a verbal-war being waged right now, between those on the white side of issues, and those on the black, and “diverse” side of issues. For all the lip-service we hear about our desire for a post-racial society, there exists today a heated conflict between blacks and whites in cyberspace. If you have any doubts about this, just go to any Youtube video, and make a comment, either pro-white, pro-black or pro “diversity”, and wait for the responses. We can ignore this real and growing conflict by dismissing it as online hate-speech, but we do so at our own peril. Those big 20th century media companies that still want to influence our lives, say it’s not really happening, but that it’s simply a few bigots in their pajamas ruining it for everyone.

These disconnects between the media-world, and the real one we live in, were becoming so pronounced and obvious to me, I came to realize that if I didn’t make this film soon, someone else would . . . !

TOQ: What are some of the more memorable reactions to A Conversation About Race?

Craig Bodeker: The single most memorable reaction was my wife’s face, when the truck pulled up to our home with the first ten, large crates of ACAR DVDs. I’ve never seen a better effort at blending a WTF, with loving support . . . ! She admits now that she didn’t know quite what to think, when I told her I wanted to use our savings to produce a controversial documentary film. Thankfully, she kept whatever doubts she had to to herself. I appreciate her quiet faith in me, and I’ll never forger that look.

Another memorable reaction occurred at a health-club. The subject of ACAR came up in a dry-sauna. One older, tall, actor-looking fellow said he’d be interested in seeing it, and I gave him a copy. A week or so later I saw him again and asked his opinion. He was a bit reluctant at first, but then he told me that he felt ACAR was dishonest. He said that in the film, I never declared my intentions as the filmmaker. I had to stop him there, and remind him that I clearly stated my intentions, in the first three minutes of the film. He then said that that I never stated my REAL intentions.

Next, he claimed I didn’t define my terms in the film. When I mentioned that the definitions also appear at the beginning of the film, he stammered, repeated his assertion that ACAR was dishonest, and then really let me have it. He called me a White Supremacist!

One conclusion I reach in A Conversation About Race, is that if a white person is not INDIFFERENT to the subject of his race, he MUST then be a White Supremacist! There can be no middle-ground for people with ancestors from Europe. All others are allowed, and encouraged, toward racial or ethnic advocacy, in today’s PC culture, but not whites.

This is memorable for me, because it reinforces the label I used in the film for people like the man in the sauna. That label was “Believer,” and this man was not going to let pesky facts interfere with his beliefs on “racism.” He was incapable of acknowledging any of the clear points the film made, and that fact made me realize that many Americans today are so thoroughly brainwashed by Political Correctness, they’ve become impervious to elementary logic and reason. This was a sobering realization.

TOQ: Was A Conversation About Race influenced, in content or style, by any other documentaries?

Craig Bodeker: Sorry for the short answer, but no. It was completely self-inspired.

To be honest, I can’t really think of any documentary producers that have really impacted me. Growing up, I always enjoyed feature films.

I was impressed with much of Evan Coyne Maloneys’  Indoctrinate U.  I just saw it in 2009. If I had to choose a feature filmmaker, I’d say Terry Gilliam has always been a favorite of mine and that his film Brazil would be an excellent candidate for a new CGI-enhanced remake. I also like a lot of the early David Lynch work.

As for newer films, I loved District 9 and Up.

TOQ: Have you seen Errol Morris’s Mr. Death? If so, what do you think of it?

Craig Bodeker: I have not seen it, but have seen others on the topic.  My opinion is that European “hate-speech” laws are counter-productive. American founding father; Thomas Jefferson, spoke eloquently about how truth needs no defenders.

TOQ: What White Nationalist thinkers, writers, and websites have influenced you and how?

Craig Bodeker: The term White Nationalist itself is a bit vague to me, and I don’t necessarily consider myself one. Many WN’s tell me I’m not qualified for membership . . . I’ll say that Jared Taylor’s American Renaissance has been influential.  I am impressed with both their civility, and their use of humor.  I also benefit from Peter Brimelow’s VDARE website. Both of these sites are courageous and unwavering in their positions, and yet they manage to exercise restraint and subtlety in their rhetoric. The Council of Conservative Citizens also has a good site. And they bear the additional burden of coming from the South, so therefore must automatically be stereotyped as  ”white racists.” I visit The Occidental Quarterly, and the National Policy Institute‘s websites often as well.

I’d also mention James Edwards’ The Political Cesspool blog and radio-show, which is broadcast from Memphis, Tennessee, as well as streamed online. There are those that will label these sites as “hate” websites. But just as we’re discovering the true motives behind those who support Global Warming legislation, we’re also discovering the true motives behind those that champion the cause of “eliminating hate . . .”   It’s more about gaining political power and money, than it is about helping the oppressed.

TOQ: You have traveled quite widely in other countries. Where have you gone, which ones were your favorites, and why?

Craig Bodeker: Wow. Big question. I remember when, as a boy, our family packed up the motor-home and took vacations all around the USA. I particularly remember one time, while driving the family toward California, when my Dad declared that “travel was the best education.” Even at eight years old, I was encouraged.

As I grew older, and began traveling on my own to Mexico and Canada, I discovered that my Dad was right. I can learn more watching how other people and cultures address their issues than I can sitting in a classroom, reading about them from textbooks.

While living in Hawaii, I discovered Asia. Flying to the US mainland from Hawaii for “getaways” had become somewhat tiresome. I wanted adventure, and when a friend told me that the flight to Tokyo lasted about as long as a flight to Las Vegas, I began considering travel to Asia.

I’ll always love the Kingdom of Thailand. I’ll admit that when I was a young, single man, I was curious about Thailand’s night-life-industry and it’s bar-girls. But after getting to know that part of Thailand, I started becoming aware of the real Thailand, The Land of Smiles, as it’s known, and of her proud, yet gentle people. From a practical standpoint, I like Thailand because it’s cheap!  No nation on Earth has tastier traditional food, and If you like to stick to a budget, it’s hard to beat Thailand for first-world comforts, at second and third-world prices. You can stay in a jungle/beach-front resort, dine on giant prawns, and genuinely relax on an exotic, white-sand beach, for a fraction of what it costs elsewhere.

I’ll also say that the nation of Myanmar (Burma), made an impression on me. This is an outcast nation that was actually boycotted by the “International Community.” It’s the cheapest place I’ve ever visited, but it’s also, most definitely, the third-world. Most roads consist of dirt and craters, but some, newer roads are made by manually placing flat rocks over a graded section of Earth, then covering it all with hot-asphalt. It ends up being a fairly smooth ride. This back-breaking work is nearly always performed by women.

What impressed me about Myanmar though, was not their road-crews, but their desire to remain Burmese. The “International Community” demands that Myanmar open herself to outsiders, in order to exploit her rich natural resources. The Burmese know that their deep poverty would end the moment they did so, yet they choose isolation. They don’t see their neighbor to the west, Thailand, as positively as I have described. They acknowledge the blessings of Thailand’s wealth, but they also acknowledge the replacement of Thai culture, with the current culture of drugs and prostitution. The everyday Burmese I spoke with were not cringing in fear of their narco-trafficking dictators, as our Government and media would have us believe, but rather, were concerned about keeping their identity as a people. They would rather be poor and Burmese, than rich and International.

China is as fascinating as it is huge. One could spend a lifetime there and not see it all. They are a proud people, but don’t handle a “loss of face” well. If you ask a typical Chinese for directions to a place he is not familiar with, he would rather make-up fake directions, sending you to God-knows-where, than suffer the “loss of face” that accompanies any expression of ignorance. It is better to be wrong about a thing in China, than it is to say, “I don’t know.”

China has race-based admission policies to public parks and such. There are fees to enter, and I am normally charged ten times what my American-Chinese friends are charged. The official policy is a nationalist one, not a racial one, but every time I’ve entered with an American-Chinese, they’ve always seemed to know that  he was from America, and yet charged him the Chinese price . . . ?

Of course, Europe holds a special place for me. Both of my grandparent families came to the USA from Germany in the 1870s and 1880s. I love to explore Europe, and hope to do so, in much more detail, in the future. One of my favorite photos is of my wife and I standing in front of Neuschwanstein Castle, outside Munich.

We normally avoid large cities, but Paris is a must-see destination. More examples western heritage and culture can be found there than anywhere (along with much that is non-western). And the best food in the world as well! But each year in France, more Churches close their doors, and more Mosques open theirs. Visit Paris, before it’s no longer Paris.

The Netherlands are also fascinating to me. Once the commerce-engine of the world, their recent experiments in liberalism have nearly bankrupted them. And as I wandered along the canals (and coffee-shops), of Amsterdam, I couldn’t help but notice the contrasts: family-owned business under the same roof for 400 years, situated next to a porno shop with gigantic dildos in the window. I makes me wonder, is there already a culture-war being waged? Which culture will prevail? Which one wants it more?

TOQ: How did traveling in foreign countries, especially in the Far East, make you more aware of your own racial and cultural identity?

Craig Bodeker: I learned quickly in Asia, that to the extent that the term “racist” has any meaning at all, Asians are racists. And especially the Chinese! (See the previous answer about China). Skin-whiteners are the rage throughout Asia, and especially in the south, where people are darker-skinned. Many light-skinned Mandarin speakers–from China’s north, where Beijing is the center of Government, automatically look down upon Cantonese speakers from the south, even when said Cantonese speaker is a Hong Kong millionaire.

Caucasian whites in China are known as “White-Devils”  and are not to be trusted.

In the Philippines, most Filipinos admire whites. Whether from Europe, Canada, America or Australia, we’re considered capable, ethical, and smart. Blacks and other dark-skinned peoples, including the blacker Filipinos, are considered less-capable and ethical, and are commonly looked down upon.

In Hawaii, the prevailing culture says that the best mate a successful white man living there can find, will be a Japanese woman. (White women are less frequent in Hawaii). And If you absolutely cannot find a willing Japanese girl, a Korean girl will make for an acceptable compromise, but not one of the myriad other, darker-skinned Asians that populate the islands.

A white man dating a white woman while living in Hawaii is considered  gauche. Hawaiians place the Japanese on the top of the racial totem-pole and the Filipinos and darker-skinned Asians at the bottom. Whites belong somewhere in the middle.

I’ve never met a person in Asia concerned about racial-diversity. Most would say  that diversity is their enemy, and that racial-homogeneity is the key to their own national success.

Somehow, all of these big media companies, in all of their “documentaries” and “specials” on “racism,” have managed to not once stumble-upon this attitude, which is common sense to most non-white races? I wonder why that is.

TOQ: What is your next documentary going to be about?

Craig Bodeker: Still working on that. I’ll be part of a roundtable discussion on race at Fayetteville State University in North Carolina (an historically black college), in January. And I’ll proudly be speaking at the American Renaissance Conference in Washington DC in February. I’ll probably film my travels to each of these events from Denver, Colorado, in hopes of creating something with a bit more color, and music, than used in A Conversation About Race.

TOQ: Thank you.

You can buy A Conversation About Race from Craig Bodeker’s website.

Read Greg Johnson’s review of A Conversation About Race here.