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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

White racial preservationism is dead.

What, then, is the alternative?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

⁹ MacDonald, “What Makes Western Culture Unique?”

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

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

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

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

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

¹⁵ Ibid., xxix.

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

¹⁷ Ibid.

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

¹⁹ Ibid. 80.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me make a radical suggestion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lets back out for a larger look at the numbers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Secession happens slowly, by degrees.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In short, we starve the beast.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finland started with some big advantages. It had a large territory. It had deep snow and dense forests that confined Soviet invaders to roads. It had soldiers who could travel cross-country on skis, surround road-bound columns of Soviet troops and kill them. It had an excellent submachine gun which its soldiers used against Soviet invaders armed with outdated bolt-action rifles. It had an army with great courage and patriotism. Plus, Stalin had recently annihilated his army officer corps in a bloody purge.

Finland still had to sue for peace after a few weeks.

So, how powerful must a secessionist movement be in order to survive? How much industrial power must it have? How much territory? How many people?

Here in North America, the Northern conquest of the South is a definitive test of the possibility of secession.

By 1860 the South had lost control of the Presidency. It had also lost control of the House of Representatives because the voting population of the North was larger than the voting population of the South. The South still retained control of the Senate by a narrow margin, because the number of senators depended on the number of states.

Southern planters feared that, if they lost control of the Senate, the North would prevent them from expanding slave agriculture to any new states. They also feared that the North would outlaw slavery, once it took control of the Senate. See Marc Egnal, Clash of Extremes The Economic Origins of the Civil War (New York: Hill and Wang, a division of Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2009).

Southern plantation agriculture wore out the land. Planters abandoned worn out land and resettled new lands, further west. This made it very important to them that they could freely bring their slaves to new states.

Unable to solve this political problem, the South seceded. Lincoln decided that he must have his tariffs, so he called for 70,000 volunteers and launched what is so far the bloodiest war ever fought in the Western Hemisphere. The South was enough weaker than the North that it could not afford to make political or military mistakes. But it made them.

Four years of bloodshed proved that the South was not strong enough to secede without the permission of the North. It steadily and gradually lost, militarily, a battle that it had already lost politically before it seceded. Had the South been strong enough to secede without permission, it would also have been strong enough to defend its political interests without seceding.

Secession is an attempt by the politically weaker of two parties to solve, by leaving the field, a political problem that it is too weak to solve, either politically or militarily.

Only the weaker party in a political conflict would want to secede. Only the stronger party would be strong enough to secede without the permission of the other. However, the stronger party would not want to secede because it could force the weaker party to do whatever it wanted.

Covington suggests that military disaster at some distant part of the empire might make the United States too weak to hold on to the Pacific Northwest in the face of guerilla warfare. Maybe so. But this would give the homeland the kind of temporary safety that a Thanksgiving turkey enjoys.

Any place where a secessionist might want to live would be too valuable for the larger, stronger party to give up.

The Pacific Northwest, in particular, is far too valuable to secede in peace. It has valuable hydroelectric power, in a world hungry for cheap energy. The Columbia, its most important river, is 1,243 miles long. Puget Sound gives the Pacific Northwest well-sheltered, world-class harbors. It has a major naval base. Nuclear submarines silently travel its waterways.

What tactics would the United Sates use to keep anyone from forming any independent homeland in such a valuable place, without its permission?

Anything.

Writing in a neocon publication, US Army Colonel Ralph Peters (Ret.) said, “The point of all this is simple: Win. In warfare, nothing else matters. If you cannot win clean, win dirty. But win.”

Anyone who hopes to secede from the United States should expect it to use the same tactics that it has used before, whichever ones promise to work, whatever they might be.

What are these tactics?

Guatemala is a model case. Niall Ferguson, writing in The War of the World, described what happened there after a carefully-planned CIA coup d’etat that overthrew a democratically-elected Guatemalan government. (Niall Ferguson, The War of the World Twentieth-Century Conflict and the Descent of the West [New York: Penguin, 2006], 610-617.)

Paramilitary death squads, the Mano Blanca, roamed the cities and countryside. In the 30 years after the 1954 coup, some 40,000 people disappeared. Mayan Indian tribes were relocated and forced into “strategic hamlets.”

Ferguson says hundreds of villages identified as ‘red’ were obliterated and their inhabitants tortured, raped and murdered. Surrounding forests were burned. He says there was mass slaughter of civilians. By the end of the 1990s the death toll had reached around 200,000. Because there were so many Mayan victims a UN commission deemed that these deaths were genocide.

Afghanistan and Pakistan are two more models that we can use to predict what the United State government would do to secessionists. Eric Margolis, writing in World News Daily Information Clearing House, said that “Pakistan finally bowed to Washington’s angry demands last week by unleashing its military against rebellious Pushtun tribesmen of North-West Province . . .”

He said, “The Obama administration had threatened to stop $2 billion US annual cash payments to bankrupt Pakistan’s political and military leadership and block $6.5 billion future aid, unless Islamabad sent its soldiers into Pakistan’s turbulent NWFP along the Afghan frontier.” Pakistani armed forces used heavy artillery and gunfire from helicopters to kill Pushtun civilians.

Results came quickly.

Andrew Buncombe, writing in The Independent, said that as many as 2.4 million people fled Swat Valley. One man, aged 90, said that,” because there had been no warning to leave, when the gunfire erupted around them they gathered what they could carry and fled.”

The speed of the displacement, as helicopter gun ships fired on civilians fleeing the Swat Valley, reached 85,000 a day.

This terrorist tactic-firing heavy artillery at little villages and then pursuing fleeing villagers with gunfire from helicopters-could empty out every village and small town in the Pacific Northwest in a few weeks.

Where would refugees go after they were driven from secessionist villages and towns? They would go to camps, drawn there by promises of food, shelter and safety.

Most of these camps would be open-air prisons like the Gaza Strip, or the city of Fallujah, in Iraq, or the concentration camps where the British Army put Boer women and children during the Boer war. There would be harsh control of the perimeters of these camps, using earthen or concrete walls, razor wire, guard dogs, electrified fences, towers, mine fields and high-powered search lights.

All of these tools have been perfected and used. Any guerrilla fighters who remained outside the camps would be pressured to surrender when the women, children and old men in the camps began to die after being deprived of food, water, medicine and sanitation.

Torturers and assassins would visit the camps to cull interesting prisoners. They operated this way during the Phoenix Program in Vietnam. The founder of the Phoenix program, CIA officer William Colby, told a Congressional committee in 1971 that the Phoenix operation had killed 20,587 Vietcong suspects in two years (Hayden, 2008).

Writing in Small Wars Journal, Lt. Col. David Kilcullen advocated a world-wide Phoenix program. He went on to become chief strategist in the State Department’s counterterrorism office in 2005 and 2006 and was chief adviser on counterinsurgency operations to General Petraeus, in planning the 2007 US troop surge in Iraq.

Justin Raimondo reported that high officials at the top of the United States Government have operated an assassination ring. He says that Defense Secretary Gates, acting under the authority of President Obama, has appointed the operational leader of this assassination ring, Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, to head U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

It is a huge piece of good luck that government strategy and tactics would make secession impossible. Secession would be a terrible, self-inflicted disaster.

Secession gives the enemy the location of a small, compact target where it can land a fatal blow. It lets the enemy organize its own territory without interference and then use all of the resources of that territory for aggression.

Secession always means the voluntary loss of valuable territory. It loses strategic depth for fighting a war. It loses rivers, ocean front and harbors. It loses road grids and railroad networks. It loses power stations and hydroelectric dams. It loses minerals and arable land. It loses defensible terrain features such as mountain ranges. It loses industrial plants and built up areas.

Secession also loses people. For example a Pacific Northwest homeland would leave out most members of the largest White ethnic group — Germans. They mostly live in a huge semi-circle of land in the middle of the United States, with its diameter on the Canadian border. Their key cities are Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Indianapolis, Milwaukee, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis.

A Pacific Northwest homeland would also leave out most of the next-largest white ethnic group–the Irish. Oregon and Idaho are not even mentioned on the Wikipedia list of the twenty states with the largest population of Irish-Americans. Washington State has the 20th largest number of Irish-Americans.

And so it goes with all whites, whether they call themselves just plain Americans or mention descent from a specific white ethnic group. All whites are important. So any population transfer to implement any secession plan, of any sort, would be impossible. And that’s a good thing because secession would create hostile borders that would splinter families, kindreds, and ethnic groups.

There are three good, recent models for this: Berlin was partitioned into East- and West Berlin. Germany was partitioned into East- and West Germany. Korea was — and still is — partitioned into North- and South Korea. All of these have had — or still have — hostile borders that featured guard towers, road barriers, barbed wire, death strips enforced by mines, machine guns and guard dogs, passport & visa requirements, body searches and other snooping, as well as confiscations, arbitrary arrests and mysterious disappearances.

Borders destroy social capital. Population transfers from one place to another also destroy social capital. There are two different cases here. In the first case, a border partitions an area, leaving a population divided in two, with large numbers of people passively staying in place. In the second case, numbers of people respond to special appeals to move to an area that plans to secede.

People who would be willing to move, as single individuals, to some distant place where a movement is afoot to secede are especially likely to be loners, High Plains drifters — people not tied down by strong emotional commitments to others. They are especially vulnerable to exploitation by agent provocateurs, because so many of their interactions are with strangers.They can be entrapped by honey pots. Their social networks are likely to be relatively impoverished and easily penetrated by malicious strangers. Collections of them are likely to lack small unit cohesion.

People who stay in one place for several generations are likely to be embedded in a rich network of social relationships. Groups of these people have Einheit, the mutual trust and common outlook built by shared experience. They have agreed frameworks for doing things. They have a capacity for deep emotional attachments to each other. Their social arrangements are based on ancient acquaintance, so they are hard for malicious strangers to penetrate and exploit. People who stay in one place have rich mental maps of their physical and social territory. The value of their social networks is very high.

This makes them difficult for a social parasite to exploit.

A lot of thought and effort has been spent to destroy the social networks of American whites, to ruin our Einheit, make us flee from the centers of our cities and turn us into atomized individuals or tiny nuclear families. The key to this destruction has been alien control of the mass media.

Decades of hate speech about whites, in the mass media, has enraged Negroes and made them more and more bold in attacking whites. Mass media participated in these attacks by motivating them, giving them ideological cover, and carefully concealing their nature and full extent from whites. Monopoly ownership of mass media made it impossible for whites to organize a hue and cry to prevent further predation.

As a result, unorganized, individual white families fled from violent crime near the centers of cities to suburbs on the distant outskirts. They abandoned center-city land worth as much as a million dollars an acre, in today’s dollars, for land at the outskirts worth ten-thousand dollars an acre today. The economic loss to whites from this one factor alone is in the trillions of dollars. Typically whites sold sound, sturdy old houses on extremely valuable center-city land and bought brand-new houses on small parcels of nearly-worthless semi-rural land. Then their new houses began to depreciate to zero, while the land that they had abandoned in the center city skyrocketed.

The loss of social capital shows up in the reduced roaming radius that parents allow their children. A while ago, I talked with an older white man who probably was 65- to 70-years-old at the time we talked. He said that, as a 12-year-old boy, he rode his bicycle four or five miles to a hardware store. There he bought a 12-gauge shotgun for himself. Then he held it on his bicycle’s handlebars and rode home. Nobody thought anything about it, he said.

This would never happen now.

The loss of social capital also shows up in the loss of informal play. Mothers drive their children from one carefully-protected, formally-scheduled activity to another.

White flight — the individual search for safety from ethnic cleansing — has spread from cities to whole states. For example, whites are fleeing ethnic cleansing in California.

Secession is white flight extended to multi-state regions. Flight to a promised Pacific Northwest homeland, for example, is white flight to a multi-state region.

No matter how large the region to which whites flee, it cannot work. A key reason is that white people are wealth, like herds of cattle or flocks of sheep. White people provide valuable habitat and nourishment for parasites of all kinds. So these parasites follow us everywhere.

South Africa is a fine example. The first major permanent white settlement anywhere in Africa started in 1652 when the Dutch East India Company built a supply station for its ships in the vicinity of present-day Cape Town, South Africa. At that stage the nearest Bantu tribes were more than 1,000 kilometers from the Cape.

By the time the British occupied the Cape for the first time in 1795 it had a white population of about 26,000, an estimated Cape Colored population of 20,000 and a slave population of around 30,000.

During the lifetime of the Republic of South Africa Bantu colonists also flooded South Africa, drawn by labor contracts.

South African farmers — the Boers — fled from British control. Everywhere they went, the British followed them and annexed their territory as soon as they had done the hard, dangerous work of settling it. The Boers and their territory were too valuable for the British to leave alone.

In the beginning South African whites had a chance to create an all-white country of their own. However, relying on non-white labor gave white habitat away to non-whites. It gave non-whites a chance to out-breed whites and displace them.

The very slow, slow growth of the white population in the pre-Revolutionary thirteen colonies, of North America, is a measure of how hard and dangerous it is to convert wilderness to urban, improved habitat.

It took 150 years, from 1650 to 1780, for the population of the 13 colonies to grow from 4,600 to 2,780,000.That is an increase of only18,502 a year.

It took just 30 years, from 1970 to 2000, for the Hispanic population of the United States to grow from an estimated 9.6 million to an estimated 35.3 million. This is an increase of more 856,666 Hispanics a year, a mark of how free, easy and safe their increase is. http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/hispanic/hispanic.html

Early America offered slim pickings for Jews, except in the slave trade. There were an estimated 1,243 to 3,000 in the United States in 1790. When Whites finished the difficult, dangerous work of settlement, the Jewish population suddenly leapt from 230,000 to 280,000 in 1880 to 1,508,000 to 2,349,754 in 1910. This was just three years before they took control of the United States banking system with their Federal Reserve system. (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/usjewpop1.html)

None of these millions of newcomers paid their share of the cost of developing a high technological civilization in North America. None had built any roads, laid any railroad tracks, or built any bridges, dams or tall sky scrapers.

We Whites have helped non-whites dispossess us by giving our habitat away for free, after developing it at such cost. If we keep doing this, we will be extinct.

We must stop helping non-whites dispossess us. We must stop running away. We must stop giving free habitat to those who seek to dispossess us. We must take back our land.

This essay was originally published on Sep 3, 2009

I’ve only seen one of the essays submitted myself. It is a really good one. I had intended to write a contribution before taking this job. I definitely have an opinion on the subject and will probably write something anyway to contribute to the anthology.

Site Note: The first article from the previous issue of the journal should ready for release tomorrow. Stay tuned.

As Paul Gottfried notes, European countries are now defining their identity in terms of abstract human rights and some kind of egalitarian universal history.  Nonetheless, whatever the propaganda, few people really believe it in their bones.  When people say “English,” they mean white.  Someone like “Sir” Trevor Phillips, even if he became Prime Minister or somehow heir to the throne itself, will never be a true son of Britain, and at some level, everyone knows this, including him.  European nationalists therefore have a great advantage.  A party such as the Vlaams Belang can appeal to a “Flemish” identity and everyone automatically knows what they are talking about, namely, who is Flemish, and who is not.  In the politically correct modern West, it is also an advantage that Europeans can fall back on national identities that are solely white but not defined by race.  A pro-Flemish group can not be portrayed as racist the same way that a “pro-white” group can.

In contrast, American identity, as painstakingly outlined by Tomislav Sunic in Homo Americanus:  Child of the Postmodern Age, is now almost exclusively defined by an ahistorical narrative culminating in a mythical equality.  Ignoring that equality and liberty are mortal enemies, and that the Founding Fathers were by any modern standard white nationalists, America has been successfully redefined into a sort of club where the price of admission is a belief in a vague concept of human rights and a shared appreciation of contradictory figures like George Washington, Martin Luther King Jr., Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Muhammad Ali.

Now this is absurd of course, but people really do believe it.  In some sense, it is plausible because an ethnic identity for Americans, what people like President Teddy Roosevelt called the “American race,” has been abandoned.  The late scholar Samuel Huntington, in his greatest work, attempted to the square the circle and marry the universalistic American creed with the American culture that grew out of the Anglo-Protestant ethnic core.  However, even he admitted that American identity, though dependent on a core ethnicity, was not defined by it.  Once that connection was broken, the only fallback was an American identity defined by white racial identity.

After the Civil War and Reconstruction, this essentially existed.  Left wing scholars in “white studies” are ironically close to the truth when they show how a conception of white identity that encompassed non Germanic whites was indispensable in creating the “normal” American identity.  They err of course, in believing that this is some kind of capitalist oppressor plot as opposed to an alliance based on biological and cultural reality.  However, Negroes were still in some sense considered Americans, even if only second class ones.  Eventually, after the so called civil rights movement, this core American identity was opened up to non whites.  This naturally transitioned to the abstract American identity we have today and now even saying that there even is something called an American culture is suspiciously racist.

As always, leftists are actually closer to the truth than conservatives here.  Leftists admit that America was founded as a white country.  White American conservatives, even when they prop up embarassing minstrel acts like Lloyd Martin are essentially conceding that “white” cultural norms are synonmous with American cultural norms.  However, until they are able to make the implicit whiteness explict, this is more reactionary posturing, waiting for Mexicans to care about the Constitution written by white slave owners or urban Negroes to thrill to the sounds of Yankee Doodle.

The Tea Parties are overtly anti-racist, and implicitly non-racist.  Nonetheless, they are overwhelmingly white.  Just the idea of whites gathering in white numbers has leftists scared out of their mind, in the same way that they hate and fear harmless crowds like NASCAR fans, gun lovers, or Sarah Palin supporters.  And now, someone has noticed the implications.  That someone is Pat Buchanan.

It is amazing to think how establishment Pat Buchanan really is, when all is said and done.  He was communications director for Ronald Reagan.  He has lived in Washington DC practically his entire life.  He knows everyone, and is essentially friends with everyone, even the liberals.  If conservatives hadn’t decided to sabotage themselves in 1992 and again in 1996, he could have been President, which would have saved America from mass immigration, 9/11, fiscal collapse, and eventual dissolution.  The rise and fall of Pat Buchanan will go down in history as the last chance the United States of America had to save itself.

Now, however, even Pat knows the writing is on the wall.  In a bracing new column, “New Tribe Rising?,” Pat notes that America is breaking apart along the lines of ethnonationalism.  He knows that whites, and only whites, keep this farce of modern America limping along.  He also sees signs that whites are beginning to react against their constant demonization and degradation by our governing elite.  He writes,

Adversity and abuse increase the awareness of separate identity and accelerate the secession of peoples from each other… Palin and Tea Partiers now repeat Obama’s disparaging line about their clinging to Bibles and guns — with defiant pride.  As others have done in our multicultural and multiethnic nation, this people is beginning to assert its identity, unapologetically.

Pat also notes that other peoples have already defined themselves.  “Black America seems united. White America is the house divided, for it is in the womb of white America that this new people is gestating and fighting to be born.”

There’s the rub.  The hard part is that white Americans, real Americans, still identify with the cultural symbols, governmental institutions, and historical narratives of the United States, even though the United States of America is objectively the most anti-white force on the planet.  One can imagine a Southern secession movement or a Northwest Homeland crushed by Red, White, and Blue waving conservatives who think they are fighting for God and Country when they are really fighting for Goldman Sachs and Lady Gaga.

Any American white nationalist movement will have to accomplish the neat trick of somehow claiming the true American identity (which is historically correct) while denouncing and destroying just about everything the United States of America has come to symbolize today as well as the puerile Enlightenment silliness that led us inevitably to this point.  It will not be easy.

However, step one is simple to define, if not to achieve.  White Americans need to realize that however much they resist it, try to squirm out of it, or try to beg Michael Steele to free them from it, they are a people.  As Samuel Francis stated,

At a time when anti-white racial and ethnic groups define themselves in explicitly racial terms, only our own unity and identity as a race will be able to meet their challenge. If and when that challenge should triumph and those enemies come to kill us as Robert Mugabe has threatened to do to whites in Zimbabwe, they will do so not because we are ‘Americans’ or ‘Christians’ or ‘conservatives’ or ‘liberals,’ but because we are white.

A number of far left blogs are crying “Oh noes!  Racisms!” as could be expected.  Someone dared to mention white Americans exist and that they may have interests.  Of course, no one is actually opposed to ethnonationalism, not even the “I don’t see race conservatives” who are busy giving money to a party headed by a man cosponsoring conferences with his co-ethnic Al Sharpton.  It is whites, and only whites, who must sit down, shut up, and fund the people who hate them.

Whites are at least beginning to see the double standards.  We shouldn’t be over optimistic or do another “finally, people are waking up” type post.  They aren’t — not yet.  However, the gestation for a new people is at least taking place.

Saul Alinsky noted that you can not speak to people in terms that are outside their own experience.  White nationalists need to step up and start speaking to our people in terms that they understand. Occidental Dissent‘s posts on Hitler and esoteric National Socialism and various movement dramas are all very well.  However, we need to start thinking realistically, practically, and politically about how to reach our noble, naive, and so easily abused white American folk.  While thought exercises like the ones today are fun, tomorrow is a new day and that needs to be our primary focus.

Occidental Dissent, April 21, 2010

Quotes:

“There is no such thing as a Palestinian people,” said Golda Meir. When she said it, she may have been right. But as generations have grown up under the occupation and two intifadas and a Gaza War, the Palestinians are a people today.

Adversity and abuse increase the awareness of separate identity and accelerate the secession of peoples from each other.

Obama in the campaign of 2008 recognized that “out there” in Middle America existed another country, far from the one he grew up in, far from the privileged Ivy League community to which he belonged.

“You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and … the jobs have been gone now for 25 years. … So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Palin and Tea Partiers now repeat Obama’s disparaging line about their clinging to Bibles and guns — with defiant pride.

As others have done in our multicultural and multiethnic nation, this people is beginning to assert its identity, unapologetically.

Sioux gather at Little Bighorn to celebrate the massacre of Custer’s command. Hawaiian natives demand a new ethnically based government — and receive Obama’s blessing. Hispanics march under Mexican flags in Los Angeles to demand citizenship for illegal aliens.

Now Southerners are proudly commemorating ancestors who fought and fell in the Lost Cause and demanding recognition of Confederate History Month. And state governors are acceding.

In 2004, when Howard Dean reached out to “guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks,” Shelby Steele wrote that this was “absolutely verboten. Racial identity is simply forbidden to whites in America” because of their history and white guilt.

This, Sanneh suggests, is changing. The imputation of racism to Tea Partiers has not intimidated or cowed them.

When Obama named Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, there was no hesitation in blistering her for showing contempt for the rights of Frank Ricci and the white firefighters of New Haven, cheated of the promotions they had won in competitive exams.

When black Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates was arrested by Cambridge cop James Crowley, most Americans, despite Obama and media suggestions of racial profiling, sided with Crowley.

Why are the Tea Partiers not intimidated the way Republicans often are? Why is the charge of racism not working?

First, they do not feel the guilt of country-club Republicans.

Second, they know it to be untrue. While Tea Partiers are anti-Obama, they are also anti-Pelosi, anti-Martha Coakley and anti-Charlie Christ. The coming conflict is not so much racial as it is cultural, political and tribal.

Black America seems united. White America is the house divided, for it is in the womb of white America that this new people is gestating and fighting to be born.

Read the whole article here.

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.

Sex places different pressures on males and females. Eggs take more energy to produce than sperm, and females alone have to bear a pregnancy. And in over 90% of mammalian species, females provide substantial parental care while males provide none whatsoever. Thus females make a much larger parental investment in each offspring than do males. Parental investment increases the reproductive success of the offspring receiving it, while simultaneously decreasing the parent’s future reproductive success by consuming resources that could be spent on additional offspring.

Differences in behavior between the sexes came about as a result of these differing demands. A female’s potential reproductive success is relatively small, and is limited more by the number of eggs she can produce (or pregnancies she can carry) than by the number of males she can convince to mate with her. In contrast, a male’s potential reproductive success is relatively large, and is limited more by the number of females he can convince to mate with him than by the number of sperm he can produce. This difference in potential reproductive success allows us to predict that males will compete with each other for access to mates, while females will be selective about with whom they mate. Sexually, males are adventurers and risk-takers, while females are risk-avoiders.

These differences in reproductive strategies manifest themselves in behavioral and physical differences that go beyond sex. The competitiveness of males drives them to take risks more frequently, not just when appealing to females, but also in day-to-day decision-making. Car insurance rates are higher for teenage boys than for girls for precisely this reason. Risk-taking “raises the stakes” of many decisions, increasing the potential rewards but also increasing the consequences of failure.

This risk-taking makes evolutionary sense, because males are far more expendable than females. If all women were killed except one, the race would take many generations to return to its original size, if ever. Yet if all the men were killed except one, the remaining man would have his work cut out for him, but the race could theoretically repopulate within a generation. Since males are not as necessary for the maintenance of population size, males tend to take more risks, be more aggressive, and tend to work towards establishing themselves higher in social hierarchies than do women.

But if women are inherently conservative, then why are they generally more supportive of left-wing causes than men? First of all, in spite of the leftist rhetoric about progress and radical change, the leftist emphasis on social welfare, social planning, and anti-competitive egalitarianism has an obvious appeal to risk-averse females. Furthermore, in spite of the leftist posture of always being outsiders, the left now controls most of the authoritative institutions of society: the educational system, the news and entertainment media, the churches, etc. Leftist opinion is the “status quo.” Women are brainwashed to accept it and loath to criticize it, for fear of the risks to their social standing, their employment, and especially to the well-being of their children.

But more women support the White racialist movement now than in the past. I know this from personal experience. I have been reading racialist-oriented USENET newsgroups (and web-based bulletin boards, once the technology was developed), ever since I first went “online” back in 1994 or 1995. I posted a personals ad on Stormfront years ago, shortly after the personals section was created. I didn’t receive any responses. I did the same thing just several months ago, and was contacted by a number of women.

Part of the reason may be that women are more comfortable expressing politically incorrect ideas anonymously on the internet, a far less risky prospect than espousing the same views openly.

But surely that is not the main reason. For the same reason that women have been slow to take up the White nationalist cause, women may eventually become its strongest and most uncompromising supporters: their maternal instincts. More women are joining the White nationalist cause as it becomes increasingly evident that the health and welfare of future generations of Whites is at stake.

Aside from the love and protection my own mother gave me (which continues to this day), my first encounter with female maternal instinct came when I was seven or eight years old. At a lake near my old school, I observed a mallard duck leading her ducklings. Curious boy that I was, I ran over to the ducklings and picked one up. Although most adult ducks at the lake were apprehensive about approaching humans even when they were sharing food, the mother turned, came right up to me, and started quacking loudly. When I knelt down, she proceeded to flog my arm with her wing until I released the duckling. I was shocked at the length this mother would go to protect her baby. She went from risk aversion to quite possibly risking her life, but the underlying biological imperative was the same.

I have the feeling that more White mothers will begin behaving like that mother duck, once they can no longer ignore the fact that the world their children will inherit will be worse than the one into which they were born. In the meantime, more individuals need to stick their necks out, especially young men. Future generations of our race are counting on us.

Occidental Dissent, April 12, 2010

Carl Schmitt

Note: The following short synthesis of Schmitt’s classic essay The Concept of the Political stems, in part, from a recent discussion with the Bay Area Nationalist Book Club.

However it is posed, the question of the political is always about the most important issue facing every people.

The political, though, is not to be confused with “politics” or “party-politics,” which speaks to individual or special interest in parliamentary gas houses.

“Politics” is tied to rationalism, materialism, economism, and the rule of Mammon, all of which undermine authority, tradition, and the imperatives of the “political.”

One.

The political addresses the state in its highest manifestation as the agent of its inner peace and outer security.

Only after liberal society reformed the state — to enable private individuals to maneuver for positions of power and influence, once particular interests superseded the polity’s collective interest — did politics and the political begin to diverge.  (In the Unites States, the first liberal state, politics was a business from the very beginning).

The political for Schmitt is thus not about what is conventionally thought of as politics, but rather about those situations, where the state (“the political status of an organized people in an enclosed territorial unit”) is separate from and above society, especially in situations when it is threatened with destruction by a superpersonal movement or entity and must therefore act to defend itself and the community it is dedicated to defending.

Two.

The polar categories defining the political are, as such, those of the friend-enemy distinction — a distinction implying the possibility of physical killing between rival states. This distinction is based on antithetical categories distinct to the political — distinct in the way that the categories of good and evil are specific to morality, the beautiful and the ugly to aesthetics, the profitable or unprofitable to economics, etc.

Three.

Who is the enemy? For Schmitt, it is the superpersonal other, the stranger, the existential outsider, whose intense hostility and readiness for combat threatens the state and the relations of friendship internal to it.

The enemy is thus designated not on the basis of personal feelings or moral judgments (inimicus), but only in face of an intensely hostile power (hostis), which menaces the state’s existence.

An enemy, in this sense, exists wherever one fighting-collectivity poses an existential threat to another collectivity.

In order to identify the enemy, it is necessary to experience it as a live-threat — in a way no rational analysis, no discursive logic, no objective judgment, no normative standard can possibly anticipate — for this experience is of a people, which knowingly senses whenever its existence is endangered.

The enemy here is defined in terms of criteria, not content or substance — which means it takes the form of something that is always specific and concrete and very intense — not being, then, just something symbolic or metaphorical.

“What always matters is only the possibility of conflict.”

Usually the enemy is the alien “other,” whose threat comes from the exterior.

But the enemy can also emerge from internal differences, such as when domestic social, religious, sectional, etc., differences become so antagonistic that they weaken the unity of the state and the common identity of the citizenry, polarizing them into friends and enemies — i.e., into a state of civil war, as internal politics become primary.

Another, rarer example of an enemy situated in the interior (an example distinct to the United States,) is found whenever foreign culture elements take control of the state at its citizens’ expense (becoming what Yockey called “an inner enemy”).

Four.

Friends, by contrast, share a commitment to a way of life that binds them together, that gives them a sense of solidarity, a sense transcending matters of economics or morality, something that resembles a shared, homogenous identity reaching beyond the imperatives of private life — even if these “friends” do not know one another.

Friendship — the condition of amity between those making up a large socially or communally cohesive association — is always prior to enmity.  For it is impossible to have a life-threatening “them” without first having a life-affirming “us.”

Indeed, it is only in face of the death and destruction posed by an enemy that “we” become fully conscious of who we are and learn what is truly “rational” for us.

This friendship implies that the “particular” trumps the “universal” and that a compromised convergence of interest, based on qualities shared with the enemy, is inconceivable.

Five.

The political is ultimately, then, a question of life or death — a question that presupposes the existence of an enemy — an enemy comprehended independent of other antitheses (e.g., the moral antitheses of good v. evil) and with conceptually autonomous categories of thought.

In presupposing the political, the state in the Schmittian sense orients to external threats rather than to internal structures of government or social-economic activity (the realms of party politics).  The state anchors itself, instead, in its willingness to defend — with arms, if necessary — its distinct existence.

This gives the state the “right,” in exerting its jus belli authority, to call on its individual members to kill and to risk being killed.

Such an authority makes the state “superior” to all other associations, for it alone compels its members to kill and risk being killed.

Weak peoples afraid of the “trials and risks” that come with the political inevitably disappear from history

It is this determination, implying life or death, that specifically constitutes what Schmitt sees as the essence of the political.

Whoever, moreover, makes this determination, deciding whether an enemy is to be fought or not, possesses the decisive, authoritative political power: Sovereign power.

When the imminent threat of war subsides, so too does the political.

This doesn’t mean that war in itself is the “aim, purpose, or content” of the political, only that the “mode of behavior” — the individual responsibility — the sovereign exercise of authority — that perceives the danger and decides to resist it — constitutes the political.

To be political in Schmitt’s sense requires, then, not just a prior commitment to domestic relations of friendship and the social solidarity it engenders, but also to a particular form of life in which group identity is valued, in the last instance, above physical existence.

Six.

The political, which “neither favors nor opposes war,” is thus not necessarily a function solely of war (the highest expression of the friend-enemy polarity) nor can it be said that it is per se a bellicose nihilism. Rather it is more like something determined by the possibility of armed enmity — even in cases where the parties belligérantes legitimate their belligerency in the name of freedom, justice, or some other abstraction.

War is simply an “ever present possibility,” which Schmitt recognized and designated as the core of the political sphere.

But if war for Schmitt is, above all, a reaction to an external threat, not a sought-after aggression, what does this imply existentially? (On the surface, at least, it suggests a rejection of l’esprit de conquête and the will to power, which one comrade thought was a liberal vestige in Schmitt’s thought and I thought was a Catholic moral one. In any case, Schmitt never actually came to terms with Nietzsche.)

Seven.

Liberalism cannot distinguish between friend and enemy because its individualist, universalist, and pluralist ideology (“conceived in liberty and dedicated to the [abstract] proposition that all men are created equal”) denies that such a designation is conceivable in a world understood in market or moralist terms, where there are only competitors and moral entities, with whom one negotiates or reasons on the basis of universal rights and interests.

Compromise, not conflict, is accordingly the principal aim of the liberal state. Hence, its propensity for exchange, negotiation, and business.

But however it may try, liberalism cannot elude the “political.”

In cases where it is forced to designate an enemy, it is conceived as being outside “humanity” and thus something not simply to be defeated, but ruthlessly annihilated — for, by definition, the liberal’s enemy is non-human.

Eight.

Because it sees the state as essentially an instrument of society and economy, dedicated to the greatest happiness (material well-being) of the greatest number, liberalism lacks a political theory – having, in effect, only a critique of the political.

Indeed, liberal individualism and universalism negate the very possibility of the political, at least in principle. For nothing in its view should compel an individual to die for the sake of the state, which it understands in economic and ethical, instead of political terms.

Such a compulsion, it holds, would not only violate the individual’s freedom, it would make his nation/state association primary — whereas liberalism, in its humanism and rationalism, irrationally and inhumanely claims that only individualistic matters of ethics and economics are primary.

The liberal state, as such, is ethically committed to the rights and interests of individuals seen as self-contained units, whose sum is humanity — and economically, committed to untrammeled production and trade.

In practice, this has meant that the old ordered estates, along with the “prerogatives” of tradition, were forced to bow to the wishes of formless, manipulable masses, as quantity trumped quality and money overthrew the divine right of kings — a right, incidentally, that subsequently passed to the money men, this ethnic minority whose rule has proven to be more devastating than that of any former tyrant.

It has also meant that the usurer could evoke property rights to dispossess farmers of their land; that the personal interests represented by politicians takes priority over the nation’s Destiny; and that the brotherhood of man entails the greatest, most violent, and vigilant of wars to stifle expressions of political polarity.

Nine.

The political, though, cannot be done away with or evaded — it is immune to depoliticizing procedure — it is the essence of sovereignty.

In cases of war, the state, as the instrument of the political, is the ultimate authority — above the law — and as long as a state of emergency lasts.

Legal systems are based, in fact, not on legal reason, but on an authority that speaks to an existential/ontological situation needing no justification other than its own existence.

Ten.

“The protego ergo oblige [I protect therefore I oblige] is the cogito ergo sum [I think therefore I am] of the state.”

The state, as such, is the highest form of human association, defending the life of its citizens and expecting that they, in turn, prepare to die for it, if necessary.

Protection and obedience, in healthy bondage to one another, are in this way mutually entwined.

Eleven.

Ultimately, the political is an existential matter of the highest degree.

In the face of death, one is forced to take sides and thus to take responsibility for one’s life. The enemy, in this strife, invariably highlights the true significance of friendship.

At the same time, the enemy defines what it means to be human, for only when faced with death do we confront life as a whole.

The political, then, entails Destiny, for it keeps men in historicity and it takes them beyond their private selves, into the realm of great events.

In the liberal’s envisioned one-world state, in a situation where there is only “humanity” and thus no friend-enemy distinctions (except with extra-terrestrials), there would be no political, only competition between individuals, whose highest concern would be self-enrichment, comfort, and entertainment.

Without the political and the state upon which it rests (i.e., without an existential commitment to a shared identity), there would be, as a consequence, no polarity, no opposition, no transcendent reference, and no way to counter the entertainment of modern nihilism.

The first victim of liberal depoliticization is thus always “meaning.”

If Europeans, then, are ever to regain control of their Destiny, it will only come through a political assertion of the identity that distinguishes them from the world’s other peoples.

All else is simply “politics.”

Jacques Louis David, "Leonidas at Thermopylae"

We all have natural partialities: for family over non-kin, friends over strangers, fellow countrymen over foreigners, racial brethren over members of other races. Philosophers from Aristotle to Carl Schmitt have recognized that these partialities are the heart of political life.

But most moralists eye these partialities with suspicion. Moral laws, they claim, apply to everyone, regardless of his relationship to us. Murder is wrong, whether we kill a stranger or a friend. Fairness requires that we judge a stranger by the same standards by which we judge a friend. Moral laws are universal, and that universality means that we must be impartial in all our moral judgments and dealings.

For the sake of argument I am willing to grant that moral laws are universal. But I don’t think that implies that all of our judgments and dealings must be impartial. Yes, when we have a case before a judge or arbitrator, we want him to be impartial. But do you want your parents to be impartial when deciding whether to send you or the class valedictorian to college? The most impartial judges are strangers to us. But we do not spend all our time with strangers, and kinship, friendship, and other natural bonds of affection do matter.

I grant that it is wrong to murder both strangers and friends, but surely it is worse to murder a friend. We are saddened to hear of the murder of a child. But we are horrified when we learn that the killer was the mother. We react this way, because we think that mothers should be partial to their children, and a crime that violates such natural partialities seems particularly bad. A moral philosophy that holds all murders equally heinous, regardless of these partialities, is simply absurd.

I look at ethics through a biological lens. A proposed moral principle cannot conflict with the survival of the race. Principles incompatible with survival die out along with their adherents. But there is another consideration beyond survival. There are plenty of bad ideas, foolish principles, and destructive lifestyles whose harm falls far short of killing their practitioners, or impeding their reproductive success. The only way to weed these out is to adopt as one’s standard not mere racial survival, but racial perfection. And from the point of view of racial survival and perfection, impartiality is folly.

Why is my standard the survival and flourishing of the race, not the individual? I am not an individualist, because individualism ignores the fact that we are all parts and products of biological groups: breeding populations. A race is simply a breeding population that has taken on a distinct identity because it has been geographically isolated, endogamous, and subject to unique environmental conditions for a sufficient length of time.

If the individual, not the group, is the highest value, then under no condition is it right for him to risk or sacrifice his life for the group. This means that the Spartans who fought to the last man at Thermopylae were suckers, but the man who would buy a few more years for himself by condemning the whole race to extinction is a paragon of virtue. The individual who lives only for himself, oblivious to the race that produced him and endowed him with the talents he cultivates or squanders, is a mean little creature, ungrateful to those who came before, improvident of those who will come after, if any. The isolated individual has but one life and one death. But the racially conscious individual realizes that countless forebears live on in him, and he seeks a kind of immortality for himself and them in his own posterity.

But why is the standard the survival of one’s own race and not the human race in general? If the races of man lived in harmony and had no conflicts of interest, then of course we should think of the interests of the whole human race. But we are a long way from that point, and haven’t gotten any closer during the past 50 years, despite the claims of the mass media.

The reality is: the races are at war with one another. The different human races are distinct subspecies, with distinct temperaments and talents, some of which conflict dramatically. It is an iron biological law that when two distinct subspecies try to occupy the same ecological niche in the same geographical region, there will be group conflict.

This conflict can be terminated in three ways. First, through interbreeding, which homogenizes the two subspecies into a new, distinct breed. Second, through the extermination of one group by other. Third, through the domination of one group by another.

In the case of humans, all three natural options are highly undesirable. The first two involve the destruction of one or more unique races shaped over hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. The last results in a system prone to instability over the long run, as history repeatedly demonstrates.

But since we’re rational creatures, humans also have a fourth option: voluntary separation. This last option preserves racial uniqueness and eliminates interracial competition, allowing each race to shape the course of its own future.

No matter what the outcome, to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson about blacks and whites in America: “two races, free and equal, cannot share the same country.” This biological law dooms all experiments in multiracial egalitarianism. The only practicable multiracial societies have been hierarchical segregated ones like Vedic India, South Africa, and the American South. But in the end, even these proved unworkable. The Indian caste system did not prevent racial admixture, while Apartheid and Southern slavery and segregation are long gone.

Everything we have seen since desegregation indicates the futility of multiracialism. Desegregation has not created the harmonious mixing of the races in freedom and equality. It has simply robbed whites of the ability to legally protect their living spaces from the incursions of other races. When these incursions occur, there is racial tension and conflict, which terminates only when whites flee and the neighborhood becomes predominantly black, or Mexican, or Asian. Those whites who remain are slowly destroyed by miscegenation or outright murder—both forms of genocide. Racial warfare will end only when groups separate from one another, or when the groups self-destruct due to miscegenation, or one group exterminates the others, or one group dominates and segregates itself from the others.

And make no mistake: America is in a state of racial war. It is no less a race war because, so far, whites are not fighting back but are in full retreat. They retreat from neighborhood to neighborhood, as one after another reaches the “tipping point” and becomes unlivable for whites. They retreat from cities to suburbs, from suburbs to exurbs, from states like California to states like Idaho and Montana. But at a certain point, there will be no place left to hide. The whole nation will reach the tipping point, and whites will finally have to stand and fight for our survival.

I hope that we stand and fight while we are still more than 60 percent of the population. Our odds of winning would be a lot higher than if we wait until our numbers slip below 50 percent.

In the midst of a race war, there can be no greater folly than impartiality, than the pious rot that “there is only one race, the human race.” Robert Frost once brilliantly described a liberal as a man who will not take his own side in a fight. In a fight to the death, such a policy is suicide.

In every transaction between a partial man and an impartial man, the impartial man is at a disadvantage. When the impartial man has a benefit to confer, the partial man appeals to the other’s impartiality and often walks off with the prize. But when the impartial man needs something from the partial man, his appeals to impartiality fall on deaf ears. As social interactions multiply, so do the partial man’s advantages at the expense of the impartial man. (The essence of the Jewish strategy of dominance is to practice ruthless partiality while urging their victims to be free of prejudice and partiality.)

Once the impartial man has nothing left to bargain with, once he has been reduced to powerlessness and penury, to what will he appeal to preserve his life and freedom? Impartiality? Universal notions of freedom and justice and rights? These are just pleading words unless one has the power to force others to respect them. But the impartial man has bargained all his power away. Pleading alone will not prevent him from being reduced to a slave or a corpse, and that is what we whites will become unless we start taking our own side, and quickly.

In particular, White women are disillusioned with America’s first black president. According to a recent Quinnipac Poll, 55% of Tea Party members are women versus 45% men. This belies the stereotype of Tea Party activists as Nazi stormtroopers reenacting Kristallnacht on the Congressional Black Caucus. The Tea Party Movement has always had prominent female leaders like Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin.

Obama’s declining approval ratings are partially attributable to his policies. The Washington Times gets this right. A mid-March Gallup survey found that while 57% of Whites thought Obamacare would help the uninsured, only 20% thought it would help their own families. Working class White voters also tended to be more skeptical of “health care reform” than their more affluent White peers.

So far Obama has only received a “dead cat bounce” from the passage of his administration’s signature piece of legislation. According to Reuters, “‘Obama’s approval seems to have moved up a few points during and slightly after passage. Then it fell back down again.’” For a candidate running on his record in 2012, this can’t be good news.

What the Times editorial gets wrong is the assumption that Obama’s declining approval rating has nothing to do with race. Obama’s support among White voters began to collapse back in July 2009 when he sided with Henry Louis Gates over Officer Crowley. His approval rating slipped seven points among White voters solely because of his racial solidarity with the “Big Cheese” of Harvard.

That memorable incident punctured his “post-racial” aura. The holier-than-thou Left jumped the shark this week and browbeat White America over its bigotry and racism. After this fit of moral self righteousness is over, I doubt Obama will ever recover the “post-racial” image in the eyes of White voters.

The most intelligent liberal commentators understand that all this braying about White racism works to our advantage. It defuses the charge, alienates independents, and encourages implicit Whites to tune out shrill liberal voices while becoming more receptive to White Nationalism.

I’m hoping this news cycle will continue. Keep up the good work boys!

Occidental Dissent, March 30, 2010

I know how the “tea party” people feel, the anger, venom and bile that many of them showed during the recent House vote on health-care reform. I know because I want to spit on them, take one of their “Obama’s Plan: White Slavery” signs and knock every racist and homophobic tooth out of their Cro-Magnon heads.

I am sick of these people — and those who make excuses for them and their victim-whiner mentality.”

Any White columnist who wrote a similar column for a conservative magazine or newspaper threatening violence against blacks would be fired on the spot. He would be untouchable. His career in respectable mainstream journalism would be over. “White privilege” works in mysterious ways.

The Tea Party Movement can bury its collective head in the sand and pretend that the healthcare debate is not about race. The Left passionately disagrees. It is composed of professional grievance organizations (racial, ethnic, gender, sexual orientation) who are accustomed to thinking in ”us vs. them” terms. They look at the Tea Party protests and see scores of angry White people. The mental image of White resistance to the Civil Rights Movement (Bull Connor and firehoses) instantly comes to mind.

Once again, I will reiterate one of the oldest White Nationalist adages: you might not be interested in race, but race-based groups are interested in you. The Tea Party Movement is going to be demonized as “racist” for no other reason than the fact that the majority of its members are White, angry, and opposed to Obama. We’ve come full circle in America: White skin color is now enough to earn you hatred, vitriol, and racial abuse from the multiculturalist establishment.

Here are a few questions I would like to ask the Tea Party Movement:

1.) In light of recent experience, do you still believe we are “progressing” toward a “post-racial” society, or does it seem more likely that Whites will become a degraded over-taxed minority as our numbers dwindle?

2.) Do you think your White grandchildren will live in a better world than the one you inherited?

3.) Does the America you love seem to be slipping away?

4.) Barack Obama promised a “post-racial” America in his 2008 campaign. Does this seem like a “post-racial” society to you? If Barack Obama can’t move America beyond race, can anyone?

5.) Do you honestly believe all of these privileged race-based groups will suddenly fall to their knees and embrace individualism and colorblindness any time soon?

6.) Have you ever pondered the thought that America might be lost?

I suspect your answers are similar to ours.

In The Washington Times, Jeffrey Kuehner wonders whether America will break up in the future. He notes that the American Heartland is dangerously alienated from the political class in Washington. Kuehner points out that the rhetoric of state sovereignty, states’ rights, and nullification are back in the air.

White Nationalists have already accepted this fate. The broader American Right finally appears to be moving beyond its distraction with Islamic terrorism and realizing that the country itself is being subverted from within. The earliest glimmers of this awakening might portend unsavory consequences for the Obama administration.

Occidental Dissent, March 28, 2010

He predicts the Tea Party Movement will radicalize in its frustration with the Republican establishment and the defeats inflicted upon it from the Left. A significant cross section of the Tea Party Movement (the purists who reject electioneering) might get involved with the growing militia movement or migrate to the White Nationalist fringe.

That’s one possible scenario. Personally, I think it is unlikely to materialize. Instead, the Tea Party Movement will be invigorated by its defeat and will attract more independent voters into its ranks who disagree with President Obama’s policy initiatives on immigration and healthcare. The economy won’t turn around over the summer and the Republicans will retake Congress in November.

The Tea Party Movement will interpret its electoral triumph as a sign that frustrated conservatives should continue to work within the system. In the meantime, the Tea Partiers will fight Obamacare in the federal courts and through separate state action. The great conservative hope will come along on his (or her) white horse — Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin — and will ride the wave of anti-government sentiment and activated implicit whiteness to victory in 2012.

The “Don’t Tread on Me” coalition of Republicans, Libertarians, Independents, White Nationalists, and alienated White male blue collar Democrats will prove short lived. The crafty Republican establishment will hijack the movement, install its own people in positions of power, and milk the Tea Party Movement for everything it is worth. Jews and White liberals will continue to control the commanding heights of American culture and poison the young with their degenerate ideas.

Barack Obama’s defeat in 2012 will be interpreted by the liberal establishment and the black community as the definitive proof that White America is hideously racist and reactionary. Blacks have never understood the concept of a changing of the guard. In our major cities, once blacks install one of their own in power, they feel entitled to indefinite black rule. I predict a turbulent period of race relations ahead, not the “post-racial” utopia that the mountebank in the White House promised in 2008.

The Left has failed time and again to take the rhetoric of the Tea Party Movement at face value. They have assigned to these people a crypto-racist agenda that the vast majority of Tea Partiers do not share. In their hearts, the majority of Tea Partiers truly believe in individualism and MLK’s ideal of colorblindness. That’s why their ultimate destiny is to be crushed by the Minority Majority of organized racial grievance groups.

In 2010, the Tea Partiers are certainly innocent of the left-wing charges of “racism,” but in the future that might change. Most White Nationalists once believed in the vague liberal vision of a post-racial El Dorado. There came a point though in each of our lives when the so-called anti-racists pushed too hard and we spit out their whole message.

As the Left’s vision of a “post-racial” utopia crumbles in the eyes of White Americans, White Nationalists are eagerly waiting on the sidelines. Unlike the Faux Right, we have a clear vision of what needs to be done. The White Nationalist movement is increasingly sophisticated, organized, and effective at getting its message out. In the proper historical conditions, we will be prepared to break out of our isolation.

Occidental Dissent, March 26, 2010

“In the final instance civilization is always saved by a platoon of soldiers.”

–Spengler

We are soldiers who serve the cause of Europe’s Renaissance — a cause as pure, hard, and imperious as our banners.

We are soldiers because we refuse the reformist tinkering of the dominant system, which — through its electoral and party committees, its partisan venalities, and its parliamentary charade — endeavors to ensure the self-regulation and recycling of the corrupt elites controlling the existing plutocratic system.

We are soldiers because we believe that the salvation of Europe’s family of nations depends on the destruction of the present system.

We are soldiers who serve and not merely talk, we reflect and we act.

We serve the cause of politics in the sense of Julien Freund [France's leading Schmittian scholar], knowing that the essence of action is action itself.

Our trifold praxeological, destining, and eschatological understanding of politics transcends the purely operational, pragmatic, and secular policies of modern politics. Going further, we think that propaganda by ideas is a chimera and that ideas come from action and not the reverse.

This is why we embrace the revolutionary dialectic of Carlo Pisacane, Enrico Malatesta, Carlo Cafiero, Paul Brousse, and José Antonio, who advocated the propaganda of the deed — the deed pregnant with ideas.

Our soldierly faith and duty is wedded to the national-revolutionary ideal that seeks a new political, aristocratic, hierarchical, anti-democratic, and anti-egalitarian order, situated within a European continental frame, geopolitically self-centered, disconnected from the global economy, independent of our present Atlanticist servitude, and rooted in a Eurocultural concept of civilization based on the values of blood and soil.

We are soldiers because we see history as a clashing dialectic between antagonistic forces, whose constituent elements are peoples and nations.

For conflict and struggle, as the work of Stéphane Lupasco and Max Planck demonstrates, are inherent to every system.

History is thus an endless battle between peoples organized around their distinct cultures and communities, each, consciously or unconsciously, motivated by a desire to expand and dominate.

As soldiers, we fight for the restoration of the poltical principle in the noble sense of politea, imperium, and auctoritas, and in function of Evola’s anagogy, which is capable of impregnating peoples with those specific metapolitical, spiritual, and anti-materialist values that ensure the masses’ spontaneous adhesion.

For us, as for Carl Schmitt, politics is that privileged arena in which the enemy and the friend is clearly designated.

This is why we reject the administrative or managerial concept favored by party politicians, who promote a state sustained by hedonistic frenzies — a state whose subjects are cretinized and emasculated, manipulated by consumer society and the media — subjected in this way to a whoring enterprise which organizes, directs, and patronizes them in order to dissolve all revolutionary effort in the solvent of a fake, hyper-festive order of permanent entertainment.

As soldiers, we advocate the ideal of a “polemological” state charged, above all else, with defending the survival and growth of Europe’s power from assaults by American hegemonism, radical Islam, and the extra-European colonization of our ancient lands.  In this sense, we categorically reject the social-contractual conception of the nation and seek to restore it as that mystical body passed from one generation to another.

The nation for us remains a determinism, a necessity, a force, and a will.

We are soldiers because we believe that war-like activity is the highest degree by which civilizations become complex and by which history’s primordial lever raises motherlands and city-states.

War in this Heraclitian sense has animated international relations from the time of Thucydides and from that of Machiavelli.

War is the highest expression of the state, as Hegel shows; it evokes its greatest consciousness and its greatest efficacy.

The state is and remains above all a war machine and all its other functions are subordinate to it, even if the bourgeois and managerial conception of the dominant democratic state has patched together a certain order from the ruling delinquency and its corrupting prosperity.

The international authority of the state is as great as its ability to inflict harm, and history shows that only those attached to mos majorum (ancestral law) and to a conservative opposition to the centrifugal forces succeed in attaining the aureole sovereignty of military glory.

This is the way it was in the Rome of Augustus and Diocletian, in the Russia of Peter the Great and Lenin, in the Islam of Mehmet Ali and Mustapha Kemal, in the China of Huang-di and Mao Zedong, each of whom won domestic and foreign victories before daring to impose the profound revolutionary transformation in which they believed.

As political soldiers, we seek to restore the ideal of a political vocation that transcends contemporary economism and to re-legitimate the ideal of those exceptional men who articulate and embody an ethic of conviction, responsibility, and duty.

Within the bourgeois democracies governing and offending us, there thrives a class of professional politicians and bureaucrats, of demagogues and opportunists of all sorts, whose mercenary use of high political office is motivated solely by reasons of personal gain or career.

As soldiers, we will make the necessary sweep that sends these impostors, these betrayers of our great European political ideals, to the devil.  And in this we aspire to see emperor and proletarian, animated by the same revolutionary faith, marching shoulder to shoulder: paradigm of a new heroism.

We uphold that there is an essential contingency between the state of exception and the essence of political sovereignty, constituting the point of disequilibrium separating public law from political fact.

We advocate a state of exception in order to establish the state as the emanation of a new order, as a means of terminating the general anomie and the reigning disorder.

The syntagma “force of law” rests on a long tradition of Roman and medieval law constituted for efficacy and loyalty.

We would like to restore an operational perspective invested with the archetype of the Roman juridical institution — the iustitium – enacted whenever the Roman Senate was informed of a situation that might compromise the Republic — a senatus consultum ultimum dictating measures necessary to ensure the state’s security.

This way of dealing with states of emergency harped back to the ancient concept of sol-stitium: to those instances when the law came to a stop, like the sun at its solstice, [and where the question of sovereignty -- the question of who holds ultimate authority -- was forthrightly posed].

Above all, we are political soldiers because we are militants.

Etymologically, “militants” refer to the theological distinction between the Church Militant and the Church Triumphant.

An analogy can be made between the political militant and the believer, whose truths inform all aspects of his being, especially in its essence and totality

The militant fights, attacks, and pays with his person for the triumph of his ideals.

The verb “to militate” comes from the Latin militari, which means “soldiers” (in the plural), to whom belonged a Church (an army) that required a spirit of discipline, self-sacrifice, and abnegation.

This is why militancy is at the heart of our political struggle.

The ideal militant for us must be a revolutionary, capable of dialectically linking his theoretical and practical knowledge to a global understanding of the society in which he lives.  He thus voluntarily submits himself to a disciplined routine, realizing in it a unity of theory and practice.

As political soldiers, we do not believe that evolution is automatic or that revolutions are spontaneous, because there are no fatalities in politics or in economics; the dominant, liberal, capitalist order well knows how to regenerate itself and how to overcome contradictions in order to survive.

The masses too are not solely exploited, they are mentally manipulated and alienated.

There is no revolutionary advance without a process of development, culminating in a struggle between warring peoples (lutte des peuples).

These struggles are manifested in many forms, in sectional or local struggles (at the level of the enterprise, the region, etc.)

They may appear spontaneous but they are linked to a changing consciousness and to the effort of militants who rise from below as they are directed from above.

Rank and file struggles, however exemplary, cannot accomplish a global change of the system, because such struggles address only certain lived particulars, products of the larger social complex, [not the system itself].

Instead, they need to be linked and coordinated in the form of a global, ideological vanguardist action, capable of posing issues from a system-wide perspective. It is necessary, then, to avoid an overly rigid elitism and an unserious reformism — in order to ensure a dialectical liaison between the global struggle and the local struggle, between the political action of the vanguard and the mass movement.

As political soldiers we advocate a revolution that brings about not merely structural change in the economy and the state, but also in the spirit, an ontological change that will lead to the formation a new man, free of bourgeois individualism and egoism.

This “total revolution” will affect the relations and ethics regulating the larger significance of our quotidian life.

The revolution we advocate will be a return to origins, a revolving back, that establishes an authoritarian state-order, a managed economy, and an exclusive conception of identity — a revolution carried out in harmony with the distinct mentality of European peoples and in accord with a principle of homology that purges institutions and mentalities of alien, distorting elements.

As political soldiers, we are irredeemably imbued with a tragic conception of life, knowing, with Alfred Weber, that every superior order ends up perpetuating a certain chaos as it enhances its power.

Tragic because we are conscious of the imponderable grandeur of the universe and the world and of the imperfection and finitude of human nature.

In face of this constant and paradoxical metaphysics, we advocate a re-enchantment of the world and an aestheticization of the state, as envisaged by German romantics like Goethe, Novalis, Schlegel, and Müller — conscious, as we are, that the illuminist ideas of the French Revolution [the liberal revolution of 1789], along with the general process of secularization, has since disenchanted the world in Max Weber’s sense.

We want, like Novalis, our revolution to become an organic, poetical totality in which the new state is the existential and aesthetic embodiment of our ideal of human perfection.

And once we complete this task, we will go somewhere else, farther away, always farther, way over there near our gods.

Source: “Pourquoi sommes-nous des soldats politiques?” (2003)

http://euro-synergies.hautetfort.com/tag/soldats%20politiques

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

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

Introduction

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

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

“Reconquest” and “Citizenism”

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michael Hart’s Partition Plan

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

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

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

The New Racial Compact Partition Plan

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

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

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

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

Preeminence of Core Founding Population and Similar Groups Must be Maintained

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

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

An Alternative Plan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Components of Identity

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

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

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

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

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

Practical Possibilities

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

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

Obstacles

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Occidental Dissent, March 17, 2010

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

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

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

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

The Dancing Man and His First Followers

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

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

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

The first follower joins in

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Crowd

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

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

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

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

The Thug

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Lesson

Collin Wynter, dancin' fool

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10. Billington, The Icon and the Axe.

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

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

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

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

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

16. MacDonald, The Culture of Critique.

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

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

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

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

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

22. Fischer, Albion’s Seed.

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

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

25. MacCulloch The Reformation.

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

27. Bowker, Oxford Dictionary of World Religions.

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

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

30. MacCulloch, The Reformation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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