Franz von Stuck, "Der Krieg"

Black Metal and the Return of Völkisch Thought

How did völkisch ideas resurface in popular culture? By the 1960s Christianity had entered a phase of decline in the West, following a long period of growing skepticism as well as hostility from political ideologies from both Right and Left. As has been the pattern in the West since the fourth century,[1] the decline of the dominant religion coincided with a renewed interest in alternative spiritualities, exotic religions, and the occult.

Much of this interest found expression in modern popular culture, especially modern popular music. Perhaps the most striking example of this confluence is the music of Heavy Metal pioneers Led Zeppelin, whose lyrics blended Aleister Crowley, J. R. R. Tolkien, and pagan Norse and Anglo-Saxon folklore. Artists like Black Sabbath, Black Widow, and Coven also incorporated occult themes and went on to influence subsequent waves of more explicitly Satanic Heavy Metal artists, such as King Diamond and Mercyful Fate.

Influenced by Black Sabbath, Motörhead, and punk rock, Bathory emerged within this milieu. We have already seen how the Satanic themes of Bathory’s early albums were replaced by Nordicist and pagan ones. Bathory’s Thomas Forsberg articulated the view that Christianity was a foreign religion, a form of Judaic spiritual conquest that sought to crush and eradicate indigenous European paganism. During the 1990s, this view became widely influential in the Black Metal subculture, especially in Scandinavia.

Anti-Christian views within the Black Metal scene usually fall into two categories: Nietzschean (often mediated through Anton Lavey’s “Satanism”) and neo-pagan. The Nietzscheans denigrate Christianity as an egalitarian religion of weakness, meekness, repentance, confession, and self-denial. The neo-pagans generally agree with the Nietzscheans, but emphasize the foreignness and deracinating influence of Christianity compared to the more authentic European pagan heritage. This outlook is explicitly völkisch, evoking the unity of blood and soil, of race and nation, and of spirituality and the Volk. The Black Metal scene also tends to be anti-Semitic for the same völkisch reasons they are anti-Christian. Some Black Metal musicians were so militantly anti-Christian that during the early-to-mid 1990s, they embarked on a campaign of church arsons.

In the world of Black Metal, genuine spirituality and depth of artistic expression is all about delving fearlessly into the darkness of the human soul. Hence the unremittingly dark songs filled with hate, fear, melancholy, misery, and depression. Black Metal—“true” Black Metal—seeks to put the greatest possible distance between itself and the mainstream of capitalistic mass society, which it perceives as meaningless, banal, materialist, brainless, conformist, uncreative, and hypocritical.

The Black Metal subculture glorifies war and the martial spirit. Scenes of battle are common on Black Metal album covers, and musicians often photograph themselves wielding axes or swords and wearing bandoliers, spiked arm-bands, and, occasionally, coats of mail. Likewise, lyrics celebrate war and battle, often heroic but always bloody. This militarism is often wrapped in mysticism. Typical titles include “Sunwheel on the Helmet of Steel” in Capricornus’ Alone Against All, “Nine Steps to Eternity” in Thor’s Hammer’s Fidelity Shall Triumph, and “Fire and Snow” in Graveland’s Will Stronger than Death.

Black Metal artists also emphasize nature and landscape, but a morbid and mystical sensibility is evident even here. Whether inspired by völkisch thought or mere Satanic occultism, nature is always conceived in spiritual, mystical, and Romantic terms. The Black Metal aesthetic dictactes that night and winter are eternal. Coniferous forests are preferred to tilled fields and manicured gardens. Where the glorification of war merges with nature mysticism, the emphasis remains on the latter. Viking and Folk Metal bands, in contrast, adopt a more obviously völkisch approach to nature, allowing daylight in their landscapes and generally emphasizing the idyllic as opposed to counter-Enlightenment Sturm und Drang.

The Black Metal sensibility does not reject culture in favor of nature, but instead valorizes culture and nature, both conceived organically, over civilization, which is conceived in mechanistic and materialistic terms. In the Black Metal universe, cities were never built, the Industrial Revolution never occurred, and modernity never arrived. For all its belligerence, Black Metal is inherently nostalgic, a comprehensive negation of modernity.

This negation is apparent even in the Black Metal sound, which would of course be impossible without the techno-industrial society Black Metal rejects. Thus the technological source of the Black Metal sound—that which links it to modernity—is concealed to the same degree that it is flaunted in Techno music: “raw” Black Metal bands favor a heavily under-produced, “necro” sound that deliberately avoids high-fidelity or otherwise seeks to emulate low-fidelity recording media—in contrast to other genres that favor a primitive, under-produced sound, the desired effect is not “street cred” (as in with Punk) but a sense of quasi-occult obscurity; more instrumentally sophisticated bands use layers of synthesizers to generate a volatilized mystical atmosphere that obscures the act of performance, while bands with a vehemently pagan orientation (e.g., Nokturnal Mortum) add traditional folk instruments into their mix musically to evoke an earthy sense of Volkstum.

The desired effect is always for the listener to lose himself in the sound, to go into a semi-trance, raised above the tedium of mundanity; Black Metal music aspires to hypnosis and, in the case of specifically pagan Black Metal, it seeks to create the spiritual union—with the landscape, with the collective unconsciousness, with the lost pagan soul, with the lost heroic spirit of the distant past—that was longed for by völkisch authors a century ago.

The rejection of modernity goes hand in hand with the rejection of progressivism. Like völkisch thinkers, Black Metalers, whether pagan, Satanic, or merely suicidal, are cultural pessimists. Their pessimism is often allied with the explicit adoption of the Indo-European Traditional cyclical view of history, in which history begins with a Golden Age then declines through Silver and Bronze ages to the present Iron or Dark Age (Kali Yuga), which is doomed to perish of its own corruptions or through a cataclysmic final battle, whereupon a new Golden Age will dawn.

References to such culture pessimists as Nietzsche and Spengler and to more mystically inclined authors like Julius Evola, Savitri Devi, Miguel Serrano, and H. P. Lovecraft, are common in Black Metal. Hence titles like “Decline of the West (Europe Will Rise)” in Pantheon’s Aryan Rebirth, “Eve of the Kali Yuga” in Arkthos’ Knights of the Eternal Sun, “The Gathering of the Elite to Destroy both the Modern World and Demiurge” in Beyond the North Winds’ Aryan Cult of A-Mor, “Desecration of Our Fatherland” in Darkthule’s Awakening of the Ancient Past, “Melancholy of the Inaccomplished Vengeance” in Sons of North’s Death of the White Race, “Among the Ruins” in SIG:AR:TYR’s Beyond the North Winds, “Son of the Fatherland” in Hordak’s The Last European Wolves, “A Golden Age Turns to Rust” in Drowning the Light’s The Fallen Years, and “Exiles of the Golden Age” in Weltenfeind, a three-way split with Absurd, Grand Belial’s Key, and Sigrblot.

Explicit references to völkisch thought are rare, but they occasionally surface: there is a Finnish band called Armanenschaft; Hate Forest’s Blood and Fire EP contains the song “Aryosophia”; Vril released a demo entitled “Once and Again Thule”; Werewolf’s track “Vrilmacht” appears in their Fidelity of Ideology split EP with Semper Fidelis; there is Apriaxia’s Blood and Soil EP; and Adalruna’s Wer ist der Starke von Oben shows a photograph of Guido von List standing by the Heltentor with members of the Guido-von-List-Gesellschaft in 1911.

References to specifically Nazi mysticism and esotericism are also not infrequent: there is Bilskirnir’s EPs Ahnenerbe and Hyperborea, and the song “Reconquering the Atlantean Supremacy” in the album Wotansvolk, Hakenkreuzzug’s Centurions of Thule EP, the song “Jewel of Atlanteans” in Graveland’s Memory and Destiny, and the song “Hyperborean Ascention” in Contra Ignem Fatuum’s Detritus, among others.

The emergence of explicitly National Socialist Black Metal should not surprise, for the original völkisch current was the incubator of Conservative Revolutionary tendencies, including National Socialism, and by the mid 1990s Black Metal had re-created the same cultural logic that led to National Socialism 80 years earlier. But the readiness with which Black Metal came to embrace an outlook and sensibility so thoroughly stigmatized following the Allied victory in 1945 still needs to be explained.

The answer lies in the nature of Heavy Metal’s genesis following the collapse of the popular music subculture of the 1960s. Deena Weinstein identifies two strands within this genesis, an idealist one and a conservative one, which were fused at the point of Heavy Metal’s inception.[2]

Heavy Metal emerged at a time when its original core demographic—white working-class males—were experiencing a growing social, cultural, economic, political, and demographic displacement, thanks to the rising tide of radical feminism; belligerent black activism; discriminatory legislation in housing, education, and employment favoring minorities; non-white immigration from the Third World; and a serious economic downturn that drove the most marginalized whites to the wall. These developments aided the formation of an implicit white community that was strongly ethnocentric, and which, in a world where whiteness was increasingly de-centered, came to make a badge of honor of its negative marginality: Heavy Metal fans are what Weinstein calls “proud pariahs.”

The Heavy Metal culture was defined by its working class roots, and working class culture is by nature conservative, with well-defined male and female roles, a readiness to express strong emotions, and a distrust of government and corporations. It is a culture that is decidedly out of step with modern mainstream liberalism. Not surprisingly, then, Heavy Metal tended to resist radical changes in its form, celebrated heroic masculinity, and was predicated on an ethos of integrity and authenticity that deplored its own commercialization. Indeed, “[f]or fans, perhaps the worst thing that can be said about a heavy metal band is that it has ‘gone commercial.’”[3] Nevertheless, Heavy Metal gained many fans from the lower middle class, and subsequent offshoots have followed this pattern. The lower middle class is the same demographic that Mosse identified as formulating the völkisch critiques of modernity a century earlier, and indeed the key features of Heavy Metal culture are highly compatible with those critiques.[4]

Even in its rawest forms, Black Metal tends to appeal to a more elitist and culturally sophisticated sensibility than its parent genre, but it has not radically changed the basic anti-modern, anti-liberal, anti-commercial, anti-cosmopolitan outlook it inherited from Heavy Metal. It only made it more serious: deepened it ideologically, elaborated it artistically, and radicalized it metapolitically. From the beginning Black Metalers were proud pariahs in the modern world, and, as such, were receptive to anti-establishment ideologies that were compatible with Black Metal’s own constitution.

In sum, a good portion of Black Metal’s intellectual and aesthetic features are völkisch. Crowley, Satanism, and Tolkien also boil in the Black Metal cauldron, to be sure, but these too have been appropriated to the extent that they are consistent with the völkisch worldview. Therefore, one can plausibly characterize Black Metal as a revival of the Conservative Revolution, profoundly transformed in the context of a modern musical subculture, but recognizable nonetheless.

Lessons

My characterization of Black Metal will inevitably lead radical elements within the white nationalist movement to ask, “How do we use Black Metal to start the revolution?” Those asking this question will likely be thinking of how rock music in the 1960s helped to disseminate and popularize among the young the “progressive,” liberal, and anti-Western ideas that had been festering in the catacombs of the academia since the 1930s and even earlier.

I am not convinced that Black Metal has an application in that political sense. The music of the 1960s enjoyed broad appeal, whereas Black Metal seeks and revels in its own marginality and obscurity. Student engagement in radical politics during the late 1960s is only mirrored by the modern Left, and enjoyed, as it does today to a much greater degree, media and institutional support. Fans of Black Metal, on the other hand, detest politics even more than the Conservative Revolutionaries: theirs is a strategy of negation and of escape from mundanity.

The Anti-Geldof Compilation that I sponsored and released through my record label remains to date the sole extant example of engagement with current affairs and everyday politics in the Black Metal scene—and even in this case it was largely an emotional response on the part of the participating artists against the pious hypocrisy of self-indulgent rock stars. This is significant when one considers that the Encyclopedia Metallum currently lists over 17,000 Black Metal bands.[5] Then, again, most of the participating artists were associated with the NSBM scene, and, as we know, one aspect that distinguished the National Socialists from the Conservative Revolutionaries in Germany was their willingness to engage in mass politics.

At best, we can see Black Metal as proof that it is possible for a cultural space to exist, even today, where anti-egalitarian thought can find honest artistic expression and forge an alternative positive identity among whites through the praxis of style. Our task is to understand the mechanisms that enabled significant parts of the Black Metal scene to exist as an explicit white community in the first place. Our task is also to create other such cultural spaces, to expand the constellation of stylized activities, so that we may eventually build a parallel cultural universe wherefrom they can be afforded institutional support and thus gain momentum and consolidate, once the liberal establishment collapses by the weight of its own corruption and ideological bankruptcy.

This is an important task, because inasmuch as Black Metal artists have developed and inspired an evocative style or aesthetic that (implicitly or explicitly) is uniquely white and European and/or celebrates whiteness in all its diversity of history and heritage, Black Metal is a genuine object of study in the context of a cultural war where the opposing faction seeks to suppress, defame, and eradicate whiteness. Humans are sentimental and emotional animals, more readily persuaded by an appealing style than by a rational argument, so winning the cultural war will require more than hard facts and superior logic. It requires that we successfully appeal to sentiment and emotion by becoming masters of style. Black Metal contains important lessons in this respect.

Discography:

Adalruna. Wer ist der Starke von Oben. 2008.

Apraxia. Blood and Soil. Othal Productions. OLP008. 2001.

Arkthos. Knights of the Eternal Sun. Supernal Music. Ferly048CD. 2006.

Bathory. Blood Fire Death. Black Mark Productions. BMCD666-1. 1989.

Bathory. Hammerheart. Black Mark Productions. BMCD666-1. 1991.

Bathory. Twilight of the Gods. Black Mark Productions. BMCD666-1. 1992.

Beyond the North Winds’ Aryan Cult of A-Mor. 2004.

Bilskirnir. Ahnenerbe. Nykta Productions. NYKTA06. 2004.

Bilskirnir. Hyperborea. Solistitium Records. SOL052. 2005.

Bilskirnir. Wotansvolk. Wotanstahl Kangschmiende. WKG006. 2007

Capricornus. Alone Against All. Supernal Music. Ferly011CD. 2004.

Celtic Frost. Into the Pandemonium. Noise Records. N-0067. 1987.

Contra Ignem Fatuum. Detritus. Supernal Music. Ferly036MCD. 2005.

Darkthule. Awakening of the Ancient Past. Battlefield Records. 2004.

Graveland. Memory and Destiny. No Colours Records. NC057. 2002.

Graveland. Will Stronger than Death. No Colours Records. NC0118. 2007.

Hakenkreuzzug. Centurions of Thule. Battlefield Records. 2004

Hate Forest. Blood and Fire. Sombre Records. 2001.

Hellhammer. Apocalyptic Raids. Noise Records. N-0008. 1984.

Hordak. The Last European Wolves. Griffin Music. GRIFFIN008CD. 2006.

Pantheon. Aryan Rebirth. Strong Survive Records. SSR025. 2005.

Thor’s Hammer. Fidelity Shall Triumph. Darker Than Black Records. DTB001. 1998.

Semper Fidelis/Werewolf. Fidelity of Ideology. Eastside Records/ Hammerbolt. 2008.

Skyforger. Semigall’s Warchant. FR034. 2004.

SIG:AR:TYR. Beyond the North Winds. Morbid Winter Records. MWR012. 2008.

Various Artists. Anti-Geldof Compilation. Supernal Music. Ferly035CD. 2007.

[2] Weinstein, Heavy Metal.

[3] Weinstein, Heavy Metal, 115.

[4] Mosse, The Crisis of German Ideology, 7.

[5] http://www.metal-archives.com/.

Part 3 of 3. Read Part 1 here, and Part 2 here.

Franz von Stuck, "Der Krieg"

Völkisch Thought and the Conservative Revolution

Some of the most fascinating aspects of Black Metal are its parallels with the ideas and sensibilities of the Conservative Revolution and the wider völkisch (populist) movement that swept Germany in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. These similarities are so striking that Black Metal may well be considered, if not the continuation, then at least the revival of the Conservative Revolution on the plane of modern popular culture.

Black Metal is, moreover, part of a growing subculture of resistance to the anti-white system. This subculture consists of a constellation of interconnected musical genres and subgenres, religious practices, philosophical and political thinkers and schools, websites, booksellers, publications, and cultural activities, such as battle re-enactment. This subculture sustains itself by providing its members with a positive identity that is not dependent on the system of status awards maintained by the present sociocultural and political dispensation. Moreover, if, as Jacques Attali has proposed, the music of the present is the noise of the future, then, in a coded way, Black Metal could well be more symptomatic of things to come than of things as they are.[1]

The Conservative Revolution was entirely different from modern American conservatism, which is merely a form of classical liberalism allied with socially conservative views. American conservatives believe in progress, democracy, equality before the law, and free markets; their ideology derives from the Enlightenment as formulated by John Locke and Adam Smith. They are closely associated with libertarianism. They regard man as a rational, sovereign individual, and they tend to have a linear, progressivist conception of history. The German Conservative Revolutionaries, like other völkisch movements, were reacting against the rationalism of the Enlightenment, and, in American terms, have much in common with the Southern Agrarians. Their common enemies were modernity, urbanism, and industrialism.

Völkisch thought is characterized by a romantic focus on the “organic,” German folklore, local history, blood and soil, and nature mysticism. The term derives from the German word Volk, which corresponds to “people,” or “folk,” but with the added connotations of folklore, race, and nation. Among the German romantics, “Volk” “signified the union of a group of people with a transcendental essence,” the fusion of man with nature (particularly his native landscape, following Wilhelm Riehl), mythos, or the cosmos, wherein man found “the source of his creativity, his depth of feeling, his individuality, and his unity with other members of the Volk.”[2] A related concept is “Volkstum,” a term that combines the notions of folklore and ethnicity.

Völkisch thought arose from the Romantic nationalism of the early nineteenth century, particularly that of Johann Gottlieb Fichte, who, along with Ernst Moritz Arndt and Friedrich Ludwig Jahn, “began to conceive of the Volk in heroic terms during the wars of liberation against Napoleon.”[3] Völkisch thought emerged at a time when Germany existed as a collection of semi-feudal principalities. As political unity eluded them for more than half a century, völkisch thinkers were forced to emphasize cultural and spiritual rather than political dimensions of unity. Thus they came to idealize, even mystify, the concept of nationhood. This process attained such momentum that when political unification finally came in 1871, the prosaic nature of Bismarck’s Realpolitik led to a tremendous sense of disappointment.

Völkisch thought also coincided with the Industrial Revolution and the attendant destruction of the German landscape, dislocations of the population, obsolescence of traditional crafts and tools, social alienation, political upheavals (e.g., the revolutions of 1848), and economic crises. These led eventually to disenchantment and finally to the wholesale rejection of industrial society and modernity, which came to be seen as materialistic, soulless, rootless, abstract, mechanical, alienating, cosmopolitan, and irreconcilable with national self-identification. Völkisch thought was a quest for rootedness, for the “inward correspondence between the individual, the native soil, the Volk, and the universe.”[4] Hence the calls for a “‘German revolution’ to liquidate the dangerous new developments and to guide the nation back to its original purpose.” Unsurprisingly, völkisch ideologists saw “traditional politics as exemplifying the worst aspect of the world in which they lived,” and “rejected political parties as artificial,” favoring instead an “elitism that derived from their semi-mystical conceptions of nature and man.”[5]

The völkisch rejection of modernity was sometimes combined with racialist occult and esoteric doctrines exemplified by runologist Guido von List, author of The Secret of the Runes. List’s racialist reading of Helena Blavatsky’s Theosophy proved influential in occult circles. The Guido von List Society (Guido-von-List-Gesellschaft), which he founded, included among its members the sexo-racialist Jorg Lanz von Liebenfels, author of Theozoologie, founder of the esoteric order, Ordo Novi Templi (Order of the New Templars), and founder and editor of the magazine Ostara. Lanz glorified the Aryan race as Gottmenschen and advocated the sterilization of the unfit and the inferior races. Lanz’s “theozoology” eventually evolved into “ariosophy”—the study of occult wisdom concerning the Aryans. Other List disciples became involved in the Reichshammerbund and the Germanenorden, organised by Theodor Fritsch, a prominent activist in the German anti-Semitic movement.

When the Germanenorden split into two schismatic factions (the Germanenorden and the Germanenorden Walvater of the Holy Grail), Hermann Pohl, the order’s first leader, was joined by Rudolf von Sebottendorff, a Freemason who was also an admirer of List and Liebenfels. Sebottendorff eventually contacted Walter Nauhaus, leader of the Germanenorden and head of the Thule Society, a Germanic study group. Sebottendorff adopted the name of this study group as a cover name for his Munich lodge of the Germanenorden Walvater, which was run jointly by him and Nauhaus. In time the Thule Society came to organize the Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (DAP), which was renamed the Nationalsozialistische deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP) in 1920, months after Adolf Hitler, once a reader of Liebenfels’ Ostara magazine, joined the party.

This occult branch of völkisch thought, which during the post-World War II years produced writers like Savitri Devi and Miguel Serrano, adopted elements from Eastern mythology: a cyclical view of history (mirrored in Oswald Spengler’s metahistory) followed the Hindu model of the four successively degenerative ages, or Yugas; while the swastika, ubiquitous in India and the Far East, was adopted by numerous organizations before the NSDAP, from Blavatsky’s Theosophical Society to Lanz’s Ordo Novi Templi (the first to use the swastika in an Aryan context) to Fritsch’s Germanenorden to Sebottendorf’s Thule Society.

Although dismissed by some völkisch thinkers, the Jewish question acquired added importance during this period. As a people of the desert, Jews came to be “viewed as shallow, arid, ‘dry’ . . . devoid of profundity and totally lacking in creativity.” This contrasted with the Germans, “who, living in the dark, mist-shrouded forests [were deemed] deep, mysterious, [and] profound.”[6] Moreover, because the Jews thrived in the liberal, secular, commercial, urban context, they came to be seen as the incarnation of modernity, and hence a corrupting, conspiring outsider, an insidious agent of dissolution.[7] Indeed, Jews had grown closely connected to the liberals on the road to emancipation and, in particular, to the Revolution of 1848.

Because of its links to Judaism, Christianity also came under scrutiny: “in common with most völkisch thinkers, [Paul de] Lagarde blamed St. Paul for having enveloped untainted Christianity in sterile Hebrew law” and advocated a Germanic religion through which a “realignment of the spiritual forces [could] effect a true unity of the Volk.”[8] Nietzsche’s attack on Christianity as a debilitating agent was influenced by the anti-Jewish, but nevertheless still Christian, Lagarde. By the time Savitri Devi wrote Defiance and Gold in the Furnace, shortly after World War II, however, radical hostility to Christianity was tightly bound to radical anti-Jewish sentiments.[9]

Following World War I, the völkisch ideology “acquired a mass political base,”[10] propelled by the anguish of Germany’s military defeat in a context where völkisch ideas had long been disseminated within German institutions. The Conservative Revolution emerged at this time as a predominantly völkisch movement: it thought organically rather than mechanistically, emphasized quality as opposed to quantity, prized folk-community (Volksgemeinschaft) as opposed to class conflict, believed in the Führerprizip as opposed to ochlocracy and parliamentarism, glorified war as opposed to unheroic economism, and rejected progressive liberalism, egalitarianism, and the banal commercial culture of urban industrial civilization.

The Conservative Revolutionaries were revolutionaries because they realized that culture was threatened not merely by liberalism and Communism, but by the entire political order, which had to be replaced—using revolutionary means if necessary—by a new order based on conservative principles.[11] Although the term existed prior to the end of World War I, it entered general use only after it was popularized by Hugo von Hoffmannstahl and Edgar Julius Jung during the Weimar Republic. Oswald Spengler, Ernst Jünger, and Carl Schmitt, along with Arthur Moeller van den Bruck (who coined the phrase “Third Reich”) were representative of this movement. Völkisch ideas enjoyed considerable social prominence and institutional legitimacy long before the National Socialists came to power. They were, however, marginalized and suppressed by the Allied Occupation regime and the new post-war dispensation following Germany’s military defeat in 1945.

Part 2 of 3. Read Part 1 here.

[2] George L. Mosse, The Crisis of German Ideology: Intellectual Origins of the Third Reich (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1966).

[3] Mosse, The Crisis of German Ideology, 14.

[4] Mosse, The Crisis of German Ideology, 6.

[5] Mosse, The Crisis of German Ideology, 3.

[6] Mosse, The Crisis of German Ideology, 5.

[7] Fritz R. Stern, The Politics of Cultural Despair: A Study in the Rise of the Germanic Ideology (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974).

[8] Stern, The Politics of Cultural Despair, 33.

[9] Savitri Devi, Gold in the Furnace: Experiences in Post-War Germany, 3rd ed., ed. R. G. Fowler (Atlanta: The Savitri Devi Archive, 2008) and Savitri Devi, Defiance, 2nd ed., ed. R. G. Fowler (Atlanta: The Savitri Devi Archive, 2009).

[10] Mosse, The Crisis of German Ideology, 5.

[11] Stern, The Politics of Cultural Despair.

Personally, my money is on the Midwest in general and Indiana in particular. In fact, I believe this so strongly that I wrote a book about it: Hoosier Nation ($8.00+S&H). If you don’t want a glossy signed copy of my excellent book, you can read it for free at the site. In it, I explain how our oft-overlooked history, our unique heritage, and our current demographic situation make Indiana the best place to light this fire. Some of you may remember that the last serious awakening of White American identity occurred here. If you guys would give us one more chance, we promise not to blow it this time.

Ultimately, I don’t believe any region is entirely out of the question and no region is a sure shot. The actual residents of the Pacific Northwest are so removed from what’s actually happening to their country that they have trouble understanding why anybody would struggle to get away from all the fun people appear to be having on their satellite television channels – The Johnson Paradox. As for the South, these are people who are a bit too comfortable with their plight. They even dress up in costumes on the weekend to relive their devastating defeat.

Just sayin’…

But, in all seriousness, the Southern Midwest was largely settled by yeomen farmers, White refugees of the Southern plantation economy. They didn’t bring much with them when they came, but they did bring a familiarity with Blacks and a hatred of hypocritical White elites. We have non-Whites, but they’re limited to densely populated urban ghettos. They’re not integrated into the land and the communities as “folk” in the same way they are in the South.

I’m not psychic, so I have no idea what our future beholds. I would rather not resort to secession. I would rather we as a whole country recapture the will to embrace our White American heritage and determine our destiny. If we can rekindle that, we might not have to resort to these kinds of desperate compromises. We surround them; we just need to awaken. Nothing is possible without that awakening and everything is possible with it.

Maybe we can have ourselves an American Homeland.

Occidental Dissent, March 12, 2010

1) Racial Consciousness

Southerners are far more racially conscious than Whites in the Pacific Northwest. There are still millions of Americans who cling to traditional racial values. The majority of them live in the South. In Alabama, I would argue that at least 1 out of 2 Whites are racially conscious to some degree. The rest have a high degree of “implict whiteness” that could be activated in the right conditions. More Whites voted against Barack Obama in Alabama than in any other state.

The strongest argument for the South is that racialists have a base in the region. The South is a fertile area for in reach activism. There are millions of Southerners who agree with us on race who have never heard of White Nationalism because of the media blackout. We have more human material to work with. We have more people who are potentially receptive to our message.

In some states, creating a racialist majority is not outside the realm of possibility. David Duke almost won some important races in Louisiana in spite of his Neo-Nazi and Ku Klux Klan baggage. A cleaner candidate with a professionally run campaign could conceivably become Governor of a Southern state. The Council of Conservative Citizens already have sympathetic elected officials in the Mississippi state legislature.

2) Political Correctness and Multiculturalism

Political correctness and multiculturalism have invaded Southern college campuses. Every SEC college has an Office of Diversity and Multiculturalism or its equivilant. I would argue though that PC and multiculturalism have weaker roots in the South than any other region. Universities are commonly fortresses of liberalism, but Southern college students tend to be apathetic or apolitical.

It is not uncommon for Southern fraternities to ridicule political correctness. A huge controversy at Ole Miss is brewing right now over being forced to choose a new PC mascot. Contrast Ole Miss with UC San Diego. Outside the liberal college towns, White Southerners are even more likely to hold political correctness and multiculturalism in contempt. It would be easier to overthrow both in the South than in the Northwest.

3) Liberalism

At least rhetorically, the majority of White Southerners are opposed to liberalism. They voted against Barack Obama and have since flocked into the Tea Party movement. In contrast, the Seattle-Portland urban corridor in the Northwest is a progressive stronghold. Washington and Oregon have voted for the Democratic candidate in every presidential election since 1988.

White Southerners get most of the conservative social issues: abortion, multiculturalism, illegal immigration, affirmative action, welfare, crime. In the South, White Nationalists still have to move the goal posts, but we don’t have to move them as far as in the Northwest.

4) Culture

As everyone knows, racialism has deeper roots in Southern culture than in any other region of the United States. The South was committed to white supremacy for three centuries. Residual traces of that heritage still exist in the South. These embers could potentially be stirred up into a bonfire again. It would be easier to do this in the South than in the Northwest. We have more material to work with.

5) Ethnicity

The South is unique in that the great waves of European immigration tended to avoid the region. The vast majority of European immigrants settled in the Midwest, West, and New England. White Southerners have deeper roots in America. The typical Southerner is more likely to be descended (in whole or in part) from the original White settlers.

Millions of White Southerners now identify as “Americans” on the Census. Their families have been in America for so long that they have “gone native” and shed European ethnic affiliations. Southerners are more patriotic because they have more invested in the United States. When your ancestors fought in the American Revolution, Mexican War, Civil War, Spanish-American War, WW1, WW2, and Vietnam, naturally, you feel a greater sense of connection to America, its history and heritage, and its destiny.

I have no doubt that Southerners are more willing to fight for their idea of America. It would be easier to persuade them to fight for a White ethnostate because they have more to lose. After moving from Alabama to Virginia, I can still sense that I am living among my own people. The accents and culture are familar. White Southerners are an ethnic group that occupy a huge contiguous geographic region. Virginians and Alabamians are blood relatives only a few generations removed from a common stock.

In other parts of country, that just isn’t true. Poles live among Irish, Germans, and Italians. Southerners are related by blood, soil, history, climate, and culture. They move less often. We have more in common than the disparate other groups who live elsewhere in the United States. It would be easier to mobilize White Southerners around a common political goal. There are fewer obstacles in the way.

I love that line from The Good Shepherd where Joseph Palmi says, “Let me ask you something … we Italians, we got our familes, and we got the church; the Irish, they have the homeland; Jews, their tradition; even the niggers, they got their music. What about you people, Mr. Wilson, what do you have?” And Wilson responds, “We have the United States of America. The rest of you are just visiting.”

6) Tradition

The idea of a White ethnostate originated in the South. Specifically, it can be traced back to the Upper South in states like Virginia and Kentucky where Whites often lamented the presence of blacks and yearned for the day when they would be spirited off to Africa. The history of the American Colonization Society is well known in racialist circles. Maryland and Virginia colonized thousands of their blacks in Liberia. After the Civil War, there was a renewed push to deport blacks to the Belgian Congo led by Senator Morgan of Alabama. Theodore Bilbo of Mississippi pushed the idea in Congress in the 1930s and 1940s.

7) Actual Examples

The South has a history of ethnic cleansing. Famously, the Five Civilized Tribes were deported to Oklahoma from the Southeast under the Jackson and Van Buren administrations. After the Civil War, the Ozarks region of Arkansas expelled its negro residents and became a de facto White ethnostate. In the Great Migrations, half of the blacks in America relocated to the North rather than endure segregation and white supremacy in the Jim Crow South.

Geographical Proximity

How would Southerners thread the needle of Greg Johnson’s dilemma? You can’t have strong racial consciousness without multiracialism, but you can’t have a White ethnostate by including non-Whites? The answer lies in geographic proximity: if a White ethnostate was created in proximity to a negro ethnostate, it would define its own identity in opposition to its African neighbor, in much the same way that Germany defined itself against France. A Southern ethnostate would prove more enduring.

9) Separatism and Secession

The South is the only region of America that has ever seceded from the United States, fought a bloody war against the US federal government, and existed as an independent country. The Jim Crow South was essentially granted “home rule” for over half a century. No other region of the United States has such a strong independent sense of identity.

Southerners alone have an ethnic and national identity to fall back on. However attenuated that identity may be, it still exists, and in the right conditions could potentially be reactivated. Secessionist groups already exist in the South. A stronger feeling of anti-government sentiment prevails in the region. Given their heritage, Southerners are more receptive to the idea of secession than other Americans.

10) Building Blocks

The South has the building blocks of a potential White ethnostate. I’m referring to the White Belts that exist throughout the region. In these areas, Whites are 90% of the population or more, but heavily black areas are nearby and the focal point of racial consciousness. Historically, the White Belts have been notorious for their aversion to blacks.

In the South, racial separatism could take the form of a migration of Whites from the Black Belts to the White Belts. The spine of a Southern ethnostate stretches down the Appalachian Mountains from West Virginia to North Alabama. Large portions of North Alabama, North Georgia, East Tennessee, Western North Carolina, Eastern Kentucky, and West Virginia are relatively White. It would be sensible to salvage these areas. They would be easier for Southerners to relocate to than to the Northwest.

In an upcoming post, I will respond to some of the criticisms of a Southern ethnostate. These include Christianity, nationalism, economic dependence on blacks, the popularity of multiracial college football, devotion to the GOP, and the spread of miscegenation, multiculturalism, and political correctness in the region.

Occidental Dissent, March 11, 2010

Basically, I am skeptical of the idea of a Northwest Homeland, but not opposed to the movement. If White Nationalists want to relocate to the Pacific Northwest, I wish them the best of luck. A comrade of mine is a frequent traveler in the region. He is very impressed with Wyoming and Idaho. I think he plans to relocate there eventually. The Northwest has some of the best scenery in America: Crater Lake, Yellowstone, Glacier National Park. If we could establish a base in the region, it would undoubtedly be a huge victory for us.

Therein lies the problem: the Northwest’s great advantage (its relative whiteness) is also its greatest disadvantage. Non-Whites are less numerous in the region. As a consequence, Whites in the area have less daily exposure to the horrors of diversity and are less racially conscious than their counterparts elsewhere. It is easy for Whites to ignore America’s racial decline and live a quiet life in Northwest suburbia. There is no material incentive to take the risk of joining a revolutionary organization like the Northwest Volunteer Army.

The people who “get it” in the Northwest – who are explicitly racial – are often migrants from other parts of the Union. Covington himself is from North Carolina. According to Leonard Zeskind, there are about 30,000 hardcore White Nationalists in America. If every single one of these people moved to the Northwest tomorrow, an extremely unlikely scenario, and united behind a single dynamic leader and common political platform, an even more unlikely scenario, they would be roughly the size of a small town. White Nationalists are not sufficiently cohesive or numerous to form a viable secessionist movement in Oregon, Idaho, and Washington.

Local resistance could prove an insurmountable problem. The Democrats have carried Washington and Oregon in every presidential election since 1988. Millions of White liberals live in the Vancouver-Seattle-Portland corridor. The coastal region of the Pacific Northwest is one of the most liberal regions of the United States. Obama won 70% of the vote in King County, Washington (Seattle) and 77% of the vote in Multnomah County, Oregon (Portland). I can’t envision a scenario in which diehard Obama voters would flock to the Northwest Front.

The Pacific Northwest doesn’t have a cultural, regional, or ethnic identity comparable to the American South. Whites in Seattle, Tacoma, and Portland don’t feel a sense of kinship with Whites in Boise, Couer d’Alene, and Helena. They didn’t flock to the side of Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge, Bob Mathews in his shootout in Whidbey Island, or Gordon Kahl in Montana. The Northwest might have a history of Aryan enclave radicalism, but it hasn’t penetrated the surrounding local culture. There isn’t a pre-existing cultural foundation for Whites to rally around.

This can be contrasted to the Antebellum South in the 1850s. Southerners were committed to the preservation of white supremacy. A broad consensus existed in the South that the Union was a compact of sovereign states. A revolutionary vanguard had worked for thirty years to sow the seeds of disunion in South Carolina. The planter class was committed to the preservation of their “domestic institution.” Slavery divided Americans along geographic lines. Secessionists held elected office in all the Southern states. Southerners were united by culture and kinship. Southerners, with their large non-White servile population, had many reasons to fear a “Black Republican” takeover of the federal government.

These vital ingredients are missing in the Pacific Northwest. The region isn’t Ireland, Ukraine, or the Confederacy. Perhaps a band of idealistic Aryan warriors could take up arms against the government and inspire the apathetic masses? The track record of White Nationalist groups like The Order or White Patriot Party doesn’t inspire confidence. The most likely outcome of a government crackdown on an underground vanguardist army would be White Nationalists turning on each and cooperating with the feds like what happened at the Fort Smith Trial.

To his credit, Harold Covington has stressed the importance of character. He is right to focus on this. You can’t build a sand castle with manure. White Nationalists don’t have a sufficient number of men of character to launch a successful secessionist movement anywhere in the United States. Only a fraction of the most diehard White Nationalists would be willing to uproot themselves and relocate to the Pacific Northwest with their families. Only a smaller fraction of them would be willing to risk life and limb for a White homeland.

The federal government is too powerful. I’m less inclined than ever before to believe the system will collapse in the near future. Some have claimed the feds are incompetent. I would argue that they have had a lot of success in penetrating the White Nationalist underground and disrupting our organizations from within. Bill White is going to prison merely for running his mouth. I don’t see anything like a sustained White Nationalist resistance to the federal government (crack one cell, another takes its place) emerging anytime soon.

In our own times, the Northwest Volunteer Army and Northwest Republic properly belong to the realm of fiction. If Covington is serious about this idea, he should focus his energies on practical achievable goals. It would be a huge step forward to get all the racialists who currently reside in the Northwest in regular communication with each other. To my knowledge, the Northwest Front hasn’t progressed that far yet. The next step would be holding state and regional meetings in the real world. The next step after that would be recruiting candidates for a new regional organization.

This organization could then do an exhaustive investigation of local racial attitudes and voting preferences. The Northwest Front could send out some professionally designed direct mail to targeted households sympathetic to traditional cultural values and anti-government rhetoric. It could design a political platform that appeals to a significant cross section of voters in the Northwest and start building a fundraising base. This makes more sense than lashing out at black helicopters with a bazooka. There are a number of steps that come before White Revolution.

I think a Northwest Homeland would be a much tougher mountain to climb than a Southern Homeland. It would be easier to create a base in states like Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina where the locals are already receptive to racialism and resent the federal government. The racial diversity of the Deep South provides more opportunity for confrontation and racial combustion. Southerners also have an ethnic identity to fall back on and a tradition of secession.

If Harold Covington is interested, this is a debate we should be having.

Occidental Dissent, March 8, 2010

Other Occidental Dissent articles on the same topic:

Gregory Hood, “What the ‘Old Man’ Gets Right — And Wrong,” March 8, 2010
Gregory Hood, “RE: Covington — An Apology,” March 8, 2010

What an amazing feeling, to look into your child’s face and see a part of your own. But he is so much more than that. He is a product of a long line of his kind, a grand heritage of culture forged by those with the courage to live, love, sacrifice, and pass their genes on to the next generation, each line joining in an intricate, wonderful web to produce, at the end to this point, my son.

I see in his tiny face the Nelson line of my mother, hardy folk who inhabited the coastal areas of Alabama, enduring hurricanes, humidity, and even Sherman’s march, to make a life there. I see his great and great great-grandfather, both Southwest Virginia coal miners who scraped to make a living and died of lung disease from the work they did not because they loved it, but because it was a living for their families. I see the Jacksons of Tennessee, the Couchs of Virginia, the Esteps of North Carolina, and countless other people and families long gone but still alive in their progeny.

I see knights and warrior-priests, peasants, philosophers and kings, a heritage of high culture produced by a people with the genetic capability to send a man to the moon and back again.

When I look at my son I am reminded of just how important this struggle is, this struggle for the survival of our people. When I look at him I am reminded that that crying little bundle of joy is what this thing is all about.

I want him to have a world to live in that’s worth living in. I want him to, as his ancestors did, rise above the decadence that will surround him and be proud of who he is and who his ancestors are, to forge, bit by bit, a little piece of the world they created. It will start by such a fundamental act of nature that, were it not for the Political Correctness of this evil day, it would not need to be said . . . when he produces a child like himself.

I am proud of his race, my race. I want to see our people survive. The day after my son was born I had the honor of handing to my father, his grandfather, a grandson who looked  like him. All of my adult life I had dreamed of that moment, the moment when I could say that his line, my line, would continue. I didn’t say much, just held the back of his head and carefully handed him to my Dad, but my eyes swelled and I got a little lump in my throat.

I thought of many things in that moment, the past, the present, but especially the future, perhaps twenty or thirty years from now when my son will hand me a little bundle of miracle, potential and promise. Then, if I have taught him well, he will truly understand that his people, his race, can die or live depending on the choices he makes.

He will tell me with the little bundle he hands me that he has chosen right, that his people will live on, will continue.

Editor’s Note: This essay was written five years ago. Since then, the author has welcomed two more children to his family, and number four is on the way.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two sequences stand out as my favorites.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But how should White Nationalists observe Black History Month?

Hunter Wallace of Occidental Dissent has an excellent suggestion:

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

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

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

In the Oxford History of the United States series, Daniel Walker Howe’s What Hath God Wrought picks up where Gordon S. Wood’s Empire of Liberty left off in the War of 1812. It takes the reader from Andrew Jackson’s victory over the British at the Battle of New Orleans in 1815 to Zachary Taylor’s election as President of the United States in 1848. The period can aptly be described as America’s adolescence. It was also the Golden Age of the White Republic.

The telegraph, steamboat, and railroad appeared and revolutionized transportation and communication across the young nation. From Alexander the Great to Benjamin Franklin, previous generations had communicated only at the speed of a galloping horse. Within a single lifetime, the ancient ”tyranny of distance” was overthrown. The construction of canals and advances in printing fueled this process and led to the emergence of mass based political parties and an integrated national market economy. America would experience its first financial panic in 1819 and first depression from 1837 to 1843.

Under James Madison and James Monroe, the Democratic-Republican Party quietly absorbed the remaining Federalists in the short lived “Era of Good Feelings,” but later split apart into “Old Republicans” and “National Republicans” in the 1824 and 1828 national elections. These divisions within the Republican Party quickly solidified into the second two party system, the Democrats and Whigs, which dominated national politics until 1856.

The Democrats became the party of national expansion, white supremacy, states’ rights, defense of slavery, cultural pluralism, agrarianism, and free trade. The Whigs favored a protective tariff, internal improvements, economic diversification, a national bank, soft money, nativism, and moral reform. They opposed national expansion and the extension of slavery. Throughout this period, the Whigs consistently took the more liberal position on race. For the time being, partisanship had the salutary effect of papering over the sectional crack in the Union that emerged in the Missouri Crisis. The Senate experienced its own Golden Age with the debates of Clay, Webster, and Calhoun.

In the Great Migration, American settlers poured across the Appalachians into the Old Northwest and Old Southwest and rapidly settled the Mississippi Valley. They became known to posterity as the “pioneers.” From 1789 to 1815, American civilization was Atlanticist and looked toward Europe. From 1815 to 1848, Americans became Continentalists and turned their gaze westward across North America. They followed the Oregon Trail in Conestoga wagons into the Pacific Northwest. The Mormons left the Midwest in an exodus and settled in the Great Salt Lake Valley. Stephen Austin and other American colonists settled in the Mexican state of Texas.

The migration of the pioneers to the frontier had a parallel in the migration of European immigrants and country folk into the cities. In 1820, there were only five cities in America with a population of more than 25,000 and one over a 100,000. By 1850, there were 26 cities with a population over 25,000 and six with a population over 100,000. The urban percentage of the population increased from 7% to 18%. From 1815 to 1850, about five million European immigrants (Germans, Scot-Irish, Irish Catholics) settled in America. The median age was 16. Only 1 of 8 Americans was over the age of 43. The White birthrate was so high that the American population doubled every 20 years.

In spite of their growing diversity, Americans explicitly disavowed the notion that they lived in a multiracial or multicultural society. Free blacks in the Upper South (North Carolina, 1835), New England (Connecticut, 1818, Rhode Island, 1822), and Mid-Atlantic states (Pennsylvania, 1838) lost the voting rights they had previously enjoyed. After 1819, every new state admitted to the Union with the exception of Maine would disenfranchise black voters. Missouri, Ohio, Illinois and several other states banned free blacks altogether. Blacks developed their own separate churches. Women lost the right to vote in New Jersey which was the only state that had granted them suffrage.

In 1815, Southerners didn’t have much passion for defending slavery. They usually said it was a regrettable institution that had been foisted on the South in its infancy by the British. The Denmark Vesey and Nat Turner rebellions changed that. By 1848, John C. Calhoun and others like him had come around to defending slavery as a “positive good.” Josiah Nott, a Mobile physician who wrote about racial differences, denied that negroes and Whites belonged to the same species. In the 1850s, George Fitzhugh rejected Jeffersonianism in favor of a comprehensive political theory based on slavery and hierarchy. By that time, the Enlightenment had long since faded and died in the South.

Americans in the North and South alike had come to believe that the United States was a “white man’s country.” The logical implication was that free blacks were a blot on the American experiment. In 1817, the American Colonization Society was founded for the purpose of deporting them to Africa. 4,291 American negroes were ultimately repatriated to Liberia in West Africa. 10,000 more would emigrate there from the United States by the end of the Civil War. African colonization was endorsed by the Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, and Episcopalians as well as by the states of Virginia, Kentucky, Maryland, Tennessee, Delaware, Ohio and six other Northern states.

The Indians weren’t held in much higher esteem. After smashing the Creeks at Horseshoe Bend, Andrew Jackson forced huge territorial concessions on the Five Civilized Tribes (Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole) that led to them surrendering most of their territory in the Old Southwest. Florida was invaded and annexed to destroy a bastion of multiracial freedom that had become a haven for runaway slaves. The later Seminole Wars were fought for the same reason.

Old Hickory’s proudest accomplishment as President of the United States was the Indian Removal bill which ordered the deportation of all Indians east of the Mississippi to the Oklahoma Territory. His successor Martin Van Buren zealously carried on Indian Removal. In the Northwest, a small race war was fought against the Black Hawk Indians. The Texas Revolution evolved into a race war between Anglos and Mexicans. By 1846, Florida, Oregon, and Texas had fallen like ripe fruit into the American orbit. Everywhere White men could be found asserting their racial interests in a way that is virtually unknown today.

“Manifest Destiny” was in the air. This imperialistic sentiment culminated in the Mexican War under James K. Polk (”Young Hickory”) which resulted in the acquisition of California and the Southwest in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. After the Mexican Cession, the Far Southwest was considered the racial patrimony of White men. In some parts of Texas, Mexicans were ethnically cleansed and a new law was passed that racialized property rights. Mestizos in New Mexico didn’t acquire full rights as American citizens until statehood was finally achieved in 1912. California didn’t recognize Mexicans as citizens until 1870.

Culturally speaking, Jacksonian America was a fertile period. The most popular form of entertainment was the minstrel show. Americans jumped Jim Crow and laughed at Zip Coon, a pretentious negro who liked to dress in fancy clothes and use big words he didn’t understand, a precursor of Barack Obama in some ways. Dime novels which glorified the American Revolution and Indian Wars were popular. The roots of country music can be traced back to the Anglo-Celtic folk songs of this era. Edgar Allan Poe and the Transcendentalists laid the foundation of American poetry and literature.

The Second Great Awakening reinvigorated American religion. By 1850, twice as many Americans were affiliated with a church as had been the case in 1815. Evangelicals sought to hasten the millennium by supporting a series of reform movements: abolitionism, women’s suffrage, temperance, world peace, and opposition to Indian Removal. Cockfighting, dueling, and drinking became controversial as middle class mores spread. Utopian communes were founded in New Harmony, Indiana, Nashoba, Tennessee, and Oneida, New York. Joseph Smith founded the Church of Latter Day Saints.

A radical left hatched out of the fringes of Christianity: Unitarians, Hicksite Quakers, Evangelicals, and Protestant missionaries. Oberlin College (the first integrated co-ed university in the world) was founded in Ohio. William Lloyd Garrison and Frederick Douglass preached against slavery in The Liberator and The North Star, but the abolitionists remained mired in the swamps of third party politics. In 1848, the women’s suffrage movement kicked off with the famous Seneca Falls convention. Henry David Thoreau wrote his famous essay “Civil Disobedience” in his disgust with the Mexican War, Indian Removal, and the expansion of slavery. Ralph Waldo Emerson found Polynesians and Africans worthy of the American melting pot. The Whig Party vigorously opposed the Mexican War and Indian Removal. Without the Jews, America produced its own leftist radicals.

These are but a few of the topics that are given treatment in What Hath God Wrought. There are also discussions of the Bank War, Monroe Doctrine, the South Carolina Nullification Crisis, the Wilmot Proviso, California Gold Rush and much else. Although it is written from a humanist perspective, I found What Hath God Wrought to be the most comprehensive introduction to Jacksonian America available. In my next review, I will explore the subject further in Waking Giant: America in the Age of Jackson.

White Nationalism is an attempt to recreate the lost world of the White Republic. It is unintelligible outside of its roots in the American Colonization Society, Indian Removal, Wilmot Proviso, and the Free Soil movement. If for no other reason, White Nationalists (and anti-racists) should read this book to understand their own complex origins.

From Occidental Dissent, January 21, 2010

Obviously, if a woman is wary of being raped she’ll assess a Man in his twenties as a greater potential threat than an old man or a little boy. Also, it is thought by many women that certain traits in the appearance of a Man, such as a scuzzy hairstyle and clothing, tends to correlate with an increased likelihood of him being a rapist. But what about the most obvious and unmistakable of appearance traits, whether a man is White or Black? Would it make sense for White females to assess the threat of rape as being significantly greater from the average Black male she encounters?

The answer from the Statistical Data is a very clear yes.

Looking at the 2005 FBI Uniform Crime Report we find that though Blacks are only 12.4% of the US Population, they commit 33.6% of the rapes of White females.

This means that even if we assume totally random racial assortment, where a White female is just as likely to encounter the average Black male as she is to encounter the average White male, we would still have to conclude that a Black male is 2.7 times more likely to rape a White female than the average male she encounters.

But here’s the thing: There’s clearly not random racial assortment in America, so the increased rape risk to a White female for every Black male she encounters is even greater than that.

Probably the closest thing we can find to a meaningful estimate of what percentage of the Males encountered by a White female are Black is to look at how Black a neighborhood the average White lives in.

I found some data taken from the 2000 Census saying the average White lives in a neighborhood that is 6.7% Black.

There are two problems with using this as the baseline for the Percentage of Rapes of White females committed by Blacks though:

1. It is only data for Metropolitan Counties, and leaves out Rural Counties that have fewer Blacks.

2. It fails to take into account the effects of intra-neighborhood racial assortment resulting from implicit Whiteness. For example, it could be there’s a neighborhood that’s 50% White and 50% Black, but where the Whites primarily go to the restaurant that serves food White people like, while the Blacks go to the restaurant that serves food Black people like. This sort of thing will create a situation where even in a 50% Black neighborhood, the White females living there will have much less than 50% of the males they encounter be Black.

So bear very closely in mind that using 6.7% as the proportion of Black people met by White females is likely a strong overestimation, and therefore that the figures below underestimate the degree of increased rape risk a White female incurs when she encounters a Black male.

White Males   Black Males

Percent of Encounters          80.2%             6.7%

Percent of Rapes                    44.5%              33.6%

Impact Value                           .55                    5.01

This means that while the average Black male encountered by a White female is 5.01 Times more likely to rape her than the average male, the average White male she encounters is almost half as likely to rape her as the average male. It also implies that if a White female encounters a White and Black male, the Black is 9.1 times more likely to rape her than the White.

It is all too clear from this data that Black rapists are deliberately targeting White females. This could be because of racial hatred for Whites, and possibly also because they perceive White females as being more sexually desirable than women of their own race.

Strong evidence in favor of the racial animus explanation playing a crucial role here can be found in the fact that when a Black man marries a White woman, he is 82% more likely to Murder her than if he was married to a Black women.

In conclusion, White women have every right to be “paranoid” about Black men. It’s the White women who aren’t afraid of Black men that have something wrong with them.

From The Occidental Observer Blog, January 8, 2010

Naturally, Brooks is “not a fan of this movement” but sees its “potential to shape the coming decade.” He notes that “every single idea associated with the educated class has grown more unpopular over the past year.” For our purposes, it is worth noting that the “educated classes” (the media, public policy, and academic elites) have never been more disproportionately Jewish than they are today.

A majority of White Americans have grown disgusted with Jewish influence in our culture, but have yet to connect the dots. They don’t see the Jewish economists behind globalism or the Jewish advocacy groups behind abortion. There is no discussion of the issue in the MSM. It remains to be seen whether or not White Nationalists will capitalize on this opportunity.

From Antisemitica, January 5, 2010

Recession? Teenagers Get It, and Are Cutting Back
By STEPHANIE ROSENBLOOM
Published: December 25, 2009

After a year of observing their parents pinch pennies and fret about the economy, the nation’s teenagers may be coming to grips with reality.
Sales are down sharply in recent months at nearly every major retail chain catering to teenagers, and interviews with teenagers suggest that the reasons go beyond their own difficulty finding part-time jobs.

“I think my sister and I, throughout this year we’ve kind of lost an interest in getting gifts and things like that,” said Morgan Porpora, 16, who in the past had a list of things she wanted for Christmas. “I guess we’ve noticed the economy and we just kind of even feel bad I guess asking for a lot.”

Last month, stores that specialize in clothing and accessories for teenagers were the worst-performing sector in all of retailing, posting a 7.8 percent year-over-year sales decline, according to Thomson Reuters.

Consumerism has caused cultural development to go backwards; it has made mental children of grown men and women. Any setback of consumerism will force deeper, more mature thinking, which will lead to more local cooperation and more of a concept of a collective interest or a public interest.

This is the trend we’ve been waiting for. It’s our wave to surf, because our appeals have always been to practical matters and common sense. Consumerism encourages an atrophy of common sense and practical thinking; the waning of consumerism will see a waxing of common sense and practical thinking.

Multiculturalism and diversity has taken advantage of child-like adults, of cargo cult consumerists. The Multicult won’t go away over night, but the waning of consumerism and the waxing of practical thinking will create better conditions for us, and worse conditions for the Multicult.

A gardener doesn’t think only about the pest insects. It’s actually more important to think about the conditions that help pests thrive. White Nationalism 2.0 must focus more on the conditions, and less on the “pests” themselves. In a healthy garden, there are “pest insects” present, but their damage is only cosmetic. They don’t have a noticeable effect on yields.

I’m betting on society moving in a healthier direction. I recognize it’s a gamble, but any time you make a plan for the future, you are gambling. Things could turn out differently.

Just as many Whites helped Jews undermine society, there will be Jews that will jump on the bandwagon of anti-consumerism/economic relocalization, despite the fact that such a thing will ultimately be bad for the agenda of Organized Jewry.

Only a small percentage of society understands the concept of economic/cultural conditions being favorable to certain ethnic groups. Consumerism good for O.J., decentralized and relocalized, steady state economies which devolve power to localities are good for YT.

Why is devolved, decentralized power better for us and worse for Organized Jewry? Real simple — there’s more of us! A LOT MORE. Six million them, at least 150 million us. 25x more of us.

They depend on centralized control; on pushbutton power; on one phone call from Ehud Barak to George W. Bush causing the latter to interrupt a speech, take the call, and then call Condi Rice and order her to do Ehud’s bidding. It’s like magic, but it’s highly leveraged. I have read both of Victor Ostrovsky’s Mossad exposes, “By Way of Deception” and “The Other Side of Deception.” Israelis in the government, military and Mossad understand quite well how much Jewish power depends on leverage, in a way that American Jews do not. The second book talks about how Israel has wanted to get the US to attack Saddam Hussein and finish him off way back in the 1980’s despite the common view that Saddam was a stable ally of the US and not particularly hostile to Israel. Ostrovsky thought this was a crazy idea and part of his work in trying to undermine the Mossad was to stop them from using the US to fight proxy wars. This was 1986!

Back in 2002, myself and a friend attended a lecture by Daniel Pipes at my alma mater. We handed out a leaflet to the audience with a graphic of Daniel Pipes’ head on a vulture. The vulture’s “right wing” said, “neoconservatism, rapture religion, Wars for Israel” and the “left wing” said, “Communism, race mixing, open borders” and the caption was “Right wing? Left wing? It’s all the Jew-wing of America!” The American Jews at the lecture were extremely hostile and threatening and raging at us. Pipes did say during the lecture, and I quote, “The United States will have to do the heavy lifting, militarily speaking, in the Middle East.” This was 6 months before the invasion of Iraq.

A group of American college students, including a couple of Jewish college students, and one well known, outspoken militant Likudist Israeli college student, sat with us. The American kids took seats in a row in front of myself and my friend and were very hostile and threatening, but the Israeli kid took a seat right next to us, told his friends to shut up, and politely asked us several questions. He seemed extremely concerned with ordinary Americans being angry about Israeli influence on Middle East policy. Several times he had to shush his friends who wanted to demonstrate their righteous hatred of myself and my friend. The Israeli tried to ask a question of Pipes but was ignored, and jokingly blamed it on us, as he was sitting next to us. When I read Ostrovsky’s books, the Israeli’s attitude made sense to me.

Ostrovsky is one of the sensible Israelis, who understands that they have it good and don’t want to upset the apple cart. But his faction was overthrown by the hard core Likudists, who want to keep Israel in a constant state of tension with the Middle Eastern neighbors. Likudists apparently fear peace, because the Israelis will go soft and maybe even start mixing with Arabs. They know that modern Muslim Palestinians were probably the original Jewish Israelites, and don’t want to end up like them.

So however bad you think we have it, and however powerful you think the Jews are, remember that all their power is leveraged. If you don’t believe me, read Ostrovsky’s books. You will learn things that O.J. most certainly does not want you to know.

To recapitulate:

A decentralization of the economy and devolution of power, will be a deleveraging of the power of O.J. Socio-economic conditions will be better for us, and worse for them. The best thing we can do is meet the coming challenges head on, and do our best to thrive and amplify all healthy, life-affirming trends.

Optimism and cheerfulness is also important — Strength through Joy, even as economic conditions worsen and America becomes Third-worldized. Why optimism and cheerfulness? Robert Taber’s “War of the Flea” provides the ingredients of the witches brew we seek to concoct — the Will to Revolt in our People. From the first chapter of War of the Flea:

It is a revolutionary impulse, an upsurge of popular will, that really has little to do with questions of national or ethnic identity, or self-determination, or forms of government, or social justice, the familiar shibboleths of political insurgency . . .

The will to revolt . . . is a newly awakened consciousness, not of “causes,” but of potentiality. It is a spreading awareness of the possibilities of human existence, coupled with a growing sense of the causal nature of the universe, that together inspire, first in individuals, then in communities and entires nations, an entirely new attitude toward life.

Limitations that were formerly accepted all at once become intolerable. The hint of imminent change suggests opportunities that had not been glimpsed until now. The will to act is born. It is as though people everywhere were saying: Look, here is something we can do, or have, or be, simply by acting. Then what have we been waiting for? Let us act!

This . . . describes the state of mind of the modern insurgent, the guerilla fighter . . . his secret weapon, above and beyond any question of strategy or tactics or techniques of guerilla warfare, is nothing more than the ability to inspire this state of mind in others. The defeat of the military enemy, the overthrow of the government, are secondary tasks, in the sense that they come later. The primary effort of the guerilla is to militate the population, without whose consent no government can stand for a day.

Something better is possible. A world where white teenaged girls ARE NOT shacking up with blacks. Where we are not ruled by our affirmative action inferiors. Where we are not taxed to pauperism, to pay for the pet voters of our enemies. We can have White schools with high standards, and White culture without mandatory diversity. We need only act.

There is a thing called “Google Alerts” and one of my google alerts is for “racist.” So I get interesting articles every day. Here’s a link to an article out of Peoria, Illinois, Matt Hale’s home town.

http://www.pjstar.com/featured_content/x1045395535/Our-View-When-central-Illinois-reveals-its-ugliest-side-confront-and-condemn-it

Our View: When central Illinois reveals its ugliest side, confront and condemn it

Journal Star
Posted Dec 26, 2009 @ 11:30 PM
Last update Dec 27, 2009 @ 11:31 AM

Multiple articles in this newspaper over the last couple of weeks have made it abundantly clear just how many miles central Illinois has to go before anyone can truly claim victory on this being a “united” America, at least in regard to race. Clearly a gap remains between how we like to think of ourselves and how we are.

Suffice it to say, the online responses to all of the above were voluminous — the District 150 piece produced more than any story in memory — and, as expected, brought out the worst in people, even with Christmas approaching.

“I don’t want people to think I’m a racist” — of course not — “but we don’t get to advertise a White History Month,” wrote one commenter on the school lawsuit. It went downhill from there. “Or a white entertainment network, or a Miss White America, or a white congressional caucus, or a White Panther Party …” responded another.

“Oh hell yeah, I am lovin’ this! More white people are waking up every day. Separation is the only answer,” wrote another, who seemed giddy at the prospect. Mining that pre-Brown v. Board of Education vein, another opined: “Why don’t we have schools for the African-American kids with African-American teachers and schools for the White kids with White teachers? This way there would be no discrimination in the schools.” “Proud to be white,” wrote another, arguably setting the achievement bar a little low.

Others picked up on the comment by the plaintiffs’ attorney that “if this was mostly a white community with blacks being treated the same as these white employees were being treated, then no one would question whether it was discrimination.” Perhaps, though we’re not sure what “community” is being addressed here. To be sure, the enrollment at the school involved is predominantly black, and District 150’s student body is some 62 percent African-American. But in fact Peoria is a mostly white community; Census data confirms that. Meanwhile, 91 percent of the district’s teaching staff is white, with just above 6 percent being black. Whatever the merits or lack thereof of this lawsuit, the locals do need to get their majorities and minorities straight.

On and on it went, all the stories containing a common thread: “After 45 years of civil rights, I bet you wouldn’t find too many people jumping on those freedom buses now.” Score one for honesty, if nothing else: “I am sick and tired of hearing about black this and black that … Yes, call it hate ’cause that’s what it is from me, anyway.” “Peoria is ate up with racial cancer!” screamed another in a statement that was revealing in more ways than one. “I’d rather be a black in Morton than a white in South L.A. And that goes for anytime of the day.” Inevitably, someone would conclude that this is all Barack Obama’s fault. Isn’t everything?

One fellow, meanwhile, resorted to calling those who disagreed with him “boy,” with all the historical baggage that carries. Seriously, was that necessary? Among adults? If the owners of such opinions are proud of themselves, we’d invite them to post under their real names instead of hiding behind the cloak of anonymity. We doubt there will be many takers.

Color us depressed.

Indeed, perhaps the truest statement of all was this one: “Whether or not the story is true, it really has revealed the rampant racism here.”

To the perennial pessimists who post here and other places, look at this. The spirit of our People is not broken. Multiculturalism and “civil rights” is nothing but a new Berlin Wall that millions of Whites can’t wait to attack with sledgehammers.

Do you really think our People see the white girls shacking up with blacks, ending up with fatherless mulattos, getting murdered, and so on, every day, and not become radicalized? Do you think Whites losing their jobs to Mexicans and H1-B visa holders won’t become radicalized? Sure, it didn’t happen instantly. We have been tearing our hair out for years at the non-reactions of Whites. But in any social trend there’s some lag time between when those who are more conscious notice it (us), and the masses notice it.

Suffice it to say, the online responses to all of the above were voluminous — the District 150 piece produced more than any story in memory — and, as expected, brought out the worst in people, even with Christmas approaching.

The masses are noticing.

The White nationalist guerilla should not develop a reputation in his community as the most radical racist in town. Rather, he should focus on helping fellow Whites solve practical, local problems, while quietly providing well written literature such as Jared Taylor’s Paved with Good Intentions.

Taylor’s understated style actually radicalizes people more, than those who scream for blood. Taylor’s writing neatly undermines every assumption, both conscious and implied, of multi-racialism, and leaves the reader enraged at how he’s been the victim of intellectual fraud his whole life. If the reader asks for more, then the next book would probably be Kevin Macdonald’s Cultural Insurrections.

It’s quite possible that people in your community won’t be avid consumers of the written word. No matter. Taylor has winged aphorisms to memorize.

“We have a right to be us, and only we can be us.”

“They cannot be among us, because they are not us.”

Remember the ingredients of popular revolt — in bad conditions, it is up to you to be optimistic and paint a picture of a world most Whites had never imagine — a world without “mandatory diversity” and “negro worship,” and “white guilt.” All this has been accepted as part of life up to now. Whites are resigned to it. When they figure out that, hey, maybe they haven’t had to accept this all along, they’re going to be infuriated.

From Occidental Dissent, December 28, 2009

Ronald Brownstein’s recent column points once again to the emerging racial chasm in the US. Obama won 80% of the non-White vote in 2008, and his approval rating among minorities continues to be around 75%. Among Whites, it’s a different story. 44% of college-educated Whites approve of Obama, and only 38% of non-college-educated Whites. If, as Brownstein suggests, these approval ratings reflect future voting patterns, it would mean a landslide against the Democrats by Whites — quite possibly more than the official 58% White turnout for Bush in 2004.

But he also points to the possibility that support for Obama will slip even further among college-educated Whites:

Since 2007, median incomes have plunged more for white families headed by men with a college degree than those headed by men with only high school educations, the Economic Policy Institute reports.

That widening distress changes the political equation. A possible Republican surge next year in blue-collar “beer track” districts remains the biggest threat to the Democrats’ House majority. The Democrats’ vulnerability will deepen, however, if they cannot hold the line in “wine track” districts whose education levels exceed the national average. That’s one way a difficult 2010 election for Democrats could turn catastrophic.

If less than 40% of Whites voted Democrat while twice that percentage are voting Republican, it would indeed indicate a widening racial chasm. Of course, the downside is that there is no evidence that this is anything more than implicit Whiteness. And the Republicans are certainly not going to nominate candidates that would do anything to change this.

Still, it’s only a matter of time — and a fairly short time at that — before everyone realizes that the political landscape is fast becoming a racial landscape. And at that point, explicit assertions of White identity are inevitable.

White nationalists have embarked on a daunting mission, perhaps the most daunting of the last 30,000 years. This mission is to ensure the survival of the white race — the survival of the culture that is its spiritual embodiment and of the unique genotype that is its biological achievement. They bear all this as their mission, along with a seemingly awkward political designation.

For like historic “nationalism,” the notion of “white nationalism”lacks theoretical rigor, even coherence. But what its critics don’t understand is that this distracts not in the least from its significance or truth. The problems associated with its usage tend, in fact, to be less semantic than practical, for it is less a theory or an ideology than a spirit, a heroic sentiment, a movement embodying the will to power of an oppressed people. Just, then, as nationalism’s unclear definition did not prevent it from playing a pivotal role in the last two centuries of world history, for similar reasons white nationalism is likely to play an analogous role in the 21st century.

When I was a child the men I first admired were James Connolly and Patrick Pearse. Working-class Ireland’s most gifted son, Connolly spent a lifetime organizing against the money-grubbing world of the 19th-century bourgeoisie (a world already infused with the Jews’ predatory spirit), along with everything in it that had left working people powerless before the alien interlopers; Pearse, by contrast, was the poet-dreamer, the myth maker, who realized — first in words, then in deeds — that only through a blood sacrifice would Ireland achieve nationhood. These two men, the poet and the worker-warrior, are the fathers of the modern Irish nation and their nationalism is the origin of my white nationalism.

Others have since entered my Pantheon, but Connolly and Pearse continue to occupy a special place. The cause for which they fought — the cause of Holy Mother Ireland and of my own mother, whose homeland I’ve always put before the benighted one of my birth — remains for me the most sacred cause of all. How could it be otherwise? They sacrificed their lives for the most primordial of things: family, freedom, heritage, destiny, duty, courage.

But this Ireland of her bravest sons, it hurts me to write, is once more threatened by an even greater menace that promises to destroy not just the larger civilizational heritage of which she is a part, but the peoples and nations who are her closest blood kin. In this larger sense, I cannot but feel that my family is again under attack, this time not by Albion, but by the race-mixing, spirit-killing forces of the Global Moloch that seeks to reorder the world according to the most debauched criterion of all: the Holy Writ of the Jews, money.

Since 1945 the international forces of subversion — led by the American imperium and supported, backhandedly, in the East by Soviet Communism — have sought to reduce all world politics to the political-economic rivalries of the Cold War blocs. The ensuing ideological polarization entailed not just a united-nation of alliances, but the demotion of traditional authorities, the severance of ties based on blood and history, and the stripping away of genetic interests. Fidelity to the two bloodless political-economic blocs required, thus, the demotion (and ultimately the repression) of national institutions and national sentiment. As the Jewish-American war criminal, General Wesley Clark, put it: “There is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states.”

As might be expected, denationalization went furthest in Germany, where an entire people — whose courage and achievement in asserting their nationalist project were unparalleled in history — was henceforth marked with the sign of Cain. The ethno-suicidal cosmopolitanism that has come to grip the rest of the white homelands is not, though, simply ideological or political in form, but undergirded by free markets and transnational organizations, electronic media and sophisticated conditioning technologies that usurp the sovereignty of the nation-state and erode its historic culture. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, these tendencies have gotten even worse, as the UN, the EU, NAFTA, NATO, the World Bank, the IMF, the International Court of Justice, NGOs, and other globalist organizations encroach on the last vestiges of the nation’s traditional jurisdiction.

As our lives are forced to succumb to Washington’s anti-white dominion, principles of cosmopolitanism and universalism, economism, rootlessness, and egalitarian homogenization, all premised on an implicit hatred of white life, dictate a totalitarian reorganization of our world. For only by leveling everything down, uprooting Europe’s historic nations, standardizing its cultures, and dominating its institutions can whites be properly “herded, milked, sheared, and slaughtered” in the interests of the system’s pecuniary appetites. The final stage of this subversion has already gotten underway, as the bearers of our race and culture try to survive the demographic tsunami of millions and millions of invading Third Worlders, who are to provide the coolie labor, the indiscriminate materialism, and the thoughtless beliefs upon which America’s Judeo-oligarchy depends.

Historically, white nationalism grew out of what Yockey called the 19th century’s petty-state nationalism. This nationalism was itself an outgrowth of earlier, more localized allegiances, as kinsman and clansmen grew into the men of Cork and Connacht, and then, in the modern period, into Irishmen (not unlike the way Bretons and Gascons, Alsatians and Burgundians arose from earlier formations to become Frenchmen; or Swabians, Rhinelanders, and Prussians became Germans).

The loyalties and affections rooted in these earlier attachments no longer, though, influence the state, which has distanced itself from all notion of national allegiance and especially from the people that once were its flesh and spirit.

In a globalized world, where capital, goods, and colored peoples constantly move into and through our lands and where the political system is increasingly less autonomous and less national, “we Irish” need to rethink the idea of nationality. For to defend our homelands from the new invaders, it is necessary today to stand with Germans, Slavs, Latins, even (maybe especially) Englishmen to form a bulwark against the anti-white forces threatening us.

Given, therefore, that the nation-state has been supplanted by a bloodless economy-driven system oriented to the oligarchs’ transnational agenda and that the existence of the white race-nation is now endangered, national struggle is obliged to follow the globalizing process and assume a posture appropriate to it. In the largest scheme, this means that nationalists must defend not merely their immediate family, but their great family, the one born of the seven daughters of Eve, comprising the descendants of the Cro Magnons and the Aryans who inhabited the Western, North Mediterranean, East European, and Trans-Siberian regions of primordial Eurasia. If they fail to do so, if they let the narrower national concerns that occupied them in the past turn them away from the bio-civilizational pincers set in motion by the Judeo-oligarchic powers, if they don’t form the most solid and impenetrable front against the invaders and their domestic agents, they will cease to have a future, either as Irishmen or white men.

Kathleen ni Houlihan, Marianne, John Bull, and Saint Vladimir may still hold special meaning for us, but our political loyalties can no longer belong solely to those of the people or nation closest to us: the lion’s share of our loyalties must henceforth go to the race, the Borean race, that is our great mother and that groups us in ways that unite us against the enemies of our spirit and unique genetic heritage. This sort of racial nationalism clashes, of course, with the inertia of earlier nationalisms and entails the development of a new consciousness and identity. A white nationalist identity and consciousness are, though, already implicit in who we are. Indeed, it is the traditional attachments that come from family, community, province, and nation that undergird our larger attachments to the white race.

For in an age when national borders have been breached and the state no longer serves the nation, the nationalist slogan of Irishmen, Frenchmen, Americans, and all peoples of European descent can only be: OUR RACE IS OUR NATION. The provincial identities and local communities that constituted the major part of the historic nation’s background are in no way denied or demoted in this, for they too constitute a major part of the meta-nation’s background. White nationalists may therefore differ with their forefathers in the scale, scope and nature of the tasks they set for themselves, but they too fight for the survival and rebirth of their people. In this elementary sense, the struggle they wage against the genocidal forces threatening them is simply an extension of their ancestors’ struggle, though one taken to the higher stage dictated by contemporary international developments.

What, finally, is this “nation”? The best definition in my view is that of Walker Connor: “the largest grouping characterized by a myth of common ancestry.” This definition implies a genetically-specific line of descent and a “community of destiny.” It is essentially a racial definition. Magnified and adapted to the global age, this definition is no less applicable to the white nationalist concept of race. (It seems hardly coincidental that the word “race” was once synonymous with “nation.”)

In its ethno-historical manifestation, historic nationalism divided the world into nations, each with a distinct character and destiny; it made national loyalty primary; and it championed the nation’s self-realization and autonomy. White nationalists see the world in an analogous way, insofar as they see it divided into distinct and competing races, make loyalty to the white race their foremost concern, and seek to enhance the freedom, unity, and identity of white people worldwide (which implies, among other things, separation from other races and cultures). The race-nation of white nationalists is thus that species of man whose genetically-related peoples were the first to occupy the northern and western extremities of the Eurasian landmass, whose root languages were Latin and Greek and before that proto-Indo-European, and whose cultural legacy stems from Ancient Greece and Rome and from what Celtic, Germanic, Slavic and other European peoples brought to it.

Historic and white nationalists also share a kindred fate. Earlier forms of nationalisms arose from small bands of poets and dreamers whose nature enabled them to see beyond the multitude of common daily concerns to discern the collective dictates of their people’s destiny. Rarely were their initial reception anything other than one of scorn and ridicule. But their dreams and poems spoke to First Things. In time, especially times of crisis, when state and society grew alienated and it became possible to glimpse certain, usually veiled realities, others flocked to their ranks. Racial nationalists who uphold their race’s 30,000 year old heritage are likewise scorned and ridiculed. All the considerable forces of the existing system of subversion, in fact, are ready, if need be, to be arrayed against them. While the incommensurability of the opposed camps indicates the severe disparity of the struggle, it neither refutes the justice of the nationalist cause nor its inevitability. This also was the way it was for historic nationalism.

When Pearse and Connolly seized the GPO on Easter Monday 1916 no one thought these dreamers, supported by a few hundred, then a few thousand armed men, had a chance of defeating the British Empire. But these skeptics were wrong. The empire rested on a bloodless cosmopolitanism, was obsessed with a low-minded materialism, and beholden to liberal values, all of which made it no match for a nation violently awakened to its destiny.

Everything in this transitional period may stand against the cause of white nationalism, but the weight of history, culture, and nature nevertheless conspires in its favor. Given, then, that it upholds the most primordial interests of white people in a period when whites faces extinction, that it opposes a system favoring the miscegenation and ultimate destruction of the white race, and that it is indeed the only alternative to extinction — for all these reasons, the white nationalist movement, no matter how meager its present ranks, is likely to play the leading role in the struggles of fire and steel that lie ahead.

In the United States, the closest thing to Europe’s “new revolutionary nationalism” — which designates liberalism’s cosmopolitan plutocracy as Europe’s chief enemy, resists the de-Europeanization of its capital, population, and territory, and identifies with a biocultural vision of Magna Europa rather than the 19th-century nation-state — is “White nationalism.” Though a marginal force on the American political scene (theoretically deficient, fragmented into scores of tiny organizations, and with a greater presence in cyberspace than in the public sphere), it nevertheless wages the same fight as its European counterpart and, on the most decisive issue, race, is considerably more advanced. In this spirit, it takes its stand with the “Old America” that is the counter-part to Bush’s “Old Europe,” it considers its people part of Europe’s biosphere, and opposes not just the present Hebraisized administration in Washington, but the anti-White impetus of “the American century.”

Fundamental to White nationalism is the understanding that, historically, America was not a melting pot, but a settler nation: hence a European transplant. Its original settlers (all of whom were Protestant, but not exclusively Puritan or Calvinist) may have had an ambivalent attitude to the Europe they left behind, but they had no intention of shedding their European being for the sake of mixing with races and cultures unlike their own. Their identity as such was rooted in distinctly European life forms, which were opposed to those of the country’s aboriginals and to its imported Black slaves. Specifically, this identity was an Anglo-Protestant one adapted to the nativist environment of colonial America. At the time of the revolution, 80 percent of the population was of Anglo-Protestant descent. Of the remaining 20 percent, most were Dutch, German, and Swede, all of whom were Protestant and easily assimilated into the original core population. Only one percent of its people, mainly of French Canadian and Irish origin, was Catholic. The country’s institutions were accordingly reflective of the values and beliefs of its transplanted Anglo-Protestant settlers, just as the state’s republican ideology and the producerist ideology of its popular classes were in harmony with its specific ethnic disposition.

At the time of revolution, the country’s national identity was still an embryonic one. The loyalties of the revolutionary generation were more to the individual colonies that had become states, such as Virginia and Massachusetts, than to the federal republic established in 1789. But despite the absence of a strong state, informed by tradition and aristocracy, the American polity was not simply the cultureless, economic enterprise that certain Nouvelles Droitistes make it out to be and it was certainly not the “nation of nations,” “the first universal nation,” or “the proposition nation” that our virtualist-minded anti-White elites insist on.

Even in this early period there existed an American national identity, buttressed by several hundred years of history; and by the development of specifically American institutions based on instincts of racial superiority and self-reliance; by conflicts with the British crown, which caused its people to see itself as a transplanted nation of Anglo-Protestant descent (though one imbued with freedoms Englishmen had allegedly lost during the Norman Conquest); but above all by an ethnic or biocultural identity rooted in the North European, specifically British (that is, Celt, Norse, and Saxon) stocks of the country’s settlers. America, thus, may have lacked Europe’s ancient genealogy, cultural legacy, rooted, territorial sense, and distinct ethnic consciousness, but its people spoke a European language, practiced a European religion, had a history informed by European symbols and themes, represented a fusion of European racial stocks, and felt their North European identity to be the defining part of their individual and collective identity. Until quite recently, as Jared Taylor argues, “America was a self consciously European, majority-white nation.”

Accordingly, the Americanized Englishmen who declared their political independence in the late 18th century did not simultaneously declare their autonomy from Europe’s ethnoracial identity. The liberal ideals of the revolutionary generation, in any case, were soon superseded by a Romantic emphasis on the particularisms and “special inner characteristics” of its people — a Romanticism that betrayed the new republic’s rationalist or Enlightenment premises. To these Indian-fighters, slavers, borderland Celts, and Texas revolutionaries, whose physical proximity to non-Whites had a powerful effect in enhancing their racial identity, it was obvious that the world’s peoples lacked the innate capacity to share in “the free government, power, and prosperity of the United States.”

What Tocqueville called the “Anglo-Americans” had not the slightest intention of extending their liberties to Indians or negroes, nor even to those Whitemen whose (Catholic) religion and (Irish clannish) temperament seemed to disqualify them for republican government. America’s founding liberal principles were, in fact, little more than the ideological gloss of the country’s Anglo-Protestant life forms. Despite the Calvinist conceit of believing itself “chosen,” America’s political principles had universal import only in the most vacuous theoretical sense. For example, the Puritan vision of America was less a call to world reform than an affirmation of its uniqueness and superiority. And though the principles of American republicanism have since been re-interpreted to justify the present de-Europeanization, this was neither the intention of the Founders nor that of the country’s settlers, for their republic was preeminently a Herrenvolk democracy — germane not to humanity, but to the “historical humanity” that was White America. In this vein, the US Constitution, which contemporary liberals have re-interpreted for the sake of their multiracial utopia, defended the institution of slavery and posited that a Black’s worth was only 60 percent of a White. The first Congress (1790) voted that only Whites could be naturalized as citizens. And even after the Civil War, the granting of basic civil rights to former negro slaves, as Sam Francis points out, had “nothing to do with voting, holding political office, sitting on juries, intermarriage, getting a job or being promoted . . . which is what civil rights have come to mean today.”

White immigrants were assimilated into the founding stock only after they (or their children) shed the cultural-linguistic identities that separated them from native Whites. As late as the Kennedy Administration (1960), the nationally conscious Irish, the first immigrant group, were still not fully assimilated. The so-called “melting pot” (a 20th-century concept invented by a cosmopolitan “Englishmen,” Israel Zangwill) was similarly selective, accepting only White immigrants as possible Americans (though it did mistakenly think that Jews from European countries were European). Moreover, this racially defined identity was the legacy of both the popular classes and the country’s ruling elites. For example, Thomas Jefferson, who in a fit of Enlightenment enthusiasm included the phase “all men are created equal” in the Declaration of Independence, never — not for a moment — thought of extending equal rights to negroes; Abraham Lincoln, the two faced Whig pioneer of the liberal leviathan, wanted to repatriate Blacks back to Africa; and the great liberal crusader, Woodrow Wilson, was an ardent segregationist who thought his cherished “democracy” inappropriate to all but Whites. Until the postwar period, White Americans of virtually every class and denomination saw themselves not as an amalgam of humanity, but as an American nativist variant of Europe’s white Christian nations. The racial vision of America which White nationalists today defend against the anti-European regimes in Washington, London, and Tel Aviv was actually the prevailing vision for most Americans for most of their history.

The racially selective character of America’s republican, and especially egalitarian, rhetoric, was indisputably evident in the country’s enslavement of negroes, its extermination and/or ethnic cleansing of the aboriginal population, its territorial expansion at the expense of mestizo Mexico, and its effort to prevent Chinese and Japanese immigration. Its racial identity was so deeply rooted in the emerging national consciousness that it imbued Anglo-Americans with the confidence to assimilate different White ethnicities.

In the latter half of the 19th century, as European immigration and intermarriage demoted the prevalence of the British elements and the reigning spirit of American Anglo-Saxonism diminished the immigrants’ attachment to their past, American identity gradually extended beyond its original Anglo-Protestant core to become a European-American Christian identity. Race as such remained primary, for only on the basis of the immigrants’ racial compatibility with Anglo-Americans were they able to assimilate. The later advent of Black nationalism, as Walker Connor argues, testifies to the fact that American nationalism has always been a White nationalism. By the same token, the state’s new-found multicultural ideology inadvertently acknowledges that the historical forms of American identity are incompatible with non-European races and cultures.

From the time of the revolution until the beginning of the Civil Rights revolution (1956), American nationality was articulated almost exclusively in terms of three mutually reinforcing influences: an Anglo-European racial identity, Protestantism, and republicanism. The latter, it needs stressing, owed less to 18th-century liberalism than to the character of Anglo American society, whose small proprietors and farmers defined themselves in terms of self-sufficiency, relative equality, and self-rule.

Though the corporate capitalism and New Class managerialism today stifling this self-sufficiency grew out of the country’s liberal postulates, this was only one (however consequential) of its manifestations, for Anglo Protestant culture also nurtured a conservative, traditionalist, and authoritarian dimension opposed to much of what presently passes for “Americanism,” (just as the feminist, homophile, and ethnomasochistic beliefs of today’s mainstream Protestant denominations would have shocked earlier generations of Protestants). The Reformation heresies that prompted America’s Low Church settlers to accept the Bible’s inerrancy and uphold a literal interpretation of scripture also compelled them to spurn the behavioral, moral, and social principles of a purely materialist society of individualist gratification. Though this type of Protestantism engendered (or expressed) that “spirit of independence, self-reliance, and freedom” which accompanied the rise of capitalism in Northern European and today encourages the cosmopolitan nihilism of the existing order, at the same time its original impetus rejected an indifferent, massifying capitalism destructive of community and morality. In this spirit, it upheld hierarchy, authority, and tradition, opposed modern feudalism (corporate capitalism) and its verso, mob democracy (Communism), privileged the centrality of family, community, and mutuality, and cultivated behaviors and social structures supportive of a communally responsible rather than an atomized individuality.

In a conscious effort to re-engineer the character of the American people, the ruling Judeo-oligarchy has re-christened the republican component of traditional American identity the “American Creed” and made it the sole legitimate basis of American nationality — as if being an American were merely a matter of subscribing to a certain liberal beliefs. Divested of its racial-cultural grounding, and the political responsibilities it once entailed, the liberal, cosmopolitan, and globalist implications of this so-called creed is now used to legitimate the multiracial pluralism that presently assaults the nation’s European heritage. For at least the last two generations, the country’s elites have waged a merciless war on the ethnonational interests of America’s Whites, who are treated with “mingled scorn and apprehension” for hampering the country’s transformation into an economically efficient Brazil.

But if America for racial nationalists is preeminently a European country, it is — admittedly — ”also something less than Europe. As a settler nation, America was founded and remains, to use Georges Dumezil’s term, a country of the “Third Function.” Lacking the warrior and priestly functions of its motherland and centered on the productive/reproductive activities of the lowest order, the American people traditionally immersed themselves in economic and mundane activities devoid of High Cultural possibility. It would be exaggerated, though, to claim, as certain Europeans have, that this emphasis on economics (with its accompanying values of hard work, self reliance, and technical efficiency) made Americans somehow un-European. A middle-class country of the Third Function, America materialistically thrived in the technoeconomic realm. This may have left its culturally-impoverished society of self-made men something less than Europe — but hardly un-European.

While the country’s economic and materialist passions rendered its people vulnerable to the machinations of plutocrats and monopolists, bankers and corporative barons, and, above all, Jewish peddlers and illusionists, this, alas, has been the fate of White people worldwide. In America’s defense it should be emphasized that until the postwar era, when the state and the dominant institutions fell into the hands of corporate managers, social engineers, and alien interests, its popular history was very much a history of struggle against the great economic powers, as these powers endeavored to subordinate the nation to those systemic imperatives threatening the economic self-sufficiency and biocultural identity of its large middle class. This is evident in the history of: Jacksonian producerism, the nativism of the 1840s and ’50s, the Confederate insurgency of the 1860s, the struggle against Chinese immigration in California in the 1870s, the populist revolt of Midwestern and Southern farmers in the 1880s and ’90s, the bitter labor wars of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the rise of the Second Klan in the 1920s, Father Coughlin’s Social Justice movement in the 1930s, etc.

Though lacking an established church and an aristocracy (the First and Second Functions), even here the European racial spirit influenced the formation of the American nation. The yeoman farmers making up the ranks of the Minute Men who bloodied Britain’s imperial troops at Lexington and Concord, the gentlemen warriors like Nathanael Greene, Anthony Wayne, and George Washington who led the revolutionary armies, the Anglo-Celtic frontiersmen and colonists of the Texas Revolution who triumph over massively larger Mexican forces, the gallant Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson of the Confederacy, even George Patton of World War Two fame, all these figures stand in the tradition of European arms and are tributes not just to America, but to the warrior spirit of their ancestral homeland. Moreover, whatever High Culture Americans have known has been European. Disneyland may be the contemporary emblem of America’s Culture Industry, but its relationship to American life is as contrived as is Hollywood’s. The composers, philosophers, and great artists animating the higher reaches of American life have always been European. The few great men of literary stature they have produced– Edgar Allen Poe, T. S. Eliot, Ezra Pound, Henry James, Jack London, William Faulkner — belong to Europe’s Pantheon and are recognized as such. Only an intellectual sleight of hand can justify the argument that the American people are not an organic (however culturally hybrid) expression of Europe’s life-world.

Perhaps more to the point, the growth of the American republic ought to be seen as one of the great feats of modern history, for, from its origins as a small outpost on the outer edge of Western Civilization, it grew, in a remarkably short period, into a great power. Given the prominence of its Third Function, much of course was lost in this process, for America lacked the depths of its motherland, retained a weak grasp of history and tradition, and never developed a political class capable of sustaining its political ideals. Yet beyond the shallow, often philistine character this cultural paucity imparted to American life, the European settlement of North America represented an unprecedented manifestation of Nietzsche’s will to power — an untamed life force — that had transformed a vast wilderness into a flourishing extension of the European life world.

Against those transatlantic critics whose grand pronouncements are based on their familiarity with Los Angeles or New York (both of which have ceased to be American cities), it needs stressing that no White nationalist fails to honor Europe or to distinguish himself from its heirs. His opposition to the New Class, war-mongering, and Zionist hegemonism of the country’s deracinated elites stems, in fact, from his commitment to Europe’s biocultural heritage. This heritage, as such, informs virtually every significant facet of the country’s racial nationalism. On the broad historical contours of this heritage, see my essays “Klansmen, Irishmen, and Nativists: The Origins of Racial Nationalism in America” and “White Nationalism and Historic Nationalism.”

Chapel at St. Photios National Shrine, St. Augustine, Florida

From The Occidental Observer, November 14, 2009

In “Discovering Implicit White Communities,” Part 1, we reviewed Kevin MacDonald’s article, “Psychology and White Ethnocentrism,” in which he presents the evidence from psychologists for the existence of a struggle in each European American, between our innate preference towards people like us and the need to conform to the multicultural (anti-White) ethic that emerged dominant in the second half of the 20th century. He illustrates his concept of implicit Whiteness with several examples: Republican Party, Country Music, NASCAR, and Evangelical Christianity. With MacDonald’s theoretical framework established we can now pull on a thread that is implied in his article: How do we plot all European American communities somewhere on a continuum between implicit and explicit and use this knowledge to our advantage?

Discovering European American Space

We frequently hear criticism within our ranks that we are little but an Internet virtual movement, that White “activists” will say things on the Internet that they would or could not say in our daily interactions with family, co-workers, neighbors. Take Guillaume Faye, for example, who writes:

Unfortunately for us, this same powerful tool [the Internet] allows people to think that they are advancing or fighting for the cause by simply talking on the Internet. Action, comrades. If talk leads to action, then talk is beneficial. If talk leads to simply a modified version of a Japanese Anime enthusiast Internet community with a different focus for its enthusiasm, then nothing has been done. Worse, the appearance of action has set us back.

Thus, one of the primary tasks set out before European-American activists is politicizing the physical space we inhabit through positive, empirical, systematic transformation. We must bring our ideas into the physical world. MacDonald again: “The first step [in changing this] is a psychological one: Proud and confident explicit assertions of ethnic identity and interests among White people, and the creation of communities where such explicit assertions are considered normal and natural rather than a reason for ostracism.”

Where do we start? How do we move out of the Internet echo chamber ghetto? I believe the answer is standing right in front of us. We need to literally practice what we preach. Just like learning chess or hockey, practice is the only way to build confidence and improve; and it is only sensible to practice expressing ourselves in places that are reasonable friendly environments. To identify the best places to start expressing ourselves we therefore need a heuristic:

1. Is the racial composition of those who visit the place overwhelmingly European American?

2. What is the historical significance of the place for European Americans? Does it have historical continuity and legitimacy?

3. Is it institutionalized by and for European Americans?

4. Is there a confident pro-European American group that has staked a claim or “adopted” the space as ours? . . . Read the rest of the article.

The discussion began with Alex Kurtagic’s “White Noise” (October 19, 2009), which we have already linked on this site.

Followups include:

R. J. Stove, “That’s Professor Ozzy Osbourne to You!” (November 7, 2009)

Devin Reid Saucier’s reply to Stove (November 7, 2009)

Alex Kurtagic’s “Volk the System!” (November 11, 2009)

And finally there is Nina Kouprianova’s “Death (Metal) of the West” (November 12, 2009)

Check out our own Christopher Donovan’s article on his experiences at an AC/DC concert: “Implicit Whiteness, with Pyrotechnics: Or, the Night White People Took over Washington, DC” from The Occidental Observer (November 18, 2008).

Also, the Fall 2009 issue of The Occidental Quarterly will feature a major essay by Alex Kurtagic: “Black Metal: Conservative Revolution in Popular Culture.”

Kevin MacDonald

From The Occidental Observer, November 13, 2009

During the 29 August 2009 episode of James Edwards’ The Political Cesspool radio program, his co-host that evening, Winston Smith, asked Dr. Greg Johnson, editor of The Occidental Quarterly, the following question: “Do our people really not understand that race is everything or do we understand and choose, en masse, to ignore and repress it?”

Dr. Johnson replied by directing the listening audience to read one article in particular, “Psychology and White Ethnocentrism” by Professor Kevin MacDonald. “This is a very important issue and it is something I think about all the time,” Johnson responded. “One of the most important things written on . . . White racial consciousness that I have ever seen, I am proud to say was published in The Occidental Quarterly … it is about the whole concept of implicit Whiteness …”

Why is MacDonald’s article on implicit Whiteness so important? Of course the best way to find out is to read it yourself, but short of that, the following summary will provide the reader with the highlights. . . . Read the whole article.

Read Kevin MacDonald’s “Psychology and White Ethnocentrism.”

How to remove these barriers while simultaneously preserving robust local and regional identities poses a problem. But the first order of business is to establish effective cross-cultural communication between concerned racialists presently speaking a Babel of incomprehensible languages.

In this light, a quixotic proposal from a handful of Spaniards calling themselves the Dnghu Group—also known as the Indo-European Language Revival Group—to revive Proto-Indo-European as the lingua franca of the European Union merits examination. The Dnghu Group has established a presence on the World Wide Web to promote its objectives.

A thousand or more planned languages have existed over the past two centuries, approximately a dozen of which developed a community of speakers of some kind, however small.

The most successful artificial language is the globalist-oriented Esperanto, invented by Ludwig L. Zamenhoff (1859-1917), a Jewish ophthalmologist who, like Carlos Quiles, the creator and prime mover behind the current proposal, developed his system while a medical student. A street in Tel Aviv, Israel, is named in Zamenhoff’s honor.

Despite its “success,” Esperanto has not exactly caught on. According to one estimate, in 1927 there were 128,000 Esperanto speakers (0.006% of the world’s population), while today there are 2 million, or 0.033%—an increase, to be sure, but still a negligible number of people.

Modern Indo-European (MIE)

The proposed language, “Modern Indo-European” (MIE)—or, interchangeably, “Europaio”—is a reconstructed, auxiliary language derived from work originally done in 2006 by Quiles and María Teresa Batalla. Quiles, a native Spaniard in his late twenties, is currently a medical student at the University of Extramadura (Universidad de Extramadura), which is located in a remote region of west central Spain bordering Portugal. Maria Batalla was a fellow Extramdura student at the time.

In October 2009 Carlos Quiles published the 824-page second edition of A Grammar of Modern Indo-European, issued by CreateSpace, a print-on-demand subsidiary of Amazon.com and described as “a complete reference guide to a modern, revived Indo-European language.” The outdated first edition of Quiles’ grammar can be downloaded for free here.

The Dnghu Group hopes that Modern Indo-European will become the official language of the European Union in twenty to forty years, much as revived Hebrew became Israel’s official language after a similar span of time. The Revival Group also hopes that eventually MIE will become the dominant auxiliary language globally. Initially, however, it would be taught to Europeans as a second language.

According to the Dnghu website, if Europaio has not been accepted by 2050, “it would possibly mean that Indo-European is becoming another language revival failure,” as happened with “Latin in the European Union after its abandonment in the 19th c. (the ‘recent Latin’ revival, promoted in the Congrès International pour le latin vivant, 1956, now mostly abandoned and forgotten), Ancient/Classical Greek in Greece (also ‘puristic’ Greek, the so-called Katharevousa), or Classic Coptic in Egypt in the 19th c., promoted by the Coptic Church.”

Quiles writes:

We obviously knew before beginning with this that it is very difficult to [make] happen, but it could happen—as it did with Hebrew—and we work on this because it is a possibility, because we are Europeanists and want a country united under a common language. . . . We know we are not experts, and that there are lots of people more prepared than us to work on PIE reconstruction, but we have been saying since we started in 2004 that our objective is IE [Indo-European] revival, not to impose our ideas on PIE; we want experts to collaborate.

The Indo-European Language Revival Group recommends that people interested primarily in learning a second language not study Modern Indo-European, but rather English. “However, a good intermediate choice would be to learn Sanskrit, Old Greek or Latin, or even early Germanic or Balto-Slavic dialects, as they are all natural approaches to older PIE [Proto-Indo-European] and to modern languages alike.”

Occidental Linguistics

As expected, the group’s members are oblivious to the urgent racial problems touched upon in the introductory paragraphs. Modern Indo-European, they assert, “is not about Indo-European speakers’ race or genetics.” Instead, in the words of prime mover Quiles, it is “a dream about a future United Europe under one common language, Indo-European. A common country where we can move and communicate with others as US citizens do in their country, not just as exchange students or workers, or to sell or buy things.”

Despite such sincere disclaimers, jaded readers will not be surprised to learn that at least one obsessive individual has rabidly attacked the Dnghu idea as “racist” and “Nazi.” Based upon his name, physiognomy, psychological quirks, totalitarian proclivities, and thinly-disguised anti-white bigotry, he is most likely Jewish.

A glance at the historical record reveals that Modern Indo-European has some unacknowledged but intriguing predecessors, quite possibly unknown to its proponents. In addition to various constructed “pan-” tongues—pan-Teutonic, pan-Slavic, pan-Celtic—it has been maintained by some that Germany intended to establish a kind of “Basic German” as the international language of a postwar, united Aryan Europe.

The most consequential predecessor of MIE, however, is Occidental (known after WW II as Interlingue), a planned language created in 1922 by Baltic German naval officer Edgar de Wahl (1867-1948). It was exceptionally popular in Europe prior to the Second World War, ranking as the fourth most prevalent planned language. Occidental emphasized European linguistic forms coupled with a Eurocentric philosophy.

According to the late Donald J. Harlow, director of the Esperanto League of North America (ELNA), Edgar de Wahl, one of the first to learn Esperanto, “became the proponent of the only modification to the language’s structure that [Esperanto founder] Zamenhof found worthy of adoption after publication of the First Book.” However, Wahl grew disenchanted with Esperanto: “it simply was not Western enough for him.”

In Harlow’s opinion

the worst thing about Wahl’s language was the apparent philosophy of those who supported it. Wahl and his disciples were interested in the West, and to him the rest of the world was unimportant; it was doomed, or destined, to play, not merely a minor role, but no role at all. Civilization was a European phenomenon; only Europeans could be interested in international communication (plus those few Asians—Africans may not have entered into his world-view at all—who would consciously adopt the trappings of the West: seersucker suits, neckties, Catholicism and a Romance language), and so an international language should be intended only for Europeans. More specifically: Western Europeans; Wahl’s followers, like many Westerners of his day, generally expressed a cordial detestation for things Slavic, and this may have been the Estonian Wahl’s attitude, as well.

Whether this is an accurate depiction of Wahl’s or a majority of Occidental speakers’ views is impossible to say. Occidental’s last periodical, Cosmoglotta, ceased publication in 1985.

The Indo-European Language Revival Group’s proposed “Modern Indo-European” is not really an artificial, constructed language like Esperanto or Volapük, but rather a reconstructed historical language like Modern Hebrew. Although it is unlikely ever to see the light of day as envisaged, it is perhaps an instructive, if unconscious and unintentional, response to a real and pressing need: transnational white linguistic comprehensibility.