The Moral Battle

Richard McCulloch

From the beginning of Trump’s candidacy I expected and hoped that it would accelerate racial polarization and White radicalization as well as discredit the anti-White media and its false narratives. As that racial polarization — the Great Divide — occurs, our success or failure, and with it the life or death of our race, will depend on how many of the people of our race break to our side of the divide. If it is most of them, we will probably win and our race will be saved. If not, our chances will be greatly diminished, and for something of this importance, this seriousness, with this much — literally the life or death of our race — at stake, we must take the utmost care to maximize our chances.

In April 1989 I gave a talk at a gathering of Instaurationists entitled “Creating a Moral Image.” It was well received and Wilmot Robertson published it in the August, 1989 issue of Instauration. It turned out to be the most controversial essay yet to appear in its pages. According to Wilmot most of the criticism was of a very low quality, too low even for the “Safety Valve,” but he did publish one essay-length response which, like the other criticism, wrongly saw my paper as a pacifistic rejection of warrior values. The critics missed the main point of the essay — the decisive battle for the hearts and minds of our people is being fought on the battlefield of morality. Violence per se was rejected only if it was immoral (by public perception and/or traditional Western standards) or counter-productive, and the example I cited was clearly both. I maintained that those who practiced or preached such immoral violence, or in any other way projected an immoral public image, were hurting our cause and playing into our opponents hands.

Over twenty-eight years later, in the wake of the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, we see how little has changed, how clearly our battle is still one of morality, and how the points I made in that essay are, if anything, even more true now than they were then (see also “Moral Capital and White Interests“). Our anti-White opponents know this well, but too many pro-White activists have yet to heed the lesson. The storm now shaking the country, and the whole of the Western world, including the Trump administration, is one of perverse anti-White values and policies presented as consensus traditional and universal morality. Our anti-White antagonists were given, or arranged, the opening or opportunity they were looking for and took full advantage of it at our expense. They seized the moral high ground and from those heights are showering us with a torrent of moral invective, denunciation, condemnation and epithets, creating false pretexts to justify suppression of our message, our platforms and our gatherings as our moral image seems to have been dragged to new lows.

They have succeeded at this because we have not yet succeeded in framing and communicating our message, and defining ourselves and our movement, in moral terms, and putting this into practice. We have a very moral goal, and it needs to be communicated effectively within the framework of a very moral narrative. It is really a simple message, as simple as it is moral. Expressing it simply, in terms easy to understand, we could say:

We want our race to live, but it is being destroyed. It is being destroyed by multiracialism. All those who promote or defend multiracialism, or oppose the preservationist solution of separation, are responsible for the destruction of our race, and are therefore guilty of the genocide of the European peoples.

Our antagonists usually deny this simple and damning truth for tactical reasons, to lessen the resistance of their victims by keeping them ignorant of their fate. Most of their victims seem not to know or care, or both. Whether they don’t care because they don’t know, or — per Heidegger — don’t know because they don’t care, it is of the utmost importance that we promote accurate knowledge of our ongoing genocide as far and wide as we can, at every opportunity we get. The facts are certainly there, in plain sight for everyone to see, brought on by immigration and intermixture, and it would be difficult to believe someone could not see them.

Indeed, the first half of our destruction or genocide, our displacement and replacement in our own countries, is already well underway. A healthy race exists at two levels, at the individual level and at the population level, as a racial population. Most of the European peoples have already been effectively destroyed at the population level and no longer exist as racial populations, as populations capable of continuing their racial existence. They have been destroyed by multiracialism, which has transformed them into multiracial rather than racial populations leading to the destruction and death of the White population. That is the first stage of White genocide, and we were nearing its guaranteed success before Trump’s election. His win temporarily delayed — we cannot yet say foiled — the intended progress of our genocide, frustrating and angering the anti-White coalition who had never before experienced such a reversal of their agenda.

Our anti-White opponents have responded by promoting numerous false narratives — the so-called “fake news” — and have run with these false narratives a very big way. We must hope they have gone too far, and by going to excess they may yet fall victim to their own trap, the trap they had set for us, and be hoisted on their own petard, caught in the coils of their own false narrative when the truth comes out. And we must hope the truth does come out, as much of it as possible.

In combating their false narrative, and promoting our own narrative and moral image, we should pay careful attention to our messaging and labeling, how we define and present ourselves and our positions, and make sure they are consistent with each other. If we reject the label of “White supremacism,” we must logically reject the labels of “neo-Nazi” and “KKK.” If our position is one of White preservation and independence, of continued White racial existence and control of our own existence, both of which require separation from other races to be successful in the long-term, and therefore not seeking to control other races so long as they are separated from us, then our labels and self-definition should be consistent with that.

The simplest and most direct labels are usually the best, as the least subject to misunderstanding and misrepresentation. This would make the label “pro-White” the best, defined as supporting White racial interests, of which the most vital interests are in continued racial existence and independence or control of our own existence. The simplest and primary label for the opponents of these ultimate White racial interests would be “anti-White,” which label could be extended to include those who oppose the promotion or defense of fundamental White interests.

Other labels that would accurately describe us in moral terms would be more specific in describing our pro-White positions, e.g., “White (or racial) separatist,” “White (or racial) preservationist,” “White (or racial) liberationist,” “opponent of White (or European, or racial) genocide.”

Our slogans should be consistent with our labels and positions. Examples would include “I want my race to live,” “Support the right to racial life,” “Support the continued existence of the White race (or the British, French, German, Italian, Swedish, etc. people),” “Stop White genocide,” and we should be prepared to show how those slogans refer to the real world.

Notice that none of these slogans mention or refer to non-Whites. The slogans are about us and our interests, not them, and so are positive expressions clearly motivated by love. Slogans that mention non-Whites in a negative, critical or adversarial way — and given our current precarious situation it is hard to mention them in any other way —  invite accusations of hate, and our motives, whether love or hate, are a central part of our moral image. Certainly the harm that non-Whites do to our interests must be addressed, as they are central to our ongoing destruction. But this should be done in more detailed and in-depth forms of discussion that allow for an adequate and thoughtful presentation of our positions, not in slogans.

Wanting one’s race to live is not hate by any reasonable or traditional definition. Nor is it “supremacism” (properly defined as ruling, controlling or dominating other races) to advocate racial survival through separation and independence. It may be defined as a form of racism, but if so it is a moral form, with a highly moral purpose and goal — preservation rather than destruction. Our anti-White opponent’s false claims to the contrary — claims that advance their promotion of White genocide — represent their false narrative at the macro level. Their false claims about Charlottesville represent their false narrative at the micro level.

Only a value system that defines genocide as good could define racial preservationism as evil. Nevertheless, that is the anti-White value system of our would-be destroyers. They have a long record that makes this very clear. If we get a chance to fight on the moral battlefield with anything close to fair odds our morality should be able to beat theirs. That is the fight we need to win, the fight we should focus all our attention on, and let nothing else — no promotion of some other agenda, organization or ideology, no toxic influences or spoilers — divert or distract us from it.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks

61 Comments to "The Moral Battle"

  1. August 28, 2017 - 8:18 pm | Permalink

    You lost me with your giving “a talk at a gathering of Instaurationists entitled “Creating a Moral Image.” It was well received and Wilmot Robertson published it in the August, 1989 issue of Instauration.”

    Lost, though not bereft, I survived to the end. I think you set up yet another “dialectic”, one older than them thar hills: GOOD vs. EVIL. Morality? Perhaps we should consult our “holy books” to solve this seeming dilemma.

    Race? Can you identify and categorize human SOULS? Are all other races NOT HUMAN, not possessing of a soul? Who would teach such? Who preaches such?

    Let’s ask ourselves, what is the real and net legacy of “WHITE” HUMANS? Let’s start whenever in History with which you feel most comfortable.

    • Peter's Gravatar Peter
      August 29, 2017 - 5:20 am | Permalink

      You lost me. Are you complaining Europeans / whites want to survive as peoples and cultures? Did you have a similar complaint when Tibet (with a population of about 3 million people) was in the news worldwide for a few years, for being in danger of having its people destroyed by the Chinese, with big support from liberals pushing this narrative? How about the Jews, with their claims that the “NAZIS” wanted to destroy the Jewish people? Without even addressing other holes in their claims, how would they have destroyed American or Australian Jews? Oh, I forgot. They were going to “take over the world”. Would you dare say “Race? Can you identify and categorize human SOULS? Are all other races NOT HUMAN, not possessing of a soul?” to Jews claiming the “NAZIS” wanted to commit genocide against them? How about a BLM member screaming about injustices done to blacks?

      “Let’s ask ourselves, what is the real and net legacy of “WHITE” HUMANS?” That (the net legacy) would be creating the most beautiful continent, cities and civilization the world has ever seen in my opinion. The gross legacy would include a fascinating, but often tragic history for the great continent of Europe, of which outsiders (Jews) played the most prominent role in Europe’s most tragic and destructive century, the 20th century.

      • David Ashton's Gravatar David Ashton
        August 30, 2017 - 3:53 am | Permalink

        For an accurate and balanced view of Nazi policy you need only to read their own publications and speeches of commonly agreed authenticity and watch a movie like “Der ewige Jude” which compares all Jews to filthy rats. This has nothing to do with the technical feasibility of gas-chambers.

      • August 30, 2017 - 8:09 pm | Permalink

        I hold the beLIEf — knowing full well “anything beLIEved is a LIE” — that the several very powerful dialectics bequeathed to us, and those more recent we chose to adopt for our “selves”, lead us to error when we posit “opposites”, whether “historical”, “hysterical”, or “fake news”.

        Thus, I react almost instantly to the term “moral”, no doubt too quickly for reflective thought. Nonetheless, as I wrote before, I hung with your post until its bitter end.

        I confess to also holding a strong beLIEf, that THE CREATOR made all human beings — and probably all singule-cell and other substantially similar entities, plants, all animals (including Reptilians) — subject to only two great commandments: Love GOD, Love your Neighbor as your SELF.

        GOD = SELF

        Does that suffice to explain?

    • tadzio308's Gravatar tadzio308
      August 29, 2017 - 10:55 am | Permalink

      “Race? Can you identify and categorize human SOULS? Are all other races NOT HUMAN, not possessing of a soul?” Suggest you consult Professor Google for the teachings of this era’s two most revered rabbis, Mendel Schneersohn and Ovadia Yosef. Both preached that only Jews were human and that mere Goyim exist only to serve them. Perhaps you should direct your screed to the millions of Jews who follow these leaders for Hate.

      • August 30, 2017 - 7:57 pm | Permalink

        The teachings of Jesus Christ [by whatever name or appellation], and those of Yogi Bhajan I find most enligtening, most positive, and most INSTRUCTIVE of how to go about being “perfect as your Father”.

      • August 30, 2017 - 8:19 pm | Permalink

        I have read, cover to cover and carefully, Michael Hoffman’s masterwork, Judaism Discovered. Have you? I do not see
        many commenters or posters referencing or citing the works of Michael Hoffman, including his latest — a blockbuster for the three centers of PTB [hint: a prominent obelisk!], this my assessment, having read the book, footnotes, and addenda, cover to cover, carefully!)

        It ain’t the “Jews”. When we get over that canard, we can get down to busyness. Until then, we have a vicious, well crafted Hegelian dialectic to deal with, whether “White vs. Other”, “Goyim vs. ______”, etc.

        Get it, get it together. I do beLIEve we be running out of time!


        • PPight1931's Gravatar PPight1931
          August 31, 2017 - 2:45 am | Permalink

          Maybe it’s because his (((schtick))) is making a distinction between the morality of the Bible and that of the Talmud.
          All the filth and mess you could ever want (not) is in the OT – and quite a bit in the NT. imo another ignis fatuus.

          The title of this interview is objectionable and contrary to the spirit of my words. I never speak of a ‘Jewish Hoax.’ I don’t fall into that linguistic trap. The interview is focused on the accurate parsing of words and yet it is titled with an obtuse generalization which I eschew. I know of no ‘Jewish hoax.’ I protest the ascription of such a term to my work. Salvation is of the Jews.’

          Is it true MAH II is a ‘converted’ Jew, or is that just an ad hominem circulated by malicious persons? And why would they bother, given the foregoing?

          • Livonia's Gravatar Livonia
            August 31, 2017 - 2:23 pm | Permalink

            Micheal Hoffman is a Jew buy race, who converted to Catholicism.
            People are bothered by that because one could rarely trust a Jew.
            I was reading recently his book ,,the Occult Renaissance Church of Rome”. His writing style is overly complicated, for unknown reason, which is a first sign, that author isn’t very good at writing. Sure, he has mentioned tons of selected facts, coming to conclusions which are doubtful. The author of this article sounds quite a bit similar to Hoffman.

          • August 31, 2017 - 8:12 pm | Permalink

            Really? You read MH’s book “The Occult Renaissance of the Church of Rome”?

            You assert that Micheal Hoffman is a “Jew buy race” [sic], who converted to Catholicism.
            You wrote:
            “I was reading recently his book ,,the Occult Renaissance Church of Rome”. His writing style is overly complicated, for unknown reason, which is a first sign, that author isn’t very good at writing. Sure, he has mentioned tons of selected facts, coming to conclusions which are doubtful. The author of this article sounds quite a bit similar to Hoffman.”

            I can tell you, as one who has read Mr. Hoffman’s works, as a writer myself, you malign an excellent writer. “Overly complicated”? Nonsense! His references and authentication of assertions, the work of a high academic! His conclusions flow from his factual foundation. Your comment seems malicious and unfounded. Shame!

        • August 31, 2017 - 5:52 am | Permalink

          I’m tempted to ask you to review Hoffman’s masterwork, in view of the fact that Hoffman, reasonably enough, relies on sales to make his income. However, I can think of a counterargument.

          • August 31, 2017 - 12:24 pm | Permalink

            Michael Hoffman, as viewed from the standpoint of an independent researcher and, possibly, consultant, beholden to no corpse (aka “corpsies”), is a brave soul, walking the way less travelled [sic, also travailed]. Unless one reads his works, especially the introductions to his more “controversial” books, one cannot get the depth and breadth of his expertise as a “revisionist historian”, re-visioning history originally written and recorded by the VICTORs, recall! Do not negate his monumental achievements by referencing his religious beliefs.

  2. Bennis Mardens's Gravatar Bennis Mardens
    August 28, 2017 - 8:23 pm | Permalink

    The obvious problem is that we are not given the chance to articulate our ideas, because our ideas ARE on the moral high ground and therefore too much of a threat….and that is why so many of us have the horrifying realization that ideas are probably not going to be able to save us.

    • Armor's Gravatar Armor
      August 29, 2017 - 9:27 am | Permalink

      Yes, it is not really a battle for morality. Morality is on our side, but the battle consists in finding some way to short-circuit the Jewish media and articulate our ideas. And it is not so much ideas as pro-White positions and attitudes. We do not have many complicated theories. Our ideas are mainly common sense. We don’t even need to convince our fellow White people: they already agree with us. What’s needed is pro-White public discourse. It’s really a battle to communicate between White people without Jewish interference.

      • Junghans's Gravatar Junghans
        August 29, 2017 - 7:03 pm | Permalink

        BINGO ! How do you communicate with your befuddled people, when they are in the thrall of the ((( media subverters))) who have a lock on their clueless minds ? ?
        It’s less a question of ‘morality’, than power and intimidation.

      • August 30, 2017 - 1:29 am | Permalink

        Armor, I agree. I have had the very same general thought as you did write, but I was not able to put it in short clear words as you could and did. Thank you very much for your comment.

      • Kelly's Gravatar Kelly
        August 30, 2017 - 9:06 am | Permalink

        I would like to expend your analysis by stating the obvious, universal morality is an asset within a moral society. It quickly becomes deadly liability when moral society faces degenerate foe.

        Our moral values reject hate but we will perish unless we accept hate as a defense response. Hate is good when directed towards our enemies.

  3. David's Gravatar David
    August 28, 2017 - 8:25 pm | Permalink

    This is an absolutely brilliant essay. It is timely and possesses that ever so important refusal to fight battles on the opponent’s lexical landscape. Seek always to act and, as much as possible, limit reaction. I must circulate this.

  4. joe Webb's Gravatar joe Webb
    August 28, 2017 - 9:38 pm | Permalink

    The salient problem with this approach of ‘speak no evil’ about other races is that it lacks juice. ( however, toying with swastikas is the smooch of death.)

    Pointing to Black failure, etc. is part of the solution and when the evidence shows otherwise I would like to see it.

    Joe Webb

    • Rickie's Gravatar Rickie
      August 29, 2017 - 7:52 am | Permalink

      Our enemies are always speaking evil about us, right? That’s why political candidates always spend more time attacking their opponents than discussing their own ideas. It’s a nasty business, but attacking your enemies works. We need to keep harping on black and brown crime, because it appeals to white women’s fears about personal safety.

  5. Nandarani's Gravatar Nandarani
    August 28, 2017 - 11:38 pm | Permalink

    Instead of two camps we think we see there is one very small camp and a huge number of other people. 1. Henry Makow who I think is a Jew wrote today, August 28, about the embarrassing slip which proves the truth (see link below). 2. Tommy Sotomayor a unique individual who is quite black and tuned in made this which made me laugh – as he whistles to start it off (link below). Has thousands following him who are black:

    2. (2016) Title is: How Savage Are Blacks In America & Why Is Everyone Afraid To Discuss It? it?

    If no desire to watch the video a comment from TS shows why he is over the top, or over the target. He said in another video that Obama should not ban guns but blacks. I am not saying I agree about the last two words but I hope my point is made about the fact that things are not entirely straightforward and it will not be easy to ‘ban free speech; in this climate.

  6. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    August 29, 2017 - 12:00 am | Permalink

    I enjoyed the Instauration article and the letters in “Safety Valve”. Timely and timeless advice. Thank you.

  7. August 29, 2017 - 4:56 am | Permalink

    It’s touching to read this material (incidentally, it’s from part I of Aug 89 ‘Instauration’). It reminds me of Kevin MacDonald’s claims of white altruism. The problem, which needs to be faced, is that it is only a half-truth. Whites are perfectly happy bayoneting, bombing and killing each other, as in the US Civil War, WW1, and WW2 to take the biggest examples. They are also perfectly happy to bomb, burn, kill, starve, rape non-whites – see eg war against Japan, Korea, Vietnam. In all these cases, the main reason they did these things was that Jews told them to do them. Richard McCulloch might as well have written – ‘We whites need to claim the moral high ground – provided we can do anything Jews tell us to do.” I realise this is not a popular view, since Americans are saturated from birth to death with Jew propaganda and its results – in that issue of Instauration, there’s a horrible account of blacks in the US ‘education’ system, and their effects, a result of Jew race-mixing-for-others. Whites have little problem with the technical high ground. But the moral high ground needs the identification and expunging of Jews.
    This is so obvious I feel almost ashamed at having to point it out. No doubt there’ll be the usual lies and disclaimers from the [Name Redacted] types who are still allowed to post here.
    (Mod. Note: “Rerev.”, sorry, but I had to redact your reference to the name of another commenter here. Regardless of how you feel, ad hominem comments like this start intramural wars TOO doesn’t need. We already have another war on our hands.)

  8. Peter's Gravatar Peter
    August 29, 2017 - 5:23 am | Permalink

    I think this is an excellent essay and a good way to approach the problem.

  9. m's Gravatar m
    August 29, 2017 - 6:31 am | Permalink

    Historically and conceptually, “white person” is a relatively new arrival on the social-political scene. Hitherto, European whites were categorized by (and understood themselves to be) not a racial genus, but rather an ethnic (or possibly national) species.

    Early America was also this way, in spite of the “melting pot” idea. E. Michael Jones makes this point in his Slaughter of the Cities (although I am not happy with his “Catholic solution” since, at this late stage of the game, the Catholic Church, indeed most all Christianity, is co-opted, and morally decrepit in so many ways).

    With the regimes on-going political movement specifically targeting white men qua whites, a nascent Caucasian racial awareness appears to be rising. Certainly, proper slogans grounded in morality are necessary to rally the troops, but slogans are not sufficient to win battles, much less a larger war.

    Finally, for those youngsters in the audience, Instauration was (and still is) one of the best.

  10. Erik Svensson's Gravatar Erik Svensson
    August 29, 2017 - 7:16 am | Permalink

    “If we get a chance to fight on the moral battlefield with anything close to fair odds our morality should be able to beat theirs.”

    We won’t get that chance. Not in Sweden at least. The main stream media is to powerful and wont let us be heard. To many still only or mostly get their information from them.

    I hope it will change in the future. And I hope the situation is better in other countries.

    With a fair chance to get heard by enough people I think your suggestion is a very good one.

  11. August 29, 2017 - 7:37 am | Permalink

    The antifa claim morality. The warmists claim science. Holocaust promoters claim history, to the exclusion of anyone who disagrees with them.

    All falsely. But they’re the flags to wrap yourself in, if you can. It’s nothing but a pose.

  12. August 29, 2017 - 9:01 am | Permalink

    As long as these confrontations show to public around the nation,around the world huge and freshly made flags of NSDP and speech punctuated by nazi salutes people will not see that such movement expresses anything that normal,decent people could be ever affiliated with.Those two or three nazi flags made more harm to our cause than can be even imagined. So-now we are simply Nazi and antifa are fighting against Nazis. There are some organizers who allow that to happen and that is beyond forgiveness.It is going to take a lot of effort to erase from public memory the images of Nazi flags marched in front of Confederate flags.Those splendid Confederate flags belong to our history and had been sanctified by Southern blood. Nazi flags two feet away,nearly touching them? This will have to be repaired and the only way to make it right is to force the cretins with nazi flags and swastikas to appear along the Antifa troglodites.Blacks for Fuerer,Hitler Stands with Black Panthers and so on. That would cleanse the black eye given to our cause.It was not the evil police that invited nazi s to the march.Unite the Right? Nazis are part of that unifying ingrediences?We evidently don’t need to look far for enemies-we just need to find the organizers of Unite the Right [with Nazis].

    • Kelly's Gravatar Kelly
      August 30, 2017 - 9:30 am | Permalink

      You are missing the point, (((they))) call you NAZI not because of the flags, (((they))) call NAZI because you are White. They will call you NAZI no matter what you do, say, wear or carry, unless you die. You are playing into (((their))) hands by running away from your history.

      Learn about this period of the European history and the (((tribe’s))) role in it, and than own it up. Teach others to do the same.

  13. Anonymous White Male's Gravatar Anonymous White Male
    August 29, 2017 - 9:02 am | Permalink

    Those who claim morality as a cover for what they do only works when:

    1. You are actually moral.
    2. You don’t have immoral people covering for your immorality.

    This is about good vs. evil. Morality is an un-agreed upon fig leaf. I watched the right hide behind the “morality” of anti-White…I mean anti-racist virtue signaling. The loudest and most vociferous “moralist” somehow accepted the left’s morality that “racism” and “White Supremacism” are somehow the two worst sins anyone can commit, and are outside the pale of human behavior. Never mind that these “moralists” don’t live around other races, have either none or one black “friend” that validates their ridiculous claim that noticing racial differences is more evil than sodomy, and are absolutely worthless when it comes to working toward solving our broken system. Invariably, they believe that the democratic process can work and continue to allow those within the dialectic political realm to make decisions for them, even though 100 years of elections tell more intelligent people that, while the process works, it only works for the rulers, not the posterity.

  14. JRM's Gravatar JRM
    August 29, 2017 - 9:44 am | Permalink

    Part of the “morality” angle on the current distressing state of affairs is that we, collectively, as White Americans (I will leave Europe aside for now, as a slightly different dynamic was/is at work there) were, quite simply, lied to and sold a bill of goods during the civil rights era.

    We were told that blacks just wanted to be judged on their individual characters. What we have now is a blank check for an entire race to behave lawlessly because of “endemic racism”. We have been trying to give a certain group of people a hand-up for fifty years, and they hate us for it.

    We were told blacks just wanted “equality”, and “a fair chance”; instead we got quotas and protected minority laws.

    So, what was intended to appeal to our sense of fair play ended in college courses in the “problem of Whiteness”; a pervasive media portrayal of blacks as noble, and Whites as fools or villains.

    Similarly, the “liberation” of women and equal pay for the same work morphed into a panoply of sexual identities and the “culture of rape” fantasies that all White men (but no black or brown men) are targeted with. What started with “equal pay for equal work” ended up in a White House lit up in rainbow colors, and hostility towards straight White men.

    We signed on to giving blacks a chance to compete fairly, to paying women a fair salary, and we expected a tolerant and reasoned public discourse; we instead see our own history under attack, our statues trucked away in the dark of night or vandalized, the historical White heroes we thought would always be venerated being vilified, and a new moral imperative to suppress free speech if Whites attempt to practice it.

    Two well-known pro-White websites, admittedly rough-around-the-edges and less than strenuously intellectual, but serving a purpose for Whites nonetheless, have been removed since the Charlottesville incident; let’s not imagine they won’t try to come after this site.

    All of this is the result of lies and cunning strategy; we have a moral right to be offended, angered, and get mobilized.

    The mendacity of this bait and switch strategy was foreseen clearly, it turns out somewhat ironically, by a few old-fashioned Southern rednecks and a handful of KuKluxers who said we were ceding power, enabling race-mixing, and surrendering to civilizational decline way back in the mid-sixties. They were unschooled sorts, for the most part, but maybe we should have listened to them. History seldom rewards the weak, or those eager to surrender power and autonomy.

  15. Armor's Gravatar Armor
    August 29, 2017 - 9:58 am | Permalink

    “Only a value system that defines genocide as good could define racial preservationism as evil.”

    Usually, Jewish activists do not say they want to destroy the White race. They talk about how diversity is wonderful for White people, and how the diverse non-Whites are just like us anyway. They say we need the low-IQ migrants to pay for our retirement pensions and do the work White people won’t do. They say we need to save them from drowning, political and religious oppression, starvation, brutal civil war, and so on, by bringing them to a White country. Sometimes they openly gloat about the end of the White race, but more often, they insist that no replacement is taking place. The low IQ third-worlders who are replacing us are just like us. Actually, Jewish activists never stop talking rubbish.

    By contrast, White activists like to be honest. They won’t simply say that we have to protect our own existence. They will say that the non-Whites must go home or be given a separate territory.

    “the label “pro-White”

    I like the slogan “you will not replace us” used in Charlottesville. The label “anti-replacist” may not be very elegant, but at least, it is explicit.

  16. tadzio308's Gravatar tadzio308
    August 29, 2017 - 10:13 am | Permalink

    Before casting a ballot a question must be asked: Is it good for Whites?

    There are three answers – Yes, No and Indifferent. The first two speak for themselves. An example of the third would be something like a bond issue for road construction. All would have access so no conflict between races would arise. Of course, if the road were to be for Jews Only as many roads are in Israel, indirectly subsidized by American tax dollars, then one should vote negatively.

    Is it or a candidate good for us should be an issue. “Is He Good For Whites?” provides a pithy slogan adaptable and applicable to all elections.

  17. RoyAlbrecht's Gravatar RoyAlbrecht
    August 29, 2017 - 12:05 pm | Permalink

    “Whether they don’t care because they don’t know, or — per Heidegger — don’t know because they don’t care…”

    What about;

    “…don’t want to know because their Spirit has been broken by the Cunning Jew and as a consequence stand trembling in fear of what they might lose should they suddenly act as if they cared?…”

    And the solution;

    Their Spirits need to be touched,
    so their Pride is Rekindled and
    the depths of the fraud that has been “…half-wittingly…” perpetrated upon them becomes fully cognizant in their minds’ eyes.

    How quickly and carefully
    (for uncontrolled kindling of tinder dry fuel will produce an uncontrollable wildfire)
    this rekindling is accomplished will in large measure determine the outcome for all life on the planet.


    “…Trump’s election. His win temporarily delayed — we cannot yet say foiled — the intended progress of our genocide, frustrating and angering the anti-White coalition who had never before experienced such a reversal of their agenda.”

    Speak for yourself. I assume Adolf Hitler is not part of your ancestral background !


    “…We must hope they have gone too far, and by going to excess they may yet fall victim to their own trap, the trap they had set for us, and be hoisted on their own petard, caught in the coils of their own false narrative when the truth comes out. And we must hope the truth does come out, as much of it as possible.”

    If I may speak very plainly…; “…Hope…” will have bugger all to do with it mate.”
    Work and the Force of our Collective Will, will be the determining factor in this battle.
    Our Supreme Enemy is an Insane Deformation who continuously and willfully presses his ravenous advantage upon the all but Spiritually Broken Aryan Beings of the Planet.
    Only a razor sharp and precisely directed, lighting-like striking rebuttals will knock down his flimsy but extremely advanced plans.


    “…If we reject the label of “White supremacism,” we must logically reject the labels of “neo-Nazi” and “KKK.”

    If I may say…, this is an old wives tale.
    Supremacy is a natural proclivity all life… to reject striving towards supremacy is tantamount to rejecting our own survival.
    The accompanying word “…White…” is also a misnomer conjured up by the Profane and Cunning Jew.

    1) We are actually more “…Flesh Toned…” than “…White…”.

    2) There are plenty of “…Other Toned Beings…” who not only share, in whole or in part, “…Our….” vision for the future but more importantly explicitly “…REJECT…” the vision of the Jew World Order..!

    3) The term “…neo-Nazi…” is a (((Hollywood))) conflation of;
    the once innocuous abbreviation of the acronym:
    “Nationalistisch Sozialistisch Deutscher Arbeiter Partei” (N.S.D.A.P.)
    [forgive me if I misspelled this word. Present day on-line spell checkers that are available in Germany for the German language do not recognize these words in their databases !!!]
    the Hollywood added word, “…neo…”.
    Together these two words were “…taught…” to the oblivious Aryan Public…,
    usually in conjunction with and through the use of the Jew Controlled Mass Media Infrastructure;
    using Tattooed, Nigger Stomping, foul mouthed, drug abusing, disrespectful, low IQed, Brash to the point of Repulsive, Skin Headed, Poverty Stricken, Idiots.

    One need merely look at any films produced in Germany during the Nazi (i.e. by Helene Bertha Amalie “Leni” Riefenstahl) era to see the utter incongruity between what the Jew has made of the term and what the term at one time actually represented.

    4) The term “…K.K.K…” is, if I may again refer to some base vernacular, of the “…same sh!t but a different pile..”, as that of the term Nazi.. or neo-Nazi.
    To my understanding, the KKK were formed to defend Whites from the ravages of Retards from the North:

    I tend to look first at the “…Self-Definition…” of group being defined for us by the Satanic Jew Incarnate before even considering what the plethora of Jew controlled or influenced mouth pieces have to say about them.
    Only then will one even remotely gain a balanced impression of what the group was meant to represent.

    5) So considering the above…, YOU DO THE MATH !!


    • Michael Adkins's Gravatar Michael Adkins
      August 30, 2017 - 7:58 am | Permalink


      I’ve been reading some essays by Armann Jakobsson professor of medieval literature at the University of Iceland. I am interesting in knowing his genetic background. Could you help?

      • RoyAlbrecht's Gravatar RoyAlbrecht
        August 31, 2017 - 11:26 am | Permalink

        I will ask my Nazi friend who studies at the university and get back to you in a week or so.

  18. August 29, 2017 - 1:24 pm | Permalink

    Our main duty is: We must secure life and future for our white children. All other things are of minor importance. All our actions must bee seen from that viewpoint: Is it good for the survival of our white children? We should have an approach of “take practical use of everything that you can reach in order to secure the survival of our white children”.

    Using this sentence as the ground and starting point of our actions, suddenly it becomes clear and easy to see what to do. There is neither hesitation nor doubt anymore. We have found our leading star (north star). We are active and cold-blooded. The competitors for life cannot deceive us anymore.
    We care for our lifes and that of our own children, and the rest is not our problem. The world is made from this easy action plan. All groups act this way. It is the law of nature to do so. If we whites would not obey nature, than we would kill our own children.

    To the “moral, morality”: The utmost moral thing is to secure the survival of the own children, the own folk, the own race. We are on the moral high ground if we do so. —
    But those who have words about “moral, human rights, all men are equal, helping Africa by letting ten or hundred million negroes into Europe” are not morally right, but they are the utmost criminals. They act in favour of the most evil action in the history of mankind: They want to help in the planned destruction of the white race. Time is not far away that they will be punished heavily for their crimes.

    • Michael Adkins's Gravatar Michael Adkins
      August 30, 2017 - 5:22 am | Permalink


      “We should have an approach of “take practical use of everything that you can reach in order to secure the survival of our white children.”

      That begins to happen when the European male accepts the “fact” that he is a reproducing human being is acts according.

      • August 30, 2017 - 11:41 am | Permalink

        Michael Adkins,
        Thank you for your answer. I think that life is really that simple. If we want to live we must take steps and measures to enable our survival. Shakespare had it put in the words: “To be or not to be, that is here the question”.

  19. Fredrick Toben's Gravatar Fredrick Toben
    August 29, 2017 - 2:13 pm | Permalink

    Spot-on – some individuals refuse to embrace the moral stance because they themselves are false – not authentic, etc. … but not only!!!!

  20. August 29, 2017 - 2:22 pm | Permalink

    Ode to a Nightingale

    Thou wast not born for death, immortal Bird!
    No hungry generations tread thee down;
    The voice I hear this passing night was heard
    In ancient days by emperor and clown:
    Perhaps the self-same song that found a path
    Through the sad heart of Ruth, when, sick for home,
    She stood in tears amid the alien corn;
    The same that ofttimes hath
    Charm’d magic casements, opening on the foam
    Of perilous seas, in faery lands forlorn.

    Forlorn! the very word is like a bell
    To toll me back from thee to my sole self!
    Adieu! the fancy cannot cheat so well
    As she is famed to do, deceiving elf.
    Adieu! adieu! thy plaintive anthem fades
    Past the near meadows, over the still stream,
    Up the hill-side; and now ’tis buried deep
    In the next valley-glades:
    Was it a vision, or a waking dream?
    Fled is that music:—do I wake or sleep?

    Paul Verlaine — Mon Rêve Familier

    Mon rêve familier

    Je fais souvent ce rêve étrange et pénétrant
    D’une femme inconnue, et que j’aime, et qui m’aime
    Et qui n’est, chaque fois, ni tout à fait la même
    Ni tout à fait une autre, et m’aime et me comprend.

    Car elle me comprend, et mon coeur, transparent
    Pour elle seule, hélas ! cesse d’être un problème
    Pour elle seule, et les moiteurs de mon front blême,
    Elle seule les sait rafraîchir, en pleurant.

    Est-elle brune, blonde ou rousse ? – Je l’ignore.
    Son nom ? Je me souviens qu’il est doux et sonore
    Comme ceux des aimés que la Vie exila.

    Son regard est pareil au regard des statues,
    Et, pour sa voix, lointaine, et calme, et grave, elle a
    L’inflexion des voix chères qui se sont tues.

    Dear White People….

    Rule # 1. Strategy…
    Rule # 2. Reconquer your women

    And then only may we be a People again.

  21. Jude's Gravatar Jude
    August 29, 2017 - 3:26 pm | Permalink

    I’m against immigration but I don’t consider myself racist. I not only wish for the preservation of “the white race”, but of all the nationalities within this race (if race it be).

    In reality there is nothing “anti-racist” about Antifa – they are servants of the Zio-Deep State. If they genuinely cared about black or brown people they would disrupt the rallies of those Zio-poodles like Hillary, Obama, the Bush clan, Mitt Romney, Lindsay Graham et al, and all the other politicians who support wars on the Palestinians, the Iraqis, the Libyans etc. Even Bernie Sanders strongly supports the ultra-racist state of Israel. Strange as it may sound, however alt-righters may feel about black and brown people, the alt-right’s practical policies are much more attuned to the welfare of non-Europeans than those of Antifa – which is nothing but a deep state black op to terrorise opponents of Zio-globalism off the streets. Hence the increasingly open support given to Antifa terrorism by globalist outlets such as the Huff Post, CNN and the New York Times.

    • Kelly's Gravatar Kelly
      August 30, 2017 - 10:56 am | Permalink

      ‘I’m against immigration but I don’t consider myself racist.’

      My fist question would be; ‘What do you mean by immigration’. I can only assume that you are referring to the present day so called ‘immigration’, legal (H-B1 and such) and illegal. Any proposition country’s immigration policy is suicidal. Any nation must be ethno-centric to survive. Just look what is happening to the Western Countries. And than, look at the Israel. Thus, you cannot be both pro-immigration and anti-racist, unless you want your children to perish.

      ‘In reality there is nothing “anti-racist” about Antifa ‘

      Yes, there is. (((They))) are anti-White, which makes them racists.

    • Michael Adkins's Gravatar Michael Adkins
      September 7, 2017 - 2:13 pm | Permalink


      “the ultra-racist state of Israel.”

      In reality it’s more a eugenics state.

  22. Scott comin's Gravatar Scott comin
    August 29, 2017 - 5:28 pm | Permalink

    Where do you find white Europeans? In twelve step programs, in church, in the bar, at work and at sporting events.we are good to good. not all of us, but think about it. The most popular spiritual gurus and self help gurus of this era are white European: Byron Katie, Eckart tolle etc etc. white Europeans founded the Oxford group which later became 12 step programs, also founded by white Europeans..white Europeans wrote the constitution. We have given away the western world!!!our individualism and morality has doomed us for this era and the near future. Read the bible!! That is the textbook on how to survive our martyrdom!! We are being martyred. We can’t escape it!! Our rugged individualism and pathological altruism and guilt has doomed us to an early Christians demise, but we will rise again after much hardship and pain as Christianity has. Fighting will not work. It is to late for that!!! The sick thing is we will be saved by another race!!! Not our own!!! Just my opinion, sorry for the rambling.

  23. MGD's Gravatar MGD
    August 29, 2017 - 5:46 pm | Permalink

    “From the beginning of Trump’s candidacy I expected and hoped that it would accelerate racial polarization and White radicalization as well as discredit the anti-White media and its false narratives.”

    For more good news please click on this link to the other Occidental. Dissent that is:

    “We’ve grown exasperated watching the latest Islamic atrocity or chimpout fail to move the needle. The sheep must be impoverished in order to become receptive to reality. Cheer up. Angry, destitute retirees are our army of White Walkers waiting to bring a rotten, unsuspecting world to an end.”

  24. August 29, 2017 - 7:29 pm | Permalink

    One can no longer use any term alluding to race and expect favorable results. Jews have done magnificent number on the goyim mind by vilifying that term. Race has long been a carefully programmed hot button term designed to to produce a knee-jerk reaction in the mind of the gullible goyim.

    How to counter the programming? Use the Jew’s own favored term “tribe.” Race and tribe are actually the same thing. The only difference is the idea of the primitive tribe has been favorably programmed into the people, whereas the term race connotes nothing but evil.

  25. John's Gravatar John
    August 30, 2017 - 7:55 am | Permalink

    Funny story on RT today.

    “Outrage after Japanese Deputy PM says Hitler had ‘right motives’”

    On a completely unrelated note, check out this discussion between two PhDs who use simple and clear language to communicate.

  26. Sam J.'s Gravatar Sam J.
    August 30, 2017 - 9:58 am | Permalink

    It appears to me that we are setting ourselves up for the most damning attacks upon the White race ever. We will be widely vilified because…we’re stealing all the diversity. Other countries are not anywhere near as diverse. We will be ruined when the third world and other race/cultures wake up some day to our greedy “diversity” theft. We must immediately stop the theft of “diversity”. We must set about rules to undiversify and refuse to steal anymore diversity until other countries catch up. It’s possible we may need to deport people to stop our unfair “diversity” advantage before we are condemned by the whole planet for our rapine “diversity” theft.

  27. RonaldB's Gravatar RonaldB
    August 30, 2017 - 10:43 am | Permalink

    May I suggest a path which avoids most minefields is to promote a complete freedom-of-association. You can have private housing developments, private schools, private places of employment, where the owner is entirely free to choose the people participating.

    My feeling is, white nationalists could sponsor their own developments, excluding non-whites or whites who date other races. No one would actually be injured as long as government agents did not enforce anything other than property rights. There is a tremendous benefit to having a homogeneous community supportive of culture and most important, of family life. This might be a way to bring up the birth rate: a true community support of families, rather than simply the nuclear family.

    Freedom of association bypasses the need to argue superiority or even racial separation. Race mixers can find their own project. I don’t mean that in a derogatory sense: they will not be injured in any way: simply excluded from projects or communities owned by separatists.

    Freedom of association also bypasses the very sticky problem that whites are not homogeneous, and traditional British might be less than harmonious with, say, southern Italians or Sicilians. Freedom of association bypasses this sort of uncomfortable reconciliation.

    • Armor's Gravatar Armor
      August 30, 2017 - 2:59 pm | Permalink

      “Freedom of association bypasses the need to argue superiority or even racial separation.”

      Freedom of association need to be conquered back, but the idea that we should settle for freedom of association instead of racial separation is absurd. You cannot save the White race without getting racial separation. Freedom of speech and association are only the first necessary steps.

      In the current system, freedom of association is only allowed for non-Whites. White people cannot even get a pro-White TV station or newspaper. And they cannot hold a pro-White rally without getting attacked.

      Granted, you can still go to the countryside and live a secluded life in a small place with like-minded White families. But you won’t be able to find a well-paying job. You won’t have any political influence. And at some point, the government will send non-Whites to your neighborhood anyway.

      If you live in a multiracial place and are able to pay for your children’s education in a private school for White children, you will still have to pay for the public school used by non-Whites. You will also have to finance the welfare system so the non-Whites can raise big families. And it’s getting harder for many Whites to get well paying jobs even in the big cities. As a result, it is harder to stay away from the non-Whites. So, the idea of ignoring the government and the anti-White system while living a parallel quiet life in a separate White community is not a viable option.

      • RonaldB's Gravatar RonaldB
        August 30, 2017 - 6:50 pm | Permalink

        To Armor,

        I think you’re confounding separate ideas.

        I advocated complete freedom of association, which means the government allows a private employer to hire only the people he wishes, private schools are allowed to be all white, or all black, and housing developers can choose, or exclude, anyone they wish.

        You argue against this concept by saying the government would never allow it. The whole point is, this is a very good point on which to press the government to change. It’s not really against anyone, and would yield tremendous benefits.

        The idea of free rent to non-whites is completely different. In fact, if you look at the Stefan Molyneux interview with Stefan Bloch, you’ll see that that South Africa under the apartheid government was extremely generous towards blacks, and also extremely prosperous, before they decided to throw in the towel voluntarily.

        You’ll always have mixing, especially in the large cities. But right now, government force is squarely against anyone wanting to control his environment. Are you saying whites can’t manage their own neighborhoods, their own schools, and their own workplaces without the heavy hand of government regulation enforcing the separation you would like?

        Think of Orthodox Jews in New York. They manage their own organizations, their own neighborhoods, are completely free to do as they wish, mainly associate with each other, and maintain a high birth rate and marriage within the religion. If someone marries a non-Jew, they may sit shiva and shun the miscreant, but no one will do anything to him (her). What’s not to like?

    • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
      August 31, 2017 - 11:33 am | Permalink

      Permit me to add to Armor’s remarks that far from being a fresh idea or a concept whose attraction lies, at least in part, in its never having previously (or at least recently) been tried, freedom of association is as old as the hills. It has foundational importance in American history in that it underlies the freedoms enumerated in the Bill of Rights—religion, speech, press, assembly, et al.—and had been taken for granted in English common law for many centuries prior.

      Why, then, one might ask, wasn’t it named with the other freedoms? Because, as Johnson said to Boswell of certain words never defined in his dictionary, it is one of those things so fundamental, so rudimentary, or so widely taken for granted that rendering their meaning in still simpler terms is impossible.*

      Why else do you think that the entire enterprise of modernity has consisted in hedging the associational freedom of, in theory, all people but in practice primarily of the white Christian majority (well, just barely a majority and far less so Christian)? Because no other public freedom can even exist without it and no private freedom can long remain unimperiled.

      Most striking of all is the evident but unvoiced assumption, one governing the entirety of the analysis, that there are no barriers in place to giving Freedom of Association Mark 2 a trial spin on the track—as if it were a challenge to a taboo as toothless as wearing a Hawaiian shirt to a funeral! As indicated, the entire enterprise of modernity is dead set against the idea, and (((those who captain that enterprise))) will not tolerate having their prerogatives messed about with.** The recent Charlottesville unpleasantness is only an especially obvious instance within a pattern of action that is ubiquitous, as a peek behind the curtain reveals to those who prefer inquiry to ungrounded argumentation.

      Similar studiously unobserved 800-pound gorillas are to be found in each example offered in the reply to Armor. In contradiction of just one of those examples—the implied easygoing benignity of Orthodox New York Jews—even the New York Times has cautiously but plainly reported instances of vindictiveness to errant “community” members, vindictiveness that would certainly have been deemed tortious had the goyim been accused of them. While it’s doubtless the case that the Times acted as it did because it’s an ox that prefers goring to being gored, closer perusal of the situation reveals that one may justly say of the many Orthodox communities what was said of John Calvin: that his tolerance began where the reach of his arm ended.
      *In a related vein, recall, too, that Madison’s agreement to draft the Bill of Rights was a gentlemanly accommodation to his Federalist allies at the Convention. That is, he was strongly opposed to its inclusion in the Constitution on the very sound ground that enumerating don’ts for the proposed new federal system would enable the devious, the treacherous, and the power-hungry to claim that absence of a don’t implied the presence of a do. Sound familiar?
      **Cf. “It’s not really against anyone, and would yield tremendous benefits.” It is in fact precisely against everyone with real power in contemporary society, and it is dealt with harshly wherever an embryonic form of it is detected.

      • RonaldB's Gravatar RonaldB
        August 31, 2017 - 5:25 pm | Permalink

        For Pierre de Craon:

        I feel we’re arguing over gnats when we’re in basic agreement.

        The point about true freedom of association is that it involves people and situations which may not be nice, but involve no physical coercion. If an Orthodox Jew from a tightly-knit orthodox community suddenly rejects the religion, chances are he will be subject to “shunning”. His previous friends and possibly family will simply not talk to him or associate with him. That’s a devastating experience…which has also applied to Christian sects as well. But, that’s part of freedom of association. I was using the Orthodox Jews as an example of a tightly-knit, supportive community that, incidentally, supports a high birth rate. You’ve got to take the unpleasant with the pleasant. Now, the position of the Orthodox Jews in the New York politics may have gained them some special privileges which illustrate the benefits of freedom of association. What we want is to extend the privileges to everyone, white nationalists included.

        As far as Madison’s view that enumerating individual rights gives license to trampling on unspecified rights. I think he has long since been proven wrong. It turns out, the specific enumerated rights can’t be ignored, but just about every other right imaginable has been totally discounted by the courts. So, every area of relief from government overreach will have to be fought, issue by issue. If the right to own arms hadn’t been specifically encoded, do you have any doubt at all that guns would be outlawed in many, if not most states or even through federal law?

        And, of course freedom of association is antithetical to identity and special interest groups. Their bread-and-butter is rent-seeking through violation of imagined mandates. What I meant by “it’s not against anyone” is that it gives people the right to follow their own preferences without a policeman intervening.

      • Armor's Gravatar Armor
        August 31, 2017 - 5:36 pm | Permalink

        Great comment! Instructive too. I think RonaldB is making fun of us. I’m glad I didn’t try to write a long rambling tedious counter-argumentation.

        • RonaldB's Gravatar RonaldB
          September 1, 2017 - 7:06 am | Permalink

          ” I think RonaldB is making fun of us. ”

          |Why would you think I’m making fun of you. I’m giving you reasoned arguments. There’s a difference between making fun of you and giving reasoned disagreements.

        • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
          September 1, 2017 - 2:13 pm | Permalink

          I’m glad I didn’t try to write a long rambling tedious counter-argumentation.

          If you should succeed in writing such a comment, Armor, it would be, in my experience, a first for you. Please keep failing to do so. Indeed, this is a form of failure I wish we saw more of hereabouts!
          As for Madison having long since been proved wrong, I simply see no evidence that anyone whose bona fides are legit has ever demonstrated any such thing. Madison was an aristocrat, no doubt about it. While he and many of his fellow Virginians certainly wanted an overarching and consolidated governing structure that was far less loosey-goosey than what the Articles provided, he was no friend or advocate of the unitary elective imperium that the federal government has become (Hamilton and his disciples far better fit that mold). May I suggest that Madison’s great intellectual failing was also the failing of Washington, as it was, too, of the finest of the New Englanders of the Founding generation: not seeing what Madison’s older neighbor and colleague George Mason plainly saw—that there would be no stopping centralization and consolidation once the door was opened to them. Of course, Mason, like Cincinnatus, is remembered with affection and reverence because there hasn’t been anyone like him since.

          The rights of Americans are trampled on today because the centralizers and the adherents of the “anything not prohibited is required” mind-set had their wicked way with our ancestors beginning in the Jacksonian era at the latest. The simple point I am moving tediously toward is this: without big, soi-disant omnicompetent government, such trampling is somewhere between difficult and impossible.

          Finally, it ought to be plain that the Jews love big government as much as they do not just because it is a powerful instrumentality of their subversion. In that it limits the number of people who need to be bought off or blackmailed, it’s a bargain-basement one as well!

  28. Stefania Says's Gravatar Stefania Says
    August 31, 2017 - 10:52 am | Permalink

    I love this article. I will do my best to use the memes that were presented here in comments sections. Framing our message in non offensive terminology will go a long way to get some more of our people on our side.

    It has been my belief for quite some time that most Whites may never come to our side. I hope that I am wrong; however, when you realize that these Whites see the nonstop nonwhite immigration and forced assimilation and yet still do not understand or even care how this is detrimental to their race, then you begin to think that there is no hope for them. My thinking is that as long as there are enough of us to fight and eventually create separation for our survival that this would be enough to begin the process of starting over in a new homeland.

  29. August 31, 2017 - 3:40 pm | Permalink

    email to anonymous on Wilmot Robertson
    I presume you’re referring to ‘Instauration’. The pdf of ‘Ventilations’ however says nothing that I could find on Robertson’s education. It doesn’t even have the publication date(s) or anything about ‘Instauration’.

    Maybe you linked to the wrong document?

    This bit of what I wrote to introduce ‘Instauration’ was intended to draw attention to its limitations – there’s a lot missing, and in particular the gung-ho aspects of the USA, which of course Jew promoted when it suited them, are in Instauration, for example the support for wars such as Kissinger’s genocide in Vietnam.
    When I referred to science, I’m not talking about stuff in so-called universities, but genuine science. ‘Plenty of simple Americans believed … nuclear weapons and the moon landings triumphs of American science (rather than of Jewish fraudulence and bribeability of Americans).’
    So I think he had a long way to go — but in today’s world of mountains of Jewish lies, it’s the same for all of us.
    Anyway – thanks for your interest. Rae West

  30. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    September 1, 2017 - 3:26 am | Permalink

    “Empathy management” as an adjunct to US military strategy is treated here:

  31. Phil's Gravatar Phil
    September 7, 2017 - 9:52 am | Permalink

    These are your best bets:

    “White preservationist,”
    “opponent of White genocide.”
    “I want my race to live”
    “Support the continued existence of the White (British, French, German, Italian, Swedish, etc. people)”
    “Stop White genocide”

    Also, try to think of questions to flush out your opponent’s agenda:
    ”why do you want to make white people minorities in their own lands?”
    ”why do you want less white people around?”
    ”what’s your ideal percentage of white people?”

    etc. etc.

    Then think of the responses they will come up with. And think of your answers to those.

Comments are closed.