White Racial Consciousness and Advocacy

Condition Red Revisited: White Male Erasure in Advertising

Condition Red Revisited: White Male Erasure in Advertising.

No Country for White Children

I’ve recently enjoyed an exchange of emails with a very intelligent and articulate former White Nationalist who is now dedicated to anti-natalism, the philosophy expounded by the Jewish South African philosopher David Benatar. Summed up, anti-natalism argues that life entails suffering, sometimes terrible amounts of it, and therefore that non-existence is always better than living and dying. Benatar’s 2006 Oxford-published book Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence is the influential key text of this growing movement. In the course of the book, Benatar advances the idea that humans should accept that procreation is inherently immoral because it involves creating sentient beings who will suffer and die. The text is thus a moral injunction against having children, and Benatar’s ideal scenario is one in which a barren mankind goes voluntarily extinct. In the course of the email exchange on these ideas, I raised a number of concerns with my correspondent about the logic, theory, and growth of anti-natalism, one of them being that, given the already problematic propensity among Whites to attach themselves to abstract moral concerns, and social fads based on guilt, there was likely to be a practical ethnic disparity in the adoption of anti-natalism at group level. In other words, I argued that anti-natalism, regardless of its philosophical merits or lack thereof (and quite apart from any consideration of Benatar’s intentions or ethnic origins), could contribute to the Culture of Sterility already prevalent in the West by providing yet more philosophical-cultural support for the demographic decline of Whites everywhere.

The minutiae of our broader debate of Benatar’s logic, and our shared rumination on existence and Being, isn’t worth covering here but, as our exchange narrowed in focus, two issues emerged which have relevance for this website. The first was whether life on earth was really a prize worth winning for Whites. The second was whether it was good to bring White children into an increasingly hostile world. My correspondent remains firmly in the camp that argues that life is most definitely not worth it, while I argued against Benatar and made the more optimistic case. This was a novel position for me given my longstanding appreciation of the deep pessimism of Schopenhauer and my general tendency to the “Black Pill” side of things. In this instance, however, I argued that, when it came to life, the game was indeed worth the candle. In fact, I believe that we should not only play the game of life, regardless of suffering, but play to win. I cannot say that I have arrived at this position rationally or logically. I can only say that the drive to life is firmly implanted in me, something that Benatar has argued is simply a trick of Nature. And yet, trick or not, I am a product of this earth, and not something alien to it and subjected to its whims. I am here. I exist. And I believe my best existence can be achieved with those most like me and especially, following in the thought of Frank Salter’s On Genetic Interests, those related to me. In a sense I am on a boat in rough seas—I need those who will reliably grab an oar alongside me, rather than throw me overboard.

My own attitudes to anti-natalism aside, my correspondent is correct in highlighting the increasingly difficult, and almost impossible, position of White children. Despair in this regard is always within touching distance. Just this morning it was brought to my attention that the ADL has extended its considerable tentacles across the Atlantic, and will now be involved in a three-year project in England to provide “lessons and activities to schools and pupils to talk about difference and diversity, celebrate inclusion, and understand discrimination and its effects.” The project is part of a deal with Chelsea Football Club, owned by Russian-Jewish oligarch Roman Abramovich, and will involve significant funding flowing from Chelsea to the ADL. In summary then, English fans are paying not only to see millionaires kick a ball for 90 minutes, but also for their children to be told they’re bigots by a gang of American Jews. That’s quite a deal. The interest of a body of New York Jews in English children is strange to say the least, especially when the ADL currently operates no such scheme in Israel where segregated education is still largely ongoing and, in the words of Israel’s own state comptroller, “racism and discrimination” are still prevalent in Israeli schools.

‘A Twig to be Straightened’: Jewish ‘Anti-Bias’ Research on White Children

I first wrote about the ADL’s strange and obsessive “interest” in White children in 2014, noting at that time their development of “Anti-Bias Lesson Plans and Resources for K-12 Educators.” The ADL program fit neatly into the broader history of Freudian attempts to portray anti-Semitism as a virulent mental pathology that careful education strategies could ‘inoculate’ against. That this process of “inoculation” has targeted White children and no others is an open secret. Although the idea that anti-Jewish attitudes are a form of disease with roots in childhood goes back to Freud, it has been prominent in Jewish activism for over a century and remains current today. Take, for example, the closing remarks from Abraham Foxman’s Jews and Money: The Story of a Stereotype, where parents and teachers are urged to “try to help the next generation grow up freer from the infection of intolerance. [emphasis added]” The goal, as Mr. Foxman himself once articulated, is to “make America as user-friendly to Jews as possible.” Theodore Isaac Rubin’s equally self-interested diatribe, Anti-Semitism: A Disease of the Mind, describes anti-Jewish feeling as a “contagious, malignant disease,” and concludes by stating, “extremely active application of insight and education is necessary to check the disease. Checkmate and eradication is [sic] extremely difficult and probably only possible if applied to the very young before roots of the disease take hold. [emphasis added]” To Rubin, and his like-minded co-ethnics at the ADL, the solution to the problem of anti-Jewish feeling is one of “prophylaxis” and “approaches to children.” The ADL-sponsored tome Anti-Semitism in America (1979), concluded that “It is apparent that the schools are the most appropriate and potentially effective agent to carry out the instructional strategy just outlined.”[1]

The 1979 ADL study was itself following in the footsteps of a series of social engineering experiments carried out on White children over several decades by scores of Jewish psychiatrists and sociologists. Research into the racial attitudes of White children in America began as early as 1929, in Bruno Lasker’s Race Attitudes in Children (New York: H. Holt & Company). Lasker was a Hamburg-born Jew who moved first to England before arriving in the United States in 1914 where he established himself as a pro-immigration social worker. Lasker’s work was furthered in the 1930s by Eugene and Ruth Horowitz[2], whose work was highly influential on probably the most high-profile “child racism” test of the twentieth century — the “doll tests” of Black psychiatrists Kenneth and Mamie Clark that helped end segregation via Brown v. Board of Education. The “doll tests” didn’t just have a Jewish academic heritage; the research of the Clarks was funded by the Julius Rosenwald Fund, and the pair were closely connected to the Northside Center for Child Development which had a “mostly Jewish Board of Directors.”[3]

Research into the putative racism of White children was furthered in the 1960s by Donald Mosher,[4] but it was in the 1970s that an intensification took place, partly as a result of its blending with discoveries of the importance of television in shaping attitudes, and other social behavior ‘modification’ techniques. In 1972, for example, Bradley Greenberg was allowed access to 300 White children from Michigan to see if consistently watching Blacks on television could improve their attitude to “diversity.”[5] The development of Sesame Street, “a program that exposes young children to a variety of attractive black and Hispanic models,”[6] at the start of the decade owed much to the interventions and analyses of Jewish sociologists like Greenberg, as well as Gerry Bogatz,[7] Gerald Gorn,[8] Marvin Goldberg,[9] and Gordon Cantor.[10]

In a glowing walk down memory lane in Tablet, it’s made explicit that “idealistic urban Jews were integral to Sesame Street’s origins. … Its genesis was a 1966 dinner at Joan Ganz Cooney’s apartment, attended by Carnegie Corporation VP Lloyd Morrisett and NYC Channel 13’s program manager Louis Freedman.” As with many social experiments at the time, there was a blend of Jewish activism, government backing, and the financial support of Big Capital. In the case of Sesame Street,

The Carnegie Corporation, the U.S. Department of Education, and the Ford Foundation donated most of the seed money for the launch of Children’s Television Workshop (today called Sesame Workshop). Harvard Ed School professor Gerald Lesser, one of the few people conducting research on kids and TV at the time, became the chair of CTW’s advisory board. He worked with the startup team and offered guidelines. … The show was racially and culturally diverse from the get-go.

These efforts to modify the behavior of White children via television were closely related to earlier Jewish efforts, in the 1950s and 1960s, to modify White racial attitudes. The most notable academics in the field of altering public opinion and White ingroup attitudes including Joseph Klapper, Bernard Berelson, Fritz Heider, Leo Bogart, Elihu Katz, Marie Jahoda, Joseph Gittler, Morris Rosenberg, Ernest Dichter, Walter Weiss, Nathan Glazer, Bernard J. Fine, Bruno Bettelheim, Wallace Mandell, Hertha Hertzog, Dororthy Blumenstock, Stanley Schachter, David Caplovitz, Walter Lippmann, Sol Ginsburg, Harry Alpert, Leon Festinger, Michael Gurevitch, Edward Shils, Eugene Gaier, Joseph Goldsen, Julius Schreiber, Daniel Levinson, Herbert Blumer, I. M. A. Myers, Irving Janis, Miriam Reimann, Edward Sapir, Solomon Asch, Gerald Wieder, Paul Lazarsfeld, and Morris Janowitz.

Someone once said that “when everyone thinks the same, conspiracy is unnecessary.” This is essentially the dynamic at work in this field of research, which was dominated by people from the same ethno-religious background, all of them bringing more or less the same anxieties, assumptions and enmities to their chosen field. The result was a very uniform approach among Jewish psychiatrists and sociologists to the “problem” of the White population, especially White children.

Following in the footsteps of many co-ethnics, in 1976 Irwin and Phylis Katz and their colleague Shirley Cohen moved away from the usefulness of television and into the testing of other “modification” techniques that specifically targeted White children. In one experiment, after gathering 80 White kindergarteners and fourth graders, attitudes to Blacks and the disabled were measured by, for example, confronting the youngsters with a Black man moving around a room in a wheelchair and observing their reactions.[11] Two years after this stunning leap forward for science, Phylis Katz returned to experimenting on White children with colleague Sue Rosenberg Zalk, in a project designed to achieve a “modification” of White children’s attitudes to race.[12] Katz justified the focus on children because, in White adults, “attitudes are relatively intransigent and much more difficult to change.” For Katz, to paraphrase the title of one of her essays, White children were a problematic and warped twig that emerged from a rotten tree and had to be “straightened.”[13]

Today, the same trend is very much in evidence. One of the more influential texts in the field is Louise Derman-Sparks’s 2011 What If All the Kids Are White? Anti-bias Multicultural Education with Young Children and Families. Derman-Sparks, who opened her speech to a multicultural conference in Berlin in 2010 with the statement that Germany’s shift to multiculturalism “has been especially moving and inspiring to me … as a Jewish woman,” adorns the cover of her book with the images of 14 White children gathered together above the distasteful title as if they’re criminal mugshots. The expressed intention of the book is to “pique the interest of Whites to examine themselves,” and it opens with reference to “many authors” who have published texts since the 1990s on how Whites perpetuate racism. The cited “many authors” includes Paul Kivel the Jewish author of Uprooting Racism: How White People Can Work for Racial Justice and founder of the (far from subtle) “Challenging Christian Hegemony Project.” Other examples of these “many authors” include Paula Rothenberg and her 2004 White Privilege: Essential Readings on the Other Side of Racism, Shirley Steinberg and her 2000 White Reign: Deploying Whiteness in America, and Tim Wise and his 2004 White Like Me. Although not mentioned by Derman-Sparks, one of the most influential academic texts in this field in recent years is developmental psychologist Lawrence Hirschfeld’s 1998 MIT-published Race in the Making: Cognition, Culture, and the Child’s Construction of Human Kinds.

Derman-Sparks’s text is one of those truly vulgar texts that maintains a cheery air even as it portrays the innocent as sinister. How else are we to react to the ethnic paranoia inherent in complaints that White children aged between 3 and 4 in one class were perceived as “avoiding dark colors in their artwork”[14] and thus demonstrated a deep-seated racism imbibed from their parents since infancy? The revelation that these White children preferred to draw paintings with bright, cheerful colors was apparently so devastating that a team of anti-bias “educators” was brought in. Derman-Sparks lauds the team for “brainstorming” techniques to adapt the children’s behavior, including providing them with excesses of black and brown paper, providing them with black and brown toys, and creating “relaxation” spaces that were dark. When the children, who weren’t much older than toddlers, complained that the dark spaces were scaring them, they were told that darkness “wasn’t scary” and were made to simply endure it. The ideology behind this mental saturation in darkness was that “White children’s learning to be “White” is part of the maintenance of systemic racism.”[15] The goal therefore, in all cases, is to prevent White children from adopting their natural racial identity. Derman-Sparks stresses her ambition to create not just generations of Whites who tolerate multiculturalism, but who become active warriors for “social justice.”

Getting the ADL Out of Schools

All of which is to say that Jewish activism in this area is intended to pervert the in-born natural affinity of White children for their own kind. Even Hirschfeld (1998) admits that

race is one of the earliest-emerging social dimensions to which children attend and this pattern of development appears to be stable across diverse cultures. Furthermore racial thinking clearly develops into a theory-like knowledge structure, representing a coherent body of explanatory knowledge sustaining inferences about category members that go far beyond the range of direct experience.[16]

The aforementioned ‘anti-bias training,’ which has been developed over the course of the past century, is designed to overcome the natural instincts of White children and to deprive them of the knowledge structures, explanatory knowledge, and inferences that are essential to the protection of their interests. When these aspects of their development are done away with, and when they are instead brainwashed into becoming “social justice warriors” on behalf of foreign groups, White children are essentially turned upon themselves and their own people.

A promising sign in recent times, however, has been the backlash against the ADL’s involvement in education, which is in turn part of a broader realization of the harmful nature of Critical Race Theory and its encroachment at all levels of the education system. In July, the Californians for Equal Rights Foundation initiated a “Get ADL Out of Schools” campaign after the ADL began state-wide measures that dictated that schools should “notify ADL when any incident of bias, bullying, discrimination or harassment occurs”—presumably so they could refer the offending youth to their “Center on Extremism” as soon as possible. The campaign is led in part by Stuart H. Hurlbert, Professor of Biology Emeritus, San Diego State University, who argues that “the Anti-Defamation League has inserted itself into American politics in a variety of ways over the decades primarily in the guise of a non-partisan, civil rights organization.” As part of his gathering of information revealing the true nature of the ADL, Hurlbert very helpfully directs readers to Kevin MacDonald’s work “Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy, 1881–1965: A Historical Review.”

In August, California’s Newport-Mesa Unified School District voted to continue its relationship with the ADL, but “with modifications.” The school district was the victim of an ADL shakedown in March 2019, after it was revealed that some drunken students from Newport Harbor High School arranged cups in the shape of a swastika at an off-campus party. After the prank was made viral by a malcontent, the ADL swooped on the instance of “abhorrent anti-Semitic activity” and shamed the nervous school board into accepting a rapidly escalating series of contracts for anti-bias training for staff and students.

The minutes of the school boards meetings are publicly available, and contain the actual contracts with the ADL which run to the value of some $96,650 over a two-year period for anti-bias and pro-immigration training sessions. The shakedown started to come apart in August, when board members began to question the transparency and cost of their agreements with the ADL, as well as the content of ADL training courses. In response to parents objecting to the school district’s relationship with the ADL on the grounds that it was “bringing critical race theory into the classroom,” the school district “reviewed the proposed contract and recommended eliminating second-level anti-bias courses for school employees.” Unfortunately, the most damaging aspect of ADL ‘training”—their lessons for children—remain in place (at a cost of $27,800), prompting Anti-Defamation League Regional Director Peter Levi to gloat, “We have long believed education is the best antidote to hate and bias.”

More and more objections are being raised, however. Back in June, in Alabama, the Mountain Brook School Board severed ties with the ADL after a parent-led protest against Critical Race Theory being pushed into schools via the ADL’s “No Place for Hate” program. In a familiar pattern, Mountain Brook’s involvement with the ADL began with a teenage prank involving swastikas. A Jewish parent, Elizabeth Goldstein, then claimed that Mountain Brook needed ADL training, providing as supporting evidence the undoubtedly truthful statement: “As a child, as a Jewish child growing up in Mountain Brook, [when I was in second grade] a girl told me she could not play with me because I killed Jesus.”

The shakedown began, but on July 8 Mountain Brook Schools issued a statement in response to parent pressure, announcing that “Mountain Brook Schools will not be using “No Place for Hate” and will no longer be using the services of the Anti-Defamation League.” The ADL, rather than gracefully bowing out of the affair, attacked Mountain Brook Schools in an open letter, accusing the city of “many issues of antisemitism and hatred over the past several years.” Sinister motives were implied to lie behind the Board’s

intentional and unexplained distancing from ADL. … In response to a serious 2020 antisemitic incident involving its students … the Mountain Brook Diversity Committee invited ADL to give a presentation on our educational resources in July 2020. This meeting resulted in the Diversity Committee choosing to use ADL’s No Place for Hate® education framework and A World of Difference Institute® programs for its goal of making MBS students globally responsible and conscious citizens by helping to foster a more welcoming and inclusive school community. … The treatment of ADL as a partner of the district and a resource to the community has been both disrespectful and lacking transparency and communication. We are leaving Mountain Brook Schools with no indication that the issues of antisemitism in the community are being addressed. Indeed, they feel worse. … Mountain Brook Schools’ failure to consider implementing anti-bias education in schools could serve to allow antisemitism and other forms of hatred to fester in the school community.

The ADL could have just cut to the chase and said “A world where bigoted White children aren’t put through our Brainwashing Seminar® and Anti-Identity Institute® (and all for the bargain price of less than $100,000!) is a world in which we’re deeply terrified.”


We’ve come full circle. Is the ADL looking across the Atlantic because it’s being rebuffed in America? I doubt it. The group is international in origin and intent. It is simply expanding its modus operandi in accordance with its ideology—an ideology in respect to “child racism” in the West that has been a century in the making. This ideology dictates that the “twigs” must be snapped off from the White tree and reshaped. This ideology hasn’t required a conspiracy, only a tremendous similarity in thought and action over one hundred years. Defeating this pattern will require a similar uniformity of thought. White parents coming together to expel brainwashers is a great place to start.

[1] Quinley, Harold E. & Glock, Charles Y. Anti-Semitism in America (Michigan: The Free Press, 1979), 202.

[2] Horowitz, Eugene L., and Ruth E. Horowitz. “Development of Social Attitudes in Children.” Sociometry 1, no. 3/4 (1938): 301–38.

[3] Markowitz, Gerald E. and Rosner, David, Children, Race, and Power: Kenneth and Mamie Clark’s Northside Center (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1996).

[4] Mosher, Donald L., and Alvin Scodel. “Relationships between Ethnocentrism in Children and the Ethnocentrism and Authoritarian Rearing Practices of Their Mothers.” Child Development 31, no. 2 (1960): 369–76.

[5] Greenberg, B. S. (1972) ‘Children’s Reactions to TV Blacks’, Journalism Quarterly, 49(1), pp. 5–14.

[6] Katz, Phyllis A.; Zalk, Sue R. (1978). Modification of children’s racial attitudes.. , 14(5), 447–461.

[7] Bogatz, G. A., & Ball, S. The second year of Sesame Street: A continuing evaluation. Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service, 1971.

[8] Gorn, Gerald J., Marvin E. Goldberg, and Rabindra N. Kanungo. “The Role of Educational Television in Changing the Intergroup Attitudes of Children.” Child Development 47, no. 1 (1976): 277–80.

[9] Marvin E. Goldberg & Gerald J. Gorn (1979) Television’s impact on preferences for non‐white playmates: Canadian “Sesame Street” inserts, Journal of Broadcasting, 23:1, 27-32.

[10] Gordon N. Cantor. “White Boys’ Ratings of Pictures of Whites and Blacks as Related to Amount of Familiarization.” Perceptual and Motor Skills 39, no. 2 (December 1974); Cantor, Gordon N. “Effects of Familiarization on Children’s Ratings of Pictures of Whites and Blacks.” Child Development 43, no. 4 (1972): 1219–29.

[11] Katz, P. A., Katz, I., & Cohen, S. (1976). White children’s attitudes toward Blacks and the physically handicapped: A developmental study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68(1), 20–24.

[12] Katz, Phyllis A.; Zalk, Sue R. (1978). Modification of children’s racial attitudes.. , 14(5), 447–461.

[13] Katz, P. A. ‘Attitude change in children: Can the twig be straightened?’ In P. A. Katz (Ed.), Towards the elimination of racism. New York: Pergamon Press,1976.

[14] Derman-Sparks, 25.

[15] Ibid,. 31.

[16] Hirschfeld, L.A. Race in the Making: Cognition, Culture, and the Child’s Construction of Human Kinds (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1998), 83.

Sines v. Kessler Plaintiffs Coordinated with Refuse Fascism, an Anti-White Terrorist Organization

“Antifa WILL claim they are bystanders so they can file lawsuits.
@Aeyannic_Order, Unite the Right Discord Server, August 11, 2017

Two plaintiffs in the upcoming Sines v Kessler lawsuit have ties to, and coordinated activities with, the anti-White terrorist organization Refuse Fascism in the months prior to and during the rally. The organization, a “mass line” front group for the Revolutionary Communist Party, rioted across numerous states in the months before Unite the Right in order to “shut down” the events of their political opponents, including the inauguration of President Donald J. Trump. The two plaintiffs connected to the terrorist organization, Natalie Romero and Seth Wispelwey, have both alleged that Unite the Right speakers and organizers conspired to violate their rights at the 2017 Charlottesville rally. A new report by Occidental Observer reveals the extent of these ties, and how a founding leader of the organization was brought in to violate the rights of the defendants.

Refuse Fascism’s 2017 Terrorist Rampage

Following the election of Donald J. Trump in 2016, Refuse Fascism was founded by members of the Revolutionary Communist Party and other anti-White extremists such as Bill Ayers, a member of the infamous anti-White, Judeo-Bolshevik terrorist cell that not only bombed the U.S. Capital in 1971, but discussed the “merits” of murdering all newborn White babies. Numerous protests the group have attended, organized or participated in have descended into violent riots as participants attacked those they were “protesting.”

All the more terrifying is the organization’s connections with several extraordinarily wealthy and powerful anti-White Jewish billionaires. In June of 2020, a Project Veritas undercover operation revealed that the head of the organization’s Atlanta chapter, Tee Stern, claimed to have received funding from George Soros for a side project and was in talks with Jewish billionaire Tom Steyer’s assistant. Steyer was the top Jewish donor to the Democratic party during the 2020 election cycle, contributing 54 millions dollars to Democrats and 35 Million to Republicans.

On January 14, 2017, the homosexual, Jewish libertarian Milo Yiannopoulos was scheduled to speak to students at UC Davis. Refuse Fascism was among the terrorist groups who showed up and shut the event down. As with the Unite the Right rally, mob participants brandished genocidal anti-White “antifa” terrorist symbols, as well as the bold black and white Refuse Fascism signs that have various demands such as “NO! STOP TRUMP/PENCE FASCIST REGIME BEFORE IT STARTS” with the organization’s website at the bottom.

In a now deleted video, a Breitbart photographer is shoved and spit on by Refuse Fascism protesters. Ringleader calls for his comrades to steal the photographer’s camera.

During the fracas, numerous attendees were assaulted. Milo’s guest speaker had dog feces thrown at him. Nathan Damigo, a current defendant in the Sines v Kessler lawsuit who conducted an interview with CNN that evening was assaulted while livestreaming the riotous mob. Breitbart cameraman Mike Perdie was assaulted after a member of Refuse Fascism demanded he stop filming. He then called for his comrades to remove Perdie from the area. After pushing and shoving Perdie around, a man shouted directly in front of him with a bullhorn screaming “Fuck off” and then spit in his face. It was then that the man who appeared to be the leader of the Refuse Fascism group yelled for his comrades to steal Perdie’s equipment, “Get that camera! Someone grab that expensive camera!

Mob participants then began inciting violence, chanting “No justice, no peace!” and “If we don’t get it, shut it down.” Animated by the rhetoric, the agitated mob tore down the barricades and blocked the door of the venue. Administrators and campus police called the event off with little attempt to apprehend the perpetrators of the violence and chaos.


A week later Refuse Fascism would carry out a conspiracy to disrupt the inauguration of President Donald Trump. Days before the event, undercover footage of Refuse Fascism organizer Sunsara Taylor was released by Project Veritas revealing their plan to disrupt the inauguration with various anti-White terrorist groups. The conspirators included numerous organizations who later that summer would descend upon the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, such as Antifa Seven Hills, Ashville Anti-Racism, Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), Metropolitan Anarchist Coordinating Council (MACC), Redneck Revolt, and The Revolutionary Communist Party (RevCom), to name just a few.

The night prior to the inauguration, members of Refuse Fascism clashed with police outside Trump International Hotel. They then met up with other anti-White “antifa” terrorists outside the Deploraball, an event put on by Donald Trump’s most vocal supporters. Mob participants threw objects such as eggs and batteries at those entering the venue and attacked multiple attendees. Among those attacked was James Allsup, a young college student from Washington state who would go on to attend Unite the Right. While debating a member of the mob, he was surrounded by the anti-White “antifa” terrorists who stole his hat. When he attempted to retrieve it, the terrorists beat him. They then proceeded to stalk him and attacked him again, hitting him in the back of the head leaving him bleeding so profusely that he had to be taken to the hospital.

A young James Allsup was taken to the hospital following an attack by anti-White “Antifa” terrorists outside the DeploraBall, January 19, 2017.

On the day of the inauguration, Refuse Fascism stormed a highway, shutting down all traffic. Code Pink also blocked streets in an attempt to stop the inauguration from taking place. During the human blockade Tighe Barry, a member of Code Pink who’s in a relationship with the organization’s cofounder, Medea Benjamin, was wearing a large Refuse Fascism sticker on his chest and claimed that “we blocked this street because…we feel like we have the right to tell them not to go into our city.” The stunt created chaos, but unlike Unite the Right, police stepped in and made arrests. Code Pink has a history protesting with Refuse Fascism, and its leaders Tighe Barry and cofounder Medea Benjamin were among those who attended the Unite the Right Rally.

In other parts of the city, Refuse Fascism members participated in a goon march with black bloc terrorists where they proceeded to riot through the streets, smashing windows and setting a limousine on fire. Several hundred were arrested, although only around 20 of the 234 people arrested were ever convicted, and those were primarily due to plea deals. Unlike the majority of the January 6 capital protesters who were refused bail, the majority of those arrested in 2017 received bail and had their charges dropped by prosecutors.

It was during the chaos that defendant Richard Spencer was famously punched in the head by an anti-White black bloc terrorist, igniting a media firestorm about the “ethics of punching Nazis.” One writer for Politico resigned in disgrace after implying that Spencer should be beaten with a baseball bat. A Huffington Post writer instructed his readers to assault White advocates, referring to them with the pejorative, anti-White racial slur of “nazi.” The racial incitement of the public to violence by the mainstream corporate media would contribute to the chaos in Charlottesville that summer, as well as help to cover up attacks on Unite the Right participants.

Crashing Berkeley

With the success of their heckler’s veto at UC Davis and close attempt at a successful coup at the inauguration, Refuse Fascism members launched another aggressive attack several week later against Yiannopoulos’ UC-Berkeley speaking engagement. Following a similar pattern, Refuse Fascism showed up early along with other anti-White terrorist organizations. These groups included the TORCH Antifa Network’s local chapter Northern California Anti-Racist Action (NoCARA) whom law enforcement claimed had attacked a pro-White rally in Sacramento in 2016 hosted by Sines v. Kessler defendants Matt Parrot and Matthew Heimbach’s Traditionalist Worker Party (TWP). Other organizations included By Any Means Necessary (BAMN), whose founding members worked with and were members of the openly pedophile organization North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMLBA), as well as Refuse Fascism’s parent group, the Revolutionary Communist Party (RevCom). A Buzzfeed livestream filmed the entire event, and showed Refuse Fascism members instigating the riot, pulling down the barricades and leading the mob up to the building where the event was set to occur.

After pulling down police barricades, Refuse Fascism member with shield and sign (second from the right) leads the mob into the prohibited area, kicking off the riot.

As the mob attacked the building using the metal barricades as battering rams against the glass windows, they fired explosives at law enforcement. Several women who came to see Yiannopolus speak were then attacked. One of the young female students was giving an interview with local media when she was pepper sprayed. Another woman was attacked with a club disguised as a flagpole. After fending off her attacker, another masked terrorist sprayed her in the face with pepper spray. She was then beaten mercilessly by multiple terrorists with wooden clubs.

A mobile light tower illuminating the plaza was knocked over and caught fire. Numerous trash cans were knocked over and lit on fire, and even a bank  had a  flare thrown in it as the mob proceeded to celebrate the success of their heckler’s veto by parading down the street adjacent to the school and vandalizing local businesses. The San Francisco Chronicle estimated $100,000 in damage to the school and the surrounding area.

Yvette Felarca, a leading member of BAMN openly bragged on Fox News to Tucker Carlson about how her terrorist group had helped shut down the event. Refuse Fascism claimed on their website that “what happened at UC Berkeley is part of the kind of broad, powerful and meaningful protest which needs to continue on an unprecedented scale to OUST this regime from power” and that their actions were “righteous” with “much more like this…[is] needed.”

Plaintiff Natalie Romero, Movimiento Cosecha, and Refuse Fascism

Sines v Kessler plaintiff Natalie Romero, who admitted her parents were in the country illegally, travelled from Houston to Charlottesville on August 12, 2017 to call for the ethnic cleansing of European cultural symbols from the city’s parks. She is among those who filed a lawsuit that same year alleging speakers and organizers of the event “conspired” with James Fields to hit her with his vehicle. Despite a law enforcement investigator involved with the Fields case admitting under oath that there was no evidence of communication between Fields and other Unite the Right defendants of the Sines v Kessler lawsuit, Romero and her fellow plaintiffs have continued to make the unsubstantiated allegation. Why, despite lack of evidence, Romero has continued to make such allegations which have destroyed the lives of the plaintiffs is unknown. However, new evidence reveals that Romero had a history of blocking traffic and was a member of an organization with deep ties to the anti-White terrorist organization Refuse Fascism.

Movimiento Cosecha & Refuse Fascism

At the time of the Unite the Right event in 2017, Romero was a member of the anti-White, racial replacement organization Movimiento Cosecha. The group calls for open borders and the amnesty of all illegal aliens residing in the United States; it had conducted numerous acts of civil disobedience across the country in the months prior to, and in the years following, Unite the Right. In Michigan, three of their members were arrested in April of 2017 for blocking a highway. Two months later, in an event Romero would help lead, 15 members (of whom four were illegally in the country) were arrested in Austin, Texas for sitting in the street and blocking traffic in front of the State’s Capitol. In 2019, 22 members were arrested in Detroit for blocking the Windsor Tunnel.

Movimiento Cosecha’s president Dylan Lazerow, is unsurprisingly Jewish. A recent in-depth report by the National Justice Party revealed that Israel’s strategy outside its borders is the exact opposite of what it advocates for its own people, and that the majority of organizations assisting migrants in ethnically replacing Europeans in all White countries are run by Jews. Even in cases where Christian churches are involved, they are receiving Jewish funding to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars. While Lazerow has opposed Israeli settlement policy of Palestine, he promotes the settlement of tens of millions of unwanted non-Whites into European nations.

Movimiento Cosecha President Dylan Lazerow with Refuse Fascism Co-Founder Cornel West.

In March of 2017, Lazerow posted a photo on his Facebook page of himself posing with Cornel West, a cofounder and lead spokesman of Refuse Fascism who has fielded various interviews for the terrorist organization. West was recently denied tenure and compelled to resign from his position at Harvard by the institute’s Jewish leadership for criticism of Israel’s ethnic cleansing of Palestine. Like Lazaro, however, West has no problem promoting the ethnic replacement of European peoples, but he does have a problem with ethnically cleansing Palestinians.

While it is common for popular people to have their photo taken with random individuals they don’t know, this was not the case with Lazerow and West. Lazerow once posted a Movimiento Cosecha advertisement with Cornel West quoting him as sayingIn this moment in history, the people dedicated to loving their neighbors must resist. Stand with me as I join Movimiento Cosecha and our immigrant brothers and sisters on May 1st for the #DayWithoutImmigrants — and beyond — as we work to win permanent protection, dignity, and respect.” Furthermore, Movimiento Cosecha also has a history of demonstrating with Refuse Fascism. These facts reveal close ties between the two organizations.

Refuse Fascism members participate in Movimiento Cosecha’s Austin, Texas action.  

Less than a month prior to the now infamous Unite the Right rally Natalie Romero and other members of her organization, along with members of Refuse Fascism, blocked traffic in Austin, Texas to demand citizenship for millions illegally living within the country. Video of the incident revealed Romero to be playing a major role, practicing and then leading the group in chants with a megaphone as they approached the state capitol. Romero initiated chants such as “The power, is in our hands. This is our state!” and “Undocumented and unafraid.” She even went so far as to parrot a slogan taken straight out of the Communist ManifestoOne struggle, one fight. Workers of the world unite!

As the group approached the intersection of Congress Avenue and 15th Street, a number of agitators marched into the center of the road. Romero can be seen in the background, wearing an orange reflective safety vest blocking traffic on Congress. Fifteen Movimiento Cosecha members were arrested during the action. As those arrested were moved into transport vehicles, Romero led those still remaining in further chants celebrating their actions calling for policy that would further the ongoing racial replacement Americans.

Following the Unite the Right rally, Movimiento Cosecha published a photo of Romero wearing a t-shirt with their logo emblazoned on it and holding a megaphone, claiming her as a member. Another photo published on the organization’s Facebook page on July 25, prior to their July action, shows Romero lying on a pile of Movimiento Cosecha t-shirts with another activist with the caption “We are in Austin! Text “RESISTE” to 41411 to stay updated as we launch the first DACAmented sit-in of the Trump era TOMORROW at 11am. Stay tuned!” This evidence reveals that Romero was no average member, but a very active participant with the organization.

“We are in Austin! Text “RESISTE” to 41411 to stay updated as we launch the first DACAmented sit-in of the Trump era TOMORROW at 11am. Stay tuned!” Natalie Romero (bottom left) poses on a pile of t-shirts for Movimiento Cosecha days prior to blocking traffic in Austin, Texas and a month prior to Unite the Right.

As Unite the Right attendees headed to their vehicles on August 12, 2017 the anti-White mob who managed to shut down the rally followed them to the parking lot on South Street where they blocked attendees in and then attacked and chased their vehicles as they attempted to leave. Moments before Romero and several of her co-plaintiffs were struck by Fields’ vehicle, the mob she was marching with were celebrating how they successfully shut the rally down, chanting “who shut shit down, we shut shit down!” Those Romero was illegally blocking the street with during the state of emergency consisted of various anti-White terrorist cells, such as the Revolutionary Abolitionist Movement, several chapters of the TORCH Antifa Network, along with members of Refuse Fascism.

Seth Wispelwey Invites Refuse Fascism’s lead spokesman Cornel West to Help Him Shut Down Unite the Right

In preparation for Unite the Right, plaintiff Seth Wispelwey’s organizations, Congregate Charlottesville and the United Church of Christ, hosted direct action training in preparation for violating the rights of those he is now frivolously suing. During a press conference on July 31, 2017, Wispelwey claimed that Refuse Fascism’s spokesman Cornel West and others “had already responded to the call and are committing to join Congregate’s efforts in Charlottesville to confront the rise of White Nationalist’s political power and refuse to let Charlottesville be used as a platform towards those ends.”  It is no surprise then that several days prior to Unite the Right, West’s anti-White terrorist organization Refuse Fascism called on their members to go to Charlottesville to “protest” the event, a word which the organization had previously used to describe mass rioting and violence they instigated at UC Berkeley.

On the night before Unite the Right, West gave a sermon at St. Paul’s Memorial Church in Charlottesville where he proclaimed to thunderous applause “We have to take a stand! That’s why some of us came to fight and get arrested if necessary!”  During the church service Wispelwey took the microphone and announced thatThis [service] is the result of Congregate [C’Ville] being in existence for one month. Think about what we could do in Charlottesville over one year,” and “We are working as the fiscal sponsors for this work.” Prior to the rally the following morning, West gave another sermon at First Baptist Church where he further called on the congregation to get arrested with them to stop the rally, telling the congregantsWhen we march this morning. We hold hands and lock in this morning. When we’re seen this morning. When we get arrested this morning. When we go to jail this morning, let’s try to remember those, the best of those who came before who sacrificed so much for us. Who paid a greater cost than we gonna pay today.” West then marched to the park with Wispelwey and blocked the entrance.

Cornel West joined Seth Wispelway and other clergy block the entrance to the park and discuss tactics with anti-White terrorists.

Wispelwey blocked UTR participants from entering the park just yards away from where Refuse Fascism members attacked numerous event attendees. Newly released drone footage shows some of the attacks which are all clearly unprovoked. Other video and photographic evidence shows Refuse Fascism members knocking individuals to the ground, kicking and stomping on their heads. The Charlottesville police department never prosecuted the assailants, despite the large black and white signs they were holding during the assaults clearly displaying what organization they were with.

Following the rally, in an attempt to separate himself from the violence of Refuse Fascism and other anti-White terrorist organizations while simultaneously showing his approval of their actions, Wispelwey claimed in an interview with Slate magazine that “They [“antifa”] have their tools to achieve their purposes, and they are not the ones I will personally use, but let me stress that our purposes were the same: block this violent tide and do not let it take a pedestal.” Britany “Smash” Cain-Coneley, who co-founded Congregate Charlottesville with Wispelwey claimed in a now deleted interview with United Church of Christ that “We were all there with the same goal,” in reference to the violent anti-White “antifa” terrorists.

Far from exculpating Wispelwey, these statements, in concert with what is now known about his connection to the Refuse Fascism leadership, indicate his intentions at Unite the Right. During a Q&A session following Unite the Right, Wispelwey was asked about his cooperation with anti-White terrorists; he responded “I encourage a perspective shift. Because when you start to see that that violent ideology, systemically and directly, bodily and physically, harms everyone who doesn’t look like me. Then to stand and confront White Supremacy in its many forms is not an act, is not obstructing someone’s constitutional rights. It is an act of love. Maybe they have a right to the rally, we have a right to block them.”

Wispelwey went on to bemoan his co-religionists who rebuked his actions, admitting that he had “been accused of inciting violence by liberal White Christians so many times for showing up and trying to block their [UTR participants] entrance.” This statement reveals that it was very clear to many in his community that what he was doing would lead to violence. Numerous statements made by Wispelwey on social media since Unite the Right clearly demonstrate that this charlatan was in fact inciting violence and vandalism against his political opponents. Wispelwey encouraged his followers to damage the property of relatives who watch Fox News, assault people with milkshakes; he also follows various anti-White “Antifa” terrorist accounts on social media such as Bat City Antifa, New York City Antifa, and It’s Going Down.

Wispelwey went on to make numerous unsubstantiated, hyperbolic claims that “antifa” had saved his life. After reviewing hundreds of hours of video footage and volumes of photographic evidence of Unite the Right, my colleagues and I  were unable to discover any instance where Wispelwey’s life was anywhere close to being in danger. This cannot be said of Unite the Right attendees whose heads were kicked and stomped on by Refuse Fascism members after being knocked to the ground in unprovoked attacks. Furthermore, evidence conclusively demonstrates that the riots that occurred on the night of the torchlight ceremony at the University of Virginia on the rotunda the night of August 11 and the brawl on 2nd and E. Market street the following day would not have occurred had it not been for the instigation of well-known anti-White “antifa” terrorist groups.

Video evidence has revealed that the night of the torchlight ceremony, several participants were assaulted by known anti-White terrorists, particularly Thomas Keenan and Thomas Massey. While demonstrators were coming down onto the rotunda, Massey, who was arrested for rioting at Donald Trump’s inauguration and was quoted in The Washington Post as being disappointed he and his comrades weren’t able to commit more violence and hoped that he would at future events,  splashed an unknown liquid from a water bottle on torchlight participants. He then turned to journalist Dave Reilly and smacked his camera out of his hand. One “antifa” went so far as to spit on an attendee who did not retaliate. Another man who confronted the two had his arm hit by Keenan in an attempt to knock his torch out of his hand. It was only after these repeated assaults against torchlight participants and refusal of local law enforcement to intervene, that the rioting kicked off. The following year, Keenan and Massey would be arrested for the beating of two U.S. Marines in Philadelphia, in which they were charged with racial intimidation, among other things.

Thomas Massey (Left) and Thomas Keenan (Right) at the August 11, 2017 Charlottesville Torchlight ceremony (Top), 2018 mugshots for the beating of two U.S. Marines in Philadelphia (bottom).

The day of the rally, minutes after Richard Spencer was attacked with bear mace as he entered the park, Keenan, Massey, and various other anti-White terrorists rushed to barricade the street to block the National Front’s entrance to the park. A flag bearer at the head of the parade attempted to push his way through them and was immediately punched by various individuals so as to not let him through. As other National Front members came to his aid, the anti-White gang members pulled out weapons, including a hammer, to attack them with. The situation was the complete opposite of defendant Wispelwey’s claim.

The facts regarding just how these altercations were initiated reveal that there was no threat to the people of Charlottesville and minorities from Unite the Right participants. The violence that broke out was a direct result of known anti-White terrorist networks coming to Charlottesville to utilize violence and intimidation to stop White Americans from expressing themselves and participating in the democratic process in what has been the greatest modern civil rights violation in modern American history. These organizations and their anti-White terrorist members openly claimed they were heading to the rally to disrupt it. The Governor of Virginia, Terry McAuliffe, claimed they had intelligence that extremist groups planned to attack rally participants and law enforcement. Afterwards they bragged on their websites about how they attacked the rally while relying on the anti-White, Jewish-owned mass media to cover up the terrorist’s actions.

Adding insult to injury, the real victims of racial violence and intimidation are now on trial in a SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) lawsuit launched by the very individuals who conspired with the anti-White terrorists in the months prior to and during the rally to violate their rights. We will soon see if the Charlottesville jury will buy the outrageous conspiracy theory concocted by Roberta Kaplan and her slimy plaintiffs, though the psychological effects of widespread anti-White terrorism over the last few years means that even if the jury doesn’t buy it, they are likely to be too terrified to clear the defendants of all allegations for fear of their lives and careers.

Don’t Call it the Holocaust

“You ARE Zaphod Beeblebrox?”
“Yeah,” said Zaphod, “but don’t shout it out or they’ll all want one.”
“THE Zaphod Beeblebrox?”
“No, just A Zaphod Beeblebrox, didn’t you hear I come in six packs?”
—Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy

In many ways, language is everything when it comes to demographic warfare. The group that can control what other groups are allowed to say has the upper hand because controlling what a person says ultimately leads to controlling what a person thinks. And once you can do that, you can quite easily coerce entire classes and races of people into doing your bidding. The Soviets understood this well, and it was one reason why they were able to manage their oppression of a vast populace for many years.

Whites, as an oppressed class in our current demographic struggles, should be well aware by now of the language restrictions which have been placed on them. For example, referring to blacks as “Negroes” or Asians as “Orientals” is considered not just out of date, but offensive. Calling a black person a “nigger” is practically grounds for murder these days. But what way of referring to Whites is analogous to this? Nothing, really. Recently, a Jew named Donald Moss announced from his perch within the American Psychoanalytic Association that whiteness is a parasitic condition to which there is no cure. Can’t get too much more defamatory than that. And did Dr. Moss get in any trouble for offending White people? Of course not. After all, the Nation of Islam has been calling White people blue-eyed devils for years and getting away with it.

As a result of this pervasive abuse, I believe it is time for Whites to go on the offensive on the language front in the great demographic war. This means that we should produce a list of terms that we should never allow anyone, including other Whites, to say in our presence. Racial insults, of course, should top this list. Under no circumstances should we allow anyone to use the terms “redneck,” “cracker” or other racial epithets in a derogatory way. These should be met with a barrage of accusations of racism, followed by charges of hypocrisy and whatever else the circumstances call for. Basically, this should mark the permanent end of the conversation with those who think they can defame White people and get away with it.

But these are obvious cases. Less obvious is the derogatory term “Nazi” which I discuss in my 2019 Counter-Currents article “The Other N-Word.” I think, however, the most potent weapon at our disposal is the one which can turn the tables on the most potent weapon of our enemies—that is, the insidious demographic weapon known as “The Holocaust.” Not the historical event, mind you, but the demographic weapon which was designed to weaken the morale and spirit of an entire people through guilt, propaganda, and lawfare. The aggressive application of language which I outline below can work regardless if one believes the anti-Jewish atrocities of the 1940s happened or didn’t happen, or were exaggerated or not. This is about controlling language, not arguing history.

Any time a racially conscious White has a serious discussion with a Jew—or, really, anyone on the Left—they need to interrupt their interlocutor as soon as “the Holocaust” is mentioned. There are several ways to approach this. One could take the snarky Jonathan Bowden tack and ask not-so-innocently which holocaust they’re referring to. From Western Civilization Strikes Back, pages 97–98:

The deputy chairman of the party that I was in was asked about the Shoah on a Channel Four program. And he said, “Well, which ‘Shoah’ are you referring to? Are you talking about the communist holocausts, many of which were inspired by Jewish ideas?”

Silence. A very radical statement for a contemporary BNP leader. Silence. Silence.

A clever rhetorical twist, that.

I would prefer, however, to keep things on the up-and-up. When they say “the Holocaust,” we know that they are referring to the Jewish Holocaust—which is what it should be called—and it would be best if we didn’t pretend not to know this unless one has a talent for witty repartee and can handle oneself in these kinds of conversations. So in response to any reference to “the Holocaust,” a racially aware White person should resist the urge to make a Douglas Adams reference and instead politely inform their interlocuter that such a term is racist and evinces an offensive form of ethnic chauvinism.

Why? (They will invariably find the accusation shocking and in all innocence inquire “Why?”). Because by employing the definite article “the” and the capital “H,” the term’s user implies that there is only one holocaust. All other holocausts are, to borrow an expression from Jean-Marie Le Pen, a “just a detail in history.” For example, the Bengal Famine. I’m sure any Jewish person using the term “the Holocaust” would be interested to discover how Winston Churchill requisitioned grain from India during the Second World War, and thereby caused the starvation of up to three million Indians in the Bengal province of British India in 1943. That’s a holocaust. Referring to what happened to the Jewish diaspora in Europe from 1941 to 1945 as “the” holocaust is an insult to all the people who died in the Bengal Famine and every other holocaust before and since.

And if the person hasn’t scurried away or shrieked “anti-Semite!” by this point, then one can bring up the atrocities of the early Soviet period, such as the terror famines, the Great Terror, and the Gulag Archipelago. That’s between 17 and 18 million lives disposed of, according Robert Conquest’s Harvest of Sorrow and The Great Terror. Throw in all the victims of the gulag up to 1939, and you have millions more. These were all holocausts, no? In fact, the point could be made that the Soviets were the ones who committed “the Holocaust” since they killed far more people than the Nazis did and with less reason. This last part is crucial. Whatever atrocities the Nazis committed, they at least had the excuse of being at war and forced to deal with a hostile population of Jews prone to sabotage and guerilla warfare. In fact, by 1944 they were at war with three superpowers on at least as many fronts. The Soviets had no such excuse since they drenched their countryside in blood in the years between the Russian Civil War and the Second World War—in other words, peacetime.

And if by luck or persistence the conversation continues, then one can bring up the names of all the Jews who contributed to “the Holocaust”—this one and only Holocaust—upon millions of innocent Russians, Ukrainians, and others prior to when most Jews even knew what a concentration camp was. Readers of this site probably don’t need an itemization of such a list. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s Two Hundred Years Together is a great source. But there are many others.

At this point, there can be no more conversation. We have flipped the script, so to speak. We have trumped the Jewish victim card with an even higher one of our own. We have overwhelmed their most powerful weapon with an even greater one of our own. All because of our control of language. All because we don’t let them or anyone else get away with calling the anti-Jewish atrocities of the 1940s “the Holocaust.” All because we make explicit what Jews have for so long kept implicit with their use the definite article and that dreaded capital “H”—that Jews believe that Jewish lives are worth more than non-Jewish lives. Once we expose this, they have no defense to charges of racism which will naturally follow.

Of course, nothing is this simple in life, and nothing will change in our favor overnight. But if enough Whites were to take this relatively easy tack in the public sphere—and not just on social media, televised news, or on CSPAN, but in everyday discussions with family, friends, and colleagues—then the Jews and their allies will be forced onto the defensive for a change. They will face a rare reversal in the demographic wars. And after that, who knows what could happen?

Sleepwalking into a Non-White Future

“About six-in-ten White adults of all ages say the declining share of White people in the population is neither good nor bad for society.”
Pew Research Center, August 23 2021

I was fascinated and frustrated by a recent series of polls conducted by the Pew Research Center on attitudes toward America’s declining White population. While there are several interesting layers to Pew’s findings, the key message is that a significant majority of White respondents indicated that they feel the declining share of White people in the population is neither good nor bad for society. In other words, they feel that nothing will fundamentally change for them or their children despite their slide into minority status. Pew point out that “the 2020 census showed the U.S. had a shrinking non-Hispanic White population … down 3% – or about 5.1 million people – from 2010 to 2020. The decline was widespread geographically, with 35 states seeing drops in their non-Hispanic White populations.” Pew contextualize this both in terms of immigration and natural increase among non-White populations, but also in terms of a rise in interracial marriages and the growing number of multiracial or multiethnic babies. While Whites retain the largest share of the American population among single-ethnic groups, Pew are clear that they are on an inexorable downward trajectory. The “non-Hispanic White population in the U.S. that identifies with a single race” is expected to fall below 50% by 2045.

H.L. Mencken once described faith as “an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable.” Intended primarily as a barb against the religious, I couldn’t help but find it appropriate to the 61% of White adults who told Pew that the momentous changes outlined above will have absolutely no effect on American society and culture. This is to say nothing of the 15% of respondents who told Pew that such a transformation is “good for society” or “very good.” I wouldn’t be at all surprised if this last figure was dominated by Jews in Whiteface (see Kevin MacDonald’s comments on Jennifer Rubin’s unmitigated joy at White decline), but the general picture of this survey is undeniably of a White population sleepwalking into a future that has every indication of being very bad indeed.

Who are the sleepwalkers? Pew stress that “differences by age are especially pronounced.” Among respondents aged between 18 and 29, 29% say White demographic decline is good for society, compared with 13% who say it is bad. By contrast, “32% of Americans ages 65 and older say this demographic shift is bad for society and only 6% say it is good.” While there are some predictable differences between Republican and Democratic voters on whether the transformation of America will be good or bad, almost identical percentages of respondents from each party commented that it would bring about no meaningful social change and was neither good nor bad (61% of Republicans vs. 62% Democrats). Education does not appear to have had a dramatic effect on responses. Among those with postgraduate degrees, 14% replied that White demographic decline would be “somewhat bad” or “very bad,” while 18% responded that it would be “somewhat good” or “very good.” The largest percentage, in keeping with responses broken down by age and politics, was the 69% of postgrad degree holders who asserted that the transformation of America would be neither good nor bad.

“Neither Good nor Bad”

At the risk of over-analyzing a seemingly straightforward statement, I think it’s worth reflecting on the mental processes and cultural messaging that might produce the sleepwalking response highlighted by Pew. The results themselves, one might argue, could be interpreted in a “glass half full/glass half empty” kind of way, and there’s an element of truth to this argument. After all, more than 80% of White respondents to Pew refused to describe White demographic decline in America as a good thing. In the context of the demonization of White history and culture on a mass scale, and the intensification of social pressure against any form of White self-assertion, such a result could be seen as a Pyrrhic victory. Kevin MacDonald, along with several other writers at this site, have shown that there is systemic incentivization for accelerating the decline of White influence and demography, from diversity promotion in industry and business to discrimination against Whites in education and employment. The overwhelming message of modern multicultural society is that White majorities anywhere, and in any walk of life, are inherently bad, and that the easiest and most conclusive method of achieving a better, more vibrant, and more just society involves reducing White representation and flooding every historically White nation or institution with an ethnic panoply. Despite my own deeply pessimistic nature, I must confess to a level of astonishment that in the midst of such a hostile cultural context only 1 in 5 agreed that White demographic decline would be good.

But how to explain the hesitancy to describe it as bad? Isn’t it one of the most human instincts to regret loss of any kind? Each and every day, human beings regret the loss of loved ones, of wealth, of status, of youthful looks, of health, and of cherished possessions. White demographic decline, despite all propaganda, is clearly a harbinger of loss, indeed, massive loss. In simple terms, it marks a break in a chain of successive possession. You inherit land or possessions from an ancestor, and you pass it to a descendent, becoming in the course of that process an ancestor yourself. The United States of America has been a White project of successive possession since the days of the earliest colonies, and that project will come to an end on the day and hour that Whites cease to be capable of determining the direction of the nation. I say “capable of determining” rather than simply “determining” because there are clearly already hostile influential elites directing the course of contemporary America in ways antithetical to White interests. But a White majority at least entails the promise of hope that this situation can be rectified. The loss of the White majority is a loss of hope in recapturing the machinery and assets of the original project. After that Rubicon has been crossed, the only option will be to commence a new project that must have, at its heart, the recapturing of majority status.

Losing demographic control of White nations will resemble losing control of a car, since the consequences of being displaced on one’s own territory have been shown in the vast course of human history to be catastrophic, invariably being accompanied by a rise in violence, political subjugation, social ostracism, and dehumanization. Everything our “woke” critics wish to say about historical White imperialism or dominance are simply truisms of the human animal wherever it is found. What they now decry, they will soon prescribe. The dominant will dominate, and being a minority, especially when you are not historically adapted and tactically equipped for that position (unlike the Jews who are extremely well adapted to it), is a position of vulnerability to be avoided at all costs. Those who point to the protected status of minorities across contemporary Western nations forget that this is a side-effect of a particularly nasty White political hallucination that will evaporate as soon as Whites fall into minority status themselves. Whites who believe they will be granted, in an inter-ethnic quid pro quo, legal privileges, preferential paths to employment, and outsized representation in everything from TV ads to government have clearly not been reading between the lines of the hostile mass propaganda. They are living in a fool’s paradise. Where sleepwalking Whites expect reciprocity, they will find only revenge.

In less materialistic terms, White demographic decline is also a harbinger of profound cultural loss. The signs are already here. When was the last time you saw a media depiction of a normal, ethnically homogenous White community or even just a normal White family? White demographic decline means Whites will see less of themselves, or nothing at all, in the products of the culture they inhabit. The surrounding culture will, at best, become unrelatable and meaningless, and, at worst, incredibly hostile or dangerous.  If culture is the method by which a people speaks to itself about itself and its aspirations, then Whites can expect to become culturally muted, hearing only the browbeating messages of foreigners and losing all natural sense of direction as a consequence. White culture will either be forced to develop on the small-scale, in isolated pockets of ethnic homogeneity, or it will atrophy and stagnate. Faced with the demonization of historical White culture, in which it is regarded and presented as having the potential to inspire future White “wrongs,” White culture will also be subject to ever more aggressive erasure by the new dominant powers.

Liars, Cowards, and Gamblers

Faced with such potential losses, how and why have so many sleepwalkers conjured up a neutral, non-committal response? The first possibility, of course, is that deep down they hold more pessimistic views but are afraid to express them. All commentary on White Flight suggests that Whites abandon any area as soon as they become a minority, or even shrinking majority, in it. So how can people have neutral feelings for a process of decline on a national scale when they can’t even stomach it on Main Street? Is it possible that the results from Pew merely reflect apprehension and anxiety on the part of Whites to express their true feelings on diversity? While interesting, I don’t derive any comfort from this possibility. If there is so strong a sense of social fear that even an anonymous poll prompts evasion and disavowals of one’s own interests then the level of cowardice would be such that all is lost anyway.

I believe, however, that the poll results are at least in some way accurate in reflecting the true, though confused, feelings of the White population. The overwhelming majority of answers are reflective of inertia — of an inability to decide. I believe that the majority of these answers arise from a place in the White mind that is only too aware that diversity isn’t good, but also from a place that simply hasn’t been culturally equipped to see a little further down the road. I believe most Whites have an instinctual apprehension that White decline will be bad for society, but that they are so bombarded with contrary messaging that they struggle to conceptualize in what ways that society will be bad. And, unlike White flight, if the entire nation tips non-White, where is there to go? White Flight will itself become redundant. Whites will be locked in with diversity. Is the only option then, from a psychological standpoint, to simply engage in denial and hope for the best? The Pew results suggest so.

Contemporary mass culture is also a psychological trap in the sense that the White multiculturalist becomes little more than a gambler. The man in a casino mindlessly inserting cash into a fruit machine does so in an entirely artificial environment. He feels comfortable even as he loses money. He loses sense of time, and he continues to insert cash and pull the lever because lights flash, wheels spin, and there is an occasional but dramatic clang of coins into a shiny steel pocket. These are his meagre rewards. He feels good when they happen, but eventually the rewards stop and he has nothing left to give. The thought that the system was against him all along, and that his losses were preordained and predictable may not even occur to him as he walks away semi-dazed and uncomfortable with himself. The White multiculturalist is aware, consciously or not, that if he makes certain affirming noises about diversity, then he will receive the social equivalent of the flashing lights, spinning wheels, and clanging coins. He’ll attract many “likes,” for example, or if he really hits the jackpot he might get a grant or a promotion. He continues to insert the required price of the machine—support for diversity, but he’s ignorant, like the gambler, of the fact his environment is false and the system is designed for his bankruptcy. White demographic decline is the slowly emptying pocket of the gambler. Like all gamblers, the closer they get to the empty pocket, the more reckless and dramatic become the delusions of sudden winnings. For this reason, I expect that as White America’s decline accelerates, we can expect a superficially contradictory state of affairs in which swathes of Whites really do convince themselves that it’s for the best, and that society will be about to turn some magical Utopian corner. The gambler resists the thought that he was utterly stupid to ever have played the game. The multiculturalist will deny the suggestion that he contributes to his own downfall.

Fundamentally, this is what bothers me most about the Pew findings, and why I refuse the “glass half full” interpretation of them. Anyone suggesting that the dramatic changes in demography, power, and influence currently underway will be “neither good nor bad,” is living in an artificial environment in the national casino. Anyone who cannot see the stark and imminent losses on the horizon is living in an eternal present, divorced from the past and unable to conceptualize the future. They have no idea that the hour is getting late.

“A Kind of Triumph”

Inertia among normal Whites is in stark contrast to the palpable increase in joy and excited anticipation of opposing factions (see Kevin MacDonald’s latest piece examining the worst that Twitter has to offer). For the latter, there is no question of White decline being “neither bad nor good.” White demographic decline is instead a massive victory. It’s something so worthy of celebration, in fact, that they are counting down to it. Brookings Institute demographer William H. Frey, of unknown ethnic provenance, has opined in his 2018 Diversity Explosion: How New Racial Demographics are Remaking America that “these changes are a good-news story for America.”[1] I find it endlessly fascinating that this prophet of good news gave his first major speech on the issue to, of all possible places, the American Jewish Committee at Houston’s Beth Yeshurun synagogue.

The remark that White America’s decline was a “good news story” reminded me of the British Jewish journalist Jonathan Freedland’s comments following the 2011 UK census. Freedland first pointed out that “the country is now less white and less Christian. In 2001, white people accounted for 91% of the total population. In the latest census, that figure is down five points to 86%.” For Freedland, 1948 was a pivotal year in British history because it “saw the arrival of the Windrush, the ship bearing the Caribbean migrants who would change the face of Britain.” He cajoled his readers into the belief that he is a jolly old Anglo-Saxon with clever references to “we” and “us,” arguing that “we should love the country we have become — informal, mixed, quirky — rather than the one we used to be.” Freedland then reported gleefully that “White Britons have become a minority in London, accounting for only 45% of the city’s population,” and ended his article with the astonishing remark that “the main story is surely that this country has undergone a radical transformation in this last decade and the ones before — and it has done so with relative peace and relative calm. No one will hand out any gold medals for that, but it’s a kind of triumph all the same.” Britain, like America, is undergoing its changes “with relative peace and relative calm” because it is also home to sleepwalkers, liars, cowards, and gamblers.


This is an unapologetically pessimistic essay, to the extent that its intention is not to demoralize but to assist with sharpening our vision of the problem at hand. This problem involves an artificial environment, a rigged system of temporary reward, and an ever-diminishing return for any Whites playing the dangerous game of diversity. In life you either gain or lose. There is no room for stasis. The idea that massive demographic change will be “neither good nor bad” is nothing more than an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable. The Pew findings indicate that any kind of White awakening to a full realization of the true nature of White decline will be a mammoth task.

[1] W. H. Frey, Diversity Explosion: How New Racial Demographics are Remaking America (Washington D.C.: Brookings Institute, 2018).

What we’re up against: White liberals rejoice at Whites becoming a minority

I know I spend too much time on Twitter, but this definitely caught my attention:

Yes, of course, it’s strange. What other definable group rejoices that they are becoming a minority and therefore with less power over their future, especially when we see so much anti-White hatred coming from high places? But this tweeter has 85.9k followers, and she is following 55.9k—which means that she is a member of a informal liberal Twitter “resist” group that reciprocates when anyone follows her, not that she is some kind of celebrity. (Although at least some liberal celebrities certainly are celebrating: Michael Moore called the announcement “the best day ever in US history.”)  “Liz ‘Bama’ #BLM #GoodTrouble” is “Bama born & raised,” and is definitely into virtue signaling: “I got nothin’ but Red heart. Equality, morality, integrity, empathy, knowledge & #’s are power. We are 1. Only here to resist.y’all.”

She tweeted this on Aug 22, and as of this writing there are 762 replies, 333 retweets (including 84 quote tweets-where tweeters commented on her tweet), and 3.2K likes, all from like-minded people, the vast majority White. Her tweet thus verges on being enough of a sample for a better understanding of how average, non-celebrity, garden-variety liberals think about the Great Replacement. First, however, I present some findings reviewed in my Chapter 8 of Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition showing that in general people are happier in more homogeneous communities and that White people in general do not rejoice at the news that they will soon be a minority.

Sociologist Robert D. Putnam recently showed that the greater the racial diversity of a community, the greater the loss of trust.[1] Putnam’s result is confirmed by studies conducted at the local community level.[2] Moreover, people living among fellow ethnics are happier than individuals living as an ethnic minority.[3] White people living in relatively homogeneous areas like New Hampshire or Montana are more involved with friends, the community, and politics than people in more diverse areas.[4]

There are also mechanisms that are likely to create an increased sense of White identity and White interests in the years ahead. The fundamental reason for this is the demographic transformation resulting from massive immigration of non-Whites into countries that were either homogeneously White or, like the United States (which in 1960 was ninety percent White), had a dominant White majority. This transformation, in which it is obvious that White political power is declining as Whites head toward minority status, would by itself trigger defensive mechanisms of implicit Whiteness and behavior such White flight discussed above.

Individualists are less naturally ethnocentric, and the left has created a culture that encourages Whites to inhibit expressions of ethnocentrism while encouraging non-Whites to be ethnocentric. Because the media is dominated by the left and because even the conservative media is terrified of appearing to advocate White interests, explicit messages that would encourage Whites to become angry and fearful about their future as a minority are rare. Indeed, the media rarely, if ever, mentions that Whites are well on their way to becoming a minority. And this for good reason: Whites in the United States and in Canada who are given explicit demographic projections of a time when Whites are no longer a majority tend to feel angry and fearful. They are also more likely to identify as Whites and have sympathy for other Whites.[5] [See also here and here.]

In other words, while I have emphasized the ability of the higher brain centers to inhibit ethnocentrism, explicit messages indicating that one’s racial group is threatened are able to trigger ethnocentrism. This is especially important because many Whites live far from the areas of their countries undergoing the demographic shifts. Their day-to-day life of living in an essentially White environment hasn’t changed while the population centers of New York, California, Toronto, and Vancouver have changed beyond all recognition from what they were 50 years ago. An obvious inference to be made is that pro-White activists should appeal to Whites’ higher brain centers with explicit messages emphasizing these transformations.

But as indicated in the following,  messages emphasizing the dwindling White majority are cause for rejoicing among a great many Whites.

In the present case, the trigger was the announcement that the 2020 census found that for the first time in American history, the White population had declined in absolute numbers and that Whites now comprise only 57.8% of the population. Good news for Democrats, of course: “Democrats have reason to be happy with this census data set,” Dave Wasserman, House editor of the Cook Political Report, told The New York Times, citing the higher-than-expected population tallies in New York and Chicago and the steady growth of the nation’s Hispanic population.”

But such news likely triggers twinges of anxiety, even in many White liberals—twinges that need to be suppressed by finding support from like-minded people. I suppose “Liz ‘Bama’ #BLM” felt a bit of anxiety, having been brought up in the South and probably aware that quite a few White Southerners think her attitudes are indeed a bit “strange.” So she decided to Tweet to her liberal Twitter followers in hopes of getting  support for her beliefs. And support she got, as shown by the numbers of positive replies and retweets. In the following I will describe several general categories of response and give pertinent examples of each.

White Racists Are Evil and Deserve Payback for Past Treatment of Non-Whites

It is common for these liberals to direct their invective at “White racists,” imagining that good liberals like themselves will be spared any negative consequences. They are thus oblivious to the general anti-White rhetoric that is common now. It doesn’t resonate with them that White women in general and White liberals as a group are being excoriated for their racism (e.g., Robin DiAngelo’s Nice Racism).  It’s common on the left to believe that all White people share the original sin of being White and therefore are blameworthy for such things as the history of slavery and colonialism by Whites.

There is obviously a moral dimension to this. As individualists, White people are particularly prone to forming moral communities (rather than kinship-based communities like the rest of the world) and to punishing people who dissent from their moral world view, even at substantial cost to themselves and even if they share many of the same characteristics as the people they are punishing, such being White. This is termed altruistic punishment by evolutionary psychologists and is a major theme of Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition. Liberals therefore rejoice when Whites are punished for their racial attitudes. And since many of them are quite clearly older, established White people, it doesn’t even cost them anything to rejoice about White replacement. They’re all set. Of course, that means they ignore not only the long-term prospects of the wider White population whose fate they are completely unconcerned about, but also the long-term effects on their children and other relatives (e.g., job prospects in an anti-White hiring environment), although, as indicated below, some, including “Liz ‘Bama'” probably don’t have any children.

The tweet below expresses the idea that “White supremacists” will be punished but that people like her will be just fine when Whites are a minority. She may change her mind when her children or grandchildren try to get a job, get into a good college, or get caught up in the judicial system if Whites become a minority.

A Black man tweets that Whites have nothing to worry about and Liz “Bama” #BLM responds that it’s just fine that Whites be treated in the future like non-Whites have been treated in the past. Since Liz “Bama” #BLM doesn’t mention children in her Twitter profile, I suspect she has the attitude that the retribution won’t affect her, so she really doesn’t care if anti-White hatred becomes even more mainstream than it is now. She’s got hers—in effect, a radical individualist.

People Who Advertise They Are Non-Reproductive

Here a “Mother of Cats” gives her input—presumably no children or grandchildren to worry about when Whites lose power. It’s all about coming off as good person. And presumptive fellow cat mother Liz “Bama” #BLM completely agrees.

And here’s another non-reproductive. Her(?) Twitter profile shows  enthusiasm for “dogs!,” BLM, Indigenous People, and “LGBTQIA.”

It’s Great that Whites are Becoming a Minority So We Can Usher in an Era of Peace and Harmony

While some responders look forward to retribution against “white racists,” others have the view that the world will be a much better place if non-Whites are in control. It’s going to be all peace and love. But watch out for the tax collector!

One aspect of this era of peace and harmony is that once White people are not in control, ethnic conflict will disappear—a view that’s obviously out of touch with historical reality. Fifty years of importing non-Whites has led to less ethnic conflict? But in their view, non-Whites are just so much nicer. This one is from “Feline, anarcho-socialist” (presumably non-reproductive). She is a lover of humanity.

In response to a virtue-signaler, the same person who did the previous tweet is so ill-informed she thinks that right-wing elites and corporations run the country and are preventing the triumph of the left. Watched much TV lately? Read about the politics of Hollywood, social media companies, academia, and large swaths of corporate America (Coca-Cola, etc.)?

My view is that, if all groups become minorities, it will set off ethnic/racial competition like this country’s never seen before. But:

Diversity contributes to personal growth!

And then there’s the food, but he’s careful to point out that he’s not one of those evil White gentrifiers.

The Unselfish Virtue-Signaler

Relevant to convincing these people of the short-sightedness of their ways, she also tweeted regarding liberal media coverage of the Afghanistan disaster. These people are living in a cult-like environment and actively tune out information that conflicts with their world view. Rational arguments have no weight because they are simply shut out of consciousness.

Looking Forward to a Future with Lots of Non-White Skin Tones

Finally, there’ll be a cure for skin cancer!

Media Memes: Diversity is Wonderful, and White Racists Are Stupid, Violent People

For at least the last 50 years the media has been filled with messages that White people who identify as White, have at least an implicit sense of White interests, or have negative beliefs and attitudes about non-Whites are stupid—they’re likely to live in a trailer park, shop at Walmart, and be missing a few teeth. At best they are buffoons, like Archie Bunker on Norman Lear’s All in the Family (first aired in 1971), which “spawn[ed] spinoffs that were actually just as popular; The Jeffersons, Maude, and Good Times. So popular that we actually saw a revival of All in the Family and The Jeffersons for ABC’s Live in Front of a Studio Audience in 2019.” White liberals have definitely gotten the message:

And another tweet that reflects the power of the media in promoting diversity:

And yet another pervasive meme, both in education and the media, is “white privilege,”  so it’s no surprise to read that whatever White people achieve is because it was “handed to them at birth”:

And of course, there’s the pervasive meme of “there’s no such thing as race,” coupled here with a very tendentious view of history right out of “The 1619 Project” and your average Black Studies course—and now the K-12 curriculum in many school districts.

Relatedly, this person repeats the “race is only skin deep” mantra:

Religious Reasons: Jesus Would Approve of Whites Becoming a Minority

Whites Are Still Scary and, Like a Cornered Animal, Will Fight to Retain Power. Government

This is reminiscent of Jennifer Rubin’s tweet in response to the census news that formed the starting point of my previous essay. This person must be reading the Washington Post:

But on the other hand, this tweet expresses fear that some non-Whites will join evil Whites to become part of “the oppressive.”

A Presumably Jewish Person Deciding to Not To Be White Any Longer 

Now that Whites are under continuous attack for their so-called privileges and systemic racism, etc., I have noticed in the Jewish media that it’s becoming common now for Jews to explicitly say they are not White (this doesn’t include the “fellow-Whites” who claim to be Jews while lecturing Whites on how evil they are on social media).

Not Wanting to See Race

These White folks are accepting what has become a mantra among conservatives: that we should be colorblind. This is the basis of the conservative critique of Critical Race Theory because it leads people to be more aware of race and vilifies White people. Surprised to see it because such views are definitely not approved by typical leftists these days.

Feminism and Birth Control Overturned White Control

Here’s a rather unique perspective: a White woman rejoicing at the soon-to-be White minority and crediting feminism and birth control, presumably because it has resulted in fewer Whites.

A Dissenting Voice (Who Quickly Apologizes)

Mentioning the economic disparities for POC obviously avoids thinking about why so many Asians are going well in systemically racist White America. Par for the course on the left. And here’s another person who thinks ending White majority status will lead to an end of hatred:


Enough already! There are a wide range of reasons, but they all come down to a whole lot of White people looking forward eagerly to a non-White future. It’s very difficult to see how White identitarians can turn this malaise around when so many of our people are so seriously deluded about the likely results of Whites losing political power. As I noted in my previous essay, the hatred won’t end with a White minority—Jewish hatred toward the West traces back to the Roman destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. and didn’t change after they achieved power in the USSR or with the West’s involvement in the defeat of National Socialism. Black hatred is common common among BLM activists, and hostility toward Whites is a bedrock feature of Critical Race Theory that is now well established in many educational systems. Even recent immigrants like Ilhan Omar quickly learn that hostility toward White America is the route to acceptance and upward mobility. The danger is particularly acute given that elites throughout the West are firmly in favor of the Great Replacement. These are people who control the media and are able to sway elections by censoring information and by financial contributions. The people reviewed here are simply the White foot soldiers.

Despite their contempt for the intelligence of the people they disagree with, these people show no signs of operating at a very high level of mental ability—just repeating messages they can easily pick up by watching TV or getting through the education system. They are in a liberal-left bubble and I really don’t think there are rational arguments that would convince them. What might make a difference would be personal experience that conflicts with their world view—having one’s store looted by Black rioters even though you have BLM posters all over the windows. Or being denied a job or a promotion given to less qualified people because of affirmative action policies. Or being shut out of government programs for small business, such as the program giving loans only to Black farmers. Or having a child or grandchild unable to get into a good public university  and having to pay exorbitant tuition and fees for a second-rate private college. Might convince them. And maybe not.

Many of these tweeters explicitly stated that they think the world will be a much better place with Whites out of power, and they probably all believe this. But it’s yet another utopian crusade that will end badly for Whites—and likely for everyone else. In Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition (Ch. 6) I have a  section on the nineteenth-century Puritan-descended intellectuals who dominated American elite culture and created what we would recognize today as a culture of the left—utopian, idealistic, and moralistic.

Humanity was thus heading toward a spiritual and material utopia—a golden age of peace, harmony, righteous behavior and material comfort—ideas that were often combined with the idea that this golden age would follow upon an apocalyptic battle between good and evil. Such thinking may well have been the lens through which many in the North saw the Civil War; as indicated above, it appears to characterize how Lincoln saw his role as an agent of God fighting an apocalyptic battle against evil. …

Ernest Tuveson [Redeemer Nation: The Idea of America’s Millennial Role; U of Chicago Press, 1968] notes that the moralistic, idealistic strand of American thought tends to come to the fore in times of crisis—“the expansionist period, the Civil War, the First World War.” After the evil has been vanquished, the rhetoric dies down, and disillusionment may occur as people realize that evil has not, after all, been extirpated. However, it lurks in the background and may revive in times of crisis. “Yet, despite post-Civil War disillusionment, the myth of the Redeemer Nation kept a hold on the deepest feelings of the country, and in critical moments asserted itself,” citing several speeches of Woodrow Wilson: “America had the infinite privilege of fulfilling her destiny and saving the world.”

Sound familiar? By all accounts, America is in a crisis now, and it’s no surprise that the moralistic rhetoric is deafening. America is more divided now than at any time in its history, except possible during the Civil War, that other great period of moral crusading. We have embarked on yet another battle between  absolute good (diversity) and absolute evil (a sense of White identity and interests), and when the evil is destroyed, it will usher in a golden age of harmony for all.

But disillusionment is bound to occur. The only problem is that it’s looking more and more that  when disillusionment finally does occur among even the most idealistic, moralistic leftists, there are not going to be enough White people who can turn the situation around.

[1] Putnam, “E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century”; recent literature is reviewed in Salter, “The Biosocial Study of Ethnicity”; see also “Germany’s Jeopardy.”

[2] See Salter, “The Biosocial Study of Ethnicity.”

[3] Ibid.

[4] Steve Sailer, “Fragmented Future: Multiculturalism Doesn’t Make Vibrant Communities but Defensive Ones,” The American Conservative (January 1, 2007).

[5] H. Robert Outten, Michael T. Schmitt, and Daniel A. Miller, “Feeling threatened about the future: Whites’ emotional reactions to anticipated ethnic demographic changes,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 38 (2011): 14–25.



Guillaume Faye: The Necessity of Contemplating an Ethnic War for Survival

Guillaume Faye
Prelude to War: Chronicle of the Coming Cataclysm
Arktos, 2021. 

“A people who no longer think about waging war are finished, drained of their substance and worn out from the inside.”
Guillaume Faye, Prelude to War

I discovered the writings of Guillaume Faye only after his death in 2019, when Arktos published a translation of Guerre civile raciale (A Racial Civil War). In the process of reading and reviewing that work, I wrestled with a writer whose style and content both gripped and informed, infuriated and exasperated. Reading Faye is, above all, an experience, and often an exhausting but irresistible one, something agreed upon by those who worked to compile the literary memorial to him published at the start of this year. It was therefore with a mixture of excitement and trepidation that I discovered Arktos had recently released a volume of translations of Faye’s earlier and most explosive texts including his highly controversial The New Jewish Question and his uncompromising, brutalist writings on the problem of Muslim mass migration. Since my expectations concerning the volume were mixed, it brought a smile to my face to see Faye, always the prophet, a step ahead of me in his introduction with the warning that: “Once you have finished reading this book, you may find yourself persuaded or disgusted; optimistic or pessimistic.” I’m glad to report that I emerged from this book persuaded and optimistic, and also convinced that, the usual idiosyncratic unevenness to Faye’s thought aside, this is the single best volume of the enigmatic Frenchman’s work available in English.

The volume opens with a competent, but unfortunately irritating, Foreword by Constantin von Hoffmeister. We are introduced to a broad overview of Faye’s thought, which is unnecessarily peppered with nasty asides at some of the very people most likely to now read and admire Faye’s work. We are told, for example, of a need to rid different nationalist groupings of “archaic positions, such as the outdated animosity towards Jews.” First, it should be considered an axiom that any people that starts believing the Jewish Question to be relegated to the past will soon find itself relegated to the past. Or to put it another way — patronize this issue at your peril. One of the irritating features of some nationalist writing from Europe is that it is overwhelmingly fixated on its primary, sensory experience of multiracialism (mass Muslim migration) while remaining ignorant or dismissive of the intensive Jewish politico-cultural entrenchment directly experienced by those in other jurisdictions (perhaps none more than the United States). One often finds the naive and simplistic need to have only one opponent at a time, with the chosen villain of the present panic rendering all other problems distant or merely “archaic.” With generosity, one might excuse von Hoffmeister’s comments by way of education (brainwashing) in Germany and experience (the undeniable and obvious effrontery of Muslim encroachment), but how then to explain why, a few pages later, von Hoffmeister accuses a nameless and amorphous mass called “the managerial class” of having “duped the people into committing civilizational suicide for inglorious amounts of shekels”?

Why the dog whistle? If the managerial class is acting on behalf of those capable of issuing massive bribes of shekels, then we are obviously talking about Jewish influence. I have no problem with this kind of coded language, but I do have a problem with denunciations of anti-Semitism (archaic!) occupying the same few paragraphs as dog whistles appealing to anti-Semitism (shekels!). It’s confusing and unnecessary. As a general rule, if your country’s laws, or your personal public position, limit what you can say about Jews, then it is best to refrain from addressing the subject at all, rather than engaging in a rhetorical game of peekaboo with the government and your readers that only serves to demoralize and disorient. The same can be said for von Hoffmeister’s claim that the Kalergi Plan is “non-existent,” which appears alongside his warnings about a coming multiracial “New World Order.” I finished the Foreword utterly confused as to what von Hoffmeister believes, and quite relieved that I could finally get to Faye’s writings which, while always challenging, are considerably clearer in terms of their logical progression.

The volume very quickly recovers from its opening bum note. Faye always excelled in his adoption of the role of prophet, and despite his deep loathing of the prophets of Judaism and Christianity, he was in his own way a masterful apocalyptic preacher capable of blending the aggression and fanaticism of a Jeremiah with a distinctly European fatalism of the kind found in the Iliad. Faye, in a sense, wandered a cultural desert, uttering warnings in a political wilderness. Faye the Prophet wastes no time in this text, warning us plainly in his introduction that our days are numbered, that our materialistic and individualistic culture will soon be destroyed, and that our “bourgeois habits might be experiencing their final moments.” This is a book that covers a wide variety of subjects over twenty-one chapters, but which always returns to the inevitability of war, and of deepening conflict in all areas of life. Faye relishes the prospect, believing there to be “no universal morality.” An obvious Nietzschean, he declares that Good and Evil don’t exist and that “might is always right.” Faye demanded of Europeans that they simply engage in the fight to survive, because “whether one likes it or not, only the will to survive, demographic proliferation and combativeness can prevail over the reassuring and suicidal discourse espoused by the scribes of decadence.”

The book really begins with the impressive and aggressive first chapter, “Facing Islam.” I found it surprising that only one chapter in the volume concerned Islam, given Faye’s well-known preoccupation with the subject, but it does form a subtle background note to the rest of the book. Anyone familiar with Faye will anticipate the tone and direction of the material here. Faye warned that Muslims in Europe are ready and willing to “wage a war of revenge and conquest on our own soil.” Rather than seeing matters through a purely religious lens, Faye insists that what we are really witnessing is the beginning of an “ethnic civil war.” In this conflict, Islam has been adopted as a banner and identitarian standard, but we can see that “at the start, the Browns were completely indifferent to their own religion and were only interested in parasitic consumerism.” Ethnic grievance, for Faye, is the true driver of the coming war, whereas Islam will merely provide a useful veneer to the “Browns” who can use it tactically to enhance group cohesion and morale. Faye insists that Islam (“a vast undertaking of mental stupefaction”) is dangerous in its own right, however, and contrasts it with less totalitarian monotheisms like Christianity. Because of its role as “the purest kind of totalitarianism in existence,” Faye advocates only the strongest of responses to it:

No containment strategy could ever distress them. Islam only retreats when its members are told that one intends to eliminate it, to eradicate it once and for all. One must arouse fear in them, not negotiate. The only language that Islam understands is the language of force; such is its culture.

Faye closes the chapter with a condemnation of Western foreign policy in Muslim lands, arguing that the best cure for Islamic terrorism in Europe is to “abstain from bombarding Muslim countries and do the housework on our own soil.”

The second chapter of the volume, “Neo-Terrorism: Why One Should Be Pessimistic,” picks up the baton left by the opening chapter and delves deeper into the problem of Muslim terrorism in Europe. The volume unfortunately provides no guide to the dates on which the various essays/chapters were originally published, but some light exegesis led me to believe that the majority of the volume’s work was written in the handful of years immediately following 9/11 — roughly, the period 2002–2007. With this dating, some of Faye’s predictions appear remarkably prescient given the rapid increase in Muslim terrorism in Europe between 2010 and 2015, culminating in the 2015 massacre at the Bataclan in Paris. Probably writing no more than a few months after 9/11, Faye warned that Muslim terrorism would “spread considerably during the first decades of the twenty-first century,” boosted by the mediatization of society (especially the role of the internet) and the drive to pursue ever more spectacular forms of terrorist attack. Faye is once more scathing of Western responses to Islamic terror, singling out the response of the United States to 9/11 and comparing it to a “cowboy who pulls out his pistol to target wasps that he cannot even see.” Faye lamented the West’s ability to combat Muslim terrorism because Muslim migration itself represents a kind of quasi-military reinforcement and because Muslim terror networks are almost impenetrable even to the most skilled secret service agencies. The most crucial error of all, however, is the fact that

Europeans and Americans are utterly blind to the coming ethnic civil war and a demographic flood that is far graver than terrorism. What causes a people’s demise is neither the use of bombs nor military operations, but ethnic flooding. The primary and most effective weapon of war has always been embodied by an invasion of foreign populations, naturalisations, and a gradual seizure of power by foreigners.

The book’s third chapter, “The American Adversary,” is one of the slower-paced entries. It deals with an anti-Americanism that is quite specific to France, and which might leave many in the Anglosphere scratching their heads. There are some arguments that are becoming more current in Third Positionist discourse in our circles, including the idea that America is not a nation or empire, but “a massive commercial and financial undertaking supported by the military-industrial complex and founded upon the necessity of a permanent state of war.” To this kind of thinking I can only reply that there’s an element of truth to this analysis of the structure and expression of American power, but it also leaves a great deal unsaid. Most importantly, I believe there is definitely an American nation, even an ethnic (White) nation, but it is sublimated in the current culture and has been for several decades due to propaganda and demonization, the latter of which has ramped up enormously in recent years with the institutionalization of Critical Race Theory. Faye himself straddles both sides of the argument, believing that Europe and America can and should be strong allies, but insisting that American culture is built around war, “but not the glorious kind: hypocritical warfare, the offspring of commerce and industry.” For Faye, the United States represents a problem because of its influence in European affairs, but this problem should be regarded as temporary because the US displays “a purely material and mechanical appearance of power.” He insists that America lacks any sort of “demographic, cultural, spiritual, or, in short, historical foundation. It is a power comprised of merchants and brokers, the fleeting power of a short-lived civilisation.” As proof of his argument for American decline, Faye predicts “in 2030, the US will probably no longer be a mostly Anglo-Saxon country, but a Hispanic/African/Asian one, a fact that will alter quite a few perspectives.” Ethnically diluted, America will be unable to contend with the rise of China and the demographic expansion of Islam, both of which possess a foundation of longevity to their power that the United States lacks. Faye, I must be clear, doesn’t celebrate American decline, but rather he contextualizes it within what he perceives to be a coming globalized war: “the conflict shall, generally speaking, involve a clash between the White race and all others.”

On this note, the book moves to a brief chapter titled “Towards a New Cold War Between China and the USA.” Faye points out that American militarism has most often been directed only against small countries like Vietnam, Panama, and Serbia, but now faces “the enormous China, a terrifying challenger which, thanks to its 1.25 billion inhabitants, can indeed withstand any losses resulting from nuclear strikes and is now endowing itself with long-range missiles.” The chapter contains an interesting analysis of the character of Chinese nationalism, and the Chinese perspective (fiercely relativist) on the notion of democracy and the philosophy of human rights.

The fifth chapter of the volume, “Towards an Ethnic Civil War in Europe,” contains material that will be very familiar to those who read Faye’s Ethnic Apocalypse (originally published in French as Guerre civile raciale). The content here is an exceptional dissection of race relations in France that has overwhelming relevance to multiracial societies everywhere. Take, for example, his discussion of anti-police riots in France, written more than a decade before last year’s Summer of Floyd:

The mechanism that triggers such rioting is always identical: a police officer injures or kills an Afro-Maghrebi delinquent that had aggressed him to avoid getting arrested (after being caught red-handed); alternatively a French citizen is attacked and, overwhelmed with fear, defends himself … Police interventions and law enforcement actions are regarded as virtually political and territorial provocations.

One example provided by Faye, that made me laugh until I pondered the seriousness of it all, concerns a riot that followed the death of “a man named Kamel, who had died as a result of having severed his femoral artery while smashing the window of a shop he was burgling.” All of which goes to prove quite clearly that these riots are not about justice and security but rather, as Faye argues, about ethnic claims on territory and attempts to gain an advantage in competitive racial politics. For Faye, aggressive race riots are nothing more than a prelude to racial civil war, since “war always begins in public spaces and through provocations. It is animal-like and ethological.”

Whites are paralyzed from acting against this process, or even perceiving it, in part because of the nature of the relationship between White socio-economic classes. This theme comprises the volume’s sixth chapter, “The New Social War and the Economic Crisis.” Faye explores the evolution of leftist parties into bourgeois movements, and astutely points out that the mindset of the bourgeoisie “can only acknowledge competition in an economic context.” Blind to competition outside this paradigm (e.g., racial competition), “the entire Left despises our native people.” In today’s Europe, Faye argues:

The Left embodies the most refined expression of the worst possible aspects of the bourgeois ideology: cosmopolitanism, hatred for our native people and its traditions, the worship of money concealed under a façade of philanthropic motivations, xenophile, etc.

The ‘anti-racist’ bourgeois “are always careful to enroll their children in private and foreigner-free schools,” but elsewhere there is a “class complicity between the ruling anti-racist bourgeois upper class and the immigrant-colonisers to the detriment of our native population, a population that works, pays and suffers every act of violence.” Faye attacks French culture, which he sees as undervaluing manual work while lavishing praise on “parasitic professions” like journalists, TV presenters, and public intellectuals. The chapter closes with a scathing indictment of White guilt, and a call for investment in “high-quality education and a dynamic demography based on pro-natalist policy.”

At this stage, the volume departs from thematic connection between chapters and launches quite unexpectedly into Faye’s controversial 2007 essay, “The New Jewish Question.” Although familiar with Faye’s attitudes to Jews as expressed in Ethnic Apocalypse, this was my first time reading “The New Jewish Question” in full. Predictably, given loud (and perhaps unfair) accusations that Faye revealed himself as a Zionist by publishing it, there is some material in the essay that I strongly disagree with. Overall, however, I have to say that it is not as bad as a thought it would be. Faye is certainly not a Zionist, but neither is he anti-Zionist. He is extremely dismissive of the situation faced by the Palestinians, but declares “I am neither philosemitic nor antisemitic.” He later refines this statement to “I am judeo-indifferent.” Whether such declarations are tenable given the saturation of Jewish interests in the life of the West is the real question here, and for my part I was unconvinced by Faye’s argument that one can simply abstain from any and all positions involving Jews. In fact, it seems a rather easy and convenient way out of some very difficult questions.

Faye advocates complete disinterest in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on two grounds. The first is that he assumes that “the state of Israel may eventually disappear,” and therefore that the problem is in any case temporary. Second, Faye insists that no amount of help for Muslims experiencing problems in the Middle East will stem the tide of Muslim migration to Europe because migration flows have preceded all such conflicts and are unaffected by material circumstances in Muslim nations. Faye insists that “despite its apparent military power, Israel will not last long” because “its demographic flooding at the hands of Palestinian Arabs, regardless of whether the latter are Israeli citizens or not, is inevitable, since their fertility rate is twice as high as that of all Israeli Jews.”

Personally, I have deep reservations about Faye’s claims in this regard, based not least on the fact that Jewish birth rates in Israel have now surpassed those of Arabs, leading the Jewish Policy Center to declare that “the so-called population time bomb has disappeared in Israel.” I can think of no other nation on earth that demonstrates as much open concern about its racial composition, birth rates, and demographics as Israel, and one gets the impression that nothing is “off the table” in terms of what the Jews of Israel are prepared to do in order to maintain control of that territory. In short, the demographic flooding of Jews in Israel is far from inevitable, and is in fact extremely unlikely. In relation to Faye’s second point, he seems to miss the importance of moral arguments in Jewish propaganda on behalf of Israel, and in Jewish apologetic propaganda more generally. Although I certainly have no love for Arabs or Palestinians, I’ve always found pro-Palestinian rallies to be extremely interesting and useful counterpoints to Jewish dominance of Western moral narratives, and the many denunciations of Israeli atrocities have done much to dent, impede, or at least complicate narratives of the Jews as history’s perpetual and blameless victims. Aid for Palestine therefore doesn’t need to be focused solely on the stemming of migrant flows (I agree with Faye that they proceed regardless), but can remain a reasonable activity for anyone seeking to hinder Zionist influence and narratives globally.

Another flaw in Faye’s argument is that he seemed to believe that American Zionism is based not on the influence of powerful American Jewish lobbies, but solely on an American strategic drive to dominate the region a la Noam Chomsky. In this view, Israel constitutes nothing more than a passive partner to American ambitions, and it can be replaced with intensified American relations with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt. Faye fully expected the eventual abandonment of Israel by the United States, an event that doesn’t seem, to any reasonable observer, even remotely conceivable now or at any future date.

Faye’s understanding of Jewish influence also left a lot to be desired. He concedes that “Jewish intellectuals” have been at the forefront of “immigrational laxism,” but later insists that “Jewish ambition is limited to a sort of spiritual and intellectual philosophy.” Much as I admire Faye’s writings, this is shameless nonsense. While “The New Jewish Question” is an interesting and novel essay, I must make it clear that while there are many reasons to read Faye, one of them is not to come to grips with Jewish matters. Faye failed miserably in this area, and there is, quite frankly, little I can offer in terms of mitigation other than the remark I made on reviewing Ethnic Apocalypse: “I see a paralysis-like error in [Faye’s] thinking, brought about by a quite understandable reaction to the stark and visible Islamisation of France.”

The volume recovers from this dip in quality very well, with Faye’s eighth chapter on “Europe and the Third World — An Impossible Combination.” The author attacks White guilt in relation to Africa (“this unintelligent continent”), and condemns the White charitable endeavors that have led to mass African demographic growth. The steady movement of this excess population into the West has swamped us with “aggressive beggars and false eternal victims.” Faye laments that Africa was ever colonized by Europeans, stressing that “in the absence of northern countries, Black Africa would return to the Neolithic in the space of one single generation.”

Chapters 9 through 17 deal with problems in contemporary culture, ranging from White “collaborationists” in multiculturalism, to the conceits of French intellectualism and political correctness. The seventeenth chapter, “Decadence — A Prelude to Collapse,” was one of my favorites, and deals with the imposition of “effeminate models” of behavior on European males. Faye attacks pornography, the promotion of homosexuality, and feminism for weakening our capability of waging a “war of wombs.” There are some terrific aphorisms in this chapter, alongside Faye’s typically scathing tone (“‘Tolerant’ people are imbeciles.”)

The book comes to a close with four essays that adopt a more philosophical tone. The most interesting of these is “Is Christianity Still Capable of Struggle?” I thought that Faye was hard but fair on Christianity in this piece, pointing out that Christianity has been so flexible and adaptive over time that a fifteenth-century priest would hardly recognize the religion we see today. This same flexibility and adaptiveness have allowed altruistic elements of Christian discourse to be “adopted by trade unions, parties, associations, and leagues, and people, therefore, no longer have any need of it, nor of its impoverished rites devoid of long-lost sacredness.” Faye also attacks the individualism in Western Christian notions of marriage (love matches), which he sees as directly responsible for “demographic decline and the collapse of the clan-based family for the benefit of unfertile and unstable nuclei that are henceforth open to the worst kind of psychopathy, namely the existence of homosexual couples.” Further, the secularization of certain Christian values has been catastrophic:

Never before have people talked so much about “loving their neighbour, and never before have social selfishness, disdain for the state of matrimony, the shattering of our close bonds of solidarity, lack of civic-mindedness, materialistic cynicism and violence been so prevailingly widespread.

That being said, I thought there were some points made by Faye against Christianity that were rather weak, not least his claim that Christianity promotes belief in the inherent goodness of man. This would surely come as a surprise to anyone familiar with the doctrine of original sin and the fallen state of Man and the world. The essay, despite its faults, will challenge and intrigue both Christians and non-Christians, and was in my view one of the highlights of the volume.

Concluding Remarks

Why read Faye? Certainly not for well-considered analysis of the Jewish Question. Nor, I must say, should one read Faye for his prophecies — he claims in his conclusion, for example, that “it is about 2010 that the great about-turn [in our favor] will begin.” The failure of this particular prediction provides a useful warning against the development of nationalist eschatologies (‘end of the world’ theories) based on allegedly imminent societal collapses, and Faye was an enthusiastic expert in the production of such eschatologies. With Islamic terrorism seemingly contained for the time being, or at least limited to events that Faye would not regard as “spectacular,” we must come to the realization that much more likely than sudden collapse is prolonged social, cultural, and demographic decline. This phenomenon is infinitely more difficult to oppose and reverse, but Faye had remarkably little to say on this subject. He was intensely disturbed by Muslim mass migration, and rightly so, but it tainted his work with a panicked quality operating on assumptions of a limited time horizon. This, I feel, will tend to limit the place of his work in posterity.

With these caveats out of the way, however, there remain many reasons to read Faye, and to read this volume in particular. Faye had a remarkable talent for writing, and his works are masterclasses in punchy, aggressive, and direct explorations of some of the most pressing problems facing contemporary Western peoples. Reading Faye, one is shocked at his lack of concern for France’s speech laws, a disregard that led to a number of appearances in court. Faye was courageous and bold, and his ideas are often bumpy and uneven, but always sincere. Perhaps the best reason to read Faye is that, despite his penchant for a coming apocalypse, he was an optimist. One can therefore read Faye to be encouraged. He closed this volume, after all, with the words: “Do not despair.”