When you live in a 200-year-old house, you would do well to give it a thorough inspection every few years.  Rap on the walls, pull down some old wallpaper, climb into the attic, and get down into the crawl space.  Check the roofing, check the exterior walls, check the foundation.  You are looking for signs of rot:  decay, mold, insects, rodents, or just plain aging.  With luck, you find one or two small problems, you patch them up, and all is well.  Unfortunately, sometimes all is not well.  Sometimes, you find signs of major and irreparable decay.  In those cases, and as painful as it may be, you must be prepared to tear the house down and start anew.  Anything less would be a lost cause, an act of utter futility.

America today is a 245-year-old house—a grand mansion with many rooms, situated on a wonderfully vast and glorious estate.  From the outside, from a distance, it still looks nice: glitzy, glamorous, wealthy, powerful, exciting.  It still carries much from its well-intentioned (if flawed) beginnings.  But our inspection proves otherwise.  When we rap on the walls, or get up in the ceiling, or crawl down to the foundations, we are shocked to find signs of widespread and irreparable decay.  The main timbers supporting the building are rife with termites; the roof is leaking; the foundation is cracked, the sands beneath are eroding, and all manner of vermin are running wild, both above and below.  In short, it is a horrible mess.  We try to plaster over holes here and there, and slap on some new paint once in a while, but the rot inevitably shows through.  By any reasonable accounting, the building is on the verge of collapse.  It may come down on its own, or we can be proactive and take it down, but down it will come.

Any viable nation is not only an edifice; it is a living entity.  It lives and breathes with the people in it.  Our house is a living house; but sadly, it is terminally ill.  A combination of old age, disease, neglect, and poor hygiene have put it in a terrible state, one that is evidently beyond any hope of recovery or repair.  The house must come down; America must die—in order for a new house, a new nation, to arise.  Such is life.

It is worthwhile, then, to review my brief ‘inspection report’ of the American nation, and to diagnose the ailments that we are currently enduring.  If I am able to get down to root causes, this will naturally lead to some prescribed courses of action that we can take, both near-term and for the longer haul.  No one wants to live in a rotting house.  No one wants to live in a decaying nation.  No one wants their children and grandchildren to grow up in such conditions.  We have better options.

At the highest level, my inspection report finds two major, and related, areas of concern: (1) a false notion of human equality, and (2) misplaced faith in the doctrine of democracy.  Further analysis shows that these two aspects have been ruthlessly and malevolently exploited by a potent Jewish lobby to maximize benefit to themselves.  In what follows, I will attempt to outline the nature of this far-reaching and deep-rooted crisis, and to suggest some ways forward.

The False and Destructive Concept of Equality

In 1927, and four years before he penned Brave New World, famed writer, thinker, and “casual anti-Semite” Aldous Huxley published a compelling little book called Proper Studies.  It opens with an essay titled “The Idea of Equality.”  The very first line reads as follows:

That all men are equal is a proposition to which, at ordinary times, no sane human being has ever given his assent.  (p. 1)

Doctors, editors, bureaucrats—any person, in any walk of life, displays evident and obvious inequalities, says Huxley.  People are different in every way imaginable: skills, abilities, interests, intelligence, appearance, character.  Everyone acknowledges this, and yet at the same time they also want to insist on the essential and intrinsic equality of humans.  Hence does Huxley write of the human mind’s “almost infinite capacity for being inconsistent.”  He then describes the basic axiom at work:

Politicians and political philosophers have often talked about the equality of man as though it were a necessary and unavoidable idea, an idea which human beings must believe in, just as they must, from the very nature of their physical and mental constitution, believe in such notions as weight, heat, and light.  Man is “by nature free, equal, and independent,” says Locke,[1] with the calm assurance of one who knows he cannot be contradicted.  It would be possible to quote literally thousands of similar pronouncements.  (p. 2)

He identifies the original source of this fallacy in Aristotle, whose metaphysical assumption of a human essence (as “the rational animal”; Nicomachean Ethics I.8, 13) implies a sort of equality among the human species.  Against Huxley, we can argue that this does not quite follow; the existence of a common and distinctive quality of all humans need not imply their social, political, or existential equality, any more than the fact that all material objects have mass imply that they all have the same weight.[2]  Huxley also fixes some blame on Descartes, but again, this is perhaps an exaggerated claim.  In Discourse on Method (1637), Descartes writes:

Good sense is the best distributed thing in the world. …  It indicates that the power of judging well and of distinguishing the true from the false—which is what we properly call ‘good sense’ or ‘reason’—is naturally equal in all men. …  [A]s regards reason or sense, since it is the only thing that makes us men and distinguishes us from the beasts, I am inclined to believe that it exists whole and complete in each of us.[3]

Even if we allow that reason is equal in all—a highly dubious assertion, to say the least—it still does not imply political, social, or moral equality.

More to the point, Huxley cites Christian doctrine and the position of the Church.  Even granting a “brotherhood of men” under Christ, “the brotherhood of men does not imply their equality.”  He continues: “Neither does men’s equality before God imply their equality as among themselves.”  Even if God, from his divine and lofty standpoint, views us all as equals, any putative inter-human equality “is entirely irrelevant”.[4]  It is rather like us viewing all ants or mice as identical when in fact they all recognize and acknowledge vast differences among themselves.

All this bodes ill for the “religion of democracy,” says Huxley (and as I will elaborate).  Its “primary assumption” is that “all men are substantially equal.”  If the equality falls, so too falls democracy.  He summarizes concisely:

The historical and psychological researches of the past century have rendered the theory which lies behind the practice of modern democracy entirely untenable.  Reason is not the same in all men; human beings belong to a variety of psychological types separated from one another by irreducible differences.  (p. 12)

Science, anthropology, philosophy, and common sense all come to the same conclusion: human equality is a fallacy, and any political ideology based on that notion is doomed to failure.

Huxley, of course, was hardly alone in his condemnation of a claimed human equality.  Nietzsche viewed the idea with greater contempt and wrote in more scathing terms.  We find, especially in Beyond Good and Evil, a stunning repudiation of the concept.  His elaborations on the “order of rank” among men, the “instinct for rank,” the “noble soul,” and the necessity for human greatness, pervade the work.  A few examples will have to suffice:

Men, not noble enough to see the abysmally different order of rank, the chasm of rank, between man and man—such men have so far held sway over the fate of Europe, with their “equal before God,” until finally a smaller, almost ridiculous type, a herd animal, something eager to please, sickly, and mediocre has been bred, the European of today.  (sec. 62)

The highest and strongest drives, when they break out passionately and drive the individual far above the average and the flats of the herd conscience, wreck the self-confidence of the community, its faith in itself, and it is as if its spine snapped.  Hence just these drives are branded and slandered most.  High and independent spirituality, the will to stand alone, even a powerful reason are experienced as dangers; everything that elevates an individual above the herd and intimidates the neighbor is henceforth called evil; and the fair, modest, submissive, conforming mentality, the mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors.  (sec. 201)

Every enhancement of the type ‘man’ has so far been the work of an aristocratic society—a society that believes in the long ladder of an order of rank and differences in value between man and man.  (sec. 257)

The concept of equality is ultimately destructive because it declares, not only that no one is worse than anyone else, but more importantly that no one is better than anyone else—yes, that no one can be better.  True self-betterment and self-enhancement become impossible if we are all equal.  No matter what you do, you will still be only, and always, equal to the very least among men.  This doctrine is not merely false; it is utterly contemptible and destructive of higher aims and goals.  It means the death of humanity.  Where we do not ascend, we decline; this is Nietzsche’s basic outlook.  Sadly, it conforms to the actual world in which we live today.

In the final passage above, Nietzsche points to a central fact and thus to a possible solution.  If every improvement to humanity and to society has occurred in aristocratic societies—that is, rule by the best—then we ought logically to use those as our model.  Societies that are capable of sorting men into lesser and greater types, and to do so effectively, are the drivers of human evolution.  They strive for greatness, and they create greatness.  Even the smallest steps in that direction—such as were taken by Hitler in his National Socialist Germany—would be such an improvement over the present day that any nation even attempting it would likely flourish spectacularly; and in fact, this is precisely what happened in Germany, beginning in 1933.  The rest of the equality-obsessed, Jewish-inspired world was so aghast that they were compelled to drive the remaining industrial nations against Hitler and to destroy him, so fearsome was the prospect of his success.

Still, entrenched myths die hard.  We in the US have our treasured Declaration of Independence, which declares as “self-evident”—with the calm assurance of those who know they cannot be contradicted—that “all men are created equal.”  As we know, this was disingenuous at best.  For one, they indeed meant ‘men,’ given that women could neither vote nor hold office.  And they meant ‘White men,’ given that all the Founders were White Anglo-Saxons, and many were slaveholders or otherwise endorsed slavery.  Hence that famous phrase really meant “all White males are created equal”—though even that is demonstrably untrue, as I have argued.

Original Democracy

Huxley had it exactly right:  support for modern democracy is in fact more of a belief system, or even a faith, than something grounded in history, reason, and philosophy.  Like many other religions, democracy derives from a core of historical truth—here, in ancient Greece—that was then altered beyond recognition by an accretion of layers of myth, lie, and corruption.  Today we have the belief, the faith, by all sides, “left” and “right” alike,[5] that democracy is an unquestioned virtue, that it must be defended at all costs, and that it must be spread to the world, even at the point of a gun.  This is a fundamental political error, founded on an erroneous and detrimental conception of human equality; it must be overcome if we are to survive in the long run.

Democracy wasn’t always a religion.  At one time, at the beginning, it was a rational and effective (though not unproblematic) means of self-government.  Let’s take a minute to examine the original democracy of ancient Greece to see what worked and what did not.

Athenian democracy was a remarkable institution, and remarkably different than what passes for democracy today.  To begin with, the population of the state (or polis) was small—it constituted only some 300,000 people at its peak, which included many slaves and foreigners.  By modern standards, this seems tiny but, for the time, it was extremely large.  Of this number, the only formal citizens were the adult native-born males, numbering perhaps 30,000, or just 10 percent of the population.  These citizens—the demos, the people—were the formal basis of political power, rather than some ruling wealthy elite (also known as oligarchs or plutocrats), or some tyrannical dictator, as could be found in other Greek states.

The democratic system, inaugurated by Cleisthenes around 500 BC, functioned in a very different way than we might expect.  For one, there were no elections; all leadership positions (apart from the military) were chosen by lot, at random, from among the citizens who had put forth their names.  This included even the leader of the Assembly—the collected body of citizens—who was effectively the president of the nation, though without much formal power.  The Greeks had invented a device called a kleroterion into which names were randomly inserted on small tokens; colored dice were then deployed to select names randomly and fairly from among the various tribes or families.  The system had several virtues:  immediate results, no costly or corrupted election campaigns, fairness, transparency, and an equal involvement of all concerned.  The Greeks clearly had to be nice to all their fellow (Athenian male) citizens, any one of whom could someday have a position of prominence.

Secondly, there were no representatives.  Athens was a famously direct democracy.  All interested citizens gathered on a large open hilltop, called the Pnyx, roughly once per month, to listen to the issues of the day.  When the time came for decisions, a very public show of hands determined the outcome.  Even the gravest of matters, such as going to war, were decided this way.  This is all the more striking when we consider that the army was composed of the very men who had themselves just voted for war.  In other words, when you voted for war, you personally went to war.  And many never returned.  We can only imagine a similar situation in America today:  that the Congressmen and women who support the next illegal and unjust foreign war[6] would be compelled to be on the first combat plane into the warzone.  I suspect that we would have very few wars indeed.

In sum, Athenian democracy was small, direct, accountable, and transparent.  The wealthy elite had very little power to steer events in their favor.  The citizenry comprised only native men; foreigners had literally no voice in the state, even though they outnumbered the actual citizens by a factor of two or three.  Greek democracy was thus a racial (White European), ethnic (Athenian), and gendered (men only) system of rule.  And it worked incredibly well; it produced and sustained the brilliant Athenian culture that we know today.

Two Famous Critics

For all that, the system had some harsh and prominent critics—notably, Plato and Aristotle.  Plato had two main complaints against democracy:  First, he asked, why should all the citizens get to vote on key decisions?  Why are they all treated as equals, one vote per man?  This is illogical and counterproductive.  Even in Athens, they had their share of dunces, dimwits, and degenerates.  Why let these men vote?  Why not let only the best, the wisest, vote?  For that matter, why have votes at all?  Why not just determine who are your wisest few, and let them rule?  This was Plato’s vision of an aristocracy, the optimal form of government.  It is, at least in theory, far superior to anything like a democracy.

Plato’s second concern was, ironically, with freedom itself.  In a democracy, since “the people” rule, anything goes.  Whatever the people want, the people get.  And the people—the masses—rarely want the kinds of things that they should want, namely, virtue and discipline.  Rather, they want to have fun: they want to do one thing one day, and something else the next, as it suits their fancy.  They are ‘free,’ after all.  They want to play games, engage in various petty amusements, fill their bellies, get drunk, and so on.  As it was then, so it is now; human nature has scarcely changed in two millennia.

Plato is scalding in his attack.  The “democratic man” is inundated by all manner of trivial and detrimental desires.  True and deep thoughts are driven from his soul, and “false and boastful conceits and phrases mount upwards and take their place” (Republic Bk 8; 560c):

And so the young man returns to the country of the [pleasure-seeking] lotus-eaters, and takes up his dwelling there in the face of all men. … There is a battle and [the false and boastful words] gain the day, and then modesty, which they call ‘silliness’, is ignominiously thrust into exile by them, and temperance, which they nickname ‘unmanliness’, is trampled in the mire and cast forth.  They persuade men that moderation and frugal spending are vulgarity and meanness, and so, by the help of a rabble of evil appetites, they drive them out.

And when they have emptied and swept clean the soul of him who is now in their power and who is being initiated by them in great mysteries, the next thing is to bring back to their house insolence and anarchy and waste and impudence in bright array, having garlands on their heads, and a great company with them, hymning their praises and calling them by sweet names.  Arrogance they term ‘good-breeding’, and anarchy ‘freedom’, and waste ‘magnificence’, and impudence ‘courage’.  And so the young man passes out of his original nature, which was trained in the school of necessity, into the freedom and libertinism of useless and unnecessary pleasures.  (560d-e)

And if wiser thoughts come calling, and if they struggle for predominance in his soul, he becomes confused; “he shakes his head and says that they are all alike, and that one is as good as another.”  He has lost the ability to judge and to discriminate, which degrades his entire life:

His life has neither law nor order; and this distracted existence he terms ‘joy’ and ‘bliss’ and ‘freedom’; and so he goes on…  [H]e is all ‘freedom’ and ‘equality.’

Hence the democratic man.  His precious freedom, given unrestrained license and lack of discipline, devolves into mindless and confused pleasure-seeking.  He believes he has freedom, and he believes in equality—but this is a sham; it is a false equality and the freedom of a shallow and vapid libertine.  Plato sums up the situation on democracy with one of the most striking sentences in the Republic:

These and other kindred characteristics are proper to democracy, which is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder, and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike.  (558c)

“Charming” and “disordered” democracy, so “fair and spangled,” is all show and no substance.  It encourages undisciplined, unvirtuous lives of hedonistic pleasure.  And most importantly, it “dispenses a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike.”  Such a democracy, he says, can only lead in turn to the lowest form of government, tyranny.

I haven’t the space to elaborate, but in short, Aristotle basically agreed with this analysis.  He identified three primary forms of government, each of which had good and bad versions.  In descending order, the three good systems are monarchy (rule by one), aristocracy (rule by a small and wise few), and a ‘constitution’ (conditional rule by many).  The distorted or bad forms of each of these are tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy.[7]  In this sense, for Aristotle, democracy is literally ‘the worst of the worst.’  It is rule by the poor and needy masses, not the best or noblest few.

Industrial Democracy

What, then, of democracy in the world today?  We have variations on the democratic theme that are so remote from the Athenian original that they hardly deserve the same name.  They have lost all the virtues of the original but retained all the vices.  Democracy today has devolved into a crude perversion that I like to call industrial democracy.  Its primary characteristics are these:

1)  Representative (parliamentarian) system—no direct participation.
2)  Universal suffrage—all adults can vote.
3)  Multiracial—all races can vote.
4)  Unlimited population size.
5)  Financially corrupt—moneyed interests (especially Jewish) hold great sway.

On every point, this is opposed to the Athenian model.  We vote, but typically only for a handful of pre-determined candidates or on a very limited number of referenda.  Our representation is scaled down by a factor of thousands or millions; a state as large as California, with almost 40 million people, gets all of two senators.[8]  And every half-witted, uneducated ignoramus gets his or her vote—people who vastly outnumber the educated and the wise.  (And we wonder why the intellectual level of political campaigns is so low.)  People of every race can vote, and they often do so in their own racial interest, thus guaranteeing a divided and conflicted government.  Perhaps most critically, the original small size of the Athenian citizen body, some 30,000 individuals, now numbers almost 250 million—the number of eligible American adults.

The vast size and scale of representation ensures that billions of corrupting dollars flow through the system, distorting even the most virtuous lawmaker, and guaranteeing a flood of media confusion, propaganda, and “fake news.”  Industrial democracy is rule by money: those with the most money, and the will to spend it, rule.  In America, we know who leads this race: the Jewish lobby, which contributes at least 50% of Democratic campaign funds and at least 25% of Republican funds.  Wealthy American Jews spend literally hundreds of millions on campaigns, ads, donations, and various other activities, all to influence the outcome in their favored direction.[9]  The situation is comparable in the UK, Canada, France, and Australia, all of which have relatively large and wealthy Jewish populations.[10]  The ancient Greeks—most of them, at least—would be appalled to see what their cherished democracy has come to.

As it is, we now have that which Plato predicted: democracy on the brink of degenerating into tyranny of various forms.  We have tyrannies of the rich, tyrannies of the Judeocracy, and tyrannies of Big Tech, all vying for power, and all cooperating as needed to ensure that nothing like transparent and accountable government ever comes to pass.  The main objective of the rich is to stay rich, and to maintain or grow the wealth gap between themselves and the masses; the larger the disparity, the more relative power they hold.  The main objective of the Judeocracy, of the Jewish power-elite, is to weaken and damage the national psyche sufficiently, and to diversify and deplete the nation genetically, so that they can maintain maximum control without completely destroying the wealth-producing capacity of the economy.  Under industrial democracy, the future is grim indeed.

America, sadly, has been completely subsumed by this pernicious and insidious form of government.  The country is ruled by the lowest, most depraved, most incompetent individuals imaginable.  At the same time, it is being flooded by the virtual scum of humanity—in July 2021 alone, over 212,000 arrests (“encounters”, in the government’s euphemistic propaganda) occurred at the southern border.[11]  How many more evaded “encounter” and entered the country illegally, we do not know.  And to these numbers we must add the “legal” immigration of large numbers of non-European, non-White individuals who inevitably change the character of the nation for the worse.  The combined effect is dramatic.  A recent study stated that the US now has an astonishing 44 million people who were foreign-born, of which about 75% are legal and 25% are illegal.[12]  Nearly half of these millions were born in just five countries: Mexico, China, India, Philippines, and El Salvador.  Surely not more than a percent or two of these 44 million are White.  The grand edifice that is America is collapsing as we speak.

Therefore, it is time to accept reality and give up America for lost.  Put away your flags, your pins, and all your red-white-and-blue paraphernalia.  Toss out your MAGA hats; America will never be “great again.”  Anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar or a fool.  The country is rotting from above and below.  Vermin are calling the shots from on high, and human detritus washes in over the borders.  This was precisely how Ancient Rome fell.  Such is the terminal stage of many an empire.

Looking Ahead

If this report on the fatal condition of America is close to the mark, it also suggests corrective actions that must be taken to regain a sane and stable civic life, at least for the White Euro-Americans who established and ran the country for most of its existence.  The necessary actions are hardly a secret.  The basic ideas are already floating around the Internet.  Andrew Anglin, for one, was right on the mark in his recent essay on immigration.  His conclusion:

The only way we are going to fix this [immigration] problem is through a two-fold solution:  1) Redrawing the borders of the country, and 2) Physically removing tens of millions of people.  There is no situation where both of those things are not going to be necessary in the future.

He is absolutely right.[13]  Those are two necessary, but not sufficient, conditions for the restoration of rational government among the White population today.

More specifically, my above analysis suggests the following steps: (a) Break up the existing United States into smaller, more cohesive, more homogenous, and more manageable units.  (b) In these new units, encourage all non-Whites, and especially all Jews, to emigrate as soon as possible.  (c) Discard the pernicious concept of human equality and replace it by a celebration of the higher, the nobler, and the best.  (d) Replace industrial democracy with something like an aristocracy.  Let me close by offering a few words of elaboration on each.

More and more people these days seem to be recognizing the desirability and the inevitability of secession of portions of the US, and the establishment of new, independent nation-states.  In fact, as the nation continues to disintegrate, at some point people will have no choice; thus, it is better to plan now than to wait for some chaotic future breakdown.

Some of the current talk on secession has the right intent but is woefully weak and misguided.  One can find articles like “Is America still our country?” and “The separation,” but these are pathetically half-hearted.  Breaking up existing states but staying within America is a wholly insufficient form of secession.  The “6 Californias” idea is very weak; “Greater Idaho” is well-intentioned but falls way short of the mark.  None of these explicitly advocates breaking away from the US and forming new nations.  Only full-blown secession can hope to get to the root of the problem.  The reigning Judeocracy knows this, which is why they do everything in their power to discredit the idea.

Point (b) is mandatory for restoring effective and rational governance.  Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, and Jews all have countries of origin; they need to return there with all due haste.  After a short period of voluntary compliance, increasing pressure will need to be applied until they comply.  Yes, Whites could theoretically return to Europe, except that Whites created and built up the present civilization (such as it is) of the USA, and thus have earned a right to stay and to evict the interlopers.[14]  Native Americans were of course here before the White Europeans, and that precedence needs to be respected, such as via truly autonomous homelands.  And since Blacks were forcibly brought here from Africa (with heavy Jewish involvement[15]), I would have no issue with assisting their return to Africa with subsidized travel arrangements, a small one-time cash payment, or with the use of political leverage in Africa to aid their repatriation.  We can ease the transition, but out they must go.

The hardest to deal with will of course be the Jews.  With their political clout, wealth, and bull-headed tenacity, they will be very hard to root out.  The task is made all the more difficult because of the inability of our supposedly “conservative Right” to address the Jewish Question in a meaningful way.  Most all prominent rightwing individuals and organizations flee from the Question like the devil from holy water.  As I have noted elsewhere, Fox News and crew—Carlson, Hannity, et al—never explicitly mention Jews, never out them, and never criticize them in any way; Hannity in fact bends over backward to curry favor.  Alex Jones never criticizes or outs Jews.  Same with Jared Taylor.  American Renaissance won’t deal with the Jewish Question in a serious way.  Breitbart at least discusses them, but always in a neutral or positive light.  The real critics are, sadly, few and far between; to reiterate what I wrote recently, we need to be extremely grateful for The Occidental Observer, Unz.com, National Vanguard, and people like Anglin, all of whom are willing to speak the hard truth on the Jewish Question.

Point (c) obviously follows from the above discussion.  We must drop all talk of human equality and replace it with a promotion and celebration of human uniqueness and human greatness.  This needs to be made explicit in common discourse, media, and school curricula.  We need to celebrate and praise human genius while emphasizing the fact that most people are not geniuses and will never achieve greatness, but who can nonetheless have meaningful and valuable lives.  When it is understood that humans never were, and never will be, equal, then all become free to achieve their full potential and, for those who succeed in bettering themselves, to reap the rewards of exceptional development.  In a just society, exceptional individuals will earn additional rights, but they will also bear additional duties, compared to the lesser.  “Equal” performance for the various subgroups of people—as distinguished by gender, age, socio-economic status, ethnicity, etc.—will never be expected or mandated.  “Racial equality” will be a nonissue.

On the final point, it is clear that the hopelessly corrupt industrial democracy must go.  We can also be confident that something like an aristocracy would be a vast (if imperfect) improvement, even as there is much leeway in the specific details.  If we allow that “rule by the wiser” is superior to “rule by the masses,” then we have many ways to realize such a system.  At the simplest level, we could retain elections for officeholders but permit only the wiser—smarter, more educated, more accomplished—individuals to vote.  It could be very basic:  require that voters earn a college degree, for example; or score above average on an IQ test; or distinguish themselves in some other relevant way (an exceptional athlete, by contrast, earns no right to a voice on political issues).  The disenfranchised would not be made to feel inferior; rather, they would come to accept such a system as in the best interests of all.

At a more sophisticated level, we might move to adopt something like a Platonic education system, as laid out in the Republic.  There he sketches a 50-year training program involving age-appropriate schooling, skills training, physical fitness, and practical experience that both educates the masses and serves as a filtering process to determine who the truly wisest and most capable leaders are.  A series of pass-fail criteria progressively reduce the pool of eligible candidates, leaving, at the end, a mere handful of individuals who have repeatedly proven themselves under pressure.  In a future aristocracy, a small pool of “the best” could be added annually to a kind of ruling congress who would then be unconditionally empowered to make and enforce all laws and policies.  After a fixed term of governance, each individual would be compelled to retire in turn.  Again, this is just one way of realizing such a system.  Variations might include finding ways to identify and empower the truly exceptional individuals—or perhaps a single individual—and give them correspondingly exceptional powers to rule.

In any case, the system would need to be recognized by the vast majority of people as an effective and desirable solution.  In this sense, it would retain a small flavor of traditional democracy.  “Consent of the governed” can work, as long as the population is not too large and as long as we do not have to contend with competing racial minorities or Jewish financial corruption.  But such consent is a far cry from universal suffrage or rule by the masses, which can never work, and which always degenerates.

Such is my basic outline of a path forward.  Obviously, much more needs to be said.  But it is a start, one that addresses the root causes of our present crisis.[16]

I close with this thought:  To the extent that America ever was great, this is because, at the start, it was roughly modeled on the Athenian original.  The early American government was gendered, racial, and ethnic—White males of a predominantly north European stock.  And it stayed that way for nearly 100 years.[17]  The celebrated American “diversity” at the beginning was a diversity among Whites: English, Scots, Irish, Dutch, Germans, and Scandinavians all would have been represented in those early years.  Yes, America had significant numbers of Blacks and Jews from the 1600s, but they had limited or no political influence.  Religion was of secondary importance.  Yes, it was nominally a “Christian nation” at the start, but few among the Founders were deeply religious—Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, and John Jay being the exceptions—and most were skeptical believers or deists, if not functional atheists.

Hence, early America prospered and flourished in spite of, not because of, Christianity; in spite of, not because of, Blacks and Jews; and in spite of, not because of, the principle of equality.  Blacks, Jews, “equality,” and Christianity were millstones around the young nation’s neck.  It is a testament to our initially gendered and racial governance that we accomplished so much in those early years, with such huge burdens to bear.  Two centuries later, those millstones proved to be our ruination.

America is dying a slow and painful death.  Let us euthanize the long-suffering nation, redraw the boundaries, rethink the guiding principles, and begin again.

===================================

Thomas Dalton, PhD, has authored or edited several books and articles on politics, history, and religion, with a special focus on National Socialism in Germany.  His works include a new translation series of Mein Kampf, and the books Eternal Strangers (2020), The Jewish Hand in the World Wars (2019), and Debating the Holocaust (4^th ed, 2020).  Most recently he has edited a new edition of Rosenberg’s classic work Myth of the 20^th Century and a new book of political cartoons, Pan-Judah!.  All these works are available at www.clemensandblair.com.  For all his writings, see his personal website www.thomasdaltonphd.com.

---

[1] Second Treatise on Civil Government (1690), chapter 8, section 95.

[2] And in fact, Aristotle’s later discussion of the “great-souled man” (Nicomachean Ethics IV.3) demonstrates conclusively that he believed in vast difference among men.

[3] The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, volume one, Cambridge University Press (1985), pp. 111-112.

[4] Indeed, explicit human equality exists nowhere in the Bible.  Paul claims in Galatians (3:28) that “there is neither Jew nor Greek” under Jesus and that “we are all one in Christ Jesus.”  But this only says that all are welcome into his nascent universalist church; it does not support the idea that all are equal.  And more importantly, there are very good reasons for believing that Paul held to the most obnoxious form of Jewish supremacism, and thus did not believe in human equality in the least; see my essays “Christianity: The great Jewish hoax” and “Nietzsche and the origins of Christianity.”

[5] Though, as I have recently argued in “The problem with leftism,” both the Left and the Right are “fakes,” which explains why they both adhere to similar nonsense, and why they both supplicate to the Jewish Lobby.

[6] Actually, in America we don’t have wars anymore; we have “authorized uses of military force” or AUMFs.  This is Congress’ cowardly way to kill others on behalf of their lobbyists and patrons without having to vote for an actual war.

[7] Politics III.7.

[8] It does get 53 federal representatives, but even here, each represents the interests of an average of 750,000 very diverse individuals.

[9] See my elaborations in “The problem with leftism” and “Confronting the Judeocracy.”

[10] I emphasize “relative.”  Jewish percentages of these four nations range from 0.4 to 1.0%.  Normally this should be inconsequential, but with wealthy and pernicious Jews, it poses substantial problems.  The lesson here is that any nation seeking to free itself from the Jewish Lobby had best restrict Jewish numbers to something well below 0.1%.

[11] Of course, not all illegal immigrants are scum.  But from everything we know, a very high proportion of them are from the lowest, least intelligent, and most criminal segments of humanity.  And since virtually all of them are non-White, even the best will alter the nature of our traditionally White society.

[12] Though the actual number of illegals could be much higher than the presumed 11 million.  One recent study argued that the true figure could be as high as 29 million.

[13] Now, if we could only get Anglin to drop his allegiance to the Judeo-Christian God and to that long-dead Jewish rabbi, he would be much better off.

[14] Yes, Black African slaves and Chinese coolies “built” portions of the early US.  But they provided only the low-end brute labor, not the organizational or intellectual basis for the nation.  To give them credit for building America would be akin to giving credit to the oxen and draft horses of the early pioneers.

[15] See Louis Farrakhan’s book The Secret Relationship between Blacks and Jews (3 volumes).

[16] Elsewhere I have argued that Hitler’s National Socialism can also be a model going forward.  His nationalism created an ethnic-based sense of unity and purpose that far exceeded mindless patriotism, and his socialism served as an antidote to unrestrained finance capitalism.  There are many good lessons to be learned there.  Interested readers should start with my recent edition of Mein Kampf, and with my newly-reworked edition of Alfred Rosenberg’s classic, The Myth of the 20^th Century.

[17] Black males were granted the right to vote in 1866, and women (of all races) in 1920.

It seemed like an act of desperation. Twenty-five years after the fall of apartheid, South Africa’s Whites were counting on a Black man to save them from the corruption and malignancy of Black-majority rule. Its failure should have surprised no one.

By all appearances, Mmusi Maimane was a South African Barrack Obama. Smooth and polished, he seemed like the ideal candidate to win just enough Black votes from the tottering ANC to fulfill the promise of a multi-racial democracy.

The Democratic Alliance (DA) had long been viewed as the party of White people, but that was a handicap when Whites were just eight percent of the population. The party traced its roots back to the Progressive Party, the liberal opposition during the apartheid era, but few Black voters cared about that. Instead, the party drew most of its non-White support from the nation’s “coloured” population, a mixed-race group that shared just one thing in common with the nation’s Whites: a mutual fear of Black domination in the allegedly harmonious “Rainbow Nation.”

Maimane was supposed to be the DA’s ticket out of this electoral dead end.  The “Obama of Soweto” would lead them in the 2019 elections to a promised land where everyone would be treated equally and race no longer mattered.

It blew up in their faces.

The Afrikaners

It all could have worked out very differently. Nearly 30 years ago, in November 1993, President F.W. de Klerk convened his cabinet to inform them that he had accepted Nelson Mandela’s demands for majority rule in the new government.  Upon hearing the news, Tertius Delport, one of his negotiators, was stunned. They had given in on virtually everything. Resolved to resign, he walked down the hall to confront the president directly.

When de Klerk opened the door Delport grabbed him by his jacket lapels and cried out, “What have you done?  You have given the country away!  You allowed children to negotiate!”

“What are you going to do?” de Klerk asked coolly.

“I intend to rally enough colleagues,” Delport answered. “Together with the Conservative Party caucus, you will no longer have a majority.”

“Then there will be civil war,” de Klerk responded.

It was not out of the question. De Klerk had always viewed the military with a mixture of suspicion and disdain. Many of them viewed him as a traitor. He had already removed Magnus Malan, his widely respected defense minister. In late 1992, he resolved to clean out the rest of the dissidents in the military ranks.

“We are not playing with children,” one of his ministers warned him. “We are governing because the Defense Force allows us to do so. … The top command could decide to get rid of us and seize power. And where are we then?”

That did not dissuade de Klerk. The following day, he suspended or forcibly retired 23 senior army officers in what later came to be known as the “Night of the Generals.”

When retired General Constand Viljoen entered politics in 1994 to launch the Freedom Front, some viewed him as the country’s last chance. Many thought him capable of raising an army of up to 50,000 men from various defense forces and civilian paramilitary units that were loyal to him. Anticipating this, General Georg Meiring warned de Klerk and then met with Viljoen to sound him out.

“You and I and our men can take this country in an afternoon,” Viljoen reportedly told him. “Yes,” Meiring replied, “but what do we do in the morning after the coup? The internal resistance and foreign pressures and the stagnant economy will still be there.”

For Viljoen, the lack of support from the armed forces was decisive. “I could have stirred things up in 1994—but for what purpose?” he later said. “I don’t think any action from my side would have resulted in a major part of the Defense Force siding with me.”

Viljoen’s decision was controversial among some Afrikaners, many of whom were more than willing to fight and die to save their country. Instead, Viljoen decided to use the threat of war to win an Afrikaner homeland — a volkstaat — by peaceful means.  To placate him and his supporters, de Klerk and the ANC readily agreed to create a council to review the options. But it was just a ploy. Neither de Klerk nor the ANC ever took the idea seriously.

In the 1994 elections, the first held after the end of apartheid, Viljoen’s Freedom Front earned a little over two percent of the vote. The party was, and remains, an important voice for Afrikaners, as are advocacy organizations like AfriForum and Suidlanders, a civil defense group. But their power is limited by numbers. Whites are a small minority in South Africa. Conservative Afrikaners are just a minority within the minority.

Viljoen never had any illusions about this. His primary focus had always been the creation of an Afrikaner homeland. Consistent with the accord he signed with the ANC, a council was soon created to consider the creation of a such a volkstaat. But then, as now, the council soon faced a major obstacle: Afrikaners were spread too thinly across too many areas of the country for any single region to stand out as the obvious location.

The council considered several options, including one based primarily in the Northern Cape that eventually drew the endorsement of the Freedom Front (shown in the map below). Other proposals included carve-outs in and around Pretoria, where the largest numbers of Afrikaners live.

But each of these proposals would have required large numbers of Afrikaners to uproot and move to the new state for it to be viable. Instead, a 1993 poll indicated that just 29 percent of White South Africans backed the creation of such a homeland. Just 18 percent said they would consider moving there if one were created.

“Afrikaners do not want their own homeland,” Johann Wingard, chair of the council, eventually concluded. “They want to live anywhere in their beautiful country where they can make a decent living.” Interest in the idea soon dissipated and the council was dissolved. For many, the dream of a volkstaat seemed dead and buried.

Carel Boshoff, son-in-law of former South African Prime Minister Hendrik Verwoerd, had different ideas. In 1990 he bought a patch of land on the banks of the Orange River at the far eastern edge of the volkstaat proposed by the Freedom Front. The first few residents of the new Afrikaner town, called Orania, arrived the following year. The population has since grown to over 1,700, over a third of whom are children.

“They initially drew support from idealists,” said Dan Roodt, an Afrikaner activist. “They struggled financially in the beginning. In the early 2000s, you could buy a plot of land for a couple a hundred dollars. Now the price is 50 times that much.”

The town’s growth was powered by a strong desire for shared community and growing disenchantment with the rest of South Africa. It would have grown even faster if not for its commitment to using Afrikaner labor. “Orania does not use black labor,” Roodt said, “so it can’t build fast enough to build all the new housing they need.”

Orania had shown that the idea could work. And before long, public opinion would change.

Democratic Alliance

The Freedom Front — later renamed the Freedom Front Plus after it merged with the Conservative Party — was never the primary party of South Africa’s Whites. In the 1994 election, that distinction fell to the Nationalists under F.W. de Klerk. But there was also a third party contending for the White vote that year. The Democratic Party was barely a footnote, receiving fewer votes than the Freedom Front.  But in time — and with the backing of most of the White establishment, the media, and a healthy dose of luck — it soon propelled itself forward to become the nation’s primary party for Whites, second in size only to the ANC.

In 1994, however, it was caught in a bind. Its traditional base of support had always been urban, politically liberal Whites. That became a problem when de Klerk lifted the ban on the ANC. Suddenly the party found itself being squeezed on both sides — by the ANC on the left, which drew away some of its White liberal support, and by the Nationalists on the right, who were viewed by most Whites as the only viable check against the ANC’s growing power.

Instead of capitalizing on this advantage, however, de Klerk fumbled it away. Thinking he could retain power and influence by working with the ANC, he allied with them in a post-election “unity government.” But this only alienated the Nationalists from their base of White voters. Worse, they were blamed for failing to stop the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which persecuted numerous White officials and military officers for their role in apartheid.

The Democratic Party took full advantage of the situation, challenging the Nationalists from the right in the 1999 elections. With the rallying cry “Fight Back!,” the party gained ground among White voters. After the election, the Nationalists continued to hemorrhage White support until 2005, when the party finally disbanded.

With its principal competition for White voters now gone, the newly renamed Democratic Alliance was free to expand its outreach to other racial groups, first to the “coloured” vote and later to the Black middle class. Like White establishment parties just about everywhere, it downplayed race and emphasized colorblind individualism and classical liberalism to maximize its cross-racial appeal. Using this strategy, it gained support in every subsequent election until 2014, when it peaked at 22 percent of the overall vote.

After that election, Helen Zille, the party’s leader, began looking for a successor. Her ideal candidate would be someone like Barrack Obama, who was then closing out his second term. Mmusi Maimane seemed to fit the bill. With Zille’s backing, he drew overwhelming support from the party in 2015.  The party then marketed him in ways that amounted to virtual plagiarism — including blatantly copying Obama’s “Hope” poster and substituting Maimane’s image instead.

But Maimane did not play along. He was not interested in being the Black face of a White party. If the DA wanted his leadership to reach Black voters, then he would force it to swallow his message — and that message was one of Black nationalism.

In his acceptance speech, he warned the party that colorblindness was not enough. “These experiences shaped me, just like they shaped so many young Black people of my generation,” he said, echoing the criticisms of South Africa’s woke left. “I don’t agree with those who say they don’t see color. Because, if you don’t see that I’m Black, then you don’t see me.”

It was not long before Maimane was locked in a power struggle with senior members of his own party, advocating for affirmative action and straying from its emphasis on non-discrimination. Under his command, the party soon came to be seen as ‘ANC-lite,’ and the DA’s White leadership was not happy.

Neither were some of its other Black leaders, but for different reasons. ”I feel powerless when my activists come to me and say they are victims of racism from senior people in the party, who say they should be grateful that the DA keeps them busy because otherwise they would probably be out stealing and killing people somewhere,” one grumbled. “I mean, what is that?”

The DA paid the price for these divisions at the ballot box. In the 2019 elections, the party lost ground for first time since 1994, failing to gain any traction against the ANC and losing White voters on the right to the Freedom Front Plus. The ANC also lost ground, but not to the “colorblind” DA. Instead, it lost votes to the explicitly Black nationalist Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) under Julius Malema, who had pledged to “cut the throat of Whiteness.”

The lesson from the election was clear. In an increasingly chaotic nation, Black nationalism was the future. White voters and their parties had gone as far as they were going to go.

After the election, the knives came out. Helen Zille, the DA’s previous leader, was elected to a powerful party position by the old guard and she quickly challenged Maimane from within. Her predecessor, Tony Leon, chaired an internal party review that laid the blame squarely at Maimane’s feet. The Institute for Race Relations, an establishment-backed think tank, said he had abandoned the party’s cherished principles.

Maimane saw the writing on the wall, but he did not go quietly. At his resignation speech he called out the DA’s White leadership in explicit terms. “Over the past few months it has become more and more clear to me that there exists those in the DA who do not see eye-to-eye with me, who do not share the vision for the party and the direction it was taking,” he said. “There have been several months of consistent and coordinated attacks on me and my leadership, to ensure that this project failed, or I failed.”

Other Black party leaders followed him out the door. “I cannot reconcile myself with a group of people who believe that race is irrelevant in the discussion of inequality and poverty in South Africa,” said Herman Mashaba as he resigned from the party and as mayor of Johannesburg, the nation’s largest city.

Malema’s EFF released a gloating statement calling the DA a “White political party in which Whites and their interests as Whites must always dominate and come first.” Maimane was later seen hobnobbing with Julius Malema in what some called an emerging ‘bromance.’

Last November, the party overwhelmingly elected a new White leader, John Steenhuisen. He trounced his primary Black challenger, Mbali Ntuli, with 80 percent of the vote. The party, it seemed, was no longer pretending. Some are now questioning how it could possibly avoid a backlash by non-White voters in the next election.

Secession

Two decades ago, the idea of a White homeland in South Africa seemed dead in the water. Any area reserved for Whites that was too far away from the cities or from employment opportunities seemed impractical. Many Whites at the time also believed, or at least hoped, that South Africa would soon become the harmonious and prosperous multiracial nation that had been promised.

That hope is now gone. A worsening economy, ever-present crime, and rising corruption have all left their mark (detailed in my previous article, South Africa’s Protection Racket). According to public opinion polls, South Africans have grown increasingly pessimistic. The situation briefly stabilized when Cyril Ramaphosa replaced Jacob Zuma as president in 2018, but his promised reforms never materialized. Now public sentiment seems to be worsening again. The DA’s failed “colorblind” political strategy has only further darkened the mood among those who had hoped for more.

These negative views are most prevalent among Whites in general and in the Western Cape in particular, one of the few regions in the nation where Blacks are not a majority. In 2009, Whites in the province allied with the local coloured population and ousted the ANC in local elections. It has been ruled by the DA since then.

“Ever since the DA came to power in Cape Town and in the Western Cape one has heard a growing chorus from visitors that ‘It feels like a different (and better) country down here!’” wrote one local observer. “The public hospitals and schools work far better here than anywhere else in South Africa, the traffic lights work better, the city center is safer, there is less litter and generally there is better governance.”

Local rule was a step in the right direction, but some activists wanted more. In 2007, they formed the Cape Party to fight for genuine independence. The party never gained traction in the few elections it contested — partly because the timing was wrong and partly because voters inclined to support separatism already had a political home in the Freedom Front Plus.

Nine years of Jacob Zuma’s presidency changed that, however, and several new organizations have emerged. Following the success of the Brexit vote in Britain, CapeXit was founded in 2018 to seek independence through international law. Another organization, the Cape Independence Advocacy Group (CIAG), was launched in 2020.

It seemed like public opinion had changed, but independence advocates decided to sponsor a poll to be sure. Unsurprisingly, the poll found overwhelming opposition among Black voters. But it also showed that Whites now strongly supported the idea, especially those who were supporters of the Freedom Front Plus.

Coloured voters — who constitute a majority of the Western Cape’s population — were more divided. While most were not yet ready to endorse full independence, the majority (68%) agreed that the Western Cape should be given more power to choose its own policies. Advocates now believe that this bloc of voters can be won over, particularly if the nation’s economy continues to deteriorate.

These poll results, which drew wide attention, have put the DA in a box. Much of its White leadership privately supports independence, but it has remained publicly silent to avoid alienating voters both inside and outside the province who do not support the effort. The Freedom Front Plus, which has endorsed independence, sees this as an opportunity. They plan to challenge the DA on this issue in the upcoming 2021 municipal elections.

Despite this growing support, however, some have condemned the independence movement as unrealistic. “Fringe groups have long advocated for the secession of the Western Cape from the rest of South Africa,” wrote Pierre De Vos, a constitutional law professor at the University of Cape Town. “Obviously, the Western Cape is not going to secede and there is no chance of the creation of an independent state.”

“Even if the Western Cape Premier calls a referendum (he won’t), and even if a majority of voters vote for secession (they won’t either), the referendum will have absolutely no impact as the president and his party will have no legal or ethical obligation to adhere to the results,” he wrote. Critics argued that the ruling ANC would inevitably reject Cape independence, not least because the Western Cape and Gauteng, the two provinces with the bulk of South Africa’s White population, provide most of the tax dollars that line the ANC’s pockets.

Supporters counter that international law, not the South African constitution, is the final word on the matter. “Countries secede on a regular basis, and the constitutional law of the parent state is almost never an insurmountable object if the other conditions required by international law are in place,” wrote Phil Craig, CIAG’s co-founder. Political will, not constitutional law, would decide this issue, as it has in nearly every other case of secession.

Bangladesh seceded from Pakistan despite the latter’s objections. Kosovo seceded from Serbia despite Serbia’s objections, and with the International Court of Justice advising that there is no prohibition of the (unilateral) declaration of independence under international law. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Croatia, Slovenia, East Timor, South Sudan. The list goes on.
Closer to home, did the previous South African constitution prevent the end of apartheid, or Namibian independence? Countries secede on a regular basis, and the constitutional law of the parent state is almost never an insurmountable object if the other conditions required by international law are in place.

Whatever the objections, the politics of the issue are clearly trending in the supporters’ direction.  Numerous economic experts and political analysts now see South Africa entering a death spiral. Last year, the nation lost its last investment-grade credit rating when Moody’s downgraded it to “junk” status. Investors have been fleeing the country for years. According to IMF estimates, unemployment is fast approaching 40 percent. The Covid crisis has only made matters worse, contributing to widespread protests. At least one analyst estimates that if its existing economic policies are not reversed, the country faces economic and political collapse by 2030.

Despite such warnings, President Cyril Ramaphosa seems powerless to implement needed reforms. According to analysts at the establishment-backed Institute of Race Relations, power in the ANC has now shifted decisively to leftist Black nationalists. If Ramaphosa were to challenge the party’s top leadership in any meaningful way, they would remove him from office.

This worsening economic and political outlook will only heighten public support for secession over time. The final trigger could be an independence referendum in the Cape, an IMF bailout that imposes cuts on ANC-favored spending priorities, a forced removal of Ramaphosa by the ANC leadership, or a national election that forced the ANC into a governing coalition with the far-left EFF to maintain Black majority rule.

Regardless of the cause, if the Western Cape seceded, it would probably trigger similar efforts in other parts of the country. This might include some or all of the Northern Cape, which has similar demographics and is home to Orania. Another possibility is the Whiter regions in and around Pretoria and Johannesburg, which might also demand increased local autonomy. Absent that, many of these Whites might flee to a newly independent Western Cape, just as Whites fled Zimbabwe to South Africa during Robert Mugabe’s reign.

The Rainbow Nation’s days may be numbered, but now there is something new to hope for. An independent Western Cape would not be the volkstaat — nor indeed an ethnostate of any kind. But it would at least free the nation’s White population from the worst excesses of majority Black rule and reestablish the right of self-determination.

When reporters travel to Orania, they sometimes ask the residents why they chose to move there. “We want to build a better place for our children and ourselves,” one recently said.

It is a simple answer, one that anyone could have given, but now more people are beginning to realize that it is something that cannot be taken for granted. Self-rule has long been an aspiration for many White South Africans. Now, after all these years, it may finally be within reach.

Patrick McDermott is a political analyst in Washington, DC.

 

In 1946 Winston Churchill delivered a speech at a small college in Fulton Missouri that offered this prescient analysis: “From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an ‘iron curtain’ has descended across the continent.” This Soviet invasion made a prison out of the entire area for half a century. Dissenters were severely punished.

Without notice or debate, a similar regimen of speech control is descending on North America, from Bar Harbor, Maine on the Bay of Fundy to Nome, Alaska on the Arctic Ocean, and south to the Rio Grande and the Straits of Florida.

Political correctness, a phrase used almost playfully in the 1990s, has morphed into the viciousness and moral smugness of our current cancel culture, replacing the spirit of the First Amendment. By way of example, I offer the following observation from an early victim of cancel culture, my friend the late Sam Francis.

“The civilization that we as whites created in Europe and America could not have developed apart from the genetic endowments of the creating people, nor is there any reason to believe that the civilization can be successfully transmitted to a different people.”

Comments like this led to Francis being fired from his position as columnist for the Washington Times in 1995 and put him into media purgatory and economic distress until his premature death 10 years later.

Sam’s proposition makes no moral distinctions and is not much more than a paean to what in reality is his extended family. In the same context the creating people of Great Zimbabwe were Bantus, the creating people of China were Han, and the creating people of the Inca Empire were Quechuas. If, instead of making a claim about the racial origins of Europe and America, Sam had instead substituted any of these other peoples into his statement, it would have been equally plausible but would not have resulted in Sam’s discharge.

The frenzy to stigmatize any mention of genetics especially as playing a role in the development of White civilization began early in the twentieth century, essentially eradicating what had been a robust intellectual exchange based on the reality of race and the idea that there are important racial differences in behavior around the world. This anti-biologism came to dominate academic thinking after World War II and has become a bedrock attitude among those who are now labeled progressives. Such thinking is woven into contemporary intellectual tapestry; it is taught throughout the school system from elementary school through the university, and it characterizes  entire mainstream media landscape. Among its White adherents, it has assumed a millenarian vision of a utopian future free from all racial conflict—the same sort of millenarianism that has characterized the moral crusades of the past, from the Civil War to World War II, to our contemporary regime-change wars in the Middle East.

Susan Sontag proclaimed “The white race is the cancer of human history.” If we limit her universe to the U.S., I’d say that she was about 40% right as this was the Hillary Clinton fraction of the White vote in the 2016 presidential election. This means that the remaining 60% of White voters represent our side of the family—at least potentially.

One birthday short of becoming an octogenarian, I charge the dissident right with the mission to  begin the intergenerational process of founding an independent political jurisdiction in which anti-millenarian whites can gather, regroup and flourish. Along the way we will support other races with  the same aspiration.

To this end,  we must extract our side of the family from the embrace of the “White millenarians” who are yet intent on imposing their heretical notion of equality on Earth as it art in Heaven —even though the misery from such tampering with human nature abounds in history and has been particularly evident in the recent past.

Our goal must be a Bohemian Divorce of mutual self determination as deliberate and bloodless as the split between the Czech Republic and Slovakia in 1993. To this end there is long standing precedent which stretches back to the founding of the Republic when separation was recognized as a humane means  of resolving ethnic and racial conflicts and sovereign tracts of land were ceded to indigenes.

Once separation is established, the internal political arrangements are less important than the maintenance of a unifying ethos by enforcing a variant of the Amish practice of Rumpspringa. This exercise encourages youthful apostates to leave the commonwealth before achieving citizenship.  So that a mistake of inclusion is not immutable, I recommend making exile a part of the criminal and civil code, directed at those who are in fundamental disagreement with the ideal of a separate White community. Such a provision could also be used to correct immigration blunders.

We have entered very dangerous times for Whites in America. The  summer riots of 2020 carried out with the blessing of much of the Establishment and the entire left is a clear indication that the American racial experiment is careening toward disaster. Whites need a separate political jurisdiction.

William H. Regnery II is the founder of the Charles Martel Society.