Guilty of Working While White, Redux: One Year Later

Exactly one year ago from the date we started this interview on January 19, Tom Kawczynski was attacked by the national media for daring to work while White. Because the town’s board of selectman was unable to stand-up to the media’s intense bullying of Mr. Kawczynski for simply stating the obvious — that Whites should have the same right as all other groups to work together to protect, and even advance, their collective interests — he was forced to resign from his position as the town manager of Jackman, a small rural community in western Maine.

The Occidental Observer published an interview with Mr. Kawczynski during that media firestorm. This is a follow-up to that interview to learn how Tom and his wife have contended with the changes in their lives since that attack.

Russell James: You ended the last interview with the words “We have more support than
we know, and we are changing the narrative.” Do you still feel that’s true?

Tom Kawczynski: According to the Census, over 60% of Americans are Whites without Hispanic ethnicity. One party, the Democrats, actively works to subjugate any sense of positive identity for the majority. The opposition, the Republicans, hides in shame from defending the accomplishments of that same group.

Under such circumstances, it can feel like we are unwanted, but what is happening is we stand perched on the verge of a nationalist awakening in this country where Whites will finally speak up for our interests with pride, without shame, and in recognition that as the people who both built and maintain this great country, our voices must be heard.

A lie has long persisted that for us to have pride in our accomplishments is diminution of others. This makes no sense. Rather, it is the rising civil rights issue of our time, to recognize that in a nation which respects popular sovereignty, that the majority can escape silence and be heard once more.

I am confident a new day is far closer than anyone realizes and look forward optimistically to its arrival.

RJ: How do you think it came about that explicit assertions White interests are now completely unrepresented in the institutions of power of a country our forefathers founded and built?

TK: We live in a country where most of our schools, our media, and increasingly, our corporations participate in an ongoing effort to suppress any positive expression of White identity. This is the result of a hundred-year plot of radical egalitarians of all stripes; socialists, communists, and Marxists to undo the republic that honored our heritage and replace it with social democracy, the easiest government to control and purchase.

What is particularly frightening is just how vicious these people have become in suppressing voices, seeking now not to just censor dissent, but to we see people suffering social and financial penalties, as well as a justice system where thought itself is now becoming criminalized.

But the biggest problem for all we can talk about how this happened is that we stopped speaking up for ourselves, both in terms of our own people, and for the moral cause of defending our liberty and legitimate authority that derives from our civilization and its timeless ideals.

RJ: Why do you think it is principally Whites who are targeted for persecution and punishment by the current regime?

TK: I will be releasing a book in late February or March entitled The Loyal Revolutionary which focuses on this very question. When you look at voting patterns by demographic, some stark trends emerge. Whereas Whites vote for limited government, to protect gun rights, and are still about 60% against socialism, a mirror image appears in every other racial group in America. Across multiple election cycles, two-thirds of Latinos, three-quarters of Asians, and nine-tenths of Blacks express support for socialist redistribution policies.

In short, they’ve been promised all the historical wealth accumulated in America as well as being able to tax our labor and take our assets as part of being part of this so-called coalition of the ascendant. To make this coalition work, they have to be constantly stirred to resentment and be promised the wealth of others: Whites stood in the way of this, so just like all traditional sources of authority in this country, we are targeted along with men, Christians, and the idea that America is a just nation open to everyone.

One other interesting thing I discovered is that Whites are the only swing voters left in America. A real effort to connect our women and men together in common cause could restore this nation very quickly, which is why there is no more forbidden or ruthlessly attacked idea than Whites working together in common cause.

RJ: We are so often told that the ruling elites are truly “rich White men,” yet it seems that all Whites, including the White elites who controlled the original American republic that honored our heritage, are persecuted and punished by this new regime. Do you think this suggests the possibility that “rich White men” are no longer in control and that those constantly stirring non-Whites to resentment are from a different ethnic stock than the original lords of America?

TK: One of the interesting things that really jumps out in the research is that while every other “White” identity votes about sixty percent or greater for Republicans, Jews vote 70% or greater for Democrats. As has often been observed elsewhere, the rich White men who have many of the most prominent positions in media, academia, and finance are often Jewish, as are many of the best-known socialists currently and historically.

The question why Jews particularly embrace Marxism so thoroughly is one worth more research and helps explain this contradiction. It is of particular import to them, as well, as we can see how the new more progressive Left is much more anti-Semitic with its embrace of Islam. Consider the comments made today by new Congresswoman Ilhan Omar as well as those earlier made by Rashida Tlaib for their blatantly oppositional stance against Jews.

The minorities of today believe there are no greater victims than themselves, which will surely be a cause of ongoing conflict with the highly leftist leadership of Jewish culture, which frankly, has served through the ADL and other entities to constrain any positive expression of White culture. Such actions, if not reversed, may prove both our downfall as well as their own.

One thing I am confident about in the future is in the growing number of Jews who recognize this trend, and as the pressure to censor from that front slackens, then we might be able to attack the ideology that threatens us all, which is this idea that equalized outcomes must be enforced and that we can no longer use reason or identify patterns in how people behave, individually or in groups.

RJ: Given the regular occurrence among Jews to demand to be able to express and to defend their identity as Jews while screaming “neo-Nazi” at any White person who tries to do the same vis-à-vis their identity, do you believe a time will come when Jews will embrace their “Whiteness” and join with us in defending White interests? If they do, do you think Whites should welcome that union?

TK: I argue there is no more moral case for any people, at either the ethnic or racial level than to fight for their continued existence, so I would hope those who oppose positive expression of White identity would see the inherent hypocrisy of opposing that right for us or anyone else. There have certainly been trends within the Orthodox community within Judaism in this fashion, and most Israelis seem also to intrinsically understand the validity of the argument of self-existence.

There’s an interesting contradiction within the Jewish community. I’ve read surveys that suggest over 90% of Jews consider themselves White, yet over two-thirds of Jews also believe when they are singled out for their behaviors or actions that is uniquely a form of racism, suggesting such racial identification is flexible in terms of affiliations but always expressed in a way that optimizes self-interest. Incidentally, I do not blame them for this, but I think they need to start asking the question much more seriously about where their interest lies.

Your final question is challenging, but my most recent book After Trump is suggestive. I make a two-part case for nationalism whereby we begin with a moral test, working with those of all races who share our core values of liberty, morality, and responsibility, and where we utilize that framework to best mobilize our citizens in common cause. Whites themselves demand a moral case, uniquely perhaps amongst all groups, before working in their naked self-interest, and having set such a principled standard, can judge whether or not to work with others on that same basis.

I would say that it is impossible for Whites to work with anyone who spends a disproportionate amount of time, energy, and effort aimed at disrupting the legitimate aspirations of our people to merely assert and practice those same rights of dignity and association for ourselves as other people take for granted. When it comes to the Jewish question, I believe the actions to begin a more fruitful relationship have to begin with a change from that community itself, because as we all know, anyone outside that community who comments upon their cultural trends is automatically painted with slander and slurs, even if all they recognize are matters of fact.

Any conversation before that about working with people seems premature, but I think we must be open to partnerships in general that serve our interest if we are to survive and prosper.

RJ: Why do you believe that Whites demand a moral case? Do you consider it a genetic predisposition or a cultural constraint?

TK: I suspect the genetic and cultural case reinforce one another, so separating them may not be possible and isn’t actually necessary. The European peoples evolved to deal with challenging environments that required high trust societies, encouraged comparatively lower birth rates, and relied upon seasonal cooperation. Groups were held together not by kinship but by commitment to a morally defined community based on trust and reputation; dissenters were ostracized and shunned.

Such constraints encouraged the pathological altruism with which the readers of this publication are well familiar, but one point not made commonly enough perhaps is recognizing how uncommon this is for other groups. I think our ideas of responsibility are also the roots of our embrace of individualism, the foundation of liberty in the West, but which we see much less frequently articulated in either Asian, African, or other developing societies.

Whites like abstractions like liberty and the rule of law, and in the American case, having three hundred years of habit where we did not seriously have to contemplate a society not run by our people, we had the luxury of assuming particular ideals were universal. Now that we are testing them with the inclusion of huge numbers of non-Whites, the growing body of evidence suggests rather than them assimilating to our values, our culture is being degraded to something more similar to the places where they came from, specifically because we no longer share the same commonalities, a question whose genetic and cultural components remain connected but will be hard to tease apart.

RJ: The pathological altruism you mention is a relatively new development in our culture. Just four or five generations ago, we were much less open to the idea of including others in our society and the readiness to accept our own displacement, and ultimately our own destruction, seems to grow with each generation. Because genetic change happens so slowly and this cultural or “memetic” change is occurring so rapidly, do you think it’s possible that the development of this pathological altruism is not a natural cultural evolution but rather a deliberate imposition upon us by the new elites?

TK: That seems fair. I would say we always had these latent tendencies to try to reach the other. Consider traditional colonialism which in Western terms was far less genocidal than in how other cultures moved into new lands, even as it was admittedly very violent. I think our guilt is deliberately exacerbated and that relentless cultural efforts are made to prevent any dissent to that model.

I also think such self-hatred is incredibly unnatural, and even a modest break in the cultural blockade against pro-White tendencies will lead to a flood of support for this position. My fear is that such action doesn’t come until we become a minority in this country, which will happen within a generation now.

RJ: During our last interview we talked about a project, New Albion, that you were working on that could offer some protection against us becoming a minority in our own country, because the likelihood of the region New Albion defines remaining overwhelming White even as the rest of the country fades to brown. Do you still believe an ethno-state is possible in that region and that balkanization might offer a solution to the browning of America?

TK: I remain an advocate for northern New England as one of the best places to live in America, which was the region where it was imagined New Albion might develop. However, I’ve come to realize the idea of retreat into peaceful seclusion is unrealistic before any conflict, because as we see in Europe and elsewhere, the global agenda to work against White interests will sooner fight us than let us peacefully separate.

The reality is balkanization pre-conflict is just the latest instance of White flight, and I see my own defeatism in thinking that this would work in the face of aggressive competition. Instead, I now advocate for retaking this country by our still-existing majority, working to reverse the immigration trends, and returning to an America which is closer to our historic balance of being 85% White. We don’t lack the numbers or capacity, merely the political will to protect our own interests, which I now work to revitalize.

Look for my future projects to make the Republican Party more cognizant that it is a party which is 93% White, and as such, ought to serve as surrogate for our interests. We must guide it to become a nationalist party, to reclaim America, and to ensure this land remains our land. I have no delusions this will be simple or without conflict, but I think such struggle is inescapable now, so we should play for the largest stakes we can, as quickly as we can realistically organize.

I’ve said publicly I’m the first pro-White Republican politician in America. It’s a message that has never been directly tried, but that has been quite successful in implicit appeals. Considering how hard the other side is pushing against Whites, I believe the time is upon us to awaken people to the reality that the America most on the Right love only remains so long as we remain majority White.

I hope others will join me in that struggle, because while myself and others can articulate this case and provide leadership, it will require courage that has been lacking thus far and logistical and financial support. Please understand we cannot keep running and hope to win; retreat unending is defeat assured.

RJ: How do you intend to promote this awakening and reclamation of America’s putatively conservative party?

TK: That’s a great question, but I won’t be able to answer it fully until June. There are two things I can share though which should be heartening. First, the dissident Right is becoming much better organized and more professional as befits the urgency of our situation, and I work actively to facilitate that networking. Second, we are beginning to connect with the activist base of the Right on shared core principles and a growing understanding that the defense of those values requires more stringent action on both legal and illegal immigration specifically because of the demographic tendencies.

One unique attribute I have compared with others in the movement is I’ve been both a political candidate and organizer before. The National Right organization I lead is helping to build the important idea where we stop punching right and embrace identity in a united move against the Left. As 2020 approaches, look for me to consider entering the public arena once more, because I know we need voices who are unafraid to speak common sense, the clearest application of which is for Whites to have an advocate for our legitimate and long ignored concerns.

For those who doubt this can be done, remember the idea that the Republicans would even embrace civic nationalism seemed like a pipe dream just five years ago. Things are changing quickly, and our long time in the wilderness can come to an end if we so choose.

RJ: Are you considering running for public office? If so, which one?

TK: I am, and I will let you know when I decide. If I should run, I would hope for support from all people who understand the challenges we face today.

RJ: I understand that discretion is required, but are you able to tell readers whether you’re considering a local, a statewide, or a federal office?

TK: If I run, it will be at the Federal level. The problems upon which I focus my attention, like immigration and cultural change, have to be addressed there.

RJ: How do you imagine the current Republican leadership might respond to your challenge?

TK: I imagine the existing Republican leadership will gravitate between trying to disown me and ignoring me. But my goal isn’t to reach them: It’s to reach the many Republican voters who deserve a voice that is serious about the problems we face and cares more about this country than winning the next election cycle.

RJ: How does the National Right organization fit into your plan? Is it a membership group, an online community, or something else?

TK: Having witnessed firsthand how people are punished for their affiliations when they don’t adhere to what is politically correct, I’ve learned the best way to utilize the National Right is as an idea and a vision. We do have a presence on Facebook and a few other places for people to chat, but it’s more of a concept which people can support. The idea that the Right stops fighting itself over particulars while we engage a far more pressing has been long overdue.

I am proud to speak to that vision and articulate it for those who have been threatened or silenced.

RJ: You mentioned two of your books above (the soon to be released title, The Loyal Revolutionary and After Trump) and I reviewed a third book, Someone Has to Say It, on this site. Do they represent a series that should be read in a particular order or are they stand-alone works?

TK: Thanks for asking. Each book can be read independently, but the first three books make a sort of a trilogy. Consider them the past, present, and a potential future.

As reminder, Someone Has to Say It covered the last hundred years of American history in a casual reader friendly way to introduce how Marxist subversion has constantly progressed.

The Coming Civil War, my second book, has also been my most successful to date and it covers the current day, the divisions within America, and how the cultural conflict is likely to split this country along certain lines, which I identify as race, ideology, region, and culture. It is a deeper and darker book, but one which highlights the challenges we face.

After Trump is the third book in the set, and it’s both an exploration of the relationship between civic and ethnic nationalism as part of a progression, as well as offering practical policy solutions we should explore today to improve our situation and potentially avoid conflict.

Loyal Revolutionary is a different sort of book. Consider it more a personal philosophical explanation, as part handbook for the struggles ahead and how to deal with those issues, and also a much more focused effort to explain why demographic changes will kill America as we know it. We spoke earlier about the need to make a moral case for Whites to organize – this book is my effort to satisfy that need.

I also want to thank everyone reading, reviewing, and commenting upon my books. It allows me to continue my activism, support my family, and for that, we are grateful. Print and digital copy are available at or if one wants to order directly, send me an e-mail at

Lastly, I’m excited to announce all my books will soon be coming to audio format, so look for that to happen within the next few weeks!

RJ: Some see copy restrictions as an obsolete (because of digital publishing) and overly-burdensome system that favors large publishing companies over readers and even authors. As an author and (self-) publisher do you have an opinion on copyright law that you’d like to share with the readers?

TK: I’ve always chosen not to place onerous restrictions on my digital material with the understanding that technology will allow those so inclined to work around any prohibitions. Instead, I work to build a bond with my readership who understand they are supporting my activism through purchasing my materials, and see that support realized in their willingness to pay a premium.

Rather than going into the morass of copyright law, I would just say as an author and artist, I think the most important thing is to be responsive to the audience. Ultimately, sharing the information is more important than fighting for every nickel and dime.

Since you brought up the topic of publishing, however, I worry regularly that Amazon which controls 3/4 of the publishing market for adult fiction and nonfiction, will soon be the next target for social activism to limit what will be published. It is something which cannot be permitted, and would hurt many people in the movement besides myself.

RJ: Would you consider releasing your works under a free license such as those offered by Creative Commons or some other group?

TK: For shorter works, I may consider operating under Creative Commons, but I am content with the self-publishing model I have been using for my books.

RJ: While we’re on the topic of creative content, I remember you were doing a series of podcasts, a while back, called Conversations with Tom. Are you still doing them and are they available online?

TK: I do feature a regular podcast that is usually available at The site is currently down for security upgrades, to change server hosts, and to include a better format. I hope to be live once more in February.

RJ: What prompted you to do the podcasts, and how do they fit into your over-all plan?

TK: A number of people have told me they enjoy interviews I do on other shows, probably because I’m willing to discuss any topic and usually have something to say on anything, so I decided to start putting my own take on issues out there and to draw interesting people into useful conversations.

Besides, it helps me keep sharp for having challenging interviews like this one.

RJ: Considering everything that has occurred over the last year, especially the anti-White smear campaign that led to your resignation as town manager of Jackman, ME almost exactly one year ago, do you and your wife feel that it has been worth it? Is your life better now than it was then?

TK: What I am most grateful for throughout this trying process is we have learned who truly are our friends, and who were only pretending. This life has different challenges, but I enjoy facing them each day, and as much as I love living a quiet rural existence, I feel my skills are better used in fighting in the battles which have become a daily challenge.

It is sad we live in a world where we have to fight for our basic consideration, so I’ll never say I celebrate this, but I take great satisfaction in pushing back against people whom I know are unjust.

I would also like to add how proud I am of my wife Dana, who has also been targeted as these people have no decency, and whose strength and resolve is a source of constant inspiration.

RJ: What is the best way for folks to support you/get involved?

TK: will be back up shortly, but until then, my preferred social media is @tomkawczynski at Anyone wanting to learn more is welcome to contact me at, and I promise to let you guys know before any big campaign launches.

Thank you for the support, and allow me to offer my thanks to the readers who continue our struggle. You guys make this possible.

RJ: Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions. I’ll leave you the final word. Is there anything you’d like to add that you think is important and that I neglected to ask?

TK: I just want to end on an optimistic note to remind people for the many real challenges we face, especially against this hostile culture, we have overcome far worse in our history and have yet to even test our strength. Better days are ahead and know you are never alone.

19 replies

Comments are closed.