Psychological Mechanisms and White Interests, Part 2

Go to Part 1.

Psychological Mechanisms that Work to Our Advantage

Implicit Whiteness. However, getting away from the Finnish example, there are also psychological mechanisms that are likely to create an increased sense of White identity and White interests in the years ahead. This should give us some hope for the future. The demographic 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 what I call implicit Whiteness which is the sense that one is White and behaving on the basis of being White without explicitly stating that you are White. For example, as White children get older, they increasingly choose Whites to be friends and associates in a mixed-race setting. Even though their explicit attitudes towards Blacks may be very positive, they feel more comfortable and have more rapport with other Whites. White parents move away from areas with a lot of non-Whites, especially Blacks and Latinos—a phenomenon known as White flight. When asked why they do so, they talk about seeking better schools. This may be true, but it covers up the reality that they don’t want their children in the same school as these non-Whites while shielding themselves from being called racists.

White people are the most individualistic people on earth — a topic central to my forthcoming book Western Individualism and the Liberal Tradition: Evolution, History, and Prospects for the Future. This means that we are less ethnocentric and less embedded in extended kinship networks that are so common in Africa and Asia. Individualists are less naturally ethnocentric, and the left has created a culture that punishes Whites for expressing 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.[1]

In other words, 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 much while the population centers throughout the West—places like New York, Stockholm, London, and Paris are changed beyond all recognition from what they were 50 years ago. An obvious inference to be made is that pro-White activists should use explicit messages emphasizing these transformations. They should also note what is happening when Whites give up political control, as in South Africa, where many Whites live under siege conditions behind high walls and security systems, the government has endorsed programs that confiscate land from Whites and, crime, including particularly vicious murders of White farmers, is rampant.

The Prevalence of Anti-White Hatred. Another force that will make Whites more willing to coalesce into cohesive groups is the strident anti-White rhetoric that is now common in the elite media and academic culture of the United States. There are many examples of this. It’s common now for the left to conceptualize American history as nothing more than dispossessing the Indians and enslaving Africans, Jim Crow/segregation laws in the South, etc., with the result that American history is being deconstructed from an anti-White perspective—Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States, 1492–Present is the classic that has been a standard textbook in college courses in American history.[2] American historical figures are being delegitimized, their statues removed, etc. Recently the New York Times hired Sarah Jeong, an Asian woman with a history of anti-White tweets, the New York Times’ Michelle Goldberg, who is Jewish, rejoiced that Whites are being replaced in Georgia, a Black Princeton classics professor advocated shutting off White men from publishing in the field, and CNN’s Don Lemon, who is Black, stated that White males are the biggest terror threat.[3] These people are part of the grievance industry of the rising anti-White coalition. They profit from decades of indoctrination that the highest moral good for White people is to serve the interests and self-esteem of non-Whites.[4]

There are psychological mechanisms that act as a countervailing force to the culture of the left. For example, people—all people, including us individualistic Whites—are prone to be more group oriented when they perceive themselves to be under threat. It’s clear that many Whites feel increasingly threatened in the multi-cultural West. This feeling of being under threat feeds into our evolved psychology of social identity. It is thus predicted that Whites in America and throughout the West will coalesce into a cohesive group based on these processes. Even relatively introverted, trusting people prone to affection can be roused to intense violence against an outgroup, as has happened often in the USs. All our wars have been billed as moral necessities against an evil outgroup, including “cousin wars” between closely related White people but also disasters like Iraq. Such wars are often vicious. Dutton describes the vicious, bloody civil war in Finland in 1918, at a time when the country split into two factions both of whom regarded the other faction as the out-group – almost as ‘foreign’ – and they were prepared to act lethally accordingly” (p. 90). Losers were put into concentration camps where thousands died. We may see this sort of thing again throughout the West because of the ever-greater polarization and hatred. As I noted, it’s increasingly difficult to see how White interests can be met in a country like the United States without this kind of extreme polarization and even violence.

Chapters 3–5 of my book Separation and Its Discontents developed the argument that group competition has been central to the main historical examples of anti-Semitism: the development of institutionalized anti-Semitism in the Roman Empire in the fourth century centered around the Catholic Church, the Iberian inquisitions—also centered around the Church, and the phenomenon of National Socialist anti-Semitism in the period 1933–1945 in Germany.[5] The common denominator of these movements is that they involved a powerful sense of group cohesion in opposition to Judaism, and I argued that each of these movements should be analyzed as a reaction to the presence of Judaism as an elite group with interests that are seen as opposed to the interests of others in the society. Powerful groups with interests opposed to what you see as your interests result in people coalescing into groups organized around opposition to this other group. In many ways these anti-Jewish groups have been a mirror image of the Jewish groups which they combated—children are socialized to have a strong identity as a member of the group and to be hostile to the other group. They feel their own group is superior and that the other group is evil and is responsible for policies and practices that oppose their interests. As a result of this, Jews have made strenuous efforts to conceal their status as an elite group, an elite group that I have found to have had had a critical role in the demographic transformations we see throughout the West.

What this means in the present context is that as Whites see their power diminishing and as they notice that hatred toward Whites and their history is increasingly expressed in mainstream media outlets and in the actions of anti-White activists, Whites will increasingly identify as Whites and develop a much more cohesive group opposed to the forces arrayed against them. Historically, this has often ended in violent between-group conflict. And as I mentioned, anti-White hatred is now common in the mainstream media in the United States and elsewhere in the West. The fact that the incredible media hype around Trump’s supposed Russia collusion has collapsed is a major blow to the establishment media in the U.S.—and that’s all to the good. Since his campaign began, Trump has repeatedly called out “fake news” and said that the media is the “enemy of the people,” which indeed they are. I vividly recall a Trump campaign speech I attended where he pointed to the media in the back of the room and called them the “worst people in the world.”

When Propaganda Fails: Coercion and the Left

However, when propaganda fails to have its desired effects by manipulating our evolved psychology—as appears to be increasingly the case—the establishment has been resorting to force. For example, if the media was all-powerful, Trump would never have been elected and Brexit never would have happened. There are limits on the power of the media. The response has been to prevent free speech related to diversity issues if they go against establishment ideas. Stifling free speech by people who disagree with the establishment line on race has become common. Speakers are barred from college campuses or they are shouted down, often amid rioting.[6] Social media companies have shut down the accounts of outspoken White advocates like Jared Taylor, and they have engaged in other tactics, such as shadow banning, limiting numbers of followers, and not disseminating their messages. Media sites associated with the Alt Right have been denied financial services by PayPal and credit card processing companies. I have had my followers limited and my websites have been prevented from getting donations via PayPal or processing credit cards.

There is also a robust academic literature by leftist law professors that justifies essentially abrogating the First Amendment on issues related to race.[7] If Hillary Clinton had been elected and was able to appoint even one or two Supreme Court justices, the First Amendment would have soon been gutted in the name of diversity. Justice Elena Kagan has already shown a willingness to rein in the First Amendment regarding speech on diversity issues.

And recently the American Civil Liberties Union—long a stalwart defender of free speech and often regarded as a de facto Jewish organization[8]—has changed its policies so that it would not support free speech in the case of people and ideas linked to what they call “White Supremacism.” One has to credit the left for being able to come up with words and phrases that are very effective in stifling criticism and opposition—affirmative action instead of racial preferences, White privilege as a general explanation for White accomplishment whether it be in school or the workplace, inventing things, or whatever. “White Supremacism” is the idea that there is something evil or illegitimate about a majority wanting to retain political and cultural power—a concept that applies only to erstwhile White countries.

Amazon is no longer selling books linked to White nationalism, including books by Greg Johnson and Jared Taylor. And recently they banned two of my books, Separation and Its Discontents, which develops a theory of the psychological mechanisms behind anti-Semitism, and The Culture of Critique, which describes various influential Jewish-dominated intellectual and political movements. The amazing thing about this is that these books were originally published 21 years ago by an academic press, Praeger Publishing. To my knowledge, no books published by an academic press have been censored, probably at least since World War II and probably ever. Even books like Herrnstein and Murray’s The Bell Curve, published by a mainstream publisher in 1994, neocon-oriented Free Press, are still being sold—even though they acknowledge some contemporary taboos like the reality and importance of IQ, genetic influences on IQ, and race differences in IQ. Amazon also still sells J. Philippe Rushton’s Race, Evolution, and Behavior, also published by a neocon-oriented publisher in 1994, Transaction Books with strong ties to Rutgers University. Rushton’s book covers similar topics to The Bell Curve. So the fact that Amazon banned my books is an accomplishment that I am very proud of.

Since I study Jewish issues and they are a very powerful group in all Western societies, I note the contrast between the stance of the organized Jewish community regarding free speech has changed since the 1950s, pointing out once again that Jewish attitudes depend not on principle but on “what’s good for the Jews.” During the 1950s, the organized Jewish community consistently opposed measures intended to make it more difficult for communists to operate within the American system even as it officially opposed communism. For example, Jewish organizations objected to any infringements of civil liberties or academic freedom enacted to firm up national security in what at the time was seen as the threat of Soviet communism. Jews were also vastly overrepresented in high-profile cases among those invoking the Constitutional right not to incriminate oneself, so that public hearings like Sen. Joe McCarthy’s inevitably highlighted the Jewish role in communism. For example, in 1952, of 124 people questioned by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, there were 79 Jews, 32 non-Jews and 13 with unknown ethnicity. All invoked the Fifth.

Even more remarkably, of the 42 people who were dismissed from their positions at the Fort Monmouth Laboratories in New Jersey on suspicion of constituting a spy ring, 39 were Jews and one other was married to a Jewish woman. This spy ring was the same spy ring that Julius and Ethel Rosenberg (who were Jewish) belonged to. This was a very famous case from the 1950s and the execution of the Rosenbergs became a cause celebre on the left for decades even though later information made available after the fall of the Soviet Union showed conclusively that they were indeed guilty.

Jewish attitudes have completely changed since then, and in the present era, Jewish organizations, most notably the ADL, have been prime advocates of “hate crime” legislation aimed at penalizing beliefs and ideas. Jewish organizations have also attacked the academic freedom of professors who have been critical of Israel. The ADL has also been critical of my writing and, along with the Southern Poverty Law Center, has engaged in public denunciations of my writing and associations at the university where I work. In general, perceived interests are a much better predictor of Jewish behavior than principles. I strongly suspect that the ADL had a role in censoring my books and the other books that have been banned from Amazon.

During the 1950s, Jews were also deeply involved in creating a culture of the left that was mainly concerned to protect communist professors and other leftist dissidents, such as Hollywood screen writers, targeted by McCarthyism. Inherit the Wind (by Jerome Lawrence Schwartz and Robert Edwin Lee) was written to oppose McCarthyism. Another famous example of anti-McCarthyism from the 1950s is Arthur Miller’s The Crucible which implicitly condemned the  House Un-American Activities  Committee by comparing it to the Salem witch trials.

Although quite powerful, the culture of the left was not yet the dominant elite that it has become since the 1960s; it had powerful enemies in McCarthy and his allies, and these forces had strong popular support. The rise of this new elite has coincided with the power of organizations that support leftist attitudes on free speech—organizations like the now discredited Southern Poverty Law  Center and the ADL that  specialize in getting people fired for  thought crimes and care nothing  for  free speech. There is clearly an  ethnic aspect to this transformation. While there are endless tears (see here and here, pp. 39–40) for Hollywood screenwriters blacklisted during the anti-communist fervor of the 1950s and since promoted to cultural sainthood, don’t  expect our new elite to condemn witch hunts like the ones that have targeted right-wing dissidents, many of whom have been fired from their jobs and ostracized from their families and friends.. And don’t expect a hit Broadway play based on an allegory in which the ADL or the SPLC are condemned for their persecution of race realists and White advocates.

The lesson is that the left will not give up its cultural dominance without a battle and they will be utterly unprincipled in how they attempt to remain in power. The left’s power resides in its ability to engage in psychological manipulation by occupying the moral and intellectual high ground in the media and universities; it resides in its ability to shape incentives and disincentives in the workplace; it resides in its ability to import a new left-leaning electorate. If all these fail, they will use force. Indeed, they are already using force, as so-called “hate crimes” are increasingly being policed in many Western countries.

Concluding Thoughts

As I said earlier, when Whites begin to feel threatened, they are more likely to coalesce into a group with a White identity and a sense of pursuing their interests. This could, of course, lead to a cataclysm given the large numbers of non-Whites in Europe and in other countries where the founding populations were European (Australia, NZ, US, etc.). It’s interesting in that regard that the recent shootings in New Zealand by Brenton Tarrant, who was born in Australia, were motivated, according to his manifesto by traveling in France and seeing Muslims everywhere, even in small towns.

The final push was witnessing the state of French cities and towns. For many years I had been hearing and reading of the invasion of France by non-whites, many of these rumours and stories I believed to be exaggerations, created to push a political narrative. But once I arrived in France, I found the stories to not only be true, but profoundly understated. In every french city, in every french (sic) town the invaders were there. No matter where I travelled, no matter how small or rural the community I visited, the invaders were there. The french people were often in a minority themselves, and the french that were in the streets were often alone, childless or of advanced age. Whilst the immigrants were young, energized and with large families and many children. I remember pulling into a shopping centre car park to buy groceries in some moderate sized town in Eastern France, of roughly 15–25 thousand people. As I sat there in the parking lot, in my rental car, I watched a stream of the invaders walk through the shopping centre’s front doors. For every french man or woman there was double the number of invaders. I had seen enough, and in anger, drove out of the town, refusing to stay any longer in the cursed place and headed on to the next town.

Driving toward the next french town on my itinerary, knowing that inevitably the invaders would also be there, I found my emotions swinging between fuming rage and suffocating despair at the indignity of the invasion of France, the pessimism of the french people, the loss of culture and identity and the farce of the political solutions offered.

I came upon a cemetery, one of the many mass cemeteries created to bury the French and other European soldiers lost in the Wars that crippled Europe. I had seen many pictures and heard many people discuss the cemeteries, but even knowing about these cemeteries in advance, I was still not prepared for the sight. Simple, white, wooden crosses stretching from the fields beside the roadway, seemingly without end, into the horizon. Their number uncountable, the representation of their loss unfathomable. I pulled my rental car over, and sat, staring at these crosses and contemplating how it was that despite the sacrifice of these men and women, despite their bravery, we had still fallen so far.

I broke into tears, sobbing alone in the car, staring at the crosses, at the forgotten dead. Why were we allowing these soldiers deaths to be in vain? Why were we allowing the invaders to conquer us? Overcome us? Without a single shot fired in response?

I am not condoning what he did—it may well prove counter-productive, but his thoughts and emotions are becoming increasingly common among White people. (John Earnest, the synagogue shooter in Poway, CA, also emphasized the threat of White “extinction” in his manifesto, and he was inspired by Tarrant.) And when such people reach a critical mass there will indeed be a cataclysm. It brings to mind Enoch Powell’s famous comment:  “As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see “the River Tiber foaming with much blood.’”

So in conclusion, I have a mixed message. The situation is very dire throughout the West, but I have mentioned some reasons for optimism as well—an increasing sense of White identity and sense of White interests resulting from the demographic transformations and the constant anti-White hostility emanating from the mainstream media. There are many historical examples where groups of White people have had a strong group identity and pursued their interests, sometimes violently. And we should take heart from the Trump’s election, if not his governance, we should be happy about the Brexit vote to leave the globalist disaster of the EU even though its results have been blocked by the government, and we should be especially happy about the rise of nationalist governments throughout Eastern Europe and in Italy — governments with strong anti-immigration policies and pride in their native culture. Hungary’s Viktor Orban and Italy’s Matteo Salvini are exemplars of this trend and they are expected to win big in the upcoming EU Parliamentary elections. So be happy. It’s not over until it’s over.

[1] 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.

[2] Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States, 1492–Present (New York: Harper, 1980); see also: Kevin MacDonald, “The Academic Left’s Involvement in Politics, The Occidental Observer (February 1, 2010).

[3] Fox News, “New York Times Stands by New Tech Writer,” (August 2, 2018).

Michelle Goldberg, “We Can Replace Them,” New York Times (October 29, 2018).

Rod Dreher, “Classics Studies: No Country for White Men,” The American Conservative (January 30, 2019).

Lindsey Bever, “CNN’s Don Lemon doubles down after saying White men are ‘the biggest terror threat in this country,’” Washington Post (October 31, 2018).

[4] “As a writer in the American Thinker, a neoconnish website, noted:

It’s obvious that in a post-Obama America the anti-white zeitgeist is out of pandora’s box. … Due to unprecedented immigration and fatalist progressive experiments, there is no country where anti-white cultural currents are not rising. It wasn’t supposed to be this way. Weakness, wealth transfers, preferential treatment, open borders and accommodation were supposed to invite warm feelings, equal outcomes and racial blindness. …

By the 1990s the entire constellation of Christian morality and civic responsibility in the public space had been secularized and compressed into a singular mandate. Millennials were taught from childhood that the highest moral good was serving the self-esteem of non-whites. In prior ages virtues such as courage, modesty, chivalry, valor and faith were ways young adults were encouraged to distinguish themselves but for Millennials it was an adeptness and willingness to navigate the mercurial minefield of knowing when and how to serve the self-esteem of non-whites that mattered.

Over the past thirty years conservatives were busy building an entire culture around anti-socialism while the Left was busy pushing its cultural trojan horse to unleash a whole different kind of plague. Maybe deep down many conservatives knew the anti-white damn would burst but they were too cowardly to confront it.

Mark Point, “Racism on the Rise,” American Thinker (November 6, 2018).

[5] MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents.

[6] For an exhaustive account, see Richard Houck, “Words Like Violence: The Left’s Total War on Freedom of Speech,” Chapter I of Part 2 of Liberalism Unmasked (London: Arktos, 2018), 55–85.

[7] See, e.g., Jeremy Waldron, The Harm in Hate Speech (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2012).

[8] J. J. Goldberg notes that “within the world of liberal organizations like the ACLU and People for the American Way, Jewish influence is so profound that non-Jews sometimes blur the distinction between them and the formal Jewish community.”

  1. J. Goldberg, Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1996), 46.
23 replies
  1. Anonymous
    Anonymous says:

    Many Left-of-center Whites are themselves anti-White even if they don’t say that outright.

    Some of them feel guilty, while others have been taught that there is something wonderful about being a non-White minority.

    These people are psychologically damaged and probably beyond help.

    Being non-White, like being a homosexual, is now “cool.”

    Recall that Cong. Nancy Pelosi was overjoyed that her White grandson wanted to be Brown:

    • Richard B
      Richard B says:

      “These people are psychologically damaged and probably beyond help.”

      Here’s a perfect example of the reading material of the psychologically damaged.

      It’s from an article from Slate back in 2017 that I came across recently. I actually read the whole thing. It’s an excellent study on the subject of psychological projection. But, of course, the writer thought he was doing something else.

      Seriously, it’s a blueprint to the kind of striaght-faced projection they engage in on a daily basis. The whole article in general and this paragraph in particular is the kind of evidence I would offer to demonstrate beyond any doubt that they are insane.

      The whole article is worth reading in light of everything that has changed since then and the fact that these changes have helped expose these people even more.

      The gist of the article is that those against Trump should stop calling him insane and just call him evil.

      “If….we are susceptible to radical evil because we cannot conceive of it, then the work of opposition must begin with learning to call it what it is. So here is a definition for our time:

      Radical evil is the manipulation of others’ perception of reality in order to increasingly concentrate power and wealth in the hands of the few. It is a strategy to sow chaos in order to take advantage of the fear that chaos brings. It is the twisting of facts to frighten citizens into believing that their safety requires them to turn against others. And it is the collapsing of what is good and moral into what is rich and powerful, and ruthlessly using that wealth and that power to accrue more wealth and power.”


      They’re really crazy. And dangerous.

      Be that as it may, there is no reason for any one of us to take seriously the moral condemnation of people this obviously sick.

      Children don’t know what normal is. They only know what they’re being taught. So, it’s understandable that many of us made the mistake of taking them seriously at one point or other in our lives. It’s what many of us grew up with and all we knew.

      But it’s no longer necessary for us to continue to make that mistake. Not now. That ship has sailed. Even they know it. Hence the hysteria, panic and recent increase in the use of their principle means of warfare against us, false flags.

      Article link

      • pterodactyl
        pterodactyl says:

        @Richard and @Anonymous
        “These people are psychologically damaged and probably beyond help.”

        One explanation is that these started off as normal people and became damaged due to the environment, ie their university courses, or films they watched, or books they read, and that therefore it is possible that further events could cause them to switch back to normal thinking again, and even to supporting white interests.

        The other explanation for their behaviour is that they have brains that are wired with these tendencies, and the environment makes no difference or in the case of a university course, the environment is just the trigger that awakens this behaviour, but the tendency for this behaviour was already there from birth.

        Regarding the truly committed left-wing individual; evidence that the main cause of their behaviour is actually the wiring of the person, and not the environment, is that there are many cases where the daughter of lefty parents works for a charity that helps immigrants, then the immigrants rape and murder the daughter, then the parents continue to support the charity AND to even support the individual who murdered their daughter.

        Surely this proves that in extreme cases at least, that the environment (and self-interest) plays no role at all in shaping the individual’s views, and they are totally derived from the genes and the genes or wiring totally control the behaviour, even when this is directly harmful to their own family.

        Kevin MacDonald’s own family had missionaries in it in the past, and such people clearly put the welfare of other races above the welfare of their own people, and they are even prepared to expose themselves and their children to diseases, (and consider themselves virtuous for doing so, showing how too much good becomes bad) and this behaviour was not due to the environment or prevailing culture, as at the time the culture was not telling them to prioritise other races as it does today, and in fact the colonial governments disapproved of them trying to convert the natives. So it was not the culture making them do it, or peer pressure, it was their genes.

        So the writer mentioned by Richard B, and the self-hating whites who run CNN, are not, from the point of view of Nature, ‘insane’, and all they represent is Nature providing the population with individuals with variations of behaviour, and such individuals are at the extreme end, which we could define as the 5% at the end of the bell curve, a 5% that is so highly motivated that it now dominates the culture in the West.

        The population is therefore ‘plastic’ or malleable, in the sense that it has ‘available’ or ‘in reserve’, all sorts of variations of behaviour that might one day be useful to the population. Homosexuality is an example of a variation ‘provided by Nature in case it is needed’ but in this case it is never needed, as no population ever needs a trait that will stop itself from reproducing, but Nature is not wise nor makes only ‘sensible’ suggestions when it provides these alternatives, it merely generates them randomly ‘in case any might one day prove useful’. Extroverts are another example, and introverts and those who exhibit tribalism or individualism, and another example that is so foreign to us that we cannot even comprehend it, but is common in arabs and indians, is ‘family honour’ that can frequently compel a father to kill his own daughter for bringing shame on the family. This difference is so profound (no Westerner ever did this, ever, and could not do it – kill for this specific reason) that it has to be genetic.

        Nature provides us with a constant supply of homosexuals, even though they are bad for the population (in terms of impacting reproduction, in other ways they might be fine people and make great contributions to the group and can be geniuses like Turing), and Nature also supplies us with a constant supply of lefties who hate their own race for being superior, and this hatred arises from a tendency to hate any superior people, although this trait of hating the better, unlike homosexuality, actually did prove successful for some of the humans who had the trait through the millennia, as it enabled them to drop normal inhibitions about stealing and taking and raping and pillaging. When this hatred of the superior went hand in hand with another trait – removal of morals – this double combination proved very successful for some, and certainly a viable lifestyle option, as it enabled the person with such genes to do anything – rape, steal etc, and still sleep soundly at night due to the absence of a troubled conscience. We can see how this can be very viable provided they are a small minority only, just as all parasites do best when they are only small in number, and therefore the host is in a healthy state and a good source of food. Today in the West. the left taking over represents the parasite getting out of hand and taking over the host and killing it. But, unlike the tapeworm killing the dog, where the dog has no choice, we can rid ourselves of our parasites quite easily at any moment we choose to, or, as mentioned in the article above, when the following moment arrives: “… that Whites in America and throughout the West will coalesce into a cohesive group based on these processes”.

        So perhaps we should not view whites as a cohesive group at present (where all are worth saving), rather, we should view ourselves as carrying sub populations that are extremely harmful to the main group, and these are taking us on the path to civil conflict – the conflict referred to in this quote from the article: “Historically, this has often ended in violent between-group conflict”, except that this time it will be anti-white versus pro-white, not cousin wars based on country or religion. In fact we already see right-wing people in social media identifying and grouping themselves by political beliefs not country and language as in the past, and the left do the same, so when the BBC staff travel to the US to film US elections, and meet CNN staff, they are immediate natural allies, and this bond with fellow lefties is far stronger than the bond with country.

        Nature does not give us lefties because Nature thinks they might be good for the population, we have them because Nature provides variation. In the same way, we should not assume Js behave as they do because it is good for them, they behave as they are wired to behave whether it is good or bad for them. It could be described as a curse. Perhaps in past millennia their hostility to other tribes was very good for them, and Natural Selection looked kindly on them for it in the desert, but it does not follow that when transposed to the modern West that it is still going to be good for them in the long run, although at present they are reaping benefits eg $35 billion a year as demanded from Trump with an understood threat of consequences for non-payment. Maybe in the end Natural Selection will express its disapproval of the Js tactics, but such processes when applied to whole populations are not gradual ones, and instead act suddenly on the whole population.

  2. Andrew
    Andrew says:

    A peaceful solution to the problem of white genocide in the U.S. would have to involve an end to the following: Jewish domination of the media and other powerful and influential institutions, non-white immigration, affirmative action (discrimination against whites and males), forced racial integration, birthright citizenship, and most welfare programs. I don’t see any of this being likely to happen. But I also don’t see a civil war being likely to happen. The most likely thing is that whites will begin to shun and express open dislike for non-whites. They will be punished for doing this in many cases, but they will do it anyway. My hope is that whites will also have more babies. But that can only happen if white women turn away from feminism.

    • pterodactyl
      pterodactyl says:

      Regarding what might happen.
      The negative first:

      The example of S.Africa shows that when whites are in a minority and can see their impending doom and civil war and their own genocide getting closer and closer, their response is not to arm and form protective groups to fight back, it is to apologise more, and to try and be even nicer to the anti-white blacks, and the most discouraging of all is that if you read Twitter comments under articles where S Africans are posting, you will observe that a large proportion of the whites seriously believe that if they just do this or that for the blacks, the blacks will respond by being more reasonable and will eventually give them justice and fairness in return. They seriously believe this on the basis that they know a few blacks personally who are good people. They say things like ‘this govt is against us but the next one will be more reasonable’.

      What is bizarre is that when it comes to cousin wars, these same whites in S.Africa were all prepared to rush to war and fight to the death – the Boer War. Yet now when the enemy is far worse than the British (as the aim of the British was never genocide) they are responding with submission and meekness. It is as if they were eager to fight other whites, but not blacks. Perhaps this was because the white culture at the time of the Boer war approved of them fighting whites, whereas the white culture today disapproves of them fighting blacks, as that would be ‘racist’.

      Perhaps if the white S Africans were receiving a different cultural message today, one of self-interest, they would unite and fight back. However, they are also aware that the rest of the white world would turn on them and side with the blacks in any civil war, as happened during the white rule era, so they know they will in effect be taking on the blacks AND whole of the white Western world. The whites in S Africa know that the rest of the world will very strongly disapprove if whites defend themselves when the white genocide begins in earnest, and if the whites in S Africa were to start winning a civil war, then the Western powers would probably even send in troops to defeat the whites. Certainly the US Democrats would do this. They might even use US black troops only for this particular war, as they would be more committed tot the cause, but there would be plenty of anti-white whites who would also be queuing up to help attack the S African whites, as it is the white groups themselves that produce those with the greatest hatred of whites, due to aberrant genes in a proportion of whites that make them hate those who are superior. Furthermore, the S African whites also would have about 10% of their own whites strongly against themselves and trying to sabotage their own side – the types who currently run the MSM.

      Another factor is that the wealthier whites who have millions can easily transfer their wealth abroad, so are not going down with the ship so have no incentive to protect it. Such wealthy types will lose their property, or sell it at a huge loss, but the property is only a tine fraction of their wealth, whereas for the rest of the whites it represents the majority of their assets.

      The positive:
      The same Germans that are anti-self today could have gone anti-self in the 1930s (communist), but decided to go pro-self on that occasion . This shows that the majority can easily swing either way, according to the prevailing culture. This means they could easily swing back to pro-self. It does not seem that the media will ever be the factor that prompts today’s Germans to change culture, as it seems that the media will stay strongly anti-white, but as K MacDonald says, the left do not always prevail despite having the media on their side (eg Trump won the election), so it is possible that despite the best efforts of the media to keep the culture anti-white, that the left will eventually fail in this mission. For example, there could be a cataclysmic trigger event, one that involves ‘radioactivity’ or ‘water-contamination’ let us call it euphemistically. Clearly the Western govts are putting huge resources into trying to persuade the internal enemies to ‘hold back’ from kicking off properly until they are more numerous, but sometimes they cannot control their monster that they have invited into our midst and are trying to nurture.

  3. Trenchant
    Trenchant says:

    The Tarrant video and story could just as easily have come from Ritz Katz’ ISIS portfoglio. It looked staged. As for his manifesto (drearily predictable that there be one) – it has to seem cogent and contain some moderate elements lest it lose efficacy as a psychological weapon against white nationalists.

  4. Philip Smeeton
    Philip Smeeton says:

    What Kevin MacDonald says is true and this should be obvious to anyone that claims to own the capacity to think rationally.

    • pterodactyl
      pterodactyl says:

      It is not obvious to most people at all.

      If you watch TV ads you will see the thinking level of most people and how they make decisions. No advert uses logic or reason, they all use feelings and a desire to be part of the crowd.

      Therefore if this article was printed and delivered to every home in the US it would make some people change their minds, but still not enough to make any difference to the way most people vote, and most would continue to vote for pro-immigration candidates including RINOs despite strongly wanting to reduce immigration themselves. So they would continue to vote for the things they do not want.

      Most people simply do not have the mental capacity to process political concepts, even if they are intelligent in other ways. For example they can name all the football players in their local team, but cannot spot the CNN bias that is slapping them in the face continuously and hard.

      The problem with democracy is that voters are not really up to the task of spotting which politicians are on their side and which are not, so most end up voting for all the things they do not want, such as more immigration.

  5. Philip Smeeton
    Philip Smeeton says:

    The nation is the largest unit in which human beings can function harmoniously together. This because they share a common identity. A nation evolves naturally over a long period of time in which its inhabitants share a common history and development. They come to share a common language, culture and gene pool, and they own their own territory. They are as like each other as any large group of people can be. People of other nations with their own language, common identity, genes and culture can never share the identity and become part of the unique culture of any other nation. To artificially attempt to combine people of different cultures into one nation is doomed to fail because the differences are too great and they will conflict.

    • pterodactyl
      pterodactyl says:

      If the host nation was individualistic and invited over other similar cultures, it might work up to a point. Or, if those invited over stayed at less than 10% it might work.

      But one thing that is certain to lead to conflict is when the host is individualistic and has ‘racism’ levels of 1/10 and it invites over those who are tribal in the extreme, with racism levels of 9.999/10, and then the racist races brought over become the majority. These racist ones brought in are compelled by their genes to start conflict with the host, as the blacks in S.Africa are now doing, and knowing that they will end up killing the golden goose will not inhibit them in the slightest, as they are not following self-interest, they are following their animal behaviour wiring.

  6. Mr Darcy
    Mr Darcy says:

    A great many whites still think that they can somehow “choose” not to engage in racial politics. They don’t seem to be *able* to grasp the simple and self-evident fact that only one “side” has to choose racial politics. It’s like war or rape. The decision to do it does not require agreement from both or all parties, but rather only from one. So whites are *already* involved in racial politics–like it or not; know it or not.

    • pterodactyl
      pterodactyl says:

      A lot of whites have chosen the anti-white side – perhaps more than half at present. The important question is, when it ‘kicks off’ how many of them will stay on the anti-white side?

      The true lefties will always be on the anti-white side, but most of the rest are at present are just sheeple who can easily switch from being anti-self to being pro-self.

      The white race will only have a measure of peace (or existence even) if the mechanism for determining leaders for whites excludes the anti-white whites, as at present our mechanisms seem to favour them.

      Another thing that would help would be to encourage some sort of geographical separation in which diversity-loving whites could easily travel outwards to a diversity-friendly country that puts into practice all liberal values, but it would not necessarily be straightforward to move back to the ‘racist white one’. This could result in those with genetic liberal tendencies to depart and to take their bad genes with them, thus improving the gene pool of the rest after they are gone.

  7. James
    James says:

    I’d really like to see someone, anyone, set forth a superior alternative to Now Amassing The Army aka “The 30th” as a way of addressing the psychological needs of whites to act in self-defense.

    Note, that “a superior alternative to” is not the same as “a critique of” nor is it the same as “a superior presentation of”.

  8. Anonymous
    Anonymous says:

    Conservatives must get a LOT more active and outspoken if they are to beat the Left and LGBT groups which are always highly active and as a result usually get their way.

    This difference between the two groups is a major problem. Perhaps THE biggest problem.

    Conservatives and too many Whites have let things get to the point they are. This is a losing strategy.

    Frankly, I don’t have a lot of regard for the conservative mainstream media or the Republicans.

    It is not prejudiced to try to maintain the culture of America, especially when it is generally a very positive culture. No, it’s far from perfect.

    But does anyone think that if our culture is destroyed America will become a better country?

    The Left and LGBT are destroyers these days whether they are aware of that or not.

  9. Panadechi
    Panadechi says:

    I already talked about the concept of Social Node and the most powerful is the ethnic (Jewish case), our enemies seek to undermine the formation of white ethnic social nodes, that is why censorship and persecution for alleged hate crimes, Jewish finances are chained almost all the media and academics and politicians are sold or subdued. It is necessary to create strategies of asymmetric warfare before a powerful enemy (Zionism), that means maximizing the few available resources. The Vietcong was synonymous with a successful asymmetrical war against American power. Finally, create isolated white territorial communities as autonomous as possible. The territorial division will be the most real option according to the already massive presence of non-whites.

  10. Junghans
    Junghans says:

    A pretty good assessment of the current White dilemma, Kevin. The hostile anti-White crowd is gaining momentum daily, as Whites are lulled back to sleep by Trump, the fake populist, and the (((fake media))) he decries. When the Trump interlude is over, and the rabble start gate crashing White suburbia, we’ll see what kind of mettle the intellectually poisoned Whites are really made of.

  11. TJ
    TJ says:

    [this was blocked when I tried to respond to Richard B.]

    still being blocked- comment about Frederick Perls, Dr. Projection

    Block reason: Exploit attempt denied by virtual patching.

    I dunno. . .

  12. pterodactyl
    pterodactyl says:

    This is a bit long, however it is connected to the article above and is about Franz Boas’s influence in establishing a scientific consensus that states that white people have no historic land claims in N America, only ‘Native Americans’ do. Kevin MacDonald has often mentioned the influence of this secular Jew in shaping the scientific consensus. Below is an extract from an old research paper that includes the s-word, which means that it will not be a document that modern academia will tolerate.

    “White people are the most individualistic people on earth” – and also they have a strong empathy for the underdog, and for some of them this might have a genuinely moral component of wanting to help the poor (so they find Christianity to be a religion that suits them), but for others it has no moral component in the sense that they are not really concerned for the well-being of the underdog, more a case of a hatred of the higher or superior individuals and races, a hatred that makes them side with lower types, as manifest by the left always wanting to promote the interests and influence of criminals in society and the interests of mini-criminals in schools. This explains why the left are so keen to have the disruptive and bullies and bad influences included in mainstream schools and not segregated into special schools. This demonstrates the way empathy operates in the lefty-wired person – empathy for the bad ones only, whereas those who are not lefties have a different type of empathy – it is still for those at the bottom of the ladder, but not for the bad ones.

    An example of this perverted kind of non-moral or anti-moral empathy posing as genuine concern but where there is actually no concern, was the left pushing for blacks to take over in S Africa a few decades ago. The white left in the West knew as a certainty that the blacks in S Africa were going to be worse off when they were totally and obsessively devoted to the task of handing S.Africa over to black tribal rule. So if they knew the blacks would be worse off, their motive was not a genuine concern for the welfare of blacks, it must have simply been a hatred of the whites ruling. Perhaps this is also the main motive for the lefty politicians to want to bring in the third world to the West, more than the motive of wanting to import voters or cheap labour.

    Perhaps this hostility towards whites from white lefties has other manifestations apart from making them want 3rd world immigration. For example, perhaps it explains why lefty academia keenly wish to promote the notion that whites have no rights to land in America as it all belongs to ‘Native Americans’, which is obviously a loaded name, even to the extent of hiding away or destroying ancient artifacts that contradict this narrative (see Dewhurst below).

    I came across the name of Franz Boas in this connection, and recognised it from reading Kevin MacDonald’s works, as having a Jewish connection.

    There are large burial mounds and other artifacts in America that in the 1800s were considered to be the work of other races that emigrated to America who were not the current ‘Native Americans’. Then the consensus of the experts changed around the start of the 1900s and the Smithsonian Institute took over and declared the official narrative to be that there were no other races, including no white races, to predate the ‘Native Americans’. The extent to which this is enforced today is demonstrated by the law that says ANY artifacts of humans found MUST be handed over to the ‘Native Americans’ for disposal in accordance with their religion. This is revealed in Richard Dewhurst’s book on the subject reviewed on Red Ice. (
    about white ‘giants’ in N America).

    I watched a Sky(?)TV programme about excavation of Monks Mound, Illinois, and when they mentioned that ‘we are not allowed to show photos of the bones’ (nor test the DNA I assume?), this is a sign that the authorities want to hinder proper research (they do this with Climate change, so why not with archaeology too?). A brief search in Wikipedia about the mounds and after a while Franz Boas’ name came up.

    Basically, a researcher called Thomas was commissioned to establish whether ancient mounds were from ancient civilisations that were more advanced than than the ‘Native Americans’, or were they the work of the ‘Native Americans’? In the report from the 1970s the author suggest that Thomas was more influenced by Boas than he admitted, and Thomas’s report concluded that the mounds were made by the Indians who are now called ‘Native Americans’.

    Here is how they used to view the early history of America before Boas’s influence and before the Smithsonian Institute took over:

    “… some of the ancient nations who may have found their way hither, we perceive a strong possibility, that not only Asiatic nations, very soon after the flood, but that also, all along the different eras of time, different races of men, as Polynesians, Malays, Australasians, Phoenicians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, lsraelities, Tartars, Scandinavians, Danes, Norwegians, Welch, and Scotch, have colonized different parts of the continent (Priest 1833: iv). ”

    Below are the points that the Thomas report supposedly debunked (‘rigorously’)
    “This contributed to the myth of the Mound Builders as a people distinct from Native Americans, which was rigorously debunked by Cyrus Thomas in 1894.”

    Some points were ‘debunked’ (and remember Boas was possibly influential in the debunking) by deciding that some artifacts such as tablets with writing on were forgeries (who knows? but this declaration certainly support’s Boas’s view).
    “4. The Grave Creek, Gass, and other engraved tablets which were examples o f Mound Builder writings were in fact frauds (Thomas 1894:641 ). ”

    Note the use of the s-word in the paragraph below, one that would lead to instant dismissal from an academic position in a university if used today. Can we really trust such people who react in this way, can we trust them to be open-minded when it comes to ancient archaeology, when one version (that only Native Americans lived in America) suits their political outlook and another version says that whites / Egyptians etc were there before the ‘Native Americans’? Furthermore, if an academic submitted a proposal for a thesis, and his proposed topic was to investigate the presence of other races before ‘Native Americans’, would such a proposal for research ever get approved? Of course it would not.

    From the 1970s report in the link above:

    “The preceeding paragraphs have attempted to show the development
    of the theory which explained the presence of thousands of
    earthworks in the Eastern United States by referring them to a
    vanished civilization much superior to the Indians who occupied
    the land during the period of white settlement. The proponents of
    this theory offered abundant, but often conflicting evidence to
    support this theory. The claims presented below were taken from
    a number of sources. The list does not reflect the position of any
    single writer but rather, reflects the range of evidence used by
    partisans of the vanished race theory to support their theory.
    l. The mounds were of great antiquity and therefore could not be the work of Indians.
    2. The works show engineering and uniformity beyond the competence of Indians.
    3. The mounds served religious purposes as did the “high places” of the Old Testament.
    4. The inscriptions on the Grave Creek, Gass, and other stone tablets proved that the Mound-Builders had writing,
    a skill not possessed by Indians.
    5. No mounds were known to have been built by historic tribes.
    6. The presence of the “elephant effigy mound” in Wisconsin, the Davenport elephant pipes, and Gass tablets
    found in Iowa indicated great antiquity and perhaps use of elephants in construction of the mounds.
    7. The presence of copper, bronze, brass and iron implements indicated that the mounds belonged to a vanished race because Indians had no knowledge of metallurgy. KEEL] CYRUS THOMAS
    8. The technical level and aesthetic refinement of the Mound Builder artifacts far surpassed the competence and sensitivity of Indians.
    9. The uniformity of mound forms over such a wide distribution was evidence of a central government; a phenomenon unknown among the Indians.
    I 0. Such works must have been based on a highly developed agricultural base. Such economy was not known for Indians in the Mid-west during historic times. Consequently, Indians could not have been responsible for such grand developments.

  13. pterodactyl
    pterodactyl says:

    “White people are the most individualistic people on earth”

    I wonder why the Russians do not embrace the modern culture of self-hate? Are they going to eventually follow this path (they watch US films & Western culture on youtube channels) or are they not as susceptible due to genetic differences. Are they in fact less individualistic?

    Perhaps they are different genetically in this respect, or perhaps they do not embrace the white-hating culture due to a feeling of being the underdog during and after the Cold War, and this feeling of vulnerability is what makes them stick together more and unites them, whereas in the West the feeling of safety and immunity and dominance has made the ppl forget defensive behaviour.

Comments are closed.