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.
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. 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. 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.
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. 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. 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. 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—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.
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.
 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.
 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).
 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).
 “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).
 MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents.
 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.
 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.”
- J. Goldberg, Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1996), 46.