A Rejoinder on White Genocide — and its Cure

Of late, much has been made in the alt-right press of the idea of “White genocide” as an existential threat posed by mainstream society, aimed at the obliteration of Whites in their formerly dominant homelands in Europe and North America.  This movement—conceived and implemented by Jews and their leftist lackeys—is said to portend the virtual or literal end of the White race.  It has no standard definition, and goes by various labels; a recent TOO piece by Richard McCulloch refers, for example, to the “White replacement and destruction movement” (WRDM).  It has been expressed concisely (if ambiguously) by one writer who stated that, on this thesis, “the White race will have no future, and the future will be without the White race.”  It sounds grim.

While it is true that White rule in many nations is under threat, I think it is premature—at least in the coming decades—to decry the physical elimination of Whites anywhere.  Exaggeration and hyperbole do not serve White interests.  We need to think a bit more carefully about ‘White genocide’, and indeed about the concept of genocide itself, lest we get lost in a storm of hype.  Real threats to White interests risk getting subsumed by bogus—or at least exaggerated—dangers.

Let’s start with a look at the word ‘genocide’—a term with thoroughly Jewish origins.  We can begin with standard dictionary definitions, but even here, there is a studied ambiguity.  My Merriam-Webster has a single definition:  “the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group”.  Dictionary.com is very similar, adding only “or national” group.  The construction of the word is straightforward:  geno+cide, from the Greek genos- (birth, origin, or race), and Latin –cide (from cidere:  death, killing).  The word was coined in 1944 by a Polish-Jewish lawyer, Raphael Lemkin, in light of the on-going Nazi attack on Jews.  Etymologically, then, the meaning is, or should be, clear:  the physical death of an entire race of people—that is, the physical elimination of a genotype.

But upon further examination, we immediately run into problems.  First, as anyone knows who studies the issue, the Germans did not seek, nor did they implement, the physical annihilation of the Jews; rather, they wanted something much less ominous:  a German Reich cleansed of Jews, by a process of deportation and removal.  The deaths (and there were many thousands) were an incidental byproduct, not the objective.[1]

Second, Lemkin himself explicitly decreed that genocide did not entail killing.  A passage from his 1944 book is instructive:

New conceptions require new terms.  By ‘genocide’ we mean the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group.  This new word, coined by the author to denote an old practice in its modern development, is made from the ancient Greek word genos (race, tribe) and the Latin cide (killing), thus corresponding in its formation to such words as tyrannicide, homicide, infanticide, etc.  Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation.  It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves.  The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.  Genocide is directed against the national group as an entity, and the actions involved are directed against individuals, not in their individual capacity, but as members of the national group.

Here we see a fine example of Jewish duplicity at work.  Genocide means “destruction” of an ethnic group, except when it doesn’t:  “Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killing.”  Rather, he says, it is a collection of actions aimed at the “destruction of essential foundations” of national life, i.e. the “disintegration of political and social institutions,” of “culture”, “language,” “national feelings,” “economic existence,” and so on.  In the paragraph that follows the above, Lemkin even implies that something as benign as “confiscation of property” (!) may count as genocide, if targeted at people solely due to their ethnicity.

Much hinges on the meaning of the word ‘destruction’—a term used four times in Lemkin’s key paragraph.  It turns out that this, too, has nonlethal meanings, and in no way demands the killing of the entity in question.  ‘Destroy’ comes from de-struere, meaning to ‘de-structure’ or ‘unbuild’ something.  The leading definition in my dictionary states:  “to ruin the structure, organic existence, or condition of.”  The word can mean ‘kill,’ but it also can mean ‘neutralize’, ‘subject to crushing defeat,’ or ‘demolish.’

Lemkin, then, uses ‘destruction’ in its nonlethal sense, allowing a whole variety of nonlethal activities to fall under the genocide umbrella.  And all this was based on his contemporaneous experience with the Jews under Nazi Germany.  Hence it seems that he was admitting that the “genocide” of the Jews—that is, the Holocaust—consisted primarily of nonlethal actions designed to eradicate Jewish life, culture, and predominance in the Reich.  This, of course, is precisely the stance of present-day Holocaust revisionists, who have argued for a primarily nonlethal reading of German actions.  So we have a striking conclusion:  As defined by Lemkin, the Holocaust now can be read as a primarily nonlethal set of actions design to reduce or eliminate Jewish cultural and economic dominance in the Reich.  This will surely come as news to the vast majority of the Western world.[2]

A third problematic issue is that the UN largely adopted Lemkin’s interpretation in 1948.  The “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide” (GA Res 260A-III) states that the “odious scourge” of genocide shall be defined as follows (Article II):

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

  • Killing members of the group;
  • Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
  • Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
  • Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
  • Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

This is an astonishingly broad and vague definition, to the point that it is virtually useless—or perhaps highly useful, for those who wish to use the term as a cudgel.  And this is the formal, legal definition under international law!

Let’s analyze this for a moment.  It declares as genocide “any” of the listed acts, with “intent to destroy” (how shall we judge intention?  and what about the many meanings of ‘destroy’?), “in whole or in part” (how small a part?), a national, religious, or racial group.  The culpable actions include killing, of course, but also “serious harm”, both bodily and mental (!).  So psychological distress now counts as genocide.  And what “conditions of life” could count as imposing “physical destruction, in whole or in part”, of a people?  Genocide includes sterilizations or enforced abortions (ok), but also the forcible transfer of children—but not adults?  Apparently not, otherwise they would not have added this point; they would have simply said “forcible transfer of people of the group…”  Strange.

Not content with this impossibly vague definition, the UN proceeded to list all related actions that are punishable.  In addition to the act of genocide itself, they include (Article III):

  • Conspiracy (to commit genocide),
  • Direct and public incitement (to genocide),
  • Attempt (to commit genocide),
  • Complicity (in genocide).

Again, impossibly vague and sweeping conditions that could plausibly include vast numbers of people.

Thus defined, the Nazis did indeed conduct a program of genocide—as did virtually every other government, in every military conflict, before or after WW2.  As legally defined, the term is effectively worthless.  It retains only rhetorical value.  Had the international community stuck to the obvious and direct meaning—the killing of a targeted ethnicity with intent to eliminate—then it might have had some substance.  As it is, the term is vaporous and functionally devoid of content.  As with so many Jewish concepts, it means whatever they want it to mean.

Whites by the Numbers

Now, back to the topic at hand:  White genocide.  Armed with our impossibly-vague notion of genocide, indeed, governments and organizations everywhere are engaged in White genocide—as they are in black genocide, Hispanic genocide, Christian genocide, and on and on.  Again, unless we are prepared to carefully and concisely define the term, it is worthless to rail against genocide of any stripe.  Best to drop all such talk, and focus on real, concrete issues.

So what about the real, actual threats to White interests and White well-being?  In the near term, it’s not ‘genocide’—which has now been revealed as a meaningless, amorphous Jewish concept—but rather declining political power and loss of self-determination.  These are serious matters that deserve deeper examination.

First, though, a brief word on who counts as ‘White.’  Though obviously a color designator, pigmentation alone cannot define an ethnicity.  Skin color is too diverse and subjective to serve a truly useful purpose.[3]  Equally useless is ‘Caucasian,’ which nominally refers to people of the Caucasus region, lying between the Caspian and Black Seas, and including parts of present-day Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Russia.  Geographical features are likewise not much help, as the ‘European’ continent is typically said to extend as far east as the Ural Mountains, which are some 1,000 miles into Russia.

In the context of an alt-right discussion, we can plausibly limit Whiteness to people of indigenous European ancestry, comprising the current EU nations and their immediate neighbors (Switzerland, Sweden, Lithuania, and the former member-states of Yugoslavia).  Western portions of the Ukraine and Belarus arguably count as well.  Excluded are all indigenous Russians, along with Turks, North Africans, and all indigenous peoples of the Middle East.  Jews are not White.

As for the status of Whites globally, the vast majority reside in the US, Europe (as defined above), Canada, and Australia.  In rough numbers, there are around 750 million in these four areas, along with perhaps 50 million scattered throughout the rest of the world.[4]  So let us say, 800 million globally.  This represents about 11% of humanity.  White numbers are in gradual decline, but non-Whites are proliferating rapidly.  Thus by 2050, when the planet reaches some 9.5 billion, Whites will drop to 8%.

In the US as well, the situation is not positive.  The present White population of some 195 million (61%) is forecast to gradually decline to 185 million by 2050, according to the US Census Bureau.[5]  This would put Whites at around 48% of the US total, and therefore in a minority position before mid-century.  Latest estimates put the crossover date around 2045.

Biracial and multiracial Americans, incidentally, are forecast to almost triple, from around 8 million (2.5%) to 22 million by 2050 (5.5%).  Hispanic Americans will double, from 55 million (17%) to 110 million (28%).  Black Americans will grow from 41 million to 55 million.  The 21 million Asian Americans will double, to 43 million.

So, how do we assess the situation, from a White perspective?  Negative for sure, potentially dire.  American Whites are declining at around 0.15% per year, and European Whites at around 0.30%.[6]  If we assume a global average decline of about 0.25% annually, the total number of Whites will drop from 800 million today to around 655 million in 2100.  Into the distant future, this implies something like 510 million in the year 2200, and 400 million in the year 2300.  Projections beyond this are largely meaningless.  It does imply the continuing existence of millions of Whites on Earth for centuries to come, but they will become increasingly marginalized as non-White population expands.

In the US, Whites could drop below 30% of the population by 2100, if present trends continue, and significantly less than that in several states.  This bodes ill for the preservation and assertion of White interests, as we increasingly lose out to demands of non-Whites—who are, as we know, on the whole less intelligent, less industrious, and more antisocial.[7]  As non-White numbers grow, society pays a price.  I can’t recall a single case where increasing non-White population brought demonstrable gains in quality of life.  Anyone—any White—who has had firsthand experience of increasing diversity in their city or neighborhood can confirm this fact.  In no case do things get better; they always get worse.

Restoring White Majority

What to do?  In theory, the solution is clear:  the country should be restored to a large White majority.  As a nominal target, we can aim for the status of the country at the beginning, say, in 1800.  At that time we had slightly more than 5 million people, of whom around 1 million were Black (slaves), along with a few thousand of other ethnicities and races.  Hence the country was about 80% White.

Given that we are today around 60% White, it is not unrealistic to aim for a return to 80%.    It can’t happen overnight, but given a long enough timeframe—say, 30 years—it is entirely achievable.  In fact, we can put some hard numbers on this.  Currently we have around 195 million Whites (60%) and 125 million non-Whites (40%).  By 2050, we might like to have, say, 220 million Whites (80%) and 55 million non-Whites (20%), for a total of 275 million people.  The non-White population thus would have to drop by about 2.3 million per year.

How, specifically, can this happen?  Broadly speaking, it’s obvious:  get more Whites and have fewer non-Whites.  We can increase our White population by (a) increasing White immigration, (b) discouraging White emigration (a nonissue, in reality), and (c) increasing White birthrate.  We can decrease our non-White population through the opposite policies: reduced immigration, increased emigration, and reduced birthrate.

Let me take each of these in turn.  We can incentivize White immigration, much like we did in the early years of America:  financial or other material enticements, and various service benefits.  We could offer free (or subsidized) land or housing.  Free job placement service.  Free tuition at public universities.  Free (or subsidized) health care.  Again, all this only for true Whites, of wholly indigenous European background.

On the outbound side of the equation, White emigration is so small as to be irrelevant.  According to the US State Department, some 9 million Americans are living abroad (non-military), but the annual departures are unknown, as are the number of Whites among these.  The most common driver for White emigration is likely retirement, to cheaper foreign locations.  We could offer better retirement benefits, to keep Whites in the country.

Increasing the White birthrate can be done by financial incentives (e.g. tax breaks, tuition assistance) and by education—on the need and benefits of an increasing White population.  Larger White families could be positively portrayed, rather than, as is often the case today, glorifying the single lifestyle.  This would require exerting control over a largely-Jewish mass media that is disinclined to assist Whites—to say the least.

Then let’s look at the non-White side of the ledger.  This requires firm and decisive action.  First, non-White immigration into the US must stop completely.  Zero.  Immediately.  No refugees, no asylum-seekers, no family ‘chains,’ no corporate work visas, no student visas—nothing.  Non-Whites should enter only as tourists, stay not more than a month, and then be compelled to leave.  And this policy should stay in place indefinitely, until attaining the 80% goal.[8]

On increasing emigration, this should be done as benignly and humanely as possible—voluntarily, but with financial incentives as encouragement.  We can selectively raise costs on non-Whites (through taxes and special fees, for example), and we can offer financial payments, such as one-time travel or relocation expenses, to encourage them to leave.  Simply by adjusting the amount of the incentives, we could control the rate of departure.  If we need to lose around 2 million non-Whites annually, and if we offered an average of, say, $5,000 incentive per person, this would cost only $10 billion per year—a trifle, in a nation that allocates $1,000 billion per year to national security.[9]  And the cost would be more than offset by the gains in quality of life.

The question of citizenship remains.  Non-White citizens who voluntarily emigrate would renounce their citizenship.  Non-White non-citizens have no such issue, though they might receive less assistance.  Birthright citizenship for non-Whites would be immediately ended.

Then there is the question of where they will go.  Most non-Whites do in fact have a country of origin; only the blacks, generally, lack connection to a specific homeland.  Of the 125 million non-Whites today, around 85 million (the non-blacks) can identify a nation of origin or a national homeland.  They have a clear place of return.[10]  For the 40 million blacks, DNA analysis can now, in many cases, pinpoint a nation or African region from which they came.  Special assistance may be required to ease a transition back, but this is the extra burden that White Americans must accept for their original sin of slavery.

The third point, reduced non-White birthrate, is perhaps the most contentious of all.  Again, all measures would have to be humane and voluntary, but with incentives to comply.  Free birth control, free abortion services, and free family planning advice are obvious first steps.  Government could also offer free sterilization services for all childless non-White adults, along with a cash incentive.  There would be no welfare handouts or subsidies for having children, and no tax breaks.  In fact, there would be a tax penalty after, say, the second child.  Non-White couples wishing to have large families would be invited to emigrate, where they could then have all the children they liked.  No one says they can’t have kids; they just can’t have them here.

Such is my sketch of a plan to respond rationally and humanely to the social and political threats posed to Whites by rising numbers of non-Whites.  We may call it the “great restoration”: restoring Whites to their traditional majority role, and restoring non-Whites to their native homelands.  No one wants to admit it, but a large majority of repatriated non-Whites would flourish, especially with their cash incentives in hand.  They return with relative wealth and education.  They likely have extended family there.  Their bodies are physiologically well-suited to their native climates (I’m thinking especially of blacks, who suffer through a whole range of health problems when living in non-tropical climates).  They can be leading members of their societies, rather than members of a perpetual underclass among Whites.

Practically speaking, of course, we are a long way from implementing such a policy.  It first needs to be discussed and debated among the alt-right community, and then to be incorporated into a political platform.  Perhaps there needs to be a new party:  The Great Restoration Party (GRP).  Its primary plank would be to restore Whites to a dominant majority, and to return non-Whites to their native homelands.

If progress could be made here, all other political and economic challenges would fall in line.  Imagine:  an America in which the numbers of blacks, Jews, Hispanics, and Asians were cut in half.  We can scarcely anticipate the benefits that would flow from such a situation.  It would be all but miraculous.  We had that once; we could have it again.

But we can imagine the outcry.  Liberals and mainstream media, along with all non-Whites, will naturally scream ‘racism!’ and ‘fascism!’ at the mere mention of such a proposal.  So be it.  The discussion needs to begin, and it needs to begin now.  There is no time to waste.

[1] See my book Debating the Holocaust (2015) for details.

[2] And perhaps we will now have to declare Lemkin an evil “Holocaust denier.”

[3] Pale skin is a necessary but not sufficient condition for whiteness.  Many Middle-Easterners, Latinos, and Asians have equally pale skin, but they are not white in the requisite sense.  The earliest true white people, incidentally, seem to have arisen, unsurprisingly, in the Scandinavian region.  Excavations at Motala, Sweden have analyzed the genetics of people there dating to 5700 BC, finding both gene variants for light skin (along with a third variant for blond hair and blue eyes).  Whiteness thus existed at this time, but likely not much sooner.  Data from southern Europeans circa 6500 BC show a lack of the white genes, and they would likely have appeared to us as Black.  It wasn’t until around 4000 BC that the white genes spread widely throughout Europe—a surprisingly recent date.  (Interestingly, the genes themselves are quite ancient, appearing to have originated in Africa around 1 million years ago.  But they were never expressed until people reached northern climates.)

[4] Europe (510 million), US (195 million), Canada (27 million), Australia (20 million).

[5] “Non-Hispanic Whites” in the lingo of the Bureau; these are ‘true whites.’

[6] These correspond to fertility rates of about 1.7 and 1.5, respectively (children per woman).

[7] Excepting the 20 million Asian Americans, who are, on average, more intelligent than whites.  But they represent just 15% of non-Whites, and in any case, the many cultural and social differences make large numbers of them undesirable.  Still, if there are to be any non-Whites in the US, they should be mostly Asian.

[8] This is not to say that 80% is the permanent goal.  It is an interim target, upon which gains would have to be assessed and future actions evaluated.  It may well turn out that white Americans would prefer a nation that was 90% or 95% white.  This would be left to future generations.

[9] Since not all would accept the offer, unused funds could be redistributed to offer more to the ones willing to go.  This would effectively create a kind of automatic ‘marketplace’ that would drive the assistance levels higher and higher, until people took them.  Everyone has their price.  Wealthy non-Whites, incidentally, would get no such assistance, and their financial penalties would have to be correspondingly increased, to encourage emigration.

[10] Even the (non-black) non-Whites who were “born here” still have, in the vast majority of cases, an identifiable nation of origin.  For example, much has recently been made of the fact that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was “born here,” and thus has nowhere to return.  This is nonsense.  She is 100% Puerto Rican.  Her father was born in New York to Puerto Ricans, and her mother was born in Puerto Rico itself.

134 replies
  1. mark green
    mark green says:

    This was a very interesting and informative article. Dalton smartly deconstructs ‘genocide’ which was long overdue. His dramatic course of political action however might be a bit premature. Sadly, millions of virtue-signaling whites will never cooperate with a plan that it is openly ‘racist’. That propagandistic term also needs to be deconstructed and devalued.

    Dalton is a bold and excellent writer, but he is failing to appreciate the toxic levels of white guilt and white anxiety that permeate our bible-drenched, ‘post-Holocaust’ culture. White America’s present mindset (not to mention US law) does not comport with the ambitious, race-oriented political plan that he envisions. Perhaps I am wrong about this, but white identity and white solidarity must rise dramatically first if we are to reclaim our country as a white civilization.

    Just consider the fact that Trump’s very reasonable (and popular) attempts to enforce existing immigration laws (while still allowing millions of illegal immigrants to self-nationalize) are denounced continuously as ‘racist’ and the work of a ‘white supremacist’. Trump’s edicts are sabotaged from all directions, including our courts and elite media.

    The (anti-white) diversity lobby is a huge, unmanageable beast with dark skin and a very Jewish mindset. It is also deeply embedded in most areas of American life. This disturbing fact must not be ignored.

    The Hitlerian ‘racism’ boogeyman that our opponents use so effectively will therefore never be retired. Dalton’s very direct, pro-white plan (with all the incentives and plots to resettle non-whites in their ancestral lands) strikes me therefore as little more than wishful thinking.

    Do you think for a minute that any African-American would voluntarily return to Africa? Ha! Never. Blacks may resent and even despise whites but they understand that their quality of life depends upon white industriousness, white lawfulness, and white innovation. They ain’t goin nowhere. America, after all, is where blacks get all their shiny new free stuff. (And white hoes too.)

    Worse still, if Dalton were to take his plan ‘on the road’ and attempt to give a speech outlining this pro-white vision, he would likely get the ‘Charlottesville treatment’ immediately; meaning, Dalton (or any candidate espousing similar views) would be hounded, terrorized, and physically attacked by Antifa types–with all local government officials and media narrators aiding in the beatdown. This is America today. The situation is very negative for whites with a racial identity. I do hope and expect that this will change. But we must first take control of–or establish–our own media.

    In the meantime, we can thank Jewish media and ‘Jewish learning’ (indoctrination) for the injurious attitudes about ‘diversity’ which now dominate Western culture.

    Fortunately, Dalton is entirely correct when he notes: “I can’t recall a single case where increasing non-White population brought demonstrable gains in quality of life. Anyone—any White—who has had firsthand experience of increasing diversity in their city or neighborhood can confirm this fact.” This simple statement definitely rings true. We must get this message out.

    The ‘Diversity is our Strength’ meme is liberal America’s biggest lie. Sure, in large cities, it’s nice to have a Chinatown, some exotic restaurants, or a Japanese neighborhood, but that’s about as far as it goes. For
    European-derived whites, our strength lies in our commonality and our homogeneity. This simple fact is key and we must run with it.

    Unfortunately, until white Americans take control of their media in a substantial way, the Jewish poison that is ‘political correctness’ will continue to run its ugly course.

    • Barkingmad
      Barkingmad says:

      You make so many good points, but I was holding my breath waiting for mention of restaurants, and I was not disappointed.

      “Sure, in large cities, it’s nice to have a Chinatown, some exotic restaurants, or a Japanese neighborhood, but that’s about as far as it goes.”

      What did our successful ancestors do before Chinatown, exotic restaurants and a Japanese neighborhood? What we need is a decent roof over our heads, with a stove and refrigerator, and enough money to buy food and cook our own damn meals (and take our lunches to work in a bag.)

      What a spoiled race we have become. Ask any white person what are the benefits and advantages of multiculturalism, and the first thing they will likely mention is…restaurants. Angel of Death, take me now, I can’t stand this anymore.

      • Pat Etheridge
        Pat Etheridge says:

        I can recall a time when in many parts of the U.S. you would visit Japanese or Chinese restaurants and the wait staff and sometimes even the proprietors would be Caucasians. That was prior to today’s tidal waves of immigrants.

        What we are witnessing now is simply a purge.

      • milan
        milan says:

        @ Barkingmad

        there is a great piece on restaurants, I personally like these statements the best:

        “If I were starting out in life again, I would become a psychologist instead of a writer.

        I would specialize in the peculiar mental derangement that causes people to open a restaurant. This mania infects thousands.

        You can read the rest here and I highly recommend. Great stuff lol and yeah Angel of Death ….


    • Poupon Marx
      Poupon Marx says:

      Agree completely, @mark green. Practically speaking, the author’s goal is unattainable by conventional means of working within the present framework of Western societies and countries. The power to move and change is not there, and gets less with every passing day. Climbing a greased flagpole is similar.

      If you are a practical person, one who has worked in a field where RESULTS are the only currency and criteria for your job or profession, and where planning, logistics, execution, problem solving missions and projects with the concrete and empirical were your only assets, then:

      You will realize, inescapably and ineluctably, that Whites (Indo-European) Peoples can only resurge and reverse all the demographic and other TRENDS by sequestration and establishment of autocephalous republics.

      It is the ONLY way to save and reconstitute The Herd. All other proposals and propositions are quixotic and fuzzy fuzzy. All in all, the solutions resemble engineering problems and solutions, more than anything else.

      Also, we need to think in analogous and parallel terms and comparisons, rather than abstractions, and contingencies based on continences, etc, etc.

    • JRM
      JRM says:

      @mark green

      Spot-on analysis. While Dalton’s well-reasoned plan makes all the sense in the world, it is simply impossible to imagine it as anything but blue-sky brainstorming. In an ideal world, Whites would see the eminent benefits and rally behind such a scenario. But if we lived in an ideal world, we wouldn’t be in this mess in the first place.

      For all the reasons you mention, I see a catastrophic event leaving the USGOV unable to respond in any effective way at local levels as the necessary prerequisite for any White unification movement.

      Consider a localized event such as Hurricane Katrina. Many Whites fled the city in advance, acting on reason and their inborn future-orientation. Blacks stayed put, then climbed onto the roof to be rescued by whitey (if they weren’t busy looting elsewhere).

      If Whites had simply done nothing, many hapless blacks would have perished. But Whites swooped in and at great expense and effort, rescued the blacks, gave them shelter, provided money, and relocated many to other “fortunate” cities. I don’t doubt that many of these precious souls, saved once already by White civilization, are now enthusiastically clamoring for “reparations” from “rayciss” whitey.

      If Whites could not bear to see one discomfited black after Katrina, how in the hell does Dalton think they would ever aim at a state of racial cohesion (or even common sense) necessary to remove them?

    • TJ
      TJ says:

      Interesting that both black and White know what to do with hoes.

      The problem is information in general- not just media. The information monopoly- which includes schools- must be utterly smashed and/or evaded. Same for the money hegemon, which I call
      The Hegemoney.

      The fastest and easiest way to lose a debate is by accepting the opponent’s premises. How many left premises have been, explicitly or tacitly, accepted by conservatives? Challenging basic premises will upset the liberal cart.

      The left must be accused of MORAL DEGENERACY. [See that GENE is part of degeneracy. . .]

      • Andrew
        Andrew says:

        I would say that the best example one could find of our side being defeated because we’ve accepted our opponents’ premises is our accepting the premise that there is something wrong with racism. Even three-month-old infants are racist. People are tribal. It’s their nature, and there is nothing wrong with it. Let’s stop denying that we’re racist. Let’s stop accepting the claim by our opponents that they are not racist when they are just as racist as anyone else. Let’s stop apologizing for being racist. Then we might make some progress and lift our fellow whites out of their current condition of Stockholm Syndrome.

        • Carolyn Yeager
          Carolyn Yeager says:

          Andrew – I can only suspect you’re taking ideas from my website, as this has been my position for quite some time, most recently in my posts of July 29th. and August 1st. It was also the subject of my regular podcast at The Daily Nationalist on August 31st. And I’ll be talking about it later today with Brian Ruhe.

          I have never heard anyone else make this case; most alt-right and white nationalists are quite cold to it. Have any ideas about why that is?

          • Andrew
            Andrew says:

            Carolyn: Good for you. No, I didn’t get the idea from your website, but I’m glad you agree with me. As for why it hasn’t been taken up by white nationalist “leaders”, I can only guess. People have had it ingrained into them that racism is bad, and it’s an evolutionary process to overcome that conditioning even for those who are on our side.

    • PJ Dooner
      PJ Dooner says:

      Good luck to anybody who wants to try to get the 60 million white Sco-tards on our side. If there is a more pathetic herd of jew-worshipping imbeciles than zio-Christians I never saw them. Here is Rick Wiles, an anti zionist Christian, exposing the mind-boggling stupidity of the Scofielders, Wiles is not a WN but he does a good job getting the truth to other Christians. Starting at about the 24 minute mark:

      • Andrew
        Andrew says:

        Yes, there is nothing Christian about “Christian” Zionism. “Christian” Zionists believe that Jews are the chosen people of God, even though Jews reject Jesus (who is identical with God). How stupid is that? Very stupid. Christian Zionists are not Christians, they are the opposite of Christians, but they are too stupid to know it, or to know that Christ called the Jews who rejected him children of the devil in the Gospel of St. John and a brood of vipers in the Gospel of St. Matthew. And that’s exactly what the Jews are: Satan’s children. Christian Zionism = devil worship.

        • milan
          milan says:

          @ PJ Dooner & Andrew

          Another excellent source of truth about the Christian Zionists and their bizarre errors take a gander at the book Lies, all Lies by Gerry Fox. There you will see and find just where everything really went wrong with the demonization of 2 innocent nations Germany and Russia. While your at it might I also suggest Fox’s book Climate Change the Work of God. That will really set your mind on fire about all of the lies currently being spread all over the world. Real treasures.

  2. Denny Stanley
    Denny Stanley says:

    There are mossad agents that work in most of our u.s. congressmens offices. And our congressmen fear them to death. They keep a very close watch on our Congress. Congress members can’t even say anything that the jews don’t like. The jews did a very well organised planned coup on America and it worked. They control our stock market, banks, all radio and t.v. stations, all the media, newspapers and magazines.And will soon control all the internet. White Christians in America Europe, Australia, New Zealand and Canada have to understand that they have been marked for ethnic cleansing by the jews.

  3. Rob Bottom
    Rob Bottom says:

    I suggest the author examine current photographs of elementary school classrooms from white nations where diversity is being pushed hard, like in Ireland. The genocide aspect is real. It is already gaining pace. Not only via immigration, which ethnically cleanses white populations from an area, but via miscegenation. Look at those school photos. Look at how few white children there are. What do you think the odds are that those white children will end up together, as opposed to marrying someone of another race? As our overall population declines in relation to the growing non-white population, whites will increasingly be “picked off” by non-whites, who view marrying a white person a “step up”. At the same time, we are randomly “picked off” by predators who kill us. This problem will only get worse as the demographics change, which is a mathematical certainty. Intermarriage and interracial homicide may appear random or disorganized, but they’re not when you take a broader view about what is happening on a systemic level. They’re brought about by specific policies such as mass immigration and criminal justice reform. Perhaps the author’s time horizon is not long enough to see the inevitable, but for those of who do, and who are seeing whites all around us throwing away their genetic legacy by mixing, or read the daily horror stories of interracial crime, “genocide” is the best term to describe it. And the people who have engineered it can and should be brought to justice via the laws you describe as useless.

    • Pat Etheridge
      Pat Etheridge says:

      “Crimes against the welfare of the nation-state.” With the penalty being immediate deportation.

    • bruno
      bruno says:

      Sad to say, but you have many good points. It cost thousands of $$$ in many regions to send children to EuroMan’s schools. Even that’s not easy. A person has to research schools. Then, school boards alter and bring in the darkness. Again the research renews.

      The vast majority of Ws won’t run the 100 yards to save their progeny. They, themselves, are tired, weak and trying to keep their marriage together… as masses of W hoes leave their home nest to jump around like dogs. About 50 -75% of kids in school are from divorced mothers (check it out in your region). They’ve seen their mothers play with an army of males. Adjudicating by the presstitude you’d think the above doesn’t exist.

      No need to mention the lying MSM. For example, media has alleged that the famous Clearwater (FL) tourist region is about 85% W. Then, they note that the schools are 49% W! Nearly all the fast-food restaurants have brown labourers and kitchens of regular restaurant have similar stats. Construction is full of illegals.

      Moreover, it’s difficult to move due to family, jobs and the contemporary trend inducing overload. How many have given their kids 50 -60 grand to purchase a house and then seen them kicked out of their homes due to the prevailing whore kultra?

      As those who’ve travelled and read a wee bit look back they can only ponder why they have not moved at a young age to Montana, Byelorussia, Poland, E. Germany or the Baltic States. If only they had known! If only they could have seen how the nemesis of mankind would have controlled info-flow to indoctrinate females and children.

      You might be right and your points are enjoyed, but in dreamland the article above is more pleasing than the utopia promised by yesterday’s Eastern god Lenin and today’s Western icon Bernie.

      Imagine if the author tried to present his premise to any university in Amdom. He’d be Hitler of the Month. Thank you.

      • Andrew
        Andrew says:

        The fancy private schools I went to as a kid promote “multiculturalism”, “white privilege” etc. to their white students. White parents pay $50,000 and more a year per child to have their kids indoctrinated to accept white genocide and Jewish world views. I’m sure the same is true with church-related schools: Catholic, Episcopal, etc. Even a “conservative” college like Hillsdale in Michigan believes that it’s fine to replace white people with brown people because those brown people will all be nice conservatives once conservative principles are more widely accepted. America today = Clown World.

    • Andrew
      Andrew says:

      What is being done to whites all over the world clearly qualifies as genocide under the UN definition. But nobody, to my knowledge, has complained to the UN Commission on Human Rights or the appropriate international tribunals. Palestinians have made their case to the UN and won a whole slew of resolutions condemning Israel. I don’t see why whites couldn’t do the same thing with respect to the actions (and inaction) of the Jewish-controlled governments of majority white nations that are being overrun by migrants. In the U.S., mass non-white immigration, an unsecured border, legalized discrimination against whites (affirmative action), and demonization of whites in the media make up the elements of the case.

  4. Tim Folke
    Tim Folke says:

    Another attack on our people is the normalization of homosexuality, which results in childless ‘couples’ as well as suicide. We need to courageously speak out against this attack on the Natural Family Unit. And I will also say that, as a veteran, I’m disgusted with the fact that us Vets get one day of recognition, whilst the (whatever they are calling themselves now) get an entire month.

    • Andy
      Andy says:

      Thanks for pointing out that it’s Pride month, not day, and veterans only get one day!

      Yes the normalisation of homosexuality is problematic to put it mildly.

      “The Health Hazards of Homosexuality: What the Medical and Psychological Research Reveals.” published by Mass Resistance is a thorough-going account of the considerable dangers and risks associated with so many homosexual practices and life-style choices associated with people who engage in these activities. The book is an eye-opener, indeed eye-watering!

      Here’s the short url https://amzn.com/1539983811

      • Tim Folke
        Tim Folke says:

        Thanks for that link. Yes, I have read a number of excerpts from that book. There is certainly nothing ‘gay’ about perversion! The only surprising thing is that Amazon still carries that and similar books, seeing how they have censored so much else.

        By the way, I just want to say that I am grateful that the author (Mr. Dalton) offers solutions to the problem. I hope to see more of that in the future!

  5. claudius1889
    claudius1889 says:

    Dalton is very naive, therefore, unrealistic in his appraisal of the situation of White men in the USA. As Mark Green as rightly pointed out, he does not take into account the huge number of White traitors who have been brainwashed by the Jewish media and who believe we owe endless concessions and apologies to Blacks.

    He also seems to ignore the existence of the “diversity” lobby and its huge power. Apparently, according to Dalton, we have just to walk into the White House and take control of the country. The Jews, of course, will not fight back and will be happy to help us.

    Finally, there is the ridiculous idea that Blacks and South American mongrels (incorrectly called Hispanics, since this word means Spanish-speaking person, without reference to his ethnicity) will leave the USA voluntarily (???) They know which side their bread is buttered. Can you imagine them leaving a privileged life to return to their shit-holes? And, why should we offer them financial incentives? They have been sponging off the White man for decades. They owe us billions!

    Unfortunately, this article is just wishful thinking.

  6. ss
    ss says:

    White couples to have three kids to maintain the race, six kids to grow the race. Jews are as white as anyone else which is why we have to research and debate on whether people are of Jewish extraction.

  7. James Bowery
    James Bowery says:

    More important than defining what “white” means is defining the “culture” in which “whites” came to be. But first we must define — very carefully — what we mean by “culture”.

    Culture: Artificial selection.

    In other words, the “concrete” consequences of culture are genetic and, to the extent that humans have agency, these consequences are artificial.

    So before worrying about who is “white”, we should be deeply concerned with the selective pressures that created “whiteness”.

    I would submit that a defining character of “whiteness” is “culture” in the foregoing sense, but with a moral dimension in which the human capacity to model nature is teleological. That is to say the moral dimension of culture is informed by perceiving in nature a long range direction of creative evolution leading to the mind that is capable of asking the question: “What is the long range direction of creation that led to me asking this question?”

    This is religion in its truest sense.

    This has immediate consequences for political discourse. First we must recognize that it is nonsense to posit a “separation” between state and religion. Any set of governing principles imposed at any level derives from beliefs about nature, and implies evolutionary consequences. These beliefs, however scientifically based, lead to decisions that rely on imperfect intelligence applied to imperfect knowledge about the world. In other words, these decisions are, inescapably, “leaps of faith”. Once we accept the theocratic nature of government, we can see that statements like, “Excluded are all indigenous Russians…” are religious statements.

    Since we have already accepted the inescapably theocratic nature of government, the question arises: “How do we go about resolving religious differences?” More to the point: “What is the metareligion that selects for whiteness?”

    I’ve answered this question in the form of the minimal principles of Sortocracy which informs the meta ecclesiastical principles of The Fair Church℠. The purpose of such a Church is to uphold individual moral agency consistent with group control of territory, by replacing prisons with exile and border enforcement, and replacing territorial allocation by war (group aggression) with market allocation of land value to groups, based on a per capita land rent stream.

    It is under this banner that “whites” of all “races” can unite, despite religious differences, and wage Holy War, including politics as the continuation of war by other means. As more territory comes under the control of “whites”, freedom of religion — the essence of freedom — increases as the diversity of beliefs about how to best organize a human ecology, consistent with individual consent, increasingly finds expression in concrete terms: Control of territory founded on the individual’s natural right to territory.

    • TJ
      TJ says:

      . . .otherwise known as private property- and the central demand of the communist manifesto? Abolition of private property. . .[meaning all property is to be jewish].

      • James Bowery
        James Bowery says:

        There is a distinction between property that a healthy man can defend, as an individual, against another healthy man, as an individual, and property that requires collective defense. The distinction is between the natural and the artificial. The natural property “right” is that which males of all species have competed over, as individuals vs individuals, for hundreds of millions of years of sexual selection.

        A sound foundation for civilization recognizes this distinction in the form of law that grants healthy individual adult male citizens an artificial substitute. This artificial substitute for natural property must take the form of a material entitlement or communism will exploit this crack in the foundation of civility. Moreover, a sound foundation for civilization recognizes the cost, of collective defense of purely artificial property rights, must be borne by the direct holders — most likely in the form of a direct tax on the holders.

        Moreover, the healthy adult male citizens who bear the burden of collective defense are due that tax revenue — most parsimoniously in equal shares. This wipes out rent-seeking in both the public and private sectors and thereby permits young men to outbid “the economy” for the fertile years of young women.

        This last item is the only realistic defense against Islamisation, other than simply killing them all.

          • James Bowery
            James Bowery says:

            Henry George is sort of like Richard Dawkins in that he popularized important concepts of classical economics. However, like Dawkins, he was not a major player and stopped short of taking the next necessary steps to avoid ended up being co opted.

            In George’s case, he had Darwin to draw on in taking the steps I’ve taken regarding masculinity and territorial allocation. But he failed to do so. As a result his prescriptions for a citizen’s dividend have fatal flaws that make it a travesty of what I propose. Moreover, those fatal flaws are now exploited by the “basic income” crowd to produce travesties of George’s travesty.

            On top of that, if you’re serious about political economy, you have to deal with human biodiversity — in particular taking into account the gradients of heritable individualism, and what they mean for civil society.

            No one is doing this but me so far as I can tell. Not even Curt Doolittle’s “propertarianism”, which is a noble effort, handles this properly.

            Essentially, you have land allocation as _the_ foundation of civil society — and you have to recognize how land allocation differs between group hunters (most of humanity), individual hunters (Euroman and his canine mutualists). If you elide this distinction, you doom Euroman by gutting the source of his moral superiority, the source from which all philosophy flows.

  8. Eleni Tsigante
    Eleni Tsigante says:

    How peculiar that Lemkin’s definition is so prescient – that is, that it exactly describes what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians:

    “Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups. Genocide is directed against the national group as an entity, and the actions involved are directed against individuals, not in their individual capacity, but as members of the national group.”

    • Andrew
      Andrew says:

      The Jews are a genocidal, insidious, invasive and subversive group of infiltrators and murderers and always have been. Their god is homicidal. In the Bible, Joseph is sold by his brothers into slavery in Egypt. He gains favor with Pharaoh, who allows him to take over the Egyptian economy (sound familiar?). Jews wax rich while Egyptians starve. A new pharaoh arises and enslaves the Jews. Joseph dies, succeeded by Moses. The Jewish god speaks to Moses: Ex. 12:12: “And I will pass through the land of Egypt that night, and will kill every firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast: and against all the gods of Egypt will I execute judgments.” Ex. 14:28: “And the waters returned, and covered the chariots and horsemen of all the army of Pharaoh, who had come into the sea after [the Jews], neither did there so much as one of them remain.” Ex: 33:1-2: “And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: Go, get thee up from this place, thou and thy people, which thou hast brought out of the land of Egypt, into the land concerning which I swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, saying: To thy seed I will give it. And I will send an angel before thee that I may cast out the Chanaanite, and the Amorrhite, and the Hethite, and the Pherezite, and the Hevite, and the Jebusite.” Ex. 34:11-13: “Observe all things which this day I command thee: I myself will drive out before they face the Amorrhite, and the Chanaanitte, and the Hethite, and the Pherezite, and the Hevite, and the Jebusite. Beware thou never join in friendship with the inhabitants of that land, which may be thy ruin: but destroy their altars, break their statues, and cut down their groves.” Num 33:50-56: “Where the Lord said to Moses: Command the children of Israel and say to them: When you shall have passed over the Jordan, entering into the land of Chanaan, destroy all the inhabitants of that land: beat down their pillars and break in pieces their statues and waste all their high places, cleansing the land and dwelling in it. For I have given it to thee for a possession. (Palestinians take note)…But if you will not kill the inhabitants of the land: they that remain shall be unto you as nails in your eyes and spears in your sides, and they shall be your adversaries in the land of your habitation. And whatsoever I had thought to do to them I will do to you.” Deut. 2:34: “And we took all his cities at that time, killing the inhabitants of them, men and women and children. We left nothing of them.” The Jews have always been at war with “the nations” (non-Jews). Lacking in numbers today, they make up for it in guile, organization, and an international network. They have been (in legend and in fact) the scourge of Egypt, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, Christendom, Byzantium, Spain, Poland, Russia, Germany, the Palestinians, South Africa, and now all white-majority nations. A people that gets expelled from nations over 100 times is not persecuted. That people is a nation — an international nation — of persecutors.

  9. Rerevisionist
    Rerevisionist says:

    Fascinating piece. (Which of course ignores whites killing each other, and others; what is to be done? and the actual economic conditions: has all the effort and money on (((American))) wars been wasted?).
    . . . But may I make a point on this claim: “Fortunately, Dalton is entirely correct when he notes: “I can’t recall a single case where increasing non-White population brought demonstrable gains in quality of life.” As is usual, non-Jews seem unable to see how Jews view situations around the world. Increasing non-white populations bring great gains for Jews, in the short term. Or at least that’s what they think, and they may turn out to be right. They hate whites; they’ve used gullible whites with silly religions; they were responsible for inventing Islam and using Moslems; they have mass-murdered populations around the world in what were and are genocides; they have vast experience with controlling and using blacks. That’s why they do it and why they will have to be acted against.

  10. Eleni Tsigante
    Eleni Tsigante says:

    Interestingly, it is also what Kissinger proposed for the Greeks in 1974:

    The Greek people are anarchic and difficult to tame. For this reason we must strike deep into their cultural roots: Perhaps then we can force them to conform. I mean, of course, to strike at their language, their religion, their cultural and historical reserves, so that we can neutralize their ability to develop, to distinguish themselves, or to prevail; thereby removing them as an obstacle to our strategically vital plans in the Balkans, the Mediterranean, and the Middle East.
    (As reported in the popular Greek magazine, Oikonomikos Tachydromos on 14 Aug. l997, Henry Kissinger, while addressing a group of Washington, D.C. businessmen in Sept.1974)

    • bruno
      bruno says:

      I have been a lover of Greek culture. In Poland we had thousands of Greek-Polonians. One was, at one time, a most popular singer.

      During the last Greek-Turkish war I composed articles propagating support for Greeks. Henry K., was the US media god at the time. Without him it’s possible the outcome would have differed. Wish I had time to write more. Thank you for your contribution.

  11. RoyAlbrecht
    RoyAlbrecht says:

    “…First, as anyone knows who studies the issue, the Germans did not seek, nor did they implement, the physical annihilation of the Jews; rather, they wanted something much less ominous: a German Reich cleansed of Jews, by a process of deportation and removal. The deaths (and there were many thousands) were an incidental byproduct, not the objective.[1] …
    Hence it seems that he was admitting that the “genocide” of the Jews—that is, the Holocaust—consisted primarily of nonlethal actions designed to eradicate Jewish life, culture, and predominance in the Reich. This, of course, is precisely the stance of present-day Holocaust revisionists, who have argued for a primarily nonlethal reading of German actions. So we have a striking conclusion: As defined by Lemkin, the Holocaust now can be read as a primarily nonlethal set of actions design to reduce or eliminate Jewish cultural and economic dominance in the Reich.”

    Finally, some backbone and precision with respect to a more truthful definition of what I usually, but vaguely, call the “Holocaust Lie of the Jews”.
    Bravo, TOO for finally coming to bat on this issue and thank you.

    Except for the fact that…,

    “…Again, unless we are prepared to carefully and concisely define the term, it is worthless to rail against genocide of any stripe. Best to drop all such talk, and focus on real, concrete issues.”…,

    by dropping such talk altogether, we still have, at present, a Jewish Lobby that is expanding its…,
    “international roster of venues”…,
    where “…Holy-hoax-insanity…” is being forcibly inflicted largely upon Germany, but increasingly upon all (formerly?) White Nations.

    This major psychological weapon [Holy-hoax-insanity], designed by the Globalist Jewish Lobby to overtly and covertly do exactly what the author above has stated in his very lucid list of proposed solutions to namely:
    Save the World form devolving to a low quality of life that is on the whole detrimental to all life forms…,
    including the Psychotic Globalist Jews themselves…,
    must therefore be confronted.

    Moreover, rather than drop all discussion of this [genocide] topic…,
    we should be first and fore-mostly confronting the twisted and largely untruthful scenario, developed by the Psychotic Globalist Jews…,
    of the “Holy-hoax-insanity”.

    Not to do so simply avoids THE Largest Single Weapon Jews wield in their quest to neutralize the White Race.

    If the multi-farious means and ends of “…this myth…” ever came to light,
    not only would Whites recognize the lengths of deception they are capable of being lead astray with by Jews,
    non-Whites too would be incentivized to reconsider whom and what they are fighting against.

    Consequently, the exposure of this increasingly (((universally developed falsehood))) [the Holocaust] would also dramatically change your own rather lucidly calculated cost-benefit analysis regarding the saving of Whites.
    If elucidation were to be assimilated, non-Whites themselves would more willingly listen to how Globalist Jews were not only largely responsible for the chaos we now have,
    but would likely be more willing to comply with implementing a lasting solution to (((the Problem))).


    ” ‘ Excluded are all indigenous Russians ‘, along with Turks, North Africans, and all indigenous peoples of the Middle East. Jews are not White.”

    IMO, from what I see here in Iceland, some Russians, namely most of those living West of the Caucasus Mountain Range,
    should in some form or another be given “Autonomous Cultural Determination” within a Commonwealth of White Nations.

    The Russian Orthodox Church, in many ways, exemplifies a far more lucid vision of Christianity than any other (((Church Industry))) in the present West.
    I also submit that it is the Russian Orthodox Church’s stance on the Jewish involvement in the crucifixion of Christ that is precisely why Russia is on the (((West’s Proxi-list))) of “targeted States”.


    Lastly, since the argument [ the largely Racial determinant regarding behaviour ] has been agreed upon by the ENTIRE
    (aside from Globalist Jew Liars and their meta-socio-pathological collaborators) scientific community,
    leaving only the “percentage allocated to environmental vs. racial” factor to be debated,
    there ought to be a section of your proposed solutions involving a Global Sperm Ova Donation Breeding Program.
    A program whereby all Races could Donate certain Spermatozoa and Ovum to those Nations and individuals who desire such contributions for long term wider integration into their respective National-Wholes.

    I believe that in some ways, Germans for example may have benefited from having a less that 1% combined total Mongolian and Mediterranean genetic admixture in its national gene pool…
    Something largely missing from the Swedish-Norwegian gene pool.

    Iceland too is a very geographically young land mass, that has been subject to a lot of “re-terraforming” lately. Meaning they have transplanted non-native trees to replace those trees which the original settlers de-forested upon their first arrival.

    There is almost no debate that states of “…wild-ness…” are more desirable than “…domesticated…” ones when it comes to determining the health of the organism as a whole.
    Therefore, any terra-formed moves in a direction that solve a present Racial condition (I.e.: Low I.Q., melatonin deficiency, etc…) are to be considered useful in avoiding the risk of being labeled as prejudiced should we confine our concept of breeding to domestic animals (horses, dogs, cattle, etc…) alone.

  12. Wuntz Moore
    Wuntz Moore says:

    “Again, unless we are prepared to carefully and concisely define the term, it is worthless to rail against genocide of any stripe.”

    I’d think Dr. MacDonald embarrassed to sponsor an article that contains a view as clouded as that one. The national discourses through which we plant our memes in white minds are not a graduate seminar on genocide.

  13. Twaine
    Twaine says:

    I’ve been able to trace systemic Occidental genocide back to the “Muslim” attack on Persia in 633; only north Iran was able to escape the onslaught. Ditto in Spain during the 711 onslaught where another Occidental country was obliterated via an African onslaught.

    The Occidental peoples were on every continent as opposed to our ‘education’ on ‘Europeans’; in New Zealand the Maoris are very familiar with their previously Occidental nation and openly confess to their genocide; in Japan the original natives are still dissidents called Ainu and in China they’re Uyghurs and, as is often the case they’re now dissident minorities under threat.
    In America one band was called Chachapoia (sp?), who’s history has been twisted like all the others.

    The Canary Islands were pure Occidental until, as in New Zealand, they were wiped from the Islands and enslaved by the Spanish then under control of the Vatican which has been proven to be crypto Jews as well. See WhiteIndians.com for some interesting data on this total GENOCIDE.

    Notice not a DROP of data from the recent openly declared war on ‘whites’, called ‘diversity’, boasted by the #Jewskingphu who still hate us due to our intrinsic morality clashes with their pedophilic culture, sorcery and love of torture to facilitate same.

    To marginalize ‘white genocide’ requires ignorance or apathy to our long history after betrayals from various “neighbors”.

  14. Andrew
    Andrew says:

    Before arguing over terminology, we need to clarify what is going on: 1) Massive non-white immigration (legal and illegal) never consented to by the white majority and accomplished through deception (e.g. broken promises to secure the border, the lie by Ted Kennedy that the Immigration Act of 1965 would not radically alter America’s demographics); 2) forced integration of whites with non-whites (in violation of the Constitutional right to freedom of association); 3) discrimination against whites (in violation of both the Civil Rights Law and the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution) in the form of racial preferences (“affirmative action”) for non-whites (including recent immigrants) in college admissions, hiring, promotion, and government contracting; 4) ever increasing demonization of whites in the mostly Jewish-controlled media, calculated to cause non-whites to hate and want to take revenge against whites. Looking at these four factors, I have no problem with calling this “white genocide” and “white replacement”. If massive non-white immigration, forced integration, discrimination against whites and demonization of whites continue, whites will be eliminated through a combination of declining births, miscegenation, and even physical violence.
    But to bolster my argument, we have to ask, Who wants this and why? I think the answer is obvious. Non-Jewish whites are the most creative and freedom loving race on the planet. They are also the most accomplished. As a group they might not have the highest average IQ, but they do have — by far — the most distinguished record of accomplishment across the whole range of human endeavors: art, music, literature, philosophy, math, science, sports, invention, exploration, craftsmanship, farming and military conquest. The elites who actually run the world do not want such people, because they are unsuited to be slaves. The elites do not rule legitimately, so they worry about a group that might challenge their authority. That group would be non-Jewish white people, who are analogous to the law-abiding gun owners liberals want to disarm. So now we have set out the elements of the crime and the motive. What else do we need in order to show that this is a planned and deliberate attempt at genocide? One thing we need to show is the existence of a powerful group that harbors ill-will towards whites and Christians. That one is easy: Jews. They hate whites because the Romans destroyed their temple and the Romans were white. They hate christians because Jesus called them out for what they are, saying they were children of the devil. And they are certainly powerful. Relative to their numbers they dominate banking, finance, law, medicine, the mainstream media, social media, Hollywood, the music industry, and even the fine arts and the world of non-profits and NGO’S. They literally own Congress. And their anti-white hatred is easily demonstrated. Virtually every book out there that criticizes and condemns “white privilege” and “white supremacy” is written by a Jew addressing “my fellow whites”.
    So now we have the powerful planners of this white genocide. The next thing we need to show is the effectiveness and extent of this plan — that white genocide is not just taking place in America, but in all majority-white nations. Massive non-white immigration into Europe, Canada, Australia and New Zealand easily proves that case. So now we have the crime, the motive, the means and opportunity (Jewish financial power), and the attempts to cover up (Jews calling themselves “white” and criticizing “my fellow whites” while not saying they are Jews), and our case is made. We ARE talking about a planned white genocide. In my next post, I’ll discuss the solution.

  15. Andrew
    Andrew says:

    The author’s plan to “restore America’s whiteness” is completely unrealistic in my opinion. The actions he recommends would never take place because they flagrantly violate the U.S. Constitution. We cannot restore America. That opportunity passed us by a long time ago. Our only realistic course — and it won’t be easy — is separation from non-whites and Jews. That separation will not happen peacefully in the United States. The government is hell-bent on bringing non-whites into every corner of the land. There is no escape for whites within America as it exists today. And the government will never agree to give a portion of America to whites so that they can create a separate ethnostate. Read up on the Civil War if you doubt that. That leaves only two possibilities: 1) Another country offers to create a homeland for whites in its own territory. 2) A crisis of some kind (probably financial) causes the collapse of the government’s authority, at which point there would be the possibility of racial separation into ethnostates. This would mean major population transfers, disputes over land and resources, and civil war. The government would not win that war for the simple reason that it would be tied down controlling the chaos in large cities that would result when the red states and regions that are dominated by non-Jewish white people cut off all resources that they control and stopped them from reaching the cities: water, energy, food. That would be rural white America’s leverage to dissolve the existing government and divide the country up into ethnostates. With a white ethnostate, there would be no need to worry about the existing Constitution because we would create our own Constitution. It would reflect white interests and values. Jews and non-whites would be excluded from the white ethnostate. That is where I think this has to go; otherwise, white people and Western Civilization are finished.

    • Poupon Marx
      Poupon Marx says:

      @Andrew. I believe you are correct in your statement that territorial and governing separation are the only option for White survival. I have been making this point and elucidating outlines of the steps necessary. Concomitantly, Blacks and Browns crow and scream for the same sequestration. It is in OUR interests to further their cause, in that we, by default will end up with a proportionate republic. Otherwise, we can only slow or manage the decline in demographics and hope.

      It is not impossible, but quite doable. I hope this conversation gains momentum and numbers.

  16. Panadechi
    Panadechi says:

    To deeply understand the problem of the reduction of white influence worldwide, quantity, political, social, economic, cultural and territorial, we must focus on the primal cause. All anti-white and anti-racist (anti-white) policies are generated from the Marxist praxis of egalitarianism, victimhood and oppression, the undoubted Jewish influence has been notable in this praxis. The ultimate goal of this is Power, Money and Control from this parasitic class. The most powerful social node is the ethnic (racial, blood, Hebrew case) and they know it, so competition must be eliminated by fragmenting the most powerful (whites). White genocide is only a consequence of the parasite sucks blood. A tick when it parasites its victim weakens and makes her sick, but it is not her intention to eliminate her livelihood. Solution practice creating autonomous white communities through political religious strategies or colonize new territories even virgin. Do not include the parasite.

    • Andrew
      Andrew says:

      Well said. The Jews own our politicians, dominate Wall Street, and dominate the media and the academy. Their effect on majority-white nations is analogous to the captain of a ship being handed a navigation chart designed to make his ship hit every reef in the ocean (I credit George Lincoln Rockwell for this comparison). The international nation of Jewish Trojan Horses has been responsible for hundreds of millions of non-Jewish whites killing each other in wars and genocides and many more millions being sunk into abject poverty. And now the final solution to the “white Christian” problem is starting to take place. Zimbabwe, South Africa, and now us.

  17. Robert Dolan
    Robert Dolan says:

    Diversity is white genocide as defined by the UN.

    Diversity is hunting down the last white man.

    Diversity DESTROYS social trust.

    Race replacement is EVIL.

  18. Lancashire Lad
    Lancashire Lad says:

    “it is premature—at least in the coming decades—to decry the physical elimination of Whites anywhere.” – Zimbabwe and South Africa would be likely exceptions to this rule.

  19. Cam OT
    Cam OT says:

    Europe has the same problems as America and you want their people for yourself? As if the rest of the White world should give up their interest for the sake of American ones.
    Makes me wonder why you’d question Russia being White too. As if any other race could’ve came up with the periodic table of elements than the White race.
    No, you have to give up cowardice when looking to the future and face the fact that the way out if this will be more brutal than you’d like to think. Unless there’s a mass awakening in time, but in that case, no other Whites will give up their interests for any other White nation either.

    • Andrew
      Andrew says:

      Good point. It is ignorant to say that Russians are “not white”. The Russ who settled in Russia over a thousand years ago originally came from Scandinavia. They’ve maintained their racial purity at least as well as white Americans have. And they, unlike us, had to fight off invading Mongol hordes for centuries.

  20. Richard McCulloch
    Richard McCulloch says:

    “Excluded are all indigenous Russians…” Assuming “indigenous Russians” means ethnic Russians it seems highly eccentric to exclude them from the White racial classification. I’ve been reading about race for sixty years (since the 1959 edition of the World Book Encyclopedia I got when I was ten), including Coon’s “The Races of Europe,” and I don’t recall ever seeing this exclusion before. It’s true that National Socialism placed a maximum emphasis on the racial difference between Germans and Russians but not in the context of White vs non-White. With the possible exception of some of those who follow a strict National Socialist line I think we can safely assume that the pro-White movement generally regards ethnic Russians as included in their racial in-group.

    I think we should avoid over-complicating definitions and terms. I understand that in the matter of Holocaust Revisionism very rigorous and precise scholarly standards should be followed, but for our ideological purposes the distinction between genocide and the broader concept of racial destruction is that the former is deliberate and intentional, an end in itself, whereas the latter could be unintended or a side effect of other policies. And that destruction, or genocide, need not necessarily be total, or all at once. It could be a more or less gradual process, and non-violent as well as violent. The essential point is that destruction is occurring, has already occurred, and has been accelerating. In my essay “Confronting Our Genocide” in the Winter 2018-2019 issue of The Occidental Quarterly (pp 45-67) I estimate (p46) that about 9.6 million White lives have already been lost as a result of the racial intermixture that occurred in the 48 year period 1970-2017. (Per CDC figures the intermixture rate for White mothers was 5.2 percent in 1990 and 11.6 percent in 2010. This is consistent with a doubling of the rate of intermixture about every 20 years in the period 1950-2010.)

    I also think we shouldn’t over-complicate solutions any more than necessary. As a general rule, the simpler, quicker and more complete the better. The solution offered here seems to be like a Rube Goldberg conception that is greatly over-complicated and convoluted to achieve insufficient results. It’s good that the author is at least thinking in terms of solutions, and making a sincere proposal that would be an improvement over our present course, but we should remember that the implementation of any proposed solution would first require a successful pro-White revolution that is in power and controls the country, or preferably most if not all White countries, and once pro-Whites were in that position they could choose from a range of proposed solutions: from half-measures that are satisfied with maintaining a dominant White majority in a perpetual White supremacist system to those that would create, or re-create, true monoracial White ethnostates independent of other races; and either realized very gradually over the course of several generations or realized as a matter of urgency with all possible haste, as in the proposal I’ve been making for several decades, most recently in my TOO essay “The National Premise Revisited” at: https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2019/05/25/161830/.

    • Poupon Marx
      Poupon Marx says:

      Toward a useable, practical, and genetically/linguistically nomenclature and framework, see the following:


      Using Yahoo Search, type in “Indo-European”. This will show you migration patterns based on genome research, archeology, and linguistics. Of particular interests is the large migration from EAST TO WEST into Central Europe, starting with the Proto Indo-European.

      This will edify one’s concept of “White” (very imprecise, almost meaningless), or “Aryan” (totally useless for practical solutions or understanding of who we are and where do we go, and with whom).

    • Flo
      Flo says:

      When I read “indigenous Russians,” I assumed the author meant not standard issue Russians but the various indigenous, non-Russian peoples living within the huge nation called Russia. Kalmyks, Mongols, Tatars, Ingush, etc. There are dozens of them.

      • Andrew
        Andrew says:

        The Russ were a Scandinavian people who settled in Russia over 1,000 years ago. “Russians” logically refer to the Russ, not to the other groups. But it is understandable that most people don’t know that. They don’t teach it in school or college, and we hear nothing about it in the media. Most “Russians” (Russ) are as white as their Scandinavian forebears.

  21. Jerry Hoekstra
    Jerry Hoekstra says:

    The white race needs an Esther.

    When I consider how Bernard Baruch and his butt boy FDR handled Amelia Earhart, Amelia might be a candidate. I would like to think Amelia was asked to fly over the Japenesse protectorate, when she ended up on the island of Siapan 4 years b4 Pearl Harbor — the wheels start falling off the prevailing narrative.

    The white people of the States united of America owe an apology to the nation of Japan for letting their “Jews go wild” as in the best selling dvd “girls gone wild.”
    I am stuggling to distribute my epose` “American Esther — how Amelia Earhart unintentionally saved her people”


    • Carolyn Yeager
      Carolyn Yeager says:

      Esther is a fiction. Perhaps we need to invent more stories and fables about our past, to direct thinking just where we want it to be? The fictions we currently believe in are not, in all cases, helping us.

  22. Carolyn Yeager
    Carolyn Yeager says:

    Thomas Dalton is right to present the problem and solution the way he has. I’m sure he has not written this, with all the work involved in researching and projecting the numbers he gives, because he is naive and hopelessly out of touch. I’m sure he does so because, after giving the problem some thought, he knows this is the only solution … and it must start now.

    Not surprisingly, the timid readers of this site who are used to reading article after article helplessly bemoaning our sad fate and blaming powerful Jews, are shocked to be confronted with such a stark choice of fate. No more kicking the can down the road? No more enjoying the easy camaraderie among the commenters? Time to DO something, even that which is clearly impossible? Many things have been accomplished in the past that appeared impossible to just about everyone. Even Donald Trump’s election as president was long considered impossible.

    Time to cut the crap. Time to be bold and face our enemy head on. Time to either believe in the White race or agree that we’re done for. And with all the racism and white supremacy talk building up in advance of this election cycle, it couldn’t be a better time.

    • Andrew
      Andrew says:

      There is nothing realistic about Dalton’s solution, as I explained in another post. Your complaint that people are (appropriately) blaming powerful Jews shows that you are not to be taken seriously. Have you read “Culture of Critique” and “Cultural Insurrections”? What is your purpose in being here?

      • Carolyn Yeager
        Carolyn Yeager says:

        What is your purpose in asking me my purpose in being here? Aren’t you being impertinent by asking that of me (or anyone)? Obviously, I’m here to comment on the posted article, which I read. I also read your comments (not posts, btw). If you call them realistic solutions, you’re the one that cannot be taken seriously.

        No commenter, so far, has provided anything like a solution, though they don’t like or take seriously what Thomas Dalton wrote. As usual, the most common response is ‘the time is not yet right, we have to wait for a more opportune time.’ At least T. Dalton has put forth some useful data showing how it will get harder as time goes on, not easier. Less likely to succeed, not more likely. This has been my opinion. Plenty of concerned white people don’t want to hear that because they aren’t prepared to do anything, prefer to just continue talking about it.

        Yes, I’ve read CofC – a pretty long time ago. I’ve read lots of other books too. But beyond stating the problem, there’s also a time to think in terms of action, and it should begin — with a clear objective. Dalton’s mistake was in sending his essay here, thinking it would be welcome, or there could be a useful discussion. Richard McCullough has done the best on that score.

        • Andrew
          Andrew says:

          Carolyn Yeager, I think you’re purpose here is to gaslight people. You object to anyone blaming Jews. Never mind that Dr. Kevin MacDonald, the leading light of this website, has extensively documented Jewish subversion and hostility to non-Jewish white people. When you say that I haven’t offered a solution, but fail to say what my proposed solution lacks, that’s just another example of your gaslighting. You are obviously out to muddy the waters, and I’m calling you out on it.

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            Obviously, you are poorly informed. You seem to be one who “goes by the book” of what you have studied, mainly Kevin MacDonald by what you say. That’s fine, and I’m fully aware this is his website, even though he doesn’t engage in the comments. He remains ‘distanced.’

            I’m so unfamiliar with “gaslighting” I had to look it up. “A tactic in which a person or entity, in order to gain more power, makes a victim question their reality.”
            Why is that so bad? Do I question many of the assumptions that prevail here? Yes. I certainly don’t hide it.

            Are the people here so weak that they can’t handle it? Doesn’t seem so. Isn’t some controversy a good thing? Shouldn’t all our assumptions be questioned? I just saw your new comment calling for “Whites” to stop condemning racism, a position I’ve held for a long time. I replied to it. Is that gaslighting?

            What your solution lacks: The realization than not all whites will support racial separation, let alone into ethnostates. How successful has the Northwest Movement been? Zero interest. That’s why it’s better to think in terms of moving non-whites out, as Dalton proposes, not ourselves.

            You say “Jews and non-whites would be excluded from the white ethnostate.” Uh huh, most whites still consider Jews to be white, including those calling themselves racial nationalists, like the VDare folks. And will you have the bureaucracy in place to determine that, anyway? No. White-looking skin, or even the affirmation of being pro-white will be the criterion.

            As to me objecting to “anyone blaming Jews,” that is wrong too. I’ve said plenty against Jews in my time; it’s all over my sites. But … since I posted “The Fatherland’ series at cy.net [type that name into the search box] about WWI and how the US got involved, I have been more painfully aware of the English-British role in that catastrophe for the White race that I DO NOT BELIEVE was caused by Jews. Jews got involved, as they always do, for their own gain, but careless, spoiled white Englishmen playing their power games without a care for the consequences were most responsible. They gave away a great deal for the help of rich Jews, but the Jews did not have the power to force them to do that.

            I don’t believe White elites are “forced” today, but they prefer Jewish partners to aligning with common white folk. That’s how it is, and it’s in the interests of the UK, and all other continental and American elites, and the Jews, that we continue this mythology against Germany of the Kaiser and the Fuehrer. It’s not in the interest of the common
            European or American. That’s why I take the position I do.

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            I think it’s pretty shocking that the moderator allows this accusatory comment by Andrew, but has so far not published my sincere and quite legitimate response to it. I hope either it, or this, appears soon.

          • Andrew
            Andrew says:

            Now that you’ve clarified your position, I don’t think that we’re all that far apart in our views. But we do have some differences of opinion. The Jews continue their anti-white antics today, with almost every book decrying white racism and white supremacy being written by a Jew, the Jewish controlled media and Hollywood churning out anti-white propaganda, and Jewish leaders like Rabbi Rav David Touitou and Barbara Lerner Spectre pushing white genocide through replacement migration, so that is why I reacted the way I did to your initial comment. I believe white separation will happen because the situation will become intolerable for non-Jewish whites, and when that happens, they will know that they cannot live with non-whites, Jews, or even with whites (such as the Englishmen you describe) who are traitors to their own race. This is not something that will be voted on. It will simply happen, most likely in the process of some kind of civil war, economic collapse, or an attempt by the government to quash white civil rights (already happening — whites are legally discriminated against). Those whites who want to stay in a multicultural society will have their own state in which they can do that. My view of this situation is based on the premise that there is no way that America as a nation is going to solve this problem. It can no longer be solved politically. We are too far gone. We now have a huge non-white migrant population that will work against the interests of white people in this country. It is too late to turn back the clock, and the steps that the author of the article recommends cannot be taken because they violate the Constitution as well as the sensibilities of most Americans — even, as you suggest, most white Americans. So our future will be akin to the break up of Yugoslavia in the 1990’s. One hopes not as violent, but people should be prepared for anything. It WILL happen. Things just have to get much worse, and they will get much worse — mark my word.

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            Your expected “spontaneous white separation” will be too small and too late. You’re right that America ‘as a nation’ cannot/will not solve this problem. But far-flung White Nationalists cannot come together on it either. I see the process as recommended by Dalton as working along these lines:

            1. WEBSITE: A highly capable, highly committed group of WNs opens a website for a new political party. Fundraising is very important, must be successful and, it goes without saying, fully accountable. (The current Freedom Party KM is associated with must disband as a failure.) The beliefs and goals of the new party will be clearly stated and exhibit no guilt, fear or apology. This will include the goal of attaining and maintaining at least a 70% white majority in the U.S. (amending the Constitution where necessary).
            Carefully moderated forums will be included for party members to express their opinions and suggestions. Naturally, a consensus on what is “White” must be reached.

            2. MONEY. Need lots, both for salaries and for programs supporting increasing our white population. So fundraising and wealthy supporters is high priority. I think this is largely what we’ve lacked up til now but I think it hasn’t been gone after with big enough ideas. We’ll need lobbyists and phone banks.

            3. LEADERSHIP must be balanced as in representing various factions within the pro-White community. No cliques! No hot-shots, either. Serious, reliable, committed, but bold, representatives.

            It would be an organization of whites openly working in the interests of whites in the political arena. This party should not attack Jews as Jews, but distinguish that Jews aren’t part of the White Race and are not included. We won’t have any trouble explaining why only a white majority government is fair to whites, and can point to South Africa and our decaying cities.

            I think this is Dalton’s idea of how to begin and I think it could capture the interest and support of many whites. How many? That depends on how well we’re able to sell the idea. As to the inevitable criticism, when the party is attacked, the party will respond.

            This would be only the beginning. Because we would have to win over a lot of experienced people in all fields. It may be (and I suspect) that whites are not up to this – the main reason being that we’re too individualistic. If so, then that’s our downfall – as well as being our most highly developed trait.

        • TJ
          TJ says:

          Clear objective- the complete and utter annihilation of the information monopoly, and the monetary monopoly. From Alpha to Omega our only problem is monopoly. Folks must be informed that these monopolies exist.

          For openers- tell our folks about the formation of the Federal Communication Commission in 1934. CBS to Paley, NBC to Sarnoff, ABC to Goldenson- all jews of course.

          Use Socratic method- ask questions like “When a person or company goes to the bank to borrow money, where does the bank get the “money” that it loans? Then tell them. Talk about the fake money first, jews second.

      • RoyAlbrecht
        RoyAlbrecht says:

        On the whole,
        by a LARGE margin,
        I find Ms. Yeager’s, comments, opinions and posts,
        both here at TOO
        on her own website to be largely objective, honest and more hard-hitting than most people can tolerate for lack of courage or unwillingness to expose themselves to possible legal action by [redacted] Globalist Jews.

        Any accusations of insincerity,
        be it through the unfamiliar “…gas lighting…” […btw, thanks for looking it up, Carolyn…] or any other specific means, is IMO totally unwarranted verging to the point of insulting.
        I say this, not only because it is IMO true,
        but to support Carolyn’s efforts,
        because she too is very supportive of many who would otherwise become discouraged.

        and correct me if I am mistaken,
        the difference between Carolyn’s site/personality and TOO is the credentials of the contributors and the “academic confines” (or lack thereof) with which the two sites operate.

        TOO is a largely peer reviewed site that must conform to academic standards in order to warrant serious examination by top lawmakers, the largely Jew owned Mass Media and probably associates to President Trump, if not the Commander and Chief himself.

        Carolyn’s website, although more practical and even more honest in many ways, is reluctantly cited by the same people who read TOO for LACK of its “restrained” academic rigour.
        This difference is an unfortunate set of circumstances, but the reality within which the world operates.

        Moreover, Carolyn’s comments, on an overwhelming balance, do a lot to ATTRACT readers to TOO.
        I find her remarks on point almost 100% of the time…,
        something that the thankfully remaining, decreasing minority of the contributors to TOO are moving toward.
        One might say that White Nationalist Political Parties are to Main Stream Conservative Parties
        what Carolyn is to Peer Reviewed White Advocacy Academic sites like TOO,
        in that Carolyn sets the tone that other academics in the W.N.ist scene cheer and move toward
        thereby advancing the entire narrative in the “correct” direction.

        “Academic Standards”, in many ways are a source of “…forced, self-imposed, censorship”,
        but in order to be taken seriously,
        they are also a necessary evil when viewed in the wider context of academic acceptance and in gaining critical review-defamation-attention by the still influential Jew Steam Media.

          • Royalbrecht
            Royalbrecht says:

            1) Moderators at TOO also…, adapt / shift their positions…, with time.
            2) Mods at TOO may seem harsh at times, but what good teacher does not dish out his/her portion of tough love from time to time?
            3) Ditto…, thank you Moderators.

        • Angelicus
          Angelicus says:

          Roy Albrecht, you are 100% right. Carolyn Yeager’s work is excellent and deserves wider exposure.

          She has rightly denounced the American Freedom Party as a failure, something sad, of course, but evident. I wonder what were the causes of its demise. Perhaps they did not know how to reach the people? Was their message not clear or radical enough? Perhaps most White Americans are too cowardly to fight for their future? I don’t know, but it is important to analyze the Freedom Party’s failure to avoid the same mistakes.

          Just a question: What about the National Alliance? I think its blog is excellent with lots of brilliant articles.

  23. Whit
    Whit says:

    I’m sorry, but I’m sticking to White Genocide because that’s what’s happening by other means though not to point of government sanctioned lime pits–yet. In fact, I see Lemkin and the UN’s definition of genocide as more useful than not for our purposes—particularly at the level of evangelism. For one thing, its universalist flavor will bring along a lot more hearts and minds than the author’s pie-in-the-sky, heavy-handed hypotheticals, which, as a previous commenter noted, current conditions completely obviate. For another, in relative and absolute numbers, using the UN criteria, what race has been, and is being, more routed and displaced courtesy of the Jewish project. And, as surveys have shown, no fact angers whites more than the prospect of impending extinction or disposes them to get off their complacent individualistic ass and think and vote as a collective as the blacks and Jews have for centuries. Not that our individualism is necessarily a bad thing—in fact, it could be saving us right now, and I believe it is, in some analogue of the same lonely lab that deciphered the double helix. The racial heirs of Francis Crick and James Watson have had enough! That modified gene is on the way, folks, and it won’t just be about protecting us from the ravages of the Zika virus.

  24. Tom
    Tom says:

    It took 100 years for the Left to achieve hegemony in Europe. America, and the Anglophone countries. How was this accomplished? In each and every case, an expansion of state power over civil society allowed for the politicization of all that was previously private and outside the bounds of social(ist) engineering schemes. The reason why expressions of exclusive European identity are considered taboo is because the state has rendered all activities that promote that identity in practice to be illegal. Not only is it now illegal to discriminate in favor of one’s ethnicity, race, or sex, the Left is now seeking to make illegal the mere expressions of exclusive Europeanness.

    The only way to defeat the Left is to take away its hold on state power by shrinking the cancer of government such that it can no longer intrude upon a private civil society. From a practical standpoint, anything else amounts to just whistling Dixie.

    • TJ
      TJ says:

      Very true. I have this book in my hand- Our Enemy the State by Alfred Jay Nock. . .it starts out this way: “If we look beneath the surface of our public affairs, we can discern one fundamental fact, namely: a great redistribution of power between society and the State.”

      “All the power that it [The State] has is what society gives to it, plus what it confiscates from time to time on one pretext or another; there is no other source from which State power can be drawn.”

      As government power goes up [in the name of people power], real social power goes down. The last century was an orgy of Statism- look at the results.

      The book [1994 edition] starts with a jew written intro [Walter Grinder] and ends with a bibliographical essay by the same jew- similar to the embellishments that are tacked onto the Scofield Bible.

      • Andrew
        Andrew says:

        It’s not the size of government, but whether or not it is serving the interests of the majority of the people, that matters most. People have an innate interest in freedom and prosperity, and governments — whatever their size — must promote these for all law-abiding people. People also have an innate interest in preserving and passing on their genes and their cultural heritage, and governments — whatever their size — must promote those things as well. Our government has failed us on all of these counts. Our politicians are bribed by special interests and ruled by an international oligarchy of banking and corporate interests disproportionately controlled by Jews who themselves are innately hostile to white people and Christians. In such a situation, the Golden Rule is fully operative, but it means not “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” but rather, “The one with the gold makes the rules.”

        Making government smaller would not by itself solve our problems because then we would shift by default to rule by a rigged marketplace designed to enrich the few and enslave the many. Neither capitalism nor communism/socialism is the answer, and the democratic and republican ideal upon which our nation was founded did not prevent our reaching our current sorry state. America died almost as soon as it was born. The Big Government Hamiltonians won over the Small Government Jeffersonians, as shown by the Whiskey Rebellion and its aftermath. The Constitution — which was based on independent states and on power held by the people — was torn up and thrown in the trash bin by Abraham Lincoln. The final nails were pounded into the coffin when the Jewish puppet Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve and income tax acts into law in 1913 and then pushed us into a war we had no business fighting; namely, WW I. That was followed by WW II (we were on the wrong side), and wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq (twice), Afghanistan, and now Syria and possibly Iran. These latter are wars for the Jews and Israel who control our Congress, not for the American people. We gain nothing from them.

        In the meantime, we are being overrun by the Third World, with our government rolling out the welcome mat, and small-government capitalists and libertarians think that’s okay because it fits in with their idea of free trade; free movement of goods, labor and services; and free movement of people.

        I won’t go into all the problems that bedevil the majority of white Americans; they are too obvious to mention. I will only repeat that any form of government that is not devoted to protecting and enhancing the life of the majority of people (in this instance, white people) is totally illegitimate. “Salus populi lex suprema esto” (The well being of the people is the supreme obligation of government).

        • TJ
          TJ says:

          The founders wanted Liberty with a racial basis- that’s why the Naturalization Act of 1790 says the country is “open to free White persons.”

          Libertarianism and everything else has been (((infiltrated)))- but not completely. One of the posters here, the late Ralph Raico, was a closed border libertarian. He held a conference around 1998 on open borders- the only speaker favoring open borders was (((Walter Block))). Lew Rockwell has come out against open borders.

          There is a real schism between left and right libertarianism:


          There is only one big question in political economy- how to keep the special interests from taking over the government. . .

          • Andrew
            Andrew says:

            TJ: Well said. Libertarianism (with transparency and without bribery) is the ideal set-up for non-Jewish whites. If we had stuck with Jefferson’s small-government vision (over Hamilton’s large government vision) and limited citizenship to non-Jewish whites and the vote to property-owning non-Jewish white males, then we would not be in the mess that we are in today.

    • Andrew
      Andrew says:

      True. It makes one wonder.

      When Russia was communist, we felt threatened, but we did not hate Russians. Now that Russia has allowed Christianity to thrive again, it has suddenly become our mortal enemy. How odd that America — a mostly Christian nation — now hates Russia, a mostly Christian nation.This is not hard to figure out. Jews control America, and Jews have hated Russia ever since Czar Alexander told them to stop cheating Russian peasants in 1881. Apparently, taking over Russia in 1917 and killing millions of Russian Christians did not fully satisfy the Jews’ lust for revenge. When a Jew cheats, steals, lies, or kills, you must not object or even notice. Otherwise they will get very angry and they will never be satisfied until you are utterly destroyed. .

      • milan
        milan says:

        @ Andrew

        You may be interested in a very profound, troubling essay about an event with very unusual coincidences concerning the downing and murder of some 298 innocent people. consider:

        MH17, a Boeing 777 was brought down 17 years to the very day of its maiden flight on 17-07-1997 which was exactly one year to the very day. 17-07-1996, after TWA Boeing 747 exploded shortly after take off from New York en route for Paris, also in suspicious circumstances and also killing all passengers and crew on board. I am not a numerologist and do not have any particular belief in astrology and am not claiming that this in itself is of any significance but it is simply very strange. Surely no sentient person would not pause for contemplation of such unlikely synchronicity. This information was being published in mainstream western media shortly after the event that made me suspicious at first. Were it not true however, someone would have surely blown the whistle by now.
        At almost the exact moment when MH17 was plummeting earthward, Vladimir Putin was landing in Moscow after flying from Brazil (hardly a short hop) where he had concluded a five day tour of Latin American states and signed the first major agreements of the then BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China. S, Africa, making it BRICS, would join later) in what was seen by the US, EU as a major blow the the continuance of western hegemony worldwide. This has led to various theories being put forward suggesting that in fact this was a botched attempt to bring down Putin’s plane which does have similar colours to the MH17. However. Personally I find this highly unlikely if not impossible as the president’s plane did not and would not have flown over post putsch Ukraine let alone over the war zone. It flew back to Moscow via Polish and Belorussian airspace. On landing after this mega stint, Putin now had to deal with the fact that the western media and politicians were howling in unison the he was personally responsible for the deaths of 298 innocent people most of whom were citizens of western countries. I have never seen the Russian President or cabinet look so tired as they did during a public cabinet meeting the next day in which they offered condolences, stood for a minute’s silence and pointed out that what ever had actually happened could not have happened if the west hadn’t overthrown the legitimate government of Ukraine five months earlier and started the civil war. This may also account for the fact that it took Russia four days to mount a press conference on the matter which meant that they had no chance to win back even some of the narrative as far as the western public was concerned.
        Many have commented on Christine Legarde’s (Then and to the present day, head of the IMF ) very strange speech on 15-01-2014 where she talked first about the lunar new year and then repeatedly, the “magic” of the number 7. Hardly the most typical of topics for a head of the International Monetary Fund at a conference of the National Press Club. Then, very un-magically, she talked about a G7 meeting to be held in July, the seventh month of that year except that there wasn’t any G7 at that time but a G8! Russia had, after much prevarication, been allowed to join making it the G8.


        • Andrew
          Andrew says:

          milan: Thanks for bringing that up. 17 years after the TWA flight would bring us to 2014. I don’t think it really matters whether you or I believe in numerology, because it is clear that Jews who believe in the Kabbalah believe in numerology and will act accordingly. It’s like the “Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion”, which Jews claim is a forgery. It doesn’t matter that it’s a forgery if it manages to accurately predict exactly what will happen for the next hundred and twenty years (which it does), and credibly explains the motivations behind those happenings (Jewish plans to rule the world). I recommend that everyone read the “Protocols”.

          As for Russia and Ukraine, the “Ukrainian Revolution” was just another (((George Soros)))-(((Mossad)))-CIA-John McCain-(((Victoria Nuland))) fake “color revolution” (as had happened in Georgia earlier on) sponsored by Jews and carried out by Jew-merica in order to deny Russia any kind of buffer zone between itself and NATO.

          When Gorbachev agreed to dissolve the Soviet Union, it was his understanding that NATO would stay out of Eastern Europe. We call Russia an “aggressor”, but we have been the aggressor, overthrowing Russia-friendly governments and bringing NATO right up to Russia’s borders. Imagine the outrage here if Russian bases appeared in Mexico and Canada.

          To add insult to injury, when the Soviet Union collapsed and Boris Yeltsin was in a drunken stupor, a Jewish Harvard professor (I think his name was Jeffrey Sachs) and Jews in America went in and looted Russia of all of its assets, paying pennies on the dollar, with Jews in the U.S., Israel and Russia enriching themselves in the process.

          Nothing could be more disgusting to me than the sight of that malignant fake war hero, coward, traitor, and low life scum (and sell-out) John McCain showing his putrid face in Ukraine along with (((Victoria Nuland))).

          It is truly repulsive what (((America))) has become. But we can’t consider (((Russia))) to be pure either, sad to say. Putin, in order to survive, has had to cater to the Jews who still run that country. If you question the Jewish Holohoax narrative in Russia, you can get five years in prison.

      • TJ
        TJ says:

        Just like a spoiled two year old. One of the Chicago seven [spoilt children] named jerry rubin revealed- “I am what I am because, as a child when I wanted something, I would have a tantrum and my parents always gave in.”

        • TJ
          TJ says:

          Dear Rachel,

          We are, fortunately, quite successful financially and have always been able to give our children everything they need and want. For better or worse, our children are accustomed to having the newest models of whatever comes out and enough toys and gadgets to fill another home. When they were younger this never seemed to be an issue, but now that they are all tweens and teens, we are having a real problem.

          This Chanukah, like in all years past, my kids got everything on their wish list. It is ridiculous how much money was spent on them, and they did nothing to deserve it. But worse, they were completely unappreciative and even complained that they didn’t like the colors or the accessories that came with some of their gifts. Not only didn’t they bother saying thank-you, we were met with eye rolling and smirks. Needless to say they didn’t buy anything for anyone else in the family and acted like they were doing us a favor even being there to open their gifts. I am horrified that I have raised such spoiled brats. Is there anything I can do about it at this point?


          LA, CA


    • PJ Dooner
      PJ Dooner says:

      He might believe that Russia is mongrelized beyond repair: two of the policies that the jews implemented when they took over Russia a hundred years ago was to relocate huge numbers of “Russians” from more eastern areas into purely Slavic areas and outright mass murder of pure Slavs as in in Ukraine and of the ethnic Germans in the Volga area-the result is an enormous mixed-race population of Eurasian-Russians today–take a close look at the “Russians” you see on TV or the net, they almost all look mixed-race like Putin’s first wife, for example.

  25. Cat McGuire
    Cat McGuire says:

    Whoa. This article was a bit much.
    1) Aren’t whites equally capable of returning to the many Euro nations from whence we came? I’m sure any Native Americans could easily show us the door.
    2) So where does Dalton propose Jews go back to? Palestine?

    • Flo
      Flo says:

      Pres. Truman once said, more or less and only partly in jest, “Gosh, after we went to all that trouble to create the state of Israel, why are the Jews all still here?!”

      • Andrew
        Andrew says:

        Jews just wanted Israel as a place to escape to if need be. Once they had Israel and had America as Israel’s protector, they got even more bold in their subversion, parasitism and plans to commit white genocide.

    • Richard McCulloch
      Richard McCulloch says:

      The Native Americans (a politically correct neologism coined in the 1960s to refer to the original and longest opponents of the American nation) tried to show us (Americans) the door many times over the course of around 250 years, but without success. My ancestors first run-in with them was on Long Island in the 1650s.
      The U.S. has enough territory to enjoy the luxury of solving the problem by a territorial partition of the country on racial lines, without having to show anyone the door, in the sense of removing them from current U.S. borders. The nations of Europe don’t share that luxury. A pro-White solution there would require showing the door (and providing transportation and a suitable destination) to all the non-Whites who have invaded Europe since the war.

      • Bob Matthews
        Bob Matthews says:

        I regard the true “native” Americans as being of European descent -ala the Solutrean theory/ White mummies of Chile etc!

  26. Wuntz Moore
    Wuntz Moore says:

    We at BUGS have worked hard for 8 years and more to drive the terms “White Genocide” and “anti-white” into the mainstream while almost all other pro-whites have rejected the use of either term until recently. Ten years from now, when ordinary whites have arrived at using the term “White Genocide” without restraint and the fact of White Genocide has become a serious subject of national discussion (some thanks owed to the SPLC and anti-white journalists who have lately fallen in love with the theme), recalcitrant pro-white “leaders” will be the last in line to finally begin using the term themselves.

      • James Reinfeld
        James Reinfeld says:

        Wuntz Moore, your posting that useful link is the best thing that will happen as a result of this counterproductive article.

      • mark green
        mark green says:

        Thank you for hammering home these important terms:

        White Genocide.


        White, European-derived Americans still comprise the essential core of this nation. We were not the first humans on this continent but it is we who created this extraordinary, advanced, and prosperous civilization. It’s ours to lose.

        Keep up the fine and important work!

      • Andrew
        Andrew says:

        I like the memes a lot, but how about using some reverse psychology? Spread memes that call for killing whitey, express hatred of whites, and express crude racism against whites. Yes, it would be a false flag operation — just like the false flags that are used against us by Jews and non-whites…

    • Bob Matthews
      Bob Matthews says:

      Exactly! The term White Genocide is perfect – as it punchy and in your face and as you quite rightly point out has gained traction in recent years and has entered mainstream political discourse – why change that?

  27. James Reinfeld
    James Reinfeld says:

    Genocide has been a bedrock of international law and an accepted staple of popular culture since the first half of the previous century, and now that it is being applied to whites (entirely according to the rules) we must reject this legal and cultural weapon and have nothing to do with it?


    • Wuntz Moore
      Wuntz Moore says:

      Thank you, James, and I agree of course.

      Last I heard, no one on the board of the American Freedom Party wants anything to do with the term “White Genocide,” I think because the term usually doesn’t find love at first sight. But certainly the anti-whites’ powerful r-word didn’t find love at first sight either, since it was completely “over the top” to the mindset of most whites when it was first pressed into white awareness 60 years ago or so. Anything can become normalized, but I guess that work has to be done by people who aren’t looking for immediate recruits.

  28. Dan
    Dan says:

    I appreciate the intellectual approach to this issue.

    The policy recommendations would also, if implemented, be quite effective, no doubt.

    That all being said, without some coherent plan to topple existing power elites, this article amounts to yelling into the void. The Anglosphere countries are working, in overdrive, to implement the next-generation of surveillance state. Only Russia, China, and a couple other nations remain independent of this sphere of influence.

    Barring some kind of mass armed insurrection or rapid societal collapse, I don’t see the situation improving in America. Perhaps the best medium-term option is to mass-migrate to Russia, such that whites could fall under the umbrella of their nuclear arsenal. We could then apply our work ethic and ingenuity to strengthening their economy and military arsenal.

    Point is, we need practical solutions, not policies that have no hope of ever being implemented within the current system.

    • Andrew
      Andrew says:

      Well said. Unfortunately, Jews control Russia (Putin, like our own presidents, surrounds himself with Chabad Lubavitch rabbis) and they created Red China. I’m beginning to think the problem will only be solved by a worldwide white revolution. It is important that whites think internationally and communicate with each other across national boundaries.

      • James Reinfeld
        James Reinfeld says:

        “It is important that whites think internationally and communicate with each other across national boundaries.”

        I couldn’t agree more.

        The white genocide project is an evolutionary bottleneck for our race. We have a shared fate; we will make it through this together, or we will not make it.

        The mentality that causes white men to hate each other because we wave different flags, and treat anti-whites as our brothers because they wave the same flag as us, is something we need to put behind us.

        The old ways of beggar-thy-neighbor nationalism will not serve us again.

        • Andrew
          Andrew says:

          James Reinfeld: Well said. Europeans still think of themselves as Germans, French, etc., and act as though their nationalities make a difference in today’s world. Now Europe is being flooded with Third Worlders, who only see “European” or “white” people. In today’s world, it is their whiteness that counts. Everything else is secondary. If they don’t hang together as 12% (and falling) of the world’s population, they will hang separately.

  29. Wuntz Moore
    Wuntz Moore says:

    There’s something about the term “White Genocide” that made the present pro-white author feel compelled to write about it just like the anti-white SPLC and anti-white journalists feel compelled to write about it. And of course everyone who writes about it spreads it and ensures its eventual normalization even as they inveigh against it!


    Never miss a chance to use the terms “anti-white” and “pro-white”!

    “Pro-whites oppose White Genocide, anti-whites support White Genocide.”

  30. Bob Matthews
    Bob Matthews says:

    What a strange and nieve article. In-fact i question why someone claiming to be a racially conscious and Jewish aware White male would suggest – in effect that the “White” race is less than 8,000 yrs old and that our skin tone is only around 6,000 yrs old, although no evidence is provided – despite referring to some alleged data! I assume the author thereby subscribes to the “Cheddar” man theory and his alleged dark skin tone? I also assume that the author thereby suggests that “Otzi” the Iceman was in-fact a coloured man, despite the skin of the well preserved mummy clearly showing him to be as White as any current European-heritage citizen! It as if he doesn’t trust the Jewish msm, although he gives them the benefit of the doubt when they claim that “White” genetic populations are not particularly longstanding – talk about double standards! I also have an issue with racialists co-opting a clearly “Jewish” phrase – such as Whiteness, w hy play the enemies game?

  31. the enchanted Swan
    the enchanted Swan says:

    Americans are not white, they are second hand failed versions of real whites (europeans) Europe and only Europe is the west.

    • James Bowery
      James Bowery says:

      This is a good example of why “white” unity is impractical outside of a meta-definition of “fairness” that permits individuals to assortatively migrate, based on their individually-held notion of what is “fair evolution”, ie: Culture as Artificial Selection.

      Keep in mind that assortative migration implies territorial allocation in recognition that an individual man, in the state of nature, has a fighting chance, against other individual men, to achieve replacement reproduction. The recent warning by the Air Force that “incels” are a domestic terror threat, backed up by the 2 recent mass shooting within a 24 hour period by presumed “incels” — both white — indicates an explosive potential to wage war needs philosophical leadership equal to the challenge:

      How to give young white men a fighting chance, rather than dooming them to suicidal, and counter-productive, individual action.

    • Andrew
      Andrew says:

      The founding stock of the United States is as white and Western as any European. My ancestors settled here in the early 1600’s, fought in the French and Indian wars as well as the Revolutionary War, and have not mixed in the intervening years with people of non-northwestern European descent. I would suggest that at least 50 million white Americans can claim the same thing. My ancestry DNA results show that my forebears come from two areas of the world — the British Isles and Scandinavia (and the British themselves have a significant amount of Scandinavian heritage). By settling in America when they did, they escaped the English Civil War, the loss of England’s best racial stock in World War I, and the devolution of England into the despotic and Orwellian oligarchy that it is today, the Jewish-controlled leaders of which do not allow freedom of speech, do not do what the voters ask of them (Brexit), and are determined to replace the existing indigenous population with black Africans and Muslims. The situation is no better in Germany, Sweden, France, etc. At least Americans recognize “white people” as a legitimate social category, and that by itself makes self-consciously white Americans the true white people as opposed to the Europeans, who are still hung up on being French, German, Bavarian, Breton, etc. America has an armed white population that is willing to fight for its rights, and, as bad as America has become, white people in Europe would still be much better off here than they are in Europe. In Europe, they are throwing Western Civilization away without even a second thought.

  32. David Ashton
    David Ashton says:

    The following extract from UK “The Observer” Editorial, August 4, 2019, may be of interest – whatever opinion is held of any “Jewish role” in “race replacement” and its long-term political implications for Israel:

    “New figures from the Office of National Statistics show that the birth rate in England and Wales has fallen to a record low…. The number of [white] women who remain childless has also increased…. Britain is far from an outlier: apart from Africa and some parts of Asia, fertility rates are declining across much of the world….
    One way for richer countries to resolve the conundrum of a falling birth rate that is good for the planet but bad for the exchequer is through immigration – a REDISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION from those poorer regions of the world where the birth rate is higher, and where there are plenty who want to emigrate….
    A big challenge, however, will be countering the anti-immigration sentiment that has taken root in the politics of the US and much of Europe.

    • Andrew
      Andrew says:

      The UN proposed “replacement migration” for low-fertility white nations a long time ago. But “replacement migration” (which U.S. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham supports) is no different than “genocide” under the UN definition of that term: the creation of conditions (e.g., mass alien migration) that will lead to the disappearance of an existing racial, ethnic, national or religious group. Non-Jewish white people around the world are being exterminated. The principle means of extermination is biological warfare — the replacement of white genes with non-white genes.

  33. Seraphim
    Seraphim says:

    Russians non-White? ‘Indigenous’ Russians are Slavs, who assimilated the “Rus”. Slavs are non-White?

  34. Wuntz Moore
    Wuntz Moore says:

    Carolyn Yeager wrote:
    “WEBSITE: A highly capable, highly committed group of WNs opens a website for a new political party…(The current Freedom Party KM is associated with must disband as a failure.)”

    And name the party


    If AFP had made that name change awhile ago, they’d be a going concern now, but apparently they didn’t want the publicity. They wouldn’t even support their presidential candidate, Bob Whitaker — I guess they picked Bob out of a hat and had no idea that White Genocide was what he was about.

    I admire all the people I know on the AFP board for various reasons, but as political animals and as propagandists to mainstream whites, they score ZERO, and that’s all they are likely to ever score because they DO NOT UNDERSTAND. They had a very experienced political pro among them but they couldn’t even understand that.

    • Andrew
      Andrew says:

      At least they could use a name that indicates the group they are trying to appeal to and defend: e.g., “The European-American Party”.

Comments are closed.