On White Genocide: A Reply to Critics

My recent TOO essay A Rejoinder on White Genocide generated a relatively large number of comments, some positive but mostly critical.  Editor Kevin MacDonald has kindly allowed me to publish this follow-up essay to address some of the many issues raised.  It’s an important topic for the alt-right, and it deserves more discussion than short blog comments can allow.  Hence the need for this essay.

By way of short recap:  I argued previously that ‘White genocide’ is a relatively useless concept.  The term ‘genocide’ has Jewish origins, arising out of Nazi actions in World War Two, and is hopelessly vague.  The formal UN definition includes “intent to destroy,” “in whole or in part,” a national or ethnic group.  It covers killing, of course, but also “serious bodily or mental harm”, and the imposition of harmful “conditions of life”, whatever those may be.  Rather than talk about some amorphous ‘White genocide,’ I suggested dealing in a concrete way with the threats facing Whites.  I defended a present figure of 800 million Whites globally—a number that will likely decline gradually, to 655 million in 2100 and to 510 million in 2200, under present assumptions.  I closed with a modest plan to rationally and humanely restore an 80% White majority in the US, primarily by incentivizing non-White emigration and birth-rate reduction.

But attacking the whole notion of ‘White genocide’ proved hazardous!  Clearly there is a diversity of views on this matter, which is both normal and healthy.  Concepts and strategies need to be debated.  Whites everywhere are undoubtedly under assault, and we need to understand this phenomenon, its causes and potential cures, if we are to move ahead.  TOO is an intellectual forum for discussion of concepts and theories related to White interests, rather than an activist site per se.  Still, the two realms are not independent; thoughts and ideas have natural implications for policy, politics, and social action.  My original piece attempted to sketch out basic governmental principles that would best serve White interests.  They were, of necessity, general and conceptual.  Below I will say a bit more about the pragmatic aspect of implementing such policies.

First, though, it may be best to begin with areas of common agreement.  I think it’s safe to say that there is broad consensus on the following points:

  • The White race is of inherent value to humanity, and as such deserves protection and defense.
  • Whites globally are under threat, due to (a) declining numbers, (b) declining physical, mental, and moral health, and (c) loss of political autonomy and self-government.
  • Some of the threats are sociological, economic, or environmental in nature, but others arise from deliberate and intentional actions.
  • The global Jewish lobby has an intrinsic interest in seeing a general decline in White well-being and a loss in White political power. They and their non-Jewish supporters pose the primary direct threat.
  • Racial and cultural diversity has a net negative effect on human society.
  • All humans are, by nature, best suited to live in social and environmental settings from which they evolved—societies that are broadly uni-racial and monocultural. Humans have little or no evolutionary experience living with diverse races or ethnicities, and doing so causes inevitable problems.
  • From the early Industrial Revolution, modern society has enabled the mass movement of people from indigenous to foreign lands. Left to their own initiative, people will always attempt to move from ‘worse’ to ‘better’ societies, but if this happens en masse, it will contribute to the decay of the very societies that they seek out.  Such movement must therefore be stopped.
  • The only long-term solution for many present-day problems is to restore human society to its natural and original conditions—uni-racial and monocultural, broadly speaking. This entails political separation and/or repatriation of minority peoples to their native lands.

Perhaps this qualifies as a ‘manifesto’ of White Nationalism.  It should garner something approaching universal consent.

Note that nothing here smacks of ‘hatred’ or ‘supremacy.’  To love one’s own people is normal, healthy, and natural, but this does not entail a demeaning or hatred of others.  To protect and defends one’s own people is normal, healthy, and natural, but this does not imply aggression or violence toward others.  To cite the facts of the real world—the greater social and cultural successes of Whites, the lower average intelligence of Blacks and Hispanics, etc.—is simply to acknowledge reality, and to live in the real world.  Only the Master Haters call this ‘hate speech.’

This is not to say that violence is never appropriate.  Every society recognizes that, under conditions of urgent and vital self-defense, that a person or group may legitimately resort to violence as a last course of action.  When one is being violently attacked, one may violently defend oneself.  When one is being psychologically or morally oppressed, violent action may be an acceptable response.  When one’s fundamental human rights are being violated, violence may be necessary.  But such action must be highly circumscribed, and limited to only the most extreme situations.  It’s almost impossible to give general conditions under which specific acts of violence are permissible; such things must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, in light of general rules of civil society.

Response to Critics

Let me turn now to the specific comments of the various respondents to my initial piece.  By and large, these were intelligent and thoughtful replies, and the criticisms were generally civil and focused.  Several relevant issues have been raised, and I’ll try to respond to each of these individually.  The most important criticism—that my proposed plan is too unrealistic—I will defer to the end of this discussion.

<mark green> starts things off with a series of relevant remarks, many of which I can agree with.  He notes that Trump’s anti-immigration efforts have been sabotaged by courts and media, that the diversity lobby has a “Jewish mindset”, that my plan, if made public, would receive the “Charlottesville treatment,” and that Jewish media is brainwashing us—all true.  He furthermore agrees with my statement on diversity as inevitably ruining quality of life.

On the other hand, he objects to a number of my points:  1) “millions of whites…will never cooperate with [my] plan,” 2) I fail to appreciate the extent of “White guilt”, 3) my plan is mere “wishful thinking”, and 4) Blacks and others will never voluntarily return to their native lands.  By way of positive actions, he suggests a two-part plan:  (a) “white identity and solidarity must rise first,” and (b) “we must take control of media”, or “establish our own.”

In reply:  It is not problematic that millions of Whites will never follow my plan.  There are 195 million Whites in the US today, and no one ever said that we need anything like a majority support.  ‘Radical’ movements such as this never gain more than a few percent support before they begin to exert influence.  In fact, with even one million supporters/followers, we could have a huge impact on the national discourse—never mind the other 194 million.

I don’t deny the role of White guilt, and it is clearly central to the Jewish brainwashing scheme.  It is something we must rigorously oppose on all fronts.  As to Blacks and others not returning, we must take care to initiate all White restoration programs voluntarily.  We need to use all carrots and sticks at our disposal.  As I said, everyone has their price.  Non-whites could surely be enticed to move almost anywhere, if the price were right.  Yes, it is grating to have to pay those who have already cost us vast sums, as <claudius1889> rightly points out.  But we must try it first, before moving on to other, harsher measures.  This is a pragmatic decision, to be considered only when the initial program has proven insufficient.  But for now, we must make every effort to adopt reasonable, rational, and humane practices.

<Poupon Marx> generally agrees with <mark green>, and furthermore has his own suggestion:  sequestration and “autocephalous republics”, by which I presume he means autonomous and independent nation-states.  Within the US, this would imply local secession movements, based either along existing state boundaries or on spontaneous local uprisings.  I have no problem with any of this, and in fact have defended secession of American states for literally decades.  Washington is hopelessly corrupt, and we need states and other groups to break away and demand a restoration of self-rule.  Are pro-White advocates openly arguing for secession?  I hope so.

<JRM> also likes <mark green>’s critique, adding that my “well-reasoned plan” is little more than “blue-sky brainstorming.”  He then writes that my plan might work in an ideal world, but in such a world it wouldn’t be necessary.  I understand the sentiment, but it is misplaced here.  Whites tend, by nature, to be altruistic, sympathetic, and trusting; these are wonderful qualities until they are applied to foreigners who undermine our social fabric.  We need to educate Whites on the facts and on the need to take humane, compassionate action to protect them and their children.  When faced with reality, many Whites will come around—even in the ‘real’ world.

The most prolific critic was <Andrew>, who offered over a dozen well-reasoned comments.  His first remark makes the very valid point that humans are, by nature, ‘racist.’  “People are tribal,” as he says, arguing that we should simply admit that we are racists.  I’m sympathetic with this stance, but the term has become so loaded and so besmirched that it’s hard to do so in anything like a public setting.  At one time we were using the term ‘racialist,’ which has its merits but is somewhat awkward.  Yes, we are racists, but perhaps we gain nothing by stating as much.  Maybe best to just shrug it off when launched by our opponents.  <Andrew>’s second comment states that actions against Whites “clearly qualify as genocide under the UN definition.”  Yes, but as I argued, it is a hopelessly broad definition.  Assertive action against virtually any group, by virtually any government, counts as ‘genocide.’  Hence the term is functionally worthless.

<PJ Dooner> is rightly concerned about our 60 million (I had thought it was more like 40 million) White Christian Zionists, who are uber-brainwashed to be pro-Jewish.  I fully agree—they are a lost cause.  Let’s worry more about the 150 million or so others.[1]

<Rob Bottom> insists that “the genocide aspect is real,” citing racial diversity in elementary schools.  This is assuredly a problem.  And he is generally correct:  the more racial interaction there is among children, the more likely there will be racial mixing and intermarriage later on.  But I wonder how big a problem this will become, numerically-speaking.  In my original piece I cited a statistic on rising American bi- and multi-racial individuals, from a present 8 million to around 22 million by 2050.  But I have no details on these numbers.  How many of the 22 million will involve Whites?  If it is proportionate, we can assume around half, or some 11 million.  Yes, this is a loss, but I think it amounts to something less than genocide.

Then <claudius1889> expresses concern that I ignore both the large number of “White traitors” and the power of the “diversity lobby.”  Above I explained that we must work around the various race-traitors, and focus on the large number of others who are open to a White Nationalist message.  I never suggested that it would be an easy walk into power.  Radical change has always been a long, hard slog.  But it is achievable, as I explain below.  And if my ideas are so poor, I think <claudius1889> owes us a better plan.

<Eleni Tsigante> rightly observes that Israeli actions against the Palestinians count, by all reasonable measures, as genocide—though I still wouldn’t use the term there.  It’s more like ethnic cleansing combined with a brutal apartheid.  The world needs to be constantly reminded of Israeli crimes against humanity.

<Rerevisionist> likes my original article (“fascinating piece”), and rightly corrects me:  increasing diversity does bring gains in quality of life—for Jews.  I neglected to be clear.

Then we have <Wuntz Moore>.  Well!  He considers my “clouded” piece an “embarrassment.”  Apparently he views any action that disrupts his effort to “plant memes” like White genocide as counterproductive and harmful, and as a merely-academic “graduate seminar” on linguistics (to which <Andrew> agrees).  But Wuntz offers no details, challenges none of my many statistics, and gives no real defense of his position.  It’s hard to take such comments seriously.

Near the end of the comment chain, Wuntz interjects once more, this time on behalf of his colleagues at “BUGS”, which I understand to be an acronym for “Bob’s Underground Graduate Seminar” (wait—didn’t he just criticize me for offering a “graduate seminar”?).  Apparently the main mission of BUGS is to implant the “White genocide” meme, something they have been attempting for around eight years.  I’m sympathetic to the intent, but really, we need to be a bit broader-minded than that.  Is it really sufficient to incessantly scream “White genocide” at every opportunity?  Especially when there is no obvious evidence of such a genocide?  (More on this below).

<Twaine> also wants us to ride the ‘genocide’ train.  Only “ignorance” or “apathy” could convince one to overlook this concept.  Again, I’m not marginalizing the damage done, just the label for that damage.

<Andrew> then offers a long double-commentary.  He is concerned that non-White anger is generated by Jewish media, but I wonder how big a problem this actually is.  Yes, there are individual cases of anti-White rhetoric, mostly from academic Blacks, but I doubt this has much impact on the broader non-White population.  If Andrew has any statistics on this, I’d like to see them.  And I object to such statements as “Whites will be eliminated” by declining births, racial mixing, and violence.  What justifies such a claim?  The numbers do not support it.  Lacking evidence, it sounds like more alt-right hyperbole.

Yes, Jews hate Whites, but they hate everyone!  If you look at the history, Jews have a two-millennia-long record of misanthropy, malevolence, ruthlessness, deception, and violence.[2]  It’s not just Romans and Christians, it’s everyone.  At least we (some of us) understand this fact, but most non-Whites foolishly believe that Jews care about them, and thus they support Jewish actions.  We need to enlighten non-Whites to this fact; it can only help our cause.

Andrew’s plan involves “separation [of Whites] from non-Whites and Jews” (agreed!).  This can only happen, he says, in a White ethnostate, to be established either in some other radically pro-White country, or in the US via a process of collapse and dissolution of existing political structures.  The first option seems unlikely, but the second is a very real possibility, and one that we should be prepared for, and even promote.  Again, this is a secession option that I have long championed.  But first, you need to show Whites that they have something to gain by secession and an ethnostate—enough gain to offset the risks and costs of breaking away.  Then, you need to offer a plan as to how to ‘purify’ your new ethnostate, and this is where my proposal may come in.  How else will Andrew achieve his White state?  Through mass murder?  I don’t think so.  It will either be through humane and voluntary actions, or through inhumane and brutal ethnic cleansing.  I presume he would prefer the former.

<Poupon Marx> then adds that, by separating Whites from non-Whites, we inadvertently help the non-Whites, who will then be free to develop their own uni-racial and monocultural ethnostates.  Agreed—separation will, in the long run, help everyone.

<Cam OT> makes a very good point, against one aspect of my plan.  I spoke of encouraging White immigration into the US, but where will they come from?  From other White nations that are, themselves, suffering from White loss and decay.  It would probably be counterproductive for the handful of White nations to be competing with each other to steal the others’ Whites.  In reality, there may be some nations in which their Whites give up as a lost cause, and then seek to flee to other White nations; those may be the best source of immigrants.

The Russians are Coming!  The Russians are Coming!

<Cam OT>, <Andrew>, and Richard McCulloch all take me to task for excluding indigenous (ethnic) Russians from the White race.  This is not a major issue for me, and I have no serious objection to including them.  My primary rational for excluding them was that, even though they may have some Scandinavian blood, that Russians are not truly Europeans and have not contributed to human intellectual and cultural life to the extent that Europeans have.  Also, there is so much racial admixture there that I wonder how White they truly are—a point nicely made by <PJ Dooner> later in the comment chain.  This is certainly an area ripe for more research and study.

But if we want to include 110 million ethnic Russians, along with some 35 million Ukrainians and around 8 million Byelorussians, I have no major objection.  This, though, makes the ‘genocide’ theme even less tenable, because there are now some 950 million Whites globally.  Do <Cam OT>, Andrew, and Richard really want to go there?

The Question of Genocide

Returning to the specific matter of genocide, Andrew and <Lancashire Lad> both cite Zimbabwe and South Africa as case studies in actual White genocide.  But it should be clear that those are highly unusual situations in which Whites moved into long-standing Black African territory and established minority rule.  That Blacks would eventually reassert their historic dominance and squeeze out the Whites is unsurprising.

But even here, it is something less than ‘genocide.’  In Zimbabwe, it’s true that White numbers plummeted from around 300,000 in 1975 to around 25,000 today, but this was primarily a consequence of emigration, not violence or murder.  Even less do we see ‘genocide’ in South Africa, where White numbers actually rose from 3.8 million in 1970 to 4.6 million today.  Yes, there are periodic murders of White farmers in both nations, but that hardly rises to the level of genocide.

This brings us to a central issue.  When most people hear the word ‘genocide,’ they think mass murder.  They think Nazi gas chambers, or perhaps the Hutu slaughter of up to 1 million Tutsis.  They think bodies in the streets, bodies in mass graves, bodies stacked like cordwood.  Like it or not, that is the common image.  So when we cry ‘White genocide,’ the average man says, “Where are the bodies?”  And when he realizes that there are none, the screamers lose all credibility.[3]

But <Whit> doesn’t care about all this; “I’m sticking to White Genocide,” he says, “because that’s what’s happening by other means.”  He is probably correct when he adds that “no fact angers Whites more than the prospect of impending extinction”—yes, but when they find out that there are no heaps of dead bodies, and that millions of Whites will survive for centuries to come, no fact will more convince them that the crazy White Nationalists are full of hot air.  Again, it’s all about credibility.  I think we should be factual, rational, and modestly correct in our assertions, in order to win over the large number of ‘moderate’ Whites who are potentially open to a Nationalist message.  The facts are on our side; no need to exaggerate.

<Tom> makes some good observations on state power and its control by leftists.  In effect, state power has overwhelmed social and ‘people’ power, making itself the supreme authority.  I agree, we must “shrink the cancer of government”—but how?  Republicans were supposed to be the ‘small government’ party, but they completely sold out to the Jewish (and other) lobbies.  We can push for tax cuts, but then the feds just run bigger deficits.  They keep spending more and more, no matter how much they actually take in.  It’s difficult to know how to proceed here:  Undermine Washington at every step, push for local autonomy and ultimately secession, maybe implement local currencies to undercut the hegemony of the US dollar.  And maybe create a new political party, one with honesty and integrity, that will uncompromisingly push for such things, along with a restoration of White majority.  Otherwise, wait for the Big Collapse.

In reply, <Andrew> argues differently, being unconvinced that size of government matters.  It must serve the (White) majority as its primary purpose, he says.  Agreed, but all the same, size does matter.  A large complex government is much more easily corrupted than a smaller, more efficient one.  He then gives a nice, concise description of some of our famous American criminals-in-chief, including Lincoln and the “Jewish puppet” Woodrow Wilson, leading to our horrendous and catastrophic involvement in World Wars One and Two.[4]  Well said.

Finally, <Cat McGuire> raises two good points:  (1) Why don’t Whites “go back” to the European nations from whence they came, as the Native Americans would surely like to see?  And (2) Where should the Jews return to, Palestine?  Her first point is valid, on both counts.  Yes, American Whites could indeed return to their European home nations; this is always an option, and maybe our only one, if things get really bad here!  And yes, Native Americans have it over on us Whites, that’s true.  We should respect that priority, wherever possible, especially in any future White ethnostate.  On her second point, all Jews are automatically citizens of Israel, so on the one hand, they could return there.  On the other hand, Israel is an illegitimate and criminal state that deserves to be dissolved immediately.  And why should we burden the poor Palestinians with yet more Jews?  Good point.  Maybe we need to adopt the old Nazi plan:  send them all to Madagascar.

My “Blue-Sky” Plan

Several commentators disliked the idealistic nature of my proposal.  It was called “wishful thinking” <mark green>, “unattainable”, “a greased flagpole”, “quixotic”, “fuzzy” <Poupon Marx>, “blue-sky brainstorming” <JRM>, “very naïve” and “unrealistic” <claudius1889>, “unrealistic” <Andrew>, and “pie-in-the-sky,” “heavy-handed hypotheticals” <whit>.  <Dan> adds that any such plan will fail without “a coherent plan to topple existing power elites”.

Let me say that my brief sketch was intended as a vision statement, something essential to any social movement.  The objective of my plan was modest:  turning a present-day White American majority of 60% into one of 80% in, say, 30 years.  Working from today’s figures, this would demand that non-Whites be reduced from a current 125 million to some 55 million over the same period, or slightly more than 2 million per year.

Any reduction in non-Whites, I argued, can best happen through a combination of three actions:  (1) reduce immigration to zero; (2) encourage them to leave, via financial incentives and penalties; and (3) implement plans to voluntarily reduce their birth rates.  This scarcely counts as a “plan”; rather, it is simple demographic logic.  There are other theoretical options—enforced deportation, enforced sterilization, mass murder—but I take it that these are off the table.  Thus, for America as a whole, that’s about it.

If we consider the secession option, then another possibility opens up:  White relocation to presently White states or regions, and the subsequent formation of an independent White ethnostate.  But where to go?  As of a few years ago, four states were still more than 90% White (Maine, Vermont, West Virginia, and New Hampshire).  Another 13 states were more than 80% White.[5]  Shall we all migrate to one of these?  Perhaps.  At least there should be active White Nationalist movements or political parties in all these states, ones who will promote the secession option.

In any case, my plan, my vision—to achieve an 80% White majority through voluntary and nonviolent means—should be taken seriously, debated, and improved upon.  It is not “quixotic,” “wishful thinking,” or “pie-in-the-sky.”  It is a rational and humane proposal that can be discussed and promoted in wider society, with the goal of reaching the millions of unenlightened but sympathetic Whites.  How better to promote “white identity and solidarity,” <mark green>?

Perhaps there are other such plans; if so, I think they should be discussed and debated as well.  Violent and inhumane proposals, at least at present, will get no traction.  The ethnostate plan described above is, in theory, rational and nonviolent, but of course the federal government will not see it that way, and violence will ensue.  So I’m not sure what other options remain.  <Andrew>’s plan for a “worldwide White revolution” seems ‘unrealistic’ and ‘quixotic’ in the extreme, but perhaps we need to see the details.  Are there other good options?  I don’t see any on the horizon.

The only other rational argument that I can imagine is the one drawn from the sole successful example in history in which ‘Whites’ reestablished self-rule:  National Socialist Germany.  Hitler and his tiny NSDAP began serious activities in 1920, under conditions equal or worse than present-day America.  A mere 13 years later, they were in power.  Through financial incentives, physical harassment, and eventually enforced deportations (but not systematic mass murder), they managed to largely purify the German Reich in just ten years.  Those unfamiliar with this story need to start by reading volume one of Mein Kampf.[6]

Let me close with a brief nod to those few commentators that defended and supported my piece.  <Tim Folke> is “grateful that I offer solutions to the problem” and <Andy> seconds that.  <Roy Albrecht> is happy that I call out the Holocaust for what it is.  And thank God for Carolyn Yeager!  She calls a spade a spade—much appreciated!

Be that as it may, further discussion and debate are always welcome.  The challenges are great, and time is short.  But we must not dismay; our day may be closer at hand than we think.

[1] For a look at the Jewish corruption at the heart of Christianity, see my TOO piece “Nietzsche and the Origins of Christianity”.

[2] See my forthcoming book Eternal Strangers (Castle Hill, 2019).

[3] This point is well-made by George Hutcheson, a young Canadian White advocate, in the video link provided by <Trenchant>—thanks for that!

[4] For my take on this whole topic, see my recent book The Jewish Hand in the World Wars (Castle Hill, 2019).

[5] In declining order:  North Dakota, Iowa, Montana, Kentucky, Wyoming, South Dakota, Idaho, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nebraska, Indiana, Ohio, and Missouri.

[6] Mein Kampf (vol 1), T. Dalton, trans. (Clemens & Blair, 2018).  Or for highlights of the story, see the more recent work The Essential Mein Kampf (Clemens & Blair, 2019).  Interested readers might also enjoy the remarks by Joseph Goebbels; see Goebbels on the Jews (T. Dalton, ed. and trans.; Castle Hill, 2019).

118 replies
  1. Robert Dolan
    Robert Dolan says:

    I don’t think there are any political solutions to our problems.

    Trump’s fraud on immigration is handing the Democrats permanent power.

    I don’t have much hope for a peaceful solution.

      • Pat Etheridge
        Pat Etheridge says:

        Militancy, sabotage, noncooperation, civil disobedience, radicalism — these appear to be the only options remaining open to us. We must perhaps use nonviolent means, along these lines. As Nelson Mandela said (not that I’m in the habit of quoting him): “If it becomes necessary, we must make the society ungovernable.”

        • moneytalks
          moneytalks says:

          The white or Indo-European/aryan/caucasian sheeple majority probably will not do anything because of a widespread lack of political astuteness and relative comfort .

        • Earl
          Earl says:

          Well Nelson Mandela was not a proponent of non-violent means. In fact he was offered amnesty many times in return for abandoning violence and refused.

          The black movements prior to the ANC gaining prominence were proponents of dialogue and non-violence but they were violently neutralized by the ANC who needed to stay relevant because of the emergence of radical communist movements raised by Litvak immigrants.

  2. LavonDishon
    LavonDishon says:

    “The Jews hate everybody” works as a playground taunt, but I doubt Dalton will be able to maintain it in his upcoming book as an academic thesis supportable from scholarly sources. I have not yet read Separation and Its Discontents, Kevin MacDonald’s study of anti-Semitism, but I’ll be surprised if he makes such a laughably crude claim .

    • Exile
      Exile says:

      You will find that MacDonald argues that Jews are consistently fearful of and antagonistic toward alien populations, particularly the dominant host population of any Jewish diaspora, rather than merely being “anti-White.” I’ll be fair to the author and permit him some rhetroical excess in that I’m arguing for poetic license in my own comment.

    • Chris M
      Chris M says:

      ““The Jews hate everybody” works as a playground taunt, but I doubt Dalton will be able to maintain it in his upcoming book as an academic thesis supportable from scholarly sources. I have not yet read Separation and Its Discontents, Kevin MacDonald’s study of anti-Semitism, but I’ll be surprised if he makes such

      a laughably crude claim.”

      said The JIDF Troll.

  3. Wuntz Moore
    Wuntz Moore says:

    “‘White genocide’…is hopelessly vague”

    Anti-whites’ mighty R-word isn’t precisely defined either, and for that reason among others, look at what it’s accomplished in carrying out the anti-whites’ program of White Genocide.

    From your previous article:
    “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.”

    “The Great Restoration Party” lacks the moral leverage of “The Stop White Genocide Party.”

    I have some sympathy for academics who feel uncomfortable with loose definitions. I spent years involved with math, and compared to elegant proofs built on precise definitions (possible in math if nowhere else), everything else feels uncomfortably messy to me.

    But politics is what we’re doing. Effectiveness within the bounds of honesty is about the best we can hope for esthetically.

    • Exile
      Exile says:

      Exactly in line with what I’ve said here. Politics isn’t a science, which is the first thing I learned when earning that misnomered major. The Greek sophists and Roman rhetoricians had a finer grasp of the art of politics than today’s wonkishly-inclined data miners. Ask any trial lawyer whether they’d rather have a compellng emotional argument or an unassailable logical argument when presenting a case to a jury. Hearts > minds in human relations. Contra objectivism and libertarianism, we’re not ruled by reason.

  4. PaleoAtlantid
    PaleoAtlantid says:

    It is not my intention to criticize the author but I must confess to finding the unwarranted upbeat attitude expressed in both articles to be somewhat annoying. It isn’t rocket science to know what must be done with urgency and energy, namely separation, increase White birth rates, and of course repatriation, but the pathway for such actions is at present lacking. Although the potential for action will increase in intensity as White dispossession increases the deep state has in its arsenal adequate means to divert frustrations and anger into harmless channels. Until we can devise a mechanism or pathway to short circuit the current political and social establishment our situation will be dire.

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      Our situation will remain dire until we break our masters ( zio-jews and their allies such as the traitorous christian zionists and other prestigious nonjew acolytes ) monopolies of money and media ; break both simultaneously or one shortly after the other ) . The short circuit would require an overthrow of the current fedgov . ((( They ))) are not going to let us do that .

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      You hit upon another dilemma that must be resolved before it is too late . Altho the emotional motivation for action may increase as ” White dispossession increases ” , the materiel infrastructure needed to defeat the enemy ( our masters ) will eventually decrease to the point of assured defeat if the emotional motivation cannot be accelerated faster than the dispossessions .

  5. David Ashton
    David Ashton says:

    What is the benefit to Israel from a predominantly non-white north America and a predominantly Islamic Europe?

    • Exile
      Exile says:

      1. fragmenting and factionalzing the majority Whites who have intellectual and cultural partity with the Jewish minority, allowing the Jewish minority to pit them against each other and shapeshift among the factions; and
      2. creating a majority voting bloc of intellectually and culturally inferior non-Whites who are ethnically incompatible with and hostile to the White majority which can likewise be pitted against the White majority factions while Jews shapeshift in and out of White/non-White and the various sub-identities.

      Rosanna Arquette’s latest antics calling out “fellow Whites” are a perfect example.

      • David Ashton
        David Ashton says:

        I see why Jews prefer living in a multicultural society to residing in a nationalist society; this is clear from their own literature.

        Mexicans, Asians and Blacks in the USA are not especially enamoured of Jews or of “Christian Zionism”. Massive influx and influence of Muslims in Britain and France has created “antisemitism” and complications for Israel. True, the situation can be exploited for Aliyah by the self-styled “suitcase people”, but a largely Islamic western Europe would be another enemy of their State; which is why some Jewish publicists are concerned about Muslim immigration and sharia-settlement, as are indigenous Gentiles, and say so (e.g. Melanie Phillips, “Standpoint” and the Gatestone Institute).

    • Titus
      Titus says:

      You have to listen to some rabbis talking about “the end of the world”, “the wold to come”, or the “gog and magog wars”, in essence, they want total war between christians and mozlems, they don’t make any efforts in hidding it as their videos are online for everyone to see, even yourself.
      Greater pissrael is to become the new regional and global superpower, and China and every other competitor is in the list for subvertion and destruction.
      There have been several jewish papers written about the “great opportunities China offers” and great efforts are being made to spread christianity and ensure every chinaman has a bible under his pillow, with the tribal story of the jews written all over it and the status of “chosen people” deep in the chinamen’s mind, those jewish billionaries marrying chinese women are doing it for a reason.

      When jews say that they will destroy and enslave the nations they mean it and they are doing it. Some people are just unable to face reality.

      • milan
        milan says:

        @ Titus

        I’m afraid you are right, however good news by way of 2 books Lies all Lies and Climate Change the Work of God by Gerry Fox. You are not going to believe what the truth actually is. I think many are in for a serious awakening the likes of which will go down in history.


        • Titus
          Titus says:

          Sorry Gerry, i think you have promoted your books here before, but im not the kind of person who believes the bible is “the word of God”, that you can find no mistakes within it, and so on and so on and so on.
          I am the kind of person who knows that ancient prophecies do come about, mainly because there are real people tirelessly working to make them happen, for very specific reasons im not getting into details here for lack of time, the rabbis even have a specific term for this. Thats why you have bombings happening during Purim, the number 6 million injected into the minds of the goyim, or jews living in israel instead of Madagascar.
          I think it was Nietzsche who said the jews are the only people who call their own will, god.

      • moneytalks
        moneytalks says:

        One problem is that not everyone will see those videos . In fact only a small percentage of whites will see it ; not enough for action upon it .

    • PaleoAtlantid
      PaleoAtlantid says:

      That question has a simple answer. I suspect high-level Zionists have cut a deal with the Saudis permitting the moderate expansion of the Israeli state into those regions containing Shia and Christian minorities, on the condition that the Zionist deliver Europe to Islam. Another variation of the Balfour Declaration with the Kalergi Plan thrown in for good measure. It’s a win win for both sides.

      • Poupon Marx
        Poupon Marx says:

        @PA. Agree completely. It’s the only conclusion that fits the data and experience. Screw the heretic Alewives (happy Wahabbi Clergy), and take out Iran (Shia antagonist and rival for Gulf supremacy). Plus, throw in some private conversations of multiplying the wealth of members of the House of Saudism. Nothing gleams like green.

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      The Indo-European/white/aryan/caucasian apparantly are the only ethnic groups that have the [ potential ] to prevent the consummation of our masters — ” the jews ‘ // the enemy — ownership conquest of the world primarily via both money and media global monopolies ; ((( they ))) know that and they have no intention of letting any nonjew ethnics stop ((( them ))) from their grand finale of world conquest//dominion//enslavement .

      The Synagog of Satan [ Ancient Testament ] Torah book of Genesis
      chapter 1 verse 28

      __ ” And God blessed ((( them ))) , and God said unto ((( them ))) , . . . subdue the [ world ] : and have dominion over . . . every living [ being ] that moveth upon the earth .”

      • moneytalks
        moneytalks says:

        p.s. __ ” dominion ” means [ ownership//control ] which in turn means ( enslavement — where people , as resources , are the object of control )

  6. JRM
    JRM says:

    A big thanks to Prof. MacDonald for allowing Mr. Dalton an opportunity for a rejoinder, and to Mr. Dalton for taking the trouble to amplify his ideas and respond to critics. Well done!

    I am less interested in the semantics of the “Genocide” argument and the pros and cons of using it as propaganda than I am in the proposals to redress and ameliorate our current rather bleak outlook as Whites. Mr. Dalton deserves all credit for doing some real research and thinking in promoting a way forward for us.

    I think our well-earned bitterness towards our current FEDGOV may be fueling much of the doubt that was levelled at Mr. Dalton’s original piece. There seemed to be a sense that our current GOV might be amenable to White interests, if only we could tamp down the implied violence and present a reasonably civilized front, and gain some unidentified critical mass of believers. Many of us will (and did) react with incredulity at a set of proposals that didn’t include an “after the collapse” proviso. Even “White Ethnostate” adherents must know deep down that our current Gov. would not allow that to happen.

    In response to the practical tack taken by our brother Dalton, permit me to suggest some real-world assets we need to develop to begin our bloodless revolution.

    We desperately need a pro-bono legal resource for WNs. The transmogrification of our culture would never have come about if not for the ACLU, providing cover and defense for radicals who assaulted the previous status quo. I seem to recall that Hugh Hefner of “Playboy” fame also provided legal resources for cultural “bomb-throwers”, at least those working to undermine traditional moral values. The SPLC is another example of a legal offense and defense provider for the Left.

    Somehow, we need our own version of this kind of cultural and strategic equalizer.

    We also need a source of money, real money, that can be used to promote White interests. Think of the Adelsons and their ilk. Democrats and Republicans alike are dependent upon cash flowing from partisan “donors”. If we want to play ball in the current system, we need leverage. One reason politicians can *always* be counted on to give lip-service and votes to leftist ideals and legislation is the fact that their livelihood depends on the money provided by partisan interests behind the scenes.

    A third requirement is a sufficient voice in the public marketplace for news and ideas. We are in a little better shape in the area, presently, thanks to the internet. Sites like this are our life’s blood at this point. However, in the marketplace of mainstream public news consumption, we don’t really have a representative. Tucker Carlson is good, for as far as he is allowed to go, but FOX overall is firmly Zionist, and not anything we can rely on. Too, a public crackdown is underway against right-wing sites; YouTube has dropped several accounts, and we are in the process of being energetically de-platformed. A huge source of financial resources would be necessary to launch a WN version of CNN.

    Finally, there is the issue of founding our own political Party. These efforts have always failed previously. The American system is entrenched in its two-party scheme. Eventually, demographics may shift almost all Whites into the Republican Party. I could see the path the Democrats are on pushing virtually every last White person in the country into the Republican fold, making it a White man’s party by default. But as of now, no, the Republican Zionist Party is not our friend.

    This current Gov. will pass away. No system devised by man has yet lasted forever; the question that haunts me is how many of us will be here to start anew once this Gov does die? If we outlive it, we essentially win, especially if we take our lessons learned here forward with us. If the current FEDGOV outlasts the last Whites, then it really doesn’t matter much who or what comes out ahead after that.

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      No doubt we need real-world assets to defeat our masters ( ” the jews ” and their allies , acolytes and sycophants ) ; or at least to significantly mitigate ( a victory of sorts ) the excessive enslavements by our masters . However , please keep in mind that the enemy ( our masters ) surely monitors these TOO articles and comments for the purpose of intelligencing our current status in this contention ( war ? ) with our masters ( the enemy ) . Therefore we need to stay at least one step ahead of the information that is not or cannot be kept secret in this needed open forum for discourse on how we are going to engage the enemy in this existential conflict . Detailed operational plans must be kept secret and known only by those whom need-to-know .

      You are of course correct about the specified assets .

      The enemy ( our masters , especially the ones at the apex of the control hierarchy ) has , can , and will continue to destroy anyone , whom they deem necessary , that aids or allies with the [ white/aryan/caucasian ] nationalists . ((( They ))) have , can , and will ruin careers , ruin lives , assassinate and even exterminate millions whenever they deem it necessary . Lawyers are no exception and they know it . Furthermore , our masters ( the enemy ) have the resources to put up a team of at least five lawyers for every one of ours . Yet , lawyers can be useful in drawing out ” the enemy “.

      As for money , ((( they ))) have at least 1000 dollars to deploy [ against us ] for each dollar that we may have to oppose ((( them ))) .

      The [ global internet ] , not the DARPA precursor built with our tax money or its proxy – federal reserve loans to the fedgov , was built by the enemy ((( them ))) especially for the purpose of moving large amounts of money to quickly and easily invest in highly profitable cheap slave labor markets anywhere in the world . This global internet that we use to communicate with anyone in the world is a byproduct of the original banksters//investors purposes . ((( They ))) did not foresee the huge global flood of freeflowing truthful information with regard to their historical repertoire of synagog of satan shenanigans . ((( They ))) created the global internet and they can uncreate if they want . In fact , ((( they ))) are gradually , to avoid widespread awareness , like a boa constrictor suffocating the global [ uncensored ] freeflow of info by getting a totalitarian iron grip on it – one country at a time ( China , Russia , Germany , UK , NZ , USA , NK , Japan , etc. ) ; and via the UN , the EU and many other less well known regulatory entities . As it now stands , our masters ((( they ))) control about 95% of all info globally ; and they are fully capable of gaining control of 99% of the remaining 5% freeflowing info around the world . The white/aryan/caucasian cultures ( ie. peoples ) have no significant ability to oppose this suffocating internet censorship of important information that could be employed to alleviate their excessive enslavements .

      A ” bloodless revolution ” is a sheeple fantasy except for those factions that should remain out of actual combat operations whenever possible .

      The sheeple masses do not seem to have ever been able to control overpopulation with regard to scarcity of resources nor even to acknowledge the existence of an overpopulation reality . Dealing with the issue has proven to be very difficult because of the emotional entanglements .
      The sheeple do not draw blood ; but they always thru the ages inescapably spill a lot on the amorphous fields of battles for resources ( includes power struggles for control over people viewed as resources ) .

      ” No system devised by man has yet lasted forever “.

      We never did , do not now and we never will need [ systems that last forever ] . We need to be remain able to create new systems as needed before the old systems become dysfunctional such as our current political systems in the westernworld seem to be – except apparantly for the elites their systems are not dysfunctional .

      ” If the current FEDGOV outlasts the last Whites, then it really doesn’t matter much who or what comes out ahead after that.” Amen to that , but it is a big IF .

      Please do not misunderstand — your comment is much appreciated .


  7. Panadechi
    Panadechi says:

    Another option is missing: The colonization of mostly virgin places somewhere remote from the planet. Alaska, Antarctica, Islands, Aquatic Cities (Japan already started projects). You should start by encouraging masses of white people willing to join the project and adventure, through propaganda or incentives. Non-whites and Jews, forbidden ..

    • Exile
      Exile says:

      I strongly endorse this idea. “Ice people” as John Derbyshire terms K-selection low time preference peoples (including Whites and the Japanese) have benefitted from this strategy since prehistory. Our continuing technological superiority has served to make that climatological “moat” wider and deeper. Our ultimate anti-fragility insurance policy should be the establishment of White apartheid settlements in the most hostile corners of the Earth, and eventually elsewhere, though Peter Thiel’s “seasteads” and Musk’s space colonies are generations in the future.

    • Rich
      Rich says:

      Colonisation of some remote icy island like Svalbard is a ridiculous idea. There is already Iceland, a remote cold island with 300,000 people. How would creating Iceland 2.0 but with only 5000 or even 100,000 people help our cause? It would be extremely vulnerable to attack. Not worth the trouble. Why not just migrate to the South Island of New Zealand or Montana instead? They are already established super-majority white places that are much closer to possible self-sufficiency.

  8. Andrew
    Andrew says:

    I have great respect for Mr. Dalton’s willingness to respond to his critics in detail. To restate some of his points in a concise manner, they seem to be as follows: 1) we don’t need general white support, just a million whites would do (at a minimum); 2) the UN definition of genocide is too vague to be useful (a restatement of his original argument); 3) Christian Zionists are a lost cause; 4) racial intermixing (breeding whites out of existence) is unlikely to become a major problem; 5) memes such as “white genocide” are counterproductive (not believable by whites who are “normies”); 6) Jewish attempts to stimulate hatred of whites among non-whites are not having a significant effect on the views of non-whites; 7) whites will not be eliminated through declining births, race mixing, and violence; 8) Jewish hatred of non-Jewish whites is no more intense than Jewish hatred of non-Jews in general; 9) the Russian contribution to European intellectual and cultural life is relatively minor — minor enough to not consider Russians truly European; 10) the common man must see masses of dead bodies before he will believe that genocide is taking place; 11) American whites returning to Europe is a viable option; 12) ending Third World immigration and (if necessary) expelling non-whites is a viable option in the United States as it exists today.

    My response: 1) one million whites would be a good start, but not enough in the face of so many virtue-signaling anti-white whites (we need to look at polling data to come up with an exact number of these virtue-signalers); 2) it’s “vagueness” is precisely what makes the UN definition of genocide so valuable; it doesn’t require stacks of dead bodies. All it requires is intentional policies that reduce the white birthrate, discriminate against whites, inculcate white self-hatred, inculcate hatred of whites by non-whites, force integration on whites, encourage race mixing, transfer resources from whites to non-whites, and (without the express permission of the white majority and through both deception and a failure to enforce existing law) impose replacement levels of non-white immigration (both legal and illegal) on the white majority. All of these factors are in play, have been for a long time, and as result whites will become an ever smaller minority. If this isn’t genocide, I don’t know what is.In fact, it is biological warfare against whites: the deliberate replacement of white genes with non-white genes; 3) when Christian Zionists find out that the Holocaust is a hoax and the Jews did 9/11, they might well be our strongest allies; 4) If race mixing is increasing, that’s a sign that it will keep on increasing; 5) practical politics is based, to a large extent, on propaganda and even hyperbole. But using the term “white genocide” is neither propaganda nor hyperbole for the reasons I have stated. It is a shocking truth — the deliberate replacement of white Americans, Canadians, Germans, etc., by non-whites; 6) Jewish attempts to stimulate hatred of non-Jewish whites among non-whites (and among many non-Jewish whites as well) are having a huge effect. All you need to do is watch CNN, MSNBC, or read the New York Times and Washington Post to know that. The entire Jewish-controlled mainstream media is anti-white. What is said about whites today is possibly more hateful than what was said about the Jews in Nazi Germany. This rhetoric filters down into the culture, and if you don’t believe that it’s having a big effect, trying wearing a MAGA hat as a white person in any major city in America today and see what happens; 7) there is no better prescription for the elimination of whites than through race mixing, declining birth rates, and sporadic violence. It gets the job done without raising too much alarm at any one time. The frog keeps adjusting to the increasing temperature of the heated water until it’s too late to jump out of the pot; 8) Jewish hatred of non-Jewish whites is much more intense than Jewish “hatred” of non-whites. It is motivated by jealousy (non-Jewish whites created most of civilization), the special hatred that the parasite inevitably feels for the host, the fact that whites have been a courageous, adventurous, creative and freedom loving people, the fact that it was white Romans who kicked the Jews out of Palestine and destroyed their temple, the fact that Jews were expelled over and over again from various European kingdoms after the common folk rightfully rose up against them, and the fact that Christianity was founded by a man — Jesus — who called the Jews who rejected him children of the devil; 9) a lot of the dismissive attitude towards Russia in the West today has been inculcated by the Jews, who are still upset that Czar Alexander confined them to the Pale of Settlement for cheating Russian peasants. The Jewish contribution to human culture and European culture is substantial: Tchaikovsky, Tolstoy, Chekhov, Dostoevsky, Pushkin, Gogol, Turgenev, Rimsky-Korsakov, Stravinsky, Solzhenitsyn, Pasternak, Rachmaninoff, Prokofief, Shostakovich, some of our finest violinists, conductors and pianists, the Bolshoi Ballet, etc. There is probably more respect for high European culture in Russia than in any western European country today. We need to deprogram ourselves from this Jewish hatred for Russia; 10) I think the common man is smarter than that; 11) Europe only welcomes Third World migrants — it has never welcomed white immigrants (without a lot of money) from the United States (apart from Ireland, and then you have to have Irish parents or at least grandparents); 12) as someone else pointed out, we can’t even secure our own borders and stop illegal Third World immigration under the current political and legal regime. There is no reason to believe that we would be able to stop LEGAL Third World immigration (desired by both major political parties), much less induce non-whites to leave the country (they know where their bread is buttered). Expelling non-white citizens would, of course, be unconstitutional.

    • JRM
      JRM says:

      @Andrew- fantastic comment, beautifully developed. I do believe under your point 9, above, that you intended “Russian”, not “Jewish”, in this line:

      “The Jewish contribution to human culture …”

      • Andrew
        Andrew says:

        JRM: Thank you. Yes, I intended “Russian”.

        I wish we could edit our comments after posting them.

    • TJ
      TJ says:

      “. . .it is motivated by jealousy. . .”

      There is a difference in kind, not degree between jealousy and envy. The fine book ENVY [Helmut Schoeck, 1966] is absolutely a must read.


      [amazon] Envy was first published in German in 1966, then in an English translation in 1970. This classic study is one of the few books to explore extensively the many facets of envy—”a drive which lies at the core of man’s life as a social being.” Ranging widely over literature, philosophy, psychology, and the social sciences, Professor Schoeck—a distinguished sociologist and anthropologist—elucidates both the constructive and destructive consequences of envy in social life. Perhaps most importantly he demonstrates that not only the impetus toward a totalitarian regime but also the egalitarian impulse in democratic societies are alike in being rooted in envy.

      buy it here: https://tinyurl.com/y4g8bct9

  9. milan
    milan says:

    @ Dalton

    From the early Industrial Revolution, modern society has enabled the mass movement of people from indigenous to foreign lands. Left to their own initiative, people will always attempt to move from ‘worse’ to ‘better’ societies, but if this happens en masse, it will contribute to the decay of the very societies that they seek out. Such movement must therefore be stopped.

    the industrial revolution is surely one of the foundation reasons for the movement of peoples throughout the world. Next to technology, we have created in the words of McLuhan the ‘global village’ for sure. Damage done. And if what I am learning about the fate of the oil and gas industries well the coming collapse of the industrial revolution will all but end any hope of resurrecting either the white race or any other for that matter. Spend some time on a blog called http://www.ourfiniteworld.com and ponder what Gail Tverberg talks about. It was a wakeup call for me.
    As a side not though through work here in Canada I met an expat Palestinian {outside contractor} and it floored me. I wanted to talk extensively with him but being strangers he wasn’t into it really. Trust is earned not given. We only had a short time together and I told him well your one of the lucky ones and he just kind of smiled. Later I learned too he has some 7 children and his wife is again pregnant. A buddy he works with says yeah he can’t keep it in his pants. lol. I however, figured someone has to repopulate his people.

  10. Andrew
    Andrew says:

    Correction: “The Jewish contribution to human culture and European culture is substantial…” should have read, “The Russian contribution to human culture and European culture is substantial…” (I wish we could edit our comments on this site after posting them). But since I said “Jewish”, I might as well comment on their contribution. I would say it is respectable, but not earthshaking. Some would have us believe that Western culture wouldn’t amount to much without the contribution of Jews. But dominating the culture is not the same thing as being culturally first rate. Maybe someone can add to this list of “big” Jewish names, but I find it rather unimpressive: Chagall, Bergson, Einstein, Freud, Marx, Kafka, Wittgenstein, Mahler, Mendelssohn, Heine, Spinoza…no artists equal to Rembrandt or Michelangelo (in fact, hardly any artists at all), no composers equal to Bach or Mozart, no writers equal to Shakespeare or Balzac, no philosophers equal to Plato or Aristotle. I don’t see Marx or Freud as positive influences. Of course, the Jews are a tiny group. No one can deny that they’re smart and talented. But people tend to overstate their “brilliance”.

    • Exile
      Exile says:

      The lack of high cultural contributions by Jews reminds me of the Han and I believe it stems from similar roots in the materialism/lack of transcendentalism that both races share. I’d love to see someone apply MacDonald’s work to the Han in depth and see further development of MacDonald’s noted distinction between Jews and the Han as well – the fact that Chinese diasporas have been historically much less prone to “anti-Sinitic” backlash in host populations. I think the root is in the Jewish genetic propensity for neuroticism that Han don’t share, making Jews more inherintly hostile and aggressive to their host populations. If the West had real academic freedom, there would be a host of young graduate students grinding away at this issue.

      • Andrew
        Andrew says:

        Interesting comparison! I would add that supposedly being the “Chosen People” who see themselves as called upon to “heal the world” (Tikkun Olam) — that is, to meddle in everyone else’s business and try to take over whole societies — is unlikely to endear the Jews to their host populations.

        Also, their very thinly disguised belief that they are smarter, more moral, and better than everyone else, and their propensity to ally themselves (hypocritically) with corrupt rulers against the common folk and enrich themselves while claiming to care about the poor and oppressed– a pattern that goes back thousands of years….

    • JRM
      JRM says:

      @Andrew- I see you caught your error viz “Jewish” and “Russian”.

      I also agree with you concerning Jewish contributions to culture. I think of the best of the Jews as being “culture bearers” but not quite deserving of the phrase “culture creators”. The Jews have been important in fields like publishing, for example. The Jews have been central in financial institutions as well. We do have some Jewish authors and composers.

      However, the “contributions” of many of these Jews are double-edged swords. Yes, they are active in publishing, but much of what they produce is geared towards white-washing Jewish behavior, and attempting to make White culture “problematic”.

      They are quite good at orchestrating the capitalist financial networks, but that has arguably been a detriment to White civilization and modern society.

      In the arts, Chagall is overrated to say the least- a truly mediocre talent trumpeted by Jews as a great artist. Mahler was a true genius, although there is more than a touch of what we might term “decadence” in his work. Still, I couldn’t easily give Mahler up, I must admit.

      Freud had huge influence in the early and mid-20th century but his ideas are less and less important as we go along. His overall net contribution to White culture is also easily categorized as negative. The Jewish obsession with sex elevated to dogma.

      In sum, even the positive contributions of the Jews are a mixed picture. Perhaps their work in medicine could be viewed in a more positive light.

      • Andrew
        Andrew says:

        JRM: Excellent points. I would only add that, as a “goy”, I would never trust a Jewish doctor or lawyer, or have anything to do with Jews related to my health or finances.

      • David Ashton
        David Ashton says:

        The contribution of Jews to finance and trade is obviously contentious. Their best poetry was in the “Old Testament”. They have not “produced” philosophers, composers or sculptors of the highest calibre, but the joke about the “second violin in every orchestra” has some validity. In modern times, their chief – and welcome -achievements have been in outstanding scientific (especially theoretical physics)and medical research. They opt for psychology and law rather than surgery and engineering, so to speak; this is not due solely to “education” or “persecution”, but to preferential innate gifts. To generalize, they have a “mathematical” intellect, a critical disposition, and also a gift for words that makes a sparkling contribution to journalism, popular and innovative historical studies, and so forth. Richard Lynn’s “Chosen People” is still worth “easy” reading; as also (among innumerable titles) for instance (despite minor errors) Albert Lindemann’s “Esau’s Tears”, Chaim Bermant’s “The Jews”, Bernard Lazare’s “Antisemitism” (with Robert Wistrich’s introduction), Dan Cohn-Sherbok’s “Paradox of Antisemitism”, Karl Sabbagh’s “Antisemitism Wars” & Julius Carlebach’s “Karl Marx & the Radical Critique of Judaism”; six needles from the giant haystack to supplement (say) Kevin MacDonald, David Duke, James Petras and/or Alfred Rosenberg, for TOR readers.

        Since “Auschwitz” and the foundation of Israel, neither Jewish self-righteousness nor anti-Semitic trash have contributed to an objective and thorough analysis of the exceedingly complex so-called “JC”; and any modus vivendi that decent people would prefer is consequently deferred.

        • Andrew
          Andrew says:

          I will only concede two areas in which the Jews have been unsurpassed — classical music performance (violin, piano, conducting) and comedy (until it became politicized). In every other field, they are overrated. And I’m not convinced that the Bible can rightly be called “poetry”. Written-down oral history and doctrine would be more like it. One should also keep in mind that the Jews made up only one of the twelve tribes of Israel and only developed their “religion” after the Kingdom of Judah split apart from the Kingdom of Israel around 1000 BC. Before the first five books of the Bible were finished by the Levitical priesthood that established its authority over the Judeans, the ten tribes of the northern kingdom of Israel had been expelled from the Holy Land by the Assyrians and had passed out of both biblical and non-biblical history.

          The Jews’ “religion” today is anti-Biblical in the sense that it has evolved into the Talmud and the Kabbalah, which are satanic and occult in nature. The only biblical residue is “chosenness” and a homicidal “god” that commands the Jews to destroy the peoples around them. Even that “god” has now disappeared as the Jews have become their own god. Their “religion” is not a religion. It is nothing but extreme ethnocentrism and hostility to out-groups — a conspiracy against the rest of mankind advanced by infiltration, networking and parasitism. It is an ongoing attempt to establish their material supremacy over all the non-Jews and rule the earth.

          If the Jews were a person, we would call that person an extreme narcissist, sociopath and megalomaniac. There is no spiritual component to Judaism. Heaven for them is their supremacy here on earth.

          • moneytalks
            moneytalks says:

            ” Heaven for them is their supremacy here on earth.”

            Actually , that is probably true for the vast majority of all peoples as far as life in this world is concerned .

            Christians are forever trying to establish Heaven here on earth and at the same time preach that it can only be in the next life after death if they are good sheeple here and now .

          • Andrew
            Andrew says:

            I would say supremacy in their own lands or territory is the goal for most peoples. Not supremacy over the entire earth. As for Christians, they caught the supremacy disease from the Jews.

          • David Ashton
            David Ashton says:

            I forgot Mendelssohn (cf. Leon Botstein, “Musical Quarterly,” September 18, 2019, on line).

            Their Tanakh has some poetic content; it is not of course mostly poetry. Heine was fairly gifted, as Nazi literary critics conceded. I think English literature has the best poetry in the world, but maybe I am “biased”.

            Comedy: Jewish jokes are among the funniest, and the one area where “self-hatred” is accepted and shared with Goy audiences.

            The Kabbalah and Jewish occultism are subjects of extraordinary interest, especially with their slip-over into Gentile “masonry & magick”, but I don’t think most Jews today are into them at all. They probably have vastly more atheists.

            Ethnocentrism, yes – as some of their own critics and rabbis have also written, the new religion is “the Holocaust”. Your comments on a world supremacy objective and organised conspiracy require a response, albeit important here, but too long for me personally to tackle, even if the Moderator could bear it. I doubt if such ideas would have gained much traction in the 2oth century without the Protocols, to which opposing sides problematically refer when the post-1948 “Zionist lobby” comes up. Putting it crudely, instead of destroying “Jewry” by his methods Hitler empowered them.

        • Andrew
          Andrew says:

          Hitler’s method of dealing with the Jews was to remove them from positions of power and influence and isolate them from German (and ultimately European) society. His preferred approach was expulsion, but when that became impossible, he put them in work camps. I cannot fault him for doing those things. They had to be done, and will have to be done in the future if non-Jewish whites are to survive. What strengthened the Jews and Zionism was not Hitler (it is truly perverse to say that about the greatest defender of non-Jewish white people in history), but the fact that Hitler was defeated. That defeat was not Hitler’s fault. The Germans were a formidable force in WW II, in spite of all the handicaps that had been imposed upon them by the Treaty of Versailles and a Jewish worldwide boycott that began in 1933. But even they could not make a stand against a combination of the U.S., Britain and the Soviet Union, all of which were controlled (and still are controlled) by the Jews.

          As for the Jewish goal of world supremacy and world rule, it is intrinsic in a people whose Jehovah-God orders them to destroy all other peoples around them. Jews can only be comfortable in an environment that they totally control. They try to exert this control over every society they inhabit. First they ally themselves with rulers that they can corrupt and buy off. Then they aim to occupy positions of financial, political, and cultural power and influence. Then they inject the poison of degeneracy into the indigenous people they seek to destroy. Then they network in order to exert their control over the entire planet. They are automatically the enemies of all of mankind, and cannot help being so.

    • Rerevisionist
      Rerevisionist says:

      You seem to be ignoring the influence of Jews on both Christianity and Islam, and other cults. (Unless you’re being picky about the definition of ‘Jews’). Both systems spread like local franchises, and in effect managed to get large-scale rents from most of the lands in the areas they conquered, by force. The invention of printing improved the technology and Bibles and Qurans sprayed across the world. They were controlled by Jews and largely crushed and eliminated rival systems. For example, in Mexico and south America entire written languages were destroyed. And Jews in the USSR must have genocided whole nations across Russia. This sort of thing has been and still is the Jewish ‘heritage’. It amazes me how little this is felt; probably it’s so much part of life that few people think of it. For example. MacDonald and Joyce answered an online question on being jealous of Jewish money, in the “well, there’s something to be said for that” style. People aware of history should put the cruelty and deception and fraud of Jews first. They have to be understood, and I like to hope, after the inertia of Victorian times and the slow awakening in the 20th century, the possibilities of parasitism will be recognised, categorised, studied, and theorised upon. If this opportunity slips away, I fear there will be many ages of disasters ahead.

      • Andrew
        Andrew says:

        Rerevisionist: I agree with you. The influence on Christianity and Islam needs more investigation. Such investigation is unlikely to get it from academics and intellectuals, who, as a rule, are not religious. On the other hand, believing people are too partisan to be objective, so it’s up to outsiders like us to do the needed analysis.

        In the meantime, while I admit that the Jews’ cultural influence has been (and still is) enormous, I was only concerned with Jewish cultural achievement (i.e, positive contributions to culture) — which is a different thing altogether.

        • David Ashton
          David Ashton says:

          Explanation therefore needed:
          1. Attacks on Jews in the Fourth Gospel, Acts of the Apostles and Paul’s letter to Thessalonians.
          2. Hostility between Church and Synagogue, from attacks on Jesus in the Talmud to Jewish attribution of the “Holocaust” to Christian theology.
          3. Attacks on Jews in the Quran and Hadith.
          4. Hostility between Muslims and Jews from dhimmitude to the current conflict with Israel.

    • Titus
      Titus says:

      Considering jews haven’t had to plow the land for more than 1000 years already, and are thus eminently a mental race, their achievements in the fields advancing humanity are rather bleak. Furthermore if you consider all their negative contributions, ill rather set their score on the negative.

  11. milan
    milan says:

    Here is a short paragraph as an intro for any interested here:

    The issue is not a lack of oil, but a lack of cheap, affordable oil. If oil prices could rise high enough (and people’s pay checks could rise to accommodate this increase in price), there would likely not be a problem–we could just extract more higher priced oil. The fact that things seem to work in this manner helps solve the mystery regarding how there could be a huge amount of oil still in the ground, but oil supply still not be growing.
    Research suggests that once oil prices reach a high enough level (estimated by Steven Balogh to be $85 barrel in 2009 $), high oil prices start sending the economy into recession. Eventually, recessionary forces overcome the price rise, and oil prices drop. In time, demand rises again, and oil prices rise again, until the higher price once more leads to recession. This up and down pattern leads to an oscillation of oil prices, never raising prices high enough to really increase production. This failure of oil to reach very high prices also means that “renewables” do not become competitive either.
    As noted above, world oil production has been approximately level since the beginning of 2005. It seems to me that peak oil problems started about the time that oil supply first stopped rising, and prices started rising instead. Oil prices began rising as early as 2003, and in 2004, the Federal Reserve started raising target interest rates in response to higher oil and food prices. Eventually, higher oil prices and higher interest rates in response to the higher oil prices helped prick the housing bubble. Thus, the debt defaults and recessionary problems we have been experiencing in the past few years seem to be very much related to limits in oil supply.

    A chart I made some time ago. It seems to me that our problems started approximately when oil supply stopped increasing, represented by the departure of the blue line from the green line. I am not convinced the decline in oil production will follow the pattern shown in the graph. This is just one idea.
    We don’t know precisely when oil supply will start declining, but, in a sense, it doesn’t matter. Having oil supply that doesn’t increase is already a problem, because countries like China and India and oil exporting nations are taking more and more of the available oil supply, leaving less and less for developed nations like the United States.
    Going forward, I expect that the we will see significant debt defaults and more recession. Liebig’s Law of the Minimum (saying in effect, that if we lose an essential input, then a whole process will stop) is likely to mean that oil supply shortfalls are likely to have much wider influences than their magnitude would suggest. One area that is vulnerable is our financial system. It operates much better during periods of economic growth (because it is easier to repay debt with interest), and a reduction in oil supply is likely to result in economic decline. If there are serious financial problems, international trade is likely also to be adversely affected.
    Eventually, I expect that collapse is likely. The timing is not certain, but because of Liebig’s Law of the Minimum and the very connected nature of our systems today (oil, electricity, food, financial, international trade, Internet, medicine, etc.), it seems to me that this collapse could take place in as little as 20 years. We cannot of course know with certainty, but it seems to me that we should be at least looking at this possibility, and planning accordingly. https://ourfiniteworld.com/getting-started/

    • Titus
      Titus says:

      Last time i checked a russian scientist, working within a nordic country institution, had produced hydrocarbures, by simulating in the laboratory the pressure and chemical conditions within the internal earth mantles. The biotic oil theory is just that, a theory, many wells seem too replenish to the surprise of the scientists.
      Who knows anyways, that’s one of the problem of having pathological liar jews ruling society, you can’t really trust anything of what they promote, including all the climate change nonsense, it was first cooling, then warming, then it will be something else.

      The financial system cycles have little to do with oil prices and more to do with real resource acquisition by removing money from circulation thus turning unpayable debts into real assets like real state, companies and other banks from the goyim. Thats why jews “don’t have to work”, one should never forget there is not enough money in circulation to pay debts on a debt based currencey.
      There is even a rabbi who wrote a book saying this bubbles and bursts are ruled by shemitah cycles, after reading a bit of that Gail Tverberg’s site i rather trust the jew.

      • milan
        milan says:

        @ Titus


        I work in the oil and gas industry and I can say that Gail’s ‘theory’ is on full display. Affordability is an issue and as for Abiotic theory there is enough bullcarp over that to. If wells really were replenishing themselves why are we having to drill deeper and deeper into the earth, going into the oceans, and adding ethanol to the mix. Further look we have to blow up the earth by way of fracking to get oil out!!! Get it? Blow up the earth! Gail is not a peak oil believer anyhow. We aren’t going to run out of oil anytime soon. Further to this I asked a director of company who worked in the oilsands of Northern Alberta just how many years left oil extraction up there? Oil that by the way is not convential but tar which no one wants really. He replied about 20 years but if something were to happen in the Middle East well that is where America would go for its oil. that is why all of the American companies are up there. Wow, I thought too myself isn’t that interesting. As for your financial system cycle tell me what would you rather pay for a barrel of oil 50.00 or 175.00 dollars per? Lastly if I’m barking up the wrong tree here for your reading pleasure the experts an actual bank writing an academic paper on subject!

        • Rerevisionist
          Rerevisionist says:

          It *may be possible* to generate hydrocarbons (e.g. octane) direct from air, combining CO2 and H20 in a very endothermic reaction with some sort of catalyst, perhaps a shaped molecular crystalline structure. Maybe we’ll live to see such plant in desert reigons.

          • David Ashton
            David Ashton says:

            Google search: Israeli scientists extracting hydrocarbons from air.

            Do you still think that (1) all reports of atomic/nuclear weaponry are a Jewish fraud and (2) I am a Jew?

            Maybe a bit of re-rerevision is needed.

  12. Exile
    Exile says:

    The worst thing you can say about the meme of “White Genocide” is that it’s a hyperbolic way of referring to a broad-based anti-White cultural and political power play by non-Whites and Fifth Column GoodWhites that we all agree is taking place and is doing real damage to Whites who aren’t aware of or engaged in the culture war. Thankfully, we have hyperbolic counterbalance in triumphalist Jews like Michelle Goldberg with her “we will replace you” rhetoric and the serial Bindi supremacists Steve Sailer cites from the New York times on a dependably regular basis. Refusing to fight rhetorical fire with rhetorical fire b/c “principles” is how the establishment Right in America manages to lose every battle. The goal is to win hearts as well as minds. Scrupulous definitions and sciencey arguments haven’t managed to convert the world to libertarianism because people aren’t computers. I’m with Jonathan Haidt in believing that human reason and logic evolved primarily to persuade, not to “find truth.” Refusing to commit rhetorical excess in the defense of virtue is a sin. I won’t leave weapons on the table when my race is at stake unless mutual destruction is somehow assured by their use. Hyperbole is not a hydrogen bomb. Fire for effect, Whitey.

  13. Carolyn Yeager
    Carolyn Yeager says:

    My first thoughts on this welcome “reply” from Thomas Dalton is only that the greatest opposition against such a “plan” will come from Whites, not Jews or other races. I agree that probably over half of Whites will see the positive side of it, but others will feign horror and denounce “white supremacy.” We would need to be prepared for that, but I really think its time for straight-talking of this sort.

    I’m very concerned about black and brown political control of cities and smaller communities the the deterioration that brings; we should all be — I mean even black and brown people. And Asians. So it’s just a matter of saying things as they are — as T.D. put it, calling a spade a spade. Basically that’s what’s lacking.

    • Carolyn Yeager
      Carolyn Yeager says:

      Speaking of calling a spade a spade, I disagree with Dalton’s suggestion that the word “racist” is too explosive to confront. This is exactly what we must do because it’s used to silence our voice, and intimidate our politicians. We have to assert our authority over our language because it’s what we use to communicate ideas. It’s not a matter of going around proclaiming ourselves as racists, but defining the word properly when it’s used against us. We have to reject the popular notion that race difference is only skin color, and that if we acknowledge differences we are making value judgements. How can we pretend to believe in equality when our biggest anxiety is to lose our majority? White people want a white-run society for a reason. It’s better for Whites and we think it’s better for everyone.

    • Andrew
      Andrew says:

      You’re right about virtue-signaling whites. If you want to see one of them foam at the mouth with sputtering rage, just say something nasty about the chosenites.

  14. claudius1889
    claudius1889 says:

    Hello Thomas: Thank you for this reappraisal of your previous article. It gave me food for thought and I think that it has some very interesting aspects to consider. I will try to deal with them in the order they have been presented. I said that you did not seem to take into consideration the huge damage created by the “white-guilt complex” but you did and you were right when stated that we should not expect any support from those traitors, the issue here is HOW to arouse from their slumber those millions of whites who seem unaware of the crisis.

    Regarding this, the only solution is energic political activism 24/7. We must make full use of the Internet as the traditional media is in the hands of the enemy. Should political meetings/rallies take place these must be protected by a large and disciplined body of guardsmen (like Hitler’s SA). If we do not understand that we are living in dangerous times and act accordingly with a true revolutionary spirit we are doomed. To go out like those imbeciles who call themselves “conservatives” expecting that our mortal enemies will let us speak and march is sheer stupidity.

    Regarding your observation about the Russians, I agree with you that they have contributed very little to Western civilization, in fact, it was thanks to the work of thousands skilled Western European craftsmen, scientists and scholars imported by Peter the Great that Russia became a civilized country. Having said that we cannot disregard their ethnic value and purity. The same goes for the Scandinavian peoples (Norwegians, Swedes, Finns and Danes) if we take into consideration their almost non-existent contributions to Western civilization we should forget about them, but they are 100 % white like the Russians and the Ukrainians. So let’s not rise diving walls among themselves.

    About Adolf Hitler’s struggle for power and its legacy for contemporary white nationalists in the USA or elsewhere, I must say that I disagree with you. The situation faced by the NSDAP in the 1920s was a very difficult one but infinitely better compared with the one faced by American patriots today: A) There was a strong, healthy patriotic feeling shared by millions of Germans who had not been taught to hate themselves B) There was no “white guilt” C) Cultural marxism did not exist D) There was no TV, no (((Hollywood))) to poison people’s minds. E) There was an old, healthy and deeply rooted antisemitism in the German people. F) Most importantly, as an old comrade told me, “the jews did not know how to fight us, they had never seen anything like it. They underestimated the Führer” G) There was no anti-white legislation (something extremely important)

    So, let’s not get carried away thinking that if the Führer could make it, we can do it too. History does not repeat itself. It was a COMPLETELY different age. The white man was still a proud, noble human being, racially aware and patriotic. Adolf Hitler was a colossus who, like Napoleon, cannot be judged by normal human standards. He was truly the harbinger of a New Era.

    Our struggle is going to be very hard and very long, the white race has fallen in a state of decadence and degeneracy unbelievable, but we must not give up, we must remember the heroes that, in glorious times, died fighting for the white race and Western civilization. I have been a national-socialist for nearly 45 years, I am now sixty years old and I do not think I will live to see our victory, in which I firmly believe, but it does not matter. We must dedicate every day of our lives to our struggle. We must pass on the torch to the younger generation.

    I would like to end these lines with a quote from a manual of the SA (Sturm Abteilungen = Storm Battalions, Adolf Hitler’s shock troops) published in Germany in the 1930s: “The heroic spirit in its purest form is to be found in the man who thinks that the fight is meaningless and defeat may be inevitable and yet he stubbornly persists in it knowing that the flame of his sacrifice will lit a fire in the hearts of thousands of others that will lead them to Victory”

    • Richard McCulloch
      Richard McCulloch says:

      You left out the very important point “H”: 1933 Germany was 99% German. Jews, Gypsies and other non-Germans were less than 1% of the population.
      Contrasting this to the current US situation, in 2016 non-Hispanic Whites were 73.3% of voters. If Jews and assorted non-European Caucasians (North Africans, Turks, Middle Easterners, Central Asians) are separated from this category than the remaining voters, the Euro-Americans, were probably 68-70% of the voters.
      So Hitler could come to power by electoral means (in the German parliamentary system) with a little less than 50% of the White vote. For us to come to power by electoral means (by “us” I don’t mean Republicans, Civic Nationalists, Trumpians or even Buchananites, but an actual pro-White racial movement that would take the kind of action we discuss and advocate), assuming negligible non-White support and a 67% White electorate, would now require winning about 75% of the White vote for a popular majority, but as in Trump’s case, could win an electoral college victory with somewhat less than that.

    • Andrew
      Andrew says:

      Excellent points. I think Hitler’s biggest challenge was communism. Communism was a great temptation for workers, especially in Germany, where so many people were in dire financial straits from 1918 until about 1936.

      But as you say, things are different now. And Jewish propaganda has made Hitler and National Socialism into the apotheosis of evil. We thus have to rely on such concepts as “third way” to free ourselves from Jewish finance capitalism and Jewish cultural Marxism.

  15. Cat McGuire
    Cat McGuire says:

    Thanks for responding to my 2 comments.

    On the native american issue, if you at all walk your talk, it would seem that americans of european descent should axiomatically be told to return from whence we came.

    As for jews, first of all, you wrote “Jews are not White.” Really? Sephardim may be “of color,” but aren’t the ~75% of jews worldwide who are classified as ashkenazi from the caucaucus regrion, i.e., caucasians / white?

    That said, where should diaspora ashkenazi jews be sent? Back to the Pale! Certainly not their neo-colonialist settler version, i.e., Pale-stine.

    • Richard McCulloch
      Richard McCulloch says:

      A territorial partition of the country along racial lines would answer the question of where different racial groups would be sent, at least for the US, although it would not be the answer for Europe.

      Regarding the racial classification of the Ashkenazi, both phenotypically and genetically, there is considerable variation. At the population level genetic studies show them to be 50-60% Middle Eastern and 40-50% European in ancestry, so the population would be best classified as semi-European. At the individual level there is considerable genetic and phenotypic variation indicating that the blend is not yet stable.

    • Carolyn Yeager
      Carolyn Yeager says:

      You just happen to mention one area that I disagree with Thomas Dalton on — where he said in response to your (Cat’s) defense of “Native Americans”:
      ***Native Americans have it over on us Whites, that’s true. We should respect that priority, wherever possible, especially in any future White ethnostate.***

      “Native Americans” were never Americans. They were distinct Indian tribes who fought with one another, never built much of anything except adobe dwellings. America was named, settled and built by Europeans, mainly English, but also Spaniards and French. Let’s not fall for the mythology that these scattered indian groups “owned America” and were dispossessed of anything. They were merely pushed aside, sometimes cruelly, it’s true, but they were also cruel. Maybe they were cruel first.

      Europeans built this country and own it. We are not interlopers or thieves. This original guilt trip that we “stole” America from it’s rightful owners is nonsense and extremely anti-White, so there is no excuse for it.

      Along with this is “going back where we came from.” TD says we Europeans could all do that. How? I would like to know how I, now an ‘elderly’ single woman, would move to Germany. Would they let me in? How would I support myself? I have no family there. It’s nonsense, and just adds to the guilt trip on Whites. My grandparents were invited to immigrate here by a railroad company because they were valuable, hard-working people. They did work hard to better themselves (didn’t stay with the railroad company), adopted the national English language, had children, served in the military when called, and never lived off any government welfare. My family were contributors to this country, not parasites.

      Further, Europeans are not Caucasians. My own haplogroup did originate between the Black and Caspian seas, but that was 10s of thousands of years ago. They are long gone from there, moving westward and northward to become Europeans. I think European is the only descriptive word that works for what we consider our “white race” today. I am also one who doesn’t like the word “white” because race is more than apparent skin color. For me, race and ethnicity combine to make for the important distinctions among Europeans.

      Then there’s the evidence of Scandinavian settlers before the “Indians” came — settlers who were savagely slaughtered by these asiatic newcomers, and how that is covered up by the liberal academic establishment. https://carolynyeager.net/solutreans-first-americans-may-have-been-european

      • Andrew
        Andrew says:

        Excellent points. I would add that the Indians have their own nations now, with land set apart for them. They would thrive if they adopted basic legal principles of contract and property law. In the meantime, casino concessions just for them (outside of Vegas and Atlantic City) are a distinct advantage.

      • Tsigantes
        Tsigantes says:

        Carolyn, you raise an important dilemma for the American situation and go some ways toward answering it. I am European and I remember that during and after the 2nd Iraq war American ex-pats here, including those against the war, justified ‘re-arranging the middle east’ by repeating the US media, which at that time was pushing hard a triumphalist American (Israeli) justification that the ME countries were all ‘fake’ and only came into existence through Sykes-Picot. (As if Israel can be ‘real’ by that standard – !)

        This claim conveniently overlooked that Syria, Mesopotamia, Iran, Palestine, Egypt etc are the West’s oldest civilisations and pre-date Westphalian national sovereignty by millennia. My answer to them was always: think carefully about what you are saying because this excuse really only applies (and in spades) to the new world.

        I’d add to this that Europeans long define themselves NOT by race but by culture – i.e. language, religion, education, national ethos. Both high culture and culture as yoghourt. And despite the present engineered migration there is little intrinsic distaste toward black people or Asians or what have you.Why is this? because there is strong common knowledge and interest in the multitudinous migrations over millennia that resulted in the european peoples: migrations that have continued until quite recently (again, I don’t mean the recent engineered migration) which, along with ever-shifting borders, has resulted in distinct but absorbed minorities in each nation.

        However, Europeans , Asians, Africans – i.e. the world ‘heartland’ – can be considered ‘indigenous’. But this description definitely does’t apply to the Americas, Australia and New Zealand. Thus the conundrum you face: is it really useful to base your claim to the dominant American culture on race? Isn’t mirroring the enemy’s definitions a trap? From my european point of view it would seem to me more effective to take a leaf out of the heartland’s book and base your arguments on upholding the dominant culture and better still, restoring it. I believe that you would find that, as in Europe, those who accept and respect the ethics and traditions of that culture would be people you welcome. Some of the ‘white”i-sts here might even discover that white peoples extend well into Asia and that many are thoroughly American in the way that is important to you, i.e. respecting and contributing constructively to the traditional culture and economy in an American – not foreign – way, and holding conservative American values.

        Secondly it seems from here that the problem you face is really the engineered destruction of the culture itself: these destroyers are the people – along with both their ideological and paid helpers – you should be fighting. Aim for the top. This rot came from the top. Clean the republic!

        Another thing. For everyone outside USA, the black people are part of America’s charm and history. Many black communities are conservative and self-help: think of Cynthia McKinney. Would you really ban her from USA because of her colour? She is an international hero and ambassadress extraordinaire for USA. The black communities that are in desperate trouble are those destroyed by the deliberate policies of the destroyers, going right back to the civil war. Help them! They need real help, NOT the fake help of the Democrats’ policies. True help.You would then have one of USA’s greatest assets on your side in what is actually a drummed up culture war distracting you from the real issues at stake, the destruction of America. The war of the 1% on the rest. A war we share in the EU.

        Help the homeless, the military vets, farmers, those deprived of medical care….these are the exact people who wonder where the old America went – and old American values Win hearts and minds through creating and demanding solutions alongside those who need them. Rebuild your culture and your country from the ground up.

        Above all don’t repeat the National Socialist German mistake of describing the rest of Europe as ‘untermenschen’. i.e. who would volunteer to be an unterermenschen when you could be a proud Spaniard, Dutchman or Swiss? Infinite divisions based on fantasies of racial purity leaves nobody standing and is self-defeating and technically laughable.

        From here no one takes the American race-baiting and gender politics seriously. What we DO see is a once proud nation that has squandered itself, betrayed its values, has been cleverly divided against itself, is almost destroyed and allowing itself to be run by criminals. I can only guess that the majority of true Americans WANT this turned around.

        • TJ
          TJ says:

          “. . .The black communities that are in desperate trouble are those destroyed by the deliberate policies of the destroyers. . .”

          Flat out wrong- so very wrong that I wonder about ulterior motives. The problem with negroes is genetics- they are born messed up- this is fact and is no longer debatable- at least, not by honest inquirers.

          • moneytalks
            moneytalks says:

            The only thing that seems beyond debatebility on that matter is that when you ( the North civil war winners(?) ) inject , via the 13 th amendment along with its ancillary federal programs , a significantly lower average IQ black african race into a culture//world designed by and primarily for a significantly higher IQ white european race it then creates a socio-political cocktail with the lethal ingredients of inappropriately regulated brandnew resource competitions between disparate races and other governmentally coerced interactions between noncongenial persons of different races that often causes intractable and deadly mental problems for the lower IQ blacks ; and it likewise often causes different kinds of intractable and deadly mental problems for the higher IQ whites . It makes the fed government look like a criminal syndicate .

        • Carolyn Yeager
          Carolyn Yeager says:

          The “migrations over millennia that resulted in the european peoples” are long over and the European race is now stable and settled. The Europeans who settled in America not so very long ago are equally stable. We’re not still ‘becoming.’

          As to putting culture before race, isn’t it true that Race IS Culture — in spite of good people like Cynthia McKinney. We know there are always exceptions, and those exceptions can choose where they want to be.

          This paragraph seems to be the point you most wanted to make to me:

          “Above all don’t repeat the National Socialist German mistake of describing the rest of Europe as ‘untermenschen’. i.e. who would volunteer to be an untermenschen when you could be a proud Spaniard, Dutchman or Swiss? Infinite divisions based on fantasies of racial purity leaves nobody standing and is self-defeating and technically laughable.

          For your information, the NS Germans never used the word “untermenschen” in that context. May I point out to you that proud (some of the best) Spaniards, Dutchmen, Frenchmen, Norwegians, etc. volunteered and fought with the NS Germans against the Communists/Bolsheviks of the Soviet Union. It was the NS Fuehrer who sent air and armoured units to help Franco in 1936 against the communists. Approximately 16,000 NS Germans fought in the Spanish Civil War on the Nationalist side, with approx. 300 killed.

          It was the “criminals” running the show who wanted the war against Germany, the destruction, and the multicultural world we have now that you, Tsigantes, seem to like and want more of. Wasn’t it the Obama administration that was destroying the USA culturally? The hip-hop celebrity culture! We have turned some of that around and now we celebrate the law & order culture.

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            Your linked article states early on:
            “The truth about the Nazis was that they were the antithesis of Reagan and Goldwater.”

            Good! I can remain on-topic, which you are not, by replying that Reagan and Goldwater brought more non-whites into this country, they did not keep them out. Adolf Hitler remains the only true racial nationalist of his or any later time.

        • Andrew
          Andrew says:

          The trouble with “the way (Western) Europeans see things” is that those perceptions are the product of (mostly Jewish) propaganda going all the way back to World War I. That war was an act of aggression by the British against a rising German trading and industrial rival, and its propaganda gave us the first “human soap” story that reappeared after World War II. The defeat of Hitler was followed by a thorough brainwashing of the German people — and all Western Europeans by extension — courtesy of the Psychological Warfare Division of SHAEF (Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force, which produced the entirely Jewish-written “Buchenwald Report”). What Europeans need to understand is that culture is a product of people, not the other way around. Non-Jewish white people created European culture and the relatively free (until recently) and prosperous systems in the United States, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. The cultures of the Third World, on the other hand, are the product of the peoples indigenous to those lands. They cannot be assimilated into Western culture. As more and more of them come, the West will be transformed into an extension of the Third World. This is what the Jews have long wanted. And those who are wise to them have known this for a long time. “La Civilta Cattolica” — the official Vatican publication — spelled it out in the late 1800’s. The Jews themselves have said it: They want a world they rule without significant opposition. That means non-Jewish white people are to be bred out of existence through race mixing, killed off as they lose their rights and become a minority, or a combination of those two things. The Jews, in the meantime, have their armed, walled, and rogue nuclear state of Israel and have bought off or blackmailed world leaders and taken over the finances, high technology, national security, and basic infrastructure of other nations, which they can control from Israel. They control Wall Street, international banking and business, social media, mainstream media, entertainment, all significant intelligence and police agencies, international media, the legal profession, the City of London financial center, and they largely created communist China and every other communist regime. Politics as usual now means nothing. Everybody in power is bought off. That is what we are facing.

        • Andrew
          Andrew says:

          The Nazis were anti-capitalist, but that did not make them Marxists. Capitalism and Marxism (Communism) are internationalist movements that disregard nation, race, and culture, and have the effect of concentrating wealth and power into fewer and fewer hands (the billionaire class in capitalism; the “Nomenklatura” under communism). The Nazis were nationalists, and their program was to create prosperity for ALL Germans who were willing to work and to strengthen the German nation in relation to other nations. “National Socialism” is exactly what it says it is: nationalist and socialist — not communist and not Marxist. Of course, Jews are out to confuse everyone about Nazism and other historic manifestations of “third way” politics (fascism in Spain and Italy) and so we have these pointless arguments. All the defenders of capitalism need to ask themselves is where it has gotten us. We are being overrun by the Third World so that capitalists can profit from cheap labor. I don’t consider that any better than being overrun by the Third World so that the Left can replace its opponents with new voters.

      • Cat
        Cat says:

        Carolyn, you wrote: Along with this is “going back where we came from.” TD says we Europeans could all do that. How? I would like to know how I, now an ‘elderly’ single woman, would move to Germany. Would they let me in? How would I support myself? I have no family there.

        Exactly. You sentiments pointedly could be said by many of Dalton’s target’s population. Anyone who can relate to your situation of “returning” to Germany should extend their empathy to your counterparts. Surely an elderly single black American woman would have an even more difficult time than you in “returning” to her genetically Gambian roots, for example.

        • Carolyn Yeager
          Carolyn Yeager says:

          Thanks for replying. I always welcome further discussion to help clarify what’s been said so far.

          I was aware of the point you’re making when I wrote my original comment – that leaving the land you call home is difficult for everyone. The only difference between me and the ‘elderly black American woman’ that I claim is that I have the greater right to be here. If we don’t consider this a European nation, but allow that it’s a multi-racial, multi-cultural nation, then we’ve already lost it. That’s the thesis of Thomas Dalton’s essays, whether you like it or not. Many here don’t.

          You fight for what you want, or you demand it in one way or the other. Period. You don’t let the slaves take over. Look at Haiti.

          However, it would not be a problem to allow elderly blacks to live out their remaining years, and even those younger ones who agree to be sterilized. If they want to reproduce themselves, which most naturally want to do, they would have to go back to Africa.

          The only moral authority for this is race loyalty and survival, and who is strong enough to enforce their will. As it is now, we are not strong enough. I think everyone recognizes this, including the blacks.

          • moneytalks
            moneytalks says:

            ” If we don’t consider this a European nation, but allow that it’s a multi-racial, multi-cultural nation, then we’ve already lost it. ”

            Amen .

  16. James
    James says:

    “The White race is of inherent value to humanity, and as such deserves protection and defense”.

    We don’t deserve anything when we act the way we do. Protecting and defending ones ethnos includes trimming the dead branches, without justifying or dialogue to any outside group.

    • claudius1889
      claudius1889 says:

      JAMES is right when he said “We don’t deserve anything when we act the way we do” Most white men are despicable race-traitors, that is why we are in this awful mess. We don’t owe anything to anyone, we created out of nothing the greatest civilization ever known. We have NOTHING to apologize for.

  17. Cat McGuire
    Cat McGuire says:

    In this “Reply to Critics” essay, you list 8 bullets of “areas of common agreement” of which there is “broad concensus.” The first 4 bullets I agree with. The last 4 bullets, however, I find quite problematic and do not agree with at all.

    I highly respect Debating the Holocaust, and have given away multiple copies as I believe your book is an ideal introduction to the holohoax. I’m now concerned that should any readers encounter your two White Genocide essays, it could totally negate not just your work at exposing the holohoax, but my grassroots efforts as well.

    • Andrew
      Andrew says:

      For anyone who hasn’t read it, “The Great Holocaust Trial” by Michael Hoffman is a must read.

      • Cat
        Cat says:

        Absolutely. I facilitated a monthly zio study group in my home for a year and a half and that was was of the last books we read. The trial’s evisceration of Hilberg was the straw that broke the camels back in getting one of our jewish members to definitively, finally believe the holohoax (though he won’t use that word).

  18. Heimdall in Africa
    Heimdall in Africa says:

    Very good article. Concise and thoughtful (and thought provoking). I’m from South Africa (Azania delenda est!) and over the past 4 yrs have definitely seen a dramatic decline in all aspects (devolving to the african mean). It’s not genocide, but just becoming more and more *typically* African, with all the negatives that implies. The dominant party, the ANC, is voted in time after time by the blacks, in spite of their obvious corruption, big man syndrome, and blatant stealing of public funds by the black, party-connected elite…and yet the ‘masses’ STILL vote for them. It’s baffling for Whites to understand – I mean if the party that I vote for is provably seen as corrupt with MY tax money – there is NO way I would ever vote for them. And if people tainted with corruption allegations are then given cabinet positions, I would be vociferous in my condemation.

    Apparently this isn’t the black mentality.

  19. milan
    milan says:

    @ Dalton

    your going to love this:

    But this is not what I would like to entertain or bore my twenty-five readers with. The above is intended as a background on the explorer, and as an introduction to another subject that also interested him, more historically verifiable but no less curious. Namely how the number of 6,000,000 among the Jews, victims or expected victims, appears in various occasions, publications and newspapers, as far back as the 19th century, up to 1200 AD and even to the year 135AD, as we will see next.
    Mr. Biglino says that he began this research out of curiosity – though he says he was reprimanded by unmentioned sources, for cultivating an ‘unhealthy curiosity.’ Given that curiosity is the mother of knowledge, I fail to see unhealthiness in exploring this generally unknown chapter of historical statistics.
    For we probably agree that there is no state more contrary to the dignity of common sense than that in which the understanding lies useless, and every opinion is received from external impulse.
    In the instance, as you will see, the ‘external impulse’ is actually a fact, indispensable to form an opinion. And though it may be redundant to say it, the matter has nothing to do with ‘sensationalism’ of the type peddled by tabloids, ever ready to surprise the unawareness of the thoughtless.
    The material is authentic and verifiable in the archives of the various publications involved.
    Let’s start with,


  20. James Reinfeld
    James Reinfeld says:

    Genocide is illegal. That is why “white genocide” is a vital claim that must not be given up. “White genocide” means that the destruction of the white race by policy, which is what is happening, is seriously illegitimate. It is mandatory, not optional, to oppose white genocide, or at least not further it.

    A list of policy proposals that some whites might prefer to present policies and other whites might not is a worthless substitute for the white genocide claim. It jumps past the two vital steps of establishing that the destruction of the white race by policy is happening, and that it is a crime that must (not may) be stopped.

  21. milan
    milan says:

    Maybe the answer lies in birth tourism? Ah, what money can buy:

    The Marianna Islands, located in the Pacific Ocean, near Guam, between Australia and Japan, are a commonwealth of the United States. They are being flooded with pregnant women to gain US citizenship for their children through automatic birthright citizenship if they are born on US soil. Relatives also can obtain citizenship through chain migration. US citizenship includes voting, a US passport, generous welfare benefits, college financial aid, and much more. Ralph Torres, the Governor of the Northern Mariana Islands, says birth tourism is wreaking havoc on the US territory. -GEG


  22. Poupon Marx
    Poupon Marx says:

    I salute Mr. Dalton’s forthcoming response and reconciliation and positive and negative feedback to his article. For me, what is important is keeping the goal and the end of all this: the very survival and perpetuation of the Indo-European race and its ethnicities. I have remarked several times elsewhere on Irish Savant, Unz, and Amren that we-across continents and countries-need to reconcile and adopt some same standards or reference.

    The descriptive nouns “White” and “Aryan” are too imprecise and loaded with unproductive baggage and connotation. Adapting to the latest genealogical, archaeological, and linguistic evidence, the gene pool of almost every European is shared with people east to the frontiers of Northern India, and into Asia and that there were 3 large migrations from east to westthat provided the largest number of genetic material of present day Europeans. The most precise term that is comprehensive for who we are is Indo-European.

    While culture, geo-political differences separate us, the future tsunami that threatens our entire race is building and will produce a catastrophic outcome from which we may never recover. This event is the ever increasing population of Africans, predominantly and the geometrically increasing populations of unassimilable Muslims, within and outside of our lands. The reality of this is straightforward and undeniable. It is coming and cannot be changed. For a greater understanding of the scale of this threat, I refer you to this article:


    This is a force of nature, of hordes of incompatible and uncontrollable BILLIONS streaming out of Africa, hungry, and wanting what we have which is what they do not have and cannot earn.

    In Russia itself, a sizable Muslim population continues to grow-just as in the West-outpacing the numbers of Christian “Whites”. Inevitably, we will face the forces of numbers from the Africans mentioned, and the incontrovertible hostility and REAL genocidal policies of Muslims present and future. The fate and disposal of Middle East Christians and White South Africans face us all. There is no avoidance of this Forza Del Destino. Only the way we respond, adequately or not, is variable.

    This article and its comments are a bravura and seminal moment, when the topic and orientation toward planning, options, and paths of strategy and tactics begin to enter the streams of discussions and discourse. This is a very positive development. Like so many, I owe Dr. K.M. and all the others of vision, scholarship, and courage who elucidated, identified, and educated the breath of our “Tribe” what has been and is happening, where it is coming form, who is doing it, and what it looks like. Without these pioneers, I and many, many others would still be swimming in the miasma of vagueness, misdirection, and ignorance. These are great men.

    I am looking at our present and impending dark{pardon the metaphor} future from a standpoint of strict practicality and likelihood of success. We need to take concrete and logical steps, which enable and protect us from these demographic tsunamis to come.

    Conceptually, I believe we need to develop a conscious reference of ALL the Indo-European Peoples as a <bTRIBE. This brings harmonious idealization and reference from which can be developed strategy and responses. A tribe is an extension of families and sub-groups that bind and act in concert for survival and to a lesser degree, for prosperity. Whether Western, Eastern Europeans, Asiatic Indo-Europeans, we all share and overlap far more in commonality than differences, which are cultural and regional.

    These are what I believe we must do to meet the coming demographic assault.

    1. Identify ourselves as parallel to an endangered species that needs actions and sanctions against its continued diminution. This means transcending borders of all types toward unifying Tribal survival. Even adversaries today among The Tribe will have to reconsider and reconfigure their national policies due to the coming demographic threat, which overrides any other challenge individual countries and Indo-European sub-populations have. Intra-Tribal squabbles and disagreements must be subordinated to the essentials of survival.

    2. Actions proceed from ideas. Let’s banish the weasel words of memes and narratives. We need to promulgate truths based on fact, evidence, and objectivity. As discussed here, an emerging consensus is being realized that our only hope is sequestration and ethnic/national sovereignty in nearly created states. Similar arrangements have been clamored for by Blacks and Browns repeatedly. In order for us to have our racially homogenous communities, completely autonomous, we need to ENCOURAGE these groups to pursue theirs. Thus we achieve our platform and homelands under our complete control, removed from subversion and hostile actions, indoctrination, and subversion of the young and weaker minded.

    3. Since we are about 60% of the population, a re-distribution should produce such a proportion of our new homeland. The political demographic maps show that the Red States are predominantly in “Fly-Over” country, i.e. the Midwest, but most importantly, where the Nation’s food supply comes from and where net wealth is generated. NB this fact as regards future leverage and power based relations with the other republics.

    4. I am not of the opinion that like minded minorities should be included. The most essential item in a cohesive and functioning republic is citizenship. This should be highly restrictive and be revokable under a reasonable process. The overarching goal of our sequestration is-let’s be specific and honest-genetic. We need the space and conditions with which to proceed to procreate and restock our gene pool, which has been greatly reduced by millennia of wars and conflict. Our best and most productive have marched to the battlefield never to return. I elucidated this on Irish Savant. Wars are much more than destruction of property. They are genetic reducers.

    5. Along with a new consciousness and mental framework, certain policies must be created and derived from DATA and FACTS. As an example-admitting the obvious that several solutions and remedies exist in the past-there must be laws that are necessary, de rigeur, and ineluctably constant and immutable. As an example, the role of women would be thusly proscribed: No woman can professionally advance in a profession or vocation unless she has a minimum of three children. This policy is a straightforward, concrete and empirical consequence of demographic and tribal survival. It also illustrates the shift and redirection of our thoughts and values from the impractical, unnatural, irrational, and unworkable mores and norms and sloppy thinking that is so pervasive.

    6. As the munificent Mr. Dalton has said, we only need a critical mass of Whites to start and operate our enterprise. Assume 50% of the West’s Indo-Europeans are useless to our future, either totally cucked, mentally-disordered, terminally indoctrinated, or just plain weak in every meaningful way. They are not be engaged or wasted of our time and energies. Many of them are hostile and so demented that they favor destruction of their own Tribe. With some percentage of the remaining 50% or less, we can cull and collect the quality stock that will perform and persevere. This will have to include the wide spectrum in proportion to that which a normal healthy society needs. Both sides of the medium and mean of the Bell Curve will have to be included. No outsourcing or importation of workers to do any of our jobs. We will pick our own cotton and harvest our produce “in house”.

    7. ”White Nationalism” needs to be stripped of its pejorative and prejudicial meaning and emotive quality-really hysteria-of an evil, inhumane set of qualities. Therefore, let Black Nationalism and Brown (or whatever) Nationalism gain prominence and acceptance. Since they are “special”, protected, and favored, this dovetails with the Jewish NWO order of the Kalgeri-Coudahove, Coward-Piven Plan, all of which are operating on the World Stage. They emit from the same source and have the same goal, solely to destroy functioning traditional societies based on eternal human values that work. Their goal is naked power, complete and total in a very few hands, forever.

    This is the roadmap and routes that I see as imperative. I come from a background of managing marine power plants and large ocean vessels. You work with what you have, you improvise when necessary, you remain flexible and based in reality to fit the demands of successful operation. There is no guesswork, personal indulges, caprice, or wishful thinking. The ship has to be able to perform its duties, and therefore the needs and necessities are sometimes crushing and brutal. It is a universe that demands clear thinking, effective action and execution, and deep knowledge of operating under challenging conditions and reading the trends. Our Tribe’s survival is wholly dependent on-as The Buddha said-The Right Ideas and The Right Actions. Ideas and proposals for our survival need to pass through the crucible and just like steel, only the best will make it through.

    • Pat Etheridge
      Pat Etheridge says:

      I don’t believe stupidity and passiveness necessarily confer guilt or unworthiness, and I am hoping that’s not what you’re saying. Our “struggle,” if it can be defined with such a term, is also for many who can be labeled as stupid and passive. They are part of our collective, they have a place in it, and we must fight for them also.

      • Poupon Marx
        Poupon Marx says:

        Well, as the saying goes, “It is what it is”. When you are traveling long, excess baggage, fouled bottoms, unnecessary ballast-all related to the mission of getting there-has to be put aside and left at the dock. I have no sentimentality for members of our tribe who have chosen to actively work toward our dispossession and destruction.

        Sentiment and unconnected emotion are just not what makes things happen. They are worse than non-performing deadweight; they are like water in the fuel oil and lube oil.

      • claudius1889
        claudius1889 says:

        Pat Etheridge = White people that have chosen to work with the enemy are our enemies, period. There cannot be any excuses for traitors.

        • Andrew
          Andrew says:

          Whites in the U.S. have tolerated being discriminated against in affirmative action programs for over fifty years now. That tells me that it will only be a small percentage of whites who will try to save themselves. We cannot help those who will not help themselves. They are excess baggage and the product of mutant genes that thrive when the laws of natural selection are suspended.

          • moneytalks
            moneytalks says:

            Indo-Europeans/whites/aryans/caucasians ( called ” whites ” for brevity ) historicly have been by far mostly rural peoples until relatively recently ( since ww2 ) . The rural way-of-life is nonpolitical compared to the urban//cosmopolitan way-of-life that is much more intellectually vibrant due to the higher density of intellects in an urban environment . Politics is much better suited for cosmopolitan life than country living . Voting has become since 1776 not much more than a popularity contest that involves little to no substantive political discourse . It is mostly a sheeple farce . Most whites are now no longer a rural peoples . However , their tens of thousands of years living a rural nonpolitical way-of-life is a tradition which they have not yet superceded . The thousands of years-old tradition of nonpolitical living most likely is in some way coded into their genome . Whites on average have a very respectable IQ but their low level of political intelligence is inconsistent with their high IQ . They are on average politicly retarded — political morons . The much less inflammatory and preferred expression is to say

    • TJ
      TJ says:

      “. . .The Right Ideas and The Right Actions. . .”

      Ah, Earth-shaking profundity- blows Aristotle right out of the ball park!

      Buddhism is explicitly based upon nihilism- nihil means nothing in Latin. Orientals do not or cannot understand core Western ideas, such as the Law of Non-Contradiction:

      “It is impossible for the same thing to belong and not to belong at the same time to the same thing and in the same respect” (with the appropriate qualifications) (Metaph IV 3 1005b19–20). The following are some of those qualifications: The “same thing” that belongs must be one and the same thing and it must be the actual thing and not merely its linguistic expression. For example, it is possible for someone to be a pitcher and not a pitcher where “pitcher” in the first instance refers to a baseball player and in the second to a jug that can hold beer. Also, while it is possible for x to be actually F and potentially not F, it is impossible for something to be actually F and actually not F. A table can be actually red and potentially not red, but not actually red and actually not red at the same time.


      • Poupon Marx
        Poupon Marx says:

        Intrepid….bold….succinct….and…..completely wrong. I mean, 500 million people are just deluding themselves on the teachings of a man known to have existed. And the religion is rapidly increasing. There has never been any wars fought it the name of the Teachings.

        But, like atheists and material determinism, you have to believe in a total observable universe as the sum total of All That Is. If that’s enough for you, and something inside of you tells you there is more-or not-then that is your reality that you choose.

        Is the sensate world all that there is? Before the Theory of Relativity, the refinement and advances in mathematics, the Newtonian and Aristotelian view of the world was accepted as delineating the limits. In the Medieval world, the solar system revolved around the Earth and Heaven was just above the stratosphere.

        But, if you are curious, then check this out: http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/index.htm

        Also of interest, possibly, are the videos of the interviews of Peter Robinson of the Hoover Institute with David Berlinski, and further on the mathematic unsolvability and impossibility of Evolution Theory.

        Aristotelian Philosophy is an elaborate filing system. For the Big Questions, it doesn’t have the horsepower to make the trip.

      • Poupon Marx
        Poupon Marx says:

        I recommend this article from the archives of a well respected journal of renown and authority….The Occidental Observer.


        “The way of the Buddha has fascinated Westerners in both ancient and modern times. Ancient Buddhism flourished under the Greek monarchs who ruled in the wake of Alexander’s armies in northern India and Gandhara. The Greeks began the practice of portraying the Buddha in statues, these beautiful works presenting him as a cross between a philosopher and a demigod, sometimes protected by a club-wielding Heracles. After a two-thousand-year interlude, modern Western advocates of Buddhism such as Ricard and Wright (as well as British author Stephen Batchelor) tend to ground their arguments in terms of psychological and evolutionary science. Meditation is presented as a way of overcoming or channeling the various cravings for comfort, food, sex, and gratification of the ego which the human mind has acquired throughout our evolutionary history. This mental equipment, they argue, was adaptive in our prehistoric existence, but is not necessarily appropriate for our very different modern lives. To take the most obvious example, our modern ability to satisfy our craving for salty and sugary foods has led to an explosion in obesity across the world. If you’ll pardon the metaphor, it stands to reason that the comforts and conceits enabled by modern life have made our souls obese as well.

        Interestingly, Ricard is aware of twin studies suggesting that most personality traits are about 50% heritable, that is to say are strongly influenced by genes, and points to studies which show that the propensity to happiness itself is heritable.[9] He does not broach the topic of eugenics, but one might ask: would it be ethical, or even a moral imperative, to spread the genes predisposing people for happiness and psychological health? Would a good Buddhist seek to spread the genes predisposing those genes that predispose one to ‘Awakening’?”

    • Carolyn Yeager
      Carolyn Yeager says:

      “the role of women would be thusly proscribed: No woman can professionally advance in a profession or vocation unless she has a minimum of three children.” … Poupon Marx

      The problem with men deciding the rules to be followed in a “white nationalist state” is that they want to set it up so that the men get to boss the women around. A natural female response to the above ‘rule’ would be: Why not the same ‘rule’ for men? Men can also have to father, and take responsibility for, three children before they can begin practicing their profession. This would encourage youthful parents; youth produces the best offspring. It would also discourage homosexuality, which is a net negative in building up our numbers, and other social ills. These young, student parents could be assisted financially as necessary by the white nationalist community at large, giving the childless and/or empty nesters an important role to play.

      This sounds ever so much more fair — a sense of fairness being a major European trait.

      While I’m here, I’ll add that wanting to adopt the historical-scientific classification that defines “Whites” as Indo-European, and extending the borders of the “White Race” to the “frontiers of Northern India, and into Asia”, is culturally unworkable. Better to limit ourselves to Europe, and not include anything east of the Black Sea, Ukraine and the city of Archangel — as general boundary markers.

      • Poupon Marx
        Poupon Marx says:

        Carolyn, I admire your pluck and tenacity in exposing the common and devious frauds we are and were exposed to regarding the overall reality of 20th century Germany.

        On this issue, I really think your sentimentality overwhelms your statements and opinions. As an engineer and very likely reincarnated German (my affinity for things German is unnatural and without antecedent), I only use a simple truth table: “If it works I like it and will use it, it if doesn’t then I reject it and won’t waster any time or energy on it”.. Since I believe many of our realigned ways and means and solutions can be found in the past, I prioritize what has worked for thousands of years in rearing and nurturing children.

        Notions and emotions are not useful for the resolution and resurgimento or our Tribe. And I certainly don’t give a hoot for the concept of “fairness”, when solutions are to be based on parallels and analogy to solving engineering problems. We can’t afford flabby and excess ballast because we will be needing the capacity to carry real freight and fuel.

        As far as YOUR concept of what “White” is, I have endeavored many times to submit concrete, scientific findings and conclusions based on evidence and science that is repeatable and verifiable. Your concept of acceptable cohorts will fit in a state in a new autonomous republic, but for the united front and sheer volume and numbers, we need to to follow our genome, archeological, and linguistic similarities to survive the human Schwärze that will seek to devour us.

        • Carolyn Yeager
          Carolyn Yeager says:

          I will not give you the last word. You failed to answer to what I wrote, accusing me instead of “sentimentality” and relying on “emotions” when I exhibited nothing of the sort. I’d like to have $10 for every time a man has used those two words against me online instead of coming up with a decent reply. What you expressed is “I don’t have to take you seriously because you’re a woman.” Almost as often have I heard the claim of non-Germans to be a reincarnated Wehrmacht officer or NS party member. You’re not very original.

          “I prioritize what has worked for thousands of years in rearing and nurturing children.” … PM

          Then how about writing a treatise where you actually describe your ideas for rearing and nurturing children and show how they work; I’d like to see it. In any case, like Tsigantes, you demote race and promote culture, ancient history and gender dominance – when the topic we’re discussing is a race-based social order. You are undermining the whole concept of race reality which includes women and men equally. You put non-European men (pre-European) ahead of European women in your hierarchy of value – without a doubt. You said, “I certainly don’t give a hoot for the concept of ‘fairness’,” even when it comes to members of our own race. What?

          All this illustrates why deciding what is meant by “White” is a first necessity. It’s always where the biggest disagreements come in. I would say that everyone with any kind of leading role in the kind of organization being talked about here would need to submit a complete, accurate description of themselves for the other ‘leaders’ to see, including a DNA analysis. This is the scientific method that is available to us today.

          • Poupon Marx
            Poupon Marx says:

            OK, Carolyn, how about this? All cultures, races or ethnics that are producing positive demographics are traditionally based nuclear families, vis a vis Husband-Wife/ Father-Mother. Nature is nature, Carolyn. You need to think about what I wrote more deeply. My evidence is historical and what works. Your response is highly emotional and not very concrete or empirical.

            We all know that your perspective comes from a Germanic-centric hierarchy of every decreasing human value, as concentric circles from Northern Europe. I must telling you frankly that you dwell in the past too much and seek to extrapolate and create an illusion of continuity that past glories just need to be restarted.

            Finally and frustratedly, you just do not seem to grasp the scale and power of the Black Tsunami that is coming. We cannot afford the conceit of “my White genes are better than yours”, in a looming real “Holocaust” of Indo-Europeans.

            Only be concerted and united of all peoples from the New World IE to the borders of Asia, to the Christian communities of the Middle East, do we stand a chance. This is similar to the Battle At The Gates Of Vienna, where Western Civilization almost was lost forever, save for one man, King Jan Sobieski of Poland. Before that, perfumed and self centered princes were arguing over who would lead, what roles would be assigned, who would get the glory, etc, etc.

            You are talking about icing on the cake, which comes after the cake. Without the cake there is no icing.

            Please read my comments more carefully and closely and respond on an empirical, concrete, causative and engineering level.

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            What nonsense.
            Do you consider it particularly “deep, concrete and empirical” to say that “Husband-Wife/Father-Mother families” are what works? I absolutely never said otherwise. In fact, I said not just young women but also young men should have the requirement to bring children into the society before they are allowed to engage in leadership and higher level activities. That is a strengthening of this idea, not a weakening.

            But you don’t like it. Your INDO-european idea is for older men like yourself to take a young virgin as a bride or concubine, and prevent her from ever having the opportunity for further education, a vocation or profession. You know that’s what you want. Yes, I am following the German National Socialist model wherein the young women were available to the young men, and they were encouraged to marry young. Much good can flow from that.

            You are following the middle-eastern, Arab and Jew model of female suppression and calling it better.
            Where is your evidence? You talk in generalities and do a lot of bragging that you don’t back up, as Karen T. accused you of over a year ago. We ‘real Europeans’ don’t want to join with the Christians of the middle east and central Asia any more than with the Christians of Africa!

            Your history of Jan Sobieski and the Battle of Vienna is incorrect.
            “Western Civilization almost was lost forever, save for one man, King Jan Sobieski of Poland. Before that, perfumed and self centered princes were arguing over who would lead, what roles would be assigned, who would get the glory, etc, etc.,” you wrote.
            Not quite. I guess not even old Jan could do it all by himself, could he. He took the glory which should have been spread around much more widely.

            Just keep writing here and you’ll let everyone know what a faker you are. Putting on airs about your great ’empiricism’ and calling me “highly emotional” without any concrete examples doesn’t work, so you can’t say you do what works. Are you the head of a Father-Mother-Children family yourself? I somehow have my doubts.

            Bottom line: We’re discussing the idea of how to turn around our European-settled nations and your solution is to include non-Europeans because they’re Christian and they believe in traditional male-female families. You’re substituting culture/religion for race. Just so we’re clear about this.

  23. Poupon Marx
    Poupon Marx says:

    Any White Ethno-state must statutorily mandate a White majority of at least 87%, never to fall below that figure.

    • TJ
      TJ says:

      Great to have such standards.

      13% negro is fine, just fine. For diversity, hows about 6.5% negro, balanced by 6.5% jew?

      • Poupon Marx
        Poupon Marx says:

        Huh? Who said anything about Negro anything? Some Asians, some Hindoos, some none of the above who are granted work permits but never citizenship.

        I think in cause and effect terms, and predictable outcomes. I also use analogous logic, parallel reasoning, and similarities in and of the World, rather than abstractions and symbols. That comes from my connection and affinity with Asia and the East.

  24. Rebecca
    Rebecca says:

    Bravo Mr. Dalton for your fine, intelligent and inspiring proposal and follow-up article! As a new-be to the Alt Right, I have waited four long years for meaningful discussion for ACTION. Obviously the important academic work of KM and the other strong pillars of our movement, i.e. Taylor, Brimlow, et. el. have provided the necessary base for understanding our slow demise and will continue to do so. At some point, however, is it not our duty to take meaningful, well planned action? If not us, then who?

    Also, obviously there are a plethora of well read intellectual, rationalists posting on this site and in our movement; yet, on this stream hardly any idealists. We idealists provide the inspiration for academics to actualize their ideas. We all need to use our imagination, feelings, positive passions and our original Aryan force to create a new paradigm for future. And this is not “psycho-mumbo jumbo” that a few possibly conjured up in their minds upon reading my post! This is a psychological and spiritual fact.

    I agree with the author’s points AND a majority of the other perspectives posted. Our plight is not binary. Our plight requires a multitude of methods to achieve our goal of reestablishing ourselves out of this modern day “Dark Age” in all its forms of darkness. What we are missing is the will to envision the impossible.

    I propose that we start to form small stealth, creative planning groups to begin the impossible. I happily offer my 12 acre homestead as a meeting place to establish the first group and welcome an email from Mr. Dalton to discuss such ideas.

    In closing, might we each hold close to our hearts a new vision and a quote from Andrew in these posts: “that whites have been a courageous, adventurous, creative and freedom loving people.” May we re-remember in our souls these amazing truths about ourselves. Head the call to action!

  25. Poupon Marx
    Poupon Marx says:

    Objectively speaking, I believe you should not cut off postings by criteria of terseness or slight abrasiveness. A little rough and tumble, give and take is a beneficial result of vigorous discussion. There have been comments of this happening in the past by some very good and profound thinkers. The result this creates is a termination of their contribution. While TOO is a high IQ site, so is Unz and Irish Savant. While these sites are extremely tolerant and do not restrict a wide spectrum, TOO does, in my opinion.

    One has to keep in mind the mission of TOO and “Alt-Right” sites: simply put, to effect change, big change, as a result of changing minds and hearts.

    The same mistake that Darkmoon has made by eliminating some erudite and wise commenters on the basis of personal comments or some vulgarity has resulted in a dumbing down of level of discourse that has been quite steep. And this standard is unequally applied because they moderator has his “favorites”, openly expressed. This is counter productive, and lacks objective quality.

    Here the same has happened, and it is obvious. I posit that this is not a chat room or a family cross table talk. Comments should stand or fall on their merits WITHOUT your bias or favoritism. Your personal side comments to Pierre de Craion are inappropriate and immature appearing. You have not posted my reply to Carolyn Yeager-again a seemingly subjective and personal favorite-due to the very mild harshness of my reply, evidently, in spite of the fact that her reply to my comments, was based on her subjective preferences and specious ideas that have absolutely nothing to do with Indo-European survival. She went right into feminine privilege mode, and deserves to take her licks for it.

    In sum, you are acting paternalistic and subject and protectionist, in my opinion. Sharp words are now and then are a natural essence of ebb and flow in the exchange of ideas. You tolerate this in Charles Frey, Roy Albrecht, and Pierre de Caion, but no in others. White future is largely about numbers, not a smug elite of protected and many times pretentious “pets”. I vividly recall you allowing Albrecht attack me in the most vulgar terms imaginable with reference to human waste.

    You have mentioned that you provide moderation as a free service, as a sideline, evidently. But sometimes the comments go a full day without being posted, which by then a new column has been added. This is a disservice to TOO and off-putting to what has to be assumed the better and influential contributors.

    If your time is consumed in other matters and your attention is too little employed here, I submit you should relay this sentiment to the editors and Dr. KM himself. As reassessment of your role is overdue, in my opinion.

  26. Carolyn Yeager
    Carolyn Yeager says:

    “You have not posted my reply to Carolyn Yeager- ***again a seemingly subjective and personal favorite*** -due to the very mild harshness of my reply, evidently, in spite of the fact that her reply to my comments, was based on her subjective preferences and specious ideas that have absolutely nothing to do with Indo-European survival. She went right into feminine privilege mode, and deserves to take her licks for it.” … Poupon Marx

    LOL. I am hardly a personal favorite of the moderator, or of Pierre Crayon. It is not unusual for my comments to *not* be published, or only after two days time or more. I have also been subjected to the moderator’s posted reprimands to me about my comment without showing my comment (!) which I had no opportunity to answer.
    Nevertheless, I come back and persevere because I know it’s the site owner’s right to run it as they wish.
    (Mod. Note: Cut the crap, Carolyn; and start acting your age! If you want to “change things”, start with yourself.)

  27. moneytalks
    moneytalks says:

    This article is loaded with good points , bad points and ugly points . It is very stimulating and I will continue to re-read it as time permits . Personally , I prefer shorter articles with only a small pickup truckload of issues to consider and respnd to rather than this mile-long trainload of issues . Like you said , time is getting short for the WN movement unless we can make//create more time for it so as to avoid , as much as possible , the waste of haste .

  28. Ludwig
    Ludwig says:

    “…..Are there other good options? I don’t see any on the horizon.

    Most of what I read here by TD has been written in “The White Nationalist Manifesto” by Greg Johnson of Counter-Currents. I agree with the main points.
    It’s not so controversial but just difficult to begin in earnest. The work of explaining and showing ignorant whites the facts is still to be pursued as this is a numbers game. More people will begin to ask whats going on here when they are personally affected so look forward to being able to, not only win the argument, but win the man – white man!

Comments are closed.