The Earl Raab Election(s)

The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon be non-white or non-European. And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country. We [i.e., Jews] have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous [i.e., multiracial] nature of our population tends to make it irreversible, and makes our constitutional constraints against bigotry more practical than ever.
Earl Raab, Jewish Bulletin of Northern California, February 19, 1993

Earl Raab speaking at the 1972 AFT Los Angeles Civil Rights Conference

Note on usage: In this essay the racial designation “White” will be capitalized when used to mean racial Europeans and not capitalized (i.e., “white”) when conforming to common and official usage that includes non-European Caucasians (NECs) such as Middle Easterners and North Africans (MENAs) and semi-European Caucasians such as Ashkenazi Jews in the “white” racial category.

Earl Raab (1919—2015) served 40 years as the director of the Jewish Community Relations Council in San Francisco and was also the director of the Perlmutter Institute for Jewish Advocacy at Brandeis University. By “bigotry” and “Nazi-Aryan” in the above quotation, he means pro-White advocacy and support for White interests, the most existentially important of which are White preservation and independence — the continued existence of the White or European racial group and control of its own existence with its own countries, governments, cultures and economies. Earl Raab and his Jewish readership, the “we” in the above quote who are representative of the dominant and more active elements of the Jewish population, defined their group interests as diametrically opposed to White racial interests, promoting multiracialism, mass non-White immigration and racial intermixture, thereby causing White racial dispossession, subjugation, replacement and destruction. White interests, and especially the existentially important ones of continued racial life and independence through racial separation, are identified with and denounced as Nazism, racism, white supremacy, Fascism, etc. Thus even Donald Trump, whose perceived identification with implicit Whiteness is certainly far below any explicit support for existentially important interests, is frequently described as a racist, white supremacist, Nazi, etc., simply for opposing and obstructing, and so slowing, the progress of the anti-White agenda.

In 2016 the anti-White agenda of Raab, et al. was at the point of achieving Raab’s “irreversible” realization in a Hillary Clinton victory which would have swung the Damoclean sword and politically beheaded the White population, terminating its still remaining vestiges of political control of the country it created. They would do this by the legalization and enfranchisement of an estimated 22 million illegal non-White aliens (and possibly statehood for Puerto Rico and Washington D.C.), so that a party that served, promoted and defended White interests would no longer, in Raab’s words, “be able to prevail.”

But it was Donald Trump — the first major party presidential candidate in generations meaningfully identified with White interests, even if at a very low and implicit level — who won, not Clinton, and Raab’s triumphalism of 1993 suddenly seemed premature. Trump’s victory clearly demonstrated it was still possible for an implicitly pro-White candidate to prevail, and if so, also demonstrated the more remote possibility that a much more explicitly and meaningfully pro-White candidate and party could also still prevail.

So instead of realizing its complete and “irreversible” triumph over White America, the Anti-White Coalition suffered a defeat that shocked and shook it to its core. In response, it mobilized all the assets of its vast power structure to undermine the results of the election and make sure such a thing could never happen again. Before 2016 we could visualize the electoral future as a gradual racial transformation of the electorate to a non-White majority over the course of two or three decades in line with the projected demographic changes, but in the aftermath of Trump’s win it became clear that the Democrats planned to radically accelerate the racial electoral shift in their favor, plans postponed by Clinton’s defeat, but only until the next Democrat victory.

The approaching 2020 election — and if the Democrats lose this election, every election to come until the Democrats do win and impose permanent and “irreversible” non-White political dominance — will be as meaningful and decisive for America as the South African general election of 1994, which transferred political control of South Africa from the White minority to the non-white majority, was for the White population of that country. Every American election until the Democrats win will continue to be a sword of Damocles hanging over the neck of the White population which will finally fall when the Democrats win, striking off the White head (i.e., control or possession) of the country and imposing permanent non-White supremacy and the subjugation of Whites.

To realize the goal of White racial preservation and independence, the continued life of our race, and its control of its own existence, we must separate ourselves from the non-White races. To do this, it is necessary to be in control of the country, in fact very strongly in control, and to exercise that control with a firm and decisive will. To advance the same goal for our race in Europe, Canada and Australia we should so conduct ourselves in the process of separation that our racial kin in other countries will be moved to emulate our example rather than be repelled by it.

If our goal is to preserve as much of our race as we can, and if our goal of separation and independence for racial preservation is the goal consistent with the best interests of our race, then these goals would be best achieved by what Wilmot Robertson labeled the “National Premise,” a grand territorial partition of the country that would “spin off” the non-White racial populations into separate independent countries while keeping the greater part of the territory for a separate and independent all-White country. This separate and independent White country would contain the great majority of the White population (basically all who don’t self-emigrate to non-White areas) as well as the territory where the great majority of Whites reside, obliging less than 25% of them to relocate (the extent of White relocation should be minimized to maximize White support). This separate and independent White country would still be transcontinental and include the national capital and so be the continuation of the United States, and it would keep disturbance and disruption to a minimum (e.g., retirees would continue to receive their Social Security and Medicare benefits). I have previously discussed and described this goal in detail on this site in my essays “The National Premise Revisited” (with maps), my review of The White Nationalist Manifesto by Dr. Greg Johnson,  and in two earlier articles in The Occidental Quarterly: “Visions of the Ethnostate” (vol. 18, no.3, Fall 2018 pp 29–46) and “Separate or Die” (vol. 8, no. 4, Winter 2008–2009 pp 15–38)

The most important measure of any separatist and preservationist proposal is what proportion of our race could it be reasonably expected to save, or is even designed to save. By such a measure the National Premise proposal for a grand or total separation is clearly the only sufficient preservationist solution. Such a solution is incomparably superior to the sundry much smaller-scale secessionist proposals that would have little or no lasting preservationist effect, making them no more than larger and more elaborate variants of White flight.

The National Premise goal can theoretically be achieved by different means, but by far the clearest and most structured path forward, and the one that would be least disruptive of people’s lives in every sense, would be within the existing political and electoral system established and long maintained by earlier generations of our race. This is the system to which the great majority of our people strongly adhere, regard as legitimate, and wish to continue.

We can conceive of this electoral path to White racial liberation and restoration (or instauration per Robertson’s more esoteric Latin term), as having multiple stages, and each stage having several steps (or hurdles). The first stage is the conversion or transformation of one of the two major political parties into a national populist party, and then over successive stages and steps into an implicitly and then explicitly pro-White party. Since the 1960s the Republican party has been the obvious vehicle for this development, but other than the steady migration of White voters to the GOP, no overt steps in a national populist direction were taken until Trump, whose election was the first official and historical step (one could say the first victory) for the national populist and ultimately pro-White movement. A basic outline of this electoral path would be:

Stage 1: The conversion or transformation of the Republican party into a national populist party. In many respects the policies of such a party would naturally tend to coincide with the interests of the majority element of the population, which in America, Europe, Canada and Australia would be Whites, including being restrictive of immigration, but it would seek to unify and integrate all parts of the citizenry and so be inclusive of the non-White elements, perhaps even pandering to them to address their complaints and attract their support. The efforts to restrict illegal immigration could include better border protection and enforcement (e.g., “the wall”), abolishing DACA and denying any form of amnesty for illegal immigrants, enacting mandatory E-Verify to restrict employment opportunities for illegals, denying government benefits and assistance for illegals, and possibly, assuming there is a strong enough popular mandate to provide the will, the forcible deportation of all illegal aliens.

Stage 2: The conversion of the GOP into an implicitly pro-White party. At the implicit level of the process pro-White policies would still be limited but would include greater priority and emphasis placed on combating illegal immigration with an increased determination to employ and enforce all the methods listed in Stage 1. Also at this stage there would no longer be any pandering to non-Whites, appeals to their special interests, or promotion of their inclusion and integration.

Stage 3: The further transformation of the GOP into a more actively, but still implicitly, pro-White party. This stage would include abolishing any programs or policies that overtly benefit or prioritize the interests of non-Whites, including Affirmative Action, “reverse discrimination,” or restrictions on rights of private association and discrimination, essentially repealing the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Stage 4: The continued conversion of the GOP into an explicitly pro-White party. At this stage of the process active measures would be supported to advance specifically White racial interests, but they would still be more defensive, ameliorative and temporary rather than decisive, complete and final. This would include means to secure White political dominance and efforts to promote various forms and degrees of racial separation.

Stage 5: The completed conversion of the GOP into an explicitly pro-White party. At this level of the process there would be open and determined advocacy for the complete and final, and only fully sufficient, solution to the issue of racial preservation and independence by the National Premise concept of a complete or grand racial separation through a grand partition of the country on racial lines.

The anti-Whites are very much aware of the threat such a development, made evident by Trump’s victory, poses for their previously unchallenged plans. The conversion of one of the major parties into a pro-White party, especially if it has enough White electoral support to win, is their worst political nightmare, and that is why they have mobilized all their power against it, with unprecedented and ferocious intensity, to “nip it in the bud” and abort the further development of a potential nascent pro-White movement. A second Trump victory would take the second step in Stage 1 even if only by consolidating the first step. A Trump defeat would probably set back the development of the GOP into a national populist, and increasingly more pro-White, party until it would be too late to matter.

How fast and far the Republican party can go in the process of its conversion over stages into an ever more pro-White party depends on the extent of its White support, and how fast and far its White support is willing to go. Trump won a very providential Electoral College victory in 2016 with 58% of the “white” vote, including 63% of white men and 53% of white women — the notorious “gender gap” celebrated by the anti-Whites. As the Jews and non-European Caucasians (NECs) commonly included in the “white” classification give most of their vote to the Democratic party (Jews consistently vote over 70% for Democrats) we can estimate that the GOP’s share of the White (European) vote is 2–3% greater than its share of the overall “white” vote, indicating that in 2016 Trump actually won 60–61% of the White vote. In the 2018 mid-term elections about 8 million Trump voters didn’t vote, and this decreased turnout for the GOP allowed the Democrats to take control of the House of Representatives with very adverse consequences, including the expected impeachment attempts.

When Trump began his candidacy in May 2015 he immediately jumped far ahead of his competition, with about 30% support in the polls of the Republican base, by emphasizing his opposition to illegal immigration and amnesty, including DACA, and promising to build a “wall” to stop illegals from crossing the southern border. This was and is a strongly pro-White position, although implicitly so, and beyond what any of his competitors were willing to match. He did not promise to deport the illegals who were already here, which would have been at the very limits of the parameters of acceptable political discourse, but his statements were enough to arouse the full fury of the dominant Anti-White Coalition far beyond anything or anyone since Nixon, and perhaps further than that. But his statements strongly opposing illegal immigration set off alarm bells among the anti-White establishment while also awakening the growing racial disquiet and concerns of a broad mass of Whites. These statements excited unprecedentedly enthusiastic support within the pro-White movement, with some seeming to think he could and would take the conversion process all the way through Stage 2.

Trump’s record on keeping his campaign promises is mixed, but not for lack of effort. He never seems to give up, and when blocked on one path, whether by congressional or judicial opposition, thinks out-of-the-box to find a way around to another path. His constituency is of course a coalition of somewhat disparate groups, although overwhelmingly White and to a large degree qualifying as populist. His most important constituency, in terms of numbers, is probably Evangelical Christians, and he has found it much easier to keep his campaign promises to them and other constituencies not related to racial or immigration issues than those that are related to race or immigration. Still he has tried, and stubbornly persists in trying to find a way. Despite congressional resistance and judicial obstruction. he has found creative ways to put together $18 billion to pay for about 1,000 miles of bollard fencing, the type of barrier preferred by the Border Patrol. As of mid-October, 341 miles of bollard fencing were completed and construction is continuing at a rate of about ten miles per week. About 500 miles is projected to be completed by the end of Trump’s first term. The remaining 500 miles of already funded fencing should be completed a year or so into his second term, assuming he has a second term. Otherwise the money will certainly not be used for further construction but might be used to tear down the fencing that has been built.


To Trump’s credit, on racial issues he has often gone beyond his campaign promises, taking bold action on matters not discussed in the campaign, which should be regarded as surprise bonuses by White advocates. Recently he denounced both “Critical Race Theory” and “The 1619 Project,” two of the leading current expressions of anti-White ideology, and banned the common practice of engaging in compulsory anti-White indoctrination sessions in the Executive branch and by government contractors, to the great discomfiture of professional anti-Whites like Tim Wise. On border enforcement he has pressured Mexico to allow apprehended illegal border crossers to be returned to Mexico to await the adjudication of their cases rather than being released into the U.S. where almost all of them disappear. He has also stopped the long practice of building federal housing projects—overwhelmingly populated by non-Whites—in primarily White suburbs.

To win the coming election without help from a second stroke of Providence or from an unlikely — and for us undesirable — major increase in his share of the non-White vote, and assuming the same voter turnout as in 2016, Trump will probably need to increase his share of the White (European) vote by at least several points to circa 63–65%, which would show in the tabulations as 61–62% of the overall “white” vote. To win the popular vote he would probably need to raise his numbers to at least 63% of the overall “white” vote, which could require as much as 66% of the White (European) vote. Assuming Trump does win, the larger the margin of his victory, and in particular the greater the extent to which his victory is attributable to White support, the stronger will be his mandate, the effects on the GOP and the spirit of his White supporters, creating a sense of confidence that will both enable and encourage bolder pro-White policies.

If Trump wins with a significant increase in White support it would also be another step in the process of transforming the GOP into a White people’s party, as an essential part of that process is decreasing the party’s dependence on non-White votes. Ideally, and ultimately necessarily as the party’s policies become more explicitly and meaningfully pro-White, the future White People’s party will need to be independent of non-White votes for electoral success, meaning it will need to win, based on the current 2020 racial proportions of the electorate, perhaps 80% of the White vote to win the popular vote, although the percentage required to win the electoral college, depending on the distribution of the votes, could theoretically be much less.

The other essential part of the process of converting the GOP into a White People’s party that is successful both electorally and in the actual implementation of pro-White policies is the continuation of a super-majority of White support as the party’s policies become more explicitly and meaningfully pro-White, ultimately to the point of a racial partition of the country to realize the “National Premise.”

This process of the conversion of the GOP into a White People’s party by steps and stages is at stake in the upcoming election. Trump’s election in 2016 was the first real step in the process. There is a common but misguided tendency for White advocates to focus too much on Trump in this election when our focus should really be on the process, the whole process, and nothing but the process. In this process Trump is only the first stepping-stone, or perhaps the first several stepping-stones depending on what happens, but the process is far bigger than him and hopefully will continue after he has left the scene. But that depends on whether he wins this election. Our choice is between a Trump victory that would likely mean the continuation of the process of transforming the GOP into a White People’s party, or a Democrat win that would be the “irreversible” Earl Raab election, essentially equivalent in effect to the 1994 general election in South Africa, reducing the founding White population to a state of racial dispossession and subjugation, and even persecution, leading ultimately to destruction.

35 replies
  1. Karen
    Karen says:

    As long as Republicans accept millions of dollars in Jewish political contributions White Americans will have little representation. I prefer to support a third party, the National Justice Party. How much support has President Trump received from Republicans? Not much.

    • Junghans
      Junghans says:

      You are right, ‘Karen’, there is no substitute for direct, explicitly pro-White, organized political activity. Strike & Mike have it right. The racial/political denouement is here and now…already.

      Organized Jewry, with their control of the media and the country club Republican establishment, will stall and nullify any likelihood of a pro- White usurpation, or real direct control in the Republican party. The drift of Whites into the Republucan fold is essentially an instinctive ‘safe harbor’ reaction, and, thus, in the long run a fool’s errand, because the enemy is the harbor master.

      Republicans are sordid cucks, and act reflexively to thwart White racial interests, every time! Events will overtake them before they ever change their innate duplicity and hypocrisy.

      Richard McCulloch makes a lot of good points, and I wish his suggestions well, but it strikes me as an unlikely, slow ro evolve, rather utopian happening.

    • Richard B
      Richard B says:

      “By “bigotry” and “Nazi-Aryan” in the above quotation, he means pro-White advocacy and support for White interests, etc.”

      And by White interests he means “obstacle to Jewish Supremacy’s Full Spectrum Dominance.”

      It’s always and only been about power for them. Everything else is just so many lies. The core of their very being is ignoble. And this ignobility is reflected in how they have acquired power.

      JSI has always lived out of The Dark Triad of, Lust for Power, Narcissism, and Psychopathology.

      If nothing stands in their way they’ll continue moving forward, rolling over anything in their way, as they acquire more and more power.

      That being the case, any third party solution is like finding a better seat on the Titanic while it sinks.

    • Luke
      Luke says:

      Karen? How many times and for how many decades have we seen one ‘fake’ pro-White group after another suddenly rise out of nowhere, then proceed to fill the heads of desperate Whites with false hopes that finally, at long last, Whites have a legitimate ‘pro-White’ organization that they can send their hard earned money to and place their loyalty and trust in – and then this ‘pro-White’ group winds up being exposed as being just one more – in a long and endless line of – enemy financed, controlled opposition fronts for the jews?

      Mike ‘Peinovich’ Enoch is a jew. If you recall, he was the same guy who made sure that he had his fellow moles positioned with cell phone cameras at the ready – so they could snap a picture of Richard Spencer and his fellow NPI Meet & Greet the Press conference attendees – at the precise moment that the infamous ‘Roman Salute’ was performed in response to Spencer’s inebriated act of raising his whiskey glass and saying ‘Hail Victory’. This incident occurred AFTER the mainstream press had been removed from the private conference room – but, somehow, those cell phone videos were ‘leaked’ to the jewish controlled media and it gave them an excuse to disregard the entire list of legitimate White concerns that were expressed at this NPI Meet the Press Conference and instead focus on the so-called ‘Heil Hitler’ salute.

      Peinovich admitted that this was his idea on an interview he did on Red Ice Radio. He passed it off as a poorly thought out ‘prank’. I believe he did it on purpose. It allowed the jews in the mainstream media to totally demonize the NPI Conference attendees and ignore the long list of very valid White racial and cultural concerns that were very eloquently spoken about by the speakers who attended that conference.

      So, here we now go again. Peinovich decides to invent this ‘National Justice Party’. I watched the video of his original announcement speech – and he was clever enough to hit all the major talking points we hear from White Nationalists. But, did you also notice how he was unable to control his facial expressions and how he would repeatedly get an expression on his smirking face – as he read from his written transcript – that I interpreted as him thinking: “I can’t believe these dumb goyim are
      gulping down this baloney I am spewing.”

      The rule for pro-White activist groups – must be: No Jews in any leadership positions, no matter how silky of a tongue they may have. There have never been a race of humans who are more prolific liars and con-artists than this tribe of Middle Easterners. In fact, I would not allow any member of this tribe to even join a pro-White activist group. If they are truly pro-White – let them set up their own groups and work alongside ours.

      • Carolyn Yeager
        Carolyn Yeager says:

        There is a way to defeat the jews; it is for a large enough segment of serious, responsible White activists to Deny the Holocaust publicly. Get the facts of Holocaust Truth (stop reading jewish sites for the facts) which comes from serious, responsible Revisionists, and get on board! Talk it up. It will mushroom in a big way and the jews cannot survive the loss of their Holocaust.

        Why do so many Whites refuse to do this? It’s not illegal in the USA. Weakling excuses such as “I might travel to Europe sometime in the future and that might create some trouble for me.” Don’t travel to Europe then! Don’t call yourself a loyal White if your personal travel plans are more important to you than saving the White race. Or it might hurt their book sales. Or their friends and family relationships. THIS unwillingness to sacrifice is why we get nowhere.
        I’m talking to you Richard B. And to you Luke. Also to you, Junghans and Karen.

        Worst of all are those who feel sorry for the jews. Or those who get off on seeing Germans pay the price of their superiority, or (god forbid) hope to get money from the Germans for themselves or their countrymen, along with the jews! All this jealousy and hatred destroys any White hope. It’s what destroyed Europe to begin with.

        The Holocaust is the Jews’ ace in the hole. All this other talk is pointless as long as they have that.

        • Slovenec
          Slovenec says:

          The myth of German superiority is among the most uneducated ones. There is no and has never been such thing. So called “German superiority” is responsible for plunging Europe into two thousand years of barbarity — the barbarity we have’t climbed from yet and with increasingly grim prospects that we are ever going to. Primary expansion (colonisation way before the Indian and African colonies) of non-culture aided by Germanic Jihad (Christianization) is the true deep reason for the sad state of affairs. And by German I don’t think about the nationality in the first place, but rather about the (non) culture. Besides, it is hard to tell what “genetic” German is, given the extensive land grab that included/still includes indigenous European (Slovenian) population. Was my beloved Bach a German? I’m not so sure about it; if his genealogy was thoroughly researched, we might be surprised.

          If a couple of Jews are parasitising on the Eurupe’s long dead corpse, it means nearly to exactly nothing.

          Take that “red pill”, if you dare — and if the truth is what you cherish the most.

      • Karen
        Karen says:

        Mike Enoch is not a jew, he is married to one. Does this bother me? Yes. Other people who support White rights are also accused of being jewish, for example Andrew Anglin. The bottom line is that the Republican Party is a huge fail and that situation is not going to change. We need several political parties, not just two that can be easily controlled and bought off cycle after cycle by rich jews.

  2. Jan Spencer
    Jan Spencer says:

    I can’t see the GOP becoming the “white party” because jewish money PAYS them to cuck and turn their
    backs on their constituents. Mildly pro-white candidates are shunned…..the jews ran Steve King and Kris Kobach out of office.
    The jew media control of the narrative makes it impossible to even approach any discussion in terms of white interests.
    Look at the stupid debates! The most important topic, immigration, wasn’t even discussed.
    The moment Michelle Malkin took our side she was shunned from polite jewbrained society.
    I’m not saying that we should totally give up on politics but I don’t believe politics is going to solve the problem
    of white genocide. Our enemies are bloodthirsty and evil, they are willing to play dirty tricks and murder…..
    they are not going to negotiate with us.

    They want us dead.

    • Slovenec
      Slovenec says:

      So how exactly Jews are at fault if you have traitors — as you admit yourself — within your own ranks, from Louis the Pious and Cromwell onward, conducting business with them?

      I don’t care about the Jews and I’d rather not have them near (the same goes for British and Germans for that matter), but trust me that this Anti-Jewish hysteria won’t end well. Not because it is “indecent”, or perhaps “intolerant” as commie SJWs like to put it, but because it is a lie.

  3. RonaldB
    RonaldB says:

    May I suggest you’re shooting yourself in the foot by insisting on different sections of the country to separate whites from non-whites (without getting into a dispute on who is white and who isn’t)? It won’t happen. This was the idea of the political parties prior to the Civil War, including Abraham Lincoln’s Republican faction. They wanted slavery to end, but wanted ex-slaves out of the country. It never happened.

    I would suggest a much more practical and obtainable objective is to limit the voting rights. You had this under Jim Crow and under South African apartheid. Contrary to popular reporting, blacks were not that bad off under either system, particularly apartheid. The primary advantage of both was limiting the electorate to those classes of people likely to support a prosperous and rational political system. This might not include women, by the way. White women as a group, particularly single women not affiliated with a religion, vote very differently from white males.

    It would be far easier to limit the political franchise of particular groups, perhaps including even Jews (of which I would be counted as one) while guaranteeing their legal rights such as in criminal or tort cases, than to arrange for a physical partition of people. South Africa voluntarily agreed to give full voting rights to blacks (they were holding up in spite of world-wide boycotts), which was a huge mistake. Currently, you can see a pretty good example in Iran, which gives Iranian Jews full religious rights and physical protection, while limiting their political influence to questions directly relating to the Jewish community.

    There’s another problem with pursuing physical partition. Any race or group will deteriorate genetically when relieved of Darwinian selection stresses by the benefits of technology. So, even if you managed to separate European whites geographically and gave the full voting franchise to everyone there, you’d have an increasing proportion of genetic mutants, one characteristic of which would be a drive to destroy not only themselves but their community.

    It is a delusion to think the only destructive impulse comes from organized Jewry. You have to come up with a more general solution.

    • KrisP
      KrisP says:

      Jews are by far the most devoted to white genocide. They are the primary problem esp given their vast influence if not outright control over almost every facet of society, including immigration.

      One option is to deport all Jews to Israel. Why aren’t they there already? Supposedly they all longed for 2000 year and now the dream has come true! Pack up and get over there, please!

      As far as “mutants,” the US white population is still large and that isn’t a real risk. The biggest problem would be decided who is “White” since so many people have mixed ancestry. Is someone who is 55% European White? What about 75%? What if one person is only 45% White but has a 100% White European-ancestry wife and a few mostly white kids? It’s messy.

      The problem we have is Jews. If the Jews go, the slow-motion destruction is halted and we can take a breath. Then we figure out how salvage what’s left of our nations, and how to keep the Jews out forever.

  4. Tim Folke
    Tim Folke says:

    Excellent article. But, the question always seems to come back to this: where will our homeland be? Those back east wish to stay there, those in the deep south wish to stay there. I can understand this – home is home, oftentimes for many generations of one’s family.

    But, can we realistically talk about securing the existence of our people and a future for White children without addressing, first in will then in deed, the question of physical, geographical location? Yes, no one likes to move, but until we come to grips with the location of our homeland we are just talking the talk and not walking the walk.

    I’d like some thoughts from others on this. Feel free to disagree; I’ve a thick skin and am always willing to learn. But, especially if you disagree, at least disclose what an alternative solution could be. Thanks!

    • Leon Q. Haller
      Leon Q. Haller says:

      At this point, I, too, prefer more pragmatic discussions, and this despite my long held view that THE fundamental issue for preserving our race is persuading non-insane/liberal whites (ie, conservatives who are in fact openminded on race and thus persuadable, but perhaps not [yet] white preservationists) that, not just race-realism (ie, simply telling the empirical truth about racial differences, and their genetic origins), but white racial advocacy is morally acceptable and indeed, obligatory. I love Kevin MacDonald’s work, but I have always believed that this battle for our people, at least in the USA, will NOT be won on Darwinian terrain, but rather, within Christianity. White preservation must be seen to be what I assert it actually is: a Christian moral imperative. Our race is dying for many reasons, but the main one is lack of white conservative racial resistance, and I am 100% convinced that the main reason for that is a brainwashed belief that classifying people by race, and then using such classifications for coercive political purposes, is just plain wrong. This was Jewry’s greatest victory; indeed, Peter Brimelow is not wrong to have long called this “Hitler’s revenge”.

      “Is it morally allowable to use coercion to preserve the white race?” This is the issue beneath all others (or has been; now we may be entering a period where white power is so limited that a mere assertion of racial will no longer suffice; we will likely have to actually fight and win wars, as our racial ancestors had to defeat Moors and Ottomans and Aztecs, etc).

      But to your specific geographic question. There will be two white homelands or sets of homelands. The first are in Europe, and should include ALL of Europe. This will require war, both to expel Afro-Islamic colonizers, and to defeat white antifa race traitors. Racially conscious Europeans, at least within the post-Covid EU, could start by all relocating to one country, and seeking citizenship there. If they can become an electoral majority, they can start getting the white awakening underway.

      The second homeland question, and probably your concern (and mine), is the North American situation. The answer to your query is that we can make the future white ethnostate wherever WE want it to be, as long as the place we choose is reasonably sparsely inhabited. We obviously cannot descend upon NYC or LA and make one of them the core of our ethnostate. The usual suggestions involve places that are already a) low in population, and b) very low in numbers of nonwhites (who will eventually have to be moved, if they won’t self-deport, as most will {this has been happening wrt whites for decades in CA: nonwhites move in, whites voluntarily trickle out; obviously, the process can be reversed}.

      Our reasonable choices are 1) Northern New England (Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine) –> small populations, overwhelmingly white (if liberal); 2) the North Central US (Idaho, Utah, Montana, Wyoming, Dakotas, Iowa, Nebraska) –> mostly white, mostly conservative, lots of room to grow; 3) if we are really hardy and want to do this, a few million prowhites could easily relocate and electorally conquer Alaska, and over time build a Northern/Nordic utopia, attracting ever more prowhites, until eventually we have the numbers (say, 5-10 million) to secede during some convulsion within the Lower 48 (perhaps also taking some of the Canadian Yukon and Northwest Territory with us). If necessary, we might be able to form an immediate Treaty of Friendship and Alliance with a resurgent ethnostatist Russia.

      This is possible. The Jews did it in Palestine, and prowhites and normiecon “non-anti-whites” are far more numerous than the original Zionists. And we don’t have to colonize an alien land; we just have to move within our own nation. Anyway this is the only hope, both for the survival of whites on this continent (and perhaps anywhere), and for the perpetuation of “America” – our historic Anglo-American cultural norms, psychology, and eventually political and juridical forms.

      • RonaldB
        RonaldB says:

        Here’s a problem.

        You already had the types of states you describe. They were called Sweden, Finland, Norway, Germany and France, among others. What happened to those states is they became degenerate, the government became so powerful and intrusive it could suppress free dissent, and they began allowing in hoards of third-world, low-IQ, high-crime migrants. Indeed, they not only encouraged them with welfare benefits, but drew the welfare from the real citizens, particularly those on pensions. Now, you have the mega-government, the European Union, threatening any country that actually protect their own borders and people.

        My point is that simply massing together is not enough. You’ll be attacked and dismantled both from within and without, unless you get a more general approach. You’ve got to get the stronger government bodies, to the extent you can, on your side, or at least being willing to stay out of the fight. Remember the massive NATO intervention against the Serbs, who were fighting the Bosnia Muslims?

        I’d say an excellent place to begin would be to support and enact complete freedom of association, repeal of the 1965 Civil Rights Bill and the abolition of all the equal opportunity agencies of government. Being able to have your own neighborhoods and your own associations, and setting your own conditions, goes a long way. For instance, if you want a Christian workplace, you should be able to have one. Or, an all-white church for your kids, you should be able to have it. That’s a lot easier to work for than to split up the territory of the US. The Nation of Islam is a pretty good example. They have their own businesses and their own areas; nobody is going to mess with them.

        But sooner or later, a larger government is going to try to destroy you The lesson to take from the Jews in Palestine is, they prepared their influence over the dominant governments, the US and Britain, very well. Any mass movement has got to have a political arm, for self-protection if for nothing else.

        I guess my point is, rather than investing your energy in building pie-in-the-sky dream castles, taking over Alaska and such, start building your goals locally and work out.

      • Tim Folke
        Tim Folke says:

        Thank you for your thoughts! You have obviously given these questions a lot of consideration.

        Yes, our homeland must be that which is sparsely populated. That makes for healthy living and wonderful childhoods for our kids. I would in fact wish this for Blacks as well, but let them tend to theirs and we to ours. We only have one black in our area, but it is a 150 pound alpha male wolf and needless to say he is not too popular with the local ranchers!

        I also fully agree with your statement that “If necessary, we might be able to form an immediate Treaty of Friendship and Alliance with a resurgent ethnostatist Russia.” For this reason I believe our homeland – wherever that be – must have a coastline to facilitate such a friendship.

        I might also add that it is no coincidence that Russia’s resurgent ethno-nationalism coincides with its Christian renaissance.

    • Richard McCulloch
      Richard McCulloch says:

      Re “Where will our homeland be?” and “walking the walk” click the link in the essay to “The National Premise Revisited” for a discussion of my proposal with a map.

  5. Some White Guy
    Some White Guy says:

    The continued conversion of anti-White Whites into pro-White Whites most definitely needs another four years of a Trump administration to percolate. A Biden/Harris win next month is the permanent end of any political solution to our problems. Those lobbying for our extinction are pulling out all the stops. I am hoping for a blow out victory win for Trump. It’s our only logical path forward.

    • RonaldB
      RonaldB says:

      Under current law, the children of illegals who are born in the US are full US citizens with full voting rights. These children are coming of age, and will vote in increasing numbers for the 2024 election. In other words, a Trump victory will only be a respite. You’ll still have to solve the problem of an increasing proportion of the electorate who vote according to leftist identity politics. My own view is that the easiest path to a politics friendlier to European identity is to move towards limiting the franchise to people who are likely to support our current culture. I’m not saying it’s easy, but it’s a lot easier than wholesale physical movement of populations.

  6. JRM
    JRM says:

    Wow. Now *that* was an article! Best thing you’ve published so far on a possible path forward. So many good points, and a sensible evaluation of the pluses and minuses we have in front of us. No demoralization; no rose-colored glasses. A perfect exercise in strategic logic.

    Congratulations on presenting one of the most rational and realistic assessments of our position from a White/Right perspective I’ve read all year.

  7. Adolf Shickelruber
    Adolf Shickelruber says:

    As a European ,let me be completely honest. I no longer care if the white population of the USA wins the inevitable, looming American Civil War V.02. Even if the whites are victorious, in order to survive long term they will have to impose a Spartan like system of masters and helots, which in this day and age is clearly untenable. If the whites lose, at least Europe will have a clear, unambiguous enemy to concentrate against. Either outcome will have the same consequences as far as Europe is concerned.

  8. bruno
    bruno says:

    First of all, thank you for that wonderful piece. I takes one back to youth in the 1960s. As a child one often heard conversations oscillating around the premise of potential turmoil unless a solution to supporting EuroMan’s future has found.

    Fast forward: LBJ created an entitlement nation of millions. MSM indoctrinated. The Z bribe kultura ensured elite cooperation. The schools molded thoughts. Now we have millions of anti-majority millenniums.

    Censorship is at an all time high. We all have family members (relatives) that are believers in a Red utopia.

    Here, in the South, in every Walmart, Target, supermarket and other mainstream shopping facility we see not only W females with B males, but something new —due to TVs image of the B father/mother being a rocket scientist and great dad/mom— W males with B females. On highways you often see trucks/cars with Trump signs having broken windows. On TelAvivza millions see defiance of all civilized behavior rioting on public streets (blocking traffic, etc.).

    Moreover, instead of tens of thousands of people being incarcerated due to actual fotos of their looting and burning … only a few hundred sit in jail. As for voting, the demonrats have come up with a secret weapon -the mail-in ballot.

    If you talk with kurvy (whores in Slavic languages), who have copulated with Bs, they refer to different skin and have all kinds of answers to justify behavior. If they have produced an offspring from such an adventure, you hear all kinds of defense mechanisms.

    Yes, the USA is two countries in one. We know about EuroMan’s side. It’s overall civilized and has all the amenities of an advanced First World civilization. On the other side you have the unofficial official City States. However, allied to those “civilizations” are the egalitarians, zyds, 25% of Bs who now reside in W neighborhoods.

    We all know the country is in turmoil. Because of TelAvivza and zyd(owski) bribe kultura of the elite, there is no way to save Amdom’s EuroMan without some sort of upheaval. Looking in the mirror of today we can see that the future of EuroMan’s nation states might be in Byelorussia, E. Germany, the Czech Republic, parts of the Baltic States, Poland, Ukraine and European Russia. Eventually Asian Russia will be Chinese.

  9. Leon Q. Haller
    Leon Q. Haller says:

    McCulloch has been producing great and far seeing work promoting white perpetuity for at least 40 years. I was reading him in the 80s. I commend him for his prescience and stamina. But this post AGAIN relies upon the same empirical mistake I called him out for in his June 2019 essay (linked above). Here I simply repost that comment, as it’s still germane:

    Leon Q. Haller says:
    June 2, 2019 at 6:51 am

    White Zion remains the ONLY option. I admire McCulloch’s early and steadfast devotion and extensive academic contributions to White Preservationism, but this article rests on an enormous and fatal misconception: that most Whites support WP, and thus would support an ethnostate. That simply assumes away the essential problem, which is the suicidally low level of White racial consciousness and concern among the vast majority of Whites. As I have argued for over 15 years now, Whites obviously suffer from some sort of evolutionary defect, or at least, maladaptation, rendering them at this particular historical moment uniquely unable to resist race denialist and utopian ideologies. After all, if most Whites were racially healthy, we wouldn’t be having these discussions.

    Thus, the idea of racial partition (“maximalist ethnostatism”) at this time is ludicrous. A “booby trap + Galt’s Gulch” microethnostate is the MOST that is feasible without successful revolutionary/guerilla warfare (for which right now there is virtually no public support, including among even genuine conservatives). Population transfers? HUH???!! We can’t even muster mass support to change US asylum-invasion policies so as to keep out migratory colonizers marching on our border, but at some halcyon future point, we will have the will to forcibly transfer 100 million people (and what if many of those are White Preservationists, who, however, happen to like their ancestral counties and states and don’t want to relocate; or have family and friends unwilling to relocate whom they value more than WP, and so won’t relocate; or have jobs that are non-geographically transferable; or houses near ski resorts or golf courses they like … etc etc?).

    WZ is the only option. WPs must territorially ingather, preferably into a sovereign nation, like Australia, that is small enough to be “demographico-politically conquerable”, and then they must practice “gradual radicalization” – exactly as nonwhites have conquered my state of California, and are continuously remolding it to suit their own racial preferences. If we wish to save something of White America, the only hope is to ingather within already White AND fairly conservative states within the USA (say, Idaho, Wyoming and Montana); engage in decades of metapolitical activism and racial awareness raising; and then press for secession during a time of national crisis.

    That might work. Expecting our nonwhite conquerors to agree to relocate into tiny racial enclaves {or giant ones!} when they practically own my whole country is ridiculous.

    • Richard McCulloch
      Richard McCulloch says:

      It Couldn’t Be Done
      Edgar Guest – 1881-1959

      Somebody said that it couldn’t be done,
      But he with a chuckle replied
      That “maybe it couldn’t,” but he would be one
      Who wouldn’t say so till he’d tried.
      So he buckled right in with the trace of a grin
      On his face. If he worried he hid it.
      He started to sing as he tackled the thing
      That couldn’t be done, and he did it.

      Somebody scoffed: “Oh, you’ll never do that;
      At least no one ever has done it”;
      But he took off his coat and he took off his hat,
      And the first thing we knew he’d begun it.
      With a lift of his chin and a bit of a grin,
      Without any doubting or quiddit,
      He started to sing as he tackled the thing
      That couldn’t be done, and he did it.

      There are thousands to tell you it cannot be done,
      There are thousands to prophesy failure;
      There are thousands to point out to you one by one,
      The dangers that wait to assail you.
      But just buckle in with a bit of a grin,
      Just take off your coat and go to it;
      Just start in to sing as you tackle the thing
      That “cannot be done,” and you’ll do it.

      “To him that will, ways are not wanting.”
      17th Century English proverb

      “Where there’s a will there’s a way.”
      19th century American proverb

  10. Tom Verso
    Tom Verso says:

    AMEN! Brother!

    I have argued in the comments section here and Unz Review time and again that ‘white’ denotes a race and that there are historical/geographic/cultural subdivisions of the ‘white’ race. White Europeans (ergo also Euro-Americans) are one of those cultural subdivision of the ‘white’ race.

    It is a contradiction to say I am a ‘white’ (i.e.racial) nationalist and stand against Jews and Arabs. Jews and Arabs are part of the ‘white’ race.

    It is NOT a contradiction to say I am a White (i.e. European) nationalist and stand against Jews and Arabs. Jews and Arabs are Middle Eastern ‘whites’ who have a different historic geographic culture then European ‘whites’.

  11. OMGDwayne
    OMGDwayne says:

    It’s too late to transform the Republican Party. It’s too late for a third party. It’s too late to vote us out of what has become Leftist tyranny in our countries.

    It would also be a huge mistake to partition any White countries. That would simply represent another surrender. Forceful ejection of nonWhites is the ONLY solution that both solves the problem and also sends the kind of perfect message that would be irreversible; nonWhites would never trust us again to welcome them in to White countries as parasites and wards of the state. Nor should we want them too. The break between us and them has to be as utterly draconian as it needs to be to reclaim every square inch of the countries built by Whites.

    In the U.S. we don’t even have to figure out where they or their ancestors have come from. We simply use the military to dump them on Mexico and have done with it. We must be pitiless. And this holds true of the much-vaunted Northeastern Asians. They are not us and they never will be. All they’ve done is make money and be another thoughtless hive-mind population that votes for the Left.

    And while we’re at it we can stop supporting the Third World with the kind of disgusting welfare payments we call “Foreign Aid.” All we’re doing is facilitating a massive population explosion of Third World savages. Every time I hear some Leftist sob sister say, “developing nation” I have to laugh. That one of these really big lies. It’s time for Third World savages to take care of themselves and reach their own natural level of population. Another problem solved.

    • Richard McCulloch
      Richard McCulloch says:

      I agree with you in advocating the complete removal of non-Europeans from Europe as the only acceptable solution on that previously (pre-WWII) all-White continent. Currently that would involve the removal and relocation/repatriation of about 45 million post-WWII non-European immigrants and their descendants, but of course the number is constantly growing.

      In the US we now (2020) have at least 140 million non-Whites compared to 30-35 million in 1970. Also the Black population was present from the earliest stages, although as either slaves or second-class citizens with proscribed rights, and since the mid-1700s has never been less than 9% of the population.

      The decisive question is which US solution would be more likely to gain a super-majority of White support: a grand racial partition of the country with less than 25% of Whites required to relocate (this is critical to maximize White support and /or minimize White opposition), or the complete removal of all non-Whites, presumably to their ancestral homelands in Africa, Mexico, the Middle East, China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, India, etc., so far as this is possible. But will we have to somehow compel these countries to take back their racial kin, perhaps to the point of force? Remember when Idi Amin expelled the Indian population from Uganda India totally refused to take any of them back and they ended up migrating to White countries that would accept them as refugees, mostly the UK. In other words, will expelling the US non-White population require us to take on the entire non-White world, including many countries that have enough military strength to make such an undertaking at least extremely problematic, and perhaps effectively suicidal, when we have enough territory to solve the problem internally independent of the cooperation of non-White countries. The US is fortunate to have this internal option. That is not the case with Europe.

  12. ATBOTL
    ATBOTL says:

    It is literally impossible to make the GOP a pro-white party. The party is not internally democratic. It is controlled by wealthy donors who can expel anyone they don’t like. The Buchananites, Paulites, Tea Party and Alt-Right have failed to change the party at all. It can’t be done. Get past this crazy idea.

    It is insane that some people are still on this level of understanding. Nationalist parties in Europe are all parties that were founded as nationalist parties. That is the only way.

    • Richard McCulloch
      Richard McCulloch says:

      European electoral systems are different from the US system. In most European systems parties can control and discipline their membership, excluding those they don’t want and expelling those who deviate from the party line or cause trouble. Also most European systems have large numbers of parties and proportional representation which gives representation (seats in the legislature, and possibly positions in the cabinet of a coalition government) to any party passing the electoral threshold, which is usually fairly low, e..g., 4% of the vote in Sweden and 5% in Germany.
      This is not the case in the US, where elections are winner-take-all and a political “party” that limited its membership in any way, including the exclusion of non-Whites or anti-White activists, would not be legally qualified to be on the ballot. So any US party could be subverted (fortunately, as that is what we hope to do with the GOP, and they can’t legally exclude us), and a small party could be more easily subverted and controlled than a large one.
      But most importantly, third parties divide the White vote, and with the Damoclean sword of an irreversible “Earl Raab election” now hanging over our heads (and hanging in perpetuity unless and until Whites achieve political independence) this is a luxury we can no longer afford. The margins are now so small that a White third party splitting off even 0.5% of the White vote could usher in the era of total non-White and anti-White political dominance, in effect acting as an anti-White spoiler that opens the gates to the enemy.
      Electorally, the conversion (or what has been called the “hostile takeover’) of a major party, however great the difficulties might seem, is realistically the only viable game in town.

  13. Poupon Marx
    Poupon Marx says:

    I have been espousing the there-thinking among many Western Europeans, who mistakenly call themselves “Aryan” and “White”. The first term is an emotive one, imprecise, phantasmagorical, and escapist for “Germanic” and “Nordic” people. Blond hair, blue eyes, and big busts on women seem to be the requisites for admission. “White” is practically useless. Who are my pure European descended Brazilian family, if they resided here in Amurka? Latinos? Who are pure European (usually Iberian descended people here in America? Latinos, Hispanics? Ambivalence, ambiguity, and dissociation of a word from its concrete assignee are the signs of sloppy thinking, and whimsy.

    We Europeans are more precisely classified as Indo-Europeans, the subset of Western Indo-Europeans. The Proto IEs appeared around Northwest India, spread into Northern India (N.B. the total European appearances of many Northern Indian prominent personages, easily accessed in Indian movies. From there, through conquest and migration and influence, these genes now flow through the majority of Europeans. These people brought many advances to the more primitive hunter gather tribes in Western Europe. Two Thirds of European DNA comes from east of Europe. All Slavic people should be included as Indo-European. Some Asians of exemplary character should be admitted, as some Hindus. A small minority.

    From :

    “As far as race mixing goes, however, white men often marry Asian women, particularly Chinese and Japanese females whom they find attractively feminine. The resulting Eurasian children are often very appealing, sometimes more so than if they were pure white, and they have the added advantage of extra intelligence. So White men who interbreed with intelligent and attractive Asian women are not really contributing to “White genocide” as such, given that the mixed-race children produced are seen as an improvement of the general stock. From a eugenic viewpoint, there is much to be said for selective and judicious mongrelization. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. If the mixed-race child turns out well, an all-round improvement on the parents, how can that possibly be a cause for regret and recrimination?

    More and more emerging scientific evidence supports this theory of development and integration.

    This soirée into a greater understanding, clarity and veritas (vincit amnia veritas: truth conquers all thing) is purposed to replace whimsy, caprice, magical thinking, and clutching to never true but convenient agenda driven beliefs and declarations. In a manner of speaking, this is the difference between an actual adult and a lesser formed individual.

    Johannes Krause is Professor of Archaeology and Paleogenetics at the University of Tübingen and Director of the Max Plank Institute for the Science of Human History in Jena. His work is integrative, incorporating genetic, archeological, linguistic, cultural, societal, and other SCIENTIFIC AND EMPIRICAL data and hypotheses into the comprehensive story of human history.
    I doubt if any readers here could spend better time than to watch and digest these video lectures. That is, of course, if you are interested in propagating teorie e idee di flatulenza e aria curva

    • Richard McCulloch
      Richard McCulloch says:

      I disagree. What you approvingly refer to as “race mixing” and “mongrelization,” however judiciously applied, is logically and by definition the very essence and most direct means of “White genocide.”
      The Indo-European element in Europe you refer to comes from the Yamnaya/Kurgan migrations/conquests of the third millennium BC which others have described much more clearly, including my own essay on this site at

      • Poupon Marx
        Poupon Marx says:

        Your assertion is prima facie false. You must not have traveled much or observed populations and people beyond the intimate. I have traveled my entire life, lived abroad, schooled abroad, and lived in half of the major American cities.

        From the time of my childhood, living on US military bases, there were Asian brides and their children. There never was anything but total exceptance from the rest of the children, and their parents. One of my Father’s friend, a Southern White, married a beautiful women from Northern Japan. Their son married a Southern girl with blond hair and blue eyes. The children were beautiful and smart.

        On Amren, a women wrote that her husband was Hindu and “is the Whitest person she knows”. Their two daughters are widely admired for their beauty. In their classic violin music class, two thirds of the students are Asian. Without them, the school should have folded.

        In my family, a nephew married a Japanese descended woman of high intellect, character and physical attraction. Their son is very smart, handsome, and considerably above average. None of his peers seem to care that he is BOTH Asian and Indo-European.

        A very close friend of ours married a Chinese man. Their son graduated first in his university major, is a very handsome boy, and married an executive from a major computer hardware company. Their two children are beautiful, alert and above average in every measure. Again, no problem at all with their peers. Total exceptance. His wife is of Cuban descent, pure Iberian from a very traditional family-and they were delighted with the marriage.

        Down the street is a Chinese/Caucasian couple, professionals and squared away. Confident, relaxed, and above the mean, easily. The children are all alert and well adjusted. And there are many, many more that I can recite from DIRECT OBSERVATION AND FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE.

        But let’s look at the other sides of things. Northeast Asians are generally superior in intelligence, resilience, mental discipline, and goal achievement. Their average income exceeds the Caucasian by 50 %. They are immune to the Siren Call and Beckoning of the Jew, due to their internalized cultural mores and core. Asian women are attracted to Western men of similar quality and comportment. This is a natural function, where the Asian archetype and the Western counterpart are mutually additive and complimentary.

        Let’s look at the general, continuing on with inductive examples supporting the generalization. Consider the following personages of both Asian and Caucasian. Consider the eyelid fold and prominent cheekbones of many Eastern Europeans, who display Asian features in their faces. Poles, Hungarians, Balkans, other Eastern Europeans all. Consider the following
        Do any of these people look repugnant? Lack sufficient group IQ or “CQ” (civilization quotient)? Is Melania Trump, an Eurasian, untouchable?

        Consider the public figures like Kate Beckinsale, Steven Seagal, Keanu Reeves. Consider the following faces of Eurasian women:

        Intending no personal animus toward you, Mr. McCulloch, your article is a micro drilling deep bore into minutiae that renders a comprehensive, practical application inert. It is as if you transcribed a bunch of data using copy and paste, with no overarching, conclusive, summary or deductive hypothesis or statement. I found it dry as dust.

        It is enough to acknowledge from emerging evidence that the genes of the Indo-European are held in common adjacent to the Chinese Han border. Bottom line for the future lineage of the Western Indo-European in a future homeland: if the phenotype matches the Western caucasian in observable and measurable spectra, and the spirits and Wa are in harmony, then that match for procreation should proceed. We are not talking about breeding horses, dogs, and show animals. Nordic Beauty Contest iconoclasts, please move on.

        Consider a breeder of Palomino horses. What if the breed starts a genotype degeneration? Keep on breeding for mental decline, poor physique, etc? Or interbreed with a different horse with a slightly different exterior, but superior genes? Consider the German Shepherd, a mix of breeds from ancient farm and herding groups, with as much or more genetic variability as the full spectrum of the Indo-European. Or the Schauzer (“the dog with a human brain”), Note the following on the genetic composition the three sizes of Schnauzers:

        “In a 2004 population genetics study of 85 purebred dogs, which used cluster-based methods with four identified genetic clusters, all three Schnauzer breeds structurally mostly clustered within “recent European descent, largely terriers and hounds” cluster, with less percent within “working breeds” and “Molosser-type breeds” clusters, while the “Asian breeds/ancient hounds and spitz-type breed” cluster was present among Giant Schnauzers.[22] In a 2007 Collie eye anomaly study of 638 dogs from 132 distinct breeds, with five specimens of each Schnauzer breed size, in the population structure of the microsatellite analysis they mostly clustered in the “hunting group” rather than the “mastiff/terrier group”.[23] In a 2010 GWAS study using more than 48,000 single-nucleotide polymorphisms of 915 dogs from 85 breeds, Standard and Giant Schnauzers made a separate phylogenetic tree branch clustered among “modern” breeds (i.e. “working dogs”), and not the “small terrier”/”mastiff-terrier” cluster, sharing genetic closeness with the Doberman Pinscher, the German Shepherd Dog and the Portuguese Water Dog.[24][25] In the most recent 2017 WGS study of 1,346 dogs from 161 breeds, Standard and Miniature Schnauzers made one separate phylogenetic clade of 23 clades and formed a unique broader clade in which they share common ancestry with spitz-type breeds such as the American Eskimo Dog, the Pomeranian and the Volpino Italiano, as well as the Schipperke, the Papillon, the Brussells Griffon and the Pug. Although the Giant Schnauzer shares a haplotype with the other two Schnauzer breeds, it made a phylogentic node in a separate clade, sharing common ancestry with the Black Russian Terrier, the Rottweiler and the Doberman Pinscher.[26] In another 2017 WGS study researching the genetic variants for the development of short tails among dog breeds, the sampled (Miniature) Schnauzer and Rottweiler have “short tail phenotype caused by the unknown genetic factors” and “are predicted to have developed short tail independently”.[27]”

        Two innate errors of your statement (which strike me as reflexive and unattached) is the inference of some kind of purity of the “White Race”. This is a prima facie dead letter. The other is the rather vague insinuation that “White” is defined by one’s reference point vectoring outward extant. This is of course whimsy and caprice.

        I am in my 70s, with strong backgrounds in social science and mechanical engineering. I leave the reader with this map and guide toward clarity and exposition, by the greatest mind in the history of mankind:

        • Richard McCulloch
          Richard McCulloch says:

          Your first post made clear your approval of what you refer to as “race-mixing” and “mongrelization” for the European peoples. Your second post indicates you are obsessive about it. Why? Because other races are superior, as you argue? Does that mean the White race should not continue to exist? Is that what you want? If so, then all this obsessive cataloging of arguments in favor of White “mongrelization” is really no more than apologetics and rationalizations to justify your desire.
          Well, in one thing we Whites are undeniably superior to, or better at than, any other race, and that is in being us. In fact no other race, or mixture of races, can be us, can be my race, the stock from which I came, the stuff of which I am made, and which I want to continue to exist so that people like me, and so in a way myself, will continue to exist for as long as possible. And it is possible they, and that stuff, could exist as long as this planet can sustain human life.
          Intermixture changes the race into something else, no longer us, no longer quite the same, or even anything like the same, and the greater the amount of it the greater the distortion, and it doesn’t take much to produce something so different as to be unrecognizable as White, and that cannot be accurately regarded as such, and so the White race would no longer really exist, but would have been destroyed by intermixture, the engine of racial destruction.
          The above is more than enough reason for me to want my race to live, but an additional powerful motive is that I truly love and value my race and its traits, and want them to be preserved and continue to exist for this reason as well. I love and value both the phenotype of my race, its physical being and beauty, and its extended phenotype: all that my race has done; all that it has built, achieved and created; the societies, cultures and civilization; the art, architecture, literature and music; the scholarship, philosophy and science; and far, far more then I can begin to catalog here. These are all reasons I want my race to live, to continue to exist as what it is, and to do that it must avoid intermixture with other races, and to successfully avoid that it must be separated from them. Lincoln called separation “the only perfect preventative of amalgamation,” i.e., of racial intermixture, making it the preservationist imperative.

        • Richard McCulloch
          Richard McCulloch says:

          As an addendum to the above, in your post calling for White racial intermixture, you wrote that my article is:

          “a micro drilling deep bore into minutiae that renders a comprehensive, practical application inert. It is as if you transcribed a bunch of data using copy and paste, with no overarching, conclusive, summary or deductive hypothesis or statement. I found it dry as dust.”

          The main focus of all my writing is a call for White racial life. Your post, in its advocacy for White intermixture with other races, is really a call for White racial death. So the difference between our positions is the difference between White racial life and death. Which could be more accurately described as, in your words, “dry as dust?” Life or death?

    • Slovenec
      Slovenec says:

      Protoindoeuropeans are Slovenians (historically named also Vindi, Vendi, Veneti, Sloveneti), for which perhaps the most comprehensive proof is a Slovenian language, from which also Sanskrit is derived (precisely due to, as you mention, spread of Slovenians to India). Slovenian language is the only surviving classical language, surviving in a sense that even modern Slovenian hasn’t much drifted from Protoindoeuropean (or perhaps better named Protoslovenian) language. If you are interested in truly classical grammar, you could perhaps study the grammar of Dionysius Thrax (170–90 BCE), which is for all practical purposes a Slovenian grammar, although it’s declaratively a Greek grammar.

      There are no “Slavic” people, “Slavs” are an unscientific construct from the 19th century, invented by Germans, for obvious reasons (justifying the violent Germanisation of Slovenian land — and worse, its culture). All “Slavs”, by al means including Russians too, represent branches emerging from Slovenian DNA, language and culture.

      Why is this important? Because the tale of Germanity, which is supposed to be prototypicaly European, is a lie. And that very lie is the main reason for the Europe staying plunged into (Christian, i. e. Middle-Eastern-German) barbarity for nearly two millennia, without no one but a few noticing it.

      You are also mentioning (technological) advances. Where do you think the oldest wheel on planet was found? A couple of hundred meters from where I live! Where did the democracy came from (not referring to Athenian variant, similarly perverted as modern Western democracy, and of which Socrates didn’t have much nice to say)? It came from Slovenian people and it was practiced until 1414. US president Jefferson regarded Slovenian historical democracy as an example of true democracy and was inspired by it.

      There is much more that could be said (and discussed and researched) regarding the Slovenian/European history, but perhaps the most important lesson is that Jews, with all their parasitic mindset, are the minor of evils. The true evil is the Neanderthal culture, that has partially survived through Germanity and slowly killed the culture of Homo Sapiens, which is Slovenian in origin. Modern world is nothing more than a child of this culture: insatiable land grabbing, financial speculations and the shallowness of being. It’s all about the money and power, perceived as “glory”, carved into marble by gifted individuals, and payed with the stolen gold of vain barbarian rulers of Germanic descent, such as Charlemagne or the Habsburg gang. The Jews didn’t do it — they just came along and started feeding on the corpse.

Comments are closed.