“Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.”  

This writing begins with a meditation on the quote above, the slogan of the authoritarian, repressive Party in George Orwell’s dystopian novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four, often referred to as 1984, published in 1949.  I’ll let the process take me wherever it does.   I’m not working from an outline.

The word “control” is used four times in the 1984 quote, so it makes sense to define it for the purposes of this exploration.

In this context, control denotes an outcome, or influence.  You have control of something when you make things different than they were before in ways you favor, and only then.  You aren’t in control just because you have the top job and can call the shots, and have everything thought out and have your plans all drawn up and can marshal sound and persuasive arguments for what you want to happen.  You’re in control when you actually get the results you seek: in the way people think and behave, in the way things operate.  By this definition, if you didn’t alter the world, you didn’t control it.  You may be an informed and insightful and wise person, and dedicated and hard-working and articulate and courageous and morally upright, and have the very best intentions, but, as they say in sports, you have to put numbers on the board—hit home runs and strike people out—actually produce, to be in control.

Looking at control as a tangible outcome surfaces three other considerations: power, authority, and intention.  Put together in the right way, these three phenomena produce control.

Power has to do with capability, skill.  You have the personal wherewithal to get the controlling job done.  You’re smart enough, you know enough, you are strategic enough, you’re healthy enough, you’re diligent enough, and you’re resilient enough to make things happen.  You have the ability to hit home runs. That’s not to say you will hit home runs—control something—but you are capable of it, you have the potential.  (Writing that last sentence, I was reminded of what a college football coach told me when I was doing research on successful coaches in my university work.  “Potential,” he confided, “is what I lose with.”)

Authority gets at being in a position, or slot, where you have the green light to make what you want to happen actually occur.   You might be able to chatter away cleverly on social media all day long, but if you aren’t in a place in the scheme of things where people have to take you seriously, your only move might be to heat up a frozen pizza and play “Call of Duty” until bedtime.

Intention has to do with no-kidding commitment, resolve.  Intention is a way of experiencing your mind and body with regard to accomplishing something so that it’s not just a good idea or goal or hope.  It’s something that, dammit, I WILL GET DONE!  I’m not omnipotent, but if I don’t get the results I’m going for, it’s not going to be for a lack of trying.  I’m giving this everything I’ve got.  I intend to make this picture in my head a concrete reality.

How about, right now, taking stock of yourself.  With reference to race, the focus of this magazine, and everything else in your life, how are you doing?

What do you control?  Name it.

How powerful—capable, strong, effective—are you?

How much authority do you have; what are you mandated to make happen?

What do you, for real, intend to accomplish right now?

*   *   *

The opposite of anything worth our attention is invariably also worth our attention.  Similarly, the opposite of anything of value is very likely also of value.  (If you are interested in this kind of thing, I’m working with the Jungian—psychologist Carl Jung—concept of enantiodromia.)  In this case, looking at public control (society, culture, politics, history), which is the focus of Orwell’s book, should remind us to look at private control (health, work, relationships, fulfilment, happiness).  The public and private are complementary, interactive concerns; each affects the other.   What is going on around public control has an impact on what is going on with private control, and vice versa.   As we consider how the “Party” in our time controls public realities, let’s keep in mind that, right now, you and I are controlling, or failing to control, ourselves and our circumstances, and that those are not independent, mutually exclusive, occurrences.  All to say, if you want to control the larger world, one way to go about that is to achieve control in your smaller, personal world.

I’ll add a moral standard to the idea of control.  It not just getting any things done, it’s getting good things done—worthwhile things, decent things.  Now in old age, I can attest to the fact that there’s a time in your life when you are aware that it’s the end and you ask and answer the question, what good did I accomplish in my life?  Depending on the answer to that question, you either experience gratification and peace or despair and regret.

In 1984, the Party depicted the past—history—in a way that supported its current goals and programs.   The Party knew that if the past is viewed by the citizenry as idyllic and inspirational, it will support efforts that continue and build upon it.  If, alternatively, the past is considered nightmarish and evil, people will seek to create new, better circumstances.  The Party portrayed the past as a time of misery and slavery and injustice, and since it was all people heard, it became the accepted Truth.  The Party effectively sold itself as the force that would rectify those historical injustices, and people deferred to it and felt compelled to support its programs.  Sound familiar?

Is there a real-life counterpart to the fictional Party in America in 2020?   (I’m a culture-bound American.  I’ll let non-Americans judge whether anything I write has applicability to their circumstance.)  Yes, there is.  It’s people who in one way or another are in the communication business: they get facts and ideas and values and images across to the masses.  I’m thinking of people in news and entertainment, politicians, educators at all levels, prominent internet figures, clergy, and the owners and managers of companies like YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and Google.  To understand control, you need to take into account who’s doing the talking (broadly defined) in the main arena of the society and culture and who’s stopping people from talking.

What kind of talk are the talkers talking?  Basically, they are telling stories; another way to put it, they are setting out narratives.  A story, or narrative, says this happened and then this happened and then this happened, and this is what the story is all about.

An example:

In 2014, an 18-year-old black Ferguson, Missouri resident, Michael Brown, was shot and killed by white police officer Darren Wilson.   It was national headline news for months.  The consensus perception was that this was a racist cop-killing of a young innocent black.

However, on November 24th of that year, a grand jury chose not to indict Officer Wilson.  The evidence and testimony the grand jury had reviewed in the process of coming to its decision was released to the public. It put Brown in a very unfavorable light: riveting testimony from Wilson describing his struggle with a 6’4’’, 280-pound assailant bent on killing him; pictures of Wilson’s facial bruises from Brown’s punches; evidence of marihuana in Brown’s blood and urine, which could have caused impairment in his judgment; the incompatibility of the forensic evidence with eye witness accounts that had played time and again in media reports describing Brown being shot in the back by Wilson or with his hands up attempting to surrender, along with eye witness accounts that squared point-by-point with both the forensic evidence and Wilson’s version of what had occurred.

The grand jury’s finding and the newly-released evidence had no impact—zero—on the those who had decided early on that this was an instance of racially motivated police misconduct and part of the larger problem of racial injustice in America.  These people didn’t speak to this new information, they didn’t refute it or explain it away, and they certainly didn’t incorporate it into how they looked at the case.   The talking heads on CNN and the writers in The New York Times never missed a beat: racism!  Rioting and looting erupted in cities across the U.S.

What accounted for this phenomenon?  I’ve decided that a big part of the answer to that question was the way people come to know things.  The word for that process is epistemology.

There are three main epistemologies.

One is to draw conclusions based on concrete reality: what’s right in front of you, what you can discern with your senses, and from detailed accounts of what others have discerned with their senses.  It could be called the empirical, or scientific, method of coming to the truth about something.

Another way of knowing is to use your mind: to carefully consider various positions and arguments and employ reason and logic to come to conclusions about what is true.

The third epistemology is to understand and reach conclusions on the basis of how something fits into a narrative, or story, you have accepted as a valid one.  This epistemology, I believe, was operative in the people who ignored the facts of the Michael Brown case.  They plugged what happened in Ferguson into a story that had been told them by the talkers.

The story went like this: From the earliest days of America, black people have been oppressed by white people.  A big part of that oppression has been the discriminatory and abusive conduct of racist white police officers in urban black communities, especially toward young black men.  It’s a huge problem in this country and something has to be done about it.

A simple story, or tale–no complications, no ambiguities, easy to understand.  Something comes up, say a cop-killing in Missouri.  What does it mean, you ask yourself?  Where does it fit in the scheme of things?  What went on down there in Missouri?  What should be done about it?  The story answers all that for you in a flash.  You’ve got it wired.

Narrative-based epistemologies serve some people’s interests very well.   If reality and logic don’t make your case, a story might do the job.  Let’s say you want to explain black pathologies as coming from something other than their own limitations.  Or MSNBC signs your checks.  Or you’re a politician with a large liberal or black constituency.  Or you want to put on display the one skill you’ve got going for you, running wild and destroying and stealing and setting fire to what other people have created, and get attention and praise to boot.  There is nothing that goes on in the world, including a plague—like the one we’re supposedly having right now—that doesn’t scratch somebody’s back.

Also, narratives don’t require any heavy lifting.  Mucking around in reality and working things through in your mind can get complicated and confusing and turn up qualifications and contingencies, and that can lead to uncertainty, and that can be unpleasant   Poring over grand jury records or reading books and thinking things through from this angle and this other one can give you a headache and insomnia.  Who needs all that work?  Better to fit what happened into a story and get on with eating dinner and watching HBO.  After spending a career studying human behavior as a university academic, I regret to have to report that much of human behavior can be attributed to laziness.   Narratives are a gift to the lazy.

Another upside of narratives is that if you buy into the currently fashionable ones, life goes smoothly for you.  You will be considered in the know and one of the heroes in life’s drama, and that’ll make you feel good about yourself.  People will like you and want you around.  You’ll get good grades and recommendations and awards and jobs and promotions, and romantic interests will invite you to stay a while to “talk” at the end of the evening.

Of course, the obvious parallel to the Michael Brown incident six years ago as this is written is the death in Minneapolis of George Floyd while in the custody of police.  Déjà vu all over again.  Plug the incident into the narrative and let the ranting and finger-pointing and rioting begin.  My daughter is a sophomore in high school on the west coast.   Shortly after the Floyd incident came an oh-so-sincere, pedantic email message from the principal of her school addressed to parents and students deploring the tragic death of George Floyd “and countless others at the hands of the police,” and the “systematic racism that exists in this country.”   This woman knew for a fact what went on 1,500 miles away in Minneapolis and what is going on generally from coast to coast.  I strongly suspect that what she knew about the “countlessness” of that incident and systematic racism (another airy, vague story we’ve all had drilled into us), as my mother use to say, you could put in your eye.  Even though I’m sure she didn’t realize it, she was reciting stories she had been told.   Something else I am sad to report is that it is next to impossible to overstate the gullibility and malleability of the mass public.

On the other hand, my daughter’s principal still has a job.  The high school principal in Windsor, Vermont, the state where I live, dared to contradict the Black Lives Matters story (saints, all of them).  She wrote a social media post criticizing the “coercive behavior” of Black Lives Matter activists.  She expressed her opinion that people shouldn’t be “made to choose the black race over the human race.”  Her school board immediately—as in knee jerk—called her “ignorant and prejudiced” and put her on leave and—speaking of coercion—said they would get rid of her permanently.  Never kid yourself that agreeing with today’s Party stories is an option.  Freedom of speech, you say?  Due process, you say?  Come on.

*   *   *

So, what follows from what I’ve laid out so far?  A lot of things obviously.  I’ve chosen in the space I have available here to focus my attention on you sitting there reading this right now.  You.  With the ideal of living a life characterized by a reasonable amount of control over yourself and your world as the frame of reference, I’ll offer some advice for your consideration.  Realistically, if you are young you will be better able to make use of it than if you are old.  As life goes along, our energy and options steadily diminish.  At some point, they become all but non-existent, and at some point, we become completely non-existent.  But however old you are, you still have some time left.  See if anything I offer is helpful in spending it wisely and well.

As I think about it, that’s my first observation or piece of advice: the only currency that really matters in life is time.  You and I have just so much of it.  We “spend” it however we do, and it is never replenished, and someday—we’re not certain when—it runs out.  Life comes down to how we spend our allotted time.  The challenge is to spend it judiciously and not get to the end of our lives with the painful realization that so many old people have to live with: “I’ve wasted my life.”

The second piece of advice: develop what Ernest Hemingway called “a built-in, shockproof, shit detector.”  This writing has focused on stories that people use to control other people.  The obvious point in that explication was that one way to control the world is get yourself in a position—like behind a university lectern–to tell compelling, easy-to-understand stories.  But there’s that “the opposite of a good thing is also a good thing” idea to keep in mind: one way to get control in your life is to become effective at critically analyzing the stories coming at you.  An inelegant way to put it, à la Hemingway, get good at detecting shit.  And give no story’s, no story-teller’s, shit a pass.  It’s easy enough to detect the shit in the “racist police” narrative.   But look for shit on this site too, including in what you are getting from me right now.  Most often, the spreaders of shit think they are spewing daisies, but it can still be shit–or probably more accurately, daisies with a lot of shit mixed in.

Distinguish between being inside and outside in society.  By inside, I mean you are part of the action, you’re doing it, not watching it and commenting on it.  You’re not over in on the side complaining or amusing yourself or hurting yourself or waiting around hoping somebody will make it all better for you.  By inside, I don’t just mean you are in news and entertainment or a politician or an educator or writer, as it may have come across in the first section.  To me, you’re inside if you are a skilled electrician or own a successful Ford dealership or do a good job of selling cars, or are a committed doctor or a nurse, or effectively manage a McDonald’s franchise, or are a dedicated parent.  My advice is to do what you can to get on the inside.  That’s where the control is.  That’s where the self-respect and gratification and happiness are

In this highly politicized, cancel culture, don’t set yourself up for demonization and marginalization and exclusion.  Be savvy.  Watch what you say on the internet and social media or in an email; if you wouldn’t welcome it being the headline in the newspaper, keep it to yourself.  Be extremely careful how you identify yourself.   There are people around who themselves keep their identities hidden telling you to go public as a far right-winger; it’ll be great, they say.  It makes me cringe.  Look at the fates of people who have gone that route—trashed, fired, relegated to pariah status, on the outside looking in for the rest of their lives.

Play the game that’s on the table.  And what’s the game?  Hard work.  Personal responsibility.  Good grades.  Degrees.  Credentials.  Positive recommendations.  Being respectful and kind to people.  A track record of busting your behind to do the job—any job—you been assigned the very best you can.  No scandals.  My life has brought me into contact with Asians and it’s been eye-opening for me.   They don’t whine or feel sorry for themselves or march with banners or ask anybody for special favors.  They couldn’t care less what you call them; they know damn well who they are, and they are not inferior to you.  They aren’t cynics or wise-asses.  They are sincere and focused on getting good things done and feeling good about themselves as a consequence.  They use family and mutual aid and schooling and they get degrees in fields that pay good money, and they look out for their wives and children.  As far as I’m concerned, there’s more to be learned from them than Lil Wayne.

Hone your instrument.  Your instrument is your body and mind and personal character.   I came out of poverty and a tough home situation.  I realized that I was coming from way back in society and that if I was going to make something out of my life, I had to be like a boxer in training for the big fight.  I couldn’t afford to bring myself down even one degree with drugs and alcohol.  In my day it wasn’t opioids, but you wouldn’t have had to save me from that scourge.  It doesn’t take a genius—which for sure is not me—to see that one thing leads to another in life.  I had a job as a janitor and I was there clear-eyed with my hair combed earlier in the morning than I had to be and swept the hell out of those floors.  One of the best memories I have in my long life is when I was told that I did a really good job cleaning a very dirty recreation room I had been assigned to clean; I used that as a foundation to move forward and upward.  I had trouble looking at people and I was shaky and put myself down and I didn’t pronounce words properly.  I worked on it.  I practiced looking at people by maintaining eye contact with the newscasters on television, and I practiced speaking as they did.  When I was around people, I silently reminded myself to be “calm, confident, in charge.”  I noticed that people who made it in life didn’t numb themselves out with television and watching strangers play with a ball (now it’s video games).  They did things—they read good books, they hunted and fished and hiked, they worked in the garden.  All of that—I mean it—helped give me get control in my life.

Work on being intentional.    Have intentions you can put into words and imagine in your mind’s eye being realized.  Keep commitments you make to yourself.  When you say you are going to do something, do it.  Don’t let reasons and excuses replace results.  You learn anything by practicing, and it doesn’t have to be something big.  If you say you’re getting up at six tomorrow morning, you’re up at six.  Small successes lead to big successes; see the connection.

Become like a top-rank boxer.  I assume you are reading this magazine because you care about the fate of white people.  If you’re going to make anything of consequence happen in this area, be in control of anything in this area, you’re going to have to become a ring warrior.  I did boxing writing in my younger years and was around top boxers.  They were in super condition.  They were tough as leather and could take a punch.  They didn’t just cover up and stay on the defense.  They counterpunched, viciously.   They went on the attack full-out, nothing held back, and they took your head off.  They were battered and scarred, but they were proud and honorable men.

Editor’s note: Prof. Ricardo Duchesne has written a series of articles on my book Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition, originally posted at Eurocanadian.ca. These essays are not only informative on the contents of the book, but also contain incisive commentary. Well worth reading!

General Remarks

Kevin MacDonald’s Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition: Evolutionary Origins, History, and Prospects For the Future (2019) is the first book that employs an evolutionary psychological approach to explain the rise of the West — actually, it is the first book that aims to comprehend the dynamics of the entire history of the West from prehistoric to current times to explain as well the decline of the West, the ways in which the “egalitarian individualism” originated by northwest Europeans in hunting and gathering times planted the seeds of the West’s current decision to destroy its genetic heritage through the importation of masses of immigrants.

Difficult as this task may seem, MacDonald performs it extremely well. In a normal academic world in which criticism of immigration was permissible, MacDonald’s book would have been the subject of immediate debate rather than complete silence. The books currently dominating the “rise of the West” tend to downplay any substantial differences between the West and other civilizations. They talk about “surprising similarities” between the major civilizations as late as the 1750s, and argue that the West diverged only with the spread of the Industrial Revolution. Some books go back in time to the family structure of medieval northwest Europe, or to the enforcement of monogamy by the Catholic Church, or to the rise of modern science in the seventeenth century. While MacDonald makes effective use of earlier arguments on Western uniqueness, including my own argument about the importance of the “aristocratic egalitarianism” of prehistoric Indo-Europeans, he believes that the starting point must be “the genetic history of the West”.

For MacDonald, the most unique trait of Europeans is their individualism, a trait manifested in two different forms, in the aristocratic individualism of Indo-European cultures, and in the hunter-gatherer egalitarian individualism of northwestern Europe. There is a genetic basis for these two forms of individualism. To understand their origins it is necessary to document how these two forms were naturally selected within populations living in particular environmental settings, as well as within the novel cultural-environmental settings they created. The egalitarian form of individualism, in MacDonald’s estimation, was the form that eventually came to dominate European culture. While the aristocratic individualism of Indo-Europeans predominated in ancient Greece and Rome, the trend in European history was for the accentuation of egalitarian individualism, with the Church playing a critical role, and then the Puritan revolution with its “moralistic Utopianism” gradually spreading in the United States.

The Jews did not invent this egalitarian individualism. They interpreted this egalitarianism into a call for a plurality of cultures and races inside the West — the “ethnic dissolution of non-Jews” — while protecting Jewish in-group solidarity and ethnocentrism. They insisted that the egalitarian values of Europeans required them to abolish their exclusive and unequal ethnic-based concept of citizenship for the sake of a truly egalitarian multiracial concept  open to the arrival of millions of immigrants.

MacDonald’s emphasis on the “primordial” foundations of the egalitarian individualism of northwest hunter gatherers should not be confused with the standard observation that hunters and gatherers across the world were egalitarian. His focus throughout the book is on kinship systems, whether lines of descent were bilateral or patricentric, whether marriages were exogamous or endogamous, monogamous or polygamous, whether families were nuclear or extended, whether there was individual choice in marriage or arranged marriages, and whether individuals were inclined to establish relations outside their kinship group, with relatively weak ethnocentric tendencies, or whether they were seen as embedded to their kinship group, with relatively strong levels of ethnocentrism. His central argument is that already among northwest European hunter gatherers we can detect relatively weaker collective kinship systems, which gave room for more individual initiative and relationships outside extended families and blood lines, with individuals forming associations outside kinship relationships, as if they were in a state of equality rather than in a state of inequality between ingroups and outgroups.

It is this focus on the individualistic family systems of the West that allows MacDonald to offer a comprehensive explanation of both the rise and the decline of the West.  Most scholars writing about the rise of the West today are concerned to answer why the Industrial Revolution occurred in eighteenth century England/Europe. Some emphasize the unique family structure of northwest Europe, but they trace this family structure to the Middle Ages, and none of them go back to the evolution of genetic dispositions among northwest hunter-gatherers to explain the rise of the West. I am not aware of any scholar who focuses so consistently on the weak ethnocentric tendencies of Europeans to explain both the rise and decline of the West. If meeting the scientific criteria for parsimony is valuable to you, then reading MacDonald’s book will be very illuminating indeed.

What follows is the first of nine or ten commentaries I will be writing about Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition

Three Foundational Genetic Populations of Europe

This first chapter, the shortest at 25 pages, may be the most tricky for readers to digest; and I fear that, if not read carefully, it may create the impression that MacDonald is arguing that Europe’s population was formed by non-white genetic groups coming from the outside, “mysterious” Yamnaya peoples coming from “the steppes”, as they were described in the mainstream media, and by farmers from the Near East. Because MacDonald presents this argument in a scholarly and judicious manner, using the geographical and ethnic terminology of the literature, and avoiding descriptions about the “white race” until the last pages, it may lead some readers to infer that only the WHGs in the northwest were white and native to the continent.

Up until about page 13, MacDonald describes (correctly) the EFs as a people from “Anatolia”. He describes the I-Es as an “amalgam of Armenian-like Near Eastern people,” Caucasus hunter-gatherers, Siberian North Eurasians (“related to North American Indians”), and Eastern Hunter-Gatherers. I have no dispute with this terminology, except that it may lend itself to manipulation by the mainstream media — into the notion that only one genetic population, WHGs (in the north) was white. This seems to be the impression of Morris V. de Camp, the reviewer of Individualism and the Liberal Tradition at Counter Currents, when he writes that “Western Hunter Gatherers are Europe’s indigenous population” while describing the other two populations using the ethnic-geographical terms MacDonald uses, without adding that these two other populations were also white, or undergoing selection for white skin, brown eyes and tallness.

Readers may underestimate the subsequent points MacDonald develops in the closing pages of this chapter where he states with definiteness that the EFs who entered Europe from Anatolia had “white skin and brown eyes” and that they actually eliminated “the dark-skinned WHGs in the south of Europe” (24). While “proto-Indo-European genes for light skin pigmentation were relatively infrequent…compared to contemporary Ukrainians,” there was selection for white skin and other European physical traits as the I-Es “spread north”. He describes the I-Es from the Pontic Steppes that migrated into Europe 4000 years ago as “white-skinned, brown eyed peoples”.

Making  white skin or eye color the defining traits of Western Civilization is not the point. I am in agreement with MacDonald that “individualism” is the best word that defines and allows us to understand the unique trajectory of Europeans. But we must be upfront about the racial identity of Europeans in light of the extremely deceitful way in which the mainstream media and academics are using these recent findings on the population genetics of Europeans to argue that Europe was not the “ancestral home of white people”, but was from the beginning  a continent populated by “diverse immigrants” from external regions.

The current promoters of mass immigration want us to believe that Europe’s original populations were already diverse and that whites were not the original population, even though these findings actually demonstrate that evolution, or genetic differentiation along different racial paths, occurred in different regions of the world, including Europe, after homo sapiens migrated out of Africa some 60 or 50 thousand years ago. The media, and the scientists themselves, are deceitfully speaking about the “mysterious” Yamnaya and the Anatolian farmers as evidence that Europe was a “melting pot” of “immigrants” from “diverse” racial groupings arriving from “Eurasia” and the “Near East”. Indeed, since the WHGs themselves were descendants of African migrants, the media has been contriving headlines and arguments about how Europeans were an amalgam of “Africans,” “Near Eastern migrants,” and “mysterious” Yamnaya people who “shared distant kinship with Native Americans”.

Many reacted with disbelief at the African look of the “first European” Dr. Richard Neave created from fragments of fossils of a 35,000 years old skull found in Europe, with Lawrence Auster calling it an “undisguised fraud“. But why should we expect the first generations of homo sapiens in Europe to have evolved “white” traits not long after they entered this continent? The research that is coming out suggests that today’s races are very young (outside Africa), and did not appear until about 12,000 to 10,000 years ago; and it may be that the European race is the youngest race, the last evolutionary stage of homo sapiens.

The WHGs were not intially European but evolved into Europeans thousands of years after they had inhabited the northwest regions of Europe. From a Darwinian perspective, the question that should matter is when and how the inhabitants of Europe became European. According to Sandra Wilde et. al. “strong selection favoring lighter skin, hair, and eye has been operating in European populations over the last 5000 years“.  In terms of these physical markers, Europeans are a very young race emerging in the course of centuries from a preceding people that were not European. This evolution, of course, was not merely about the evolution of “white” physical traits, though we should not underestimate the importance of these traits. It stands to reason that there were other key traits, including behavioral traits, which did not emerge at once but through time, which means that it is difficult to state with any definiteness when the inhabitants of Europe became “European”.

This argument is implicit in MacDonald’s observation that new evolutionary pressures in the natural environment of Europe, including in the “novel environments” created by farmers and by Indo-European horse riders, selected for different mutations and eventually different traits, including lighter skin and eyes combined with individualist behaviors. He uses the phrase “selection in situ” to refer to how the environment of Europe selected for new mutations among the EFs and I-Es, or for physical and psychological predispositions, making them more pronounced. Genes for lighter skin and eyes likely become more pronounced as I-Es and EFs spread into the northwest. MacDonald writes, “the larger point is that…selection for lighter eye, hair, and skin pigmentation occurred within Europe after the EFs and I-Es migrations”.

We need to think of Europeans as a race that evolved through thousands of years inside Europe, not always gradually, but at an accelerated pace from about 10,000 years ago, in response both to the unique ecology of Europe and to their own unique cultural activities. The upper Paleolithic peoples who first inhabited Europe, coming from Africa via the Near East, were not Europeans but a people closely descended from the homo sapiens who left Africa some 50,000 (or 60,000 years ago), carrying in their genes only a fraction of the African genetic diversity, which set them on a different evolutionary trajectory as they inhabited and reproduced under very different environmental pressures, relatively isolated from other evolving/isolated races.

Anthropologist Alice Roberts: I look at that face and think “I’m actually looking at the face of [my ancestors] from 40,000 years ago.”

The genetic history of Europeans has been totally politicized. The media used the African-like reconstructions of the “first Europeans” to put Africans at the center of European ancestry, with the British anthropologist Dr. Alice Roberts gushing over the reconstruction, and going to Africa to trace her ancestral roots, for a BBC documentary called “The Incredible Journey”, which aired in 2009.

The fact that this early Upper Paleolithic inhabitant of Europe was dark, and that lighter skin, eyes, and hair were later evolutionary acquisitions, supports our side of the debate. The cultural Marxist view that human genetic evolution somehow came to a halt after homo sapiens migrated out of Africa, as Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin argued, and as the entire establishment today continues to insist, has been falsified.

Population Movements into Europe after Origins of European Race

We don’t know exactly when other racial traits and differences may have evolved in Europe, such as rate of physical maturation, gestation period, details about body built, blood types, resistance and susceptibility to various diseases, and brain size. But we know that Europeans were a race that evolved certain anatomical and behavioral traits by reason of breeding for thousands of years within a geographical area we call Europe. The I-Es were not a “mysterious” people who came from outside Europe but a people native to this continent. The official geographical definition of the “continent of Europe” is consistent with the cultural history of this continent in comprising “European Russia”, the Pontic Steppes located north of the Black and Caspian seas, present day Ukraine, the original homelands of the I-Es.

Other than the EFs who came from Anatolia, who already had genes for white skin, and then evolved into Europeans in Europe, there is strong genetic evidence showing that once a European race emerged out of the three populations MacDonald highlights, Europe did not experience any major genetic mixing from non-European immigrant races.

My latest TOO essay, “A Thousand Points of White”, and the piece by Giles Corey that inspired it (“American Roulette”), have drawn over 200 comments combined—a sign that such matters are of some importance.  This is unsurprising, given the chaos of recent months.  It also provides a good opportunity to respond to some of these many comments, and to make a few observations more generally on the need and value of useful and constructive feedback from readers.

The two essays share several points in common.  Both pieces emphasize the urgency of the White plight and the need for concrete action on behalf of White interests.  Both mention the importance of the Jewish enemy, of the need for armed self-defense, and of the desirability to move out into the public—versus, say, spending all day writing blog posts—in order to effect change.  Both essays argue that, at a national level, the United States is a lost cause, and therefore that action must be taken at a local level.  To this end, something like “White autonomous zones” will be necessary.  The result will be a kind of micro-secession movement.

There are, of course, some differences:  Corey argues that virtually all future scenarios will involve massive violence and bloodshed, whereas I hold out the possibility of relatively civil political change.  Corey calls for a concentration of White nationalists in rural states, whereas I propose local White autonomous declarations in all states and in all social settings: city, suburb, and rural.  We both recognize the need for an economic response, but Corey suggests withholding federal tax payments, whereas I call for local, White-only currencies.  And then there are some minor quibbles:  Corey mentions the concept of “White genocide” but I have argued against such terminology (here); and he declares himself a Christian, whereas I have argued that Christianity is intrinsically anti-White and thus self-defeating for any White nationalist movement.[1]  But we won’t linger on these points.  More urgent matters are at hand.  In the case of a pro-White movement, our points of commonality are more important than our differences.

Reader commentaries, as usual, brought in a variety of perspectives.  And as usual, the more concrete and specific that a given essay is, the more critical the commentary.  Given that my piece was, by design, more specific in its suggestions than Corey’s, it seems that my piece drew the most criticism.  And this is fine with me—preferred, in fact.  Like all serious writers, I encourage and welcome critical feedback; this is how we all sharpen and refine our arguments.  Here, I’d like to respond to as many of the substantive points as I can, and then offer some broader thoughts on the role and nature of reader commentaries at large.

The Good, the Bad, …

A number of remarks were substantive, coherent, and useful; let me begin with these.  (I won’t cite commenters by name—any interested reader can track them down.)

The heart of my proposal was to conduct a highly decentralized effort by encouraging numerous local groups to create independent White-interest groups—perhaps as “White Lives Matter,” perhaps as something more innocuous.  These groups would be (relatively!) low-key and uncontroversial, operating simply as a starting point to get local Whites talking to sympathetic others in their immediate vicinity.  Of course, a public group, openly meeting to talk about White issues, is itself sure to draw negative attention.  But this publicity should be seen as a positive development; it will force the issues of White interest and White well-being into the public eye, and in a way in which Whites will partially control the narrative (unlike today).

Once established, they would work, first, to make their local areas as White as possible by simply choosing local boundaries (neighborhood, city, county) and then discouraging non-white presence: “you are no longer welcome here” is the message to send out.  And by this I mean: not living here, not working here, not attending school here, not making deliveries here, not “passing through”—nothing.  This step alone could well be a long-term effort, taking months or years.  But it would have a huge effect.

Once this was largely attained, the working group could then go on to a second phase, of exerting actual political control, at first by volunteer efforts and later by formal political and legal action.  At that point, we might functionally have a real “White autonomous zone”.  But again, this must be seen as a long-term goal that could take years.

All this would happen against a background of a decaying federal system that will become increasingly unable to exert its will in local events.  At some point, they will huff and puff…and do nothing—rather as is now happening with the Seattle “autonomous zone.”  Future developments will only work to our advantage.

Most commenters seem to endorse the essence of such a plan, and offer useful elaboration.  One says “do not be overtly organized…do not have one leader,” which is in the nature of any form of decentralized resistance.  Others call for “sticker campaigns” or pamphlets, which could be good advertising programs for White interest groups.  One reader suggests we might need background checks on new group members (likely so, if they are unknown to the group), and advises that White groups control their own means of existence and communication, such as by owning their own meeting place and their own web servers.  Others recommend low-tech communications, such as with good old paper and pen (right!), and that we learn to survive economically by withdrawing, as much as possible, from the corrupt, Jewish-driven economic system—which was the sentiment behind my suggestion of ‘Aryan Bucks’ as a local currency.  A key objective, as one reader says, is to get other Whites to start thinking in racial terms—not to be ‘racist’ per se, which is obviously a pejorative, but rather to conceptualize issues in racial terms, even if subconsciously.

Some readers are concerned about appearing too obviously pro-White, and suggest various strategies for disguising this fact.  “Blue Lives Matter” (pro-cop), “covert NGOs,” or otherwise Euro-centric groups may well be pragmatic options, depending on local conditions.  But bear in mind, a main objective is to make White presence felt in society, as an active force; hiding or disguising the Whiteness of the movement undermines this vital point.  Other commenters call for specific pro-White actions, such as homeschooling children, or offering financial aid for young White mothers.  Another reader suggests pressing on weak points in the American Judeocracy, such as the Holocaust story—a matter near and dear to my heart![2]  Yes, by all means, we must do everything to expose the weakness and corruption of the occupying power.  As the same reader says, we need a multi-pronged approach to deal with this particular Hydra.

A few readers, however, want us to go further, and take more assertive action.  My suggested approach is generally fairly mild, nonviolent, and legal.  To me, this has the best chance of drawing support from the maximum number of Whites.  However, and though I can’t quite endorse them, there are obviously harsher options available.  Giles Corey cites the need for active, armed militias, and some readers clearly like this alternative.  One commenter calls for “armed revolution” and the need to “blow these [expletive] commies back to the Stone Age.”  It could come to this, but no need to jump the gun.  Other readers are a bit milder; one suggests “a constant stream of small but unpleasant events” which could encourage non-Whites to move on, and another specifically demands that “Jews…and those who serve the Jews” in media, academia, government, etc. ought to “feel the pain”—hard to argue with these sentiments.

Such harsher actions are in line with my ‘accelerationist’ argument, i.e. that we ought to hasten the inevitable collapse of the irredeemable American system.  Some readers object to my partly (but only partly) tongue-in-cheek suggestions that we promote immigration, affirmative action, riots, and so on.  But seriously:  The system cannot be salvaged; it is under the control of pathological, homicidal, kleptomaniacal fiends, and therefore it, indeed, needs to be brought down.  Increasing multi-racialism will speed its collapse, as will economic chaos, environmental disaster, or extreme political paralysis.  What, exactly, one ought to do to assist collapse is a complex and intricate topic that I cannot examine here.  Simple actions, like voting for polarizing candidates or avoiding tax payments, have a role, but some will want to take a more proactive approach.  One might study, for example, the history of revolutionary actions by, of all people, Jews and radical leftists, who, at various times in history, sought to bring down a hated government.  Radical environmentalists are another source of information.  For example, environmental writer Derrick Jensen wrote a mainstream book entitled Endgame (2006) that is surprisingly explicit; volume two of that work has a few sections on (wink, wink) ‘pacifism’ that describe how a mere handful of motivated and well-prepared individuals can wreak havoc on a nation’s infrastructure, thereby hastening collapse.  Again, though I cannot endorse such actions, curious readers may want to track down that book.

…and the Ugly

On the other hand, I have my share of critics.  Anything like a “White Lives Matter” will “never be permitted to form in 2020 America,” says one; such groups “will be snuffed out immediately.”  My whole approach, according to others, is “a very bad idea,” “childishly naïve,” “not workable,” and is based in a “loss of perspective.”  The proposal is hopeless because Whites have given “no sign that they want to organize.”  My passing suggestions for acceleration of collapse are either “an extraordinarily lame attempt” at humor or “suicidal insanity”; consequently, I am either “not thinking very clearly” or else “a buffoon.”  (I vote for buffoon.)  Indeed, my (very mild) suggestion that individuals book a room somewhere in their neighborhood, advertise it as a meeting-place for a pro-White group, and see who comes, “may be the single worst piece of advice ever published” on TOO!  Well!

The overriding concern of such critics seems to be that “the system”—that is, the feds, the cops, Blacks, antifa, disaffected youth, etc—will rain down on any such WLM group with such speed, viciousness, and brutality that it will make your head spin.  “Hoards of brainwashed young White zombies” will eat your brains; you, your spouse, and everyone in your family will be summarily fired from their jobs; and your lives will otherwise be “destroyed.”  Any pro-White movement will be “easily crushed” by authorities.  “They’ll play Whack-a-Mole with you,” says one reader.  Ouch!

But seriously—what is the motive for such remarks?  First of all, the critics have no basis for claiming that my approach won’t work.  In fact, local, decentralized civil resistance groups have a long history of effectiveness and success.  Has my approach been tried, and failed?  Ten, 20, 30 times?  In various parts of the country?  Until then, we ought not be so certain of failure.  At best, the critics can say that they would not join such a group; fair enough.  But don’t draw general conclusions from your personal reluctance to participate.

Yes, there will be resistance—from local law enforcement and local protesters, but not from “antifa” (whoever the hell “they” are).  Certainly, a single large event, like Charlottesville, can be targeted by a large number of radical leftists.  But that’s precisely why we need numerous, simultaneous, independent, local groups.  Massive decentralization virtually guarantees that neither the feds, nor antifa, nor any large national group will effectively target you.  My critics are overly-cowed by pictures on TV.  Jews and their allies are experts at puffing up their perceived power.  But outside New York and Washington DC, their power on the ground declines dramatically.  The multi-city riots of recent days were conducted mostly by opportunistic Black criminals and random anarchists; it was not a centrally-planned effort, and such people pose virtually no threat to local White groups.

Furthermore, I hate to disparage commenters, but I can’t stop wondering how many leftist/Jewish trolls we attract here at TOO.  Probably a fair number.  We need to keep in mind:  If someone’s “comments” or “suggestions” are virtually identical to what a Jewish or leftist opponent might say, then we need to take them with a huge grain of salt.  Our opponents would like nothing better than that we do nothing—hence, for them, every suggestion for concrete White action is necessarily stupid, unworkable, or doomed to failure.  Right.  Don’t believe it.  Critical comments are welcome, but they should be coherent and constructive.  Mindless opposition serves no purpose, other than to cast suspicion on the commenter.

More pragmatically, what actual risks would White activists face?  Is being fired a real threat?  Perhaps, depending on the person and the circumstances.  But first, I think such threats are generally overblown; a few high-visibility cases get lots of media time, thanks to our Jewish friends, but realistically, this is a small risk for most people.  Secondly, there are large groups of people for whom ‘firing’ is not a threat at all:  retirees, students, stay-at-home moms and dads, the self-employed, the family-employed, those with strong support systems (like unions), and so on.  Not to mention—the already unemployed!  Lots of those around lately.  No doubt there are plenty of folks in a position to attend such a group.

And there were other minor criticisms sent my way.  Activist Whites comprise only “a small, perhaps aging, powerless minority”—and therefore, what, we should just give up?  And is there any data for such a claim?  Regarding my reference to the conventional figure of 6 million American Jews, another critic claims “at least five times that number,” hence 30 million.  Again, data?  And again, does it matter?  Should we therefore surrender?  Then a reader turns the tables on me, asking for data for my claim that any nation of 330 million is ungovernable.  This is actually incidental to my argument, but in short, to respond to the critic, there is a lengthy history—dating back to Plato and Aristotle—of a “size theory of politics.”  This suggests that only small populations can achieve rational and stable governmental forms along with high qualities of living.  Contemporary data suggests that 10 to 20 million is perhaps the most that can be rationally and justly governed.  But this is a topic for another time.

The Judeocratic Election of 2020

If we wonder where our national politicians are, amidst the many signs of governmental breakdown and cultural decay, we need not look very far.  By all indications, things will get much worse after the 2020 election, even if, God help us, Trump wins again.  The implicit or explicit anti-White stance taken by virtually all politicians, left or right, and by virtually all news media (Fox included), is a consequence of the same thing:  Jewish money and Jewish power.  Even more so than in the past—if that’s possible—Jews have thrust themselves into dominant positions in both major parties.  And it can only spell disaster for American Whites.

Regarding political money, we only have to take a look at the major donors to date, for the upcoming election.  The website www.opensecrets.org is one helpful source.  They list the “top individual donors” to date (here) for both “dems/liberals” and “reps/conservatives.”  Click on the table headings for a sorted list.  If we select for the top Republican donors, we get a heavily Jewish list; among the top 12 donors, half (6) are Jews, and another—the top highest donor, Richard Uihlein—has a likely Jewish wife.[3]  Jewish donations amount to at least $49 million of the $132 million (37%) given by the top 12.  If we include Uihlein’s surely philo-Semitic views, the figure comes to $81 million, or 61% of the money, coming from pro-Jewish donors.  Either way, the figures are substantially higher than the typical 25% that conservatives get from Jewish sources.

For their part, the Democrats are an utter basket case.  Sorting the list for their top donors, we find, amazingly, that 11 of the top 12 are Jews:  T. Steyer, D. Sussman, M. Bloomberg, K. Tinklenberg Jurvetson (probable), D. Simon, J. H. Simons, G. Marcus, H. Laufer, G. Soros, J. Bekenstein, and S. Klarman.  Just these 11 Jews have given, to date, some $153 million to Democrats and liberals, vastly outdistancing non-Jewish sources.  At this rate, something like 90% of liberal donations will come from Jews—a record-breaking figure, by far.  No matter who wins in November, Whites lose.

No halfway-intelligent White can take such numbers lying down.  Post-election policies will get dramatically worse for all Whites, particularly if Biden wins, and catastrophically, if Dems take the Senate.  We can expect massive immigration and amnesty, Black and minority handouts, continued debasement of White and European culture and values, and substantial increases in Jewish power nationally.  If you’re not ready to revolt now, just wait six months.

In the face of all this, is it asking too much to form some scattered White interest groups?  And then to declare that enough is enough, and that Jews and other non-Whites are no longer welcome here?  It’s time to be heard.  Make a stand.  Organize, speak out, defend your rights.

Corey ended his piece with an inspiring quotation from Oswald Spengler’s Man and Technics (1931).  In closing, let me build on this.

In his final chapter, Spengler decried the corrupt, machine-driven civilization that was crushing humanity.  We in the West have attained high culture, but ultimately “every high culture is a tragedy.”  Indeed, “the history of mankind as a whole is tragic.”  In this present world, “all things organic are dying in the grip of organization.  An artificial world is permeating and poisoning the natural.”  For Spengler, this artificial poison was “the machine,” but for us, it is our Jewish taskmasters.  Corruption was endemic at the top:  “The tension between work of leadership and work of execution has reached the level of a catastrophe.”  Now, “it is mere human nature to revolt against the role for which the machine”—today, the Jews—“earmarks most of [humanity].”  Thanks to our careless pandering to other nations and ethnicities, “the unassailable privileges of the White races have been thrown away, squandered, betrayed.”  “The innumerable hands of the colored races,” Spengler says, “will shatter the economic organization of the Whites at its foundations.”  “This is no mere crisis,” he adds, “but the beginning of a catastrophe.”

In his conclusion, Spengler is resigned:  “Faced as we are with this destiny, there is only one world-outlook that is worthy of us”—namely, “a short life, full of deeds and glory, rather than a long life without content.”  Naïve and optimistic Whites, believing that all will be well, display a shameful lack of integrity and courage; in the present situation, says Spengler, “optimism is cowardice.”  The book ends with the passage on greatness and honor that Corey cited.

Now is the time for action.  Take a stand.  The sooner we act, the better for us all, and the better for the world at large.

Thomas Dalton, PhD, has authored or edited several books, including a new translation series of Mein Kampf, and the book Debating the Holocaust (4^th ed, 2020).  For all his works, see his personal website www.thomasdaltonphd.com

[1] Recently I have written (here):  “Consider this question:  What in God’s name (so to speak) is even remotely pro-White about the Bible?  I’ll tell you:  nothing.  The Old Testament was written by Jews, about Jews, and for Jews.  It is resolutely anti-goyim.  It is nothing more than a war manual for the defense of the Jewish race, along with some moronic theological cover.  The New Testament was also written by and about Jews:  Jesus, Mary, Joseph, 12 Apostles, Paul, ‘Mark,’ ‘Luke,’ ‘Matthew,’ ‘John’—all ethnic Jews.  The chronology of events, furthermore, strongly suggests that Paul invented his demi-god Jesus, primarily, it seems, as a stunt to undermine Roman paganism and to draw in the gullible masses, to persuade them to worship the Jewish God and his “son.”  With its emphasis on the presumed afterlife, Paul’s constructed theology was profoundly anti-life, anti-world, and anti-corporeality.  He never believed in it—that artful liar—nor did any of his fellow Hebrews.  Present-day Jews are laughing up their sleeve over the foolish Christians and their ‘love thy neighbor’ and ‘turn the other cheek’; and of course, they are right there, first in line, ready to exploit that love.

There is no sense, then, in which the Bible is pro-White.  In fact, the New Testament, rightly understood as an anti-Roman manifesto, is profoundly anti-White.  At best, we might say that the Bible is pro-humanity.  But even here, it is cloaked with an insidious Jewish leveling of all peoples, all ‘equal before God’—all except the Jews, who are first among equals.

The bottom line:  Can anyone who worships a long-dead ethnic Jew as his god and personal savior really be alt-right?  Really?”

[2] For those interested, see my books The Holocaust: An Introduction and Debating the Holocaust (4^th ed.).

[3] The six Jews are S. Schwarzman, J. Yass, G. Palmer, B. Marcus, P. Singer, and I. Moskowitz.  Uihlein’s wife is the former Elizabeth Hallberg.  Hallberg (or Halberg) is a traditional Jewish-Ashkenazi surname.  Furthermore, they have a daughter, Frederika (‘Freddy’), whose married name is Goldenberg.  Not proof, but highly suspicious.