Saving the White Race: The Problem and Solutions, Part 1 of 3

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

Almost from the beginning of my thinking and writing about the existential crisis facing the White race I thought that the two most basic and essential pieces of knowledge that we needed to instill in our people were the enormous reality of the problem itself and the possible solutions to the problem, without which there can be no purpose to motivate constructive action and no goal to give us direction and guide us forward. Since the end of World War II, these two vital pieces of knowledge have been totally missing from the dominant, mainstream culture, which effectively censors or ignores them, or dismissively denies and condemns any rare mention of them that might emanate from the fringes, to sustain a general ignorance on the subject. This is not surprising, given that the dominant culture is intent on subjugating, dispossessing, replacing, and destroying the White race, not on saving it.

In brief, the problem is the ongoing dispossession and destruction of the White race. The cause of this problem is multiracialism, which is caused by non-White immigration which in turn causes racial intermixture, which is not possible without it. The solution to the problem is to replace multiracialism with racial separation—to restore the racial environment in which the White race existed in the many thousands of years prior to its settlement of the Americas—the environment that continued to exist in Europe until after World War II. The problem is existential in scale, with the continued existence of the White race at stake. A sufficient solution to an existential problem is one that effectively preserves and continues the existence of the White race—and not only a small fraction of it but the far greater part that can still be saved. This should be the purpose of any genuine racial preservation program.

I want my race to live. But it is being destroyed. How and why is this happening? The how and the why of the problem is one and the same as the cause given above: multiracialism, i.e., the inclusion of multiple races in the same political jurisdiction. Multiracialism is the direct and necessary condition of our racial apocalypse, the end of our existence. Multiracialism makes possible, enables, and indeed causes racial destruction through a combination of racial replacement and intermixture. Racial intermixture cannot occur without multiracialism, and with it can hardly not occur. It makes racial intermixture, and the racial destruction it causes, all but inevitable.

Multiracialism is the direct cause of White destruction, but why then do we have multiracialism? It is obvious why non-Whites support the multiracialization of White countries. It is in their racial group interest to do so because it secures their presence in White countries. But as their presence in White countries continues to grow, it is becoming more than presence. It is becoming power, control and dominance, and the White populations, in addition to racial disempowerment, increasingly suffer subjugation, and eventually persecution. But why have Whites supported, and continue to support, multiracialism and the consequent process of their racial dispossession? Why do they act against their ultimate existential interests? Why, in short, are so many Whites, literally or effectively, anti-White? Why is the White race so maladaptively and pathologically against itself and its existence?

There are two false premises or assumptions that help to sustain popular acquiescence and passive resignation to the anti-White status quo. One is the myth of stasis—the false premise or assumption that things will remain basically as they are with little or no significant change, so there is no problem, no need for a solution, and nothing needs to be done. This complacency-inducing premise had a certain credibility before World War II, or even before the 1960s, but the accelerating pace of racial and cultural change since then makes it increasingly difficult to sustain short of a delusional — and perhaps fearful or ideological — blindness that denies all the evidence of one’s own eyes. Yet the indications are that this myth is the operative worldview of the majority of Whites, rendering them effectively ignorant, with little or no awareness of the great changes happening to their race. Those few White politicians who have publicly acknowledged it have been those, like Bill Clinton and Joe Biden, who welcome it as a positive development. The second false premise or assumption is the myth of inevitability, acknowledging that the process of White replacement and destruction by multiracialism is occurring but believing that there are no feasible and morally acceptable alternatives, so it is inevitable and nothing can be done to prevent it. Both of these false premises—static permanence or inexorable inevitability—can in large part be attributed to a failure of imagination and vision, the inability to conceive or see other alternatives. But the simple fact is that there are other possible alternatives and solutions. There is a pathway out of the darkness and toward the light, away from racial death and toward racial life, as many, including this author, have proposed.

People and movements are defined both by what they are for and what they are against. When a solution — the positive “what they are for” — is missing, the response to a problem — the negative “what they are against” — can have little meaningful effect. Sometimes what one is for and what one is against is a very simple matter of either-or. In the matter at issue, either one is for continued White racial existence and independence—a position the dominant anti-White culture condemns as “racism” and “hate” (its code words for pro-White), or one is against them, the dominant “politically correct” position described as “anti-racism” and “anti-hate” (its code words for anti-White). In such cases, when there are only two choices, knowing what someone is against should, if they are logically consistent, indicate what they are for; however they might refuse to acknowledge it. So either one is for the preservation and independence of the White race, or one is against them. If one is for them, if one wants the White race to live and be free, logical consistency dictates one also support racial separation as the required condition for both, and then it also follows that one be against multiracialism. If one is against White existence and independence and therefore wants the White race to be subjugated and destroyed, then logic dictates one be for multiracialism as the most effective means to realize this end. The label “White preservationist” describes people by what they are for, not what they are against. The crucial point is that preservationists are not just against something, but are for something—for White racial preservation, and should place as much or more emphasis on what they are for as on what they are against.

Part I. The Problem

“Something is happening: we are becoming the first universal nation in history….if you believe, as the author does, that the American drama is being played out toward a purpose, then the non-Europeanization of America is heartening news of an almost transcendental quality.” Ben J. Wattenberg, The Good News is the Bad News is Wrong (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1984), 84.

“In a little more than 50 years, there will be no majority race in the United States. No other nation in history has gone through demographic change of this magnitude in so short a time.” President Bill Clinton Commencement Address at Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, June 13, 1998.

“[W]hen one population moves into a region occupied by another population with which it can interbreed, even a small rate of interbreeding is enough to produce high proportions of mixture in the descendants.” David Reich, Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past (New York: Vintage Books, 2019), 43.

“I think that the Dutch will in the long run disappear. The [non-White immigrant] ethnic groups’ population growth is much faster than that of the Dutch. It is obvious that this process will continue, even after the year 2100. This is the trend worldwide. The white race will in the long term become extinct. I don’t regard this as positive or negative. Apparently we are happy with this development.” Jozef Ritzen, Dutch Minister of Education and Sciences, interview in Algemeen Dagblad, Rotterdam, December 11, 1989, 1.

The crisis of White racial survival began with the colonization of the Americas and the resulting bringing together of previously separated races. But it was not the Spanish and Portuguese colonization of “Latin America” beginning in the sixteenth century that caused it. Even though it was the home of over 90% of the African slave trade and 90% of the aboriginal Amerindian population, it played little or no role in the development of the problem  now threatening the White race. What Harvard geneticist David Reich calls “The Great Mixing”[1] in Latin America was effectively completed by the beginning of the nineteenth century, forming the racial patterns of the region that persist to this day and didn’t really spread beyond those confines until the 1960s, when the racial problem had already started to metastasize through the Western World. The current racial problem began with the importation of African slaves into the English colonies of North America beginning in 1619. By the time of the first United States census in 1790 they numbered 757,208, or 19.3% of the total population of 3,929,214. The combination of their presence and the dispute over their status was the primary cause of the American Civil War of 1861–65, after which the racial situation restabilized into a White supremacist modus vivendi that lasted with little change, with one exception, until World War II. The exception was the mass immigration of Jews, beginning in the 1880s. Jews soon increased their power and used it to agitate against the pro-White status quo. Critical to their success was that they formed alliances in a campaign to promote unrestricted mass immigration, such as the “Black-Jewish Alliance”[2] which subsequently expanded into a broad coalition of anti-White elements as other groups achieved significant numbers.

This Anti-White Coalition, whose power increased after World War II, achieved cultural and political dominance in the 1960s. It consists of Jewish and non-White racial groups whose interests conflict with White interests in alliance with the varied White elements who are against their own race. It effectively dominates the entirety of the Democratic party, as well as the pro-immigration, globalist, anti-nationalist and “neo-conservative” establishment of the Republican party, the federal agencies and bureaucracies, the universities and educational system, most of the judiciary, and most of the  private business and corporate world, especially the financial sector and the communications, news, entertainment and social media. This anti-White power structure promotes multiracialism, non-White immigration and racial intermixture and thereby opposes the most important and fundamental interests of the White race: its continued existence and control of its own existence. This coalition more generally tends to support any policy — whether stemming from misnamed “liberalism” and “progressivism” or the more radically anti-White Racial Marxism — that is contrary to White interests.

The motivations and psychology of the Whites and non-Whites in the Anti-White Coalition are not the same. In fact, they could hardly be more opposite. The non-Whites are acting in the interests of their own racial groups, ruthlessly partisan and loyal to their own group in a manner as natural and healthy as it is intensely and primitively subjective. The Whites are acting against their own race and its most vital interests, their minds infected with a pathological and perverse disease that has overthrown and reversed the natural bonds of loyalty and affection, rejecting their ancestors, heritage, civilization, culture and history, expressing guilt and begging forgiveness for their ancestors’ alleged sins and their “white privilege,” something which — like “white supremacy” — could only exist in multiracial countries, since in monoracial White countries there are no non-Whites for Whites to have supremacy over or be privileged above.

Whoever supports multiracialization supports the cause of White racial destruction, if not actively then at least passively, whether admitting it to themselves and others or not. In the receding past, the Anti-White Coalition was too wary to admit this fact, hiding it behind layers of obfuscation, denial and outright lies. This is less-and-less the case, with the end results of its long-advocated policies more-and-more openly acknowledged as something totally positive to be joyfully welcomed and celebrated by all, even by the Whites whose race is being destroyed, and woe to those who see it otherwise.

In the aftermath of World War II, nationalist and pro-White elements were broadly associated or connected with “Nazism” and the Holocaust to discredit them and confine them to the disreputable political and cultural fringes. On the European continent they were officially purged, with hundreds of thousands killed (especially in France), imprisoned or removed from governmental, educational or business positions. In most European countries (later joined by Canada) the completion of the purge was followed by a ban — subject to fines, loss of position or imprisonment — of pro-White activity or dissent from the standard Holocaust narrative. Thus the elements that would have most strongly opposed the post-war multiracialization of Europe and the West generally, were removed from the scene, effectively clearing the path to White replacement and destruction.

Reductio ad Odium, Reductio ad Hitlerum and Reductio ad Holocaustum refer to three common reductionist responses to any pro-White position, policy or argument, dismissing it by equating it with one or more of the three “H’s” — Hate, Hitler or the Holocaust. According to this “logic,” Whites loving their own race and wanting it to continue to exist and be independent, is really hate for other races, on the grounds that non-Whites are the moral center of the universe so that any positive feelings toward the White race are illegitimate.

When I first began to express pro-White ideas during my university days, a common reaction was the equation of my position with “Nazism” and the Holocaust. When I visited Uppsala University in Sweden in 1989, I saw many posters around campus that read “Fight Nazism — Support Immigration,” advertising an upcoming rally in support of non-White immigration as the means to oppose and defeat Nazism. Leading Jewish activist Earl Raab, addressing a Jewish readership in 1993, wrote “We [i.e., Jews] have tipped [the population] beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan [i.e., pro-White] party will be able to prevail in this country.”

The above are just a few examples of the common identification of the White race and its most vital interests with “Nazism.” As they illustrate, since World War II, the Anti-White-Coalition’s never-ending and ever-expanding campaign against the White race and its interests has regularly been rationalized as a continuation of the war against “Nazism.” In this campaign, both “Nazism” and “Fascism” no longer refer to political or economic systems or philosophical ideas but exclusively to race, specifically to the White race, and particularly to any person or idea that is pro-White. Thus the label “Antifa,” short for Anti-Fascist, in practice actually means anti-White, and especially “anti” anything that is pro-White. The application of the “Nazi” label, and its connection to the Holocaust, has been expanded to include any who oppose the anti-White multiracialist agenda of White dispossession and destruction by non-White immigration and racial intermixture. The indoctrination in the Holocaust as a weapon in support of the anti-White agenda is perhaps the most pernicious aspect of this campaign, used to justify White racial replacement and the suppression of pro-White speech and activity.

The great majority of the U.S. soldiers, sailors and airmen who fought in World War II against “Nazism” had racial views which would today be labelled as “Nazi” or “Fascist” by the dominant Anti-White Coalition. The racial attitudes of the majority of White Americans were described by Swedish economist Gunnar Myrdal in his very influential 1,500 page study, An American Dilemma: the Negro Problem and Modern Democracy, published in 1944 as the war was nearing its climax, as follows:

There is no doubt that the overwhelming majority of white Americans desire that there be as few Negroes as possible in America. If the Negroes could be eliminated from America or greatly decreased in numbers, this would meet the whites’ approval — provided that it could be accomplished by means which are also approved. Correspondingly, an increase of the proportion of Negroes in the American population is commonly looked upon as undesirable.[3]

The stability of the pre-war racial status quo, which proved to be more fragile than commonly assumed, ended after the war when the rising Anti-White Coalition — already closely associated with race-denialist Boasian anthropology and the Frankfurt School of subversive “Critical Theory” sociology, both based at Columbia University — took effective control of the ruling establishment through its dominance of academia and the communications media. The long-evaded great decision of racial separation and White racial preservation versus multiracialism was now in its power to decide.

Figure 1: Boasian disciples Ruth Benedict and Gene Weltfish and their 1943 pamphlet The Races of Mankind

The “internationalist” racial views commonly promoted during the war are most prominently linked to Ruth Benedict and Regina (“Gene”) Weltfish, two disciples of Franz Boas and his school of cultural relativist anthropology, in a 1943 pamphlet titled The Races of Mankind. (Another Boasian anthropologist, “Ashley Montagu,” born Israel Ehrenberg, was the instigator of the similarly motivated 1950 UNESCO “Statement on Race,” which declared the racial nihilist creed that race and racial differences are nihil, literally nothing.) The pamphlet was written for the U.S. Army in an effort to change the racial views (what Wikipedia terms “racist beliefs”) of servicemen by indoctrination with race denialist propaganda.

By 1945 over 750,000 copies had been printed. It employed the common tactic of discrediting the reality of race and the importance of racial preservationism, and so supposedly justifying racial intermixture, by claiming that Europeans are too racially mixed, and so not “racially pure” enough by their extreme standard of “racial purity,” to be worth preserving. As Benedict and Weltfish expressed it:

[N]o European is a pure anything. A country has a population. It does not have a race. If you go far enough back in the populations of Europe you are apt to find all kinds of ancestors: Cro-Magnons, Slavs, Mongols, Africans, Celts, Saxons, and Teutons.[4]

Since Slavs, Celts, Saxons and Teutons are all European groups, a person who was a mixture of these groups would be a pure European, although not a pure Slav or Celt, etc., and it is either ignorant or dishonest to claim otherwise. Fortunately, this argument for promoting racial intermixture and opposing racial preservation is finally being conclusively discredited by modern autosomal genetic population studies, such as the 2014 study by Bryc, et. al.,[5] which shows the average proportion of European genetic ancestry among non-Hispanic European-Americans as 98.6 percent (Figure 2), and with 94 percent of European-Americans having no genetically measurable non-European ancestry. Regarding the pamphlet’s claimed African ancestry of Europeans, the Bryc study (p. 47) found that only 0.04% (i.e., 4 of 9,701 European individuals in the sample, or 1 in 2,425) of native Europeans in Europe carry 1% or more of African ancestry. Descent from Cro-Magnons is one of the distinguishing indicators of Europeans, and they are now referred to as “Early European modern humans” or “EEMH” in recognition of their at least proto-European bona fides. As for the claimed Mongol ancestry, the Mongol raids in the thirteenth century that reached as far west as Poland and Hungary withdrew as quickly as they came, and few of their rape victims would have survived to bear their children. So by any reasonable standard Europeans should be regarded as purely European.

Figure 2: Table 1 from Katarzyna Bryc, Eric Y. Durand, et. al., The Genetic Ancestry of African Americans,Latinos, and European Americans across the United States

The Races of Mankind caused something of a political furor that lasted through the 1950s, with Congress banning its use by the army as communist propaganda, and one of its authors, Gene Weltfish, was blacklisted and investigated by Congress for her communist connections and activities.

The pamphlet represented the Boasian way of thinking about race, which later became the standard view in anthropology and was endorsed with a 1948 UNESCO declaration. At the time, its contention that race was socially constructed was politically controversial…[6]

The pamphlet also provided the basis for the animated short The Brotherhood of Man (1946; available here), a very revealing early example of the anti-White genocidal campaign, sponsored by the UAW-CIO. The short was ostensibly intended to promote racial integration and harmony among automobile and other industrial workers, but is totally devoted to promoting the goal of “one-world, one-race” through mass non-White immigration into White countries. It begins with the lines: “Everybody has his own special dream of what the world is going to be like in the future.…[O]ne of these days we’re going to wake up and find that people and places we used to just read about are practically in our own backyard.” Sure enough, the White American wakes up to find his home surrounded by immigrants from all over the world, each with their own type of home and style of clothing. After an initial struggle against intolerance, hate and racism, it ends with the reconciled White American and various mostly non-White immigrants marching off to work together in interracial solidarity and brotherhood, dressed in the appropriate attire for their roles as raceless interchangeable cogs in the corporate system.[7]

The 1946 animated short The Brotherhood of Man based on The Races of Mankind pamphlet

In the early 1950s the short’s screenwriters Ring Lardner, Jr. and Maurice Rapf, and animation director John Hubley were, like Gene Weltfish, blacklisted and investigated by Congress for their communist connections. Unfortunately, in the mid-1960s the course it advocated was effectively enacted into law.

Figure 4: U.S. population by race as of December 6, 2020, as estimated by the author

Figure 4 shows the enormous changes in the racial proportions in the United States population resulting from the Immigration and Nationality (Hart-Cellar) Act of 1965 and the Immigration Act of 1990, which effected a racial transformation of the country that is still ongoing. The first opened the gate to massive non-White immigration and the second opened it wider, causing the non-White population to grow from 38.4 million or 18.9% of the population in 1970, to 65.2 million or 26.2% in 1990, to 135.8 million or 41.1% in 2020, an increase of 97.4 million in fifty years — 26.8 million in the twenty years 1970 to 1990, and 70.6 million in the thirty years from the 1990 Act to 2020. (The very large increase in the native Amerindian population during this period, which by definition could not have been caused by immigration and seems too large for natural increase alone, could be partly attributable to people changing their racial self-identification to Native American a la Elizabeth Warren, perhaps motivated by the declining status of White identity and the rewards of non-White identity.)

A similar racial transformation of the populations of the countries of Northwest Europe also began in the aftermath of World War II with much the same ethnic and ideological basis. In the United Kingdom, the 1939 Register counted 30,000 non-Europeans (i.e., persons of non-European racial type and ancestry, defined here as non-White) in England and Wales (i.e., not counting Scotland and Northern Ireland), about 0.073% of a population of 41 million. In the 1951 census there were 50,000 non-Europeans in the entire United Kingdom (i.e., including Scotland and Northern Ireland), about 0.104% of a population of 48 million. In the 1991 census there were over 4 million non-Europeans in the U.K., about 7% of the population of 57.4 million. By the 2011 census, two decades later, their number had more than doubled to 9 million (including about 900,000 non-European Caucasians who were counted as “white”) and their proportion of the population had doubled to 14% of 63.2 million. In that same year non-Europeans were 20% of the French population and both France and the U.K. were projected to be majority non-European by 2066, about one generation later than the projected date for the U.S.

A race can only exist in its full and complete form in a monoracial environment where its behavior, culture and institutions are not altered or distorted by the presence and influence of other races. When our countries are multiracialized, our existence as a race at the population level is destroyed. This is what has happened since the 1960s in all the countries of Northwest Europe and the New Europes founded and primarily settled by Northwest Europeans. Australia changed its laws to promote non-White immigration and multiracialism in 1973, Sweden in 1975, Canada in 1976. By the 1996 census, twenty years later, Canada had gone from less than 1% “visible (i.e., non-White) minorities” to 11.2%, or 3.2 million of a population of 28.5 million, and then in the 2016 census to 22.3% non-White, or 7.7 million of a population of 34.5 million, a 240% increase in twenty years. By 2020 Australia’s 3.2 million post-1973 non-indigenous non-Whites were 12.5% of its population. In the same year European Whites were already a minority of the U.S. population under the age of thirty, and the broader category of “whites” (i.e., including semi and non-European Caucasians) were projected to become a minority of the total population around 2043. By 2017 the non-European population of the eleven countries of Northwest Europe (Ireland, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Norway, Denmark and Sweden) had increased from less than 200,000 in 1945 to 41 million, or 14.5% of their total combined population.

So like the New Europe of the United States, the other New Europes of Canada and Australia, along with the populations of Western Europe can no longer be accurately described as racially English, Irish, etc., but as multiracial populations. Their governments no longer serve the interests of their native populations but those of the rapidly growing non-White populations that are replacing them.

The best means to counter the too common myth of stasis is to present statistics for changes over a period of time and then to project or extrapolate these trends forward into the future. With regard to demographic racial change this includes the rate of intermixture, changes in that rate, and their demographic effects. Phineas Eleazar, writing on this subject at the Counter-Currents website[8], has projected, based on his computer simulations allowing 28 years per generation, that in four generations or 112 years whites (defined as persons more than 95% genetically white) will be reduced to 8% of the U.S. population, and in six generations or 168 years to 0%. Persons who are “mainly” white (defined as at least 80% genetically white) will only be 33% of the population in four generations, 13% in six and 0% in eight generations or 224 years. The white proportion in the new mixed-race population will continue to be diluted so that in about 12 generations or 336 years “there will be virtually no people who have majority [over 50% genetically white] European ancestry.” Per this simulation, with whites reduced to 0% of the population in 168 years, in about 90 years virtually no more whites will be born in the U.S.

Until 2013 the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) provided the statistics for interracial mixture from 1990 to the present. After 2013 the tables were removed and the information could only be accessed with specialized software. Fortunately, before this happened, I took screen captures of the tables for 1990 and 2013, seen in Figures 5 and 6. As in all government racial statistics, some information is incomplete or missing. European White Hispanics are not separated from non-White Hispanics and non-European or semi-European “whites” are not separated from European Whites. Also 8.4% in 1990, and 9% in 2013, of the fathers of the children born to Non-Hispanic white mothers were not racially identified (“not stated”) and so their race is unknown, and it would seem reasonable to suspect that the rate of intermixture would be higher in this group than where the father’s race is identified.

Figure 5: 1990 CDC (Centers for Disease Control) birth data by race of mothers (orange MRACEHISP column on right) and fathers (blue FRACESHISP line on top)

Figure 6: 2013 CDC birth data by race of mothers (orange MRACEHISP column on right) and fathers (blue FRACESHISP line on top)

In 1990 (Figure 5) Non-Hispanic white mothers had 2,626,500 children. The fathers of 221,855 of these children were not racially identified. Looking only at the 2,404,645 fathers who were racially identified, 2,279,870, or 94.8%, were Non-Hispanic white like the mothers, and 5.2% were of a different racial category than the mothers. In 2013 (Figure 6) Non-Hispanic white mothers had 2,129,126 children. Of the 1,937,590 fathers who were racially identified 1,709,863, or 88.24%, were Non-Hispanic white like the mothers, and 11.76% were of a different racial category than the mothers. In numbers of children, this would tally to White women having 136,578 mixed-race children in 1990 and 250,393 in 2013, while White men fathered 92,789 mixed-race children in 1990 and 167,506 in 2013.

The above rates of percentile increase are consistent with an approximate doubling of the racial intermixture rate every twenty years since 1950, which would extrapolate backward to a circa 2.6% rate in 1970 and 1.3% in 1950.[9] If this past rate of increase continued, it would reach 23.2% in 2030, 46.4% in 2050, and 92.8% in 2070. If the future rate of increase were reduced by 50% every twenty years, half of the historical postwar average, the rate would be 17.4% in 2030, 26.1% in 2050, 39.15% in 2070, 58.7% in 2090 and 88% in 2110.[10] This would be about the time the Eleazar simulation (see above) projects white births would virtually stop, indicating his simulation falls between these two rates of increase.

I have previously estimated, based on the above assumptions, that about 2.1 million mixed-race children were born to White mothers in the 20-year period 1970-89 and 5.8 million more in the 28-year period 1990-2017, totaling 7.9 million during those 48 years.[11] Based on the father vs. mother intermixture ratios for 1990 and 2013 we can estimate that White men fathered about 3.9 million mixed-race children in the 28-year period 1990–2017 and 5.37 million in the 48 year period 1970–2017. This would indicate circa 10.5 million mixed-race persons with one White parent born in the 30-year period 1990–2020 and 14.1 million in the 50-year period 1970–2020. At an average of two mixed-race children per parent, this would mean about 7 million Whites have mixed-race children under the age of 50 and circa 5.25 million have mixed-race children under the age of 30.

The information from these CDC tables can help us to project the future course of racial intermixture as a dynamic process and avoid the common temptation to assume an unchanging state of stasis. As the past has recorded a pattern of acceleration in the process of White racial replacement, all indications are that the Anti-White Coalition, if they are able (i.e., not prevented by rising White opposition), will continue to make every effort to accelerate this process in the future.

These numbers, whether past, present or projected, must be regarded as extremely disturbing to any White person who wants their race to live and continue to exist, or indeed for any racial preservationist. But those who are supporting the causes of this destruction, are — at least where the White race is concerned — the opposite of racial preservationists. They are in fact race destroyers.

Factors Determining the Rates of Racial Intermixture

Since World War II, all the causative factors of our replacement have been accelerating, including the terminal causative factor of intermixture. Racial changes in the population, the measure of our replacement and destruction, are primarily determined by three causative factors: birth rates, immigration rates, and the rate of intermixture between the different racial elements in the population. Studies that project demographic change often greatly underestimate the rate of intermixture between the different racial elements as a result of a crucial flaw in their methodology. They typically either do not allow for the effects of racial intermixture at all, assigning all projected births to the same race as their mother regardless of the race of their father and the child’s own actual racial identity; they don’t distinguish between different racial categories with sufficient accuracy (such as the U.S. Census Bureau counting 91.7% of Hispanics or Latinos as “white,” and therefore their children with European Whites as White rather than mixed, when probably only 10—15% of Hispanics are White by European standards); or they base their projections on the current rate of intermixture, not allowing for the continuous increase in the rate of intermixture since 1950. This is a critical omission, for although the increase in the rate of racial intermixture cannot be predicted with certainty, it is likely to be dramatic if past trends continue.

The rate of intermixture is itself determined by three causative factors: the relative proportions of different racial elements in the population; the extent of contact between the races; and the degree of racial discrimination in the selection of mates.

  1. The rate of intermixture is effectively limited by the proportions of different races in a population. In a monoracial society different races are not present, resulting in reproductive isolation and the effective prevention of intermixture. Multiracialism is the primary cause for intermixture and the precondition required for the others. If other races are present only as a very small minority the rate of intermixture is necessarily limited to a low level. When non-White races are present in numbers approaching, equal to, or exceeding the number of Whites the potential rate of intermixture for Whites is effectively unlimited. It is not coincidental that the rate of intermixture has increased along with increases in the proportion of non-Whites in the population.
  2. Within the given proportions of different races in a population, the actual rate of intermixture is determined by the extent of contact between the races and the degree of racial discrimination in the selection of mates. The practice of de jure (in the South) and de facto racial segregation before the 1960s significantly reduced racial intermixture.
  3. If contact between the races is extensive, there is no reproductive isolation and racial discrimination in the selection of mates becomes the only effective limit on the rate of intermixture. Without racial discrimination in the selection of mates, if two races are present in equal numbers, and contact between and within the races is equally extensive, so that 50% of the pool of potential mates are from each race, there should be a 50% rate of intermixture. If the degree of racial discrimination is 50%, the rate of intermixture would be 25%. This discrimination can be politically, religiously, socially and culturally sanctioned and even enforced, as it was before the 1960s, or morally prohibited as it has since the 1960s. In the latter case, without any external support, the continued practice of such discrimination is totally dependent on the racial sense of the individual.

The rate of intermixture has been increasing and is likely to continue to do so due to a number of interrelated and interacting trends, including increasing proportions of other races in the population and thus in the pool of potential mates, more extensive contact between the races, a decreasing level of racial discrimination in the selection of mates due to social, cultural and ideological influences, e.g., the social stigma attached to racial sexual discrimination as “racism,” as well as the “snowballing” effect — the increasing momentum in the rate of intermixture — caused by the increasing numbers of mixed-race persons themselves.

Without significant change that favors racial preservationism, projections must assume the present direction will continue, and it is just the speed that is less certain. But whether slower or faster, the result or endgame is the same, per the old adage, “If we don’t change direction we’ll end up where we’re headed.” All that differs is the time it takes us to get there. We can predict that whatever the speed of our destruction, as time passes the effects and consequences of multiracialism will increase and grow ever stronger. According to official projections, which do not take into account an estimated 20 million or more illegal immigrants, “whites” will become a minority in the U.S. soon after 2040. Official projections of when Whites will become minorities in their Northwest European homelands generally vary between 2060 and 2080.

Go to Part 2.

56 replies
      FREESPIRIT says:

      Would that “at any cost” include murdering the people who are “diluting” the “White” DNA

      • Anthony Kimball
        Anthony Kimball says:

        Seems to me you don’t quite understand the urgency of our race’s dilemma in 2021. In case you are unaware, we happen to be right now in a war in which there is the very real possibility that our kind ( and I’ve got to say I question whether you are really one of us) could face imminent extinction. In such a situation, anything which would give our side victory is acceptable.

      • Forever Guilty
        Forever Guilty says:

        “Would that “at any cost” include murdering the people who are “diluting” the “White” DNA”

        “Murdering” ? Helping them move into higher and better places. Helping them reunite with their noble ancestors 🙂

      • Luke
        Luke says:

        In response to your question, let me share with you a recent news article that I spotted just a few days ago. This can be viewed as a ‘progress report’ that the enemies of the White European race are celebrating, as it shows the amazing progress they have made in their quest to Genocide the White race here in America.

        62,502,904 Babies Have Been Killed by Abortion Since Roe v. Wade in 1973

        I should also point out that, while these statistics are not broken down by race in this particular article – I will guarantee that the jews who are behind this agenda are keeping very close track of the numbers of White babies who are aborted.

        Thus, the answer to your question: “Would that “at any cost” include murdering the people who are “diluting” the “White” DNA?” might well involve a recognition of the fact that our enemies have no reluctance whatsoever with regards to their stealthy tactics to exterminate our race of humans from this planet and so, why are you wasting your time moralizing about which defensive maneuvers our team should be allowed to use to combat this genocide agenda?

        Do you fail to understand that this enemy follows no set of rules and is willing to do whatever is necessary in order to wipe the White race off the face of this Earth?

        If that is your attitude, then you are either an enemy troll or you are clinging to some kind of naive, Goober Pyle outdated sense of fair play and suicidal good sportsmanship notions that our enemies laugh at.

      • George Mackenzie
        George Mackenzie says:

        Self-defense is not murder.
        But primarily, it would include neutralizing those promoting and facilitating the race-mixing: certain select Jews.

  1. Ned J. Casper
    Ned J. Casper says:

    Some people saw this coming even well before WW2; e.g. Professor William McDougall FRS in “Ethics & Some Modern World Problems” (London: Methuen, 1925).

    Now for the solution …

  2. Patrick Pappano
    Patrick Pappano says:

    It seems to me that white nationalists in Britain were very happy to kill off the white Boers in South Africa for pay, and white northern Americans were very happy to kill off their white brethren in the south, also for pay, that the question must be raised, are these people really worth saving? Can they even be saved, when for a bit of money they can he hired to kill their fellows? Jay Gould, early railroad magnate, I believe said: “I can hire one half to kill the other half.” I think we must get down to the granular level as in Gustave LeBon’s observation that there were such people as Piedmontese and Sicilians but he had never observed an “Italian.” Of course, I neglected to mention the mother of all cannibalistic-like behavior, the take down of the Third Reich who had tried exactly what you are suggesting. No. I think the world will need a better white man than has thus far appeared on the world stage, before civilization can move forward on a continental scale, or even a national scale. I hate to be a doubter, but you can’t build on sand.

    • Robert
      Robert says:

      @Patrick Pappano
      Well said! My grandmother was a survivor of the British concentration camp near Bloemfontein during the second Boer war, and my father fought against the Italians in East and North Africa, and against the Germans in Italy during the Second White World War .
      When I see how easy it is now for the governments to brainwash their populations into believing all this covid b/s I can understand how they were tricked, lied to and deceived into fighting these wars against their brethren.

      • moneytalks
        moneytalks says:

        ” When I see how easy it is now for the governments to brainwash “…

        Superb observation .

        Whites in general simply never had the intelligence ( not mostly an IQ issue ) to recognize and then defeat the psychological propaganda manipulations of their cosmopolitan chosenhite jewmasterss . Unfortunately , they may become extinct before they acquire the necessary intelligence to prevail against their enslavers .

        • David Schmitt
          David Schmitt says:

          Europeans seem to have a naivete that makes them vulnerable. Perhaps this is why the crude device of accusing someone of engaging in “conspiracy theory” is so effective. To distrust others, especially officials, is so repugnant to the bulk of our people. This child-like inclination also seems to be why Europeans are so easily led by “authorities.” When the positions of authority are usurped by non-Europeans or by traitorous Europeans, it is very difficult for those who are more perceptive to raise the alarm without being attacked by the very people they attempt to save. Europeans collectively possess a bulk of their own numbers who live matter-of-factly based on prima facie explanations of cause. This is not unusual considering all racial and ethnic groups of the world—but it is not universal either. We Europeans are well-adapted for peaceful and constructive communities which, if unmolested by insinuated instigators and top-down perturbers, are almost an ideal. But all the more reason that Europeans will need to develop a much more effective social and political immune system. A bit more shrewdness, aggressivity and enterprise would do us well—at least as a respected number among us. While retaining our capacity for obedience directed toward limited goals (building a cathedral, founding a university, launching an exploratory rocket, erecting a bridge, investigating a scientific curiosity), we need to train–perhaps in a new way–our capacity for independence such that we are able to pattern-recognize when we are being duped. We need to appropriately respect intellect that sees ahead and tests hypotheses without adding to that respect a deleterious fawning worship of position, personality and peer-driven celebrity. We are presently so likely to follow someone with a fancy garmant, outstanding hat and sparkly things—someone who is tall and has a nack for acquiring wealth. I agree, moneytalks, there is something beyond mere intelligence. There is some additional interplay of perceptual filters and the particular emotional instruments that we use in scoring our experienced, shared drama that we need to work on.

          • Brooklyn Dave
            Brooklyn Dave says:

            I guess I am not a very good White man. My level of trust has subsided to such a degree that I am left shaking my head. What is left to trust? Government? Church? Those in the field of medicine? All have been corrupted to such a degree that one has to formulate one’s opinion through constant ongoing self-education, which involved a fair amount of reading. And still one is left with part answers and no definites.

          • moneytalks
            moneytalks says:

            You broach a number of significant issues that are worthy of serious discourse . However , this comment will only be about a particular sublimely pernicious issue of “IQ” versus “intelligence”.

            I agree with you that …” there is something beyond mere intelligence ” . Furthermore , I hold there is forever and always a meta-reality beyond any extant reality .

            Regardless , Whites and the vast majority by far ( of nearly any social hierarchy from top to bottom ) of English speaking peoples around the world usually conflate the two very significantly different concepts of “IQ” and “intelligence” .

            Briefly , “IQ” is a very important and well-established scientific measure of the inherent capability , of an individual , to process information . It is an information processing power metric . “Intelligence” is a very important concept that refers to information/knowledge in a distinguishable domain commonly known as a “subject” which can be a person , thing , idea , country , ethnic group , etc. ; where this definition of “intelligence” is the same as that employed by all Westernworld governmental intel agencies .

            “IQ” is not properly a measure of


            which is emphaticly not the same as

            “Intelligence Quotient”.

            For greater clarity and just one particularity out of many , you can have a very high IQ person with a very low level of political intelligence ; and vice versa .

            The conflation/(interchanging of the terms) of “IQ” and “intelligence” is widespread and deep in Westernworld societies . Obviously , this actuality is implicated in and often the cause of many socio-political frictions/conflicts/difficulties/misunderstandings .

            The Wikipedia article on “IQ classification” is just one of a multitude of examples showing the illicit interchanging of the terms “IQ” and “intelligence”. For instance , you can scroll down to “Wechsler Intelligence Scales” or “Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale” and notice that in both cases these are properly referring to “IQ” metrics and not measures of “intelligence” which has been defined herein as information/knowledge .

            Another Wikipedia ( the most important worldwide encyclopedia ) article on the world famous “James Watson” whom was publicly disgraced in year 2019 for refusing to retract his conviction , based on his awarded Nobel Prize knowledge and subsequent empirical data , that “intelligence and race” ( a blue link in the third paragraph down ) is geneticly linked . Clearly , Watson referred to the genetic link between “IQ and race” not “intelligence and race”.

            Furthermore ( as of 28 Jan 2021 7 pm USA EST ), that blue link goes to the Wikipedia article “Race and intelligence” ( not to the blue link “intelligence and race” ), where Wiki refuses to acknowledge that all Westernworld governmental intel agencies define “intelligence” ( not IQ ) as information/knowledge , as previously noted herein , and asserts in the first paragraph of the article that “intelligence has no agreed-upon definition”. Moreover , in the very next sentence in that first paragraph , the all jewish owned Wiki asserts “The validity of IQ testing as a metric for human intelligence is itself disputed.” which is a no-brainer since Wiki previously asserted that “intelligence” is practically undefined ; and also to reiterate , the concept of “IQ” is not the same as “intelligence” no matter how it is defined or not defined .

            The “Wall Street Journal” recently ( sometime within about maybe the last three years ) published an article on “IQ” which used that term when referring to “intelligence” ( not IQ ) and vice versa numerous times thru-out the article .

            The scientific discourse on this matter is hopelessly confounded and likely will remain that way until ( if and not when ) the chosenhite jewmasterss decide to disambiguate their engineered confusions .

            “Tower of Babel” allegory

            And the Lord God said …

            ” Go to , let us go down , and there confound their language ,
               that they may not understand one another’s speech .”

            ( verbatim quote from :
            The Jewish Holy Torah / KJV / Book of Genesis /      chapter 11  ( “Tower of Babel” allegory )
            / verse 7 )

            where :

            “us” = (((them))) which includes the slave founder of Judaism Abraham

            “their” = goyimm/nonjewss/nonhebrews .

            This allegory first appeared about 2500 years ago .

            QED .

        • Eric
          Eric says:

          William Luther Pierce deals with this issue in “The Turner Diaries.” I find his argument convincing.

          The revolutionaries hope to stimulate consciousness-raising among Whites and to get them to revolt. It doesn’t happen, no matter how repressive the state becomes.

          The revolution does succeed, but it is carried out by a tiny percentage of the White population. As the revolutionaries succeed, they ruthlessly enforce a new order. And the great bulk of Whites are fine with it.

          In other words, most people go where the wind blows them. We need to stop caring what they think.

          • moneytalks
            moneytalks says:

            ” In other words, most people go where the wind blows them. We need to stop caring what they think.”

            Superb observation . Most people are sheeple whom normally have only whimsical political thoughts/opinions/beliefs and are easily captured ; then enslaved .

        • TJ
          TJ says:

          Horrible misunderstanding. The problem is not White intellectual weakness- it is information being monopolistic, with the monopolies held in place by guns. [“Public interest legislation”]

          The most brilliant can be thought-controlled if the monopoly has no leaks. . .

          Example- The Communications Act of 1934 established the Federal Communications Commission, which uses guns, or threat of guns, to thwart competition. ABC to Goldenson, NBC to Sarnoff, CBS to Paley [all Jewish].

          Here is a photograph of the actual coercive nature of “public schools”- the right to free association stripped away at bayonet point- [Little Rock Arkansas 1957].

          btw The right to free association assumes that Whites must not be forced to attend White schools.

          • moneytalks
            moneytalks says:

            ” Here is a photograph of the actual coercive nature of “public schools”- the right to free association stripped away at bayonet point- [Little Rock Arkansas 1957].”

            Superb observation .

            Regardless , most by far of Westernworld Whites are within a few generations of being immediate descendants of rural cultures where intellectualism is traditionally/historicly/normally mostly irrelevant to that way-of-life . Contemporary university educated White intellectuals , whom are most likely near descendants of rural cultures , are far from being even a significant minority .

            There is no strong correlation between high average IQ Whites and intellectualism . In other words , most high IQ Whites are not especially intellectually inclined ; and that accounts for their typically inordinate low level of political intelligence except perhaps for the narrow scope of popular electioneering campaign issues .

            Furthermore , information monopolies indirectly create information scarcities by ignoring valid anti-monopoly info ; where such scarcities result in a lack of intelligence ( not lack of IQ ) .

      • Patrick Pappano
        Patrick Pappano says:

        Man may be contemplated as both an individual and as a member of a society. The fraud of the “American” story is that man is free to develop on his own. This robs the American people of the critical dimension of building an American society with clearly understood customs and norms. This ideal is seen in the German Third Reich wherein a national character was promoted, but is painted by the propagandists as a bad thing, calling it authoritative and oppressive or their favorite words “Fascism” and “Nazism.” Those words are used in jealousy that people might be organized voluntarily by spiritual values. The Jews are materialists who hate spirituality, because of the awesome power of spirituality and never more visible than in the Third Reich. The Germans were a people then, never to be forgotten.

        • moneytalks
          moneytalks says:

          ” The fraud of the “American” story is that man is free to develop on his own.”

          Good point . However , an even greater fraud is the one held by the chosenhite jewmasterss that proclaims man exists only to serve at the pleasure of their earthly masters and is otherwise completely expendable .

    • Cassandro
      Cassandro says:

      Extremely well said, in fact.

      The willingness of the ruling class in any “Western” nation in the last, say, 500 years, to exploit (and where necessary pulverize) its ethnically-identical lower classes in order to keep them in perpetual subjection is blatantly obvious. All we have now in neoliberalism/globalism is that same oligarchical collectivist system raised to its ne plus ultra. The rich and powerful have united worldwide against the non-rich and non-powerful. QED.

      Moreover, there is not, and indeed never really has been, any lasting widespread “White” consciousness in the Anglosphere. Two ethnic Englishmen, one upper class and one non-upper class, encountering one another in 1910 in darkest Africa, would share but a temporary commonality. Once they were both back in civilization, the former would shrug off the latter’s acquanitance in a heartbeat and think nothing of doing so, even if something as dramatic as a life-saving act had occurred.

      If we want to survive, therefore, we must create a true demos/volk which is united spiritually, ethnically, economically, politically, and, most crucial of all, geographically. It doesn’t matter where we’re all currently from if together we’re going to go on and unite. Swiss, German, English, American, Dutch, etc., are bereft of meaning to people like us. I wouldn’t fight for the state of which I am a passport holder. I don’t watch the state’s media. I don’t support the national sports teams. And that’s not because I’m a transplant here. I can trace my family back at least 400 years, and there’s every chance we go back thousands of years on this land, yet to the ruling class I am nothing but a dupe to be exploited. I despise this state because it despises me, and I want out.

      We need to buy or acquire land on which we can build a new nation for ourselves. What, after all, is a nation? It is a place where a specific people live, and where they predominate. What is, say, Slovakia, for instance? It is, fundamentally, the place where the Slovaks live and predominate and where Slovak culture is preserved. If the Slovaks cease to be Slovaks, or foreigners outnumber them in Slovakia, is it still the same country? Of course not. Yet the UK, US, France, Sweden, etc., have already fallen. There is no way back for those nations or former peoples. The only way is out.

      There is nothing racist or xenophobic about such an endeavour as a new people and a new state. I simply don’t hate foreigners or people who have a different skin colour or religion. All I hate is having my culture besmirched, my wealth stolen, my children made into pariahs, and all of this done in the name of a globalized degenerate totalitarianism.

      In a new and separate nation, we would be a self-determining people wishing well to the world. Our land would be but a tiny fraction of the global land mass. We would not deprive anyone of anything. We would just have bonds of kinship and loyalty with one another that would far and away exceed any links we had with other peoples.

      If we have the “will” to act, the “how” will follow. Absent a new nation, all is lost.

      • Ned J. Casper
        Ned J. Casper says:

        Note: meant as reply to Veronica, not Cassandra.

        In Britain, apart from the Happy Clappy fundamentalists and a few Anglo-Catholics who still have what they call The Marce and pray to a very busy Virgin Mary, the new religion of what was the Church of what-used-to -be England is a sort of Masochistianity, exemplifed by the God-doubting Archbishop of Cant, Justin Weepy-Weedy, and his 2nd-in-Command Archbishop Steve of York, who believes that the Son of God was (still is?) a Negro and that the leadership of the “church” is “too white” (the real problem is that the churches are “too empty”).

    • Veronica
      Veronica says:

      I disagree. You have used a small selection of examples in an effort to support your thesis but have left out myriad others that refute it. For example, Whites have demonstrated that they are by far the most altruistic–and, alas, masochistic–of all races. In addition, the mercenary nature that you have oddly found peculiar to Whites is evident in every race.

    • George Mackenzie
      George Mackenzie says:

      The appearance of the white man on the world stage is just fine, and even magnificent, given the civilizations they have built.
      It is not the nature of the white race that is deficient, but the nurture–or lack of it. Primarily the white race will be just fine if it can throw off the influence of the Jews. As what you term the Third Reich–also known as National Socialism–did so successfully. The man said this very thing in his epic book: the people can be saved, they are still our people, they only need to be enlightened and educated. This he undertook to do, and the people responded. We should do the same. To reject and consign the white race to genetic death for the mistakes it made is only another white mistake. Those mistakes were instilled into whites by Jews, and they can be removed and replaced too. Don’t blame the victim; rehabilitate the victim, because their intrinsic nature is well worth saving.
      Besides, all races fight and kill their own. This may be little more than dominance hierarchies establishing effective leadership and power dynamics to move the race into the future. Certainly Jews have directed some of these internal conflicts, and conducted a reverse outcome, where something like National Socialism, which should have emerged triumphant to lead the white race on Earth, lost, and the degenerate semitic creed of Communism instead propelled the dysgenic future. But white were fighting and killing other whites long before semitic influences, Cromwell being a more recent exception. Just as blacks were killing and enslaving blacks, North American natives engaging in incessant multi-generational warfare, Asian infighting (China on Tibet, Tibet on its region before 1000 AD, etc) and every other intra-racial conflict in history. These conflicts may prepare the race for the more important inter-racial conflicts we are engaged in now. Rather than condemn whites for infighting historically, we can draw on it to more effectively organize our racial defense now. .

    • Charles Frey
      Charles Frey says:

      It is seldom your average citizen who is driven to these excesses, except through the most vulgar propaganda. In GB the Jews’ God-ordained monopoly over Boer gold and diamonds, was achieved through the intellectualization of the Boer Wars. Including the invocation of Rusk at Oxford, along with Rhodes.

      A pre-sound movie was fabricated in a studio NORTH OF LONDON, depicting Boers throwing babies out of incubators and killing them. It was shown, as usual back then, before every feature film on Pathe News.

      The Royal Navy used PRESS GANGS who combed the pubs for fit men to augment their crews to accomplish this. These fellows were taken directly to the ships, without the opportunity to collect their personal belongings from home or to take leave from their families.

      Two monied [[[ Beit ]]] brothers came from Germany to kick-start this endeavor financially.

      Perhaps Hitler scoured Lord Kitchener’s instructions on building concentration camps for Boers, separating their families, shooting their livestock as food deprivation and setting their fields and buildings aflame. Ca. 25,000 old people, women and children perished, and as many among their black, mostly loyal slaves. Quite a percentage of the contemporaneous population.

      Later of course we were treated to Germans bayonetting Belgian babies during WWI and the expert eyewitness and twit daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to the US, who allegedly, personally witnessed Saddam’s troops perpetrating the same as the Boers, on US neo-conservative MSM.

      A witness whose di rigueur meticulous coiffure, makeup and nails would suggest, that daddy would not allow her to be anywhere near the front.

    • Charles Frey
      Charles Frey says:

      As addendum to the above: accidentally split up.

      I had a copy of the two volume opus BISMARCK GRUENDET DAS REICH.
      [ BISMARCK FOUNDS THE REICH ]. I remember reading a cited comment of his which I am obliged to paraphrase to the best of my recollection. Be it remembered, that sitting in the center of the continent, he necessarily had access to Europe’s probably best-informed Intelligence Service. He allegedly stated :

      The European Money Powers are concerned, that the US is becoming too big for
      its britches, and that they may have do something about it, by splitting it up.

      I have contacted three different Bismarck experts at the Humboldt University in Berlin. None has replied. I assume they shut off after reading ” European Money Powers “, being five minutes removed by foot, from the old Reichskanzlei and the new one headed by mother Merkel.

      It would take some time to research that citation, which might only be found in B’s personal papers, after gaining access to them.

      Think of what that would do to the entire historiography of the Civil War ! I recommend May 10th for the book burning, in commemoration of the first one in 33.

      That was a simply ghastly event, compared to the present, beneficial author, book and publisher burning under Biden.

      • Patrick Pappano
        Patrick Pappano says:

        I have read parallel narrative on Bismarck but upon reflection, find no speedbumps getting in the way of total manipulation of North and South together. Rather my take on the Civil War was firstly for profit, secondly to destroy an incipient rising southern nobility that might prove a problem later on and thirdly, to consolidate power by a Union victory ushering in a central power, which is in fact what happened. Read Lysander Spooner on the Gettysburg Address. In my reckoning, Abe was just “Useful Idiot,” and needed to be gotten rid of before making a fool of himself and spoiling the opportunity to lionize him as the great liberator.

  3. anonym
    anonym says:

    “Something is happening: we are becoming the first universal nation in history….if you believe, as the author does, that the American drama is being played out toward a purpose, then the non-Europeanization of America is heartening news of an almost transcendental quality.” Ben J. Wattenberg, The Good News is the Bad News is Wrong (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1984), 84.

    All of it summed up, by Joseph Ben Zion Wattenberg. Everything they do is about “uniting the world” (except Israel), but first they have to destroy it, as per the prophesy of Isaiah.

  4. Carl
    Carl says:

    I think if we use terms such as European, European descent, European culture, etc. instead of White it would be more accepted to talk about these things in public.

    Let’s all start to put this thought in media (newspapers, magazines, letters, conversation, comments, internet posts, radio etc.): those of European ancestry feel beseiged, ignored, belittled etc.

    That way, we play the victim like Blacks, Jews, etc. and it becomes more acceptable. Say that European Americans are being smeared as Nazi-like and inherently racist, and that this is in itself racist.

    One practical reason for not wanting America to become majority Black etc.: It won’t be as good a country.

    It will be less well run and not as smart and advanced. Such minorities are simply not up the task of running the country. It does not mean they’re bad people.

    • Some White Guy
      Some White Guy says:

      Your comment screams for the reply: “It’s OK to be White.”

      It is more than perfectly acceptable to be White and comfortable to say so.

      • Carolyn Yeager
        Carolyn Yeager says:

        I agree with Carl and have said so for a long time already. ‘White’ is meaningless, along with being easy to attack as racist. The ones who hang on to it are those who have or feel no strong European roots or are Slavic, plus the English-Welsh-Scots who are thoroughly Jewified. The facts bear this out.

        • Ned J. Casper
          Ned J. Casper says:

          What “facts” would define precisely and prove that the native peoples of Britain are “thoroughly Jewified” compared (say) to today’s “repentant” Germans or most “whites” in the USA? What would be a useful alternative racial designation that excludes all Scots, Welsh, Anglo-Saxons, Slavs and any other Europid peoples that fail to meet Carolyn Yeager’s 2021 version of the Ariernachweiss?

        • moneytalks
          moneytalks says:

          ” ‘White’ is meaningless “…

          “White” is a codeword for
          Aryan / Indo-European / Caucasian peoples .
          White = Aryan / Indo-European / Caucasian .

          “White” , for instance , means not African negro black .

          “White” may not mean what you want it to mean but it clearly has meaning .

          Your assertion of “meaningless” is nonsense ; and your claim is vacuous except for yourself .

          “Tower of Babel” allegory :

          And the Lord God said …

          ” Go to , let us go down , and there confound their language ,
             that they may not understand one another’s speech .”

          ( verbatim quote from :

          The Jewish Holy Torah / KJV / Book of Genesis /      chapter 11  ( “Tower of Babel” allegory )
          / verse 7 )

          where :

          “us” = (((them))) which includes the slave founder of Judaism Abraham

          “their” = goyimm/nonjewss/nonhebrews .

          This allegory first appeared about 2500 years ago .

    • Rusty
      Rusty says:

      You are correct that a black population can not come close to running any country as say in Africa because they can not as history shows us that.. USA is very advanced and could never be run by blacks. Whites invent and build things, all things. Name a city in Africa that was designed, constructed and maintained by blacks that compares to cities in the USA. Hard decisions will need to be discussed and implemented to save our race.

    • Eric
      Eric says:

      It all depends on the context. In the past, “White” meant nothing in Europe, because everyone was White. The distinctions were either national — Italian, Greek, German, etc. — or religious — Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant.

      “White” first emerged as a concept when Europeans explored non-White parts of the world. Thus, writers ranging from Kipling to David Hume began to speak of the White man in contrast to the non-Whites. As a result, the nationality and religion of a particular White man became less important.

      In the United States, it has always made sense to speak of White people, because of the presence of blacks and Indians. This is becoming true in Europe as well. Governments in European countries — indifferent to the desires of their people — have been importing non-Whites.

      So, in an almost completely White nation like Poland where there has been less non-White immigration, Poles are more concerned about nationality, distrusting both Russians and Germans. But in Western European countries with a lot of non-White immigration, “White” is becoming the most significant basis for self-identification.

      In the face of the non-White presence and threat, Whites all over the world need to unite and set aside their differences. I would not worry about optics. We are beyond that point. The great majority of Whites are ready to allow themselves to be bred out of existence. It is only a small minority that will resist this. We should not waste our time and energy caring about what most people — and most Whites — think.

  5. John
    John says:

    Religion in America has similarities to race. That is, Christianity is a target just as Whites are (of course, not all Christians are White).

    The Left (and many Jews) are hostile to Christianity but not to Judaism and Islam. In fact, the Left wants to import as many Muslims as possible. Even Jews seem to favor that.

    In fact, except perhaps for hostility to Israel by some leftists, the hope by the Left is that Christianity is made illegal (except perhaps for very liberal Protestant denominations) and that people of other religions overwhelm Christians.

    Christianity these days are often associated by the Left with mainly White, moderate or right-of-center Americans. That is just one reason for the hostility.

    No need here to go into the anti-Christian agenda and how is has played out in schools, civic life, and Christmas.

    The aim of our adversaries is to destroy Whites and Christianity and America along with it.

  6. Eric
    Eric says:

    Just go where the segregation naturally tends to occur: your local church.

    The Bible is opposed to race-mixing. God can’t judge the nations if there aren’t any nations to judge. “Nation” means a distinct people. God made us as distinct peoples – black, white, and so on.

    In civil society, we are forced — in this land of “freedom” — to mix and interact with other races. Church is not civil society. It falls more under the private realm of personal belief. The religion of modernity is social justice. It is a false religion because the “justice” at which it aims is the genocide of White people. Were it not promoted as a quasi-religion, our fellow Whites would see right through it.

    The communities of our ancestors were built around churches for well over a thousand years. It is out of churches that our White communities can be recreated. A church need not be just a place to go and pray on Sunday. It can offer a school, a community center, a place to barter, a place to meet like-minded people, a place to give and get help.

    Our enemies know this. They intend to destroy the church along with the first and second amendments to the Constitution. The Jews in particular want to destroy the church because the church recognizes them for what they are — agents of their father the devil (John 8:44). No secular critique can be as strong as this. The opposition to the Jew must be theological in order to be successful.

    Of course, there are many false Christians — possibly the majority — right now. But they won’t last. There is a war in the church that we need to join on the side of tradition. Our enemies are fearful of this happening. They know it is the only thing that can defeat them — a revival of authentic Christianity among White people. And a parallel revival among non-White people.

    The conservative values intrinsic to Christianity are the solvent needed to remove the enticements our enemies hold out to our brethren. The cheap sex and associated infertility, hideous pop culture, usurious capitalism, cultural Marxism, and a “science” built on money and lies — not to mention the spiritual deadness of modernity — are becoming so repulsive that people are looking for an alternative. It’s right in front of their noses.

    No political election, or attempt at secession, or heightened racial consciousness will do the job. Those things can be easily defeated by our enemies. A civil war? Look at how the last one worked out…

    Our greatest hope in the past has been other Whites becoming aware of the true situation. How has that worked out? Apart from all the nasty tricks played on us by Jews going back at least a hundred years, we’ve had forced racial integration, affirmative action, mass Third World legal immigration, additional Third World illegal immigration, and the open demonization of White people. And White people are still in a stupor.

    Consciousness raising in order to foster White solidarity is a false hope. Why? Because Whites don’t care about each other. The individualism they inherited from secular liberalism atomized them.

    Christianity does not allow you to “not care about each other.” So it seems obvious to me that the first step needed is a spiritual step. You cannot defend yourselves if you are not united and working as a team. That will never come about from reason divorced from religion. It will not come about in a secular society. It will not be solved by science.

    • Rusty
      Rusty says:

      Well written. With the advent of cellular phones, Twitter, FB and the 100’s of other electronic media, the population has neglected becoming Christians and having a Christian worldview. Man, given to his own devices will always move in sinful ways. As such, the new breed of seminaries and the new type of pastors are leading the way to a more secularized, christian lite “believer”.

    • David Schmitt
      David Schmitt says:

      Dear Eric,
      When I lived n Sweden, I felt drawn to a prayerful devotion to Saint Erik, a Swedish Warrior King. The Church permits him as a local saint so as not to too, too much alienate the Danes. Competition can be tolerated as long as it is not exceedingly destructive or immoral. Now, to address your comment directly, I want to begin by indicating my vigorous agreement. Furthermore, I would urge Europeans to shake off those chains that have been laid upon them after the stripping away of their most effective armor and weaponry: spiritual weaponry. I am firmly convinced that without encouraging malice toward others, the Divine plan for history includes the preservation of races–and no less our race–as well as geopolitical boundaries for those races. That borders cannot be drawn with perfection is no excuse for despairing of the efficacy, good nature and necessity of borders, and I am very much convinced that a sincere effort to draw borders can be done much better than would otherwise be thought when the nefarious confusers are at work. Next, a revivified awakening of the dead bones of traditional Christianity is necessary along with familiar, as well as new, devotions, practices and pieties. It cannot be imagined that all Three Persons of the Trinity, the Blessed Mother, and All of the Angels and the Saints are not waiting–long eager and ready–to assist this fair and still sufficiently-faithful remnant of their European children in their defense against the ravenous and selfish hordes who have come to subvert and to deceive, to steal and to kill. God favored Able over Cain despite His continued and merciful providential care for the murderous Cain. As the Ables in this pitched battle, we can confidently and unabashedly accept God’s particular care in our cause. To make my point, humbly and honestly, I submit to you and all who are reading this, that I just sincerely offered to Our Lord on His Heavenly Throne the Prayer for the conquering assistance of Saint Michael the Archangel to defend us as we begin, what I am confident will be, our successful campaign of a new era of European thriving, undefeatable resilience and full expression of our powers in building the Kingdom of God: starting with our re-allying (rallying) of Europeans; our renewed common loyalty; our unity of purpose in geopolitical defense of our nation of nations; the invincible multiplication of our numbers; the eventual flourishing of we Europeans in our own lands and the triumph of our own righteous Cause of Perpetuity and service to His glorification and His Holy Name. “Dear Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in the day of battle, and do thou O Prince of the Heavenly Host, by the power of God, cast into Hell Satan and all of the evil spirits who roam the world seeking the destruction of souls.” It would not be fitting to fail to acknowledge the unstoppable power of the Queen of All of the Angels and Saints—the Blessed Mother of Our Lord and King, the Logos, the Christ Jesus who forever conquered death and sin and who now reigns forever over Heaven and all of creation. To her we ask the protection of a Mother most sublime, the gateway from Heaven to an humanity beset with the deadly hostility of this world, the flesh and the Devil. A “great crowd of witnesses” cheers us on. We will not lose. Even the natural mind, little aided by else, can see the necessity and the perspective of such a common devotion in our quest.

  7. George Mackenzie
    George Mackenzie says:

    The appearance of the white man on the world stage is just fine, and even magnificent, given the civilizations they have built.
    It is not the nature of the white race that is deficient, but the nurture–or lack of it. Primarily the white race will be just fine if it can throw off the influence of the Jews. As what you term the Third Reich–also known as National Socialism–did so successfully. The man said this very thing in his epic book: the people can be saved, they are still our people, they only need to be enlightened and educated. This he undertook to do, and the people responded. We should do the same. To reject and consign the white race to genetic death for the mistakes it made is only another white mistake. Those mistakes were instilled into whites by Jews, and they can be removed and replaced too. Don’t blame the victim; rehabilitate the victim, because their intrinsic nature is well worth saving.
    Besides, all races fight and kill their own. This may be little more than dominance hierarchies establishing effective leadership and power dynamics to move the race into the future. Certainly Jews have directed some of these internal conflicts, and conducted a reverse outcome, where something like National Socialism, which should have emerged triumphant to lead the white race on Earth, lost, and the degenerate semitic creed of Communism instead propelled the dysgenic future. But white were fighting and killing other whites long before semitic influences, Cromwell being a more recent exception. Just as blacks were killing and enslaving blacks, North American natives engaging in incessant multi-generational warfare, Asian infighting (China on Tibet, Tibet on its region before 1000 AD, etc) and every other intra-racial conflict in history. These conflicts may prepare the race for the more important inter-racial conflicts we are engaged in now. Rather than condemn whites for infighting historically, we can draw on it to more effectively organize our racial defense now. .

    ANANDA says:

    First, we cannot discuss any race as a race of MEN, MANKIND or anything else that deletes and disregards and disrespects females. This is disgusting and I don’t think European values are shown as any better than that of savages here. If you are better, show it. Men are not the race. They are the source of its problems, no matter the race. White women led the way in feminism and this is the way you should follow. It is not exterminating men, but it is doing away with the destruction and disrespect men have shown for their sisters and children throughout history, their savage-like testosterone and war behaviors. This is the real problem between the races: men are all alike.

    As for racial purity, interesting that the author does not point out that Jews are allowed racial purity aspirations as are the other non-white races, but none moreso than the Jew. This has led to a tribalist mentality that endangers all humans. The tribalism of the Jew is ugly, it narrows them, and it also encourages inbreeding, which is naturally undesirable. For a larger race like Europeans, this is not really an issue. The example should still be something to watch. In reality, there isn’t going to be no mixing between races, but it could be limited to cultural dialogue and mixing, which is not bad. American black music, namely the blues, gave birth to most American music forms including white rock n roll. I would not want a world without that. Racial mixing can be limited to what benefits all races, including the dominant race, as long as that dominant race doesn’t aim to minimize or discriminate against the “lesser” race, which is not lesser in many respects. Global cuisines such as Indian and Ethiopian are in my opinion superior to European cuisines, which are not as nutritive and too bread and meat oriented. We all have our talents, good points and bad. So, some harmonious medium can be achieved between the races while not diluting any of them. Multiculti has been largely an anti-white enterprise, but let’s not forget the Brits almost destroyed Ayurveda, the Indian medical system. There will be blowback from what European men of the past have done in the name of white civilization. There is no black or white answer. If we can maintain 80% purity of a race, we will probably survive. I don’t think values lower than that will do. I think it is in reality a math problem to explored in genetic studies and studies involving how often people move. Ease of travel and economics being the two most salient factors. It’s a logistical problem, not a philosophical one. No race will be pure. But we can maintain our racial identities and I do think most people want that.

    The war on whites has always come from the Jews as we are their primary target and competitor and it has to do with power and resource control. Conquer the Jews and white survive. Take back the money printing power is the main way you do that. Take back the money if you want whites to survive. It really comes down to that.

    • Trenchant
      Trenchant says:

      Eliminate the money-printing monopoly and let people decide for themselves what currency best pleases them. Gresham’s Law is irrelevant absent the monopoly.

    • Anne C
      Anne C says:

      There seems to be no shortage of cognitive dissonance in the world these days.

      Putting aside the painful, nonsensical rambling that constitutes most of this comment, consider the opening and conclusion provided.

      The commenter states in her first paragraph: “Men … are the source of [the White race’s] problems… White women led the way in feminism and this is the way you should follow.”

      Then, in conclusion, she states: “The war on whites has always come from the Jews as we are their primary target.”

      It would seem that she is completely ignorant of the disproportionate and powerful role Jews have played in feminism, and the role feminism plays in destroying Western civilisation.

      Feminism is not a liberation movement. It uses women in a way that is similar to how Marxism uses the working classes. Feminists and Marxists pretend to be working on behalf of women and workers, but they are only using the goyish masses to gain (((their own ends))).

      In the case of feminism, the essential idea is to deceive a woman into believing that when a man is sheltering her from the vagaries of the world, he is dominating her. Once that belief is thoroughly impressed upon the woman, she can be manipulated, to her own detriment, into attacking the very underbelly of her protector.

      We need to stop attacking our own.

      • Ned J. Casper
        Ned J. Casper says:

        Lesbians of non-Jewish origin have also been a driving force in so-called feminism. In Britain some of the sufragettes became fascists and critical of Jews. It was the goy communist Engels who said that the entire female sex should be put into public industry with the abolition of the “bourgeois” household and parental control of the children’s education.

        There have been just few Jewish critics of feminism (formally outside the Orthodox fold) such as Gertrude Himmelfarb, Midge Decter and Steven Golldberg, but it is undeniable that some of the worst harridans have been of Jewish heritage. For an “official” view of women inside Jewry, see e.g. Jonathan Sacks, “The Role of Women in Judaism”, 1978, online. The pushy “momma” is as old as Matthew 20.20-21, if not earlier.

        The “paradox” is the prominent role of Jews in sexually damaging activities in the world beyond their own “shul”, e.g. in white slavery, porn, low-grade movies, &c. The chief motivation has probably been commercial rather than ideological.

  9. David Schmitt
    David Schmitt says:

    To Brooklyn Dave: Trust in those who are interested in engaging in a genuine conversation based on a mutual exploration for the truth at the analysis end and in justice at the action end. And trust in yourself.
    And trust only in institutions with demonstarated effectiveness at not trying to achieve permanent states of ever-growing power and dominance. Back to the point about conversation, this will involve each of us developing a non-arrogant trust in ourselves, but not a conviction that we are omniscient. We all need to pe continually learning. Seek out people who are not egoistically attached to “their” ideas, but people who nonetheless know that some ideas are better than others and we should be trying to find out what the best ideas are in practice. Ideas come as formulated hypotheses and theses for testing, but we need to treat these things with objectivity (literally, in L., “thrown out there”). We need to try to develop as many reasonable ideas as possible (multiple, working hypotheses) and then at whatever rate is possible accumulate evidence for ruling some out—or convincingly weighing against them at least. And we need to build. Just because something is someone else’s idea we do not need to try to “cut them down to size” (this is a bad trait amongst European Whites—just look at behavior in person or even online). We need a common language of faith. A proper understanding of how faith and the Church works is completely independent of the shnooks that periodically come to power in its bureaucracies—just as with secular bureaucracies. Bad clerics, politicians and merchants are as regular as the season flu (until this year, of course, when the bureaucrats have cancelled the seasonal flu in preference for “The” COVID). Cynicism, defeatism and despair are egregious sins—they destroy all prospects. What is thrilling and contageous is when men can look squarely at a realistic picture of the enemy’s power, captured ground and momentum and say, “There is a way around this. We are going to beat this. Here is how. But it is going to take work and an artistically blended mix of self-reliance and interdependence.”

    • Ned J. Casper
      Ned J. Casper says:

      When are the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity, including Our Lord on His Heavenly Throne, Mary the Queen of Heaven, St Michael and All the Angels, St Erik and All the Saints, going to do something about Francis the Nincompope?

      • David Schmitt
        David Schmitt says:

        Mr. Casper, I share what I believe is your frustration with the man who is occupying the Cair of Peter. If you think that I have not muttered even more vitriolic statements in the privacy of my home regarding this pope, you would be mistaken. Surviving our times is going to require our ability to recognize and reject the alignment of corrupted institutions against us. My angry grumblings about many people, and many things, are indeed satisfying. Maybe they are even a necessary starting point because nothing frustrates me more than people who either do not care or they are malignantly obedient. Becoming aware of the warning lights of anger flashing and the audible signals blaring should now lead to you and me to ask, “Okay, how might we–if possible–take this aircraft out of a death roll?” I obviously do not know completely how prayer works and this is not the website for my rudimentary speculations. But I do believe it works. By the way, I inadvertantly forgot a line in the St. Michael’s Prayer (Tsk, tsk, tsk: no one caught my error). “Dear St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in the day of battle. Be our safeguard against the wickedness and the snares of the Devil. And may God rebuke him, we humbly pray, and do thou Oh Prince of the heavenly host, by the power fo God, cast him into Hell along with all of the evil spirits who roam the world seeking the ruin of souls.” Give it a whirl. Somehow I imagine that a man’s whose last name is “Casper” would have a certain relational familiarity with, and affinity to, the Holy Ghost.

        • Ned J. Casper
          Ned J. Casper says:

          I do not lack sympathy with anti-communist Christians, including the (Roman) Catholics I remember and respect before Vatican 2, even though I now find the celestial imaginaries and the apologetics of that era no longer credible. It was Belloc who said “Europe is the faith”, and I recall the Australian priest Leslie Rumble who secured an Imprimatur for a book that included a statement against crossing between the primary races of mankind. If I may be permitted here to quote the “Jewish atheist” Ayn Rand, “there is tragedy in the spectacle” of Catholic decline, and there is no attraction in the new religion called Masochistianity, exemplified by Pope Francis and the Anglican Archbishop who believes that God the Son was a Black man.

          However, “white” people everywhere, religious or not, need to defend togther their existence and civilization against a collection of enemies, including Islam and “Socialism with Chinese characteristics”. Division and ideological nit-picking are fatal.

        • Ned J. Casper
          Ned J. Casper says:

          Re my suname, I presume this alludes to some unholy US cartoon character – I too had a real-life blonde girlfriend called Wendy who was more beautiful than Hilary Duff. The Holy Ghost has no more reality than a Hollywood Ghost.

          As for the squabbles over the word “white” in the phrase “white race(s)” I could refer to the studies by Edward Dutton, Carleton Coon and Arthur Kemp.

          Meanwhile, I quote: “Much time has been wasted in the past in argument whether an ‘Aryan’ race exists, and whether it derives from the Northern regions of Europe, the Persian Plateau, the Lost Atlantis, or Heaven knows where…. It is sufficient that the great breed or ‘kind’ should have existed for thousands of years which characteristics [than] can easily be recognised, protected and developed…the inestimable blessing of a European race, which is based on millennia of differential development, and possesses the treasure of a unique culture: even the duration of the latter reaches a hundred generations…a fact beyond all theory on which to build the future….It is as useless to argue that all races are equally gifted, as it is to argue that all men are equal in mind, muscle or character.” – Sir Oswald Mosley, “The Alternative” (1947), pp.256,258-259.

          • Ned J. Casper
            Ned J. Casper says:

            Moderator, the line should read correctly: “years with characteristics [that] can—” Homer nods at 2 am Greenwich Meantime in England. Apologies.

Comments are closed.