Saving the White Race: The Problem and Solutions, Part 2 of 3
Part II. Solution Considerations
“A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation [i.e., intermixture]. … The enterprise [i.e., separation of the races by the resettlement of the American Black population in a separate country of their own] is a difficult one, but where there is a will there is a way. … Let us be brought to believe it is morally right … and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be.” Abraham Lincoln in debate with Stephen Douglas at Springfield, Illinois, June 26, 1857
“To him that will, ways are not wanting.” Seventeenth-century English proverb
A movement is defined more clearly by what it is for than by what it is against. What it is for is a statement of what a movement is, giving its goal, purpose and direction. Unfortunately, we tend to be much more united, and much less divided, in what we are against than in what we are for. That is why some think it unwise to clearly advocate an alternative to what we are against, fearing it will cause division and lose support. Yet a purely negative movement is severely limited in its ability to achieve any positive goal. A position with no vision of an alternative really cannot qualify as a “movement” as it has no goal to move toward. To achieve anything positive, a movement must be able to achieve a sufficient level of unity and agreement in what it is for no less than in what it is against.
Besides fearing loss of support, some avoid a major solution because they think it would be too difficult, or even impossible, to achieve, and believe a minor or incomplete solution would be more attainable. They are mistaken on both counts. On the first, both potential supporters and opponents will want to know the movement’s proposed solution, and to hide it would be to invite a host of assumptions, many erroneous and many of these very unfavorable. So, unless a solution is very bad indeed, it is better to state it clearly and openly. On the second, avoiding a major solution in favor of a minor one will not make success more likely, because the ruling Anti-White-Coalition, with control not only of almost all levels and branches of government, but also of almost all major corporations, educational institutions, and non-governmental activist organizations, would not tolerate the existence of any separate White political entity of any size, and especially one that claimed territorial sovereignty. As the establishment of such an entity of whatever size could only be an exercise of power, a necessary precondition for the establishment of any separate White political unit would be gaining power. That is the only way it can be done. And if power is gained, it can be done on a sufficient scale no less than on an insufficient scale, so it might as well be done right, in the way that will really save and preserve all of the White race that is still capable of being saved.
There are three phases to our solution. The first phase is to gain sufficient White support for the solution. The second phase is to gain the political power needed to implement the solution. The third phase is the actual implementation of the solution. The first phase involves winning the “hearts and minds” of our people for the preservation of our race in sufficient numbers to move forward into the second phase. The numbers required depends on the path to power followed in the second phase. Historically, the clearest path forward in the second phase has been through the electoral process, which depends on winning enough White support in the first phase to prevail electorally. Racial demographic change has made this path ever more difficult, requiring ever larger White majorities, with the long-expected racial tipping point projected to make it effectively impossible sometime around 2040. Over the decades of racial demographic change until 2015 this path has continually narrowed, then for the five years of the Trump candidacy and presidency it seemed to widen again, with an unexpectedly high proportion of White voters supporting at least implicitly pro-White policies, although Trump himself showed no more awareness of the White existential problem than any typical Republican politician. In a 2001 essay I suggested that the GOP adopt a populist and economic nationalist program to broaden its White support, and that if it did so there was a possibility it could be transformed into a pro-White political vehicle, the very thing the Anti-White Coalition fears the most and what a pro-White coalition should see as its best hope. In 2016 we seemed to take a step in this direction, but with the massive subversion of the electoral process in 2020, this path seems to have been permanently blocked by coordinated systemic fraud on a scale so great that only a major political upheaval could open it again.
Before the election, I was concerned with the harmful effects of a legitimate Democrat victory, with the possible enfranchisement of 20 million or more illegal immigrants and statehood for Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C. accelerating us over the demographic tipping point and past the electoral point of no return. I did not anticipate, even after the forewarning provided by the Democrat’s increasingly extreme actions of the previous four years, just how far the Anti-White Coalition was prepared to go to ensure that the White populist victory that happened in 2016 would not happen again. Was 2020 the Earl Raab election, the stroke of the long-hanging Damoclean sword, intended to forever block the pro-White electoral path to power? If that path is preempted in the near term by establishment suppression, fraud and skullduggery, or cut off in the longer term by demographic racial change, the other possible paths are much less clear and predictable, with no formal rules or process and no precedent in the American tradition. There can be no comfortable predictability or orderly certainty here, for in this uncharted and potentially lawless terra incognita, we “see through a glass, darkly.” But however uncertain the prospect, if the electoral path is closed to us, we must find another path. If the electoral path is blocked, then, as in the old folk tales and legends, our hero’s journey must venture into the woods, into the wilds, to find another way, to emerge from our trials reborn stronger and better than ever before. As in the old adage used by Lincoln, “Where there’s a will, there’s a way.” We must find that way. It is a matter of racial life or death. The continued existence of our kind depends on it. If we have the will to live, to continue in Lincoln’s words, “Let us be brought to believe it is morally right…and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be.”
But first we must have the will, which brings us back from the now much less certain second phase to the surer footing of the well-trod paths of the first phase, the winning of the hearts and minds of our people. It is in the first phase that the will to prevail in the second phase and see us through the third phase is forged. This makes it the most decisive phase of our struggle to save our race. If we succeed in the first phase, a majority of Whites will want our solution, and want it enough to find a way to make it so, to implement it and make it a reality, by whatever way necessary. To win those hearts and minds we don’t just need any solution, we need a good one, one our people will see as good and believe is morally right. A sense of moral righteousness is the social glue of White communities and has been a powerful motivating force throughout Western history: A fundamental aspect of the individualism that is unique to Western culture is that group cohesion is based not on kinship but on reputation — most importantly in recent centuries, a moral reputation as capable, honest, trustworthy and fair. Such a solution will be crucial to success in the decisive first phase and must be achieved starting from the present media, educational, and political environment in which a sense of White identity and interests are a sign of moral depravity. However, a sense of the moral imperative of White preservation should not be feared as a negative that will alienate those who are not really serious about supporting White racial preservation, but as a positive that will motivate and inspire those who see the solution as a positive, as a realizable hope for the salvation of our race. Seeing a solution as a positive should remove any temptation to avoid or delay it, to “kick the can down the road” for a later generation to deal with. For two centuries previous generations have avoided the issue and kicked the can down the road, allowing the problem to metastasize into something far greater than what they confronted, and so making the required solution correspondingly more difficult. The time of reckoning is long overdue, and so it falls to those now living to finally undertake the task that will secure the preservation of their race. There are many Augean stables to be cleaned, in governments, academia, the media and the corporate world—each a Herculean labor in itself. The removal of non-Whites by separation will be the cleansing flood of the rivers Alpheus and Peneus to accomplish the far greater part of this task.
Why Should the White Race be Saved?
Does White preservation matter? Is there a reason to care whether or not the White race is destroyed? Knowledge and knowing are very different things than emotions and caring. We can provide the knowledge of White racial dispossession and of possible alternatives. These are matters of objective fact and logic. Providing the emotions — the love, caring and valuing — that would instill in Whites the motivation to want White racial preservation is a very different matter. Emotions and caring, unlike knowledge and knowing, come from something within, the internal wellspring of values and emotions, and can be very resistant to external influence.
The capacity for an emotion or sentiment cannot be given, transmitted or shared. It must already exist in a person for them to be able to experience it. Knowing can have no effect on those who do not, or cannot, care. Many Whites totally lack the ability to value their race or anything connected with it, and they often flatter themselves that their incapacity is evidence of their moral and intellectual superiority. Others, in a distorted aberration of natural feelings and loyalties, actually work for the subjugation and replacement of their own race. On such as these it is best not to waste any effort. But there are those Whites, hopefully far more numerous, who possess a latent though not yet activated capability to care about their race and just need to be given the right reasons to love their race and want it to be preserved. They need to have the right buttons pushed, the buttons that connect their race to things they care about. In this struggle not of knowing, but of caring, it is better to focus our efforts on such as these.
Pushing the right buttons means enlisting the assistance of existing positive emotions in the cause of White preservation, the presumption being that the person does have positive feelings for things that are connected to their race but is not aware of the connection. The task is to identify these things that the person loves, values and cares about that are connected with the White race.
This task is made much more difficult because it is opposed by the dominant anti-White culture which wants the opposite. It does not want connections to be made between the White race and anything of value that could evoke positive emotions. It works to influence public awareness so as to disconnect the White race from anything of value that is part of it, whether its visible phenotype as embodied in its physical traits and beauty, or the vastness of its extended phenotype — the products of the unique individualism of the Western mind: its inventiveness and spirit, as revealed in Western art, music and literature; its technology, engineering, and architecture; its science, discovery, and exploration; its emphasis on education and scholarship, philosophy and representative government. Recent social science research has shown that Westerners are more trusting of strangers and of people in positions of power, but that first- and second-generation immigrants from countries with intensive kinship remain relatively untrusting of strangers, foreigners, and people from other religions; they are less individualistic-independent and more conformist-obedient—traits that are negatively associated with creativity and inventiveness. Further, people from societies with intensive kinship contribute less to group projects, volunteer less, are less likely to donate blood to strangers, are more willing to lie under oath to help a friend or relative, and more likely to hire relatives. “Cultural transmission can perpetuate a clannish psychology for generations, even after clan organizations have vanished.” Whether one supposes that individualist attitudes can be socialized over a period of several centuries or that there is genetic inertia for such attitudes, this suggests that Western societies would be well advised to avoid immigration from societies with intensive kinship and develop their own racially homogeneous homelands if they want to retain high levels of society-wide trust and other traits making up the individualist ethos.
This rejection of the idea that there is anything of value in Western culture is maintained by a culture that represses awareness of the uniqueness of the West. Valuing the West and its accomplishments is regarded as a “racist” (i.e., pro-White) threat to the new anti-White order of multiracialism. Thus Whites who value the physical beauty of their race often fail to appreciate the connection between that beauty and the race of which it is a part, and without which it would not exist, and so see no inconsistency in supporting, the policies of multiracialism and racial intermixture that are replacing it. During my 1965–67 high school years I was one of those who read as well as looked at the pictures in Playboy magazine. Even at that age I noted the disconnect between the implicitly pro-White values presented in the pictures — which were a clear celebration of White female beauty as visibly embodied in the models — and the anti-White editorial content, including the installments of publisher Hugh Hefner’s “Playboy Philosophy,” which promoted the policies of multiracialism and racial intermixture that were leading to the replacement and destruction of the White race and that same female beauty.
While we’re trying to make these positive connections between the White race and so much that is valued, the dominant anti-White culture is energetically denying them. This culture of White racial denial includes many supposed advocates for the traditions and values of Western Civilization, many of them self-described “conservatives,” who make no connection between that civilization and the race that created it, and actually deny such a connection is valid or meaningful, thereby turning it into an abstract concept. They value only a deracialized, de-Europeanized, globalized and racial nihilist concept of Western civilization which they see as a disembodied thing, disconnected and separate from the biological and genetic, tangible and physical entity that created it and from which it came. But a culture and civilization are not disembodied things consisting only of traditions, customs and abstract ideas. They are the products, the extended phenotype, of the genetic endowment of a biological entity with a tangible physical being, and when they are separated or disconnected from the population that created and sustains them, they degenerate into something else consistent with the new population.
Our advantage in this contest is that the connections we make are objectively real and true, based on actual data that has given us the knowledge needed to allow White people to realize the connection between the White race and those things they value — such as its beauty, their family and ancestors, their heritage, history, culture and civilization, even the gene pool from which their own existence came.
Not all can be successfully reached in this way. Some are innately lacking in racial feeling as a result of their extreme individualism. Others have been so psychologically distorted by the culture that whatever positive feelings they could and should have had for their race have been replaced with negative ones. They are racially dead in soul if not in body, and their dead souls are beyond our powers of resurrection.
The dominant culture rejects all that can be associated with the White race, in the present or the past, turning formerly revered historical and cultural figures into part of an evil and exploitive entity—hence the statue-toppling campaign against the Founding Fathers. Another method is to disconnect the valued achievements of Western civilization from the White race by wrongly crediting them to other races, inserting non-Whites deep into Western history, projecting the multiracialism of the racially dystopian present into the past and invading it with non-Whites, such as recent historical dramas that miscast sub-Saharan Africans as historical figures like Anne Boleyn and iconic semi-mythical figures like Achilles. Boleyn’s daughter, Elizabeth I, and Helen of Troy, Achilles’ feminine counterpart, would logically follow.
Some engage in rationalizations to justify racial intermixture, such as arguing that other races are superior to the White race and therefore nothing of importance would be lost if it disappeared. But even if other races are superior in some sense, does that mean the White race should not continue to exist? But there is one thing, the most important thing, in which Whites are undeniably superior to any other race, and that is in being us. No other race, or mixture of races, can be us, can be my race. And it is possible that the White race could exist as long as this planet can sustain human life. The existence of Michelangelo, Shakespeare, Descartes, Newton, Bach, Edison, Curie, Rutherford, von Braun, etc., as well as Carole Lombard, Ginger Rogers, Vivien Leigh, Ingrid Bergman, Marilyn Monroe, Audrey Hepburn, etc., depended on the prior existence of their race, which provided the genetic material that made them. Without the existence of the White race, those White individuals would not, could not, have existed. Intermixture changes the race into something that is no longer us.
Demarcating the Ingroup
A factor that is central to any proposed racial separation solution is the demarcation of its territorial and racial boundaries, the latter being the criteria for membership in a particular race—the criteria that determine which racial categories are the “ingroup” eligible for inclusion within the proposed White nation. This determination indicates the purpose of the proposed solution. If the purpose is White racial preservation, in the sense of preserving the White race as it exists now, then limiting inclusion to European Whites is the only standard consistent with this goal, and including any persons who are not of European ancestry or whose phenotype is outside of the normal European phenotypic range is inconsistent with it. Both of these aspects of the solution must be addressed in order to provide a sufficient solution for White preservation, and they must be mindful of White sensibilities in order to maximize White support and minimize White opposition.
The sole consideration for ingroup status should be race as determined by phenotype and ancestry. Basing the ingroup on non-racial categories such as religious beliefs or sexual orientation would indicate that the purpose of the proposed solution is at least to some degree something other than racial preservation. In fact, any attempt to divide the White race on ideological or other non-racial lines would be contrary to White racial interests and incite internal division and opposition.
In the great majority of cases, ingroup classification can be determined by the traditional and natural way by the visible physical phenotype which is also the method most consistent with White racial sensibilities and would therefore enjoy the strongest support and agreement. The standard for this determination should be based on the normal European phenotypic range, not on rare exceptions and outliers. I propose that persons of at least three-quarters (75%) European ancestry and within the normal European phenotypic range—i.e., with no visible physical indication of non-White mixture should be racially classified as White. Phenotypically borderline cases, including some common Southern European phenotypes that are also common in the populations of North Africa and the Middle East, should be decided by establishing at least 15/16ths (93.75%) European ancestry.
The normal phenotypic range and distribution of phenotypes varies across Europe, most notably on a north to south cline, as estimated in Figure 7.
Figure 7: Percentage estimates of phenotypic groups in the native populations of the west European sector of the Caucasian region, showing the composition and the extent of overlap
The table in Figure 7 is my attempt to provide an admittedly rough estimate of the phenotypic composition of the native European populations with percentage estimates of phenotypic groups, illustrating the composition of the different racial environments and the extent of overlap. (Phenotypic groups with under 0.5% representation are excluded.) The reader may disagree with my estimates, and I assume they are not precise, but I believe the concept is valid, and I assume the estimates are sufficiently accurate to give a valid illustration of the concept.
Phenotypic group A consists of the most distinct Northern European phenotypes found only in Northern Europe (represented on this chart by Scandinavia, the Netherlands, England, and northern and central Germany). Phenotypic group B consists of the most common Northern European phenotypes which can still be regarded as distinctly Northern European although they are also found as minority elements in Central Europe (represented by southern Germany, Austria and northern France). Phenotypic group C consists of generalized phenotypes that are common throughout Northern and Central Europe and are also present as a minor element in Southern Europe (represented by Italy, Spain and southern France). Phenotypic group D consists of more generalized phenotypes that are found throughout Western Europe but are most common in Central Europe. Phenotypic group E consists of phenotypes that are common throughout Southern and Central Europe but are absent or very rare in the native populations of Northern Europe. Phenotypic group F consists of phenotypes that are common in Southern Europe, present in small numbers in Central Europe, but absent from Northern Europe. Phenotypic group G consists of distinct “Mediterranean” phenotypes that are common in Southern Europe, present as a minority element in North Africa, but absent from the native populations of Northern and Central Europe. Phenotypic group H consists of more distinct “Mediterranean” phenotypes that are common in both Southern Europe and North Africa. Phenotypic group I consists of the most distinct “Mediterranean” phenotypes found among the native populations of Southern Europe, but more common in North Africa. This clinal north-south distribution of phenotypic groups also correlates closely with the distribution of Yamnaya/Kurgan versus Neolithic Anatolian Farmer ancestry, with the proportion of the former decreasing, and the latter increasing, moving from north to south.
Figure 8: Examples from the opposite ends of both the geographic and phenotypic European ranges: a “sunny” Stockholm A/B type (1962) and a sultry Andalusian G/H type (María José Cantudo, 1974)
It should be noted that phenotypic overlap does not necessarily indicate an identical genotypic overlap. For example, the generalized C and D phenotypes found in both Northern and Southern Europe are not genotypically equivalent, as in the north they would be much more likely to include recessive A and B genes in their genotypes than would be the case in the south.
In determining the ingroup, mixed-race children with a White parent who are visibly outside of the normal European phenotypic range are non-White and should be excluded, as to accept them would be to extend the racially harmful effects of the White parent’s personal action to the White race as a whole. Historically, the great majority of the offspring of racial intermixture between Whites and non-Whites have been assimilated back into their non-White ancestral race, so keeping the extent of non-White ancestry in the White population low (1.4%, per Figure 2). The White parents themselves need not be excluded, but it should be assumed that most of them would choose to remain with their children, and so reside with them in the non-White nation.
The Jewish population as a corporate ethnic entity is the most highly organized and networked ethnic group in the world at both the national and international levels, with hundreds of well-funded and coordinated organizations aggressively promoting Jewish interests. In every country in which Jews are a minority (i.e., all except Israel) multiracialism is regarded as a core Jewish interest (or “value”) and intensely promoted as such, creating a fundamental conflict between core Jewish interests and the racial interests of Whites.
Figure 9: From Wikipedia page “Jewish Population by Country,” accessed December 6, 2020
Figure 9 divides the U.S. Jewish population into four categories. The “Core” Jewish population of 5.7 million consists of those who consider themselves Jews to the exclusion of all else. The “connected” Jewish population of 8 million includes those who say they are partly Jewish and have at least one Jewish parent. The “enlarged” Jewish population of 10 million adds those who have Jewish background but not a Jewish parent (i.e., they have more distant Jewish ancestry such as a grandparent). The “Eligible” Jewish population of 12 million includes all those eligible to immigrate to Israel under its Law of Return, including spouses of Jews and those with one Jewish grandparent.
Consistent with genetic studies that indicate Ashkenazi Jews are a hybridized semi-European population, averaging 50–60 percent Middle Eastern and 40–50 percent European ancestry, they display considerable phenotypic variation, including many individuals within the normal European phenotypic range. In Separation and its Discontents Kevin MacDonald cites D.J. Elazar’s 1980 estimate that 70–85% of American Jews are committed to Jewish causes, with 15-20% forming a core of regular participants, activists and operatives consisting of an inner core of 5–8% who are intensely involved in Jewish affairs as a full-time concern and another 10–12% who work actively for Jewish causes on a regular basis. Unfortunately, as Jewish group interests are usually defined as the opposite of White racial interests, Jewish activism has generally promoted White dispossession, including multiracialism, racial intermixture and non-White immigration into White homelands. This needs to be considered with regard to the eligibility for inclusion in the White ingroup of those individual Jews who meet the European phenotypic standard, most of whom would be connected and primarily committed to the corporate Jewish ethnic group and its interests, including those “core Jewish values” that are in fundamental conflict with vital White racial interests, and should therefore be excluded as incompatible with the White ingroup.
A 2014 autosomal genetic study by Katarzyna Bryc et.al. (see Figure 2) found that the average proportion of European ancestry in a “23andMe” sample of 8,663 Hispanic-Americans (“Latinos”) was only 65.1%, a proportion that would not qualify them to be classified as White as a group, although perhaps about 10–15% of Hispanic-Americans would qualify individually as White by European standards. This is in sharp contrast to their “23andMe” sample of 148,789 non-Hispanic European-Americans, whose average proportion of European genetic ancestry was determined to be 98.6%. The study also found that only 3.5% of European-Americans have 1% or more African ancestry, only 1.4% have 2% or more African ancestry, and only 2.7% have 1% or more of “Native American” ancestry, with about 94% having essentially no genetically measurable non-European ancestry.
 Joseph Henrich, The Weirdest People in the World: How the West Became Psychologically Peculiar and Particularly Prosperous (New York: Farrar, Strauss & Giroux, 2020): 207, 244.
 Ibid., 195.
 Kevin MacDonald, Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition: Evolution, History, and Prospects for the Future (Seattle: CreateSpace, 2019).
You’ll have to excuse me, but all this is, if you’ll pardon the pun, beyond the pale.
”The sole consideration for ingroup status” should be a devout willingness to slough off old identities and unite with likeminded others in the creation and defense of a new nation, a new overarching ideology, and a new, united demos. “Phenotype this” and “autosomal that” and soon we’re off to the races with phrenology and the Nuremberg laws. No one is going to accept this stuff. Look at the world we’re operating in. This kind of rhetoric is just not going to fly.
Much better would be a completely racially blind campaign, but one which championed everything the “Left” hates, hence why would any of them want in? The vast majority of those who would sign up would hence be ethnically “European” by default. With no immigration allowed, over 5, 10 or 50 generations, those features of the population you want to see would only get more concentrated.
For instance, announce a desire to build a new state and a people. Say that it’s a lifeboat for refugees from the West. Shout that it’s for anti-globalists, for those who oppose multiculturalism, degeneracy, and mass immigration. Announce proudly that it’s for anyone explicitly determined to defend and promote Western civilizational supremacy, civic and social normality, a nationalistic industrial policy, and localized democracy in which people are encouraged through the housing and planning system to act not as atomized individual consumers struck dumb by anomie and learned helplessness, but as happy, healthy, productive family units, living together on 1 or 2 acre plots alongside grandparents, aunts and uncles, cousins, etc. Build up from there.
All of this, but one more thing: no Jews.
Cassandro, good ideas!
Again, we may wish to initially use terms such as European, European descent, European culture, etc. instead of “White.”
That would be coinsistent with multiculturalism and would not turn off as many people.
While “White” is certainly legitmate, it would immediately be called racist. Let’s be practical. Start with small, careful steps.
One way to get the word out is flyers which would be distributed to passersby and homes.
Low cost, low labor. Thousands would read it.
When such flyers mention “Whites” the police are often called and the local city government calls the flyers hateful and a crime.
So at first, simply boost the European aspect. Be careful and tactful. It’s a beginning.
Maybe then an all-European food festival or arts/cultural fest or exhibit. Advertize it. So writeups for the local papers and websites.
If non-Europeans apply, gently turn them down as not consistent with the theme. Maybe name the countries that are welcome. Make it wide, from the British Isles to Russia and including Christians such as in the Balkans.
We need ideas on how to start things out among the general populace.
“While “White” is certainly legitmate, it would immediately be called racist.” It would b called good racism, healthy racism. Anything that saves & protects Europeans is good racism, healthy racism.
Falling back on political wing theory is just a way to not talk about race. You never hear other races talk about questions of survival in terms of political wing theory. Zionists never talk about themselves as “right wingers” in opposition to “the left”. They talk about themselves as Jews (a tribal identity) and Zionist (a national-political identity).
Forget about wing theory. We are whites that are going through a re-tribalization process — meaning the process of creation of a stronger tribe and our goal it to have our own territory.
So your idea is that we keep bleating “I’m not racist!” all the way up the blood-soaked ramp to the kosher slaughter house while all the other races very racistly genocide us?
Surely you are joking!
(Though it is not a funny joke).
And I meant to add that if, once set-up, we found some cuckoos in the nest who were working against the interests of the whole, create at the outset legal methods for removing them.
I am eagerly anticipating the third installment of this series. Very well presented and thought out ideas so far in parts one and two.
There is much overlap in the presentation with the Going Free philosophy of Jason Kohne (aka: No White Guilt). Perhaps the author will be agreeable to appearing as a guest on a live stream discussion with Jason and his interview partner Jared George? I would like to hear such a sharing of ideas very much.
One way to get our message through is cleaver use of language. Talk about “our extended family”, you can also say things such as “we people of European decent can learn something from other peoples of the world, such as a respect for our ancestors and our greater family, our tribe, our people”, something like that is more difficult for anti-Whites to attack without showing their agenda. We must become nimble with words when addressing the general public.
David, I agree.
We need to start slowly and not turn off people even though we know that the need is urgent and great.
I know that some of you may criticize this as too timid. But my point is that we need to bring people in, not scare them off. There can be no objection to Pan-Europeanism (and, I suggest, Pan-Christianism).
There are, of course, already many cultural and fraternal organizations of European heritage in America who conduct events of all kinds: food, language, culture, dance, history, geneology, and lots more.
I wonder if they could be brought together in a “Pan-European Christian” organization.
excellent analysis. looking forward to part 3.
President “systemic racism caused climate change” Biden and his gallery of Grocks looks like a major obstacle. Maybe new leaders of the 70 million “deplorables” will have to take a few leaves from the Alinksy Guide to tactics for political change, but worrying about brown eyes and black hair among them may not be a useful asset either.
After they change the status of DC and Puerto Rico to permanently Democratic States, I hope they will next choose the Virgin Islands. I took planeloads of former, very grateful girlfriends there for recycling. Perhaps one will become a Democratic Senator and reward me with political entrée to the Swamp.
If that were to go down the Potomac, they could still do the same, through Democratic alchemy with the Constitution, with 17 US Territories in the Northern and Southern Pacific. Altogether 40 more seats in the Senate, and many in the House, with a little gerrymandering.
The uninhabitable, at times submerged Territories and atolls could be built up like the South China Sea islands by China, through Hunter’s loyal connections. The necessary inhabitants of these new island-States, to make them a credible Democratic State, at least for the US media, could be garnered from lifers in US prisons. Biden, the Executive, could order a kosher Deli for each new State and free desalination tablets.
Excellent.The Jews ,especially in Israel ,are promoting/enforcing racial purity these days.In their view dumbing down the USA and Europe via non White immigration will work to their advantage(along with Jewish racial purity,) The new Biden administration is largely Jewish at the top.The Talmud teaches the Jews should be the masters of the goys (donkeys). It is happening.
Meanwhile the Northern Asians are very much into racial purity,This is working to their advantage now- and will going forward.
Where is the Talmud reference to the goyim as “donkeys”?
How many prominent Jews in the USA follow the Talmud or even care about it?
Since the late 1940s many have been raised to combine a self-righteous ethnic pride and a persecution-fear defensiveness. It was Old Adolf himself who wrote in MK, though with his usual vulgar exaggeration, that Jews act collectively only when they are threatened by a collective existential threat, but otherwise disagree with and compete with one another. Their modern critics should remember this. Some Jews support multicultural immigration; others oppose it – in each case for ostensible reasons.
Further to my answer, the sometimes cited reference to Talmud Berachot 58a concerns an individual case of illegitimate sexual relations from the Jewish religious standpoint, not a generalisation about all Gentiles not being human (though a few mystical rabbis have so expressed themselves). Similar offensive comments can be found regarding women. The BabylonianTalmud is a collection of opinions and disagreements, albeit alien to the mainstream European mentality, pagan or Christian; it has an weird oriental aura not unlike Ayatollah Khomeini’s Shia “Little Green Book”. Comparisons with animals were basically metaphorical, like Hitler’s various descriptions of Jews as fisson-fungus, bacilli and rats.
“It was Old Adolf himself who wrote in MK, though with his usual vulgar exaggeration, that Jews act collectively only when they are threatened by a collective existential threat, but otherwise disagree with and compete with one another.”
You probably made this up. There is nothing vulgar about anything Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf. So quote it from a decent translation and tell us exactly where to find it, because without that you have no credibility.
“Jews act in concord only when a common danger threatens them or a common prey attracts them. Where these two motives no longer exist…these people…will turn into a swarm of rats that bitterly fight against each other…. The Jew…remains a parasite, a sponger…like a pernicious bacillus….The effect produced by his presence is also like that of the vampire….” – Adolf Hitler, “Mein Kampf”, tr. James Murphy (London: Hurst & Blackett, 1939) pp.253,255.
Jews have lots to prey on in Gentile societies. It makes sense for them to be worried about blowback. That doesn’t leave much room for disagreements among themselves. In the Jewish-controlled Gentile society, there is room for wide variety of Jewish viewpoints, none of which threatens the Jewish order.
Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, Herbert Marcuse, Ram Dass, Bernie Sanders, Saul Alinsky, Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, Leo Strauss, Murray Rothbard, Dennis Prager, Mark Levin, Michael Savage and J.D. Salinger come to mind. Covering all the bases is the “repressive desublimation” that defangs potential opposition. “To control the opposition, be the opposition.”
Further to Carolyn Yeager’s suggestion that I am an incredible fraud, I note that she has welcomed Thomas Dalton’s recent translation of “Mein Kampf”, and may wish to check the parallel passage in Vol.I, Ch.11, in the dual English/German edition. Entschuldigung bitte!
I see nothing vulgar in this. It’s very precise language.
Also, the two conditions – “when a common danger threatens them or a common prey attracts them” – are present almost all the time.
But I credit you the citation.
AH provided the finest explication of the JQ ‘s threat to our culture.
Another view is that the particular form of antisemitism, that all Jews were incorrigible hereditary criminals, as espoused by Hitler, had practical consequences from 1941 onwards, expressed in his interview with Admiral Horthy and also recorded by Goebbels in his diary, that not only implacably unified Jewish opposition but prompted the support of Gentiles who were against murder and cruelty, and ultimately contributed to the tragic situation we face today.
Re “The existence of Carole Lombard, Ginger Rogers . . . depended on the prior existence of their race, which provided the genetic material that made them” :
I can push that thinking even further. In my teens it hit me that to feel sexual desire towards Olivia Hussey, for example, is to emphatically approve of the conditions that made such a creature possible. One’s surface mind might disapprove of the historical crimes that must have been necessary for Olivia to now appear before us, but one’s deeper self – one’s real nature – most definitely and undeniably does approve.
So I was delighted to read in Nietzsche’s “The Will to Power” :
“If we affirm one single moment, we thus affirm not only ourselves but all existence. For nothing is self-sufficient, neither in us ourselves nor in things; and if our soul has trembled with happiness and sounded like a harp string just once, all eternity was needed to produce this one event—and in this single moment of affirmation all eternity was called good, redeemed, justified, and affirmed.”
That’s uncannily close to the felix culpa of Christianity : “O happy fault that earned for us so great, so glorious a Redeemer.”
I am a millennial who was raised to be ‘color-blind’, and for virtually all my life I have been so. I have had good friends and even ex-lovers of very different races. 2020 has awakened a racial consciousness I would have previously found unimaginable, and it is the very people who formerly championed color-blindness — popular, majority culture — who have seemingly done so, demonstrating that race really does matter, and matter a lot. I am very much one of those individuals described, the latent and formerly unconcerned, who is now attempting to navigate this new racial reality and awakening. I very much appreciate these articles by Mr. McCulloch in helping people like myself process and navigate these individually uncharted waters and learn to both love and work to preserve my genetic and cultural heritage. Thank you sir.
This kind of work, which aims directly at White survival, is highly valuable. Thank you.
Excellent article. I agree that ethnos must be our cardinal value; anything less would amount to capitulation and ethnic suicide, considering how gravely our genetic cluster is already besieged. The hour is late, and there is no point in dissembling or soft-peddling our intent. If Whites are to have a future, then some decent fraction of us must rediscover an unapologetic ethnocentrism (a value which isn’t considered controversial for any other ethnicity/cluster).
I think Whites can — to a certain extent — assimilate Asians and Hispanics without endangering their own race. Asians, because of their conservative nature, and Hispanics, because they are Christian and half-White, are not a threat to Whiteness as long as the numbers don’t get overwhelming. Children borne by a White-Asian or White-Hispanic couple will be reasonably attractive. And most Whites will continue to select other Whites as partners. Also, let’s not forget — those of us White who are older — how proud so many Whites have been to claim partly Native American (Indian) ancestry: I think the preferred tribe is Cherokee.
The problem we have, therefore, is really with Jews, blacks, Whites who hate Whiteness, and Muslims who do not wish to assimilate.
In political terms, our problem — which really has nothing to do with race — is with an elite governing class that doesn’t care about the people it governs.
Trump’s election in 2016 was a populist revolt against the elites. That revolt has not stopped — it will get more intense as time goes on.
My prescription is threefold — get organized, using churches as a center point. I’ve given reasons for this in Part 1, so I won’t repeat them here. Continue the populist revolt and welcome any non-White allies. Last, name the Jew. This is easier to do with non-Whites than with Whites. Only a good dose of authentic Christianity will cure Whites of their Jew-blindness. But that would require a major reform of the church. Let us join the battle on the side of the traditionalists.
Another point to consider: The world elite now want to exterminate most people, regardless of race. In fact, from a non-White point of view, it is the non-Whites who are the biggest target, along with Whites like us who oppose the elite.
Consider this 2003 speech made by a Chinese general to leaders of the Chinese Communist Party 17 years ago:
“…a while ago Comrade He Xin pointed out to the Hong Kong Business News during an interview that ‘the U.S. has a shocking conspiracy.’ According to what he had in hand, from September 27 to October 1, 1995, the Gorbachev Foundation – funded by the United States – gathered five hundred of the world’s most important statesmen, economic leaders and scientists, including George H.W. Bush, Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair, Zbigniew Brzezinski, as well as George Soros, Bill Gates, futurist John Naisbit, etc., all the world’s most popular characters, in the San Francisco Fairmont Hotel for a high-level roundtable conference discussing problems about globalization and how to guide humanity to move forward into the 21st century. According to what He Xin had in hand, the outstanding people of the world in attendance thought that in the 21st century a mere 20% of the world’s population would be sufficient to maintain the world’s economy and prosperity. The other 80% or four-fifths of the world’s population would be human garbage unable to produce new value. The people in attendance thought that this excess 80% population would be a trash population and that a high-tech means should be used to eliminate them gradually.” — Chinese General Chi Haotian, 2003 (“China General: PLA Must Kill All Americans With Biological Weapons, trunews.com, January 26, 2021)
I’ve just re-read your excellent essay from 13/9/19 – “The Aesthetic Prop Revisited”. You mention Wilmot Robertson, author of “The Dispossessed Majority” who had a career in advertising and fully comprehended the importance of visual presentation. Now in advertising, we see obese people representing “ordinary” people in a bid to sell products to ordinary people who are not obese; black male/white female couples just about everywhere in a bid to sell products to people who even now choose partners of the same race. Yes, you are right. This a subject that many in our movement TRY and ignore. It’s the “elephant in the sitting room” Visual appearances ARE important, but many amongst have this idea that ANY support is better than NO support. Perhaps this explains why we have been impeded by the fat slobby likes of Matthew Heimbach, Matthew Collins and Robbie Mullen – individuals initially drawn to the movement because they wanted instant success and recognition in addition to being leaders of men when they couldn’t even lead themselves to firstly, soap and hot water; secondly a healthy diet; thirdly exercise and fourthly a decent wardrobe and a sensible haircut!
Richard – Keep up the good work!