Saving the White Race: The Problem and Solutions, Part 2 of 3

Go to Part 1.

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.^[12] 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^[13] 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[1]—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.”[2] Whether one supposes that individualist attitudes can be socialized over a period of several centuries[3] or that there is genetic inertia for such attitudes,[4] 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 15/16^ths (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.^[14]  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^[15] 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.

[1] 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.

[2] Ibid., 195.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Kevin MacDonald, Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition: Evolution, History, and Prospects for the Future (Seattle: CreateSpace, 2019).