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

Go to Part I.
Go to Part II.

Part III. Separatist Solutions

As Lincoln observed in 1857 (see quote at beginning of Part II) racial preservationism logically leads to racial separatism. But not all preservationist proposals are equally effective at achieving that end. Some are not even intended or designed to do so in any meaningful sense. Others intend well, but have flaws in the design that would prevent them from preserving the White race even if they were implemented.

The range in scale of possible acts of racial separation is extreme. At the micro level it consists of a White individual, family or small group moving away from non-Whites to an area that is all-White or almost so—an act that has already been repeated so many millions of times it has acquired the sociological label of “White flight.” Such an act is not only racial separatist, but also racial preservationist, as it increases the likelihood that offspring will reproduce within their own race, although the more likely purpose of an ingathering is to create an informal community that can provide mutual security and support without attracting unwelcome attention. The difference between separatist and preservationist actions at the micro and macro levels is not in kind but in degree. At the micro level little is required and little is accomplished. At the macro level, the requirements are far greater, and so is what can be accomplished. Political power is necessary, and this requires the support and active participation of millions. The recognition of this necessity should inform all our deliberations. We should plan and act on the assumption that nothing sufficient, and therefore ultimately meaningful, can be accomplished, or is even possible, until we are in power, and then any proposal will be possible. Gaining that power will require the support of at least a majority, and probably a super-majority, of Whites for our solution. Winning the hearts and minds of our people for the preservation of their kind is more than half of our battle. It is the decisive battle which will decide the war. The specifics of our solution, as detailed in our proposals, will be central to winning that support.

Undetermined or Unspecified Solutions

Some White advocates hold a position without clearly stated solutions. Instead, they avoid the subject in the belief it could alienate supporters, so they have no tangible goal. Others only refer to vague or unspecified solutions, perhaps using the generalized terms “separation” and/or “ethnostate,” but without the specifics necessary to make them seem like something that could possibly become real. These positions can also be based on the belief that it is better for individuals to reach their own independent conclusions about a solution. In either case they view detailed solutions as a negative rather than a potential positive. They oppose the belief that offering a racially preservationist solution would be a net positive in attracting support and indeed essential to give substance and direction to a movement by providing it with a concrete goal.

Insufficient Solutions

Some White advocates accurately describe the full existential gravity and scale of the problem, but propose solutions that are woefully insufficient and incommensurate in scale. Perhaps they are so intimidated by the scale of a commensurate solution that they shrink from the prospect. But a sufficient solution, by definition, must be commensurate in scale with the problem to be solved or it cannot be a contender for serious consideration. The scale of our problem is extremely large, and so a sufficient solution must be as well. It is common for people, even fully informed White advocates, to be unable or unwilling to think big. Or they may be afraid to envision a solution commensurate in scale with the problem. We must overcome this fear or it will overcome us.

From its antebellum beginnings, separatist thought traditionally centered on the sufficient solution concept of a deportation of non-Whites and their resettlement in another country or countries. Around 1970 there was a paradigm shift in separatist thought that went all the way from a quest for victory to sauve qui peut—from the sufficient solution of a complete deportation of non-Whites to insufficient solutions, usually in the form of a partial White secession, that effectively surrender the far greater part of the White race and its territory. Richard Butler was an early proponent of such an insufficient solution, and his influence caused the concept to focus on a homeland for a small minority of Whites in the northwestern region of the country, with others like Michael Hart, Harold Covington and many subsequent movement writers and activists following in his path. Curiously, the concept of partition, which in its “National Premise” form is a sufficient solution, was passed over by this shift with scarcely a mention outside the pages of Instauration, and remains largely ignored.

Judged by the goal of White racial preservation and independence, all secession and similar insufficient solution plans I am aware of share four major flaws. The first is that they are all intended and designed to preserve only a lesser fraction of the White race, surrendering the majority to destruction in the larger multiracial nation. The second is that they are designed to include only a lesser fraction of the national territory (usually where only a small fraction of the White population resides), with the far greater part retained by the multiracial nation. The third is that they allow the still existing and larger multiracial nation to be the continuation of the United States, and still a nuclear and economic superpower with overwhelming military supremacy over North America and possibly effective dominance over Europe. The fourth is that they are cut off from lines of communication with Europe—an indication of their lack of consideration for Whites outside of the U.S.

Figure 10: Michael Hart’s racial partition map of the United States as presented at the 1996 American Renaissance conference

I was in the audience at the 1996 American Renaissance conference when Jewish astrophysicist Michael Hart presented a separatist proposal titled “Racial Partition of the United States,” based on a voluntary three-way partition,[16] which I understand he has since disavowed. It is the most detailed plan for an insufficient solution that I have seen and shares the racially harmful flaws typical of secession and other insuffcient plans, starting with the critical flaw of being voluntary. His “White Separatist State” or “WSS” would be located in the northwestern part of the country, and in his most optimistic scenario (the purple and white areas in map in Figure 10) only 32.4% of “whites” would choose to live there (62.5 million of the 193 million “whites” in the 1990 census and 25% of the total population). Hart apparently presumed blacks would be much more enthusiastic about separation than “whites,” as in the same scenario he estimates 85.3% of them (25 million of the 29.3 million in the 1990 census) would choose to live in his “Black Separatist State” or “BSS” (the two gray areas in map in Figure 10, apparently including the national capital and Philadelphia, the previous capital). His

third country, the integrated state, will be a continuation of the present United States of America, but with a reduced area. All American citizens who do not explicitly choose to become citizens of the BSS or the WSS will remain members of the integrated USA.

This multiracial nation of 162.5 million (the yellow area in map in Figure 10) would contain 65% of the total population, and 67.6% or 130.5 million of the “white” population, in the 1990 census, and a proportionate amount of its territory.

Hart’s presentation never mentioned racial preservation as even part of the motive or purpose for his plan. Insufficient solutions in general cannot do so in good faith, as explicitly surrendering the majority of the race to the destructive embrace of multiracialism is the opposite of preserving it — it is offering it up for destruction.

Insufficient solutions like secession plans and Hart’s partition plan show little consideration for the fate of the majority of the White American population and no regard for the White populations outside the U.S. Also, next to its own physical existence, the most valuable physical possession of a race is its territory. As a result, such plans, by unnecessarily surrendering the far greater part of that territory, must also be regarded as contrary to White territorial interests. In the context of racial preservationism, they are only a more developed form of “White flight,” appealing to a small minority of disaffected Whites and racial survivalists who are fleeing the larger racial cause and accepting White defeat by surrendering the far greater part of their race and its territory.

A sufficient White preservationist solution requires the replacement of multiracialism by separation, with the great majority of Whites being united in an all-White country or countries. The surprisingly varied proposals to continue multiracialism in the supposedly White country, by including non-Whites in various degrees, therefore do not meet a sufficient preservationist standard in design. Such plans are typically based on certain designated racial proportions in the population. Some only seek to ensure the continuation of a simple White majority country, with a non-White minority population theoretically as large as 49 percent, and would therefore presumably not require any separation but only to stop non-White immigration and somehow prevent racial intermixture and the non-White birthrate from exceeding the White. Others seek to maintain a White super-majority or to reduce the proportion of non-Whites to perhaps 5 or 10 percent. These plans seem to be based on the fallacy of multiracial stasis, or the idea that an overgrown garden can be pruned back to its ideal state.

The first solution, a simple White majority, is already too late for the U.S. to achieve without removing some of the non-White population, given that the under-thirty population is now minority White.  But any multiracialist solution is qualitatively insufficient in terms of racial preservation and independence, as it would limit or effectively negate White racial independence (i.e., control of its own existence) and result in racial intermixture with the non-White elements — either blending with a large 20–49 percent non-White minority or assimilation of a smaller (below 20 percent) non-White minority — resulting in White racial destruction. Given that the U.S. White population (as of 2015) is genetically 98.6% European, accepting a limited infusion of even 5% non-European genes would create a genotypic shift that could be expected to produce significant and visible phenotypic effects. This is antithetical to the most essential principles of racial preservationism, and since reducing the non-White proportion of the U.S. population to 10% would still require the separation and removal of over 100 million non-Whites, or over three-quarters of them, it raises the question, “Why stop there, at that point, instead of going all the way when you’re most of the way there.” It seems arbitrary, unless the intent and purpose of the plan is based on something other than White racial interests, such as an idealized multiracial stasis that is “gone with the wind.”

There are also what might be called “limited” multiracial plans that permit the inclusion of certain categories of non-Whites in the ingroup, such as Asians (permitted in Hart’s plan among others), but exclude other categories, such as Blacks. Such plans indicate that the purpose is to separate from certain negatively-regarded races but not the preservation or independence of the White race. Such plans are motivated by negative emotions regarding the excluded non-White races rather than positive feelings for the White race. Other limited multiracial plans would include mixed-race half-Whites — i.e., the mixed-race children of Whites and non-Whites — in the White country without any apparent awareness of the numbers involved or the consequences. If their numbers were so low as to be assimilable without harmful racial effect it wouldn’t be worth making an issue of them, but that is not the case and never really was. If the mixed-race children of earlier generations had all been blended into their White line instead of the great majority being assimilated into their non-White line, the White population today would have a proportion of non-White ancestry much greater than the 1.4% it actually has.

Lastly, there are plans that feature idiosyncratic proposals with little or no connection to racial preservation. Examples include plans that would require adherence to a particular ideology and would exclude a large part of the White race, perhaps the majority. Other examples are plans that would divide the White population into multiple separate nations, e.g., separating the Whites of Ohio, Oregon, Massachusetts, Florida, etc. from each other. Such divisions of the race, whether territorial or ideological, serve no racial preservationist purpose, and indeed no pro-White purpose, as such divisions would be harmful to White interests by placing the White population in a much weaker position both continentally and globally vis a vis other races.

Even if well-intentioned, the insufficient solutions briefly surveyed above would do more harm than good for White racial interests. Some could hardly have been better calculated as spoilers to sow division and to minimize White support, to divert attention from better plans, or be so unfavorable to Whites that many give up and despair of separatism itself. In varying degrees they deviate from what should be the guiding purpose of racial separation — racial preservation. Plans designed to preserve only a minority of the White population, or to enable its intermixture with half-Whites, cannot be accurately described as preservationist.

Sufficient Solutions

An important consideration for White preservation is that the White race is not a single homogeneous population, but a group of populations with great variety and diversity within the group yet distinct genotypically and phenotypically from the populations outside the group. A sufficient solution for White racial preservation should also preserve that sub-racial population diversity. To do this in the European homelands is a relatively straightforward matter of maintaining the historical or native populations in the different European nations by limiting migration between them to normal historical levels. As Ronald Reagan famously said, “Let Poland be Poland.” I would add “forever.” Let Poland be Polish forever, and the same for every European nation. “There’ll always be an England” said a song from racially more certain and happy times, to which should be added the caveat “only if it’s always English.”

Preserving the varied European population types in the New Europes outside of Europe is a less straighforward matter. Over 80% of the European migration to South America came from Southern Europe and to North America from Northern Europe. In both continents the combined European elements have essentially amalgamated into a single people to a degree that makes their division neither practical nor desirable, but their primary Northern or Southern European identities can and should be preserved by controlling the proportions of future immigration.

As noted, the most common concept of a separatist solution among pro-Whites until the 1970s was the removal of non-Whites by deportation. This followed the tradition of Abraham Lincoln’s 1862 proposal to a delegation of Black leaders to resettle the Black population of 4.5 million in Central America.[17] At that time the concept of White secession would have been seen as something for losers who were giving up and running away. Whites were supposed to remove the non-Whites from their country, not give it to them and remove themselves.

What has changed since the 1960s is the number of non-Whites in the formerly all-White, or over 80% White, countries has grown so large that it is hard to imagine any non-White country that would be willing and realistically able to accommodate the deportees. Partition provides a place to put them, in territory that is controlled by the country conducting the partition. But for the countries of Europe a partition solution is not even remotely practical, just or acceptable. They could not part with even the smallest fraction of the territory needed to provide such a place. Every square centimeter of Europe is part of their ancient racial homeland, and has been so since time immemorial, whereas — with the exception of the circa 1.2 million Jews — over 99% of the non-White elements have only been there since after 1945, after the postwar triumph of the Anti-White Coalition that opened the gates to their invasion. They have no valid historic or moral claim on any European territory. Removal of all the non-Whites from all of Europe is the imperative for the preservation and independence of the European peoples. But where would those 49 million (as of 2020) non-Whites go, or where could they be settled? A racial partition of the United States could provide enough territory for a non-White multiracial country to also accommodate the non-Whites now in Europe, Canada and Australia, if all the countries were to act together in a coordinated common effort. For Europe this separation would take the form of a deportation, but for the White race as a whole — and for all the non-Whites in Europe and the New Europes of North America and Australia — it would actually be in the form of a partition, with the territory for the new non-White country or countries provided by the United States.

The difference between non-sufficient solutions like secession and sufficient solutions like the “National Premise” concept of partition is the difference between the surrender of most of the White race and its territory and a White victory that succeeds in preserving most of the White race and its territory. The first is a small White rump state that spins itself off from a country seen by Whites as no longer theirs. The second is a majority, preferably super-majority, of the White population spinning off the non-White races into a separate country while keeping the greater part of the country. This is the White repossession Wilmot Robertson referred to by the Latin term “instauration.” In the April, 1976 issue of Instauration he coined the phrase “National Premise” to describe the partition concept in its sufficient solution form. An example of the “National Premise” partition concept can be seen in the map of my third (2020) proposal in Figure 11.

Figure 11: Map of the Third McCulloch Partition Proposal (2020)

In this proposal there would be a three-way partition into:

  1. A White American nation with a contiguous area of 2,225,841 square miles, 75.1% of the “lower 48” area of 2,962,031 square miles for the racial group that was 81.1% of the population in 1970, i.e., at the beginning of the massive non-White immigration promoted by the Anti-White Coalition. Alaska would be retained by the White nation. Hawaii would be divided, with the White nation retaining the 597 square mile island of Oahu as a White state — to secure the lines of communication across the Pacific to Australia and New Zealand — and the 4,028 square mile “Big Island” of Hawaii as a place for non-Whites after the partition. The other islands (Maui, Kauai, Molokai, Lanai, etc.), totaling 6,306 square miles, would be an autonomous, and possibly independent, state for the native Hawaiians and other Polynesians. The White American nation would be the continuation of the historic American nation with the national capital and all of the original pre-1803 territory, and most of the post-1803 territory, where circa 82.5% of the White population already live.
  2. An Amerindian nation with an area of 66,798 square miles.
  3. A non-White multiracial nation with an area of 669,392 square miles, making it the seventeenth largest country in the world at 3.19 times the size of France. It would be assigned all non-Whites, which would include all mixed-race or multiracial persons who are part-White but who are outside of the normal European phenotypic range. White Hispanics who identify as Hispanic rather than White could choose to live with the non-White Hispanics in the multiracial nation. White parents and grandparents of non-White children (including part-White mixed-race children, of whom over 14 million were born in the half-century 1970–2020), and White spouses of non-Whites, would be permitted, but not required, to live with their children and spouses in the multiracial nation. Other Non-Hispanic Whites who might prefer to live in the multiracial nation could make their own arrangements to do so dependent on the multiracial nation’s consent.

This plan would require the relocation of circa 131.2 million people — 34 million or 17.5% of Whites and 97.2 million or 61.4% of non-Whites — and their personal property (see details in Appendix). As large as these numbers are, in a previous essay I calculated that the transportation logistics of relocating 150 million people and their personal property in a time frame as short as a year is feasible.

One of my long-standing principles of racial partition[18], applied in my first two partition proposals (1983 and 1989), has been that the partition allow no multiracial states on the grounds that a multiracial state is not a legitimate racial entity and therefore should have no standing in a plan for racial partition. My primary concern behind this principle was not that the non-White groups would be united in a multiracial state, but that allowing a multiracial state would be misused to justify the retention of most of the country’s White population and territory in a multiracial state that would divide the White race and be the primary successor and continuation of the United States (e.g., Michael Hart’s proposal discussed above). A secondary reason was the assumption that each of the non-White races would prefer to have separate monoracial countries like the White population and that fair and equal treatment should accommodate this. Except for the aboriginal Amerindian population, for which I continue to propose a separate country of their own, I now think this assumption may be incorrect — essentially a projection of White racial interests onto non-White populations which they may not really share. Non-White groups have always supported multiracialism, and those who immigrated to the United States voluntarily did so knowing it was not a racial state for them and with no expectation it ever would be, and certainly those who immigrated after 1965 knew they were coming to a multiracial country. It therefore seems more likely they would prefer to be joined into a large multiracial state that would be a major country at the world level by every measure.

If the Black and/or Hispanic populations preferred separate states for themselves they could sub-partition the territory of the multiracial nation into separate racial states, possibly along the lines of my second (1989) proposal, following the white lines on the map with the Black nation allotted the circa 252,200 square mile territory north of the Colorado river and east of the New Mexico border, the Hispanic nation the 199,000 square mile area south of the Colorado river and as far west as the Arizona border, and a multiracial nation for Semi and Non-European Caucasians and the various Asian racial groups in the remaining 218,192 square miles. In this arrangement visibly part-White persons would be assigned to the nation of the majority of their non-White ancestry.

This proposal aims to attract maximum White support consistent with the goal of racial separation and independence while avoiding non-existential and potentially divisive issues. Territorially this means retaining most of the country, and especially the areas that are the more historically and culturally significant and where the great majority of Whites live. Ideologically and politically, this means that, other than as required for the purpose of racial preservation, there should be no changes to the American constitutional system until after the completion of the partition, when any proposed changes to their country would be decided by the newly all-White population consistent with its sovereign prerogatives.

Appendix: The Logistical Scale of Population Transfer

In 2020 the U.S. non-White population was 135.8 million. Add to this the 8.2 million non-Whites in Canada (7.7 million “visible”) and the North American non-White population totaled 144 million. Add to this the 49 million non-Whites in Europe (43 million in northwestern Europe, 2.5 million in Italy, 1.5 million in Spain not counting Hispanic non-Whites from Latin America, 2 million elsewhere) and 3.2 million non-indigenous non-Whites in Australia and there are at least 196.2 million non-Whites to be geographically and politically separated from Whites for a complete and sufficient solution that would fully secure White racial preservation and independence. The 4.3 million indigenous Amerindians would have their own separate nation, leaving 191.9 million non-Whites for the multiracial nation. Many of the postwar immigrant non-Whites, including many Hispanics and Asians in the U.S. and many Turks and Arabs in Europe, are still citizens of their countries of origin, or dual citizens, and even vote in its elections. Many others still have strong family connections in the “old country.” It might be presumed that they would have the option to return there if they chose to do so. How many have this option, and how many of them would choose to exercise it rather than resettle in a new non-White country? It could be ten million or more among the non-Whites in Europe, and twenty million or more in North America and Australia. If 20 million non-Whites (e.g., 12 million from the U.S., 6 million from Europe and 2 million from Canada and Australia) with the option to return to their original countries chose to do so, 18 million White parents, grandparents and spouses of non-Whites (circa 15 million from the U.S.) chose to live with their relations in the multiracial nation, and 3 million White Hispanics chose to live there with the non-White Hispanics, it would have a population of 192.9 million, with about 137.5 million of this total from the United States.

In 2020 the U.S. White population was 194.9 million, including 9 million Hispanic European Whites. Per the same scenario as the previous paragraph, if 15 million White parents, grandparents and spouses of non-Whites chose to live with their relations in the multiracial nation, and 3 million White Hispanics chose to live there also with the non-Hispanic Whites, the White American nation would have a post-partition population of 176.9 million.

About 34 million European Whites (including Hispanic European Whites), or about 17.5 percent of the total European White population of circa 194.9 million (including Hispanic European Whites), and about 38.6 million non-Whites, or about 28.4% of the total non-White population of circa 135.8 million, currently reside in the area designated for the multiracial and Amerindian nations.

[1] 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), 229.

[2] Rabbi Mark Winer, “An Unbreakable Alliance: African-Americans and Jews,” Sun Sentinel, October 5, 2020

[3] Gunnar Myrdal, An American Dilemma: the Negro Problem and Modern Democracy, Vol. 1 (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1944), 167.

[4] Ruth Benedict and Gene Weltfish, The Races of Mankind, Public Affairs Pamphlet no. 85, 3rd ed. (New York: Public Affairs Committee, Inc., 1961), 11.

[5] Katarzyna Bryc, Eric Y. Durand,, The Genetic Ancestry of African Americans, Latinos, and European Americans across the United States,



[8] Phineas Eleazar, “Interracial Marriage & White Genocide,” Counter-Currents, December 6, 2019.

[9] Richard McCulloch, “Confronting Our Genocide,” The Occidental Quarterly, vol. 18, no. 4 (Winter 2018—2019) 56.

[10] Ibid, 57.

[11] Ibid, 46.

[12] Richard McCulloch, “The Ethnic Gap,” The Occidental Quarterly, vol. 1, no. 1 (Fall, 2001) 82 and 87.

[13] “In narratology and comparative mythology, the hero’s journey, or the monomyth, is the common template of stories that involve a hero who goes on an adventure, is victorious in a decisive crisis, and comes home changed or transformed.”’s_journey


[15] Kevin MacDonald, Separation and its Discontents (Westport: Praeger Publishers, 1998), 268.


[17] Abraham Lincoln, “Remarks on Colonization to African-American Leaders,” August 14, 1862.

[18] Richard McCulloch, “Separate or Die,” The Occidental Quarterly vol. 8, no. 4 (Winter 2009) 15-38, and Richard McCulloch, “Visions of the Ethnostate,” The Occidental Quarterly vol. 18, no. 3 (Fall 2018) 29-46.






40 replies
  1. Tim Folke
    Tim Folke says:

    Everything the writer has stated in this and the preceding two parts of this essay are correct. The question is then, what do we do?

    I think that we first need to understand the weakness(es) of our people, and two things come to mind. First, we have – more than any other race – a tendency towards guilt, despite the fact that nearly all the inventions, medical advancements, explorations, love shown to other races, etc… have been by our folk. Secondly, we tend to be individualistic, rather than ethnocentric (the ‘me’ vs. ‘we’ syndrome).

    Our enemies have been quite successful in capitalizing on these two weaknesses, making them play against each other so that we feel guilty if we support ethnocentrism over individualism.

    I’m not going to write an essay here; suffice to say I believe the solution is that our people – in whatever secular or religious path it may be – embrace good morals and recognize the preponderance of good we have done in human history so that we can do away with guilt.

    In regards to individualism, we need to realize that ‘we’ is better than ‘me’. And, along this line, we must take comfort in the fact that there is no shame in the ‘we’ concept and that we have embraced this all along, but so far only a familial setting.

    In other words, we naturally care more about our kids than other people’s kids, and more about our spouses than other people’s spouses. Therefore, it is only natural and healthy that we care more about our race than other races, and that it is morally right to put the interests of our race before that of the other races.

    It follows then that we must morally oppose those who would do our race harm, just as we would righteously oppose those who would harm our kids or spouse.

    • B. Smith
      B. Smith says:

      After long searching of thought and soul I conclude that we must be simple within if clever by necessity without.

      INTERNALLY we must face and embrace truth without compromise, without omission or concession,
      conceding our enemies (or mere rivals), nothing — not the biggest lie nor the slightest slight, while allowing ourselves not the least illusion but also and importantly not the least regret for our racial traits that may be weaknesses when unprotected but are foundational virtues when held safe within the folk.

      EXTERNALLY, prudence in speech and action as required, but never by fear or foolishness, always, always by calculation as a reasoned part of a greater plan: to free our folk.

      We cannot advocate violence, that is the privilege of our masters and their minions now, but we can all be well aware that after their lies fail, violence is all they’ve got, and they will bring it, just like they did to the Russians, the Hungarians, to others, and especially the Germans.

      As the hero of the 20th century said: “Truth is not what you want it to be; It is what it is, and you must bend to its power or live a lie.”

      Where we are now, to live a lie is to lay down and die.

      Uncompromising truth within the folk = no internal weakness.

      Calculated prudence in word and action outside the folk = no decisive battle until we have the strength to win.

      We can’t clever them out of this, vote our way out, or sneak up and put a bag over their head.

      And violence will come, because they will bring it!

      Our duty is to face the truth, to know it inside, and to be snake-wise and prudent outside.

      To grow strong,
      to build the folk,
      and be ready.

      • David Schmitt
        David Schmitt says:

        All indications are that non-whites are consolidating every means and justification for killing us. Your analysis is prudent and cogent. The recommendation: “Make haste!”

    • Archie Wunder
      Archie Wunder says:

      There is no contradiction between individualism and caring for your ethnical or cultural group.

      Caring about your group and your offspring and your kind is caring for yourself and your future.

      So in a way it is deeply individualistic. you can care about your kind and also work to become the best you can be and do great in life.

      But yeah extreme righwingism like whats his name Pierce tend to push for in effect people giving their life for their race and the like… That is certainly not very individualistic. We see the same tendency in communism, they do see and did see individualism as evil that should be beaten out of people starting at a young age… So in many ways these ideologies have similar approach here although the end goals are certainly different..

      Like nationalism and localism and globalism are not enemis or oposites. I can like local and national government and structure and still appreciate free trade and cooporation with for example other white nations (globalism).

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      ” In regards to individualism, we need to realize that ‘we’ is better than ‘me’.”

      Exactly . “Individualism” never did prevail , cannot and never will prevail against the collectivism/tribalism of the chosenhite jewmasterss .

  2. Ray Caruso
    Ray Caruso says:

    “Gaining that power will require the support of at least a majority, and probably a super-majority, of Whites for our solution. Winning the hearts and minds of our people for the preservation of their kind is more than half of our battle.”

    This is an error. Democracy has gotten White Americans into the dire straits in which you find yourselves. It is the problem, not the solution. Anyone who studies the history of revolutions around the world, including the American rebellion against Great Britain, understands that successful revolutions are waged by relatively small cadres of deeply committed individuals, not by the masses. Americans, even White nationalists who are despised by most other Americans, are so inculcated with the democratic mindset that you cannot think in any terms other than a getting a majority on your side. The bad news for you is that it’s not possible for you to win a majority, let a alone a “super-majority”. The good news is that it’s not necessary.

  3. Mr. Separatist
    Mr. Separatist says:

    I sometimes wonder if the path forward to a White ethnostate is politically most viable with the general norming of ethnostates first, irrespective of any specific race. Consider, for example, how much more viable it is currently to advocate for a Black ethnostate. With the rise of a neo-separatist movement among Blacks seeking ‘safe spaces’ away from all the alleged harm and oppression stemming from Whites, agitating for, and actually achieving some type of Black ethnostate seems far more probable in the near-term than a White one. Achieving one would not only help remove more outside elements (in this case, Blacks) to outside of a White population, but helps set examples and precedents going forward for Whites as well. This example need not be limited to Blacks either, but potentially Hispanics and other races as well.

  4. Rerevisionist
    Rerevisionist says:

    This series of articles is excellent and forward-thinking. But let me just make a point about Jews. Europeans/ whites should be proud of their achievements, some if not all; but I suspect Jews would say they were the moving force, by deciding how to dispense money and credit. Edison could only have worked with financial support (I’m assuming he wasn’t a Jew). Faraday, Dalton, Davy et all needed support. Ships, then trains and airplanes needed researchers, often living their whole lives devoted to fairly narrow objects. But Jews also arranged wars, so many that they regard Malthus as an irrelevant lightweight. Presumably some legal framework to control asset and land ownership and research discoveries will be needed.
    It occurs to me that Richard McCulloch praises white women, very reasonably. Part of a rebirth should presumably include appreciation of males, too. Eugenics in its origins included such things, even if it was ignorant of human parasitism.

  5. James Bowery
    James Bowery says:

    The Minimalist Rules For Sortocracy accomplishes all of the phases and purposes more simply, practically and effectively. Moreover it is firmly rooted in the Westphalian precedent, by diagnosing the critical flaw in that Treaty, and proposing a clearly practical correction. It does so by reifying the “moral community”, consistent with white individualism. This is a profound accomplishment in statecraft.

    We stand at the precipice of rhyming with the bloodiest fratricidal war in European history.

    Gutenberg → Memetic Freedom → Censorship → Thirty Years War → Assortative Migration

    Internet → Memetic Freedom → Censorship → ?????????????? → Assortative Migration

    As I wrote in 1982:

    There is a tremendous danger that careless promotion of deregulation will be dogmatically (or purposefully) extended to the point that there may form an unregulated monopoly over the information replicated across the nation-wide videotex network, now underdevelopment. If this happens, the prophecies of a despotic, “cashless-society” are quite likely to become a reality. My opinion is that this nightmare will eventually be realized but not before the American pioneers have had a chance to reach each other and organize. I base this hope on the fact that the first people to participate in the videotex network will represent some of the most pioneering of Americans, since videotex is a new “territory”.

    We are now at the censorship phase entering into the nightmare.

    Please, for the love of God and our people, listen to me now.

    • TJ
      TJ says:

      In many cases “deregulation” involves removing some controls, while leaving the original governmentally developed infrastructure in place. That is, the original monopoly goes unmolested. Deregulation of banking may involve removal of
      Glass-Stegall, but with the Federal Reserve left in place as a coercive monopoly.
      Something similar may have happened in Mexico, with Carlos Slim ending up with a phone monopoly, with original infrastructure unaltered- all under aegis of “deregulation.”

      Deregulation I believe is deliberately conflated with no regulation. Fixing banking requires radical free markets, with the existing system being razed and replaced with no central bank, and no other privileges granted by government.

      A new internet must be made without MIC or DARPA, without any regulation at all, without any State funding. Nothing like the FCC. . .regulation is justified for the same reason that government schools are “justified”- the “State” [whatever that is] is higher than the individual, and the “noumenal world” is above observed reality.

    • David Schmitt
      David Schmitt says:

      James, I am listening to the monologue you provide at the outset. I will try to catch up on your recent blog items and re-watch that video conversation that you had wih Kevin MacDonald. Indeed, your four-decade old prophecy is being realized. Technically, you are far ahead of most, including me. Your task (and burden) will be repetition and reformulation and–then again–more repetition of your message: same great message, different hooks for different crooks. I still have your contact information from our last conversation. I will try to connect if you do not mind.

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      Who and what kind of system/organization would be operating that Sortocracy ?

      How transparent would be that Sortocracy ?

  6. Cassandro
    Cassandro says:

    ‘Opinion polls show electorates are happy to put up with authoritarianism.’

    This is a direct quote from The London Times today.

    We have to face facts. The majority of whites hate us. They want nothing to do with us or Western civilization, truth be told. We are in the situation we are because the vast majority of so-called Westerners are culturally blind, simple-minded, ignorant, indifferent, greedy, short-termist, and cowardly. Fundamentally, most do not want saving and they are unworthy to be saved. They are happy to go to their cultural doom slumped in their Barker loungers, eyes glued to their cellphones and games systems, stuffing their bloated carcasses with take out food delivered straight to their doors and paid for with UBI.

    A people unwilling to defend its borders and culture has no right to a land or to long-term survival. That’s the lesson of history. It’s happening to us just as it happened to other empires in the past.

    I truly appreciate, though, the enormous effort the author has gone to in preparing this 3-part work. He is to be heartily commended for it. However, we simply cannot save the West or the USA at this moment in time. Heck, we can’t even save somewhere small like the Netherlands or Sweden. There simply is not going to be a fight. Western people do not have it in them. They are too soft, decadent and degenerate.

    Therefore, we who are awake and who do care need a LIFEBOAT from a sinking society. More Noah than Normandy.

    Look at it this way. When the Moors invaded Spain, the native population holed up in Asturias for HUNDREDS of years. We have to think in terms of CENTURIES too. The Spanish couldn’t save all of Iberia in the 700s, but they did take it all back around 1492. That should be our game plan.

    We are living BEHIND ENEMY LINES at the moment. Only when we are safe in a small, secure state of our own, alongside only those who share our beliefs, will our descendants, hundreds of years from today, be able to begin the reconquest.

    We must understand and accept our position in the historical timeline. Our GOAL is NOT to fight back. It is simply to SURVIVE.

    We can’t achieve anything from a position of weakness, and we are presently powerless, demoralised and disunited precisely because we don’t have a state and a people of our own.

    Buy land explicitly to create a new state, move, build, thrive, and eventually fight back. In that order.

    • Canadianer
      Canadianer says:

      Good post.

      Lots of people have pie in the sky fantasies about ethnostates and seem to forget that we are a powerless ethnic group with no evidence that we are able to work together to achieve big goals.

      You are absolutely right that the first order goal is to survive. We can do that by building strong communities. Big political schemes come second to survival and the basic process of “re-tribalizing” where we basically learn what it means to act tribally and how to achieve tribal goals.

    • Carusso DiVenetto
      Carusso DiVenetto says:

      More like people ain’t weak they are brainwashed and PROGRAMMED by a very effective non white propaganda war machinery that controls the largest record companies (and most of the small ones), mainstream TV, Hollywood, Social media, advertising and so on.

      They use this to to propagate lies and to bring these lies to people, often unconsciously through movies and television. Hence people are programmed without knowing it.

      Also they weakened by drugs and the like.

      White people must be reprogrammed.

      This can be done using new technology and reaching out with true content. This will make obvious the fraudulent most often stolen things these obsessed enemies of whites push on the masses constantly.

      Also antifa have greatly infiltrated the media and they wanna kill us off with proopaganda for example to not have whites want to have kids and placement of abortion clinics. Which is what racemixed “jews” also propaganda for combined with a constant bombardement of propaganda for racemixing.

      Here is antifa’s manual:

      Like David Lane says, women and men are all day bombarded with thousands of pictures, music and TV/film that has one goal, to kill the white race and MAKE US WEAK and ashamed of our culture and think we need the others.

      We must break this lie.

  7. bruno
    bruno says:

    This was immensely enjoyed and the author is thanked. When I was a little boy my grandfather and his friends would draw maps pertaining to the subject at hand. My personal belief is without something beyond present day beliefs occurring, our people are in more than deep trouble. In addition to the zyd factor, there is a large number of people like Jack Dorsey and other millionaires who would do everything in their power to see that our people do not succeed. The fifth column in the mist of our people has never metastasize as today. The schools every single day are indoctrinating and we are losing millions.

    I take my hat off to the author. It would be an honor to share lunch with such a fellow. He appears to be a person of great substance.

  8. ScipioAfricanis
    ScipioAfricanis says:

    A little dose of truth. This is merely an academic intellectual exercise in which our enemies permit because they realize there is a small audience and no action. Occidental observer is brilliant, truthful and informative; however, at this moment it is merely acting as a steam valve. To save European white civilization it’s going to take extremely aggressive physical action.

    • Cassandro
      Cassandro says:

      Very, very true. I think it’ll probably take an economic collapse akin to the Great Depression to make people really sit up, slough off the old order, and look for alternatives.

      That coul dbe 50 years off, though. In the meantime, individually, I can only think that moving to very sparsely populated sttes or upping sticks and heading to Central/Eastern Europe is the best bandaid over this gaping wound.

  9. Winston McEntyre
    Winston McEntyre says:

    Maybe the owners of this site could make threads & for the occidentalobserver.

    Anyone can start a thread at those sites.

    Then one could post or the TOO people could post the articles in these threads and then people could comment in real time and not have to wait like 24 hours to see others comments and their own.

    I assume that TOO is doing all it can to keep up and get comments posted but also has to make sure it isn’t breaking some rules of their hoster or whatever.

    Also this kinda content would reach a new audience and these sites are kinda loosing an audience because of the whole “q” dissapointment and all that.

  10. Some White Guy
    Some White Guy says:

    I read the third part of the article yesterday and have been thinking about it since. I have to say I am disappointed in the offered “solution”. It is a rehash of past proposals to divvy up the USA, which will never happen. Texans and others are not going to agree to having their states made into the corral areas for the mixed race peoples of North America. Absurd.

    The people who run every element of our countries have a firm grip on all they control. They are making it very clear at present that we have no power and no control over any of it. Anyone who has spoken up is currently being arrested and/or ostracized from society.

    They are not going to just let us do what we want. These types of “solutions” are beyond ridiculous. Anyone advocating for such things will be squashed like a bug by those who rule us. It is cruel and immature to suggest to people that such things are possible.

    Call me a defeatist if you will, but I prefer realistic realism to fairy tales.

    • Ned J. Casper
      Ned J. Casper says:

      Wasn’t the partition of southern states for Negroes a policy of the pre-WW2 Communist Party of the USA? The chief problem, for some blacks as well as most non-blacks, is the relatively excessive birth-rate among them, plus the abdication of proper male parenting; cf. Dinesh D’Souza, “The End of Racism” (1995) pp.516-518 &c. Positive partition proposals for South Africa failed partly because of the black population explosion; and Europe faces a similar problem from the UN-predicted African demographics; cf. Stephen Smith, “The Scramble for Europe” (2019). This problem is not going away easily under Sleepy Joe, especially if the state-coercive apparatus is used to suppress white “supremacists” and “nativists”, and one should not turn down sympathisers among high-IQ Asian and Jewish street-communities who share white fear of an unstable and violent negro-mass.

      If you look at the Wikipedia articles on the death of Geoge Floyd, it is disturbing to see the world-wide “white” response to this hyped-up fake issue; cf. Jim Goad, “The Big Lie,” Taki’s Mag, August 9, 2020, online. What is the chance of persuading the albeit very small minority of intelligent and far-seeing black or mixed-race intellectuals to consider combining three positives from their famous “sons” – (1) Self-respect and self-improvement, Booker Washington; (2) eugenic reduction in the “illegitimate” birth-rate, W. E. B. DuBois; (3) assisted emigration of the Africa-lovers to Africa, Marcus Garvey?

  11. Jody Vorhees
    Jody Vorhees says:

    Of course. More solutions that are not solutions, because, realistically, they can never be actualized on any level.

    Where does this leave us?

    In the garden of the Finzi-Continis, or in our own pathetic urban and rural versions of Orania, awaiting our fate.

  12. Poupon Marx
    Poupon Marx says:

    These 3 articles are very verbose and are composed of stating and restating the obvious. It is overall somnambulistic. The statistics are largely arcane and of little practical use. “Drone-like” is the word I would use to characterized these essays. The author seems to be one of those who are best suited to describe phenomena from a distance and through a telescope. He displays very little savvy of current events from an inductive, example, observation and engagement perspective. Attempting to sound professorial and pontificating, I rate him as I would the office distance workers removed from the power plant, its machinery and systems, and the intimate involvement of the process and perpetuation.


    “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.”

    “• Pie in the Sky White Ethnostate
    Not defined spatially and temporally remote, so little more than a word with no sense of tangible meaning or reality.
    If you’re asking serious people to support a cause, most will want to know, even have to know, what the goal is, what they are working for, perhaps fighting for. And it needs to be worth the effort—something worth winning and justifying the means used to win it. Considering the magnitude of our problem, we need to think big, not small. We need to think about saving our race as a whole, not just a small part of it, and not just in the United States but also in Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. In our situation thinking small is a form of defeatism, for if a goal is too small to be a sufficient solution, even if it is won it is still a defeat. If you win, you lose.” • Pie in the Sky White Ethnostate
    Not defined spatially and temporally remote, so little more than a word with no sense of tangible meaning or reality.
    If you’re asking serious people to support a cause, most will want to know, even have to know, what the goal is, what they are working for, perhaps fighting for. And it needs to be worth the effort—something worth winning and justifying the means used to win it. Considering the magnitude of our problem, we need to think big, not small. We need to think about saving our race as a whole, not just a small part of it, and not just in the United States but also in Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. In our situation thinking small is a form of defeatism, for if a goal is too small to be a sufficient solution, even if it is won it is still a defeat. If you win, you lose.”

    “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”
    Someone help me here placing the comment in a particular grade school class.

    “The difference between separatist and preservationist actions at the micro and macro levels is not in kind but in degree. At the micro level little is required and little is accomplished. At the macro level, the requirements are far greater, and so is what can be accomplished. Political power is necessary, and this requires the support and active participation of millions. The recognition of this necessity should inform all our deliberations. We should plan and act on the assumption that nothing sufficient, and therefore ultimately meaningful, can be accomplished, or is even possible, until we are in power, and then any proposal will be possible. Gaining that power will require the support of at least a majority, and probably a super-majority, of Whites for our solution. Winning the hearts and minds of our people for the preservation of their kind is more than half of our battle. It is the decisive battle which will decide the war. The specifics of our solution, as detailed in our proposals, will be central to winning that support.”
    Generalizations and abstractions

    “Preserving the varied European population types in the New Europes outside of Europe is a less straighforward matter. Over 80% of the European migration to South America came from Southern Europe and to North America from Northern Europe. In both continents the combined European elements have essentially amalgamated into a single people to a degree that makes their division neither practical nor desirable, but their primary Northern or Southern European identities can and should be preserved by controlling the proportions of future immigration.”
    You really haven’t travelled very much, have you Mr. McCulloch? Like people who characterize the USA as “becoming Brazil”.

    Your foggy, unempirical, and careless use of the term “White” is the apogee of imprecision. I have informed you that “Indo-European is the proper description for the peoples of Europe and Eurasia is scientific and inductively concrete. Your statement that the Mongols and Tatars of the Steppes sashayed into Western/Eastern Europe, left quickly and left little DNA is ludicrous and laughable.
    “1223: Battle of Kalka River was fought. Mongol attack on Volga Bulgaria. Battle of Samara Bend ends with Mongol defeat.
    1236: Volga Bulgaria and parts of the Cumans were conquered.
    1237: Ryazan devastated.
    1238: Vladimir and Moscow were devastated, Battle of the Sit River is fought shortly after
    1238-1239: Rostov, Uglich, Yaroslavl, Kostroma, Kashin, Ksnyatin, Gorodets, Galich, Pereslavl, Yuriev, Dmitrov, Volok, Tver and Torzhok were devastated. In the west, Chernigov and Pereyaslav were sacked.
    1240: Destruction of Kiev.
    1241: Battle of Legnica and Battle of Mohi were fought, respectively. Devastation of parts of Poland and Hungary following Mongol victories. Some Mongol troops reaches the outskirts of Vienna and Udine. Death of Ögedei Khan; Retreat of Mongol-Tatar army.
    1258/1259: Incursion against Grand Duchy of Lithuania.
    1259/1260: Second raid against Poland.
    1264/1265: Raid against Thrace.
    1271, 1274, 1282 and 1285: Raids against Bulgaria.
    1275: Second raid against Grand Duchy of Lithuania.
    1284/1285: Second raid against Hungary.
    1287/1288: Third raid against Poland.
    1291: Attempted invasion of Serbia.
    1324 and 1337: Incursions against Byzantine Thrace.
    1340: Fourth raid against Poland.
    The Tatars succeeded in establishing control over Ruthenian principalities. It included both pillaging and bloody massacres in Russian cities.

    1252: Horde of Nevruy devastated Pereslavl and Suzdal.
    1273: Tatars twice attacked Novgorod territory, devastating Vologda and Bezhiza.
    1274: Tatars devastated Smolensk
    1275: Tatar invasion of south-eastern Russia, pillage of Kursk.
    1278: Tatars pillaged Ryazan principality.
    1281: The horde of Kovdygay and Alchiday destroyed Murom and Pereslavl, ruined vicinities of Suzdal, Rostov, Vladimir, Yuryev, Tver and Torzhok.
    1282: Tatar attack on Vladimir and Pereslavl.
    1283: Tatars ruined Vorgol, Rylsk and Lipetsk principality, occupied Kursk and Vorgol.
    1285: The Tatar warlord Eltoray, the son of Temir, pillaged Ryazan and Murom.
    1293: The Tatar warlord Dyuden came to Russia and devastated 14 towns, including Murom, Moscow, Kolomna, Vladimir, Suzdal, Yuryev, Pereslavl, Mozhaysk, Volok, Dmitrov, Uglich. In the same summer Tatar tsarevitch Takhtamir looted Tver’ principality and captured slaves in Vladimir principality.
    1347: The Genoese possession of Caffa, a great trade emporium on the Crimean Peninsula, came under siege by an army of Mongol warriors under the command of Janibeg. An epidemic of bubonic plague had been ravaging Central Asia before the conflict in Caffa. Brought across the Silk Road, the Mongols used disease infected corpses as a biological weapon. The corpses were catapulted over the city walls, infecting the inhabitants.[2] The Genoese traders fled, transferring the plague via their ships into the south of Europe, whence it rapidly spread. It is estimated that between one-quarter and two-thirds of Europe’s population died from the outbreak of the Black Death between 1348 and 1350.
    1380: Tatars were defeated in the Battle of Kulikovo by the Grand Prince of Muscovy, Dmitri Donskoi.
    1382: The Golden Horde under Khan Tokhtamysh sacked Moscow, burning the city and carrying off thousands of inhabitants as slaves. Muscovy remained a vassal of the Golden Horde until
    1480: the Great stand on the Ugra river. The end of Mongol rule in Russia.
    1506: Poland was invaded by Tatars from the Crimean Khanate with an army of 10,000 men, who were summarily destroyed.
    1521: The combined forces of Crimean Khan Mehmed Giray and his Kazan allies attacked Moscow and captured thousands of slaves.[3]
    1552: Successful siege of Kazan.
    1571: The Crimean khan Devlet I Giray were defeated by Moscow with a horde of 120,000 horsemen.
    1599: Tatar forces invaded, invading Lwów and Tarnopol, but were beaten back by Cossack forces.
    They must have been the only invaders and conquerors in history who “kept it in their pants”.

    Johann Krause (

    “7500 years ago, Western Europe was comprise of hunter-gathers. Agriculture was imported by the peoples of Anatolia and the Caucasus regions-people who are genetically related to Aryans-the people of Northern India.” 5:27 seconds.

    “The original genetic structure and phenotype of the Western European was almost complete replaced by the incoming Eastern agriculture people”. 5:53 seconds.

    “New genetic material is introduced into Western Europe from cattle herders of the Steppes of Central Asia, about 5,000 years ago.”
    15:08 seconds.

    “15,000 years ago, the genetic material of Europes was very similar. By 5000 years ago, it was admixed by the two waves of Eastern migration” (mentioned above). 7:00 minutes.

    “In Germany, 40% is from Anatolian farmers, 10% is from the Asian Steppes cattle herders”. 7:19 seconds

    David Reich:
    The relationship between Indo-European languages (including German) and Sanskrit has been establish since the end of the 18th century….” -2:04 seconds.
    David Reich: professor in the department of genetics at the Harvard Medical School, and an associate of the Broad Institute. Reich was highlighted as one of Nature’s 10 for his contributions to science in 2015.[4] He received the Dan David Prize in 2017, the NAS Award in Molecular Biology, the Wiley Prize, and the Darwin-Wallace Medal in 2019. Publications:

    Honestly, sincerely, if you were a shabbos surrogate, you could do no better than this misdirected, deflected collection. A guarantee of failure and misinformation, if not actual disinformation.

    • David Schmitt
      David Schmitt says:

      Alright. If you were to be given the task of writing an essay on saving the White race, could you do it? Supposing that you do not accept the premises of the assignment, that is fine, you can write a second essay explaining that position as well. But please do attempt your best at the first assignment.

      • Poupon Marx
        Poupon Marx says:

        I sense a vacuum here. This is similar to asking your server at a restaurant, “What should I order?” Please reread my comment AND study the links-which I am sure you have not done.

        Having done so, you should at least have a short list of strategies and direction. And then question for more precise illumination and exposition.

        • David Schmitt
          David Schmitt says:

          “These 3 articles are very verbose…”

          I do appreciate your irony. I think my original comment and challenge in this subthread I will let stand. I honestly did not get what your solution was from your original reply.
          Actually, your comment below, “In this video…” was much more effective. (You would not have seen my positive response to your following reply because my comment is still awaiting moderation as I write this.)

          I do not understand statements like: “I sense a vacuum here.” You offered a rather scathing criticism of the original article (and its author too, I think). Perhaps the aricle deserves to be thoroughly countered. But I did not see in the above comment of yours what I would expect as an effectively developed counter, despite its, to use a word of yours: “verbosity.” Your deluge of “facts” without development are jarring. Perhaps you need to write a whole article where you feel the freedom to give these items the attention that they deserve and to develop the meaning that you want the reader to appreciate. That would be quite nice.

  13. Poupon Marx
    Poupon Marx says:

    In this video><
    the similarities of Proto-European languages are exposed. These similarities and derivatives have gained universal acceptance by scholars and researches over centuries.

    This means-duh!-that we are genetically related to all these peoples and that these language admixtures and dissemination did not happen by electronic media, but rather by people blending, either peaceably or by force.

    If we wake up and see the obvious, it would be apparent that we ALL have very much in common. By recognizing this and promoting unity against the tsunami African immigration and Satanic Illuminati machinations and macerations, we could achieve collective security while keeping our native cultures and heritage intact.

    This means not being stupid or mislead anymore, hanging together or hanging separately. Our breeding stock is in severe decline, both in quality and quantity. The "Right Thoughts" and the "Right Actions", according to Buddha, are those that align with Universal Principles AND concrete, positive results. The Buddha thought more like an engineer than any "religious" leader in human history.

    I believe it is imperative for Western European people to produce offspring based on compatibility of IQ and CQ (Civilization Quotient). This means spreading the scope of potential mating partners. Examples abound. People of the Occident (which is a spectrum) should not be inhibited from mating with an Asian, if that is the best choice in all categories. There are many such unions that produce no disruption in cultural legacy or heritage.

    The outcome was not too bad at all:

    • David Schmitt
      David Schmitt says:

      Interesting. Indeed, people from these groups stretching to India do seem to communicate and work together better in workplaces than do Europeans and other groups. Let’s see what response you get from the T.O.O. readership.

  14. Sam J.
    Sam J. says:

    I’m not saying the author is a part of it but a central push of the Hasbara across many platforms by the Hasbara is to break up the US. I believe any effort to do so would lead to a civil war like in Yugoslavia as we are so intermixed. This would be an excellent way to cover their crimes.

    If just the blue States succeeded and tried to defeat the Red States they could not do so even with the full military but…if the Blue States could spark a civil war and then call in the Chinese we in the Red would most likely lose. They would be able to pour in men and material on the coast and overwhelm us while destroying our capacity to make weapons and move material ourselves.

    Yes it’s an outside odds sort of thing but you have to count it because the results would be fatal. There would be no recovery or coming back.

    If your enemy is urging you on to do something do you think it’s a good idea to follow their advice??? So I’m against breaking up the US.

    • Poupon Marx
      Poupon Marx says:

      I do not see adequate support or evidence from your comment. There are many factors to consider, involving consequences of action and non-action.

      • Sam J.
        Sam J. says:

        “…I do not see adequate support or evidence from your comment…”

        I know I see directly 100% people who are hasbara on unz that are one minute gas-lighting people about Israel and the next saying there’s no way we can live with these people and succession is the only answer. I mean you read this stuff enough you can tell the hasbara from a few sentences. You can also look at their earlier post and then I see almost word for word the same themes being pushed on many platforms. I suggest if you do not see this you are not paying attention or do not wish to see this. I know for a 100% fact this is happening. I’m not going to line all these up for you. They’re there if you look for them. That you do not see evidence from a few lines I comment means…well it means nothing so why did you make the comment? What does it signify?

        Plenty of others have seen the same thing I have and have commented agreement when I have pointed it out.

        Where is your evidence that this is NOT happening? Where are your facts and records?

        ” There are many factors to consider, involving consequences of action and non-action.”

        This is meaningless. You know you name reminds of a hasbara on unz. Look at this site, search for “Poupon Marx” and see how Carolyn Yeager, a great commenter, sees him.

  15. M
    M says:

    Fret not. The White race in the North America will not perish. She will survive if she wants to. Do what is under your right hand i.e. make more babies!
    All that will perish is her civilization; it is necessary if she wants to preserve her race.

    Her civilization was created, unbeknownst to her people, by the Anti-Christ. Waves of ***Gog and Magog*** took over the reigns of power in collusion with traitors from amongst her people.

    All that remains is for Imposter Israel to become the next ruling state, and for this, the USA needs to fall…

  16. Eric
    Eric says:

    We are in a battle right now, but it is only incidentally related to White preservation. On one side, you have the oligarchs, bankers, technocrats and media elite who form an international cabal along with their puppet politicians. Jews are disproportionately represented in this group and are the most powerful faction. They hate Whites and Christians especially, but they regard all non-Jews as cattle.

    The development of 5G, AI, IoT, Big Data, robotics, biotechnology and nanotechnology has allowed them to create a worldwide police state based on mass surveillance and a human-machine biological interface. The biological aspect is the robotization of human beings, which will be accomplished through implants that incorporate wireless signals and nanobots.

    To put it crudely, you will obey your masters and maintain a good attitude. If you do not, your universal basic income will be cut off. You will not be able to work, buy, sell, travel, or even leave your “smart” home or “smart” apartment. This tyranny will extend down to the smallest details of your life. Your “smart” refrigerator will tell the controllers whether or not you are eating approved foods. If not, you will be penalized. You will have a social credit score — in fact you already do have one — and you better make sure it is high.

    It is likely that not only the mRNA vaccines for Stupid-19, but even the invasive tests, are implanting microchips into our bodies to wire them into a control system, which no one will be able to escape.

    Right now, we are in an intermediary phase where some resistance is still possible. The controllers are worried (only paranoid minds could come up with schemes such as theirs); hence their hysteria over Trump, who was never really a threat to them. Hence their fence around the U.S. Capitol guarded by the military. Hence their hysteria over non-existent “White Supremacist terrorists” and their plans to crack down on all White people who do not bow down to them in abject submission.

    The more sophisticated among them, however, are NOT worried. Take Anthony Fauci — gaslighter par excellence: He contradicts himself, says the most ridiculous and transparently false things, and the sheeple actually buy it. They have been so brainwashed, so deprived of a philosophically transcendent — much less a religious — point of view, that simply saying “science” and “medicine” and “doctor” to them shuts down their minds.

    And I am not talking about the “dumb people” out there, the “uneducated,” whose minds haven’t been polluted with sophistries because they weren’t of an intellectual cast of mind to begin with. I’m talking about the “sophisticated” — the “best and brightest” — who fall into two groups, each one equally bad: the manipulators and the manipulated.

    Unfortunately, they are the ones who steer the ship of state and determine all of our futures.

    Now, let’s put this in the context of White well-being. Certainly Whites are in big trouble now. But the immediate threat to them is the same as the immediate threat to blacks in Africa, Asians in Asia, and Hispanics in Latin America. The threat is unevenly distributed, to be sure, and manifests in different ways: Millions of Indians will likely starve to death or die of malnutrition in the next year because of the effect of the Plan-demic on the Indian economy, caste system, and food supplies.

    On the other hand, we in the still-mostly-White West are the canary in the coal mine when it comes to the creation of a police state regime. The controllers want to smash us especially hard because we have been accustomed to thinking that we are free, that we have agency, that we have rights, etc. That must stop. And stop it has.

    The last four years under Trump — and especially the election of 2020 and its aftermath — have shown that every single institution in our society is corrupt and full of traitors to our founding principles: the military leadership; intelligence agencies; FBI; Department of Homeland Security; police, courts and judges, including the Supreme Court; education at all levels; mainstream media; social media; entertainment industry; fine arts, etc. All of it.

    And so we have been quarantined, locked down, masked, and openly attacked both as White people and traditionalists.

    Most of it has been done bloodlessly, with deception, gaslighting and brute force used only when needed. At the same time, the most unsavory elements of society have been given free reign. This all amounts to a big middle finger to you, me, all decent people — followed by, “And now what are you going to do about it, b***h?”

    And there’s nothing much we can do because — just as in the case with White solidarity — only a small group is inclined to resist the despotism.

    I only see two reasons for being cautiously optimistic at this point. O

    ne reason is that there is at least some resistance, just as there is some White survival instinct. But if that’s all we’re going to get, then we can forget about taking this country back or even getting a small portion of it for ourselves.

    The other reason for being cautiously optimistic is that the globalists — from what I can see — are not going to be able to overcome nationalism in order to create their World Government.

    China doesn’t appear to be interested and neither does Russia. Ditto India and Brazil. The trend now is more de-globalization than globalization. It’s just that we’re still in the midst of the process, globalization winning a few rounds here, nationalist populism winning a few rounds there.

    Given all of the above, I think we just have to wait and see what happens — while looking out for our own personal interests to the extent we can.

    We really don’t know whether this is a simple power play or whether there is something more behind it; for example, it may well be that the Western economies were about to collapse anyway, and Stupid-19 and the “Great Reset” (and the climate hoax) were just a way of diverting us so we wouldn’t blame the politicians and bankers for what was going to happen regardless.

    If that’s the case, we’re in for a program of austerity. The middle class is going to be shaken down to pay the bill that has come due. Even then, the economic collapse might happen anyway. Or there could be a civil war. Or there could be a world war — one that involves nuclear weapons or bioweapons (really deadly ones — though I think that’s unlikely).

    Anything is possible when a major crisis hits. It is a terrible thing to go through, but it can also be an opportunity. Out of the wreckage of a system that failed, ethnostates might emerge. Ideally, the first ones won’t be White. They’ll be non-White. They’ll leave us rather than us leaving them.

Comments are closed.