Editor’s note: I am moving (gruesome, as always) and will likely be away from my computer for a few days, so I thought I would post Chapter 8 of my 2019 book Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition: Evolutionary Origins, History, and Prospects for the Future, in five parts. This is the longest chapter in a long book and is basic to the entire project.

Human rationality consists largely of separating intellectual argument from personality attributions about moral character. Our difficulty in making this separation suggests that political, religious, and pseudo-scientific ideologies have been part of moralistic self-display for a very long time.
Geoffrey Miller, The Mating Mind[1]

This book has emphasized that the liberal strain of Western culture stems ultimately from European individualism which in turn can be found at the very origins of the European peoples. As noted in several places, a fundamental aspect of individualism 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. Reputation as a military leader was central to Indo-European warrior societies where leaders’ reputations were critical to being able to recruit followers (Chapter 2). And the northern hunter-gatherer groups discussed in Chapter 3 developed egalitarian, exogamous customs and a high level of social complexity in which interaction with non-relatives and strangers was the norm; again, reputation was critical to remaining in the group.

The reputation-based moral communities of the West thus have deep historical roots both in Indo-European culture and in hunter-gatherer culture. In Chapter 5 I noted that Christian Europe had become a moral community based on Christian religious beliefs rather than ethnic or national identity. Moreover, the abbots and prelates of the medieval Church, the Puritan and Quaker religious leaders of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and the liberal intellectuals of the nineteenth centuries discussed in later chapters carried on the primeval tendency to create moral communities as a source of identity. Finally, as discussed below and in Chapter 9, such moral communities have come to define the contemporary culture of the West.

These moral communities are indigenous products of the culture of the West—products of Western culture in the same way that kinship-based clans, cousin marriage, sequestering women, and the harems of elite males are products of the people of the Middle East.

My view is that the moral communities observed at the origins of Western history and surfacing recurrently in later centuries tapped into a pre-existing tendency among individualists to create such communities as a force for cohesion that does not rely on kinship relations. Particularly important since the seventeenth century have been the egalitarian moral communities based on a hunter-gatherer ethic whose evolutionary origins are discussed in Chapter 3. Beginning after World War II and accelerating greatly in the 1960s and thereafter, these moral communities have been defined by the intellectual left which is bent on dispossessing European-derived peoples from territories they have dominated for hundreds, or in the case of Europe, many thousands of years.

Moral communities are pervasive throughout the institutional structures of the West; however, because of their widespread influence, moral communities are particularly noteworthy in the media and the academic world. For example, whereas mainstream social science had been relatively free of morally based ingroup-outgroup thinking prior to World War II, such thinking has had dramatic effects on the social sciences and humanities in later decades, to the point that academic departments and scholarly associations in these areas can be accurately characterized as “tribal moral communities” in the sense of Jonathan Haidt.[2] This is most obviously the case in areas such as social psychology, sociology, and ethnic and gender studies.

The result has been that academic research communities and the media rigorously police research and commentary that conflict with racial egalitarianism or promote the interests of European-derived peoples, and these attitudes have been internalized by a great many White people. Researchers such as Arthur Jensen, Richard Lynn, J. Philippe Rushton, and Ralph Scott who attempt to publish findings on race differences or on public policies related to race find themselves socially ostracized, and they quickly learn that there are steep barriers to publication in mainstream academic journals and no mainstream grant support for their research.

For example, when scholarly articles contravening the sacred values of the tribe are submitted to academic journals, reviewers and editors suddenly become extremely “rigorous”— demanding more experimental controls and other changes in methodology. Such “scientific skepticism” regarding research that one dislikes for deeper reasons was a major theme of The Culture of Critique in discussions of the work of Franz Boas, Richard C. Lewontin, Stephen Jay Gould, and the Frankfurt School, to name a few.[3]

One result of this academic reign of terror has been that conservatives often self-select to go into other areas that are not so compromised, such as the hard sciences or computing; there is also active discrimination against conservative job candidates and Ph.D. applicants.[4] The system is therefore self-replicating.

Social Identity Processes as an Adaptation for Moral Communities

In previous work I have argued for an evolved basis for social identity processes.[5] People are prone to creating positively valued ingroups in which the outgroup is negatively valued—a human universal. The negatively evaluated outgroup need not be defined by kinship—cultural categories, such as “likes modern art” vs. “hates modern art” or if groups have different-colored uniforms (as at sporting events) are able to produce positive attitudes towards ingroup members and negative attitudes toward outgroup members. Because social identity processes are not necessarily defined by kinship, Western peoples are particularly prone to these processes.

William Graham Sumner was a Darwinian anthropologist whose work was mentioned in Chapter 6 as typical of the intellectual elite of the late nineteenth–early twentieth century that fed into the movement for ethnic defense leading to the 1924 immigration restriction law. He expressed the essentials of social identity processes as they play out in tribal societies as follows:

Loyalty to the group, sacrifice for it, hatred and contempt for outsiders, brotherhood within, warlikeness without—all grow together, common products of the same situation. It is sanctified by connection with religion. Men of an others-group are outsiders with whose ancestors the ancestors of the we-group waged war. … Each group nourishes its own pride and vanity, boasts itself superior, exalts its own divinities, and looks with contempt on outsiders. Each group thinks its own folkways the only right ones, and if it observes that other groups have other folkways, these excite its scorn.[6]

The only difference from contemporary research into social identity is that the references to ancestors of the ingroup and the outgroup need not apply. Sumner’s quote would thus not apply to the West where the important historical groups discussed here are not based on ancestry but on being a member of a moral community.

Social identity research conducted in Western societies shows that ancestry of ingroup and outgroup is not important for people having positive attitudes about their ingroup and negative attitudes about outgroups.[7] Within the group there are higher levels of cohesiveness, positive emotional regard, and camaraderie, while relationships outside the group can be hostile and distrustful. The tendency for humans to place themselves in social categories often has powerful emotional consequences, including guilt from violating group norms, empathy for ingroup members, hatred and discrimination against the outgroup, and increased self-esteem because ingroup members see themselves as a member of a superior group. For moral communities, this implies that ingroup members see themselves as morally superior and as acting from ethically pure motives while seeing outgroup members as evil, morally depraved, lacking all human decency, etc.

Attesting to the lack of importance of kinship for creating group conflict, ingroup favoritism and discrimination against outgroups occur even in so-called “minimal group experiments”—i.e., experiments where groups are constructed using random labels for ingroup and outgroup. Ingroup favoritism and discrimination against outgroups thus occur even if there are no conflicts of interest between the groups or indeed any social interaction at all. Even when the experimental subjects are aware that the groups are composed randomly, subjects attempt to maximize the difference between the ingroup and the outgroup, and they do this even when such a strategy means they would not maximize their own group’s rewards. The important goal seems to be to outcompete the other group. These studies attest to the power of “groupness” in the human mind—the tendency for even the most randomly constructed groups to elicit discrimination against outgroups.

My literature review concluded that social identity processes are a psychological adaptation (i.e., they are an evolved result of natural selection) designed for between-group competition.[8] For example, social identity processes have been found in a very wide range of societies, whether or not these societies are based on extended kinship. And they can be found very early in life—even before there is any specific knowledge about the outgroup. Moreover, cognitive processing of ingroups and outgroups is automatic—not the result of conscious reflection, but more like an innate psychological reflex akin to blinking in response to a sudden burst of intense light.

Another indication of the evolutionary origin of social identity processes is that these tendencies toward positive evaluation of the ingroup and devaluation of the outgroup are exacerbated by real conflicts of interest between groups.[9] In other words, even though relatively mild versions of these phenomena occur in minimal groups, they are much stronger where there are real conflicts of interests. This is important because psychological adaptations typically show graded responses to environmental context. For example, most people tend to have natural, reflexive fears of things that were dangerous over evolutionary time—things such as snakes, spiders, and heights—whereas this does not tend to occur with lethal modern inventions like guns or nuclear radiation. However, reflexive fear is likely to be less extreme if the feared object is caged in a zoo or if one is a safe distance from the threat. Responses are thus graded according to the intensity of the provoking event.

Recall in Chapter 6 that millenarian attitudes, while very characteristic of American politics, tend to go into dormancy, only to be resurrected in times of presumed peril or crisis—“the expansionist period, the Civil War, the First World War.”[10]

Like a recessive gene, in the right situation [messianic moral crusading based on constructing a morally defined ingroup] could become dominant. In the years preceding American entry into each of the great wars, there was first a period of passionate non-involvement. This reaction no doubt was perfectly natural, but there was a special moral tone to the expressions of political leaders; the wars, it seemed, were destined to catch the righteous nation in the old web. Eventually, however, the trumpets of Zion began to be heard, and a millennialist kind of enthusiasm was generated. The great wars of our history have all to a considerable extent been regarded as Armageddon—which surely was near. After the war had been won, and evil conquered, a permanent era of peace and prosperity would begin.[11]

In contemporary times, one thinks of the wars in Iraq and Libya, advertised in part as moral crusades to remove evil dictators, Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi respectively, and to install a democratic regime that would ensure a bright future for these countries. (In both cases, the wars have not quelled previously existing ethnic and religious conflict.) In the quote from Tuveson, notice that the political rhetoric of both the isolationist period prior to the war and the war itself is couched in moral terms and relies on creating morally defined ingroups and outgroups, as in the period prior to World War II when isolationists dominated public discussion (but not Roosevelt Administration policy) prior to Pearl Harbor.

Moreover, our contemporary political rhetoric is saturated with attributions of moral superiority, and increasingly we are seeing this rhetoric being linked to physical harassment and even violence. Because the left has attained the moral high ground in the media and in education (from elementary school through university), moral communities of the left are particularly powerful. It is not at all uncommon to see attributions of moral depravity hurled at conservatives and particularly at members of the racialist right.

Despite the current regime of relatively low-level harassment and violence, if history is any guide, we are still mainly in the phase of non-violent conflict. Condemnations of harassment and physical violence are still common among establishment figures of both left and right. However, this phase will likely be followed by assertions that any and all means may be undertaken to destroy the morally depraved enemy, including violence, with the stated goal of establishing a permanent reign of peace, love, and ethnic harmony. Indeed, there have already been numerous instances of violence by self-styled antifa groups.[12] This utopian future will be advertised in defiance of everything we know about human nature and the costs of multiculturalism, particularly the effects of multiculturalism on increasing between-group conflict.[13] 

The Role of Empathy in Moral Communities: Altruism—and Pathological Altruism

In a later section of this chapter on race differences in personality, I describe the personality system of Love/Nurturance and note that it is stronger in European culture than other human cultures (see also Chapter 3). Briefly, Love/Nurturance is an evolved system linked to specific brain regions coding for positive feelings in response to being loved and nurturing others; empathy—which results in personal distress at seeing the suffering of others, especially loved ones—is a central emotion of the Love/Nurturance system. The extreme ends of individual differences in the Love/Nurturance system are linked to sociopathy at the low end (callous unconcern regarding the feelings of others, lack of remorse or guilt, cruelty) to dependency disorder (overly prone to needing social approval and love) and pathological altruism (overly prone to guilt and empathy to the point of self-sacrificing, self-harming behavior) at the high end.[14] Because of its role in cementing family relationships and nurturing children, women are higher on the Love/Nurturance system and thus more prone to empathy than men.

Whereas sociopaths are unconcerned with receiving affection or being liked by others, people who are at least moderately high on the Love/Nurturance system value being liked by others. This tendency to want to be liked can interfere with rational judgments. The default mode of human reasoning is socially embedded in social interactions,[15] and social predilections, such as wanting to be liked, may prevent rational assessments of costs and benefits of actions. Thus people may make rational judgments based on data or past experience that enabling more refugees to come into their city will lessen social homogeneity as well as strain social services and the school system. But they may still publicly approve a refugee program because they would be more likely to get social approval from friends and neighbors in their face-to-face world. Indeed, they may go out of their way to advertise their attitude—what is now termed “virtue signaling.”

For individualists (i.e., people who are less prone to negative attitudes toward outgroups and strangers), being on the high end of empathy can easily lead to a pathological form of altruism where high costs can be incurred with no corresponding benefit. Pathological altruism is generally defined as focusing on others’ needs to the detriment of one’s own needs.[16] Such altruism, motivated by what one might label “hyper-empathy,” is more common among females­—which fits with females generally being higher on the Love/Nurturance system.[17] It can lead to pathological consequences for both the altruist and the intended beneficiary, as in the phenomenon of co-dependence where one person’s altruism facilitates maladaptive behaviors in another person, such as drug addiction by being overly solicitous and tolerant of another’s self-destructive behavior.

Normal levels of wanting to be liked as well as pathological altruism often involve a sense of self-righteousness, which can be translated as a sense of moral superiority that advertises one’s good reputation within a community defined, as prototypical European groups are, not by kinship but by conforming or exceeding the moral standards of the community. As noted above, such expressions of moralistic self-righteousness have a long history in Western societies and are very salient in contemporary political rhetoric.

It’s interesting that moral outrage, especially by males, acts as a cue to mate value in monogamous marriage that is a fundamental marker of Western social structure.[18] Since women want mates who fit into their moral community, men who signal moral outrage compatible with the values of that community are seen as good marriage prospects.

An example of how self-righteous virtue signaling works at the highest levels of government can be seen in the comments of David Goodhart, a liberal journalist on migration:

There has been a huge gap between our ruling elite’s views and those of ordinary people on the street. This was brought home to me when dining at an Oxford college and the eminent person next to me, a very senior civil servant, said: ‘When I was at the Treasury, I argued for the most open door possible to immigration [because] I saw it as my job to maximise global welfare, not national welfare.’ I was even more surprised when the notion was endorsed by another guest, one of the most powerful television executives in the country. He, too, felt global welfare was paramount and that he had a greater obligation to someone in Burundi than to someone in Birmingham. … [The political class] failed to control the inflow … in the interests of existing citizens.[19]

An evolutionist can only marvel at the completely unhinged—pathological—altruism on display here, given that the people making these policies are presumably native White British themselves.

As noted in Chapter 7, this overweening concern with people of different races living in far off lands at the expense of one’s own people was characteristic of many nineteenth-century English intellectuals, particularly those associated with Exeter Hall, who exhibited what Charles Dickens described as “platform sympathy for the Black and … platform indifference to our own countrymen.”[20] In his novel Bleak House, serialized in 1852–53, Dickens portrayed such sentiments in the character of Mrs. Jellyby, whose “handsome eyes had a curious habit of seeming to look a long way off. As if … they could see nothing nearer than Africa.”[21] Mrs. Jellyby neglected those around her, including her daughter, her thoughts directed instead towards the fictitious African possession of Borrioboola-Gha and her idealistic plans for its development.

It is well-known that massive non-White immigration has had negative effects most of all on the traditional, White working class of Western societies, while wealthier Whites can escape the problems brought about by immigration by moving to other neighborhoods—the phenomenon of White flight.  They also tend to have jobs, such as in journalism, that have not been impacted by immigration, although visas for workers in technical areas are increasingly common. However, contemporary liberal-minded elites throughout the West are indifferent or even dismissive of the negative effects of immigration on the White working class in terms of lowered wages,[22] lessened community cohesion and involvement,[23] and deteriorating public schools. As noted, in Mrs. Jellyby’s case, this included neglecting her own children—also characteristic of contemporary liberals who typically fail to think seriously about the effects of mass non-White migration on the long-term prospects of their own children as a minority in a majority non-White society.

Such expressions of high-mindedness are attempts to fit into a moral community as defined by the media and accepted by their peers. Because the left dominates the moral high ground, expressing empathy for the native Whites, especially the White working class, makes anyone with such ideas into a moral pariah, as would advocating for their interests, with likely negative effects on career prospects. Indeed, expressions of White identity and especially having a sense of White interests have been condemned by establishment media and academic figures as illustrating the lowest form of moral depravity.

Of course, the motives involved in such cases may involve more than empathy for suffering others. While these elite Whites may feel genuine empathy for suffering others in foreign lands to the point of wanting to inundate the West with them, they are also in effect buttressing their status in the morally defined ingroup. They may even be attempting to be “more moral than thou”—competitive virtue signaling—by out-empathizing others in the group. And whether consciously or unconsciously, they may be aware of severe costs if they fail to conform to the norms of their moral community—as well as the benefits of conforming.

As expected given the above-noted sex differences in empathy, women are more prone to pathological altruism than men—the prototype being the long-suffering wife who continues to nurture an abusive, alcoholic husband. Pathologically altruistic people respond very strongly to images of suffering refugees, immigrants, and other non-Whites. And as noted regarding empathy, there are specific brain regions that are activated when a subject feels sympathy for others. Indeed, Williams Syndrome, a genetic disorder, is characterized by being overly trusting and sympathetic.

The conviction of self-righteousness characteristic of pathologically altruistic people need not be rational:

What feels like a conscious life-affirming moral choice—my life will have meaning if I help others—will be greatly influenced by the strength of an unconscious and involuntary mental sensation that tells me that this decision is “correct.” It will be this same feeling that will tell you the “rightness” of giving food to starving children in Somalia, doing every medical test imaginable on a clearly terminal patient … . It helps to see this feeling of knowing as analogous to other bodily sensations over which we have no direct control.[24]

In other words, the sensations of rightness and nobility act as psychological reflexes, and they are so pleasurable that people are inclined to seek them in their own right and without regard to facts or the long-run consequences to themselves.

Talk to an insistent know-it-all who refuses to consider contrary opinions and you get a palpable sense of how the feeling of knowing can create a mental state akin to addiction. … Imagine the profound effect of feeling certain that you have ultimate answers. … Relinquishing such strongly felt personal beliefs would require undoing or lessening major connections with the overwhelmingly seductive pleasure-reward circuitry. Think of such a shift of opinion as producing the same type of physiological changes as withdrawing from drugs, alcohol, or cigarettes.[25]

Feelings of moral righteousness may thus be pleasurable and lead to addiction. “Sanctimony, or a sense of righteous outrage, can feel so intense and delicious that many people actively seek to return to it, again and again.”[26]

The pleasure of knowing, with subjective certainty, that you are right and your opponents are deeply, despicably wrong. Or, that your method of helping others is so purely motivated and correct that all criticism can be dismissed with a shrug, along with any contradicting evidence.[27]

This type of sanctimoniousness is, of course, particularly common among the people labeled “Social Justice Warriors.” These are the people screaming “racist,” “misogynist,” “white supremacist,” etc. at any seeming violation of the norms of the moral communities of the left. And, because of the cultural hegemony of the left, such people can often be seen on social media (and in op-eds in the mainstream media) expressing their moral righteousness—a moral righteousness that fits with or extends the boundaries of the cultural left.

Another aspect of this is competitive altruism or competitive virtue signaling. Given that expressions of moral righteousness are typically communicated in a social setting and are aimed at solidifying or enhancing one’s reputation within a group, there may be competition for ever more extreme expressions of self-righteousness—even among people who are not biologically inclined to be high on the Love/Nurturance system. Extreme expressions of moral righteousness are not only addicting, they may also raise one’s status in a social group, just as it’s common for religious people to express “holier than thou” sentiments. Strongly religious people compete to be most virtuous in their local church. On the left, we see vegan fanatics shunning vegans who even talk to people who eat meat or eat in restaurants where meat is served—even family members. I imagine there is a dynamic within antifa groups—the shock troops of the establishment’s views on race and migration—where people who do not condone violence or are unwilling to crack heads themselves are ostracized or at least have much less status.

The result is a “feed forward” process in which the poles of political discourse move ever farther apart. For example, well-publicized attacks on Confederate statues have quickly morphed into attacks on Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and Christopher Columbus. Sympathy among liberals for granting amnesty to illegal immigrants has morphed into calls by prominent Democrats to abolish the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE), make border crossing legal, and give them health care, driver’s licenses, voting rights, and ultimately citizenship. Inviting anyone remotely associated with conservative ideas—much less the racialist Right—to give a talk at a college campus has morphed from a tolerated rarity to a context for angry protests, rioting, injuries to conservatives, and damage to property.

Indeed, I suggest that this competitive virtue signaling is a major cause of the increasing polarization that we see in the United States and throughout the West in the age of social media. A Pew Research Center survey on changes in U.S. political culture from 1994–2017 found that the increasing divide between Republicans and Democrats, especially on immigration and race, was much more due to the median views of Democrats shifting left.[28]

Nevertheless, a theoretically similar phenomenon exists on the right as, for example, when individuals condemn others for being insufficiently militant or ideologically pure. However, because the left dominates the cultural landscape, such competitive virtue signaling has had most of its effects on the left. Such competitive virtue signaling from both the left and the right is highly characteristic of the social dynamics of social media sites and journalism.

People on the right face the danger of “doxxing,” having their identity and personal information made public. Hosts of shows in the mainstream media may have to cope with losing sponsors and hence their livelihood; e.g., as of March, 2019, Fox News host Tucker Carlson had lost around 30 sponsors, mainly because of his comments on immigration.[29] Or people may fear losing their job as a result of a phone call to their place of employment by a self-described “civil rights” organization such as the Southern Poverty Law Center or the Anti-Defamation League. This may well be why it is the left that has become more extreme in recent decades, whereas far too many on the right attempt to mollify their leftist critics by knuckling under to their moral righteousness.

The cultural domination of the left has meant that certain views are off-limits for all but the most daring. Thus, media sites like Breitbart and The Daily Caller, while definitely to the right of the mainstream media, avoid explicit advocacy of White identity and interests. Such constraints are much less apparent on the left, with the result that the left continues to get more and more extreme in their views. As I write, views on immigration noted above and on abortion (making abortion legal up until or even shortly after birth) that used to be virtually non-existent among Democrats are increasingly being espoused by mainstream Democrat politicians and pundits.

A critical consequence of this is racial polarization. White Americans have been shifting toward the Republican Party—the last Democrat president to get a majority of White votes was Lyndon Johnson in 1964. In general, this is an expression of implicit Whiteness (discussed below), as non-White groups coalesce in the Democratic Party. The point here is that such trends are likely to increase and polarization become more severe.

Go to Part 2. 

[1] Geoffrey Miller, The Mating Mind: How Sexual Choice Shaped the Evolution of Huan Nature (New York: Anchor Books, reprint, 2001), 332.

[2] Jonathan Haidt, “Post-partisan Social Psychology.” Presentation at the meetings of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, San Antonio, TX, January 27, 2011.

https://vimeo.com/19822295

http://people.stern.nyu.edu/jhaidt/postpartisan.html

[3] Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1998; 2nd edition: Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse, 2002), especially Chs. 2 and 6.

[4] Kevin MacDonald, “Why are Professors Liberals?,” The Occidental Quarterly 10, no. 2 (Summer, 2010): 57–79.

http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/Professors.pdf

[5] Kevin MacDonald, “An Integrative Evolutionary Perspective on Ethnicity,” Politics and the Life Sciences 20 (2001): 67–79; see also Ch. 1 of Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism (Westport, CT: Praeger; 2nd edition: Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse, 2002).

[6] William Graham Sumner, Folkways (New York: Ginn, 1906), 13.

[7] Kevin MacDonald, “An Integrative Evolutionary Perspective on Ethnicity.”

[8] Ibid.

[9] Miles Hewstone, Mark Rubin, and Hazel Willis, “Intergroup Bias.” Annual Review of Psychology 53 (2002): 575–604; Michael A. Hogg and Dominic Abrams, Social Identifications (New York: Routledge, 1987);

[10] Ernest Lee Tuveson, Redeemer Nation: The Idea of America’s Millennial Role (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1968), 199.

[11] Ibid., 214.

[12] Natalie Richardson, “Two More Oregon Men Left Bloody after Violent Antifa Attack at Portland Protest,” Washington Times (July 1, 2019).

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jul/1/two-more-oregon-men-left-bloody-antifa-attack-port/

[13] Frank K. Salter, “The Biosocial Study of Ethnicity,” in Rosemary Hopcroft (ed), The Oxford Handbook of Evolution, Biology and Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018): 543–568.

[14] Kevin MacDonald, “Personality, Development, and Evolution,” in Robert Burgess and Kevin MacDonald (Eds.), Evolutionary Perspectives on Human Development, 2nd edition (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005): 207–242; MacDonald, “Cutting Nature at Its Joints.”

[15] Keith Stanovich, Who is rational? Studies of Individual Differences in Reasoning (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1999); Keith Stanovich The Robot’s Rebellion: Finding Meaning in the Age of Darwin (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2004).

[16] Barbara Oakley, Ariel Knafo, and Michael McGrath, “Pathological Altruism—An Introduction,” in Barbara Oakley, Ariel Knafo, Guruprasad Madhavan, and David Sloan Wilson (eds.), Pathological Altruism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012): 3–9, 3.

[17] Ibid., 5.

[18] Mitch Brown et al., “Demonstrate Values: Behavioral Displays of Moral Outrage as a Cue to Long-Term Mate Potential,” unpublished ms, Fairleigh Dickinson University (2020).

[19] David Goodhart, “Why We on the Left Made an Epic Mistake on Immigration,” Daily Mail (March 22, 2013).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2297776/SATURDAY-ESSAY-Why-Left-epic-mistake-immigration.html

[20] Arthur A. Adrian, “Dickens on American Slavery: A Carlylean Slant,” PMLA: Journal of the Modern Languages Association of America 67, no. 4 (June 1952): 315–29, 329.

[21] Charles Dickens, Bleak House, Vol. 3 (London: Bradbury & Evans, 1853), 26.

https://books.google.com/books?id=KlsJAAAAQAAJ

[22] George J. Borjas, “The Analytics of the Wage Effect of Immigration,” Working Paper 14796 (March, 2009), National Bureau of Economic Research.

https://www.nber.org/papers/w14796.pdf

[23] Robert D. Putnam, “E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century,” Scandinavian Political Studies 3 (2007): 137–174; Salter, “The Biosocial Study of Ethnicity”; see also Frank Salter, “Germany’s Jeopardy,” You Tube (January 5, 2016).

[24] Robert A. Burton, “Pathological Certitude,” in Barbara Oakley, Ariel Knafo, Guruprasad Madhavan, and David Sloan Wilson (eds.), Pathological Altruism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012): 131–37, 135.

[25] Ibid., 136.

[26] David Brin, “Self-addiction and Self-righteousness,” in Barbara Oakley, Ariel Knafo, Guruprasad Madhavan, and David Sloan Wilson (eds.), Pathological Altruism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012): 77–84, 80.

[27] Ibid., 80.

[28] Pew Research Center, “The Partisan Divide on Political Values Grows Even Wider” (October 5, 2017).

https://www.people-press.org/2017/10/05/the-partisan-divide-on-political-values-grows-even-wider/

[29] Jeremy Barr, “Without Major Sponsors, Tucker Carlson’s Show Leans on Ads for Fox Programming,” The Hollywood Reporter (March 22, 2019).

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/major-sponsors-tucker-carlsons-show-leans-fox-news-house-ads-1196257

The War on Whites is moving to a higher level — fast. Signs are everywhere; they are undeniable. First and foremost, understand and accept that this is happening. For many, there will be no escape. If you are White and don’t yet grasp what is happening, quickly find out from someone who does. Lives will depend on it.

In my previous TOO article, I reviewed “collapse” novels by Matthew Bracken as a means to put average Whites in the frame of mind needed to accept that “our” government is now fully ready to attack us. All institutions are now arrayed against the White Christian founding stock of the United States of America: from the government, to the media, to education, to corporations, to the military, to the churches — all of it. And I know many of you readers see this. Some, however, don’t.

To me this is highly perplexing, as it is to TOO writer Thomas Dalton, who recently addressed this puzzle. “How,” he asked about such people, “can they be in denial of what is, from a rational and objective standpoint, surely one of the major problems facing civilized humanity?” Deny it they do, which is why I’ve tried a variety of approaches here at TOO over the last dozen years or so. For instance, in my Bracken review, I did something new in my writing: I deliberately crafted my account for normies, with no reference whatsoever to Jews. Surely long-time readers noticed this. While I did it in part to allow TOO readers to share my ideas and Bracken’s descriptions with those Whites not yet awake, my primary purpose was to create a sudden shock when this current review appeared, for the central message, the key to understanding the War on Whites is this: This war is being waged by the mainstream, organized Jewish community. This cannot be denied.

To my amazement, however, a hefty majority who correctly write about the danger facing the White race either fail or refuse to take their analysis to its obvious conclusion: Who is behind this vast swath of anti-White activism? I would have thought that with the release of Kevin MacDonald’s trilogy on Jews in the 1990s and its subsequent filtering into the growing culture of the Dissident or Alt-Right, the matter of who is on the attack would be settled. Unfortunately, it is far from settled, with a growing retreat from the obvious since Charlottesville in 2017 and the rise of “cancel culture” and deplatforming since.

Take, for instance, this typical headline: “These Key Similarities Between Lenin’s Red Terror and America’s Woke Culture Reveal Left’s Blueprint for Complete Takeover.” Shouldn’t that alert most educated people to the group we are discussing? I mean, right here in the opening of that blog, the author puts this in bold: “Cancel culture is the prelude to the rape, torture, and murder of the American people by a resentful underclass goaded on by a parasitic globalist ruling class.”

Say those last four words slowly: “parasitic globalist ruling class.” That sounds a lot like reporter Matt Taibbi’s excellent introduction to his essay “The Great American Bubble Machine,” where he wrote these immortal words: “The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it’s everywhere. The world’s most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.” Aren’t we talking here about some rather obvious, reliable identifiers here?

Readers, we are talking about the organized Jewish community. And it does no good to cleverly try to avoid saying this, mainly because Americans can’t figure it out if it’s not asserted in plain language. Thus, we have Andrew Joyce in “Vulture Capitalism is Jewish Capitalism” with his entreaty to “Strike through the mask!” Name the Jew. Joyce asserts that “the problem presented by these cabals of exploitative financiers will only be solved if their true nature is fully discerned.” Such a sentiment was immediately echoed by John Q. Publius when he wrote that the role of writers at TOO is “to shoulder our way into the conversation and show plainly the architects of this modern horror show,” be it in Washington, Hollywood or on Wall Street.

This present essay names Jews as “the architects of this modern horror show,” the sponsors of this War on Whites. In fact, throughout my entire adult life, I have seen (and experienced) an escalation of the Jewish War on Whites, something that was so thoroughly documented for us in Kevin MacDonald’s trilogy on Jews, culminating in his 1998 Culture of Critique. Since then, MacDonald, E. Michael Jones, writers on this site, and many others have added trenchant commentary on this existential threat to Whites. One indefatigable pro-White activist was the late Harold Covington, who wrote novels that began as The Northwest Trilogy, became The Northwest Quartet, then finished as The Northwest Quintet. Every man just listed insists on naming the Jew.

I wrote about Harold Covington and his Northwest novels precisely ten years ago here, and the uproar over that has been unmatched by anything I’ve written since. The late Harold Covington (he died on July 17, 2018) had many enemies in “The Movement,” but that is not the point that now concerns me. Rather, I’d argue that Covington’s premises in his Northwest novels concerning a Jewish War on Whites are more relevant now with a new Democratic administration in office than they were when I wrote about him ten years ago. So much in those five novels is what we are actually living through today that I want readers of TOO to imagine a world in which the United States Government is essentially at war with a huge proportion of the White population (and can later mop up the surviving “useful idiot” liberal Whites acting as foot soldiers in this larger War on Whites).

Because Covington was such a contentious figure, I will offer a brief defense of using his prose by turning to former editor of The Occidental Quarterly (who now runs his own site, Counter-Currents) Greg Johnson, who, in late 2009 or early 2010, wrote:

So, for the sake of argument, let’s accept that everything you and the other Covington and Duke detractors who have contacted me say about these men is true. So what? I am not entrusting them with the virtue of my daughters, or the control of my trust fund, or the keys to my home. I am reviewing and discussing their ideas because I judge them interesting and relevant to White Nationalism.

Further, one of the premier former writers in TOQ and C-C stables, Michael O’Meara (now sadly missing in action), gave an intelligent and rousing endorsement of Covington’s early Northwest novels, writing:

Political fiction has one overriding purpose: to reach those who can’t be reached through rational discourse. In this, Covington’s Trilogy is superb. It is full of memorable characters — classic American types (daring, two-fisted White men) who remind us of our ancestors and not the ridiculous creatures we see on nightly television. It abounds with actions and adventures that evoke our earliest racial memories and reveal what we can be once free of the Jews’ lunar spirit. It conveys the ideals of our movement in a language and style accessible to those who might otherwise ignore them. It tells an exciting story that is both entertaining and didactic. But above all it imagines a course of action — perhaps the one possible course of action — that will ensure our existence as a people. Whatever one may say of Covington the activist, it has to be acknowledged that he’s made a work of art of his separatist vision, and it deserves a hearing.

(I can’t resist noting that O’Meara himself wrote at least some things in a way that paralleled the Northwest narratives of war and violence. Frankly, I’ve always been surprised that no one has raised any eyebrows at the thrust of O’Meara’s thrilling book  Toward the White Republic [Counter-Currents, 2010] a used copy of which still lists for over $1,000 on Amazon.com. One of the last chapters is [literally] an incendiary account titled “The Hotrod of the Apocalypse,” which can be read here. The point is that O’Meara has an unusually deep understanding of Covington’s intent in writing the Northwest novels.)

Again, we hear all manner of advice on how Whites can move forward, far too much of which never names the elephant in the room. A man writing as “Chechar” does not have that problem, and he also recognizes the value of Covington’s thought as transmitted through fiction. “The notion that racialists follow the left’s Gramscian ‘march through the institutions,’” writes Chechar, “is equally unserious. Covington’s Northwest Volunteer Army is a hundred times more realistic than the thought of re-establishing the integrity of White life through elections or an expanded media.” The left dominates the universities and the media, and they will not surrender it. Academic hiring is rigidly policed, and the media is hopelessly anti-White.

If people do not realize the futility of hoping for elections or changes in universities or the media to improve the White condition, then they need to read TOO more regularly. We’re in a totally new environment here. Covington’s character Mr. Ekstrom knew this: “Things must change,” said Lennart Ekstrom slowly. “Every White man and woman in America knows it, deep down inside of themselves. This isn’t America anymore.” Now let’s see how one of the Northwest Novels handles this.

Covington’s novels appeared in this order:

The Hill of the Ravens, 2003
A Distant Thunder, 2004
A Mighty Fortress, 2005
The Brigade, 2008
Freedom’s Sons, 2011

In my estimation, the crown jewel among these five novels is the fourth, The Brigade, so I will address only that novel here. The Brigade encompasses all of what Covington was trying to accomplish in these novels, makes the outlines of the War on Whites clear, and situates it all in engrossing action.

My contention is that Covington gauged accurately the situation in America during his lifetime and correctly projected where that situation would lead. Events since the The Brigade’s publication in 2008 have uncannily mirrored Covington’s fiction and are therefore of great use today in putting our White selves into the drama and its inescapable dynamics. Thus, I fervently hope readers will enter not into the “What if?” realm of fantasy but into the more pressing “This is it, guys” scenario offered by a true visionary like Covington. The choice offered in all five Northwest novels is a stark “Fight or Die.”

Having relied on Michael O’Meara to boost the Northwest novels, I’ll crib from O’Meara’s synopsis of the Northwest Imperative. Covington believed that remaining Whites in America (and to some extent elsewhere) must separate from the irreparably anti-White remaining core of the United States, gathering in Oregon, Washington State and parts of adjoining states to fight for and preserve their existence by establishing a White homeland. Having dedicated this book to the memory of David Lane, Covington implicitly endorsed Lane’s enduring fourteen words: “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children.” The Brigade is a fictional but believable account of how that could be done.

To achieve this, Covington believed that “the present situation is such that any hope of reversing America’s ‘de-Europeanization’ or replacing the Judeo-globalist regime in Washington responsible for it is no longer feasible.” These novels as well as years of weekly broadcasts pushed the imperative for a White migration of “racially aware Whites to the Pacific Northwest — the Whitest section of the United States — to create there the critical mass that will be needed once the time comes to wage an anti-colonial war against the Washington regime.”

This rebellion begins with a puzzle, one that has endlessly intrigued me, and must have puzzled Covington as well: What would it take to get today’s Whites to wake up and defend themselves?

Covington was as mystified as I am, so in his novels he writes of how “Whites in Coeur d’Alene Idaho finally rebel, when they spontaneously resist federal agents attempting to carry off the children of a politically incorrect but well-regarded family.” This ignites a local reaction, and neighbors intervene. “They help arm, organize, and lead several hundred Coeur d’Alene Whites against the troops sent in to crush them. Their rebellion is quickly quashed, but, like Ireland’s Easter Uprising, it ignites a war for national independence.”

In short, Covington creates a story about the “Northwest Volunteer Army” (NVA)

as it leads an IRA-style terror campaign against the Judeo-globalist forces in control of the United States. The NVA’s struggle is greatly facilitated by the fact that in this future period American society and the US government have become even more incompetent than they are today. The US military is bogged down in endless Mideastern wars fought on Israel’s behalf; its social system is increasingly dysfunctional, balkanized into rival racial-ethnic interest groups; an ever-growing part of the White population, unable to compete with coolie labor, is condemned to unemployment or conscription; and the material prosperity that has long served as a race-obliterating opiate has given way to the growing impoverishment and alienation of the White masses.

Covington’s rendering of this White war for survival is gripping, compelling, and prescient beyond measure. I’ve read the book three times and without fail the 517 pages flew by as if it was only a few hours of reading. Remember, political fiction must engage the reader by methods other than the rational. Greater numbers of Whites can be reached by music, by public demonstrations, by humor, by political cartoons — or by fiction. Covington chose the latter. For the sake of our race, I want him to succeed posthumously, which is why I am resurrecting my original review of the Northwest novels through a focus on The Brigade.

Ironically, this war story begins with an account of a heterosexual couple with children, all of whose lives are sundered by the wife’s decision to divorce her blameless husband and begin a new life with her lesbian lover, just as Matthew Bracken’s second Enemies novel had begun. Here we meet some of the main characters as they carry out their decision to prevent this by executing both women. It is far from the first bloodshed in the book.

Next we begin to see the budding structure of the NVA, where one man says, “I look back at all the crap our people have put up with over the past century and I am still astonished that we never picked up a gun before. Why the hell has the White man never fought?” Correctly, this character notes with respect to the brewing War on Whites, “This isn’t an overnight development. This has been going on for 50 years. What the hell was wrong with us back in the 60s and 70s? Or even earlier? Why didn’t we fight?”

Group leader Red Morehouse zeroes in on the answer: “The White man can still show physical courage, yes. Lots of it. That courage gene is definitely still there in our makeup. But what we can’t seem to do is to be brave on our own, for our own interests, without the Jewish seal of approval. We have developed a poisonous symbiosis with the system. It needs us and we need it, psychologically. White males are addicted to social approval nowadays.” In other words, White people only act when their actions are consistent with the attitudes of the moral communities they relate to. And right now, the moral communities that are dominant in the West are created by elites that are totally and irrevocably anti-White. The Northwest Volunteer Army aims to establish a moral community that would approve of White rebellion, including military action, and provide the means to achieve independence.

Covington effectively shows how the federal government, as depicted in The Brigade, now very much sees the White man as an enemy. For instance, a Vietnam vet shows a photo of several young naval officers on the flight deck of an old carrier, and his friend says, “You mentioned once that [it] was taken when you were on the Kitty Hawk launching air attacks against North Vietnam.” “Yep,” replied Fields nostalgically. “That’s me on the left, Al Vitelli on the right, and Bret Halsted in the center. Al died of cancer a few years ago, and Bret died in Atlanta federal penitentiary. He … got five years for hatespeech. Judge went light on him because of his age. He was 64. The first day the guards simply turned him into the yard and the Black gang members beat him to death.” Is America heading into the summer of 2021 so different?

Turning to new member Bert, Fields imparts a point far more Whites must understand: “Bert, the America that we once knew, that we were born into, the America that you fought for in ‘Nam, that America is now gone. It doesn’t exist anymore. It is gone forever. It will never come back. I need to know if you understand this, if you accept it. Because if you don’t, then there’s no point in my continuing with what I have to say.”

If I were to give you five narrow-lines pages of notepaper and let you loose on the Internet, how long would it take you to fill those pages with examples of how America is now lost to us? Not long, I suspect. And the main reason for this state of affairs is spelled out in MacDonald’s Culture of Critique and other works. We face a Jewish War on Whites.

Media Silence and Distortion

Being a media specialist, I’ve known since the early ‘90s how awful the media is with respect to race—and I’ve known why: The media is overwhelmingly in the hands of Jews, and Jews are a hostile elite in White countries. One result is that the media has inverted reality and convinced many millions of Whites that Whites are savagely attacking Blacks, when the evidence overwhelmingly proves just the opposite. What a testimony to the power of media! What a tragedy that Jews control the majority of it, and even conservative media like Fox News completely avoids the issues so central to our survival and well-being as Whites.

Covington shows this in various places, such as in a conversation between two NVA rebels, one of whose daughters was brutalized by Black crack addicts:

“She wants me to take her out to the range shooting all the time. She always wears long-sleeved shirts and dresses or slacks, and never a swimsuit or a halter top. She broke off with Brad Gibbons, and she won’t date now. Ever wonder why? In Portland, she came home one night and found a couple of … crack addicts who had broken into her apartment waiting for her. When they had finished with her, they tried to stab her to death with a broken wine bottle. They didn’t kill her, but not for lack of trying. Her body looks like she was fed into a McCormick reaper, inch by inch. It was never mentioned in the papers or on TV because of the press censorship laws Hillary Clinton rammed through on her first year as president, the ones that forbid what they call racial incitement, such as reporting Black crimes against White people.”

Most readers of TOO know about this perverse inversion of reporting on interracial crime, as this blog and photo both show: “33 Whites Die (And ONE White-On-Black Murder!)”

Murdered White Victims

The truth is maddeningly simple to verify, but human nature crumples in the face of media power. Reality itself wilts when the vile power of the media blasts it at a billion watts a second. The truth, however, is constantly out there and can in fact be readily found. Just turn to Paul Kersey or revisit one of the greatest hidden Black-on-White crimes of the century, The Wichita Massacre. The truth is not hard to find—but paradoxically, it is impossible to see. Well, it seems paradoxical only to those who do not know about the evil surrounding the Jewish Question.

This media curse against Whites transcends the vastness of the Atlantic Ocean, too, as shown below, where but one Black victim of White violence has become a martyr in Britain, endlessly commemorated in the media, while the enormously greater number of White victims died in obscurity (see “Black Saints, White Demons: The Martyr Cult of Stephen Lawrence”).

Contemplate how one-sided this murderous violence is. Yet the majority of Whites, it seems, side with the narrative that Whites are overwhelmingly killing Blacks. Of course, the media is to blame—but can the media have that much power over the White mind, even when the truth is so obvious?

Covington ventures an explanation for this by creating a dialogue between a bereaved father and daughter. The father’s only other daughter, a beautiful young girl named Jan, fell in with a Black crowd at school, got involved with drugs, and started sleeping with the star basketball player, a Black youth who supplied her with drugs. In time, she got pregnant by him and was of course spurned. Not seeing a way out, she took her own life. The father, a quite affluent banker, tries to rationalize why the family must quietly accept their loss, but the surviving daughter objects to this rationale: “So we’re all nothing but a bunch of hogs slopping at the great American trough, and every so often the big Black butcher comes among us and drags one of us away squealing, and we just look the other way and accept it as the price of all that lovely swill and jam our snouts back in deep, so we don’t hear the screams? Is that it?” Sad to say, Covington is on to something here.

Another way the choice of fiction serves Covington well is in his ability to present a scene rather than make an argument. For example, instead of explaining how bizarre it is that American Jews are well above average income yet unceasingly claim to suffer from anti-Semitism, Covington uses a dinner to make the point. The Goldmans are a wealthy Oregon couple who will have a special $60,000 dinner flown in from Jerusalem, while a working-class White who hears about this gasps, “I’ve never even seen $60,000 in one place. My family has to make do with meat twice a week, and that’s with me and my wife both working. My boys will never enter the door of a college because they’re males with White skins, and we’ll never be able to afford to send the girls either.”

In The Brigade, the Goldmans have to pay for being part of this unspeakable crime syndicate, and two NVA members approach the Goldmans as they head for that dinner from Israel. “The two gunmen said nothing, but Jacob Goldman gasped out in a strangled cry, ‘You!’” Here Covington provides a philosophical—even cosmic—description of what this war entails: the biblical brothers Esau and Jacob forever in conflict, but this time Esau gaining the upper hand:

All four of them understood what Jacob Goldman had said. He did not know or recognize the men who were about to put him to death. They had always been far beneath him, part of the scenery he saw from the window of his luxury car or a plush office suite, animals who through some accident of nature resembled God’s Chosen People in outward form, but whom the sages of Torah assured him were beasts without souls. Yet he knew who they were, and why they were here. Four thousand years of racial instinct crackled in a moment of cosmic, hideous recognition and knowledge. A timeless drama was once again about to be played out, an ancient debt was once more to be paid, and blood was about to be spilled once more in humanity’s longest war. The men before Jacob Goldman could have been wearing Roman armor, or Crusaders’ chain mail, or Cossack leather and furs, or the Black tunic of the SS. Now they wore denim jeans and ski masks, but oh, yes, he knew them. Now he was going to die, because they knew him as well, knew him for what he was.

Affirmative Action

Another area Covington addresses is affirmative action and its negative consequences. In The Brigade, his examples might have gotten ahead of the real world, but the real world has certainly seen fit to catch up. For example, we just had the headline that “United Airlines Wants To Train More Female, Minority Pilots,” with this intro: “United Airlines, the only major U.S. airline to own a flight school, has kicked off a plan to train 5,000 new pilots by 2030 – at least half of them women and people of color.” If this 50 percent goal pans out, and worse, spreads throughout the industry, it isn’t going to work out well, as Covington’s delicious narratives demonstrate.

The first one involves Rabang Miller, a Filipina who has judiciously used affirmative action and a willingness to sleep her way to the top to become fairly senior in the FBI, lording it over competent and straight-laced White male agent Brian Pangborn, who is forced to endure Rabang’s untouchable status. Unfortunately, Rabang’s incompetence gets them quite killed in an encounter with the NVA.

Because Rabang and Pangborn are agents of the American government, the Northwest Volunteer Army considers them enemy combatants. As such, they are stalked by some volunteers. The White male’s warrior instincts tell Special Agent Pangborn something is amiss, so he turns off the highway to observe the behavior of the SUV behind him. All of a sudden, however, a Toyota Camry pulls out in front of them, and “Pangborn saw two men in ski masks leap out of the car. He heard the stuttering of the Uzi, saw the muzzle flash and heard the pop pop pop as the 9-mm slugs slammed into the windshield. The polycarbonate glass held, but big ugly White splotches blossomed on the windshield before him. ‘It’s them!’ screamed Rabang in terror.” Minutes later, both agents were dead thanks to the Filipina’s consistently foolish choices.

Covington’s tour de force depiction of an affirmative action disaster comes later in “The Battle of Sunset Beach,” which beautifully details the predictable consequences of real recent changes in the military such as this: “Obama started the process of turning the military into a social justice institution.  While Trump managed to slow the process, Biden’s administration, with help from a highly partisan Pentagon, is purging the military of people expressing views with which Democrats disagree while doubling down on race, radical feminism, and transgenderism.  Defense is an afterthought.” Here is the new face of the United States military:

28th United States Secretary of Defense

Covington imagines a battle of the new military vs. White male former soldiers. In order to end the “racism” of the “domestic terrorists” trying to create a White homeland in the Northwest, the U.S. government has sent a flotilla of ships to Oregon. Loaded with 1,400 FATPO troops (federal soldiers), the team is led by a Black general named Roland Rollins, who plans to make a MacArthur-esque beach landing to be used as a photo op. At the same time, the commander of the Coast Guard cutter protecting the convoy is a Hispanic woman, who reached her position as an affirmative action appointee. Unsurprisingly, she is woefully incompetent. Meanwhile, the Freedom Fighters of the Northwest have laid an ambush on the beach.

General Rollins’ landing plans involved grounding the ferry he is on, then lowering the door and wading triumphantly onto the beach as cameras roll. The result was “what happens in a system when you promote people into important jobs and positions based on the color of their skin or the fact that they’ve got tits on ‘em, instead of on their ability to do the job.” As such, Rollins waded off the ship, the powerful guns of the NVA opened up from the beach, and “Rollins whirled away into the air flapping like a scarecrow in the wind.”

The Coast Guard cutter commanded by the Hispanic woman could have been a very effective deterrent, but this affirmative action captain was a huge liability. In a priceless scene, she manages to single-handedly destroy and sink her own ship. And Covington makes it all sound plausible, so much like what today’s America has actually become.

Hollywood

As epic as The Battle of Sunset Beach is, however, one of the most important sections of the book is without a doubt Chapters 17–26 (excluding Ch. 25, which is the culmination of The Battle of Sunset Beach). The idea begins as “Taking Down Tinsel Town,” where the NVA hatches a mission to mete out some justice to Hollywood. The commander of the volunteers explains:

“After a lot of consideration, the Portland brigades have been selected to put together a special active service unit for a series of highly sensitive and risky operations, the first extensive campaign the NVA has mounted outside the Northwest Homeland itself. The name of this unit will be Task Force Director’s Cut. Its mission will be to neutralize one of the prime weapons that ZOG has in this war, which is the Hollywood movie, media, and entertainment industry, and to render that industry as useless to the enemy as we can possibly accomplish. Put bluntly, we are going down to Hollywood, and we are going to take the Dream Machine apart at the seams.”

Covington’s writing shows that he understood the disastrous impact Hollywood has had on the White world, as a commander of the NVA sums it up:

“Gentlemen, I don’t have to tell you that ever since the invention of the motion picture over a century ago, the movie industry has been the most completely Jewish field of private enterprise in the world, with the exception of international banking and the stock exchange. Even today, Yiddish is considered to be Hollywood’s second language…. Every crucial, non-technical job on the business and creative end of any major movie is either held by a Jew or is in the power of a Jew, from the studio heads, the producers and the directors, down to the scriptwriters, the casting directors, the agents, the accountants, and anything to do with the money…. This control by the Tribe is pervasive and complete, and it extends into television as well …

I do not need to tell you of the terrible and largely irreversible damage that Hollywood has done to the White race and to Western civilization over the past century. For four generations, the international bankers and the corrupt politicians have committed unspeakable crimes against humanity, especially the war after war after bloody war they have plunged our people into for Jewry’s sake, but it is Hollywood and Hollywood’s mutant bastard spawn television that has made the White people of America and the world swallow these atrocities and actually support them with enthusiasm. It is Hollywood that has spent the past 50 years pushing every conceivable kind of perversion of body and mind down the throats of White people. It is Hollywood that has turned the loathsome practice of homosexuality into something cute and trendy, the subject for silly jokes, when it is in fact a poison of the very soul. It is Hollywood that has turned White women as portrayed on film into either mindless sex objects, or else de- gendered, masculinized, man-hating neurotics. It is Hollywood that has poisoned the minds and broken the spirits of generation after generation of White children who are now beyond recovery, and turned them into whiggers. The bankers have stolen our money. The federal government of the United States has stolen our lives and our freedom and soaked the earth with Aryan blood, spilled to save a filthy race of Asiatic parasites. But Hollywood has stolen our peoples’ minds and souls, and in some ways that makes Hollywood more evil to my mind even than the sinks of iniquity centered in New York and Washington, D.C. Comrades, we will go down to southern California, we will grip this monster by the throat, and we will cut its heart out!” There was a cheer from around the table; the men found the project to their liking.

So a highly coordinated attack was launched on Hollywood, one which forced Jews there to stop their subversion of goyische society. It was an ugly mission, but a necessary one. And fitting, given that Covington ends The Brigade with the motto:

Ex Gladio Libertas — Freedom comes from the sword

Conclusion

Now here comes an odd circumstance: I’ve spent a lot of time describing a book called The Brigade, but it appears we can no longer get our hands on a hard copy of the book at all. I guess Covington was catching serious flak because he was flying directly over the right target.

I used to own all five Northwest novels but left them behind when I moved, thinking “I’ll be able to pick up used copies later for next to nothing.” Not in today’s world, however. While I haven’t done an exhaustive search for The Brigade, I have searched far longer than I normally do for something I really want.

Then again, maybe the lack of a hard copy is not that much of a hindrance, and the majority of those now interested in the book will download an e-version. Perhaps these sites will suffice: here, here or here. Otherwise, readers can assist us in the comments section.

We’ve come full circle. I began this essay by insisting that 2021 is the year that serious physical assaults on Whites begin. I then took readers through a fictional reply to what people might do to counter such an assault. In Covington’s novel, Whites fought and won. What about now, though? In the real world of the Spring of 2021, the tension is thick but no real action has yet broken out. What to do, then? Greg Johnson’s recent advice is no doubt good: “What should White normies do? Batten down, because a great wave of chaos is coming, and your skin will be your uniform. You may not want colored people as your enemies, but sometimes your enemies choose you.”

Or learn from the analysis of Andrew Anglin, whose coverage of BLM, government shenanigans, and the overwhelming role of Jews in it all has been exemplary: “What we are witnessing here, right out in the open, is a build up to a mass killing of White people. That is why they are trying to remove the police – they want nothing standing in the way of these Blacks and you.”

And still, I feel something is lacking, for a population as used to victory as Whites has become incurably indifferent. Thus, I am convinced of the need for a mental stimulus that will break enough Whites out of their stupor and false sense of prosperity and get them to envision doing something—and how to do it. And soon. To me, Harold Covington’s Brigade, along with the other Northwest novels, is possibly that stimulus. Before we stand up again for our own survival, we need the proper mental conditioning. As Michael O’Meara concluded, “Only myths can galvanize the collective unconsciousness of a nation.” The Northwest novels provide one such myth.

In another column I wrote in 2011, commenter “Trainspotter” sagely averred that “People don’t man barricades, they don’t risk life and limb over statistics. They need a vision, a sense of destiny. Our cause is far greater, deeper and more beautiful than any scholarly tome. The intellectuals are developing the vision, but the artist must give it life and spread it. People must feel it, not just think it.”

He’s right. Covington understood that as well, which is why I will close this long essay with the words Covington put into the mouth of one of his Freedom Fighters:

“Our goal is not to kill people, it’s to free people, our people, White people, from a government and a society that have become absolutely intolerable and morally indefensible, and to build something new and better in its place. What this will turn into, what it’s already turning into, will be a civil war between White people, maybe as bad as the one in 1861. But we’re going to win.”