My latest TOO essay, “A Thousand Points of White”, and the piece by Giles Corey that inspired it (“American Roulette”), have drawn over 200 comments combined—a sign that such matters are of some importance. This is unsurprising, given the chaos of recent months. It also provides a good opportunity to respond to some of these many comments, and to make a few observations more generally on the need and value of useful and constructive feedback from readers.
The two essays share several points in common. Both pieces emphasize the urgency of the White plight and the need for concrete action on behalf of White interests. Both mention the importance of the Jewish enemy, of the need for armed self-defense, and of the desirability to move out into the public—versus, say, spending all day writing blog posts—in order to effect change. Both essays argue that, at a national level, the United States is a lost cause, and therefore that action must be taken at a local level. To this end, something like “White autonomous zones” will be necessary. The result will be a kind of micro-secession movement.
There are, of course, some differences: Corey argues that virtually all future scenarios will involve massive violence and bloodshed, whereas I hold out the possibility of relatively civil political change. Corey calls for a concentration of White nationalists in rural states, whereas I propose local White autonomous declarations in all states and in all social settings: city, suburb, and rural. We both recognize the need for an economic response, but Corey suggests withholding federal tax payments, whereas I call for local, White-only currencies. And then there are some minor quibbles: Corey mentions the concept of “White genocide” but I have argued against such terminology (here); and he declares himself a Christian, whereas I have argued that Christianity is intrinsically anti-White and thus self-defeating for any White nationalist movement. But we won’t linger on these points. More urgent matters are at hand. In the case of a pro-White movement, our points of commonality are more important than our differences.
Reader commentaries, as usual, brought in a variety of perspectives. And as usual, the more concrete and specific that a given essay is, the more critical the commentary. Given that my piece was, by design, more specific in its suggestions than Corey’s, it seems that my piece drew the most criticism. And this is fine with me—preferred, in fact. Like all serious writers, I encourage and welcome critical feedback; this is how we all sharpen and refine our arguments. Here, I’d like to respond to as many of the substantive points as I can, and then offer some broader thoughts on the role and nature of reader commentaries at large.
The Good, the Bad, …
A number of remarks were substantive, coherent, and useful; let me begin with these. (I won’t cite commenters by name—any interested reader can track them down.)
The heart of my proposal was to conduct a highly decentralized effort by encouraging numerous local groups to create independent White-interest groups—perhaps as “White Lives Matter,” perhaps as something more innocuous. These groups would be (relatively!) low-key and uncontroversial, operating simply as a starting point to get local Whites talking to sympathetic others in their immediate vicinity. Of course, a public group, openly meeting to talk about White issues, is itself sure to draw negative attention. But this publicity should be seen as a positive development; it will force the issues of White interest and White well-being into the public eye, and in a way in which Whites will partially control the narrative (unlike today).
Once established, they would work, first, to make their local areas as White as possible by simply choosing local boundaries (neighborhood, city, county) and then discouraging non-white presence: “you are no longer welcome here” is the message to send out. And by this I mean: not living here, not working here, not attending school here, not making deliveries here, not “passing through”—nothing. This step alone could well be a long-term effort, taking months or years. But it would have a huge effect.
Once this was largely attained, the working group could then go on to a second phase, of exerting actual political control, at first by volunteer efforts and later by formal political and legal action. At that point, we might functionally have a real “White autonomous zone”. But again, this must be seen as a long-term goal that could take years.
All this would happen against a background of a decaying federal system that will become increasingly unable to exert its will in local events. At some point, they will huff and puff…and do nothing—rather as is now happening with the Seattle “autonomous zone.” Future developments will only work to our advantage.
Most commenters seem to endorse the essence of such a plan, and offer useful elaboration. One says “do not be overtly organized…do not have one leader,” which is in the nature of any form of decentralized resistance. Others call for “sticker campaigns” or pamphlets, which could be good advertising programs for White interest groups. One reader suggests we might need background checks on new group members (likely so, if they are unknown to the group), and advises that White groups control their own means of existence and communication, such as by owning their own meeting place and their own web servers. Others recommend low-tech communications, such as with good old paper and pen (right!), and that we learn to survive economically by withdrawing, as much as possible, from the corrupt, Jewish-driven economic system—which was the sentiment behind my suggestion of ‘Aryan Bucks’ as a local currency. A key objective, as one reader says, is to get other Whites to start thinking in racial terms—not to be ‘racist’ per se, which is obviously a pejorative, but rather to conceptualize issues in racial terms, even if subconsciously.
Some readers are concerned about appearing too obviously pro-White, and suggest various strategies for disguising this fact. “Blue Lives Matter” (pro-cop), “covert NGOs,” or otherwise Euro-centric groups may well be pragmatic options, depending on local conditions. But bear in mind, a main objective is to make White presence felt in society, as an active force; hiding or disguising the Whiteness of the movement undermines this vital point. Other commenters call for specific pro-White actions, such as homeschooling children, or offering financial aid for young White mothers. Another reader suggests pressing on weak points in the American Judeocracy, such as the Holocaust story—a matter near and dear to my heart! Yes, by all means, we must do everything to expose the weakness and corruption of the occupying power. As the same reader says, we need a multi-pronged approach to deal with this particular Hydra.
A few readers, however, want us to go further, and take more assertive action. My suggested approach is generally fairly mild, nonviolent, and legal. To me, this has the best chance of drawing support from the maximum number of Whites. However, and though I can’t quite endorse them, there are obviously harsher options available. Giles Corey cites the need for active, armed militias, and some readers clearly like this alternative. One commenter calls for “armed revolution” and the need to “blow these [expletive] commies back to the Stone Age.” It could come to this, but no need to jump the gun. Other readers are a bit milder; one suggests “a constant stream of small but unpleasant events” which could encourage non-Whites to move on, and another specifically demands that “Jews…and those who serve the Jews” in media, academia, government, etc. ought to “feel the pain”—hard to argue with these sentiments.
Such harsher actions are in line with my ‘accelerationist’ argument, i.e. that we ought to hasten the inevitable collapse of the irredeemable American system. Some readers object to my partly (but only partly) tongue-in-cheek suggestions that we promote immigration, affirmative action, riots, and so on. But seriously: The system cannot be salvaged; it is under the control of pathological, homicidal, kleptomaniacal fiends, and therefore it, indeed, needs to be brought down. Increasing multi-racialism will speed its collapse, as will economic chaos, environmental disaster, or extreme political paralysis. What, exactly, one ought to do to assist collapse is a complex and intricate topic that I cannot examine here. Simple actions, like voting for polarizing candidates or avoiding tax payments, have a role, but some will want to take a more proactive approach. One might study, for example, the history of revolutionary actions by, of all people, Jews and radical leftists, who, at various times in history, sought to bring down a hated government. Radical environmentalists are another source of information. For example, environmental writer Derrick Jensen wrote a mainstream book entitled Endgame (2006) that is surprisingly explicit; volume two of that work has a few sections on (wink, wink) ‘pacifism’ that describe how a mere handful of motivated and well-prepared individuals can wreak havoc on a nation’s infrastructure, thereby hastening collapse. Again, though I cannot endorse such actions, curious readers may want to track down that book.
…and the Ugly
On the other hand, I have my share of critics. Anything like a “White Lives Matter” will “never be permitted to form in 2020 America,” says one; such groups “will be snuffed out immediately.” My whole approach, according to others, is “a very bad idea,” “childishly naïve,” “not workable,” and is based in a “loss of perspective.” The proposal is hopeless because Whites have given “no sign that they want to organize.” My passing suggestions for acceleration of collapse are either “an extraordinarily lame attempt” at humor or “suicidal insanity”; consequently, I am either “not thinking very clearly” or else “a buffoon.” (I vote for buffoon.) Indeed, my (very mild) suggestion that individuals book a room somewhere in their neighborhood, advertise it as a meeting-place for a pro-White group, and see who comes, “may be the single worst piece of advice ever published” on TOO! Well!
The overriding concern of such critics seems to be that “the system”—that is, the feds, the cops, Blacks, antifa, disaffected youth, etc—will rain down on any such WLM group with such speed, viciousness, and brutality that it will make your head spin. “Hoards of brainwashed young White zombies” will eat your brains; you, your spouse, and everyone in your family will be summarily fired from their jobs; and your lives will otherwise be “destroyed.” Any pro-White movement will be “easily crushed” by authorities. “They’ll play Whack-a-Mole with you,” says one reader. Ouch!
But seriously—what is the motive for such remarks? First of all, the critics have no basis for claiming that my approach won’t work. In fact, local, decentralized civil resistance groups have a long history of effectiveness and success. Has my approach been tried, and failed? Ten, 20, 30 times? In various parts of the country? Until then, we ought not be so certain of failure. At best, the critics can say that they would not join such a group; fair enough. But don’t draw general conclusions from your personal reluctance to participate.
Yes, there will be resistance—from local law enforcement and local protesters, but not from “antifa” (whoever the hell “they” are). Certainly, a single large event, like Charlottesville, can be targeted by a large number of radical leftists. But that’s precisely why we need numerous, simultaneous, independent, local groups. Massive decentralization virtually guarantees that neither the feds, nor antifa, nor any large national group will effectively target you. My critics are overly-cowed by pictures on TV. Jews and their allies are experts at puffing up their perceived power. But outside New York and Washington DC, their power on the ground declines dramatically. The multi-city riots of recent days were conducted mostly by opportunistic Black criminals and random anarchists; it was not a centrally-planned effort, and such people pose virtually no threat to local White groups.
Furthermore, I hate to disparage commenters, but I can’t stop wondering how many leftist/Jewish trolls we attract here at TOO. Probably a fair number. We need to keep in mind: If someone’s “comments” or “suggestions” are virtually identical to what a Jewish or leftist opponent might say, then we need to take them with a huge grain of salt. Our opponents would like nothing better than that we do nothing—hence, for them, every suggestion for concrete White action is necessarily stupid, unworkable, or doomed to failure. Right. Don’t believe it. Critical comments are welcome, but they should be coherent and constructive. Mindless opposition serves no purpose, other than to cast suspicion on the commenter.
More pragmatically, what actual risks would White activists face? Is being fired a real threat? Perhaps, depending on the person and the circumstances. But first, I think such threats are generally overblown; a few high-visibility cases get lots of media time, thanks to our Jewish friends, but realistically, this is a small risk for most people. Secondly, there are large groups of people for whom ‘firing’ is not a threat at all: retirees, students, stay-at-home moms and dads, the self-employed, the family-employed, those with strong support systems (like unions), and so on. Not to mention—the already unemployed! Lots of those around lately. No doubt there are plenty of folks in a position to attend such a group.
And there were other minor criticisms sent my way. Activist Whites comprise only “a small, perhaps aging, powerless minority”—and therefore, what, we should just give up? And is there any data for such a claim? Regarding my reference to the conventional figure of 6 million American Jews, another critic claims “at least five times that number,” hence 30 million. Again, data? And again, does it matter? Should we therefore surrender? Then a reader turns the tables on me, asking for data for my claim that any nation of 330 million is ungovernable. This is actually incidental to my argument, but in short, to respond to the critic, there is a lengthy history—dating back to Plato and Aristotle—of a “size theory of politics.” This suggests that only small populations can achieve rational and stable governmental forms along with high qualities of living. Contemporary data suggests that 10 to 20 million is perhaps the most that can be rationally and justly governed. But this is a topic for another time.
The Judeocratic Election of 2020
If we wonder where our national politicians are, amidst the many signs of governmental breakdown and cultural decay, we need not look very far. By all indications, things will get much worse after the 2020 election, even if, God help us, Trump wins again. The implicit or explicit anti-White stance taken by virtually all politicians, left or right, and by virtually all news media (Fox included), is a consequence of the same thing: Jewish money and Jewish power. Even more so than in the past—if that’s possible—Jews have thrust themselves into dominant positions in both major parties. And it can only spell disaster for American Whites.
Regarding political money, we only have to take a look at the major donors to date, for the upcoming election. The website www.opensecrets.org is one helpful source. They list the “top individual donors” to date (here) for both “dems/liberals” and “reps/conservatives.” Click on the table headings for a sorted list. If we select for the top Republican donors, we get a heavily Jewish list; among the top 12 donors, half (6) are Jews, and another—the top highest donor, Richard Uihlein—has a likely Jewish wife. Jewish donations amount to at least $49 million of the $132 million (37%) given by the top 12. If we include Uihlein’s surely philo-Semitic views, the figure comes to $81 million, or 61% of the money, coming from pro-Jewish donors. Either way, the figures are substantially higher than the typical 25% that conservatives get from Jewish sources.
For their part, the Democrats are an utter basket case. Sorting the list for their top donors, we find, amazingly, that 11 of the top 12 are Jews: T. Steyer, D. Sussman, M. Bloomberg, K. Tinklenberg Jurvetson (probable), D. Simon, J. H. Simons, G. Marcus, H. Laufer, G. Soros, J. Bekenstein, and S. Klarman. Just these 11 Jews have given, to date, some $153 million to Democrats and liberals, vastly outdistancing non-Jewish sources. At this rate, something like 90% of liberal donations will come from Jews—a record-breaking figure, by far. No matter who wins in November, Whites lose.
No halfway-intelligent White can take such numbers lying down. Post-election policies will get dramatically worse for all Whites, particularly if Biden wins, and catastrophically, if Dems take the Senate. We can expect massive immigration and amnesty, Black and minority handouts, continued debasement of White and European culture and values, and substantial increases in Jewish power nationally. If you’re not ready to revolt now, just wait six months.
In the face of all this, is it asking too much to form some scattered White interest groups? And then to declare that enough is enough, and that Jews and other non-Whites are no longer welcome here? It’s time to be heard. Make a stand. Organize, speak out, defend your rights.
Corey ended his piece with an inspiring quotation from Oswald Spengler’s Man and Technics (1931). In closing, let me build on this.
In his final chapter, Spengler decried the corrupt, machine-driven civilization that was crushing humanity. We in the West have attained high culture, but ultimately “every high culture is a tragedy.” Indeed, “the history of mankind as a whole is tragic.” In this present world, “all things organic are dying in the grip of organization. An artificial world is permeating and poisoning the natural.” For Spengler, this artificial poison was “the machine,” but for us, it is our Jewish taskmasters. Corruption was endemic at the top: “The tension between work of leadership and work of execution has reached the level of a catastrophe.” Now, “it is mere human nature to revolt against the role for which the machine”—today, the Jews—“earmarks most of [humanity].” Thanks to our careless pandering to other nations and ethnicities, “the unassailable privileges of the White races have been thrown away, squandered, betrayed.” “The innumerable hands of the colored races,” Spengler says, “will shatter the economic organization of the Whites at its foundations.” “This is no mere crisis,” he adds, “but the beginning of a catastrophe.”
In his conclusion, Spengler is resigned: “Faced as we are with this destiny, there is only one world-outlook that is worthy of us”—namely, “a short life, full of deeds and glory, rather than a long life without content.” Naïve and optimistic Whites, believing that all will be well, display a shameful lack of integrity and courage; in the present situation, says Spengler, “optimism is cowardice.” The book ends with the passage on greatness and honor that Corey cited.
Now is the time for action. Take a stand. The sooner we act, the better for us all, and the better for the world at large.
Thomas Dalton, PhD, has authored or edited several books, including a new translation series of Mein Kampf, and the book Debating the Holocaust (4th ed, 2020). For all his works, see his personal website www.thomasdaltonphd.com
 Recently I have written (here): “Consider this question: What in God’s name (so to speak) is even remotely pro-White about the Bible? I’ll tell you: nothing. The Old Testament was written by Jews, about Jews, and for Jews. It is resolutely anti-goyim. It is nothing more than a war manual for the defense of the Jewish race, along with some moronic theological cover. The New Testament was also written by and about Jews: Jesus, Mary, Joseph, 12 Apostles, Paul, ‘Mark,’ ‘Luke,’ ‘Matthew,’ ‘John’—all ethnic Jews. The chronology of events, furthermore, strongly suggests that Paul invented his demi-god Jesus, primarily, it seems, as a stunt to undermine Roman paganism and to draw in the gullible masses, to persuade them to worship the Jewish God and his “son.” With its emphasis on the presumed afterlife, Paul’s constructed theology was profoundly anti-life, anti-world, and anti-corporeality. He never believed in it—that artful liar—nor did any of his fellow Hebrews. Present-day Jews are laughing up their sleeve over the foolish Christians and their ‘love thy neighbor’ and ‘turn the other cheek’; and of course, they are right there, first in line, ready to exploit that love.
There is no sense, then, in which the Bible is pro-White. In fact, the New Testament, rightly understood as an anti-Roman manifesto, is profoundly anti-White. At best, we might say that the Bible is pro-humanity. But even here, it is cloaked with an insidious Jewish leveling of all peoples, all ‘equal before God’—all except the Jews, who are first among equals.
The bottom line: Can anyone who worships a long-dead ethnic Jew as his god and personal savior really be alt-right? Really?”
 For those interested, see my books The Holocaust: An Introduction and Debating the Holocaust (4th ed.).
 The six Jews are S. Schwarzman, J. Yass, G. Palmer, B. Marcus, P. Singer, and I. Moskowitz. Uihlein’s wife is the former Elizabeth Hallberg. Hallberg (or Halberg) is a traditional Jewish-Ashkenazi surname. Furthermore, they have a daughter, Frederika (‘Freddy’), whose married name is Goldenberg. Not proof, but highly suspicious.