My recent TOO essay A Rejoinder on White Genocide generated a relatively large number of comments, some positive but mostly critical.  Editor Kevin MacDonald has kindly allowed me to publish this follow-up essay to address some of the many issues raised.  It’s an important topic for the alt-right, and it deserves more discussion than short blog comments can allow.  Hence the need for this essay.

By way of short recap:  I argued previously that ‘White genocide’ is a relatively useless concept.  The term ‘genocide’ has Jewish origins, arising out of Nazi actions in World War Two, and is hopelessly vague.  The formal UN definition includes “intent to destroy,” “in whole or in part,” a national or ethnic group.  It covers killing, of course, but also “serious bodily or mental harm”, and the imposition of harmful “conditions of life”, whatever those may be.  Rather than talk about some amorphous ‘White genocide,’ I suggested dealing in a concrete way with the threats facing Whites.  I defended a present figure of 800 million Whites globally—a number that will likely decline gradually, to 655 million in 2100 and to 510 million in 2200, under present assumptions.  I closed with a modest plan to rationally and humanely restore an 80% White majority in the US, primarily by incentivizing non-White emigration and birth-rate reduction.

But attacking the whole notion of ‘White genocide’ proved hazardous!  Clearly there is a diversity of views on this matter, which is both normal and healthy.  Concepts and strategies need to be debated.  Whites everywhere are undoubtedly under assault, and we need to understand this phenomenon, its causes and potential cures, if we are to move ahead.  TOO is an intellectual forum for discussion of concepts and theories related to White interests, rather than an activist site per se.  Still, the two realms are not independent; thoughts and ideas have natural implications for policy, politics, and social action.  My original piece attempted to sketch out basic governmental principles that would best serve White interests.  They were, of necessity, general and conceptual.  Below I will say a bit more about the pragmatic aspect of implementing such policies.

First, though, it may be best to begin with areas of common agreement.  I think it’s safe to say that there is broad consensus on the following points:

• The White race is of inherent value to humanity, and as such deserves protection and defense.
• Whites globally are under threat, due to (a) declining numbers, (b) declining physical, mental, and moral health, and (c) loss of political autonomy and self-government.
• Some of the threats are sociological, economic, or environmental in nature, but others arise from deliberate and intentional actions.
• The global Jewish lobby has an intrinsic interest in seeing a general decline in White well-being and a loss in White political power. They and their non-Jewish supporters pose the primary direct threat.
• Racial and cultural diversity has a net negative effect on human society.
• All humans are, by nature, best suited to live in social and environmental settings from which they evolved—societies that are broadly uni-racial and monocultural. Humans have little or no evolutionary experience living with diverse races or ethnicities, and doing so causes inevitable problems.
• From the early Industrial Revolution, modern society has enabled the mass movement of people from indigenous to foreign lands. Left to their own initiative, people will always attempt to move from ‘worse’ to ‘better’ societies, but if this happens en masse, it will contribute to the decay of the very societies that they seek out.  Such movement must therefore be stopped.
• The only long-term solution for many present-day problems is to restore human society to its natural and original conditions—uni-racial and monocultural, broadly speaking. This entails political separation and/or repatriation of minority peoples to their native lands.

Perhaps this qualifies as a ‘manifesto’ of White Nationalism.  It should garner something approaching universal consent. Read more

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
     -Santayana

Despite the abject accounts of Marxist “progressive” historians, the catastrophic events associated with the rise of the left are clear beyond all doubts—from the unprecedented savagery of Robespierre’s Reign of Terror to the fanaticism and obscene murderousness of the Communist regime under Lenin and Stalin, to Khmer Rouge Cambodia and Red China. Courtois estimates the global total of Communism’s innocent victims at between 85 and 100 million in the twentieth century. During the two years of the Great Purge alone, the NKVD [Secret Police the Soviet Union] executed 850,000 victims under the notorious Section 58 of their Communist penal code. But as Robespierre famously said, “You can’t make an omelette without cracking a few eggs.” Stalin said the same thing.

Santayana’s quote at the top of this article is totally relevant to today’s politics where Democrats are debating amongst themselves for the title “Champion of the Left.” In a funny, but not-so-funny PragerU video, people on the streets of New York City were asked whether or not a statement read by PragerU Host Ami Horowitz stemmed from the “Communist Manifesto” or the Democratic Party’s platform.

In the latest media offering to the American people, Donald Trump has been cast to play the roles originally played by King Louis XVI and Czar Nicholas II. Unfortunately for the studio, the ratings for their TV sitcom “The Mueller Show Trial” have fallen off as of late. But for the first two years of the Trump presidency the gullible general public tuned in for every twist and turn in the longest running, most boring sitcom ever aired on TV. But the slightest possibility of seeing Trump guillotined (okay, carted off to prison) kept them glued to their favorite device.

Make no mistake about it. The Mueller investigation was a show trial in the long tradition of the left. Stalin would have likely regarded it as a bit beneath his standards because Trump wasn’t guillotined, but it had a lot of the same ingredients. As Mark Levin noted, “There was no reply by the president that was permitted, no contrary witnesses, no contrary documents, no contrary evidence, no cross-examinations, no challenges of any type.”

Despite the fact that Mueller’s investigation into the alleged Trump-Russian collusion dominated CNN (and MSM in general) headlines since before Trump’s election, there was not a mention of Mueller by the CNN hosts of the Democratic debates in Detroit. After all that reporting they simply pretended nothing had happened. Of course, in a very real sense nothing did. None of the charges made against Trump or his associates that were related to any sort of collusion panned out. No evidence of collusion has ever been uncovered. Even the initial premise for the investigation and certainly its long, tired run were dubious at best. After two years of their “investigative journalism”, we now learn that Mueller himself was merely a puppet of a political witchhunt controlled by Anti-Trump Democrats, notably Andrew Weissman. MSM journalists never bothered to uncover or disclose the basic fact that the Mueller investigation was dominated by some very partisan Democrats.

And no one seemed to notice that the obscure Logan Act, never enforced in its 218 years of existence, became the pretext “to entangle the new administration in a criminal investigation as soon as it walked in the door of the White House.” Read more

“While anti-fascists had eroded the organisational capacity of the National Front in the late 1970s, Margaret Thatcher had stolen their ideological clothing. As prime minister, she had successfully held together a coalition of support with her blend of jingoism and watered-down Powellism.
Daniel Trilling, Bloody Nasty People: The Rise of Britain’s Far Right (2012)

A rising White Nationalist movement that is somehow stunted in what should be its greatest moment of opportunity. A politically incorrect candidate for office, seemingly unafraid to discuss immigration, and who uses controversial rhetoric touching on race to attract mass support and move victoriously into government. An anti-fascist and left-liberal coalition driven to apoplexy by the repeated intrusion of “racist” arguments and ideas into the national discourse. And a mass influx of coloured migration that somehow continues unabated, perhaps even getting worse. This would be a useful and accurate summary of Donald Trump’s first term in office, which continues to frustrate and confuse those looking for tangible results. As discussions continue on Trump’s putative utility for the anti-immigration cause and on the alternative possibilities of “accelerationism” under a radical left-wing Democrat government, the following essay attempts to offer some advice and lessons from history — a relatively recent history, and one in which all of the important aspects of the Trump phenomenon listed above can be clearly seen. As will be demonstrated from the example of Margaret Thatcher and Britain’s National Front, it is argued here that Trump is an obstacle, and not the way, to the advancement of the Dissident Right.

A Movement on the Rise

The years 2014–16 may in some sense be regarded as a watershed in the recent history of Dissident Right ideas in the United States, and yet they were truly dwarfed by the progress of the Dissident Right in 1970s Britain. Founded in 1967 from a union of the British National Party and the League of Empire Loyalists (and later, the Greater Britain Movement), the National Front was a vehicle for racial thinking and anti-immigration viewpoints at a time when Britain was being swamped by successive floods of coloured migrants from former British colonies. Much like today’s political context, there was a relative neglect of immigration and race-related issues by the mainstream political parties. In yet another important similarity, British industry was beginning to undergo dramatic changes, with the emergence of increasingly troubled and alienated classes of Whites forced to live alongside growing Black and Pakistani enclaves. Simmering inter-racial tensions were being managed, barely, via the gagging of Whites under an increasing number of “race relations” laws, devised almost exclusively by a body of Jewish lawyers. The National Front was able to exploit this context and force its way into the political arena, taking voters from both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party throughout the 1970s.^[1] During the period 1972 to 1974, the Front boasted an active and paying membership somewhere between 14,000 and 20,000, and achieved advancement during local elections in 1973, 1976, and 1977. Its electoral influence has been described by scholars as “significant,”^[2] and its cultural impact was such that every voter in Britain knew exactly what the movement was, as well as the basic thrust of its ideological trajectory. It was a movement on the rise, and confidence was high. Read more