White Racial Consciousness and Advocacy

Saving the White Race: The Problem and Solutions, Part 1 of 3

Note on usage: In this essay the racial designation “White” is capitalized when used to mean racial Europeans and not capitalized (i.e., “white”) when following common and official usage that includes non-European Caucasians, such as Middle Easterners and North Africans, and semi-European Caucasians, such as Ashkenazi Jews, in the “white” racial category.

Almost from the beginning of my thinking and writing about the existential crisis facing the White race I thought that the two most basic and essential pieces of knowledge that we needed to instill in our people were the enormous reality of the problem itself and the possible solutions to the problem, without which there can be no purpose to motivate constructive action and no goal to give us direction and guide us forward. Since the end of World War II, these two vital pieces of knowledge have been totally missing from the dominant, mainstream culture, which effectively censors or ignores them, or dismissively denies and condemns any rare mention of them that might emanate from the fringes, to sustain a general ignorance on the subject. This is not surprising, given that the dominant culture is intent on subjugating, dispossessing, replacing, and destroying the White race, not on saving it.

In brief, the problem is the ongoing dispossession and destruction of the White race. The cause of this problem is multiracialism, which is caused by non-White immigration which in turn causes racial intermixture, which is not possible without it. The solution to the problem is to replace multiracialism with racial separation—to restore the racial environment in which the White race existed in the many thousands of years prior to its settlement of the Americas—the environment that continued to exist in Europe until after World War II. The problem is existential in scale, with the continued existence of the White race at stake. A sufficient solution to an existential problem is one that effectively preserves and continues the existence of the White race—and not only a small fraction of it but the far greater part that can still be saved. This should be the purpose of any genuine racial preservation program.

I want my race to live. But it is being destroyed. How and why is this happening? The how and the why of the problem is one and the same as the cause given above: multiracialism, i.e., the inclusion of multiple races in the same political jurisdiction. Multiracialism is the direct and necessary condition of our racial apocalypse, the end of our existence. Multiracialism makes possible, enables, and indeed causes racial destruction through a combination of racial replacement and intermixture. Racial intermixture cannot occur without multiracialism, and with it can hardly not occur. It makes racial intermixture, and the racial destruction it causes, all but inevitable.

Multiracialism is the direct cause of White destruction, but why then do we have multiracialism? It is obvious why non-Whites support the multiracialization of White countries. It is in their racial group interest to do so because it secures their presence in White countries. But as their presence in White countries continues to grow, it is becoming more than presence. It is becoming power, control and dominance, and the White populations, in addition to racial disempowerment, increasingly suffer subjugation, and eventually persecution. But why have Whites supported, and continue to support, multiracialism and the consequent process of their racial dispossession? Why do they act against their ultimate existential interests? Why, in short, are so many Whites, literally or effectively, anti-White? Why is the White race so maladaptively and pathologically against itself and its existence?

There are two false premises or assumptions that help to sustain popular acquiescence and passive resignation to the anti-White status quo. One is the myth of stasis—the false premise or assumption that things will remain basically as they are with little or no significant change, so there is no problem, no need for a solution, and nothing needs to be done. This complacency-inducing premise had a certain credibility before World War II, or even before the 1960s, but the accelerating pace of racial and cultural change since then makes it increasingly difficult to sustain short of a delusional — and perhaps fearful or ideological — blindness that denies all the evidence of one’s own eyes. Yet the indications are that this myth is the operative worldview of the majority of Whites, rendering them effectively ignorant, with little or no awareness of the great changes happening to their race. Those few White politicians who have publicly acknowledged it have been those, like Bill Clinton and Joe Biden, who welcome it as a positive development. The second false premise or assumption is the myth of inevitability, acknowledging that the process of White replacement and destruction by multiracialism is occurring but believing that there are no feasible and morally acceptable alternatives, so it is inevitable and nothing can be done to prevent it. Both of these false premises—static permanence or inexorable inevitability—can in large part be attributed to a failure of imagination and vision, the inability to conceive or see other alternatives. But the simple fact is that there are other possible alternatives and solutions. There is a pathway out of the darkness and toward the light, away from racial death and toward racial life, as many, including this author, have proposed.

People and movements are defined both by what they are for and what they are against. When a solution — the positive “what they are for” — is missing, the response to a problem — the negative “what they are against” — can have little meaningful effect. Sometimes what one is for and what one is against is a very simple matter of either-or. In the matter at issue, either one is for continued White racial existence and independence—a position the dominant anti-White culture condemns as “racism” and “hate” (its code words for pro-White), or one is against them, the dominant “politically correct” position described as “anti-racism” and “anti-hate” (its code words for anti-White). In such cases, when there are only two choices, knowing what someone is against should, if they are logically consistent, indicate what they are for; however they might refuse to acknowledge it. So either one is for the preservation and independence of the White race, or one is against them. If one is for them, if one wants the White race to live and be free, logical consistency dictates one also support racial separation as the required condition for both, and then it also follows that one be against multiracialism. If one is against White existence and independence and therefore wants the White race to be subjugated and destroyed, then logic dictates one be for multiracialism as the most effective means to realize this end. The label “White preservationist” describes people by what they are for, not what they are against. The crucial point is that preservationists are not just against something, but are for something—for White racial preservation, and should place as much or more emphasis on what they are for as on what they are against.

Part I. The Problem

“Something is happening: we are becoming the first universal nation in history….if you believe, as the author does, that the American drama is being played out toward a purpose, then the non-Europeanization of America is heartening news of an almost transcendental quality.” Ben J. Wattenberg, The Good News is the Bad News is Wrong (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1984), 84.

“In a little more than 50 years, there will be no majority race in the United States. No other nation in history has gone through demographic change of this magnitude in so short a time.” President Bill Clinton Commencement Address at Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, June 13, 1998.

“[W]hen one population moves into a region occupied by another population with which it can interbreed, even a small rate of interbreeding is enough to produce high proportions of mixture in the descendants.” David Reich, Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past (New York: Vintage Books, 2019), 43.

“I think that the Dutch will in the long run disappear. The [non-White immigrant] ethnic groups’ population growth is much faster than that of the Dutch. It is obvious that this process will continue, even after the year 2100. This is the trend worldwide. The white race will in the long term become extinct. I don’t regard this as positive or negative. Apparently we are happy with this development.” Jozef Ritzen, Dutch Minister of Education and Sciences, interview in Algemeen Dagblad, Rotterdam, December 11, 1989, 1.

The crisis of White racial survival began with the colonization of the Americas and the resulting bringing together of previously separated races. But it was not the Spanish and Portuguese colonization of “Latin America” beginning in the sixteenth century that caused it. Even though it was the home of over 90% of the African slave trade and 90% of the aboriginal Amerindian population, it played little or no role in the development of the problem  now threatening the White race. What Harvard geneticist David Reich calls “The Great Mixing”[1] in Latin America was effectively completed by the beginning of the nineteenth century, forming the racial patterns of the region that persist to this day and didn’t really spread beyond those confines until the 1960s, when the racial problem had already started to metastasize through the Western World. The current racial problem began with the importation of African slaves into the English colonies of North America beginning in 1619. By the time of the first United States census in 1790 they numbered 757,208, or 19.3% of the total population of 3,929,214. The combination of their presence and the dispute over their status was the primary cause of the American Civil War of 1861–65, after which the racial situation restabilized into a White supremacist modus vivendi that lasted with little change, with one exception, until World War II. The exception was the mass immigration of Jews, beginning in the 1880s. Jews soon increased their power and used it to agitate against the pro-White status quo. Critical to their success was that they formed alliances in a campaign to promote unrestricted mass immigration, such as the “Black-Jewish Alliance”[2] which subsequently expanded into a broad coalition of anti-White elements as other groups achieved significant numbers.

This Anti-White Coalition, whose power increased after World War II, achieved cultural and political dominance in the 1960s. It consists of Jewish and non-White racial groups whose interests conflict with White interests in alliance with the varied White elements who are against their own race. It effectively dominates the entirety of the Democratic party, as well as the pro-immigration, globalist, anti-nationalist and “neo-conservative” establishment of the Republican party, the federal agencies and bureaucracies, the universities and educational system, most of the judiciary, and most of the  private business and corporate world, especially the financial sector and the communications, news, entertainment and social media. This anti-White power structure promotes multiracialism, non-White immigration and racial intermixture and thereby opposes the most important and fundamental interests of the White race: its continued existence and control of its own existence. This coalition more generally tends to support any policy — whether stemming from misnamed “liberalism” and “progressivism” or the more radically anti-White Racial Marxism — that is contrary to White interests.

The motivations and psychology of the Whites and non-Whites in the Anti-White Coalition are not the same. In fact, they could hardly be more opposite. The non-Whites are acting in the interests of their own racial groups, ruthlessly partisan and loyal to their own group in a manner as natural and healthy as it is intensely and primitively subjective. The Whites are acting against their own race and its most vital interests, their minds infected with a pathological and perverse disease that has overthrown and reversed the natural bonds of loyalty and affection, rejecting their ancestors, heritage, civilization, culture and history, expressing guilt and begging forgiveness for their ancestors’ alleged sins and their “white privilege,” something which — like “white supremacy” — could only exist in multiracial countries, since in monoracial White countries there are no non-Whites for Whites to have supremacy over or be privileged above.

Whoever supports multiracialization supports the cause of White racial destruction, if not actively then at least passively, whether admitting it to themselves and others or not. In the receding past, the Anti-White Coalition was too wary to admit this fact, hiding it behind layers of obfuscation, denial and outright lies. This is less-and-less the case, with the end results of its long-advocated policies more-and-more openly acknowledged as something totally positive to be joyfully welcomed and celebrated by all, even by the Whites whose race is being destroyed, and woe to those who see it otherwise.

In the aftermath of World War II, nationalist and pro-White elements were broadly associated or connected with “Nazism” and the Holocaust to discredit them and confine them to the disreputable political and cultural fringes. On the European continent they were officially purged, with hundreds of thousands killed (especially in France), imprisoned or removed from governmental, educational or business positions. In most European countries (later joined by Canada) the completion of the purge was followed by a ban — subject to fines, loss of position or imprisonment — of pro-White activity or dissent from the standard Holocaust narrative. Thus the elements that would have most strongly opposed the post-war multiracialization of Europe and the West generally, were removed from the scene, effectively clearing the path to White replacement and destruction.

Reductio ad Odium, Reductio ad Hitlerum and Reductio ad Holocaustum refer to three common reductionist responses to any pro-White position, policy or argument, dismissing it by equating it with one or more of the three “H’s” — Hate, Hitler or the Holocaust. According to this “logic,” Whites loving their own race and wanting it to continue to exist and be independent, is really hate for other races, on the grounds that non-Whites are the moral center of the universe so that any positive feelings toward the White race are illegitimate.

When I first began to express pro-White ideas during my university days, a common reaction was the equation of my position with “Nazism” and the Holocaust. When I visited Uppsala University in Sweden in 1989, I saw many posters around campus that read “Fight Nazism — Support Immigration,” advertising an upcoming rally in support of non-White immigration as the means to oppose and defeat Nazism. Leading Jewish activist Earl Raab, addressing a Jewish readership in 1993, wrote “We [i.e., Jews] have tipped [the population] beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan [i.e., pro-White] party will be able to prevail in this country.”

The above are just a few examples of the common identification of the White race and its most vital interests with “Nazism.” As they illustrate, since World War II, the Anti-White-Coalition’s never-ending and ever-expanding campaign against the White race and its interests has regularly been rationalized as a continuation of the war against “Nazism.” In this campaign, both “Nazism” and “Fascism” no longer refer to political or economic systems or philosophical ideas but exclusively to race, specifically to the White race, and particularly to any person or idea that is pro-White. Thus the label “Antifa,” short for Anti-Fascist, in practice actually means anti-White, and especially “anti” anything that is pro-White. The application of the “Nazi” label, and its connection to the Holocaust, has been expanded to include any who oppose the anti-White multiracialist agenda of White dispossession and destruction by non-White immigration and racial intermixture. The indoctrination in the Holocaust as a weapon in support of the anti-White agenda is perhaps the most pernicious aspect of this campaign, used to justify White racial replacement and the suppression of pro-White speech and activity.

The great majority of the U.S. soldiers, sailors and airmen who fought in World War II against “Nazism” had racial views which would today be labelled as “Nazi” or “Fascist” by the dominant Anti-White Coalition. The racial attitudes of the majority of White Americans were described by Swedish economist Gunnar Myrdal in his very influential 1,500 page study, An American Dilemma: the Negro Problem and Modern Democracy, published in 1944 as the war was nearing its climax, as follows:

There is no doubt that the overwhelming majority of white Americans desire that there be as few Negroes as possible in America. If the Negroes could be eliminated from America or greatly decreased in numbers, this would meet the whites’ approval — provided that it could be accomplished by means which are also approved. Correspondingly, an increase of the proportion of Negroes in the American population is commonly looked upon as undesirable.[3]

The stability of the pre-war racial status quo, which proved to be more fragile than commonly assumed, ended after the war when the rising Anti-White Coalition — already closely associated with race-denialist Boasian anthropology and the Frankfurt School of subversive “Critical Theory” sociology, both based at Columbia University — took effective control of the ruling establishment through its dominance of academia and the communications media. The long-evaded great decision of racial separation and White racial preservation versus multiracialism was now in its power to decide.

Figure 1: Boasian disciples Ruth Benedict and Gene Weltfish and their 1943 pamphlet The Races of Mankind

The “internationalist” racial views commonly promoted during the war are most prominently linked to Ruth Benedict and Regina (“Gene”) Weltfish, two disciples of Franz Boas and his school of cultural relativist anthropology, in a 1943 pamphlet titled The Races of Mankind. (Another Boasian anthropologist, “Ashley Montagu,” born Israel Ehrenberg, was the instigator of the similarly motivated 1950 UNESCO “Statement on Race,” which declared the racial nihilist creed that race and racial differences are nihil, literally nothing.) The pamphlet was written for the U.S. Army in an effort to change the racial views (what Wikipedia terms “racist beliefs”) of servicemen by indoctrination with race denialist propaganda.

By 1945 over 750,000 copies had been printed. It employed the common tactic of discrediting the reality of race and the importance of racial preservationism, and so supposedly justifying racial intermixture, by claiming that Europeans are too racially mixed, and so not “racially pure” enough by their extreme standard of “racial purity,” to be worth preserving. As Benedict and Weltfish expressed it:

[N]o European is a pure anything. A country has a population. It does not have a race. If you go far enough back in the populations of Europe you are apt to find all kinds of ancestors: Cro-Magnons, Slavs, Mongols, Africans, Celts, Saxons, and Teutons.[4]

Since Slavs, Celts, Saxons and Teutons are all European groups, a person who was a mixture of these groups would be a pure European, although not a pure Slav or Celt, etc., and it is either ignorant or dishonest to claim otherwise. Fortunately, this argument for promoting racial intermixture and opposing racial preservation is finally being conclusively discredited by modern autosomal genetic population studies, such as the 2014 study by Bryc, et. al.,[5] which shows the average proportion of European genetic ancestry among non-Hispanic European-Americans as 98.6 percent (Figure 2), and with 94 percent of European-Americans having no genetically measurable non-European ancestry. Regarding the pamphlet’s claimed African ancestry of Europeans, the Bryc study (p. 47) found that only 0.04% (i.e., 4 of 9,701 European individuals in the sample, or 1 in 2,425) of native Europeans in Europe carry 1% or more of African ancestry. Descent from Cro-Magnons is one of the distinguishing indicators of Europeans, and they are now referred to as “Early European modern humans” or “EEMH” in recognition of their at least proto-European bona fides. As for the claimed Mongol ancestry, the Mongol raids in the thirteenth century that reached as far west as Poland and Hungary withdrew as quickly as they came, and few of their rape victims would have survived to bear their children. So by any reasonable standard Europeans should be regarded as purely European.

Figure 2: Table 1 from Katarzyna Bryc, Eric Y. Durand, et. al., The Genetic Ancestry of African Americans,Latinos, and European Americans across the United States

The Races of Mankind caused something of a political furor that lasted through the 1950s, with Congress banning its use by the army as communist propaganda, and one of its authors, Gene Weltfish, was blacklisted and investigated by Congress for her communist connections and activities.

The pamphlet represented the Boasian way of thinking about race, which later became the standard view in anthropology and was endorsed with a 1948 UNESCO declaration. At the time, its contention that race was socially constructed was politically controversial…[6]

The pamphlet also provided the basis for the animated short The Brotherhood of Man (1946; available here), a very revealing early example of the anti-White genocidal campaign, sponsored by the UAW-CIO. The short was ostensibly intended to promote racial integration and harmony among automobile and other industrial workers, but is totally devoted to promoting the goal of “one-world, one-race” through mass non-White immigration into White countries. It begins with the lines: “Everybody has his own special dream of what the world is going to be like in the future.…[O]ne of these days we’re going to wake up and find that people and places we used to just read about are practically in our own backyard.” Sure enough, the White American wakes up to find his home surrounded by immigrants from all over the world, each with their own type of home and style of clothing. After an initial struggle against intolerance, hate and racism, it ends with the reconciled White American and various mostly non-White immigrants marching off to work together in interracial solidarity and brotherhood, dressed in the appropriate attire for their roles as raceless interchangeable cogs in the corporate system.[7]

The 1946 animated short The Brotherhood of Man based on The Races of Mankind pamphlet

In the early 1950s the short’s screenwriters Ring Lardner, Jr. and Maurice Rapf, and animation director John Hubley were, like Gene Weltfish, blacklisted and investigated by Congress for their communist connections. Unfortunately, in the mid-1960s the course it advocated was effectively enacted into law.

Figure 4: U.S. population by race as of December 6, 2020, as estimated by the author

Figure 4 shows the enormous changes in the racial proportions in the United States population resulting from the Immigration and Nationality (Hart-Cellar) Act of 1965 and the Immigration Act of 1990, which effected a racial transformation of the country that is still ongoing. The first opened the gate to massive non-White immigration and the second opened it wider, causing the non-White population to grow from 38.4 million or 18.9% of the population in 1970, to 65.2 million or 26.2% in 1990, to 135.8 million or 41.1% in 2020, an increase of 97.4 million in fifty years — 26.8 million in the twenty years 1970 to 1990, and 70.6 million in the thirty years from the 1990 Act to 2020. (The very large increase in the native Amerindian population during this period, which by definition could not have been caused by immigration and seems too large for natural increase alone, could be partly attributable to people changing their racial self-identification to Native American a la Elizabeth Warren, perhaps motivated by the declining status of White identity and the rewards of non-White identity.)

A similar racial transformation of the populations of the countries of Northwest Europe also began in the aftermath of World War II with much the same ethnic and ideological basis. In the United Kingdom, the 1939 Register counted 30,000 non-Europeans (i.e., persons of non-European racial type and ancestry, defined here as non-White) in England and Wales (i.e., not counting Scotland and Northern Ireland), about 0.073% of a population of 41 million. In the 1951 census there were 50,000 non-Europeans in the entire United Kingdom (i.e., including Scotland and Northern Ireland), about 0.104% of a population of 48 million. In the 1991 census there were over 4 million non-Europeans in the U.K., about 7% of the population of 57.4 million. By the 2011 census, two decades later, their number had more than doubled to 9 million (including about 900,000 non-European Caucasians who were counted as “white”) and their proportion of the population had doubled to 14% of 63.2 million. In that same year non-Europeans were 20% of the French population and both France and the U.K. were projected to be majority non-European by 2066, about one generation later than the projected date for the U.S.

A race can only exist in its full and complete form in a monoracial environment where its behavior, culture and institutions are not altered or distorted by the presence and influence of other races. When our countries are multiracialized, our existence as a race at the population level is destroyed. This is what has happened since the 1960s in all the countries of Northwest Europe and the New Europes founded and primarily settled by Northwest Europeans. Australia changed its laws to promote non-White immigration and multiracialism in 1973, Sweden in 1975, Canada in 1976. By the 1996 census, twenty years later, Canada had gone from less than 1% “visible (i.e., non-White) minorities” to 11.2%, or 3.2 million of a population of 28.5 million, and then in the 2016 census to 22.3% non-White, or 7.7 million of a population of 34.5 million, a 240% increase in twenty years. By 2020 Australia’s 3.2 million post-1973 non-indigenous non-Whites were 12.5% of its population. In the same year European Whites were already a minority of the U.S. population under the age of thirty, and the broader category of “whites” (i.e., including semi and non-European Caucasians) were projected to become a minority of the total population around 2043. By 2017 the non-European population of the eleven countries of Northwest Europe (Ireland, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Norway, Denmark and Sweden) had increased from less than 200,000 in 1945 to 41 million, or 14.5% of their total combined population.

So like the New Europe of the United States, the other New Europes of Canada and Australia, along with the populations of Western Europe can no longer be accurately described as racially English, Irish, etc., but as multiracial populations. Their governments no longer serve the interests of their native populations but those of the rapidly growing non-White populations that are replacing them.

The best means to counter the too common myth of stasis is to present statistics for changes over a period of time and then to project or extrapolate these trends forward into the future. With regard to demographic racial change this includes the rate of intermixture, changes in that rate, and their demographic effects. Phineas Eleazar, writing on this subject at the Counter-Currents website[8], has projected, based on his computer simulations allowing 28 years per generation, that in four generations or 112 years whites (defined as persons more than 95% genetically white) will be reduced to 8% of the U.S. population, and in six generations or 168 years to 0%. Persons who are “mainly” white (defined as at least 80% genetically white) will only be 33% of the population in four generations, 13% in six and 0% in eight generations or 224 years. The white proportion in the new mixed-race population will continue to be diluted so that in about 12 generations or 336 years “there will be virtually no people who have majority [over 50% genetically white] European ancestry.” Per this simulation, with whites reduced to 0% of the population in 168 years, in about 90 years virtually no more whites will be born in the U.S.

Until 2013 the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) provided the statistics for interracial mixture from 1990 to the present. After 2013 the tables were removed and the information could only be accessed with specialized software. Fortunately, before this happened, I took screen captures of the tables for 1990 and 2013, seen in Figures 5 and 6. As in all government racial statistics, some information is incomplete or missing. European White Hispanics are not separated from non-White Hispanics and non-European or semi-European “whites” are not separated from European Whites. Also 8.4% in 1990, and 9% in 2013, of the fathers of the children born to Non-Hispanic white mothers were not racially identified (“not stated”) and so their race is unknown, and it would seem reasonable to suspect that the rate of intermixture would be higher in this group than where the father’s race is identified.

Figure 5: 1990 CDC (Centers for Disease Control) birth data by race of mothers (orange MRACEHISP column on right) and fathers (blue FRACESHISP line on top)

Figure 6: 2013 CDC birth data by race of mothers (orange MRACEHISP column on right) and fathers (blue FRACESHISP line on top)

In 1990 (Figure 5) Non-Hispanic white mothers had 2,626,500 children. The fathers of 221,855 of these children were not racially identified. Looking only at the 2,404,645 fathers who were racially identified, 2,279,870, or 94.8%, were Non-Hispanic white like the mothers, and 5.2% were of a different racial category than the mothers. In 2013 (Figure 6) Non-Hispanic white mothers had 2,129,126 children. Of the 1,937,590 fathers who were racially identified 1,709,863, or 88.24%, were Non-Hispanic white like the mothers, and 11.76% were of a different racial category than the mothers. In numbers of children, this would tally to White women having 136,578 mixed-race children in 1990 and 250,393 in 2013, while White men fathered 92,789 mixed-race children in 1990 and 167,506 in 2013.

The above rates of percentile increase are consistent with an approximate doubling of the racial intermixture rate every twenty years since 1950, which would extrapolate backward to a circa 2.6% rate in 1970 and 1.3% in 1950.[9] If this past rate of increase continued, it would reach 23.2% in 2030, 46.4% in 2050, and 92.8% in 2070. If the future rate of increase were reduced by 50% every twenty years, half of the historical postwar average, the rate would be 17.4% in 2030, 26.1% in 2050, 39.15% in 2070, 58.7% in 2090 and 88% in 2110.[10] This would be about the time the Eleazar simulation (see above) projects white births would virtually stop, indicating his simulation falls between these two rates of increase.

I have previously estimated, based on the above assumptions, that about 2.1 million mixed-race children were born to White mothers in the 20-year period 1970-89 and 5.8 million more in the 28-year period 1990-2017, totaling 7.9 million during those 48 years.[11] Based on the father vs. mother intermixture ratios for 1990 and 2013 we can estimate that White men fathered about 3.9 million mixed-race children in the 28-year period 1990–2017 and 5.37 million in the 48 year period 1970–2017. This would indicate circa 10.5 million mixed-race persons with one White parent born in the 30-year period 1990–2020 and 14.1 million in the 50-year period 1970–2020. At an average of two mixed-race children per parent, this would mean about 7 million Whites have mixed-race children under the age of 50 and circa 5.25 million have mixed-race children under the age of 30.

The information from these CDC tables can help us to project the future course of racial intermixture as a dynamic process and avoid the common temptation to assume an unchanging state of stasis. As the past has recorded a pattern of acceleration in the process of White racial replacement, all indications are that the Anti-White Coalition, if they are able (i.e., not prevented by rising White opposition), will continue to make every effort to accelerate this process in the future.

These numbers, whether past, present or projected, must be regarded as extremely disturbing to any White person who wants their race to live and continue to exist, or indeed for any racial preservationist. But those who are supporting the causes of this destruction, are — at least where the White race is concerned — the opposite of racial preservationists. They are in fact race destroyers.

Factors Determining the Rates of Racial Intermixture

Since World War II, all the causative factors of our replacement have been accelerating, including the terminal causative factor of intermixture. Racial changes in the population, the measure of our replacement and destruction, are primarily determined by three causative factors: birth rates, immigration rates, and the rate of intermixture between the different racial elements in the population. Studies that project demographic change often greatly underestimate the rate of intermixture between the different racial elements as a result of a crucial flaw in their methodology. They typically either do not allow for the effects of racial intermixture at all, assigning all projected births to the same race as their mother regardless of the race of their father and the child’s own actual racial identity; they don’t distinguish between different racial categories with sufficient accuracy (such as the U.S. Census Bureau counting 91.7% of Hispanics or Latinos as “white,” and therefore their children with European Whites as White rather than mixed, when probably only 10—15% of Hispanics are White by European standards); or they base their projections on the current rate of intermixture, not allowing for the continuous increase in the rate of intermixture since 1950. This is a critical omission, for although the increase in the rate of racial intermixture cannot be predicted with certainty, it is likely to be dramatic if past trends continue.

The rate of intermixture is itself determined by three causative factors: the relative proportions of different racial elements in the population; the extent of contact between the races; and the degree of racial discrimination in the selection of mates.

  1. The rate of intermixture is effectively limited by the proportions of different races in a population. In a monoracial society different races are not present, resulting in reproductive isolation and the effective prevention of intermixture. Multiracialism is the primary cause for intermixture and the precondition required for the others. If other races are present only as a very small minority the rate of intermixture is necessarily limited to a low level. When non-White races are present in numbers approaching, equal to, or exceeding the number of Whites the potential rate of intermixture for Whites is effectively unlimited. It is not coincidental that the rate of intermixture has increased along with increases in the proportion of non-Whites in the population.
  2. Within the given proportions of different races in a population, the actual rate of intermixture is determined by the extent of contact between the races and the degree of racial discrimination in the selection of mates. The practice of de jure (in the South) and de facto racial segregation before the 1960s significantly reduced racial intermixture.
  3. If contact between the races is extensive, there is no reproductive isolation and racial discrimination in the selection of mates becomes the only effective limit on the rate of intermixture. Without racial discrimination in the selection of mates, if two races are present in equal numbers, and contact between and within the races is equally extensive, so that 50% of the pool of potential mates are from each race, there should be a 50% rate of intermixture. If the degree of racial discrimination is 50%, the rate of intermixture would be 25%. This discrimination can be politically, religiously, socially and culturally sanctioned and even enforced, as it was before the 1960s, or morally prohibited as it has since the 1960s. In the latter case, without any external support, the continued practice of such discrimination is totally dependent on the racial sense of the individual.

The rate of intermixture has been increasing and is likely to continue to do so due to a number of interrelated and interacting trends, including increasing proportions of other races in the population and thus in the pool of potential mates, more extensive contact between the races, a decreasing level of racial discrimination in the selection of mates due to social, cultural and ideological influences, e.g., the social stigma attached to racial sexual discrimination as “racism,” as well as the “snowballing” effect — the increasing momentum in the rate of intermixture — caused by the increasing numbers of mixed-race persons themselves.

Without significant change that favors racial preservationism, projections must assume the present direction will continue, and it is just the speed that is less certain. But whether slower or faster, the result or endgame is the same, per the old adage, “If we don’t change direction we’ll end up where we’re headed.” All that differs is the time it takes us to get there. We can predict that whatever the speed of our destruction, as time passes the effects and consequences of multiracialism will increase and grow ever stronger. According to official projections, which do not take into account an estimated 20 million or more illegal immigrants, “whites” will become a minority in the U.S. soon after 2040. Official projections of when Whites will become minorities in their Northwest European homelands generally vary between 2060 and 2080.

Go to Part 2.

Julien Langella’s Catholic and Identitarian

Catholic & Identitarian: From Protest to Reconquest
Julien Langella
Arktos, 2020.

“The absence of anger is a sign of the absence of reason.”
Saint Thomas Aquinas

For better or worse, I’m fairly certain there hasn’t been a Catholic in my family tree since the Reformation, and I remain unsure about a strict definition of “Identitarianism.” It was with an ambivalent but open mind, then, that I recently read Julien Langella’s Catholic & Identitarian, a furious lament on the present condition of France and a firm apologetic for ethnic activism among Christians. Such a text is surely needed. In May 2016 I wrote a scathing essay on Christian attitudes to, and activism on behalf of, mass migration, prompted by the foot-kissing antics of Pope Francis, described in the essay as “the personification of a sick glorification of humility and weakness.” Although I focused for the most part on the Catholic Church, I took aim at all denominations with the demand that “Those who describe themselves as Christian White advocates need to become more vocal in articulating a more ethnocentric or culture-based theology that their co-religionists will find convincing. It is simply not enough to hope that Nationalists can achieve something politically and then come to the rescue of the churches.” Julien Langella, one of the co-founders of Génération Identitaire and whose text first appeared in French in 2017, has provided an admirable response to this problem that will appeal to, and educate, readers of all religious backgrounds and none.

Is this a Catholic book? Yes and no. Religious elements of the text are, thankfully in my opinion, framed as a backdrop to the primary concern: the French are facing the gradual but imminent replacement of their ethnic group in their own homeland. Langella’s central ambition in the book is therefore to explain and condemn this Great Replacement while stressing how Catholicism (and other important facets of the traditional and ancestral life of the French) could and should be used as an underpinning for a resurgent French “Identitarianism.” Langella helpfully avoids some of the clichés of the “TradCath” social media scene by demonstrating an impressive grasp of historical Catholic literature as well as a mature and wide-ranging understanding of many of the contemporary political, ideological, and economic currents that have combined against the European peoples. Most important of all, he is honest in his criticisms of the prevailing attitudes of the Catholic Church on mass migration and ethnicity, devoting one section of the book to a dissection of Pope Francis himself. Unashamedly local in concern, yet avoiding a parochialism that ignores the need for Europeans to unite on some level, Catholic & Identitarian is the most impassioned warning and call to action that I’ve read since Guillaume Faye’s blistering Ethnic Apocalypse (2019).

The book is divided into five chapters, each of which is subdivided into lesser sections. Some of the latter are just a few paragraphs long, which gives the book a sense of fast pacing despite the heavy subject matter often under discussion. The writing style is punchy and straightforward, and mercifully devoid of jargon. The text opens with an interesting Preface from Abbot Guillaume de Tanoüarn, who has previously made headlines in France for resisting the police-enforced demolition of churches. Abbot Guillaume uses his Preface to make the moral and spiritual case for ethnocentrism among Europeans, commenting that “the crisis we face is a moral crisis, and because of its rootedness, because what is at stake is the identity of each of us, one can even say that, deep down, it is also a spiritual crisis.” Individualism is regarded as a cancer, because the common good, or communicatio, of a nation is “not founded on individuals who are magically stuck together, but on families who, in the Christian model of society which prevailed in the West, represent a union of two sexes in “one flesh,” according to the law of love.” Against the organic community, “it has become fashionable in the media to question identity, to stigmatise attachment to soil and traditions. It is almost as if any prior spiritual wealth, anything greater than the Individual, has become suspicious, or has transformed into some new bizarre metaphysical paradigm.” Abbot Guillaume laments the arrival of a perception that individual “freedom encounters no other limit, no other boundary than the liberty of others in a world where neither good nor evil has the slightest meaning.”

Abbot Guillaume dragged from St Rita church, Paris by riot police in 2016

For Abbot Guillaume, “identity is inherited,” and “among the facts that condition individuals, ethnic origin has its place. … There obviously exist different ethnic origins.” He pours scorn on “the ideology of mandatory miscegenation, which includes an infatuation with quotas and the compulsive glorification of diversity on the “American model,” for which one carefully fails to set limits and ignores in particular the violence it often entails,” and endorses the message of Langella that “miscegenation does not enrich; it impoverishes.” The Abbot closes his Preface with the wish that “the ideology of globalism, as all ideologies, will one day explode like a bubble in response to the urgency of natural politics.”

Julien Langella’s brief introductory chapter sets the scene. Catholicism is on the decline in France, and rather than being incremental, “the collapse is brutal.” More than just a lack of faith and adherence, French society has turned radically to open effronteries to the historical faith: “working on Sundays, homosexual parody of marriage, legalisation of euthanasia, consecration of abortion as a fundamental right, trafficking of women’s bodies through surrogate mothers etc.” The religious decline has occurred alongside massive demographic change, with 20% of the French population now of foreign origin. Langella makes the argument that “De-Christianisation and the Great Replacement go hand in hand,” with Western spirituality, if it exists at all, now being replaced by “an obsession with ‘well-being,’ a kind of Westernized Buddhism” (which I have demonstrated elsewhere is heavily Jewish) and “the cult of the god Consumerism.” Against this spiritual and moral decline, Langella proposes a militant Catholicism typified by the statements of Dom Gérard Calvet, founder of the Sainte Madeleine du Barroux abbey in Le Barroux, who declared his violent antipathy to “the globalist heresy” that wants to “simultaneously eradicate the faith and dissolve the people into a consumerist blob.” Langella asserts that “multicultural societies, sinking ever more each into violence, are doomed to perish,” and celebrates the fact that Catholic voters in France are increasingly turning to ethnocentrism, voting for the Front National in higher percentages than the national average. Langella argues that these voters and activists should gather under the banner of “Identitarianism.”

Why Identitarianism? Langella explains that “nationalist” is a tainted word in France that has “never won general support.” While there is “no academic definition” of Identitarianism because “it does not correspond to any specific school of thought or specific doctrine,” it amounts to an “awareness”: “multicultural societies are multi-conflictual societies, and the homogeneity of a nation determines its survival.” He adds, “to be Identitarian is to reject the commercial standardisation of way of life at the global level, immigration through non-European settlement, and the increasing Islamisation of our streets.” All of which can be summed up in Langella’s stark statement: “If the French disappear, then France dies. … Globalism is a culture of death, and the Identitarian struggle is a march for life.” The introduction closes by making the claim that Christian charity and the struggle for identity are not contradictory:

To claim to accommodate all the misery of the world is not charity. At best, it is weakness and laxity. At worst, it is a calculation in favour of the interest of those who profit from servile labour and a cheap market. The foreigner also has a homeland and a right to live well there, a right to rootedness. Therefore, to accept an uncontrolled flow of immigrants into our country is not the solution to the miseries of Africa and the Middle East. On the contrary, it gives a moral guarantee to those who would transform these unfortunate people into urban slaves. Between the false generosity of pro-immigration lobbies and the cynical “compassion” of certain shady employers, there lies a world of hypocrisy.

The book’s first, and most Catholic, chapter, “Catholic and Indentitarian, Universal and Rooted,” is a prolonged argument against those who have asserted that “total open borders is the only possible Christian position on the subject.” Langella describes the “twisting” of scriptures to defend such an agenda as an act of “moral terrorism,” “perverse ideological manipulation,” and “an idolatry of humanity, a new golden calf, rather than faith in the incarnate God.” For Langella, and the many Catholic thinkers he cites, unity in the Church is not equivalent to the “absurd relativism which prides itself in loving everyone, while it despises everything by placing them on the same level under the pretext of equality.” For Dom Gérard Calvet, such an idea is an example of “ancient Christian virtues twisted into foolishness,” while Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI, once wrote that “Man absolutely cannot by himself bring about world unity, for division is imposed upon him by the sovereign will of God.” Both were echoing the sentiments of Pope Pius XII, who declared that it was not the position of the Church “to attack or underestimate the particular characteristics that each people, with a jealous piety and an understandable pride, retains and considers as a precious heritage. Her purpose is the supernatural unity in universal love felt and practiced, and not in an exclusively exterior, superficial, and thus debilitating, uniformity.”

Identitarian activist and father-of-three: Julien Langella

While Langella proves himself very capable of selecting some choice Traditionalist quotes, he is equally at pains to admit that “certain clergy — priests, bishops, and even cardinals — are among the first to uphold an unnatural Manicheism that opposes the Gospel to patriotism.” These clerics, spouting “nonsense” and endlessly agitating against the Front National, empty France “of much of her substance, reducing her to a collection of principles, at best “Christian values,” which is to say welcoming migrants, while “remaining more indulgent with the politics supportive of the legalisation of divorce, contraception, and abortion.” Citing Pius XII, Augustine, and Thomas Aquinas, Langella makes the argument that Christian charity must always begin at home, in “an order established by God.” In fact, Langella posits that “National preference is a fundamental Christian virtue.” What follows is a brief but interesting historical tour of Catholic mystics and clergy who undertook war against Islamic incursions, with Langella concluding that “defense of the homeland and defense of the Faith are a single entity in the face of the invading Muslim.”

The chapter closes with a survey of the facts demonstrating the reality of race, and the assertion that Catholicism cannot, and should not, deny it. Incorporating everything from Edmund Burke to Pope Pius XI and the findings of modern genetic studies, it’s a powerful apologetic for prejudice, with Langella asserting that “refusing prejudice is a moral blackmail, a weapon of intimidation against Europeans who are disgusted with invasion-migration. … In forbidding us from exercising the virtue of prejudice, the globalists want to force us to consent to our own disappearance under the wave of the Great Replacement.” He closes with a statement from Benedict XVI: “Nations should never accept to witness the disappearance of what made their own identity.”

The text’s second chapter, “The Religion of Miscegenation,” largely departs from spiritual discussion and context, and provides a very interesting exploration of multiculturalism that will provide food for thought for Whites of all religious persuasions —or none. For Langella, “Gender theory and multiculturalism have the same philosophical origin: liberal narcissism. … To fight gender theory and to ignore multiculturalism is totally contradictory.” The chapter moves on to a lengthy exploration of the nature and extent of miscegenation propaganda in France, which includes a national campaign poster promoting breastfeeding featuring blonde women with Black infants pressed to their chests. Langella describes this phenomenon as a “cult of miscegenation” embraced at all levels of society but promoted especially by hostile elites who have ensured that “what was formerly a purely private choice has become a virtue in and of itself.” Langella cites as one example the Jew Bernard-Henri Levy who once wrote: “Everything that’s local, berets, butter, bagpipes, in short anything French, is foreign to us, even repugnant. … I like race-mixing and I hate nationalism.” Langella is blunt in his response: “Miscegenation is a war. By its obsessive nature, it’s even a jihad.” He then describes the links between globalism and the military-industrial complex, arguing that “military imperialism is the enforcement arm for the globalist project, that of a world where the United States and its lackeys can behave like ghetto rats on an international level.” These elites comprise a “nomadic oligarchy” that treats Europeans like sub-humans “and the rest of the world like replacement livestock.”

One of the book’s great strengths is its focus on the role of international finance in advancing globalism and multiculturalism. International money power demands that the peoples of the earth become “an inexhaustible reserve of servile workers and compulsive buyers.” Multiculturalism, “a weapon of mass subversion,” is “indispensable to the good order of a consumer society: without identity, without fixed landmarks, men are empty inside, so they try to fill this void with material goods.” Nations composed of interlinked and rooted families are inferior, in marketing logic, to nations of transient homosexual couples with two incomes and no children. Against the rise of consumerism, Langella calls for a resurgence in activism in areas that are now seen as old-fashioned — like protest against work on Sundays. Pointing to the number of days off work during the Middle Ages (around 190 a year) due to feast days and religious events, Langella argues that reclaiming even one day of the week from consumerism would be a foothold in the struggle that would at least make Catholic activists appear “more credible.” As things stand, Western youth are in chaotic rebellion against all forms of Tradition since “Capitalism encourages young people to rebel against all authority except one: money.” He closes the chapter by remarking:

The arrival of this liquid society, composed of human beings with barely any willpower, is the anthropological sine qua non for the development of the liberal economy. … This is why, everywhere they can, with the complicity of their Left-wing proxies in education and culture, the hyper-nomads propagate the ideology of multiculturalism. And when people like the Serbs try to resist, “humanitarian” bombs rain down upon them. For as a last resort, there always remains armed force to impose through fire and tears what they could not achieve with advertising and moral lessons.

The book’s powerful third chapter, “The Migration Hurricane and the Church,” offers an unflinching look at the Catholic response to the waves of mass migration into Europe that has accelerated since 2015. Langella stresses that we are witnessing an ongoing colonisation of Europe, “for this is indeed an immigration of settlement.” The author posits three main causes of the migration wave: “globalist ideology as a consequence of the Enlightenment and Jacobin Republicanism; the need for a servile labour force, encouraged by the liberal desire to abolish borders; and the dependency promoted by the welfare state.” Faced with this trifecta, and in a pattern witnessed throughout the West, the French “Right” “has always been the first to betray the French people. Large corporate interest in cheap labour and international Marxism go hand in hand to promote a world without borders where the rule of money can extend without limit.” This combined power has been catastrophic, with one ancient village in the Loire region consisting of 188 inhabitants subjected to a dumping of 100 immigrants (in effect, a total destruction of the life of the village) in the name of “population distribution” to areas “without housing shortages.” In “disgusting displays of cynicism,” Big Capital has been propagandizing such new values while crushing native employment, with Uber running campaigns to collect clothing and toys for illegal immigrants while ruining local cab drivers, and Starbucks announcing their intention to employ 10,000 refugees. For Langella,

This is the typical liberal double-game: on one hand, fracture the workers by exacerbating competition among them, and on the other, acquire a brand image in supporting the current humanitarian cause. It’s a win-win for them in terms of profitability and moral reputation.

Following this discussion is a very disturbing exploration of anti-White activity in France, culminating in an exploration of the rape of French women by migrants. Some of the stories are among the most horrific that I’ve encountered, and there’s no benefit in my repeating them here. The predictable result of this endless ethnic crime has been a form of White flight, and the rise of ethnic segregation in France. As Langella puts it, “You can eliminate land borders all you want; ethnic borders will remain. … We are witnessing genuine ethnic division on French territory.” Langella, to his great credit, always retains a grander vision, and is always at pains to avoid degenerating into a Counter-Jihad caricature, which to be honest is something that I, in my ignorance of Langella and his activism, expected prior to actually reading his text. This broader vision is exemplified when the author finally reaches the subject of Islamic terrorism toward the middle of the chapter, where he concludes: “Islamism is the tree that hides the forest: the true cause of the attack in Paris was immigration.” I couldn’t agree more.

From here Langella moves to a discussion of Church attitudes to mass migration. Setting out his case, Langella argues that the Church “does not have a political program, but she offers a moral framework.” The Church’s record in activism on behalf of refugees and migrants is, however, very mixed. In 1914, Pope Benedict XV instituted the World Day of Migrants and Refugees, but this was primarily in response to the Armenian genocide, and was not “a justification of immigration in itself.” A “migrant” in the ecclesiastical language of the time, was always assumed to be fleeing genuine persecution, rather than being an immigrant in a general sense. Over time, argues Abbot Guillaume, the Church has passed from a teaching of duty of charity to the oppressed to the “ideological value of immigration as an absolute.” For Abbot Guillaume and Langella, this is a heresy that essentially posits immigration as “a trampoline for the Second Coming,” and is “profoundly anti-Christian.” Both point to the “universal destination of goods” as “the foundation of the Catholic critique of capitalism.” This idea always posits that social actions must always take place within the context of uplifting the common good. This “Common Good,” argues Langella, should be the compass of political action and is infinitely more important than “diversity.” He cites Pope John Paul II as saying the right to emigrate “should be regulated because applying this right in an uncontrolled way can be dangerous and harmful to the common good of the communities welcoming the migrants.” Pope Benedict XVI, meanwhile, asserted that “States have the right to regulate migratory flows and to defend their borders.”

Langella then moves to a discussion of “the elusive Pope Francis.” Langella is probably correct in stressing that due to media distortions, especially the media’s desire to portray Francis as a Leftist Pope with relaxed attitudes on gays and open arms for migrants, a full picture of the current Pope’s ideological positions is more difficult than usual to discern. That being said, Langella critiques Francis for being intentionally ambiguous, and for “offering to journalists on a platter” an ambiguity that has led to him becoming “the darling of the intellectual Left.” Langella further criticizes the Pope for “improperly appealing to emotion, and more often in favour of illegal immigrants rather than those who pay the price of accepting the migrants, though no one ever asked if the latter wanted to do so.” The author also sees validity in claims that Francis has shown “indifference towards the victims of crimes committed by illegal immigrants” and “a certain disdain for Europeans as well as a kind of preference for the migrant.” Langella is clear:

Pope Francis is more than ever a pope of images and gestures. He knows the media impact of a good phrase, a good word. The Pope likes to disarm his interlocutors. Not to detract from his refreshing spontaneity, but we have to recognise that he is a “good customer,” as they say in the trade.

Faced with such a situation, Langella offers common sense to his fellow Catholics: “The Pope is not infallible when he discusses social questions. … We can — with prudence — criticise the political speech of the Pope if it hurts the common good.” Closing the chapter, Langella appeals to the writings of a host of cardinals that support the right to strong borders and oppose the globalist project of mass migration. In the meantime, Langella suggests waiting for a shift in leadership rather than encouraging division in the Church, opining that “the best way to save the position of the Pope is to refrain from commenting on it.” I don’t agree, but then I’m not Catholic and I will concede that Langella may have a better appreciation of the situation.

The fourth, and in my view most interesting, chapter of the book is titled “What To Do?” As you might expect, it’s a program of action. The first step is to attempt to change terminology, or the interpretation of it. Langella stresses that “migrant/refugee” is a piece of terminology designed to inculcate sympathy where it is not deserved. What most of these foreigners want is not safety but “comfort and modernity. What they wanted was superfluous shiny objects.” Europeans must strip themselves of sentimentalism, of a love devoid of truth. For Langella, most Black and Middle Eastern migrants are mere cowards seeking luxury, and this is the vision of these foreigners that he believes must become endemic among Europeans if a genuine sea-change in attitudes is to take place.

The next step is the return to fundamental notions of homeland as “a bridge between God and men, a gateway between Heaven and earth.” This ecological outlook locates Man firmly inside his habitat, in opposition to liberal anthropocentrism which places Man above all, and in opposition also to “Deep Ecology” (see the work of Pentti Linkola) that posits Man as an animal no higher than any other. In Langella’s view of a Christian ecology, Man’s culture and traditions and his age-old links to the soil are as worthy of preservation as the habitat itself, reversing the trend of deranged leftists to campaign on behalf of endangered squirrels while entire villages are handed over to foreign peoples.

The third step is the fostering of genuine European unity based on common ethnic and cultural feeling rather than on strictly economic and military interests. What Langella proposes is a “European policy of rootedness” resembling the Visigrad Group (Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary) which together has been described as “the most secure region on the continent.”

The fourth step is a reversal of the endless quest for increased GDP which has contributed to an “evident form of moral underdevelopment.” Langella is opposed to international finance and posits a return to forms of corporate social financial order resembling the medieval guilds based on local self-sufficiency and accountability. Explaining this turn to Localism, Langella explains:

It is not the extreme Left-wing globalists who are inciting migratory flows, it’s not even the No Border types who help illegal immigrants to cross the borders. It’s global industrial capitalism. The sole alternative to global uprooting is localism. We don’t need to make everyone in the world a farmer, but we do need to allow people to have food sovereignty, which is also economic and political sovereignty. In other words, we must give them back their dignity. This is the best antidote to uprooting.

Finally, Langella moves to the ethnically foreign population residing in France. He asserts that assimilation is an unachievable myth, and that France is not merely an “idea” but a biological reality that is under threat. The only real response, he argues, is forceful repatriation. Here there is no room for sentimentality: “Mass immigration is a cancer. … It is a profound injustice. … It’s a collective kidnapping. It’s murder. They’re killing us.” Repatriation should begin with a return to the law of blood and the end of birthright citizenship, along with a moratorium on labor migration and a ban on family reunification. This would be swiftly followed by the non-renewal of residence permits with automatic deportation at the end of their period of validity. All construction of non-Christian places of worship would cease. All Islamists would then be targeted for systematic expulsion “to the country of their family history.” After this, specialist units of the police and army should be employed in the rapid and massive forceful removal of foreign populations: “Without a show of force on our part, a general explosion will be imposed on us at any rate, because multiculturalism carries within it the seeds for war like clouds carry the storm.”

Prior to this sequence of events, Langella advocates the building of networks of the ethnically aware in rural France, where localism can be seeded and where defense zones can be efficiently constructed. This will be necessary because “France has learned well that from now on, the state is its enemy and that, despite our calls for unity, the police will never side with us.” He therefore advocates the attitude of the partisan, described by Carl Schmitt as someone who “defends a piece of land for which he has a native attachment,” and whose primary strength is “his bond with the land, with the native population, and with the geographic configuration of the country, mountains, forests, jungle, or desert.” Langella expects no sudden collapse of the System, and is prepared to play the long game.

I have to admit that the book’s fifth chapter, “Fall and Reconquest,” struck a bum note with me, and it would have been my preference, had I been editor, to have omitted it entirely. The entire chapter is a re-run of the Book of Maccabees, which Langella offers as a blueprint of reconquest for us to follow. It didn’t resonate with me at all, or indeed with the approach of the rest of the book, and its inclusion continues to baffle me. The book closes with a somewhat poetic two-page conclusion, the central message of which is that we must “kill the bourgeois inside us” and engage in a “crusade of an integral and permanent love. An eternal fire in our heart, a feast of every moment and of every day.”

Julien Langella is to be commended for producing an impassioned, and often furious, message from a dying France. Some bum notes and petty criticisms aside, there is much here to enthuse and enrage the committed Catholic, and to educate and inspire the non-Catholic. Of course, I could critique the lack of engagement with Jewish matters, but I think it’s already a minor miracle, given France’s array of harsh speech laws, that he ever managed to publish this remarkable work. I think Julien Langella is a very intelligent and capable activist who needs no reminding of the influence of certain elements in the tragedy unfolding for his nation. My demand for total honesty, in this instance, therefore wavers somewhat at the prison gates that inevitably loom in France for anyone daring to question that which lies behind so many of the labels (globalists, nomadic oligarchs, etc.) employed in this very mature text.

I’d be dishonest if I didn’t mention that the total collapse of Catholic Church credibility, much of it mired in seemingly endless sex abuse scandals, hasn’t contributed in some part to the massive swing to the Left in nations like Ireland. I don’t think it’s the sole cause, of course, and I believe at least some of these scandals have become a kind of media meme for a reason, but I do believe that the Catholic Church has a credibility issue to address before it can in any way become a focal point for the ethnic revival of its faithful. But, to Langella’s credit, he appears to be planning for a Catholic revival somewhat outside the Church. This strikes me as eminently sensible. For the record, my own experiences in France are limited to a couple of trips to Paris, some seven years apart. The first was disappointing, the second utterly heartbreaking, as I witnessed some of the world’s most beautiful sites and streets sunk in the degradation and filth of mass migration. I sincerely wish Julien Langella the very best of luck in his quest to redeem his homeland for his people and indeed his God.

European Magazine Interviews James Edwards

I granted an interview to a magazine last week that will available in European newsstands when it goes to press in a few days. Below is a transcript of the Q and A. – James

Magazine: Mr. Edwards, these days America is an exciting field of political observation, but first of all, let’s talk about you and your radio program The Political Cesspool. For years you have been highly political, for example, you campaigned for the presidential candidate Pat Buchanan and also hosted him on your show. So, please, introduce yourself and The Political Cesspool – can you sketch for our readers the history of it and the concept behind?

James Edwards: I am an advocate for European Americans.

On a personal level I am a husband. I have a wife. I have three children.

The radio program was founded in 2004 to express ideas and facts suppressed in the main stream (“System”) media and to give an audience to those who are excluded, who because of their views are effectively silenced.

It is important that someone – even in a small way – tells the truth in contradiction of the System narrative. I am known for discussing matters of faith, heritage and racial reality.

Over the course of the past decade, my work on the radio has been the subject of interest in hundreds of newspaper and magazine publications, as well as television and other radio broadcasts around the world.

In 2016, I was listed alongside Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter as one of the “Top 20 Right Wing media fixtures” responsible for Donald Trump. I was later specifically named by Hillary Clinton as one of the “extremists” who would shape our country in a Trump administration.

My first book, Racism Schmacism: How Liberals Use the “R” World to Push the Obama Agenda, was published in 2010.

Magazine: How would you describe the media landscape in the USA? What idea should we have of the situation, especially regarding the process of opinion-forming?

JE: The System media displays an unanimity that Goebbels and Stalin could only have dreamed of.

American mainstream media apes and mimics a handful of media giants – The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN. In this way the same line is repeated in the “American” media from top to bottom. Each journalist is his own censor.

Dissent does not exist. It is not tolerated. Opinions are the same. The same stories are put center stage and repeated over and over again. The same stories are excluded and not reported. All reporting and commentary are the same. The American media speaks with a single voice.

Magazine: One could, for example, witness a concerted Trump-bashing by the establishment and how the mainstream media promoted a cancel culture and even instigated polarisation up to public unrest. Are conservatives in the USA capable or even willing to fight left totalitarianism?

JE: So-called “Conservatives” are psychologically unable to fight “left totalitarianism” (as you call it).

“Conservatives” pose no threat to the dominance of the Left.

R.L. Dabney, a great theologian from the American South, said the following about “conservatism” in the 1800s:

Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader.

Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom. It always when about to enter a protest very blandly informs the wild beast whose path it essays to stop, that its “bark is worse than its bite,” and that it only means to save its manners by enacting its decent role of resistance: The only practical purpose which it now serves in American politics is to give enough exercise to Radicalism to keep it “in wind,” and to prevent its becoming pursy and lazy, from having nothing to whip.

That was true in Dabney’s day and is twice as true now.

Magazine: What is your analysis of the election result and can you give a forecast of what the Biden presidency will bring to the USA?

JE: The surprising thing about the election is the large number of votes – almost 50% – Trump won.

Trump was subjected to Systematic media vilification of the vilest, most unscrupulous and shrill kind for 4 years. Did a single newspaper, radio or television station in America endorse him?

He was outspent by Biden by a factor of 4 to 1.

His supporters were censored and silenced on social media. Even the President himself was eventually censored by Twitter.

The capitalists and the labor unions were against him.

He was opposed by the clergy of most of the churches.

Despite all of this Trump got about 48% of the counted vote and a little higher percentage of the cast vote.

Trump’s showing in the face of these head winds is a very encouraging sign that Whites are increasingly thinking for themselves.

Here’s what I expect from Biden:

Substantial increase in immigration – both legal and illegal. Amnesty and family reunification for illegal aliens. Bemused tolerance of illegal immigration.

Government violation of civil liberties in an effort to suppress dissident speech. FBI harassment of Whites who oppose the System agenda. Crony capitalism.

Corruption as seen in the history of influence peddling by Biden’s son, Hunter Biden.

Higher taxes on small businessmen and professionals. Transfers of wealth from White Americans to other groups, possibly including “reparations” to Blacks whose ancestors were slaves 6 generations ago.

In foreign policy a reversal of Trump’s efforts to withdraw from failed interference in the Middle East.

Revival of the civil war in Syria with American support. Possible intervention in Syria. Confrontation with and provocation of Russia.

All this and more.

Magazine: It seems that America is becoming quite balkanised and increasingly a criminal ghetto (autonomous zones) in the metropolitan areas of blue states. Could secession for Republican states of still White majority be an option? Can the GOP be expected to help in this regard?

JE: America is irreversibly balkanized. The United States is occupied by several competing and hostile nations. A White European nation, an African-American nation, a Jewish nation, an Hispanic nation, an Asian nation, and so on.

We must break up and the sooner the better. The optimum outcome would be a peaceful separation such as that presided over by Gorbachev when the Soviet Union disintegrated with very minor loss of human life.

The GOP is hopeless as a remedy. The GOP will not support secession. Now that Trump is gone expect to see a stampede of Republican leaders to support immigration and other anti-White polices.

Fortunately, demographics will soon cause the GOP to fade away and cease to distract people’s attention.

Magazine: The slogan “Make America Great Again” brings about the question of how to interpret “greatness” with regard to America’s international reputation. That, in turn, depends essentially on the geopolitical ambitions in which the USA is often seen as an imperialist hegemon. Do you think a strategical shift towards an attitude of more non-interventionism would improve America´s international relations?

JE: In foreign relations we need to return to a policy of non-intervention in other nations’ affairs. We need to mind our own business for a change.

Imperialistic interventions need to stop.

And, yes, this would be conducive to better relations and good for the world and good for us.

Magazine: In the recent times, the issue of trade conflicts frequently dominate the news. Did an overstrained zeal of globalisation reveal its damages regarding regio-economical substance and what does that mean for economic nationalism – is this term becoming a synonym for de-globalisation?

JE: The “American” government has facilitated and supported the “de-industrialization” of the country. Biden has been a strong advocate of globalism.

When the Coronavirus hit earlier this year, Americans did not have the ventilators or the masks the government claimed were needed to treat virus victims or to curb its spread because production of medical supplies had been outsourced to China. China decided to keep such things for itself.

No nation can long exist without producing within inside its borders all critical products necessary to its independent existence.

Now or Never: A Call to White Resistance

I harbored no illusions about Donald “Platinum Plan” Trump, and did not plan on voting at all in this election. I knew that this election was almost wholly irrelevant to the American prospect, to the fate of White America. It isn’t that the “breathing room” argument is unsound, but rather that President Trump has never once shown the will or capacity to match his rhetoric with action. It’s the fact that the Republican Party is just as compromised by Satanic Jews as the Democrats, and the fact that Republicans have presided over the ruin of our nation without presenting any more than token opposition to the increasingly totalitarian Left. My feeling, put simply, was that the Judeocracy already had the reins of our nation firmly in its grasp, whether they permitted Donald Trump to be reelected or not.

And yet: I still voted for President Trump. I went to vote with the intention of only voting for the local and State elections, given that these are the people who most directly affect our lives, but, while I stood at the machine, I could not bring myself not to vote for Donald Trump. Despite the incalculable lost opportunities of the Trump Administration, despite my hard-nosed calculation that Whites were accelerating toward genocide either way, despite it all, in the end I clung to the hope that maybe another Trump Administration could in fact give us time, if only a little, to prepare to resist the Great Reset. More significantly, though, I saw it not as casting my vote for the man, but for the character that others had made him: the avatar of White America. My vote for Trump was a vote for decent, red-blooded Trump supporters.

I have spent the past three weeks ravenously consuming the daily revelations of what is, without a doubt, the most massive electoral fraud in American history. The evidence is too immense to recount here, and has been amply documented elsewhere, thanks in large part to the heroism of attorneys Lin Wood and Sidney Powell, as well as websites like The Gateway Pundit.

I would like to be optimistic regarding the President’s odds of emerging victorious from the stolen election, but this seems foolish given the totally corrupt nature of our occupied government. To those of us who would argue that the enormity of fraud that took place to steal this election doesn’t matter, that we need to “move on,” I would say that it does matter. In fact, nothing matters more right now. The moment we “move on,” we concede; this concession, mind you, would be no ordinary concession, but rather a concession of our nation, our civilization, and our very lives.

We saw the color revolution as it was set into motion; in this respect, it was not surprising in the least. Watching the coup d’état in real time, however, is a different matter entirely. As Kevin MacDonald wrote in his preface to my book, this is the endgame in the Jewish conquest of White America. They are not hiding it now—it’s all in the open, plain for any thinking White to see. This election was not stolen from Donald Trump. It was stolen from White America.

There is one silver lining to the nigh impenetrably dark storm that now looms directly overhead: The System has been completely delegitimized for tens of millions of Whites in one fell swoop. This delegitimization will be irreparable if, after all of his efforts are exhausted, the American system of government fails to deliver the White House to President Trump. The President’s legal efforts will ultimately end in the Supreme Court, where there is only one reliably conservative Justice—ironically, Clarence Thomas, a Black man.

Even if those legal efforts fail, Republican State legislatures could simply choose not to certify their Electors for the Electoral College and instead send their own competing slate of Electors to vote for President Trump. Can Republican legislatures be relied upon to do the right thing? Unfortunately, they almost certainly cannot, although Pennsylvania is making moves in that direction.

So, if the President limits his options within legal means, he is likely—though not guaranteed—to fail. Too many compromised demons in human skin stand in the way. If he really does lose this, if a senile pedophile controlled by International Jewry is really allowed to steal this election, that’s it. Tens of millions of Whites will know, as the vanguard of White Nationalists have for decades, that the System is a sick, nihilistic sham. This Great Disillusionment is a tinderbox that, paired with the gleeful acceleration of the Great Replacement, provides us with all of the preconditions for civil war.

The Great Disillusionment promises to be a great boon for our cause. With each new betrayal by the Republican Party—the party that White America emphatically defeated and spat upon by voting for Donald Trump in 2016, more normie Republicans look to the solutions that we offer. Fox News committed suicide this month, and its tens of millions of viewers crave the answers that only we can give them. With every single new instance of anarcho-tyranny, average Americans understand that we are on our own. The Jewish Sackler family, solely responsible for initiating the opioid epidemic which has killed almost one million Americans, were just “punished” with a penalty that doesn’t even rise to the standard of a slap on the wrist. They deserve to be condemned to a lingering death as they watch their own loved ones waste away in thralldom to the poison they intentionally pushed on Whites for twenty years. Whites are awakening to realize that electoral politics is a will-o’-the-wisp leading them astray into a dark cul-de-sac, not the path to salvation.

There has already been at least one opportunity for civil war. President Trump’s base of support is emotionally invested in him; again, not as himself, but as the avatar of themselves, their families, and, somewhere deep down inside, their race. They will follow him if he calls them. In the immediate aftermath of the stolen election, the President should have called his followers—all seventy million of them—into the streets. At the Million MAGA March, he should have gotten out of his motorcade and led an impromptu rally. Instead, he allegedly played golf. Later that night, his supporters, who have gone unprotected by the State for four years, were beaten and harassed by Negroid monsters, Jewish black bloc militants, and deluded Whites. All it would take is one word from the President to conjure violent White resistance. We know it is a fantasy to expect him to do this, but White resistance is no fantasy. Far from it.

It truly is now or never. The Jewish Enemy is poised to irrevocably destroy America and annihilate the White race from the face of the earth. Consider what they are publicly planning for us; I will not recount the litany of policy proposals that the parties behind the potential “Biden Administration” have unveiled, as you’ve seen then by now. This is nothing short of extermination. But before then, humiliation. They state, openly now, that the Allied occupation and remaking of postwar Germany was too lenient, that Southern Reconstruction was far too kind to the White South. They look to South Africa as a shining beacon. White genocide is real, and it’s here. The fact that they feel no need to hide, explain, or justify it says everything. This is it. This is the end.

Will it be with a whimper, or shall it be with a bang? Are we men, or are we whores to Jewish money-power? Are we sons of the West, or whipped, besotted curs? We have run out of time. The United States of America might be a walking corpse, a rotting husk, but its people and our heritage are not. Our long slumber must not be mistaken for death.

The Enemy is the Jew. It has always been the Jew, and, until we act once and for all time, it will always be the Jew. We have no place anymore for anyone in our movement who does not accept this plain truth. Certainly, to enter into enlightenment on the Jewish Question, a learning curve is par for the course; yet once the truth has been illuminated for them, they must accept it. If they will not, they are not with us, and if they are not with us, they are against us. We care nothing for inclusion, but rather exclusion, for we cannot defeat that which we cannot name.

Speak now and spread the word among family, friends, and potentially sympathetic colleagues. Give them Kevin MacDonald’s Culture of Critique, give Christians my own book, send them to The Occidental Observer—before it’s too late. You have far more to lose than your social standing in a world where sodomy and pedophilia are celebrated as virtues.

Any mainstream Trump supporter already possesses extreme, unadulterated animus toward Jewish figures like George Soros. Many are aware of the role of the media in bringing about the torrent of hatred that has rained down on Trump from the beginning, and, if they are unaware of exactly who owns the media and whose views it expresses, they are aware that it is the enemy and that it must be completely tuned out. The increasingly paleoconservative-oriented base of Trump’s support, and particularly the younger generation that comprises the “Groypers,” is deeply and rightfully suspicious of Israel and its neoconservative agents, who have become clearly identified as the instigators of the “War on Terror.” This passed without much mention in the news, but Trump supporters will not be quick to forget Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s congratulatory message to “President-Elect” Biden, especially given that Netanyahu was one of the first foreign leaders to do so. President Trump unfollowed the Jew on Twitter; this was not coupled with any corresponding action, but it is something to work with. The millions of Whites who believe in the QAnon theory are well aware of the Satanic ritual pedophilia that suffuses the “Western” ruling class, and the case of the Jews Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell will not leave their minds anytime soon. It would be no stretch to suggest to these open-minded citizens that this is a modern manifestation of Jewish ritual murder.

Jews do not possess unlimited power; directed by their father in Hell, there is seemingly no end to the heinous depredations which they have perpetrated against our people and our nation. But this aura of invincibility is simply a smokescreen, based upon the simple fact that they have faced no meaningful White resistance since Charles Lindbergh and the America First Committee, and no White resistance at all in recent decades. It cannot be overstated: The Enemy seems to possess unlimited power, but he does not. This is only because he has operated unchallenged for at least eighty years.

Steel yourselves and fulfill the destiny of your forefathers. Wollt ihr den totalen Krieg? The Enemy certainly is. Nun, Volk, steh auf und Sturm brich los!

The Earl Raab Election(s)

The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon be non-white or non-European. And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country. We [i.e., Jews] have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous [i.e., multiracial] nature of our population tends to make it irreversible, and makes our constitutional constraints against bigotry more practical than ever.
Earl Raab, Jewish Bulletin of Northern California, February 19, 1993

Earl Raab speaking at the 1972 AFT Los Angeles Civil Rights Conference

Note on usage: In this essay the racial designation “White” will be capitalized when used to mean racial Europeans and not capitalized (i.e., “white”) when conforming to common and official usage that includes non-European Caucasians (NECs) such as Middle Easterners and North Africans (MENAs) and semi-European Caucasians such as Ashkenazi Jews in the “white” racial category.

Earl Raab (1919—2015) served 40 years as the director of the Jewish Community Relations Council in San Francisco and was also the director of the Perlmutter Institute for Jewish Advocacy at Brandeis University. By “bigotry” and “Nazi-Aryan” in the above quotation, he means pro-White advocacy and support for White interests, the most existentially important of which are White preservation and independence — the continued existence of the White or European racial group and control of its own existence with its own countries, governments, cultures and economies. Earl Raab and his Jewish readership, the “we” in the above quote who are representative of the dominant and more active elements of the Jewish population, defined their group interests as diametrically opposed to White racial interests, promoting multiracialism, mass non-White immigration and racial intermixture, thereby causing White racial dispossession, subjugation, replacement and destruction. White interests, and especially the existentially important ones of continued racial life and independence through racial separation, are identified with and denounced as Nazism, racism, white supremacy, Fascism, etc. Thus even Donald Trump, whose perceived identification with implicit Whiteness is certainly far below any explicit support for existentially important interests, is frequently described as a racist, white supremacist, Nazi, etc., simply for opposing and obstructing, and so slowing, the progress of the anti-White agenda.

In 2016 the anti-White agenda of Raab, et al. was at the point of achieving Raab’s “irreversible” realization in a Hillary Clinton victory which would have swung the Damoclean sword and politically beheaded the White population, terminating its still remaining vestiges of political control of the country it created. They would do this by the legalization and enfranchisement of an estimated 22 million illegal non-White aliens (and possibly statehood for Puerto Rico and Washington D.C.), so that a party that served, promoted and defended White interests would no longer, in Raab’s words, “be able to prevail.”

But it was Donald Trump — the first major party presidential candidate in generations meaningfully identified with White interests, even if at a very low and implicit level — who won, not Clinton, and Raab’s triumphalism of 1993 suddenly seemed premature. Trump’s victory clearly demonstrated it was still possible for an implicitly pro-White candidate to prevail, and if so, also demonstrated the more remote possibility that a much more explicitly and meaningfully pro-White candidate and party could also still prevail.

So instead of realizing its complete and “irreversible” triumph over White America, the Anti-White Coalition suffered a defeat that shocked and shook it to its core. In response, it mobilized all the assets of its vast power structure to undermine the results of the election and make sure such a thing could never happen again. Before 2016 we could visualize the electoral future as a gradual racial transformation of the electorate to a non-White majority over the course of two or three decades in line with the projected demographic changes, but in the aftermath of Trump’s win it became clear that the Democrats planned to radically accelerate the racial electoral shift in their favor, plans postponed by Clinton’s defeat, but only until the next Democrat victory.

The approaching 2020 election — and if the Democrats lose this election, every election to come until the Democrats do win and impose permanent and “irreversible” non-White political dominance — will be as meaningful and decisive for America as the South African general election of 1994, which transferred political control of South Africa from the White minority to the non-white majority, was for the White population of that country. Every American election until the Democrats win will continue to be a sword of Damocles hanging over the neck of the White population which will finally fall when the Democrats win, striking off the White head (i.e., control or possession) of the country and imposing permanent non-White supremacy and the subjugation of Whites.

To realize the goal of White racial preservation and independence, the continued life of our race, and its control of its own existence, we must separate ourselves from the non-White races. To do this, it is necessary to be in control of the country, in fact very strongly in control, and to exercise that control with a firm and decisive will. To advance the same goal for our race in Europe, Canada and Australia we should so conduct ourselves in the process of separation that our racial kin in other countries will be moved to emulate our example rather than be repelled by it.

If our goal is to preserve as much of our race as we can, and if our goal of separation and independence for racial preservation is the goal consistent with the best interests of our race, then these goals would be best achieved by what Wilmot Robertson labeled the “National Premise,” a grand territorial partition of the country that would “spin off” the non-White racial populations into separate independent countries while keeping the greater part of the territory for a separate and independent all-White country. This separate and independent White country would contain the great majority of the White population (basically all who don’t self-emigrate to non-White areas) as well as the territory where the great majority of Whites reside, obliging less than 25% of them to relocate (the extent of White relocation should be minimized to maximize White support). This separate and independent White country would still be transcontinental and include the national capital and so be the continuation of the United States, and it would keep disturbance and disruption to a minimum (e.g., retirees would continue to receive their Social Security and Medicare benefits). I have previously discussed and described this goal in detail on this site in my essays “The National Premise Revisited” (with maps), my review of The White Nationalist Manifesto by Dr. Greg Johnson,  and in two earlier articles in The Occidental Quarterly: “Visions of the Ethnostate” (vol. 18, no.3, Fall 2018 pp 29–46) and “Separate or Die” (vol. 8, no. 4, Winter 2008–2009 pp 15–38)

The most important measure of any separatist and preservationist proposal is what proportion of our race could it be reasonably expected to save, or is even designed to save. By such a measure the National Premise proposal for a grand or total separation is clearly the only sufficient preservationist solution. Such a solution is incomparably superior to the sundry much smaller-scale secessionist proposals that would have little or no lasting preservationist effect, making them no more than larger and more elaborate variants of White flight.

The National Premise goal can theoretically be achieved by different means, but by far the clearest and most structured path forward, and the one that would be least disruptive of people’s lives in every sense, would be within the existing political and electoral system established and long maintained by earlier generations of our race. This is the system to which the great majority of our people strongly adhere, regard as legitimate, and wish to continue.

We can conceive of this electoral path to White racial liberation and restoration (or instauration per Robertson’s more esoteric Latin term), as having multiple stages, and each stage having several steps (or hurdles). The first stage is the conversion or transformation of one of the two major political parties into a national populist party, and then over successive stages and steps into an implicitly and then explicitly pro-White party. Since the 1960s the Republican party has been the obvious vehicle for this development, but other than the steady migration of White voters to the GOP, no overt steps in a national populist direction were taken until Trump, whose election was the first official and historical step (one could say the first victory) for the national populist and ultimately pro-White movement. A basic outline of this electoral path would be:

Stage 1: The conversion or transformation of the Republican party into a national populist party. In many respects the policies of such a party would naturally tend to coincide with the interests of the majority element of the population, which in America, Europe, Canada and Australia would be Whites, including being restrictive of immigration, but it would seek to unify and integrate all parts of the citizenry and so be inclusive of the non-White elements, perhaps even pandering to them to address their complaints and attract their support. The efforts to restrict illegal immigration could include better border protection and enforcement (e.g., “the wall”), abolishing DACA and denying any form of amnesty for illegal immigrants, enacting mandatory E-Verify to restrict employment opportunities for illegals, denying government benefits and assistance for illegals, and possibly, assuming there is a strong enough popular mandate to provide the will, the forcible deportation of all illegal aliens.

Stage 2: The conversion of the GOP into an implicitly pro-White party. At the implicit level of the process pro-White policies would still be limited but would include greater priority and emphasis placed on combating illegal immigration with an increased determination to employ and enforce all the methods listed in Stage 1. Also at this stage there would no longer be any pandering to non-Whites, appeals to their special interests, or promotion of their inclusion and integration.

Stage 3: The further transformation of the GOP into a more actively, but still implicitly, pro-White party. This stage would include abolishing any programs or policies that overtly benefit or prioritize the interests of non-Whites, including Affirmative Action, “reverse discrimination,” or restrictions on rights of private association and discrimination, essentially repealing the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Stage 4: The continued conversion of the GOP into an explicitly pro-White party. At this stage of the process active measures would be supported to advance specifically White racial interests, but they would still be more defensive, ameliorative and temporary rather than decisive, complete and final. This would include means to secure White political dominance and efforts to promote various forms and degrees of racial separation.

Stage 5: The completed conversion of the GOP into an explicitly pro-White party. At this level of the process there would be open and determined advocacy for the complete and final, and only fully sufficient, solution to the issue of racial preservation and independence by the National Premise concept of a complete or grand racial separation through a grand partition of the country on racial lines.

The anti-Whites are very much aware of the threat such a development, made evident by Trump’s victory, poses for their previously unchallenged plans. The conversion of one of the major parties into a pro-White party, especially if it has enough White electoral support to win, is their worst political nightmare, and that is why they have mobilized all their power against it, with unprecedented and ferocious intensity, to “nip it in the bud” and abort the further development of a potential nascent pro-White movement. A second Trump victory would take the second step in Stage 1 even if only by consolidating the first step. A Trump defeat would probably set back the development of the GOP into a national populist, and increasingly more pro-White, party until it would be too late to matter.

How fast and far the Republican party can go in the process of its conversion over stages into an ever more pro-White party depends on the extent of its White support, and how fast and far its White support is willing to go. Trump won a very providential Electoral College victory in 2016 with 58% of the “white” vote, including 63% of white men and 53% of white women — the notorious “gender gap” celebrated by the anti-Whites. As the Jews and non-European Caucasians (NECs) commonly included in the “white” classification give most of their vote to the Democratic party (Jews consistently vote over 70% for Democrats) we can estimate that the GOP’s share of the White (European) vote is 2–3% greater than its share of the overall “white” vote, indicating that in 2016 Trump actually won 60–61% of the White vote. In the 2018 mid-term elections about 8 million Trump voters didn’t vote, and this decreased turnout for the GOP allowed the Democrats to take control of the House of Representatives with very adverse consequences, including the expected impeachment attempts.

When Trump began his candidacy in May 2015 he immediately jumped far ahead of his competition, with about 30% support in the polls of the Republican base, by emphasizing his opposition to illegal immigration and amnesty, including DACA, and promising to build a “wall” to stop illegals from crossing the southern border. This was and is a strongly pro-White position, although implicitly so, and beyond what any of his competitors were willing to match. He did not promise to deport the illegals who were already here, which would have been at the very limits of the parameters of acceptable political discourse, but his statements were enough to arouse the full fury of the dominant Anti-White Coalition far beyond anything or anyone since Nixon, and perhaps further than that. But his statements strongly opposing illegal immigration set off alarm bells among the anti-White establishment while also awakening the growing racial disquiet and concerns of a broad mass of Whites. These statements excited unprecedentedly enthusiastic support within the pro-White movement, with some seeming to think he could and would take the conversion process all the way through Stage 2.

Trump’s record on keeping his campaign promises is mixed, but not for lack of effort. He never seems to give up, and when blocked on one path, whether by congressional or judicial opposition, thinks out-of-the-box to find a way around to another path. His constituency is of course a coalition of somewhat disparate groups, although overwhelmingly White and to a large degree qualifying as populist. His most important constituency, in terms of numbers, is probably Evangelical Christians, and he has found it much easier to keep his campaign promises to them and other constituencies not related to racial or immigration issues than those that are related to race or immigration. Still he has tried, and stubbornly persists in trying to find a way. Despite congressional resistance and judicial obstruction. he has found creative ways to put together $18 billion to pay for about 1,000 miles of bollard fencing, the type of barrier preferred by the Border Patrol. As of mid-October, 341 miles of bollard fencing were completed and construction is continuing at a rate of about ten miles per week. About 500 miles is projected to be completed by the end of Trump’s first term. The remaining 500 miles of already funded fencing should be completed a year or so into his second term, assuming he has a second term. Otherwise the money will certainly not be used for further construction but might be used to tear down the fencing that has been built.


To Trump’s credit, on racial issues he has often gone beyond his campaign promises, taking bold action on matters not discussed in the campaign, which should be regarded as surprise bonuses by White advocates. Recently he denounced both “Critical Race Theory” and “The 1619 Project,” two of the leading current expressions of anti-White ideology, and banned the common practice of engaging in compulsory anti-White indoctrination sessions in the Executive branch and by government contractors, to the great discomfiture of professional anti-Whites like Tim Wise. On border enforcement he has pressured Mexico to allow apprehended illegal border crossers to be returned to Mexico to await the adjudication of their cases rather than being released into the U.S. where almost all of them disappear. He has also stopped the long practice of building federal housing projects—overwhelmingly populated by non-Whites—in primarily White suburbs.

To win the coming election without help from a second stroke of Providence or from an unlikely — and for us undesirable — major increase in his share of the non-White vote, and assuming the same voter turnout as in 2016, Trump will probably need to increase his share of the White (European) vote by at least several points to circa 63–65%, which would show in the tabulations as 61–62% of the overall “white” vote. To win the popular vote he would probably need to raise his numbers to at least 63% of the overall “white” vote, which could require as much as 66% of the White (European) vote. Assuming Trump does win, the larger the margin of his victory, and in particular the greater the extent to which his victory is attributable to White support, the stronger will be his mandate, the effects on the GOP and the spirit of his White supporters, creating a sense of confidence that will both enable and encourage bolder pro-White policies.

If Trump wins with a significant increase in White support it would also be another step in the process of transforming the GOP into a White people’s party, as an essential part of that process is decreasing the party’s dependence on non-White votes. Ideally, and ultimately necessarily as the party’s policies become more explicitly and meaningfully pro-White, the future White People’s party will need to be independent of non-White votes for electoral success, meaning it will need to win, based on the current 2020 racial proportions of the electorate, perhaps 80% of the White vote to win the popular vote, although the percentage required to win the electoral college, depending on the distribution of the votes, could theoretically be much less.

The other essential part of the process of converting the GOP into a White People’s party that is successful both electorally and in the actual implementation of pro-White policies is the continuation of a super-majority of White support as the party’s policies become more explicitly and meaningfully pro-White, ultimately to the point of a racial partition of the country to realize the “National Premise.”

This process of the conversion of the GOP into a White People’s party by steps and stages is at stake in the upcoming election. Trump’s election in 2016 was the first real step in the process. There is a common but misguided tendency for White advocates to focus too much on Trump in this election when our focus should really be on the process, the whole process, and nothing but the process. In this process Trump is only the first stepping-stone, or perhaps the first several stepping-stones depending on what happens, but the process is far bigger than him and hopefully will continue after he has left the scene. But that depends on whether he wins this election. Our choice is between a Trump victory that would likely mean the continuation of the process of transforming the GOP into a White People’s party, or a Democrat win that would be the “irreversible” Earl Raab election, essentially equivalent in effect to the 1994 general election in South Africa, reducing the founding White population to a state of racial dispossession and subjugation, and even persecution, leading ultimately to destruction.

The Moral Darwinian Argument For White Interests: Chapter 9 of Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition


We have now reached the last chapter of Kevin MacDonald’s Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition. This indispensable book argues that both the rise and decline of the West can be explained in terms of the genetically selected predisposition Europeans have for creating communities that emphasize the moral reputation of individuals for honesty, hard work, and fairness, rather than kinship ties and racial identities. The fundamental error of Whites was to project onto all human beings their peculiar individualism and moral universalism. Whites failed to understand their own history: that only Europeans created moral communities based on universal values, and that non-Whites have remained very in-group oriented and ethnocentric throughout their histories. They failed to understand that in the age of mass immigration non-Whites view their openness as an opportunity to promote their own ethnic interests.

This is not to say that Whites have always viewed themselves in the extreme individualistic and anti-nationalistic manner they do today. Some decades ago, Americans were quite comfortable identifying their liberal nation in ethnic “Anglo-Saxon” terms and imposing strict limits on immigration from non-European nations. They did not think that cultural nationalism was inconsistent with liberal principles. It was really after Word War II that Whites came to the view that liberalism demanded the integration of multiple races within their homelands. Why did they come to this view?

This is where the inordinate influence of Jews comes into MacDonald’s historical study. The Jews did not create Western liberalism. But in the United States, the focus of MacDonald’s work, Jews were crucially important in the articulation of the argument that America was meant to be a “polycentric” nation populated by multiple races. They came up with the idea that liberalism was inconsistent with the identification of America as an “Anglo-Saxon nation.” They played the leading intellectual role in formulating the idea that all Western nations were meant to be multicultural and that assimilation to a “dominant culture” was a violation of the “human dignity” of immigrants. They pushed the idea that Western nations were founded on racism, patriarchal domination, exploitation of the Third World, and that the mere existence of Western nations without racial diversity was a form of “White supremacy.”

MacDonald is not of the view that Whites are inherently condemned to be swamped by non-Whites in lieu of their individualism. As we saw in Part 8 of our extended review, Whites are still instinctively ethnocentric even while they express adherence to immigrant multiculturalism. Furthermore, and this is the focus of Chapter 9, MacDonald anticipates that, as “expressions of anti-white hatred” intensify, Whites will start to coalesce as a race. But he cautions against a strategy premised on the expectation that Whites will suddenly start behaving in the collectivist manner of non-Whites. Whites are not inclined to create kinship-based communities. Therefore, if Whites are to join communities that emphasize their racial interests, they need to be rationally persuaded that these race-oriented communities are morally justified. Whites need to be persuaded that their individual self-interests, and their own liberal way of life, are fundamentally threatened by immigrant diversification. As MacDonald writes:

Pro-White activists attempting to combat this moral community [of the left] must be aware of the very powerful tendency among their constituents toward wanting to be part of a moral community. In particular, they must emphasize that Whites have interests that are morally legitimate.

It is MacDonald’s view that a Darwinian perspective would be an excellent rationally-based argument to persuade Whites about the legitimacy of their ingroup interests. As Whites face increasing hostility from non-whites, they need to be persuaded that their communities based on social trust, rule of law, scientific objectivity, and equal rights, will survive only within an ethnicized form of individualism.

Darwinian Communities of WEIRD Whites

White normies can’t be expected to discard altogether their deeply seated behavioral inclination for communities based on moral fairness, trust, honesty, and merit. They can’t be expected to create “group-oriented intellectual movements based on dogmatic assertions [and] fealty to group leaders.” Whites are a different race with a WEIRD personality and intellect. Whites have a unique capacity for analytical reasoning. Whereas the minds of non-Whites operate within contextual relationships made up of traditions, kinship interests, and personal inclinations, the mind of Whites operate according to rules dictated by the mind’s own rational principles.

The White mind has a capacity for decontextualization, that is, for detaching things from their context, focusing on the inherent traits of objects as such and developing formal rules for explaining and predicting phenomena. The non-White mind, if I may put it bluntly, can’t fully distinguished the subject and the object, the mind and the body, the context and the thing-in-itself. The minds of collectivist non-Whites are socially embedded, which means that the collectivist mind tends to be trapped to the surrounding world of prescribed or dogmatically given norms and interests of the kinship group, and thus has a lesser capacity for impartiality, for science, for honesty, for trustworthiness. It is no accident that Whites are responsible for almost the entire history of logic, 97% of all scientific findings, the development of abstract symbols in musical notation, arithmetical operations, grammatical rules, and almost all the categorizing, serializing, enumerating, and inferring in science.

Therefore, if identitarians are to make a case for White racial interests in the face of growing White awareness of their impending marginalization, they must articulate arguments that take into consideration the unique nature of the White inclination for moral communities. It is MacDonald’s conviction that the key to a successful moral argument is to persuade Whites to create moral communities with a proper Darwinian understanding of history and in-group interests. The following are some of the key Darwinian lessons Whites must integrate into their moral communities:

  • that there are genetic differences between peoples, and that despite their individualism and universalism Whites have legitimate racial interests like every other race.
  • that those communities enjoying higher social trust, lawfulness, political participation, functional schools, and ethnic cohesion happen to be heavily populated by Whites with minimal diversity.
  • that the moral communities Whites cherish based on democratic politics, rule of law, meritocracy, are deteriorating precisely because these communities are increasingly populated by non-whites and dominated by radical leftist politics.
  • that Whites are the least morally depraved race on the planet when it comes to political corruption, inequality of rights, and ethnic despotism.
  • that low-IQ immigrants are a drain on society and on the ability of White nations to compete in our highly technical world economy, as well as a major cost to White taxpayers.
  • that mass immigration brings a downward pressure on the wages of working classes, and that the importation of workers from India and China undermines White high tech workers.
  • that immigration and incessant attacks on “white racism” are leading to extreme polarization in politics, civil strife, and eventual civil war across many Western communities, rather than racial harmony and the elimination of human conflict as promised.
  • that diversity comes together with increased anti-White hatred and violence against Whites.
MacDonald’s book thus comes full circle, in a tightly argued manner, from a very original account of Western uniqueness based on Darwinian principles, to a call for White identity politics based on moral Darwinian arguments that appeal to the individualism and the analytical mind of Whites to counter the anti-white “monster” the “left and its big business allies have created”. Criticisms can undoubtedly be directed against Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition. But having studied this book in a thorough manner, I am convinced that MacDonald’s perspective is far more than one viewpoint among other interesting viewpoints. It is an indispensable viewpoint without which White identity politics would lack both a solid scientific foundation and a compelling moral argument that could persuade large numbers of Whites about the legitimacy of their ingroup interests.

Walk Away, Western Man: A Declaration of White Independence

The Declaration of the White race of America, When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that White men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and, accordingly, all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of the White race; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present Jewish Regime, the Zionist Occupied Government otherwise known as the System, or multiracial, egalitarian mass democracy, is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over our brutalized and subjugated White people. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

The System has obstructed the Administration of Justice, having selectively enforced its Laws and cast aside those most wholesome and necessary for the public good, imposing a structure of anarcho-tyranny, an egregious double standard whereby law-abiding Whites are punished instantly and ruthlessly for minor or nonexistent infractions, including self-defense and the expression of heterodox thought which was considered to be common-sense only one generation ago, while non-Whites are permitted to commit heinous acts of rapine and murder against us almost entirely unopposed and unpunished.

The System which held itself to be the guarantor of our God-given rights now usurps those very rights, employing its agents, sworn to uphold the Constitution, to enforce the ever-shifting whims of the postconstitutional State with the single end of effectuating the cultural and physical dispossession and genocide of the White race, ceaselessly pillorying and desecrating its achievements, the greatest of any race in the history of the earth.

The System has denied our people their freedom of association, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

The System has expanded the franchise so to have made it meaningless; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large, irrespective of race or qualification, for their exercise; the State remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

The System has endeavored to transform the population of the nation; for that purpose, obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and importing a new race of heathen serfs to replace our own, the people whose blood and toil built this nation.

The System has perverted the Administration of Justice, by practically suspending our own Legislatures and making unaccountable gods of kritarchs disguised as impartial Judges, dependent on its Will alone, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever, to which we enjoy no recourse whatsoever.

The System has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

The System has kept, in times of peace, Standing Armies across the earth entire while neglecting to secure either its own borders or the Consent of the people in whose name it acts.

The System has affected to render the Military a mercenary force for the State of Israel and global finance capital, independent of the Civil power and of the society in whose name it acts. The Military no longer serves any interest but that of the System, and combines with a militarized array of domestic enforcement agencies to wage War against the best interests of our people.

The System has combined with International Jewry to subject us to a New World Order, a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation.

The System has destroyed our industrial capacity and subjected us to the whims of global market “capitalism,” yoking us to our inferiors and placing our economic well-being in the hands of our enemies, transferring incalculable amounts of wealth from our pockets into the coffers of those enemies.

The System has excluded the White race from the enjoyment of the fruits of its own labor and prevented us from achieving the successes which our merits made due, through a series of discriminatory anti-White racial preferences that have established a perverse class hierarchy, the bottom rung of which is occupied by White men, those who created the nation whose eviscerated corpse the System draws its sustenance from.

The System has imposed devastatingly usurious Taxes on us without our Consent, and then used our expropriated incomes for the express purpose of annihilating our Lives, Liberties, and Happiness.

The System has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of its Protection and waging War against us.

The System is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries, a “Camp of the Saints,” to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. These alien races have plundered our treasuries, ravaged our women, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

The System has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our urban ghettoes and public housing projects, the merciless Black Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A System whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to the non-Whites in our midst, or to their Jewish overlords. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their cabal to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, only to find that they hold native neither justice nor magnanimity, only Satanic hatred for our people and their ways. We have conjured them by the ties of our common humanity to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the White race of America, , appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of our good People, solemnly publish and declare, That the men of the White race are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent, and that, as such, we henceforth establish a White State; that the White State is Absolved from all Allegiance to the Jewish System and its colored footsoldiers, and that all political connection between the White State and the Regime, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as a Free and Independent State, we have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.