Go to Part 1
Go to Part 2
Go to Part 3
Go to Part 4

Psychological Mechanisms for a White Renaissance

In general, individualists are less ethnocentric than others, but this does not imply that they are incapable of ethnocentrism. It makes sense a priori to suppose that natural selection would act to make humans—even individualistic Whites—at least somewhat ethnocentric. Frank Salter presents a powerful case for the adaptiveness of ethnocentrism.[1] Different human ethnic groups and races have been separated for thousands of years, and during this period they have evolved some genetic distinctiveness. This genetic distinctiveness constitutes a storehouse of genetic interest. In other words, people have an interest in their ethnic group in exactly the same way that parents have a genetic interest in their children.

In raising their children, parents ensure that their unique genes are passed on to the next generation. In defending their ethnic interests, people are doing the same thing—ensuring that the genetic uniqueness of their ethnic group is passed on to the next generation. When parents of a particular ethnicity succeed in rearing their children, their ethnic group also benefits because the genetic uniqueness of their ethnic group is perpetuated as part of their children’s genetic inheritance. Moreover, when an ethnic group succeeds in defending its interests, individual members of the ethnic group also benefit because the genetic uniqueness that they share with other members of the ethnic group is passed on. This is the case even for people who don’t have children: A person succeeds genetically when his ethnic group as a whole prospers.

Even a cursory look at the historical record shows that conflict between biologically related tribal groups has been common throughout history. Cooperative defense by tribal peoples is universal and ancient and it is bound to have boosted the genetic fitness of those who acted to further the interests of their group. Under such circumstances it would be odd indeed if natural selection did not mold the human mind to be predisposed to ethnocentrism. Of course, this fact does not tell us what psychological mechanisms actually evolved to promote ethnocentrism or how these mechanisms can be controlled by inhibitory mechanisms located in the prefrontal cortex. For that, we will have to turn to the empirical research.

My review of the literature concluded that there are universal mechanisms underlying ethnocentrism.[2]

• Mechanisms of genetic similarity: People preferentially assort with genetically similar others. Friends, spouses, and the other people we make alliances with are more like us than people selected at random; other things being equal, this enhances the benefits of such relationships and lessens the risks.[3] This is the most likely explanation for implicit Whiteness.
• As noted above, there is good evidence that social identity processes are a biological adaptation important for group defense. But since they don’t necessarily respond to genetic differences between groups, they are not really of use in ethnic defenseunless the groups are already constituted on an ethnic basis, as in traditional tribal societies.
• Groups composed of sports fans and the like can trigger social identity processes, but they do not result in the deep emotions that are aroused in ethnic, religious, and patriotic groups. It is not at all uncommon for people to make the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of these groups. The best explanation for this is that humans have a natural tendency to classify themselves into ingroups and outgroups on the basis of these categories so that they tend to have stronger allegiance to these groups than, say, their stamp collecting club. Race and ethnicity have all the features of an evolved module. For example, processing of racialand ethnic differences is rapid, unconscious, and automatic[4]—all characteristics of implicit processing and hallmarks of evolved modules.

In any case, whatever the strength of the mechanisms underlying ethnocentrism, given the tendencies of Whites toward individualism in the context of the present cultural environment of the West that vilifies White ethnocentrism, these mechanisms have thus far proved insufficient to provide for ethnic defense of Whites. However, the current culture also contains facets that will in fact increase White ethnocentrism.

Being Aware of Impending Minority Status Triggers White Ethnocentrism

The foregoing has discussed why achieving widespread acceptance by Whites of an explicit culture of White identity and interests is an uphill struggle. However, there are also mechanisms that are likely to create an increased sense of White identity and White interests in the years ahead. The fundamental reason for this is the demographic transformation resulting from massive immigration of non-Whites into countries that were either homogeneously White or, like the United States (ninety percent White in 1960), had a politically dominant White majority. This transformation, in which it is obvious that White political power is declining as Whites head toward minority status, would by itself trigger defensive mechanisms of implicit Whiteness and behavior such as White flight discussed above.

Individualists are less naturally ethnocentric, and the left has created a culture that encourages Whites to inhibit expressions of ethnocentrism while encouraging non-Whites to be ethnocentric. Because the media is dominated by the left and because even the conservative media is terrified of appearing to advocate White interests, explicit messages that would encourage Whites to become angry and fearful about their future as a minority are rare. Indeed, the media rarely, if ever, mentions that Whites are well on their way to becoming a minority. And this for good reason: Whites in the United States and in Canada who are given explicit demographic projections of a time when Whites are no longer a majority tend to feel angry and fearful. They are also more likely to identify as Whites and have sympathy for other Whites.[5]

In other words, while I have emphasized the ability of the higher brain centers to inhibit ethnocentrism, explicit messages indicating that one’s racial group is threatened are able to trigger ethnocentrism. This is especially important because many Whites live far from the areas undergoing the demographic shifts. Their day-to-day life of living in an essentially White environment hasn’t changed while population centers such as Los Angeles, Sydney, Toronto, and London have changed beyond all recognition from what they were 50 years ago. An obvious inference is that pro-White activists should appeal to Whites’ higher brain centers with explicit messages emphasizing these transformations. 

Expressions of Anti-White Hatred Promote White Ethnocentrism

Another force that will make Whites more willing to coalesce into cohesive groups is the strident anti-White rhetoric that is now common in the elite media and academic culture throughout the West. There are many examples of this. It’s common now for the left to conceptualize American history as nothing more than dispossessing the Indians and enslaving Africans, Jim Crow laws in the South, etc., with the result that American history is being deconstructed from an anti-White perspective—Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States, 1492–Present is the classic text.[6] American historical figures are being delegitimized, their statues removed, etc.

Recently the New York Times hired Sarah Jeong, an Asian woman with a history of anti-White tweets, the New York Times’ Michelle Goldberg rejoiced that Whites are being replaced in Georgia, a Princeton classics professor advocated shutting off White men from publishing in the field, and CNN’s Don Lemon stated that White males are America’s biggest terror threat.[7]

It’s obvious that in a post-Obama America the anti-white zeitgeist is out of pandora’s box. … Due to unprecedented immigration and fatalist progressive experiments, there is no country where anti-white cultural currents are not rising. It wasn’t supposed to be this way, weakness, wealth transfers, preferential treatment, open borders and accommodation were supposed to invite warm feelings, equal outcomes and racial blindness. …

By the 1990s the entire constellation of Christian morality and civic responsibility in the public space had been secularized and compressed into a singular mandate. Millennials were taught from childhood that the highest moral good was serving the self-esteem of non-whites. In prior ages virtues such as courage, modesty, chivalry, valor and faith were ways young adults were encouraged to distinguish themselves but for Millennials it was an adeptness and willingness to navigate the mercurial minefield of knowing when and how to serve the self-esteem of non-whites that mattered.

Over the past thirty years conservatives were busy building an entire culture around anti-socialism while the Left was busy pushing its cultural trojan horse to unleash a whole different kind of plague. Maybe deep down many conservatives knew the anti-white dam would burst but they were too cowardly to confront it.[8]

Too cowardly indeed—quite like the professors unwilling to discuss Jewish influence on Mideast policy.

The following discusses several evolved mechanisms acting at the implicit, unconscious level that could act as a countervailing force to this culture of the left.

 

Social Identity Processes

At the outset of this chapter I reviewed research on social identity processes indicating that identification with an ingroup is increased in the presence of group competition—part of the argument for why social identity processes are an evolved universal. Because the left has adopted a program of encouraging identity politics among its racial, religious, and gender non-conformist constituencies, the result is that boundaries between groups have become clearer, thus triggering social identity mechanisms of positive bias toward the ingroup and negative bias toward outgroups.

As noted above, an awareness of impending minority status and the ubiquity of anti-White rhetoric are processed by the higher brain centers. However, the result is that Whites feel increasingly threatened in the multicultural West. This feeling of being under threat feeds into our evolved psychology of social identity. It is thus predicted that Whites in America and throughout the West will coalesce into a cohesive group based on these processes.

White people in the U.S. are coalescing in the Republican Party, and implicit White identities and associations continue to be common. However, explicit White identities remain uncommon, a testament to White individualism and relative lack of ethnocentrism, likely dovetailing with the effects of the media, the educational system, threats of ostracism, etc. According to a 2019 Pew Research survey, Whites remain by far the least likely racial group to state that race is extremely important (5 percent) or very important (10 percent) to their identity, with Whites under age 30 least likely to say so.[9] However, between 2017 and 2019 there was an increase among Republicans (the vast majority of whom are White) who agree that “if America is too open to the other people of the world, we risk losing our identity as a nation (from 48 percent to 57 percent),” with men, older people, and the less educated more likely to express this attitude.

Even more surprising is the sudden upsurge in such sentiments: “since September [2018], the share of Republicans who say America risks losing its identity if it is too open has increased 13 percentage points, while the share who view the nation’s openness to others as essential has declined 10 points.”[10] At least some of this phenomenon is likely explained by President Trump’s rhetoric on immigration which has placed the issue front and center in American politics and resulted in a torrent of abuse from the left.

Of course, these results are likely conservative estimates due to Whites not wanting to provide such opinions to a pollster given that such attitudes are proscribed by elites in the media, political culture, and educational system.

It’s therefore of interest that data from the same poll indicated that a substantial percentage of White Americans (61 percent) have a sense of shared fate with other White people, and such attitudes are actually more common among younger adults (age 30 or less) compared to older Whites (age > 50), and they are more common among highly educated Whites.[11] Attitudes of shared fate are an indirect measure of White identity and are likely more accurate than asking direct questions about explicit White identity or wanting more diversity because such attitudes have not been explicitly condemned by the mass media and educational system. A sense of shared fate is a strong marker of ingroup identity; at the extreme, a sense of shared fate has been linked to martyrdom and other forms of self-sacrificing behavior on behalf of the group.[12] As Ben Franklin reportedly stated at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, “we must indeed all hang together, or most assuredly we will all hang separately.”

Chapters 3–5 of my book Separation and Its Discontents developed the argument that group competition has been central to the main historical examples of anti-Semitism: the development of institutionalized anti-Semitism in the Roman Empire in the fourth century, the Iberian inquisitions, and the phenomenon of National Socialist anti-Semitism in the period 1933–1945 in Germany.[13] The common denominator of these movements is that they involved a powerful sense of group cohesion in opposition to Judaism, and I argue that each of these movements may be profitably analyzed as a reaction to the presence of Judaism as a highly successful group evolutionary strategy. Based on the social identity research discussed above, powerful group strategies are expected to beget opposing group strategies that in many ways have provided a mirror image of Jewish groups which they combat—socialization for ingroup identity, punishment for defectors, feelings of ingroup superiority and outgroup inferiority, and a sense of shared fate.

What this means in the present context is that as Whites see their power diminishing and notice that hatred toward them and their history is increasingly expressed in mainstream media outlets and in the actions of activists, they will increasingly identify as Whites and develop into a much more cohesive group opposed to the forces arrayed against them. Historically, this has often ended in violent conflict between groups. 

The Extremism of Scandinavian Culture: Egalitarianism, Trust, Conformity and Consensus Decision Making

It seems appropriate to conclude a chapter on the psychology of moral communities by discussing the extremism of Scandinavian political culture. In Chapter 1 it was argued that the Scandinavian countries are on the extreme end of the northwest-southeast genetic cline, with higher levels of northern hunter-gatherer-derived genes than other parts of Western Europe. Chapter 3 described these hunter-gatherer cultures as reflecting egalitarian individualism, and Chapter 4 described the Scandinavian family patterns as extreme within Western Europe.

Although all Western European-derived societies are undergoing replacement-level, non-White migration, there can be little doubt that Scandinavia and especially Sweden, are extreme in welcoming replacement of their peoples and cultures. As elsewhere in the West, a major role in these transformations has been played by Jewish activists and Jewish media ownership,[14] but Scandinavians seem particularly favorable to these transformations. Indeed, Noah Carl, analyzing 2015 survey data from the European Union, found that Swedes were the least ethnocentric group as measured by items such as approval of children having a love relationship with various ethnic groups, sexual minorities, and disabled people.[15] Respondents from the U.K. and the Netherlands were also highly tolerant, with Eastern European countries on the low end, data consistent with northwestern Europeans being the most tolerant.

The reputation-based moral communities of Scandinavia have been strongly egalitarian. The “Jante Laws” of Scandinavia are paradigmatic: 1. Don’t think you are anything; 2. Don’t think you are as good as us. 3. Don’t think you are smarter than us. 4. Don’t fancy yourself better than us. 5. Don’t think you know more than us. 6. Don’t think you are greater than us. 7. Don’t think you are good for anything. 8. Don’t laugh at us. 9. Don’t think that anyone cares about you. 10. Don’t think you can teach us anything.[16] In short, no one must rise above the rest. Such egalitarianism is typical of hunter-gatherer groups around the world[17] and is antithetical to the aristocratic ideal of the Indo-Europeans.

Extreme egalitarianism results in high levels of conformism and social anxiety. Individuals fear social ostracism for violating egalitarian norms and standing out from the crowd—a phenomenon that has played a major role in creating a public consensus in favor of mass migration and multiculturalism. Decisions are by consensus, implying that individuals are loathe to stand out from the group. In Sweden especially there is no public debate on the costs and benefits of immigration; sceptics typically remain silent for fear of shunning and disapproval.

Reflecting this pattern, contemporary Scandinavian society in general has a history of relatively small income and social class differences, including the absence of serfdom during the Middle Ages (see Chapter 4). A recent anthropological study of hunter-gatherers found that economic inequality approximated that of modern Denmark.[18] Chapter 4 discusses the individualism of Scandinavian family patterns, including relatively egalitarian relationships between spouses—extreme even within the Western European context.

Reputation-based moral communities thus lead to groupthink as individuals trust one another to have honest opinions, and individuals who deviate from group norms are shunned. A Swedish attorney commenting on a legal case where an innocent person was convicted of a crime, noted that many people were involved in the decision and all agreed with what turned out to be an unjust verdict:

When the same people participated in all or most of [the decision], a groupthink developed. … Strong trust between people is often described as one of Sweden’s great assets [but] it cannot replace a critical approach to serious allegations, even when they are self-accusations [i.e., a false confession by the accused].[19]

Strong social trust is indeed a great asset of Sweden and other countries with a significant Nordic population, leading to societies based on individual merit (a facet of reputation) and low levels of corruption. However, as in the above example, it can lead to groupthink as individuals who stand out or dissent from group norms in any way are ostracized—a facet of the Jante Laws (and the Tall Poppy syndrome of New Zealand; see Chapter 8): it’s not only excellence that is punished, but any deviation from group norms, including opinions shared by group members.

Egalitarian groups thus make decisions by consensus, not in a top-down, authoritarian manner. Once there is a decision-by-consensus, dissenters are seen as willfully ignorant or obstinate, and they lose status within the group.

Strong tendencies toward egalitarianism can thus easily lead to powerful social controls, either formal or informal, on behavior which are designed to ensure that individuals do not deviate from consensus attitudes, as noted in Puritan-derived cultures which became dominant in England and had a strong influence on the United States (Chapter 6). Thus, even though Scandinavian cultures have been described as the most individualistic in terms of family functioning (Chapter 4), it is  not surprising that these cultures may exert strong controls on individual behavior to ensure conformity to the norms of a moral community.

Both egalitarianism and socially enforced norms (conceptualized in moral terms) thus typify these cultures. Sweden appears to be extreme in these tendencies. Whereas Chapter 3 discussed Sweden’s egalitarianism, here I describe the intense social controls that have virtually banned discussion of the negative aspects of immigration and multiculturalism, support for which has become a consensus among the Swedish elite.

Sweden has declared itself a “humanitarian superpower”— a superpower whose ideology is that no sacrifice by the Swedes on behalf of Third World migrants is considered too great.   Official policy is that Swedes should make sacrifices to ensure sufficient housing for the continuous flow of immigrants, including repurposing churches (while mosques are being built). The government buys virtually any standing structure to be turned into immigrant housing, and there are proposals to confiscate vacation homes “for the greater good.” Meanwhile, Swedes have a lower priority for housing than immigrants, and thousands can’t find an apartment, a situation that is particularly difficult for young people, especially those wishing to start a family. Leading politicians openly say that Sweden does not belong to the Swedes, and that Swedes and Swedish culture are bland or that Sweden does not have a culture. [20]

This phenomenon is a violation of the general finding that people are less willing to contribute to public goods (e.g., public housing, health care) to people who don’t look like themselves[21] and again indicates very low ethnocentrism. Thus, the European societies that inaugurated national health care programs did so when they were racially homogeneous.  Besides a long history of self-reliance as fundamental to Americans’ self-concept, a likely reason universal health care has been so slow in coming in the U.S. is its historically large Black population, and in recent decades the post-1965 multicultural tsunami.[22]

A critical aspect of the success of Swedish multiculturalism is that Swedes are terrified to violate the moral consensus surrounding migration for fear of ostracism and loss of job. They are engaging in groupthink that demands allegiance to a moral community as defined by the media and the political culture. In effect, considering the genetic distances involved, this is an extreme form of what evolutionists term “altruistic punishment”—willingness to punish one’s own people and sacrifice them on the altar  of a moral ideal for fear of violating violate the norms of a moral community (Chapter 3, with further examples in Chapter 6).

Journalist Ingrid Carlqvist comments on the enforced silence on any criticism of multiculturalism, particularly in the above-ground media. Violating the silence is met with moral outrage intended to produce shunning and ostracism—in other words, there is a socially mandated groupthink where people are terrified at the thought of having dissenting opinions:

The situation in Sweden is far worse than in Denmark [which, as noted in Chapter 1 is quite different from Sweden genetically]. In Sweden nobody talks about immigration problems, the death of the multiculti project or the Islamisation/Arabisation of Europe. If you do, you will immediately be called a racist, an Islamophobe or a Nazi. That is what I have been called since I founded the Free Press Society in Sweden. My name has been dragged through the dirt in big newspapers like Sydsvenskan, Svenska Dagbladet and even my own union paper, The Journalist.[23]

This phenomenon has nothing to do with Christianity. Sweden is the most secular country in the world. Its elites are hostile to Christianity and more than happy to donate Christian churches to the non-Christian newcomers or to destroy churches to make housing for them. Rather, it is a new secular religion of moral consensus. They are behaving like the Puritans and Quakers, as discussed in Chapters 6 and 7, but without the religious veneer. Of course, we see the same thing throughout the West, albeit to a lesser extent. Western societies have uniquely been high-trust, reputation-based societies, a basic corollary of the psychology of Western individualism.

Ironically perhaps, one of the major findings on multiculturalism noted above is that it erodes trust not only of ethnic outsiders, but also of people of one’s own race or ethnicity. We can thus look forward to Swedes and other Westerners being less trusting, but by the time this happens, Sweden will already have been transformed into a non-homogeneous society prone to intra-societal conflicts and lack of willingness to contribute to public goods. When trust evaporates, Swedes may become more willing to stand up to the suicidal consensus.

Groupthink implies failure to look at the facts of the situation rather than idealized versions that reinforce the consensus. Groupthink thus makes it difficult to question multicultural mantras like “diversity is our strength” by considering the research on the effects of importing ethnic and religious diversity. In the case of Sweden, research indicates that, as in the United States noted above, Swedes, especially highly educated, relatively affluent Swedes, are the first to flee diversity, typically while failing to question its value.

We’ve found a so-called “tipping point” at around 3-4%, says Emma Neuman, research economist at Linneuniversitet. When the non-European immigrants are that many in a residential area then the native Swedes start moving out. …

The effect doesn’t revolve around immigrants generally. Immigrants from European countries do not result in a moving effect, only non-European immigrants. It is reminiscent of the phenomenon of white flight in the USA where whites move away from neighbourhoods where many blacks move in.[24]

Despite such implicitly nativist behavior, these Swedes are unlikely to publicly dissent from the consensus opinion that forbids any discussion of the effects of importing non-European diversity. The question of whether Swedes benefit from an increasingly segregated, culturally and racially divided, conflict-ridden society is never raised in public.[25]

 

The Special Case of Finland

I noted in Chapter 1 that Finns, particularly in eastern Finland, are genetic outliers compared to Western Europe. It’s interesting that Finnish society exhibits a similar phenomenon to the Jante Laws discussed above. Edward Dutton notes that a factor contributing to the lack of condemnation of a recent epidemic of rapes by migrants was the desire not to stand out from the crowd. Like their Scandinavian neighbors, Finns are high on conformism and social anxiety, concerned to maintain a good reputation in their moral community.[26] They do not want to dissent from the moral consensus that defines the community. Being ostracized from the small face-to-face communities that Finns evolved in was certain evolutionary death.

At the same time, traditional Finnish society, especially in eastern Finland where there is relatively little Swedish genetic or cultural influence, clearly has not exhibited the northwestern European family system discussed in Chapter 4.[27] Family structure was patriarchal, with fathers controlling sons and determining marriages. ‘‘The head of the household took the decision as to when to partition his farm, when to make appointment to the son and when to retire.” Although they could leave the family farm with an equal inheritance as their brothers, sons tended to remain in the household, the oldest son becoming patriarch, while daughters married outside the family. In eastern Finland in the second half of the eighteenth century, fully 70 percent of families were extended or multiple, rising to 84–90 percent among the peasants. This pattern is remarkably similar to that found in southern France and southeastern Europe, and contrasts with the patterns of northwest Europe, as discussed in Chapter 4. In Finland, it wasn’t until well into the eighteenth century that this pattern began to change as a result of influence from Sweden via the Lutheran church’s opposition to clans and marrying kin. (Sweden dominated Finland until 1809.)—characterized by socially enforced egalitarianism as typified by the Jante Laws.

This suggests that egalitarianism, social anxiety, and conformism evolved in Finland independent of other parts of Scandinavia where they are linked to extreme individualism in family structure.

 Conclusion: The Importance of Changing the Explicit Culture

Evolutionists have not been properly sensitive to the enormous gulf between humans and animals resulting from human general intelligence and the Conscientiousness system. At a very broad level, the Conscientiousness system allows our behavior to come under the control of the surrounding culture. We make complex appraisals of how our behavior and attitudes mesh with the rewards and punishments present in the current cultural milieu, and we are inundated with ideas and ideologies emanating from the academic world and the media. Importantly for the present political context, potential political dissidents must assess the risks to their reputation and livelihood in their face-to-face world.

But it gets more complicated than that. The people creating messages emanating from the mainstream media and academic culture need not—and often do not—have the same interests as the recipients of the messages. For example, it is a commonplace that media images have important effects on behavior even though people are often unaware that their behavior is so influenced.⁸⁵ These images are often engineered by advertisers who are consciously attempting to influence the recipients of the messages in ways that conform to advertisers’ interests, not those of the audience.

More important, media messages and academic culture—both dominated by the anti-White left—have been able to shape the discussion of issues related to White identity and interests. The culture of critique has become the explicit culture of the West, endlessly repeated in media messages but packaged differently for people of different levels of intelligence and education, and for people with different interests and from different subcultures.⁸⁶ White people are constantly exposed to suffering non-Whites as proper candidates for immigration and refugee status. They are exposed to messages intended to induce guilt for the history of slavery and dispossession of the Native Americans. A theme of this chapter is that by programming the higher areas of the brain, this explicit culture is able to control the implicit ethnocentric tendencies of White people.

To find a way out of this morass, therefore, changing the explicit culture is critical, in particular legitimizing a strong sense of identity and group interests among Whites. This won’t be easy, but I suggest that the first step is a psychological one: making proud and confident explicit assertions of White identity and interests, and creating communities where such assertions are considered normal and natural rather than grounds for ostracism. The fact that such assertions appeal to our implicit psychology is certainly an asset. It’s always easier to go with a natural tendency than to oppose it. And in this case, opposing our natural ethnocentric tendencies by using our quintessentially human prefrontal inhibitory control against our own ethnic interests is nothing less than suicidal.

Moreover, the massive demographic changes that have occurred throughout the West along with increasingly common anti-White themes in the mainstream media appear to be making Whites more aware that their interests are not being met by the erection of minority-White, multicultural, multiracial societies throughout the West. As discussed above, this anti-White rhetoric has the effect not only of making Whites more conscious of being White, but of making them more willing to coalesce into a White political force.

The result has been increasingly strident efforts to ramp up propaganda in support of the status quo on issues related to race and immigration and to shut down free speech on these issues. Particularly since the election of President Trump, the dominant cultural apparatus of the left has moved into high gear, with major newspapers (The New York Times, Washington Post) and television networks (CNN, MSNBC) becoming obsessively anti-Trump. Since the charge of Russian collusion has collapsed, the media has shifted to greater emphasis on Trump’s alleged racism.

However, when propaganda fails to have its desired effects of manipulating our evolved psychology—as appears to be increasingly the case—the establishment has been resorting to force. Stifling speech by people who disagree with the establishment line on race has become common. Speakers are barred from college campuses or shouted down, often amid rioting.[28] Social media companies have shut down the accounts of outspoken White advocates, such as Jared Taylor, and have engaged in shadow banning, and limiting numbers of followers. Media sites associated with the Dissident Right have been denied financial services by PayPal and credit card processing companies.

As noted in Chapter 7, there is also a robust academic literature by leftist law professors that justifies essentially abrogating the First Amendment on issues related to race.[29] If Hillary Clinton had been elected president and appointed even one or two Supreme Court justices, the First Amendment would have been gutted. Justice Elena Kagan has already shown a willingness to rein in the First Amendment regarding speech on diversity issues.

And recently the American Civil Liberties Union—long a stalwart defender of free speech and often regarded as a de facto Jewish organization[30]—has changed its policies to combat ideas associated with the Dissident Right:

A recent internal ACLU memo on “case-selection guidelines” explicitly says that the cases the organization takes up may be influenced by “the extent to which the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are contrary to our values. … Factors like the potential effect of the speech on ‘marginalized communities’ and even on ‘the ACLU’s credibility’ could militate against taking a case.”[31]

Historically, leftists have favored free speech when they did not have the power they do today. For example, during the 1950s’ McCarthy era, the left—already well entrenched in the media and elite universities—was mainly concerned to protect communist professors and other leftist dissidents—many of them Jewish—who were targeted by Congressional committees. Their political views stifled by restrictions on communism, their response was to create a culture in which free speech was viewed as sacrosanct. Inherit the Wind (by Jerome Lawrence Schwartz and Robert Edwin Lee) was written to oppose McCarthyism.[32] Another famous example of anti-McCarthyism from the 1950s is Arthur Miller’s The Crucible which implicitly condemned the House Un-American Activities Committee by comparing their hearings on communist infiltration to the Salem witch trials in Puritan Massachusetts.

However, the rise of the left to cultural dominance has coincided with the power of organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC—another de facto Jewish organization[33]) and the Anti-Defamation League that care nothing for free speech and specialize in getting people fired and ostracized for thought crimes. There is clearly a Jewish ethnic aspect to this transformation.[34] While there are endless tears for Hollywood screenwriters blacklisted during the anti-communist fervor of the 1950s and since promoted to cultural sainthood,[35] don’t expect our new elite to condemn witch hunts against the Dissident Right. And don’t expect any time soon to see a hit Broadway play based on an allegory in which the SPLC is implicitly condemned for its persecution of race realists and White advocates.

The lesson is that the left will not give up its cultural dominance without a battle and they will be utterly unprincipled in how they attempt to remain in power. The left’s power resides in its ability to engage in psychological manipulation by occupying the moral and intellectual high ground in the media and universities; it resides in its ability to shape incentives and disincentives in the workplace; it resides in its ability to import a new left-leaning electorate. If all these fail, force can and will be used.

---

[1] Salter, On Genetic Interests.

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

[3] J. Philippe Rushton, “Genetic Similarity Theory and the Nature of Ethnocentrism,” in Kristiaan Thienpont and Robert Cliquet (eds.) In-group/Out-group Behavior in Modern Societies: An Evolutionary Perspective (The Hague, Netherlands: Vlaamse Gemeenschap/CBGS, 1999): 75–107.

[4] Susan T. Fiske, “Stereotyping, Prejudice, and Discrimination,” in Daniel Todd Gilbert, Susan T. Fiske, and Gardner Lindzey (eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology, 4th ed., Vol. 2 (Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, 1998): 357–411.

[5] H. Robert Outten, Michael T. Schmitt, and Daniel A. Miller, “Feeling Threatened about the Future: Whites’ Emotional Reactions to Anticipated Ethnic Demographic Changes,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 38 (2011): 14–25.

[6] Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States, 1492–Present (New York: Harper, 1980); see also: Kevin MacDonald, “The Academic Left’s Involvement in Politics, The Occidental Observer (February 1, 2010).

[7] Fox News, “New York Times Stands by New Tech Writer” (August 2, 2018).

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/new-york-times-stands-by-new-tech-writer-sarah-jeong-after-racist-tweets-surface

Michelle Goldberg, “We Can Replace Them,” The New York Times (October 29, 2018).

Rod Dreher, “Classics Studies: No Country for White Men,” The American Conservative (January 30, 2019).

Lindsey Bever, “CNN’s Don Lemon Doubles Down after Saying White Men Are ‘the Biggest Terror Threat in This Country,’” Washington Post (October 31, 2018).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2018/10/31/cnn-host-don-lemon-said-White-men-are-biggest-terror-threat-this-country/?utm_term=.7512d32960f4

[8] Mark Point, “Racism on the Rise,” American Thinker (November 6, 2018).

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/11/racism_on_the_rise.html

[9] Pew Research Center, “Race in America, 2019” (April 9, 2019),

https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2019/04/09/race-in-america-2019/

[10] Claire Brockway and Carroll Doherty, “Growing Share of Republicans Say U.S. Risks Losing Its Identity If It Is Too Open to Foreigners,” Pew Research Center (July 17, 2019).

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/07/17/growing-share-of-republicans-say-u-s-risks-losing-its-identity-if-it-is-too-open-to-foreigners/

[11] Kiana Cox, “Most U.S. Adults Feel What Happens to Their Own Racial or Ethnic Group Affects Them Personally,” Pew Research Center (July 11, 2019).

Paraphrased, the poll asked “Does what happens to your racial or ethnic group in the U.S. affect overall what happens in your own life?”

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/07/11/linked-fate-connectedness-americans/

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

[13] MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents.

[14] M. Eckehart, How Sweden Became Multicultural (Helsingborg, Sweden: Logik Förlag, 2017);

1. Roger Devlin, “The Origins of Swedish Multiculturalism: A Review of M. Eckehart’s How SwedenBecame Multicultural,” The Occidental Observer (September 9, 2017).

Kevin MacDonald, “The Jewish Origins of Multiculturalism in Sweden,” The Occidental Observer (January 14, 2013).

[15] Noah Carl, “Tolerance of Inter-Ethnic Relationships in Europe,” @NoahCarl (July 227, 2019).

https://medium.com/@NoahCarl/tolerance-of-inter-ethnic-relationships-in-europe-c27bda8a25e1

[16] Aksel Sandemose (1899–1965) in his novel En Flyktning Krysser Sitt Spor (A Fugitive Crosses His Tracks, 1933). Although originating in a work of fiction, the Jante Laws have been widely recognized by Scandinavians as accurately reflecting a mindset typical of their society.

[17] Christopher H. Boehm, Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999).

[18] Eric A. Smith, Kim Hill, Frank Marlowe, D. Nolin, Polly Wiessner, P, M. Gurven, S. Bowles, Monique Borgerhoff-Mulder, T. Hertz, and A. Bell, “Wealth Transmission and Inequality Among H-gs,” Current Anthropology 51, no. 10 (2010):19–34.

[19] “Lawyers Blame Groupthink in Sweden’s Worst​​ Miscarriage of Justice,” The Guardian (June 5, 2015).

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/05/groupthink-sweden-miscarriage-of-justice-sture-bergwall

[20] See Kevin MacDonald, “Pathological Altruism on Steroids in Sweden,” The Occidental Observer (April 4, 2015).

[21] Frank K. Salter, Welfare, Ethnicity, and Altruism: New Data and Evolutionary Theory (London: Routledge, 2005).

[22] Kevin MacDonald, “Racial Conflict and the Health Care Bill, “The Occidental Observer (March 3, 2010).

[23] Ingrid Carlqvist, “I Want My Country Back,” speech given at the International Civil Liberties Alliance in the European Parliament, Brussels (July 9, 2012); emphasis in original.

https://www.trykkefrihed.dk/i-want-my-country-back.htm

[24] Henrik Höjer, “Segregation Is Increasing in Sweden,” Forsting & Framsted (May, 29, 2015) (edited Google translation).

https://fof.se/artikel/segregationen-okar

[25] One might think that because of the importance of conformity, Scandinavian cultures would not be not prone to producing geniuses—phenotypic outliers who create novel ideas and inventions. However, a rough per capita ranking (based on 2018 populations) of Nobel Prizes in the sciences (chemistry, physics, and physiology or medicine) indicates that Scandinavian countries (Norway, Sweden, Denmark) have a ranking comparable to other northwestern European countries, and higher than France or Germany. These results are not substantially altered by excluding Jewish laureates (only two of whom resided in a Scandinavian country). The results for Finland are comparable to France, and slightly higher if one excludes Jewish laureates living in France.

The reason perhaps is that scientific communities in the hard sciences (but not in many of the social sciences) are not moral communities. Dissenters may be treated as eccentric or none-too-smart, but they are not vilified as moral reprobates.

“List of Countries by Nobel Laureates Per Capita,” Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Nobel_laureates_per_capita

[26] Edward Dutton, The Silent Rape Epidemic: How the Finns Were Groomed to Love Their Abusers (Oulu, Finland: Thomas Edward Press, 2019), 25.

[27] Kirsi Warpula, “Eastern Finnish Families on the Borderland of Historical Family Forms,” History of the Family 7, no. 3 (2002): 315–326.

[28] For an exhaustive account, see Richard Houck, “Words Like Violence: The Left’s Total War on Freedom of Speech,” Ch. I of Part 2 of Liberalism Unmasked (London: Arktos, 2018), 55–85.

[29] See, e.g., Jeremy Waldron, The Harm in Hate Speech (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2012).

[30] J. J. Goldberg notes that “within the world of liberal organizations like the ACLU and People for the American Way, Jewish influence is so profound that non-Jews sometimes blur the distinction between them and the formal Jewish community.”

46. J. Goldberg, Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1996), 46.

[31] Mark Hemingway, “Want to Defend Civil Liberties? Don’t Look to the ACLU,” The Weekly Standard (June 29, 2018).

https://www.weeklystandard.com/mark-hemingway/the-aclu-gives-up-on-free-speech-and-the-first-amendment

[32] “Inherit the Wind (play),” Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inherit_the_Wind_(play)#Background

[33] Kevin MacDonald, “Jerry Kammer: The SPLC Depends on Jewish Donors,” The Occidental Observer (March 18, 2010).

[34] Kevin MacDonald, “The Hate Crimes Prevention Bill: Why Do Jewish Organizations Support It?,” VDare.com (May 11, 2009).

https://vdare.com/articles/the-hate-crimes-prevention-bill-why-do-jewish-organizations-support-it

[35] Kevin MacDonald, “Joe McCarthy and the Jews,” review of Jewish Organizations’ Response to Communism and Senator McCarthy, by Aviva Weingarten (2008), The Occidental Quarterly 19, no. 1 (Spring, 2019): 97–105.

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.

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.