White Racial Consciousness and Advocacy

Guillaume Faye: The Necessity of Contemplating an Ethnic War for Survival

Guillaume Faye
Prelude to War: Chronicle of the Coming Cataclysm
Arktos, 2021. 

“A people who no longer think about waging war are finished, drained of their substance and worn out from the inside.”
Guillaume Faye, Prelude to War

I discovered the writings of Guillaume Faye only after his death in 2019, when Arktos published a translation of Guerre civile raciale (A Racial Civil War). In the process of reading and reviewing that work, I wrestled with a writer whose style and content both gripped and informed, infuriated and exasperated. Reading Faye is, above all, an experience, and often an exhausting but irresistible one, something agreed upon by those who worked to compile the literary memorial to him published at the start of this year. It was therefore with a mixture of excitement and trepidation that I discovered Arktos had recently released a volume of translations of Faye’s earlier and most explosive texts including his highly controversial The New Jewish Question and his uncompromising, brutalist writings on the problem of Muslim mass migration. Since my expectations concerning the volume were mixed, it brought a smile to my face to see Faye, always the prophet, a step ahead of me in his introduction with the warning that: “Once you have finished reading this book, you may find yourself persuaded or disgusted; optimistic or pessimistic.” I’m glad to report that I emerged from this book persuaded and optimistic, and also convinced that, the usual idiosyncratic unevenness to Faye’s thought aside, this is the single best volume of the enigmatic Frenchman’s work available in English.

The volume opens with a competent, but unfortunately irritating, Foreword by Constantin von Hoffmeister. We are introduced to a broad overview of Faye’s thought, which is unnecessarily peppered with nasty asides at some of the very people most likely to now read and admire Faye’s work. We are told, for example, of a need to rid different nationalist groupings of “archaic positions, such as the outdated animosity towards Jews.” First, it should be considered an axiom that any people that starts believing the Jewish Question to be relegated to the past will soon find itself relegated to the past. Or to put it another way — patronize this issue at your peril. One of the irritating features of some nationalist writing from Europe is that it is overwhelmingly fixated on its primary, sensory experience of multiracialism (mass Muslim migration) while remaining ignorant or dismissive of the intensive Jewish politico-cultural entrenchment directly experienced by those in other jurisdictions (perhaps none more than the United States). One often finds the naive and simplistic need to have only one opponent at a time, with the chosen villain of the present panic rendering all other problems distant or merely “archaic.” With generosity, one might excuse von Hoffmeister’s comments by way of education (brainwashing) in Germany and experience (the undeniable and obvious effrontery of Muslim encroachment), but how then to explain why, a few pages later, von Hoffmeister accuses a nameless and amorphous mass called “the managerial class” of having “duped the people into committing civilizational suicide for inglorious amounts of shekels”?

Why the dog whistle? If the managerial class is acting on behalf of those capable of issuing massive bribes of shekels, then we are obviously talking about Jewish influence. I have no problem with this kind of coded language, but I do have a problem with denunciations of anti-Semitism (archaic!) occupying the same few paragraphs as dog whistles appealing to anti-Semitism (shekels!). It’s confusing and unnecessary. As a general rule, if your country’s laws, or your personal public position, limit what you can say about Jews, then it is best to refrain from addressing the subject at all, rather than engaging in a rhetorical game of peekaboo with the government and your readers that only serves to demoralize and disorient. The same can be said for von Hoffmeister’s claim that the Kalergi Plan is “non-existent,” which appears alongside his warnings about a coming multiracial “New World Order.” I finished the Foreword utterly confused as to what von Hoffmeister believes, and quite relieved that I could finally get to Faye’s writings which, while always challenging, are considerably clearer in terms of their logical progression.

The volume very quickly recovers from its opening bum note. Faye always excelled in his adoption of the role of prophet, and despite his deep loathing of the prophets of Judaism and Christianity, he was in his own way a masterful apocalyptic preacher capable of blending the aggression and fanaticism of a Jeremiah with a distinctly European fatalism of the kind found in the Iliad. Faye, in a sense, wandered a cultural desert, uttering warnings in a political wilderness. Faye the Prophet wastes no time in this text, warning us plainly in his introduction that our days are numbered, that our materialistic and individualistic culture will soon be destroyed, and that our “bourgeois habits might be experiencing their final moments.” This is a book that covers a wide variety of subjects over twenty-one chapters, but which always returns to the inevitability of war, and of deepening conflict in all areas of life. Faye relishes the prospect, believing there to be “no universal morality.” An obvious Nietzschean, he declares that Good and Evil don’t exist and that “might is always right.” Faye demanded of Europeans that they simply engage in the fight to survive, because “whether one likes it or not, only the will to survive, demographic proliferation and combativeness can prevail over the reassuring and suicidal discourse espoused by the scribes of decadence.”

The book really begins with the impressive and aggressive first chapter, “Facing Islam.” I found it surprising that only one chapter in the volume concerned Islam, given Faye’s well-known preoccupation with the subject, but it does form a subtle background note to the rest of the book. Anyone familiar with Faye will anticipate the tone and direction of the material here. Faye warned that Muslims in Europe are ready and willing to “wage a war of revenge and conquest on our own soil.” Rather than seeing matters through a purely religious lens, Faye insists that what we are really witnessing is the beginning of an “ethnic civil war.” In this conflict, Islam has been adopted as a banner and identitarian standard, but we can see that “at the start, the Browns were completely indifferent to their own religion and were only interested in parasitic consumerism.” Ethnic grievance, for Faye, is the true driver of the coming war, whereas Islam will merely provide a useful veneer to the “Browns” who can use it tactically to enhance group cohesion and morale. Faye insists that Islam (“a vast undertaking of mental stupefaction”) is dangerous in its own right, however, and contrasts it with less totalitarian monotheisms like Christianity. Because of its role as “the purest kind of totalitarianism in existence,” Faye advocates only the strongest of responses to it:

No containment strategy could ever distress them. Islam only retreats when its members are told that one intends to eliminate it, to eradicate it once and for all. One must arouse fear in them, not negotiate. The only language that Islam understands is the language of force; such is its culture.

Faye closes the chapter with a condemnation of Western foreign policy in Muslim lands, arguing that the best cure for Islamic terrorism in Europe is to “abstain from bombarding Muslim countries and do the housework on our own soil.”

The second chapter of the volume, “Neo-Terrorism: Why One Should Be Pessimistic,” picks up the baton left by the opening chapter and delves deeper into the problem of Muslim terrorism in Europe. The volume unfortunately provides no guide to the dates on which the various essays/chapters were originally published, but some light exegesis led me to believe that the majority of the volume’s work was written in the handful of years immediately following 9/11 — roughly, the period 2002–2007. With this dating, some of Faye’s predictions appear remarkably prescient given the rapid increase in Muslim terrorism in Europe between 2010 and 2015, culminating in the 2015 massacre at the Bataclan in Paris. Probably writing no more than a few months after 9/11, Faye warned that Muslim terrorism would “spread considerably during the first decades of the twenty-first century,” boosted by the mediatization of society (especially the role of the internet) and the drive to pursue ever more spectacular forms of terrorist attack. Faye is once more scathing of Western responses to Islamic terror, singling out the response of the United States to 9/11 and comparing it to a “cowboy who pulls out his pistol to target wasps that he cannot even see.” Faye lamented the West’s ability to combat Muslim terrorism because Muslim migration itself represents a kind of quasi-military reinforcement and because Muslim terror networks are almost impenetrable even to the most skilled secret service agencies. The most crucial error of all, however, is the fact that

Europeans and Americans are utterly blind to the coming ethnic civil war and a demographic flood that is far graver than terrorism. What causes a people’s demise is neither the use of bombs nor military operations, but ethnic flooding. The primary and most effective weapon of war has always been embodied by an invasion of foreign populations, naturalisations, and a gradual seizure of power by foreigners.

The book’s third chapter, “The American Adversary,” is one of the slower-paced entries. It deals with an anti-Americanism that is quite specific to France, and which might leave many in the Anglosphere scratching their heads. There are some arguments that are becoming more current in Third Positionist discourse in our circles, including the idea that America is not a nation or empire, but “a massive commercial and financial undertaking supported by the military-industrial complex and founded upon the necessity of a permanent state of war.” To this kind of thinking I can only reply that there’s an element of truth to this analysis of the structure and expression of American power, but it also leaves a great deal unsaid. Most importantly, I believe there is definitely an American nation, even an ethnic (White) nation, but it is sublimated in the current culture and has been for several decades due to propaganda and demonization, the latter of which has ramped up enormously in recent years with the institutionalization of Critical Race Theory. Faye himself straddles both sides of the argument, believing that Europe and America can and should be strong allies, but insisting that American culture is built around war, “but not the glorious kind: hypocritical warfare, the offspring of commerce and industry.” For Faye, the United States represents a problem because of its influence in European affairs, but this problem should be regarded as temporary because the US displays “a purely material and mechanical appearance of power.” He insists that America lacks any sort of “demographic, cultural, spiritual, or, in short, historical foundation. It is a power comprised of merchants and brokers, the fleeting power of a short-lived civilisation.” As proof of his argument for American decline, Faye predicts “in 2030, the US will probably no longer be a mostly Anglo-Saxon country, but a Hispanic/African/Asian one, a fact that will alter quite a few perspectives.” Ethnically diluted, America will be unable to contend with the rise of China and the demographic expansion of Islam, both of which possess a foundation of longevity to their power that the United States lacks. Faye, I must be clear, doesn’t celebrate American decline, but rather he contextualizes it within what he perceives to be a coming globalized war: “the conflict shall, generally speaking, involve a clash between the White race and all others.”

On this note, the book moves to a brief chapter titled “Towards a New Cold War Between China and the USA.” Faye points out that American militarism has most often been directed only against small countries like Vietnam, Panama, and Serbia, but now faces “the enormous China, a terrifying challenger which, thanks to its 1.25 billion inhabitants, can indeed withstand any losses resulting from nuclear strikes and is now endowing itself with long-range missiles.” The chapter contains an interesting analysis of the character of Chinese nationalism, and the Chinese perspective (fiercely relativist) on the notion of democracy and the philosophy of human rights.

The fifth chapter of the volume, “Towards an Ethnic Civil War in Europe,” contains material that will be very familiar to those who read Faye’s Ethnic Apocalypse (originally published in French as Guerre civile raciale). The content here is an exceptional dissection of race relations in France that has overwhelming relevance to multiracial societies everywhere. Take, for example, his discussion of anti-police riots in France, written more than a decade before last year’s Summer of Floyd:

The mechanism that triggers such rioting is always identical: a police officer injures or kills an Afro-Maghrebi delinquent that had aggressed him to avoid getting arrested (after being caught red-handed); alternatively a French citizen is attacked and, overwhelmed with fear, defends himself … Police interventions and law enforcement actions are regarded as virtually political and territorial provocations.

One example provided by Faye, that made me laugh until I pondered the seriousness of it all, concerns a riot that followed the death of “a man named Kamel, who had died as a result of having severed his femoral artery while smashing the window of a shop he was burgling.” All of which goes to prove quite clearly that these riots are not about justice and security but rather, as Faye argues, about ethnic claims on territory and attempts to gain an advantage in competitive racial politics. For Faye, aggressive race riots are nothing more than a prelude to racial civil war, since “war always begins in public spaces and through provocations. It is animal-like and ethological.”

Whites are paralyzed from acting against this process, or even perceiving it, in part because of the nature of the relationship between White socio-economic classes. This theme comprises the volume’s sixth chapter, “The New Social War and the Economic Crisis.” Faye explores the evolution of leftist parties into bourgeois movements, and astutely points out that the mindset of the bourgeoisie “can only acknowledge competition in an economic context.” Blind to competition outside this paradigm (e.g., racial competition), “the entire Left despises our native people.” In today’s Europe, Faye argues:

The Left embodies the most refined expression of the worst possible aspects of the bourgeois ideology: cosmopolitanism, hatred for our native people and its traditions, the worship of money concealed under a façade of philanthropic motivations, xenophile, etc.

The ‘anti-racist’ bourgeois “are always careful to enroll their children in private and foreigner-free schools,” but elsewhere there is a “class complicity between the ruling anti-racist bourgeois upper class and the immigrant-colonisers to the detriment of our native population, a population that works, pays and suffers every act of violence.” Faye attacks French culture, which he sees as undervaluing manual work while lavishing praise on “parasitic professions” like journalists, TV presenters, and public intellectuals. The chapter closes with a scathing indictment of White guilt, and a call for investment in “high-quality education and a dynamic demography based on pro-natalist policy.”

At this stage, the volume departs from thematic connection between chapters and launches quite unexpectedly into Faye’s controversial 2007 essay, “The New Jewish Question.” Although familiar with Faye’s attitudes to Jews as expressed in Ethnic Apocalypse, this was my first time reading “The New Jewish Question” in full. Predictably, given loud (and perhaps unfair) accusations that Faye revealed himself as a Zionist by publishing it, there is some material in the essay that I strongly disagree with. Overall, however, I have to say that it is not as bad as a thought it would be. Faye is certainly not a Zionist, but neither is he anti-Zionist. He is extremely dismissive of the situation faced by the Palestinians, but declares “I am neither philosemitic nor antisemitic.” He later refines this statement to “I am judeo-indifferent.” Whether such declarations are tenable given the saturation of Jewish interests in the life of the West is the real question here, and for my part I was unconvinced by Faye’s argument that one can simply abstain from any and all positions involving Jews. In fact, it seems a rather easy and convenient way out of some very difficult questions.

Faye advocates complete disinterest in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on two grounds. The first is that he assumes that “the state of Israel may eventually disappear,” and therefore that the problem is in any case temporary. Second, Faye insists that no amount of help for Muslims experiencing problems in the Middle East will stem the tide of Muslim migration to Europe because migration flows have preceded all such conflicts and are unaffected by material circumstances in Muslim nations. Faye insists that “despite its apparent military power, Israel will not last long” because “its demographic flooding at the hands of Palestinian Arabs, regardless of whether the latter are Israeli citizens or not, is inevitable, since their fertility rate is twice as high as that of all Israeli Jews.”

Personally, I have deep reservations about Faye’s claims in this regard, based not least on the fact that Jewish birth rates in Israel have now surpassed those of Arabs, leading the Jewish Policy Center to declare that “the so-called population time bomb has disappeared in Israel.” I can think of no other nation on earth that demonstrates as much open concern about its racial composition, birth rates, and demographics as Israel, and one gets the impression that nothing is “off the table” in terms of what the Jews of Israel are prepared to do in order to maintain control of that territory. In short, the demographic flooding of Jews in Israel is far from inevitable, and is in fact extremely unlikely. In relation to Faye’s second point, he seems to miss the importance of moral arguments in Jewish propaganda on behalf of Israel, and in Jewish apologetic propaganda more generally. Although I certainly have no love for Arabs or Palestinians, I’ve always found pro-Palestinian rallies to be extremely interesting and useful counterpoints to Jewish dominance of Western moral narratives, and the many denunciations of Israeli atrocities have done much to dent, impede, or at least complicate narratives of the Jews as history’s perpetual and blameless victims. Aid for Palestine therefore doesn’t need to be focused solely on the stemming of migrant flows (I agree with Faye that they proceed regardless), but can remain a reasonable activity for anyone seeking to hinder Zionist influence and narratives globally.

Another flaw in Faye’s argument is that he seemed to believe that American Zionism is based not on the influence of powerful American Jewish lobbies, but solely on an American strategic drive to dominate the region a la Noam Chomsky. In this view, Israel constitutes nothing more than a passive partner to American ambitions, and it can be replaced with intensified American relations with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt. Faye fully expected the eventual abandonment of Israel by the United States, an event that doesn’t seem, to any reasonable observer, even remotely conceivable now or at any future date.

Faye’s understanding of Jewish influence also left a lot to be desired. He concedes that “Jewish intellectuals” have been at the forefront of “immigrational laxism,” but later insists that “Jewish ambition is limited to a sort of spiritual and intellectual philosophy.” Much as I admire Faye’s writings, this is shameless nonsense. While “The New Jewish Question” is an interesting and novel essay, I must make it clear that while there are many reasons to read Faye, one of them is not to come to grips with Jewish matters. Faye failed miserably in this area, and there is, quite frankly, little I can offer in terms of mitigation other than the remark I made on reviewing Ethnic Apocalypse: “I see a paralysis-like error in [Faye’s] thinking, brought about by a quite understandable reaction to the stark and visible Islamisation of France.”

The volume recovers from this dip in quality very well, with Faye’s eighth chapter on “Europe and the Third World — An Impossible Combination.” The author attacks White guilt in relation to Africa (“this unintelligent continent”), and condemns the White charitable endeavors that have led to mass African demographic growth. The steady movement of this excess population into the West has swamped us with “aggressive beggars and false eternal victims.” Faye laments that Africa was ever colonized by Europeans, stressing that “in the absence of northern countries, Black Africa would return to the Neolithic in the space of one single generation.”

Chapters 9 through 17 deal with problems in contemporary culture, ranging from White “collaborationists” in multiculturalism, to the conceits of French intellectualism and political correctness. The seventeenth chapter, “Decadence — A Prelude to Collapse,” was one of my favorites, and deals with the imposition of “effeminate models” of behavior on European males. Faye attacks pornography, the promotion of homosexuality, and feminism for weakening our capability of waging a “war of wombs.” There are some terrific aphorisms in this chapter, alongside Faye’s typically scathing tone (“‘Tolerant’ people are imbeciles.”)

The book comes to a close with four essays that adopt a more philosophical tone. The most interesting of these is “Is Christianity Still Capable of Struggle?” I thought that Faye was hard but fair on Christianity in this piece, pointing out that Christianity has been so flexible and adaptive over time that a fifteenth-century priest would hardly recognize the religion we see today. This same flexibility and adaptiveness have allowed altruistic elements of Christian discourse to be “adopted by trade unions, parties, associations, and leagues, and people, therefore, no longer have any need of it, nor of its impoverished rites devoid of long-lost sacredness.” Faye also attacks the individualism in Western Christian notions of marriage (love matches), which he sees as directly responsible for “demographic decline and the collapse of the clan-based family for the benefit of unfertile and unstable nuclei that are henceforth open to the worst kind of psychopathy, namely the existence of homosexual couples.” Further, the secularization of certain Christian values has been catastrophic:

Never before have people talked so much about “loving their neighbour, and never before have social selfishness, disdain for the state of matrimony, the shattering of our close bonds of solidarity, lack of civic-mindedness, materialistic cynicism and violence been so prevailingly widespread.

That being said, I thought there were some points made by Faye against Christianity that were rather weak, not least his claim that Christianity promotes belief in the inherent goodness of man. This would surely come as a surprise to anyone familiar with the doctrine of original sin and the fallen state of Man and the world. The essay, despite its faults, will challenge and intrigue both Christians and non-Christians, and was in my view one of the highlights of the volume.

Concluding Remarks

Why read Faye? Certainly not for well-considered analysis of the Jewish Question. Nor, I must say, should one read Faye for his prophecies — he claims in his conclusion, for example, that “it is about 2010 that the great about-turn [in our favor] will begin.” The failure of this particular prediction provides a useful warning against the development of nationalist eschatologies (‘end of the world’ theories) based on allegedly imminent societal collapses, and Faye was an enthusiastic expert in the production of such eschatologies. With Islamic terrorism seemingly contained for the time being, or at least limited to events that Faye would not regard as “spectacular,” we must come to the realization that much more likely than sudden collapse is prolonged social, cultural, and demographic decline. This phenomenon is infinitely more difficult to oppose and reverse, but Faye had remarkably little to say on this subject. He was intensely disturbed by Muslim mass migration, and rightly so, but it tainted his work with a panicked quality operating on assumptions of a limited time horizon. This, I feel, will tend to limit the place of his work in posterity.

With these caveats out of the way, however, there remain many reasons to read Faye, and to read this volume in particular. Faye had a remarkable talent for writing, and his works are masterclasses in punchy, aggressive, and direct explorations of some of the most pressing problems facing contemporary Western peoples. Reading Faye, one is shocked at his lack of concern for France’s speech laws, a disregard that led to a number of appearances in court. Faye was courageous and bold, and his ideas are often bumpy and uneven, but always sincere. Perhaps the best reason to read Faye is that, despite his penchant for a coming apocalypse, he was an optimist. One can therefore read Faye to be encouraged. He closed this volume, after all, with the words: “Do not despair.”

Anti-White Hate and White Ethnomasochism at the Opera

Daniel Bernard Roumain

Given the obsession with “systemic White racism,” it’s not at all surprising that enterprising non-Whites can make a career out of their supposed oppression. A very lucrative career in many cases.

A big problem for those intent on displacing White culture is the world of classical music. Brenton Sanderson described the assault on classical music in his aptly titled “Triggered by Beethoven: The Cultural Politics of Racial Resentment“:

Laudatory references to White male geniuses like Beethoven inevitably trigger rage from anti-White commentators who huff that it has “long been an argument of white supremacists, Nazis, Neo-Nazis, and racial separatists that ‘classical music,’ the music of ‘white people,’ is inherently more sophisticated, complicated, and valuable than the musical traditions of Africa, Asia, South America, or the Middle East, thus proving the innate superiority of the ‘white race.’” Seen through the Cultural Marxist lens of critical race and gender theory, Beethoven’s music dominates the concert repertoire not because of its exceptional quality, but because White-male privilege and assumptions about White-male genius keep it there. Linda Shaver-Gleason insisted Beethoven’s dominant place in the canon was the result of a White supremacist conspiracy which “intentionally suppressed” the music of non-White composers “in the service of a narrative of white — specifically German — cultural supremacy (because, alas, that too is part of Western culture).”

The main problem for the haters is simply the complexity and sophistication of the Western musical tradition.

While purporting to offer additional insight into music, the New Musicology systematically imposes an anti-White male ideology on its subject, and, in this endeavor, happily discards all standards of proof and evidence. [Before the new musicology,] there was a belief in purely musical elements and in the value of studying them. The problem with such “objective” technical analysis, for the [cultural Marxists], is that it invariably leads to “White supremacist” conclusions about the relative quality of different musical traditions.

Daniel Bernard Roumain, a Black of Haitian descent, is a classically trained violinist and composer. He likely agrees that any and all aspects of Western culture reflect White male supremacy and are hence evil to the core. But the main thrust of his assault on the classical music world takes a different course: interjecting his hatred of Whites into his compositions. Surprisingly, there has been some push-back to his explicitly expressed hatred, but in our woke cultural moment, that’s a big plus for his career.

Heather MacDonald has a nice analysis (“Resisting Racial Demagoguery“).

Composer Daniel Bernard Roumain has made a good career leveraging his skin color. He writes pieces with titles like “i am a white person who ____ Black people.” He argues that orchestras should “focus on BLACK artists exclusively” [punctuation in the original]. He has solicited funding for a work written “EXCLUSIVELY for BIPOC [black, indigenous, and people of color] members of ANY orchestra.” …

Roumain argues, white musicians’ contracts should be term-limited as reparations for “decades of benefitting from orchestral racism.”

Just your basic White-hating activist. So he was invited to write an aria for an event commemorating the Tulsa race riot of 1921, to be sung by a Black (of course) mezzo-soprano, Denyse Graves. And since his whole thing is anti-White activism, the emphasis in his writing is on the words, not the music—thus avoiding any serious analysis of the technical aspects of his compositions. (I would not venture an opinion on its technical aspects, but Heather M describes the piano accompaniment as consisting of “insipid, New Age-y broken triads and cliché-ridden chord progressions. The melodic line is negligible.” A composer who preferred to remain anonymous (for good reason!) stated, “Although I do believe that [Graves] was not in sympathy with the tone and thrust of the text, she also knows well what good music is. This ain’t it.”)

Roumain thinks there is a “bloodlust sown deep within the American psyche,” but he’s definitely not referring to the vastly higher rate of Black homicide per capita. He’s referring to George Floyd and Breanna Taylor—exactly the sort of nuanced analysis we have come to expect from BIPOC activists. He thinks that Blacks live every day in fear of being killed by a cop, stating to a very sympathetic interviewer: “The inspiration to compose They Still Want To Kill Us was my wanting to convey how it feels to live in America as a Black man and know that on any given day, you could be murdered and die in America. That feeling never goes away. It’s always there.” I wonder if he’s afraid of being around Blacks given that Blacks are much more likely to be killed by Blacks than Whites.

But it could be that he actually believes he is in permanent danger because of his race given the media- and activist-created hysteria that happens every time a cop kills a Black, no matter what the circumstances. As with the covid panic where we see people wearing masks even outdoors and even alone in their cars, the public is quite susceptible to messages that create fear.

Roumain seems more interested in spewing out sound bites expressing his hatred toward Whites than in writing serious music. Heather M.:

Roumain’s titles are his calling card, into which he puts his greatest effort, he says—arguably an unusual emphasis for a composer; once he comes up with the name of a piece, the musical writing comes easily.

Roumain also wrote the aria’s lyrics, which begin with brief phrases about the rampage and end with:

They still want to kill us.
God Bless America
God Damn America.

But Graves balked at singing that last line, “God Damn America,” and Roumain refused to budge, so there was an impasse. But the aria was eventually performed by another Black soprano, J’Nai Bridges and funded by a variety of establishment arts organizations, including:  Opera Philadelphia, the Fine Arts Center at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, Stanford Live, and the University Musical Society at the University of Michigan. And besides that:

Roumain’s racial-justice profile has earned him a seat on the boards of the League of American Orchestras and the Association of Performing Arts Presenters, as well as a faculty position at Arizona State University. He has been commissioned by Carnegie Hall and is working on film, TV, and opera scores.

Such oppression!

As is so often the case among social justice warriors, on one hand he wants discrimination against White musicians, but then he dresses it all up with the loftiest of moral platitudes:

The truth is: as much as I would love to feel safe in America and a part of its moral fabric, I don’t feel safe and I would like this country to embrace a new shared radical morality based on empathy, safety for us, and justice for us all.

So at least he’s not explicitly hoping for White genocide. But he’s certainly willing to bend over backwards to blame a White person for the impasse in Tusla.

Roumain was particularly exercised that [Tulsa Opera’s artistic director Tobias] Picker was involved in trying to reach a compromise. Picker is white. No matter that Graves was the one who rejected the piece and that [Black Assistant Conductor] Howard Watkins was just as instrumental as Picker in the abortive negotiations. The entire incident, in Roumain’s view, reflected what happens when a white male runs a classical music organization. Roumain told Tulsa Public Radio that it “hurt” to have Picker suggest possible revisions. Picker’s whiteness is emblematic of the racism of an institution with “far too many white males in charge,” Roumain said. And Picker’s suggested revisions didn’t speak to “what happened on Jan. 6, what happened in Ferguson, what happened in Charlottesville . . . what happened in Atlanta.”

Picker is a White transgender activist and, at least from Roumain’s point of view, exactly the sort of progressive White person described by Robin DiAngelo, who has another book out, this time focusing exclusively on progressive White people, “the most bigoted, the most harmful, the greatest threat to racial equality.” By not giving Roumain the artistic freedom to express his hatred toward White America, Picker has shown himself to be an oppressor of Black people. And I guess Graves and Watkins are Uncle Toms.

Picker … is a far cry from the white reactionary of Roumain’s nightmares. Tulsa Opera hosted the American debut of a transgender Heldenbaritone—formerly male, now “female”—who in 2019 sang the title role in Tulsa’s Don Giovanni, creating a sexual hall of mirrors that would delight the most cutting-edge gender studies professor. Picker’s own opera about one of the first recipients of sex-reassignment surgery will be premiered in 2023.

Even though Graves, Picker, and Watkins stood up to Roumain, it’s likely that most of the classical music world and their audience are engaging in the usual ethnomasochism so common among progressive White people.

photo on the New Jersey Orchestra’s website publicizing “i am a white person” shows smiling, elderly white people clustered around the composer, hanging on his every word. One imagines him explaining his status as a victim of their white privilege, an accusation they humbly accept.

Roumain is likely aware that his entire career depends on White guilt and he is more than ready to take it to the bank. He’s just appealing to his audience in the confidence that his messages of anti-White hate will trump serious analysis of his music because the audience really wants to be brow-beaten by messages of how evil White people are.

The enthusiastic audience for Greenwood Overcomes was predominantly white and middle-aged, judging by the concert video, just like Roumain’s audience at the New Jersey Symphony Orchestra. This demographic, scorned by the Black Lives Matter movement, is more likely to turn out for black-themed programs than blacks themselves. Roumain seeks color-coded boundaries around artistic expression and historical commemoration. This neo-segregationism is not just a blow against imaginative possibility and human understanding; it is also commercially suicidal.

Given the guilt-ridden tendencies of White progressives and Roumain’s excellent career trajectory, I rather doubt that Roumain’s messages are “commercially suicidal.” Is his “neo-segregationism” good for White advocates — Whites who reject White guilt and are looking to advance the prospects of White Americans? It’s quite clear that quite a few Whites, like Roumain’s audiences, are willing to wallow in self-abnegation and pay for the privilege of doing so. They are intelligent, well-educated, and economically secure — and often they have benefited career-wise by going along with our new culture of White denigration. But they are caught up in the moral community created by our hostile elites in the media and academic world, and they just want to be seen as good people. And many of them are good people — at least the ones who aren’t cynically exploiting the situation for personal gain. They are just hopelessly naïve about how the world works and what this cultural revolution means for the future of Whites in America. One hopes that they will wake up when they find their grandchildren are passed over for non-Whites when applying for positions in universities or in the job market.

But maybe not. This tendency toward wanting to be seen as a good person runs very deep in White people. It’s fundamental to the unique individualism that defines the West.

In any case, there are substantial numbers of White people — it’s not clear how many — who react to anti-White hate by identifying more strongly as White and understanding that the future of Whites in America is precarious at best. This neo-segregationism has become a talking point among mainstream conservatives like Heather M., and twenty states have banned or restricted Critical Race Theory from being taught in public schools. A lot of this is conservative virtue-signaling (“Dems are the real racists”) but mainstream conservatives do seem much more willing these days to dwell on examples from the media or academic world and note explicitly that they are anti-White. For example, Tucker Carlson and Fox News noted an outrageous “academic” paper in The Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association by the presumably Jewish Donald Moss. The abstract:

Whiteness is a condition one first acquires and then one has—a malignant, parasitic-like condition to which “white” people have a particular susceptibility. The condition is foundational, generating characteristic ways of being in one’s body, in one’s mind, and in one’s world. Parasitic Whiteness renders its hosts’ appetites voracious, insatiable, and perverse. These deformed appetites particularly target nonwhite peoples. Once established, these appetites are nearly impossible to eliminate. Effective treatment consists of a combination of psychic and social-historical interventions. Such interventions can reasonably aim only to reshape Whiteness’s infiltrated appetites—to reduce their intensity, redistribute their aims, and occasionally turn those aims toward the work of reparation. When remembered and represented, the ravages wreaked by the chronic condition can function either as warning (“never again”) or as temptation (“great again”). Memorialization alone, therefore, is no guarantee against regression. There is not yet a permanent cure.

This is nothing less than a recipe for the genocide of Whites as incurable racists. The hatred is obvious, and it’s no accident that the writer is a Jew (Fox News refers to him as a “white man” but Moss is a common Jewish name). Nor is it surprising that Moss’s article appears in a psychoanalytic journal. As noted in The Culture of Critique, psychoanalysis is an infinitely pliable tool that is able to create any result one wants and give it a veneer of science — with psychoanalytic theories of anti-Semitism and the Frankfurt School’s theory of White ethnocentrism being the most relevant here. So even though conservatives tiptoe around the deeper issues, it’s not difficult to see that the message of mainstream hatred toward Whites is definitely getting out there. A necessary development.

The Psychology of Moral Communities, Part 5 of 5: Psychological Mechanisms for a White Renaissance

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).


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).


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


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


[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?”


[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).


[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).


[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.


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


[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.


[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.”

  1. 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).


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


[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).


[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.

Confronting the Judeocracy: The Six Stages of Enlightenment

Anyone who has spent even a short time battling against the Judeocracy has surely experienced the frustration of attempting to persuade a trusted friend or colleague of the gravity of the situation—only to fail.  This is undoubtedly one of the most discouraging and troubling aspects of those who take up the mission for truth and justice.  We repeatedly encounter intelligent and well-read individuals who, we believe, surely must share our sense of concern and outrage.  If they do not, it can only be from lack of knowledge; therefore, a short chat or a targeted reading or two, we think, will do the trick.  The facts are indisputable, and hence it is merely a matter of information.  Once our friends have the requisite facts, they will surely—surely—see things our way.  And yet, time after time, they do not.

Why is this?  What are they thinking?  What is their logic?  How is it that they can fail to be fully convinced of the severity of the Jewish Question?  Or even just be sympathetic to our stance?  Why is it that they occasionally even become outright hostile—not to them, but to us?  How can they be in denial of what is, from a rational and objective standpoint, surely one of the major problems facing civilized humanity?  Undoubtedly this could be the topic of a book-length treatment, and I can only outline a few basic ideas here.  But I think there is some merit in examining the basic categories of response and denial by those confronted, perhaps for the first time in a serious manner, with the Jewish Question and with the many problems of living under de facto Jewish rule.

At its most basic level, the situation is one in which the relative novice is confronted with a difficult, troubling, and potentially catastrophic scenario: profound social corruption by wealthy and powerful Jews.  (I stress the ‘relative’ here; everyone, even the functionally illiterate, has heard something negative about the Jews, likely many negative things.)  It is a ‘bad news’ story of the highest magnitude.  And the last thing many people want in their lives these days is another bad news story.  God knows we’ve had enough troubles in recent years:  political upheaval, riots in the streets, a global pandemic, economic gyrations, unrestrained immigration, environmental decline, opioid crises, surging crime, falling lifespans.  Who needs yet one more disaster heaped upon their plates?  The Jews?  Really?  Are you serious?  And I suppose the Holocaust never happened!  (Hint:  it didn’t—not in the way described.)  What are you, some kind of Nazi?  A White supremacist?  On and on.

Despite all this, many of us persevere.  We realize that public education is one of our primary weapons in the Great Struggle, and we are bound and determined to press ahead and inform as many as possible of the nature of the problem.  Therefore, it is of some use to understand more precisely how people typically respond to our overtures, in order to be more effective in our communication.  After all, we are pursuing a noble cause, and we sincerely want people to be well-informed and, ideally, to join us in our mission.  Apart from our opponents, we genuinely want people to like and appreciate us.  You don’t get very far coming off like a fanatic or a jerk.  I’m quite confident that virtually none of us relish making enemies for the sake of making enemies.  We have no driving urge to be antagonistic or rabble-rousing.  Generally speaking, what we have are facts, experiences, and informed opinions on the Jews; these, combined with a general sense of concern for social welfare, justice, and the state of the world, incline us to undertake unusual, unpopular, but highly valuable actions to educate others, and to articulate possible solutions.  It is the prototypical ‘thankless task,’ and yet we do it all the same.

That said, it is helpful to have a model of how people react to the Jewish Question.  The approach I will outline here derives from another famous model describing how people react to a different crisis situation: death.  In the 1950s and 60s, Swiss (later, American) psychiatrist Elisabeth Kübler-Ross developed a well-known scheme that came to be known as “the five stages of grief.”  When confronted with imminent death, she said, people typically progress through five relatively distinct mental phases:  denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance.  Denial:  “No, this isn’t true, it can’t be happening.  There must be some mistake.”  Anger:  “How could this happen to me?  It’s just not fair!  Someone is to blame.  God, how could you let this happen!”  Bargaining:  “Please, God, get me through this and I promise to do x, y, z.  Or, doc, you have to help me; I’ll do whatever it takes.”  Depression:  “There’s no use, nothing will work.  I’m doomed.  What’s the use of even trying?”  And finally, Acceptance:  “Everyone dies, and I guess my time is up.  So be it.  Time to meet my Maker.”  This schema was first described in her initial book, On Death and Dying (1969).

I’ll not debate the merits or demerits of Kübler-Ross’ theory here.  Some have found it helpful, and others dismiss it as largely irrelevant or at least unsubstantiated.  Still, based only on common sense, I think we can see that there is some insight here, and that many people—perhaps some we have known personally—indeed experience such stages in varying degrees.  Obviously not everyone passes through all five stages, and not necessarily in the prescribed order, but nonetheless, these stages do describe some essential aspects of human response to the looming tragedy of one’s own demise.

Inspired by this model, let me then propose something analogous:  The Six Stages of Enlightenment on the Jewish Question.  I claim no real scientific grounding here, and I have done no exhaustive surveys or interviews.  This is based simply on my own personal experience, over several years, of confronting people—students, family, friends, strangers—on the dangers of the Judeocracy.  My six stages are as follows:

1. Denial
2. Irrelevance
3.  Impotence
4.  Misplaced Anger
5.  Acceptance
6.  Righteous Anger and Action

As with Kübler-Ross’s theory, I do not claim that all people experience all of these stages, nor that they necessarily progress through them in order.  But I do think that many people, when confronted with the data, do experience some or most of these stages.  Let me briefly describe each in turn, and then outline some of the relevant facts that make the case for enlightenment.

DENIAL.  Upon first hearing a serious claim that Jews have outsized and detrimental influence in society, or dominate the ranks of the wealthy, or run the media, or control politics, the usual initial response is denial:  “No they don’t.  That’s ridiculous.  There are no more Jews in power than anyone else.  That’s just an anti-Semitic canard.”  This, even from highly-educated people.  Fortunately, this is an empirical question; an overwhelming Jewish presence can be easily proven, given the relevant data.  Below I offer a concise version of this argument.

IRRELEVANCE.  Once it is shown that Jews are massively over-represented in key sectors of society, the standard reply is that this fact does not matter.  “Ok, there are lots of Jews in media, finance, and politics, but this doesn’t really matter.  People are just people.  There are good ones and there are bad ones.  If Jews hold lots of influential positions, that only means that they worked hard and succeeded.  And anyway, they’re just doing their jobs.  If they didn’t do them, someone else would.”

This seems like a common-sense view, but to make such a claim is to hold an extremely naïve and ill-informed view of the world.  It’s true that most decent people, and especially most Whites, tend to view others as individuals; there are likely evolutionary reasons for this, which I won’t elaborate here, but see Kevin MacDonald’s book Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition for a good recent account.  If we judge everyone as basically well-intentioned individuals, then of course, it doesn’t really matter if Jews or any other minority dominates society.  If Jews are disproportionate, then it can only mean that they are that much smarter or industrious than others, and thus they deserve their standing. (Nathan Cofnas is doing his best to make this thesis academically respectable—refuted in several places, most recently by Andrew Joyce).  And if some Jews commit crimes or other unethical actions, we have to judge and punish them individually, on a case-by-case basis.  Or so they say.

The Jewish critic must then respond to this stance with a demonstration that it does matter, that Jewish over-representation has a long-standing and deep-rooted grounding in anti-White and even anti-human actions, and that it is remarkably detrimental to social and human well-being.  This is a longer and more difficult argument to make, but it can be done; again, I outline this case below.

IMPOTENCE.  Once we have shown the deleterious effect of Jewish dominance, the next reply is typically something like this:  “Ok, if Jews have so much power and influence, then you can’t possibly win.  They are just too strong.  So why fight them?  It can only hurt yourself and your family.  Better to just ignore the whole situation and live your life as best you can.”

Certainly this is a pragmatic view, and many otherwise well-intentioned critics adopt this line.  But ultimately it means surrender:  a moral capitulation to a malevolent ruling power.  To yield to evil is itself a great evil.  It is to condemn one’s own future, and that of your children and grandchildren, to a life of increasing brutality and coarseness, of deprivation and suffering, of conflict and war.  No truly concerned person can accept this.  We must confront the situation head-on.  To fight against evil, even in the face of likely defeat, is noble; it actually makes life worth living.  Even if victory is a long way off—and ultimate victory for our side is inevitable, once we understand the history—it is still a fight worth pursuing.  Living in a Judeocracy means that every major aspect of society is affected.  If you have any concerns or causes in this world that you think are worth fighting for—the environment, social justice, education, human rights, health, democracy—then you need to engage in the fight against Jewish rule because it has a negative impact on virtually every other social issue.  To paraphrase Spengler, impotence is cowardice.

MISPLACED ANGER.  At this point, your friend is likely to start getting irritated—with you.  As a typical semi-thoughtful but uncritical television viewer, he has likely absorbed and internalized the conventional pro-Jewish mantra:  Jews are a beleaguered and innocent people who have been unjustly attacked over the centuries, most notably during the Holocaust, and thus we owe them vast amends.  Furthermore, being a typically decent person, he thinks that anyone attacking Jews, or any minorities, is a morally-deficient racist or neo-Nazi—and now, this is you!  For God’s sake, everybody hates a racist!  Even Tucker Carlson hates racists!—as he informs us every night, in his unthinking, dim-witted, and duplicitous manner.  Since you clearly hate Jews, you are now officially a ‘hater.’  And everyone hates a hater—don’t they?

Sensing that he has lost the argument, your friend then launches into either subtle or overt ad hominem attacks against you.  Rational discussion is out the window, and emotion rules the day.  You are now simply a ‘bad person’; no further need to debate with you.  Having demonstrated your incivility and cruel-heartedness, you are either pitied or detested.  Critically, the focus has shifted to you; Jews are suddenly nowhere in sight, even though this was the sole issue at hand.  They are suddenly off the hook.  How convenient; the Jews themselves couldn’t have scripted a better outcome.

Sadly, many people remain stuck in this mode for a long time, perhaps for their entire lives.  They never address the real issue, but continue only to think negatively of you and you alone.  This is a relatively good outcome for them; the social problem is not a multitude of wealthy, powerful, and ethnocentric Jews, but little ol’ you, and perhaps a few of your like-minded hater friends.  It’s much easier, and much less threatening, to deal with you and your “ilk,” rather than a potent, dispersed, malevolent force like world Jewry.

Sometimes, though, and often in surprising ways, there is a shift in attitude.  Your friend becomes curious.  He investigates, he reads, he asks questions.  Slowly, slowly, he comes around to your side.  “You know, I’ve been thinking, and I think you’re on to something.  Those Jews are everywhere, once you learn how to spot them.  No one criticizes them.  No one questions the Holocaust.  No one is even willing to simply name the Jews.  They get away with everything…”  Thus we arrive, with luck, at ACCEPTANCE.  Yes, Jews in fact dominate key sectors of society.  Yes, Jews in fact are the major wire-pullers in politics and business.  Yes, Jews couldn’t care less about human well-being, and they would just as soon cause mass suffering and even death, if it profited them in any way.  The denialism has been overcome.

Once at this phase, it is only a short step to the final stage: RIGHTEOUS ANGER—now against the real enemy—and corresponding ACTION.  Anyone with a conscience, with a sense of moral outrage, and with a larger sense of justice, will be utterly appalled at the situation.  They will now become activist, speaking out, writing, informing others.  They will develop the moral backbone to confront Jewish power and its proxies directly.  Being truly knowledgeable and well-informed, they will make a formidable opponent.  The movement will have taken one more small step forward.  And victory will be one day closer.

Constructing the Case

Given that nearly everyone begins at some level of the ‘denial’ stage, it is worthwhile to offer some specific facts that can help build the case against it.  The goal, again, is to show that Jews are massively disproportionate amongst the wealthy and powerful in society.  This is the core truth from which all the rest proceeds.  Fortunately, as I said, this is an entirely empirical matter.  Basic research will reveal the truth.  Of course, the names vary from nation to nation, and they change constantly over time.  A specific case must be made at a given point in time, and in a specific nation of interest.  Since I am an American, and the data here is extensive, let me briefly review the case in the present-day USA.  Even a cursory overview demonstrates the failure of denial.

We can separately examine four sectors of American society:  politics, academia, finance, and media.  In politics, we have a strong Jewish presence in all three branches of government–Congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court.  Regarding the latter, we currently have 2 Jews among the 9 justices:  Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer.  Until the recent death of Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, the figure was 3 of 9, and if President Obama had had his way late in his final term, it would have been an astonishing 4 of 9, with Merrick Garland.  (We can be sure that any future Biden nominee will be Jewish.)

The current US Congress has 38 Jews among its combined 535 members, with 10 in the Senate and 28 in the House.  This constitutes around 7% of the Congressional total, versus an American Jewish population of some 6 million, or just under 2% of the nation.  Hence Jews are over-represented in Congress by a factor of 3.5, and in the Senate by a factor of 5.  The record high for Jewish representation, incidentally, occurred in the aftermath of the 2008 federal election, when fully 48 Jews held seats in Congress (15 Senate, 33 House).

The Biden administration, like that of Trump, Obama, Bush, and Clinton, has an extensive Jewish presence.  Start with the families of Biden and Kamala Harris.  Remarkably, all three of Biden’s adult children married Jews:  daughter Ashley married Howard Krein, son Hunter married “filmmaker” Melissa Cohen, and now-deceased son Beau married Hallie Olivere.  Correspondingly, three of Biden’s six grandchildren are half-Jews.  Biracial VP Kamala Harris married a Jewish lawyer, Doug Emhoff, back in 2014; thankfully, they have no children.

Biden’s sympathies to the Jews extend, of course, to his highest-level administrative positions.  Of 25 cabinet or cabinet-level positions, eight (32%) are held by Jews:  Tony Blinken, Alejandro Mayorkas, Janet Yellen, Merrick Garland (yes, that Merrick Garland), Ron Klain, Avril Haines (half), Isabel Guzman (half), and Eric Lander.  Other high-ranking Biden Jews include John Kerry (half), Rochelle Walensky of the CDC, Jeff Zients, Wendy Sherman, Gary Gensler of the SEC, David Cohen, “Rachel” Levine, Anne Neuberger, Andy Slavitt, Victoria Nuland, and Roberta Jacobson.  And this is not to mention Judeophilic Gentiles like Jake Sullivan, or Gentiles with Jewish spouses, like Samantha Power.  Below I offer some thoughts about why, exactly, this situation came to be.

What about academia?  Here is one remarkable indication:  It was recently noted that of the eight Ivy League schools—Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Penn, Brown, Cornell, and Dartmouth—fully seven have Jewish presidents.  In other words, 88% of these elite schools are run by Jews.  We can be sure that this Jewish orientation then extends down into provosts and deans who are disproportionately Jewish, into faculty members who are disproportionately Jewish, and into the very curriculum itself, which undoubtedly caters to liberal-left Jewish interests.

Then consider university faculty more broadly.  In an article published in 2006, Schuster and Finkelstein found that “25% of research university faculty are Jewish, compared to 10% of all faculty.”[1]  An older study by Steinberg[2] found that 17.2 percent of faculty at “high ranking” universities were Jewish.  By a different assessment, Harriett Zuckerman[3] examined just the “elite” scientific and research faculty.  She found the following, by major discipline:

Law                 36% Jewish
Sociology         34% Jewish
Economics       28% Jewish
Physics            26% Jewish
Poli Sci             24% Jewish

What about students?  Experience shows that when Jews constitute more than just a few percent of the student body, they begin to dominate campus life.  As it happens, there are nine major American universities with over 20% Jewish undergrads (in descending order: Brandeis, Tulane, CUNY-Brooklyn, Binghamton, Queens College, George Washington University, Columbia, Boston University, and Washington University-St. Louis).  And there are another 23 major schools with more than 10% Jews (Maryland, American University, Brown, University of Miami, Rutgers, University of Florida, Cornell, Penn, Syracuse, Michigan, New York University, Northwestern, University of Hartford, Wisconsin, Yale, Indiana, UC-Santa Barbara, Duke, University at Albany, Harvard, Cal State-Northridge, Florida State, and USC).  Hence we have 32 major American universities, representing the intellectual elite of the nation, with a hugely disproportionate Jewish presence, top to bottom.  Again, this in a nation of scarcely 2% Jews.

Consider, next, the realm of finance and wealth.  When we run down the list of wealthiest Americans, we find a striking fact:  around half of them are Jews.  Among the top ten, we find five Jews:  Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Larry Ellison, and Michael Bloomberg.  Of the top 50 richest men, at least 27 are Jews, including Steve Ballmer, Michael Dell, Carl Icahn, David Newhouse, Micki Arison, and Stephen Ross.[4]  The combined wealth of these 27 individuals comes to roughly $635 billion.  Note: If Jews were proportionately represented among the top 50, there would be one individual; instead, there are 27.

More broadly, we can infer that this “50% rule” holds throughout much of the wealth hierarchy.  In support, we may cite Benjamin Ginsberg, who wrote, “Today, though barely 2% of the [American] nation’s population is Jewish, close to half its billionaires are Jews.”[5]  At present, there are something like 615 American billionaires, which implies around 300 Jewish billionaires.

Or perhaps the figures are even worse than we suspect.  A recent study of the most malicious “vulture” capitalists showed a heavy preponderance of Jewish names, far more than half.  And one ranking from a few years ago of the richest hedge fund managers in the US listed 32 individuals by name; of these, at least 24 (75%) are Jews.  It seems that the more we look, the worse it gets.

Even more impressively, consider total private wealth.  In 2018, the total assets of all private households in the US hit $100 trillion for the first time ever.  The 50% rule suggests that the 6 million or so American Jews own or control, in total, some $50 trillion.  This works out to an average of $8 million for every Jewish man, woman, and child—a truly astonishing figure.

So much for Jewish wealth.  More importantly, these various sectors are deeply interconnected.  Jewish wealth is directly related to Jewish political influence.  Take, for example, Joe Biden’s top political donors.  It turns out, unsurprisingly, that the vast majority of Biden’s political donations came from Jewish billionaires.  As Andrew Joyce writes, “of [his] top 22 donors, at least 18 are Jews,” followed by the list of names.  This is perhaps extreme but not surprising, given that Jews overall provide at least 50% of Democratic political funding, and at least 25% of Republican funds.  These are truly disturbing numbers for anyone who cares about political corruption.  Note that there are literally hundreds of lobby groups, all donating to their favored candidates.  And yet one lobby—the Jewish Lobby—provides 25 to 50%, or more, of major candidate funding.  Imagine if, say, half of your income came from one person, and the other half came from a mix of 200 other individuals; who would you listen to?  The answer is obvious.

Finally, take the media.  Hollywood, as we all know, has long been a Jewish domain—reaching back to its origins in the 1910s and 1920s.  It was constructed by the likes of Carl Laemmle (Universal Pictures), Adolph Zukor, Jesse Lasky, Daniel and Charles Frohman, and Samuel Goldwyn (Paramount), William Fox (Fox Films, later 20th Century Fox), and the four “Warner” Brothers—in reality, the Wonskolaser clan:  Jack, Harry, Albert, and Sam.  They were soon followed by Marcus Loew (MGM), William Paley (CBS), and Harry and Jack Cohn (Columbia), establishing nearly complete Jewish control over the film business.

Today the situation is little changed—and is neither disputed nor even controversial.  A notable story published in the LA Times in 2008 openly proclaimed that “Jews totally run Hollywood”.[6]  It investigated every major studio and found nothing but Jewish bosses.  Today the names have changed, but not the ethnicities.  A recent survey of major executives or owners reveals the following:

20th Century Studios  (S. Asbell)
Paramount  (S. Redstone)
Disney Studies  (A. Bergman, A. Horn)
Warner Bros Studios  (T. Emmerich, A. Sarnoff, R. Kavanaugh)
MGM  (M. De Luca)
Sony Pictures  (T. Rothman, S. Panitch, J. Greenstein)
Lionsgate  (M. Rachesky, J. Feltheimer)
Relativity Media  (D. Robbins)
Millennium Media  (A. Lerner)
The Chernin Group  (P. Chernin)
Amblin Partners  (S. Spielberg)
Participant  (J. Skoll, D. Linde)
Sister  (S. Snider, E. Murdoch)
Spyglass  (G. Barber)
Glickmania  (J. Glickman)

As before, all of these individuals are Jews.[7]  With such dominance, we should scarcely be surprised to find pro-Jewish themes repeatedly appear in film:  from the Holocaust and the ‘evil Nazis,’ to the Arab and Muslim ‘terrorists,’ to the ignorant and corrupt Whites, to support for various socially and ethically degrading behavior such as casual sex, homosexuality, interracial couples and families, recreational drug use, crude materialism, and rampant multiculturalism.  All these themes serve Jewish interests.

The overall media situation is even more telling.  The five largest media conglomerates in the US are:  1) Disney, 2) Warner Media, 3) NBC Universal, 4) Viacom CBS, and 5) Fox Corporation.  A look at their owners, largest shareholders, and top officers is revealing:

  • DisneyRobert Iger, executive chairman; Alan Horn, Chair, Disney Studios; Alan Braverman, exec VP; Peter Rice, chair, Content; Dana Walden, chair, ABC; Lowell Singer, senior VP.
  • WarnerJason Kilar, CEO; David Levy, Pres, Turner Broadcasting; Jeff Zucker, Pres, CNN; Ann Sarnoff, CEO, Warner Pictures; Michael Lynton, chair, Warner Music (Parent company:  AT&TJohn Stankey, CEO).
  • NBC Universal:  Jeff Shell, CEO; Robert Greenblatt, Chair, NBC Entertainment; Bonnie Hammer, Chair, Cable Entertainment; Noah Oppenheim, president, NBC News; Mark Lazarus, Chair, Sports; Ron Meyer, Vice Chair, NBCUniversal  (Parent company:  ComcastBrian Roberts, CEO).
  • Viacom CBS:  An unusual situation:  Viacom is a “public” company but voting stock is 100% owned by Shari Redstone and the heirs of Sumner Redstone.  Leading individuals include David Nevins, CCO; Susan Zirinsky, president, CBS News; David Stapf, president, CBS TV.
  • Fox Corporation:  Similar to Viacom, a public company but 39% of voting stock is owned by Rupert Murdoch and Lachlan Murdoch.

All of these individuals are Jewish, with the possible exception of the Murdochs—although it seems certain that they are at least part-Jewish.[8]  And given the difficulty in ascertaining ethnicity, Jewish influence is certainly greater than shown here.  Hence the above is undoubtedly a conservative estimate.  It furthermore says nothing about the many Jewish underlings who implement day-to-day decisions.  Once again, it’s difficult to convey the degree of dominance here.  These five corporations produce the vast majority of all media consumed in the US, which includes all of the major news outlets and most of the major Hollywood studios.  In fact, Jewish leadership or ownership at the top translates all throughout the organization, to middle-managers, staffers, reporters, television personalities, and editors.  It has a very concrete effect on how the media is produced, what is presented, and what is not presented.  It affects who we see, and who we don’t see.

And it’s not only the so-called liberal media outlets.  The conservative venues also are dominated by Jewish interests—typically, via right-wing or neo-conservative Jews.  Fox News, and its parent corporation Fox, owned and operated by the Murdoch family, is every bit as pro-Jewish and pro-Israel as the liberal outlets.  Fox News anchors disagree vehemently with just about every liberal position, and yet, remarkably, they are fully on-board with all Jewish issues.  They struggle to outdo their peers at CNN and MSNBC in their obeisance to Jewish and Israeli interests.[9]  This, again, is no coincidence.  It is evidence of Jewish domination of American media, across the political spectrum and across all venues.

In addition to the above, various other media are also well-represented by American Jews.  Among newspapers, the New York Times has been Jewish-owned and -managed since Adolph Ochs bought the paper in 1896; the current owner, publisher, and chairman is Arthur G. Sulzberger.  US News and World Report is owned by Mort Zuckerman.  Time magazine is owned by Warner Media, and its current chief editor is Edward Felsenthal.  Advance Publications is a mini media conglomerate entirely owned and operated by the Jewish Newhouse family; it manages a wide array of venues including Conde Nast (Vogue, The New Yorker, GQ, Glamour, Architectural Digest, Vanity Fair, Pitchfork, Wired, and Bon Appetit), Discovery Channel, Lycos, and Redditt.  And in broadcast media, we have National Public Radio (NPR), which has long been a Jewish preserve; its on-air staff is unquestionably more than half Jewish.[10]

I think we can put to rest all thoughts of denialism here.

Is Jewish Dominance Irrelevant?

If we then proceed to stage two, Irrelevance, we must counter the view that Jewish dominance is inconsequential.  Again, from the naïve standpoint, Jews predominating in government, academia, finance, and media seems not to matter.  These Jews are largely invisible as Jews, and their Jewishness is rarely displayed explicitly.  As before, the influence is generally manifest in myriad subtle ways—in which voices and views are presented (and which not presented), which individuals are allowed to speak (and which not allowed), which values are projected as good and positive, which causes are worthy of attention, and so on.

The central issues here are (a) that Jews tend to work collectively, in their own best interests, and (b) that they tend to have little regard for all non-Jews, and they tend to hold particular contempt for White Europeans, who have, historically speaking, proven to be their most formidable opponents.  Jews work tribally, as a pack; they assist each other in attacking and undermining all perceived enemies.  Jews in finance and academic Jews can count on media Jews to give them positive coverage and to downplay or bury any negative stories.  Media Jews will slander an enemy even as finance Jews put the squeeze to that person’s employer.  It can be very effective when multiple actors in a trillion-dollar cabal are arrayed against you.

On occasion, these dominant Jews will indeed fight with each other, as when conservative right-wing Jews spar with their liberal leftwing brethren—such as the recent rift between the rightwing Murdoch Jews and the left-wing ADL Jews, especially Jonathan Greenblatt, over comments by Tucker Carlson.  But this is only an internal dispute about the best way to promote Jewish interests, nothing more.  Much of current political confrontation is mere show; Democratic-Republican squabbles are meaningless when both sides are backed by wealthy Jews.  And Jews across the political spectrum love to use Gentile lackeys like Anderson Cooper, Chris Cuomo, Chris Hayes, Sean Hannity, and yes, Tucker Carlson, to cover for them.  This again serves to obscure the real power structure.

But the fact that powerful Jews work with each other, against all others, is a well-established historical fact that has been well-attested, over the centuries, by some of the West’s most brilliant thinkers.  This topic literally requires a book-length treatment—see my book Eternal Strangers: Critical Views of Jews and Judaism through the Ages (2020), which is the first to fully document the historical record.  It dates back over 2,000 years, at least to remarks by Hecateus of Abdera and Theophrastus circa 300 BC, proceeding to the likes of Cicero, Seneca, Tacitus, Porphyry, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, Voltaire, Rousseau, Fichte, Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Bakunin, Nietzsche, Mark Twain, H. G. Wells, Heidegger, and chess genius (and half-Jew) Bobby Fischer, among many others.  It is an impressive list.

The criticisms are uniformly blunt and damning.  Jews are “misanthropic and hostile to foreigners,” “the very vilest of mankind,” “look upon all other men as their enemies,” “an accursed race,” “the basest of peoples.”  They are profoundly and deeply different—in a bad way—from the rest of humanity.  Medieval theologians condemned the Jews for their usury and their abuse of Christians and Christianity.  Luther called them “a heavy burden, a plague, a pestilence, a sheer misfortune,” adding that “we are at fault in not slaying them.”  For Voltaire, they “display an irreconcilable hatred against all nations”; for Rousseau, the Jewish race was “always a foreigner amongst other men.”  German philosopher Johann Herder called them “a widely diffused republic of cunning usurers.”  Kant saw them as “a nation of deceivers.”  Schopenhauer was especially blunt:  “scum of humanity—but great master of lies.”  Heidegger captured the situation well in just three words: “planetary master criminals”.[11]

This 2,000-year history of hatred and contempt for the rest of humanity is played out in the present day, though with much stealth and deception.  Jews often work in the background, hidden, out of the limelight; they are, as Hitler said, the “wire-pullers” (Drahtzieher) of contemporary society, using money and power to steer events in their favor.  History tells us that Jews will stoop to anything—the most heinous, the most egregious, the most unethical—to promote their ends.  Even war: there is an equally long and damning history of Jewish involvement in wars, from the Jewish-Roman wars in the first and second centuries to the present-day “war on terror”.[12]  This is not speculation; all these facts are well-attested and well-documented.  We need only do a basic bit of reading, from reputable sources.

The bottom line, of course, is that Jewish over-representation in major sectors of society does matter—it matters very much.  Arguably it is the root cause of virtually all our present-day social problems, all of which have been created or exacerbated by powerful Jews.  We can scarcely imagine what life could be like without their manipulating and malevolent presence.

This brief account of pernicious Jewish influence should help lay to rest the “irrelevance” stage.  But impotence need not be the consequence.  Accept the reality, and turn your anger onto the real targets.  And then act.  Bear in mind:  Every Jewish victory in past centuries has been ephemeral, and has instead been transformed into concrete action against the Hebrews—isolation, ghettoization, incarceration, expulsion, or worse.  And so it will be this time.  Either the Jews themselves will recognize that they are on the brink and voluntarily retreat to their “homeland” in Palestine, or else native peoples around the world will, once again, take action.

The path to enlightenment is hard.  And yet it must be pursued, if humanity is to flourish and prosper.

Thomas Dalton, PhD, has authored or edited several books and articles on politics, history, and religion, with a special focus on National Socialism in Germany.  His works include a new translation series of Mein Kampf, and the books Eternal Strangers (2020), The Jewish Hand in the World Wars (2019), and Debating the Holocaust (4th ed, 2020), all available at www.clemensandblair.com.  For all his writings, see his personal website www.thomasdaltonphd.com.

[1] J. Schuster and M. Finkelstein, The American Faculty (2006), p. 66.

[2] S. Steinberg, The Academic Melting Pot (1974), p. 103.

[3] H. Zuckerman, Scientific Elite (1977).

[4] Bloomberg Billionaires Index (2018).

[5] The Fatal Embrace (1993), p. 1.

[6] “How Jewish is Hollywood?” (19 Dec 2008).

[7] Until recently, we could have included the Weinstein Company (aka Lantern Entertainment), but the sex scandal surrounding Harvey Weinstein drove the corporation into bankruptcy in early 2018.

[8] Rupert’s mother, Elisabeth Joy Greene, appears to have been Jewish.  See here, here, and here.  We could also cite Rupert Murdoch’s award from the heavily-Jewish group ADL in 2010, and his son James’ $1 million donation to the same group in 2017.  If the Murdochs are not Jewish, they are in very good graces with them.

[9] Sean Hannity is particularly egregious in this respect.

[10] Current and recent individuals include, at a minimum:  N. Adams, H. Berkes, M. Block, D. Brooks, A. Cheuse, A. Codrescu, K. Coleman, O. Eisenberg, D. Elliott, D. Estrin, S. Fatsis, P. Fessler, C. Flintoff, D. Folkenflik, R. Garfield, T. Gjelten, B. Gladstone, I. Glass, T. Goldman, J. Goldstein, J. Goldstein, R. Goldstein, D. Greene, N. Greenfieldboyce, T. Gross, M. Hirsh, S. Inskeep, I. Jaffe, A. Kahn, C. Kahn, M. Kaste, A. Katz, M. Keleman, D. Kestenbaum, N. King, B. Klein, T. Koppel, A. Kuhn, B. Littlefield, N. King, N. Pearl, P. Sagal, M. Schaub, A. Shapiro, J. Shapiro, W. Shortz, R. Siegel, A. Silverman, S. Simon, A. Spiegel, S. Stamberg, R. Stein, L. Sydell, D. Temple-Raston, N. Totenberg, G. Warner, D. Welna, L. Wertheimer, D. Wessel, E. Westervelt, B. Wolf, and D. Zwerdling.

[11] For an enlightening list of some 50 such quotations, see the website of Clemens and Blair, LLC publishing (here).

[12] See my book The Jewish Hand in the World Wars (2019).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Part I. The Problem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Factors Determining the Rates of Racial Intermixture

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

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

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

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

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

Go to Part 2.

Julien Langella’s Catholic and Identitarian

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Identitarian activist and father-of-three: Julien Langella

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

European Magazine Interviews James Edwards

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

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

James Edwards: I am an advocate for European Americans.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The capitalists and the labor unions were against him.

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

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

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

Here’s what I expect from Biden:

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

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

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

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

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

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

All this and more.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Imperialistic interventions need to stop.

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

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

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

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

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