White Racial Consciousness and Advocacy

Jared Taylor on Guillaume Faye’s French Apocalypse

Jared Taylor reflects on his admiration for Guillaume Faye, recounting their first meeting and enduring friendship, while highlighting the dark, apocalyptic themes of race, survival, and societal collapse in Faye’s Racial Civil War.

This is Jared Taylor’s preface to Guillaume Faye’s final and most hard-hitting work, Racial Civil War.

Because I speak French, it has been my great good fortune to become acquainted with some of the major figures in the French nationalist movement. I have the deepest respect for these men and women who are fighting for their people, but the Frenchman who most deeply impressed me from the very first meeting was Guillaume Faye.

I well remember the occasion. It was in 2003. I had an introduction to Faye from a mutual friend, and we met in a small restaurant.

At that time — and it is true even now — many patriotic Frenchmen hesitated to use the word that I think essential to understanding the crisis France faces: the word “race.” But after an hour with Faye, I found myself thinking: “This guy understands the problem perfectly — maybe even better than I do. And he has a clear perspective on what must be done — maybe clearer than my own.” I was struck by the power of his mind, his passion for truth, and his love for his people. It was the beginning of a friendship that has lasted for more than fifteen years.

Living as we do on different continents, Faye and I have not seen each other nearly often enough, but I invited him twice to speak at the American Renaissance conferences that I organize. Each time, he charmed his listeners with his French accent and moved them with his eloquence and insight. And for me, every trip to France naturally included long conversations with Faye.

Gradually, thanks to the efforts of Arktos Media, this great philosopher of the crisis of the West has become better known to English speakers. Words such as “archeofuturism,” “ethno-masochism,” and “xenophilia” are now well known to those of us who keep abreast of events in Europe. Guillaume Faye is now among the very best-known spokesmen for the survival of our people.

The book you now hold in your hands is certainly the darkest, bravest, and frankest book my friend has ever written. It is a brilliant analysis of the mortal threat to us of massive non-white immigration.

I cite the following ominous passage that justifies the book’s title:

There are three possibilities concerning the sequence of events.

The first, the worst of them all, would be that of submission. It takes two to wage a war, and if our white Frenchmen do not defend themselves against these invaders and foreign aggressors, there will be no war. What will result instead is decay, collapse without real combat or isolated acts of revenge.

This is a possibility which I cannot exclude.

The second possibility, a terrible, distressing and unthinkable one at that, is the outbreak of a racial civil war resulting in the defeat of French natives and other ethnic Europeans, who would have to fight against their own collaborationist state. This is a development mentioned particularly by Jean Raspail.

The third possibility is that of a victorious civil war with incalculable historical consequences, including, of course, the collapse of all our political paradigms. Whatever the case, we will find it impossible to evade major disorders in the coming years. Indeed, Western Europe will soon be the setting for an inevitable earthquake.

This is pure Guillaume Faye. While others fail to grasp the extent of the problem — or even the form or nature of the problem — Faye cuts straight to the fateful choices we face: submission, defeat, or victory. He writes that there is no other choice because a “convivial living-together is only possible when it involves populations that are biologically and culturally related. Anything else is but a sham. We do not wish to live with these people. Period.”

There actually is a fourth possibility, which is voluntary, peaceful separation. There are a few modern examples: the dismemberment of the Soviet Union and the separation of the Czechs from the Slovaks.

In the former Yugoslavia, separation was mostly violent, but Slovenia was born virtually without bloodshed.

In all these cases, however, there was a crucial difference from that of France: These nations were (re)established in territories that had been historically populated by distinct peoples. In France, an alien population with a ruthless will to power and united by a triumphalist religion threatens the native population, and the entire country is at stake. Peaceful separation is hard to imagine.

And, of course, as Faye writes so clearly, France is not the only white nation in peril. All of Western Europe as well as the overseas nations built by Europeans face the same crisis of dispossession — and for the same reasons. The capitulationist spirit of the French that Faye describes with such penetration applies word for word to the ruling and media elites everywhere from Germany to Canada to New Zealand. Only those nations that were sheltered by what we used to call the Iron Curtain have escaped — at least for the time being — the effects of ethno-masochist poisons. This apparent determination of the white man to bring about his own destruction is without precedent in the history of our species, and no one describes it better than Guillaume Faye.

One of the three choices this book outlines for France is submission.

I cannot imagine a more miserable or ignoble fate for a nation that has contributed countless treasures to our civilization. And yet, for the reasons that Faye explains both with sadness and with fury, such a fate is not unthinkable. A similarly contemptible collapse is likewise possible in my own country. If our people awaken and build for themselves a future as glorious as our past, it will be thanks to the efforts of brilliant, tireless men such as Guillaume Faye.

I am grateful and deeply honored that my friend of fifteen years has dedicated this book to me. I also rejoice in his having jointly dedicated the book to my comrade Sam Dickson, who has been Guillaume’s friend and co-combatant for more than four decades. Sam Dickson has faithfully and courageously fought the forces that would transform the West and he admires France and its people as deeply as I do.

He joins me in this message to the readers of this book: Frenchmen and Americans — we are the same people. Your struggle is our struggle!

Racial Civil War is Guillaume Faye’s final work. Order the limited leather-bound edition now — only 7 copies left (out of 50) — before it’s too late, right here at the Arktos Shop.


Launch of The Front View

With the help of skilled videomaker Tony Avery and the support of Philip Gegan, Editor of anglo-celtic.org, I’ve made the first episode of ‘The Front View’, which I hope will evolve as a sequence of video presentations. These will cover not just what is happening in Britain today, but what happened ‘yesterday’.

Putting on record, with evidence, what happened ‘yesterday’ is very important because, as George Orwell wrote in  Nineteen-Eighty-Four:

“He who controls the Present, controls the Past; he who controls the Past controls the Future.”

You, like me, are sure to have noticed that the aliens and Left/‘Woke’ tyrants who control many of the institutions of our society are making efforts to falsify events in our history — not just in the far-distant past but within living memory — particularly where these events relate to what used to be referred to as “race relations”.

Indeed, the tyrants are seeking to disinform us not only about the recent and distant past, but also about the present.

For evidence of this, you have only to look at television commercials and press adverts. A visitor from Outer Space looking at the media output (commercials and programmes) beamed into every home today would quickly form the opinion that:

• The majority of the population in Britain are Negroes or Asiatics.

• White British women are to be seen, but almost always with Negro or Asian partners;

• Children are to be seen in profusion, but nearly all of these are mixed-race;

• White male children are a rarity.

• There are no White fathers with White wives building families of young White children.

• The only adult white males to be seen are decrepit ‘Grandpa’ types.

• Persons holding post of responsibility are increasingly mixed-race females.

We know that at the moment, this depiction of the population of our country is a travesty. But it is a vision that the aliens and race-traitors want to see and are working to create. They excrete these incessant images on TV and in press adverts in order to condition our minds to accept as ‘normal’ such a state of affairs. What they are doing constitutes an incitement to genocide by suicide.

This subversion of truth must be contested. False accounts of events in our past, especially our recent past, must be contested and exposed.

For some reason, the aliens and race-traitors have been picking on events involving the National Front (which effectively died in circa 1987!) as ‘hooks’ on which to hang their mendacities.

The BBC is deeply engaged in this subversive campaign. But it may surprise you to learn that NHS trusts (all “charities”) are putting on “anti-racist” propaganda exhibitions in the public concourses of major hospitals in London — and no doubt elsewhere. This misuse of NHS facilities and funds has prompted the creation of ‘The Front View’ and its first episiode.

The topic which these NHS hospital exhibitions purport to explore is “The Battle of Lewisham” — that is, the National Front’s anti-mugging march in Lewisham on Saturday 13th August 1977. As I was organiser of that NF demonstration I am able to deploy first-hand knowledge to expose the lies which appear throughout these exhibitions. As you will see, my exposé is supported by documentary evidence.

I do hope you find this video exciting and interesting. Its URL line is: https://youtu.be/XRQcNtUk9KA

If you think the video and the project we have given ourselves is worthwhile, then please forward this bulletin — or at least the link — to all of your friends and contacts, and ask them to do likewise.

It’s no good just complaining about what is being done to this country by wicked enemies and traitors who spread vile lies designed, ultimately, to perpetrate a genocide against the indigenous British people. We have to fight back. If we don’t, then we are a disgrace to our illustrious ancestors.


Martin Webster

Joyeux Noёl: The Beginnings of WWI and the Christmas Truce of 1914


Editor’s note: Christmas is a special time of year, and over the years TOO has posted some classic articles that bear on the season. This article by F. Roger Devlin was originally posted in December, 2013. It is an important reminder of the disastrous intra-racial wars of the twentieth century—wars that may yet deal a death blow to our people and culture given the processes that they set in motion. 

With the hindsight offered by ninety-nine years, it is obvious that the outbreak of the World War I marked not merely the beginning of the most destructive war in history up to that time, but a fundamental civilizational watershed. While the fighting was going on, nearly all participants assumed they had been forced into the struggle by naked aggression from the other side. It took historians years to unravel what had actually happened.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, the German Army was the best in Europe, capable of defeating any individual rival. Yet Germany had no natural borders, and was vulnerable to a joint attack on two fronts: by France and Britain in the West and the Russian Empire in the East. A German defeat was considered virtually inevitable in such a scenario.

The Franco-Russian alliance of 1894, which became the Triple Entente when Britain joined in 1907, realized Germany’s worst fears.

However, there were important differences between Germany’s Western and Eastern rivals: France and Britain were modern, compact, efficiently-organized countries capable of rapid mobilization, while sprawling Russia with its thinly spread population and economic backwardness was expected to require up to 110 days for full mobilization. Taking advantage of this asymmetry, the German High Command developed the Schlieffen plan: upon the outbreak of hostilities, close to ninety percent of Germany’s effective troops would launch a lightning attack in the West; this campaign was to be completed within forty days, while lumbering Russia was still mobilizing. With the Western powers out of the way, massive troop transfers to the Eastern front were expected to arrive in time for Germany to face down Russia. Speed—of mobilization, of offensive operations, and of troop transfer—was critical to the success of this plan.

The assassination of the Austro-Hungarian Arch-Duke by a Serb nationalist in June, 1914, is the perfect example of an event which occasioned events which followed, but did not cause them; the men of Europe’s great powers did not slaughter one another for four years over a political assassination in the Balkans. Rather, the assassination occurred in the context of Russian guarantees to Serbia and German guarantees to Austria, which inevitably brought the Triple Entente into play. A diplomatic game of ‘chicken’ ensued, in which no side was willing to be the first to back down.

When Austria declared war on Serbia on July 28th, the Russian Tsar, conscious of his Empire’s military backwardness, ordered a partial mobilization. This action was intended merely as a precaution in case of a war that still seemed unlikely. But for the Germans, with their Schlieffen plan requiring utmost speed, the Tsar’s order had the effect of an electric shock. Germany felt it had to mobilize as well. Russia responded two days later by ordering full mobilization. Germany gave Russia an ultimatum; and the Tsar, unwilling to knuckle under, allowed the deadline to pass. Within hours, everyone was involved in a war that none of the parties had originally wanted or intended.

German historians call such a series of events a Betriebsunfall: a quasi-mechanical accident such as might occur in the machinery of a factory. Men were drawn into the gear work and crushed when no one was able to throw the emergency switch in time. It was a tragedy in the fullest sense of the word—a disaster brought on by well-intentioned but flawed men acting rationally under conditions of imperfect knowledge. The consequences are well-known: ten million dead, twenty-eight million more wounded or missing, Communism established in Russia, the Balfour Declaration setting the stage for today’s ongoing Middle East conflict, and the whole crowned by a shameful ‘peace’ treaty that all but guaranteed a future war of German revenge.

Yet, as we can see from newsreel footage of August 1st, the popular reaction to the outbreak was war fever on a scale not seen since the crusades. Europe had been enjoying forty-three years of peace and unprecedented material prosperity, and the young greeted the war as a romantic adventure.

The planned rapid German advance through the Low Countries into Northeast France was unexpectedly halted  in early September—the “Miracle of the Marne”—foiling the Schlieffen plan. On the 13th, the German Army responded by attempting a flanking action around the French lines; the French then rapidly extended their own defensive lines in what became known as the “race to the sea.” Since neither side could dislodge the other, and neither was willing to retreat, soldiers began digging themselves in to their positions—the beginning of trench warfare. By the time winter set in, the pattern of the next four years had been clearly established: a war of attrition involving trivial advances and retreats across a few acres of mud.

But as Christmas approached that year, something unexpected began unfolding. On the frontline sector south of Ypres, Belgium, German troops began decorating the area around their trenches for Christmas Eve. As Wikipedia describes it:

The Germans began by placing candles on their trenches and on Christmas trees, then continued the celebration by singing Christmas carols. The British responded by singing carols of their own. The two sides continued by shouting Christmas greetings to each other. Soon thereafter, there were excursions across No Man’s Land, where small gifts were exchanged, such as food, tobacco and alcohol, and souvenirs such as buttons and hats. The artillery in the region fell silent. The truce also allowed a breathing spell where recently killed soldiers could be brought back behind their lines by burial parties. Joint [religious] services were held.

The ceasefire spread to other sectors of the front, with as many as 100,000 men eventually participating. In some areas, soccer games between the belligerents replaced combat.


By December 26th, it was over. The authorities got word of the breakdown in discipline and intervened vigorously.

In 2005, an international consortium from France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Belgium, and Romania produced a film about the Christmas Truce: Joyeux Noёl. The film opens with scenes of children in French, British and German grade schools reciting rhymed curses they had been taught against the opposing side: the British child’s curse calls for the complete extermination of Germans.

The scene switches to Scotland, where an enthusiastic young man, William, rushes into his local Catholic church breathlessly to announce to his younger brother Jonathan that war has been declared; they are to begin basic training in two days. “At last, something’s happening in our lives,” he rejoices. The priest, Fr. Palmer, looks notably less enthusiastic.

At the Berlin Opera, a performance is interrupted by an officer walking on stage to announce that war has been declared. The lead tenor, Sprink, is quickly called up.

In a French trench, Lieutenant Audebert wistfully looks at a photograph of his pregnant wife moments before being called to lead an assault on the German lines. In the ensuing action, Scottish William is mortally wounded; his brother Jonathan is forced to leave him behind, a psychological trauma from which he never recovers. Audebert’s men pour into a German trench, but as they turn a corner, some one-third of them are mown down by a German machine gun.

Meanwhile, Sprink’s lover, the Danish soprano Anna, receives permission to sing before the Crown Prince of Prussia. Sprink is called back from the front to perform with her, and is impressed with the luxurious comfort in which the German commanders are living. When he returns to the front, Anna insists on accompanying him, determined to sing for the ordinary frontline soldiers as well as the officers at headquarters. (The presence of a woman at the front is poetic license on the filmmakers’ part.)

The German soldiers begin setting up Christmas trees along their trenches, to the bewildered suspicion of the French soldiery. After the singers conclude their first number, a cheer goes up from the Scottish trenches. Fr. Palmer plays the first few bars of another Christmas song on the bagpipes, and Sprink responds by performing the song, climbing out into No Man’s Land. Lieutenant Audebert motions to his men to hold fire. Soon, men are pouring out of the trenches on both sides, sharing food and drinks. Fr. Palmer holds a Christmas Eve Mass for all the men.

On Christmas morning, the officers renew the truce and arrange for exchanging their dead. Dozens of men are buried between the lines. A soccer match ensues. The officers realize the situation is untenable and attempt to restore discipline, but by this time the men are refusing to fire upon each other.

A bundle of soldiers’ letters is intercepted by the French authorities, alerting them to the situation. Fearful of having their war spoiled, they dissolve the division and repost its members to various unaffected sectors of the front. The Germans are transferred to the Eastern front to face the Russians. Fr. Palmer is replaced by a Bishop who preaches a sermon urging new recruits to exterminate German men, women and children.

A major theme of the film is music. Sprink’s superior officer begins by telling him that, being a singer, he is useless as a soldier. Then it is the incongruous presence of music that leads to the unplanned ceasefire. At the end, as the Crown Prince of Prussia informs his men of their punishment, he catches sight of a harmonica. He snatches it away and crushes it beneath his boot heel.

The Christmas Truce of 1914 did not change the course of the war very much. In future years, commanders were successful in suppressing similar occurrences. As the war progressed and especially after poison gas was introduced, soldiers gradually came to see their enemies as less than human, as was the intention of the higher officers on all sides. But it has continued to spark the popular imagination in the near-century since it took place. A Canadian historian has written:

It [was] the last expression of that 19th-century world of manners and morals, where the opponent was a gentleman. The ones who survived, who lived to see other Christmases in the war, themselves expressed amazement that this had occurred. The emotions had changed to such a degree that the sort of humanity seen in Christmas 1914 seemed inconceivable.

Joyeux Noёl lost money at the box office, and critics have complained of its “sentimentality.” I suggest seeing it for oneself this Christmas season.

An Exchange with a Newspaper Reporter

In the first half of May, 2023, I received an email from John Terhune, a reporter for the Portland Press Herald newspaper in Portland, Maine, who was working on a story about White racial activism that resulted in an email exchange between us.  I’ve decided what we wrote each other might be of worth to others.   John has OK’d my sharing it.  I told him I’d hold off going public with our contacts until after his article was published.

A note: neither of us capitalized white and black and I’ve left it that way.

John’s initial email: 

Hi Robert,

I hope you’re well.  I’m a reporter for the Portland Press Herald in Maine and I’m hoping you might be interested in speaking with me for a story we’re working on.

We’ve heard anecdotal reports of a growing white nationalist movement in Northern New England and we’re looking into whether this is true and, if so, what’s behind it. As part of our reporting, we’ve been interviewing pro-white activists in the area. One of the men we’ve spoken to, [a name I’ve decided not to share], said your work on race has been very influential in pro-white communities and that we should try to connect with you.

Would you be willing to speak with us about white supremacy and the factors that appear to be pushing the philosophy more toward the mainstream?   My sense is these ideas are often misunderstood by the general public – I want to make sure I understand them myself so that I can fairly present them to our readers.

Please let me know if you’d like to chat, and we can set up a time.  Or, if you’re not the person to talk to but you have suggestions for someone else who might be, please don’t hesitate to pass his name along.



My emailed reply a couple days later: 


I’m up for helping you on your story if I can.  I’m hearing impaired and don’t use a phone, so email is best.  Though I’m experimenting with a new captioned internet phone arrangement that might work.

The best thing I can think of to do is sketch out some thoughts and suggestions and if you have specific questions you can get back to me.

My experience has been that journalists writing about white wellbeing and advocacy stay within the “there’s a menace lurking in the backyard” party line illustrated with a couple of scary anecdotes and fleshed out with quotes from wacko-sounding whites and people hostile to whites, the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League prominent among them.  Safe (you could get in deep trouble if you come off friendly to white organization and collective action), no heavy lifting, no muss, no fuss.

The way you are framing the article—the rise of white nationalism—sounds like you might be conforming to this pattern.   There are white nationalists, but why did you choose this label?  And later in your email you use the term “white supremacy.”   Those are two tags employed to demonize and marginalize white racial consciousness, advocacy, and activism.   I’m personally not a white nationalist, a white supremacist, an extremist, a right winger, or a neo-Nazi, and I’m not a crazed racist or violent, and I don’t hate anybody, and I’m not ignorant, and that applies to the great majority of whites with a public voice and to racially conscious white people generally, but you’d never know that from mainstream media coverage.

That said, here are some sources and people you could look into if you have the time and interest, though you really don’t need to do any of this to get your article written.

The most prominent white nationalist is Greg Johnson (Ph.D) and his website Counter-Currents.  I suggest talking with Johnson.

Johnson wrote a book on white nationalism.  You can read it.

Jim Goad is a featured writer on the Counter-Currents site.  I consider him to be as fine a journalist as they come, both content and prose.   Check him out.

Twenty years ago, I wrote a book on a prominent white nationalist William Pierce called The Fame of a Dead Man’s Deeds.  You could peruse it.

Fifteen years ago, I wrote a book made up of interviews from everyday white people on their outlook on race that I think still holds up, One Sheaf, One Vine: Racially Conscious White Americans Talk About Race.  You could sample it.

Two prominent white interests and advocacy sites are (Yale alum) Jared Taylor’s American Renaissance and (Professor Emeritus) Kevin MacDonald’s The Occidental Observer.  Check out the two sites and talk to Taylor and MacDonald.

I have an archive of articles in The Occidental Observer.

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/author/robert-s-griffin/  You could skim through the articles for anything that looks like it might inform what you are putting together.

Three articles in my archive that might be relevant to your article:




Check out The Unz Review online.  It includes articles about white people and their heritage that don’t trash them.


In your article, you could provide an orientation—whites presuming to participate in identity politics—and offer a list of some of these websites and invite readers to look into this concern for themselves.  This rather than settling for you telling them what’s going on.

Hope this helps.  Get back with me if you’d like.  Good luck with your article.


A couple of days later, John’s reply:

 Hi Robert,

Thanks for your detailed response. I particularly appreciate you pointing out some issues you have with how I framed the landscape of white advocacy — I’m personally very interested in learning more about the differences between how these groups view themselves and how the media presents them.  We did decide to look into this story based on anecdotal reports that basically amount to “the menace lurking in the backyard” — but after just scraping the surface of this world, it’s become apparent that things are more complicated than that.

Some questions I’m interested in hearing your take on:

  1. What do you mean by the term “racially conscious,” and how is it distinct from the “racist” label that so often gets used instead?
  2. You’re right that media stories about these groups tend to focus on “wacko-sounding whites” and “Nazis,” but you suggest that these groups make up a small percentage of the pro-white community. I know it’s tough to attach numbers to these things, but can estimate the actual ratio of “wackos” to the racially conscious?
  3. What’s your relationship to groups that do identify as “white nationalist” or even “racist?” People have strong reactions to groups like NSC [The Nationalist Social Club, or NSC-131] demonstrating in Portland — are they wrong to feel threatened by their presence? Do non-wackos like yourself disown the types of pro-whites who do advocate for racial violence?
  4. Do you think the white advocacy movement is attracting more followers? If so, why are more people coming around to these ideas?
  5. What else does the media get wrong when reporting on these stories?

I’d appreciate any answers to those questions you’d like to share. Alternatively, I’d love to try to talk live if you think you can get your internet phone system running smoothly. Hopefully I’m not continuing to frame these questions in a way that you find misleading or problematic, but if I am I hope you’ll point the issues out to me – my goal here, more than advocating for or against any political stance, is to make sure I’m capturing the issue fairly.



Logo of the Nationalist Social Club, or NSC-131

The next day, my reply: 


There has been, for decades, a relentless campaign by those in control of the information and idea flow in this country (let’s focus on the U.S.) to demonize, suppress, and silence white people, whom they depict as racist, oppressive, and privileged (theirs is an unearned status).  They trash this country that European heritage people founded and developed as evil incarnate.  Any problems non-whites display result from whites’ historic and current injustices.  Any manifestation of white racial pride and concern, any identification of collective interests, any emergence of white leadership or hint of white organization and collective action is ignorant, evil, and forbidden.   If you take exception to any of that, you’d better keep your mouth shut if you know what’s good for you.

I was a university professor—I’m retired–and saw my job as looking hard at reality and reporting what I found.  I concluded that the negative characterization of the white race—my people, my father and mother, the Founders of the country I love, my ancestors, my friends and students, me—to be bullshit and said so.   I paid heavy dues for doing it, but I was a tenured full professor and my job was safe and for whatever reason I’m tough as leather, and now, nearing the end, I’m at peace with myself.

But that’s me.  What’s important in this article is you.   As a journalist, you have a professional, and human, responsibility to report the truth as you can best discern it.  That said, there are practical considerations you need to take into account — your livelihood and personal wellbeing and the welfare of your family if you have one.  I’m not telling you anything you don’t know — you’ve got to cover your backside around this race issue.  I personally would respect any decision you make in how to come at your article, including bagging it.

An obvious way to clamp down on white organization and action is to punch up examples of it that can be portrayed as nutty and scary and use them to characterize the whole of white racial activism as beyond the pale.  If you believe in your heart that that’s the ethical course to take with this article, that’s what you should do.

Personally, I wouldn’t focus on the activities of specific racial organizations but rather on the presence of white racial analysis and advocacy on the periphery of public discourse.   I’d stay away from telling readers what to think and instead frame the issue — are positive arguments for whites adequately represented in American life, in the political arena, in the media, in schools, in journalistic accounts?   I’d invite them to answer that question for themselves and give them access to people who are making positive arguments for whites.   I would refer them to the American Renaissance, Unz Review, Occidental Observer, and Counter-Currents websites.  But that may not play well with your editor or employer and it may not square with your understandings and commitments.  It’s your article, not mine.  It’s your life, not mine.

That on the record, responses to your questions:

By racially conscious, I’m referring to whites for whom their race is a significant component of their personal identity and that it is positive.  They don’t buy the story that they are villainous, obligated to put themselves down and get to the back of the line, any of that.  They look at human history and see that a very good case that can be made for whites’ collective excellence—in the arts, philosophy, science, architecture, technology, medicine, business, social reform, parenting, community building, you name it.   They don’t give over time and energy to whether they are supreme over other races.  They are simply proud of Mozart and Thomas Jefferson and Ernest Hemingway.

When I wrote the One Sheaf, One Vine book, I concluded that “racist” as the term is usually defined doesn’t fit the white people I interviewed.  They don’t have an irrational animus toward blacks.   Rather, they have a considered disrespect for blacks’ collective behavior.  They don’t hate blacks, they have disregard for them.  They have no interest in subjugating or hurting blacks.  They wish them well.   They want most to get themselves and their families, especially their children, away from them.  More than anything, their impulse is white separatism not white supremacy.  Whites feel invaded by blacks and Hispanics, and that includes whites in communities in your home state as reported in national news stories.

A time-honored way to smear any group and set them up for attack, including killing them, is to single out negative examples to make the tacit, or explicit, claim that “that’s the way they all are.”  I’m not saying the media are doing this consciously.  The media, schools, politicians, all the conveyers of ideas and messages, go through the same conditioning everybody does in our time.   Back in the ‘30s, German people, including journalists and academics, even Heidegger, bought into National Socialism, including anti-Semitism (“Jews are all bad—suppress them, exclude them, kill them”).  Human beings are extremely malleable — control the ideas that come into their heads and their rewards and punishments and you can control their thoughts and actions.

The trick with all propaganda, all mind control, is to substitute words, ideas, narratives, for reality: “You don’t have to look at what white people are really like; go by what I’m telling you and showing you (or else).”

It’s important to clarify terms.  Groups like the Nationalist Social Club differ from most white nationalists, who tend to be talkers, headier, and not in-your-face, street-oriented confronters.  Personally, I wouldn’t be threatened around these people—perhaps you can point out examples of actual violence they’ve perpetrated I don’t know about.   And the truth, it’s gratifying for me to see white people standing up for themselves.

I don’t know actual numbers, but my guess is that the hard-ass types you are thinking about are five or ten or fifteen people here and there, very few.  Organizations that make their money through public solicitations—read about the Southern Poverty Law Center some time—puff up the numbers, and thus the threat, to keep the money flowing in.  To prep the article you are writing, make contact with some of these individuals and groups you were hearing about and see what they are like and why they are like that and how many they are.

While I disapprove of some conduct by white individuals and groups, I’m hesitant to disown people.   I’ve found that when I get close to real-life people, not abstractions, I understand how they came to do what they do and see that but for the grace of circumstance it would have been me doing it.

I do think the white advocacy cause—I don’t know if it can be called a movement—is attracting more followers.  The biggest reason for it, I believe, is that what is being dumped on white people these days, especially children and young people in school, is despicable.

The challenge for all of us is to understand how people in power conduct their business, which includes threatening to knee-cap anybody that crosses them.  We need to put in the work to get past the very effective hustle and intimidation and try our best to ground ourselves in reality and live courageously and honorably.  The media, like all of us, fall short in this regard sometimes.  You are on a one-time-only trip through life.  Your challenge is to write your article such that in five years, ten, twenty, you are proud of it and yourself.

If you want to talk, let me know and I’ll see what I can do with my new internet phone.


*   *   *

A couple of months went by with no word from John.  I got curious about him and checked him out online.  He’s a crime reporter for the paper and by his picture he is White and young, in his twenties.

On July 23rd, I emailed him.


Any news with your white nationalism article(s)?

I hope this finds you happy and well.



An hour later, John replied. 

Hi Robert,

I was thinking of emailing you the other day to give you an update. Our story came out today.  I ended up getting busy with another project, so I largely took a back seat on this one—some of my reporting, including our exchange, did not make it into final piece.

You can feel free to share our initial email exchange with your readers.  Thanks for your patience and for waiting to post until we finished our story.



The article, “Hate Groups Are on the March in Maine,” is online—very long, eleven pictures, dominates the front page, five hundred comments at this writing.  I haven’t linked it here because links go to a version of the article that requires a subscription to read.  A Google search of Portland Press Herald hate groups gets the article without the subscription requirement, so do that.  John is the second-listed co-author, who is also White.  The subtitle material gets at the thrust of the article: “A three-month investigation by the Portland Press Herald/Maine reveals that white nationalist groups are increasing their presence in Maine.  Ignoring them would be a mistake, experts say.”  I wasn’t among the experts cited in the article (you might be able to guess who some of them are), and nothing from my emails to John made the cut.

It’d be easy and play well if I went into a from-on-high scold: “Hate groups on the march?  You took a back seat?  Come on, John, you caved.  Where’s your integrity?”  But I need to keep in mind that every day all day I sit on this couch I’m on at the moment knowing a retirement check, annuity payment, and Social Security are coming in monthly no matter what.  I read my books and stream my films and look out for my eighteen-year-old daughter (the greatest late-in-life gift imaginable) going into her second year of college who doesn’t have my last name and nobody knows we’re connected.  I don’t have to go to work every day and deal with colleagues and superiors and worry about who’s going to have lunch with me and contemplate getting a see-me note on a Thursday and Friday being told not to come back Monday and living on unemployment benefits and being blackballed from future employment.  I don’t need to concern myself with whether a woman at the end of the evening invites me to stay for a glass of wine.  I’ve had the good fortune to have had people and ideas come into my life that helped me get free from the relentless anti-White conditioning that has prevailed in this culture for decades.  At twenty-seven, at forty-seven, with just-about-complete sincerity — there was some personal-need-servicing and fear mixed in there — I parroted the official line about, well, everything.

White analysts and advocates, me included, need to get better at understanding the lives of everyday White people and how better to communicate with them and help them achieve what they want and need in life — sustenance, safety, love, acceptance, respect, and personal happiness.  I’m not saying I know how to go about doing that.  All I can say is that I’m not going to finger point around this recent exchange with John and the resulting article.  I’m going to use what went on to try to be kinder and more understanding and more helpful to good, decent White people like John and, I suspect, the co-author of his article.

Political Communication for Dissidents

Stregoneria Politica: Comunicazione politica non convenzionale
[Political Witchcraft: Unconventional Political Communication]
Guido Taietti
Rome: Altaforte Edizione, 2021

Guido Taietti, MA in political science, is an Italian patriot active in CasaPound. In addition to the book under review, he is the author of a Trattato sul sovranismo [Treatise on Sovereignism] (2019) and many articles in Italian periodicals. In May, 2023, he addressed the Scandza Forum in Tallinn, Estonia, but none of his writing has yet been translated into English.

Taietti is a specialist in political communication whose latest book offers a set of tactics for fighting back against the well-financed public communication system wielded by mainstream parties and “progressive” social media companies. Since many Americans are unaware of the nature and extent of this new system, I shall begin with a brief sketch of its explosive growth over the last generation.

The rise of the internet has benefited the world in all sorts of ways, but also subjected us to an unprecedented form of surveillance. From its beginnings in the 1990s, e.g., and simply as a byproduct of the search function it provides, Google collected a lot of data on its users. At first, this extra data was referred to as “digital exhaust” and ignored. But during the first decade of this century, the company learned how to mine it for clues to users’ likely future behavior. Amid the strictest secrecy, it developed a quasi-science of surveillance and manipulation combining aspects of artificial intelligence, statistics, machine learning, data science, and predictive analytics.

The first application of the new techniques was to advertising. As Harvard-trained social psychologist Shoshana Zuboff explains in The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, the ad business had previously been something of a guessing game: “The idea of being able to deliver a particular message to a particular person at just the right moment when it might have a high probability of actually influencing his behavior was the holy grail of advertising.” Google figured out how to do this, and its profits soared.

It did not take long for the company to see that the same techniques could be applied to electoral politics. CEO Eric Schmidt took a special interest in the presidential ambitions of Barack Obama, helping his 2008 campaign compile data on 250 million Americans, including (in Zuboff’s words) “a vast array of online behavioral and relational data collected from use of the campaign’s web site and third-party social media sites such as Facebook.” One consultant claimed: “We knew who…people were going to vote for before they did.”

Google’s role in Obama’s 2012 reelection was even more prominent:

The campaign knew “every single wavering voter in the country that it needed to persuade to vote for Obama by name, address, race, sex, and income” and had figured out how to target television ads to these individuals. One breakthrough was the “persuasion score” that identified how easily each undecided voter could be persuaded to vote for the Democratic candidate.

By now, the new science of mass surveillance and manipulation has long ceased to be a Google monopoly, with Facebook, Microsoft, Verizon, Comcast, and other companies appropriating the techniques and contributing to their further development. The same methods are routinely applied to electoral politics in Europe and elsewhere: a true revolution in political communication.

In his Scandza Forum address, Taietti provided a simple example of how the new system allows political messages to be tailored to different kinds of voters. Persons high in neuroticism tend to become more conformist under conditions of stress, whereas those on the autism spectrum or low in empathy react to stress in the opposite way, by becoming less conformist. So a political party trying to influence its target audience to “get with the program” might send stressful news items to the first type of voter and reassuring stories to the latter—in order to influence both in a similar direction.

This is a merely crude illustration of a system of algorithms capable of weighing dozens of variables such as sex, age, location, income level, tastes and hobbies, web-surfing and purchasing habits. And the use of recursive machine learning means that the system is constantly honing itself to higher levels of accuracy and effectiveness.

Especially for the younger generation, web-based social networks have largely displaced newspapers and television as the locus where political and cultural ideas are spread. With people now spending as much time on the internet as their parents did watching television, we are witnessing what Taietti calls “an inversion between real and virtual life” in which social media have displaced families, schools, the church, and even face-to-face peer groups as agents for socializing the young.

Taietti has had personal experience of the power wielded by social media. At one time he was the manager of CasaPound’s Facebook page, which by 2018 had twice as many followers as Forza Italia, the country’s ruling party. Then Facebook decided to take the page down and block any user who so much as mentioned the organization. Italian judges have ruled against such interventions in Italian politics by foreign companies, but Facebook ignores them: national sovereignty means little on the internet. As a result, the generation now coming of age barely knows of CasaPound’s existence, despite the organization having offices in over one hundred Italian cities, its own newspaper and radio station, and a long list of cultural organizations. For the young, if it is not on social media, it is not real.

On the other hand, the same social media companies have been hard at work convincing young Italians of the “coolness” of various forms of sexual deviancy, and they have succeeded to the extent that fully ten percent of those under twenty-four now “identify as gender fluid.” This in a country where the Communist Party had an anti-homosexual plank in its program until the 1980s!

As the reader can see, the whole phenomenon has totalitarian overtones, and no doubt many of the system’s developers hope and expect it to make them into our permanent masters. But it would be well to remember Sam Francis’s observation that scientism—the notion that the same techniques which have worked in the physical sciences can be applied to man and human society—is an integral component of managerial ideology. Although internet surveillance and manipulation are new, the mindset that accompanies them is hardly different from that of Frederick Taylor’s “scientific management” from the early twentieth century. And as has often been pointed out, scientism itself is a utopian rather than a scientific idea. There are likely to be intrinsic limits to the perfectibility of internet manipulation.

Our task as opponents of the regime and its ideology is to take cognizance of the new reality and develop ways of countering it. This is what makes Guido Taietti’s manual of unconventional political communication so significant: it is among the first conscious responses to the weaponization of the internet by the powerful. His goal is to help dissidents punch above our weight.

The first point to understand is that we cannot simply copy the capital-intensive methods of our opponents on a smaller scale. A general faced with a much larger army cannot afford a direct frontal assault, since when two similarly equipped forces meet in this manner casualties tend to cancel each other out and overall numbers determine the outcome. Instead, the outnumbered side must seek a weak spot in the opposing army and concentrate its limited resources there. Often gaining mastery of even a small part of the field can lead to victory in the battle as a whole.

To the would-be science of our opponents, we must oppose an art, one that substitutes willpower for resources, and discipline for algorithms. We can embarrass the big actors, interfere with their plans for us, and gradually cultivate a loyal following that escapes their control. We must seek to win over not the majority of the population—at least not yet—but to change the terms of the debate over particular themes important to us. As Taietti puts it:

A community of one thousand members (an entirely plausible number for a small political party today), or even merely of sympathizers, intelligently directed, can influence a political system with regard to a single theme more than ten thousand voters waiting for the election to mark their ballot and hope things will go a certain way.

Most often, the tactics of a small activist organization will be the opposite of what the big boys do. Parties running candidates for national office do their most important communication in the six-to-eight weeks leading up to elections, when public attention is heavily focused on them; activists are better advised “rest when everyone else is fighting, and fight when everyone else wants to rest.” Major parties seek to appeal to as many as possible, since anyone can vote; activists should seek instead to attract a small core of reliable sympathizers who trust them. Major parties seek good relations with mainstream journalism; activists should force a hostile media to report on them instead.

A good example of how a small activist group should deal with the media is provided by CasaPound’s pioneering use of a political flash mob technique in Italy. Wanting to promote home ownership and protest the difficulty first-time home buyers’ experience in obtaining loans, they put up effigies of hanged men in dozens of Italian cities with labels referencing “social loans” (their own proposal to solve the problem). The old media had little choice but to mention the action, which quickly became publicly notorious in any case, and then had to explain who was responsible and what it was all about.

A small organization of dedicated activists can influence the terms of public debate, propose alternatives, delegitimize the professional political class, mock and discourage opponents, establish its own sources of politically relevant information, selectively report items from the mainstream news that support its own contentions, or even highlight opposing commentary that is conspicuously idiotic or fanatical (think: Libs of TikTok). Taietti calls such techniques “political witchcraft” because they can achieve results in the real world by acting exclusively on the virtual level, seemingly defying the laws of material force.

The various degrees of political participation can be pictured as forming a pyramid, with most people at the bottom and ever smaller numbers as one rise to the top. Taietti distinguishes four levels.

The bottom layer is formed of voters, passive consumers of political communication. They may like to talk about politics, but merely as a kind of self-expression. They vote by “feel,” often identifying personally with a candidate: liking Obama because he seems “cool,” or appreciating Trump’s combativeness, but without any clear idea of what they hope their man will achieve.

Sympathizers represent the lowest grade of active political participation. They have some ability to defend the positions they take, and may influence the passive voters in their social circle. These are the sort of people who cause a certain meme or video to “go viral.”

Activists represent the highest grade of active participation mobilized for ideal incentives. They not only defend their positions, but adapt them to the expectations of their public. They are the fundamental component of small political groupings.

At the top are professionals, viz., party members and candidates. These people are personally ambitious: rather than seeking election in order to carry out a program, they often chose a program simply to help themselves or their party get elected. In other words, they tend to be opportunists, specialists in getting the general public to vote for them, and can follow a changing party line in order to do so.

Mass politics is largely an affair of the lowest and highest levels of participation, i.e., political professionals who are experts at extracting the all-important 50%+1 of the vote from the mostly passive masses with the goal of getting into and retaining office. Smaller dissident groups tend to be formed of activists catering to sympathizers, as well as aiming for those members of the general public who can be raised at least to sympathizer status. For such activists, elections are merely an instrument, with the goal being a specific form of political change.

Taietti’s own organization, Casa Pound, once tried to make inroads into electoral politics without much success. The organization has now renounced this strategy and no longer nominates candidates for office. That does not mean, of course, that they are without crucial influence on Italian politics through the pressure they are able to exert on those actually in office. How they do so is well-illustrated by their role in thwarting the left’s campaign to introduce citizenship by Ius soli into Italian law.

Like most of the world’s countries, Italy determines citizenship by Ius sanguinis, meaning that a child of Italian parents is automatically Italian, wherever in the world it happens to be born. Under the Ius soli principle, anyone born on Italian territory would be considered Italian. America is currently saddled with an especially pernicious form of Ius soli under which even the offspring of illegal entrants are automatically treated as Americans: a situation which has given rise to such mockeries of American citizenship as anchor babies, birth tourism, and heavily pregnant Mexican women sneaking through the underbrush along the border in order to give birth in American emergency rooms.

For obvious reasons, Italian advocates of demographic replacement have been keen to get such a system adopted in their country. In early 2018, they thought they saw their chance. Italy was governed by an unpopular left-wing coalition that was generally expected to lose the next election.  Under these circumstances the ruling parties calculated that they might as well sacrifice a little of their remaining popularity by enshrining Ius soli in Italian law while they had the chance. This would not change the outcome of the coming election, but it would provide them with an endless source of non-European clients for the future.

The opposition center-right party, Matteo Salvini’s Lega, knew Ius soli was unpopular and promised to fight it in parliament. Still being in the minority, however, they saw little chance of winning such a fight. Yet this did not disturb Salvini overmuch, since he figured such a loss would give him a popular issue to campaign on in the coming elections. So Lega opposition was half-hearted at best.

Casa Pound knew differently: there was no use winning elections if the very concept of citizenship got hollowed out. Losing a parliamentary contest over Ius soli would make protecting national sovereignty much more difficult and provide a permanent incentive to immigration—all so that Salvini’s party could gain a few extra votes in the coming election. So they raised hell: hundreds of angry comments by party activists appeared under every newspaper article on the subject; they demonstrated in front of the Italian parliament building in Rome, and their clashes with police were seen by millions of Italians on the evening news. Despite years of media demonization, Casa Pound succeeded in generating a lot of popular sympathy in connection with this issue, even among Italians who would never have considered supporting the party in general.

The Lega realized it could no longer maintain a relaxed attitude toward an issue rousing such passions, so they tacitly adopted Casa Pound’s line as their own and brought the issue into the spotlight. The more moderate elements of the still-ruling left-wing coalition started backing off, afraid any support for Ius soli would brand them for life and ruin all their future electoral prospects.

In effect, Casa Pound had forced the Lega to fight for their position regarding an issue that would not have been electorally decisive for the Lega itself.

This is how small activist organizations can have a crucial influence on politics even without being able to obtain anything like majority support from the electorate, and it is an especially important model for countries with first-past-the-post voting systems that favor mass parties and prevent smaller electoral parties from gaining much of a direct voice in government. If members of such an activist organization do see opportunities to run in local elections, they can always do so as candidates of one of the major parties. Here again, Taietti cites an Italian example: the Radical Party never had more than a thousand members, but they allowed and even encouraged their members to join other parties as well, thus exercising significant influence on Italian politics in the 1970s and 80s.

It is more important for small activist organizations, however, to construct a social environment that makes its sympathizers feel they are a part of something, that gives meaning to the time they donate to the cause even in the absence of immediate political gains. The Casa Pound centers in Italian cities are not just party headquarters but also pubs, bookshops, and often gyms. Some provide supplementary classes for students and martial arts training. Young people make friends there, finding an escape from the anomie and social atomization outside. They are drawn into a community of shared values, becoming disposed to dedicate time and resource for their vision of the world.

Even the history of the Italian Social Movement (MSI), founded in 1946 by former fascists, holds some useful lessons for today’s dissident groups. Although it regularly received millions of votes, sometimes rising to more than 8% of the total, MSI was shunned by all the other political parties as the embodiment of evil. As Taietti stresses, such shunning was largely opportunistic political theater meant to increase the relative weight of the other parties and their value as coalition partners—much like the cordon sanitaire against anti-immigration parties today—but everyone pretended to believe it was a matter of moral principle. And the strategy was effective: when a Christian Democratic government showed signs of softening toward MSI in 1960, the communists responded by sponsoring deadly riots, and the experiment was never repeated.

Supporting MSI in those years made little sense. You risked being beaten up at school, fired or ostracized at work—even killed, if you had any important role in the organization. There was no way to make a career by joining such a party. Yet MSI survived. It built a parallel world to defend its own people, who simply ignored the entire mainstream press. Instead of renting meeting halls, they purchased their own from member contributions so that no landlord could evict them after the fifth Molotov cocktail attack. Party members sent their children to special private schools with the children of other party members; in the summer, the young went to countries like Spain and Portugal to listen to the war stories of old fascist fighters finishing out their days in exile from their homeland.

Over the years, the younger generation came to accept that any restoration of fascism was impossible and undesirable. The party reformed and split, with one of its successor organizations providing the environment in which Italy’s current Prime Minister Georgia Meloni got her start in politics. Upon her election last October, of course, the mainstream press clutched its pearls and affected to believe Mussolini was rising from the dead.

It is an example with much to teach today’s dissidents, whatever opinion they may hold of Italian fascism.


Consciousness Raising for White Students

Equal Training: An Analysis of Antiwhite Material and Language Manipulation Tactics Used in American Schools
Student X
Michael Michau, 2023

The simplest definition of education is the transmission of culture, so it is not surprising that schools are on the front lines of the present kulturkampf.  As usual, the Right is reacting to the dynamic cultural changes initiated by the Left whose goal is to replace Western civilization with a globalist multi-ethnic, multi-cultural “civilization.”

A very brief autobiography places author Student X in the belly of the beast. He is a young White man from a working-class family living in a predominately non-White community in Los Angeles County. While attending a local community college X became aware of the anti-White curriculum at his school where “some classes seemed to have more of a prosecutorial atmosphere, instead of an educational one” (8). Not one to suffer in silence while hoping others would challenge this anti-White bias, the author filed an official grievance citing a lack of objectivity and professional manner on the part of some of his instructors.

X received some schooling outside the classroom in his quest for redress. He got the bureaucratic runaround. He met with the president of the department of academic affairs who sent him to the dean of curriculum who referred him to the curriculum committee which met behind closed doors with no input from students or the public. The author also contacted the state’s curriculum committee and the Chancellor’s Office of the California Community College system. The latter entity claimed the issue was outside their authority because “they only have legal requirements to meet on behalf of minorities, not White students” (12).  Incidentally, the author does not like the use of colors White, Black, or Brown as designations for ethnic groups. More on that later.

Not easily discouraged, X realized that the educational bureaucracy was not the vehicle for change, at least not at present. Remedies would have to come at the student/classroom level. White students need to be taught to recognize anti-White bias in curriculum and learn how to counter it. Unfortunately, being aware of the likely consequences in terms of ostracism or worse, few students will have the pluck and determination displayed by the author. And while change may begin with a single person, for a cause to succeed there must be organized collective action. In any case awareness of the problem is a start.

A major message of Equal Training is the power of words and narrative. The Left is skilled in using language for ideological purposes. They know that “the wording of educational literature determines how students are trained to talk and structure their thoughts” (25). When it comes to terminology the Right remains largely tone deaf. For example: much of the Left identifies as progressive and liberal, and the Right obliges them by using their preferred terms. Yet there is very little classical liberalism or progressivism within the contemporary Left. In addition, both these terms have positive connotations outside of ideology. “Yes, we’re making progress on that issue.” “He was liberal with his largesse.” Leftists are globalists, cultural Marxists, maybe anarcho-communists or nihilists. If you need euphemisms: Jacobins or iconoclasts. Using ‘gay’ as a term for homosexuality should also be avoided.

The author believes that the goal of modern education is to subvert White cultural identity by rendering it invalid, eventually replacing it in favor of a globalist, multicultural identity. To resist this indoctrination, it is important for young Whites to establish a strong ethnic, cultural, and sexual identity. It is difficult even for sophisticated adults to navigate the minefield of American identity politics, so knowing who you are is paramount for White youth dealing with a hostile social environment.

A component of a positive ethnic identity is a knowledge of group history. This is why the Left is so keen on erasing and revising American history. One important topic today in American historiography is slavery. X points out that slavery is often taught within what he calls a “cropped narrative.” The institution is given no historical, social, or economic context – simply evil Whites oppressing hapless Blacks. Some students even come away with the impression that slavery was a uniquely American phenomenon. The Holocaust is another topic that lends itself to a cropped narrative.

For X there appears to be a two-step process involved in what might be described as scholastic social engineering. First, efface a positive White identity, then blame, shame, and guilt-trip White students for past transgressions as constructed by the left. War, slavery, oppression: “There’s not one thing you can blame White people for that Brown, Black, and Yellow peoples haven’t also done” (80).

The author points out that if the establishment really wanted to make a multiethnic society work, they would seek a racial reconciliation rather than a racial reckoning. Instead of stoking the flames of resentment they would emphasize a common past. But they will not take this course because much of the Left is more interested in debasing Western peoples and culture than in helping other peoples and cultures. In any case, suppression is the only effective method to govern a multiethnic, multicultural empire. A colorblind meritocracy will not work. Perhaps a strict racial quota system would be the fairest, most transparent way to handle things. X suggests this when he advocates for “proportionate access to all schools, staff positions, government agencies, social services, scholarships, grants, and other opportunities” (184). Of course, it is not our job to make this perverse system work. At the end of the day, race is such an essential human characteristic, both individually and collectively, that a multiracial society will always be problematic.

As mentioned above the author does not like the ethnic designation “White,” though he often uses the term himself. One problem is the way the US government, especially the census bureau, uses the term: “A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East or North Africa, including Hispanic and Latino populations” (47).[1] X proposes using the term “White-Ethnics.” For many people this term would bring to mind so called hyphenated ethnics: Polish-Americans, Irish-Americans, etc. “Ethnic White” might be better, but the most useful and accurate designation would be European American.

If European Americans had sufficient racial consciousness, they would insist that Congress change the government’s definition of White. In the author’s words: “We need to demand formal subgroup recognition by the federal government” (60). For one thing having such recognition would “accurately measure our access to scholarships, jobs, and other opportunities” (64). A proper designation would exclude what X refers to as “part-time Whites.” He never explicitly identifies who this group includes, but they are characterized by identifying as White when it is to their advantage, but otherwise adopting a separate, often antagonistic identity, such as is common in Australia since Aboriginals were given benefits like government scholarships and affirmative action  based on their identity. If one stylistic criticism could be made for Equal Training, it is the tendency of the author to make general statements without offering specific examples.

There is a tremendous amount of alienation in our society, especially among White youth, leading to drug use, sexual confusion, and nihilism. This is largely a product of a weak sense of familial, ethnic, and cultural identity. When society’s highest values are diversity and inclusion, the ironic results are that no one feels included, there is little sense of belonging, little sense of ownership. The author believes that Whites have a birthright to their own society with their own institutions designed to serve their needs. In the past this was assumed—a near universal expectation. Today this view is condemned as racist. X notes that “the term racist [is used] to refer to anyone who resists any of the tactics used to dissolve their race” (165). Under this definition having a White family is racist.

X touches upon several other interesting topics including selective law enforcement which is most likely to impact young, heterosexual White men. He points out the need for “our own legal representation and dedicated legal network” (181), such as TOO contributor Glen Allen’s Free Expression Foundation.[2] The author notes the strange and toxic congruence between globalist billionaires and neo-Marxist street thugs—without mentioning the vast overrepresentation of Jews in the former. And X suggests White students major in STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) subjects where curricula are more objective.

I have a couple minor qualms about this work. First, why the title Equal Training. Something catchier and more descriptive might help to promote the book.  Second, while I salute X for having the brass to stand up and confront the educational establishment, that could be a difficult strategy for many students to follow. Even if a student is informed and articulate, instructors usually have arguments to obfuscate a classroom discussion. X concedes that verbally clever academics can deliberately deceive or mislead with a clear consciousness because “they believe their ends justify their means” (59). Then there is the issue of possible grade retaliation. Also, no matter how confident a student might be, a single person representing a position can appear weak and vulnerable. Much more effective in such situations is to have two or more students representing an organization. Of course, organizing is hard and explicitly White groups are prohibited on campuses. Plus, as the author warns, there are sketchy pro-White organizations out there led by people with a propensity for self-destruction. Proxy or surrogate organizations for White students could claim to be groups dedicated to traditional Western culture, either fine arts or folk culture, or they could shield themselves by claiming to be a politically conservative activist group.

I imagine Student X is a member of Gen Z, and Equal Training is aimed at increasing the racial consciousness among his cohort of White high school and college students. Most readers of this journal will be familiar with the issues the author raises. The value of this book for those older readers is that X cuts to the chase emphasizing the basics. For decades a psychological war of unsurpassed sophistication and pervasiveness has been waged against White youth. From pre-school television shows, through the K-12 public education, to academe, they have been subjected to intense propaganda.  To mount a defense in preparation for a counter offensive, students must develop a strong positive ethnic and cultural identity. And a prerequisite for such an identity is a firm grounding in history that will enable students to put past and present events into a historical context. If parents, grandparents, and youth mentors want to know where to begin, it is here.

[1] Actually the US Census Bureau states that Hispanics can be of any race making the term useless as a racial category.

[2] A contributor to The Occidental Observer website, Baltimore attorney Glen Allen, heads an organization, The Free Expression Foundation, which may be able to provide legal assistance to White dissidents.

The Conservative Commitment To Color Blindness Is Cowardice, Not Principle

The unremitting conservative commitment to color blindness is not a principled stance anymore. Perhaps it was once upon a time, but it is not today. The mask of universal brotherhood has slipped off the face of the modern left. The modern left is dripping with disdain for everything White—what I call “anti-asperism,” from the Greek άσπρος,  meaning ‘white’. It is not subtle about its hatred whatsoever, and the policies it promotes are all centered around displacing Whitey, replacing Whitey, and sticking it to Whitey in every way imaginable. Indeed, hurting White people seems to be, in many respects, the central purpose and design of modern leftism, and by extension the primary cause of Western governments.

I want to give these people on the right, these naive do-gooders, the benefit of the doubt, but the truth is, they do not deserve it. In light of just how viciously anti-White the culture and the power structure of this country have become, it is impossible for a decent White person not to stand up for White people and White interests in explicitly racial terms. To be a decent person means to stand up for White children who are being shamed and degraded in grade school for being White, by their own government no less, a government which still has the gall to pretend it represents them. Brain-dead, brainwashed government apparatchiks shaming young White children, telling them they are “racist” and “bad” merely for existing, is truly, and I mean this literally, a crime against humanity. It is diabolical. Yet we tolerate it.

Even when confronted with appalling anti-White animus or even heinous anti-White crimes, modern conservatives consistently shy away from the racial element(s) right at the center of the case or the matter. Just as the media hides the racial element(s) when primitive Black sociopaths who [literally] openly articulate hatred for White people, shoot White children because a ball rolled into their yard, conservatives do the same. Instead of speaking up for White people and White interests, conservatives always fall back on the same empty appeals to civic unity and daft arguments about how everyone should be colorblind and unprejudiced. How is it that a people can be so civilized, and have such high standards for itself, even as it gets rubbed out of existence by those who have no standards for themselves at all? That is not ethicality my brethren, but folly born of terror and subjugation.

Whites who refuse to stand up for themselves and their civilization (Western civilization is White civilization) and their interests (like the right to not be systematically racially discriminated against in the name of “anti-racism” (how is that for a laugh?)) are not good people, they are bad people. They are too cowardly to confront the realities that are staring them right in the face, realities about human nature, about biological difference, about the character and “legitimacy” of their own government.

Diversity is an abject failure with few historical rivals. It is epic in the scale of damage it is inflicting on the formerly White West. The left, and by the left I mean Western governments, since our main institutions are the vanguard of Cultural Marxism, which enforces its maxims and values through violence, and which hoists its rainbow banner at every opportunity, abandoning the purported ideals of the 1960s “civil rights” cultural revolution long ago, and there is no way to bring those ideals back. They are dead. Diversity has destroyed them, as it is destroying everything else White Westerners once cherished, from freedom of speech and conscience, to the ideal of blind justice under the law, to meritocracy and fair competition in the market and elsewhere, to objectivity itself.

White cowardice is understandable of course. Whites have every reason to be fearful. People who speak up for Whites are instantly labeled White supremacists. Many lose their businesses or become unemployable. Some are even framed on bogus criminal charges by the government’s perfectly amoral, hired thugs in blue. We are dealing with an extremely pervasive and highly repressive, not to mention very crafty, sophisticated tyranny here. To be clear though, that is just speaking up for Whites. Conservative Whites could do all kinds of other, less purportedly “collectivistic” and “racist” things which would indicate courage, like acknowledging that the Founding Fathers were essentially White supremacists and White nationalists while giving a nuanced history of human conquests and slavery, the underlying causes of Black underachievement, and the history of White attempts to raise up Black people to White levels of academic performance. Or simply acknowledging the obvious truth that the government they live under detests them and does not in any way represent them today, instead of constantly mouthing vapid patriotic slogans and fellating government goons for their so-called “service” (to what exactly?). These are all things conservatives could and would do, if they possessed any courage. And there are many, many more things they could do which would demonstrate that they are not a completely defeated, vassalized people. But they do not do these things.

What we have then, as you can see, is a clear pattern of behavior. Thus, while it is difficult, if not impossible to prove cowardice rather than principle drives conservative preening and groveling and equivocating and babbling about values and ideals long since forsaken by anyone in America with any power or relevance—values like [racial] colorblindness, all the evidence points in this direction. Conservatives, like most all Americans, know precisely where the lines are, and they stay within them. But those lines are the fruit of Cultural Marxist tyranny. They are intolerable lines. They are the lines of a regime which has enserfed our people under the guise of “law and order” and keeping us “safe”.

Yet despite all these overbearing, overbroad criminal laws, and all this wretched, suffocating order, Christian children are not safe from transgender lunatics even at school. And White children are not safe from White-hating Somali immigrants even at the Mall of America in Minnesota (ironically named, eh?). You never know when some non-White animal might just stroll up and throw your innocent White child 40 feet down off a mall balcony. All that “safety” and “order” we were promised must be somewhere out there in the folds of the galaxy with the “progress” our “representatives” keep heralding through the toppling of statues and the renaming of military bases.

Real men, real White men that is, protect themselves. They are not government dependents looking for safety above all else. Just as they do not fight 3 on 1, as Tucker Carlson famously recently claimed. That is true even if anti-White African bigots over at NBC disagree. Jarvis DeBerry, anti-White propagandist for the U.S. power class, thinks this is “exactly how White men fight.” Saying demeaning things about Whites as a collective will get you published in the mainstream media, saying positive things, like Mr. Carlson did, will get you canned.

But that is not how White men fight, is it? It is dishonorable. Our people have always understood this. Those from nearer to the equator do not understand it at all, but we do. You know exactly what I am talking about, if you have read this far. Do you feel that sensation in your chest? You see, we are a people. We have an essence. We have a spirit. We have a shared culture, and shared bonds, and shared interests. You know, deep inside you, exactly what I am referring to! Yet so many conservatives would deny this. They would proclaim that race does not matter, even as their soul shows them it does!

Rage is the only sane response to how criminal and corrupt our government is, and to how it treats its White population, our people. But instead of rage, all conservatives do is pull punches and speak in racially ambiguous terms and wishy-washy ways about [truly] existential matters. That is not principled or moral; it is cowardly and disgusting. Every other race fights ravenously and with no shame or qualms for its group interests. Why stand we here idle?

Whites need to be loud and proud. Frankly, they need to be fierce. Only an awakened, enlightened White race can save America from the precipice at this point. That is the only way we chase wokeshevism back into the abyss from whence it came. At the present, it is chasing us into the abyss. Using metaphors and platitudes and euphemisms for non-White savagery is getting us nowhere except deeper into the abyss. It is time for White Americans to stand up for the White race. Anything less is pusillanimity arrayed in the garb of decency. It is unbefitting our people, a noble people.

If the White race stands for anything, anything at all, let it be plain speaking, even in the face of relentless state terror, wokeshevik hysteria, and systemic bullying by anti-White scum. Apologize for nothing. We are a people, a tribe, a collective. We matter. And we are not going anywhere. If we can’t get a fair shake under the current government, we will form another. We must stand up, be heard, and accept absolutely nothing less.

Say it, over and over and over again, and be not afraid who might hear it. We are a people, and we have a future. Those who mind it, who would attack or accost you for declaring this, are your enemy, and merit nothing but disdain. Those who malign and abuse our people have everything to apologize for. Standing up for your people, on the other hand, is not something anyone has to apologize for. Rest assured moreover, that lurking beneath the many collective denunciations, are millions of White men and women, all over this land, and in foreign lands as well, who are thankful for your words and your bravery, who, even if silent on the surface or on the internet, feel a gratitude deep in their souls. You matter. You are appreciated.