White Racial Consciousness and Advocacy

A Thousand Points of White: One Strategy for Achieving White Nationalism

This essay is intended as a response and follow-up to the excellent recent article by Giles Corey, “American Roulette.”  Corey’s piece is passionate, clear, and well-written.  He makes a powerful and inspirational case, in a short space.  My intent here is to build on his ideas and add some needed details.  The chaos of the past few months has given us new opportunities to move forward.  In the spirit of Corey’s piece, I will be concise and blunt; the time for niceties is fast coming to an end.

Herewith is a brief outline of an argument and a strategy for establishing a functional form of White Nationalism.  For sake of clarity, I will express it in a series of numbered paragraphs.  Let’s start with the big picture:

  • The United States is irredeemably corrupt. It cannot be salvaged and it cannot be saved.  The entire political and economic infrastructure is lost.  We have neither a democracy nor an oligarchy, but rather a Judeocracy: rule by Jewish power and Jewish money.  Jews are assisted at all levels by Whites (and others) who act as their willing front-men, and who thus disguise the deeper workings of the system.  Republicans, Democrats, Greens, Libertarians—they’re all the same.  No party has the guts to confront the Jewish power structure.  The media, of course, is also hopelessly corrupted by Jewish influence; witness the battle between CNN, MSNBC, and even Fox News, to see who can display greater fealty to Jewish interests.[1]  Thus we can expect nothing but biased and malicious reporting from any of them.  The American system cannot be reformed; we should not even try.[2]
  • American corruption can work to our advantage. As the US continues on its path of decay and decline, more and more opportunities will emerge for White nationalists.  The American Judeocracy will inevitably destroy itself; it’s only a question of time.  Jewish misanthropy and kleptomania will consume itself and the whole federal infrastructure in the process.  However, the American system will likely not collapse in a sudden, catastrophic paroxysm.  Rather, it will be a slow and steady loss of integrity, of stability, of coherence, and of credibility.  This is what has happened in the latter stages of most all imperial-like political entities in history.  Eventually, the political system and the ruling authorities simply lose the willpower and ability to intervene against rebels or invaders.  We are seeing precursors of this in the Seattle “autonomous zone.”  This works massively to our benefit.
  • White Nationalists should assist the process of decline. The more ethnic diversity, more economic disruption, more political division, and more crime that we experience, the faster will be the process of decline.  As bad as it looks, “Black Lives Matter” is doing us a favor.  Arsonists and looters are doing us a favor.  The moronic liberal elites who defend these low-lifes are too ignorant to realize that such actions are undermining their very system of power.  Recent events are making clear to millions of Whites that a multiracial, Jewish-run America will be a catastrophe in the future.  And they can’t be too happy about it.

So, let’s help the process along:  More Latino and Asian immigration!  More Blacks in corporate America!  More Jews in Washington!  More aid for Israel!  More affirmative action!  More leftist street marches!  Defund the police!  More looting!  More arson!  We can use the liberal Zeitgeist against itself—use its own logic to drive it into the ground.

  • Washington is rapidly losing the moral and political basis for effective action. Trump’s various stupid proclamations and (in)actions and the paralysis in Congress are all good signs.  We are seeing federal dysfunction at all levels: in the response to the coronavirus, in various military conflicts around the globe, and in international relations.  The US is being pushed around by hostile nations, and our allies—even the Jewish-dominated ones in Europe—are increasingly ignoring us.  Again, this is all good news.
  • Whites deserve, and have the right, to self-rule. There is no good reason why Whites anywhere should submit to rule by Jews, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, or any combination of these.  This is not because such people are “inferior”; rather, every race and every ethnicity has its own values and its own culture, rooted in genetics, and these should not be imposed on unwilling Whites.  Whites have the right to be proud of their values and their cultural achievements, which comprise the highest and greatest achievements in human history.  Let the other races build their own nations and their own cultures, in their own lands.[3]  And let them live with the consequences.
  • White self-governance cannot be achieved at a national level in the US—not for a century, at least. We need to give up on Washington.  The federal system needs to end, and governance rebuilt at the local level.  A nation of 330 million is ungovernable, even of a single ethnicity; a multiracial nation of this size is utterly unsustainable.  Perhaps someday, many decades down the road, a kind of White American coalition or confederation will be possible; but not in our lifetimes.  Again, this is not bad news.
  • Start local, start small. Given that there will not be a federal White nationalist movement or party, we need to look for local or state-level groups advocating White self-rule—or at first, White identity and White self-interest.  Here’s one suggestion:  Start a local “White Lives Matter” group.  What’s good for the goose…  This process can be very small and very simple.  One person can reserve a room in a library, school, or church basement.  One person can reach out to friends, spread the word on social media, or print up flyers to post around town.  Pick a day and time, book a room, advertise—and see who comes.  Even a small turnout is a start.  We ought not forget that, in Germany many years ago, National Socialism began with weekly meetings of just seven or so men (“the same old seven,” lamented Hitler)[4].  If you get seven at first, consider it a victory.
  • “It’s just a club.” At first, any such “WLM” group will likely be a mere discussion group:  politics, news, local developments.  Think of it as a social club:  like-minded Whites getting together, on a regular basis, to discuss issues of common interest.  This alone, as innocuous as it might seem, is a radical step in today’s climate.  The sheer existence of a WLM group will likely draw negative attention; be prepared, stay cool, stay calm, stay rational.  You have a right to your own self-interest.  Use negative publicity to your advantage.  Remember: Anyone who accepts BLM but rejects WLM is an evil “racist.”
  • Become politically active. As the group grows, establish some structure:  take attendance, collect modest annual dues, have officers.  Watch out for spies and moles; they are inevitable, but can be managed.  Once the group is stable, then you are in a position to engage in local politics.  Write op-eds or post things on a local blog.  Make yourselves known; be open, be public.
  • Have definable and clear local objectives, moving toward a White society. It doesn’t matter if you live in a city, suburb, or rural area:  establish a group, meet regularly, and get engaged.  If your area is already mostly or all White, there should be little resistance.  If it is majority-minority, consider moving.  If your area, like mine, is a mostly-White suburb but with encroaching non-whites, put up resistance.  The larger objective is for White self-determination and self-rule, and this starts by making non-whites realize that they are no longer welcome here.  Pick a local geographic region—neighborhood, city, or county—and declare it White.  Don’t hold a vote, don’t look for a majority—just declare it.  This is essentially what a bunch of Seattle hooligans and degenerates recently did; again, that blade cuts both ways.  How outrageous!—a dozen (say) local folks declare their neighborhood or city to be White!  And then they have the nerve to say, publicly, that non-whites are not welcome, and should leave!  Revolutionary!  But that’s what it takes.  No ugliness, no violence, no cross-burnings.  Just a polite and civil statement:  This is now a White area, and non-whites are no longer welcome. Orania in America.
  • Develop a local identity. This will likely mean creating your own distinctive logo or slogan.  Put them on stickers, letterhead, flyers, T-shirts, flags, yard signs.  Spread them around.  You want to see these things on cars, houses, neighborhood kiosks, etc.  Even people who won’t attend a meeting might be sympathetic and put a sign in their window.  Public visibility has a tremendous effect.

Let’s pause here a moment.  By the above simple and elementary acts, Whites everywhere can take concrete steps to reassert their right to self-governance.  Groups need not adhere to any specific ideology, nor align with any particular White movement.  To be counted under the broad heading of “White nationalist,” groups need only endorse something like the follow general precepts:

  • The White race is of inherent value to humanity, and as such deserves protection and defense.
  • Whites have an intrinsic right to self-rule and self-governance.
  • Whites everywhere are under threat due to (a) declining numbers, (b) declining physical, mental, and moral health, and (c) loss of political autonomy and self-government. These threats are various and complex, and require action on several fronts to address.
  • The chief threat to White well-being comes from the global Jewish lobby, which has an inherent interest in seeing a general decline in White prosperity and a loss in White political power. Jews must therefore be confronted and challenged at all levels of society.
  • All humans are, by nature, best suited to live in social and environmental settings from which they evolved—societies that are broadly uni-racial and monocultural. Humans have little or no evolutionary experience living with diverse races or ethnicities, and doing so causes inevitable problems.  Therefore, racial and cultural diversity have profound negative effects on society.
  • The only long-term solution for many present-day problems is to restore human society to its natural and original conditions—uni-racial and monocultural, broadly speaking. This entails political separation and/or expatriation of minority peoples.
  • As a rough provisional goal, White regions of self-governance ought to aim for a minimum of 95% White populations, with all non-White minorities numbering, collectively, less than 5%. Jewish numbers ought to be severely limited, amounting to not more than 0.5% under any circumstances.
  • Only Whites will be fully enfranchised—that is, possess the right to vote, and to hold public office. All others will have minimal civil rights, perhaps on par with a foreign tourist today—basic legal protections, but little more.

Most any sane White person who wishes to live in a stable, secure, and prosperous community ought to accept these points.  Those who do not are likely either (a) paid to oppose them, or (b) brainwashed by our present Judeo-centric culture and academia.  The brainwashed can be educated, but the sell-outs, especially the White ones, are utterly contemptible; they deserve the harshest punishment we can muster.

Additionally, we need not worry excessively about who “counts” as White.  In the vast majority of cases, it is obvious:  those whose ancestry derives from indigenous European peoples and nations.  There are ambiguous cases, such as Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia, that deserve more discussion.  More important, though, is who is not White:  Jews are not White, despite their own frequent proclamations to the contrary.  Arabs or other Middle Easterners are not White.  Hispanics and Latinos are not White.  ‘White’ is not simply a matter of skin color; it is also a question of heritage, of worldview, of culture, and of values.  Don’t be fooled by light skin or blond hair.[5]

This said, we can console ourselves in the fact that America is still a predominantly White nation, and will be so for many years to come.  White Americans currently number about 195 million, in a nation of nearly 330 million.  And even though our numbers are projected to decline slightly in the coming decades, we will still long be the numerically-dominant ethnicity.  Hispanics here could top 100 million by 2050, but that is roughly half of White numbers; Blacks will not number more than 55 million or so, and Asians not more than 45 million.  And we mustn’t forget that American Jews number only some 6 million.  One of our strengths is our numbers, and we must always bear this in mind.  Jews and other non-Whites certainly know it, and they fear it.  Large numbers of active Whites spell doom for them.

Still, based on combined effects, America will be a ‘majority-minority’ nation at least by 2045, and coalitions of non-Whites, led by Jews, could soon exercise even more power than they do at present.  And the trends for the end of this century are even more dire.  This is unacceptable, hence the urgent need for White action on many fronts.

Let’s conclude with a few final points, in our drive for White nationalism.

  • Gradually assume more power, quietly and nonviolently. As local White or WLM movements grow, and as intimidated non-Whites move out, White groups will be able to assume a greater civic role, just by default.  Volunteer groups can provide social services, self-police, and participate in local schools.  White nationalists will then naturally come to gain power in local politics, exercising yet more autonomy.  All the while, the autonomous zones should continue to grow, by declaration.
  • The biggest threat will come from local and state police, and potentially state National Guards. Small, decentralized White autonomous zones generally need not fear the feds.  Yes, we all remember Waco and Ruby Ridge, but those were anomalies of the past.  With a degraded federal justice system, and with (hopefully) dozens of White zones popping up around the country, the feds will be in no position to confront them.  The larger threat, I think, is from local and state authorities.  Fortunately, these groups are now being alienated on a large scale.  As current policemen resign in disgust, less and less qualified people will take their places, resulting in growing inefficiency and incompetence.  Eventually they will be unable to, or chose not to, take action against peaceful civilian groups who only seek self-governance.  Remember, the goal here, at least initially, is to create White autonomous zones which are self-governing and relatively independent from state or federal authorities.  The central tactic is to ‘walk away slowly,’ rather like you might do when confronted by a maniac with a large knife.  Don’t antagonize, don’t threaten—just walk away.
  • Undermine Jewish financial power. Jewish power derives almost exclusively from their vast wealth; 6 million American Jews control some $50 trillion in assets.[6]  But this is denominated in corrupt, inflated, debt-ridden, and intrinsically valueless US dollars.  Therefore, we need to declare the US dollar worthless, and move our financial assets into new, local currencies—perhaps something we might whimsically call ‘Aryan Bucks.’  AB’s could, by law, be held and spent only by Whites.  They would be declared worthless and illegal in the hands of Jews or other non-Whites.  At first, both currencies would have to circulate in parallel, but as quickly as possible, Whites would want to migrate to their own financial system.  The political and economic benefits from this step alone would be enormous.[7]
  • Accelerate growth of autonomous zones. As White zones grow, and as disaffected Whites move into the newly-declared regions, the remaining areas will grow darker in complexion.  This will only accelerate the decline of multiracial America.  Ideally, a positive feedback situation will emerge in which Whites rapidly move into local safe-zones as the other regions collapse.  This makes expansion all the easier.

Numerous local White zones, incidentally—meaning, several in each state or large city—make for a much more practical strategy than, say, picking a few large rural areas.  There aren’t many White Montanans or Californians ready to move to rural Arkansas, but they might be willing to move an hour or two away to a local zone in a familiar area.

  • Be prepared to fight, as a last resort. If we are smart, we can achieve nearly everything we want non-violently.  But sadly, that may not always be the case.  Therefore, as Corey states, we will need to be armed.  At present, something like 35 million White households own at least one gun; presumably, most by the man in the family.  So let’s say we have 35 million armed White males in this country—an awesome force, indeed.  If there is one thing Jews and Blacks fear more than White men, it’s White men with guns.  I wouldn’t hesitate to state that armed White American civilians constitute the most formidable fighting power on Earth.  No one—not even the Jewish-run American military—could defeat them.  If the US military can’t subdue a few thousand low-IQ Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan, they haven’t a prayer against millions of pissed-off Whites.  This is our ace-up-the-sleeve.  But we need to use it judiciously.

Ideally, White autonomous zones would pop up like mushrooms around the country:  a few in each major city, several in the rural areas of each state.  Under good circumstances, they might grow and join together, combining their collective power.  These “thousand points of White,” as I like to think of them, would pose an insurmountable problem for federal and local authorities, especially if they were peaceful, and especially at the early “club” phase.  Being decentralized, there is no single pressure point for the feds to squeeze; they would have to address multiple, simultaneous local issues at once.  And if there were still on-going riots, or economic chaos, or some new pandemic, …well, the authorities will quickly reach the end of their rope.  And then we win.

Thomas Dalton, PhD, has authored or edited several books, including a new translation series of Mein Kampf, and the book Debating the Holocaust (4th ed, 2020).  For all his works, see his personal website www.thomasdaltonphd.com


[1] Sean Hannity of Fox is particularly pathetic in this regard.  His repeated and unconditional defense of Israeli and Jewish interests is utterly appalling.

[2] Throughout the South, they have signs saying “Pray for America.”  What they should say is “Pray for America’s destruction—and soon.”

[3] Just recently, CNN reported on the nation of Ghana, which is inviting Black Americans to “come home” and resettle there.  An excellent plan, for all concerned!

[4] Mein Kampf, volume one, section 12.11.

[5] Mixed-race individuals are also problematic, but again, they are a small minority.  Roughly speaking, we can say that anyone with three-quarters or more of White heritage counts as White, presuming that they do not adhere to non-White values or culture.

[6] See my article here.

[7] The idea of local currency is well-established in the US.  Wikipedia lists over 100 active local currencies.

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

MerryChristmasfilmPoster3

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. Read more

WorldTruth.mx: The Best Pro-White Social Network You’ve Never Heard Of

In early September, after posting a link to my BitChute channel on the social networking site VK, I was contacted by one of the folks in my friends list, Michael James (no relation to this author), and asked to check-out a pro-White video-sharing network called WTVideo. After asking a few questions and finding out that the site was part of a group of social media platforms owned and operated by two men with strong pro-White sympathies (Michael being one of them), I decided to check it out. I joined the main site, WorldTruth.mx, introduced myself to Michael’s co-owner, Cozumel, and started posting. I liked what I saw, there was immediate feedback and a lot of interaction. So, after a few days I asked them if they’d like to do an interview to help get the word-out about their sites and explain what they are trying to do. Michael graciously accepted my invitation. We conducted this interview via email over an 18-day period beginning September 7, 2019.

Russell James: Sorry to be so late with this, but the tail-end of Hurricane Dorian is smacking northern New England right now, and we had a mini-emergency we had to deal with this morning.

Let’s get right into it, with the first question: To start, could you tell the readers a little about yourself?

Michael James: Basically, I am an average Joe is what some might think that would pass me by on the street or make casual small talk. Nothing could farther from the truth though; I work long hours on my IRL job and on my websites that promote freedom of speech even if I do not agree with that speech. I am divorced but have children that are grown now and I visit with them weekly.

RJ: How did you come to the conclusion that a social network that provided a platform for free speech was necessary?

MJ: Well, after seeing what other websites were doing to stifle any type of anti-establishment dissent for several years, I came to that conclusion, And that includes our video site as well, I personally have seen many times that “THEY” will deplatform or shadow ban people or groups that do not fit into the narrative they want projected which in my opinion is degeneracy.

RJ: What is your website and how does it work?

MJ: WorldTruth.MX (WT) is the website. We condone free speech, but I always tell people that we at WT do not protect someone from the consequences of that speech, so threats to staff or doxxing IRL is not tolerated. Perverse porn or underage porn is also not tolerated. We try to make the user experience pleasant for all members regardless of what country they come from. Read more

Exclusive Interview with Andrew Clarke on the National Action Trials and His 18 Months in Prison

Introduction.

Several weeks ago, Andrew Clarke, a former member of Britain’s National Action, walked free with no criminal convictions after 18 months in prison. During that period of time, Andrew, along with some of his former colleagues, was subjected to two trials at the direction of the Crown Prosecution Service, neither of which convinced a jury that Clarke was guilty of the charge levelled at him – that he remained a member of National Action after the banning of the organization under terrorism legislation in December 2016. Shortly after his release from prison, Andrew reached out to me on social media, in part because I was one of the very few people on the dissident Right to speak out at the time of the banning of National Action and again during the subsequent series of arrests. I was extremely disturbed by what he then described to me about the background and nature of his arrest and imprisonment, and I felt that the attention of a wider audience should once again be directed to these events in England, and for Andrew to be able to have a voice for his experiences.

The nature of increasingly oppressive developments in legislation require that, in order to ensure the continued freedom of Andrew and others, this interview begins with certain legal caveats. Part II, Section 12 of the Terrorism Act (2000) makes it an offence to “invite support for a proscribed organisation,” or to arrange a meeting that is to be addressed by someone “who belongs or professes to belong to a proscribed organisation.” It should be abundantly clear from the following interview, but just to reiterate: the following interview is with an individual who ceased to be a member of National Action either before, or at the event of, its banning under the Terrorism Act (2000). Furthermore, no aspect of this interview should be interpreted as lending or inviting support for National Action, an organisation that is now defunct and probably has been since it was arbitrarily banned by the Home Office. That being said, the position is firmly and unashamedly maintained that the banning process itself, and the background to that process as it relates to a specific proscription, should, in any truly democratic society, be open to scrutiny and critique. The arrest and imprisonment of the many individuals following the proscription of National Action in December 2016 should also be open to scrutiny and critique, especially since these arrests have evidently resulted in the jailing of innocent men.

It is hoped that this interview breaks some of the fear that surrounds the discussion of “right wing terrorism.” The banning of National Action, and subsequent related arrests, have been met with almost complete silence from the dissident Right, presumably because many are fearful of making any kind of statement that could make them liable to arrest themselves. And yet the proscription of National Action is a key element in trends of government actions against the dissident Right, preceding Unite the Right by 8 months, but in many respects also prefiguring the response to the latter. To be clear, the proscription of National Action marked the beginning of the most recent wave of mainstream associations between dissident Right thought and “terrorism” — a term that had hitherto been reserved for acts of violence in the pursuit of political goals. Just days after the proscription of National Action, and long before Charlottesville, I warned:

Faced with a White identity movement that remains, frustratingly for its opponents, law-abiding and peaceful, we can expect an elaboration on existing tactics. The meaning and definition of words like ‘terrorism’ and ‘extremism’ will themselves be expanded to encompass non-violent entities and individuals in an effort to drag them into hastily constructed spheres of illegality and, thus, deeper social opprobrium and even prison sentences.

This prophecy was to come ominously to fruition around a year later, when Andrew Clarke and several others had their homes raided, before being summarily charged and dragged into police vehicles to begin an 18 month odyssey of prison transports, trials, and intense media demonisation. While some would eventually walk free, many remain in prison, and will remain in prison for many years to come. The vast majority were never convicted under the original charges, or indeed under any aspect of the Terrorism Act. Instead, a slow trickle of speech laws and related legislation was brought into play in order to imprison individuals for up to 16 months for placing stickers reading “White Zone” around university campuses. One of the most striking features of all of the trials, and the related media coverage, has been the focus not on what these individuals have or have not done, but on what they think and believe. Thus, regardless of one’s opinion on the organisation that was once in existence, or on any style of activism, these arrests have grave implications for anyone still entertaining the idea they live in a free society.

As a final note, the story of these arrests, and of Andrew’s in particular, is an important corrective and admonition to those among us who have waxed eloquently with their “disavowals” of “terrorism” because it “undermines White Nationalism.” I have always had a problem with such disavowals, and for a few simple reasons. More often than not, they are simply exercises in preaching to the converted. Most disavowals are made by people “plugged into” the “movement”, while the very rare handful of extreme acts of White violence are carried out by isolated fringe individuals who never hear such disavowals or are least likely to be moved by them. Disavowals are thus, more or less, languid and effete acts of moral self-satisfaction. Second, disavowals simply add to, and increase the volume of, discourse critiquing the dissident Right, and they are divisive and demoralising. They implicitly assume a problem within the “movement” that needs to be addressed (where none in fact exists because the movement is already overwhelmingly non-violent), a pernicious trend that conforms very strongly to opposition narratives. They are, therefore, in terms of image management or “optics” undoubtedly worse than mere silence – we can’t correct criticism and image problems by making concessions to the opposition’s vision of our cause. Third, and related to the second, “right wing terrorism” is a largely invented phenomenon, embellished by falsified statistics, media tactics, and the steady production of propaganda by dedicated anti-White groups. It is a largely fictional opposition talking point that would be foolish to adopt ourselves. Fourth, and most important, by adopting discussions and perceptions of “right wing terrorism” we are easily corralled into fear and silence when entirely innocent activists are swept up in “terrorism” arrests. We allow ourselves to be pre-programmed to disavow these individuals and abandon them to their fate. I personally find this mode of conduct to be shameful, cowardly, and highly revealing. I reject it in disgust. Read more

Racial Politics in Latin America: What Race in Another America Tells Us About Our Destiny, Part 2

Go to Part 1.

Racial Politics

What should we make of this history? Given a chance, the left did eventually rise to power as expected, riding a wave of support from impoverished Brown and Black voters in nations where Whites were usually a minority. But just a few years later, many of these same nations voted the left out of power again. How could this happen? Are race and demography less important than the Dissident Right imagines?

The answer is no, race matters enormously, but election results are the product of several different forces that are pushing in different directions simultaneously. The first of these is the one that is most apparent from this history — pendulum effects that swing elections back and forth depending on the public’s view of the government’s performance. In Latin America’s case, just about every government has struggled with persistent poverty, crime, and corruption, so these pendulum effects tend to work against whoever is in power. The effect is so strong that, unlike the United States, major political parties often come and go, exiting the stage once their brand has become too tarnished.

Beneath these pendulum swings, however, there are strong structural forces at work that continue from election to election. Race-based voting is one of the most important. A close examination of elections held across the region repeatedly shows that leftists rely heavily on support from Browner and Blacker voters who are usually poor, while conservatives rely heavily on Whites and Whiter mestizos (who are typically over half European genetically).

One illustrative example is the 2018 election of Jair Bolsonaro, the new right-wing Brazilian president dubbed the “Trump of the Tropics.” Bolsonaro drew his support from the Whiter southern part of the nation and the socially conservative rural heartland. His leftist opponent did better in the northeast, which is mostly Black and mulatto, and the northwest, which is substantially Indigenous. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Bolsonaro also did better among Whites who live closer to the crime-ridden areas of major cities and a bit worse among Whites who live further south, a safe distance from the mayhem.

These racial patterns repeat themselves throughout the region. Argentina’s conservative president Mauricio Macri won his 2015 election by winning the Whiter heart of Buenos Aires and most of Whiter central Argentina. The conservative Sebastián Piñera won in the Whiter parts of central Chile and Santiago. The conservative Iván Duque Márquez won in Colombia in the Whiter sections of Bogotá and the center of the country.

The leftist Nicolás Maduro won his last competitive election in Venezuela in 2013 in heavily Brown and Black areas of the country, while losing the Whiter areas of the east and west. The leftist Evo Morales consistently wins reelection in Bolivia with the support of his Indigenous base in the Western highlands.

The exception that proves the rule is Uruguay, the Whitest nation on the continent. It has continued to support the Broad Front, a leftist coalition that includes socialists and communists and touts legalized pot, abortion, and same-sex marriage among its policy achievements. Such leftist politics are typical of Whiter nations that have yet to experience the full benefits of diversity.

In most other Latin American nations, these racial voting patterns persist despite the presence of an important moderating influence — a large mixed-race population that seems resistant to explicitly race-based political appeals. Leftist academics bemoan this resistance, usually attributing it to a lack of social awareness and widespread acceptance of the theories of mestizaje and racial democracy, which argue that mixed-race societies do not suffer the same levels of racism and discrimination as other places like the United States.

Surveys of Latin America’s poor do not support this notion. Latin America’s mixed-race populations are well aware of existing racial disparities, they just do not strongly identify with them. This points to a different explanation that is less favored by leftists: genetic similarity theory, which says that people are more altruistic and less hostile to those who are genetically similar. This explanation is borne out by interviews with mixed-race voters.

“Do I value my Blackness? Of course! I take pride in it,” said one Brazilian mulatto in an interview. “But am I only Black? No!  I also am descended from Indians and from Europeans. Should I disdain these heritages? Why shouldn’t I value all my heritages? Why should I pretend I only have one heritage when this is just not true?” Read more

The National Premise Revisited

This is a much shortened and slightly revised version of the author’s article “Visions of the Ethnostate” which was featured in the Fall 2018 issue of The Occidental Quarterly.

*  *  *  *

 

It is an interesting fact that in the already vast and ever-growing corpus of works, books, essays, articles and videos addressing the racial problem by those who can be, and often are, denoted as “White advocates” there is a glaring lack of actual advocacy. Of the varied aspects of the racial problem, the more obvious ones, including their history and causes, are typically covered in great detail. The less obvious aspects, such as the long-term consequences of the racial problem, admittedly requiring some degree of projection and speculation, receive much less attention. Given the grim prospect of their continued racially destructive course, and the stark either-or choices they present, a reluctance to address or confront these consequences is understandable. To fully confront them, considering the full extent of their effects, would force one to face the logical and much more controversial next step of advocating or proposing possible alternative courses or solutions.

In The Dispossessed Majority in 1972 Wilmot Robertson set a new standard for describing the racial problem, but he didn’t propose a solution for it.1 He addressed this omission in his second book Ventilations in 1974, proposing a solution of territorial racial separation in which the far greater part of the United States would be kept together in what he called “The Utopian States of America,” with minorities concentrated in semi-autonomous enclaves under White hegemony.2 For example, Jews would be concentrated in enclaves in New York, Los Angeles, and Miami Beach. All Blacks outside the south would be concentrated in the twenty largest urban ghettos, which would be enlarged as needed for this purpose, while Blacks in the south would be concentrated in those counties where they were already the majority. The exceptions would be the Latinos who would be ceded a 40-mile deep band along the full length of the Mexican border, and the East Asians who would be given the Hawaiian Islands except for some US military bases.

Soon after reading Ventilations I met Jim Feller. He had also read Robertson’s books and showed me a partition map he had drawn up that was mostly based on Robertson’s proposal but with a different plan for Black separation, and apparently a much wider band for the Latino country than Robertson’s 40 miles. Less than two years later I saw Feller’s map again on the cover of the April 1976 issue of Instauration (Figure 1) illustrating an article by Robertson titled “The National Premise” that proposed a racial partition of the United States.3 With the exception of the change in the location of the Blacks, and making the minority states independent, it was close enough to Robertson’s earlier proposal that he was probably happy to adopt it.

Figure 1: Feller Partition Map

At the end of a sidebar explaining the map Robertson wrote:

If all this sounds impractical, we ask our readers to think of the alternatives. If the races are not separated soon, the Majority [Whites] will have to fight for survival or go completely under. Already we have lost many of our largest cities . . . and if things continue at their present pace, it is quite possible that we may soon be reduced to a formal and permanent state of serfdom. Separation and the surrender of a great deal of our land and property may well be our only means of survival.

That was 43 years ago. Since then we have witnessed the continuing “browning” of America, the ongoing dispossession and replacement of the White population by invasion-levels of non-White immigration, the more than doubling of the non-White (i.e., non-European) proportion of the population from 20% in 1976 to 41% in 2016, non-Whites becoming a majority of the population under the age of ten and projected to become an absolute majority around 2040, the rate of White reproductive intermixture with non-Whites doubling about every twenty years (e.g., per CDC figures, from 5.2% in 1990 to 11.6% in 2010), and cultural changes corresponding to the demographic changes. Read more

Invitation to the Scandza Forum in Stockholm, March 30th

The next Scandza Forum is coming up in Stockholm, on March 30th. We are proud to give you a truly all-star lineup of advocates for Europe:
  • Martin Lichtmesz is a prolific writer, translator, and one of the intellectual leaders of the German New Right. Mr. Lichtmesz’s speech from the 2017 AmRen Conference can be seen here and his appearance on the 2018 Millenniyule is available here. His latest book Rassismus – Ein amerikanischer Alptraum (Schnellroda 2018) was recently reviewed at Counter-Currents and an overview of his impressive oeuvre can be found in the journal Sezession.
  • Millennial Woes is a Scottish vlogger, writer and coordinator. He is part of the international “Dissident Right” but particularly concerned with Great Britain. His work has covered psychology, morality, religion, culture, politics and identity.
  • Jared Taylor is a veteran champion of our cause. Fluent in Japanese and French, and educated at Yale, Mr. Taylor has dedicated more than 25 years of his life to bringing reason, dignity, and eloquence to the issues surrounding race in society. You will find his work in his several books and on his website, amren.com. His latest book is If We Do Nothing (New Century Books, 2017). This will be Jared Taylor’s third appearance on the Scandza Forum stage.
  • Greg Johnson, PhD, is former editor of The Occidental Quarterly, founder and editor of Counter-Currents/North American New Right, and author of many articles and books pertaining to the destiny of the West. His latest book is The White Natioanlist Manifesto (San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2018). Dr. Johnson is one of the leading ideologists of White Nationalism and the Alternative Right, and an outstanding speaker.
  • Olena Semenyaka, head of the international bloc of the Ukrainian National Corps party and a researcher of the Conservative Revolution, with a focus on Ernst Jünger’s planetary analysis, pan-Europeanism, and philosophy of technology. Miss Semenyaka is an highly regarded speaker of international standing and a first-class intellectual.
  • Mark Collett, a political activist and author from Great Britain. He has been actively involved in the nationalist movement for nearly two decades and was formerly the youth leader and Head of Publicity for the British National Party. He now hosts This Week on the Alt Right – a popular YouTube discussion show and produces a weekly short on current affairs.  He is the author of The Fall of Western Man.
  • Fróði Midjord, founder of the Scandza Forum and host of the “Guide to Kulchur” podcast.

***

Our discussions will focus on Anarcho-Tyranny, which the late Sam Francis described as follows: “they refuse to control real criminals (that’s the anarchy) so they control the innocent (that’s the tyranny).” Throughout the West, crime and immigration are out of control. In 2018, there were more than 300 criminal shoot-outs and 44 people shot to death in Sweden. According to one study from Malmö university, there have been 116 hand grenade attacks over the past eight years!

At the same time, even elderly ladies will be convicted of “incitement of hatred” if they use strong language as they post frustrated comments online. If you dare protest the downfall of our civilization, you will feel the wrath of the globalist establishment. They shoot the messenger who points out the destructive consequences of the situation they have brought about.

We will discuss how we, as advocates for White interests, can navigate this hostile environment in which dissidents are silenced and deplatformed. Most importantly, however, you will  network with comrades who share your concerns.

We meet as an act of defiance against the dispossession of our people.

***

If you want to know more about our events, please watch any of my several appearances on podcasts and live streams lately, where I have been interviewed about the Scandza Forum and Anarcho-Tyranny:

***

If you want to attend, please contact us at: info@scandzaforum.com

Because we care about your safety, we have a vetting procedure to make sure that everyone who attends does so with honest intentions. There arethree ways you can get admission to the event, so remember to include the necessary information:

  1. If you have attended one of our events previously.
  2. Get a trusted person to vouch for you (i.e., vouch that you want to attend with honest intentions and that you will follow our security procedure). If you know someone who has attended a previous event, or is otherwise knows us, let us know this in your email. Remember to also ask that person to send me confirmation that he/she can vouch for you.
  3. Send us photo ID and some personal details (e.g., address/phone nr/social media) that will allow us to verify your identity, so that we can make an evaluation. No anonymous registration is accepted.
This will be an unforgettable event – register now!

I am looking forward to seeing you in Stockholm on March 30th.