Races, like individuals, have interests. Some of those interests are of major importance whereas others are of minor or even trivial importance. The most important interest of all is continued existence, which includes the conditions required for continued existence, which can be properly referred to as existential interests, those necessary for continued life. The next most important interest, for a race as for an individual, is control of its own existence, which is properly described and defined by such terms as freedom, liberty, independence, self-rule and sovereignty.

For races, the condition required for both their continued existence and their control of their own existence is separation and independence from other nations and races. In multiracial conditions, where different races exist in close proximity over enough time, they intermix so that one or more of the different races are genetically submerged into a new blended population and cease to exist. Also, so long as the population remains multiracial the different ethno-racial groups typically have opposing and competing interests. Most importantly, in the current situation, the European populations, whether in their new homelands in North America and Australia or their ancient homelands in Europe, have an existential interest in separation, which means keeping their countries monoracially European. The interests of the non-Europeans in the historically European countries are the exact opposite. They are based on multiracialism and racial integration, thereby justifying, securing and promoting their increasing presence and power, and denying Europeans their existential interest in the separation necessary for their continued existence.

It should be noted that these conflicting racial group interests are not equivalent. The European interests involved are existential, as separation is required both for their continued existence and control of their own existence. The non-European interests involved are not existential as they can continue to exist, and control their own existence, in countries of their own, separate from Europeans as they normally have in the past, which can be regarded as the natural order. Rather than existential, their interests here are racially invasive and a violation of the natural order — an interest in dispossessing and replacing the historical European populations in their homelands.

A major difference between Europeans and non-Europeans in this situation is that the non-Europeans tend to be well aware of what their interests are, whether at a conscious or sub-conscious level, and asserting them with a great vigor and intense subjectivity that has no regard for the adverse effects on the existential interests of the Europeans.

In contrast to this is the phenomenon of Europeans being opposed to their own race and its interests. Indeed, most Europeans seem to be unaware of having racial interests, or what their racial interests are, and to have little or no identification with, or appreciation of, their race and its existence. Obviously, this renders them very passive and ineffective in the defense of their racial interests, causing them to lose the conflict of competing racial interests by default. To the extent that they do engage in this competition, rather than be seen defending the existential interests of their own race, they are much more likely to be seen promoting the non-existential interests of other racial groups against their own as part of the ruling Anti-White Coalition, an alliance of all those who promote the causes of European racial dispossession, replacement and destruction — e.g., multiracialism, non-White immigration and racial intermixture — consistent with the larger program of global homogenization or “globohomo.” Their stance can be regarded as either anti-White or pro-non-White, i.e., as benefitting the non-European races, but either way their stance is blind to the existential interests of their own race while intensely focused on the non-existential interests of the other races, in conformance with the dominant culture. Although the present course leads to their racial oblivion, they are almost universally unaware of any alternative course or choice.

Every racial population has its own unique “gene pool” which contains all the genes in the population. This gene pool is the source of the race from which all members of the race receive their genetic traits. The genes that exist in that pool, their proportions and distribution, combination and recombination, provide the genes for a racial population and all its individual members. All the Europeans who exist today and in the past were the product of a certain gene pool, and without that gene pool they could not exist and could not have existed. All Europeans came from a European gene pool, and if they have children, their genes will return into that pool. If they don’t have children, their genes will continue to exist so long as the gene pool they came from exists, and continues to make people like them. As long as the European gene pools continue to exist in the form of in-breeding populations there will continue to be individuals of the particular European populations and of the European racial group in general. But if these gene pools are destroyed then such people, and their works, will be seen no more. The works of Mark Twain, Herman Melville, Shakespeare, Newton, Bach, Beethoven, Hugo, Tolstoy, Michelangelo, Da Vinci, etc., ad infinitum would not have existed without them, and they in turn would not have existed without the particular gene pools that contained and provided the genetic material, the stuff of life, they were made from.

Multiracialism, by destroying racial gene pools through intermixture, is the destroyer of races, an engine of racial destruction. Those who accept, support or promote multiracialism, in whatever degree and whether knowingly or unknowingly, are accepting European racial destruction. Awareness of this tends to be low because racial dispossession is not publicized, discussed or acknowledged by the dominant Anti-White Coalition that supports and promotes it, whether in the media, schools, entertainment, churches, political parties or any mainstream social, political or cultural institution. Indeed, the subject is among the most forbidden, and there are both strong inculcated inhibitions and disincentives — social, economic, and in many countries legal — against raising it.

But however much the subject is suppressed, the fact remains that multiracialism destroys a people’s existence as a racial population and also, through the intermixture it promotes, surely alters the gene pool by blending it with the genes of other races, and so destroying the source of racial existence. Thus in the long term a race cannot long exist in multiracial conditions. It must have separation from other races to preserve its gene pool and its own existence. Separation preserves races. Multiracialism destroys them. Or, as Lincoln put it, in his June 26, 1857 speech in Springfield, Illinois: “A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation [i.e., intermixture].”

The Black (sub-Saharan African) population that was brought into U.S. territory before 1808 is the only non-European racial group that did not enter the country of its own free will. All other non-European racial groups who migrated to the U.S., the great majority since the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, did so knowing it was historically, and still at least nominally, a European country. The same is true of the huge and racially invasive migration of non-Europeans into Europe since the Second World War, which is projected to make Europeans in Western and Central Europe minorities in their own ancient homelands before the end of this century, replacing and dispossessing the indigenous European populations and transforming the populations from European to non-European: a non-British Britain without the British, a non-French France without the French, a non-German Germany without the Germans, etc.

However, this situation is ignored, censored, and denied by the dominant anti-White culture, so it can be promoted with minimal awareness and resistance. But it should be obvious that it has created an existential problem for the European peoples, meaning a problem that threatens their continued existence. Indeed, in the United States, Canada and the countries of northwestern Europe, the populations can no longer be accurately described as European, but rather as multiracial, as the Europeans no longer exist at the population level, as racial populations, but rather their racial existence has been reduced to the level of small communities and groupings, families, and sometimes only of individuals. But a race that exists only at the individual level cannot exist for long. The continued existence of a race requires that it exist as an essentially separate in-breeding population with its own particular “gene pool” through which its traits are preserved and passed on generation after generation.

Separation is not only required for the continued existence of a race, it is also required for it to have control of its own existence. As stated at the beginning of this essay, all racial groups have interests, of which the most important is its continued life or existence. The next greatest interest, to which its continued existence is very often connected, and on which its well-being is almost always connected, is control of its own existence. Normally racial groups, and certainly healthy ones, act in accord with their group interests, and especially their most fundamental and vital ones.

In the historically normal state of monoracial existence, this did not result in significant conflict between group interests, but in the increasingly prevalent multiracial conditions in the West, and especially since the Second World War, there has been a proportionate increase in competition between conflicting group interests. The countries most afflicted were White — or in the case of the U.S. at least predominantly White — before the war, but within several decades transitioned into multiracial societies in which only non-White group interests were recognized as legitimate matters of concern, and the only interests promoted and served as the culture became increasingly centered around them. White group interests were dismissed as unimportant, discredited as illegitimate or denied as non-existent, and in no case a proper matter of concern, and so either ignored or condemned. Throughout the formerly White countries of the West the White populations submitted to this abrogation of their fundamental group interests with little effective resistance, and were soon largely converted to beliefs and practices that were diametrically opposed to the interests of their own racial group.

It is natural for all groups to want to be in control of their own existence, in fact to have exclusive power and control of their own existence, and to not share this power and controlwith any other group, i.e., to not allow any other group to have any control over them. This is the optimal condition for their existence and so in their best interests. In fact, it is one of the two main conditions, along with the prevention of intermixture, that is required to secure continued racial existence, and why it is best for races to be separated into independent countries. In a system of true monoracial societies or environments the races in each society enjoy uncontested exclusive control of their own existence. When two or more separate peoples, ethnic groups or races with conflicting interests inhabit the same society or environment there will be a contest or struggle for more power and control, with each group seeking dominance or supremacy to have maximum control of their own existence. This contest is necessarily a zero-sum game. The greater the degree of one group’s power and control the less the degree of power and control possessed by the other groups over their own existence.

Jews and Their Racial Interests

In this matter, until relatively recently, Whites (i.e., Europeans) have based their power and control over their environment, and their existence, on living in environments that were either all White or nearly so, with Whites being such a great majority of the population that their control and interests could hardly be challenged. The Jewish experience of the diaspora has been much the opposite, living as a small minority amid a much larger population whose group interests, most importantly control over the environment in which they both existed, conflicted with their own. The Ashkenazi Jews of Europe, being a semi-European Caucasian people genetically about half European and half Middle Eastern Caucasian, and with strong religious and cultural traditions going back to their Middle Eastern heritage, preserved their existence by seeing and maintaining themselves as a separate people from the much larger European populations that surrounded them, with different, competing, and often conflicting group interests.

Control and security tend to go together, so to gain security the Jews had to adapt their methods of obtaining power and control of their environment to the fact that they were a small minority in that environment. Separation into their own segregated semi-autonomous communities or ghettos solved this problem at the lower level but not at higher levels. Gaining power and control at higher levels despite being a small minority required highly mobilized, organized, coordinated and energetic group effort toward this common goal. These methods, tactics and goals continue today, and it is no secret that Jews have a highly developed, and in fact unrivaled, network of interacting and mutually supporting organizations that promote their interests, including their power and control over the larger society:

The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations (commonly referred to as The Presidents’ Conference or the CoP) is an American non-profit organization that addresses issues of critical concern to the Jewish community, and the state of Israel in particular. It comprises 51 national Jewish organizations. It was founded to develop a consensus voice among Jewish organizations in dealings with the

The Jewish population as a corporate ethnic entity is the most highly organized and networked ethnic group in the world at both the national and international levels, with hundreds of well-funded and coordinated organizations energetically and aggressively promoting Jewish interests. In every country in which Jews are a minority (i.e., all except Israel) multiracialism is regarded as a core Jewish interest or value and intensely promoted as such, creating a fundamental conflict and adversarial relationship between core Jewish interests and the diametrically opposed vital racial interests of the White population.

To repeat, this matter is necessarily a zero-sum game, and as it is played for the highest stakes, it involves an adversarial and even hostile relationship between the players. The greater the degree of Jewish power and control, the less the degree of White (i.e., European) power and control. In a multiracial society when a racial group has control over its own existence it necessarily also exercises power and control over the existence of the other races in the society. So as Jews (and to a lesser extent other non-Whites) increase their share of power and control there is a corresponding decrease in the White share, as the White population is progressively subjugated to the power and control of other races, with the Jews being historically in the forefront, aligning themselves with the non-White races against the White population and presiding at the core of the Anti-White Coalition. Racial separation and independence is the only way to prevent one racial group from exercising power and control over others, and without them the existence of the White race, dispossessed of power and control, is terminal.

Jews tend to be inculcated with a powerful sense of a collective identity and destiny separate from Europeans and other races which gives them a quasi-instinctive sense of their group interests, which often conflict with the interests of other groups. But that should not be regarded as a fault, as it is true of all healthy ethno-racial groups, albeit Jews seem to possess this ethnocentrism to an exceptional and often hyper-subjective degree. For some time, at least since the Second World War, Whites in general have been an exception to this, leaving them powerless in the group competition. Thus even when Jewish populations are very small minorities in a multiracial society, the level of energy, activism, wealth (providing control of corporations, media, academia and politicians), agitation, argument, propaganda, etc., devoted to promoting their interests is greater than that generated by much larger populations, thus centering the society around them and their interests and enabling them to move the society in the direction of their interests.Since the Second World War, and especially since the Civil Rights revolution of the 1960s, racial nihilism has been the dominant mainstream position on racial relations publicly supported by Whites.

Nihil is Latin for nothing, and so racial nihilism literally means the reduction of race to nothing, rejecting it as a matter of no value or importance or even denying its biological reality, asserting it is merely a “social construct,” although it has not yet been credibly denied that race is genetically determined (i.e., transmitted through the genes of parents and ancestors), and anything determined by genes is biologically real, and thus a genetic and biological, not social, construct. Claims to the contrary are more examples of the gaslighting that is so pervasive in the false narratives of the Anti-White Coalition.

Philosophically and hypothetically, racial nihilism would reduce all races to nothing, with no races or racial diversity, just a global uniform human population without any separate group differences. But in practice, and in practical effect, this suicidal view of race is expected only of the White race. Non-Whites who express support for racial nihilist values almost never apply them to their race, only to other races, and often only to Whites. But the only true racial nihilists are those who have no objection of the reduction of their own race to non-existence, and even welcome and support it.Whites are inculcated with the anti-White culture of racial nihilism to minimize their resistance to their own racial dispossession, the opposite of the positive inculcation experienced by Jews. They are socialized from an early age to reject any racial identification, to view their race and its interests — including its continued existence and control of its own existence — as a matter of no importance, value or concern, and to consider contrary views to be evil and hateful.

This is the essence of the anti-White morality that has been dominant since at least the 1960s. Support for the causes of White replacement and destruction is presented as morally good and motivated by love while opposition to them is seen as morally evil and motivated by hate. Consequently, while other racial groups have advocacy organizations to assert their interests, the White race essentially has none, or at least none that are permitted to present their case in the mainstream media or the main social media platform. The advocacy of White interests, and any alternative to White destruction, is effectively censored and suppressed, and removed from the public square.Racial nihilism is essentially the position advocated by the Civil Rights revolution of the 1960s, and most Whites now not only conform to it but are intolerant of and reject those who do not, or their ancestors who did not. The supposedly most “White-friendly” movements that are still officially tolerated, such as civic nationalism and populism, have no racial basis, support multiracialism, and embrace the teachings, values and results of the Civil Rights revolution — which denies Europeans the condition of separation needed for their continued existence and control of their own existence — as gospel.

Movements such as these are not concerned with the continued existence of the White race. By definition, only a movement based on race, such as racial nationalism or racial populism, would address that issue in any meaningful sense. Both Donald Trump and Tucker Carlson, in spite of all the accusations of racial “dog whistling” or supporting White interests (i.e., the actual currently applied definition of “racism”), frequently give public expression of their conformance to the racial nihilist teachings and values of the Civil Rights revolution. But they are still criticized because this is no longer anti-White enough. The Anti-White Coalition has moved beyond the racial nihilist teachings and values of the Civil Rights revolution, in which racial or “color” blindness was the ideal, and has become ever more explicitly anti-White, more strident in its criticism of Whites, and more hostile to White interests as it escalates its advocacy of conflicting non-White interests.

The “Kumbaya” moment heralding the dawning of a “New Age” based on racial nihilism and multiracial harmony, that was promoted following the victory of the Civil Rights revolution, turned out to be just a stage in the progression of anti-Whiteness, which is what the misnamed ideology of “Progressivism” really is. The anti-White animus at the core of that ideology and movement has “progressed” well beyond the teachings of Martin Luther King and the Kumbaya delusion of the 1960s. Now it is much more in line with the explicitly anti-White ideas and spirit of Noel Ignatiev than those associated with MLK Jr. and Kumbaya. By the 1990s Ignatiev’s children had transformed academia with the proliferation of university departments devoted to the teaching of anti-White ideologies such as Critical Race Theory and “Whiteness studies,” of which critic David Horowitz observed, Black studies celebrates blackness, Chicano studies celebrates Chicanos, women’s studies celebrates women, and white studies attacks white people as evil.”

Often times people who come together find that their relationship is not mutually beneficial. However much that is good in the relationship, that which is bad is so harmful, so much greater than the good, to one of the parties, that a separation is needed for that party to fulfill their life, or even to continue their life.

As we have learned from our own historically recent experience, it is often the same with peoples, especially when they come together in the same country where their interests conflict and even existential interests are threatened. There is a scene in the 1956 film The Ten Commandments where Ramesses (played by Yul Brynner) places copper weights on one of the weighing pans of a scale each time an accusation is brought against Moses (played by Charlton Heston). Moses responds to the accusations with a single overriding point, and places a brick that is heavier than all the copper weights on the other weighing pan, causing it to drop to the table.

So it is with our current experience of multiracialism. Most non-Whites are good and productive people, with many doing things of great value and benefit, but all the weights the positives of multiracialism placed on one of the weighing pans of the great scale of White existence are outweighed by the one single brick of the great negative of multiracialism causing our destruction. The same would apply to the interests of the non-White races against separation compared to the interests of Whites for separation, as the White interests are existential and so outweigh the non-White interests which are not.

It is important to provide Whites with an alternative, to show there are other options that would preserve the White race. Unfortunately, many Whites are successfully gaslighted by our adversaries on this point as on so many others, leaving them unable to trust their own mind and disagree with those who are promoting their ruin.

The populations of the European racial group were many thousands of years in the making, yet all that could be undone, and the White race could be unmade, in just a few generations, if the racially destructive process caused by multiracialism is allowed to run its course. Normally, when faced with a choice between preservation and destruction, the default choice is in favor of preservation. Sadly, but I think realistically, I do not expect most non-Whites to make that choice in our favor, as it would require separation which most of them do not consider to be in their interest, which it probably is not. But separation does not threaten their, or anyone’s, existential interests. All races can live and be free separate from other races. This is still the normal state of human existence. It is multiracialism that is the destroyer of races. Separation is the preserver. Still, Whites cannot count on non-Whites for our racial preservation. That choice and task is up to us.

It might help us in making that choice if, rather than taking a leap into the dark, we had a good idea of what an alternative to multiracialism would be, preferably something that can be visualized and clearly delineates both physical and racial boundaries. But first it should be considered that the difficulties of the task involved with separation have grown enormously since the 1960s as the non-White population has grown from about 38.4 million or 19 percent of the 203.2 million total in the 1970 census to about 144.4 million or 43.6 percent of the 331.45 million total in the 2020 census, and this number may have grown by another 10 million or more during the unrestrained illegal immigration of the first three years of the Biden administration. It is often said that every generation blames the previous one for the problems they have inherited. So it could be with the problem of multiracialism from the first importation of Black (i.e., sub-Saharan African) slaves in 1619, to the Civil War and the Reconstruction, to the Civil Rights revolution of the 1960s, to the huge expansion of the non-White population through immigration, to our present terminal situation, with every generation seeing the problem worsen, so that a preservationist solution becomes more difficult. With this problem, we today are the do-nothing (so far) heirs of many generations of do-nothing ancestors, and if we continue to do nothing a possible solution might be removed beyond our grasp and the doomed generations of the future will blame us most of all.

I can still remember my reaction to reading a section of essays on the race question in the November 18, 1963 edition of U.S. News & World Report. The section was entitled “Intermarriage and the Race Problem — As Leading Authorities See It.” Among these “authorities” were such notorious champions of racial intermixture as Ernest van den Haag, Gunnar Myrdal and the ubiquitous Boas disciple Margaret Mead. It seemed to me that their common purpose was to lessen White opposition to the impending Civil Rights revolution with soothing assurances that racial integration would not noticeably increase racial intermixture. Even at the age of fourteen I knew this was false and that these supposed “authorities” were actually either ignorant or were engaging in the form of lying we now call “gaslighting” to mislead the readership. The same could be said for the Kennedy brothers who a couple years later testified before Congress that the proposed Immigration Reform Act would not change the racial balance of the country. As the problems become ever greater, so the falsehoods and gaslighting have ever increased to lessen opposition. Just four years after the publication of the U.S. News & World Report edition, its gaslighting was revealed for what it was by the 1967 film Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, released after the legislative victory of the Civil Rights revolution. After this “progress” of racial nihilism the message in the media Kool-Aid regarding increased intermixture changed from “It’s not something that’s going to happen,” to “It is happening and it’s not something any moral person should be concerned about or object to.” The objections to intermixture that were addressed — however deceptively — as morally respectable and legitimate concerns in 1963 were by 1967 portrayed and categorized as morally reprehensible and worthy only of censure.

Assuming we choose the alternative of racial preservation over the racial destruction and oblivion that will come from multiracialism, the task before us would be a geographic (i.e., physical) and political separation of the European and non-European racial groupings. To address that task and purpose I offer the proposal below.

A Proposal for Racial Separation

In this proposal there would be a partition into two major racial states or nations, one exclusively for those who are racially, genetically and phenotypically European (White), which is here identified as White, and the other would be for those who are racially non-European, but including Europeans who have non-European spouses, children or grandchildren who choose to live in the non-European country with them. It would also include any other Europeans who choose to live there dependent on the approval of the non-European state’s government. A separate autonomous nation reserved for indigenous Amerindians would be associated with the multiracial non-European nation, with Amerindians being free to live in either one. The physical boundary between the two states starting in the east would run from the Gulf of Mexico along the Atchafalaya, Mississippi and Arkansas rivers, and from there westward by the southern state lines of Kansas, Colorado and Utah, and the northern county lines of Lincoln, Nye and Esmeralda counties in Nevada and Inyo, Fresno, San Benito and Monterey counties in California.

1. A White (European) American nation with a contiguous area of 2,225,841 square miles, 75.1 percent of the “lower 48” area of 2,962,031 square miles, for the racial group that was 81.1 percent of the U.S. population in 1970, i.e., at the beginning of the massive non-White immigration promoted by the Anti-White Coalition. Alaska would be retained by the White nation. Hawaii would be divided, with the White nation retaining the 597 square mile island of Oahu as a White state — to secure the lines of communication across the Pacific to Australia and New Zealand — and the 4,028 square mile “Big Island” of Hawaii as a place for non-Whites that may be born or arrive in the White nation after the partition. The other islands (Maui, Kauai, Molokai, Lanai, etc.) totaling 6,306 square miles would be an autonomous, and possibly independent, state for the native Hawaiians and other Polynesians. The White American nation would be the continuation of the historic American nation with the national capital and all of the original pre-1803 territory, and most of the post-1803 territory, where circa 82 percent of the White population currently lives. Its territory would include about 40 percent of U.S. oil production and 50 percent of natural gas production, although this has the potential to be substantially increased by the expansion of fracking and offshore drilling, etc.
2. A multiracial non-White (non-European) transcontinental and bicoastal nation with a contiguous area of 669,392 square miles, making it the 17^th largest country in the world by area at 3.19 times the size of France. Its territory would include about 60 percent of U.S. oil production and 50 percent of natural gas production. It would be assigned all non-Whites except those Amerindians who choose to live in their separate nation, including all mixed-race or multiracial persons who are part-White but who are outside of the normal European phenotypic range, i.e., those with visible non-European ancestry. White Hispanics who identify as Hispanic rather than White could choose to live with the non-White Hispanics in the non-European nation. White parents and grandparents of non-White children (including part-White mixed-race children, of whom over 14 million were born in the half-century 1970–2020), and White spouses of non-Whites, would be permitted, but not required, to live with their children and spouses in the non-European nation. Other Non-Hispanic Whites who might prefer to live in the non-European nation could make their own arrangements to do so dependent on the nation’s consent.
3. An autonomous Amerindian (American Indian) nation with an area of 66,798 square miles would be reserved as an exclusive homeland for indigenous Amerindians, but they would have a dual citizenship permitting them to live in the multiracial on-European nation, and move between the two.

The future of the new White American nation would gain by enjoying a close relationship with a White Europe of friendly kith and kin instead of suffering a difficult coexistence with a multiracial Europe dominated by hostile anti-Whites. The opposite situation, with Canada and Europe continuing on the path to become non-European majority regions, would be a very dangerous geopolitical situation for a European America, not to mention the great loss to the larger European racial group from the loss of these populations and territories.

Based on the 2020 census the U.S. non-White (non-European) population was about 144.5 million or 43.6 percent, up from 38.4 million or 19 percent in 1970. (This number could have grown by as much as ten million by the end of the third year of the Biden administration with its unrestrained non-White immigration.) This includes the semi-European Caucasian Jewish population, who organizationally and institutionally regard themselves in word and deed as a population separate from Europeans and closely aligned with non-Europeans, and with interests that are diametrically opposed to the most fundamental and existential racial interests of the European population, most importantly in their energetic promotion of multiracialism, intermixture, and non-White immigration, with Alejandro Mayorkas in the U.S., Barbara Roche in the U.K., Barbara Lerner Spectre in Sweden, and Miriam Faine in Australia being prominent examples. In fact, the multiracial non-European nation created by this partition would, in terms of its racial demographics, be essentially what they have long advocated and worked for as a core Jewish interest.

On the assumption that a racial separation could occur concurrently in one grand common effort with Canada, Europe and Australia it would constitute a comprehensive solution to secure the continued existence and independence of the White racial group as a whole. This would add the 8.2 million non-Whites in Canada (7.7 million “visible”) making a North American non-White population of 152.7 million. This would also add the 49 million non-Whites in Europe (43 million in northwestern Europe, 2.5 million in Italy, 1.5 million in Spain not counting Hispanic non-Whites from Latin America, 2 million elsewhere) and 3.2 million non-indigenous non-Whites in Australia, making at least 204.9 million non-Whites to be geographically and politically separated from Whites for a sufficient solution that would fully secure White racial preservation. The 4.3 million indigenous Amerindians would have their own separate nation, leaving 200.6 million non-Whites for the new non-European nation. Many of the postwar immigrant non-Whites, including many Hispanics and Asians in the U.S. and many Turks, Arabs, Africans and Asians, etc. in Europe, are still citizens of their countries of origin, or dual citizens, and even vote in its elections. Many others still have strong family connections in the “old country.” It might be presumed that many would have the option to return there if they chose to do so. How many have this option, and how many of them would choose to exercise it rather than resettle in a new non-White country? It could be ten million or more among the non-Whites in Europe, and twenty million or more in North America and Australia. If 20 million non-Whites (e.g., 12 million from the U.S., 6 million from Europe and 2 million from Canada and Australia) with the option to return to their original countries chose to do so, 18 million White parents, grandparents and spouses of non-Whites (circa 15 million from the U.S.) chose to live with their relations in the non-White nation, and 3 million White Hispanics chose to live there with the non-White Hispanics, it would have a population of 201.6 million, with about 146.2 million of this total from the United States.

Based on the 2020 census the U.S. White (European) population was about 187 million or 56.4 percent of the 331.45 million total population, including 9 million Hispanic European Whites, up in absolute terms from 164.8 million in 1970 but down proportionally from 81.1 percent in 1970. Per the same scenario as the previous paragraph, if 15 million White parents, grandparents and spouses of non-Whites chose to live with their relations in the non-White nation, and 3 million White Hispanics chose to live there also with the non-Hispanic Whites, the White American nation would have a post-partition population of 169 million.

About 33.6 million European Whites (including Hispanic European Whites), or about 18 percent of the total European White population of circa 187 million (including Hispanic European Whites), and about 39.1 million non-Whites, or about 27.1 percent of the total non-White population of circa 144.5 million, currently reside in the area designated for the non-European and Amerindian nations.

This plan would require the relocation of circa 131.2 million people — 33.6 million or 18 percent of Whites and 105.4 million or 72.9 percent of non-Whites — and their personal property. As large as these numbers are, in a previous essay I calculated that the transportation logistics of relocating 150 million people and their personal property in a time frame as short as a year is feasible, although considering other factors such as the likely need for increased infrastructure in some areas, equivalent exchanges of real property ownership, matching relocated people with new employment, etc., it would be more realistic to expect a humane process proceeding at all reasonable speed to take at least five years.

Except for the aboriginal Amerindian population, for which I propose a separate autonomous country of their own with dual citizenship in the larger non-European nation, the other non-European populations would share the same single large contiguous territory and government. In the current and past context of the United States, or the other White countries suffering multiracialization, the non-White and Jewish groups have always supported, promoted and voted for multiracialism, rightly identifying it with their group interests and themselves as its beneficiaries. It therefore seems more likely they would prefer to be joined into a large multiracial state that was a major country at the world level rather than be separated into smaller states for each racial group. But if in a post-partition context that historical preference were to change in favor of separate racial nations they could accomplish that by a sub-partition of the larger non-European nation.

This proposal aims to attract maximum White support consistent with the goal of racial separation and independence, uniting on this existential issue and avoiding non-existential and potentially divisive non-vital issues. Territorially this means retaining most of the country, and especially the areas that are the more historically and culturally significant and where the great majority of Whites live. Ideologically and politically this means that, other than as required for the purpose of racial preservation, there should be no changes to the American constitutional, institutional and governmental system, or its programs, benefits and policies, until after the completion of the partition, when any proposed changes to their country would be decided by the newly all-White population consistent with its sovereign prerogatives.

“When the quarrel is Jewish, more than usual caution is required, since the press of Europe isto a great and increasing extent in the hands of Jews.”
                     Goldwin Smith, New Light on the Jewish Question 1891^[1]

 It should be considered an axiom that the Western political system can be bought with money, but that its people are best bought with sob stories. The above quote from the brilliant British historian and journalist Goldwin Smith (1823–1910), was in reaction to Jewish atrocity propaganda alleging extremely violent pogroms in the Russian empire. These ‘pogroms,’ covered in detail at The Occidental Observer by Andrew Joyce, were a media-designed mass moral panic designed to serve Jewish interests. In this case, for example, the pogroms acted as a pretext to mass economic migration, and lurid tales of atrocities and suffering were the moral currency used to purchase Western compliance with the immigration of millions of Jews. Although mass protests were held on behalf of Jews, and millions of dollars raised in aid, Smith reminded his gullible contemporaries that British government investigations had already revealed:

At Elizabethgrad, instead of whole streets being razed to the ground, only one hut had been unroofed. Few Jews, if any, had been intentionally killed, though some died of injuries received in the riots. The outrages on women, of which, according to the Jewish accounts, there had been a frightful number no less than thirty in one place and twenty-five in another and by which public indignation in England had been most fiercely aroused, seem, after inquiries by the consuls, to have been reduced to something like half a dozen authenticated cases in all. This is the more remarkable because the riots commonly began with the sacking of the vodka shops, which are kept by the Jews, so that the passions of the mob must have been inflamed by drink. The horrible charge brought by the Jews in The Times against the Russian women, of having incited the men to outrage their Jewish sisters and held the Jewesses down, to punish them for their superior finery in dress, is found to be utterly baseless. The charge of roasting children alive also falls to the ground. The Jewish pamphlet reprinted from the London Times states that a Jewish innkeeper was cooped in one of his own barrels and cast into the Dnieper. This turns out to be a fable, the village which was the alleged scene of it being ten miles from the Dnieper and near no other river of consequence.

Moral Currency

As Smith and Joyce both point out, the facts behind the pogrom narrative were more or less drowned out by the intensity of moral feeling provoked by the flamboyantly violent Jewish accounts spread from Russia, and we witnessed precisely the same dynamic play out in the immediate aftermath of the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel. Although this essay will focus on some of the detail and mystery surrounding early Israeli atrocity propaganda accounts about the Hamas incursion, the most interesting aspect in all of it is perhaps that Jews seem aware that morality is the currency with which to purchase compliance, or at least muted silence, from the Western public. They’re acutely aware of our sensitivity to moral arguments.

Kevin MacDonald has pointed out that “moral idealism is a powerful tendency in European culture. … Morality is defined not as what is good for the individual or the group, but as an abstract moral ideal.” This contrasts with approaches to moral questions followed by other peoples, which tend to be far more pragmatic, situational, or context-based. Take, for example, Deng Xiaoping’s maxim: “It does not matter whether a cat is black or white; if it catches mice, it is a good cat.” China’s pragmatic approach to morality, when reflected in foreign policy and international security, has been argued as a major driver of its rapidly expanding global influence. The United States, meanwhile, has for decades engaged in a moral demonization of its opponents (“Axis of Evil,” etc.) that makes compromise almost impossible. Writing for Global Asia, Kishore Mahbubani comments that “There is a moral streak that influences US foreign policy thinking that cannot be scrubbed out. And many Americans are proud of the fact that this moral dimension is a cardinal factor. Clinton stated in an April 2009 interview: ‘There is always and must be a moral dimension to our foreign policy.’” The fact that material interests are the main driver of foreign policy objectives doesn’t detract from the understanding of most politicians that they must nevertheless shoehorn their material objectives into a moral framework for public consumption. America’s allies must be presented as morally good, regardless of the reality behind the image, and its designated enemies must be presented as morally bad, even if the opposing group or nation is simply pursuing its own interests.

Jews are aware of this moral dimension, and Zionists in particular have a carefully crafted rhetorical arsenal for Western audiences that is based exclusively around the language of rights, morality, and justice, even if such concepts are far removed from the reality of Israeli actions, attitudes, and behavior. Although Israel is a demonstrably expansionist state, often aggressively so in the form of its settlements in the West Bank, its apologists in the West employ a set of defensive phrases such as “Israel has a right to defend itself,” “Israel has a right to exist,” and, in the phrasing of the Ayn Rand Institute “Israel has a moral right to its life.” An excellent example of what we might call “morality propaganda” appeared in the Wall Street Journal on October 11. The piece, titled “The Moral Duty to Destroy Hamas” and written by Jewish journalists Walter Block and Alan Futerman, argued that Israel was residing next to an “evil, depraved culture.” Arabs were said to be motivated by nothing more than a baseless and amorphous “Jew-hatred,” and had “slaughtered innocent men, women and children. These gangs raped, mutilated and tortured them while screaming “Kill the Jews!””

The language of morality employed here is of course identical to that used by Jews when explaining the history of anti-Semitism in Europe. “Jew-hatred” is always spontaneous and disease-like, emerging without context and entirely lacking in justification. “Jew-hatred” is both unexplained and unexplainable, a kind of demonic possession that takes hold of entire societies, and it is inherently unjust and immoral since its victims are always innocent. In a January 2 op-ed in The Jerusalem Post titled “Why Do People Hate the Jews?”, Micah Halpern explains anti-Semitism with the non sequitur “Today’s haters have only hate — a passionate fervor of hatred.” People thus hate Jews because they are filled with hatred of Jews. It’s really quite remarkable that this passes for serious analysis in most quarters.

Since Jews are never acknowledged as having harmed other groups, tales of their rape, mutilation, and torture by “Jew-haters” are all the more shocking and abhorrent. This framing and understanding of anti-Semitism inherently imbues Jews with a kind of moral currency, even superiority, and Jews have enjoyed an almost limitless abundance of moral currency since World War II because that war has been repeatedly packaged as the quintessential “good war” — a war against evil. Although efforts have been taken in recent decades to address Allied moral choices and ethical dilemmas such as the morality of using the atom bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki or the British decision to bomb Hamburg to rubble, the one untouchable element of the popular understanding of World War II is that Jews were the primary victims of an ‘evil’ regime in the conflict and that their experience during that war has profound and enduring moral lessons for all Western peoples.

The Jewish Carte Blanche

The most immediate and geopolitically significant result of this framing of World War II was the establishment of the State of Israel and the international granting to Jews of carte blanche to dominate and remove hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from desired lands. In fact, it is difficult to point to an instance of ethnic cleansing in living memory that has provoked a more muted international response than the Israeli displacement of the Palestinians. US consulate officials in Palestine in 1948 noted that Jews were bombing Palestinian civilian targets in a fashion “so completely motiveless as to place [it] in [the] category of nihilism.” Jews, who only a few decades earlier had been spreading false rumors of Russian rape and looting to the world, were reported by a U.S. diplomat in 1948 as “carrying furniture, household effects and supplies from Arab buildings and pumping cistern water into tank trucks. Evidence indicated [a] clearly systematic looting [of the Arab] quarter [by Jews].” But these observations remained precisely that — observations.

Although it is tempting to fully throw one’s support behind the Palestinians, it’s important to remember that we have more than enough problems of our own — even if many of them have been caused by the same suspects. I echo Kevin MacDonald’s comment that “This does not mean that I am a cheerleader for Palestinians. The Palestinians are a typical Middle-Eastern people and all that that entails in terms of non-Western social forms—the clans, the collectivism, and Islam with its long history of hatred against Europe.” But the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is of vital interest to Western peoples for two main reasons. First, Israeli dominance in the region is totally reliant on Western support, especially American financial, diplomatic, and military aid. Adjusted for inflation, American taxpayers have handed over hundreds of billions of dollars to the Jewish state since 1948. Israeli actions in the Middle East have direct implications for Western nations — they consume Western resources, they provoke acts of terrorism in Western countries, and they are components of a kind of manipulative morality theater in which Israelis constantly struggle to present themselves as the heroes battling against a mob of villains. Central to this theater is the atrocity tale.

Beheaded Babies?

It’s indisputable that Hamas committed violence against children during and after the October 7 incursion into Israeli territory, but the particularly gory and emotive claim that Hamas beheaded dozens of babies gained sudden and widespread prominence in the days after the massacre. This prominence largely resulted from amplification of initial claims by a single Israeli journalist by U.S. and Israeli government figures. The claim was also widely repeated by politicians including Republican representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene and Elise Stefanik, by major news outlets such as CNN, Fox News and the New York Post; by Israeli officials, including the prime minister’s office; by ADL President Jonathan Greenblatt, and by a number of Jewish actors and celebrities on social media. The claim became a viral phenomenon in its own right, but as time went on it became clear that evidence was lacking.

Sarah Swann, writing for PolitiFact, commented:

The confirmed violence is horrible enough. So why did a weakly sourced claim about 40 beheaded babies travel far and wide? Experts on disinformation and the Middle East pinpointed the emotional response elicited by violence against children, along with a lack of confirmation from official sources. “Because it is such a shocking claim … it has garnered significant attention as well as attempts to support or rebut,” said Osamah Khalil, a Syracuse University history professor specializing in the modern Middle East and U.S. foreign policy.

The claim that Hamas beheaded 40 babies can be traced to an Israeli reporter’s on-air comments. on October 10, three days after the Hamas attack on Kibbutz Kfar Aza in southern Israel. Nicole Zedeck, an American Jew attached to i24 News, an Israeli news channel, claimed IDF soldiers told her infants had been killed in the attack. During an English-language broadcast from Kfar Aza, Zedeck  said “The Israeli military still says they don’t have a clear number (of the casualties), but I’m talking to some of the soldiers, and they say what they’ve witnessed is they’ve been walking through these different houses, these different communities — babies, their heads cut off. That’s what they said.”

Zedeck said the claim came from Israeli soldiers, but the IDF hadn’t confirmed how many babies were killed or if any were beheaded. Other journalists on the ground in Kfar Aza that day, including Oren Ziv of +972 Magazine, and Samuel Forey of the French news outlet Le Monde, denied that any such claims had been made by IDF soldiers. In a post to X that Ziv has since mysteriously deleted, he said that he saw no evidence that Hamas beheaded babies during the tour of the kibbutz that day, “and the army spokesperson or commanders also didn’t mention any such incidents.” Ziv said journalists in Kfar Aza were allowed to talk to hundreds of soldiers without supervision from the Israel Defense Force communication team, and that no such gruesome discoveries were mentioned. Similarly, Forey said in a post which is still viewable on X, “No one told me about beheadings, even less about beheaded children, even less about 40 beheaded children.” Forey said emergency services personnel he spoke with had not seen any decapitated bodies.

Despite rebuttals by other journalists present on the same tour of the kibbutz, Zedeck later posted the next day on X that “one of the commanders told me they saw babies’ heads cut off.” Thirty-five minutes later, she posted again, saying “soldiers told me they believe 40 babies/children were killed.” Within 24 hours, news outlets in the U.S. and UK, including The Independent, The Daily Mail, CNN, Fox News and the New York Post, repeated the claim that Hamas had beheaded babies, citing Israeli media or the prime minister’s office as sources. The latter gained traction because, on October 11, a spokesperson for Benjamin Netanyahu told CNN that babies and toddlers were found in Kfar Aza with their “heads decapitated.”

By the following morning, however, CNN reported that the Israeli government could not confirm the claim that Hamas beheaded babies, contradicting the Netanyahu’s office’s previous statement. This didn’t prevent Joe Biden from repeating the claim during an October 11 meeting with Jewish leaders, saying, “I never really thought that I would see and have confirmed pictures of terrorists beheading children.” It fell to White House staff to later inform CNN that Biden had in fact neither seen photos nor received confirmation that Hamas beheaded babies or children. Biden was referring to public comments from media outlets and Israeli officials, which hardly amounted to having personally “seen and have confirmed” images of children beheaded by terrorists.

Netanyahu said during Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Biden’s visits to Israel on October 18 that Hamas beheaded people, but Netanyahu did not say whether the victims were infants. Netanyahu’s office then went public with photos of babies it said were “murdered and burned” by Hamas, but the provenance of these images was as obscure as the earlier claims. Sarah Swann pointed out that:

When asked about the authenticity of the images of dead children Netanyahu had shared, White House National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby said Oct. 12, “I don’t think we’re in the business of having to validate or approve those kinds of images. They’re from the prime minister of Israel and we have no reason to doubt their authenticity.”

So the information was authentic solely because it came from Netanyahu.

“Proportionality” and the Renewed Carte Blanche

Just as atrocity propaganda was crucial to facilitating Jewish mass migration to the West during the time of the Tsars, and crucial again in founding the state of Israel, so it is also crucial in the granting to the Jews of their latest carte blanche. The invasion of Gaza by the IDF has so far led to the deaths of more than 22,000 Palestinians, with a further 7,000 missing or buried, and the exodus of around 1.9 million. More profoundly, the international amplification of the Jewish narrative has paved the way for something previously considered unthinkable — the Israeli abolition of the governing system in Gaza. Rumors are now circulating that the Israelis intend to “divide the Hamas-governed territory into areas ruled by tribes or clans rather than a single political entity. According to public broadcaster KAN, the plan was devised by the Israeli army. … It stipulates that the Gaza Strip be divided into regions and subregions, with Israel communicating separately with each group.” In other words, it amounts to “divide and conquer.”

Israel is being Internationally permitted to carry out actions that would be considered beyond the pale by other nations because of international Jewish political and cultural control, and the veneer of morality glossing its rhetoric. Early calls for “proportionality” were deftly swept aside by a tide of carefully positioned Jewish commentators. Jill Goldenzeil, writing for Forbes in an article titled “Proportionality Doesn’t Mean What You Think It Means in Gaza,” performs a classic role in shaping ways of seeing, encouraging readers to abandon even the most common sense understanding of a proportionate response to what happened on October 7, and instead flummoxing her readers with the explanation that “Proportionality is a challenging principle to understand—not only because of semantics, but because of the cruel reality of war.” The Jewish News Syndicate rushed out an article on “What Proportionality Actually Means,” and Steven Erlanger at the New York Times bluntly informed readers that Israelis would not be bound to an expectation of “a balanced number of casualties.” In fact, the sheer scale of the Jewish propaganda effort to redefine and nullify any expectation of moderation led the Brussels International Center to note that Israel was engaged in a “war on proportionality,” or any suggestion that there be limits on its action against Gaza.

Critics of Israel’s action would have been saved from their apparent surprise with a little reading of Goldwin Smith. When the quarrel is Jewish, after all, and especially when moral pleading and horror stories are involved, more than usual caution is required.

^[1] G. Smith, “New Light on the Jewish Question ,” The North American Review , Aug., 1891, Vol. 153, No. 417 (Aug., 1891), pp. 129- 143 (133).