Go to Part 1.

Part II. Solution Considerations

“A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation [i.e., intermixture]. … The enterprise [i.e., separation of the races by the resettlement of the American Black population in a separate country of their own] is a difficult one, but where there is a will there is a way. … Let us be brought to believe it is morally right … and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be.” Abraham Lincoln in debate with Stephen Douglas at Springfield, Illinois, June 26, 1857

“To him that will, ways are not wanting.” Seventeenth-century English proverb

A movement is defined more clearly by what it is for than by what it is against. What it is for is a statement of what a movement is, giving its goal, purpose and direction. Unfortunately, we tend to be much more united, and much less divided, in what we are against than in what we are for. That is why some think it unwise to clearly advocate an alternative to what we are against, fearing it will cause division and lose support. Yet a purely negative movement is severely limited in its ability to achieve any positive goal. A position with no vision of an alternative really cannot qualify as a “movement” as it has no goal to move toward. To achieve anything positive, a movement must be able to achieve a sufficient level of unity and agreement in what it is for no less than in what it is against.

Besides fearing loss of support, some avoid a major solution because they think it would be too difficult, or even impossible, to achieve, and believe a minor or incomplete solution would be more attainable. They are mistaken on both counts. On the first, both potential supporters and opponents will want to know the movement’s proposed solution, and to hide it would be to invite a host of assumptions, many erroneous and many of these very unfavorable. So, unless a solution is very bad indeed, it is better to state it clearly and openly. On the second, avoiding a major solution in favor of a minor one will not make success more likely, because the ruling Anti-White-Coalition, with control not only of almost all levels and branches of government, but also of almost all major corporations, educational institutions, and non-governmental activist organizations, would not tolerate the existence of any separate White political entity of any size, and especially one that claimed territorial sovereignty. As the establishment of such an entity of whatever size could only be an exercise of power, a necessary precondition for the establishment of any separate White political unit would be gaining power. That is the only way it can be done. And if power is gained, it can be done on a sufficient scale no less than on an insufficient scale, so it might as well be done right, in the way that will really save and preserve all of the White race that is still capable of being saved.

There are three phases to our solution. The first phase is to gain sufficient White support for the solution. The second phase is to gain the political power needed to implement the solution. The third phase is the actual implementation of the solution. The first phase involves winning the “hearts and minds” of our people for the preservation of our race in sufficient numbers to move forward into the second phase. The numbers required depends on the path to power followed in the second phase. Historically, the clearest path forward in the second phase has been through the electoral process, which depends on winning enough White support in the first phase to prevail electorally. Racial demographic change has made this path ever more difficult, requiring ever larger White majorities, with the long-expected racial tipping point projected to make it effectively impossible sometime around 2040. Over the decades of racial demographic change until 2015 this path has continually narrowed, then for the five years of the Trump candidacy and presidency it seemed to widen again, with an unexpectedly high proportion of White voters supporting at least implicitly pro-White policies, although Trump himself showed no more awareness of the White existential problem than any typical Republican politician. In a 2001 essay I suggested that the GOP adopt a populist and economic nationalist program to broaden its White support, and that if it did so there was a possibility it could be transformed into a pro-White political vehicle, the very thing the Anti-White Coalition fears the most and what a pro-White coalition should see as its best hope.^[12] In 2016 we seemed to take a step in this direction, but with the massive subversion of the electoral process in 2020, this path seems to have been permanently blocked by coordinated systemic fraud on a scale so great that only a major political upheaval could open it again.

Before the election, I was concerned with the harmful effects of a legitimate Democrat victory, with the possible enfranchisement of 20 million or more illegal immigrants and statehood for Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C. accelerating us over the demographic tipping point and past the electoral point of no return. I did not anticipate, even after the forewarning provided by the Democrat’s increasingly extreme actions of the previous four years, just how far the Anti-White Coalition was prepared to go to ensure that the White populist victory that happened in 2016 would not happen again. Was 2020 the Earl Raab election, the stroke of the long-hanging Damoclean sword, intended to forever block the pro-White electoral path to power? If that path is preempted in the near term by establishment suppression, fraud and skullduggery, or cut off in the longer term by demographic racial change, the other possible paths are much less clear and predictable, with no formal rules or process and no precedent in the American tradition. There can be no comfortable predictability or orderly certainty here, for in this uncharted and potentially lawless terra incognita, we “see through a glass, darkly.” But however uncertain the prospect, if the electoral path is closed to us, we must find another path. If the electoral path is blocked, then, as in the old folk tales and legends, our hero’s journey^[13] must venture into the woods, into the wilds, to find another way, to emerge from our trials reborn stronger and better than ever before. As in the old adage used by Lincoln, “Where there’s a will, there’s a way.” We must find that way. It is a matter of racial life or death. The continued existence of our kind depends on it. If we have the will to live, to continue in Lincoln’s words, “Let us be brought to believe it is morally right…and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be.”

But first we must have the will, which brings us back from the now much less certain second phase to the surer footing of the well-trod paths of the first phase, the winning of the hearts and minds of our people. It is in the first phase that the will to prevail in the second phase and see us through the third phase is forged. This makes it the most decisive phase of our struggle to save our race. If we succeed in the first phase, a majority of Whites will want our solution, and want it enough to find a way to make it so, to implement it and make it a reality, by whatever way necessary. To win those hearts and minds we don’t just need any solution, we need a good one, one our people will see as good and believe is morally right. A sense of moral righteousness is the social glue of White communities and has been a powerful motivating force throughout Western history: A fundamental aspect of the individualism that is unique to Western culture is that group cohesion is based not on kinship but on reputation — most importantly in recent centuries, a moral reputation as capable, honest, trustworthy and fair. Such a solution will be crucial to success in the decisive first phase and must be achieved starting from the present media, educational, and political environment in which a sense of White identity and interests are a sign of moral depravity. However, a sense of the moral imperative of White preservation should not be feared as a negative that will alienate those who are not really serious about supporting White racial preservation, but as a positive that will motivate and inspire those who see the solution as a positive, as a realizable hope for the salvation of our race. Seeing a solution as a positive should remove any temptation to avoid or delay it, to “kick the can down the road” for a later generation to deal with. For two centuries previous generations have avoided the issue and kicked the can down the road, allowing the problem to metastasize into something far greater than what they confronted, and so making the required solution correspondingly more difficult. The time of reckoning is long overdue, and so it falls to those now living to finally undertake the task that will secure the preservation of their race. There are many Augean stables to be cleaned, in governments, academia, the media and the corporate world—each a Herculean labor in itself. The removal of non-Whites by separation will be the cleansing flood of the rivers Alpheus and Peneus to accomplish the far greater part of this task.

Why Should the White Race be Saved?

Does White preservation matter? Is there a reason to care whether or not the White race is destroyed? Knowledge and knowing are very different things than emotions and caring. We can provide the knowledge of White racial dispossession and of possible alternatives. These are matters of objective fact and logic. Providing the emotions — the love, caring and valuing — that would instill in Whites the motivation to want White racial preservation is a very different matter. Emotions and caring, unlike knowledge and knowing, come from something within, the internal wellspring of values and emotions, and can be very resistant to external influence.

The capacity for an emotion or sentiment cannot be given, transmitted or shared. It must already exist in a person for them to be able to experience it. Knowing can have no effect on those who do not, or cannot, care. Many Whites totally lack the ability to value their race or anything connected with it, and they often flatter themselves that their incapacity is evidence of their moral and intellectual superiority. Others, in a distorted aberration of natural feelings and loyalties, actually work for the subjugation and replacement of their own race. On such as these it is best not to waste any effort. But there are those Whites, hopefully far more numerous, who possess a latent though not yet activated capability to care about their race and just need to be given the right reasons to love their race and want it to be preserved. They need to have the right buttons pushed, the buttons that connect their race to things they care about. In this struggle not of knowing, but of caring, it is better to focus our efforts on such as these.

Pushing the right buttons means enlisting the assistance of existing positive emotions in the cause of White preservation, the presumption being that the person does have positive feelings for things that are connected to their race but is not aware of the connection. The task is to identify these things that the person loves, values and cares about that are connected with the White race.

This task is made much more difficult because it is opposed by the dominant anti-White culture which wants the opposite. It does not want connections to be made between the White race and anything of value that could evoke positive emotions. It works to influence public awareness so as to disconnect the White race from anything of value that is part of it, whether its visible phenotype as embodied in its physical traits and beauty, or the vastness of its extended phenotype — the products of the unique individualism of the Western mind: its inventiveness and spirit, as revealed in Western art, music and literature; its technology, engineering, and architecture; its science, discovery, and exploration; its emphasis on education and scholarship, philosophy and representative government. Recent social science research has shown that Westerners are more trusting of strangers and of people in positions of power, but that first- and second-generation immigrants from countries with intensive kinship remain relatively untrusting of strangers, foreigners, and people from other religions; they are less individualistic-independent and more conformist-obedient[1]—traits that are negatively associated with creativity and inventiveness. Further, people from societies with intensive kinship contribute less to group projects, volunteer less, are less likely to donate blood to strangers, are more willing to lie under oath to help a friend or relative, and more likely to hire relatives. “Cultural transmission can perpetuate a clannish psychology for generations, even after clan organizations have vanished.”[2] Whether one supposes that individualist attitudes can be socialized over a period of several centuries[3] or that there is genetic inertia for such attitudes,[4] this suggests that Western societies would be well advised to avoid immigration from societies with intensive kinship and develop  their own racially homogeneous homelands if they want to retain high levels of society-wide trust and other traits making up the individualist ethos.

This rejection of the idea that there is anything of value in Western culture is maintained by a culture that represses awareness of the uniqueness of the West. Valuing the West and its accomplishments is regarded as a “racist” (i.e., pro-White) threat to the new anti-White order of multiracialism. Thus Whites who value the physical beauty of their race often fail to appreciate the connection between that beauty and the race of which it is a part, and without which it would not exist, and so see no inconsistency in supporting, the policies of multiracialism and racial intermixture that are replacing it. During my 1965–67 high school years I was one of those who read as well as looked at the pictures in Playboy magazine. Even at that age I noted the disconnect between the implicitly pro-White values presented in the pictures — which were a clear celebration of White female beauty as visibly embodied in the models — and the anti-White editorial content, including the installments of publisher Hugh Hefner’s “Playboy Philosophy,” which promoted the policies of multiracialism and racial intermixture that were leading to the replacement and destruction of the White race and that same female beauty.

While we’re trying to make these positive connections between the White race and so much that is valued, the dominant anti-White culture is energetically denying them. This culture of White racial denial includes many supposed advocates for the traditions and values of Western Civilization, many of them self-described “conservatives,” who make no connection between that civilization and the race that created it, and actually deny such a connection is valid or meaningful, thereby turning it into an abstract concept. They value only a deracialized, de-Europeanized, globalized and racial nihilist concept of Western civilization which they see as a disembodied thing, disconnected and separate from the biological and genetic, tangible and physical entity that created it and from which it came. But a culture and civilization are not disembodied things consisting only of traditions, customs and abstract ideas. They are the products, the extended phenotype, of the genetic endowment of a biological entity with a tangible physical being, and when they are separated or disconnected from the population that created and sustains them, they degenerate into something else consistent with the new population.

Our advantage in this contest is that the connections we make are objectively real and true, based on actual data that has given us the knowledge needed to allow White people to realize the connection between the White race and those things they value — such as its beauty, their family and ancestors, their heritage, history, culture and civilization, even the gene pool from which their own existence came.

Not all can be successfully reached in this way. Some are innately lacking in racial feeling as a result of their extreme individualism. Others have been so psychologically distorted by the culture that whatever positive feelings they could and should have had for their race have been replaced with negative ones. They are racially dead in soul if not in body, and their dead souls are beyond our powers of resurrection.

The dominant culture rejects all that can be associated with the White race, in the present or the past, turning formerly revered historical and cultural figures into part of an evil and exploitive entity—hence the statue-toppling campaign against the Founding Fathers. Another method is to disconnect the valued achievements of Western civilization from the White race by wrongly crediting them to other races, inserting non-Whites deep into Western history, projecting the multiracialism of the racially dystopian present into the past and invading it with non-Whites, such as recent historical dramas that miscast sub-Saharan Africans as historical figures like Anne Boleyn and iconic semi-mythical figures like Achilles. Boleyn’s daughter, Elizabeth I, and Helen of Troy, Achilles’ feminine counterpart, would logically follow.

Some engage in rationalizations to justify racial intermixture, such as arguing that other races are superior to the White race and therefore nothing of importance would be lost if it disappeared. But even if other races are superior in some sense, does that mean the White race should not continue to exist? But there is one thing, the most important thing, in which Whites are undeniably superior to any other race, and that is in being us. No other race, or mixture of races, can be us, can be my race. And it is possible that the White race could exist as long as this planet can sustain human life. The existence of Michelangelo, Shakespeare, Descartes, Newton, Bach, Edison, Curie, Rutherford, von Braun, etc., as well as Carole Lombard, Ginger Rogers, Vivien Leigh, Ingrid Bergman, Marilyn Monroe, Audrey Hepburn, etc., depended on the prior existence of their race, which provided the genetic material that made them. Without the existence of the White race, those White individuals would not, could not, have existed. Intermixture changes the race into something that is no longer us.

Demarcating the Ingroup

A factor that is central to any proposed racial separation solution is the demarcation of its territorial and racial boundaries, the latter being the criteria for membership in a particular race—the criteria that determine which racial categories are the “ingroup” eligible for inclusion within the proposed White nation.  This determination indicates the purpose of the proposed solution. If the purpose is White racial preservation, in the sense of preserving the White race as it exists now, then limiting inclusion to European Whites is the only standard consistent with this goal, and including any persons who are not of European ancestry or whose phenotype is outside of the normal European phenotypic range is inconsistent with it. Both of these aspects of the solution must be addressed in order to provide a sufficient solution for White preservation, and they must be mindful of White sensibilities in order to maximize White support and minimize White opposition.

The sole consideration for ingroup status should be race as determined by phenotype and ancestry. Basing the ingroup on non-racial categories such as religious beliefs or sexual orientation would indicate that the purpose of the proposed solution is at least to some degree something other than racial preservation. In fact, any attempt to divide the White race on ideological or other non-racial lines would be contrary to White racial interests and incite internal division and opposition.

In the great majority of cases, ingroup classification can be determined by the traditional and natural way by the visible physical phenotype which is also the method most consistent with White racial sensibilities and would therefore enjoy the strongest support and agreement. The standard for this determination should be based on the normal European phenotypic range, not on rare exceptions and outliers. I propose that persons of at least three-quarters (75%) European ancestry and within the normal European phenotypic range—i.e., with no visible physical indication of non-White mixture should be racially classified as White. Phenotypically borderline cases, including some common Southern European phenotypes that are also common in the populations of North Africa and the Middle East, should be decided by establishing at least 15/16^ths (93.75%) European ancestry.

The normal phenotypic range and distribution of phenotypes varies across Europe, most notably on a north to south cline, as estimated in Figure 7.

Figure 7: Percentage estimates of phenotypic groups in the native populations of the west European sector of the Caucasian region, showing the composition and the extent of overlap

The table in Figure 7 is my attempt to provide an admittedly rough estimate of the phenotypic composition of the native European populations with percentage estimates of phenotypic groups, illustrating the composition of the different racial environments and the extent of overlap. (Phenotypic groups with under 0.5% representation are excluded.) The reader may disagree with my estimates, and I assume they are not precise, but I believe the concept is valid, and I assume the estimates are sufficiently accurate to give a valid illustration of the concept.

Phenotypic group A consists of the most distinct Northern European phenotypes found only in Northern Europe (represented on this chart by Scandinavia, the Netherlands, England, and northern and central Germany). Phenotypic group B consists of the most common Northern European phenotypes which can still be regarded as distinctly Northern European although they are also found as minority elements in Central Europe (represented by southern Germany, Austria and northern France). Phenotypic group C consists of generalized phenotypes that are common throughout Northern and Central Europe and are also present as a minor element in Southern Europe (represented by Italy, Spain and southern France). Phenotypic group D consists of more generalized phenotypes that are found throughout Western Europe but are most common in Central Europe. Phenotypic group E consists of phenotypes that are common throughout Southern and Central Europe but are absent or very rare in the native populations of Northern Europe. Phenotypic group F consists of phenotypes that are common in Southern Europe, present in small numbers in Central Europe, but absent from Northern Europe. Phenotypic group G consists of distinct “Mediterranean” phenotypes that are common in Southern Europe, present as a minority element in North Africa, but absent from the native populations of Northern and Central Europe. Phenotypic group H consists of more distinct “Mediterranean” phenotypes that are common in both Southern Europe and North Africa. Phenotypic group I consists of the most distinct “Mediterranean” phenotypes found among the native populations of Southern Europe, but more common in North Africa. This clinal north-south distribution of phenotypic groups also correlates closely with the distribution of Yamnaya/Kurgan versus Neolithic Anatolian Farmer ancestry, with the proportion of the former decreasing, and the latter increasing, moving from north to south.

Figure 8: Examples from the opposite ends of both the geographic and phenotypic European ranges: a “sunny” Stockholm A/B type (1962) and a sultry Andalusian G/H type (María José Cantudo, 1974)

It should be noted that phenotypic overlap does not necessarily indicate an identical genotypic overlap. For example, the generalized C and D phenotypes found in both Northern and Southern Europe are not genotypically equivalent, as in the north they would be much more likely to include recessive A and B genes in their genotypes than would be the case in the south.

In determining the ingroup, mixed-race children with a White parent who are visibly outside of the normal European phenotypic range are non-White and should be excluded, as to accept them would be to extend the racially harmful effects of the White parent’s personal action to the White race as a whole. Historically, the great majority of the offspring of racial intermixture between Whites and non-Whites have been assimilated back into their non-White ancestral race, so keeping the extent of non-White ancestry in the White population low (1.4%, per Figure 2). The White parents themselves need not be excluded, but it should be assumed that most of them would choose to remain with their children, and so reside with them in the non-White nation.

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 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 between core Jewish interests and the racial interests of Whites.

Figure 9: From Wikipedia page “Jewish Population by Country,” accessed December 6, 2020

Figure 9 divides the U.S. Jewish population into four categories.^[14]  The “Core” Jewish population of 5.7 million consists of those who consider themselves Jews to the exclusion of all else. The “connected” Jewish population of 8 million includes those who say they are partly Jewish and have at least one Jewish parent. The “enlarged” Jewish population of 10 million adds those who have Jewish background but not a Jewish parent (i.e., they have more distant Jewish ancestry such as a grandparent). The “Eligible” Jewish population of 12 million includes all those eligible to immigrate to Israel under its Law of Return, including spouses of Jews and those with one Jewish grandparent.

Consistent with genetic studies that indicate Ashkenazi Jews are a hybridized semi-European population, averaging 50–60 percent Middle Eastern and 40–50 percent European ancestry, they display considerable phenotypic variation, including many individuals within the normal European phenotypic range. In Separation and its Discontents^[15] Kevin MacDonald cites D.J. Elazar’s 1980 estimate that 70–85% of American Jews are committed to Jewish causes, with 15-20% forming a core of regular participants, activists and operatives consisting of an inner core of 5–8% who are intensely involved in Jewish affairs as a full-time concern and another 10–12% who work actively for Jewish causes on a regular basis. Unfortunately, as Jewish group interests are usually defined as the opposite of White racial interests, Jewish activism has generally promoted White dispossession, including multiracialism, racial intermixture and non-White immigration into White homelands. This needs to be considered with regard to the eligibility for inclusion in the White ingroup of those individual Jews who meet the European phenotypic standard, most of whom would be connected and primarily committed to the corporate Jewish ethnic group and its interests, including those “core Jewish values” that are in fundamental conflict with vital White racial interests, and should therefore be excluded as incompatible with the White ingroup.

A 2014 autosomal genetic study by Katarzyna Bryc et.al. (see Figure 2) found that the average proportion of European ancestry in a “23andMe” sample of 8,663 Hispanic-Americans (“Latinos”) was only 65.1%, a proportion that would not qualify them to be classified as White as a group, although perhaps about 10–15% of Hispanic-Americans would qualify individually as White by European standards. This is in sharp contrast to their “23andMe” sample of 148,789 non-Hispanic European-Americans, whose average proportion of European genetic ancestry was determined to be 98.6%. The study also found that only 3.5% of European-Americans have 1% or more African ancestry, only 1.4% have 2% or more African ancestry, and only 2.7% have 1% or more of “Native American” ancestry, with about 94% having essentially no genetically measurable non-European ancestry.

[1] Joseph Henrich, The Weirdest People in the World: How the West Became Psychologically Peculiar and Particularly Prosperous (New York: Farrar, Strauss & Giroux, 2020): 207, 244.

[2] Ibid., 195.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Kevin MacDonald, Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition: Evolution, History, and Prospects for the Future (Seattle: CreateSpace, 2019).

Retroculture: Taking America Back
William S. Lind
London: Arktos Media, 2019.

One of the defining characteristics of the Dissident Right has been a scathing critique of American conservatism. The main charge is that mainstream conservatism has failed to conserve much of anything other than plutocratic wealth. For social analyst Brad Griffin of the website Occidental Dissent, “The price of admission [to conventional conservatism] is abandoning all of your beliefs and going along with this disastrous status quo.”  He notes that a 2019 Pew Research Center study found that traditional religious beliefs are declining at an accelerating rate further eroding the utility of a conservative approach to our problems. The conventional Right has been steamrolled in the culture wars to the point where transgender access to the public restroom of their choice is now the country’s cause célèbre.

Some argue that despite its deficiencies, conservatism serves as an ideological gateway to more substantive views. Many persons, including major thinkers of the post-1960s racial Right started out as conservatives before becoming radicals.

Revilo Oliver began his activism writing book reviews for William Buckley’s National Review and was a founding member of the John Birch Society. By the mid-1960s he had broken with conservatism. He describes his evolution in America’s Decline: The Education of a Conservative (1981).

William Pierce also served a stint with the JBS during the 1960s. In his well-known essay “Why Conservatives Can’t Win,” Piece writes, “Some of my best friends are conservatives,” but he goes on to state that conservatives do not understand the forces that oppose them, and only a revolutionary counter force can defeat the Left.

In 1960 Wilmot Robertson was a conservative business man. By the time he wrote The Dispossessed Majority (1972) he had come to realize that conservatism was part of the problem, not the solution.

But what about activists who have remained conservatives throughout their careers such as William S. Lind the author of Retroculture, the book under consideration here. Is he a different sort of conservative who deserves our attention?

Lind, a Baby Boomer (b. 1947) and self-described paleoconservative, graduated from Dartmouth and earned a master’s degree from Princeton. He began his career as a staffer for Senator Robert Taft Jr. He is probably best known for developing the concept of Fourth-Generation Warfare back in the 1980s.  The basic idea of 4GW is that future wars are likely to involve non-state actors either against states in asymmetrical conflict, or against each other. 4GW is rooted in the crisis of state legitimacy.

In the 1990s Lind helped popularize the term “cultural Marxism.” Lind is also somewhat of a race realist who discusses the issue of Black crime. The Great Replacement is considered an aspect of 4GW.

In 2009 Lind and the late Paul Weyrich co-authored The Next Conservatism, a highly critical look at neo-conservatism. The authors made a number of cogent points such as the primacy of culture over politics. Election victories by so-called conservatives have not stopped the Left’s cultural revolution, nor have they halted demographic replacement. Neoconservative economics favors Wall Street over Main Street, and its foreign policy supports costly military interventions. Unlike most conservatives Lind and Weyrich supported environmental protection and the New Urbanism. Presently Lind writes for the American Conservative and the online journal traditional Right.

More evidence that Lind’s Retroculture might embody a different sort of conservatism is that the book was released by Arktos Media. Founded in 2009, this company quickly established itself as the leading publisher of rightwing thought. With more than 170 titles and publishing in sixteen languages, they have issued works by Guillaume Faye, Alexander Dugin, and Pentti Linkola as well as older works by authors such as Julius Evola.

The theme of Retroculture is established early in a brief Forward by John J. Patrick, professor of education emeritus at Indiana University, who asks: “Why can’t we restore old lifestyles in the same way people are restoring gracious old houses? The answer is we can” (xi). Really?

In the first chapter, “Signs of Change,” Lind lists some indications of an emerging conservative cultural revolution: Old neighborhoods are being restored, new “old towns” such as Seaside, Florida are being built, admen are using the past to market all matter of goods and services, ignoring the displacement of Whites from advertising. “Young people, especially young families, are going to church again” (7). This last statement flies in the face of the Pew study mentioned above. Unfortunately, the author makes a number of unsubstantiated claims using anecdotal evidence at best.

At the end of the chapter Lind asks, “Is it all just nostalgia? Or is something more happening here — something big?” (10). First, this book is saturated with nostalgia, though several times Lind denies indulging in those sentiments. Yet if nostalgia is strong enough and widespread enough, it would indeed be something big. Nostalgia is a form of alienation, and collective alienation can be the first step towards fundamental change.

In Chapter Two Lind defines retroculture, a concept he and Weyrich touched on in The Next Conservatism. “Retroculture rejects the idea that ‘you can’t go back’” (11). Almost every student of history would disagree. As with many paleocons, the author sees the 1960s as the great watershed, so going back means pre 1960.

No matter how radical, all rightwing thought contains some elements of conservatism. Lind mentions that America should not reject its inheritance, but rekindle a healthy national identity. People should respect wisdom received from past ages — the basics of civil nationalism. He decries the “selfism,” the self-centered and self-indulgent ideology associated with the left that gained currency during the 1960s. One problem he does not mention: This selfishness has morphed on the Right into libertarianism, thus occupying two poles of the political spectrum, a two-headed monster.

In Chapter Three, “Getting Started,” Lind seeks historical examples of retrocultural revolutions. He points to the Renaissance as one case. Well, the Renaissance did use earlier classical civilizations as a source of inspiration, but Renaissance Italy was a far different place than ancient Rome. In an American context the author wants to reestablish traditional values, “civility, public spiritedness, charity, craftsmanship and stewardship among others” (27). He advocates for walkable cities. Hard to argue with any of this, especially walking. Walking is great exercise and a form of active meditation. Of course, integrated schools and housing helped create suburban sprawl, an environment not conducive to perambulation.

At this point Lind suddenly asks rhetorically: “But wasn’t the past bad?” A good question because throughout the book the author tends to idealize the past. He answers that retroculture captures the good and eliminates the bad. “No one seeks to return to Jim Crow laws” (32). Permit me to mix metaphors: One cannot cherry pick cultural practices. Culture is a whole loaf.  The traditional American way of life was only possible with a significant degree of racial separation.

Chapter Four is about retro-homes. The book is full of good ideas (a few silly ones also) for lifestyle choices. Unfortunately, these individual decisions are not going to bring about the fundamental social change we need. Lind advises buying an older house in an established neighborhood. They “are less expensive” and “have sidewalks and big trees” (40). My own house is 115 years old, so I agree with the author. The problem is that many of these old neighborhoods have changed so demographically as to be uninhabitable, especially for White families.

To his credit Lind is as close to being a renaissance man as you are likely to find these days. He is one of the few persons who can discuss military history and tactics, residential architecture, sartorial issues, as well as classical music with authority.

In Chapter Five Lind decries the decline of domesticity in American culture since the 1950s. Interestingly he does not explicitly criticize feminism, but does write that kids need a mom at home. Strong families produce well socialized children, a worthy goal, but how do you achieve it? That would definitely require a cultural revolution.

When Lind considers education, we see an example of a blanket statement idealizing the good old days. “In the past, parents were careful about what their young children learned. They saw to it that stories taught sound morals, that good conduct was rewarded and bad swiftly though fairly punished, and that manners were inculcated right from the outset” (73). Well, some parents in the past did not do those things, and some today still do. That more parents in the past successfully socialized their kids and fewer do today has less to do with individual parental efforts and more to do with a lack of societal support. Again, we need a cultural revolution.

Optics has been an issue for the Dissident Right, and in Chapter Six Lind offers some sound sartorial advice. The decline in American standards of dress has been precipitous across the board. He recommends buying fewer articles of quality conservative clothes. This will save you time and money in the long run because your apparel will look better and last longer. The author points out that men’s fashions have not changed much in the last three generations. “Lapels shrink and grow, shoulders fatten and thin, and the fashion trade tries to make a big deal of it all. In fact, its piffle” (94). Some shopping advice: “By needing fewer things, you can also frequent better shops when you buy, thus avoiding the degradation of the discount house and the silliness of the boutique.” In a decent men’s shop “you get real value, good American and British stuff, not some wog creation that makes you look like a pimp” (94).  One last fashion tip, leave Hawaiian shirts to Hawaiians in Hawaii.

Chapter Seven deals with entertainment. We can all agree that much of contemporary popular entertainment is crass, ugly, and downright offensive, but Lind goes ultra-reactionary when discussing music. Many on the Dissident Right, myself included, love the romantic classical genre of the nineteenth- and early twentieth-century composers such, as Wagner and Sibelius. Lind, on the other hand, believes these are much inferior to the eighteenth-century greats such as Bach.

Other notes on entertainment: dinner parties are preferable to cocktail parties “where people surreptitiously try to make a meal of hors d’oeuvres while pretending to enjoy superficial conversation with persons they’ve never met” (109). Lind includes civic engagement as a form of retro entertainment. All too often people on the Dissident Right, especial young people, shun mainstream community involvement believing they will be stigmatized and rejected. This is usually not the case if they possess some people skills and live in a compatible community (i.e., one with few of Edward Dutton’s spiteful mutants). Lind recommends leisure reading to recapture lost worlds. Old National Geographic magazines are excellent in this regard.

Concerning the present lack of civility and good manners, “When did we go wrong? As usual, the answer is in the cultural revolution of the 1960s” (122). That decade was a turning point, and today our society is simply too diverse for a common etiquette. Lind’s solution: “don’t frighten the horses.”  Everyone should at least be discreet when engaging in behavior that may offend others. How likely is that to happen? A more practical suggestion by the author: boycott businesses whose practices or advertising is offensive. In the area of public behavior, Pandora’s Box has been opened and we would need a cultural revolution to set things right.

Lind has long been a supporter of train travel so it is no surprise that he advocates that mode of transport, after all. on the Chattanooga Choo Choo, “dinner in the diner, nothing could be finer.” If motoring, the author suggests taking the scenic routes rather than the interstates and having a picnic at a roadside park rather than eating at “fast food joints, those gustatory cesspools of the Interstate Era” (151).

In the chapter on retro business, Lind opines that there is an untapped market for retro furniture and clothing. “Publications are another major market where Retroculture could be good business” (160). Really? It seems as though print media are struggling. “What about the return of the great department stores of the 1920s and 1930s?” (162). Brick and mortar retail is another uphill battle these days. It appears the author’s acumen may not extend to business and economics.

The final chapter, “Retro-America,” sums up Lind’s view of our country: Where are we and where are we headed? He declares that we have lost our confidence. “Americans have become pessimistic. … people are not happy with the way things are or where they seem to be going.” (177). Well, he’s half right.  The traditional core demographic of America has lost its confidence. It has allowed its history to be rewritten, its heritage to be denigrated, and its monuments to be torn down with impunity by mobs of punks and thugs. Ethnic minorities, on the other hand, are empowered, culturally and politically ascendant.

Yet the author is sanguine about the future. He believes the counter-revolution has already begun, “it is already happening.”  This neo-reactionary movement will pick up steam during the 2020s and largely be accomplished by the late 2030s due to “a great national rediscovery of our past” (182). The end product will be “America as it was: quietly prosperous, well-tended, harmonious and at peace” (190).

Lind’s belief in a great restoration is an illusion. There is no returning to circa 1950. We are a vastly different country now, demographically and culturally. Moreover, what would be the impetus for such a restitution? Research suggests that a revival of fundamentalist faith is unlikely. And increasing numbers of diverse Americans do not share Lind’s reverence for our past. Indeed, the American past is routinely vilified in all the cultural high ground, from the mainstream media to the universities and throughout the educational system.

I began this review by asking what role paleo conservatism might play in our people’s instauration, offering that it may be a useful portal to more radical ideas. It’s certainly true that paleoconservatism can be an ideological halfway house. Unlike neo conservatives who embrace disembodied ideals of a universal propositional nation, paleocons appreciate the primacy of culture over politics in shaping a society. Culture informs politics rather than the other way around. But such an ideology can also be a dead end of wishful thinking and escapism. You can study the past, but you cannot live there. The old common culture America once possessed has been destroyed by the multi-cultural Left. There is no going back. History never moves in reverse.

What many paleo cons have trouble accepting is the racial foundation of culture. Ethnic change within a society will inevitably bring about profound cultural change.  You cannot preserve the constitution without preserving the ethnic group who conceived it, nor can you preserve the pre-1960s culture with the ascendant non-White majority. Paleoconservatives have a vision of what they want America to be. Lind lays out that vision at the last chapter, but he, and his ideological fellows, have no realistic route to arrive there. What is more critical — even if by some miracle we could reconstruct 1950s America, it would be insufficient for our project of promoting the welfare and progress of Western peoples and their civilization. We should aspire to do better than simply replicating the past. We can use our science and our aesthetic to create a better world.

Retroculture contains some pithy criticisms of contemporary culture along with a number of useful tips for individual and familial living while waxing nostalgic for times past. It might be a good suggested reading or gift for an older mainstream friend or relative.

Who’s the greatest hero in popular English literature? I’d say it’s James Bond. And who’s the greatest anti-hero? I’d say it’s Flashman, the protagonist of a hugely entertaining mock-historical series written by George MacDonald Fraser (1925–2008).

Slave-trading, slave-stealing and murder

The character Flashman originally appeared as a coward, cad and bully in the Victorian novel Tom Brown’s Schooldays (1857). George MacDonald Fraser (GMF) decided to give him an after-life and treat him as a real historical figure, a Victorian war-hero whose secret and self-exposing memoirs had lain hidden until they were unearthed in the 1960s. And so GMF claimed to be merely the editor of “The Flashman Papers,” in which Flashman described how his illustrious military career had been built on deceit, cunning and the Devil’s own luck. Among many other adventures, he charged with the Light Brigade, was the sole survivor of Custer’s Last Stand, and won the Victoria Cross for gallantry during the Indian Mutiny.

Front cover of Flash for Freedom! (1971)

But while the world thought he had reveled in all that danger and violence, the truth was very different. As Flashman himself says: “I’m lucky, because while I don’t have [courage], I look as though I do, and worthy souls … never suspect that I’m running around with my bowels squirting, ready to decamp, squeal, or betray as occasion demands.” That’s from Flashman and the Redskins (1982), in which GMF’s anti-hero, with “charges of slave-trading, slave-stealing … and even murder hanging over his head,” escapes American justice by adopting a false identity and setting off for the California gold rush with a re-locating brothel from New Orleans. “Millions came after,” Flashman says, “but we were the Forty-Niners.”

“To the moon in chains”

As you can see, GMF was good at putting his anti-hero into farcical and entertaining predicaments at key moments in nineteenth-century history. But why does Flashman have “charges” of “slave-trading” and “slave-stealing” hanging over his head in 1849? That’s explained in a previous novel in the series, Flash for Freedom! (1971), which may be one of the most politically incorrect books ever written. It describes how Flashman is tricked into joining the trans-Atlantic slave trade by his Machiavellian Scottish father-in-law John Morrison. When Flashman discovers the truth aboard a ship en route to Africa, he is furious and frightened. Slaving has become a serious crime by then and he fears a long jail-sentence or even execution.

Of course, his concerns are entirely for himself, as he makes clear to his readers: “Not that I’d any qualms about slaving, mark you, from the holy-holy point of view; they could have transported every nigger in Africa to the moon in chains for all I cared.” That’s Flashman’s attitude, of course, not GMF’s, but you can see why Flash for Freedom! is politically incorrect. GMF wrote a comic novel about one of the greatest horrors in history: the enslavement of millions of Black Africans by cruel and hypocritical White Europeans.

Driven into hiding

But the comedy is in Flashman’s attitudes and behaviour, not in the history that he is reporting. It is precisely because slavery and the slave-trade were so horrible that Flashman’s callousness is so funny. After shipping a cargo of “black ivory” across the Atlantic, he finds himself hiding from American justice on a cotton plantation in Mississippi. Being Flashman, he hides in style, working as a slave-driver and venting his frustrations on his helpless charges:

Although I had a couple of black drivers to help me, I became quite expert with my hide — you could make a sleepy nigger jump his own height with a well-placed welt across his backside, squealing his head off, and if any of them were short-weighted at the end of the day, you gave them half a dozen cuts for luck. Mandeville [the plantation-owner] was delighted with the tally of cotton picked, and told me I was the best overseer he’d ever had, which didn’t surprise me. It was work I could take a hearty interest in. (Flash for Freedom!, chapter 10)

Flashman is, in fact, the White heterosexual male as leftist ideology falsely portrays him to be: cruel, bigoted and exploitative, caring nothing for anyone but himself. But because Flashman isn’t moralistic, GMF can use him to describe the slave-trade objectively. On the one hand, yes, it was a horror: even Flashman says that “when you’ve looked into the hold of a new-laden slaver for the first time, you know what hell is like.” On the other hand, it wasn’t a simple tale of White evil and Black victimhood. Flashman explodes the false history like this:

It’s always amused me to listen to the psalm-smiting hypocrisy of nigger-lovers at home and in the States who talk about white savages raping the Coast and carrying poor black innocents into bondage — why, without the help of the blacks themselves we’d not have been able to lift a single slave out of Africa. But I saw the Coast with my own eyes, you see, which the Holy Henriettas didn’t, and I know that this old wives’ tale of a handful of white pirates mastering the country and kidnapping as they chose, is all my eye. We couldn’t have stayed there five minutes if the nigger kings and warrior tribes hadn’t been all for it, and traded their captured enemies — aye, and their own folk, too — for guns and booze and Brummagem rubbish. (Flash for Freedom!, chapter 3 — “Brummagem rubbish” refers to cheap goods manufactured in the English city of Birmingham)

Slavery existed in Africa long before Whites arrived and exists there now in independent Black and Arab states. Because of slavery, there are roughly 45 million well-fed but economically unproductive Blacks in the United States, who consume billions of dollars from White tax-payers and respond by murdering, raping, beating and robbing Whites in large numbers, year in, year out. But Arab-Muslim nations that also had large numbers of Black slaves don’t have large numbers of Black citizens today, because Muslims castrated Black males and treated their slaves far more harshly than Whites did.

A drop of water compared to an ocean

However, while the European slave-trade is endlessly condemned and publicized by Western journalists, politicians, academics, film-makers and authors, the Muslim slave-trade, which was bigger and longer-lasting, is almost ignored. Even the liberal author Jeremy Black, in his book Slavery: A New Global History (2011), is struck by this contrast in attitudes: “[The] period of Mamluk rule [in Muslim Egypt] was roughly equivalent in length to that of slavery in the USA, and it is an interesting sign of relative concerns that the attention devoted to slavery in the Mamluk empire and the USA is as a drop of water compared to an ocean.” (ch. 1, p. 33)

But one reason that the Muslim slave-trade is almost ignored is that it reveals uncomfortable facts about the way Muslims behave towards all kaffirs, or non-Muslims, and not simply Blacks. The leftist elite do not want ordinary Whites to consider that some of their own ancestors and relatives might well, in centuries past, have been seized as slaves by Muslims:

The effect on the European coastal populations [of Muslim slave-raids] was dramatic. Entire areas were depopulated. The author even sketches out an argument that the culture of baroque Italy was determined in part by a turning inward from the terrors of coastal life — from the “fear of the horizon” that afflicted all the regions subject to slave raiding. [Robert C. Davis] tells us (he is Professor of Italian Social History at Ohio State University, by the way) that to this day there is an idiom in Sicilian dialect to express the general idea of being caught by surprise: pigliato dai turchi — “taken by the Turks.” The distress of those left behind, deprived of a husband or father, is painful to read about. (Review of Robert C. Davis’s Christian Slaves, 2006, by John Derbyshire)

And Flash for Freedom! describes how some Blacks willingly and even eagerly profited from the slave-trade. With the fearsome John Charity Spring, classics-quoting captain of a slave-ship called Balliol College, Flashman visits the even more fearsome tyrant of a Black slave-trading kingdom: “King Gezo of Dahomey was bitter ugly, even by nigger standards. He must have weighed twenty stone, with a massive belly hanging over his kilt of animal tails, and huge shoulders inside his scarlet cape. He had a kind of wicker hat on his head, and under it was a face that would have shamed a gorilla — huge flat nose, pocked cheeks, little yellow eyes and big yellow teeth.”

Mass killing of slaves by Black rulers

Flashman then sees Gezo order a horrific arbitrary execution in front of a reeking house built of human skulls. The Black king of Dahomey owned slaves, traded in slaves and casually murdered slaves. Elsewhere in Africa, “the [Black] Asante kingdom was … a slave-raiding, slave-owning and slave-trading regime, [where] mass killing of slaves was regularly practised both in funeral rituals — generally by burial alive — and to inspire terror.” Black rulers in Flashman’s day were not enlightened liberals terrorized into slave-trading by cruel and wicked Whites. They were quite capable of cruelty and wickedness on their own account, as were many others in pre-literate societies without the rule of law as Europeans had come to understand it. Even today witchcraft and human sacrifice are practised in Black Africa, as I described in “Whites As Witches.” For example, the leftist Independent newspaper reports that “People with albinism are often subjected to violent attacks in [Tanzania], where they are known as the ‘zeru zeru’ or ghosts [and are] a target for traditional healers, who harvest body parts to make potions for wealth, success and even election victories.”

Slavery is another ancient Black-African tradition that still flourishes in twenty-first-century Africa and the Black-African Diaspora, as this report from Britain reveals:

A respected gynaecologist and his wife enslaved a “houseboy” at their home for 24 years, forcing him to carry out menial tasks for 17 hours a day and monitoring his movements using a security camera. Dr Emmanuel Edet, 61, and his wife, Antan, 58, a senior NHS nurse at Ealing hospital, were convicted by a jury of bringing the teenage boy illegally into Britain at the age of 14 and putting him to work as an unpaid cleaner, cook, odd-job-man and carer for their two children. … Detectives investigating the case found 20 albums filled with 800 photographs of the family, but Ofonime featured in only four. One of them showed him pedalling a boat at Flamingo Land in North Yorkshire for other members of the family in his only known outing with them. … Dr Edet — who has written works on child welfare and has worked for Surrey County Council — and his wife were convicted of slavery, child cruelty and immigration offences. (Gynaecologist and nurse guilty of enslaving houseboy for 24 years, The Independent, 17th November 2015)

This “respected gynaecologist” and his wife were Nigerian and back home would never have got into trouble for practising authentic Nigerian culture. Nor would the Nigerian couple Chudy and Sandra Nsobundu, who were jailed in 2018 for enslaving a woman in Houston, Texas. And what about Eudocia Pulido, the slave kept for many years in America by the parents of the Filipino-American writer Alex Tizon? Tizon’s parents were practising authentic Filipino culture and never got in trouble for it. Indeed, the wider world would never have known about their crimes if their son hadn’t written a long essay about “My Family’s Slave” for The Atlantic in 2017, after the deaths of his parents and their slave.

Condemning Whites, excusing non-Whites

But were his parents truly committing a crime? Are they fully or even partly worthy of blame and condemnation? Those are two of the implicit questions raised by Alex Tizon’s fascinating and disturbing essay. They’re also two of the questions raised by Flash for Freedom!. When slavery is a long-established part of a culture, how much can one blame those who practise it and benefit from it? Many or even most leftists would excuse the Filipino Tizons because they were non-White, while maintaining the utmost horror and disgust for all Whites who enslaved Blacks. But some Blacks enslaved by Whites lived better and were less ill-treated than the Tizons’ female slave did and was in the twentieth century. Indeed, some Black slaves lived better lives than some so-called free Whites, then and now. Slavery and its supposed “legacy” are a much more complicated and morally ambiguous topic than leftists want to pretend.

Moreover, by leftist ideology, no special blame could attach to Whites even if Whites had been the only group on Earth ever to practise slavery and had never been the driving force behind its abolition. Leftists proclaim that “There is Only One Race — the Human Race.” According to leftists, we are all the same under the skin, therefore Whites cannot be innately evil and non-Whites cannot be innately virtuous. By fundamental leftist principles, it is merely an accident of history that Whites enslaved Blacks and not the reverse, as I pointed out in “Black Brains Shatter.”

BLM have caused thousands of extra murders

But leftism is not a consistent or rational ideology. Instead, it serves two main purposes: to win power for leftists and to meet their psychological needs. One of their needs is to feel the thrill of self-righteousness and moral superiority. As Fred Reed points out, the leftist elite in America explained the election of Donald Trump by seeing Trump-voters as subhuman: “They’re stupid. They’re ignorant. They’re racist. They’re sexist. They’re fascist. They’re… evil.” This Manichean thinking can have very bad consequences for groups whom leftists claim to be deeply concerned about. Steve Sailer has long chronicled the harm wrought by Black Lives Matter (BLM), whose self-righteous and statistically illiterate campaign against the police has caused thousands of unnecessary deaths among precisely the young Black men whom BLM are supposedly trying to protect.

Self-righteousness and anger are not good ways to understand the world or to correct its faults. And if human beings are all the same under the skin, as leftists insist, Blacks are getting angry about an accident of history. As victims of slavery, they were never morally better than Whites: they were simply less fortunate and less able to express their own capacity for exploitation and cruelty. The appropriate response to slavery is not self-righteous anger and vengefulness, but sorrow at the human condition.

Reason and logic are late arrivals

That’s what one must logically argue from the fundamental leftist principles of absolute human equality and the contingency of history. But reason and logic aren’t part of leftism. They would work against the ideology and drain it of its emotional energy. Human beings developed reason and logic late in their evolutionary history, but anger and indignation are pre-human and far more deeply rooted in the brain. We can see other mammals like apes and horses react angrily to what they see as unfair treatment or the thwarting of their will. Indeed, all animals above a certain level of intelligence, from crows to octopuses, may have analogues of these human emotions. After all, such emotions supply the impulse and energy to fight for one’s own interests — in Nietzschean terms, they are part of the will to power.

And the will to power is plainly at the heart of leftism. That is why leftists are so dedicated to cultivating anger, indignation and self-righteousness, both among themselves and among the groups they are exploiting. Leftists respond to their opponents’ ideas with “outrage” and censorship, not with reasoned argument and evidence. They don’t want debate: they want obedience. And you could say that they have two sets of principles, an explicit set and an implicit set that contradict each other. Leftism loudly proclaims the doctrine of absolute human equality, but implicitly acts on the assumption that Whites are innately evil and non-Whites innately virtuous.

Leftist arrogance will provoke White resistance

When the Jewish-controlled Biden presidency begins, that lie of innate White evil and innate non-White virtue will become less and less implicit. It will cease to be assumed and start to be insisted upon. But I see hope in that. In the past, leftists have hidden their hatred of Whites and Western civilization behind a pretended belief in equality and racial harmony.

Today, they’ve become arrogant enough to drop the pretence long before their victory is assured. Far from thinking that slavery is unacceptable and must never return, leftists want to impose slavery on ordinary Whites and oppress them in perpetuity. As that becomes more and more obvious, more and more Whites will begin to resist the premature imposition of leftist tyranny.