My latest TOO essay, “A Thousand Points of White”, and the piece by Giles Corey that inspired it (“American Roulette”), have drawn over 200 comments combined—a sign that such matters are of some importance.  This is unsurprising, given the chaos of recent months.  It also provides a good opportunity to respond to some of these many comments, and to make a few observations more generally on the need and value of useful and constructive feedback from readers.

The two essays share several points in common.  Both pieces emphasize the urgency of the White plight and the need for concrete action on behalf of White interests.  Both mention the importance of the Jewish enemy, of the need for armed self-defense, and of the desirability to move out into the public—versus, say, spending all day writing blog posts—in order to effect change.  Both essays argue that, at a national level, the United States is a lost cause, and therefore that action must be taken at a local level.  To this end, something like “White autonomous zones” will be necessary.  The result will be a kind of micro-secession movement.

There are, of course, some differences:  Corey argues that virtually all future scenarios will involve massive violence and bloodshed, whereas I hold out the possibility of relatively civil political change.  Corey calls for a concentration of White nationalists in rural states, whereas I propose local White autonomous declarations in all states and in all social settings: city, suburb, and rural.  We both recognize the need for an economic response, but Corey suggests withholding federal tax payments, whereas I call for local, White-only currencies.  And then there are some minor quibbles:  Corey mentions the concept of “White genocide” but I have argued against such terminology (here); and he declares himself a Christian, whereas I have argued that Christianity is intrinsically anti-White and thus self-defeating for any White nationalist movement.[1]  But we won’t linger on these points.  More urgent matters are at hand.  In the case of a pro-White movement, our points of commonality are more important than our differences.

Reader commentaries, as usual, brought in a variety of perspectives.  And as usual, the more concrete and specific that a given essay is, the more critical the commentary.  Given that my piece was, by design, more specific in its suggestions than Corey’s, it seems that my piece drew the most criticism.  And this is fine with me—preferred, in fact.  Like all serious writers, I encourage and welcome critical feedback; this is how we all sharpen and refine our arguments.  Here, I’d like to respond to as many of the substantive points as I can, and then offer some broader thoughts on the role and nature of reader commentaries at large.

The Good, the Bad, …

A number of remarks were substantive, coherent, and useful; let me begin with these.  (I won’t cite commenters by name—any interested reader can track them down.)

The heart of my proposal was to conduct a highly decentralized effort by encouraging numerous local groups to create independent White-interest groups—perhaps as “White Lives Matter,” perhaps as something more innocuous.  These groups would be (relatively!) low-key and uncontroversial, operating simply as a starting point to get local Whites talking to sympathetic others in their immediate vicinity.  Of course, a public group, openly meeting to talk about White issues, is itself sure to draw negative attention.  But this publicity should be seen as a positive development; it will force the issues of White interest and White well-being into the public eye, and in a way in which Whites will partially control the narrative (unlike today).

Once established, they would work, first, to make their local areas as White as possible by simply choosing local boundaries (neighborhood, city, county) and then discouraging non-white presence: “you are no longer welcome here” is the message to send out.  And by this I mean: not living here, not working here, not attending school here, not making deliveries here, not “passing through”—nothing.  This step alone could well be a long-term effort, taking months or years.  But it would have a huge effect.

Once this was largely attained, the working group could then go on to a second phase, of exerting actual political control, at first by volunteer efforts and later by formal political and legal action.  At that point, we might functionally have a real “White autonomous zone”.  But again, this must be seen as a long-term goal that could take years.

All this would happen against a background of a decaying federal system that will become increasingly unable to exert its will in local events.  At some point, they will huff and puff…and do nothing—rather as is now happening with the Seattle “autonomous zone.”  Future developments will only work to our advantage.

Most commenters seem to endorse the essence of such a plan, and offer useful elaboration.  One says “do not be overtly organized…do not have one leader,” which is in the nature of any form of decentralized resistance.  Others call for “sticker campaigns” or pamphlets, which could be good advertising programs for White interest groups.  One reader suggests we might need background checks on new group members (likely so, if they are unknown to the group), and advises that White groups control their own means of existence and communication, such as by owning their own meeting place and their own web servers.  Others recommend low-tech communications, such as with good old paper and pen (right!), and that we learn to survive economically by withdrawing, as much as possible, from the corrupt, Jewish-driven economic system—which was the sentiment behind my suggestion of ‘Aryan Bucks’ as a local currency.  A key objective, as one reader says, is to get other Whites to start thinking in racial terms—not to be ‘racist’ per se, which is obviously a pejorative, but rather to conceptualize issues in racial terms, even if subconsciously.

Some readers are concerned about appearing too obviously pro-White, and suggest various strategies for disguising this fact.  “Blue Lives Matter” (pro-cop), “covert NGOs,” or otherwise Euro-centric groups may well be pragmatic options, depending on local conditions.  But bear in mind, a main objective is to make White presence felt in society, as an active force; hiding or disguising the Whiteness of the movement undermines this vital point.  Other commenters call for specific pro-White actions, such as homeschooling children, or offering financial aid for young White mothers.  Another reader suggests pressing on weak points in the American Judeocracy, such as the Holocaust story—a matter near and dear to my heart![2]  Yes, by all means, we must do everything to expose the weakness and corruption of the occupying power.  As the same reader says, we need a multi-pronged approach to deal with this particular Hydra.

A few readers, however, want us to go further, and take more assertive action.  My suggested approach is generally fairly mild, nonviolent, and legal.  To me, this has the best chance of drawing support from the maximum number of Whites.  However, and though I can’t quite endorse them, there are obviously harsher options available.  Giles Corey cites the need for active, armed militias, and some readers clearly like this alternative.  One commenter calls for “armed revolution” and the need to “blow these [expletive] commies back to the Stone Age.”  It could come to this, but no need to jump the gun.  Other readers are a bit milder; one suggests “a constant stream of small but unpleasant events” which could encourage non-Whites to move on, and another specifically demands that “Jews…and those who serve the Jews” in media, academia, government, etc. ought to “feel the pain”—hard to argue with these sentiments.

Such harsher actions are in line with my ‘accelerationist’ argument, i.e. that we ought to hasten the inevitable collapse of the irredeemable American system.  Some readers object to my partly (but only partly) tongue-in-cheek suggestions that we promote immigration, affirmative action, riots, and so on.  But seriously:  The system cannot be salvaged; it is under the control of pathological, homicidal, kleptomaniacal fiends, and therefore it, indeed, needs to be brought down.  Increasing multi-racialism will speed its collapse, as will economic chaos, environmental disaster, or extreme political paralysis.  What, exactly, one ought to do to assist collapse is a complex and intricate topic that I cannot examine here.  Simple actions, like voting for polarizing candidates or avoiding tax payments, have a role, but some will want to take a more proactive approach.  One might study, for example, the history of revolutionary actions by, of all people, Jews and radical leftists, who, at various times in history, sought to bring down a hated government.  Radical environmentalists are another source of information.  For example, environmental writer Derrick Jensen wrote a mainstream book entitled Endgame (2006) that is surprisingly explicit; volume two of that work has a few sections on (wink, wink) ‘pacifism’ that describe how a mere handful of motivated and well-prepared individuals can wreak havoc on a nation’s infrastructure, thereby hastening collapse.  Again, though I cannot endorse such actions, curious readers may want to track down that book.

…and the Ugly

On the other hand, I have my share of critics.  Anything like a “White Lives Matter” will “never be permitted to form in 2020 America,” says one; such groups “will be snuffed out immediately.”  My whole approach, according to others, is “a very bad idea,” “childishly naïve,” “not workable,” and is based in a “loss of perspective.”  The proposal is hopeless because Whites have given “no sign that they want to organize.”  My passing suggestions for acceleration of collapse are either “an extraordinarily lame attempt” at humor or “suicidal insanity”; consequently, I am either “not thinking very clearly” or else “a buffoon.”  (I vote for buffoon.)  Indeed, my (very mild) suggestion that individuals book a room somewhere in their neighborhood, advertise it as a meeting-place for a pro-White group, and see who comes, “may be the single worst piece of advice ever published” on TOO!  Well!

The overriding concern of such critics seems to be that “the system”—that is, the feds, the cops, Blacks, antifa, disaffected youth, etc—will rain down on any such WLM group with such speed, viciousness, and brutality that it will make your head spin.  “Hoards of brainwashed young White zombies” will eat your brains; you, your spouse, and everyone in your family will be summarily fired from their jobs; and your lives will otherwise be “destroyed.”  Any pro-White movement will be “easily crushed” by authorities.  “They’ll play Whack-a-Mole with you,” says one reader.  Ouch!

But seriously—what is the motive for such remarks?  First of all, the critics have no basis for claiming that my approach won’t work.  In fact, local, decentralized civil resistance groups have a long history of effectiveness and success.  Has my approach been tried, and failed?  Ten, 20, 30 times?  In various parts of the country?  Until then, we ought not be so certain of failure.  At best, the critics can say that they would not join such a group; fair enough.  But don’t draw general conclusions from your personal reluctance to participate.

Yes, there will be resistance—from local law enforcement and local protesters, but not from “antifa” (whoever the hell “they” are).  Certainly, a single large event, like Charlottesville, can be targeted by a large number of radical leftists.  But that’s precisely why we need numerous, simultaneous, independent, local groups.  Massive decentralization virtually guarantees that neither the feds, nor antifa, nor any large national group will effectively target you.  My critics are overly-cowed by pictures on TV.  Jews and their allies are experts at puffing up their perceived power.  But outside New York and Washington DC, their power on the ground declines dramatically.  The multi-city riots of recent days were conducted mostly by opportunistic Black criminals and random anarchists; it was not a centrally-planned effort, and such people pose virtually no threat to local White groups.

Furthermore, I hate to disparage commenters, but I can’t stop wondering how many leftist/Jewish trolls we attract here at TOO.  Probably a fair number.  We need to keep in mind:  If someone’s “comments” or “suggestions” are virtually identical to what a Jewish or leftist opponent might say, then we need to take them with a huge grain of salt.  Our opponents would like nothing better than that we do nothing—hence, for them, every suggestion for concrete White action is necessarily stupid, unworkable, or doomed to failure.  Right.  Don’t believe it.  Critical comments are welcome, but they should be coherent and constructive.  Mindless opposition serves no purpose, other than to cast suspicion on the commenter.

More pragmatically, what actual risks would White activists face?  Is being fired a real threat?  Perhaps, depending on the person and the circumstances.  But first, I think such threats are generally overblown; a few high-visibility cases get lots of media time, thanks to our Jewish friends, but realistically, this is a small risk for most people.  Secondly, there are large groups of people for whom ‘firing’ is not a threat at all:  retirees, students, stay-at-home moms and dads, the self-employed, the family-employed, those with strong support systems (like unions), and so on.  Not to mention—the already unemployed!  Lots of those around lately.  No doubt there are plenty of folks in a position to attend such a group.

And there were other minor criticisms sent my way.  Activist Whites comprise only “a small, perhaps aging, powerless minority”—and therefore, what, we should just give up?  And is there any data for such a claim?  Regarding my reference to the conventional figure of 6 million American Jews, another critic claims “at least five times that number,” hence 30 million.  Again, data?  And again, does it matter?  Should we therefore surrender?  Then a reader turns the tables on me, asking for data for my claim that any nation of 330 million is ungovernable.  This is actually incidental to my argument, but in short, to respond to the critic, there is a lengthy history—dating back to Plato and Aristotle—of a “size theory of politics.”  This suggests that only small populations can achieve rational and stable governmental forms along with high qualities of living.  Contemporary data suggests that 10 to 20 million is perhaps the most that can be rationally and justly governed.  But this is a topic for another time.

The Judeocratic Election of 2020

If we wonder where our national politicians are, amidst the many signs of governmental breakdown and cultural decay, we need not look very far.  By all indications, things will get much worse after the 2020 election, even if, God help us, Trump wins again.  The implicit or explicit anti-White stance taken by virtually all politicians, left or right, and by virtually all news media (Fox included), is a consequence of the same thing:  Jewish money and Jewish power.  Even more so than in the past—if that’s possible—Jews have thrust themselves into dominant positions in both major parties.  And it can only spell disaster for American Whites.

Regarding political money, we only have to take a look at the major donors to date, for the upcoming election.  The website www.opensecrets.org is one helpful source.  They list the “top individual donors” to date (here) for both “dems/liberals” and “reps/conservatives.”  Click on the table headings for a sorted list.  If we select for the top Republican donors, we get a heavily Jewish list; among the top 12 donors, half (6) are Jews, and another—the top highest donor, Richard Uihlein—has a likely Jewish wife.[3]  Jewish donations amount to at least $49 million of the $132 million (37%) given by the top 12.  If we include Uihlein’s surely philo-Semitic views, the figure comes to $81 million, or 61% of the money, coming from pro-Jewish donors.  Either way, the figures are substantially higher than the typical 25% that conservatives get from Jewish sources.

For their part, the Democrats are an utter basket case.  Sorting the list for their top donors, we find, amazingly, that 11 of the top 12 are Jews:  T. Steyer, D. Sussman, M. Bloomberg, K. Tinklenberg Jurvetson (probable), D. Simon, J. H. Simons, G. Marcus, H. Laufer, G. Soros, J. Bekenstein, and S. Klarman.  Just these 11 Jews have given, to date, some $153 million to Democrats and liberals, vastly outdistancing non-Jewish sources.  At this rate, something like 90% of liberal donations will come from Jews—a record-breaking figure, by far.  No matter who wins in November, Whites lose.

No halfway-intelligent White can take such numbers lying down.  Post-election policies will get dramatically worse for all Whites, particularly if Biden wins, and catastrophically, if Dems take the Senate.  We can expect massive immigration and amnesty, Black and minority handouts, continued debasement of White and European culture and values, and substantial increases in Jewish power nationally.  If you’re not ready to revolt now, just wait six months.

In the face of all this, is it asking too much to form some scattered White interest groups?  And then to declare that enough is enough, and that Jews and other non-Whites are no longer welcome here?  It’s time to be heard.  Make a stand.  Organize, speak out, defend your rights.

Corey ended his piece with an inspiring quotation from Oswald Spengler’s Man and Technics (1931).  In closing, let me build on this.

In his final chapter, Spengler decried the corrupt, machine-driven civilization that was crushing humanity.  We in the West have attained high culture, but ultimately “every high culture is a tragedy.”  Indeed, “the history of mankind as a whole is tragic.”  In this present world, “all things organic are dying in the grip of organization.  An artificial world is permeating and poisoning the natural.”  For Spengler, this artificial poison was “the machine,” but for us, it is our Jewish taskmasters.  Corruption was endemic at the top:  “The tension between work of leadership and work of execution has reached the level of a catastrophe.”  Now, “it is mere human nature to revolt against the role for which the machine”—today, the Jews—“earmarks most of [humanity].”  Thanks to our careless pandering to other nations and ethnicities, “the unassailable privileges of the White races have been thrown away, squandered, betrayed.”  “The innumerable hands of the colored races,” Spengler says, “will shatter the economic organization of the Whites at its foundations.”  “This is no mere crisis,” he adds, “but the beginning of a catastrophe.”

In his conclusion, Spengler is resigned:  “Faced as we are with this destiny, there is only one world-outlook that is worthy of us”—namely, “a short life, full of deeds and glory, rather than a long life without content.”  Naïve and optimistic Whites, believing that all will be well, display a shameful lack of integrity and courage; in the present situation, says Spengler, “optimism is cowardice.”  The book ends with the passage on greatness and honor that Corey cited.

Now is the time for action.  Take a stand.  The sooner we act, the better for us all, and the better for the world at large.

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

[1] Recently I have written (here):  “Consider this question:  What in God’s name (so to speak) is even remotely pro-White about the Bible?  I’ll tell you:  nothing.  The Old Testament was written by Jews, about Jews, and for Jews.  It is resolutely anti-goyim.  It is nothing more than a war manual for the defense of the Jewish race, along with some moronic theological cover.  The New Testament was also written by and about Jews:  Jesus, Mary, Joseph, 12 Apostles, Paul, ‘Mark,’ ‘Luke,’ ‘Matthew,’ ‘John’—all ethnic Jews.  The chronology of events, furthermore, strongly suggests that Paul invented his demi-god Jesus, primarily, it seems, as a stunt to undermine Roman paganism and to draw in the gullible masses, to persuade them to worship the Jewish God and his “son.”  With its emphasis on the presumed afterlife, Paul’s constructed theology was profoundly anti-life, anti-world, and anti-corporeality.  He never believed in it—that artful liar—nor did any of his fellow Hebrews.  Present-day Jews are laughing up their sleeve over the foolish Christians and their ‘love thy neighbor’ and ‘turn the other cheek’; and of course, they are right there, first in line, ready to exploit that love.

There is no sense, then, in which the Bible is pro-White.  In fact, the New Testament, rightly understood as an anti-Roman manifesto, is profoundly anti-White.  At best, we might say that the Bible is pro-humanity.  But even here, it is cloaked with an insidious Jewish leveling of all peoples, all ‘equal before God’—all except the Jews, who are first among equals.

The bottom line:  Can anyone who worships a long-dead ethnic Jew as his god and personal savior really be alt-right?  Really?”

[2] For those interested, see my books The Holocaust: An Introduction and Debating the Holocaust (4^th ed.).

[3] The six Jews are S. Schwarzman, J. Yass, G. Palmer, B. Marcus, P. Singer, and I. Moskowitz.  Uihlein’s wife is the former Elizabeth Hallberg.  Hallberg (or Halberg) is a traditional Jewish-Ashkenazi surname.  Furthermore, they have a daughter, Frederika (‘Freddy’), whose married name is Goldenberg.  Not proof, but highly suspicious.

“Using these whips they beat and whipped their bare skin until their bodies were bruised and swollen and blood rained down, spattering the walls nearby. I have seen, when they whipped themselves, how sometimes those bits of metal penetrated the flesh so deeply that it took more than two attempts to pull them out.”
Heinrich of Herford, (c.1300–1370)

Enoch Powell, delivering perhaps the most notorious speech of 20th century British politics, warned that “In this country in 15 or 20 years’ time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man.” In much the same way as his demographic projections, the remarkable Enoch was more than a little off on timing, even if there is an obvious truth underlying every aspect of his broader prophetic warning. Britain is, like much of the West, now at a demographic tipping point, and the balance of power between the races is on a knife-edge. But does the Black man, at the present moment, really have the whip hand over the White man? Is it even the case in the United States, where the demographic balance is tipped even more heavily against Whites? I think not. Contemporary Black power in the West, in and of itself, is not self-sustaining but is rather dependent on a vast cultural and legal apparatus that Blacks had little or no role in designing. This apparatus is instead the contrivance of three actors: the Jews; politically, financially, and professionally incentivized Whites; and, finally, pathological and self-flagellating Whites. This last group is undoubtedly the most puzzling and catastrophic element of the current crisis. Much more horrifying than Powell’s utterance is the fact that the White man still holds the whip, but chooses to beat himself with it.

When I first saw images of Whites kneeling for Blacks, washing the feet of Blacks, and otherwise lending themselves to the hysteria of Black sainthood, I was confronted with a sequence of mental images from the distant past. History tells us that plagues are fertile ground for irrational self-sacrifice, and coronavirus, with a little help from the late George Floyd, has not disappointed. Joannes Stobaeus, in his Florilegium, noted that when a plague befell the Spartans “they received an oracle that they would be saved if some Spartans would be selected to be killed by the king.” Clement, in his First Letter to the Corinthians, pointed out that, faced with plagues, “many kings and people in charge, have given themselves to death after listening to an oracle, so that they might save their citizens with their own blood.” Diogenes Laertius, in his Vitae philosophorum, reports that an ancient plague in Athens provoked the killing of “two youths, Kratinos and Ktêsibios, and the suffering was relieved.” Hesiod, in his Works and Days, called for the moral cleansing of the land, and explained famine and plagues in his statement that “The whole state often suffers because of a wicked man, Who transgresses the gods and devises reckless deeds.” Thus, in times of plague, the urge to purge oneself of sins.

Woke white liberals get yelled at by Black Lives Matter for being too woke and engaging in self-flagellation. pic.twitter.com/xx5ZdfGat1

— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) June 22, 2020

Most interesting among the self-sacrificial acts of the past are, in my opinion, that of the flagellants of the Black Death, derisively and scathingly labelled “the gashers” by the Jewish historian Ben-Zion Dinur. The masochistic flagellants, officially known as “Brethren of the Cross,” or “Brotherhood of the Flagellants,” were radical lay Catholics of both sexes (segregated in processions) who first made a major impact in thirteenth-century Germany during the Black Death. Travelling from town to town, they would hold prayers meetings and processions that would culminate in a massive spectacle where they would whip their flesh until the blood flowed, seeking, through this form of self-sacrifice, to avert a broader national calamity.

Although initially supported by the Church, it soon became clear the flagellants were anti-establishment dissidents in every respect. They rejected the authority of priests and clerics, who were regarded by the flagellants as sunk in sin and therefore intrinsic to the problem. The flagellants rejected the Eucharist, asserting that their blood sacrifice was a more authentic communion with Christ. Finally, they revealed their role as populist social revolutionaries by turning against all established elites, including the very wealthy, the nobility, the city leaders and, most interesting of all, the Jews. In fact, everywhere the flagellants went a violent reaction against the Jews followed. In Frankfurt, in July 1349, the flagellants stormed the Jewish neighborhood themselves, and set it on fire. Occasionally, such as in Mainz, when the Jews heard the flagellants were nearing a town or city, the Jews would launch a pre-emptive assault on Christians, with one chronicler reporting the Jews of Mainz slaughtered 200 Christians before the flagellants finally entered and eliminated the Jewish population. Unsurprisingly, the flagellants were quickly denounced as heretics by the existing elite power structure, and were ruthlessly suppressed to extinction throughout Europe.

Woke white liberals get yelled at by Black Lives Matter for being too woke and engaging in self-flagellation. pic.twitter.com/xx5ZdfGat1

— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) June 22, 2020

In stark contrast to the role of the Brethren of the Cross, our latter-day White flagellants are truly birds of a feather with the elite status quo. Those lauding Blacks and subjecting themselves to humiliating acts of politically correct piety have accepted a form of White self-mortification that is entirely beneficial to our elites, and is without any truly redemptive or socially revolutionary features. The flagellants of the past may have acted in an irrational response to disease, but they transmuted this response into concrete social activism that benefited the broader ethnic group — by attempting to topple or undermine harmful and exploitative relationships at the top of society. Latter-day flagellants feign personal mortification, when in reality they cover themselves in temporary social kudos and self-congratulation. Individually, they harm not a hair on their own heads and spill not a drop of blood, but rather seek to ingratiate themselves into a system of social rewards and even financial benefits. And all the while, the personal fakery of these latter-day flagellants rips bloody shreds from the back of the group as a whole, demoralizing the kin group and energizing its enemies. The latter-day flagellants adopt the pose of self-sacrifice and abasement, throwing their racial kin under the proverbial bus in order to exalt themselves, and themselves alone. They avoid any suggestion of personal sin by professing their “anti-racism,” while flinging judgment and condemnation at those who refuse to bend the knee. The reality is that the latter-day flagellants need these refusers in order to look like “exceptions” in the first place.

The question of what to do about behavior like this has deeply troubled me for more than a decade. Thanks to the work of Kevin MacDonald, we certainly know more about its mechanics and origins than at any time previously. It’s now clear that this isn’t a new problem, even if it appears to be getting worse every year. In my own study of “White Pathology and the 1861 Morant Bay rebellion” for the 2013 special edition of The Occidental Quarterly, I was surprised and horrified at sheer callousness that some Whites could show towards their co-ethnics. The Morant Bay rebellion was a horrifically violent episode, with gruesome, extremely painful murders motivated by hatred of Whites. The town of Bowden was plundered, and the island curate “had his tongue cut out while he was still alive, an attempt is said to have been made to skin him.” Another individual “was ripped open and had his entrails taken out.” Others were “roasted alive” and “had their eyeballs scooped out.” According to The Times of London, the mob then indulged in alcoholic excess, harboring the “drunken dream of negro mastery and white slavery. It was Africa, hitherto dormant, that had broken out in their natures. … They desired the extermination of their emancipators.” In my study of the episode and the reactions it provoked in England, I commented:

To the clear-thinking individual, it was a plainly criminal, and unimaginably brutal series of actions, carried out for malicious reasons against a population targeted for being White. And yet, there was a liberal faction in England convinced not only that it was the Black population that were the true victims, but also that their fellow Whites were reprehensible monsters who deserved the fate which befell them. This pathological response, laden with a misplaced hyper-emotionality, would shake the Empire to its core, sapping its confidence, and bequeathing a legacy which is still felt to this day.

The main warriors on behalf of the Blacks were Christian philanthropists who believed that these races could be raised to standards of education and conduct which would place them alongside Europeans. Members of this group tended to be Non-Conformist, middle-class, and liberal or radical in their politics. Crucially, most had never travelled outside Britain, and had little or no experience with the races they so emphatically and persistently eulogized. The movement was centered around Exeter Hall, a residence in London. The term “Exeter Hall” thus became synonymous with what the brilliant Charles Dickens described as “platform sympathy for the Black and . . . platform indifference to our own countrymen.” Dickens wrote:

The Jamaica insurrection is another hopeful piece of business. That platform sympathy with the Black—or the Native, or the Devil—afar off, and that platform indifference to our own countrymen at enormous odds in the midst of bloodshed and savagery makes me stark wild.

It makes me stark wild too. Isn’t it absolutely terrifying that Dickens’s words on the indifference of these universalist elites to the plight of the working classes of their own people are entirely in keeping with what we see today? These people have the appearance of empathy, but not for anyone that looks like himself. Exeter Hall was largely responsible for the production and dissemination of a range of anti-slavery and pro-Black propaganda which, with its heady emotional characteristics, thrived on those under the influence of the Romantic movement. It was of course highly idealistic:

There was also significant involvement in the movement from the Protestant churches. It was the religious arm of Exeter Hall which was responsible for sending mission upon mission to the colonies with the aim of not only saving souls but of “regenerating whole races,” and it was this religious arm, in conjunction with the mainstream propaganda effort, which popularized the idea of the “noble savage” among the congregations of Britain’s churches.

The idea that Whites, particularly Anglo-Saxons, had a divinely ordained mission to raise up the backward peoples of the earth was driven by Exeter Hall’s most basic article of faith—that all peoples could be raised to the same high level of civilization as themselves. Liberals always have a very strong self-concept as morally superior. Moral posturing is, of course, now front and center in the contemporary West. I concluded my piece on Morant Bay by calling attention to an author who watched Steven Spielberg’s Amistad, recalling Whites “squirming in their seats,” and that afterwards a White couple emerged from the theatre “clinging to each other in a desperate attempt to manage the tragedy that had unfolded before them in graphic and picturesque fashion.” The connection is clear:

What we are thus seeing, in this and myriad other instances, is the emotional abuse and torture of a generation of Whites too ill-informed to generate appropriate intellectual or emotional responses to the fictions they are presented with. The dreamscape of Exeter Hall, in which traitors and murderers become national heroes, is entrenched. It has been absorbed, integrated, and assimilated into the White consciousness, and we, the ideological and psychological descendants of Dickens, are relegated to a much-maligned periphery for daring to suggest that the emperor has no clothes.

Placing the blame for pathological levels of self-abasement solely at the feet of Christianity, however, as some in our circles have done, strikes me as all too easy. Jordan Peterson, simultaneously capable of intellectual sublimities and travesties, is absolutely correct in his observation in 12 Rules for Life:

It is true that the idea of virtuous self-sacrifice is deeply embedded in Western culture (at least insofar as the West has been influenced by Christianity, which is based on the imitation of someone who performed the ultimate act of self-sacrifice). Any claim that the Golden Rule does not mean “sacrifice yourself for others” might therefore appear dubious. But Christ’s archetypal death exists as an example of how to accept finitude, betrayal and tyranny heroically — how to walk with God despite the tragedy of self-conscious knowledge — and not as a directive to victimise ourselves in the service of others. To sacrifice ourselves to God (to the highest good, if you like) does not mean to suffer silently and willingly when some person or organisation demands more from us, consistently, than is offered in return. That means we are supporting tyranny, and allowing ourselves to be treated like slaves. It is not virtuous to be victimised by a bully.

There’s no question, however, that many Christian churches have completely folded into patterns of victimizing themselves, or at least engaging in high-kudos superficial acts of self-abasement, in the service of Blacks and the broader culture of critique. There’s also no question that they view such behavior as highly virtuous. In this regard, I found Cardinal Carlo Vigano’s recent letter to Donald Trump on current events to be extremely timely. It’s obvious from the letter, and from his history of activism against Pope Francis, abortion, and the homosexual network at the Vatican, that Vigano is “to the Right” of Trump in every way, but it’s interesting that he attempts to communicate with Trump in Trump’s own language — employing terms such as “Deep State” to try to communicate something far more profound. Most interesting is Vigano’s denunciation of “adversaries, who often hold strategic positions in in government, in politics, in the economy, and in the media.” These adversaries “serve themselves, do not hold any moral principles, want to demolish the family and the nation, exploit workers to make themselves unduly wealthy, foment internal divisions and wars, and accumulate power and money.” He explains that those who help these adversaries are acting out of “self-interest or fearfulness.” This certainly describes the latter-day flagellants, as does Vigano’s condemnation of those within the Church who are “mercenary infidels who seek to scatter the flock and hand the sheep over to be devoured by ravenous wolves … Just as there is a deep state, there is also a deep church that betrays its duties and forswears its proper commitments before God.” For Vigano, who has previously indicated that the Catholic Church had been infiltrated by a combination of Jews, organized homosexuals, and Freemasons, there is a:

media narrative which seeks not to fight racism and bring social order, but to aggravate dispositions; not to bring justice, but to legitimize violence and crime; not to serve the truth, but to favor one political faction. And it is disconcerting that there are Bishops – such as those whom I recently denounced – who, by their words, prove that they are aligned on the opposing side. They are subservient to the deep state, to globalism, to aligned thought, to the New World Order which they invoke ever more frequently in the name of a universal brotherhood which has nothing Christian about it.

I’m not from a Catholic background, and I’ve been very critical of elements and expressions of Christianity in the past, but even I have to concede, that, objectively speaking, Vigano is on to something. One of the most Christian people I know is absolutely disgusted with White behavior for Black Lives Matter, while the most anti-Christian person I know (a friend of a friend) is also the most virtue-signalling, pro-homosexual, pro-miscegenation cretin I’ve ever encountered. There are no simple answers here, and if one is to denounce the Church as the root and cause of some of our major problems, one might as well denounce everything else in Western modernity that’s been co-opted by our adversaries. It should be clear that there wouldn’t be much left that we couldn’t denounce.

The question of why Whites are allowing themselves to be subjected to this kind of treatment on a mass scale, and in some cases encouraging it, rather requires a clear and unflinching view of the mass perception of White identity politics today. Quite frankly, we have been designated the ultimate evil, and no punishment or humiliation will be enough to satisfy our enemies.

The Politics of Evil

One of the most fascinating series of books I’ve read is Jeffrey Burton Russell’s Cornell-published quadrilogy on the concept of evil in Western culture [Satan: The Early Christian Tradition (1981), Lucifer: The Devil in the Middle Ages (1984), Mephistopheles: The Devil in the Modern World (1986), and The Prince of Darkness: Radical Evil and the Power of Good in History (1988)]. These works aren’t just an outstanding exercise in historical and religious scholarship, but also in their analysis of the development of the concept of evil as a political idea. For Russell, who develops the theme to an unmatched degree, there is great power in being able to label one’s opponent and their ideas as evil. To be labelled as being in league with the Devil—or the modern equivalent—is tantamount to political (and in extreme cases, physical) death. If you doubt such an interpretation, just read Dante’s Inferno, which is as much a summary of medieval Florentine politics and a list of Dante’s personal enemies, as it is a piece of religious poetry.

There really is no question about the fact that White identity politics is post-modernity’s only radical political evil, and Adolf Hitler is its Great Satan, looming over a horde of contemporary minor demons. Like Dante’s Inferno, and his various levels of Hell, our contemporary politics is judged morally on the proximity of one’s ideology to that held by the Great Satan in the lowest Hell. Tucker Carlson may be deemed to toil, for example, in the second or third circle, but you readers, with your race pride and anti-Semitism, well, you are beyond all hope in the ninth circle. Our post-religious culture even has a physical substitute for Hell, in the form of a long-abandoned camp in rural Poland.

In the West, what else comes close to this politico-moral taxonomy that borders on the religious in its dogmatic excess? Nothing. Even Islamic terrorism, one of the few aspects of modern life that isn’t readily assimilable by global capitalism, is always qualified in most media and academic treatments as implying some mediating factors, such as Western imperialism, the alienation of Muslim minorities, or any of a wide range of social and environmental causes that are ultimately the fault of Europeans. For those in charge of the national conversation, Islamic terrorism is something explainable and therefore, in the final examination, non-diabolical. By contrast, arguments for internet censorship targeting White identity websites have been advanced by associating White ethnic activism with conduct that is as low and demonic as pedophilia and the very worst of obscene material, which is probably the only other element of our rotten contemporary culture that continues  (for now) to be viewed as an example of radical evil. Of all political stances, only the assertion of White ethnic interests is deemed by our mainstream as equally irrational and immoral, being based on the alleged “fantasy” of race and the moral crime of wishing to “dominate” or adopt “supremacy” over other groups.

Whites can prostrate themselves in the name of “anti-racism” because by doing so they’re fighting the religious or secular contemporary incarnation of Satan. Historically, it has been extremely dangerous, and often fatal, to be seen as in league with Satan, and alternatively there have been massive incentives to joining crusades against demonic activity. One thinks of the witch craze, the purging of various heretical sects (including the flagellants), and the experiences of the early Protestants. What we are currently seeing culturally, economically, and politically, is an increasing pressure on people to demonstrate whether or not they are on the side of the Devil. Language such as “White silence is violence,” is increasingly asserting that there is no room for Whites to sit on the fence. Whites must declare whether they are good (subservient) or bad (retaining pride), and regardless of the religious beliefs of these Whites, if any, every cue in our culture is making it extremely clear which side will provide them with incentives and which side is laden with social doom. This is very similar to the process that all cultures undergo when there is a dramatic shift against a certain set of beliefs and/or populations.

The point here is that all conventional strategies designed to move White dissident thought from the fringe to the mainstream may be doomed to failure because they neglect the fact we aren’t even on the same spectrum of political possibility, or even within the same psychological framework. We are exiles, declared to be total anathema. To label something evil is to imply it is willfully engaged in the chaotic, unnatural, and sadistic. Evil implies an unregenerate irrationality as well as a complete detachment from morals. It also implies the willful infliction of suffering, and perhaps also a joy in it. Fighting from this position with appeals to things like IQ differences, crime rates, the data on police shootings of Blacks and Whites, or blandishments about the right of all peoples to self-determination, is probably entirely pointless.

Ultimately, the mainstream narrative about White identity politics is based on unreason and outright falsehood. An edifice built so obviously on an emotive disdain for facts and objective reality will be entirely unmoved by rejoinders employing them. Accusations of Leftist hypocrisy are as ubiquitous as they are ineffective, because ultimately people on the Left, or Right for that matter, don’t really care about what is correct or incorrect, or at least don’t care enough to do something meaningful about it. What they do care about is what is “evil,” and if they can look good and get rich fighting it then all the better. What is really required, therefore, is a “fight fire with fire” strategy that embodies emotionality and triggers psychological responses that resonate on a deeper level, beyond consciousness. This necessitates a propaganda designed exclusively to instill feelings of disgust, fear, and hatred for those opposed to White interests. In the final analysis, it must be hammered home that our opponents are not wrong, weak-willed, venal, or corrupt — they are morally, politically, and spiritually evil. They belong in the lowest Hell.

I understand the necessity of framing our arguments in reasonable terms. I understand the value of producing evidence, and presenting facts. But I also understand that these things have limited tactical value. The symbiotic elites of medieval Germany were safely ensconced in their centers of power until the flagellants came to town, with their emotive, violent, grisly, and gloriously fanatical denunciations of evil. Within that environment, riding on the crest of a crisis, the heretics and rebels became the arbiters of truth and the judges of society. Dispute as you will their claim to have banished the Devil, but can you deny they banished, even for a short time, at least some social evils?

Looked at from an angle not dripping with footnotes and statistics, isn’t it clear that our opponents are, in some sense, crawling with “demons”? Aren’t they riddled with the most malevolent of intentions? Don’t they bleat endlessly about eugenic policies of yesteryear while paving the way for “after-birth abortion.” They’re not wrong, my friends, they’re evil.

Our moral superiors: Dressed in White and dripping with blood

Don’t they chastise us for a distant past no-one alive had any role in, while supporting a nation where it’s spectator entertainment to watch bomb blasts tear apart a people who don’t have the luxury of superpower sponsorship, and barely have the infrastructure to survive? They’re not misguided, they’re evil.

Israeli Spectator Sport: Watching the Slaughter in Gaza, 2014

Contemporary politics and “social progress” is awash with evils. The “universal brotherhood” Cardinal Vigano warns us about is typified by blindness to mass rape, the abuse of children, murder on a vomit-inducing scale, corruption, avarice, and the cowardly evasion of responsibility everywhere. The society we live in is sunk in filth so deep that coronavirus isn’t even a fraction of the plague it deserves.

I’ll conclude these reflections with a final comment from the medieval period. In one of the most remarkable texts of the Middle Ages, Pugio Fidei or The Dagger of Faith, the cleric Raymond Martini (1220–1285) began to turn the tide against Jewish financial and political influence in Europe. Employing a team of scholars, including former Jews, he launched an intensive investigation of the Talmud and Midrash, including how they were actually interpreted by contemporary Jews. Unlike earlier anti-Jewish figures like Agobard of Lyon, Martini didn’t waste time with complaints about Jewish slave-trading of Christians or trying to convince elites to “do the right thing.” His argument was simple and devastating: all that Jews presented as positive was negative, all that they presented as Divine was Satanic. Jewish “Light unto the Nations” was “Darkness unto the Nations.” Jewish “truth” was lies. Jewish “freedom” was slavery. Jewish “justice” was injustice. As historian Robert Bonfil comments, “Martini’s book was influential through the end of the Middle Ages and even into the Renaissance.”^[1] This period witnessed more expulsions of the Jews than any other in history. They say the greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing people he didn’t exist. Martini would disagree, and insist that by far his cleverest ruse was to pretend he was an angel, while pointing an accusing finger at you.

^[1] R. Bonfil, ‘The Devil and the Jews in the Christian Consciousness of the Middle Ages,’ in S. Almog (ed) Antisemitism Through the Ages (New York: Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1988), 97.

In 1983, The National Alliance—a white activist organization founded and headed by William Pierce—held its annual convention in Washington, D.C.  A young mine worker from the Pacific Northwest by the name of Bob Mathews was scheduled to give a talk at the convention.  Mathews had been an Alliance member for three years and actively recruiting new members for the organization among the farmers and ranchers and working people around where he lived in Washington State.  Dr. Pierce asked Bob to tell the people at the convention how his efforts were going, and about the situation generally in his part of the country.  Bob wrote out his speech on his dining table at home and flew out to D.C. for the conference.¹

The Bob Mathews those in attendance saw at the podium was a boyish-looking man thirty years of age.  He was about 5’7” and had a trim muscular build.  He was good-looking with even facial features.  His dark brown hair was short and parted to the side and fell forward onto his forehead.  Those who knew Bob said he had hazel eyes that shone with intensity and purpose.  They saw him as a serious and forceful person.  Even those who disliked his politics liked Bob the man.   In pictures I have seen of him, he reminds me of an army enlisted man home on leave, or the young working-class fathers I see walking past the stores in shopping malls with their wives, their young children in strollers.

An audio tape exists of Bob’s talk. His voice is youthful. There is a tension and fervor in his delivery that gives a sense of immediacy and electricity to the occasion.  Bob talked about ten minutes, not long.  An excerpt from what he had to say that day in the late summer of 1983 gives a sense of his message:

My brothers and sisters, from the mist-shrouded forested valleys and mountains of the Pacific Northwest I bring you a message of solidarity, a call to action, and a demand for adherence to duty as members of a vanguard of an Aryan resurgence and, ultimately, total Aryan victory.  The signs of awakening are sprouting up across the Northwest, and no more than among the two-fisted farmers and ranchers.   The task is not going to be easy.  TV satellite dishes are springing up like poisonous mushrooms across the domain of the tillers of the soil.  The electronic Jew is slithering into the living rooms of even the most remote farms and ranches.  The race-destroying dogs are everywhere.  In Metaline Falls [the town where he lives], we have broken the chains of Jewish thought.  We know not the meaning of the word “mine.”  It is “ours”: our race, the totality of our people.  Ten hearts, one beat!  One hundred hearts, one beat!  Ten thousand hearts, one beat!  We were born to fight and die and to continue the flow of our people.  The future is now!  Stand up like men and drive the enemy to the sea!  Stand up like men and swear a sacred oath upon the green graves of our sires that you will reclaim what our forefathers discovered, explored, conquered, settled, built, and died for!  Stand up like men and reclaim our soil!  Look toward the stars and proclaim our destiny!  In Metaline Falls we have a saying: Defeat, never!  Victory, forever!

Bob’s talk received a standing ovation.  He would be dead in a little over a year.

*  *  *

Robert Jay Mathews was born in Marfa, Texas in 1953 and grew up in Arizona around Phoenix.  From the time he was a teenager, Bob had a fierce racial pride in being a Caucasian.  It wasn’t primarily a matter of prejudice against minorities—harboring antagonistic feelings toward them, resenting them—as is usually attributed to whites who hold strong racial views.  Bob wasn’t so much against anything as he was for something: white people.  He held the conviction that it was white men who had created the greatness that is Western Civilization.  He was convinced that America was in a decline and that whites were being brought down to far less than they once were, and that they had to do something about it.

When still a teenager, Bob joined the ultra-conservative John Birch Society, and he tried to start a survivalist-type group called the Sons of Liberty, but that didn’t get very far.  He also got involved with a tax-protest movement in Arizona.  He wound up getting arrested and put on probation for not paying his taxes.

After high school, Bob didn’t go on to college, much to the disappointment of his parents.  He told them that he didn’t want to go through all the liberal propaganda they shove down your throat in college, and anyway, he wanted to get on with his life.  He wanted to get out of Phoenix, that was for sure.  There were too many laws, too many urban problems, too many minorities, and just too many people in general.

Bob got out a map of North America and started running his finger over it.  His finger came to rest on an isolated village in Washington State, Metaline Falls, the last town before the Canadian border.  Bob loaded up his pickup and drove to Metaline Falls to begin a new life.  Right away, he found a laboring job in a lead and zinc mine.  It wasn’t long before he could afford to buy fifty acres of land and put a mobile home on it.

A writer describes the place Bob went to:

Minorities were virtually absent from the Metaline Falls area, and a white man living there could imagine that he was existing in a country that wasn’t ethnically diverse or full of crowded, complicated cities.  A man could dream of starting over here, of rebuilding his life from scratch.  Mathews loved the landscape the town was set in.  Canada’s Selkirk Mountains rose in the distance.  At dawn, deer walked across the main street of Metaline Falls.  Heavy snow only made the hills and evergreens more beautiful.  God’s country.  It was the kind of climate one would find in northern Europe, where the Aryan people had flourished before their heirs came to America.  In centuries past, those ethnic groups had given rise to Norse and Viking sagas, grand tales of the courage and strength of northern warriors in battle.   They had no fear of death: if they perished heroically, the Valkyries (the handmaidens of Odin, the Supreme Being of Norse mythology) would whisk their souls away to Valhalla, where they’d be enshrined in the great hall of immortality.  A modern-day religion, Odinism, has sprung from these sagas.  Bob Mathews was familiar with it and liked it.  He regarded it the same way he regarded the Northwestern Passage—both could inspire a man to become a hero.²

Bob wanted to start a family, and he met his wife in an unconventional way, through an ad in the nationally circulated Mother Earth News.  His ad read, “Looking for a mature, intelligent woman, 18-25, to share my life and land in Washington.”  One-hundred-thirty women replied.   The letter that most caught Bob’s attention was from a Kansan who had moved to Wyoming after college by the name of Debbie McGarrity.  Debbie wrote Bob that she thought the most important job a woman could do was to raise children.  “You can’t have a good society unless the home is a decent place,” Debbie wrote.  Bob drove to Wyoming to meet Debbie.  She moved to Metaline Falls and they were married in 1976.  Debbie and Bob didn’t have children of their own, but they adopted a son.

Bob had really taken to Dr. Pierce’s book The Turner Diaries.³  He pored over every word in the book and gave it to his friends along with his highest recommendation.  But the thing about Bob was that he wasn’t content to just read the book and agree with what it said.  Bob was a man of action.  He had a fire burning inside him.   He was going to create an Order of his own like the one in the book, and start a revolution like the one he had read about.  Bob meant business.

Right after Bob returned home from his speech at the National Alliance convention, he gathered together eight men in a barracks-like structure he had erected near his mobile home.  “I’ve asked you to come here because I think we share a common goal.”  Earlier, he had talked to them about forming an Order like the one in The Turner Diaries, a group of racial kinsman who would let their deeds do their talking for them.  The goal Bob had in mind was to carve out a part of eastern Washington as a homeland for the white race, purged of Jews and minorities.  They would use The Turner Diaries as a blueprint for getting that done.  “I’m telling you now,” Bob said, “if any of you don’t want to get involved in this, you are free to leave.”

No one left.

“I’m going to ask each of you to take an oath that you will remain true to this cause.  I would like to remind all of you what is at stake here.   It is our children and their economic and racial survival.  Because of that, I would like to place a white child before us as we take this oath.”  A six-week-old daughter of one of the men was placed in the center of the circle as a symbol of a Caucasian future they were about to pledge to create.  She stared up at the figures looming above her in the glow of the candles.

The men clasped hands and recited an oath of loyalty and commitment to their race and to their cause Bob had written:

I, as an Aryan warrior, swear myself to complete secrecy to the Order and total loyalty to my comrades.

Let me bear witness to you, my brothers, that should one of you fall in battle, I will see to the welfare and well-being of your family.

Let me bear witness to you, my brothers, that should one of you be taken prisoner, I will do whatever is necessary to regain your freedom.

Let me bear witness to you, my brothers, that should an enemy agent hurt you, I will chase him to the ends of the earth and remove his head from his body.

And furthermore, let me bear witness to you, my brothers, that if I break this oath, let me be forever cursed upon the lips of our people as a coward and an oath breaker.

My brothers, let us go forth by ones and twos, by scores and by legions, and as true Aryan men with pure hearts and strong minds face the enemies of our faith and our race with courage and determination.

We hereby invoke the blood covenant and declare that we are in a full state of war and will not lay down our weapons until we have driven the enemy into the sea and reclaimed the land which was promised to our fathers of old, and which through our blood becomes the land of our children to be.

The group obtained a trail-clearing contract with the U.S. Forest Service, but that didn’t bring in enough money fast enough.  Bob and two others in the group robbed a porn shop in Spokane, Washington.  One of Bob’s partners slugged one of the clerks.  Their take was $36.

Bob went into a Seattle branch of Citibank, handed the teller a note and walked off with almost $26,000.  A snapshot exists of a smiling Bob Mathews in a long-sleeve flannel shirt holding a Halloween trick-or-treat bag containing the money.

The group captured the courier of an armored car while it was parked in front of a Fred Meyers department store and made off with $43,000.

They hit another armored car, this one parked in front of a Bon Marché food market outlet.  The take in this one was a half-million dollars.

The Order bombed an adult movie theater in downtown Seattle and a Boise, Idaho synagogue.  Neither bomb did much damage.

The group talked about people to assassinate.  Names thrown out included Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller, and Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center.  The person they wound up taking out was a Jewish radio call-in host in Denver named Alan Berg.  The killing inspired part of the film Talk Radio.  One of the Order had lived in the Denver area and was very put off by Berg, who went off on monologues about the joys of oral sex, the flaws in Christianity, why whites were afraid of blacks, and how white women fantasize about sleeping with black men.

Bob and several others of the Order drove to Denver.  They ambushed Berg getting out of his car in front of his apartment.  One of the members of the Order, not Bob, started firing from close up.  Bullets hit Berg in the face, neck, and torso.  The garage door behind Berg splintered from the spray of bullets.  When Berg was found lying face up in a pool of blood, the cigarette he had been holding was still lit.  Autopsy reports couldn’t be sure how many shots there were because Berg was twisting at the time he was shot, although it was probably around twelve.  Two slugs struck near Berg’s left eye and exited on the right side of his neck.  Others hit the left side of Berg’s head and exited from his neck and the back of his skull.

The armored-car stick-ups continued.  The biggest one took place on the side of a highway near Ukiah, California, in the northern part of the state.  Bob and 11 others in two pickup trucks forced a Brinks truck to stop and jumped out of their trucks wearing bandannas over their faces.  One of them held up a sign that read “Get Out or Die.”  Bob jumped onto the front bumper of the truck and shouted for the two guards to get out, but they seemed frozen and didn’t move.  One of the robbers blew dime-sized holes in the windshield with an automatic weapon.  That did the trick—the guards opened the door and scrambled out.  

All this was happening with traffic going by on the highway.  People gawked as they went by, and some stopped their cars.  It must have seemed unreal to the passers-by, like a movie.  The group started a chain to unload the bags of money out of the money compartment in back of the armored truck.  They had given themselves five minutes to complete the job, and it was approaching seven minutes.   Somebody could have called the highway patrol.  A traffic jam—they hadn’t thought of that until now—could block their way out.  They had to get out of there!

Bob was inside the truck frantically scooping up money bags and passing them on.  In all the excitement, he didn’t notice that the 9mm pistol he was carrying had fallen out of his pocket.  It turned out to be a fateful error, because the gun was traced to him and the FBI knew whom it was looking for.

Finally, the men jumped in their pickups and sped away, tossing nails out of the back to slow down anyone chasing them.

The Order made a clean getaway (except for the gun left behind), and when they counted up the money they found that the take was a whopping 3.6 million dollars.  They used some of the money for salaries, and most of them quit their regular jobs.  Money went into things like mobile homes and a ski condo.  They purchased 110 acres in Idaho and 106 acres in Missouri to use as paramilitary camps.  Money went for all-terrain vehicles and guns and ammunition.  Two members of the group formed a company called Mountain Man Supply Company with the intention of using it to provide supplies to the Order.

Like the fictional Order in The Turner Diaries, Bob Mathews’ Order counterfeited money.  Along with the dropped pistol, the counterfeiting activity turned out to be Bob’s downfall.  One of the people who passed the money got caught.  In return for the FBI going easy on him, he told them when he was scheduled to meet Bob at a Sheraton Motel in Portland, Oregon.

On the day of the meeting, FBI agents and Portland city SWAT team members converged on the motel.  Bob was in room 24.  The other guests were herded into the motel’s small lounge and told to keep their heads down.  Bob went outside his room to stretch and spotted a man hiding in the bushes and realized what was up and bolted down the stairs past a female agent who fired a shot at him.  The shot missed Bob, and the slug smashed through the window of the lounge where the other guests were crouched down and ricocheted off a stone fireplace.

Bob ran two blocks down the street and got behind a concrete pillar next to an apartment complex.  Bob later reported that it was at this point he decided to stop being the hunted and become the hunter.  A couple of officers chasing him ran up to the pillar and Bob fired, wounding one of them in the shin and foot.  Bob later said that he first had aimed at the officer’s head, but when he saw that he was a white man he lowered his aim.  The other officer blasted a shotgun and the pellets smashed into Bob’s exposed gun hand and searing pain shot up his arm and blood shot from the wound.  Bob escaped, but the hand injury would throb for the remaining weeks he had left to live.

Bob made it to a house on Whidbey Island near Seattle.  There he wrote up a “declaration of war”:

It is now a dark time in the history of our race.  All about us lie the green graves of our sires, yet in a land once ours we have become a people dispossessed.

By the millions, those not of our blood violate our borders and mock our claim to sovereignty.  Yet our people only react with lethargy.

A great sickness has overcome us.  Why do our people do nothing?  What madness is this?  Has the cancer of racial masochism consumed our will to exist?

Our heroes and our culture have been insulted and degraded.  The mongrel hordes sever us from our inheritance.  Yet our people do not care.

Throughout this land our children are being coerced into accepting non-whites as their idols, their companions, and, worst of all, their mates, a course taking us straight to oblivion.  Yet our people do not see.

Not by accident but by design these terrible things have come to pass.  It is self-evident to all who have eyes to see that an evil shadow has fallen across our once fair land.  Evidence abounds that a vile, alien people have taken control of our country.  

All about us the land is dying.  Our cities swarm with dusky hordes. The water is rancid and the air is rank.  Our farms are being seized by usurious leeches and our people are being forced off the land.

They close the factories, the mills, the mines, and ship our jobs overseas.  Yet our people do not awaken.

Do you hear the approaching thunder?  It is that of the awakened Saxon.  War is upon the land.  The tyrant’s blood will flow.

From this day forward, we will no longer submit to the tyranny placed upon us by Tel Aviv and their lackeys in Washington.   Our people are being put into a lobotomized, lethargic state of blind obedience and we will not take part in collective racial suicide.

This is war!

This “declaration of war” was followed by an “open letter to Congress.”

All of you together are not solely responsible for what has happened to America, but each of you, without exception, is partly responsible.  The day will come when each of you will be called to account for that responsibility.

The day will come when your complicity in the betrayal of the 55,000 Americans who were sacrificed in Vietnam will be called to account.

The day will come when your subservience to the anti-American “Israel Lobby” will be called into account.  Your votes to strip American arsenals so that Zionists can hold on to stolen land and your acquiescence in a policy which has turned our Arab friends into enemies—those things are inexcusable.

The day will come when you will pay for betraying your race.  You may say you are against the forced racial busing of school children, that you are against the “reverse discrimination” which takes jobs away from Whites and gives them to Blacks, that you are against the flooding of America with illegal immigrants, because you know these things are unpopular.  But you brought every one of these plagues down on our heads.  You passed the “civil rights” laws which gave us busing in the first place, and then you refused repeatedly to outlaw this monstrous crime against our children.  It was your scramble for Black votes and your cowardice in the face of the controlled news media which allowed our cities to become crime-infested jungles.  You set up the requirements that employers had to meet racial quotas.  And you passed the immigration laws which started the flood of non-White immigrants into America—a flood that is out of control.

We hold you responsible for all these things: for every White child terrorized in a racially-mixed school, for every White person murdered in one of our urban jungles, for every White woman raped by one of the arrogant “equals” roaming our streets, for every White family hungry and desperate because a White worker’s job was given to a Black.  Each day the list grows longer, but the day will come when the score will be settled and you will pay every one of these debts in full.

On November 25th, 1984 Bob wrote a letter to a small weekly newspaper in Newport, Washington that included: “It is logical to assume that my days on this planet are rapidly drawing to a close.  I have no fear, for the reality of life is death.  I have made the ultimate sacrifice to secure the future for my children.”

*   *   *

On December 7th, one hundred FBI agents surrounded the Whidbey Island house.   Bob was alone inside.

They cut off his electricity.

They attempted to negotiate through a bullhorn—”Come out and we won’t harm you.”

His hand mangled and throbbing, Bob opened fire with an automatic weapon.

A standoff lasted through the night and into the next day.  The press converged on the site.

The FBI lofted in tear gas.  Bob must have had a gas mask.  He continued to fire—da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da.

“Give up or we’re coming in to get you.”

More automatic weapon fire from Bob.

At 3:00 p.m. on December 8th, a SWAT team stormed into the house. When they got inside, bullets rained down on them through the ceiling from the floor above.  The SWAT team returned fire as they retreated.

After it had gotten dark that evening, a helicopter flew over the house and dropped white phosphorous illumination flares onto the roof.  The house ignited, and flames shot one hundred feet into the air.

Bullets ripped from inside the burning house—Bob was still firing away!   The agents kept down as the slugs whistled through the night air and split the trees above them.

Then everything was still.

The next morning, in the charred ruins of the house they found a body burned beyond recognition.  Dental records determined it to be that of Bob Mathews.

Endnotes

1. This account is taken from my book, Robert S. Griffin, The Fame of a Dead Man’s Deeds: An Up-Close Portrait of White Nationalist William Pierce (1stBooks Library, 2001).
2. Stephen Singular, Talked to Death: The Life and Murder of Alan Berg (Beech Tree Books, 1987).
3. Andrew Macdonald [William Pierce’s pen name], The Turner Diaries (National Vanguard Books, 1978).