POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC
by William B. Fox
Environmental vs. Genetic Duality
Part 3 of 5 parts
Note: In this section we examine the arguments for both
the environmental (or leftist) and genetic (or rightist) viewpoints
that comprise the "x" axis of the model discussed in the
Part 1 of this series. I depict the diagram of the model again below:
(Third dimensional "z" axis entailing
"mutualism" vs. "parasitism"
not drawn, see discussion below)
The diagram above should also include a "z"
axis sloping backwards as in a perspective drawing to create
a cube effect, entailing the "altruist/symbiotist"
vs "predator/parasite" (or "mutualism" vs.
"parasitism" for short) duality of sociobiology.
A recapitulation of my definition of the "environmental
vs. genetic" duality from the Introduction
over to our "x" axis, "environmental" usually
means "leftist." It also has a loose but significant
association with "Neo-Jacobinism," "progressivism,"
"internationalism" (meaning the repudiation of tribal
nationalism), "collectivism," "socialism,"
and to a lessor extent "anarchism" (atomized individuality
without tribal loyalties) and "nurturance" (environmental
reinforcement without heredity). It takes the view that human
behavior is entirely learned, or "nurtured," rather
than instinctive. It views people as if they are perfectly equal,
interchangeable, programmable units just waiting for the right
leaders or ideology to show the way. For communists, the right
leader might include some comrade Chairman of the proletarian
revolution. For anarcho-libertarians, the "right ideology"
might involve Adam Smith's "invisible hand" of the free
market, which shows atomized, raceless, de-ethnicized individuals
the way to go.
At the other end of this social science duality, the term "genetic"
usually means "rightist." This term has a loose but
significant association with such terms as "conservative,"
"nationalist," "traditional," "tribal,"
"ancestral," "aristocratic," "rugged
individualist" (inspired by ones own unique heredity)"meritocracy",
"competition," and "nature." Here, people
are distinguished by their hereditary uniqueness as individuals
as well as their uniqueness as part of a broader kinship group
related by blood (followed by race, ethnicity, culture, language,
heritage, and religion) that is different from other larger groups.
Rightists typically believe that genetics comprise a highly constraining
factor in both the performance and character of specific individuals
and groups. In other words, some groups tend to be naturally just
dumber, lazier, more inefficient, more authoritarian, more collectivistic,
or even more "crooked" than others (or some combination
of all of the aforementioned). These traits can be traced back
to different evolutionary selective factors, such as the genetic
sculpturing influence of frost zone areas of the planet as opposed
to tropical areas, the amount of evolutionary time spent in highly
urbanized, multi-racial, or over-populated environments, or different
reproductive rates of people in different niches in society.
On the positive side, rightists also believe that people with
shared ancestry and culture are more likely to deeply understand
each other and form more cohesive and productive groups. One finds
an emphasis on shared values in a wide variety of organizations,
whether or not their leaders happen to be consciously "leftist"
or "rightist," ranging from management consultant diagrams
with "shared values" in the center, as in the famous
7-S framework for organizational success (p. 10, In
Search of Excellence) to training methods designed
to build teamwork and group pride on sports teams and in the military.
Paradoxically, increased group cohesion can become a vital factor
in the defense of individual liberty. As one example, in one of
libertarian author Dr. Ralph Raico pointed out that there was
very little immigration to America between 1700 and the American
Revolution, yet the population increased threefold from natural
multiplication. The extensive kinship and cultural ties of an
overwhelmingly Anglo-Saxon Protestant (Nordic) population of the
New England colonies provided the grass roots cohesive strength
and informal support necessary to resume the Cromwellian side
of the English Civil War in America beginning at Lexington and
Concord in 1775. I explain this in some detail in my "History
The question regarding which has the greatest influence
over human behavior regarding "genetics" or the "environment"
comprises an ongoing debate in the social and natural sciences. Typically
the "school solution" is that it is not all of one or the
other, but some combination of the two depending on the traits involved
and the particular situations in question. Later in this article I
will present data from twin studies that show statistical measures
regarding how the trade-offs vary with particular mental traits.
Most Americans have been saturated with environmental or learning-based
ideology all their lives. Conversely, America's national media have
viciously ignored, twisted, or demonized genetic interpretations of
White Americans have been programmed to feel guilt and self-hatred
over their "whiteness." They are taught to succumb to the
"anti-racist" bullying of well-funded Jewish pressure groups
such as the ADL and roll over and play dead before the onslaught of
massive Third World illegal immigration. What we need instead of all
this self-flagellation is to approach reality in a balanced and responsible
I do not need to spend too much time describing environmentalism in
this article, since Americans are so familiar with its arguments.
Instead, this discussion will be heavily over-weighted towards explaining
important suppressed information about the genetic viewpoint. To most
Americans the scientific evidence from twin studies that human behavior
is approximately half environmental and half genetic for certain traits
is already getting pretty radical.
It is worth noting here that science can cause one to get even more
radical on the genetic side. The twin studies I cite describe genetic
influences compared to baseline behavior within
human gene pools. However, if you step back further and compare the
human species against other species, over long periods approaching
"geological time," everything
begins to look "genetic" over the very long run.
Sociobiology: The New Synthesis
by Harvard professor
Dr. Edward Wilson, has an interesting chart that conceptualizes human
learning behavior as simply the short term portion of a long term
combination of individual and group "genetic responses"
to the evolutionary
factors of the physical environment. By this interpretation, even
the "plasticity" behind "free will" and learning
capabilities itself has a genetic base, although in the short run
it may convenient to label these things as "environmental."
Figure 7-2 from Sociobiology:
The New Synthesis by Dr. Edward O. Wilson. The caption
in the book reads: "The full hierarchy of biological responses.
Organismic responses are evoked by changes in the environment
detectable within a life span, population responses to long-term
trends. The hierarchy ascends with an increase in the response
time; that is, any given response tends to alter the pattern
of the faster responses. Beyond evolutionary responses are replacements
of one species by another or an even entire groups of related
species by other such groups. The particular response curves
shown here are imaginary."
Dr. Wilson's conceptualization depicted above shows the interplay
between the physical environment on the one hand, and human individuals
and groups on the other hand as repositories of genes that react
to the sculpturing effects of the environment.
Here, use of the term "environment" suggests a brutal
physical environment such as northern Europe during the Ice Age
which killed off people who could not adapt to creating winter survival
technology. This is a different use of the word compared to the
"learning" and "nurturance" meanings in the
"environmental vs. genetic" debate covered in this article.
The group selection process depicted in this chart suggests that
tribes are essentially competing gene repositories. Perhaps Benjamin
Disraeli, the 19th century Jewish politician and former British
Prime Minister, summed it all up best in layman's terms when he
once observed, "The racial question is the
key to world history…all is race, there is no other truth."
While there could be political correctness individuals within the
Harvard sociobiology department who may not care to admit this publicly,
I believe that Disraeli was on to something.
In addition to providing deeper background behind this viewpoint,
I hope to pleasantly surprise the reader with some fresh insights
regarding the environmental viewpoint in this article as well.
The underlying ideas behind environmentalism are fairly simple.
Environmentalists believe that the ability of people to learn and
to adapt their personalities, values, and culture is virtually limitless.
Through learning, people can learn how to overcome their differences
and work together.
According to this view, if we can only just learn to put aside all
our racial, ethnic, gender, sexual-orientation, and other innate
or ideological differences and learn to work and live together as
"equals" right now, everyone can avoid wasting time on
conflict and we can get more accomplished. Everyone can supposedly
learn to live in peace as brothers and sisters.
Therefore, humans are almost like interchangeable programmable units.
Their similarities are vastly greater than their differences. Extreme
environmentalists believe that we need to break down the barriers
that separate people based upon race, religion, gender, and other
"divisive criteria" in order to allegedly build a better
Extreme environmentalists often appeal to the altruistic and nurturance
side of human nature to bridge human barriers. One method is to
appeal to humanitarian instincts. This is a very seductive appeal,
since most people want to support humanitarianism.
From an ideological perspective this is a tricky issue, since most
genetic theorists also acknowledge the importance of humanitarian
or "pro-social" behavior. However, an important distinction
between the two opposing viewpoint is that environmentalists see
as "humanitarian" almost all situations when people altruistically
support other people, regardless of the "genetic distance"
between them. In contrast, genetic theorists worry that if the genetic
distance starts becoming too great, and the altruistic giving substantially
diminishes the genetic fitness of the givers, then this can actually
becomes more of a "parasitic" relationship as opposed
to a mutually healthy "humanitarian" endeavor.
Another seductive approach used by environmentalists is to link
any attempt to distinguish between individuals or racial groups
to nasty forms of selfishness and aggression. This is the old "guilt
by association" technique, and its mere threat can unfortunately
intimidate many people from dealing with the truth. Hence, someone
who acknowledges significant genetic differences between groups
or individuals in a factual, objective, dispassionate, and academic
manner might nevertheless be smeared as a "bigot," "racist,"
"white supremacist," "hater," "fomenter
of unnecessarily divisive criteria," or whatever other label de jeure might intimidate a public already softened up
or confused by deceptive liberal national media.
The fallacy behind this environmentalist tactic is that a certain
amount of selfishness, discrimination, and aggression may be healthy.
If people do not reinvest in their own kind, they will inevitably
die out as a distinct people. They will be incapable of banding
together to protect their interests from alien encroachment. They
will also be incapable of accumulating the wealth necessary to not
improve not only their own lot, but also to help other peoples as
humanitarians. Lastly, a certain amount of instinctive aggression
wisely channeled into such pursuits as scientific exploration does
not hurt other peoples, and in fact reflects a healthy will to power
found in all healthy animal species.
Perverting the legal system to unfairly
skew the debate
The environmental vs. genetics debate has been heavily strong-armed
by environmentalists through the use government intervention. Ever
since the era of so-called "Civil Rights" legislation
beginning in the mid-1960's, the Jewish
ADL and other special interest groups have aggressively submitted
model legislation proposals on Federal and State levels that "spin-doctor"
our laws to give unthinking Americans the misleading
impression that it is somehow illegal or immoral to be
conscious of racial, ethnic, gender, and other differences. Please see the Rev Ted Pike archive at America First Books for an overview of the deceitful tactics used by groups such as the ADL.
Their approach is very alien to Anglo-Saxon common law traditions
which decouple what people think and say from tangible evidence
of criminal acts. Anglo-Saxon libertarian traditions view it as
very dangerous to have a big brother decide what ideas are correct
or incorrect. For starters, it would be impossible to have scientific
or parliamentary debate without dissenting opinion. Instead, white
libertarian traditions place the burden on each citizen to decide
for himself what is factual and reasonable.
Contrary to these traditions, special
interest groups have installed so-called "hate
crime" laws that link what people say on or before committing
a criminal act with forms of penalty enhancement. So, for example,
if a white person sitting at a bar says that he does not like certain
things about blacks, and then a black walks up to him and they get
into a fist fight, a court might give the white man a few extra
years of jail time in addition to time directly related to physical
assault charges on account of the racial sentiments he expressed.
This is would be an instance of hate crime "penalty enhancement."
The penalty enhancement laws give the false appearance that any
racially-related thoughts expressed are themselves illegal, or are
hence "thought crime." These laws also give the false
impression that society needs to penalize the vast numbers of law-abiding
people who never commit any criminal acts, but nevertheless express
similar ideas regarding race, ethnicity, and whatever else is considered
not politically correct.
Even the original "Civil Rights" legislation of the 1960's
has created enormous confusion in many subtle and not-so-subtle
ways. Federal laws that force racial integration and prevent forms
of discrimination regarding housing
or employment give most whites the misleading impression that it
is somehow illegal, immoral, or unhealthy for whites to want to
live among their own kind in solidly white communities with white
values. Somehow it is wrong for whites to want to date or marry
within their own race. Somehow it is wrong for whites to want to
survive and determine their own destiny as a distinct people. All
of this is a direct attack on the very basic nationalist principle
that the survival of ones own people, race, and indigenous culture
should be non-negotiable.
action" legislation has sought to place less competent
nonwhites over more qualified whites in top positions. This is more
than the theft of opportunity, to the extent that libertarians regard
"opportunity" as an important "property right"
required for a healthy society to function. It is also more than
an attack on basic principles of meritocracy embedded in free enterprise
theory. On a broader philosophical level, it is also a direct attack
on a very fundamental nationalist principle. This principle states
that in order for a people to control their own destiny and survive
as a distinct people, they must always insist
on having their own kind in charge of the strategic bases of society,
to include government, banking, media, the military, and industry.
Yes, it has all been very clever. These "civil rights,"
affirmative action," and "hate crime" swindles have
worked all too well to help intimidate
white Americans out of exercising their Constitutional rights. They
have thwarted the ability of whites to band together to defend their
legitimate genetic interests at a time when they are suffering catastrophic
demographic decline in the face of a massive invasion by illegal
Third World immigrants.
Last, but not lest, they have thwarted the ability of white Americans
to adhere to nationalist principles and challenge the Jewish stranglehold
on American finance and national
media. This, of course, has been the real reason behind all
these laws to begin with. While Jews have promoted the most extremely
liberal interpretations of civil rights, racial integration, affirmative
action, and hate crime laws for white Americans, they have simultaneously
supported kinsmen in Israel who practice the exact opposite
behavior towards Palestinians and white
slaves. Sauce for the goose never seems to be sauce for the
But it gets even worse than all this. The Bush administration and
its Zionist neo-con handlers claim that the U.S. has a neo-Jacobin
mission to use the U.S. military to wage aggressive war around the
globe to spread "democracy." Part of its ill-defined concept
of "democracy," apart from giving more aid to Israel and
more profits for corporate cronies, has involved imposing Federal
concepts of enforced "equality" on Islamic peoples at
gunpoint in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. This has meant running
roughshod over distinctions regarding tribe, race, gender, religion,
class, and other criteria made within these more traditional societies.
While most Americans may not personally agree with certain distinctions
made within alien societies, by acquiescing to gunboat-enforced
equality abroad, they encourage more forms of Federal-enforced equality
and more loss of liberty at home. I have explained
previously, the original concept of liberty in early America meant
having as little to do with government as possible, not the neo-Jacobin
concept of using government to force utopian social visions on others.
and a good form of "leftism"
The term "nurturance" creates another confusing area.
We hear in the ongoing debate in psychology regarding which has
greater influence on human behavior: "environment" or
"genetics," a different phrase used to mean the same thing,
namely: "nurture" vs "nature."
In other words, the "environmental" viewpoint is synonymous
with the "nurture" viewpoint, and the "genetics"
viewpoint is synonymous with the "nature" viewpoint.
The term "nurturance" calls to my mind what sociobiologists
call "altruistic sacrifice." As some examples, we might
think of parents who make sacrifices that aid the survival of their
offspring. We might also think of soldiers who risk their lives
to help their comrades in battle. We might also think of people
who selflessly give their time for charities, or workers who risk
their jobs to unite in protest to gain better working conditions.
This is all wonderful stuff. People are sharing. They are acting
selflessly to achieve a common good. They are giving to others with
little hope of fully receiving anything back. In our society, we
are often conditioned to associate all of this with "leftism,"
"liberalism," and "environmentalism."
Actually when you look under the hood, one can find an interesting
"right wing" connection to all of this wonderful sharing
and sacrifice for the common good as well.
When parents sacrifice for their children, this is not completely
selfless. Some day the parents will die. From a Darwinian perspective
genetic survival is everything. Parents are actually being genetically
selfish by investing in offspring who will carry on their genes
long after they are dead.
Similarly, soldiers who risk their lives in battle for members of
their tribe are actually making a rational sacrifice to optimize
the long term genetic interests of their people. Hence, their battlefield
deaths, while selfless from an individual perspective, is genetically
selfish from a group-tribal perspective. The late great anthropologist
Sir Arthur Keith covers all of this in greater detail in his classic
works: A New Theory of Evolution and Evolution
When extreme leftists talk about the wonders of "sharing,"
all too often what they really mean is a parasitic use of altruistic
instincts, whereby people can be propagandized to sacrifice themselves
for the whims of an exploitive and impersonal state. Or they can
be swindled to provide for an alien people at the expense of their own kind.
Or they can be conned to risk dying for some abstract ideal without
any reasonable hope of tribal genetic reinvestment over the long
term. From a genetic viewpoint, these forms of "sharing,"
"nurturance," and "self-sacrifice" are a swindle.
We need to make a further distinction between "humanitarianism"
and parasitic sacrifice. A right wing humanitarian is someone who
takes care of his own family and tribal genetic interests first,
but then with surplus resources left over, helps alien peoples.
This form of humanitarianism is a very good thing, because it helps
to bring peace and understanding between different tribes, races,
cultures, and peoples. Modern war is extremely destructive. Peoples
from around the world can all mutually benefit from engaging in
the fair trade of goods and the exchange of ideas with each other.
It is a good thing when we can take care of our own interests firsts,
but then on top of all this we can also be good neighbors with alien
peoples and engage in honorable trade and fair dealings. This is
a form of leftism that I whole-heartedly support. I interpret this
as an important component of the classical liberal philosophy that
I espouse elsewhere.
In fact, it is quite ironic that while classical liberalism is considered
very right wing and capitalistic, it creates conditions that favor
prosperity and sustainable forms of free trade between different
peoples. Pro-white racial nationalist versions of classical liberalism
actually encourages more positive interchanges between the different
peoples of the planet than most leftist philosophies that in actuality
promote parasitic sacrifice and forms of racial integration that
obliterate genetic interests while generating bitter conflicts.
For readers who want to delve more deeply into this line of thinking
further on an academic level, I would recommend Beyondism:
Religion from Science and A New Morality
From Science: Beyondism by Dr. Raymond Cattell.
The long term track record for extreme
A big problem with purely environmental schemes is
that in the long run, they have failed miserably in their promises
to create wealth or end conflict on our planet. In the long
run, extreme environmentalism (or leftism) is usually a disaster.
Forced equality usually means forcing people to engage in promiscuous
economic entanglements and associations with people of bad character
and deficient talent. This undermines economic efficiency. Forced
income redistribution in the name of "equality" also undermines
the property rights and other incentives required for rational entrepreneurial
calculation. This undermines the growth of genuinely productive
In the very long run, societies that maintain freedom of association,
property rights, and white rights will prevail economically, technologically,
and militarily over societies with genetically similar populations
that lose these things in leftist crusades. Americans are headed
towards a very hard lesson in this reality as this country plunges
deeper into various forms of de facto bankruptcy.
In regard to ending conflict, forcing people into promiscuous entanglements
can become analogous to forcing incompatible people into mismatched marriages.
This can ultimately lead to more total social conflict down the
road through divorce proceedings than if the partners had been more
discriminating with their mate selection to begin with. Similarly,
forced integration in the former Yugoslavia only compressed the
spring of ethnic tension that much further. It created that much
more of a violent release upon the collapse of communism.
The short term track record for extreme
If we judge "success" by the ability of leftist groups to gain political power and serve their own itnerests, the short term track record (from a long term historical viewpoint) in America has actually been really good. Ever since the War Betweeen the States, America has generally drifted continually further and further to the left. In his book The Age of Uncertainty, the late Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith remarked that many Americans are stunned when they first read The Communist Manifesto and see how many items on Karl Marx's plank have become a reality in America today. In a late 1980's Forbes Magazine interview, Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman added to this that virtually every item on the 1928 Socialist plank is today law and official policy.
Many very well funded and well-connected special interests that exploit leftism have made out like bandits in America. In my discussion of "ponzi politicians" in my centralization vs. decentralization article, I talk about an unvirtuous circle where corrupt politicians agree to support special interests in their legislation if those interests in turn give them money under the table to finance their leftist demagoguery and hand-outs needed to buy more votes and stay in office. It is important to emphasis that a large portion of America's leftist drift has had very little to do with genuine humanitarianism. It conversely has had quite a lot to do with exploiting the neo-Jacobin social order established by King Lincoln, also referred to as " The American Lenin" by certain libertarians, to parasitically draw down the once highly productive White Anglo Saxon Protestant society that created one of the most economically successful countries in the world by the mid-19th century.
Beneficiaries of the current system include pork politicians themselves, crony capitalist corporate welfare recipients, sweat shop owners who hire cheap illegal immigrants, various organized labor leaders, Zionist neo-con warmongors (see The High Priests of War by Michael Colins Piper, carried by America First Books), members of America's "liberal minority coalition" who comprise a large portion of the general public as well as its wealthiest elite (See The New Jerusalem by Michael Collins Pipers, carried by America First books, see also the "liberal minority coalition" concept discussed again later in this article), and irresponsible central bankers required to finance the Neo-Jacobin welfare-warfare global super state that provides blank check support for Israel and wages perpetual war for pertual peace with expansionist fiat money policies (see Secrets of the Federal Reserve by Eustace Mullins, my discussion of Special Privilege in my centralization vs. decentralization article, and the discussion of the reckless fractional reserve banking system in Money, Banking, and the Federal Reserve hosted by the Mises Institute).
As America rides the hell-bound train towards a possible hyperflationary depression and even a fulfillment of Civil War II: The Coming Breakup of America (carried by America First Books), the American Right prays that the Internet will finally elevate it above merely fighting pathetic rear guard action. As recently as the late 1990's there was a joke that American "conservatism" is usually nothing more than whatever constituted aggressive "liberalism" one or two generations before.
The important "time preference" factor
In his Mises Institute lectures, Dr. Hans Herman-Hoppe has observed
that a critical difference between environmental (leftist) and genetic
(rightist) strategies involves what economists call time
preference. In his lectures on Keynesian economics,
which he identifies as fundamentally leftist in nature, he noted
that leftist economic and political policies usually always have
much shorter time horizons than right wing policies. Basically they
tend to be more expedient in nature.
As an aside, it is interesting that Dr. Hoppe had to fight a political battle to keep his job as professor at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas when he was bitterly attacked by gay groups for daring to suggest that homosexuals tend to have a shorter (or "higher") time preference compared to straight people, given their vastly higher rate of promiscuity as opposed to the preference by straights for the maintenance of long term heterosexual relationships that create stable families. Also, according to an American Enterprise Institute study published in the early 1990's, homosexuals, along with Jews, blacks, women, and nonwhite minorities in general, tend to vote on average about one standard statistical deviation to the ideological left compared to straight white men in their political preferences.
America's current industrial policy is actually "leftist" in its time preference. It ignores
national boundaries or any need to maintain an overwhelmingly white middle class majority with
a white culture. Instead, most American companies outsource at the
drop of a hat or use illegal alien immigrant labor whenever there
is a immediate cost-savings advantage. Furthermore, American managers tend to be much more oriented towards maniupating numbers to achieve short term quarterly profit maximization objectives compared to their Japanese counterparts, who are more likely to pursue advanced automation projects that might require a five to ten year payback period. An important book that underscores this point is In Praise of Hard Industries by Eumonn Fingleton, who argues that manufacturing must be maintained at about a third of GDP to provide sustainable economic growth and a real foundation for the service sector of the economy. Manufacturing in America was at this level as recently at the early 1970's, but since then short-term oriented American managers have very foolishly allowed it to drop below 12% of GDP. Also, financial commentators such as Jamese Puplava and Robert Chapman routinely cover the steady drum beat of short-sighted and crooked manipulation among American business leaders, Wall Street, and central bankers. The deterioration in general long term business and other social ethics is also covered in some detail in America Values Decline (carried by America First Books).
All of this shows a very short term time preference. Yes, it is
true that in the short run corporations benefit from cheap labor.
However, in the long America will suffer greater costs than it gains
from cheap labor from the increased social friction created by the
presence of disparate racial and ethnic groups. (Civil
War Two: The Coming Breakup of America by Thomas Chittum helps drive this point home).
It will also suffer from the loss of innovation created by the shrinkage
of the productive white middle class. As I will explain later, whites
have unique innovative talents that are innate in character as a
result of a unique evolutionary
history for hundreds of thousands of years in frost zone environments.
In the long run, it is worth paying white people higher wages as
a long term investment in the continuation of white genetic interests.
Interestingly enough, American industrialist leaders such as Henry
Ford and Andrew Carnegie in the late 1800's and early 20th century
consciously promoted industrial reinvestment policies in America
that would enable them to steadily pay Americans increasingly higher
wages than workers received anywhere else in the world. It was that
kind of thinking that once made America great.
Conversely, to the extent that Mexicans and other nonwhites completely
take over parts of the U.S. and create graft-ridden, socialist governments
similar to their home countries, parts of America will pay in perpetuity
by becoming dysfunctional Third World basket cases. The opportunity
costs of such a fate relative to what parts of American could have
remained as all-white societies literally capable of reaching for
the stars are staggering.
If American CEO's had more wisdom, they would realize that in the
long run, white nationalists are the best friends they could ever
have. This is particularly true so long as white nationalists subscribe
to laissez faire, classical liberal principles that genuinely seek
to reduce taxes and government intervention. CEO's should could
consider supporting groups that openly espouse this position. Given
the financial and demographic crises America faces today, yesterday
was not soon enough.
In the long run, American corporations will will end up paying lower
taxes by supporting pro-white libertarian racial nationalists than
by going with the neo-Jacobin "environmental top" down
policies of America's Zionist-dominated, de facto single party "Republicrat"
administrations, or the unrealistically utopian anti-racial fantasies
of various anarcho-libertarians. Taken only by themselves, the "environmental
top down" and "environmental bottom up" schools of
thought ultimately spell white dispossession and the creation of
nonwhite-run socialist states in America, which in turn means the
strangulation of the entrepreneurial culture that once made America
great. Such strangulation has already taken place in Rhodesia and
South Africa, where whites foolishly relinquished control. This
pattern will only repeat itself here in America if white corporate
leaders do not wake up and start supporting their own long term
"The Key to the Twentieth Century" by Daniel M. Ryan makes some important connections between the rise of centralized states (or "statism") and socialism in the Twentieth Century and increasingly shorter (or "higher") time preferences.
Socialism casts people as opportunists [or as greedy people with short or "high" time preference -editor], who would violate moral standards in order to make a profit if they were free to. This economic amoralism, which socialism imputes to people, also includes hurting others, whether through recklessness or cruelty. In order to contain this dark side, the State needs to prohibit many, if not all, forms of economic activity to keep that dark side of ourselves from being unleashed. This element is contained, whether explicitly or implicitly, in every variant of socialism, including social democracy. The worker is deemed to be a cut above the entrepreneur because working people only earn wages; they are not profit-seekers. Because the workers are good-hearted and somewhat gullible, they need to be protected from a free marketplace through various kinds of social legislation. These include forced-savings plans run by the State, so that any profit which can be had from such plans winds up in the government’s hands. As can be seen from this description, socialism is an answer to the old-Tory categorization of the working class as "feckless by nature," but not a transcendence of it.
More characteristic of the twentieth century is Keynesianism. According to Keynes, the saver is a dead load on the economy; the borrower is what keeps the economy moving. Given a specified interest rate, borrowers have higher time preferences than savers, by definition. Because of the Keynesian mist, we are often accustomed to thinking of entrepreneurs as frenetic deal-cutters who ride tall when on the rise, and often fall on their face when their business outgrows them. At that point, they need to be rescued by a staff of professional managers and accountants. This impression is almost the opposite of the nineteenth-century view of entrepreneurship. A person from that time would remark that the low-time-preference attribute of the typical businessman has clearly been taken over by those managers and accountants. Because twentieth-century culture, especially late twentieth-century culture, has been a high-time-preference one, this insight has been largely lost to us.
This century’s predilection for war is very much part of this phenomenon. As Lew Rockwell observed back in 1997, soldiers tend to be present-centered, and are thus inclined to have a high-time preference. The glamour of war in the mid-twentieth century has helped spread a high-time-preference culture throughout society – during the last decade, it even reached the management circuit, in books such as Tom Peters’ Liberation Management.
Quite often in the real world, you never make it to the long run
if you cannot figure out a way to survive in the short run. In this
regard, leftists have a very valid point. The creation of expedient
alliances among odd bedfellows can be a very effective way to help
pull people out of a jam.
The American Revolution is a good example regarding how leaders
of the patriot cause went to the ideological left over time and
made enormous ideological concessions in order to survive and win
the war, after which they swung back to the right and towards an
"America First" policy.
When the war broke out at Lexington and Concord, New Englanders
were actually more racially and ethnically homogeneous than their
English adversaries. They were mostly descended from hard shell
White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Puritan middle class followers of Oliver
Cromwell and his Parliamentary Cause from Eastern England. In many
ways the fighting started as a continuation of the English Civil
War, where the colonists harkened to long historical memories of
ancient Saxon common law rights predating what Thomas Jefferson
referred to as the "Norman Yoke."
Indigenous legal rights...shared folk traditions...a homogeneous
racial, ethnic, and religious community...long historical memories...this
is all very right wing stuff. No, dear Virginia, the American cause
of liberty did not start with "diversity" and multi-racial,
multi-cultural, New World Order internationalist schemes. Quite
the opposite, in fact.
When Thomas Jefferson wrote that "all men are created equal"
in the Declaration of Independence, he personally owned Negro slaves,
and wrote elsewhere in the same document about merciless Indian
savages. Later, he explicitly
stated that blacks are not the equal of whites. Clearly what
he really meant was that all Englishmen and their American descendants
have equals rights under the ancient Anglo-Saxon common law. However,
this lengthier and more accurate statement does not good revolutionary
Although the revolutionary rhetoric was clearly shifting leftward,
the biggest shift of all came after Congress totally debauched the
currency by inflating it to pay for the war. Congress proceeded
to accept a French alliance, complete with French funding and French
troops fighting alongside the Continental Army.
According to his written statement, this ideological fault shift
caused one of America's most effective combat generals to shift
sides. Benedict Arnold wondered how Protestant English-speaking libertarians could defend their
rights as Englishmen by embracing what he viewed as a French-speaking,
authoritarian, imperial enemy of Protestantism. While Arnold's betrayal of West Point for a high sum earned him Patriot hatred for what
they viewed as completely unprincipled high treason, the idealism
contained within his written statement probably reflected the sentiments
of many Tories who fled to Canada.
Although the Franco-American alliance was definitely left wing for
its time, it was not completely unprecedented or irrational. A large
portion of the American Revolutionary force was made up of Scotch-Irish,
and they could remember quite a few historical instances where the
Scots accepted aid from the French in their wars with certain British
monarchs. In addition, the Enlightenment and Counter Reformation
had changed the character of the Catholic Church in French society
and its attitude towards Protestantism since the era of the English
Civil War. The French government tended to operate independently
of the Vatican.
After winning their independence, the American states went back
to focusing on their own interests. The U.S. Government repudiated
its debt to the French monarchy after it was overthrown. President
John Adams renounced America's treaty with the French and refused
to provide cannon fodder for Napoleon. To top it off, Americans
got the Louisiana Territory from the French on the cheap.
Given that the French monarchy largely bankrupted itself by financing
the American cause (and the Seven Years War in Europe that accompanied the American War of Independence), and respected American sovereignty by withdrawing
its troops, Americans can hardly resent the French. In fact, I personally
believe that the French merit continued warm feelings by Americans
in regard to this historical episode. Americans never would have
won the battle of Yorktown without the intervention of the French
fleet, combined with the assistance of French soldiers and French
financial support. All considering, Americans got considerable mileage out of their left wing alliance with France.
However, there remains a much deeper historical question regarding
how all this happy leftism may have helped uncork some very dangerous
long term leftist viruses. The American Revolution helped inspire
the French Revolution. Unfortunately a leftist strain called Jacobinism,
combined with conspiratorial manipulation behind the scenes, perverted
the original intent of French reformers and led to the tragic deaths
of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Frenchmen during the
period of the French Revolutionary Terror. The French
Revolution by Nesta Webster is a classic expose of
what went wrong.
Leftism in America has led to out-of-control demographic changes
that now threaten white survival. In the 1860's it led to the installation
of a ruthless Jacobin dictatorship under "King
Lincoln." Today we struggle under the yoke of an ever expanding
neo-Jacobin Federal Government whose full horror has yet to run
Extreme environmentalism as form of thievery
Americans are conditioned to accept as noble many forms of leftism
that are in actuality nothing more than sugar-coated forms of stealing.
This needs to cleared up before intelligently discussing leftist
Lying is theft of the truth. Hence, "Black History" lies
that falsely attribute accomplishments to Negroes that never took place in an
effort to bolster Black self-esteem and feelings of equality is
nevertheless theft of historical truth. It is also theft of white
prestige. For example, it is a lie that Cleopatra or the leaders
of ancient Egypt were Negroes.
action is theft of opportunity. It is also theft of meritocracy.
Lastly, it is theft of the right of whites to have their own leaders
in key positions to help determine their own destiny. Hence, it
is also a theft of white sovereignty and other self-determination
"Political correctness" is theft of freedom of speech
and freedom of thought.
The assertion that all men are literally equal is theft of their
individual and group uniqueness.
Feminism is the theft of a woman's natural role as a mother. To the extent
that feminism contributes towards the below ZPB white birth rate,
feminism is theft of the white right to biological survival as a
people and distinct race.
Marxism invariably means theft of private property rights.
The elimination of borders is theft of nationhood.
Ever expanding neo-Jacobin government invariably means more bureaucracy
and more taxes, which means ever more theft of resources from the
privately owned, entrepreneurial sector that creates most of the
real jobs and real wealth.
Centrally planned socialist economies imply theft of free market
pricing mechanisms required to enable complex economies to self-adjust
and communicate real world supply and demand information.
The envy and parasitism factors
With so much thievery going on, one might wonder how extreme leftist
societies can survive over the long run.
Well, that is really the point. They don't. Most leftist regimes
come into power in the first place because of appeals to envy rather
than productive values. In order to survive for any extended time
period at all, extreme environmentalist societies have tended to
parasitically feed off of the conservative societies
that preceded them.
I can think of two good historical examples of parasitic feeding
involving Communist Russia and Communist China.
The Bolshevik Revolution would have never survived were it not for
massive financial assistance from Jewish Wall Street bankers and
intermediaries such as Jacob Schiff and Armand Hammer. In addition,
Stalinist Russian would never have survived Hitler's onslaught were
it not for massive logistical assistance from FDR's Jewish-dominated
In regard to Maoist China, Dr. Murray Rothbard tells a funny story
in his Mises Institute lectures about how the Chinese Communist
bureaucracy found that they needed to routinely order catalogs from
capitalist Hong Kong. The problem that they faced is that the socialist
bureaucracy had completely eliminated free market pricing mechanisms.
The prices of widgets and end items were often set by bureaucrats.
This led to gigantic pricing distortions. In an effort to fix all
of this, the bureaucrats decided to start setting prices from Hong
Kong catalogs. A joke went around that after the great global proletarian
revolution caused everyone to go Communist, they would have to at
least let Hong Kong stay capitalist so that they could continue
to get the catalogs to find out what things are supposed to cost.
Working towards a brave new opposite world
In the first 1990 issue of the old Conservative Review,
Tomislav Sunic wrote the brilliant article "The Fallacy of
the Multiethnic State: The Case of Yugoslavia," He asked whether
the experience of the former Yugoslavia may portend the future of
the State of California and other U.S. multi-racial,
multi-cultural experiments. Implicit in the article is the question
about the value of a liberal social philosophy that produces the
exact opposite results over the long run compared to what it promises.
Please recollect how the Balkan countries were saddled with communism
after World War II. Communist ideology exhorted the people to forget
about racial and ethnic differences and integrate. It preached that
the first priority was to share their wealth with each other, and
to integrate themselves with state-run collectives by forfeiting
private property rights to the state.
The results of nearly five decades of communism were the exact opposite
from what the communists preached. Their approach to sharing wealth
destroyed free market pricing mechanisms. It undermined the security
of owning private property that is required for rational entrepreneurial
calculation The bureaucratic states required to impose equality
squeezed out incentives for innovation and initiative. In addition,
communist suppression of racial and ethnic differences only added
to frustration that would result in greater violence later.
Imagine if instead of "environmental top down" communism,
the various ethnic groups that comprise the former Yugoslavia had
followed 19th century classical liberal principles after World War
II, which I place in the "genetic bottom up" category.
These principles were openly pro-white racial nationalist, but at
the same time distrusted large government and imperialism as destructive
of individual liberty. Classical liberalism , which I like to refer
to as "libertarian racial nationalism," promoted an internal
focus on education, science, trade, and the development of manufacturing
infrastructure as an alternative to war and imperialism, and sought
to replace special privilege with meritocracy.
Under such a scenario, there is a chance that the Balkan peoples
could have maintained their ethno-racial independence from each
other, and yet at the same time could have built up their wealth
and established mutually beneficial trade relations with each other.
I say this with some confidence, looking at the proven track records
of various European countries that followed classical liberal principles
in the 19th century. It is likely that the Balkans could have avoided
much of the tragic turmoil and ethnic cleansing that followed the
collapse of communist "utopia." At a minimum, in view
of the messy social problems that have existed in that region for
centuries, the Balkan peoples might have at least achieved a better
"least bad" solution.
How the genetic viewpoint applies everywhere on both
the individual and group level
As previously discussed, environmentalists see people
as very flexible learners who simply require education to reorient
their culture and values to adapt to their environment and learn
to productively work with each other. With the genetic viewpoint,
it is the other way around. People have only limited bands of flexibility
within which they can change themselves. Otherwise it is more the
case that people tend to reorient the environment around themselves
to accommodate their instinctive tendencies and level of ability.
To use computer jargon, environmentalists tend to think any software
will fit any hardware, whereas geneticists try to match the hardware
to fit the right software.
Let us consider how someone with the genetic viewpoint might consider
the interplay between personality types and libertarian philosophy.
Imagine if someone possessing a highly authoritarian, alpha male,
"theory `x'" type of personality is placed in an environment
completely surrounded by instinctive and professing anarcho-libertarians.
We would expect him to subconsciously make the environment more
authoritarian in subtle increments, whether justified or not. For
example, while he might profess libertarianism to fit in with the
crowd, he will defend his libertarian opinions in a dogmatic way,
and aggressively seek to marginalize those libertarians who disagree
with him. All other things being equal, he will tend to side with
certain libertarian leaders not because they necessarily have superior
arguments, because they have more forceful personalities, project
more confidence, and perhaps provide better "father figures"
as well. In the event of a national crises, the level of social
stress that is required for him to abandon libertarian solutions
and jump into full blown authoritarianism is much less than for
instinctive libertarians. To keep a natural authoritarian on the
libertarian side of the political fence requires a lot more social
reinforcement and hand-holding, almost like trying to help an alcoholic
friend steer away from situations where he reaches for the bottle.
A similar point along this line made by genetic theorists is the
concept that all adults carry within them an emotional little child.
Military units in battle, who supposedly consist of highly trained
tough guys, may need the emotional uplift of brave leaders who remains
calm under fire to avoid breaking. Societies that have become very
corrupt, cynical, and emotionally depressed may require a charismatic
leader to fire up peoples' latent idealism and jump start the level
of confidence and mutual social trust required to get the proverbial
trains running on time again.
Last but not least, genetic theorists believe that a tribe or race
consists in essence of an extended family unit. A family unit has
very special properties that are both biological and cultural in
nature, shaped by long periods of evolution. When one disrupts either
the immediate family, or even the more extended tribal or racial
family, one creates toxic shock effects that can negatively impact
on everything from economic productivity levels to fertility rates.
Anarcho-libertarian theory, which treats adults as rational, autonomous
entities that engage in steely-eyed contractual relationships, tends
to completely ignore this important dimension of human social behavior.
Heredity and individual cognition errors
In his excellent book Flesh
and Machines: How Robots Will Change Us, MIT artificial
intelligence lab professor Dr. Rodney Brooks talks about how the
human brain reconstructs reality. Reconstruction implies subjectivity,
which in turn implies a strong genetic component to the "hardware
For example, on page 77, Dr. Brooks talks about how the human eye
is poorly designed from a purely engineering viewpoint. "In
mammals the cable [of nerves] comes from the rear and punches a
hole in the retina only fifteen degrees from the center of the fovea,
then spreads out over the surface of the retina. This leads to a
blind spot we all have in each of our eyes. When we look in any
particular direction with one eye we are completely blind in one
If the human eye and brain operated on a "brute force"
basis similar to some robotic vision programs, we would always have
an irritating dark blot obstructing our field of vision ahead of
us. In fact, our brains fill in the "blot" to create a
coherent view. Our brains also assemble a sense of a coherent vision
field from rapid point-to-point eye movements that take place as
often as three or four times a second. We do not notice a "jump
cut" or "swish-pan" effect as our eyes "saccade"
very quickly from one point to another, even though our brains disengage
and make us "blind" in 60 millisecond increments. In addition,
the world is projected against the back of our eyeballs upside down,
and our brains convert these images to right side up.
"Seeing" is also an interactive and reconstructive
process for simple manipulation tasks. As an example, a mobile
robot needs to store a 3-D model of a pencil in its memory banks
before it can "see" a pencil lying on a table and know
how to tell it apart from the table and pick it up. Many of our
recognition capabilities are genetically "hard-wired"
in our brains. Human infants recognize and prefer human faces
from birth. Men generally do not have to undergo special education
training to become aroused at the sight of a beautiful woman.
Dr. Brooks' supervises research teams that build increasingly
advanced robots that replicate human cognitive processes, with
the degree of complexity advancing roughly in parallel with human
maturation stages beginning with infancy. One of his wry observations
is that humans tend to overly anthropomorphize fellow humans.
That may seem like a nonsensical thing to say, since "anthropomorphize"
means "to make human," so how can humans overly attribute
human features to fellow humans? What he means by this is that
when you study all the elements of neural functioning in humans,
ranging from the autonomous nervous system to the elements of
cognition and opportunistic behaviors, we tend to assume greater
levels of personality coherence and integration in other people
than actually exists.
"Ideology" becomes important for humans, because we
are often so flooded with massive amounts of different information
that we often need to organize and interpret what we are seeing
in advance before what we actually see can register with us. This
is the basis of what psychologists call "cognitive dissonance"
theory. This looks at the inability of people to rapidly change
certain views even when exposed to overwhelming evidence. The
"genetic" side of this phenomenon involves the way some
people, called "innovators" and "early adopters"
in Everett Rogers' theory of the diffusion of innovation, have
a natural talent for adapting their views much more quickly than
the general population.
The human brain allocates processing power according to what helped
pass on genes in a stone-age environment. This allocation is very
imbalanced compared to space age requirements. For example, in
a Neolithic environment, natural selection had everything to do
with accurately throwing a spear and running upright over rough
terrain, and nothing to do with being able to solve a cube root
function in ones head. Interestingly enough, computer scientists
claim that the human brain has at least a thousand times more
raw processing power than the most powerful supercomputers built
to date. However, a huge portion of human processing power is
"hard-wired" on a neural level towards recognizing objects
and solving complex physical coordination and manipulation problems.
From the space age viewpoint, only a ridiculously small portion
of this incredible raw processing power can be applied towards
accurately solving complex math problems.
One of the implications regarding the way we reconstruct reality
in our brains is that we typically think we are being much more
logical than we really are. The truth is, when humans go from
trying to analyze very simple tasks, such as doing the laundry,
to understanding complex and abstract political issues, the error
rate in our reasoning climbs dramatically —
often without our knowing it. However, even though a lot of things
that we say may be gibberish from a purely logical viewpoint,
they may still "work" on a social level by projecting
confidence, communicating "positive strokes," or other
things that might support our social and ultimately genetic survival.
Various forms of self-deception and "fuzzy logic" that
may have a genetic "hard-wiring" component in the human
brain are not a big secret. In fact, they were explicitly categorized
by ancient Greeks and are the topic of college courses in informal
logic. The short story "Love
is a Fallacy" from the Many Loves of Dobbie
Gillis is an often cited and amusing example about
how pure logic and social norms can very quickly come into conflict.
In this story, first year law student Dobbie Gillis starts dating
a girl named Polly Espy and gives her a crash course on Dicto
Simplicitir, Hypothesis Contrary to Fact, Hasty
Generalization, Ad Misericordiam, Ad Hominem, and
other classifications of logical fallacies. The funny part comes
after five instructional dates when Polly suddenly demonstrates
that she has learned her lessons all too well and starts logically
picking apart everything that Dobbie Gillis says.
If environmentalists are correct that humans are malleable, continually
self-improving learning machines, humans would not continually
commit the same logical errors over and over again.
Contrary to this, the same old worn out, tired out propaganda
techniques remain very effective when used over and over again
by Madison Avenue and national media. The lies that the Bush administration
told Americans to drag the U.S. into Iraq hardly rise to the intellectual
level of Dobbie Gillis' second night out with Polly Esby. This
is really sad in view of the intellectual resources that the United
States should have at its disposal.
The only difference between fallacy classifications addressed
in a Philosophy 101 course and the "propaganda techniques"
listed in the glossary of the U.S. Army Psychological Operations
Manual is that college instructors typically use their knowledge
of fallacies to identify errors and find truth, whereas PSYOPS
personnel deliberately use them to deceive and manipulate target
From a genetic viewpoint, we can expect human thought patterns
continue to fall into ruts identified by logical fallacy categories.
From a Darwinian viewpoint, this is because there were other selective
factors for our ancestors besides mastering logic courses that
were more constraining in terms of passing on their genes.
From my many years as a stockbroker, it has been quite amazing
to me to watch how many seemingly highly intelligent people repeatedly
make the same very hasty judgments over and over again about companies
with their hard earned money that they really do not know anything
about. It is interesting to observe how investors frequently think
they are in control when in fact they are completely ignorant
of important market realities. If nothing else, my experience
helped me better appreciate Socrates' wise saying, "If I
know anything, it is that I know nothing."
A big part of the emergent field of behavioral economics and behavioral
finance involves linking market blunders that otherwise intelligent
people keep making to well known logical fallacies, and then walking
over to the anthropology and sociobiology departments to try to
figure out what it is about human evolution that helped to hardwire
all of this in their brains.
The genetic viewpoint from a broad
Becoming a parent and having additional children is certainly
one area where the tire rubber really hits the road on the broader
social-genetic issues. I am reminded of the article "The
Gene Factor" in the April 13, 1987 U.S. News
& World Report, where University of Oklahoma
psychologist David Rowe quipped, "Every parent of one child
is an environmentalist, and every parent of more than one becomes
a geneticist." From this point we can trace in many directions
how the genetic viewpoint influences us on a broader political
level, even if on only a subconscious level.
For starters, almost everyone practices some form of "eugenics"
in their mate selection. "Eugenics" means "relating
to or fitted for the production of good offspring." People
tend to try to "marry up" and find someone who is at
least their equal or superior in terms of intelligence, social
standing, appearance, and general "fitness." Even if
people profess very liberal political views, they usually avoid
some form of "dysgenics" or "negative eugenics."
Even among leftists, it is hard to find cases of sane, emotionally
stable, intelligent, fit, good-looking people who deliberately
seek out ugly, stupid, congenitally diseased people for mates,
especially in a social situation where they are forced to hang
around and support the offspring as opposed to "sewing wild
oats" while on a vacation fling out of town somewhere. In
fact, speaking of ways people "vote with their feet,"
it is very common in America to see wealthy liberals who preach
racially integrated schools for working class whites to send their
own kids instead to all-white private schools.
Once a person accepts the idea that it is a good idea to "marry
up" on a genetic level and have children, this has a lot
of interesting philosophical, political, and economic implications.
This encourages a thought process that is very different from
the environmental viewpoint.
Let's take a hypothetical example. Imagine you are a straight
white male. Let's go one better: a WASP with direct lineage to
the Mayflower. Your ancestors have bravely fought in all of America's
wars. Have paid all their taxes. Have never wound up in jail.
Solid citizens all the way. Let us also imagine that you have
found and married the girl of your dreams. You are a wage earner,
money is tight, and your wife stays on birth control until you
can build up some funds so that you can afford to have the baby.
Imagine that you have a co-worker who is of a very different racial
and ethnic group. Imagine that you observe that he and his co-tribalists
tend to be very crooked, lazy, obnoxious, and treacherous people.
Despite all of this, imagine also that because he has "pull"
from kindred connections, he suddenly gets promoted over you into
a much better-paying job. With his higher income, he is able to
start his family, and then come into the office and show off the
Meanwhile, although you work very hard, you feel like you are
caught up in a career rut and continue to have problems making
ends meet. You discretely send out your resume, but nothing better
comes along. If this keep up, you and your wife may never have
your family, may never see the baby pictures or the grand child
pictures for that matter. You and your wife may wind up Darwinian
failures, like the dinosaur. Meanwhile, the crooked, lazy, obnoxious,
and treacherous co-worker is a big evolutionary success in your
This simplified scenario might start a deeper thought process.
Why is it that his racial-ethnic group pulls together so effectively
so that his people get ahead, whereas nobody in your own group
seems to care if you get dealt with unjustly and left behind?
Is is because they preserve a sense of identity by maintaining
community cultural, social, or religious organizations or an ancient
indigenous religion? Is it because they indoctrinate their children
at an early age that they are "different" and that all
their strength is in their unity? Is it because people in his
group who have had successful careers usually always insure that
they provide mentorship to younger people trying to start careers,
whereas people in your own group can only think about cashing
in their chips to retire and play golf and could care less about
mentoring the next generation of their own kind? Why such a difference
in attitudes when there is so much at stake?
Let us imagine that you try to go public with your story about
how the jerk co-worker is getting ahead while you and your wife,
despite all your honesty and hard work, are being silently genocided.
First you have the problem of producing hard evidence. How do
you prove that all the unreturned phone calls or job non-offers
were due to anti-white discrimination? Now it begins to sink in
that the worst damage in social strife is subtle and leaves few
fingerprints, but it is nevertheless very real.
Let us imagine you can produce hard evidence. Now we have the
time and expense involved in filling out forms and making complaints.
After all this, who says the bureaucrats will do anything except
laugh? In their affirmative action manuals, they are in fact told
to be on the look out for charges of "reverse discrimination"
as a shallow ploy of unenlightened white bigots.
Next, you try media. Chances are you will find that your story
does not quite "fit" what they are looking for. After
all, only "minorities" are oppressed. All whites are
"privileged." Even if you get media attention, you risk
becoming viewed as a "misfit" and less employable. Many
employers do not want to take the risk that if they hire someone
labeled a "white racist" that they will get hit with
some kind of harassment law suit by nonwhite activists.
In fact, if a prospective employer thinks he might get hit with
a $1 million law suit because of your politics, there is no wage
you can settle for that is low enough to look attractive to him.
From an "expected value" mathematical analysis perspective,
you are still a negative to him even if he pays you zero salary.
This blows out of the water the libertarian notion that there
is no such thing as unemployment, only people who are unwilling
to drop their wage demands low enough.
Obviously when we start talking about government and media, we
are talking about something really big.
When you do some additional research, you discover that it all
gets down to some old hard-knuckled power issues, such as who
controls the strategic bases of society. Who controls the media?
Who controls most of the wealth? Who controls government and major
corporations? Who has the most effective and well financed lobby
groups? Who can field the most militant, organized, and effective
pressure groups? You begin to discover that in our society where
"all men are created equal," that there are folks out
there who are vastly more equal in the real world than you and
In fact, you begin to suspect that your jerk co-worker and his
co-tribalists have known well in advance that you and your wife
might wake up some day and start thinking thoughts inconvenient
to their interests. While you were sleeping, they made sure to
mine and booby trap the legal system with "hate speech"
laws and "not politically correct" social taboos to
make it as hard as possible for you and your group to wake up
and finally defend its own natural interests. In movies and in
television programming, they made sure that people of your racial
group who express resentment appear bigoted, warped, and evil.
Amazing how a single important "genetic" event, namely
having children, can have enormous implications in terms of core
values, social support systems, and ultimately national politics.
The interplay of culture and genetic
In his book Cosmos, Carl
Sagan provided a dramatic example regarding how cultural preferences
can dramatically reshape the underlying character of a gene pool
if it persists over time. He recounts the Tale of the Heike
Crab (pp. 14-15) to explain why this crab, which occurs near
the coast of Japan, today has an almost perfect face of a scowling
samurai on its shell.
According to Sagan, a clan of samurai called Heike were destroyed
in a sea battle in 1185. This gave rise to a legend that their
spirit roams the bottom of the ocean. The legend persists to this
day in an annual festival staged by Heike fisherman descendants
to commemorate the battle.
This legend has influenced the crab harvesting behavior of Heike
fishermen descendants through the centuries. When they see a crab
with a face that remotely resembles a samurai, they are more likely
to throw it back into the ocean and allow it to breed than a crab
that has less of a resemblance. Hence, over time, they have increasingly
shaped the crab population to bear a more perfect samurai face.
This has dramatic implications in terms of politics and religion.
As an example, later I discuss the difference between "natural
religion" and a "revealed religion." Imagine if
a people who once revered a natural religion that upheld very
strong-willed personalities (both male and female) as mythological
demigods then switches over to a "revealed" religion
that reveres some image of a mild-mannered, pacifistic, hippie-like,
messianic guru. Presumably, women will start to put greater energy
into seeking hippie guys who remind them of the guru and having
babies with them, and will have less tolerance for getting along
with very strong and masculine men. Over time we might expect
a more effeminate society to develop on both an innate genetic
level as well as a cultural level. More on all of this later in
my discussion of the "natural religion" concept.
Scientific support for genetic differences
Thanks to the Internet, and the fact that
more Americans tend to become open to new ideas as the country
falls apart, accumulated scientific research on the role of genetics
is making a bigger impact. In fact, even some national media are
now following along kicking and screaming.
As one example Dan Seligman’s May 12, 2003 Forbes article:
Rothman Strikes Again,” states, “In The IQ Controversy:
The Media and Public Policy (1988), Rothman and Mark Snyderman
collected data showing that the press overwhelmingly attributed
IQ differences in the population to various cultural artifacts.
The authors also surveyed 661 experts —
academic psychologists, cognitive scientists, test specialists
decisively rejected these cultural explanations and collectively
stated that some 60% of IQ variance reflected the different genes
of the high and low scorers.”
Other experts weigh in higher. Dr. Arthur Jensen in Bias
In Mental Testing reports, "Estimates of h²
(ie., "broad heritability," which includes all of the
genetic variance) for various standardized tests of intelligence
vary from about .50 to .90 in different samples and populations,
with a central tendency close to .75." (p. 244). In Intelligence
and National Achievement, Dr. Raymond Cattell reported,
"The accumulating evidence that 60-80% of intelligence should
end... [a reluctance by most people to believe that intelligence
is substantially inherited]. It is about as heritable as stature.
By shifting from a generation with poor nutrition to one very
well fed we can get a shift of average stature from about 5 ft.
7 ins. to 5 ft. 9 ins., but you cannot go on doing this."
Some of the best evidence to remove "environmental noise"
comes from studies of identical twins who have been separated
at birth and raised in different environments. The April 13, 1987
U.S. News & World Report article
"The Gene Factor" provided the following examples where
the Minnesota Center for Twin and Adoption Research compared hundreds
of identical twins against the general population and analyzed
statistical variation. The percentages below show how much the
traits are determined by heredity:
are born, not made
||Mixes easily, affable, likes to be the center
||Respect tradition and authority, follows the rules
||Easily distressed and frustrated, feels vulnerable and sensitive
||Tendency to become lost in thought and abstraction
||Keeps to oneself, feels exploited, thinks "world is
out to get me"
||Confident, cheerful, upbeat
||Avoids risks and dangers, takes safe route even if more
||Tends to be physically violent, has a taste for revenge
||Works hard at setting and achieving goals, a perfectionist
||Plans carefully, tries to make rational decisions
||Prefers emotional closeness
Another interesting percentage worth considering is contained
in the 1991
, by J.M. Bailey and R.C. Pillard, which found a .52
genetic contribution to male homosexuality.
Dr. William M. Fox reports in his book American Values
(offered by America First Books) evidence
for strong heritability among criminals as well:
...[A] Swedish study involved 1,775 adopted
men and women who were born between 1930 and 1949. Of the men who
had been born to law-abiding parents and reared in good adoptive
homes, only 3 percent had been convicted of a crime. Of those born
to law-abiding parents and reared in unfavorable adoptive homes,
7 percent had been convicted. However, of those who had been born
to a convicted parent and reared in good adoptive homes, 12 percent
had been convicted, and of those born to a convicted parent and
reared, in unfavorable adoptive homes, the rate soared to 40 percent!"
[from Jerry E. Bishop, "Probing the Cell: Researchers Close
in On Some Genetic Bases of Antisocial behavior," The
Wall Street Journal, February 12, 1986, page 19.]
What makes discussion of racial issues tricky for many people
is the fact that genetic traits in populations tend to manifest
themselves as bell-shaped statistical curves. This makes sense,
since genetic traits originate with DNA molecules, which in turn
are continually replicating. Most DNA will perfectly replicate most
of the time, but we can inevitably expect slight errors from mutation
and other causes on each side of the norm. These errors decline
in frequency the more they deviate from the norm, creating a bell-shaped
Hence, when we compare groups on a genetic level, we have to compare
statistical bell-shaped curves for one group against averages for
another. People who try to confuse a genetic issue often use the
technique of favorably comparing someone on the right hand side
of a bell-shaped curve that characterizes one population group with
people in the left hand side of a different bell-shaped population.
This can disguise the fact that the first population taken as a
whole may be decidedly inferior to the second population group.
The 22 Jan 2006 National Vanguard article "Muliracialists
Are Crazy Part 3 carried overlapping IQ graphs that illustrate
the differences between blacks and whites. These data are taken
from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth, Version 1. According
Bell Curve, by Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray, these
kinds of overall population differences have persisted despite massive
resources expended by environmentalists to eradicate them.
The differences between white and black populations
involve far more than skin color and IQ test results. There
are also significant differences in brain structure. For example,
frontal lobe development is correlated with abstract intelligence,
and whites have a higher ratio of frontal lobe to anterior lobe
area compared to blacks. They also have a larger average brain
size, a higher density of cerebral folding, and other anatomical
features that correlate with greater intelligence, as noted
by such researchers as Dr. Carleton S. Coon, Dr. F. W. Vint,
and Dr. C. J. Connoly.
In his book The External Morphology of the Primate
Brain, that involved a study of 60 brains of whites
and negroes, Dr. Connoly observed:
"Comparing the two large groups of Whites
and Negroes, while the variability is large and there is much overlapping,
the mean values reveal significant differences. The dimensions correlate
well with what we might expect from a knowledge of the cranium in
the two races. The Negro brain is on the average relatively longer,
narrower, and flatter than the brain of the Whites. The frontal
region, as measured by the projectional distance to midpoint of
central sulcus, is, relative to the total length of the brain, larger
in male Whites than in Negroes, while the parietal is larger in
Negroes than in Whites . . . . It can be said that the pattern of
the frontal lobes in the White brains of our series is more regular,
more uniform than in the Negro brain . . . . The White series is
perhaps slightly more fissurated and there is more anastomosing
of the sulci . . . . It is a matter of frequencies."
Obviously one can find examples of blacks on
the extreme right end of the bell curve who are smarter than
most whites. But one needs to compare both curves together to
really grasp the significant population differences. The graph
shows a vastly greater number of people with IQ's over 120 who
are whites who are able to provide intelligent leadership to
society. In contrast, the black population is weighed down with
a vastly larger number of border-line mentally retarded people.
The graph also explains why intermarrying black and white populations
of equal size results in a disaster for any society that wants
to remain a technologically advanced First World country. If
total population size is kept constant, the number of people
with IQ's over 120 drops by 90%.
We can use the bell curve concept to not only compare two different
populations, but also get a sense regarding how a particular
characteristic might be graduated along a spectrum within a
population group. As an example, in his diffusion of innovations
theory, Everett M. Rogers suggested that the bell curve (presumably
for white people) might be divided as follows: innovators (2.5%),
early adopters (13.5%), early majority (34%), late majority
(34%) and laggards (16%). Obviously an advanced technological
society capable of sustainable innovation, scientific analysis,
and rational political institutions needs to maintain relatively
higher percentages of the first few categories on an innate
genetic level than various stagnant Third World countries.
It is probably accurate to say that certain human populations
tend to be unusually rich or skewed in regard to certain traits
relative to others. It is also accurate to say that one can
usually find exceptions at one end of the bell curve that help
prove the "rule" shown by bulges on anther end of
the curve. Take for example America's imprisoned criminal population.
Let us assume that the overwhelming majority of inmates deserve
to be locked away. That curve would probably be heavily skewed
towards a much higher percentage of innately criminal individuals
than the general population, just as the bell-shaped curve of
whites is offset from the black bell-shaped curve in traits
Later in my "mutualism
vs. parasitism" section I profile the Thugs of India
as a criminal population. We might expect such a "criminal
rich" population to show gradations of the criminal trait
within its own bell curve, much like the diffusion of innovation
example. At one end of the curve, we would probably find highly
intelligent but incorrigibly criminal people who are totally
proud of their evil nature and their ability to maliciously
undermine society and fool most of the people most of the time.
Moving towards the center of the bell shape, we would find people
who are marginally criminal. These people may have criminal
tendencies, but they would tend to be more subconscious than
conscious. They can lead fairly honest lives if bolstered by
the presence of honest people. Lastly, at the far other end
of the bell curve, we could expect to find people who are not
particularly criminal at all.
Significantly, if an entire prison population group in criminal
traits were deported to form an independent, self-sufficient
community somewhere, there would probably be relatively fewer
honest people in the population compared to malefactors. It
would be less likely that there would be enough of a critical
mass of honest people to prevent the malefactors from rising
to the top. Put another way, it would be more likely, but not
guaranteed, that the criminals would seize control of the strategic
bases of the society. It would also be more likely that criminals
would marginalize honest people, rather than the other way around.
All of this, despite the fact that a significant portion of
this population might still have some honest people.
Similarly, we can say that a population group rich with people
in low intelligence will tend to comprise a fairly inefficient
and dysfunctional society, even though one would still be able
to find some examples of very bright people in that group. Unfortunately
the smart people would find it hard to accomplish very much,
because they have to spend too much time babysitting the stupid
people who vastly outnumber them. Such a society has a high
"genetic load" or drag factor. It will unlikely be
very competitive with other societies.
We have repeatedly seen vivid examples of this drag factor everywhere
that white rule has vanished in black African countries such
as Kenya, the Congo, former Rhodesia, and now South Africa.
These countries always deteriorate into brutal, corrupt dictatorships
with basket case economies.
One of the effects of affirmative action in America, as well
as special privileges for special interests such as he Israel
Lobby (caught once again spying on America in the Larry
Franklin case), has been to dramatically increase America's
load factors of lazy, stupid, and crooked people. They not only
drag down economic performance, as reflected in the horrifying
trend charts depicted in my Critical
Issues section, but worse yet, they have become powerful
enough to marginalize and drive out honest and productive people.
A basic model for understanding the
evolution of genetic differences
For starters it is critical to understand how
different geographic environments (or "environmental stresses")
sculpture the distributions of traits in human gene pools in
different ways, and how these gene pools can degrade over time.
Here I am using "environment" to mean a physical environment
such as an Ice Age glacier or a sub-saharan jungle. These physical
environments tend to select people in different ways. This use
of the word "environment" to mean a geological environment
that selects for human genes in a certain way is different from
the use of the word "environmental" used at the beginning
of this article to mean "learned" or "nurtured"
In his landmark work Why
Civilizations Self-Destruct, Dr. Elmer Pendell explained
that human gene pools are subject to the Second Law of Thermodynamics,
just like other animals. This law states that chemical reactions
in the universe tend towards greater randomness. This applies
to chemical reactions that sustain life processes inside the
human cell and replicate DNA. In other words, in the absence
of natural selection, animals that reproduce at a zero population
growth rate accumulate dysfunctional mutations and other forms
of genetic load over time and suffer gradual and continual degradation
in their abilities. Because of this deteriorative pressure,
Dr. Pendell believed that animal species only achieve bare survival
equilibrium with their geological environment. The Second Law
of Thermodynamics prevents populations from developing capabilities
in excess of the selective pressures of their physical environment.
Dr. Pendell believed that Ice Age environments imposed vastly
more severe demands on human problem solving skills than tropical
environments. Humans who lacked the ability to create winter
survival technology and who also lacked the ability to delay
gratification to prepare in the summer for the winters tended
to get killed off at a faster rate. This skewed the innate traits
of frost zone gene pools towards technological adapativeness.
In contrast, human groups that remained in temperate zones failed
to develop this greater technological adapativeness. The Second
Law of Thermodynamics kept them in bare equilibrium survival
with the lower requirements of their physical environment.
One might see an analogy with the case of the dodo bird. A group
of dodos once flew into a particular tropical-zone island where
there no ground predators. As dodos established their home on
this island, the ones which remained capable of flight had no
particular survival advantage over birds incapable of flight.
Over time, mutations which inhibited flight spread through the
dodo bird population. By the time European sailors discovered
the island, no dodos could fly anymore. Non-flight "genetic
load" had saturated the dodo population. Sailors could
grab dodos off the ground at will, and they quickly became extinct.
In his landmark book My Awakening,
Dr. David Duke provides an excellent summary of the selective
differences between frost zone and sub-Saharan African conditions
||minimal shelter needed for survival
extremely harsh climate
||no winter —
|warm, well-made clothing —
||no clothing required for survival
|ability to make/control fire —
||fire not required for survival
|long periods of resource deprivation
||resources more abundant
|periods of little vegetation, few small animals
or birds —
||food gathering less problematic in tropical climes
|foresight, planning and delayed gratification necessary
||little seasonal change, immediate gratification
|in resource scarce, male-provisioned, hunting society,
||in female provisioned gathering society, polygamy
|male provisioned society, less sexual and physical
||female provisioned society favors male aggression
and sexual drive
|promiscuous behavior resulting in fights often leads
to death of mate and children
||death in fights from sexual competition not critical
for survival of mates and children
of territorial needs and chivalrous instincts:
Dr. Duke provides some extended discussion to
explain the evolutionary impact of frost zones that is well worth
reading. He notes on page 92:
During most of the last 80,000 years, Europe
endured temperatures much colder than today. Modern Europeans emerged
about 35,000 years ago and met the crucible of the Wurm glaciation
(24,000-10,000 B.C.). Temperatures in Europe and Asia probably averaged
around 18 degrees (F) colder than the present.
We see significant technological adaptiveness and comparatively
higher IQs among all races or racial subgroups that have had a significant
frost zone sculpturing tenure, including eskimos, Japanese, and
Mongols. Conversely, we see a relative lack of technological adapativeness
among tropical peoples. Another example besides Negroes are the
Piraha Tribe of the Amazon, which has proven completely incapable
of learning how to add 1 + 1 despite months of instruction by anthropologists.
Philippe Rushton has put together the IQ map provided below
that illustrate his article: "Winters
Are Good For Your Genes: Lynn Book Finds World Average IQ 90,
Declining From North To South."
I would like to interject my personal view that
the frost zone evolutionary environment likely sculptured temperamental
traits in many other areas besides an aptitude for technological problem
It appears that whites in general, and the Nordic branch of Caucasoids
in particular, have lived for a longer evolutionary period than other
races under extremely dispersed conditions near Ice Age glaciers in
relatively small family or tribal units. The key selective factors
involved man vs. nature technological innovation themes. Man vs. man
guile or artful sociability was probably not a particularly significant
factor. In fact, in some ways it probably helped to err on the side
of having a high sense of individual territoriality to prevent competitors
from stealing ones food in cold winters.
A vivid anecdotal example of this behavior is described at the beginning
of a book called Sissu about the Finnish
Winter War against the Soviets. According to a folk tale, which was
perhaps apocryphal, a Finn heard that someone wanted to build a cabin
several miles away. He pulled out his puukku knife to go kill him
because he felt the stranger was invading his territory.
In his essay "The History of Freedom in Antiquity," the eminent British 19th century historian Lord Acton commented on how a strong need for personal freedom is very ancient among white people:
According to a famous saying of the most famous authoress of the continent, Liberty is ancient; and it is Despotism that is new. It has been the pride of recent historians to vindicate the truth of that maxim. The heroic age of Greece confirms it, and it is still more conspicuously true of Teutonic Europe. Wherever we can trace the earlier life of the Aryan nations we discover germs which favouring circumstances and assiduous culture might have developed into free societies. They exhibit some sense of common interest in common concerns, little reverence for external authority, and an imperfect sense of the function and supremacy of the state. Where the division of property and of labour is incomplete, there is little division of classes and of power...
In his book Body Language, Julius Fast talks
about how people from Northern Europe stand much further apart from
each other in their conversations. Interpersonal interactions among
Nordic peoples often strike others as being a bit stuffy and distant.
As a rule of thumb, as one heads further south in Europe, people stand
increasingly closer to each other in conversation, and have more informal
protocols. It is not uncommon for Mediterranean fathers to hug and
kiss their own sons and kiss other men, which is unheard of in northern
countries. Going further south, Julius Fast points out how Arabs stand
very close to each other. To deny an Arab your breath is to insult
This very different sense of personal territoriality among population
groups has political implications. "Human rights" is probably
related to an instinctive requirement to preserve significant personal
territory before government.
The origin of the cultural and behavioral trait of chivalry is also
an important issue. In "The Passing of the Great
Race" Madison Grant wrote (page 168).
The Nordics are, all over the world, a race of
soldiers, sailors, adventurers and explorers, but above all, of
rulers, organizers, and aristocrats in sharp contrast to the essentially
peasant and democratic character of the Alpines. The Nordic race
is domineering, individualistic, self reliant, and jealous of their
personal freedom both in political and religious systems and as
a result they are usually Protestants.
Chivalry and knighthood and their still surviving but greatly impaired
counterparts are peculiarly Nordic traits and feudalism, class distinctions
and race pride among Europeans are mainly traceable for the most
part to the north." (p. 228).
The social status of woman varies largely with race, but here religion
plays a part. In the Roman Republic and in Ancient Germany women
were held in high esteem. In the Nordic Countries of today, women's
rights have received much more recognition than among the southern
nations with their tradition of Latin culture." (p. 228).
Chivalrous competition is very common among frost
zone mammals such as wolves, reindeer, foxes, bears, and bears. One
of the greatest threats to chivalry is parasitism. While parasitism
is very common in tropical environments, where animals are close enough
for parasites to easily hop from host to host, the high degree of
animal dispersion in Arctic environments works in the opposite direction.
In chivalrous competition, males will spar to compete for females.
They compete just enough to show dominance, but refrain from destroying
the loser by drawing blood. This enables the more fit males to disproportionately
reproduce, thereby maintaining the strength of the herd. However,
by not killing off the weaker males, the herd retains the greater
safety of numbers to ward off packs of predators.
Chivalrous government is an anomaly among most human societies. Most
human societies around the planet become very pyramidal is they become
very large. The people at the top typically become increasingly vicious
to fend off any real or perceived competitors.
We can see how chivalrous instincts must be spread among the general
population in order for Western Civilization to become viable. Parliamentary
debate depends on the ability of individuals to voice their dissent
without getting assassinated. The right to face ones accusers in a
trial by jury depends upon not being up against vicious mafia groups
who ruthlessly kill off all witnesses. Scientific debate requires
the ability to advance a new theory that contradicts leading scientists
without losing ones job.
In order for competitive free markets and for free enterprise capitalism
to remain viable, both the government and the largest corporations
must refrain from using their power to viciously squeeze out competitors
and rig the markets.
One reason why America is breaking down, incidentally, is the increase
in vicious, anti-chivalrous behavior throughout society. We see this
in the case of people who lose their jobs for voicing not politically
correct opinions. In contrast, back in the early 19th century chivalrous
values once made America once of the most admired countries on earth.
Today America has become despised around the world. The
High Priests of War
by Michael Collins Piper documents
how America's foreign policy has been high-jacked by Jewish neo-cons
all domestic critics of their influence. Torture, which
is very commonly used by Israelis against Palestinians, is now widely
used overseas by Americans.
An interesting indicator of America's depravity involves the sad case
of Jewish spokesman and national media darling Dr. Alan Dershowitz.
He hardly ennobles either the Harvard University faculty or America's
Jewish community. He has artfully tried to reduce public repugnance
towards the use of torture
and has viciously attacked
his colleague Dr. Stephen Walt, former Dean of Harvard's Kennedy School
of Government, for the report
co-authored with Dr. John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago
that criticizes the Jewish Lobby's role in American foreign policy.
Critics of Jews have historically viewed them as an an alien racial
group instinctively incapable of acting like chivalrous gentlemen.
For over two thousand years their evolutionary history has been focused
on man vs. man competition where they have been outsiders in highly
urbanized environments forced to live by their wits. Critics such
as Henry Ford in his International Jew
claim that Jews as a group are more likely to produce a disproportionate
number of people who are prone to engage in covert, deceitful, vicious,
criminal, Mafia-like behavior. In business they have a greater tendency
to act as vicious monopolists. In their view, Jews tend to be incompatible
with chivalrous republican government and principled free enterprise
This has some similarities to Ralph Townsend's analysis in Ways
That Are Dark
about the Chinese (offered by America
). To him, it is no accident that the Chinese
are often referred to as "The Jews of the East." For well
over two thousand years the Chinese have endured conditions of extreme
deprivation and overcrowding, in which Darwinian survival depended
heavily on artful man vs. man diplomacy, to put it politely. In addition
to their considerable business acumen, Townsend claims that the Chinese
have an amazing capacity to ingratiate themselves with Americans.
They can quote high-minded platitudes of Confucius one moment and
then just as easily break their word with Westerners the next. According
to Townsend, writing in 1933, the Chinese language has no real equivalent
of the word "lie" that carries with it any sense of the
moral repugnance that accompanies its usage in the West.
Townsend noted that the Japanese, who have absorbed some Caucasoid
genes from the Ainu, have a very different cultural personality that
is much closer to Western concepts of personal honor. Townsend observed
an interesting paradox that begins with the fact that initially Americans
tend to like the Chinese more than the Japanese. The Chinese seem
much more affable and gregarious, whereas the Japanese appear more
reserved. However, Townsend claimed that after Americans have had
enough dealings with both the Chinese and Japanese to begin to understand
each group, most Americans start to prefer the Japanese. They discover
that they have more in common with the Japanese on the honor issue,
and that is more important to them in the long run.
In regard to the comparing the Chinese with Jews, if one compares
Ways That Are Dark
by Dr. David Duke, one can see that the
Chinese are qualitatively very different from Jewish supremacists
in many important ways. Among other things, the Chinese have had their
own land base and self-contained civilization for thousands of years.
Their religious institutions make it possible for them to find contentment
within their own borders without defining themselves relative to other
peoples or making it a divine mission to perpetually infiltrate and
exert control over other societies under false pretenses.
The origins of advanced civilizations
According to Dr. Elmer Pendell in Why Civilizations
, advanced civilizations began when peoples
of the north headed southwards to warmer lands where survival was
much easier. Dr. Pendell defined civilization as the sum total of
problem-solving improvements made by people over time. Hence, the
peoples of the north had excess genetic capacity in terms of intelligence
and robustness that could now be invested towards the continuous problem
solving processes required to create advanced civilizaations.
However, once in the warmer lands, the peoples of the north were no
longer subjected to savage sculpturing factors. Their offspring tended
to decline over time in average fitness much like the dodo bird. In
addition, the civilizations they created developed niches that allowed
people of low ability to reproduce at a faster rate than people of
Paradoxically, as the material improvements and monuments of civilizations
accumulated over time, giving the external appearance of an increasingly
advanced civilization, the underlying genetic quality was steadily
deteriorating. Eventually, the ratio of nonproducers to producers
increased to the point that bygone civilizations began to stagnate.
At this tipping point, they began to lose traction in their ability
and solve problems. Eventually they became so overwhelmed by their
accumulating problems that they went into decline.
At this point let me interject that while I agree with Pendell that
dysgenic decay is an important long term underlying factor, I see
evidence that many civilizations seem to fall apart well before their
underlying gene pools are totally depleted due to the accumulation
of genetic load.
I think that there are two extremely important addition reasons to
help explain the accelerated decline of various civilizations. One
reason is that over time civilizations tend to become more centralized
and tyrannical, which degrades their ability to engage in rational
innovation and problem-solving on a grass roots level. In cover this
process in some depth in my centralization
discussion. Please note my libertarian analysis
regarding how centralized government tends to turn into ponzi government,
which in turn tends to turn into evil government.
In addition, as societies become more centralized and individuals
become less self-sufficient, people with increasingly criminal traits,
parasitic modus operandi, and other mental
tend to rise to the top and set the tone of society.
This also severely degrades the ability of a society to engage in
rational grass roots problem solving and innovation. I discuss the
"criminal personality" and parasitism in depth in my mutualism
There is definitely an unvirtuous circle involved here in which all
of these factors viciously feed on each other. Dysgenic decay encourages
increasing centralization, because a declining level of overall competence
in the overall population makes its more likely that "the masses"
will become increasingly less self-sufficient as individual adults
and instead assume an increasingly child-like level of dependency
on their rulers. They will simultaneously become less capable of heading
off various forms of tyranny. Similarly, as a population becomes weaker
in terms of its innate character and intelligence, it becomes less
capable of resisting criminal exploitation.
Dr. Edward Wilson and Sir Arthur Keith add to Dr. Pendell's
In his book Sociobiology: The New Synthesis
Dr. Edward Wilson explains how the selection of certain genetic traits
can only be explained in terms of natural selection applied on a group
level as opposed to an individual level.
One example includes selection for altruism. This is a trait that
motivates an individual to risk his own life or to diminish his own
resources for the greater good of his group.
We might imagine the following as an example of altruistic sacrifice.
A woman has several children who are in danger of getting mauled by
a bear. The mother starts fighting the bear to give her children time
to flee, and gets mauled to death. From an evolutionary viewpoint,
although her genes are now lost, there is still a net gain of the
survival of her children.
As another example, imagine a group of young men who fight to the
death to defend their tribe against invaders who might genocide or
enslave their people. Their sacrifice is cost effective if it prevents
the destruction of the remainder of their gene pool.
In contrast, imagine a group where parents tend to feel no inclination
to risk themselves to save their children, or where young men feel
no inclination to fight to defend their tribe against attack, enslavement,
and possibly even extermination. In this case, this group without
any altruistic instincts is more likely to become extinct than one
that has altruistic traits. In a world where tribes compete for living
space, the group without altruism cannot effectively band together
to defend its genetic interests.
Since altruism has a genetic basis, it is vitally important that a
people with strong altruistic tendencies focus this behavior first
and foremost towards the reproduction of their own genetic type. In
this way the altruistic genes survive.
If on the other hand a group carrying a high degree of innate altruism
can be tricked into adopting and nurturing alien children, or pursuing
economic policies that benefit alien interests before their own kind,
then the altruistic group is in fact now suffering from parasitism.
An alien group is now enhancing its own genetic fitness at the expense
of the altruistic group, in essence "using up" the first
group's altruism to promote the survival of alien genes. If this parasitic
relationship continues for too long, the altruistic group will become
extinct, and altruistic behaviors will die with them.
Sir Arthur Keith's Evolutionary Breeding
The late British anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith argued
that tribal separation in what he called "Evolutionary Breeding
Units" has been very important in the human evolutionary process.
Tribal separation allowed beneficial mutations to take hold. Furthermore,
tribal separation enabled groups with superior genes to expand at
the expense of failed groups. Among other things, it enabled a tribe
with altruistic traits to avoid being parasitically used up by a group
that lacks these traits. It also rewarded successful groups on a genetic
level, analogous to the way successful entrepreneurs must be able
to retain earnings in their companies to grow in a competitive free
enterprise capitalist system.
Sir Arthur Keith described how competition takes place not only between
tribes, but also to promote eugenic as opposed to dysgenic mating
on an individualized basis within a tribe. When applied to mating,
"eugenic" means mating that promotes offspring who are more
fit. "Dysgenic" means mating that produces less fit offspring.
As mentioned earlier, humans tend to naturally engage in eugenic practices
when they try to find a marital partner who is their equal or better.
One cannot help but wonder if a combination of tribal competition,
combined with internal eugenic mating selection inside competing evolutionary
breeding units, accounted for the "cranial explosion" that
occurred among human ancestors in last three million years. Dr. Edward
Wilson's classic work Sociobiology: the New Synthesis
provides a vivid example with a graph that plots brain
volume (y-axis) against millions of years before present on the x-axis.
(Figure 27-1, redrawn from Pilbeam, 1972).
The graph starts with Ramaphithecus punjabicus
who had an
estimated 310 cc brain volume roughly 14 million years ago. A hypothetical
curve showing the brain volume of our ancestors shows a steady gradual
rise of less than 20 degrees for the next eleven million years until
we get to Australopithecus africanus
, with about a 460 cc
capacity roughly 3 million years before present. From here the cranial
capacity curve sharply accelerates. We see Australopithecus habilis
at 600 cc about 2 million years ago, Homo erectus
cc about 1 million years ago, and Homo sapiens
1,400 cc at present. The curve reaching Homo sapiens
about a 70 degree upward climb.
After Homo Sapiens
depicted on the graph around our present
time, we see the line on the chart fall off from a 70 degree climb
to a 45 degree climb. Considering the way America and other Western
countries are being dumbed down as a consequence of out of control
Third World immigration and the habit of the most fit white women
having the least children, I think that it would be more accurate
to show a negative angle. This would be consistent with Dr. Pendell's
observation that civilization tends to create niches that support
the reproduction of the less fit at the expense of more productive
people, and hence tends to reverse evolution.
The positive evolutionary function of tribalism
In the article "Zoological Subspecies in
Man" by Dr. Norman Hall in the October 1960 issue of Mankind
, Dr. Hall observed that "racism"
prevails among all mammalian subspecies in nature. (The term "subspecies"
is synonymous in zoological jargon with the term "race").
...Consider, if you will, the results of competition
between closely allied subspecies of wild mammals when one penetrates
into or is introduced into the range of another. Whether they be
mice, moles, or monkeys, one and only one subspecies survives in
a given area, because after a few thousand years, ordinarily in
a much shorter time, crossbreeding may result in amalgamation, a
sort of extinction by dilution. but the more common results are
either that they fight and one kills the other, or that as a result
of less direct combat, the individuals of one subspecies more often
usurp the best food, places best suited for rearing young, and shelters
for affording maximum protection from enemies. Therefore the one
subspecies thrives, whereas the other subspecies because of lower
birth rate and decreased longevity that result from inferior food,
inferior nurseries and insufficient shelter, decreases and disappears.
The introduced black rat (Rattus rattus rattus)
has disappeared from the large areas in North America where competition
was furnished by another introduced subspecies, Rattus
rattus alexandrinus. So it goes in almost every instance
where kinds of mammals so closely related as subspecies of the same
species are suddenly thrown into competition over a large area.
Indeed, study of the thousands of subspecies of native wild mammals
has led to the formulation of the biological law concerning them
that: Two subspecies of the same species do not occur
in the same geographic area. Of the half dozen or
fewer exceptions reported to date, reinvestigation has shown that
the two kinds instead were in every instance full species, or two
subspecies that lived each in a habitat apart from the other. Thus
the rule remains almost or quite without exception and it should
give pause to anyone about to advocate the long continued residence
together of subspecies of man.
The implication here is very clear. Racism is instinctive
in man, just as it is in all other mammals. "Racism" survives
as a genetic trait because Evolutionary Breeding Units that have this
trait are more likely to dominate, acquire the best territory, and
pass on their genes than those that lack racist traits.
According to Dr. Hall, tribalism and racism work so well in nature
that they do not even have to be a consciously defined process among
mammalian subspecies. Through evolution they become instinctive or
"default" behaviors among animals species incapable of consciously
viewing the world in ideological terms.
Hence, we do not necessarily require ideology to explain why humans
instinctively maintain armies and national borders. They sense a strong
need to prevent alien peoples from either conquering or infiltrating
their territory and driving their own indigenous population out of
existence. Hence, "nationalism" and "national borders"
are not some kind of "Grand Illusion," as extreme leftists
and certain anarcho-libertarians would have it, but rather a territorial
imperative deeply rooted in our genes.
In his book Civil War II: The Coming Breakup of America
Thomas Chittum provides another form of evidence that tribalism and
racism are instinctive in humans. He lists 37 European countries,
starting with the countries that have the most homogeneous populations.
As we go down the list, starting with countries in which 98% of the
population consists of one ethnic group, we see that when we reach
countries where the most dominant group is no more than 75% of the
total population the incidence of instability and civil war increases
dramatically. He concludes (p.131), "The lesson is clear: The
more mono-ethnic a European nation is, the more likely it is to be
peaceful and stable. The more multiethnic a European nation is, the
more likely it is to experience tribal civil wars. There is simply
no real arguing this brutal fact."
A third argument that tribalism and racism are instinctive is provided
by Dr. Lothrop Stoddard in his books such as The Rising
Tide of Color
and The French Revolution
in Santo Domingo
. According to Dr. Stoddard, when two
dissimilar races interbreed, quite often rather than getting rid of
racism, they create a new group that begins to function like a third
race. Now instead of one racial conflict between two groups, one has
three racial conflicts between three groups. This can create an even
bigger social mess.
As one example, when Spaniards first came to the New World, they rarely
brought wives from Spain, but instead mated with Indian women and
created Mestizos. As Mestizos grew in size and influence over three
centuries, it tended to swing back and forth politically between Indian
and white interests. The "wars of liberation" that broke
out in Latin America against Spanish rule in the early 1800's were
essentially race wars in which the Mestizos allied themselves with
Indians to oust what was left of the white ruling class. Simon Bolivar,
an aristocratic renegade who served as a major leader in the revolts,
eventually came to view the Mestizos and Indians as incapable of forming
a stable government along classical liberal lines. He proclaimed himself
a dictator a couple of years before making plans to retire in Europe.
In The French Revolution in Santo Domingo
Dr. Stoddard tells a sadder story with a similar theme. Santo Domingo,
known today as Haiti, was once the most prosperous French plantation
society in the New World. The whites imported so many blacks to work
their plantations that they became only about10% of Haiti's population.
These Frenchmen also managed to sneak in enough dalliances to create
a sizeable class of mulattoes over time. Not surprisingly, the mulattoes
tended to swing back and forth politically between black and white
The French Revolution created a wave of liberalism that led to the
emancipation of the slaves. However, various power struggles led to
tragedy. This included the willingness of the British as part of the
Napoleonic Wars to supply arms to the blacks to make trouble for the
French. The situation deteriorated into an all-out race war where
the mulattoes and blacks joined together to kill all the white people.
This included savagely killing off totally defenseless white women
and children. Then the pure blacks turned on the mulattoes and killed
most of them as part of an internal racial purification move.
All of this seemed to take place "naturally" in the early
1800's. Zionist-dominated, liberal national media did not exist yet
Although Haiti was once France's most prosperous colony, today it
is the most backward country in the western hemisphere. Where
Black Rules White: A Journey Across and About Hayti
by Hesketh Prichard, first published in 1900, is a fascinating study
of a society that has returned to its genetic baseline. The very primitive
way that most blacks function in Haiti is almost surrealistic by Western
standards. Consistent with genetic theory, we saw some of this same
surrealism resurface among blacks in New Orleans during the Hurricane
How genetic distance influences the degree
of altruistic and parasitic behavior
ne important implication of the instinctive
component of racism is that the more similar people are racially,
the more likely it is that that they will have an altruistic, mutualistic,
or symbiotic relationship. Conversely, the more dissimilar they are,
the more likely it is over the long run that the relationship can
devolve into something predatory or parasitic.
Of course we are speaking here about statistical probabilities, not
certainties. No doubt on an individualized basis, people can meet
certain individuals of other races for whom they have tremendous respect
and admiration. No doubt there are mixed communities that can learn
to get along under certain social conditions.
Despite all of this, there is still a broader social problem that
never goes away. It is deeply rooted in our genes. The rule of thumb
is that all other things being equal, the greater the genetic distance
between peoples who make up a community, the more the community requires
massive infusions of liberal propaganda and political "hand-holding"
to keep things together, and the more likely it is that severe economic
and political stress will break things apart. In other words, highly
race-mixed societies tend to be highly "leveraged" societies.
As previously mentioned, all it took was the flooding related to Hurricane
Katrina in August 2005 for racial
to break out in New Orleans and make the city look like
In contrast, racially homogeneous Japanese cities have experienced
vastly more devastating earthquakes, and yet have remain relatively
free of plundering and other forms of social strife.
America in the late 20th century has become a major historic anomaly
by the way its leaders encourage its majority white population to
elevate aliens and promulgate their own dispossession. In my section
" interpretations of history, I describe how the
Anglo-Saxon Puritans who settled New England and provided a major
foundation for the American Revolution were very homogeneous on a
racial, ethnic, cultural, political, and religious level. Up until
the 1840's, America was overwhelming white and Protestant. Fast forward
to today, and we see across America a multi-racial, multi-cultural
population held together principally by leftist ideology. America
seems to be on some kind of winding down cruise control from remnants
of cultural habits and institutions established in the 19th century
by a totally different society, while groups like the neo-cons described
in High Priests of War
or the Jewish elite
described in The Dispossessed
every last little drop of viability out of us before the whole bankrupt
I must emphasize that in America's power centers, we have not eliminated
racism and tribalism. To the contrary, in many ways these things are
more virulent today than they have ever been before in American history.
I can say from personal experience having lived in New York City for
ten years, I saw far more extreme
among its vast Jewish population —
despite the fact that publicly so many Jews pretend to be liberals
than I ever
observed growing up in the South and being exposed to Southern white
rednecks or serving in the Marine Corps and being exposed to professional
All we have done is merely shifted the "who" and the "how"
behind it all. Instead of supporting white racism to acquire living
space in North America from Indians, now America's elites focus on
helping Zionists accumulate Jewish living space in the Middle East.
Americans also provide blank check support to hobble any real or perceived
enemies of Israel, to include Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, and the
next possible target Iran.
American leaders provide unswerving rhetorical support for the strictly
segregated, anti-Palestinian apartheid state of Israel. The oppression
of Palestinians is cruel and ghastly beyond belief. Palestinian activists
and suspects are routinely rounded up and tortured by Israelis. Their
leaders are often targets of assassinations. Helpless civilians are
often targets of genocidal bombings and machine-gunnings. Many Palestinians
are forced to live in tightly controlled, "locked down"
communities where their means of making a living has been stolen from
them and they can only survive from charitable assistance provided
from the outside. The list of abuse goes on, but the point is that
in terms of systematic cruelty, the Israelis make Simon
in Uncle Toms Cabin
mild and amateurish by comparison. By giving blank-check support to
Israeli oppression, combined with its commission of such war crimes
as spreading aerosolized depleted uranium among hundreds of thousands
of helpless Iraqi and Afghanistan civilians, the U.S. Government surrenders
whatever moral authority it claimed for waging its war of conquest
against Southern states in the 1860's to ostensibly free slaves, although
its real objective, of course, was to impose high tariffs.
This is almost like a textbook physics problem where matter and energy
are conserved on both sides of a reaction equation. Here, total "racism"
has been conserved. It has gone from a diffuse form of racism held
by America's white majority in the 19th century to a very concentrated
and virulent form of racism held by America's Jewish elite and their
liberal minority coalition allies. When we net out the "anti-racism"
taught to whites to prevent them from rebelling against Jewish media
and financial overlords, and add in racism taught to American troops
to kill helpless Arabs, and then combine all this with Jewish and
other liberal minority coalition racism, it appears that "total
racism" has been "conserved" within our "social
system" since the 19th century. Like matter and energy in a physics
equation, it has not been destroyed, it has merely been shifted and
transformed. This is almost mathematical in nature, not to mention
In the long run it would be much healthier for white Americans to
deal with their instinctive racism in an open, honest, and decentralized
level. We would be better off trying to honestly express our racism
within the framework of classical liberal principles rather than continue
to deny our instinctive nature as part of the current modern liberal
The Orwellian tactics used by America's Jewish media elite to deal
with our instinctive racism simply cannot go on forever. The situation
will probably reverse sometime after the coming economic collapse.
How "anti-racist" campaigns create
an unsustainable and unstable paradigm
Once one accepts the premise that racism and tribalism have an instinctive
basis, this creates an entirely new perspective regarding government-mandated
"anti-racist" and "anti-discrimination" campaigns.
In fact, anti-racist campaigns remind me of ecological models that
show how various trends sew the seeds of their own demise and must
inevitably reverse themselves.
As an example, imagine a population of wolves that feeds on a population
of reindeer. As the wolves become more successful, their population
grows and they begin to experience more competition among themselves.
Conversely, the weakest and slowest reindeer get killed off, making
it harder to catch the more fit remainder of the herd. Meanwhile,
with fewer reindeer around, more grass becomes available for survivors,
increasing their chances of survival. As the surviving reindeer get
faster, and have more grass to eat, and conversely as the wolves multiply
and become increasingly less successful at hunting, we can see how
eventually the wolves will reach a point of diminishing returns and
the equilibrium balance between wolf and reindeer populations will
eventually reverse against the wolves.
Similarly, when a society suffers from massive anti-racist propaganda,
the groups that quietly retain their racism have a huge survival advantage
and grow at the expense of anti-racist idealists. This is because
people who can function as a group generally have an advantage over
atomized individuals. In addition, since the dominant groups' defenses
against alien infiltration have been anesthetized, more aliens can
now flood into the country. This will ultimately cause increasing
racial strife and racial consciousness as well.
At some point the growing power and abrasiveness of the covert groups
and alien infiltrators will become so great that atomized, anti-racist
white Americans will finally figure out that they have been duped.
The cynical elites that originally promoted the anti-racist campaigns
hope that by the time white Americans finally wake up, they will have
been reduced to an impotent minority, and will then feel forced to
accept their dispossessed status with passive resignation.
We saw how decades of ethnic suppression under communism in the former
Yugoslavia helped produce a genocidal reaction after communist collapse.
Therefore, because anti-racist campaigns tend to produce in the long
run the exact opposite of their stated purpose, there is always have
a whiff of politically expedient snake oil to them. Wilmot Robertson
underscores this point in The Dispossessed Majority
when he observes that the biggest self-styled anti-racists in American
society, namely the Jewish elite that controls the liberal minority
coalition, are in fact the biggest racists of all.
This why I believe that in the long run it is healthier for individuals
and society to deal with their own instinctive racism out in the open.
It may not be particularly pleasant to certain people, but handled
in this way people are more likely to function on an even keel and
figure out ways to productively coexist rather than go to extremes.
The "genetic interests" concept
Genetic distance between peoples can be quantified scientifically.
The article "Ethnic
" by Michael Rienzi in the Feb 2003 issue
of American Renaissance
reviews Dr. Frank
Salter's landmark work "Estimating Ethnic Genetic Interests:
Is it Adaptive to Resist Replacement Migration?" This article
is well worth reading in its entirety. In the name of brevity, I will
provide some of the particularly important excerpts.
Mr. Rienzi starts by commenting that so-called "mainstream"
discussions about increased crime and other impacts of Third World
immigration miss the ultimate consequences, namely the impact on the
genetic continuity of America's declining white population:
From an evolutionary standpoint "fitness"
means "reproductive fitness," or the propagation of distinctive
genes from one generation to the next. Living organisms can be seen
as the vehicles by which this propagation occurs. Thus, as Dr. Salter
explains, adaptive behavior "maintains or increases the frequency
of one's distinctive genes in the population." Family or kin
share many of the same distinctive genes, so as a person's fitness
is increased by the survival and reproduction of his kin.
Increasing shared "genetic interests"
within ones own population increases the chances that people will
work together beneficially on a political and economic level. Decreasing
ones genetic interests for any reason has the opposite effect, that
is, this path increases the risks of alien strife and usurpation described
by Dr. Norman Hall in Zoological Subspecies in Man,
by Wilmot Robertson in The Dispossessed Majority,
or by Thomas Chittum in Civil War II.
Scientists can take the genetic data from works such as Luigi Luca
Cavalli-Sforza's 1994 book The History and Geography
of Human Genes and calculate the extent of damage alien
immigration does to the genetic interests of the indigenous population.
The amount of genetic change can be calculated as the equivalent number
of children not born to an indigenous person.
According to Dr. Salter, because Danes are similar to Englishmen,
an influx of 10,000 Danes would have an impact on changing an indigenous
English population by "not having" 167 children. In contrast,
genetically distant people create vastly more damage. The arrival
of 10,000 Bantus is the equivalent of 10,854 lost children.
Mr Rienzi observes that, "While plunging
birthrates may be genetically damaging for European-derived peoples,
their replacement by genetically alien immigrants is much worse.
A falling birthrate reduces the population but does not transform
it genetically, and a future increase in birthrates can always make
up for the loss. Once immigrants have established themselves in
a native territory their genes are a permanent addition. From the
standpoint of genetic ethnic interests, the idea that `immigration
makes up for low native birthrates' is pathological."
The following chart, taken from the aforementioned History
and Geography of Human Genes, helps to show on a pictorial
level the genetic distances that scientists have determined on a
quantitative level. Kevin Strom notes in his article "Multiracialists
Must Be Crazy" that:
"The picture painted is not one of panmixia,
but of races evolving away from each other, away from the average
or center, becoming more diverse in the true sense of the word,
more different. This, too, is in accord with both common-sense observation
and the laws of evolution, which posit racial divergence and separation
as one of the very engines of Life itself."
The moral basis of "in-kind
One of the many lies fed to white Americans by their controlled
is the notion that once they accept concepts involving genetic distance
and kindred loyalty, that all of a sudden they will be at grave
risk of turning into evil, totalitarian Nazi
demons who want to go around slaughtering, enslaving, or oppressing
alien peoples. Therefore, ideological leftism is the only way to
Actually one can argue that almost the exact opposite is true, namely
that being an anti-racist leftist can be far more deadly in the
long run for humanity than acting as an open pro-white racial nationalist
who is respectful of other peoples. In fact, one might even argue
that a white person must become a pro-white racial nationalist in
order make humanitarianism sustainable into the future.
For starters, I already mentioned in the introduction
to this series that the body count under "genetic bottom up"
classical liberal (or libertarian racial nationalist) leaders such
as Thomas Jefferson and William
Gladstone are utterly miniscule compared to card-carrying leftist
"environmental top down" leaders such as Mao Tse Tung,
Lenin, and Pol Pot. Libertarian racial nationalists who appreciate
the uniqueness of race, heritage, and culture for their own kind
are more likely to respect these characteristics in others, compared
to leftists who view all of mankind as infinitely re-programmable,
interchangeable, and ultimately highly expendable masses.
We see evidence that societies following classical liberal principles
can be amazingly peaceful and benign. This is reflected in the old
crack that the Scandinavian countries have been blessed with "boring
histories" in the last few centuries. Once the classical liberal
focus on science, technology, and industry starts to pay off with
rising living standards, people start cutting back on having large
families and creating population pressures that encourage territorial
conflicts. In addition, their desire to trade goods created by their
growing industry creates another incentive to be nice towards other
countries. In fact, these societies give more per capita in humanitarian
aid than any other societies on this planet.
Conversely, Third World countries that can least afford to have
large families are the ones who are always producing children at
a faster rate than their growth in wealth. They are also the most
likely to embrace and suffer from de facto forms of authoritarian
Marxist Socialism. Given the vastly superior historical track record
demonstrated by racially conscious, all-white First World countries
who have embraced classical liberal principles, one might wonder
what kind of perverse mentality would have the chutzpah
to attack them for their "racism."
Secondly, when anti-racists attack racial nationalist societies,
they fail to solve the altruistic reinvestment problem. After all,
we know that altruism has a genetic basis, and that different races
have different aptitudes for technological innovativeness, individual
initiative, decentralized institutions, and humanitarianism.
People who are innately charitable, talented, and productive have
to be able to perpetuate their own genetic characteristics biologically
so that people of their own kind will still still be around generations
into the future to be able to help other peoples. In other words,
people who want to be unselfish and help other peoples in this world
still have to practice a minimum amount of selfishness in order
to perpetuate their own biological makeup. Otherwise, not only their
own being, but also the altruistic traits that come from their being,
will become extinct. The golden goose that lays the golden eggs
will be dead. Put another way, one often has to be able to pull
himself out of a pit before he is able to reach down and help others
One can hence see how misdirected kindness might in fact be the
greatest cruelty in the long run. Imagine for example a father with
five children who are all very bright and capable. Imagine also
that an illegal alien family with a long history of mental retardation
and criminal activity moves next door. The father is so anxious
to appear to be a "do gooder" and "anti-racist"
that he invites the kids of the neighbor to come over to his house
to eat any food that his wife prepares first. He forces his own
children to stand by and watch, often while they are starving, as
the neighbor's kids always help themselves to every meal first.
The "do gooder" father even pays for the education of
the neighbor's kids. To top it off, he even tries to set them up
with the right connections in business and offers to capitalize
their business endeavors. Long before this, he boots his own children
out of the house on to the street. In fact, he completely disinherits
them before they become teenagers as part of a "tough love"
Imagine that the net result of all this misdirected "do gooderism"
is that two of the father's children get beaten and stabbed to death
in the streets, and the other three wind up in dead-end jobs working
for malicious supervisors who envy their talents as "privileged
white people" and prevent them from getting ahead. Consequently,
they have problems making ends meet in order to have children. In
contrast, the neighbor's children manage to get degrees from professors
who look the other way to avoid appearing "racist." However,
once in the business world, they continually make incompetent decisions
that waste resources. Nevertheless, as "minorities" they
are able to fall back on government jobs with juicy salaries that
allow them to have big families.
I think that the average person would recoil at such a scenario,
and view this "do gooder" father as a very cruel, perverse,
and misguided man. On a genetic level, his misguided sense of altruism
has helped to genocide his own family line while propagating a dysfunctional
alien line. The net result to society has been an increase in nonproductive
and alien people over productive individuals.
Yet why would this be so very different from the affirmative action
programs which deny jobs to qualified whites whose ancestors created
America's institutions in the 19th century, and instead award jobs
to aliens? Why is this less cruel than the CEO's of major U.S. firms,
who have enjoyed all the benefits of growing up on white taxpayer
money in an all-white society in the 1950's and 1960's, who were
educated at white-built and white-run institutions, but who now
have an investment preference for building factories in Asia and
could care less if American manufacturing infrastructure collapses
and fellow whites in America go unemployed?
Jared Taylor, the editor of American Renaissance,
summarized the current situation very succinctly in his Feb
We are the only race with governments that officially
and deliberately ignore the call of racial kinship. No other race
welcomes strangers into its homelands and then grants them preferences
over the children of natives. No other race subsidizes alien underclasses
and then blames itself for the fecklessness, incompetence and violence
of these underclasses. No other face measures virtue by how many
advantages it can offer to people as biologically unlike itself
as possible, or by how loudly and persistently it can heap scorn
on its own history, traditions, and ancestors. Members of no other
race routinely adopt children of other races.
Political, moral, and
religious systems that acknowledge genetic realities
As mentioned previously, 19th century classical liberalism,
which I place in the "genetic bottom up" category, was an
ideological formula that enabled people to keep their own ethno-racial
house in order without threatening or oppressing others. This was
the formula that America was founded on.
19th century classical liberals tended to be openly pro-white racial
nationalists. Thomas Jefferson was a prime example. As he grew older,
he became increasingly right wing. At one point he wrote a letter
stating that he thought peoples from northern Europe were better suited
to his idea of self-restrained republicanism than masses from southern
Europe. Although Jefferson sought to phase out slavery (while owning
more than 200 Negroes), he also clearly called for racial separation
between whites and blacks, stating
"Nothing is more certainly written in the
book of fate than that these people are to be free; nor is it less
certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same
government. Nature, habit, opinion have drawn indelible lines of
distinction between them. It is still in our power to direct the
process of emancipation and deportation, peaceably, and in such
slow degree, as that the evil will wear off insensibly, and their
place be ...filled up by free White laborers. If, on the contrary,
it is left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at the
prospect held up."
Please note that only the first line up to the semicolon, namely
"Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than
that these people are to be free" appears on the Jefferson
Memorial in Washington, D.C.. This demonstrates the same thoroughly
dishonest editing of history that also characterizes the portrayals
and other great centralizers in Washington, D.C.
Incidentally, other American Founding Fathers were outspoken white
racial nationalists. This means, of course, that they staunchly
upheld the right of white people to live in their own white communities
in accordance with white values and to have a government that favors
white survival and a white destiny, as opposed to allowing themselves
to be invaded, molested, and dominated by alien peoples. Although
overlooked by many political correctness historians today, this
was a key ingredient behind 19th century concepts of American
exceptionalism and Manifest
As three examples, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin
Franklin were openly critical of Jews. Benjamin Franklin even tried
language in the U.S. Constitution to keep Jews out of the country.
George Washington commented:
"They (the Jews) work more effectively against us, than the
enemy's armies. They are a hundred times more dangerous to our liberties
and the great cause we are engaged in ... It is much to be lamented
that each state, long ago, has not hunted them down as pests to
society and the greatest enemies we have to the happiness of America."
Incidentally, the racialist views of Washington, Jefferson, and
Franklin fit the pattern of the time. Up until the mid-1960's, U.S.
immigration was mostly restricted to whites. The Illinois
Constitution approved in 1848 prohibited further immigration
of people of color into what is now the self-styled "Land of
Lincoln." The Oregon
Constitution of 1857 contained language that prohibited free
Negroes from living in the state.
Along with Great Britain, the Scandinavian countries were also hotbeds
liberal thought. They too had a certain racial consciousness.
For example, the Norwegian
Constitution of 1814 specifically prohibited Jews and Jesuits
and members of monkish orders from entering the country.
William Gladstone, an example of a late 19th century British classical
liberal, was also an unabashed pro-white racialist just like Thomas
Jefferson and other American Founding Fathers. He was publicly outspoken
in his criticism of alien groups such as Turks and Jews, and had
little affection for his political arch-rival, the Jewish Prime
Minister Benjamin Disraeli. One example is this extract from The
Congress of Berlin, British Imperialism, and the Emergence of World
War I by Carl K. Savich:
Following the April Uprising in 1876, 12,000-15,000
Bulgarian Orthodox Christians were massacred, men, women, and children,
by Muslim irregulars in the Turkish forces, basi-bazouks who engaged
in "an orgy of destruction, pillage, rape and enslavement."
American journalist Januarius A. MacGahan and Eugene Schuyler, a
member of the American legation in Istanbul, toured the region in
Bulgaria and reported on the atrocities. MacGahan wrote eyewitness
news reports for the Liberal newspaper Daily News
which created strong anti-Turkish public sentiment in Britain. Gladstone
attacked Benjamin Disraeli's pro-Ottoman Empire policy, "referring
to Disraeli, he told a friend that the Jews had always been against
Christians." The Ottoman Turks were referred to as the "great
anti-human species of humanity" who had violated "the
purity of matron, of maiden and of child." Gladstone stated:
"There is not a criminal in a European gaol, there is not a
cannibal in the South Sea islands whose indignation would not arise
and overboil at that which had been done." Disraeli continued,
however, to pursue a pro-Turkish, pro-Muslim foreign policy as a
bulwark against Russian influence and expansion. Disraeli perceived
the crisis in strictly imperialist terms. As Robert Blake noted,
"Disraeli preferred the Turks to their Christian subjects."
Indeed, those were the days when classical liberal leaders of Western
countries were reluctant to give away their countries for cheap
or lay down naked before their racial enemies.
Classical liberals also believed in promoting "bottom up"
grass roots sovereignty among white people. They felt that left
unchecked government tends to become a "top down" tyranny.
One of the quickest paths to tyranny involves war. This gives the
state many excuses to increase centralization and suppress civil
liberties. James Madison explained:
Of all the enemies of true liberty, war is, perhaps,
the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ
of every other.
War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes;
and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing
the many under the domination of the few.
In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended;
its influence in dealing out offices, honours and emoluments is
multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to
those of subduing the force, of the people.
The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the
inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing
out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manner and of morals,
engendered in both.
No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.
Classical liberals believed in meritocracy rather
than special privilege, which they felt gave unfair advantages in
the accumulation of wealth and power that could lead to tyranny.
Classical liberals also promoted an internal focus on science, manufacturing,
and technology. This not only provided a pathway to prosperity, but
also enabled the citizenry to create wealth through industry and trade
as an alternative to trying to conquer wealth through war. Thomas
Jefferson himself showed devotion to these values through his lifelong
interest in scientific discovery and his efforts to found the University
Last, but not least, classical liberals favored free trade. However,
they did not believe in sacrificing strategic industries or domestic
industry in general. They took the attitude that economic progress
could be mutual between nations, provided that they played by sportsmanlike,
chivalrous rules. They were more interested in creating mutually beneficial
trade relations to exchange industrial products than engaging in imperial
maneuvering that could lead to disastrous conflict.
The paradox of "international nationalism"
The concept that charity must first begin at home does not imply complete
selfishness, but rather it can simply be a prerequisite for healthy
sharing once everyone has put their own house in order. Technological
and industrial advancements developed by one white nation can be shared
with other white nations, as well as the rest of the world, in a mutually
beneficial way. If strong pro-white nationalism were to exist other
countries such as Ireland, Norway, France, Germany, Poland, and Russia,
this could ultimately be good for white Americans as a source of inspiration.
These other countries could provide alternative areas of white stability
and competing examples of white liberty and prosperity that might
help deter the further advance towards tyranny here in America. So
long as white nationalists around the world can maintain relatively
decentralized and chivalrous institutions, they can help to prevent
international stresses that might encourage forms of destructive imperialism
that lead to disastrous wars.
Incidentally, the French National Front political party has produced
an excellent 2 min 34 sec musical video (click
here) that artistically communicates the concept that nationalist
revival in France can be good for nationalism everywhere else.
"Natural" religion, law, and
An important concept in right wing political theory is the idea that
societies tend to function over the long haul within a certain band
of innate temperamental traits. These traits form an anchor point
regarding its customs and traditions, to include its "natural
law," and its "natural religion." Obviously something
as specific the names of particular deities or particular legal procedures
are cultural artifacts and are not specifically encoded in ones genes.
However, the general style or attitude of law, religion,
and folklore may very definitely reflect a genetically-based cultural
As one example, a legal system that consists of relatively simple
and logically consistent principles that apply to people across all
strata of society, and which is tries cases according to evidence,
facts, and logic, reflects a very different cultural personality and
innate mentality than, say, a Talmudic legal system that consists
of endless piles of convoluted and arbitrary regulations that can
be reinterpreted to ensnare virtually anyone displeasing to people
We can see innate mentalities at play in the character of various
world religions. As an example, in his classic work The
Religious Attitudes of the Indo-Europeans, Dr. Hans
Gunther discussed how ancient Nordic/Germanic peoples found spirituality
in an orderly Cosmos that one could approach through individual initiative
in a calm and logical manner. He contrasted this with certain exotic
Asian religions that emphasize finding spirituality before a disorderly
cosmos by achieving states of altered consciousness and spirit possession
induced by shamen.
In the first case, religious themes involving logical consistency,
individual initiative, and mechanical understanding of the material
world may reflect genetic sculpturing under dispersed conditions in
a frost zone environment that put a premium upon innovation and technological
adaptiveness for survival. They may reflect an intuitive, internally
directed, independent, logic-driven personality.
In the second case, religious themes involving spirit possession,
distrust of reason, and emphasizing supernatural intervention may
reflect mentalities that have evolved from environments where genetic
survival depended on the ability to simultaneously ingratiate, deceive,
supplicate, and submit to human competitors within an authoritarian
environment. Psychologists often classify personalities oriented towards
immediate gratification and towards sensing how to administer the
right social strokes at the right moment in social situations as "externally
directed" and "reactive" personalities.
People who are at home with deception tend to have fractured personalities.
They may be attracted to monotheism as a focal point to help hold
together their fractured nature and keep their bad and often contradictory
instincts under control, somewhat analogous to the way many criminals
may require an authoritarian prison environment to avoid further mischief.
They may revel in creating endless religious rules and regulations
that give an appearance of authority and a sense of structure
and security. Simultaneously, being innately crooked, they also revel
in their ability to reinterpret and manipulate religious rules to
suit their selfish interests at will, much like the Pharisees in the
Genetic theory suggests that when a conqueror tries to impose an alien
religion, culture, or form of government on a society, over time this
society will tend to adapt these things to fit its indigenous personality.
As one example, Christianity became highly decentralized both in terms
of church government and by splintering into various denominations
among Nordic peoples following the Protestant Reformation, whereas
it remained relatively more authoritarian, centralized, and dogmatic
among Alpine and Mediterranean peoples elsewhere in Europe.
Therefore, wise long term statesmanship tries to work within the context
of a people's instinctive traits and cultural personality. If political
leaders try to socially reengineer people into some one-size-fits-all
creed, they risk creating major social stresses and dislocations.
In other words, since different societies have unique innate traits,
and different social and political institutions emanate from those
traits, there is no "one size fits all" religious or political
ideology that fits all societies.
It is fine for societies to borrow what they might admire from an
alien culture and adapt it to their own frame work, but it is predatory
for one group to impose its social and political institutions on another
group by force. This is one reason why the current neo-con agenda
to use the American military to impose "democracy" on Middle
Eastern countries is so unwise and inconsistent with early American
classical liberal principles.
Applying scientific principles to morality
Two landmark works that attempt to relate genetic principles to morality
and religion are A New Religion From Science: Beyondism
(1972) and Beyondism, Religion From Science (1987) by Dr. Raymond Cattell. Basically these works take the viewpoint
that genetics comprise an underlying "profit" and "loss"
statement in human affairs. Just as a business must earn a profit
to survive and grow, so too must a society engage in eugenic practices
to remain strong and viable. Conversely, just as a business that runs
red ink for too long will go out of business, societies that engage
in net dysgenic practices for too long will inevitably fall by the
wayside or be taken over by others that maintain eugenic policies.
This is an iron law of nature, and nothing can change this.
Through Dr. Cattell's scientific lens we can look at various contemporary
philosophies in a different light. Take, for example the Playboy
Philosophy and radical feminism which devalue if not reject the
role of creating a stable marriage and having children. Modern industrialized
societies already suffer from a serious dysgenic problem where people
of lower intelligence tend to have more children than people of higher
intelligence. To the extent that these philosophies pour fuel on the
fire of these problems, they are negative. Perhaps "trial before
purchase" in dating can be a rational strategy if it does not
consume to much of ones prime child-bearing years and helps one find
a better long term mate, but permanent "trail before purchase"
with no children is clearly a parasite philosophy from the genetic
viewpoint, in which enjoyment of sexuality is completely stripped
away from its reproductive purpose.
In many respects Dr. Cattell performed in the late 20th century what
Friedrich Nietzsche tried to accomplish a century earlier. Nietzsche
tried to reconcile Darwinian theory with contemporary moral and ethical
systems and understand the differences. Dr. Cattell drew from more
recent findings in the social and natural sciences in an effort to
move at least a quantum step ahead of Nietzsche on a scientific level.
From a scientific viewpoint, "religion" is based upon subjective,
genetically-based feelings much like the sex drive, except it motivates
a somewhat different form of pro-social behavior. Whereas our genetically-based
predisposition towards eroticism motivates reproductive behavior,
our religious emotions motivate altruistic, mutually-supporting group
behavior and the will to live. In other words, tribes whose members
feel a strong genetically-based emotional predisposition toward religiosity
will be more likely to have members who are willing to put up with
the sacrifices involved in becoming good parents and making the self-sacrifices
necessary to engage in teamwork in time of war.
It should be obvious that tribes capable of teamwork will tend to
displace and spread their genes at the expense of other tribes who
cannot unite and cooperate in the face of encroachments. It should
also be obvious that since religiosity has a genetic basis, the character
of religious feeling can be altered through mutation and race-mixing.
Not surprisingly, many people who take the genetic approach tend to
gravitate towards tribal, indigenous ancestral religions that are
based upon longstanding traditions or the ancient "religious
common law" of their own people. Conversely, they tend to become
quickly disenchanted with "revealed" universalistic religions
that advocate a "one size fits all" plan for morality and
The "natural" religion concept
compared to a "revealed" religion
The "natural religion" concept is fairly
simple. Over time, a tribe will tend to accumulate folklore, to include
heroic tales that acquire mythic meanings with retelling over generations.
Part of their mythic meaning will interface with intuitive associations
that involve natural phenomenon and ultimately address questions of
ultimate meaning. For example it is a no-brainer in many cultures
that "winter" intuitively signifies "death" and
"spring" or the winter solstice signifies rebirth. Similarly,
the "moon" tends to have a feminine association because
lunar cycles resemble menstrual cycles, and the moon tends to be noticed
at night and hence has a more "romantic" or "dreamy"
An example of an intuitive approach that explains many primeval associations
in the Nordic tradition is Leaves
of Yggdrasil by Freya Aswynn, a former Wiccan who became
an Odinist. In contrast, Dr. Marvin Harris, an anthropologist at the
University of Florida, has used a functionalist approach to try to
explain the social logic behind the evolution of such religious practices
as sacred cows and witchcraft in his books Cannibals and
Kings and Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches.
Significantly, with a "natural religion" it is often easy
to remain an agnostic, atheist, pragmatist, rationalist, or scientist.
One does not need to take any of the folk mythology literally. One
can think of ones natural religion as "truth in poetry"
that helps to inform ones religious instincts. One might believe that
maintaining an ancestral folk mythology is healthy to support a sense
of group cohesion and continuity. It may be a least bad alternative
compared to embracing a dogmatic, intolerant, alien, universalistic
religion. For certain individuals who reject mainstream Christianity
and become agnostics or atheists, it may also be a better alternative
compared to embracing some form of social liberalism that betrays
the genetic interests of ones own people.
Many ancient Greek and Roman writers fit this model. They scrupulously
avoided any mention of supernatural intervention in their scientific,
historical, and political writings, yet were respectful of their own
people's religious mythologies. Many ancient Indo-European religionists
were also played down the development of complex theologies, taking
the attitude that there is enough natural joy and awe through living
in harmony with nature that there was no need to try to explain the
Chinese Confucianism is also another example of a natural religion,
because it evolved out of the ethos of a people. Interestingly enough,
it does not demand a belief in supernatural intervention. In North
America, we have also seen efforts by various tribes such as the Sioux
(or Lakota) to revitalize the Sun Dance and other indigenous religious
ceremonies in an effort to restore tribal cohesion and spirituality.
he Religious Attitudes of the Indo-Europeans by Dr. Hans Gunther argues that many early Americans such as Thomas
Jefferson embraced "natural religion" by becoming deists.
They only accepted an approach to religion fully consistent with natural
law. Dr. Gunther felt that Thomas Jefferson's religious views fit
the general pattern that characterized Greeks of the heroic era and
other ancient Indo-Europeans.
In contrast to a natural religion which emanates from the indigenous
religious "common law" and folk traditions of ones own people,
a "revealed" religion typically emanates from some guru
or messianic figure. This new revelation is frequently universalistic
in nature. Quite often it is attractive to people in multi-cultural
or urbanized societies who have become alienated from their tribal
and ancestral heritage and who need to frequently interact with alien
peoples on an economic level. In addition, "revealed" religions
often remove people from nature, much as they are removed in an urban
We need to bear in mind that when "revealed" religions start
adding intricate rituals, religious scriptures, a priest class, social
programs, a church bureaucracy, mandatory tithing, and other props
or practices that reinforce a sense of legitimacy, we begin to revisit
many of the same issues I discussed in my "top down" vs.
"bottom up" section. As church bureaucracies grow in size
and become more centralized, they begin to parallel the arrogance
and dysfunctionality of government bureaucracies.
"Revealed" religionists often feel that if only they can
just keep piling coercion, self-deception, and "appearances"
high enough, they may eventually create a self-reinforcing and self-sustaining
system of illusion, much like the way the pork politicians can ultimately
create a politically dominant position for themselves by continually
growing the props of government.
Religion as an important component of the
Religion and kinship ties can comprise vital
factors in the cause of preserving liberty. For example, Kevin Phillips
makes the case in The Cousins' Wars that
strongly held religious values played a key role in defining sides
in the English Civil War, American War of Independence, and even the
War Between the States. In a very serious political contest, religion
helps answer the question about who is willing to risk their lives
to prevail. All other things being equal, this is often the deciding
During the English Civil War, the side of Oliver Cromwell and the
Parliamentary forces was principally led and manned by Puritans from
eastern England. These people were heavily middle class in their values
and sensibilities. They came from a part of England that had seen
the initial Anglo-Saxon invasion and later saw the heaviest Norwegian
and Danish incursions during the Viking era. Hence, they were considered
the most Nordic/blond part of England. They comprised the ancestors
of most of the colonists who settled New England and later formed
the Minutemen who drove British Regulars off North Bridge at Concord
in 1775. One might say that at the inception of the American Revolution,
New England was a homogeneous de facto Nordic-Protestant ethnostate.
Today religion for white Americans is often more a source of confusion
than coherence. Most Americans today are influenced by extremely liberal
forms of Christianity that preach multi-racialism and multiculturalism.
even preach showing that one should show greater loyalty to Jews in
Israel than fellow Americans.
Many liberal Christian churches have also covered up pedophilia, which
hardly encourages white boys to grow up into responsible family men.
(Please note article "Cost
of Clergy Sex Abuse Now Exceeds $1.5 billion).
Many Christian churches have also espoused the "theology of liberation"
in support of Marxist guerillas in places like Latin America and Africa.
Many liberal Christian Churches supported the takeover by black Marxists
of South Africa and Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia). As a consequence,
in the former Rhodesia a black dictatorship has expropriated white
farmlands and has driven most whites out of the country. In South
Africa, white farmers are getting killed off as the black Marxist
government looks the other way. The South African economy is now experiencing
the same disintegration
into a basket case that the former Rhodesia has experienced ahead
The demise of South Africa and the former Rhodesia under black rule
is part of a very long historical pattern, going back to the black
takeover of Haiti, and even earlier. This is documented in books such
as The French Revolution in Santo Domingo
by Dr. Lothrop Stoddard and Black Rules White: A Journey
Across and About Hayti by Hesketh Prichard. In all cases,
the governments and economies involved have all deteriorated into
a much more primitive and savage state. We have also seen this here
in America in black-run cities such as Detroit and Washington, D.C.
Despite all of this, many liberal Christian Churches continue to support
illegal alien immigrants against white Americans within America's
borders. These Third World immigrants have physically replaced over
thirty million Americans in the last few decades and are sending welfare
costs through the roof. White Americans are already losing over 20%
of their population each generation with their below ZPG birth rate.
Massive Third World immigration only adds to this anti-white genocide.
Liberal Christian Churches add insult to this injury by encouraging
whites to yield to nonwhites everywhere and even support the invaders
with their tax dollars. By working against the genetic interests of
white Americans, many liberal Christian Churches for all intents and
purposes serve as enemy alien propagandists.
Admittedly there are some important complexities behind the scenes
involved in liberal Christian white racial treason. For example, an
article in the former Spotlight (now reincarnated
as The American Free Press) discussed how
the CIA and Mossad worked behind the scenes within the U.S. embassy
in South Africa to support the South African Communist Party and other
black entities hostile towards white rule, while sabotaging white
patriotic South Africans behind the scenes. There is even circumstantial
evidence that Zionist agents murdered Dr. H. F.Verwoerd who preached
an effective form of self-sufficient white nationalism, whereby whites
would create homogeneous white enclaves where white farmers and other
business owners would kick the bad habit of surrounding themselves
with nonwhite employees. We also know that America's Zionist-dominated
media and Jewish pressure groups worked hard to demonize white
South Africans and overturn white rule in both Rhodesia and South
Africa. They also got legislation through Congress to boycott South
This is part of a longstanding pattern where Jewish-controlled media
in both America and Europe have pushed hard ever since World War II
to promote open borders for white countries. They have also pushed
hard for white de-colonization and retreat from empire for European
powers everywhere in the Third World. We also know that at various
points in history, Zionists have both infiltrated and bought off parts
of both the Catholic Church and Protestant Churches. There is evidence
that they have even perverted translations of the Bible to foster
a pro-Zionist sentiment. As an example, please see Reverend Ted Pike's
Feb 28, 2006 interview
with Daryl Bradford Smith about how Zionists perverted the Scofield
Bible, first published in 1909.
Because Christianity has a leftist, universalistic philosophical structure,
it is hard for many Christian leaders to take a stand against sophisticated
pressure groups trying to push them further to the left into multi-racialism
How Americans confuse the "right wing"
with fundamentalist Christianity and "leftism" with agnosticism
Just as most Americans seem to have serious problems distinguishing
between corrupt and traditional forms of Christianity, they have even
more problems distinguishing between traditional and highly corrupted
forms of paganism or natural religion. Most Americans are incapable
of distinguishing between an authentic ancestral folk religion that
preserves ethnic homogeneity and continuity on the one hand, and various
forms of selfish and permissive libertinism, leftist secular humanism,
or superstition on the other hand.
In fact, there once was an indigenous Indo-European religion held
by the ancestors of most whites, much like there was once a proto-Indo
European language that later branched out into Sanskrit, the Romance
Languages, the Slavic Languages, and the Germanic languages. Similarly,
the proto-Indo European religion branched out into Asatru in the north,
Druidism in the west, the early Greco-Roman religion in the south,
and early Hinduism in the south.
The Religious Attitudes of the Indo Europeans by Dr.
Hans F. K. Gunther is an important work that examines the philosophical
structure of these early religions. Dr. Gunther argued that the tendency
of Indo-Europeans to understand the world in a relatively rationalistic
manner, that is, to attune to "the [mathematical and orderly]
music of the spheres" does in itself constitute a religious impulse.
Hence, we should not confuse the philosophical structure of early
Indo-European religion with various New Age cults that might try to
make superstitious use of some of its symbols, to include runic lore.
Adding to religious confusion in America today, many Americans equate
the "right wing" in America with Christian fundamentalism,
and atheism with the radical left. This is very simplistic and misleading.
A substantial portion of America's intelligentsia, both on the left
and right, has found the Christian religion to be unbelievable ever
since the beginning of the Age of Enlightenment. This transformation
took place sometime between the arrival of Cromwellian Puritans in
New England to the formation of groups of Enlightenment Deists prior
to the American Revolution. This latter group placed the scientific
method, free inquiry, academic freedom, and separation between church
and state first before any fundamentalist Christian doctrines.
Of course Puritanism has not gone away either. It has simply been
born again in new Christian fundamentalist denominations, to include
virulent new Christian Zionist strains. In his March 21, 2006 Democracy
Kevin Phillips, author of American Theocracy
claims that 45% of American Christians believe in Armageddon.
Some other works that highlight the grip that Christian Zionists have
on Americans include Sydney Schanberg's Village Voice articles "The
Widening Crusade" and "Turning
Point: George Bush's Holy War Threatens Our Presidency -and Perhaps
the Future of Our Nation," Sydney Blumenthal's Guardian article
Religious Warrior of Abu Ghraib" about General Boykin, and
Dr. David Duke's article "Woman
Evangelist Says She is More Loyal to the Israeli State than to America."
These kinds of groups can become so overshadowing in national media
that I think it is important to spend some time explaining how there
exist substantial numbers of hard core American nationalists who have
a totally different religious world view. This world view is more
in line with the natural religion concept and the genetic world view.
Any Christians out to "save America" today through evangelistic
strong arm methods are more likely to antagonize and create resentment
among these kinds of thinking individuals than accomplish any real
public good. It behooves any Christians interested in creating a common
patriotic front to understand how these fellow nationalists think.
A good starting point is America's own Tom Paine, author of Common
Sense that helped ignite the American Revolution. He
explained his reasons for disenchantment with Christianity in The
Age of Reason. Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin
were two other well known nationalists of this era who were also agnostics/deists.
They were familiar with the works of Voltaire and other European Enlightenment
free thinkers. They also had some of their own heretical ideas. As
one prime example, Thomas Jefferson went through the four gospels,
stripped out all the supernatural events, and then consolidated the
stories into The Jefferson Bible. A thorough
rationalist and deist, Jefferson felt that the supernatural tales
obfuscated the true teachings of Christ. After clearing away this
obfuscation, he was able to find some ethical teachings that he could
Criticism of Christianity by nationalist thinkers moved forward a
quantum leap with the advent of Darwinism in the mid-1800's and the
Scopes Monkey Trial in Dayton, Tennessee in the 1920's. Higher Criticism
theology, combined with research into antiquities and archeology,
picked the Bible apart further. Two good examples from this era are
The Bible Handbook: For Freethinkers and Inquiring Christians
by G.W. Foote and W.P. Ball published in 1900, which lists contradictions
and absurdities in the Bible, and Ingersollia: Gems of
Thought from the Lecture, Speeches, and Conversations of Col. Robert
G. Ingersoll, published in 1882. A preface to a compilation
of Col Ingersoll's lectures describes his views and values as "those
of the Agnostic school of thought as exemplified by Hume and Kent
with a mingling of the philosophy Berkley...Col. Ingersoll departed
this life with the same convictions that he held all through his career,
both as soldier and citizen, a true patriot, a lover of home, mourned
by all who knew him..."
Speaking of the late 1800's, we cannot overlook the publication of
Friedrich Nietzsche's The Anti-Christ in 1892. This helped to advance a philosophically anti-Christian strain
of nationalism. When Nietzsche compared Darwinism with Christianity,
he concluded that Christian philosophy is so leftist and universalistic
that it does more harm than good to society by inverting or transvaluating
healthy instinctive values. He believed that the ancient pagan Greek
religion comprised a much more natural and healthy religion for society.
He charged that Saul of Tarsus (the Apostle Paul) deliberately spread
Christianity throughout the Roman Empire in order to turn it on its
head. Nietzsche believed that Saul may have sought revenge for the
Roman destruction of Jerusalem during the Jewish War. Later a Jewish
writer, Eli Ravage, embellished Nietzsche's theory with his articles
Real Case Against the Jews" and "Commissary
to the Gentiles" published in the January and February
1928 issues of The Century Magazine respectively.
Nietzsche was certainly not unknown among American nationalists. H.L.
Mencken, a guiding light of the American Old Right in the early 20th
century, translated Nietzsche and published The Philosophy
of Friedrich Nietzsche in 1908. Simmering in the background,
we also see works such as Which
Way Western Man? by the former American
Christian minister William Gayley Simpson who continued Nietzsche's
frontal assault on Christianity. Equally scathing works
were produced by the late Dr. Revilo P. Oliver, a professor of classics
and former co-founder of the John Birch Society. Last, but not least,
one must also mention the brilliant works of the late Dr. William
Pierce, a former physicist, who founded the Cosmotheist
A number of writers and historians have claimed that the leftist,
mystical aspects of Christianity has gone so far as to weaken converted
populations. They challenge the assertion made by many Christian conservatives
in America today that American institutions and morality are ultimately
based on "Judeo-Christianity." They believe that the reality
has actually been more of the reverse.
This is especially true given that the term "Judeo-Christianity"
is itself a highly suspect intellectual construct. The "Judeo"
part of this phrase gives Zionists a psychological leverage point
in their efforts to high-jack Christian Americans to blindly support
Let us start with some famous writers who have made cultural arguments
without necessarily implying a genetic change. Nicolo Machiavelli
wrote that pagan Romans of the early Roman Republican period were
more hardy and virtuous than the Christian version that came later.
Salvian the Priest saw more virtue among pagan northern European barbarians
than among his fellow Christianized Romans. Edward Gibbon stated in
The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
that Christianity weakened Rome before outside invaders. James Michener
observed in Rascals in Paradise that blackbirders
(slavers) of the Pacific in the 19th century usually picked on Christianized
native populations first, because they tended to put up less resistance
and became more docile slaves than pagans. According to a number of
writers, Christianity had to transition from being a mystical, universalistic
religion into a militant, nationalist ideology before Spanish Christians
could stand up to Moorish invaders, Russian Christians could withstand
the Mongols, and Balkan Christians would successfully resist the Turks.
One example of an American right winger who has openly charged Christianity
with causing genetic damage is the aforementioned late Dr.
Revilo Oliver, who discussed Christian
homosexuality, the dysgenic
effects of the Crusades, and the negative effects of Christian
celibacy among priests.
Today one can find even more intellectual body blows to Christian
dogma, if only one knows where to look. For example, a number of major
Christian churches sponsored a "Jesus
seminar" of leading scholars in the early 1990's who concluded
that at least 80% of the Gospels is fiction. In addition, American
free thinkers have become even more aggressive, such as American
Atheist leader Madelyn Murray O'Hair who planned to write a book
before her untimely death demonstrating that the story of Christ is
total fiction. Last, but not least, additional archeological evidence
and scholarship now challenge the historicity of major segments of
the Old Testament, to include the stay of Israelites in Egypt, the
Kingdom of David, and the Book of Esther.
In fact, one begins to wonder after reading Asimov's
Guide to the Bible and Philip R. Davies' In
Search of Ancient Israel whether ancient Jews were ever anything
other than a highly organized, urbanized, quasi-underworld,
and professional minority whose real center of gravity lay in Babylonia,
not Palestine. One might also wonder if they ever departed from a
pattern of creating satellite syndicate operations to dominate Middle
Eastern water holes and various urbanized areas of the ancient world.
The Biblical stories suggesting glorious and self-sufficient kingdoms
in Palestine, a servile tenure in Egypt, and various bucolic and pastoral
settings are so contrary to this other pattern, to include even the
psychological pattern of the Babylonian Talmud, that one might wonder
if much of the Old Testament was deliberately created as disinformation. The Israeli dissident writer Uri Avnery wrote in "Israel's Provocations: The Method in the Madness" that:
. . .most Israeli archaeologists have always been the loyal foot-soldiers of the official propaganda. Since the emergence of modern Zionism, they have been engaged in a desperate endeavor to "find" archaeological evidence for the historical truth of the stories of the Old Testament. Until now, they have gone empty-handed: there exists no archaeological proof for the exodus from Egypt, the conquest of Canaan, and the kingdoms of Saul, David, and Solomon. But in their eagerness to prove the unprovable (because in the opinion of the vast majority of archaeologists and historians outside Israel – and also some in Israel – the Old Testament stories are but sacred myths), the archaeologists have destroyed many strata of other periods.
Even the site of the Dome of the Rock Mosque that many Zionists would
like to level in order to make way for the Third Temple is subject
to doubt. Unfortunately the Dome of Rock happens to be the third holiest
shrine in Islam, and destroying it to make way for more Zionist real
estate development is likely to spill even more rivers of blood in
the Middle East — and cost ever more American treasure to support their schemes.
John Tiffany wrote The Myth of the Wailing Wall for the March/April
2006 issue of the Barnes Review:
Neither the Dome of the Rock near the center
of the Haram esh-Sharif in Jerusalem, nor the Al Aqsa Mosque occupying
the southern side of the Haram (nor any area within the four walls
of that haram, or sanctuary) was, in reality, the true spot in Jerusalem
where the historic temples of ancient Israel were located. Biblical
and literary accounts dogmatically place the site of tall the temples
over the Gihon Spring just north of the ancient City of David (Zion)
and on the southeastern ridge of Jerusalem. All the present antagonists
fighting in Jerusalem over the "temple site" (who are
out to turn their bombs and guns into plowshares) are warring over
(and for) the wrong place.
Some Christian reactions
I must point out that not all American Christians support Zionist
schemes to destroy Muslim holy sites. Nor do they necessarily support
Jewish media propaganda in favor of nonwhite Marxist guerillas, open
borders, pedophiles, or Zionist Christians.
One good example is Dr. David Duke, who offers some Christian common
sense to offset Zionist madness. In his landmark work My
Awakening, Dr. Duke explains why his Christian beliefs are
with white racial nationalism. He feels that the Bible has been misinterpreted
and perverted to suit an alien, anti-American, Jewish supremacist
agenda. He also explains why he does not view himself as white supremacist,
but rather as someone who supports self-determination for all peoples
around the world. He also explains why he respects the indigenous
Indo-European religions of Europeans as well as the indigenous religions
of other peoples. A chapter in his book even covers the vital contribution
to science, culture, ethics, and religious philosophy made by pagan
Greeks of the pre-Christian heroic and classical eras.
Another good example of a real American and a genuinely patriotic
Christian nationalist is the Reverend Ted Pike at truthtellers.org.
At his web site he identifies Zionist neo-con warmongers and war criminals
who are waging a determined domestic campaign to strip Americans of
their civil liberties.
Last, but not least, Col Donn de Grand Pre is a Christian who has
written an excellent series consisting of The Vipers Venom
and The Rattler's Revenge (incorporating
an earlier work Barbarians Inside the Gates).
These books expose international Zionism and provide a hard-headed
assessment of America's real enemies as well as a good overview regarding
how we got into the mess we face today. In fact, this series received
praise from Michael Collins Piper in a book review he wrote for the
American Free Press.
Reconciling Christianity and the Natural
I personally hold to the view that "the more things change,
the more they stay the same," consistent with a conservative,
genetically-oriented viewpoint. Furthermore, all religious and political
ideologies can be perverted and corrupted. Indeed, there exist perverted
and corrupt forms of paganism just like there exist perverted and
corrupted forms of Christianity. I believe strongly that Christians
and natural religion adherents should keep open minds and learn from
the best that each side has to offer rather than scream and throw
knives at each other. This is particularly important as we try to
find a spiritual path that aids the survival of America's declining
white population rather than one that remains the dupe of international
I believe strongly that the very sublime and dignified services held
in many Protestant and Catholic Churches are time-tested role models
worthy of emulation. If I were to try to revitalize a natural religious
approach, I would try to keep everything just about the same in terms
of the general style and structure of the religious services currently
used by Christians, and merely make some changes in the symbols.
We would, however, definitely change the content of the sermons. For
starters, no more of this hand-wringing white guilt, white self-hatred,
Zionist bootlick stuff going on in my natural religion church!
Incidentally, such an approach just might serve some liberal Christian
churches just right. There is considerable evidence that the early
Christian churches in Europe played the same game in reverse in terms
the clever way they co-opted prevailing pagan customs and services.
Many of our current traditions such as All Saints Day (Halloween),
Christmas, and Easter have some strong pagan roots.
What I would definitely discourage are "Hollywood pagan"
approaches that are deliberately intended to be "far out,"
"shocking," or a license to be outrageous. There are certain
self-styled, so-called pagan groups that use "religious services"
as an excuse to throw hippie costume or toga parties, revitalize superstitious
spell-casting or fortune-telling activities, engage in promiscuous
orgies, drunkenness, and public nudity, or indulge in other practices
which leave most conservative American family people stone cold. Like
I said, paganism can be perverted by selfish, immature, exhibitionist,
or criminal people to have some very degenerate, if not evil forms
just like Christianity. However, just because some folks abuse paganism
does not mean that all pagans are part of some kind of global Satanic
conspiracy in service of a Luciferian Anti-Christ.
To put things in better perspective, I believe that the every day
behavior of many ancient pagan Greeks of the heroic era and pagan
Norseman up through the Viking era was really not very much different
than the Puritans, Calvinists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, or other
American Christians on the frontier who came later. In fact, in terms
of their basic values and philosophical structure, to include the
emphasis on valor, exploration, self-improvement, self-restraint,
and individual responsibility, the ancient Greek epics and old Norse
sagas are very similar to American pioneer and cowboy stories. This
should not be a big surprise, since racially they were essentially
the same people.
I would also like to observe that white Americans can find more than
enough spiritual causes on American soil worthy of their energies
without having to go overseas to destroy mosques and genocide Arabs
and do other nasty things for Israel and Big Oil. Let me provide a
In 1997 Stephen McNallen, head of the Asatru Folk Assembly based in
Nevada City, CA, sued the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (Incidentally,
I signed the paperwork for his group at Federal Court in Portland,
Oregon). He claimed that there was strong evidence that 9,000 year
old bones found along the banks of the Columbia River near Kennewick,
Washington were of European origin. Hence, indigenous Indo-European
religious rites would be more appropriate to perform over the remains
than, say, native American religious rites.
The American Asatruar were concerned that certain Native Americans
were trying to misuse the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation
Act to take exclusive custody of the bones, bury them, and thereby
prevent scientists from studying them. These Indians may have been
concerned that the existence of whites in North American 9,000 years
ago might upset political correctness interpretations of their special
victimhood status. In fact, Paiute Indian legends tell about tall,
reddish-haired, white skinned people who their ancestors wiped out
long ago. Among other things, physical evidence of ancient anti-white
genocide might undermine the white guilt that entitles Indian tribes
to continue benefiting from lucrative gambling franchise privileges
which in turn enables them to make cash contributions to whatever
political party is in power that controls the Army Corps of Engineers.
The Army Corps of Engineers went to outrageous lengths to pander to
the Indians by bulldozing over the Kennewick Man site along the Columbia
River. It also looked the other way when visiting Indian groups pilfered
portions of the Kennewick Man skeleton. In contrast to these twisted
politics, American Asatruar simply wanted to allow scientists full
access to study the bones. They also demanded that Army Corps of Engineers
show some basic consideration for their indigenous Indo-European religious
and cultural concerns.
The natural dishonesty of "other kind
first" political, moral, and religious ideologies
In his classic work The
Dispossessed Majority, Wilmot Robertson talked about the
important concept of "liberal minority coalition politics."
From my own experience this is a game that everyone tends to play,
even if only on a subconscious level. However, it can become dangerous
if very powerful and well funded groups play it in a very aggressive
and systematic way. This has been in fact the case for over the last
one hundred years in America. Liberal minority coalition politics
have succeeded in turning traditional American values on their head.
Earlier I discussed evidence for instinctive tribalism and racism.
I discussed Thomas Chittum's analysis in Civil War II
about how countries tend to become unstable, even to the point of
fissioning apart, once a majority starts to decline to less than around
75% of the population. The implications should be clear. Generally
speaking, it is never a lot of fun under any circumstances to be a member of a minority. A minority always implies
a threat, no matter how subtle or benign, to the genetic interests
of the majority. Minorities always live under a shadow of suspicion
and condescension. They are always most likely to be "last hired,
The article "Why
Nations Fight" from the January 1991 issue of American
Renaissance summed it up well: "Men fight [wars]
because there is nothing more horrible than cultural and national
obliteration." Obliterated peoples and cultures by definition
are forced to live as minorities.
The natural response of most people when they find themselves in the
role of a minority is to play by the ancient formula: "Be publicly
left wing towards people outside your tribal group to put them at
ease and keep them off guard, and be privately right wing among people
within your own group to maintain your strength and cohesion."
Most of the time this game is played on an individualized and fairly
benign and subconscious level. It usually does not rise above the
polite "white lies" level that most people normally tell
to smooth social relations.
Sir Winston Churchill once burlesqued the consequences of not telling white lies when he responded to a lady who criticized him
for becoming drunk at a party by saying, "Yes, but by tomorrow
morning I will become very sober, whereas you Madam, will remain very
However, when well funded, highly organized, and cleverly crafted
into aggressive disinformational propaganda, this natural two-faced
approach can become about as benign as a coiled cobra in the grass.
Winston Churchill once explained a particularly virulent version of
this game in his famous article: "Zionism
versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People"
for the Illustrated Sunday Herald in 1920.
One might interpret the title of Churchill's article as follows: "Bolshevism
for the gentiles, Zionism for the Jews."
Let me highlight what this really means: "Bolshevism —
ie. extremely vicious authoritarian leftism —
for the gentiles, and Zionism —
ie. extremely aggressive authoritarian right wing tribalism —
for the Jews.
There are no spontaneous white lies involved here. Absolutely nothing
innocent at all. This is pure hard ball to the point of pure criminal
subversion and all-out open warfare.
Leftist politics cannot only help minorities anaesthetize a potentially
hostile majority, but they also enable them to combine with other
minorities to increase the size and effectiveness of their leftist
coalition. When played aggressively, minorities may even try to flood
a country with other minorities, on the theory that once everyone
in the country becomes a minority, their own relative position will
Aggressively playing the liberal-minority coalition game can be very
dangerous. Once everyone becomes a minority, it is possible that a
country will break apart into civil war, as prophesied in Thomas
War II: The Coming Break-up of America.
Also, if a majority wakes up and starts to militantly defend its vital
genetic interests, there is no telling what retaliatory measures it
Because of these risks, most minorities around the world tend to cool
it. They intermarry among their own kind rather than threaten males
of the majority by wooing their women. They try to make themselves
useful to the majority by serving in its military and providing a
willing part of its labor force. They also try to keep their business
and social dealings ethical. Otherwise, they tend to keep to themselves
and in no way try to disturb the culture of the dominant majority
or change the host country's demographics or institutions.
There are minorities in countries ranging from Syria to Switzerland
who have played by these kinds of rules who have been able to coexist
for over a thousand years. It is not always a lot of fun. Most of
the time it involves a lot of extra work and forbearance compared
to belonging to a majority. However, long term peaceful coexistence
is possible under certain circumstances if both the majority and minority
are genuinely mutually respectful and are willing to work at maintaining
America as a tragic victim of aggressive
liberal minority coalition politics
America is unique. With the exception of Bolshevik
Russia, I do not know of any country in history where the liberal
minority coalition game has been played with such virulence, deception,
and aggressiveness. There are a number of important historical reasons
behind this anomaly.
First, the original meaning of the "melting pot" concept
has been perverted into meaning a multi-racial free-for-all. Although
"melting pot" sounds left wing on the surface, the original
concept actually had a right wing interpretation.
Most of the original white immigrants in America up until the 1840's
were Protestants. This was in an era in which Protestant usually meant
According to The
Dispossessed Majority (p. 42), "In 1790, the year of
the first Federal Census, the national origins of American whites
and their percentage of the total white population were estimated
as follows: British (77), German (7.4), Irish (4.4), Dutch (3.3),
French (1.9), Canadian (1.6), Belgian (1.5), Swiss (0.9), Scandinavian
(0.9), other (1.1)."
Over the prior two thousand years, Nordics had formed majority populations
in most northern European countries. This included the Netherlands,
northern France, northern Germany, England, much of Scotland, parts
of Ireland, and all of Scandinavia. Fifteen hundred years earlier,
most of their ancestors spoke the same language and had a very similar
Throughout the Middle Ages national boundaries, class structures,
and dialects started to arise which artificially divided the old Nordic
and Celtic tribes that once spread across northern and central Europe.
Those distinctions remained very much in force back in the Old Country,
but once immigrants arrived in America, most of them evaporated. The
average immigrant male in the early 19th century did not care very
much if a pretty ash-blond girl who caught his eye happened to trace
her ancestry to Scotland as opposed to England, the Netherlands, Sweden,
Germany, or France.
Americans started resolving in their bedrooms what the old countries
were still fighting out on their borders. The old melting pot of the
early 1800's in America was basically a de facto Nordic and Celtic
This had both its good and bad points. The good side is that they
overcame a lot of highly artificial Old World class and territorial
boundaries. The bad side is that they began to slip in their ability
to draw the line to defend their genetic interests against the encroachments
of aliens. They also slipped in their ability to focus upon a specific
ethnic heritage that could become a rallying point for effective grass
roots racial defensive action.
Sad to say, but the so-called "right wing" in America has
basically been a slipping, rear guard, delaying action for over one
hundred and fifty years. Today's "conservatism" is usually
nothing more than the liberalism of one or two generations ago. As
America slips ever further to the left on racial, genetic, and ethnic
issues, and no one really knows where or how to apply the brakes.
The Nordic percentage of the U.S. population has been in steady decline
ever since the War Between the States, so from the standpoint of preserving
their own genetic interests, Nordics in America have paid dearly for
their inability to explicitly nail down, institutionalize, and defend
a racial nationalist identity. If Thomas Chittum is correct in Civil
War II, their final reward for failing to draw firm
limits or raise their voices to effectively protest their diminishing
status will be to participate in hyperinflationary ruin and racial
chaos along with everyone else.
Today, America's controlled media interprets "melting pot" in an opposite manner compared
to the early 19th
century concept of a Nordic and Celtic folk ingathering. Now "melting
pot" implies keeping our borders open to almost all Third World
peoples from around the world. It means maximizing the genetic distances
within the U.S. population. It means pushing the limits the ability
of our institutions to hold everything together with leftist ideology
and government payola.
"Melting Pot" also means some kind of ideological license
for greedy business operators in America to take in Third World immigrants
or employ whatever cheap alien labor they can find anywhere in the
world regardless of the long term economic damage they do to American.
The White Anglo-Saxon Protestant "anchor" of the early 1800's
has also completely changed its meaning. The term "Protestant"
used to have an anti-authoritarian and pro-Nordic racial meaning.
However, since the 19th century, Protestant churches have heavily
proselytized all over the world. They have also moved far to the left
of their 19th century racial views.
Today "Protestant" might mean black Marxists in South Africa.
It can mean Christian
Zionists here in America who would prefer to die for Jewish-Israeli
interests rather than risk anything for American interests first.
It definitely does not mean what it originally meant on a racial level.
Most Protestant churches today would probably denounce the old Nordic
association as "racist."
A second important factor behind the vicious character of America's
liberal-minority coalition politics involves the fact that ever since
the War Between the States, the U.S. Government has immersed itself
in neo-Jacobin ideology. This ideology puts expansion of liberal empire
before any need to maintain a limited republic or its founding race.
Neo-Jacobinism also puts the ability of government to force social
change ahead of individual rights and white genetic interests.
A perfect example of anti-white, neo-Jacobin U.S. Government behavior
took place during the so-called Reconstruction era in the South lasting
from 1865 to 1876.
For many years Radical Republicans prevented Southern whites from
voting. Enfranchised former black slaves ran the legislatures. According
to "The Shame of Reconstruction" (p. 170) of The
Best of Attack! and National Vanguard Tabloid,
Northern abolitionist James S. Pike once called South Carolina's Reconstruction
legislature "The most ignorant democracy that mankind ever saw,"
and "a wonder and shame to modern civilization." Only 22
of 94 Black members could read.
In many places, Southern whites were terrorized by all-Negro Union
occupation troops. This resulted in pitched battles, such as the Battle
of Liberty Place in September 1874 when an insurgent White League
routed a mostly black police force in New Orleans. President Grant
intervened against the whites by sending in Federal troops. (Ibid,
p. 173, "Reconstruction II: The Whites Fight Back").
Michael Collins Piper's article "Franklin
J. Moses: Reconstruction's Most Infamous Scalawag" that appeared
in the September/October 2003 of The Barnes Review
provides another good illustration regarding how utterly depraved
and oppressive the neo-Jacobin Reconstruction leadership became.
One might call this liberal-minority coalition politics at the end
of a bayonet. It was not enough that the South had lost half its wealth
during the War Between the States, or that one out of four Southern
white males had become a casualty, a higher per capita casualty rate
than France suffered during World War I.
A third major factor in America's vicious liberal-minority coalition
politics started with the Jewish takeover of many strategic bases
of American society early in the 20th century. This has been well
documented in Wilmot Robertson's The
Dispossessed Majority and Michael Collins Piper's The
New Jerusalem. This trend gained major traction with
the influx of millions of Jews into America in the late 1800's. This
was followed by their takeover of major media and their key role in
setting up and running its America's central bank in 1913. The
International Jew by Henry Ford documents the Jewish
takeover of Hollywood and major U.S. newspapers in the early 20th
century. Ford also covers how the Balfour Declaration reflects the
way America got dragged into World War I. The High Priests
of War by Michael Collins Piper shows how the pattern
of Jewish control repeated itself with America's invasion of Iraq
in 2003. The Creature from Jekyll Island
by G. Edward Griffin is one of the best books I have ever read about
the origins of the largely Jewish-owned Federal Reserve Banking System.
Jewish organizations have provided most of the leadership and funding
behind major pro-liberal minority coalition organizations such as
the NAACP, ACLU, Southern Poverty Law Center, and Communist party
in the 20th century. With only about 3% of the U.S. population, Jews
control over one third of America's wealth and provide over 50% of
the funding behind the Democratic Party, which has evolved into America's
premiere liberal-minority coalition party. The Jewish ADL was a key
sponsor behind the 1965 immigration reform bill that opened America
up to massive Third World immigration, and has been a key agent to
harass any pro-white movements.
Last, but not least, Jews have been a key factor in the expansion
of the U.S. Government as a neo-Jacobin welfare-warfare global super
state. Neo-Jacobinism provides the perfect ideological formula, and
the Federal Reserve Banking System fiat money creation capabilities
provide the perfect indirect taxation method, to support America's
seemingly unlimited military and economic support for Israel without
any strings attached.
It would be impossible for the U.S. government to provide even a small
fraction of its current support for Israel if it adhered to 19th century
classical liberal principles. Pro-white nationalism tends to resent
Zionist domination of American power centers. It also avoids foreign
entanglements, preaches limited government, favors a gold and silver
standard in the place of a central bank, and focuses upon the development
of internal industry rather than upon imperialism as a path to wealth.
While it is true that all of these things would be really great for
America, as was proven by the historical track record of the 19th
century, none of these things would be good for Israel. Therefore,
America is forbidden from recapturing the classical liberal agenda.
Judging from the behavior of the Bush Administration, one might conclude
that in the final analysis Israel's needs must always come first,
and Americans must always serve Jews.
Last, but not least, a fourth major factor behind America's vicious
liberal-minority coalition politics has involved the rise of progressivism.
This turned the concept of universal suffrage into a political religion
and directly supported the rise of the "Neo-Jacobin Welfare-Warfare
Global Super State" that libertarians are always complaining
about. One of its net results has been a massive redistribution of
political and economic resources from whites to nonwhites and aliens.
This contrasts with the original U.S. Constitution, which restricted
the right to vote to white male citizens with property.
Leftism, Jews, women, and minorities
Earlier in this article I mentioned a study that appeared in the early 1990's in the American
Enterprise magazine which found that women, homosexuals, Jews, hispanics, blacks, and other so-called "minorities"
to white males tend on average to vote about
one standard deviation to the ideological left of straight white males. One
standard deviation is a huge statistical difference, equivalent to
a 15 point difference on an IQ test.
Also quite interesting was an article that appeared in Forbes a few years ago, which reported the impact of the enfranchisement
of women voters in various states at different times in the late 1800's.
It showed graphs that depicted the cost of state government. During
the time period leading up to the enfranchisement of women where only
men could vote, the cost lines ran sideways. Beginning around the
time that women got the vote in each state, the cost lines started
moving upwards. Presumably "government" was beginning to
spend more on social services and became more of a "nanny state"
after women started casting ballots.
I am reminded of one of the basic principles of Right Wing 101, namely that as a group grows in power, it tends to reshape the world around it to share its fundamental characteristics. As women gain power in government, "government" tends to get "wetter" and grow "boobs." Devvy Kidd's scathing article "Nancy Pelosi and Her Brassiere Brigade" provides some concrete examples of the feminization of government. And speaking of brassieres, according to interpretor Clay Jenkinson of the Thomas Jefferson Hour, the sage of Monticello once remarked that what women have that fills their brassieres is a pretty good clue as to their primary function in life.
Of course there can be offsetting factors that favor
enfranchising women even though they may tend to be more
instinctively altruistic and empathetic as a group. There is also
strong evidence that women vary from men in fundamental neural structure
processing as a consequence of different hormal influences on
fetal brain development. Despite these significant biological differences,
Nordic women tended to be more
empowered in old Norse society than in most other societies of
that era. Then again, everyone, both male and female, tended
to be fairly individualistic relative to most other societies of that
era. Hence, enfranchising women can imply respect for individualistic
traits held by both men and women rather than Marxism.
No doubt there have been exceptional women in a wide variety of cultures
throughout history. After all, who can forget the quip by Israel's David Ben Gurion that Golda Meir was "the only man
in the Cabinet?"
That having been said, there could be an interesting cyclical irony
to all of this. In Civil War II, Thomas
Chittum talks about how today we see armed gangs of nonwhites springing
up like mushrooms everywhere in our multi-racial, multi-cultural society.
Most of these gangs consist of recent Third World immigrant males,
and many derive their income from the drug trade and other forms of
organized crime. Many of them are now better armed than local police.
If the U.S. Government ultimately implodes like the old Soviet government
into a spiral of corruption and an hyperinflationary blowout, and
furthermore if the U.S. economy tanks into depression, we may see
white males form their own version of armed gangs and militias everywhere.
History might then rhyme with early pioneer days. Political power
among whites may quickly decentralize away from our neo-Jacobin central
government and back firmly into the hands of local organizations of
males with guns. Most of the liberal multi-racial, multi-cultural
indoctrination of the 20th century may start to evaporate as quickly
as communism disappeared in the former Yugoslavia.
Even "successful" interracial
relations have hidden costs and distort normal social relations
Nonwhite vs. white violence is routinely covered
among rightist sources. Idaho attorney Edgar Steele claims in his
the Math" that blacks commit about fifty times more violent
crimes per capita in America compared to whites. According to Dept
of Justice statistics, in the "murder by strangers" category,
blacks murder three
to five times as many people as whites. When you peruse news listings
at rightist sites such as national
vanguard or national alliance
news, one not only learns about horrendous anti-white violence
that goes both unreported and under-reported by national media, but
also about how the rapidly increasing nonwhite presence is escalating welfare and other social costs. All of this is in turn accelerating America's
trajectory into total bankruptcy.
America's controlled national media also routinely covers racial violence,
but from a totally different perspective. A good example of the general
pattern of distortion that persists to this present day was documented
in "TV's Killer Businessmen" that appeared in the Dec 23,
1991 Forbes by Peter Brimelow, author of Alien Nation and originator of the anti-illegal
immigration web site VDare.com web site. He discussed the media content analysis studies of Dr. Robert
Lichter and his wife Dr. Linda Lichter.
This year the Lichters have again collaborated
with Rothman to produce Watching America: What Television
Tells Us About Our Lives (Prentice Hall, 1991). Again,
a poll of key television writers, producers and executives revealed
a tightly homogeneous group of highly educated, secularized urbanites.
(They were also virtually all white males, over half Jewish). Again
their political attitudes were sharply to the left of Americans
generally but strikingly similar to the rest of the New Class...
...it is perhaps unsurprising that whereas FBI statistics indicate
that about half of America's murders are committed by blacks,
in TV-land the proportion is around 3%. Instead, 90% of TV murderers
are white, with seven out of ten from "a generic northern
The biggest costs are
usually the hidden ones
There is a whole other dimension of social costs related to increasing
genetic distances within a society that greatly reduce America's social
and economic efficiency. Please recollect the Right Wing 101 rule
I have mentioned previously, namely that over the long run, the shorter
the genetic distances within a society, the more likely people are
to act towards each other in an altruistic and mutualist manner. Conversely,
the greater the genetic distances, the more likely it becomes that
people will act towards each other in a predatory or parasitic manner.
The latter is true even if done on a very subtle, passive-aggressive
level that leaves few fingerprints and involves opportunity costs
rather than actual costs.
I would argue that the highly intangible costs created by increasing
genetic distances within a society are in fact the greatest costs
of all. They are far greater than the aforementioned direct costs
involving violence and social service payments.
I classify these highly intangible costs in two broad categories:
Hidden forms of social strife, fraud, and
exploitation that thrive amidst competing cultural
standards and genetic interests. These costs include the theft
of intangible "social capital" and the infliction
of invisible opportunity costs.
Distortion of productive social standards
and informational feedback systems. This is analogous to the
way socialism distorts pricing mechanisms and degrades economic
efficiency by eliminating free markets, except here we are
usually talking about government social intervention and monopoly
media influence involving social norms rather than purely
amidst competing standards
The Roman writer Tacitus once observed that
"Where the state is most corrupt, the laws are most multiplied."
He made this comment while observing Imperial Rome, which by his
time had become very multiracial and multicultural. In contrast,
during the early Roman Republic period, the society had been relatively
homogeneous on a racial and cultural level.
The concept of "republican virtue" was taken very seriously
during the early Roman Republican era. This concept meant that
citizens had to be capable of restraining themselves and acting
honorably on a highly decentralized, personal level to prevent
any need for massive authoritarian police power intervention by
the government. Tom Paine summed it up well in Common
that "when republican virtue fails, slavery ensues."
Despite this wisdom, by the time of the Imperial Roman era of
Tacitus, the concept of "republican virtue" had become
a joke. However, the centralization of police power in Imperial
Rome was no solution either. After all, as the British classical
liberal historian Lord Acton so famously observed, "power
corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
A major problem with law-making in all societies is that laws
tend to be least effective at the level where they are needed
the most. This is at the very top policy-making level.
This is the level where increased genetic distance hurts the most,
even if it takes place within the relatively genteel world of
corporate boardrooms, mansions, and country clubs.
There are two major reasons for this. First, at this level there
are usually fewer checks and balances on the most powerful people
in society compared to common folk. Secondly, as people acquire
higher levels of authority, they usually deal with increasingly
complex issues, and it becomes increasingly harder to prove malfeasance
As an example, it is much harder to prove that a CEO of a major
corporation is adding tens of millions of dollars in debt to his
corporation to create a bigger cash till to pay himself an extra
million dollars a year in salary than it is to prosecute a bank
robber who waves a gun and runs off with $10,000 cash in a grab
Similarly, it is much harder to prove that a medical doctor is
ordering too many lab tests to soak Medicare than it is to prove
that some punk sold some drugs on the street.
It is also much harder to prove that a major Wall Street firm
is pumping and dumping the stock of a phony company to enrich
insiders than it is to prove that a gang member assaulted a little
old lady on a subway.
Significantly, the overall damage to society done by the aforementioned
crooked CEO, the crooked medical doctor, and the crooked Wall
Street firm is vastly greater than the damage done to society
by the bank robber, street punk, and gang member. Worse yet, almost
all of the damage created by the first group can remain relatively
hidden in social statistics. The first group has numerous seemingly
plausible smokescreens for their behavior. They can buy off the
professional services of expert commentators such as consultants,
statisticians, economists, and journalists. Clever intellectual
prostitutes can easily spin-doctor malfeasance to look like Mom,
Home, Apple Pie, and the Flag before the general public.
Here are some sample alibis that enable top "leaders"
to get away with horrendous crimes.
: You are adding massive debt to
a company to create a bigger cash till to pay a bigger salary
to oneself while dumping a riskier capital structure on shareholders.
Naw, just revising the company's
capital structure to help it run leaner and meaner, so that equity
capital can more efficiently be deployed elsewhere in the economy.
Incidentally, this is one of many alibis used by convicted stock
swindler Mike Milken as he rewarded himself with billions of dollars.
America's controlled national media passed his hype along to the
public with a straight face.
You are ordering lots of extra,
unnecessary lab tests and medical procedures to goose your clinic's
Naw, how could you say such
a thing about a hard-working medical doctor? We all know that
human life is too precious to take chances. We all know that we
have to guard against unknown pathogenic threats. We also know
we have to be extra safe to guard against spurious medical malpractice
Your company looks phony, like
you are using it as a facade to pump and dump stock on unwitting
Naw, we are merely pursuing
a long range "high concept" business plan. There is
nothing wrong with the fact that it may take five to ten years
to start generating cash flow. We all know that there has to be
the freedom in our economy to swing for the fences with risky
business ventures in order to maintain a viable, entrepreneurial
Good luck proving in a court of law that any these types of alibis
are phony. It may take you many years, piles of documents, and
high legal expenses just to present your case against the bad
guys. Meanwhile, the bad guys have already walked away with millions
of dollars. Worse yet, they may use part of their loot to hire
slick defense lawyers, who may create delays or counterattack
with nuisance litigation designed to bankrupt you.
Unfortunately the sum total of cleverly concealed fraudulent behavior
throughout American society has played a major role in creating
the terrible economic graphs I show in my Critical
section. All of this could lead to catastrophic economic
and political dislocations. This in turn can lead to tens of millions
of personal tragedies across America. The ultimate damage to our
society will be much greater than anything that shows up on standard
police crime blotters.
In a healthy, racially homogeneous society, rules
for moral behavior do not need to be very complicated
The late libertarian Presidential candidate Harry Browne pointed
out that at root, most Anglo-Saxon common law was based on three
a) Do what you say you are going to do (contract
b) Do not harm my person or my property (tort and criminal law)
c) Do not trespass against me or my property unless you obtain
my permission first
When in doubt, one can generally apply the Golden Rule, that is,
treat others the way you would like to be treated yourself.
Harry Brown pointed out that these simple rules should be adequate
to guide most people in most situations throughout life. However,
he noted that is true that serious conflicts will inevitably arise.
However, he argued that even here private citizens can satisfactorily
resolve their problems without the intervention of police, a court
system, or other expensive state-operated entities.
According to Browne, the next step up should be arbitration. This
simply involves having both sides to a dispute agree to present
their case before a third party, whose ruling becomes binding. The
third party can be anyone they trust from any walk of life. It does
not have to be a lawyer or judge.
Why does the government oppose Harry Browne's refreshing
Unfortunately Americans are being conditioned today by national
media and the Bush administration to believe that we need more Federal
oversight through the so-called Department of Homeland Security,
more curtailment of civil liberties through the so-called Patriot
Act, and more surveillance by its police agencies.
Unfortunately too many Americans are completely ignorant regarding
libertarian alternatives. They passively accept police state options
spoon fed to them by corrupt and irresponsible leaders. The police
state then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy because too many people
simply do not know any better.
Unfortunately there are also underlying social and racial dimensions
that also help create the police state as a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Too many Americans are ignorant about these underlying dynamics
Racial demographic change and the emerging police state
Historically, racially homogeneous, ethnically conscious northern
European societies have tended to have very low crime rates. Historically,
they have tended to decentralize police power among the citizenry
through various traditions.
A few examples out of a very long list include private gun ownership
(stops crimes before they take place), trial by jury (a check against
judicial tyranny), jury nullification (jury can nullify application
of laws that defy common sense), posse comitatus (prevents police
from turning into a military occupation force), habeas corpus (prevents
arbitrary detention by state authorities), and the doctrine of citizen's
arrest and Sheriff's posse under English Common Law (common citizens
can voluntarily work closely with the police to the point of becoming
almost interchangeable with them).
As I mentioned in my centralized vs. decentralized discussion, American pioneer communities
were amazingly self-sufficient and decentralized by contemporary
standards. In fact, some academic studies suggest that the real
crime rate was vastly lower in frontier communities than suggested
by movies or popular fiction. (see, for example Anderson, Terry and Hill, P.J., “An American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism: the not so Wild, Wild West,” Journal of Libertarian Studies Vol. 3, No. 1, 1979, pp. 9–29.) Of course I am talking here about
ethnically homogeneous, northern European-descended pioneer settlements
with a wide variety of trades and geared towards farming, industry,
and raising families, and not thin little exploitation saloon towns
loaded with gambling tables, liquor, and prostitutes specifically
geared to to accommodate bachelor miners or cowboys at the end of
cattle drives. Common sense alone tells you that the latter situations
were trouble waiting to happen.
In broad outline, let me explain how social and demographic changes
can encourage the evolution of the police state.
First, greedy business owners get a quick boost to profits by importing
low cost labor consisting of alien peoples. Bought politicians get
nice under-the-table bribes from either the businessmen or immigrants
themselves to relax the immigration rules. The greedy business owners
and bought politicians grab their money and run.
On the back end, America is left with more social strife and alienation
as the genetic and cultural distances within the population widen.
The controlled national media pumps out ever more leftist integration
propaganda to try to hold everything together. This in turn further
alienates the core white population from any sense of indigenous
cultural values that promote honor, industry, and genuine community
The aliens themselves vastly increase crime, such as the fifty times
higher rates for certain violent crimes committed by blacks compared
to whites discussed by Attorney Edgar Steele, or the leadership
of organized crime in America by Jews as documented by Michael Collins
Piper in Final Judgment and many other
With greater alien influence, the crime rate and level of social
instability rises. Then, as a cosmetic response to these deeper
underlying social problems, we get more government oversight. More
police. More surveillance. Ultimately we get a police state. And
ultimately everyone suffers.
But it gets even worse than all of this. The ultimate end game of
the police state is that the people at the top of centralized power
become very corrupt and tyrannical.
It should be no wonder that absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Extreme centralization is itself a criminal act which appeals to
a criminal mentality. It steals from the common people their civil
liberties and their political right to exert grass roots popular
Normally in a healthy society honest citizens and the police work
hand in hand to solve crimes and arrest and punish the bad guys.
In the corrupt police state, honest citizens become terrified of
initiating any contact with the police whatsoever. People even become
afraid to report crimes or present evidence for fear that they will
get put on the radar screens of corrupt authorities. Then they might
get subjected to petty rules are applied in a Talmudic manner designed
to unjustly frame and imprison them.
As one example, Alexander Solzhenitsyn pointed out in The
Gulag Archipelago that in the Stalinist era, no one
in their right mind would ever dream of walking into a KGB station
to simply inquire about an official interpretation of rules and
regulations or ask about the Constitution of the Soviet Union.
Everything gets so politicized and fearful in a police state that
even honest cops who just want to do straight police work suffer
along with everyone else. Policemen are forced to overlook serious
crimes, tamper with evidence, and do other dirty things to please
Once a person understands libertarian alternatives, and in addition
understands underlying racial, ethnic, and cultural causal factors
behind crime, all of this really paints the policies of the Bush
Administration in a very different light.
Please recollect that the Feds called in private paramilitary forces
such as Blackwater, Inc. to kick in doors and collect privately
owned firearms during the Katrina disaster in August-Sept 2005 in
New Orleans. It is bad enough that the Feds have used "private
contractors" to "rendition" and torture prisoners
overseas in an effort to circumvent U.S. laws. Now part of all that
moral rot is coming home to roost on home turf.
The Bush administration ignores massive illegal Third World immigration
and evidence of Mossad complicity in staging 9-11, and then turns
around and militarizes our police forces. It also destroys our civil
liberties through the Patriot Act and whatever else it thinks it
can get away with.
This whole notion that somehow we are going to solve our crime problems
simply by arming our local policeman with bullet proof vests, automatic
weapons, and other military gear, and in addition we must give them
the authority to closely monitor and arrest common citizens at will
— all of
this is unbelievably childish. It is also part of an overall pattern
that suggests that America's paranoid ruling elite is secretly at
war with the rest of the population, and that our local policemen
are simply being used as pawns in a much bigger and darker game.
Racial nationalist principles and public
In the final analysis, if the people at the top do not share anything
in common on a racial and cultural level with other people in society,
no amount of laws, no political ideology, no authoritarian structures,
and no amount of surveillance will prevent them from working their
mischief. No amount of liberal rhetoric will adequately motivate
the people at the top to self-police themselves out of cutting corners
at the expense of everyone else.
This brings us back to a fundamental tenant of racial nationalism
and Right Wing 101. Nothing beats having people of your own racial
and ethnic group in charge of the strategic bases of society, such
as government, media, banking, the military, and major corporations.
Among other things, people with similar bloodlines tend to have
a vastly greater sense of caretakership towards the rest of society.
This is analogous to the way they tend to care more deeply about
the welfare of their own children. They are more likely to practice
the vital principle that charity must begin at home in their political
and economic policies. They are also more likely to promote long
term forms of investment in advanced automation and industry that
require sacrifice in the short run, but pay enormous dividends in
the long run in terms of increased national wealth and self-sufficiency.
Last but not least, when the people in charge genuinely work for
the people rather than against them, messy
social problems have a way of going from being unsolvable to at
last becoming containable or solvable.
There is an important racial nationalist flip side to all of this.
If we assume that racism is instinctive, we can also assume that
everyone subconsciously keeps score.
This includes most liberals and other leftists. Therefore we have
to ask questions about people who try to break these basic racial
rules of human nature.
Not surprisingly, here in America it is very common to see a gigantic
discrepancy between what liberals say and what they do as evidence
of the concept that everyone is subconsciously a racist and keeps
Whereas liberals commonly beat their chests and call for more racial
integration in schools and in the work place, we see totally different
behavior once they acquire some wealth and the time comes to send
their own children to school. It seems like they just cannot get
their own kids in mostly all-white private schools fast enough.
Nor can they keep their hands off nice-looking homes in tony white
neighborhoods. Nor do they studiously avoid acquiring blond trophy
In the grand scheme of things, these liberals are no more honest
than thieves and embezzlers. Such crooks want to steal other people's
money whenever it suits their needs. However, when it comes time
to spend their loot, they demand honestly rendered goods and services
for every dollar they exchange. They never want anyone to steal
from them, although it is always OK for them to steal from others.
Similarly liberals want to undermine the racial and cultural integrity
of an all-white society through racial integration to score immediate
political points and secure expedient economic advantages. At the
same time they want to enjoy all the benefits that come from preserving
a homogeneous white society in control of its own destiny.
The price of hypocrisy
In a multiracial, multicultural society, people who do not want
to buck the system have to condition themselves to publicly turn
a blind eye whenever aliens grab their wealth, take their women,
and subvert their culture.
Given that from a genetic viewpoint, ones genetic assets, and hence
ones womenfolk, are the most precious asset of all, we have to ask
what kind of intellectual, emotional, and spiritual price all of
this exacts from white Americans on both a conscious and subconscious
What does it do to someone morally and spiritually to have to tolerate
interracial marriage, affirmative action, and massive illegal Third
World immigration? How does it pervert the sensibilities of our
military personnel to be ordered to the Middle East to strong-arm
Arabs, inhale depleted uranium, and ultimately die to serve the
interests of the High
Priests of War and their beloved state of Israel?
When people desensitize themselves regarding genetic survival issues
in the long run are the most vital issues of all —
why would they necessarily continue to act honorably regarding any
Quite often the level of moral behavior in one part of a person's
life spills over into the ethical standards shown elsewhere. The
level of discipline and focus in one area is reflected in other
An extreme military example of this concept was voiced by Marine
Colonel Lewis B. Puller in the Korean War when asked why he asked
infantrymen to continue shaving in subzero weather at the Chosin
Reservoir while engaged in combat surrounded by Red Chinese soldiers.
His response: "If they look like Marines, they fight like Marines."
Another interesting example was dramatized in the movie The
Bounty (1984). After Captain William
Bligh's ship landed in Tahiti, his crew experienced very relaxed
discipline complete with an idyllic setting and Tahitian
mistresses for five months. Only a few weeks into the voyage
back to England, as Bligh reasserted his authority, most of his
crew mutinied with dreams of recapturing the island lifestyle.
Most societies do not run hot and cold very well. If you do not
care about the biological destruction through integration and miscegenation
of your own racial-ethnic group, why would you necessarily care
that much about enforcing accounting standards in business? For
that matter, why would you really care about preventing corporate
insiders from exploiting their positions to grab excessive salaries
and stock options? Why would you care that much about other economic
or political issues, such as restraining arrogant bureaucracy, reinvesting
in domestic manufacturing infrastructure, or preserving civil liberties?
Why not just let everything slip while you just look out for number
one, and the public be damned?
Expressed differently, how can those people who become "successful"
by leading a timid, fractured existence within the context of the
multi-racial, multi-cultural society ever really be anything except
alienated, rudderless, and morally degenerate individuals?
How too much "sugar"
in a multiracial society can be just as deadly as too much "vinegar"
Many white racial nationalist organizations in
America routinely cover incidents of racial conflict. The usual staples
include violent incidents where blacks and Mexicans assault whites.
They also include high level crimes, such as organized crime and espionage
acts against America, where Jews have always provide strong leadership.
To a point, this is all well and good. To stay well-informed, we definitely
need to know about patterns of nonwhite aggression against whites.
We definitely need to document and report all of this.
However, on a broader level, a crucial underlying reality remains
unaddressed. And that is the fact that initially, many blacks, Mexicans,
Jews, and other aliens have gained entry into America not because
they are perceived as being threatening, but because they appear to
provide wonderful solutions to certain people's problems.
Nonwhites know this, too. Quite a few of them are very good at playing
up to this. In fact, they really know how to seduce us by acting cute
and wonderful and telling us exactly what we want to hear.
This is what I call the "front end" problem. The violence,
espionage, organized crime, and other racially-based conflicts are
on the "back end."
It is amazing how many American racial nationalist groups always talk
about the back end, but never really address the front end.
The "wonderful" danger
Back in the old days, when farmers created their own preserves, they
could typically arrest the growth of bacteria by adding either too
much vinegar or too much sugar. Both are toxic to bacteria.
Increasing the amount of multi-racialism and multiculturalism in a
society tends to create an interesting distortion effect where every
day human interactions begin to show a kind of "bar-bell"
distribution of both too much "sugar" and too much "vinegar"
at the same time.
Ever since World War II, in both Europe and America, we have repeatedly
seen how a rise in multiracialism and multiculturalism has been accompanied
with dramatic increases in various forms of overt crime. That is analogous
to too much vinegar. But even more devastating than all of this are
the instances of too much sugar.
The "too much sugar" phenomenon tends to fall into two different
categories. The first I call "Uncle Tomism" (or "Love-bombing").
This game is usually played by nonwhites.
The second game is called "Gracchitism." I have borrowed
this term from Wilmot Robertson's classic The Dispossessed
Majority. I like to call it "The Man Who Would
Be King" syndrome. Either way, this social game involves what
anthropologists call "bigmanship." It is a hubris-filled
game that inspires whites to act as "sugar daddies" for
"Uncle Tomism" and "love-bombing"
Many readers are probably familiar with the scale of
cultural interaction used by many social scientists. Typically when
a certain ethnic group first comes in contact with an alien culture,
they tend to react to the outside culture somewhere along a scale
between two opposing extremes. At one extreme they may show self-abnegation
and embrace the alien culture without hesitation. At the other extreme
they may violently reject the alien culture and may even seek to genocide
the alien people.
An "Uncle Tom" is obviously someone on
the self-abnegation end of the scale. He despises his own indigenous
culture and seeks to suppress it. Conversely, he accepts the alien
culture lock, stock, and barrel, even to the point of being servile,
fawning, self-deprecating, and obsequious.
I picked up the term "love-bombing" from a conscious recruitment
tactic used by "Moonies." These are followers of Reverend
Sung Mung Moon, head of the Unification Church, who promote interracial
marriage between Caucasians and Asians. While evangelizing on the
streets, the Moonie "love-bomber" walks up to a stranger
and initiates a conversation. During the talk, the Moonie looks at
the stranger with big doggy eyes, to communicate unqualified fondness
and acceptance of the stranger.
I read about this tactic long ago and have no idea whether certain
Moonies are still using it. However, this tactic was once very effective
for recruiting certain types of white people.
As the next step, the Moonies would try to get "love bombed"
recruits to attend social retreats. At these controlled gatherings,
the recruits were subjected to intensive indoctrination and peer pressure
to remold their belief systems.
If all of this is beginning to sound like a sophisticated brainwashing
operation, I invite the reader to consider "Dark
Side of the Moon
" by Bob Fitrakis that discusses a Congressional
investigation into Moonie ties to the South Korean CIA and various
"Uncle Tomism" and "love bombing" are tactics
that relatively powerless peoples, to include illegal alien immigrants,
can use to get their foot in the door and seduce their hosts. One
might argue that the doggy eyes are far more dangerous to white Americans
than acts of nonwhite violence. This is a form of conquest by servile
Deep down inside, many people who engage in these tactics often hate
themselves for having to debase themselves. Sometime after they finally
gain a reasonably self-sufficient beachhead, they may later lash out
to compensate for the humiliations they had to endure while they were
I might add that people who do not hate themselves for this debasement
may have an even worse problem, to the extent that their talent for
playing a double game may be indicative of the fractured criminal
personality that I will discuss in my mutualism vs. parasitism section.
"Building" America one alien
bootlick at a time
In the final analysis, it is not healthy for a society to have employers
who are motivated to hire alien peoples because they like the way
aliens lick their boots and tell them what they want to hear. Nor
is it healthy for employers to seek aliens who gladly allow themselves
to get chiseled down to the bone on wages and benefits. There is just
too much greed, exploitation, self-abasement, and dishonesty going
In the long run it is far better to have people in charge with the
attitudes that Henry Ford expressed in My Life and Work
(offered through America First Books) . In this work, Ford explains
how he tried to lead his industry in terms of increasing wages. In
fact, he unilaterally offered his nonunion workers twice the average
automobile industry wage. He also tried to find ways to make the work
environment more interesting to help employees become more innovative
and self-reliant in mind and spirit.
Ford also knew that leaders of industry such as himself had to help
American society on a broader level. Ford consciously sought to add
to America's industrial infrastructure. Ford also worked to improve
Ford knew that ultimately it is all about creating a positive work
environment that incentivize hardworking and innovative white people
to steadily increase the amount of advanced automation and productive
capacity here in America. Innovative people developing better machines
and procedures has always been the mainstay of the continuing automation
revolution, as I explain in greater detail in my robot series
As a group, the tens of millions of Third World peoples who have physically
replaced white Americans in the last few decades are mostly economic
deadwood. This is true despite the fact that they consume considerable
welfare expenditures and occupy lots of well-paying government jobs.
They do not have the resourcefulness and innovativeness once found
in the old white middle class that they are displacing. They don't
produce anywhere near as many pleasant surprises. They are not as
good at starting the equivalent of automobile and computer companies
with things they create in their garages.
Even when America accepts highly skilled nonwhite professional people
as citizens, to include alien scientists and technicians, this poses
many other types of dangers as well.
While it is true that quite a few highly skilled alien professionals
can make many purely economic contributions to America, it is also
true that they tend to support liberal minority coalition politics
that subvert white genetic interests. They are more likely to engage
in the hidden forms of exploitation that I have discussed previously
that leave no fingerprints. They also serve as sentry posts to advise
co-tribalists on how to game the American system to their advantage.
This advice includes exploiting breaches in our immigration policies
to bring more of their people to America and expand their power base.
While foreign skilled professionals who immigrate to America may superficially
appear to be more assimilated than Third World proletarians, in many
ways they are vastly more dangerous.
What the Japanese have known all along
It is important to note that despite their aging and demographically
declining population, the Japanese still refuse to allow alien immigration
into Japan on any level. Japanese leaders encourage their people to
keep picking up after themselves rather than rely on any growing alien
servant class. They are also investing massively in robot systems
to serve as household servants.
Incidentally, the requirement to economically pick up after oneself
rather than rely on alien labor is a key point promoted by most serious
racial nationalists around the world who promote national self-sufficiency
Speaking of the Japanese leadership, it is amazing how racial nationalist
patriots get treated differently depending on whether or not their
societies have already been deeply infiltrated.
If one still has a fairly homogeneous society, and alien populations
still remain outside ones own national borders, one is typically called
a patriot for advocating ethno-racial homogeneity, self-determination,
However, once large numbers of aliens get inside your country and
get their hands on the levers of media and government power, things
get very messy and nasty fairly quickly
For merely advocating self-defensive racial separatism and self-determination,
an American patriot can easily find himself being misrepresented as
a supremacist and apartheid-practitioner. To add insult to injury,
all the opprobrium gets dumped on nationalists who advocate hard-headed
approaches to contain festering social problems, rather than upon
the irresponsible liberals who let the rats in the barn to begin with.
Japanese leaders are not about to sell out control of their racial
and ethnic destiny to alien immigration subversion in any incremental
fashion. They are wise and honorable people in this regard.
This is true despite the fact that there are literally hundreds of
millions of impoverished people spread between Asia, Africa, and South
America who would be more than willing to come to Japan and prostrate
themselves, lick anyone's boots, and do literally anything
In contrast to Japanese racial nationalist honor, America's degenerate
leaders have absolutely no loyalty whatsoever. None.
In addition to driving this country into complete bankruptcy, our
Zionist rulers and their gentile collaborators are not only steering
America towards tragic multi-racial chaos, but they also have the
criminal chutzpah to send our troops to the Middle East to inhale
depleted uranium dust while genociding Arabs in order to help secure
a kosher-pure future for the exclusively Jewish state of Israel and
lucrative concessions for the Bush Administration's corporate cronies.
The reign of the "sugar-daddies"
Another aspect of the "too much sugar" category
are people who I call "sugar daddies." They thrive on living
in a multi-racial, multi-cultural world based on "leveraged"
forms of social power in which Uncle Toms and love-bombers look up
to them. They thrive on what anthropologists call "bigmanship"
and the "redistributor chief" syndrome.
Sugar daddies are very detached from any solid, interlocking support
on equal terms with people of their own race and ethnic group. Instead,
they rely on the use of money and the manipulation of prestigious
titles and symbols in order to secure their position in society and
feel like they are big stuff.
Two interesting variations of this behavior include "Gracchitism"
and what I call the "The Man Who Would Be King" syndrome.
In his classic work The Dispossessed Majority
Wilmot Robertson outlines Gracchitism (p. 101):
...The name is derived from the Gracchi, two
brothers who, although belonging to one of the great patrician families
of Rome, could not feed their soaring ambition sufficiently by remaining
in the orbit of their own aristocratic caste. Tiberius and Gaius
Gracchus found that in times of stress in a relatively tolerant
republic, a descent of one or two steps in the social ladder was
equivalent to an ascent of several steps in the political ladder.
Accordingly, they become the standard bearers of revolution and
agrarian revolt and were adulated by the plebeians. The Gracchi's
political strategy was by no means limited to stirring up class
against class, peasant against landlord, exploited against exploiter.
The patricians, the descendants of Italic invaders, differed racially
from the plebs, the offspring of earlier and later immigrants. The
Gracchite's appeal, consequently, was directed to oppressed races
as well as to oppressed classes.
In a multiracial state the well-born, ambitious
member of a dominant race is constantly tempted to take the Gracchite
path to power. It is harder for the patrician to win the respect
of the patrician than to win the respect of the plebeian. It is
also much easier to give money away than to earn it; to relax discipline
than to enforce it; to be a hero to one's valet than to ones mirror.
The Gracchite actively supports alien genetic interests
against those of his own people in order to win political support
from the aliens. He is essentially a high class race traitor.
In contrast to this is a relatively benign species of Gracchitism
that I term "The Man Who Would Be King" syndrome. I have
borrowed this title from the Rudyard Kipling novel and Hollywood movie
by the same name. Incidentally, I think the movie, which stars Sean
Connery and Michael Caine, is a terrific action-adventure flick.
In this case, while the white person might actively assist nonwhites,
there is no evidence that he actively seeks to support them at the
expense of his own people. In fact, on the surface his humanitarian
efforts might appear highly commendable. However, he does show the
fatal weakness of overwhelming hubris and blindness to racial realities.
He is all too willing to completely detach himself from any form of
effective white mutual support and put himself at the mercy of aliens,
somewhat analogous to the way a group of troops in time of war might
advance too far inside enemy territory beyond meaningful flank protection
and air cover.
The movie "The Man Who Would Be King" depicts two former
British soldiers in the 19th century who search for a lost tribe in
Afghanistan reputed to hold gold left by Alexander the Great. Before
they leave on their expedition, a British scholar advises them to
wear amulets bearing an ancient design. When they finally find this
lost tribe, the tribesman take note of the amulets. A combination
of the ornaments' Alexandrian design, as well as the fortuitous outcome
of a battle where one of the soldiers survives an arrow attack without
showing any injury, causes the natives to believe that the two soldiers
really are immortal gods entitled to the gold.
However, the soldier who survived the arrow attack becomes so enthralled
with his ability to act like a wonderfully noble and wise king before
the tribesmen that he tries to permanently install himself in power
rather than pack up the gold and leave with his compatriot while he
still has the chance. Although he has nothing in common with the natives
on a racial, ethnic, or cultural level, he thinks he can establish
legitimacy by showing leadership competence. What he fails to suspect
is that no matter how noble or wonderful he may be as their new ruler,
the natives might still try to test him once again to see if he can
shed blood. If he fails the test, he and his companion become toast.
And of course testing is exactly what takes place in a climatic moment
of the film. The two soldiers quickly discover how extremely "leveraged"
their position has become amidst the alien people.
An important variation of the "Man Who Would Be King" syndrome
was illustrated in the superb novel Bonfire
of the Vanities
by American author Tom Wolfe. It is about
a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP) bond trader named Sherman McCoy
who lives in New York City. He and his Wall Street colleagues make
huge incomes, live in very upscale housing, enjoy the most expensive
luxuries, and call themselves "Masters of the Universe."
Unlike the "Man Who Would Be King" characters, McCoy does
not actively go in search of an alien people to work with. Instead,
McCoy's hubris comes from failing to recognize how an effective support
base of fellow whites has rotted out from under him. Meanwhile alien
peoples and the alien values that they represent have quietly enveloped
McCoy's world like an anaconda, leaving McCoy in an extremely "leveraged"
social situation without knowing it.
Roger Ebert created an excellent review
of the Hollywood version of this story, but perhaps the hardest hitting
commentary about the underlying novel was written by the late Dr.
William Pierce for the April-May 1988 issue of National
...McCoy lives in an artificial world, a world
separated by a wall of money from the encroaching jungle all around.
His parents are living reminders of an earlier day, when the jungle
existed only in patches here and there, and White people did not
have to have scads of money to keep the animals at bay. But the
jungle has grown mightily since then, and its denizens have multiplied
and become much bolder...
One night, however, McCoy gets a close up glimpse of the jungle.
While driving his mistress back from the airport he makes a wrong
turn and becomes lost in the Bronx. He evades a Black mugging attempt,
and the experience, though it shakes him badly at the time, only
strengthens his belief in his superiority: he fought the jungle
with his bare hands and he won! He is truly a Master of the Universe
in every way!
But the jungle is much more dangerous than McCoy realizes: its really
threatening denizens are not the Blacks and Puerto Ricans who form
the bulk of its population, but the Jews who control them and are
able to move back and forth from their world to McCoy's at will...Even
at the book's end, when the Jews and their minions have ganged up
on him and pulled him into the jungle for good, there is no indication
that McCoy is any wiser about their ways...
The preceding sentence notwithstanding, Wolfe's tale is not one
of classic Jewish conspiracy. His Jews act in concert, for the most
part — although
there is one Jewish judge who refuses to go along —
because it serves their immediate personal interests to do so. They
do enjoy pulling a WASP down, but there are no formal meetings of
the Learned Elders in the synagogue to plot strategy.
Nor is it primarily a cautionary tale about the dangers of the jungle.
It is really a morality play about the White man and what he has
done to himself: about his dangerous delusions, his dangerous lack
of contact with the real world, his dangerous loss of virtue and
manhood. Sherman McCoy stands for the leadership stratum of his
race in the closing years of the 20th century. He is all the eager
White business executives and entrepreneurs, the ambitious White
educators and publicists, who have cast all other considerations
aside in their single-minded scramble for status and wealth; who,
having suppressed every vestige of racial consciousness, have allied
themselves with Jews as readily as with men of their own blood whenever
there was an advantage to it; who have ignored the encroachments
of the jungle so long as they perceived no personal threat from
it, and even abetted them when there was a personal gain involved;
who have become so well adapted to plutocracy that they have forgotten
the virtues becoming an aristocrat —
virtues such as self-discipline, toughness, bravery, a sense of
personal honor; and who nevertheless maintain the dangerous vanity
that they are aristocrats —
Masters of the Universe —
and still are in control of their world.
As an update to the Bonfire
, I would refer readers to my Critical
section. Many Americans believe that the interior explosions
reported by both firemen and policemen account for why the two World
Trade Center towers were able to collapse at free-fall speed rather
than take the much longer amount of time required for each floor to
"pancake" its way downward onto lower floors. They point
to the Mossad agents arrested by the FBI as evidence that the Mossad
helped to orchestrate the attack, in a similar treacherous pattern
as the Lavon Affair, JFK assassination, and assault on the U.S.S.
Liberty. And by the way, the strong evidence that the Pentagon
was hit by some kind of remotely navigated aircraft does not sound like something orchestrated
by the local Micky Mouse Club either.
Critics of the Government version of 9-11 also point out that Jewish
landlord Larry Silverstein acknowledged on television that he gave
orders to "pull" World Trade Center Tower 7 on the same
day that the Twin Towers collapsed, despite the fact that the building
showed no signs of external damage except for a few smallish and mysterious
fires visible through a few windows on some lower floors. To "pull"
means to set off controlled demolitions to collapse the entire building.
World Trade Center 7 experienced a very professionally-executed collapse
following Silverstein's order. Yet setting up controlled demolitions
inside World Trade Center Tower 7 to pull off such a smooth collapse
would normally take many days, if not weeks. Why would anyone just
happen to set up demolitions days before 9-11? Why the sense of urgency
to collapse the building? .
At least three thousand Americans died on 11 Sept
2001. If suspicions prove correct, then here we see a real life case
where quite a few WASPs in high finance got literally pulled down
to their deaths by a very real Jewish conspiracy in New York City.
If such is the case, then The Bonfire of Vanities
served as an astute fictional wake up call for vastly darker realities
I might add that tens, if not hundreds of thousands of American military
personnel are also getting scammed into early deaths from the effects
of aerosolized depleted uranium on account of being ordered to wage
aggressive war for Israel in the Middle East. Tens of thousands have
already been killed or maimed for life. Thousands of New Yorkers have
serious lung ailments from the fine dust generated by the World Trade
Center Towers collapse, and perhaps hundreds of people present at
the Pentagon strike site are now suffering from breathing depleted
uranium dust left over from what was probably a weaponized military
drone that hit the building. (This is contrary to the government story
that claim it was a Boeing 757. Please see the Mike Piper interview
of Sam Danner on RBN Live, 10
What is missing is a common sense perspective
Humanitarian aid and "bigmanship" to help alien peoples
can be a wonderful thing, but there are clear exceptions.
Humanitarianism towards aliens is wrong when one cannot first reverse
a seriously deteriorating social situation among ones own people.
Humanitarianism towards aliens is fine —
except when one is blinded by hubris. Except when one becomes estranged
from a genuine racial and ethnic power base among ones own kind.
"Other kind first" humanitarianism is at best a perversion.
As mentioned earlier, an important principle of racial nationalism
is that charity must begin at home if charity is to become sustainable
over the long run.
In fact, one can take this argument a step further. Throughout history,
people generally consider it right, proper, and normal to openly
stand up for the survival of ones own race and ethnic group, and
to openly identify and criticize enemies of ones own people. In
America we have an anomaly where most whites are scared to openly
stand up for white racial survival for fear of being called "racists."
They are even more scared to publicly criticize Jews for fear of
being called "anti-Semites" and other labels.
Why passing the racial buck is a risky
form of social "leverage"
When one fails to openly stand up for ones own people, one is really
borrowing against the future. One is leveraging oneself in a social
situation with very little protection on the downside, analogous
to a stock speculator who goes way out on margin.
You are also passing the buck to other whites by allowing a problem
to fester and grow, just like a corrupt cop who allows bank robbers
to get away with their crimes. This creates the danger that the
bank robbers can become even more organized and sophisticated, buying
off politicians and forming ever more dangerous mafia organizations.
Lastly, failing to take a stand in racial self-defense is typically
a sign of cowardice and servility.
Now it is true that on a tactical level it sometimes pays to quietly
and patiently wait out a bad situation, such as the way Germany
waited out the occupation of East Germany by Communists until the
Soviet Union collapsed. But generally this is the exception. This
strategy definitely did not work for whites in the former Rhodesia
or South Africa. In fact, it only poured fuel on the fire of white
The general rule is that as a white person, if you fail to openly
defend your genetic interests and take care of your own kind first,
your efforts to show bigmanship to nonwhites will be interpreted
by nonwhites as cowardice and appeasement rather than nobility.
Eventually it will be construed by fellow whites as a form of treason
You are a fool if you think the strategy of perpetual appeasement
can keep you in control forever and this "other kind first"
policy will never blow back in your face.
Last, but not least, when one examines the advantages new technologies
such as Internet communication, and then examines the rapidly deteriorating
economic and social conditions in North America and Europe, one
might wonder if there ever again will be a better window of opportunity
for beleaguered whites to take decisive action.
In the final analysis, I think that the genetic viewpoint
helps to show multi-racialism and multiculturalism for what these
things really are. Rather than constituting some kind of moral imperative,
or some kind of inevitable utopian future for all mankind, they merely
constitute one particular social strategy with its own set of pros
and cons. They are highly "leveraged" social strategies
As previously mentioned, bringing alien groups into ones country in
order to augment ones labor force reminds me of the stock speculator
who goes way out on margin, or the corporation that takes on a lot
of debt. Leveraged strategies help stock speculators and businesses
make faster gains if trends go in the right direction. However, if
there is an unforeseen downturn, the stock speculator can get wiped
out, and the corporation can go bankrupt and even get taken over by
Similarly, countries that take in cheap alien labor may be able to
enjoy significant short term advantages. The cheap labor may give
a near term boost to corporate profits, and may allow certain companies
to add manpower more quickly to grow faster.
However, on the back end, as the aliens acquire citizenship rights
and build power positions in the society, the host population loses
degrees of control over its own destiny. If for example there is a
severe economic downturn after a country becomes filled with alien
groups, the whole society might come apart at the seams like the former
Yugoslavia and completely erase whatever material gains were initially
achieved by importing them.
One can graph the rising risk of social distress with alien immigration
in the same manner that finance professors graph the rising risk of
financial distress when corporations take on more debt with their
efficient capital structure models.
At the beginning of this series I mentioned that no particular perspective
has all the answers, and I think that a wise policy seeks a balance.
By the same token, I make no secret that I believe that if a white
society has to become over-weighted in any particular area, I prefer
the "genetic bottom up" libertarian racial nationalist approach.
This reflects a compromise position to balance both racial and business
One the racial side it seeks to maintain demographic control to preserve
racial and cultural homogeneity and avoid alienation and social instability.
On the business side it tries to avoid the central planning, higher
taxation, and regulatory controls that might inhibit entrepreneurship
associated with authoritarian forms of nationalism.
It has some similar goals as anarcho-libertarianism, such as the development
of industry and commerce through foreign trade and grass roots entrepreneurship.
It also seeks the establishment of a decentralized money and banking
system. However, it also seeks to prevent the loss of strategic industries
and to prevent out of control alien immigration.
In regard to these latter two issues, most anarcho-libertarians in
America show willful blindness. However, it is possible to convert
an anarcho-libertarian into a libertarian racial nationalist if you
only convince him that national interests and genetic interests also
have importance along with personal property interests.
A major question with racial nationalism is where one draws the line
between the in-group and out-group. On the one hand, we hear attitudes
such as, "All Americans are immigrants, and there should be no
such thing as a `hyphenated American;' we should all be just `Americans.'"
On the other hand, one also hears increasing talk about how America
is "balkanizing" and new immigrant groups are creating white
flight and marginalizing other groups.
Obviously if one does not draw the line somewhere, one will wind up
with so many different groups that the country will come apart at
the seams as Thomas Chittum predicts in Civil War II.
Saying "All Americans are immigrants, and there should be no
such thing as a `hyphenated American;' we should all be just `Americans.'"
may sound nice and sweet, but that is not how many Americans are going
to feel once the economy completely breaks down, corruption and political
suppression spreads further, and the U.S. government suffers major
humiliations like the former Soviet government.
It is also true that North America consisted of warring tribes before
whites showed up, and furthermore whites warred against these indigenous
tribes in the 19th century. In addition, Nordics experienced a de
facto Nordic folk ingathering among different Northern European nationalities
in the 1800's. In the 20th century the Jewish Lobby has aggressively
promoted Israeli interests over America's (see my Critical
Issues section) while encouraging white loss of identity and disunity
through control of mass media. One might conclude from all of this
that from a longer term historical perspective, various forms of tribal
consciousness and even warfare —
to include psycho-political warfare —
has come closer to characterizing the real "American experience."
I personally do not have the "right answer" regarding how
much of white society should be a certain percentage Catholic or Protestant
or Odinist or Nordic or Celtic or Alpine or Mediterranean or whatever.
Nor is it part of my libertarian philosophy to come up with any specific
answer. I would prefer to decentralize government —
to include the repeal of all government -mandated social reengineering
and let people vote with their own feet. My hunch is that after the
coming economic crises, North America will eventually sort itself
out into many different countries similar to Europe, with many different
types of societies. Some will probably be hybrids of different white
stocks and mixtures of different cultures. Some will probably try
to purposely recapture a Nordic or Celtic or some other white racial
and cultural ethnostate. We may eventually evolve to have dozens of
countries with a little bit of everything for folks to gravitate towards
to suit their own personal tastes. This is a vision that is in fact
very similar to Dr. Hans Herman Hoppe's anarcho libertarian vision
in Democracy: The God That Failed. And in
the long run this just might not be such a bad thing.
While I may not have the exact "right answer," I think that
people nevertheless must come up with some kind of answer they are
willing to fight for. Let me explain.
Back in the 1800's white people in America tended to live in naturally
homogeneous communities by default. Quite often they did not need
to define what they wanted. In a very decentralized world, many things
naturally took care of themselves.
In contrast, today we live in a very competitive, globalized world,
where people from all over the world want anything good that you have
got going for yourself, ranging from your standard of living to blond
women as trophy wives. Economic power has increasingly shifted to
the nonwhite world, and nonwhites increasingly have the ability to
come and take whatever they want —
and shove you aside in the process.
Therefore, if you do not know what you want, and are unable to consciously
define it and work for it, there is a good chance that over the long
run you will lose it. If you are a white person and you do not want
to live in an environment where you are dominated and marginalized
by aliens, then you must consciously and explicitly support white
racial nationalism and start organizing for a white future.
If you do not openly ask for a white society with white values and
a white future, no one will give it to you. In fact, quite to the
shows world's 'most racist' countries (and the answers may surprise
you), by Hugo Gye, dailymail.co.uk. [Editor's Note:
It is quite ironic that the Western countries which are excoriated
by controlled mainstream media as being the most "racist"
are in fact the least racist on a global scale. Zionists in control
of mainstream media who condemn white gentiles for "racism"
typically support one of the most racist states in the world, namely
the anti-Palestinian apartheid state of Israel. Once again, this
is simply a continuation of a very ancient PSYOP formula, namely
to be publicly left wing towards people outside ones own tribe to
make them drop their defenses so that they become easier to infiltrate
and exploit while simultaneously being privately right wing among
members of ones of tribe to maximize its group solidarity, strength,
and competitive adantage.]
Britain is one of the most racially tolerant countries on the planet,
a survey claims.
The global social attitudes study claims that the most racially
intolerant populations are all in the developing world, with Jordan
and India in the top five.
By contrast, the study of 80 countries over three decades found
Western countries were most accepting of other cultures with Britain,
the U.S., Canada and Australia more tolerant than anywhere else.
This map shows the nations of the world where people have
the most and least tolerant attitudes
The data came from the World Value Survey, which measured the social
attitudes of people in different countries, as reported by the Washington
The survey asked individuals what types of people they would refuse
to live next to, and counted how many chose the option 'people of
a different race' as a percentage for each country.
Researchers have suggested that societies where more people do
not want neighbours from other races can be considered less racially
The country with the highest proportion of 'intolerant' people
who wanted neighbours similar to them was Jordan, where 51.4 per
cent of the population would refuse to live next to someone of a
Next was India with 43.5 per cent.
Racist views are strikingly rare in the U.S., according to the
survey, which claims that only 3.8 per cent of residents are reluctant
to have a neighbour of another race.
Other English-speaking countries once part of the British Empire
shared the same tolerant attitude - fewer than five per cent of
Britons, Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders showed signs
People in the UK are also tolerant of other differences such as
speaking a foreign language or practising an alternative religion
- for example, fewer than two per cent of Britons would object to
having neighbours of a different faith to them.
Similarly, fewer than one in 20 people in most South American countries
admitted harbouring prejudice against other races.
The Middle East, which is currently dealing with large numbers
of low-skilled immigrants from south Asia, seems to be a hotbed
of racial tension, however.
Europe is remarkably split - the west of the continent is generally
more tolerant than the east, but France is a striking outlier with
22.7 per cent of the French rejecting neighbourhood diversity.
Some have pointed out problems in the survey data, claiming that
because the polls span a long period of time they are an unreliable
guide to current attitudes.
However, a more serious flaw could be the fact that in most Western
countries racism is so taboo than many people will hide their intolerant
views and lie to the questioners.
Max Fisher of the Washington Post suggested that maybe
'Americans are conditioned by their education and media to keep
these sorts of racial preferences private, i.e. to lie about them
on surveys, in a way that Indians might not be'.
Time We're Taking The Whole Planet With Us by Chris
Four : ....Mutualism
Back to Part One:.........
Back to Part