What Will Work

What Will Work

Farnham O’Reilly

August 10, 2010

The Problem

A short one hundred years ago, the sun never set on the empires of our people. At that time we had brought forth the finest music, explored to the uttermost ends of the earth, pioneered care of the environment and kindness to animals, made the most startling discoveries, created the greatest inventions, wrote the most profound literature, established colonies in foreign lands that — despite contemporary assertion — improved the lot of the indigenous peoples, and began unlocking the very secrets of Nature Herself.

Three generations later — ten decades — this race is now against the ropes, fighting for their very survival. Actually, it is worse than that — only a very few of us are fighting — the vast majority of us are actively or passively engaged in our own demise. Why in the world have we gotten into this situation?

The ‘what’ of it is no mystery — we can look around ourselves and at history over the past 100 years and see what happened. The ‘how’ is also no mystery. We have lost control to an intellectual, media and financial elite that reflects Jewish  concerns and interests. This new elite is intelligent, hyper-ethnocentric, and adept at ethnic networking. They have a malevolence born out of the twin delusions of grandeur and persecution. But, to understand the ‘why’ we must understand ourselves, i.e. — what makes us White on the inside, what makes us different from other peoples, what makes us behave the way we do. For, in the final analysis, the ‘what’ and the ‘how’ are simply byproducts of the ‘why’ — why we are well into our dispossession without firing a shot — literally. If we are to survive, we must come to grips with the ‘why’. Then the ‘what’ and ‘how’ will take care of themselves.

We have spent sixty unsuccessful years trying to reach the minds of our people, appealing to their sense of racial preservation. Our failure has not been through lack of effort, but rather because we have not taken the time to understand ourselves, that we are first and foremost not an intellectual people, rather we are a social people, and the way to reach our people is not through the mind, but through the social emotions. I repeat — the battle is to be won in our emotions, not our minds. The Enemy has not made the same mistake. He took the time to study us, to learn our on/off switches, and he has used that knowledge to his benefit. He knows we respond to emotion, altruism, guilt and social approval, rather than facts, data, proofs, reason, or even common sense, and he has used this knowledge as a weapon.

Yes, from us have come the most gifted intellects the world has ever seen: Caesar, Pythagoras, Dickens, Bach, Alexander, Da Vinci, Pasteur, Newton, Edison, Gutenberg, Mannerheim, Twain, Washington, Goethe, Lee, Ericsson, Ford, Beethoven, Nietzsche, Franklin, Von Braun, Socrates, London, Rembrandt, Kipling, Lindbergh, Dante, Shakespeare, Bell, Napoleon, Magellan, Amundsen, Mozart, Plato, Wagner, Copernicus and Galileo, (ahem) to name a few. But, we are not an intellectual people. Creative? Yes. Intelligent? Undoubtedly. But the key to our demise is to understand that at the core of our being are the social emotions.

I remember once a minister explaining how our emotions must be subject to our reason. He used a train as an analogy, describing how our mind and heart are like the train’s locomotive and caboose, respectively, and that the only way the train could reach its destination was for the caboose to follow the locomotive and not the other way around. This was good counsel, with only one flaw, but the flaw was fatal — we White folk just aren’t made that way.

In failing to understand ourselves we have wasted precious time in assuming our people would respond to appeals for racial preservation. The fact is that we are less ethnocentric than other peoples. Nor can we build in several decades what takes at least several thousand years to develop. Now, White ethnocentrism does exist, but it is deeply buried, and normally manifests itself only implicitly. In any event, it cannot be depended on as a catalyst for change.

What can be depended on for real change is what is already inside us, close to the surface, vibrant, strong, and responsive. Since the days of our Hyperborean home, this has been the spiritual mandate of our people — righteous moral virtue — that undeniable preference of our folk for good over evil. This inborn trait of ours manifests itself in many forms — a sense of fairness, a willingness to forgive and give people a second chance, love of truth and goodness, a desire to keep our good reputation, repulsion to lies and evil, and helping the less fortunate. This trait — an innate desire for Godliness defined as moral universalism, also has caused a weakness to evolve within us that has been exploited by our enemies. This is our predisposition towards guilt.

Our opponents are not dumb enough as to tell us to dismantle the family unit, cut our birth rate, and deprive children of the nurture and guidance only mothers can offer. Instead, we are told the White male hierarchy has suppressed women, shamelessly keeping them barefoot and pregnant in the home, condemned to a lifetime of domestic drudgery when they could be pursuing self-fulfilling careers and securing their own financial independence—an argument framed in terms of our proneness to self-gratifying individualism. Shame on us for denigrating our women!

Nor does anyone like a baby killer, and our enemies know full well that openly encouraging us to commit infanticide is tantamount to political suicide. Instead, this horrific proposition is couched in terms of freedom of choice—another appeal to our individualist proclivities. For is not denial of one’s freedom of choice the hallmark of the tyrant, the fascist, the Nazi? And who of us wishes to be labeled as such?

Speaking of babies, it is each child’s birthright that they be raised amongst their own people and in their own culture, thereby being allowed to fully experience the history, culture, and genetic experience of their folk. This is the way every morally and intellectually healthy person looks at it. The elites that dominate the media and intellectual discourse are loathe to challenge on those grounds. But they are smart enough to know that ethnic preservation — the key domino standing in their way of global conquest — begins in the family. So knowing the altruistic nature of our people and their relative lack of ethnocentrism, we are encouraged to adopt babies of color, knowing that those who do so will be regarded as making the ultimate personal sacrifice to the posterity of their family by allowing a little child that no one else wants to enjoy the tender care of a father and mother. No baby haters here. What sacrifice! What selflessness! What love! Indeed, such parents are not only venerated with the greatest of social approval, but they are held up as the very antitheses to that hallmark of the most despised of pariahs — the racist.

Ah, racism! By any other name, it is the flower of civilization. It is Mother Nature’s only line of defense for preservation of one’s own kind. It is the purest form of patriotism. It is the only guarantee for diversity, for without racism, diversity is doomed — something our elites are well aware of. Indeed, the blessing of knowing who and what you are is reserved exclusively for the racist. But, racism leads to ethnic preservation, and that is the one thing that can gore the ox of the global Power Elite. So, they must put a stop to it, and once again, seeing that racism is based on cosmic truth and therefore attractive to our folk, the task of our elites is to make good into evil, to make the racist the most pilloried of all people, an anathema beyond reproach. And, while much has been written on just how this is done (primarily via the media and the federal/public school system) the one really important feature of their strategy has been overlooked: the attack has not an intellectual foundation, but rather a spiritual one; i.e. the Enemy ignores the unassailable goodness of having a racial identity and pursuing racial interests, and instead simply does whatever he has to do to make us feel bad about it.

Let’s not forget another old favorite, equality. Are we really paying attention to this word? Do we really want equality for ourselves or anyone else? Because of our altruistic, honest nature, we really believe other races want equality. Yet the truth is they don’t want equality. They want us dead. But we just don’t get it. Because of our unfortunately inborn racial characteristic to adhere to lofty principles, we seem to think the objective is equal opportunity, or equality under the law. But that’s not what our elites are after. They really want (except for themselves) equality, period. They want worker bees, the impossible dream of a people that are equal in ability, equal in general appearance, equal in genetic disposition, equal in sexual drive, equal in work ethic, equal in skin color, equal in desires, equal in intelligence, and equal in ambition. In other words, he wants his herd animal. The UN Brown Man, a reasonably intelligent and pleasantly obedient consumer who is completely housebroken and devoid of dangerously creative thought.

Then there is the great taboo, the epitome of social immorality — discrimination. In happier times, discrimination simply meant using good judgment. Discrimination is the prerequisite for freedom of choice. Free people use their God given brains to learn from experience and make decisions accordingly. It is a healthy, natural and Godly instinct that tells us to avoid certain types of people in the future if our experiences with those people have a negative impact — for whatever reason — on our lives or those of our children. This is the prerogative of all free people, and it is called discrimination. In Nature, it is crucial to survival. But our elites, desiring to enslave us, have portrayed this Godly attribute as an evil thing, so much so that the only thing weak sheep fear more than being labeled racist is being accused of discrimination. We are no longer even allowed to think about why discrimination may be wrong — discrimination is just wrong, period, end of discussion. This is no surprise, for in a free republic, children are taught how to think, but in a democracy (capitalistic or communistic), they are taught what to think.

Another way in which were are led to think that good is evil and evil is good is through word play. For example, the natural pairing of humans — male and female — is termed traditional with all the negative connotations that that word carries. The trick here is to make heterosexuality appear somehow old-fashioned and therefore subject to reassessment. Such thinking is tantamount to a declaration of war against Nature Herself, for the precious recipe for higher life that can only come from the intimate male/female union is no more ‘traditional’ than the law of gravity. On the other hand, it is well known that homosexuals are prone to a variety of self-destructive behaviors, including higher rates of alcoholism and drug abuse. Yet our enemies routinely teach that homosexuals are, by their very nature, sensitive, intelligent, and misunderstood variants of humanity. This is not to deny that there are strong biological influences on homosexuality. The point is that homosexuality should not have a privileged place at the center of our culture.

We are not a stupid people, yet we are bewilderingly vulnerable to the word play that emanates from our elite media and universities. Again this is because of our altruistic nature and predisposition to guilt. And so we come to the concept of ‘minorities’. Now, over 90% of the earth’s population is non-White (see the National Policy Institute’s “Global White Population to Plummet”), yet we are told they are a ‘minority’. Slightly over half of the world’s adult population is women, and again, we are told they are a ‘minority’. And the reason we accept this rubbish is because of our altruism or the ‘wounded dove syndrome’ as some call it. There is something in the soul of White people that makes them susceptible to appeals to moral virtue. It is a noble trait, but one that is leading us to our destruction.

Then there is the challenge for tolerance. Now, tolerance simply means enduring something unpleasant. In the long run, tolerance is unnatural. Many people have acquired a tolerance for alcohol — is that a good thing? Yet we are now taught that we should tolerate all sorts of evil people and repulsive lifestyles. Ignore what your grandparents taught you, ignore your little inner voice, ignore the warning bells going off in your soul, ignore Nature, indeed ignore God and replace the healthy freedom of how to think with its mandate of what to think.

White people do not like to think of themselves, or to be thought of, as advocates of what is unnatural, let alone what is wrong or even evil. One of the hallmarks of evil is that it is founded on lies — no truth can issue from it. And so we see that our elites have twisted the meanings of all words to their polar opposite: diversity, gay, tolerance, racism, discrimination, traditional, tolerance — had they attempted to twist these concepts through honest intellectual discourse, they would have encountered iron resistance. But, by making it a moral issue, we fall without firing a shot. We really have no choice, because that is how we are made.

We begin to see a pattern here. These examples may appear simplistic, even childish. But the chilling fact is that they work — quite successfully and consistently I might add — because they dovetail with the White man’s psyche that subconsciously responds to a sense of fairness, a willingness to give people a second chance, a desire to keep one’s good reputation, and helping the less fortunate. The White man, because of the way he is made, is helpless to resist. Our intellectual and media elites know that in order to succeed their attack on us must be a spiritual attack phrased in terms of high moral principle, rather than a purely intellectual attack — that we cannot be controlled through our minds until we are controlled through our hearts.

More than anything else, our future is determined by how we see ourselves. So, to control the future of us as a people, it is only necessary to control how we view ourselves. It follows then that to destroy a people one only needs to get them to feel bad about themselves. There are two weapons used to accomplish this, and they work flawlessly: shame and guilt.

Having studied us closely, the approach our enemies have taken with us is not surprising. For they know that if it’s wrong, we don’t want to do it, and if it is good, we want to do it. Thus it makes sense why they have twisted such noble virtues as discrimination to being a bad thing, and White self-hatred to being a good thing. He has made the things that ensure our destruction into moral issue, cleverly twisting all evil to appear good, and all good to appear evil, knowing that once this is done, we will embrace evil thinking it is good, for such is our inner nature and we are virtually incapable of responding any other way.

The Solution

There are, as of today, still a substantial amount of White people who are of pure blood; i.e. — White on the outside. But that is doing us no good, because very few of us are White on the inside. I am talking about moral purity. Our elites understand this very well, and that’s why they first concentrated on corrupting us with entertainment, pornography and sexual degeneracy (their favorites), destruction of the marriage as an institution, and radical feminism with the resultant destruction of the family unit. This all had to be done before they could proceed to making us lose our racial identity entirely.

The difference between the White people in depression-era America or National Socialist Germany and contemporary Whites is character. The difference between our great-grandfathers and contemporary Whites is character. And, the reason why the pro-White advocacy movement can’t get its act together and has been an abject failure can be summed up in one word: character. Character — moral purity and righteousness — is the White man’s antidote to the Enemy. It is our silver bullet, and it is the only one available. For us to survive we need only to be White on the inside — the outside cannot be deracinated if the inside remains White. Remember, England in particular and the White world in general became strongest during the time of Queen Victoria — at a time when those old fashioned, prudish, wonderful Victorian values dominated.

Unless the character issue is squarely faced, even if 40 million Whites were to pack their bags, move to the Pacific Northwest, and initiate a secessionist movement, it would do us no good. As proof of that assertion I will submit for consideration the fact that there was a time not too long ago when America was over 90% White, and much of Europe nearly 100% so, yet it did us absolutely no good because the character issue was ignored.

Some maintain the White advocacy movement needs to be formed from the bottom up — a grassroots movement if you will. Others hold that it must be from the top down. There are good arguments for both, and there is recognition, to varying degrees, that both are necessary, but this time it is different. The movement must be from the inside out. That is how we got in the mess we are in — not by being attacked from the top down or the bottom up, but from the outside in. Having been involved in advocating the interests of our folk for over 30 years, I can readily attest, as can other comrade kinsmen, that the most salient features of our abject failure have been a lack of money, a lack of women, and an abundance of single men with serious character defects, with the first two problems simply being a result of the last.

For us and us alone moral purity is what awakens wisdom, keen intellect and courage. Wisdom to know virtue must be in word, thought and deed, a keen intellect to figure out how to live virtuously with minimal and acceptable risk of losing one’s livelihood, and courage to take that risk, acknowledging there is no guarantee of success. For if we maintain the moral high ground (a delightfully easy proposition since we live in a society that, for starters, openly and proudly prefers the promotion of homosexuality over the lives of unborn babies — to the point that it vigorously gives legal protection to the former while legally permitting the savage murder of the latter) then racial preservation will take care of itself!

It must be remembered that even a certain unpopular German Chancellor of the 20th century won the hearts of the people not through an appeal for racial preservation, but rather through upholding righteousness — extolling the family unit, healthy living, sound financial practices, solid education, care for the environment and the sanctity of the family farm, and opposing pornography, homosexuality, animal cruelty, usurious business practices, and exploitation of the common laborer.

It would have been far more productive to have spent the last sixty years exposing the role of our intellectual and media elites in creating our contemporary culture of critique — including the decisive role of Jews in shaping and promoting these transformations. This new elite has vigorously promoted the ‘feminist’ movement, the pornography industry, the abortion industry and the homosexual agenda. We would have had better results if we had exposed the contributions of this new elite in destroying the family unit, rather than investing in the ineffectual, spastic efforts that have ranged from ‘fighting communism’ to slapstick comedy ‘White power’ movements.

Again, the way to win our people is not winning their minds, but winning their hearts. Our people, that is. The eternal truth of race is that races are not equal, rather they are delightfully different. Now, if I were an Oriental, acting for the interests of my fellow racial kinsmen, I might well advocate an intellectual rather than spiritual strategy. Of late I have been reading Chairman Mao’s Little Red Book. Some of it is enlightening, and some of it is very dry, but the most obvious feature is that it is decidedly foreign. That is to say, it does not strike a chord in my soul as do the writings of my favorite European statesmen. The reason for this is that Mao’s writings proceed from an intellectual, rather than a spiritual premise. In other words, the Little Red Book is comprised of words written by an Oriental for Orientals, and the words serve very well indeed as revolutionary inspiration — for Orientals. As the aforementioned 20th-century German Chancellor said, “The inner nature of peoples always determines the way in which outward influences will have an effect. What leads one to starvation will train others for hard work.”

America — the Great Satan

Had the new elite made striving for high moral virtues a foundation stone of his assault on the White world, his victory would have been assured. But he hasn’t and he can’t — there is no good in him nor has goodness proceeded from him at any point in his history. Being what he is, he has chosen to call good evil and evil good. In the process — if we but have eyes to see and ears to hear — he has damned near given us the keys to the kingdom. He has given us the moral high ground.

Our folk are predisposed to guilt. More than anything else, we want to be on the side of moral righteousness. We just do not feel right inside unless we have full justification for our actions — that we bear the mark of God’s approval; indeed, that God is on our side. For non-religious Whites, there is a similar deep need to feel morally upright but without the spiritual overtones. This is the on/off switch of the Aryan soul. Nothing happens by accident, and there is a reason why our people, more than any other race, embraced Christianity as a set of moral imperatives. Yes, part of it is due to our predisposition to guilt. But there is a power in Christianity that causes good Christians to be deeply disturbed at the baleful events unfolding before their eyes, no less because being the self-proclaimed custodians of moral and spiritual values in the West, it is happening on their watch.

In my line of work I do a fair amount of public speaking to governing boards of various localities. These meetings are almost always opened with a salute to the federal flag (I stopped calling it the American flag some time ago) and occasionally even an invocation (you can still get away with that in some of the more rural parts of the Pacific Northwest). About two years ago I ceased ‘taking the pledge’ at these meetings. Wishing to be respectful, I do stand, but I do not put my hand over my heart. Nor do I tell lies about a republic that is really a democracy, about one nation that is really a conglomerate of nations, about being under God which simply won’t pass the smell test by any stretch of the imagination; nor is there liberty and justice for all.

Often I am confronted by board members or even general members of the audience after these meetings. They are angry, as should be expected. I give them a warm smile, and reply that I would be angry too if the country were still as the pledge described. But, both they and I know this is not so. I explain to them that while I do not mind lying to my enemies, I will not lie to my friends, and most certainly I will not lie to God.

At this point I have them, and I go on. I point out that in righteous societies of the past, sexual perverts were executed and unborn children were protected, but in this country federal law protects the former and gives its blessing to the savage murder of the latter. Why should any person of good moral character pledge his or her loyalty to a system that protects the wicked and slays the innocent? Why should God-fearing people pledge their loyalty to a government that allows a burgeoning pornography industry to go unchecked so it can destroy marriages, that encourages ‘feminism’ and the resultant destruction of the family unit, that funds and encourages sexual impropriety and perversion in the same public school system that vigorously excludes Christian influence, that derides its European heritage and turns its back on the very ethnic group that founded it, that encourages every form of materialism and crass consumerism even to the extent of shipping good jobs overseas and giving what jobs are left behind to alien invaders that cross a border it refuses to seal, that permits the sexual torture of its prisoners, that has a penchant for picking on little countries such as Iraq, Grenada, Serbia, or Afghanistan, that cradles a pop culture and entertainment industry that idolizes entertainers and sports figures with filthy morals, that encourages a better diet for pets than children, that abdicates its wealth to alien interests and subjugates its foreign policies to those same interests, that seeks to destroy the founding culture through multiculturalism, that seeks to genetically alter its founding ethnic group through the encouragement of miscegenation, whose leaders are all attorneys, and whose chief product is trash — trashing the environment, trashing healthy babies, trashing the family unit, trashing music, trashing culture, trashing education, trashing health, trashing morals, trashing marriage, trashing values, trashing its founding race, trashing love, and trashing God.

A society that makes Sodom and Gomorrah appear righteous by comparison, and that had better hope God is not a just God or else He owes those two cities of antiquity and iniquity one hell of an apology. Nay, it is not a nation but rather a beast, a fount of evil, an utterly corrupt and unspeakably malevolent abomination before the eyes of God and all right-thinking Whites.

Speaking these words to my people, people who otherwise are not racially conscious and are incensed at my unwillingness to say the pledge of allegiance, I have discovered an amazing thing: they are immediately disarmed and find themselves, perhaps for the first time, on the moral defensive. Many, indeed most, quickly grasp the new moral high ground, seeing the destruction created by our alien elite through new eyes for the first time. For our people are good people, and they will embrace goodness — including a love for their own ethnos — as quickly as they denied it in years prior, for such is our inner nature and we are virtually incapable of responding any other way.

There is a very big caveat here, which is that in revolutionary politics it is very bad business to go contrary to tradition. People cherish traditions, even dead ones. Just look at the birthdays of all the dead people we celebrate — Washington, Lincoln, etc… It is the same with America. The America we knew and loved is dead. But people still cherish it, which means you do not attack the Constitution, veteran’s organizations, past greatness, patriotic songs, national holidays, dead heroes, misguided wars, etc. What is fair game, and what we can attack, is the federal government — federally supported abortion, federally supported legal and illegal immigration, federally supported race-mixing, federally supported homosexuality, federal support for Israel, federal poisoning of our children through federal (public) schools, and if the circumstances are correct — even the federal flag. Again, if we attack the U.S. in its American context, we will alienate our kinsmen and be counterproductive. Always denounce the Great Satan as embodied in the federal government, and you will be amazed at the support and respect you will receive, including a generous portion from some of the most unlikely quarters.

Were such a revitalization of our folk simply to get us back on the straight and narrow path of knowing the difference between good and evil and choosing the former over the latter, we would have accomplished much in rebuilding the character of White people. But it will even take us one step further — it will serve to create the desire for a homeland and concomitantly sow the seeds for secession.

A White Homeland — Our Safe Haven from Evil

Moral purity and strength, without which our survival is doomed, is yet a prerequisite to our ultimate survival. In order to survive, all living organisms must secure the existence of their kind and a future for their offspring. In other words, they must have a safe and adequate habitat. This is an inviolable law of Nature. For us, this means a homeland. And the truth we must come to grips with here is that, seeing there are no lands left for colonization on this planet, our homeland can only come about through an act of secession from an existing power. We have no alternative. We are not exempt from Nature’s laws.

In Nature, all conflict is ultimately resolved through violence. One would not be too far off the mark to simply say that violence solves everything. Yet in speaking of secession, violence is a topic best left to private discussion for two reasons. First, certain ears may get the impression that violent overthrow of the government is being advocated, and as we all know, that’s against the law. Secondly, a lot of good people simply do not have it in their spiritual makeup to come to grips with the reality of violence. Personally, I have found the best way to address this aspect of secession when asked how we are to go about it is to simply reply that we should follow the example of the Founding Fathers. That says it all, says enough, and yet says nothing should one’s feet be held to the fire.

Regardless, I am for the record not speaking of revolution, but rather secession. There is an immeasurable benefit accruing to secession that is not offered through revolution. Simply put, secession can be prosecuted as a colonial dispute whereby the enemy views the conclusion of conflict not as defeat and resultant loss of power, but rather as a matter of concession to economic expediency. Furthermore, the enemy can afford the rationalization that such a concession is only temporary in nature, thereby saving considerable face and placating its more aggressive elements.

Our homeland will need to be located where we have a generous coastline that will allow for shipment of vital raw materials from sympathetic nations (Russia comes to mind), land and climate that allows for generous agricultural pursuits yet is natural to our genetic makeup (i.e. — the semi-tropics aren’t for us), large enough to obviate saturation attacks yet small enough so that by bordering at least two nations nuclear attack is discouraged by one or the other, and far enough from the seats of enemy power so as not to represent a direct threat. A homeland where little boys can ride their bikes down to the creek to hunt for frogs and catch fish without fear of savage pedophiles, and where girls can grow into womanhood without ever hearing the word lesbian. Where will this homeland be? Your first guess is probably the right one.

We will have our homeland. We won’t force anyone to join us. Those of our kin who wish to stay behind are free to joyously wallow in their multicultural, interracial, and bisexual American cesspool. We will have our nation based on God’s laws, and those who wish to remain behind will have their consumer trading bloc based on man’s laws, free to engage to their evil heart’s delight in killing their unborn, perverting their children, gorging on junk food, lusting in pornography, buying their endless plastic trinkets, and of course supporting Israel regardless of other affected nations in the Middle East — nations that in happier times offered the hand of friendship to America. In short, exercising their hedonistic guarantee to a life of entertainment, liberty to go to hell any way they choose, and the pursuit of degenerate happiness.

We need to start pulling together — physically as well as spiritually. Much of the physical work will involve helping many of our folk, especially young families, physically relocate to the Homeland. Not all of us should relocate, nor is it possible or even desirable that all of us do. For many of us it is simply not a viable option, and there are many of us who can serve our folk better where they are now.

A timely article by Alex Kurtagic appeared recently in TOO: “Learning from the Right.” In it he points out that in learning from our mistakes we need to avoid a single monolithic organization dedicated to serving our needs. Rather, we need many, many small groups covering all facets of life — homeschooling, personal finances, cultural events and organizations, reenactment societies, scholarship foundations, political organizations, benevolent societies, and so on.

We need to gear much of our energies to young families. Many benefits accrue from this. Two come readily to mind: All else being held equal, we get a lot more years out of young people than old ones. Secondly, guess where babies come from?

Two things some of our folk are currently working on are geared towards bringing young families into the Homeland. First, a website is being constructed that will be focused on assisting young people in the relocation process, including guidance on how to become successfully self-employed.

Secondly, a mortgage company is being developed that will be of symbiotic benefit to all involved. Young people moving into the Homeland who do demonstrate successful self-employment skills will be eligible for a favorably structured financing package to allow them a home of their own, in the country, on a minimum of five acres where children can be raised in a safe and wholesome environment. Investors, on the other hand, will be holders of fully secured first trust deeds with a decent rate of return, along with income structured favorably for tax purposes (primarily interest and long-term capital gains). In short, investors will be permitted a secure and profitable investment while knowing they are serving the interests of their folk in the process — something that traditional Wall Street cannot compete with. For years one of the hallmarks of our movement has been financial ineptitude. That’s going to change.


Again, our opponents have damned near given us the keys to the kingdom. This is not unexpected; time and again down through history they have exhibited a reoccurring weakness — not knowing when to stop. The brass ring of power is not enough — they must seek for even greater dominion over their subjects, and this has always been their undoing. The time is ripe for action.

To my Christian kinsmen, I beseech you to rise up. Shall this be your finest hour, or shall it be said you turned your back on duty when God called? Regain the Godly courage of your Christian forefathers and throw down the deceptive, cowardly doctrine to love the sinner and not the sin. Shall you be destined to wear your crown, or shall you go where all dead things go, where the blood of the fifty million aborted children will remain on your heads forever?

We got where we are by way of the path of misplaced altruism, thinking our goodness superior to God’s goodness. This was the path of civil rights (integration and resultant miscegenation), freedom of dress (immodesty), liberation from traditional music (degenerative alien rhythms), freedom of speech (pornography), women’s liberation (destruction of the family unit and infanticide), and sexual liberation (shameless adultery, then homosexuality, and finally — with NAMBLA’s efforts and assistance from our new elite I’d give it a dozen years or so — pedophilia). This was the path to freedom? It is the path of destruction and death for our White race.

The only way back is back the way we came, embracing sexual purity, reestablishing the sanctity of the traditional family unit, intolerance for filth in print or picture, exaltation of the music of our forebears, modesty in dress, and establishing, by whatever means God makes available a homeland of our own. This is the path to Nature. It is the path of upward struggle, and in the end, a wonderful existence for our people and a wholesome, safe future for our children.

Farnham O’Reilly (email him)  is the pen name of a businessman, farmer and investor. A family man, his home is in the Pacific Northwest.

What Would It Take?- Whites are willfully denying the clear and present danger we face

What Would It Take?

Edmund Connelly

July 15, 2010

I believe Whites are willfully denying the clear and present danger we face. Whether it is through late or broken marriages, lackluster efforts at having replacement-level families, or feeble efforts at keeping the governing elite from importing a new (non-White) people, demographically, White Americans are in free fall. About this, the numbers speak clearly; there is no ambiguity. 

The National Policy Institute, for one, has an excellent set of free publications one can (and should) order. Here’s one of their presentations showing how Whites are faring demographically in the Great Darwinian Race for Survival:

NPI: Global White Population to Plummet to less than 10% by 2060

A short video of this is available at YouTube.

The message of this decline is everywhere.  For instance, The Atlantic Monthly, that most American of magazines, founded in Boston in 1857 and featuring such luminaries as Harriet Beecher Stowe, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr., John Greenleaf Whittier and James Russell Lowell, was once as White as they come. Now they revel in the dispossession of White men.

Readers no doubt saw the collectors’ cover photo of President-Elect Barack Obama in the Jan-Feb, 2009 issue of the magazine last year:

The cover story read: “The End of White America?” I suppose we exiting Whites should be grateful for the softening question mark attached to the title, though of course the essay itself reads as a elegy for White America.

Hua Hsu

Written by one Hua Hsu, an instructor at Vassar, it aptly points to the 1993 Michael Douglas film Falling Down. There Douglas “plays Bill Foster, a downsized defense worker with a buzz cut and a pocket protector who rampages through a Los Angeles overrun by greedy Korean shop-owners and Hispanic gangsters, railing against he eclipse of the America the used to know.”

In the dénouement, this White character faces a policeman, gun drawn, on the Santa Monica Pier. To his great astonishment, just before he is gunned down and falls into the sea, he learns that this is a new America. Shocked, he stammers, “I’m the bad guy?” And then he’s gone.

Fittingly, the story that follows Hsu’s account of America is one on First Lady Michelle Obama by Ta-Nehisi Coates (I’ll let readers ponder the race and gender of writer Coates). Accompanying it is a two-page photo of Mrs. Obama dancing with her husband.

Further, it’s hard to escape the impression that editors at The Atlantic aren’t begging advertisers to create ads that minimize the exposure of White men. Microsoft, for instance, ran a series in the magazine that imagined a future in which non-Whites and women would replace the White men who built America and sent rockets out into space. Here’s a sample:

Or my favorite, Lockheed Martin’s vision of America’s future:

Recently, after teaching an American culture class where I yet again illustrated the scripted decline of White men because — according to the Hollywood films in question — they were evil, I began to wonder if I had laid it on a bit too thick. Then I went down to the university mailroom and picked up my mail. In it was the July/Aug 2010 Atlantic.  Here’s the cover:

Yes, below the title “The End of Men,” the subtitle reads “How Women are Taking Control — Of Everything,” by Hanna Rosin.

The story, by the Jewish Rosin (“I’m Jewish, and I was born in Israel, and my whole family is Israeli“), begins:

Earlier this year, women became the majority of the workforce for the first time in U.S. history. Most managers are now women too. And for every two men who get a college degree this year, three women will do the same. For years, women’s progress has been cast as a struggle for equality. But what if equality isn’t the end point? What if modern, postindustrial society is simply better suited to women? A report on the unprecedented role reversal now under way — and its vast cultural consequences.

The two-page illustration accompanying it, with its outsized image of the Asian woman in blue, reminded yet again of Kevin MacDonald’s observation: “The United States is well on the road to being dominated by an Asian technocratic elite and a Jewish business, professional, and media elite.” Indeed.

Interspersed throughout the article are snarky pictures showing the petulant beings American men have become due to their loss of status.  As one enlarged Rosin quote reads, “Dozens of college women I interviewed assumed that they very well might be the ones working while their husbands stayed home. “Guys,” one senior remarked to me, “are the new ball and chain.”

Contributor Pamela Paul even gets a little room to ask “Are Fathers Necessary?” A paternal contribution may not be as essential as we think.”

(By the way, last summer The Atlantic published the sizzling anti-male essay

Let’s Call the Whole Thing Off :


To work, to parent, to housekeep, to be the ones who schedule “date night,” only to be reprimanded in the home by male kitchen bitches, and then, in the bedroom, to be ignored—it’s a bum deal.

Male kitchen bitches.  Ouch.  Then again, any male that so bought into the Alan Alda-inspired demasculinization of the seventies probably deserves a few bad names thrown his way.)

In any case, this summer’s issue is a cultural treasure trove of visual evidence that the White race in America is being shown the door. Upon opening the cover — which, recall, asserts the End of Men — we are greeted with this two-page ad from Shell Oil:

Turn the page and there’s another two-page ad for Altria Group illustrating their support for educational programs aimed at “empowering” students to stay in school and picturing a racially diverse student population. Immediately following this is an ad for Dow Chemical featuring a Black woman stating that she is the “human element” in the “duty to put healthy, abundant food on the world’s table.”

Back in the days when Blacks had no power in America, we never saw them in ads either. What does it say, then, that we don’t see a White man’s face until page 8? (It’s the Pope and the caption reads: “Is the Catholic Church finished?”)

The issue closes on the inside back cover with Shell stepping up to the plate again. Their focus: Japan.  (Opposite it, there’s a column by the sort of person who functions as a stand-in for a “White male”: Jeffrey Goldberg. The implicit message: Don’t worry; with writers like Rosin and Goldberg, it’s obvious that we Whites still run the show.)

Readers won’t be getting a new issue of The Atlantic until September, so make this thick one last. And be sure to interact on the Internet with Hanna Rosin, her husband David Plotz and their three children.

As for me, I am no Hanna Rosin fan.  Her December 2009 cover story most certainly rubbed me the wrong way.  After a year of mind-boggling economic swindles and bailouts that have used up a significant portion of the universe’s zeroes, who gets blamed? Christians. Now that’s why Jews are so often credited with chutzpah.

Recall that Rolling Stone reporter Matt Taibbi wrote in his essay The Great American Bubble Machine that

The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it’s everywhere. The world’s most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.

I just didn’t get the impression he was appealing to a stereotype about Christians. I did an article on the Jewish nature of massive financial swindles over the years in Take the Money and Run. Of course Israeli Rosin was just doing her part in the old Jewish game of blaming the victim. Kevin MacDonald explained this tactic in a recent blog when he observed, “In contemporary human societies, a large part of group competition becomes intellectual warfare over the construction of culture.” I knew deflecting the blame from Jews was on the Sanhedrin “to do” list when I watched the remake of The Taking of Pelham 123.

In the new version, Travolta’s character is a New York ethnic Catholic very interested in guilt. He was also a high-rolling Wall Streeter who skimmed millions of dollars until he was caught and sent to prison. Between then and now, he has also gone mostly insane, though he’s still canny enough to cook up a scheme to make a killing on stocks when he induces panic in the city with his subway hijacking. Now go back and read James Stewart’s excellent account of the savings and loan swindles of the Reagan ‘80s, Den of Thieves. The thieves were ethnic New Yorkers alright, but they sure weren’t Catholic. Sadly, this concerted media effort to blame others will likely work.

Another area in which White displacement advances is in government favoritism shown toward non-Whites. This was highlighted last year during the nominating process of Sonia Sotomayor for a position on the Supreme Court. She had famously ruled against White firemen, but still had no trouble become a Justice. Quoting TOO editor Kevin MacDonald again, the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor “is yet another marker in the march toward the dispossession of Whites in America.” (She’ll likely soon be joined by another woman this one Jewish when  Elena Kagan gets appointed this summer.)

Speaking of women, it was Michelle Malkin who just stood up to defend Whites against government neglect. As she wrote,

This week, Justice Department whistleblower J. Christian Adams came forward with damning public testimony about how Obama officials believe “civil rights law should not be enforced in a race-neutral manner, and should never be enforced against blacks or other national minorities.”

I guess we Whites can use all the help we can get, though. Turning again to MacDonald, we have his commentary on the English translation of a chapter from Solzhenitsyn’s book 200 Years Together, which is about Russians and Jews. MacDonald has often written about the murderous hostility of Jews toward Russians, millions of whom were murdered. He also draws parallels to the situation for Whites in America today. Reporting on how Jews displaced Gentiles in Russia, he concludes that

This is a speeded up version of what is happening via affirmative action in America and other Western societies now. There is discrimination against higher IQ Whites in favor of lower-IQ groups. Jews, however, continue to be overrepresented in elite academic institutions on the basis of IQ, so they are not suffering a similar level of discrimination.

I’ve written about this, too. Recall my graph on the student makeup at Harvard:

To put a human face on such dispossession, let me share a letter from a reader:

Your observation that Jews have constructed walls to protect their fields such as government and academia is correct. They have also erected barriers to defend other fields which they claim to be their own. One of these is medicine. You would be surprised at the number of Jews running selection committees and medical education departments in hospitals and universities. There they have developed control of who may enter residencies and how residents are evaluated. The acceptance of white males into medical education at this level has sunk to a low. Preferred are Jews, Asians, Mexicans and females.

Another way in which they enforce a leadership role is by the assignment of labor in residency programs, where Jewish chief residents assign work  so as to favor their own kind and put white males at a disadvantage. Jewish physicians also seem to prefer to run organizations and to control the distribution of funds.

Everything in this article written thus far describes the non-violent dispossession of Whites, but there remains the possibility of the process speeding up through mass slaughter. MacDonald is explicit in comparing the heavily Jewish Bolshevik takeover of Russia to the situation here today: “Again, the analogy is striking. As emphasized repeatedly on TOO, Whites can expect to be increasingly victimized by non-Whites with historical grudges as they sink to minority status and lose political power.”

I don’t need to repeat myself because I’ve written about the potential for such a bloody future for White Americans before. Instead, I’ll try to appeal to readers’ visual sensibilities. Below is a chess set made by Italian Jewish glassblower Gianni Toso. In 1969 he created a stunning set called “Jews vs. Catholics.”

I strongly suspect most Christians are ignorant of the fact that so many Jews still think in these terms. They’ll soon learn, however.

Let me leave readers by revisiting the issue of The Atlantic I addressed above. The writer I noted, Ta-Nehisi Coates, is an African American male. I found out because he has a three-page article in this summer’s issue. There he gives a short biography, noting that as one of seven children, he was less than a scholastic standout. “My roller-coaster ride through the Baltimore-area schools included two suspensions, two expulsions, and an arrest by school police. In 11th grade . . . I was kicked out of the local magnet school.” Still, he (somehow) made it into college, where he proceeded to do little work and failed to graduate. In an America that gave us Obama, however, that’s not always a hindrance.

In 2005 TIME magazine saw fit to hire him as a journalist, and now he has a solid career going. “I had an office 23 floors in the air, in Midtown Manhattan. I used to look down on Sixth Avenue and wonder about the distance between my scholastic and professional lives. How could I utterly fail in practice and then succeed in the game?”  Gosh, I wonder.

Perhaps it has something to do with the program of removing White men from the newsroom (and fire stations and NASA offices and the Oval Office, etc.)  and replacing them with non-Whites who will never threaten those with real power in America today: Jews.

What would it take to make this dispossession process more clear to people? Until they recognize what is happening, there is no hope of confronting it. The loss of the White race would be a true blow to humanity.

How the so-called “Civil Rights” Movement in America has led to loss of the most important civil right of all: life.

The racial murder and rape of White women in America

whitevictims1.jpgLauren Burk, a freshman at Auburn University and Eva Carson of UNC. Also pictured are their accused murderers.

The racial murder and rape of White women in America

How the so-called “Civil Rights” Movement in America has led to loss of the most important civil right of all: life.

The almost simultaneous murders of White co-eds at two different, prominent universities, Auburn and University of North Carolina, should bring attention to an epidemic of brutal African-American crimes against White women in the United States.

The murder of Eve Carson, Student Body President of UNC has shocked her campus and its surrounding community to its core. Ms. Carson was found murdered in the middle of an intersection just outside downtown Chapel Hill on Wednesday, March 5th. Her body … which had two gunshot wounds, including one to the head, laid just a mile away from her SUV, which was left abandoned. Bank ATM video revealed that the murderer-carjacker, an African American, apparently attempted to get cash from Carson’s stolen ATM card shortly after the crime.

In a similar recent incident, police arrested another African American attacker, Courtney L. Lockhart, 23, for the grisly murder and attempted rape of Auburn University freshman co-ed, Lauren Burk, on March 4. Courtney was arrested on March 7 after having brutally pistol-whipped the face of another White victim, 72-year-old Marjorie Llewellyn of Newnan, Alabama and briefly kidnapping her at gunpoint during an armed robbery and attempted carjacking earlier in the day.

The recent murders of two White coeds at major universities by Black predators underscore a racial reality that the mass media in America hides from the public: the tens of millions of White victims of Black criminality in America. Over the past four decades since the “civil rights” movement, crime figures show that millions of crimes have been committed by Blacks and other non-White predators against White people. The crimes include robbery, assault, rape and murder.

The racial component of crime in America has been largely ignored. It took a major newspaper outside of America to address the shocking epidemic Black crime in America. ( See The Race War of Black Against White by Paul Sheehan from the Sydney Morning Herald)


Black crime rates against White people are many times greater than White crimes against Blacks. You wouldn’t know it by reading or listening to America’s mass media. Saturation national and international news coverage is given to the very few White cross-race crimes against Blacks such as the James Byrd dragging case in Texas, as well as the media-hyped Tawana Brawley case in New Jersey and the alleged rape of a Black stripper by White lacrosse team members at Duke University. Both of those latter cases, after months of front-page, sensationalized coverage decrying “White racism,” turned out to be complete hoaxes.

There is an incredible disproportionate rate of Black crimes against Whites in contrast to White crimes against Blacks. Per capita Black cross racial crimes of 50 or even 100 percent greater than Whites would be bad enough, but the Black crime rates against Whites are actually many times greater than White on Black crimes. Blacks are an estimated 57 (that is 5,700 percent!) times more likely to commit violent crime against a white than vice versa, and 136 times (13,600 percent!) more likely to commit robbery. (see the color of crime report published by the New Century Foundation – an analysis of crime figures taken from official Justice Department crime reports) http://www.nc-f.org/

Perhaps the most shocking of all the crime data dealing with cross-race crime is the incredible rate of crime by Black males against White women. According to U.S. Justice Department figures over 34,460 White women are sexually assaulted or raped by Black men each year, and most authorities believe that the actual rape figures are at least twice the reported number. In perhaps the most shocking crime figure of all is the number of White rapes against Black women. Statistically, it is 0! Because they have fewer than 10 cases nationally.

According to murder figures released by the Justice Department in 2002, , Black predators are at least 22 times (2,200 percent) more likely to murder White women than the reverse. In regard to gang attacks including the horrible specter of gang rape, the figures are literally off the charts, with at least a 200 times (that’s 20,000 percent!) greater chance of Blacks committing gang assaults and that includes both White men and women victims!

The staggering personal tragedies connected with these huge crime numbers should be a national scandal. Yet, the facts go largely unreported. How many times have the public seen media portrayals of historical or contemporary racial discrimination against Black people. But, the question is, “In the terms of the most important of human rights, how does the discrimination of racially segregated water fountains or neighborhoods or schools compare with the racially born crimes of black slaughter and physical attacks levied against thousands of White people each year?

America has been treated to thousands of media articles for instance about the frontier-style vigilante justice of lynchings, events which have occurred at least since the time of the American Revolution when they began on the Virginia frontier. Lynching got its name from Colonel Charles Lynch of Bedford County. He defended his community against outlaws and against Tories who were treacherously aiding the British. The Lynch organizations not only captured suspicious characters but gave them trials. With the frontier moving west and often with not a single law enforcement officer for hundreds of miles, vigilante committees often hunted down criminals and meted out punishment which was called “lynching.”

Lynching also became prominent again in the face of terrible outrages against innocent women and children during the Black Reconstruction period in the South and was mostly employed there against suspected Black rapists and murderers, but lynching was often practiced against Whites in the South, and quite often against criminal Whites in the North and West.

Of course, everyone today naturally condemns the practice of lynching, as well they should. Mob violence cannot be defended. But, if one wants to characterize lynching as a racial crime because lynchings were more commonly employed against Blacks in the South than against Whites, a few facts must be taken into account. If one considers disproportionate rates of Black lynching in the South, one must also consider the Black disproportionate crime rate.

1) Many scholars who have studied the history of lynching in the United States make it clear that lynching wasn’t simply a racial crime, but one primarily exacted on criminals whether they were Black or White. Consider the fact that even today, Blacks commit more murders than Whites in the United States, and Blacks are many times more likely to commit interracial race crimes such as rape and murder. As pointed out by federal crimes studies, a Black man is 57 times more likely to commit a violent crime against Whites than vice-versa, thousands of times more likely to rape a White women than Whites are likely to rape Black women, and 22 times more likely to murder a White woman than vice versa. There is no reason not to suspect that similar extremely high rates of Black criminality have existed historically. Most of the lynchings up until the War Between the States were against Whites and Significant numbers of Whites in the late 19th and early 20th Century were also lynched. So, considering the rates of crime, historical lynching has always been proportionate to Black crime rates and not one simply based on racist motives.

2) One must also understand that historical lynching was most often applied to those guilty of rape, robbery or murder. Of course, there were cases where innocent men were lynched, but in contrast, the thousands of White women and other White victims of Black crime today are guilty of no crime. Lynching cannot be excused in any way, but most of those men lynched were undoubtedly guilty of vicious and horrible crimes against the innocent, especially against women and children. Those were the kinds of heinous crimes that really drove the extra-legal executions.

The U.S. Senate recently issued an apology for not historically taking a stand against lynching, something that has been condemned because for part of its history Blacks disproportionately suffered from it.

If that is deemed appropriate, why does the U.S. Senate stand mute against the brutal rape of over 34,000 White women per year by Blacks. In just one year the number of White women raped by Black males is 6 times the total number of all lynchings during the entire history of the United States. (Estimated to be about 5,000 including both Whites and Blacks)

If racial disparity is an issue, then the Black rate of murder and rape against White men and women has a far greater racial disparity than that of White and Black lynchings. Remember, according to the U.S. Justice Department official figures, 34,000 White women were sexually assaulted compared to less than ten Black women assaulted by White men.

One should also consider that the victims of lynching were men; only a small number were women (estimates are between 75 and 100 women lynched in the history of the United States), and most of those were lynched for crimes committed along with their male criminal partners. Compare the small number of women who suffered lynching compared to the 34,000 women who suffer from Black rape every year. In addition, 700 innocent White women are murdered each and every year by Blacks. Where is the outrage about this racial crime?

If one wants to talk about moral outrages, the historical lynching of men who were overwhelmingly criminal and guilty of horrendous crimes, is quite minor compared to the mass murder and rape of the innocent going on literally as you read these lines. While you are reading this article another White woman will suffer rape at the hands of a Black man. (One White woman every 9 minutes if you accept the conventional wisdom that less than half of rapes are reported).

Next time someone comes up and tells you about the horrors of Jim Crow and segregation, how it was so terribly awful that African Americans, as well as White Americans lived in their own neighborhoods, went to their own schools, and even drank from their own water fountains, think about that supposed horror compared to horrendous violations of the most important civil right of all, the right to live and not suffer grievous personal assault or even death.

The fact of the matter is that Blacks as well as the Whites of America were a lot safer in the days of “evil segregation” than we are now. When America was a nation living by the values of White heritage, culture, standards and civilization, most Black kids were born legitimate in two parent families, they were not being shot down by each other on the steps of their homes, millions were not enslaved by drugs, half of them were not in prison or in some part of the criminal justice system. In a real sense, for countless millions of African Americans, the most important civil and human rights of all have been lost by the so-called victories of the civil rights movement.

For Whites the change has been just as dramatic. Millions of our people are now victims of Black robbery, rape, and murder. Millions of White boys and girls whose parents can’t afford private or parochial education, suffer in mostly Black public schools filled with sexual and physical intimidation, filthy language and dismal standards, drugs and the violence of the “gangsta rap” culture, a culture that violates the sanctity of womanhood and all of the most basic of human rights.

Millions more of our elderly are practically home prisoners in their own neighborhoods. Let the media and government tell them about the supposed civil rights and blessings of forced integration. Millions more of hardworking, better-qualified White, middle-class people suffer from the racial discrimination of so-called affirmative action. Constant government and media concern about “civil rights” is the greatest con job in history, because so-called civil rights has taken away practically every conceivable civil right of the American people, including the most important one of all, the right to live and the right not to be physically abused, or raped, or robbed or hurt.

Let the government and media drone on about Black “civil rights” to the grieving parents of Eve Carson and Lauren Burk, two bright and beautiful White women who were so full of love and life but who now have lost the most precious civil right of all, the right to life itself.

They were murdered not just by the predators on our streets, but by a media and government establishment who stripped away their right to live a safe and full life. They were murdered by media who have lied to the American people about the joys of multiracialism and multiculturalism. It is a media that constantly tell us the wonderful and loving future we have in America as it is subversively morphed into a mostly non-White nation. It is the same media who have instilled collective White guilt for real or imagined crimes of White history, but have hidden the terrible crimes going on against us, our heritage, freedom and survival, right before our eyes.

Lauren and Eva were murdered by the politicians who sold us out for the bloc votes and for the approval of media that celebrates the coming extinction of our people, faith, heritage and nation. They have also sold their souls and ours to the Jewish money men of American politics who make them pledge their subservience to Israel as a quote, “Jewish State for the Jewish people,” while they would not even dare to invoke the term “White people” except in denigration and apology.

Eva and Lauren no longer have breath in their bodies. To the last moments of their lives they probably never for an instant understood why they lost their lives. They probably never knew that our people were in a desperate struggle for their existence, and they probably never dreamed they could be a casualty in that war.

Eva and Lauren are gone now. They cannot speak to us except by what they left behind. But, they cannot be forgotten. We who are aware of the crisis facing our people will remember them. We will remember them as they were, beautiful expressions of humanity made unique and special by their own efforts and by the imprint of our people’s DNA spiral.

All of us at www.DavidDuke.com are dedicated to the preservation of what they were, and what they are, in us.

For, in the end, the most important civil right of all, is life.

David Duke

Why Was the Understanding of Ethnic Genetic Interests Delayed for 30 Years?

Why Was the Understanding of Ethnic Genetic Interests Delayed for 30 Years?

Ted Sallis

June 17, 2009

The suicide of the West is far more than a figure of speech. All Western societies — and only Western societies — are voluntarily allowing mass immigration of peoples who are not ethnically connected to historical Europe. Not only are they allowing massive non-White immigration, it is being promoted as fulfilling the lofty ethical goal of increasing ethnic diversity rather than any practical goal such as the needs of the labor force.  What this means in the long run is that Europe will cease to be Europe, not only culturally, but also genetically.

There are several ways that one might think about this phenomenon, but certainly a compelling one is to think in terms of Frank Salter’s concept of ethnic genetic interests. EGI is of fundamental importance for ethnic and racial nationalism, and for the preservation of European-derived peoples because it provides a powerful intellectual  counterargument to those on the left who deny the reality of race.

In this article I first summarize the basic idea of EGI (see also here) and then review a Mankind Quarterly article by Dr. Salter which implies that the reasons that EGI was not discovered sooner were mainly obfuscation by the political left.

Salter’s argument is that all people have reproductive interests — ethnic genetic interests — in the continuity of their ethny or race. Human groups have genetic differences because they were isolated from each other for thousands of years. The result is that we share many more genes with people in our ethnic group than people from different ethnic groups.

For example, a grandfather has about 12.5% more genetic overlap with his grandchild than with a person taken at random from his ethnic group; similarly, I have about 12.5% more genetic overlap with a person taken at random from within my ethnic group compared to a randomly chosen person from outside my ethnic group. And of course there is a gradient of genetic similarity among ethnic groups: Swedes are more closely related to Poles than they are to sub-Saharan Africans

The result is that humans have an enormous genetic interest in their ethnic groups. Just as with genealogical kinship where people with larger families have a higher inclusive fitness, this genetic interest becomes enormous because it is tied to the actual number of ethnic group members which, in the modern world, can total in the millions, or, I suppose billions, in the case of the Chinese.

This is an explosive argument because it implies that ethnic competition is rational in a Darwinian sense. That is, it is rational for an ethnic group to retain control over a territory because allowing people from other ethnic groups to immigrate constitutes a genetic loss to those who were already there.

But of course, this is exactly what the cultural left does not want to hear. Mass immigration into Western societies has been a project of the cultural left for many decades now, culminating in the United States in the watershed immigration law of 1965. Other Western societies went in a similar direction around the same time.

Salter’s argument is basic Darwinism quantified. Since the mathematics of natural selection have been well understood at least since the late 1970s, one would think that evolutionists would accept the rationality of ethnic competition. We can imagine Harvard professors testifying before Congress intoning that immigration is a genetic disaster for receiving countries and that allowing mass immigration would be the height of folly. Allowing mass immigration would be entirely analogous to a situation in nature where a population of a territorial species ceased defending its space against invaders. Zoologists would scratch their heads and wonder what caused such pathological behavior — behavior that is akin to suicide or self-mutilation.

Instead, we have Harvard professors like Richard Lewontin and Steven Pinker continuing to question even the biological reality of family ties, much less racial ties.

Yet, until formally stated by Dr. Salter, the fact is that there had been no discussion of EGI in the scientific literature. And even today, there are some who would deny the importance of, or even the existence of (!), EGI. Dr. Salter’s Mankind Quarterly article is an attempt to dissect the reasons for the long and continuing obstruction of the EGI concept.

Salter attempts to answer that “why?” The history of all modern thinking in this area begins with William D. Hamilton, the brilliant population geneticist, and his theory of kin selection. In his 1964 papers Hamilton thought of kin as having genes that were “identical by descent.” For example, you and your brother share about half your genes because you received them directly from your mother and father — that is, the genes you have descended from the same mother and father, so they are identical by descent.

Hamilton’s idea was that because you shared genes identical by descent you would be more likely to help your brother. Famously, from the standpoint of the genes, it really didn’t matter if you had a child or helped your brother have two additional children. It was all the same genetically. Because your brother on average shares half your genes, there would be the same number of genes “identical by descent” in the next generation whether you fathered one child or let your brother do the heavy lifting of fathering two.

Hamilton’s next big breakthrough was when he realized that it didn’t really matter if the genes came from the same parents and were therefore identical by descent. All that mattered was that the genes were identical — period. Instead of identical by descent, it was enough that they were “identical by state” — that they were in fact the same genes. This implies that ethnic groups really are like extended families. Why? Because if the gene sequences are exactly the same, it really doesn’t matter how the identity was established.

Thus, “identity by state” means that the gene sequences are the same — the “state” of the sequences is the same — even though there is no direct and recent genealogical relationship between the individuals in question. Mr. Smith and Mr. Jones are unrelated, yet they share the same exact gene sequence. Perhaps they share the same gene sequence because they belong to the same ethnic group. Other ethnic groups are much less likely to have the gene sequences that Mr. Smith and Mr. Jones have.

To summarize: Shared genes are shared genes and it does not really matter how and why the genes are shared. And this in turn implies that people have an interest in preserving their entire ethnic group, not just their family, as the original version of kin selection implied.

This evolutionary logic implies that people should not limit themselves to struggling to better themselves within the group (family or ethnic group) but also work to defend the group as a whole in its competition with other groups. In 1979 Henry Harpending made the final step by quantifying how helping your own ethnic group could be adaptive because it would improve the fortunes of the entire group in competition with other groups.

The moral is that it would make biological sense for a person with no biological relatives to devote himself to the good of this ethnic group. In fact, armed with that logic, a White person who sacrificed his life to prevent the 1965 immigration law from being enacted would have behaved in a very biologically adaptive manner. He would have increased his biological fitness dramatically more by helping his race accomplish an immigration cutoff than by having children of his own.

So why didn’t this evolutionary logic take hold among academics and in the popular media? The first “problem” Salter identifies is “disciplinary boundaries,” in which academics are narrowly focused in their one field and they do not look beyond that more broadly. Salter criticizes Cavalli-Sforza:

The question remains as to why Cavalli did not explore the theoretical potential of inclusive fitness theory applied to whole populations after the 1970s. … Based on his best known publications, one would never guess that parents had a genetic interest in their children, let alone in their ethnies. The majority of Cavalli’s research dealt with matters not impinging on altruism, such as the history of human migration. Yet he also discussed social issues, including those contingent on ethnicity and race, from Darwinian perspective…. He denied the genetic reality of these categories, and did not discuss the possible adaptiveness of ethnocentrism.

Salter is being a bit too charitable I think in postulating “disciplinary boundaries” as an explanation here. Isn’t it possible that these scientists did not explore, or recognize, the reality and importance of ethnic kinship simply because the implications of this work were politically unacceptable? After all, it certainly does not fit with the leftist zeitgeist to conclude that ethnic genetic differences are real and these differences make ethnic conflict entirely rational from a Darwinian point of view.

Then there is the issue, popularized by Richard Lewontin, that “there is more variation within groups than between groups; therefore, race does not exist.” More than any other argument, this one by Lewontin had a huge influence. One could almost guarantee that everyone down to the lowliest graduate student would be able to recite it pretty much verbatim.

This argument has been refuted in a number of places, most notably by Dr. A.W.F. Edwards. In addition, Salter shows that within-family genetic variation is roughly three times that of between-family variation; thus, if we were to follow Lewontin’s racial analogy, we would have to conclude that is there no such thing as family!

Given Lewontin’s long association with the political left, it would seem that perhaps politics is more important at this point than “disciplinary boundaries,” and one can consider the ethnic interests of certain scientists as well. Indeed, Lewontin is one of the cast of scoundrels in Chapter 2 of Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique which discusses the role of Jewish Marxist intellectuals in vitiating biological views in the social sciences. As E. O. Wilson wrote of him, “By adopting a narrow criterion of publishable research, Lewontin freed himself to pursue a political agenda unencumbered by science.”

Salter spends much time deconstructing the ideas of Richard Dawkins — the darling of the media when it comes to presenting evolutionary biology to the public. Salter’s piece-by-piece demolition of Dawkins (whose website is labeled “a clear-thinking oasis”[!]) is too comprehensive to be covered in detail here. Salter recounts Dawkins flip-flopping on the question of “identical by descent/identical by state” as well as his confusion over the work of Hamilton and his resistance to Hamilton’s 1971 and 1975 reformulations. Salter reminds us of a typical Dawkins quote in which Dawkins states — against all reason — that kin selection applies only to “immediate close family” and not to those who “happen to be the same color as you” — as if all the genetic differences between ethnies conflate to the single trait of skin color, and as if the differences between family and ethny are somehow mystically essential, and not one merely of degree.

Salter also shows how, despite Dawkins’ obsession in pointing out others’ “misunderstandings of kin selection,” Dawkins himself makes the basic error of confusing helping one’s own ethnic group (which makes excellent sense) with universal altruism (which makes no sense at all). Universal altruism is of course the creed of racial liberals. The reality is that we live in a remarkably diverse human world of competing ethnies, in which gradients of distinctive genetic information do indeed constitute important interests at the group level. This fact cannot be responsibly evaded.

Salter points out that given Dawkins’ high reputation and easy access to the media, his lack of interest in ethnic kinship and his muddled analysis of ethnic genetic interests and group kinship competition have contributed to holding back this field of study.

Salter finishes by discussing what I believe the main factor in the resistance of academia to honest analysis of ethnic kinship: leftist political preferences. Salter recounts the politicization of biology and sociobiology and the harsh criticism directed toward realistic scholars in these fields. He also notes that the concept of ethnic genetic interests does not fit well with the ideas of academic elites in the West: Since the 1960s the left has been ascendant in expressing its values in academic discourse, including mainstream journals.

Ignoring or underplaying ethnic kinship accorded with the political orientation of the Anglo-American academic elite, which led and still leads discourse in evolutionary biology … Highly individualist thinkers as well as those with a universalist vision of society tend to overlook the reality of solidary groups of various kinds, or treat them as inconvenient or irksome obstacles to the ideal society.

And of course, this filtered down to the popular media to become a pillar of the anti-White intellectual left.

I think that Salter could have expanded this section into the preceding parts of his essay, since one can strongly suspect that the alleged “disciplinary boundaries” and “confusions and misinterpretations of Dawkins” possibly have a political basis. Is it merely a coincidence that all of these scholars who, according to Salter, have contributed to holding back the advance of biopolitical analysis, are individuals who, in whatever public comments they’ve made on the subject, fall, generally speaking, into the group of “racial liberals?” These people believe that “race has no real biological validity” and that any expression of White racial consciousness constitutes racism.

Obviously, these are exactly the people who would strongly disagree with the Salter’s EGI thesis and its many implications. It seems quite reasonable then to suppose that the obstruction of EGI has always been primarily motivated by political considerations.

Ted Sallis (email him) writes on scientific issues.

King’s niece defends rally on anniversary of “I Have a Dream” speech

King’s niece defends rally on anniversary of “I Have a Dream” speech

Click to play
The Beck effect


  • A niece of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. is scheduled to speak at a Glenn Beck rally
  • The rally is set to take place where the “I Have a Dream” speech was delivered
  • Sarah Palin is also expected to speak at the controversial event

(CNN) — The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s niece is slated to speak Saturday at a controversial rally by radio talk show host Glenn Beck scheduled to take place in the same location as her uncle’s “I Have a Dream” speech.

Locust: listen to it, but pay attention at 7:50 you bunch of racist.

Saturday is also the 47th anniversary of the speech the civil rights leader delivered in front of the Lincoln Memorial.

Beck, a hero to many conservative voters across the country, says that the mission of the rally is to honor American troops and that the event is nonpolitical. The rally is hosted by Beck and the Fox News Channel.

A news release for the “Restoring Honor” rally says “this nonpolitical event benefits the Special Operations Warrior Foundation and pays tribute to America’s service personnel and other upstanding citizens who embody our nation’s founding principles of integrity, truth and honor.”

King’s niece Alveda King said she supports the event.

“We’re reclaiming America and restoring honor,” Alveda King said on CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360.” “I believe we do that with faith, with hope, with charity, and honoring our brothers and our sisters as we honor each other.”

Beck has said he scheduled his rally before realizing it was the anniversary of the “I Have a Dream” speech. He has since drawn links between King’s legacy and his event.

“This is a moment, quite honestly, that I think we reclaim the civil rights movement,” Beck said on his radio show in May. “It has been so distorted and so turned upside down because we must repair honor and integrity first, I tell you right now. We are on the right side of history. We are on the side of individual freedoms and liberties, and damn it, we will reclaim the civil rights moment. We will take that movement because we were the people that did it in the first.”

Alveda King said she’s been accused of hijacking “the dream,” but said the “the dream” is in her genes.

“I don’t have to reclaim the civil rights movement, I’m part of the civil rights movement,” she said, noting her family’s home and her father’s church were bombed when she was younger.

Tea Party activists from across the country are expected to attend, and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, a Fox News contributor, will have a prominent speaking role.

While the NAACP put out a cautious statement regarding the rally, there has been a lot of criticism of the event.

“It’s offensive because it’s out of line with the fact. It’s out of line with the truth,” Michael Fauntroy, an assistant professor of public policy at George Mason University, said Friday on CNN’s “American Morning.” “The reality is that the conservative movement in America historically has always opposed expansion of civil rights for all kinds of people.”

One hour after the start of the Beck rally, NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous will join the Rev. Al Sharpton and his National Action Network and other civil rights leaders in a mass rally just a few miles away. Education Secretary Arne Duncan is also participating.

Following an event at Washington’s Dunbar High School, the participants will march to the site of the future Martin Luther King Jr. National Memorial just a few blocks from the Lincoln Memorial.

It’s possible participants in both events could cross paths.

Organizers of the Beck rally say they have not coordinated their efforts with Republican Party officials. Officials at the Republican National Committee, the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee all say they are not involved in the event.

World on the Edge of Darkness, from EU times

World on the Edge of Darkness, from EU times

Official US Deficit Put At Staggering $202 Trillion

EU Times Aug 25th, 2010
Post Pic

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) forecasts the U.S. budget deficit will hit $1.3 trillion this year. An astronomical figure, to be sure, but that’s…

More »

Sweden loses patience with refugee champion role

Post Pic

Click on the image to enlarge it Six years after his brother was beheaded by Iraqi insurgents, Riyad is still haunted by the memory of identifying the disfigured…

More »