Overpopulation & Hyperimmigration

by Peter Goodchild


Mass immigration is a story that has two aspects: (1) ecological and (2) political. The “ecological” and the “political” are closely related elements of systemic collapse, “the decline of the West.”

By “ecological aspect” I mean that human overpopulation is always destructive to the planet Earth, and that migration across borders merely shifts the problem of overpopulation from one country to another. By “political aspect” I mean that, in spite of all the fraudulent appeals to humanitarianism and other pseudo-values, the unfortunate reality is that hordes of impoverished and uneducated barbarians will eventually be profitable for the capitalists who are creating a new Utopia. That is why every politician of every party runs after “the ethnic vote” like a dog after a car. It is quite obvious, though, that many “refugees” are actually robbers and rapists, and that the coming Utopia could bear a close resemblance to the world of the Middle Ages, with an extremely wealthy elite class dominating a lower class that is kept permanently at an almost subhuman level of development. The final Utopia will be quite a Dystopia.

The following remarks focus largely on the “ecological” aspect, but that aspect overlaps seamlessly with the “political.” Canada is a perfect example of such an overlap. The fact that most of Canada is uninhabitable rock leads to the “ecological” fact that the enormous growth of Canada’s population will have disastrous effects on the habitability of the land. In reality, the habitable part of Canada, roughly speaking, is a strip of land, 150 km wide, running along the southern border, with a population density roughly equal to that of most other industrialized countries. Canada is not “vacant land” looking for buyers. At the same time, we must consider the “political” fact that mass immigration pushes out some of those troublesome white people who refuse to be converted to the new “ism” — “multiculturalism.”

The world’s population has risen from about 1.7 billion in 1900 to 2.5 in 1950, and is now well over 7 billion. Most of this increase, of course, has been in “developing” countries, suggesting that the term “developing” is rather misleading: a combination of environmental degradation and rapid population growth often makes “development” impossible (Catton, 1982; Kaplan, 2001). It has been said that as fossil-fuel production declines the global population must drop to far below its present size. In terms of agriculture alone we would not be able to accommodate even the present number of people as fossil fuels become scarce, with manual labour therefore replacing automation, and without the hydrocarbon-based fertilizers and pesticides that make modern yields triple those of earlier times (Pimentel & Hall, 1984). Even then we have not factored in war, epidemics, and other aspects of social breakdown.

Overpopulation is the fundamental cause of systemic collapse (Catton, 1982). All of the flash-in-the-pan ideas that are presented as solutions to modern dilemmas — solar power, biofuels, hybrid cars, desalination, permaculture, enormous dams — have value only as desperate attempts to solve an underlying problem that has never been addressed in a more direct manner.

American foreign aid has always included only trivial amounts for family planning (Spiedel, Sinding, Gillespie, Maguire, & Neuse, 2009, January). It would seem that the most powerful country in the world has done very little to solve the biggest problem in the world. However, there is the frightful possibility that one reason why the US government now gives so little aid to some countries is that the problem of overpopulation is regarded as hopeless, and that any assistance would be just money down the drain (Kaplan, 2001).

The problem of overpopulation is worsened by the fact that there are so many people busy either transmitting or receiving disinformation about the subject (Kolankiewicz & Beck, 2001, April). For left-wingers, discussion of high population is seen as persecution of the world’s poor. For rightwingers, high population is seen as providing more buyers, more workers, and more investors. For politicians, more people means more votes. For many religious groups, high population reflects God’s command to go forth and multiply. Corporate funding of several major environmentalist groups has also done quite a job of disconnecting them from discussion of population: they may be “green” but they are no longer “clean.”

Overpopulation can always be passed off as somebody else’s problem. It is the fundamental case of what Garrett Hardin calls “the tragedy of the commons” (1968, 1995): although an oversize family may have a vague suspicion that the world will suffer slightly from that fecundity, no family wants to lose out by being the first to back down. Without a central governing body that is both strong and honest, however, the evasion is perpetual, and it is that very lack of strength and honesty that makes traditional democracy an anachronism to some extent.

The Chinese have made quite an effort at dealing with excess population growth, but even they have not been very successful. Since 1953, the year of the first proper Chinese census and approximately the start of concerns with excessive fertility, the population has gone from 583 million to over 1.4 billion. For that matter, since the official starting of the one-child campaign in 1979, the population has grown by over 300 million (Riley, 2004, June); in other words, China’s increase is equal to the entire population of the US.

Overpopulation, however, is a problem that occurs not only in poor countries. The evidence is also clear in the US:

Mounting traffic congestion; endless disruptive road construction; spreading smog; worsening water pollution and tightening water supplies; disappearing wildlife habitats, farmland, and open spaces; overcrowded schools; overused parks and outdoor recreation facilities; the end of small-town life in communities that until recently had been beyond the city; the impending merging together of separate, unwieldy metropolitan areas into vast megalopolitan miasmas; and the overall deterioration in quality of life and the increasing social tensions of urban dwellers reflected in such phenomena as gated communities and road rage (Kolankiewicz & Beck, 2001, April).

It is only in the hinterlands, away from the cities, that the opposite occurs: depopulation and “rural flight.” The causes of depopulation are many, but they begin with the industrialization of agriculture and the growth of enormous corporate farms, “agri-business.” As the farming population is impoverished and reduced, the peripheral economy also shrinks, and crime and other social problems are the result. Nevertheless, the urban population of a country increasingly outweighs the rural. Worldwide, slightly more than half the human population now lives in urban areas, but these places will be death traps as resources disappear.

Actually, “overpopulation” tends to be a euphemism for “over-immigration,” and again we return to the “political.” Every country in the world is already well populated, in most cases quite overpopulated. The conception of some sort of land that is lying empty, waiting for the blessing of new arrivals, is a fiction invented by dishonest politicians. Family planning organizations sometimes inadvertently help to propagate this myth by euphemism, excessive caution in phraseology, and an unwillingness to risk antagonism. Although “family planning” is an admirable goal, what such organizations rarely state is that it is not where a child is born that really matters, demographically and economically, but where that person is eventually living — not the moment of birth, but the decades between birth and death, during which time that person will be consuming the world’s resources, along with more than 7 billion other people doing the same. Emigration and immigration, transferring the problem of overcrowding from one country to another, do no good at all; if anything, they simply perpetuate the illusion that birth control is unnecessary.

Discussion of overpopulation, however, is a great taboo. Politicians will rarely touch the issue. The many documents on population published by the United Nations merely sidestep the issue by discussing how to cater to large populations, in spite of the fact that such catering is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

To speak against overpopulation is an exercise in futility. How likely is it that the required massive change in human thinking will ever take place? Even in “developed” countries, to broach the topic of overpopulation is often to invite charges of racism and elitism. And there seems something both naïve and presumptuous in the common belief that people in poor countries are just waiting to be enlightened to “modern” ideals. On the contrary, the inhabitants of poor countries are often quite determined to hang on to their present systems of politics and religion, no matter how archaic and oppressive those systems may seem to outsiders, and would prefer that any proselytizing go in the opposite direction.


The Dissident Right Can’t Win Without Parallel Institutions

The Erechtheion is an ancient Greek temple on the north side of the Acropolis of Athens in Greece which was dedicated to both Athena and Poseidon.

Daryush “Roosh” Valizadeh created ROK in October 2012. You can visit his blog at RooshV.com or follow him on Twitter and Facebook.

As the culture war drags on, many men ask me what they can do to improve the situation in their country outside of helping their tribe or spreading red pills through global informational warfare. The answer is creating or helping maintain a parallel institution that serves the same function as one the left has already taken over and excluded from us.

Every single institution the left has is crucial to maintaining their power. This includes universities, media, think tanks, corporations (including tech companies), Hollywood, public schools, churches, and both local and national politics. They have achieved their power by taking over every single institution that touches your life in a meaningful way and using that position to ban anyone who disagrees with their neoliberal globalist cult. The solution is to take back these institutions through our own long march or simply create our own.

The dissident right has already created many parallel institutions. Here are just a few examples…

The left has women’s studies departments. The right has masculine studies in the form of game and Return Of Kings.

The left has the mainstream media. The right has Alex Jones, Red Ice, and alt lite Twitter personalities who disrupt the news cycle.

The left has all the think tanks. The right has web sites like Social Matter, Thermidor, and The Unz Review. They share ideas not found in establishment think tanks financed by the likes of Qatar.

The left has Hollywood. The right has meme shitlords and video channels like Murdoch Murdoch, which reach the youth in great numbers.

The left has a collection of celebrities who get attention when they share their political ideas. The right has Richard Spencer, who gets reported on from tweets he shares while in his pajamas, along with his alt right allies.

The left and cucked right has talk radio. The right has a collection of independent podcasters like Weimerica, (((The Right Stuff))), and Radio Derb.

The left has Reddit, Wikipedia, Twitter, and Patreon while the right has 4chan /pol/, Infogalactic, Gab, and Counter.fund.

Since we’ve only just begun building parallel institutions, we have no replacements as of yet for universities, public schools, the advertising industry, most of the Fortune 500, most of Silicon Valley, and converged Christian churches. This process will take multiple decades, but is absolutely necessary if we want to build enough power to defeat the left in a cold civil war scenario.

We also don’t have our own politicians. While Donald Trump did win the latest Presidential election, he lacks the “1000 statesmen,” as Ryan Landry put it, to carry out his agenda without being obstructed at every turn. He may control the brain of the millipede, but not its legs, meaning that he risks not fulfilling his agenda. We need leadership organizations that can groom young red-pilled men to defeat cuckservatives sponsored by the same billionaires that back the globalists.

And we have to do all of this better than the left and with less money. Simple, right? In case you’re holding your breath for our own billionaire to come in and save the day, understand that every single billionaire in the world got there by being a globalist, not a traditionalist, and if a billionaire did come knocking on our door, I’d be extremely skeptical of his intentions. There is no money in advocating for tradition, so we’ll have to accomplish what the left has without handouts as if we we’re bootstrapping a business. It will be slow, but the message of the dissident right is seductive enough that people will put their blood and sweat—and soon their lives—into it.

Simply take a look at what the left controls that we don’t, and then duplicate it for the right. If that’s too much work for you, or beyond your current ability, simply find an existing parallel institution and donate your time into making it stronger, but don’t compete or attack an existing dissident group for short-term political gain, like we’ve seen recently between the alt lite and alt right.

My suggestions assume that you already took care of yourself, your friends, your family, and possibly your neighborhood. Only then would I advise doing institutional work, because there is absolutely no point in helping out your country or society if you or those immediately around you are in bad shape. For us to really defeat the left, we’ll need hundreds of our own institutions that are supported by tens of thousands of people who share similar belief systems as we do. It’s no easy task, but it is the path that will lead to victory.



Their is no negotiating with people who in their minds believe you owe them some gibs. They see white america as weak, and due to white guilt, unable to defend itself from invasion and displacement of its people, white people. They will continue to demand your rights, privileges and property until we force them to leave. But the cultural Marxist and its leftist enforcers will not allow us to remove these people without a fight. The Left understands that in order to obtain power, they must flood our nations with non-whites who will vote left, low IQ black, brown and yellow people who they themselves are here to feed off of the predominantly white male tax payers. The enemy is entrenched at ALL levels of government, the military, and liberal corporations, they are the dying media and still control the minds of many of our people. The first step is to weaken the control over the minds of our people, which we are doing now, next we spread our message and bring our people together, and take back that which is ours by birth alone.

When this is all said and done, these people will pay for what they have done, it isn’t enough that we expel them, and end all trade with their nests (nations), we must guarantee that never again do they have the ability nor the will to invade our lands, and take what is ours. What they have been doing to our nations, we shall do to their nations, they attempt to breed us out of existence, we shall do the same to them. They stripped our nation of its economic resources and what belongs to our people, we shall do the same to their people and communities, they intended to replace our people and genocide us from this world, we shall return the favor and wipe them from the earth.

There can be no peace, until this world and ALL that is within belongs to the white man.

In Practical Terms, Who Is White?

by James Harting

AS NATIONAL SOCIALISTS, we prefer to use the word “Aryan” when referring to our race. We have written about this before.

This is our favored designation for our people, and has been so since the early days of the Movement in Germany nearly a century ago. Adolf Hitler uses the term “Aryan” almost exclusively in Mein Kampf, although he does refer to the “White race” on a handful of occasions, such as in this celebrated passage:

“It was and it is Jews who bring the Negroes into the Rhineland, always with the same secret thought and clear aim of ruining the hated White race by the necessarily resulting bastardization, throwing it down from its cultural and political height, and himself rising to be its master.” (Volume II, Chapter 11, page 325 in the Manheim translation)

Nevertheless, whatever word we prefer as National Socialists, the reality is that in ordinary discourse in the United States on racial matters it is “White” that is employed.

Recognizing this fact, the Registered Supporters Application Form for the NEW ORDER requires that applicants state that they are “a non-Jewish White person.”

But what, exactly, does that mean in practical terms? Who is “White”? What is “White”?

In the first instance, being White (or Aryan) in a biological sense means being descended from any of the Caucasian peoples indigenous to Europe. Even in the US, where most Whites have mixed national descent, there is a basic awareness of who is White and who is not, based primarily on physical appearance, but also on cultural cues such as speech, dress and behavior. And here we are helped by the age-old tradition of classifying anyone of mixed White/non-White descent as non-White, in so far as this is readily discernable.

But there is the rub: What if someone has a fraction of non-White ancestry that does not show up in their appearance? Someone who is 75 percent White and 25 percent Black will still have noticeable Black physical characteristics, if not in their colorization then surely in their facial features. But what about someone who is only five percent Black? Or what if someone is 10 American Indian, and appears White for all practical purposes? How about someone who is one percent Asian? Where do we draw the line?

DNA Testing

National Socialists are not the only ones interested in fractional non-White ancestry. We note with interest the current fad of sending a DNA sample to such companies as Ancestry.com and 23andme. For a small sum, these companies will analyze your DNA, and give you an impressive-looking report listing your ethnic and racial background in considerable detail. Might such testing not be the solution to deciding who is — and who is not — “White?”

Unfortunately, no, because these tests are not entirely reliable.

We call your attention to the case of the Dahm sisters. These young women are strikingly beautiful identical triplets from Minnesota. They are so similar, that even the fingerprints of one sister cannot be readily distinguished from those of the other two by advanced fingerprint technology.

Earlier this year, presumably a part of publicity stunt to advance their careers as models, sisters Erica, Jacklyn and Nicole submitted their DNA to 23andme to determine their exact ethnic background. The tests revealed that the triplets were, as supposed, absolutely genetically identical — but the company reported a different ethnic make-up for each of the three. Nicole, it was said, was 11.4 percent Scandinavian, but Jacklyn and Erika were only 7.4 percent. And whereas Nicole was listed as being 11 percent “German/French,” Erika was 22.3 percent and Jacklyn was 18 percent.

How is this possible? If they are all genetically identical, should they not have identical ethnic backgrounds?

The short answer is that is it not possible: the test results are simply wrong. It may be that the DNA technology that yields these results is defective or inexact, or it may be that the results themselves are subject to human error in analysis or reporting. Perhaps it is a combination of the two shortcomings.

But this much is clear: if DNA testing cannot yield reliable results with identical triplets, how can we count on it to give an accurate analysis for anyone?

We can’t.

Genealogical Research

DNA testing of this type is relatively new. Before its advent, the primary way of determining someone’s racial or ethnic background was through genealogy. This is done by examining a person’s ancestors, beginning with their parents and tracing their descent back a far as possible. Because the White population in the US has historically had greater social cohesion than most non-White populations, it is frequently possible to trace someone’s forebears a number of generations to when their family first arrived in the New World. But not always, and not for every given branch of the family tree. In any event, following someone’s direct ancestors back across the Atlantic Ocean to Europe is difficult, and often the thread of descent is lost.

In Europe, frequently with the aid of Church records, people can trace their genealogy back further, sometimes for many hundreds of years. But what does this really prove? Only that someone’s ancestors came from this region or that region, not that they were White in a biological sense. And beyond that, if a single wife cheated on her husband on a single occasion, a line of descent that one may have traced back to Charlemagne could be false.

Genealogy is a fascinating and important field of knowledge. It teaches us about our ancestors, to whom we owe our identity both individually and an as a race. But in itself, genealogy proves nothing.

Likewise, oral family histories are sometimes erroneous, and are not reliable for establishing a person’s biological descent. We have encountered the “Cherokee princess” phenomenon on numerous occasions: a family may have a tradition that a distant ancestor was a noble redskin, when, in fact, no such ancestor ever existed.

A Practical Approach

All theory aside, a practical, utilitarian method for the Movement of deciding whether or not someone is of acceptable White descent is by examining the following criteria:

1. Do they look White?
2. Do they self-identify as White?
3. Do they have any immediate non-White ancestry?
4. Are they culturally White?
5. Do they display White values and behavior?
6. Are they accepted as White by their neighbors and co-workers?
7. Are they committed to the racial struggle?

As a practical matter, the answer to these questions tells us more about someone’s racial value than does reviewing dubious DNA tests or examining the paper trail of a person’s forebears. These criteria are more important to us than whether someone has a trace element of non-White descent in the distant past.

Robert Mathews, a White revolutionary who attempted to form a guerrilla army in the 1980s, boiled this policy down to a single sentence: “If you think you’re White, and we think you’re White, then you’re White.”

The Struggle for the Ideal

Racial purity is a central value of the National Socialist worldview. But we do not live in an ideal world. The migration of peoples; the conquest of one folk or race by another; and the establishment of global multiracialism with porous borders: all of these have contributed to what scientists term “genetic drift,” and which we National Socialists call racial pollution. In a future NS state, advances in genetic technology will allow us to comb through our collective genome, fixing defects or shortcomings, and establishing absolute standards of racial purity.

In the meantime, we should heed the words of Adolf Hitler concerning the struggle for the ideal:

“We are not simple enough, either, to believe that it could ever be possible to bring about a perfect era. But this relieves no one of the obligation to combat recognized errors, to overcome weaknesses, and to strive for the ideal. Harsh reality will of its own accord create only too many limitations. For that very reason, however, man must try to serve the ultimate goal, and failures must not deter him any more than he can abandon a system of justice merely because mistakes will creep into it, or any more than medicine is discarded because there will always be sickness in spite of it. Care must be taken not to underestimate the force of an idea.” (Volume II, Chapter 2, p. 437)

The undeniable reality that non-White genes have contaminated our race to some minute extent must not be used as a reason to exclude valuable racial comrades from our ranks.

A “New” White Nation Within America: Thinking About the Future of White People, and A Case Study in anti-White Activism

Posted by Socrates

 Have you thought about what White people will do when they become a minority in America (circa 2040)? Most people haven’t. But some people have.

White people in America are becoming 3rd-class citizens, strangers in their own land. They can no longer count on government officials or government entities to protect their rights and their freedom – in fact, it’s just the opposite: governmental policies work against White people (e.g., Affirmative Action, chain-immigration laws).

Whites must learn to think outside of “the box” that they have been in for decades. Whites must begin to think tribally and racially.

Whites must learn to favor other Whites, and they must also learn to disfavor non-Whites. The Jews are a nation within America; so are the Mexicans; and so must Whites become a separate nation within America, i.e., working and acting as one unit (few Whites work together as a race today, except Klansmen and neo-Nazis).

A giant network of Whites, stretching from coast to coast, must at some point be created, a vast framework (like a big spider web) with one goal: to help and preserve the White race [1]. To function properly, the network should be secretive by nature, in order to avoid outside interference that could hinder or sabotage it. Such a network could be organized into districts (District 1, District 2, etc.). Each district could feature experts in a variety of vocational fields (medical, construction/building, home repairs, agriculture, transportation, education, family planning, etc.). These experts could be available to help other White people who need help with various things; bartering should also become commonplace within the network as an alternative to money.

The time to think about creating a new, separate, White-nation-within-America is now. Many good ideas and many capable people will be needed.

[1] granted, this idea is not exactly new: Pioneer Little Europe comes to mind. However, PLE seems to be based more on creating White communities in certain locations or regions than this idea is; this idea is not location-based per se, but is instead America-based. Pioneer Little Europe efforts have so far failed, due to a lack of enough people being involved; however, as time marches onward, more and more Whites will embrace the idea of nationalism; the old saying, “timing is everything” is true: what was impossible 20 years ago will be very possible soon

Regarding non-White people and their lack of voting rights in early America:

“…the constitution as originally written did not establish any such rights during 1787–1870.” — Wikipedia, February 2017.

Furthermore, due to the southern “Jim Crow” laws, Blacks had no universal “right to vote” until 1964/1965 with the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.

In other words, since the founding of The United States of America, only one race had universal voting rights from the very beginning, and, until rather recently: Whites. Wonder why that is? Duh! America was intended by our founders and forebears to be a White nation [1].


[1] the USA was founded by 118 White men, the vast majority of whom were not immigrants

TEAM Westport: A Case Study in anti-White Activism

by Andrew Joyce, Ph.D.


“This is an exciting moment to be working on this. There are more non-white kids being born now than white kids.” TEAM Westport, October 7 2014.

“We should continue working with the Board of Education here in Westport to prepare students for the world from a multicultural point of view.” TEAM Westport, May 3 2011.


Westport, Connecticut is a pleasant coastal town with a population of 26,000 that boasts above-average incomes and is 92.6% White. It has a busy library, a number of successful and respected schools, several pristine public squares, an observatory, a natural history museum, and a number of independent news outlets. Unfortunately, since 1994 the town has also been home to a rather innocuously named organization called TEAM Westport. Its purpose is anything but innocuous. TEAM is an acronym for: Together Effectively Achieving Multiculturalism, and for over 20 years this group has been insidiously poisoning the socio-cultural well of its surroundings with a persistence that is as remarkable as it is sickening. For more than 20 years its efforts have attracted little attention beyond the precincts of the town. This changed a few weeks ago when one TEAM project caused the briefest of blips on the national radar, which in turn brought it to my attention.

The project in question was TEAM’s annual essay contest, now in its fourth year. Although TEAM is not an official part of the school district, or indeed the school system, its network of influence has allowed the essay contests to be promoted among children via the schools and other educational avenues. The annual contest has always engaged in race-baiting among the young. However, this year’s contest was presumably a step too far, or too soon, for those behind it. The prompt, unveiled in January, reads:

In 1,000 words or less, describe how you understand the term ‘white privilege’. To what extent do you think this privilege exists? What impact do you think it has had in your life — whatever your racial or ethnic identity — and in our society more broadly?

The subversive nature of the question wasn’t lost on the growing number of Whites who, in the Trump era, are becoming increasingly sensitive to such manoeuvres, and less hesitant in expressing their opposition. In its predictably biased reporting of reactions to this year’s essay contest, the New York Times reported that “merely mentioning white privilege seems to have struck a nerve, with much of the criticism coming from out of town.” This was presumably in response to comments appearing on TEAM’s Facebook page, which included the astute observation: “This is nothing more than race baiting. You are a joke.” The New York Times, like TEAM Westport representatives, dismissed such reactions as “hand-wringing among adults,” while focussing on the more susceptible and intellectually and ideologically vulnerable children, who, in the words of the New York Times, “appear to have greeted the essay contest and the resulting uproar with a shrug.” Journalistic investigation into the history and activities of TEAM Westport both began and ended at this single essay contest, and the story appears to have been mentioned only in order to sneer at those who objected to the concept of “White guilt.”

I found this slanted and superficial coverage profoundly dissatisfying, and resolved to conduct my own investigation into the deeper roots of this affair. As a White ethno-nationalist, I have certain beliefs about multiculturalism and its advance in recent decades. In particular, it is my belief that multiculturalism is both an ideology and a deliberate process. By the latter, I mean that multiculturalism is not something that occurs “naturally,” but is rather a process advanced with programmatic design.  Although I have tested and confirmed these beliefs many times previously, the career of TEAM Westport would provide an opportunity to test these beliefs once more in the form of a case study. In light of my pre-existing understanding of multiculturalism, a number of questions presented themselves immediately: Who are the members of TEAM Westport, and what is their ideological and cultural background? Is there any evidence of Jewish influence in and around this organization? How and why has the group been given extensive access to the local educational establishment? Where does this group get its funding, and what does it use this funding for? What does the group mean by “achieving multiculturalism,” and what are the chief methods by which this group seeks to achieve it? What role, if any, does pathological altruism play in the activities of the organization?

Methodology and Theory

In terms of methodology, my main source material for this investigation was the online archive of the minutes of TEAM’s monthly meetings stretching back over the last several years. The fact that the group is part of local government was helpful in ensuring that such records would be publicly available and readily accessible. These minutes are sufficiently detailed to afford a relatively rare glimpse inside the operations, self-conceptions, and ideological positions of an organization actively working at a local level for the demographic decline of those of European descent. The documents are also useful in that they afford us the opportunity to quote TEAM in its own words. While the arguments and conclusions presented here may be disputed by interested parties, the raw evidence presented here is difficult to assail and impossible to refute. This is an organization that is blunt in its determination to bring to an end the story of European man in North America. In addition to the minutes of TEAM Westport, I have used available online information to determine biographical information about the individuals involved, and I have conducted as much research as possible on its more distant affiliations to national bodies. Some of these, like the ADL, will be familiar to TOO readers.

A common source of comfort for many in our movement is the consolation that there still remain, in several of our nations, areas which are, to a very large extent, ‘healthy’ or untouched by the progression of multiculturalism. These are areas which are still, almost miraculously, more or less ethnically homogeneous. Westport is, for the time being, one of those areas. Before we begin in earnest, I wish to state that the investigation presented here is not intended to dishearten, or ‘Black Pill,’ the optimists among us. Rather, it should act as a corrective and a warning, and also as a call to remedial action. The cancer that we are confronted with is everywhere, and it is extremely belligerent. The case of TEAM Westport is novel only in its specifics, but not in the more general features of the disease that lies at its heart. We know these features well: the importance of ideologies and forms of activism that are demonstrably Jewish in origin; the pervasiveness of White pathologies regarding morality and social mores; and the inherent vulnerabilities and foreign-induced distortions of modern Christian thought. We also know the preferred pathway of this disease, in that it is intended to spread most virulently among the young. All of these aspects are present in the following analysis. However, one of the chief benefits of a case study is that it offers insight into more specific characteristics and, in doing so, may afford the crucial opportunity to slow, interrupt, or even arrest decline. This is our task, and each of us has a role to play.

TEAM Westport

TEAM Westport styles itself as a municipal “diversity committee” that seeks to “to achieve, extend and celebrate a more multicultural community.” It is formally composed of a committee of around ten, although attendance at meetings hovers at around eight. In addition to the formal committee, there are a number of regularly affiliated individuals who interact quite intensively with TEAM Westport but, for reasons that may be surmised, have attempted to remain out of the spotlight. They will not evade the spotlight of the present investigation. The committee itself is, and always has been, composed almost entirely of African-Americans and Jews. TEAM regulars have included Harold Bailey, Bernicestine McLeod, Dolores Paoli and Judith Hamer (all Black), while Brett Aronow, journalist Mary-Lou Weisman, Norwalk Community College President David Levinson, and Zoe Tarrant are all Jewish.

Committee leader Bailey is often the most vocal spokesman for the group, but my investigations determined that Jewish members of the committee possess greater influence and social reach. For example, Aronow, who was lauded by the ADL a few months ago, was named to the school board in September 2012 and appears to have used her influence there to advance TEAM goals via the school system. In particular, Aronow appears to have worked with co-ethnic Julie Horowitz on an “Open Choice” program which enabled an influx of Black students from Bridgeport to enter the predominantly White schools of Westport, Fairfield, and Stratford. In fact, if one takes into account the involvement and input of key players outside the formal committee, TEAM Westport quickly emerges as an organization dominated both numerically and strategically by Jews. As someone familiar with the heavy Jewish presence in the multicultural ‘engine,’ little surprises me any more in this regard. However, as my research into TEAM Westport progressed, the Jewish presence in and around this organization appeared nothing less than stunning.

Just to begin with, the vast majority of the winners of the organization’s ‘Diversity Trailblazer Award’ (for those working “for an increasingly pluralistic society”) were Jewish, including notable local activists Andy Boas, Claire Gold, and Tracy Sugarman. Preceding and mirroring the actions of Aronow and Horowitz, Boas received his award for establishing a fund to enable the entry of Black students from the nearby, and significantly less desirable, town of Bridgeport to enter Westport’s predominantly White schools. Similarly, Gold was given her award for ushering in “desegregation” in Bridgeport’s schools in the 1980s. The Connecticut Post reports that “In 1986, the state Supreme Court decision in the Sheff v. O’Neill case declared the school racial segregation that existed in the Hartford region to be unconstitutional. Gold remembers being so excited hearing the news on the radio, she locked herself out of the car.” Gold, a psychologist from New Jersey, established herself in Connecticut with the task of extending the “desegregation” program, a goal she achieved by becoming schools superintendent, and by working with the district grants writer and co-ethnic, Terry Dworkin. Though now retired, Gold’s legacy appears to be more than secure in the hands of her successor, and yet another fellow Jew, Fran Rabinowitz. Tracy Sugarman, who died aged 91 in 2013, had been one of the so-called ‘Freedom Riders’ in the 1960s, and was apparently part of a contingent of Westport’s Temple Israel who went to the South to agitate against the racial status quo.

Andy Boas and Claire Gold — ‘Diversity Trailblazers’

In terms of local activism, one of the organizations most closely affiliated with TEAM Westport is the local Unitarian Universalist Church. The Unitarian Universalist Church is a strange kind of ‘anti-religion’ which has attracted large numbers of Jewish ‘progressives’ into its ranks since the 1960s (for examples, see here, here, and here). Indeed, the ‘denomination’ may today be regarded as a more extreme form of Reform Judaism (as a strategy) in that it superficially ‘waters down’ Jewish identity and thus acts as a vehicle for the cryptic pursuit of Jewish interests under the banner of universalism — while at the same time welcoming deracinated Whites into the fold. This phenomenon of strongly identified Jews making alliances with deracinated Whites is a general phenomenon on the Jewish left.

The Westport Unitarian Universalist Church has been headed in recent years by Reverend Roberta Finkelstein, who describes herself on Twitter as a “passionate Unitarian Universalist minister committed to social justice.” She has previously stated that her greatest accomplishments in certain parishes have been officiating at the ‘civil unions’ of homosexuals. Finkelstein is named in the TEAM minutes, and appears to have had strong ideological and activist links with the group, as reflected in the committee’s gleeful reporting of activities at the ‘church.’ These have included the forming of a “social justice group,”[1] the screening of ‘White guilt’ propaganda like Spielberg’s Amistad and several ‘Holocaust films,’[2] Martin Luther King celebrations,[3] a Black Lives Matter rally,[4] and most recently the flying of a Black Lives Matter banner from the ‘church’ itself.[5]

Aside from the Unitarian Universalist Church, the organization that has played one of the largest roles in advancing TEAM Westport’s goals has been the local library. The Director of the Westport Public Library, Maxine Bleiweis, is also Jewish and worked very closely with TEAM Westport on promoting ‘diversity’ and multiculturalism in the town. Although a number of ‘diversity promoting’ programs appear to have been run from the library, one of the more interesting appears to have been a drive to get more multiculturalism-promoting books geared towards children (I have written previously on how our children are being targeted on a national level by organizations like the ADL). According to the minutes of TEAM Westport, this initiative not only originated with the group, but also seems to have been a constant obsession.

The vigor with which this obsession seems have taken hold appears to have been due in part to the appearance in May 2014 of a letter in the Westport News. A local White resident, evidently annoyed at the latest essay contest, argued that “Westport does not need to be more diverse; it is fine the way it is.” The letter is mentioned explicitly, and with annoyance, in the TEAM minutes. TEAM’s response? To urgently discuss how to get more children’s books promoting diversity into the local library.[6]

After TEAM contacted Bleiweis about the matter, Bleiweis responded that “there is an issue nationally” regarding the ‘task’ of getting more diversity-promoting books into public libraries.[7] In July 2014, a consensus was reached within the group that libraries could only afford to purchase those books that would be checked out most. Since demand for ‘diversity-promoting’ books would be low, TEAM Westport assigned itself the task of artificially increasing demand. In order to increase the volume of diversity-promoting books being checked out locally, and thus to justify the purchase of more such books, the committee asserted that children needed to be “exposed to them as a natural, normal part of library programming.”[8]

This quite small and specific instance is the perfect illustration of the fact that multiculturalism is not a ‘naturally occurring’ part of human life but is instead something that is cultivated, directed, and manipulated into existence.

The committee immediately outlined its plans for the ‘diverse books’ project. More diversity books would be purchased and forced into the libraries. The committee recorded in its minutes: “Although there is a dearth of diverse books in the market place, we can start with what has been published and purchase these books.”[9] Discussing the proposed programs for the White children of Westport, the committee added: “We will include books and films with protagonists of color as a natural part of story time and film programming.”[10] Lest their efforts attract the attention of parents or those like the Westport News letter-writer, stealth was insisted upon: “Any programmatic inclusion should be on a natural, ‘matter of fact’ basis.”[11] In all such matters, the committee would, in its own words, “work jointly with Maxine Bleiweis and the Westport Library.”[12]

A few months later, in September 2014, the book issue remained an obsession. The committee asserted in their meeting that month that “all children need to read, to be exposed to, and to have books with diversity,” and that the library “should have as many books with kids of color as possible.”[13] In October the committee reported on the ‘diversity books’ project:

Our committee has been meeting, has made a great start, and is working toward setting a mission and strategy. … This is an exciting moment to be working on this. There are more non-White kids being born now than White kids. Progress is being made by the library with regard to identifying diverse children’s books.[14]

After an un-named donor came forward to supply the group with “diverse books” in late March 2015, the committee discussed establishing “a diverse book club and discussion group for teens at the library.”[15] Teens were also to be engaged on diversity via an organization called Neighborhood Studies, which “shapes the arts for young people.” TEAM Westport recorded that their contact at the organization was one Harold Levine,[16] while their contact for CONECT (Congregations Organized for a New Connecticut), another ‘youth engagement’ front, was one Rabbi Michael Friedman.[17] In June 2016 the committee discussed setting up a version of TEAM for White teenagers, with the aim that the teens would work on “anti-racism” projects.[18]

In July 2016 the committee articulated a more complete vision for children in schools. They recorded: “TEAM Westport works to make sure that diversity is a part of programming in all organizations within the town. One issue in town is ‘the bubble,’ where race and ethnicity are not part of the experience students receive. Students, teachers, and administrators of color are very much underrepresented in our schools. How do you get it to be different?”[19]

The committee didn’t care that these children and these schools were successful. The ‘problem’ was that they were too White. In discussing how they could “get it to be different,” the committee essentially asserted its ongoing commitment to the efforts of Aronow, Horowitz, Boas, Gold, and others like them, to continue bringing Black students from neighboring towns into Westport. It was also asserted that every effort should be expended to bring Black teachers into the Westport school system, to encourage out of school interaction between Black and White students, and to “incorporate diversity in literature.” This was in addition to an earlier TEAM Westport demand that there be “programming in the curriculum about gay children.”[20] Above all, White children were to be subject to the promotion of values of “humility” and “curiosity.”[21]

Concerns about parental reaction were always present. It had been remarked by committee members in November 2013 that Whites in the age group 30–45 (the age bracket into which most parents fell) “don’t see discrimination and racism as problems. … Parents are focussed on making sure their kids get ahead, and their time is filled with these concerns. Consequently, there is no room to consider diversity as an issue of any kind.”[22] The emphasis was therefore on keeping diversity programs intensely directed at the young, and yet also, as they had already stated, somehow low key or ‘matter of fact’ so as not to attract too much attention. In April 2015 the committee recorded: “We could look at ways to introduce diversity discussions even among young children. A puppet theater, for example, might be a way to engage them.”[23]

This is not to say that TEAM Westport has refrained entirely from propaganda aimed at local adults. In May 2015, after White Lives Matter pamphlets appeared in Westport, TEAM Westport responded by unfurling a large Black Lives Matter banner at the town’s Memorial Day parade.[24] The group has also organized the local staging of plays on themes like Medieval England (e.g. Camelot) featuring multiracial casts,[25] the running of programs and exhibitions on slavery and ‘Black history,’[26] the distribution of leaflets across the town explaining “why the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday is important and why we celebrate it,”[27] and the organized showing of pro-LGBT propaganda in local movie theaters.[28]

Another way in which TEAM Westport has influenced local life has been its regular meetings with police chiefs. These meetings often reflect the skewed worldview of TEAM on political matters. This is illogical to say the least, and often betrays a deep-seated suspicion of the White population. A particularly good example was the committee’s reaction to local celebrations on reports of the death of Osama Bin Laden – the committee found the celebrations “unseemly.”[29] In terms of policing, TEAM Westport has been keen to influence the local force with a politically correct, and highly apologetic, interpretation of Black and Islamist violence. In the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombings, the committee fretted that “religion was conflated with violence, and terrorism was attached to being Muslim.”[30] The committee thus resolved to “educate” the local police and public on Islam.

In September 2014, in the aftermath of Ferguson, TEAM asserted that “Ferguson is not really a Black issue, but a societal issue. Black men are perceived to be more dangerous than others. … We are seeing a new Jim Crow.”[31] In May 2015 the committee remarked that Baltimore had “exploded” with Black violence only because of “community conditions resulting in rage and pent up hopelessness.”[32] And just a couple months ago, TEAM Westport was busy arranging a “town-wide conversation on policing” to include “exploring the dynamic tension of stereotyping, Black Lives Matter, and current cases in the news involving the shootings of African-Americans by the police.”[33]

Much more could be written on the trials of little Westport. Perhaps symbolic of White America, it lies prostrate upon the cross of multiculturalism and ‘White guilt,’ primed for its erasure. We need not torture ourselves with further intricacies, but turn instead to reflection.


I am often amused by those figures in the so-called Alt-Lite or New Right, who profess to acknowledge every racial reality but that touching on disproportionate Jewish influence in the advance of multiculturalism. I don’t know whether they recoil from it out of fear or ignorance, but I wonder nevertheless how they would confront the coincidence upon coincidence at every turn in Westport’s busy ‘diversity’ industry. Any clear-thinking observer should agree that there is at least a ‘question’ as to why Jews have congregated so heavily in this field of ‘social’ activity, and with such vigor. And this is all publications like The Occidental Observer seek to achieve — to promote honesty about the question. By their own admission, Jews are predominant among the “Diversity Trailblazers.” Why, then, do so many Whites reject that very boast?

I’ve often heard the formulation “Murder or suicide?” when discussing the decline of the White man in his own nations. In this regard, the only evidence of White pathological altruism in Westport (to the extent it might involve ‘White guilt’ etc.) appears to have been induced, rather than to have spontaneously arisen within the European breast. The case of Westport confirmed to me, if such confirmation were needed, that multiculturalism is a program and a system, as well as an ideology. Multiculturalism requires effort and calculation to be brought into being. Populations are being intentionally mixed, and then told what to think about each other – often in opposition to the overwhelmingly negative reality of their interactions. This is the essence of our current predicament, and a prescription for future disaster.

TEAM Westport ultimately knows that a homogeneous society would work best. In June 2011 it even remarked that “racial bullying is not particularly an issue in Westport because it is so homogeneous here.”[34] But multiculturalism is not about making societies better. It is about bringing the story of the White man to a close. In one form or another, this realization will be the defining idea of this century. Goethe once wrote “What you inherit from your father must first be earned before it is yours.” We have mostly lost our past, and our present is crumbling. We will have to earn our future.