THE UNITED STATES AS A EUROPEAN NATION

From its founding, America has been a self-consciously European, majority-white nation. This is how the nation was conceived, and was almost universally accepted until the 1960s. Many people appear to believe that the motto E Pluribus Unum means that the United States was always meant to be a melting pot of the world's people. In fact, "out of many, one," the motto chosen for the great seal in 1776, refers to the 13 colonies united into one nation. It has nothing to do with multi-racialism.

 

Since the founding, and up until just a few decades ago, virtually all Americans took it for granted that the United States was, by nature and destiny, a white country. To be sure, there were blacks and Indians, but most Americans saw their presence as a misfortune, and certainly as no threat to the numerical and cultural dominance of whites.

 

These views on racial differences and the desire to preserve their race and culture were held by the vast majority of the founding fathers. Author Joe Feagin writes, "White founders like Jefferson, Madison and Benjamin Franklin viewed their intellectual and political work as pivotal in creating a new white-dominated nation" and "they feared racial and cultural diversity in the society around them." Author Indermit Gill writes that Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Rush were both men of great power and influence, seeking to "transform America into a homogenous White society". 

 

The founding fathers of the United States shared the same sense of racial consciousness that just about every other ethnic group throughout time has had. All of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and all of those who ratified the Constitution were Whites. For most of European American history, Whites have had a sense that they were a very special people. Benjamin Franklin referred to the "lovely White" ethnic group, and said, "the number of purely white people in the world is proportionately very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia is chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so…why should we in the sight of superior beings, darken its people?…But perhaps I am partial to the complexion of my country, for such kind of partiality is natural to mankind." 

 

The founders did not celebrate "diversity" or the melting pot. Thomas Jefferson thought it had been a terrible mistake to bring blacks to America, and wrote that they should be freed from slavery and then "removed from beyond the reach of mixture." He looked forward to the day when whites would populate not just North but South America, adding "nor can we contemplate with satisfaction either blot or mixture on that surface."

 

Thomas Jefferson recognized the stark differences between Europeans and Africans, and was strongly against multiculturalism. He wrote, “Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people [African-American slaves] are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them." He was convinced of these race differences, writing that blacks were "inferior to whites in the endowments of body and mind". 

 

James Madison, also a slave-holder, wrote that blacks were "strongly marked" by "physical and lasting peculiarities", and a free society composed of both blacks and whites would inevitably fail. While no race is superior or inferior, science tells us that their abilities are not the same. Jefferson, Madison, Washington and many others also recognized the terrible injustice of slavery, and hoped to see an end to the practice. Madison proposed that the solution was to "transport to the African coast all free and freed blacks" who would be provided with "fair means" and "a suitable territory for their reception".

 

This also extended to the Indians, who were described in the Declaration of Independence as "merciless Indian Savages", responsible for numerous atrocities against European settlers. George Washington hoped that “The gradual extension of our settlements will as certainly cause the savage, as the wolf, to retire; both being beasts of prey, tho' they differ in shape." President John Quincy Adams described the conquest of Florida as part of the effort to confront the danger of "mingled hordes of lawless Indians and negroes."

 

The desire for a racially homogenous society was reflected in the first immigration act, passed in 1790, seven years after achieving independence. This act limited citizenship to "free white persons" who were of "good moral character". The desire to create a homogenous European American nation was also reflected in the preamble to the Constitution, which states that the purpose of the document is to "to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." By explicity naming "posterity" as the beneficiaries, the founders meant their children, grand-children and other descendants. Like almost all people, the founders hoped bequeath a nation to their descendants that preserved their race, culture and heritage.

 

Like all other races, European Americans believed that they had a natural superiority, and in the 1800s they called themselves the "Anglo-Saxon race". There was a general acceptance of the idea of Manifest Destiny, the desire to expand from coast to coast. This eventually resulted in the Mexican American war, and the conquest of Mexico. There was a great controversy about whether to annex all of Mexico, which would mean extending U.S. citizenship to millions of Mexicans. The influential Senator John C. Calhoun spoke for most people when he argued, "[W]e have never dreamt of incorporating into our Union any but the Caucasian race—the free white race. To incorporate Mexico, would be the very first instance of the kind, of incorporating an Indian race; for more than half of the Mexicans are Indians, and the other is composed chiefly of mixed tribes. I protest against such a union as that! Ours, sir, is the Government of a white race…It is a great mistake." In the end, only the sparsely populated parts of Northern Mexico were annexed.

 

The American Colonization Society was founded to free black slaves and persuade them to return to Africa. As Henry Clay put it at the society's inaugural meeting in 1816, its purpose was to "rid our country of a useless and pernicious, if not dangerous portion of the population." The following prominent Americans were not just members but served as officers of the society: Andrew Jackson, Daniel Webster, Stephen Douglas, William Seward, Francis Scott Key, Gen. Winfield Scott, and two Chief Justices of the Supreme Court, John Marshall and Roger Taney. As for James Monroe, the capital of Liberia is named Monrovia in gratitude for his help in sending blacks to Africa.

 

Abraham Lincoln also favored colonization. He was the first President ever to invite a delegation of blacks officially to visit the White House; he held the meeting to ask them to persuade their people to leave. Even in the midst of a desperate war with the Confederacy, Lincoln found time to study the problem of black colonization, and to appoint Rev. James Mitchell as Commissioner of Emigration.

 

Abraham Lincoln also had a strong sense of racial consciousness, and made it clear on many occasions that he abhorred the very thought of social or political equality for blacks. In one famous national debate, he spoke in words that sound quite shocking today: “I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races…nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor intermarry with white people.” He went on, "There is a physical difference between the white and black races which, I believe, will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality".

 

Although Lincoln considered slavery an evil, he saw no future in America for free blacks, writing “There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of an indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races. A separation of the races is the only prevention of amalgamation". On a different occasion, he wrote “We cannot attain the ideal union our Fathers dreamed, with millions of an alien, inferior race among us, whose assimilation is neither possible or desirable.” Until the very end of his life he did everything within his power to remove blacks from the territory of the United States, spending a great deal of time on a colonization plan and appointing a Commissioner to carry it out. He wrote, “Let us be brought to believe it is morally right to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it.” The very day before issuing the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln signed a contract for the resettlement of 5,000 free blacks on an Island near Haiti. 

 

Lincoln's successor, Andrew Johnson, did not feel differently: “This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government for white men …” Like Jefferson, he thought whites had a clear mandate: “This whole vast continent is destined to fall under the control of the Anglo-Saxon race – the governing and self-governing race.” 

 

James Garfield certainly agreed with Lincoln's views on race. Before he became President he wrote, "[I have] a strong feeling of repugnance when I think of the negro being made our political equal and I would be glad if they could be colonized, sent to heaven, or got rid of in any decent way . . . ." We must remember that these were all public statements by respected officials, which were not controversial at all; instead they were met with overwhelming agreement by the general public. 

 

In fact, until the 1950s, every President of the United States has had a strong racial consciousness. Theodore Roosevelt thought blacks were “a perfectly stupid race,” and blamed Southerners for bringing them to America. In 1901 he wrote: “I have not been able to think out any solution to the terrible problem offered by the presence of the Negro on this continent … he is here and can neither be killed nor driven away …” As for Indians, he once said, “I don’t go so far as to think that the only good Indians are the dead Indians, but I believe nine out of ten are, and I shouldn’t inquire too closely into the health of the tenth.” 

 

Woodrow Wilson was a confirmed segregationist, and as president of Princeton prevented blacks from enrolling. He enforced segregation in government offices and was supported in this by Charles Eliot, president of Harvard, who argued that "civilized white men" could not be expected to work with "barbarous black men." During the Presidential campaign of 1912, Wilson campaigned to keep Asians out of the country: "I stand for the national policy of exclusion. . . . We cannot make a homogeneous population of a people who do not blend with the Caucasian race. . . . Oriental coolieism will give us another race problem to solve and surely we have had our lesson."

 

In 1914, Senator James Vardaman said, "the Negro as a race in all the ages of the world, has never shown sustained powers of self-development. He is not endowed with the creative faculty. He has never created for himself any civilization. When left to himself, he has universally gone back to the barbarism of the jungle". Congressional Representative, Secretary of State and Supreme Court Justice James Byrnes wrote in 1919, "this is a white man's country and will always remain a white man's country". 

 

Henry Cabot Lodge took the view that "there is a limit to the capacity of any race for assimilating and elevating an inferior race, and when you begin to pour in unlimited numbers of people of alien or lower races of less social efficiency and less moral force, you are running the most frightful risk that any people can run." Harry Truman confided to his diary: “I am strongly of the opinion that Negroes ought to be in Africa, yellow men in Asia, and white men in Europe and America.” As recent a President as Dwight Eisenhower argued that although it might be necessary to grant blacks certain political rights, this did not mean social equality "or that a Negro should court my daughter." It is only with John Kennedy that we finally find a President whose public pronouncements on race begin to be acceptable by today's standards (although he made virtually no effort to end segregation).

 

The leaders of the nation reflected the strong ethnic identity felt by European Americans in U.S. History, and the white, European character of the United States was enshrined in law. The Supreme Court ruled in 1857 that no black, slave or free, could be a citizen of the United States. Blacks did gain U.S. citizenship under the post-Civil War amendments, but other races did not. State and federal laws excluded Asians, and in 1914 the Supreme Court upheld the principle that citizenship could be denied to foreign-born Asians. Strong opposition to mixed marriage was also enshrined in law. Sixteen states still had anti-miscegenation laws on the books in 1967, when the Supreme Court overturned them.

 

The ban on immigration and naturalization of Chinese, established in 1882, continued until 1943. It was only when the United States found itself allied with China in the Second World War that Congress repealed the Chinese exclusion laws-but not by much. It set an annual quota of 105 Chinese. Needless to say, it permitted no immigration from Japan. Samuel Gompers, probably the most famous labor leader in American history, reflected prevailing views. In 1921 he wrote: "Those who believe in unrestricted immigration want this country Chinaized. But I firmly believe that there are too many right-thinking people in our country to permit such an evil." He went on to add, "It must be clear to every thinking man and woman that while there is hardly a single reason for the admission of Asiatics, there are hundreds of good and strong reasons for their absolute exclusion." Until 1965, the United States had a "national origins" immigration policy designed explicitly to keep the country white.

 

The history of our democracy reflects a clear conception of the United States as a nation ruled by and for whites. Before the federal government took control of voting rights in the 1960s, the states determined who could and could not vote. Only in 1924 did Congress confer citizenship on Indians, and every state that entered the union between 1819 and the Civil War kept blacks from voting. 

 

From the founding up through the 1970s, the United States has been primarily a European American nation. Even by 1970, the population was almost 90% White, the other 10% being mainly African Americans in the segregated South. There simply never was any past desire for multi-racialism. If the founders and leaders of the nation prior to the 1960s were to rise from their graves, they would be shocked at the idea of a multi-hued America in which we are to pretend race can be made not to matter. It is European activists that are faithful to the original vision of America. Walt Whitman perhaps put it most succinctly when he wrote, "[I]s not America for the Whites? And is it not better so?" We believe that yes, it is.

 

RACIAL CONSCIOUSNESS 

By Dennis Mangan (2004)

 

What does it take to turn a garden-variety, pro-civil rights, historically-aware racial liberal into a white man proudly conscious of his race and the injustices committed against it in contemporary America? Let me attempt to list a few reasons, for, Reader, I am that man.

 

I can remember as a teenager becoming aware of the historical injustices, from slavery to lynching to segregation, done to blacks in this country, most of it completely legal and with the full collusion, if not instigation, of various federal, state, and local governments. I can remember my shock when I first heard (after my childhood) the word "nigger" used in earnest. (And just to get it out of the way, I still think it an extremely crass and insulting expression.) In adulthood, I've read and admired the books by Frederick Douglas and Booker T. Washington, among others; they were men in the normative sense: strong, determined, honest, upright, fighters, who refused to let obstacles which would have stopped ten ordinary men stop them. I've had what is for many American men a not untypical interracial dating life, including dating many Hispanics, Asians, even a Christian Arab girl from Lebanon. When I lived in Sierra Leone, I had a semi-chaste liaison with a local girl.

 

But I'm off track, my point being merely that I never had a prejudiced bone in my body. And racial hate is something foreign to me as well; that's not what I'm getting at. But one gets older, and hopefully wiser, and one sees patterns that one was blind to before. Can one fail to notice that murder is committed by blacks at eight times the rate of whites? (I won't bother to cite statistics; these are well known, and the reader can Google away.) Or that Mexicans have a propensity towards forming street gangs?

 

But even more to the point, whites such as myself are now the object of officially-sanctioned discrimination. Universities and colleges openly, brazenly, advertise their prejudice against whites. At the local college, innumerable scholarships are directed at "minorities", while anyone who proposed a whites-only scholarship would be lucky to escape with his life. (And liberals keep changing their rationale: while formerly "affirmative action", i.e. racial discrimination, was meant to somehow redress past wrongs — to individuals who likely never suffered any, at least any beyond the wrongs which we all suffer – now "diversity" has become the new mantra, thus ensuring that discrimination endures in perpetuity.) I can't remember the author of the quip about "dissolving the people and electing another one", but with the refusal of the U.S. government to enforce the laws against illegal immigration, it has colluded with businesses and employers and race-baiting politicians to do just that: to replace the former majority European-American and Christian populace with one more to their liking. One that will work for less pay, one that will be more dependent on government largesse, one that is not so stubbornly American. My employer can be sued if the EEOC suddenly decides that its racial "mix" is unrepresentative, and since that applies everywhere, I have at least the potential to be deprived of a future job for which I may be highly qualified, all because my skin is the wrong color.

 

But, Mangan, you will say, how does that affect you? You have a good job, nice house, you're even fairly prosperous these days. Well, I answer, in the first place my family and I must live in a world that discriminates against us; we is being taught at school that the entire history of our native land is nothing but a mass of discrimination, oppression, slavery, segregation, and ethnic cleansing, from Columbus to Bush, and that our glorious Founding Fathers were hypocritical slaveholding white men whose struggle for freedom was nothing but a cover for crass self-interest; that Martin Luther King, a sainted black man (never mind his adultery, plagiarism, lies, and communism) had to come along and show us the error of our ways, from which we had to be dragged kicking and screaming. Our entire national history has been trashed.

 

In the second place, my freedom is greatly restricted. Because no sane person would choose to live in a bad, crime-ridden part of town — whose denizens we are not suppose to notice are almost always not of European ancestry — I am forced to seek out a neighborhood where the prices for housing are high, with all that entails with regard to how much one has to work and what jobs are acceptable. Think about it. That has an overwhelming effect on one's life. Why are millions of people moving out of California? In a nutshell, because millions of illegal aliens are moving in, raising crime and lowering wages and exacerbating the housing shortage.

 

Most of all, for me, it's about injustice. Society and government and culture should be color-blind, but they have ceased to be. I think it a pity that they have conspired to make a racially-liberal, educated, and even cosmopolitan man such as myself become racially conscious. But they have, and they succeeded.

 

The culture of the West, i.e. of Europe and its offspring, is without a doubt the greatest the world has seen. From Socrates to Hume, from Archimedes to Newton and Einstein, from Cato to George Washington, we — we European-Americans — have much to be proud of. Perhaps belonging to the same race as those men is a least common denominator of pride, and until quite recently I would have said so. But I've become racially conscious, and so I am proud. And angry.

 

WHITE PRIDE AND WHITE GUILT

By Michael J. Polignano (2008)

Today in the United States and most of the White world, as soon as a White child is old enough to understand language, he is told that he should feel guilt for the crimes of his ancestors. Guilt for finding, conquering, enslaving, and killing off non-Whites around the globe … and littering in the process. Guilt, not for his own crimes, but for the crimes of other people of the same race. 

 

But he is also told that he should feel no pride in the amazing achievements of his race. No pride in the pyramids and the Parthenon, no pride in the arch and the dome, no pride in White science and technology and medicine, no pride in the glories of European painting and sculpture and music, no pride in Plato and Shakespeare and Dostoevsky, no pride in the exploration of the globe and the conquest of space. Pride, not in his own achievements, but in the achievements of other people of the same race. 

 

But if it is reasonable to feel White guilt, then it is reasonable to feel White pride. This is a subversive thought, for if one does a balance sheet comparing reasons for White guilt and White pride, Whites might discover that they have far more to be proud of than guilty of. They might then decide to resist their dispossession. 

 

Faced with that prospect, the advocates of White dispossession will retreat to the last refuge of ethno-political scoundrels and cowards: individualism. They will piously lecture us that there are no groups, only individuals — that even if the White race has produced more creative individuals than the other races combined, only the individuals, not the race, should be honored — that the only person entitled to feel proud of Edison's achievements was Edison, because he earned it — that nobody has the right to a pride that he has not earned by his own efforts — that people who do feel pride in the achievements of their racial brethren are losers who need to derive self-esteem from the achievements of others because they have no achievements of their own — and so forth. 

 

The individualist argument goes as follows: the only pride we have a right to is pride in our own achievements. Racial pride is pride in the achievements of others. Therefore, we have no right to racial pride. I will grant that we have not, strictly speaking, "earned" the pride we feel in the achievements of others. But the false premise of the individualist argument is that we have no right to things that we have not earned. We call something of value that we receive without earning it a "gift." 

 

It is a distortion of gift-giving to treat it as a disguised exchange. Not every human relationship is a matter of trade. The fact that some putative gifts are disguised exchanges does not imply that all gifts are disguised exchanges. It just proves that some apparent gifts are not gifts at all. People usually feel good when they make others happy by giving gifts. But that does not imply an exchange, unless it is an exchange with oneself: one gives up something to feel good about oneself. 

 

But does it make sense to describe the goods passed on by long-dead ancestors and kinsmen as "gifts"? I think so. It certainly makes no sense to call it an exchange relationship, since there is no way to repay benefactors who are dead or anonymous. Moreover, one of the functions of the Last Will and Testament is to confer gifts after one's death when there can be no possibility of exchange. One can even give gifts to complete strangers and distant future generations. 

 

A creative genius might take money in exchange for his works during his lifetime. But after he is dead, his collected works become a gift to future generations. We certainly cannot return anything to Aristotle or Galileo or Mozart of value equal to what they have given us. They have given us too much and are not around to receive payment.  There is no question that we have a "right" to things that we receive as gifts. If racial pride can be understood as a gift, then we have a right to that feeling. 

 

But when someone gives us a gift, we naturally want to transform it into an exchange. Receiving a gift puts us in someone's debt, which is not a pleasant feeling. But exchange puts us on equal footing, which is more consistent with our sense of dignity and desire for independence. But a gift, if it truly is a gift, is not a matter of exchange. So we satisfy ourselves with the pretense of an exchange by repaying our benefactors with words, by saying "thank you." 

 

But how do I thank people who are anonymous or long-dead: my distant forbears and the racial kinsmen who make me proud? Certainly not by resting on their laurels or by making their achievements a substitute for mine, which is the puerile individualist accusation. 

 

First, we can become worthy recipients of what they have given us by learning to appreciate our history and culture. 

 

Second, since it is impossible to return their patrimony to them, we can at least pass it on to future generations, so that they can continue to live on through their works. 

 

Third, we can thank them by making ourselves worthy of the pride they have given us, by achieving something of greatness ourselves. 

 

Fourth, we can work to preserve and pass on the genetic heritage that has made the cultural heritage possible. 

 

As I have said before, in this time of racial peril, the highest and noblest thing any of us can do is work together to ensure the survival and flourishing of the White race, so it can give birth to new Leonardos and Newtons and Teslas. But if we have a right to White pride, then do we not also deserve White guilt? I think "guilt" is the wrong concept, for guilt implies responsibility,.. and racial guilt implies collective responsibility… A group of people acting together may be responsible for an act. But justice demands that a person who has done nothing wrong not be held responsible for a misdeed committed by another member of his race or community. 

 

The proper concept here is "shame," not guilt, for I can feel ashamed of the misdeeds of others without being responsible for those misdeeds.  We have all felt shame at the misbehavior of other people. It is easy to understand when the culprit is a relative or friend and his actions reflect badly on us. But we also feel shame at the misbehavior of complete strangers. Yet I feel this only when their actions are "all too human," meaning that they reflect badly on me simply because, as a human being, I could have made the exact same mistake. They point out our universal human weaknesses and failings. 

 

In the same way, I feel shame for the crimes and follies of other White people, but only if their failings are typical of Whites and thus reflect negatively on me, making me self-conscious of my own racial weaknesses and potential follies. As for the usual charges against the White race — racism, slavery, colonialism, environmental destruction — I feel no shame for these at all simply as a White man, and no White person should. 

 

Racism — properly defined as a natural preference for and solidarity with one's own kind, not as hatred for others "just because they are different" — is nothing to be ashamed of at all. Slavery, imperialism, colonialism, genocide, environmental destruction, and the like are all shameful things, and I wish that none of them had happened. But these crimes have been committed by members of all races whenever they have had the means and opportunity. They are all too human, and all human beings should feel ashamed of them. 

 

The only reason these crimes are lodged against the White race in particular is that we were better at them than the others. We defended Europe from the Huns, the Moors, the Mongols, and the Turks and eventually went forth and conquered most of the globe. The other races are probably more cruel, ruthless, and cunning. But we beat them because of our superior inventiveness, superior social organization, and questing, adventurous spirit. 

 

So when Whites are singled out for blame, we are being attacked not for our crimes, but for our virtues — for being winners rather than losers in the brutal struggle between different races for dominion over this planet. That struggle has not disappeared just because Whites have laid down their conquests and gone home. 

 

WHAT WHITES HAVE LOST

By Jared Taylor (1996)

Of all the categories that the last few decades have blurred, the loss of racial distinctions has the direst long-term consequences. A group cannot survive without a sense of identity. It cannot continue unless its members are aware that they are part of a group and are willing to put its interests before those of other groups. When that group is the white race, group consciousness is treated as an unalloyed evil, but in all other areas of life we take it for granted. A family exists in a meaningful sense only if its members put family interests before the interests of strangers. 

 

A political party would dissolve if its members were not willing to assert the party’s interests against all others. A corporation’s employees must be willing to compete against competitors. Unless the citizens of a nation have a national consciousness a nation dissolves. No group can survive without group consciousness. So long as there are people of other races who are racially conscious, and are willing to assert explicitly racial interests — and clearly there are — whites must rekindle racial consciousness or be pushed aside. 

 

It is obvious that whites have not lost the instinct to identify with groups. They are loyal to colleges, clubs, home towns, employers and families. Not even the forces of liberal one-worldism can prevent great shows of devotion to nation. Whites can even be fanatically loyal to professional sports teams, despite the fact that they have only the most tenuous connections to the players. 

 

Of all the traditional group loyalties, racial consciousness has been most vigorously suppressed, and that only recently.  The following incident provides an instructive example of what was once commonplace. In 1858, Commodore Josiah Tattnall of United States navy commanded a squadron in the Pehio River. He watched as a foreign British fleet took a terrible pounding from Chinese shore batteries. At length, the Commodore could stand it no longer. Uttering the famous words, “Blood is thicker than water. I’ll be damned if I will stand by and see white men butchered before my eyes,” he went into action against the Chinese. Subsequent reaction in both the United States and England was wide-spread approval. 

 

Even today, whites traveling in Africa or Asia quickly discover a bond with other whites that they may have never before acknowledged. The more primitive the country, the more readily whites fall in with each other, even with complete strangers who do not speak their language. 

 

Back home, where they are the majority, whites have been taught to suppress these instincts. They go even further and affirm the racial solidarity of others while denying their own. Robert Frost once defined a liberal as someone who cannot take his own side in an argument. As a race, whites have lost the capacity to take their own side in any explicitly racial argument. When a non-white makes racial demands whites almost always give in. 

 

The prevailing view is that all non-whites have legitimate racial interests — to be asserted, if need be, at the expense of whites — while whites are simply individuals without racial interests. If anything, whites are supposed to sacrifice their own racial interests voluntarily and promote those of others. 

 

One reason why whites do this so readily is that, as a people, they require a moral basis for what they do. The system of governance built up within white societies is based on the assumption that the interests of others sometimes require that we sacrifice our own. All principles of Western (and any other) morality require this. If it is good and generous to sacrifice individual interests, then why not group interests? 

 

It is this confusion about goodness and sacrifice that gives the fight against “racism” so much moral fervor. Liberal whites speak as whites only to denounce their own race and to praise non-whites — thereby assuming the aura of moral superiority that comes with sacrifice. Other whites, they imply, wallow in racial self-interest but they have risen so far above it they can bellow indignantly against it. 

 

Denunciations of “racism” are therefore ten a penny, but they have the same moral sheen as giving to the poor. Preachers, politicians, soldiers, teachers, judges, and Rotarians all deliver sermons blasting “bigotry.” Great merit can be accumulated this way and — this is why it is so attractive — at no cost. Many of those who whoop the loudest about integration send their own children to private schools. The champions of affirmative action never offer their own jobs to less qualified non-whites, and would probably fight like demons to keep housing projects out of their neighborhoods. 

 

Even the giddiest white liberals normally live, socialize, and marry among themselves. Daily intercourse with Mexicans and Haitians is exhilarating, to be sure, but liberals prefer to leave it to the lower orders. The implied self-sacrifice of anti-white activism is therefore almost always pure hypocrisy. It is perfectly acceptable to thunder mightily against “racism” and not have a single non-white friend, relative, or neighbor. 

 

In the 30 years from 1960 to 1990, the white population of Miami went from 90 percent to 10 percent. David Lawrence, Jr., Publisher of the Miami Herald, seems to think this is wonderful: “This country’s future, previewed in South Florida, is a future of many colors, many faiths, a variety of tongues… We can serve as example to America.” He goes on to write, “I’d love to hear our National Anthem sung in either language [Spanish or Haitian Creole].” The same sentiments no doubt prompted 4,000 people in Helena, Montana to come out and hear Desmond Tutu raise money for the African National Council. This was in 1990, before South Africans had voted to hand their country over to blacks, and the event raised $85,000. Fewer than one quarter of one percent of Montana’s population is black. Today, whenever Nelson Mandela visits a white nation he is treated like a visiting deity. 

 

The virtue of promoting other races is now part of the school curriculum. More American 17-year-olds know who Harriet Tubman was than can identify Joseph Stalin or Winston Churchill. In 1991, Dubuque, Iowa put on a touching display of virtue. The town is 98 percent white, and people still leave their doors unlocked. The city council thought the place could be greatly improved, so it voted to recruit several hundred black families by offering to subsidize their housing. A few young fellows gained instant notoriety by protesting the plan. The better folk of Dubuque then took to wearing black and white ribbons in their lapels to show support for recruiting blacks. 

 

In 1987, former President, Jimmy Carter, exhibited his elevated moral stature by confessing to a great moral failing. In a speech at Rice Institute he said that when he saw television footage of starving Ethiopian children he could not manage to care as much about them as he did about his own daughter, Amy. He said he was “embarrassed” by this “racist” lack of sufficient sentiment. 

 

Columnist Jon Carroll is prepared to see whites go completely by the boards. Noting that nothing we try seems to put an end to racial friction, he writes: “I think intermarriage may be the only way out… Of course, we’d lose a lot of interesting specific cultures that way, but that battle is pretty much over already.” 

 

Morton Kondracke appears to feel the same way: “It would be a lot easier if each of us were related to someone of another color and if, eventually, we were all one color. In America, this can happen.” The whole white race might as well be done away with if multi-racialism doesn’t work out after all. 

 

All these acts and expressions of racial virtue have two things in common: First, they represent a repudiation of white racial consciousness and white group interests. Second, it is impossible to imagine people of any other race doing or saying these things. 

 

This weird self-repudiation grows out of the false assumption that anti-racism is moral and white racial consciousness is immoral. This state of mind is the single greatest threat to our survival. Unless whites understand that survival is moral, they will never take steps to ensure it. 

 

Most whites do not want to mix with other races. They want their children to marry whites. They loathe the thought of becoming a minority. Yet, they have been taught to be ashamed to think these things, and they do nothing to protect their group. They are paralyzed by their own perverted morality. 

 

Ultimately, we must ask the most unpleasant question of all: Is the white race fit to survive? Entirely aside from explicitly racial forms of capitulation, is a people that puts women in “combat” serious about survival? Is a people for which homosexuality is a valid alternative to family life serious about survival? Is a people that forces the competent to subsidize and reward the whelping of incompetents serious about survival? Is a people whose adults are unable to face down their adolescent children serious about survival? Such people — and only whites do these things — have begun to write their own death warrant, even without the threat from growing populations of non-whites. 

 

What makes the current crisis even worse is that whites have never articulated any moral justifications for their own racial interests and survival. Like every other people, they never had to. Josiah Tattnall did not have to explain why he stepped into a fight between Europeans and Chinese. President Lincoln did not have to explain why he thought blacks should be persuaded to leave. Generations of whites never had to explain why they did not want non-whites in their schools or neighborhoods. These things come instinctively to a people with a racial identity. 

 

Now, when arguments are formulated against what everyone always took for granted, there is no stock of tested ideas and refutations on which people can draw to defend their way of life. In their bones they feel that what is happening is wrong, but they do not have the words with which to express those feelings. Without words, without convincing moral foundations, whites cannot act. 

 

It should be no more necessary to explain why whites, as a group, have the right to a future than to explain why it is better to live than to die. In our suicidal era, racially conscious whites are forced to explain themselves, but when instinct and tacit understanding have been battered by decades of argument and pseudo-moral assault, most people have no means of intellectual defense. 

 

Still, there is reason for hope. In time, even egalitarians discover that if racial hypocrisy has no immediate penalty, it has a terrible long-term price. The great multi-racial experiment has failed — failed so obviously that no one is any longer deceived. In private, on talk radio, and even occasionally in the generic media things are being said that were never heard 20 or 30 years ago. The terrible consequences of lost racial consciousness are slowly becoming clear to ever larger numbers of people. Consciousness of race is returning. Affirmative action, busing, inter-racial crime, and the transparently anti-white bias of the media are opening more and more eyes every day. There are more groups and publications than ever that clearly assert the interests of whites. 

 

Racial consciousness is on the march. Its power will only grow, and its fundamental moral legitimacy will ensure that it eventually prevails. The survival of our people and culture hangs in the balance. 

 

A DEFENSE OF WHITE RACIAL CONSCIOUSNESS

By Samuel Taylor (1994)

(This is a letter in reply to a friend, defending my views). Racial consciousness among whites has been forced underground because so many people have been taught to think this way. My task is to convince you, and others who share your instincts for fairness and generosity, that it is not merely natural but right for whites to assert their own interests. Only then will they use their distinctive qualities to defend their race and culture rather than, as they do now, permit their own dispossession in the name of those qualities. 

 

Racial pride now marches on, getting stronger and stronger — but for everyone but whites. In the United States, blacks, Hispanics, and even Asians are banding together along racially exclusive lines as never before to extract privileges from whites. For millions of non-whites, race is central to their identities and informs everything they think and do. Indeed, every corner of every continent is exploding with assertions of peoplehood — sometimes violent — that reflect not just race but human differences of all kinds. 

 

The current racial regimen is one of unilateral disarmament. Whites can be bullied and intimidated by non-whites because non-whites have clear understandings of their racial interests and whites do not. For blacks, especially, race comes before anything else. No matter how much they may differ among themselves, they almost invariably close ranks against whites. 

 

This is why the rap singer Sister Souljah’s advice to blacks — that they leave off killing each other for a week and kill whites instead — was not repudiated by other blacks. It is why the thugs who nearly killed Reginald Denny at the start of the Los Angeles riots were lionized as “The L.A. Four.” It is why a man so corrupt and incompetent as Marion Barry has been re-elected as mayor of Washington, DC. 

 

What you meant to say is not that there is no hope for the white racialist. To that I would say only that ten years ago no one expected the Soviet Union to disappear, Germany to be reunited, or Yugoslavia to be torn apart. History is far from over. French royalty was at the height of its glory when it was struck down by revolution. Who can say that the current “tyrannies of liberalism,” as even you call them, are not at flood tide and may soon recede? In Europe, the racialist right influences national policy. Is such a development unthinkable in the United States? 

 

Any number of people — and I count myself among them — have approached the questions of race and IQ from a desire to know the truth. And the truth, by the way, includes the likelihood that North Asians are more intelligent, on average, than whites. Let the chips fall where they may. The link between race and IQ is almost certainly true, and it is becoming widely known.

 

We now come to a fundamental question: Is it moral for whites to defend their race and culture? In a country in which every other group makes constant racial demands at the expense of whites the answer to this question should be obvious. And yet, many whites think that even though racial consciousness is fine for every other group, for whites it would be uniquely evil. Since they do not even think in terms of their common interests, they do not see how much they have already lost. 

 

There are several ways to illustrate this. Let us imagine, for example, that Mexico were to invade and conquer the south-eastern part of the United States. What would the Mexicans do with their new territory? They would establish Spanish as the official language of school and government. They would expel much of the white population and replace it with Mexicans. They would abolish American holidays and replace them with Mexican ones. Music, food, education, work habits, and religion — all would become Mexican rather than American. 

 

Of course, this is exactly what has already happened in many parts of California and Texas. Ballot papers are printed in Spanish, people speak Spanish in school and watch Mexican television, towns celebrate Cinco de Mayo instead of the Fourth of July, and whites have been displaced by Mexicans. A similar invasion from Central America and the Caribbean has, in 30 years, reduced Miami’s former 90 percent white majority to a 10 percent minority. 

 

Those parts of the country are lost to our people and to our culture. What was once America is now ruled by aliens. Astonishing as this may be, we have given up the very thing that nations send their young men into battle to die for. The integrity of a people, race, or culture are among the few things that nations so cherish that they willingly sacrifice even millions of lives to preserve them. Why? Because the preservation of the nation of one’s forefathers is more important than life itself. 

 

There is no prospect more horrible than the extinction of one’s people and culture. One’s own death is an irrelevance by comparison. Every healthy people knows this without a moment’s reflection, and that this knowledge should have slipped from the minds of white people is a sign of the sickness that must be cured. 

 

If it is moral to resist an armed invasion of our nation, surely it is still more moral to resist one that is unarmed but produces the same result. If it is legitimate to kill people in order to prevent conquest, it should be even more legitimate to prevent conquest without shedding blood. 

 

Ideas similar to mine have been expressed by former Senator Eugene MacCarthy, of all people. He points out that the essence of colonization is the imposition of alien practices upon a native people. In this sense, Sen. MacCarthy calls America a colony of the world. He notes that we have the power to resist alien impositions but that we fail to exercise it. We admire Mahatma Gandhi for resisting alien imposition from Britain, but any white American who resists alien imposition from every nation on earth is called a racist and bigot. 

 

This inversion of morality is cultural and racial capitulation that may be without precedent in the history of the world. Never before has a dominant people simply abandoned territory to newcomers who decide to remake it in their own image. It is as perverse as would be an athletic team that cooperated with its opponents to defeat itself, or a political party that turned over all its elected seats to the opposition. 

 

If the poorest, least educated Americans were pouring across the border into Mexico, going on welfare, demanding instruction in English, and insisting on the ballot for non-citizens, would it be immoral for Mexicans to send them home? Of course not. 

 

Somehow, for us, it is not merely immoral to send Mexicans home; we are to think of their arrival as a “celebration of diversity.” To “celebrate diversity” is nothing more than to cheer the dwindling number of whites, be it in a school, an office, a neighborhood, city or nation — and only whites could have been browbeaten into applauding their own losses. Just how much “diversity” are we supposed to celebrate? Will whites be allowed to remain a majority, or does “diversity” require that we become a minority? May we continue at 49 percent of the population, or are we to keep “celebrating diversity” until immigration and differential birth rates reduce us to nothing? 

 

Ultimately, our society is headed towards the marginalization of whites and their culture. Clearly, this would take several generations, but is that not the direction we have chosen? At “the end of all our exploring,” to use your phrase, I do not want to find Haiti, Nicaragua, the Philippines, or any combination of them. I want to find America. Why is that illegitimate or immoral? 

 

Please note that the doctrine of diversity assumes that it is only whites who suffer from the strangely undefined horrors of homogeneity and who must be blessed with “diversity.” No one is asking Mexico to embark on “cultural enrichment” policies that would reduce the Hispanic population to a minority. People would immediately shout “genocide” at the very idea. Why do the same people view the equivalent “genocide” of white Americans with dispassion or even glee? 

 

Within the United States itself, the same rule applies: Anything that was once all-white must be integrated, but non-whites may stake out an unlimited number of racially exclusive territories. This is most obvious in the case of blacks, who consistently establish black student unions, black newspapers, black political caucuses, black private schools, black neighborhoods where whites are unwelcome. The rule is consistent: “diversity,” dispossession, and dwindling numbers for whites; racial solidarity, ethnic pride, and increasing numbers for everyone else. 

 

By now you may have noticed that the morality of my position is based on nothing more than equal treatment. I want for my people only what I am happy to offer to others. Is not The Golden Rule the standard for morality? It likewise applies to races: Do not do to us what you would not want done to yourselves. 

 

Assuredly, whites have not always lived by that rule, but we have been punished enough for our past sins. What I oppose is the stark unfairness of an ideology that requires whites alone to sacrifice their racial interests while all others promote theirs at our expense. 

 

There is, however, one aspect of the racial problem that will always be unjust. Mexicans do not come to America and blacks do not demand entree into white society because they kindly seek to share with us the benefits of “diversity.” They do not come to give but to take. They come because we have built better societies than they can and they want to profit from the work of our ancestors. I do not reproach them for this; they want a better life for their children. But it means that “integration” is always a one-way street — non-whites pushing their way in among whites. Whites do not move to El Salvador or Burundi for a better life. 

 

It is this eternal, fateful injustice that explains why the false struggles over “multiculturalism,” “xenophobia,” and “racism” are always fought out in white nations and are always used to put whites on the defensive. White nations attract aliens. In their misguided generosity, Europe, America, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand have now accepted enough non-whites to create parallel societies and racial friction. 

 

There is no “racism” problem in Bolivia or Chad because no foreigners wants to live there. No outside forces threaten the cultural or racial integrity of Harlem or Mexico or Haiti or the South Bronx or Cambodia or Nigeria. It is because of their ability to build agreeable societies that whites face a problem no other races (except the Japanese and, soon, other North Asians) face: They must exclude others or be swamped. Our crisis is unique, for it is only whites who will be swept away if they do nothing. Only white nations must guard against the relentless, transforming influx of aliens who are not only different from us but who, increasingly, despise us and everything we stand for. 

 

You will argue, as many have, that even if these arguments apply to non-citizens who want to come to America, they do not apply to the descendants of Africans we brought here by force. Their circumstances are certainly different but the threat they pose is essentially the same. 

 

First, it is worth noting that today’s blacks live among us because they want to. Despite the current fashion for Afro-centrism, practically no American black wants to live in Africa. A single visit to the dark continent is usually enough to cure even the fiercest black supremacists of that desire. They may take African names and wear African clothes, but they would rather live in a country with good public health and reliable telephones. Also, despite cliches about white American racism, there are hundreds of thousands of visa applications on file with our consulates in Africa. Africans want to come here as badly as anyone else. 

 

It is African Americans who, in fact, demonstrate best the irreducible nature of race. Blacks have lived among us for centuries. They have been culturally formed on this continent. Yet, as a group, they are a greater threat to Anglo-European civility than even the non-whites who arrive as genuine aliens. 

 

Blacks, more than anyone, profit from the wealth and orderliness of a society they cannot build or even maintain, while they cry “racism” because they do not have as much as whites. They insist on full participation in our communities and institutions, yet many take it for granted that they may exclude us from theirs. 

 

Nothing remains the same after blacks have put their mark on it. Once the number of blacks reaches a certain level, schools, cities, neighborhoods, and even nations quickly lose the qualities that whites find necessary for civilized life. This cannot be blamed on slavery or Jim Crow. Blacks simply do not build communities in which whites can decently live. And once we have let them into our own communities, many of them openly vent their contempt for us by despising our heroes, breaking our laws, robbing, raping and killing us. 

 

Everyone knows this, of course, even if few admit it. The question for me is what to do about it and the question for you is whether it is moral to do anything about it. In fact, you already have done something about it — the very thing most whites do. You have disengaged yourself and your family from blacks (and other non-whites) as much as possible. I think we can be sure that if Cape Cod had a majority black or Hispanic population you would not live there. 

 

It is still possible to disengage oneself from non-whites because whites are still a majority. The tide of color rises slowly — block by block and neighborhood by neighborhood — but eventually, the demographers tell us, it will swamp us all. In this sense non-white Americans are no different from immigrants. They push their way into the midst of whites, who quite naturally withdraw. The territory they occupy then changes fundamentally and is no longer subject to the cultural and civic traditions dear to us. If parts of Texas and California are, for all practical purposes, occupied by Mexico, many of our cities have been occupied by Liberia. Camden, New Jersey, is just as lost to Western civilization as central Miami. Unless whites, as a race, can disengage from non-whites, they are doomed as a people and as a culture. 

 

Something that complicates this issue is the fact that there will always be some non-whites who embrace our civilization and make important contributions to it. Yo-yo Mah plays the white man’s music as if his ancestors wrote it. Thomas Sowell writes beautifully in the tradition of European scholarship. Moreover, if the number of non-whites is small, even unremarkable people adopt the majority culture; they have no choice. But once the concentration of non-whites reaches a critical mass, racial-cultural loyalty becomes fatally divisive. We see the evidence for this everywhere. Our country is well into the stage of fatal divisiveness, and the racial fault lines grow deeper every day. 

 

The problem, then, is this. If we do nothing, all of America will in time become Detroit and South-Central Los Angeles. There will be nothing left of the Anglo-European culture you and I both love. Nothing. The hopes and sacrifices of our ancestors will have been wasted, the civilization they built wrecked. Our survival is at stake, and I see nothing that will save us unless we are free to disengage. 

 

Once again, this is our unique dilemma. Non-whites pursue us wherever we go because they covet what we build. But once they arrive in sufficient numbers, they destroy what they came to find. 

 

All I ask is that whites be left alone to let their culture and civilization unfold unmolested. Is this too much? Is it immoral? 

 

You seem to assume that the faintest white racial consciousness and the mildest posture of self defense will lead to blood bath. By wanting to be left alone in the preference of my own people do I proclaim myself a potential mass murderer? By noting that Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln thought that a multi-racial society could not succeed, do I become a successor not to them but to Adolph Hitler? Were the debate about anything else, I think you would see how fantastic a mental leap you are making. 

 

Consider President Clinton. He wants America to have socialized medicine. He wants a system in which medical treatment is paid for and consumed “from each according to his ability to each according to his need.” But was that not the theory that led to Stalin’s massacres, the Gulag, the enslavement of Eastern Europe, and slaughter in Cambodia? Perhaps you had better warn the President. 

 

I might note that ever since the French Revolution, far more people have been killed in the name of equality and the brotherhood of man than in the name of separation. Why is your fear so selective?  There is no doubt that by defending ourselves we will deny others something they want. This cannot be avoided. If someone wants your wallet, by defending yourself you deny him its contents. Some non-whites who want to live among us and profit from our achievements will not be able to do so. That will be unpleasant for them, but they will be denied only the benefits of a civilization they did not build. 

 

It is good and generous for you to worry that non-whites might suffer if whites regain a sense of their own racial interests. But do our sufferings count for nothing? Do the deaths and losses of whites at the hands of black and Hispanic criminals count for nothing? Do the collapse of our public schools and the vilification of our traditions count for nothing? Do the hardships of whites driven from their neighborhoods count for nothing? Does the transformation of our great cities into hives of degeneracy count for nothing? Does the long-term threat of cultural extinction count for nothing? 

 

Sometimes it seems as though a majority of whites would prefer to disappear quietly rather than do anything that any other group would find unpleasant. Some people are extreme pacifists who would rather let themselves be killed than commit violence to save themselves, but they are invariably thought odd. Why is it that so many people who are not personal pacifists are nevertheless racial pacificsts? They would not hesitate to defend their families but they refuse to defend their race and culture when threatened in a similar way. 

 

Of course, self defense is not a license for violence, and it is not possible to guarantee that self defense will never go too far. However, our choice is between dispossession and some act to forestall dispossession. The normal, healthy, moral course is to act. 

 

Today, any expression by whites of racial consciousness is called “hate” just as the Soviets used to treat any interest in free markets as mental illness. I have a first loyalty to my people, to my race and culture. It is not because they are the best — however much I may like them — but because they are mine. As the French proverb puts it: “All nations think themselves better than their neighbors; and all nations are right.” Somehow, in the last several decades, the rules changed, but only for white people. If a black man says “I love black people,” or if a Hispanic says “I love Latinos,” they are taken at their word and no one disapproves. If a white man says “I love white people,” he is treated as if he had said “I hate spics and niggers.” 

 

You write as if we still lived in an overwhelmingly Anglo-European society with a smattering of helpless non-whites who deserve justice and tolerance. To feel animus toward a powerless out-group that poses no threat would be blameworthy; not to feel animus or at least dread for groups that threaten the very character of our nation — and for the whites who cheer them on — is wholly unnatural. As liberals always do, you see any healthy attempt to preserve the European character of our country as evidence of a moral flaw. 

 

I will draw a parallel that may explain how it feels always to have one’s motives impugned and one’s arguments ignored. You love your sons more than you care for the children of strangers — not necessarily because they are better than all other children but because they are yours. That is natural and healthy. I think you would agree that loving your sons does not in any way imply that you hate other people’s children or wish them harm. Let us now imagine a society built on the assumption that all adults should care equally for all children. People have actually tried out this idea and, of course, it has failed. 

 

In such a society, your natural emotions would be called bigotry. Any expression of love for your children would be called “hatred” for the children of others. Any attempt to explain that loving your own children implied no hatred for others would be called “cogent, calm arguments that chill the soul,” which is how you characterize racialist reasoning. How would you feel as the target of such accusations? 

 

In fact, the real situation is far worse. All other parents take it for granted that they should love their children but they don’t give a fig for yours. It is only you, who must sacrifice for the children of others. To put it in racial terms, is this not what affirmative action and “diversity” require of whites? To love the children of non-whites more than they love their own? To accept race-based penalties so that other races can reap race-based rewards? To cheer their own dispossession and to rejoice as their numbers dwindle? And to be dismissed as degenerates if they refuse to embrace this travesty? 

 

The defense of one’s people is not, as you call it, “the easy way out.” Your way — to do nothing — is the easy way. There will still be classical music and productions of Shakespeare and Independence Day parades for as long as you and I are around to enjoy them. Our country will slowly get grimmer and darker, more blighted and more violent, but even if we do nothing, there will always be enclaves of Anglo-European civility to which we can escape. 

 

It is your grandchildren who will inherit a nation in which they are a despised minority, one in which they will be unable to avoid the barbarism, incompetence, and corruption of the third world peoples who may have displaced us. Your grandchildren may live on a spit of land called Cape Cod, but it will not be the Cape Cod you live on. Through your inaction it will have become what Detroit and South-Central Los Angeles are today. My contemporaries may curse me for what I do; your grandchildren will curse you for what you did not do

 

WHY RACE MATTERS 

By Samuel Francis (1994)

There is an old saying — supposedly an ancient Chinese curse: “May you live in interesting times.” Today the curse has come true. The interesting times are here. What is most interesting about them is that for perhaps the first time in history, certainly for one of the few times in history, we are witnessing the more or less peaceful transfer of power from one civilization and from the race that created and bore that civilization, to different races. 

 

In South Africa, the transfer has already been completed, at least in a formal political sense, with the apparent support of most of the white population. In the remainder of what was once the common imperium of the European people in Africa and Asia, the transfer has long since taken place, occurring when the imperial powers withdrew or were chased out of the territories they had conquered. 

 

In Europe the transfer has probably not quite yet begun on any major scale, and it probably will not begin until the immigration of non-whites is considerably further along than it is now. But in North America and more especially in the United States the transfer is well under way. It is in our own nation that the times are most interesting and therefore most cursed. 

 

We see the transfer of power in almost every dimension of public and private life. Thus far, the transfer is more cultural than it is political or economic; it is clear in the rise of multiculturalism, Afro-centrism, and the other anti-white cults and movements in university curricula, and in the penetration of even daily private life by the anti-white ethic and behavior these cults impose. It is clear in the ever-quickening war against the traditional symbols of the old civilization and the elevation of the symbols of the new peoples who aim at their displacement. 

 

The Martin Luther King holiday in 1983 was the first and most important instance of the trend but by no means the last; indeed, it can be argued that the King holiday was merely the legitimizing agent of the attacks on other symbols that have occurred since. Attacks on the display of the Confederate battle flag and on other Confederate and Southern white symbols are now commonplace, but the Alamo in San Antonio is another traditional white symbol that is also under attack — by Hispanics. The Custer battlefield in Montana now celebrates the Indian victory, although what is historically memorable about the battle of the Little Big Horn is not the victory of several thousand Indians over a small American cavalry detachment but rather the defeat of whites at the hands of non-whites. 

 

The holidays, public anniversaries, flags, songs, statues, museums, symbols, and heroes that a people shares are fundamental to its identity and its existence as a people. What we are witnessing on the official level of public culture in the attacks on these traditional symbols and their displacement by the symbols of other races is the effective abolition of one people and the gradual creation of another. 

 

Of course, this process is not limited to official culture, which is often merely the plaything of politicians. It is also true even more clearly on the level of popular culture, by which is meant today not the culture created by the people but rather the culture created by elites for consumption by the people. Western movies now routinely define the whites as the villains and the Indians and Mexicans — or, even more fantastically, blacks — as the heroes or martyrs. Almost all TV and cinematic depictions of the Civil War now unequivocally portray the South and Confederates as the villains; perhaps at best misguided but nonetheless on the wrong side of history. 

 

It is routine also to display almost all criminals — rapists, murderers, robbers — as whites, though the statistical truth, of course, is that violent crime in the United States is largely the work of non-whites. A few years ago, political scientist Robert Lichter showed in a study that while during the last 30 years, whites were arrested for 40 percent of the murders committed in the United States, on television whites committed 90 percent of the murders. 

 

Non-whites are frequently shown as not only heroic but also dominant over whites. It is a staple feature of police movies to portray blacks as the administrative superiors of the white protagonists, Mel Gibson’s “Lethal Weapon” series being perhaps the best-known. The second installment in the series even depicted white South Africans — today’s Hollywood version of Nazis, no doubt — as masterminding drug smuggling into the United States. 

 

While the explicit racial hatred of whites expressed in black-directed films is well known, an increasingly common theme in mainstream television and film is that of the dangers represented by hordes of violent and vicious white supremacists, skinheads, neo-Nazis, paleo-Nazis, and racist terrorists who seem to lurk in every city, behind every storefront, in every small town throughout the country, everywhere, all the time. Recently, in the ABC-TV production of the eight-hour film of Stephen King’s “The Stand,” a tale of the final struggle at the end of the world between supernatural forces of good and evil, the personification of goodness and of God was an elderly black woman, while the devil was portrayed as a blue-eyed, blond-haired white man, whose evil followers waved the Confederate flag. Even at the end of the world, it seems, Hollywood cannot rid us of white racism. 

 

Most of these examples, to be sure, are trivial enough. Euro-American civilization and the people who created it can survive the artistic contributions of Stephen King and Mel Gibson — maybe. But these examples are of interest precisely because they are so trivial and because for the most part they do not represent the main, explicit subject matter of popular culture today. In the 1960s, a film like “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner” explicitly explored the subject of interracial marriage and brought it up for discussion, but today anti-white themes more typically provide the background and the context of popular entertainment. As such they either sneak into the public consciousness unexamined or in many cases are already there. 

 

The erasure and displacement of official cultural symbols and the similar process in elite-produced, mass-consumed popular culture represents the expropriation of cultural norms, the standards by which public and private behavior is legitimized or condemned and a culture defined. While the traditional norms that are being attacked and discarded were almost never explicitly racial, the new norms that are being constructed and imposed are, and they are not only explicitly racial but also explicitly and vociferously anti-white. 

 

This is a calculated tactic aimed at seizing cultural legitimacy and cultural hegemony and ultimately coercive political power on behalf of non-whites at the expense of whites. At the most extreme, the anti-white racialist movement resembles the ideology of German National Socialism. It offers a conspiratorial interpretation of history in which whites are systematically demonized as the enemies of the black race, and a myth of black racial solidarity and supremacy. “Afro-racism” is the ideological and political apparatus by which an explicit race war is prepared against the white race and its civilization, not as part of “rage” nor as a response to “injustice” and “neglect” but, like any war, as part of a concerted strategy to acquire power. It is not confined to blacks but extends also to other non-whites who care to sign up. 

 

Of course non-whites are by no means the only peddlers of anti-white racism. One of the most remarkable features of our interesting times is the degree to which whites themselves help dig their own racial and civilizational grave. I have in my hand here a relatively new magazine to which I am sure you will all want to subscribe at once, entitled Race Traitor: A Journal of the New Abolitionism, published in Cambridge, Massachusetts, whose motto is, “Treason to Whiteness is Loyalty to Humanity.” The editors quote Julius Lester as writing that “White is not in the color of the skin. It is a condition of the mind, a condition that will be destroyed.” 

 

While Race Traitor does not seem to advocate physical genocide, it assumes that race is merely a social invention rather than a fact of nature and argues for the abolition of the concept of race as applied to whites. Racial identity is forbidden for whites but not for non-whites (or at least blacks). Of course the explicit goal is to destroy white civilization by doing away with the symbols and institutions of the collective consciousness that defines the race and is the foundation of the culture. 

 

Yet the war against the white race and its civilization is not new. It is part of a world-historical movement that began in the late 19th century, perhaps not coincidentally, around the time of the battle of the Little Big Horn, and which the American racialist writer Lothrop Stoddard called, in the frank language of the 1920s, “The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy” and which Oswald Spengler a few years later called the “Coloured World Revolution.” 

 

It is easy to smile at such formulations today, but Martin Luther King himself explicitly and repeatedly linked the American civil rights movement with what in a 1960 address entitled “The Rising Tide of Racial Consciousness” he called a “worldwide struggle.” In his Playboy interview in 1965, King remarked, in a frank endorsement of racialist sentiment, that the American Negro “feels a deepening sense of identification with his black African brothers, and with his brown and yellow brothers of Asia, South America and the Caribbean.” 

 

We recently witnessed just such a display of racial solidarity at the inauguration of Nelson Mandela in South Africa, when King’s widow, Coretta Scott King, arrived to stand by his side. Mrs. King, of course, does not travel thousands of miles to celebrate the victories of democracy in Eastern Europe, but only to countries where her racial comrades are being empowered. 

 

It is true that Martin Luther King, Mrs. King, Mandela, and many other spokesmen for the “rising tide of [non-white] racial consciousness” espouse a liberal rhetoric that ostensibly promises racial equality rather than domination. But whether these spokesmen really believe in such a liberal vision or whether they merely wield it as a weapon against whites, there is little question that most blacks in the United States do not share liberal views about equality, freedom, and tolerance. 

 

A recent Harris poll conducted for the National Conference released in March 1994 showed that non-white minorities (Hispanic as well as black) “are more likely than whites to apply harsh stereotypes to other minorities but are united in the view that whites are ‘bigoted, bossy and unwilling to share power,’” and the poll found that each minority believed it “is discriminated against by a white-controlled economy and educational system.” Regardless of the liberalism espoused in public by many non-whites, these are hardly the attitudes from which a genuinely liberal policy can be expected to develop. 

 

Some who support racial revolution may be sincere in invoking liberty, equality, and fraternity, but historical evidence suggests that it cannot be so. Historian William H. McNeill argues in a set of lectures delivered in 1985 at the University of Toronto that what he calls “ethnic hierarchy” is “on the rise, everywhere,” and that it is indeed the normal condition of human civilizations. “Other civilized societies,” writes McNeill, “have almost always accepted and enforced inequality among the diverse ethnic groups of which they were composed.” 

 

McNeill’s term “ethnic hierarchy,” of course, consists of words derived from Greek; if those words are loosely (but not too loosely) translated into their Latin equivalents, it is clear that McNeill is saying that racial domination, in one form or another, is the norm of human civilizations, that equality has little historical foundation, and that the illusion of such equality is about to be rudely dispelled. 

 

The fraudulence of the liberalism espoused by the leaders of the racial revolution was clear to Spengler himself. “The hare,” he wrote in his last book, The Hour of Decision, “may perhaps deceive the fox, but human beings can not deceive each other. The coloured man sees through the white man when he talks about “humanity’ and everlasting peace. He scents the other’s unfitness and lack of will to defend himself… The coloured races are not pacifists. They do not cling to a life whose length is its sole value. They take up the sword when we lay it down. Once they feared the white man; now they despise him.” 

 

What is happening in our interesting times, then, to summarize briefly, is this. A concerted and long-term attack against the civilization of white, European and North American man has been launched, and the attack is not confined to the political, social and cultural institutions that characterize the civilization but extends also to the race that created the civilization and continues to carry and transmit it today. The war against white civilization sometimes (indeed often) invokes liberal ideals as its justification and as its goal, but the likely reality is that the victory of the racial revolution will end merely in the domination or destruction of the white race and its civilization by the non-white peoples — if only for demographic reasons due to non-white immigration and the decline of white birth rates. 

 

We know from the population projections by the U.S. Census Bureau last year that by the middle of the next century the present white majority of the United States will have dwindled to a minority in its own country, and given that fact and the increasing legitimization of anti-white racism in the United States, the situation in this country for whites is not going to get any better, to say the least. 

 

Of course, the revolution could not have succeeded or gone as far as it has without the active assistance of whites. Some have supported the racial revolution against their own race and civilization and even larger numbers have acquiesced passively, their allegiance to their own people steadily subverted by the infusion of hidden assumptions hostile to them. 

 

Stoddard and Spengler as well as the late James Burnham in his Suicide of the West analyzed these self-generated poisons by which the Western people prepare their own destruction. The ideological poison has assumed several different names: Marxism, liberalism, globalism, egalitarianism, and indeed much of the conservatism now espoused by people like Jack Kemp, Newt Gingrich, Bill Bennett, and William Buckley, as well as a good part of Christianity, especially in its “Social Gospel” forms. But behind all of these ideologies and slogans lies the pervasive venom of universalism, the vision of mankind with a capital M, which now often extends to include “animal rights” so as not to offend our brothers of field and stream. 

 

In the universalist world-view, there is neither history nor race nor even species, neither specific cultures nor particular peoples nor meaningful boundaries. Therefore there are no concrete duties to race, nation, community, family, friend or neighbor and indeed no distinctions to be drawn between neighbor and stranger, friend and foe, mine and thine, us and them. 

 

In the happyland of universalism, we owe as much to the children of Somalia — indeed, more — than we do to the hapless citizens of Los Angeles, and Marines who could not have been sent from Camp Pendleton to Los Angeles during the riots of 1992 and who are not ordered to prevent violation of the Mexican border adjacent to their own installation in southern California are speedily dispatched to Somalia. Even to invoke “our” identity, our interests, our aspirations is to invite accusations of all the “isms” and “phobias” that are deployed to prevent further discussions and to paralyze the formation or the retention of a common consciousness that might at some point swell up into actual resistance to our dispossession. The principal white response to the incipient race war thus far, manifested in neo-conservative critiques of “Political Correctness” and multiculturalism, is merely to regurgitate the formulas of universalism, to invoke the spirit of Martin Luther King, and to repeat the universalist ideals of equality, integration, and assimilation. The characteristic defense of Western civilization by most conservatives today is merely a variation of the liberal universalism that the enemies of the West and whites also invoke. It is to argue that non-whites and non-Westerners ought to value modern Western civilization as in their own best interests. It is to emphasize the liberal “progress” of the modern West through the abolition of slavery, the emancipation of non-whites, the retreat from imperialism, the achievement of higher living standards and political equality, etc. 

 

Of course, if the liberalism espoused by non-whites is a thin veil for the assertion of their own racial solidarity against whites, then all such argumentation is vain. It accomplishes nothing to preach liberalism to those who despise liberalism along with everything else derived from the white West. The uselessness of doing so was pointed out by the 19th century French rightist Louis Veuillot in his ironic comment, “When I am the weaker, I ask you for my freedom, because that is your principle; but when I am the stronger, I take away your freedom, because that is my principle.” Or, as Neitzsche put a similar thought even more succinctly, “The values of the weak prevail because the strong have taken them over as devices of leadership.” 

 

Instead of invoking a suicidal liberalism and regurgitating the very universalism that has subverted our identity and our sense of solidarity, what we as whites must do is reassert our identity and our solidarity, and we must do so in explicitly racial terms through the articulation of a racial consciousness as whites. The reassertion of our solidarity must be expressed in racial terms for two major reasons. In the first place, the attack upon us defines itself in racial terms and seeks through the delegitimization of race for whites and the legitimization of race for non-whites the dispersion and destruction of the foundations of our solidarity while at the same time consolidating non-white cohesiveness against whites. 

 

Historian Isaiah Berlin noted in 1991 that “nationalism and racism are the most powerful movements in the world today,” and at a time when the self-declared enemies of the white race define themselves in racial terms, only our own definition of ourselves in those terms can meet their challenge. If and when that challenge should triumph and those enemies come to kill us as the Tutsi people have been slaughtered in Rwanda, they will do so not because we are “Westerners” or “Americans” or “Christians” or “conservatives” or “liberals” but because we are white. 

 

Secondly, we need to assert a specifically racial identity because race is real — biological forces, including those that determine race, are important for social, cultural, and historical events. I do not suggest that race as a biological reality is by itself sufficient to explain the civilization of European man — if race were sufficient, there would be no problem — but race is necessary for it, and it is likely that biological science in the near future will show even more clearly how necessary racial, biological, and genetic explanations are to understanding social and historical events more fully. 

 

The civilization that we as whites created in Europe and America could not have developed apart from the genetic endowments of the creating people, nor is there any reason to believe that the civilization can be successfully transmitted to a different people. If the people or race who created and sustained the civilization of the West should die, then the civilization also will die. A merely cultural consciousness, then, that emphasizes only social and cultural factors as the roots of our civilization is not enough, because a merely cultural consciousness will not by itself conserve the race and people that were necessary for the creation of the culture and who remain necessary for its survival. We need not only to understand the role of race in creating our civilization but also to incorporate that understanding in our defense of our civilization. Until we do so, we can expect only to keep on losing the war we are in. 

 

The fundamental problem of the American white population was unwittingly identified by Newsweek in its March 29, 1993 cover story on “White Male Paranoia.” In an effort to puncture any tendencies among white men to think of themselves as victims, endangered or exploited, Newsweek pointed out that “White males make up just 39.2 percent of the population, yet they account for 82.5 percent of the Forbes 400 (folks worth at least $265 million), 77 percent of Congress, 92 percent of daily-newspaper editors, 77 percent of TV news directors.” From this avalanche of numbers, Newsweek infers that it’s “still a statistical piece of cake being a white man, at least in comparison with being anything else.” Newsweek may be right in its numbers, but the numbers miss the point. 

 

What the numbers tell us is that whites do not act cohesively or think of themselves as a unit, that whites have no racial consciousness; if they did, they would be using their persisting political, economic, and cultural power in their own interests, and the very perceptible “white male paranoia” that Newsweek was talking about — the very real sense of an incipient slippage from a position of control — would not exist. 

 

In the United States today, whites exist objectively but do not exist subjectively, and that is in my view the fundamental racial problem they face, the basic reason they (I should say “we”) are losing the racial war against us, the very reason we are in a war at all. Newsweek’s numbers offer proof of the objective existence of whites and of white power as measured materially and quantitatively; the spineless abnegation of their own country and culture that is at the root of white male paranoia offers proof of the absence of a subjective existence. Whites do not exist subjectively because they do not think of themselves as whites, they do not act cohesively as whites, and they do not think being white is important or even meaningful. 

 

As long as whites continue to avoid and deny their own racial identity, at a time when almost every other racial and ethnic category is rediscovering and asserting its own, whites will have no chance to resist their dispossession and their eventual possible physical destruction. Before we can seriously discuss any concrete proposals for preserving our culture and its biological and demographic foundations, we have to address and correct the problem we inflict on ourselves, our own lack of a racial consciousness and the absence of a common will to act in accordance with it. 

 

What Benjamin Franklin told his colleagues at the birth of the American Republic remains true today as the Republic, and the race and civilization that gave birth to the Republic, approach their death: If we do not hang together — not only as members of a common nation but also as part of a common race, a common people — then most assuredly we will all hang separately. 

 

WHAT EUROPEAN ACTIVISTS SEEK

European Americans are a cohesive and legitimate cultural group and are entitled to our ethnic identity, to have a sense of belonging and oneness with our kind. We have the right to promote our interests, just as all other ethnic groups do. We are not supremacists, we do not wish to be supreme over anyone, nor do we wish to hate, harm or oppress anyone. We simply wish to live in a society that is ours, that reflects our interests, our culture and our heritage. We certainly do not wish to live in a society that demonizes us, where we are doomed to become an increasingly small and powerless minority.

 

A race is quite a bit like an extended family. We all care more about our families than those who are not related to us, its just part of being human. Our relatives are part of us, they share the same blood and the same lineage. It should be no surprise that Asians care more about other Asians than they do about Hispanics. The same is true for all ethnic groups. 

 

There is nothing wrong with any ethnic group feeling a strong sense of racial consciousness, including European Americans. Richard McCulloch writes that racial consciousness, "when primarily motivated by positive feelings, can be defined as love of one's race and loyalty to, and support for, its legitimate and vital interests. Vital interests are those which are life-essential. They are the conditions required for continued existence, development, health and well-being, to preserve the race in undiminished, undiluted, unaltered and distinct form. They are the conditions required for successful reproduction and the avoidance of intermixture with other races (misreproduction or malreproduction, the most harmful form of nonreproduction). They are racial separation, reproductive isolation, self-determination, sovereignty, freedom and independence". In other words, we wish to have the nation, society and culture that our founders envisioned. We believe that all people have a basic human right to preserve their own heritage. As Rudyard Kipling wrote:

 

Land of our Birth, we pledge to thee 

Our love and toil in the years to be; 

When we are grown and take our place, 

As men and women with our race. 

 

Father in Heaven who lovest all, 

Oh help Thy children when they call; 

That they may build from age to age, 

An undefiled heritage.