Fuck Anglo-Saxons!

A recent article about a psychiatric pill in the United Kingdom that “cures racism” elicited some lively comments at The Occidental Observer of which I’ll only reproduce a few:

Fender said…

“Why am I not surprised to see that such a ‘study’ should come out of England?”
(Jarvis Dingle-Daden)

The Anglos are natural schemers and utopians, just like the tribe [the Jews]. That’s why they’ve been natural allies for the past four centuries. Along with the tribe, they feel they have a right to “improve” and rule over the world.

This is why I’m starting to believe that the Anglos, and to a lesser extent, the Western Europeans, need to be miscegenated out of existence by the lower races. They’re a downright dangerous race of people—basically the vicious bulldogs of the tribe, attacking anyone who stands up to them.

The Northern and Western European nations are hotbeds of Marxism, “antiracism,” and utopian thought. They’re a threat to Central and Eastern Europe, where many people have been immunized against Judaic nonsense due to their past histories with communism. We never, ever see studies like this [the search of an anti-racist psychiatric drug] coming from Russia, the Czech republic, Ukraine, etc. Estonia recently honored its SS heroes and its government actually prevented the dumb antifa from interfering. Tens of thousands of proud nationalists openly march the streets of Russia and Ukraine. The governments of Belarus and Hungary are explicitly pro-White. These are the governments and nations that the Anglo-Jewish power establishment wants to destroy.

This may offend some, but if the European races hope to survive, its most infected limbs need to be amputated. In my mind, this means the Anglos and Nordics. Both tribes are fiercely Marxist, universalist, and suicidal, and they cannot be allowed to take the rest of Europe down with them.

Bobby said…

Fender, I agree with you completely on the views you hold of the groups you mentioned. I have had a theory about this for quite a while now. Let me try it out on you.

After the disaster for Europe called World War II, most Europeans were devastated in a way that Americans cannot even imagine. War, or any aggression at all, became anathema to them. They became sick and tired of any conflict. So they decided to throw themselves fully into materialism. The factories of Europe started going and because of the Soviet and American distrust of each other a mere two to three years after the war, the U.S. quickly lost any “moralistic” ideas of punishing Germany any longer. Instead some money was pumped into Europe not out of any altruism, but for the practical purpose of helping to defend America’s interests.

So Western Europe experienced a boom in prosperity that it had never known in modern times. You could see this by the increase in car ownership, and the general state of better living. In fact, the German Chancellor Ludwig Erhard, a trained economist, announced that concentrating on economics would be Germany’s salvation. All kinds of frivolous activities were engaged in and it continues. What I’m saying is that Western Europeans, unlike their poor and caged-in relatives in the East, became lazy, supermaterialistic, and confused.

The confusion was the result of the widespread leftist egalitarian teachings in almost every single university in Western Europe. And of course, along with this teaching went the usual guilt-trip that whites were the problem and need to repent and change the world, etc. The Western Eurocrats got away with pushing this stuff, because the economies of Europe were good and no one saw a reason to complain.

So, even though things are rapidly changing in Western Europe, due to economics and the left’s successes in preaching egalitarianism, [what] this sixty-plus year brainwashing and shangrilla Western Europe experienced is still the model in the minds of most Western Europeans, even though the paradigm is changing.

Things are most dangerous when an accepted paradigm no longer has relevance and a new one is about to emerge.

Hasbara Matata said…

Slavic superiority. Right.

The root of the problem with all Whites in this regard­—being “liberal” [means] suicide—is Christianity. Like Marxism, which is Christianity’s twin that was born second, Christianity is proxy-Judaism; it makes us self-destructive, since we’ve internalized universalist kosher hokum along with a Jew as the savior and creator of the universe. Unfortunately, after 2000 years of Whites soaking their brains with Jewish myths, there are very few who are psychologically capable of accepting it.

It’s a lesson that even Kevin MacDonald himself needs to learn.

Fender said…

Apartheid was constructed because the WASPs thought that, deep down, blacks are just like them. Same thing with Manifest Destiny and colonialism: these never happened due to racial supremacism, but because WASPs thought savages can be civilized. Now the WASPs think White racialists are the savages, and that they too can be civilized, in their “altruism” they’re going to murder and oppress any Whites in their attempt to improve and civilize the world.

I’ll grant you that Slavs have a grin-and-bear-it mentality, but let’s not forget that the Jews needed to mass murder millions in the East to gain power while they took over the West without firing a shot.

Vened said…

Fender: I have an acquaintance. She and her parents were born in Rhodesia (Zimbabwe). They left Rhodesia long time ago for obvious reasons. She still thinks that giving up that land to blacks was the right thing to do. She is of English descent. I see exactly the same Anglo mindset in the United States of America.

As an Eastern Slav, my blood boils watching Anglos abandoning North America…

The most authoritative treatment of white separatism

The following article, “The Northwest Novels of H. A. Covington,” published originally at Vanguard News Network, is the sixth essay in Michael O’Meara’s book Toward the White Republic, available from Counter-Currents Publishing here.

“Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live.”

—Adolf Hitler

H. A. Covington’s Northwest Trilogy of novels—Hill of the Ravens (2003), A Distant Thunder (2004), and A Mighty Fortress (2005) [a fourth and a fifth novels, The Brigade (2007) and Freedom’s Sons (unpublished MS) were written after this essay was published]—now represents the most authoritative treatment of white separatism in the English language. Both as popular fiction and political tract, it is a remarkable work. But most remarkable of all is the utter silence that surrounds it. If not for a VNN “commentator” (the wise and judicious “New America”), I might never have heard of it.

I’m not quite certain why this is. Covington’s Trilogy is infinitely more readable and convincing than William Pierce’s Turner Diaries (now one of our classics), but has probably sold only a fraction as many copies. Part of the problem with its reception might lie in the fact that Covington, a veteran of the NS movement, has made not a few enemies within “the racially conscious community,” evident in his numerous critical references to William Pierce, as well as to Matt Koehl, Ben Klassen, Tom Metzger, David Duke, Martin Webster, John Tyndall, and others.

Without any actual knowledge of Covington’s personal history or of the sectarian squabbles that have alienated him from other racial nationalists, there may be, for this reason, a subtext to his Trilogy that eludes me.

I only know the Trilogy as a work of political fiction.

On this basis, though, I can categorically say that Covington is a great talent and that his work speaks, as no other does, to the burning question of our age.

Political fiction has one overriding purpose: to reach those who can’t be reached through rational discourse. In this, Covington’s Trilogy is superb. It is full of memorable characters—classic American types (daring, two-fisted white men) who remind us of our ancestors and not the ridiculous creatures we see on nightly television. It abounds with actions and adventures that evoke our earliest racial memories and reveal what we can be once free of the Jews’ lunar spirit. It conveys the ideals of our movement in a language and style accessible to those who might otherwise ignore them. It tells an exciting story that is both entertaining and didactic. But above all it imagines a course of action—perhaps the one possible course of action—that will ensure our existence as a people. Whatever one may say of Covington the activist, it has to be acknowledged that he’s made a work of art of his separatist vision, and it deserves a hearing.

It is not, though, his art that I want to address in this essay, but rather certain of his ideas, three of which I think are fundamental to the politics of white racial survival in this period. To put these ideas in their proper context, something, though, needs first to be said of the story Covington tells.

As a separatist, he believes the present situation is such that any hope of reversing America’s “de-Europeanization” or replacing the Judeo-globalist regime in Washington responsible for it is no longer feasible. The sole option left to whites seeking to ensure their existence in North America is to break off a portion of the lands their ancestors possessed and establish a white homeland. To this end he proposes the “migration” of racially aware whites to the Pacific Northwest—the whitest section of the United States—to create there the critical mass that will be needed once the time comes to wage an anti-colonial war against the Washington regime.

Premised on this migration, his three novels revolve around events that occur sometime in the second or third decade of the 21st century, when all the tendencies presently in place have been taken to their horrific and ethnocidal extension.

For reasons almost providential, whites in Coeur d’Alene Idaho finally rebel, when they spontaneously resist federal agents attempting to carry off the children of a politically incorrect but well-regarded family. Locally based members of the “party” created by the migration then intervene. They help arm, organize, and lead several hundred Coeur d’Alene whites against the troops sent in to crush them. Their rebellion is quickly quashed, but, like Ireland’s Easter Uprising, it ignites a war for national independence.

From three different perspectives Covington tells the story of the Northwest Volunteer Army (NVA), as it leads an IRA-style terror campaign against the Judeo-globalist forces in control of the United States. The NVA’s struggle is greatly facilitated by the fact that in this future period American society and the US government have become even more incompetent than they are today. The US military is bogged down in endless Mideastern wars fought on Israel’s behalf; its social system is increasingly dysfunctional, balkanized into rival racial-ethnic interest groups; an ever-growing part of the white population, unable to compete with coolie labor, is condemned to unemployment or conscription; and the material prosperity that has long served as a race-obliterating opiate has given way to the growing impoverishment and alienation of the white masses.

For five bitter years, the NVA wages the “war of the flea,” blowing up key infrastructure, sabotaging databases, attacking the regime’s tax-collecting and judiciary agents, intimidating employers of non-white labor—even sending Volunteers to disrupt the vulnerable lifelines that allow New York and Washington to function as the regime’s central nervous system.

Unable to sustain the damages and disruptions of these assaults, the federal government, mainly for financial reasons, is eventually forced to negotiate a peace settlement with the insurgents, negotiations which end up sanctioning the secession of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho (along with parts of Northern California, Wyoming, and Montana) from the United States and the establishment of a white homeland under the political auspices of a Northwest American Republic.

1. The Jewnited States

Unlike racial conservatives and not a few white nationalists, Covington sees the United States—not just the current Administration, but the “System” itself—as the enemy. He calls it “the fount and wellspring of all that [is] evil” in our time. For at least two generations this state has carried out a systemic assault on European America, forcing it to congregate with hostile races; promoting integration, miscegenation, and the destruction of the white family; adopting policies that siphon off its wealth, pollute its culture, and corrupt its children; but above all, legitimating its self-destruction through the imposition of dysgenic behaviors and values.

With “only the most remote and tenuous historical connection with the country and system of government which was originally established and envisioned by the Founding Fathers,” the United States today has become a Jew-led corporate plutocracy that denies whites their birthright. But it’s not just its state, with its race-destroying policies, that wars on them. The entire American social system—the reigning civilizational forms—have become no less noxious to their existence. Covington describes early 21st-century America (and this is a projection of current trends) as a world of unspeakably vile sexual perversions… a kleptocracy, quite literally ruled by criminals, some of whom were so bad and so blatant that they were even indicted under the Americans’ own laws… a world based on no other foundation than sheer greed, wallowing in the most gross and despicable material gluttony… a wasteland of spiritual emptiness, moral corruption, and cultural pollution… an entire society based on a bizarre and grotesque moral inversion: the utterly ridiculous and thoroughly evil idea that all humanoid creatures are in some manner equal.

This world born of the Jews’ materialistic metaphysics—this world in which man is viewed primarily as “an economic animal rather than as a spiritual being with a soul” —turns everyone into either a consumer or a commodity and everything that has traditionally made life worth living—family, community, religion—into an economic calculation. Whether rich or poor, the “citizens” of this Jewified enterprise live “all doped up, dumbed down, zoned out… confused, hostile, paranoid… looking out for nobody but Number One.” America’s traditional European life forms become not only unsustainable under such a system, they are demonized and rendered criminal.

No self-respecting white man, Covington assumes, would want to preserve, reform, or redeem such an abomination. As one of his Volunteers says: “I didn’t want to be an American any more. I wanted to be a man instead, a white man.”

2. A war of White liberation

Despite the passivity and conservatism that mark much of the racially conscious community, it is not difficult to understand why our nobler spirits would want to wash their hands of the American experiment.

With some justice, Covington argues that a half century of peaceful, legal methods to reverse the racial policies of the United States have been totally ineffective. “Petitions have been ignored… The electoral and political process has been undermined… The judiciary has become an instrument of racial and social tyranny.” All the while, the reigning powers continue their de-Europeanization, using all their vast powers to re-engineer the American population and eviscerate its racial heritage.

Covington’s work rests on the rather unchallengeable contention that nothing so far has had the slightest effect in stemming the enveloping tide of mud. Efforts to create an alternative media, raise white consciousness, mobilize voters around racial issues, or post another illuminating exposé on the internet have had virtually no effect in halting our advance toward the abyss. Those among us who continue to emphasize the need to educate or awaken people, he argues, usually end up doing “nothing more than hide behind an email address while playing with the computer in one’s basement rec room, with a bowl of nachos and a cold brewski beside the mouse.” Relatedly, most actual efforts by racialists and right-wingers to act in the real world continue to aim at influencing the Judeo-corporate system, rather than getting free of it.

Given that all the forces of indoctrination, socialization, and influence are in enemy hands and that all the principal institutions and social-economic structures are arrayed against us, the thought of using the system’s established forms to bring down the anti-white regime in Washington, repatriate the 100 million muds occupying our lands, or reverse the present ethnocidal course of American developments is nothing short of fantastic. Given also that every effort to reverse American racial policy has failed and that this policy threatens the survival of the European race in North America, the sole remaining recourse, Covington insists, is the “right” to take up arms against the system threatening us.

As he imagines it, the struggle to establish an independent white homeland in the American Northwest will resemble an anti-colonial war, waged in ways not unlike the campaign the Provisional IRA carried out against the British government in Northern Ireland after 1969. Sustained by a migration of racially aware whites to the region (Covington mentions 50,000 migrants), the NVA that is to arise from some future effort to acquire a “small piece of territory” will challenge Washington’s monopoly of armed force and undermine its revenue producing sources, making it impossible for the federal government to maintain its authority over the Pacific Northwest.

But how realistic is such a prospective struggle? To many it will seem even more fantastic than the alternatives that Covington criticizes. And to those who know something about the physical-force wing of Irish Republicanism, it will seem no less fantastic to imagine that American white nationalists (whose struggles are waged almost entirely in cyberspace) could emulate the IRA gunmen, street fighters, and terrorists who forced Her Majesty’s Government to the negotiating tables.

These objections, however, are not actually an argument against Covington’s notion of a white liberation struggle—only an obstacle to be overcome. History, moreover, is full of improbable undertakings. Who would have thought that 10,000 lightly-armed Sunni insurgents would check the conquests of America’s imperial legions? Great historical transformations are almost always implausible until they happen. Part of this is due to the fact that it is rarely the size of one’s armed divisions or the quality of one’s military technology that matters most, but rather certain qualities of the human spirit. As Victor Hugo put it: “Mightier than the tread of marching armies is the power of an idea whose time has come.” If American whites, especially their racially conscious vanguard, should ever imbue the NW migration with the force of a Sorelian myth (that is, with the force to act), there is simply no telling what might happen. “Nothing is impossible”—not even the thought of white men marching to the sound of the guns.

To those who would dismiss this as wishful thinking, it might be added that not only does the survival of the white race depend upon such a mythic transformation of white consciousness, but that our age has turned such transformations into something of a Zeitgeist. With the advent of globalization and the fourth-generation war it provokes, traditional state systems have everywhere gone into crisis, as anti-national elites endeavor to impose a one-world superstate that reduces everything to the market demands of the Jew-led Yankee money men cashing in on the extermination of the white race.

The idea of a white liberation struggle is not, then, entirely implausible. Nor would there be any lack of potential Volunteers. Sections of the middle class, deprived by globalization of the lifestyles which ensured their former passivity, are already feeling embittered and by-passed. A sharp economic downturn, the collapse of the dollar, a humiliating military retreat from the Middle East, an energy crisis that undermines our automotive civilization, a protracted governmental paralysis—the conditions could suddenly arise when elements among the complacent, TV-programmed white masses are forced to the conclusion that their allegiances are misplaced. In any case, conditions for whites are almost certain to continue to deteriorate.

Echoing the theorists of partisan, guerrilla, or asymmetrical warfare of the last half century, Covington contends that the bigger and more complex the Jewnited States becomes, the more vulnerable it is to “a few brave men with weapons in their hands and the courage to use them.” American society, he notes, is “so complex, everything so interactive and interlocking and dependent on everything else, that when you cut one link in the chain the whole works just grounds to a halt.”

The struggle for white liberation would also benefit from the fact that the US government is already a corrupt, mismanaged institution and that American society, premised on purely economic criteria, lacks real cohesion. The whole system, in fact, rests on a foundation of sand. All the powers of corruption, incompetence, cowardice, and short-term thinking conspire against it. (Think of Katrina New Orleans.) Its declining revenues and budget constraints are even now making it difficult to fund its repressive apparatus. At the same time, the system is more and more served by inept Negroes, and the Jews who manage the system’s decision-making centers are beginning to overreach themselves, pushing their host people in ways that formerly ended in pogroms. Is it so inconceivable, then, to think that an armed white opposition could force it out of the Northwest?

3. A homeland

Once it is accepted that the United States constitutes the principal threat to white existence and that whites will be free of its perverse, ethnocidal policies only through force of arms, then the third, most crucial facet of Covington’s vision comes into focus: The imperative of creating a white homeland.

Terre et Peuple, Blut und Boden: The notion that every people needs its own land is as old as Europe itself. In the postmodern, transnational, and global order favored by our one-world elites such a notion, of course, is deemed obsolete, as if the quantitative monetary principles of the world market are a better way of organizing social life than traditional ones based on healthy families, organic communities, and ethnoracial identities.

In the last generation, this ancient notion has assumed a new urgency: For the rising tide of color has everywhere begun to seep into the former white homelands, threatening the integrity of white life. One more generation of Third World immigration and the great race passes away forever.

A racially exclusive homeland, the antithesis of the New World Order, would in Covington’s view be our “ark to weather the great flood of mud.” “It is absolutely essential,” he argues, “that the white race acquire a Homeland of its own, some place on earth where white children can be born and raised in physical and spiritual safety, and where our numbers may be restored and the threat of racial extinction overcome.”

Based on blood, not creed or economics, such a home-land would guarantee the perpetuity of our people. It would also solve a great many of the social, political, and cultural problems that presently ail us. For once free of the Jews who have pathologized white existence and who have set the colored hordes on us, we could begin dealing honestly and forthrightly with the problems besetting our civilization. Indeed, once free of the Jews and their multiracial legions, many of these problems would simply vanish. The result would almost certainly be a renaissance of European life in North America. As one of Covington’s characters observes: “When you have stability and unity in a racially homogenous society, you’d be amazed what a small country like ours can accomplish.”

This vision of a sovereign Aryan Republic is, of course, merely a figment of Covington’s imagination, but then again imagination, as Shakespeare reminds us, “Bodies forth the things unknown.”


For more information about Covington’s books and the coming sovereign Republic for the white people click here.

Published in: on November 27, 2011 at 12:37 pm  Comments Off on The most authoritative treatment of white separatism  

Toward the White Republic


The United States can only be repulsed
as an alien body-snatcher

The below essay, “Toward the White Republic” by Michael O’Meara, won in 2009 The Occidental Quarterly essay contest on secession. It is now the title essay of O’Meara’s book Toward the White Republic, available from Counter-Currents Publishing here.

Young Irish warrior

“Breathes there the man with soul so dead,
Who never to himself hath said,
This is my own, my native land!”

—Walter Scott


Some time in the second half of the 1990s, a terminologi­cal change occurred in the racially conscious community.

Many who previously identified themselves as White Power advocates, segregationists, separatists, supremacists, survivalists, neo-Confederates, biological realists, etc. started calling themselves “white nationalists.”

At the time (and I didn’t know much about these things then), I thought this reflected a changing political con­sciousness.

For what began after 1945 as a “movement” to maintain the integrity of America’s racial character and prevent alien races from intruding into its various “life worlds” had, by the 1990s, ceased to be a realistic project—30 years of Third-World immigration, “civil rights” legislation, and various measures imposed by the federal government to subordinate white interests to those of non-whites had ir­revocably transformed the American people so that it was increasingly difficult to characterize it any longer as a majority-white population.

For this reason, “white advocates” in the late 1990s started making traditional nationalist claims for secession and self-determination because the United States, in their eyes, had become a threat to their people’s existence.


This interpretation was not at all unreasonable. But, alas, it didn’t quite accord with the facts.

I’ve since learned that those calling themselves “white nationalists” are not necessarily nationalists in the sense of wanting to secede from the United States in order to form an independent ethnostate. Most, I think it’s fair to say, are racially conscious conservatives who want to work through the existing institutions to regain control of the country their ancestors made—in order, ultimately, to dismantle the present anti-white system of preferences and restore something of the white man’s former hegemony.

By contrast, white nationalists in the strict sense (i.e., those favoring secession) have no interest in restoring the old ways, let alone regaining control of the central state, whose authority is already slipping and whose rule is in­creasingly dysfunctional. Indeed, the American state sys­tem, as its more astute supporters acknowledge, is beyond reform.

Instead, white nationalists aspire to create a counter-elite to lead disaffected white youth in a movement to found a whites-only nation-state somewhere in North America, once the poorly managed enterprise known as the United States collapses in a centrifugal dispersion of its decaying and perverted powers.

Without an organizational presence in the real world and a “public” largely of computer hobbyists, white na­tionalists have no hope at present of actually mobilizing whites in opposition to the existing anti-white regime (even if they seek to influence whatever social currents might run in their general direction). Rather, their immedi­ate goal is to prepare the way for the development of a revolutionary nationalist vanguard to lead the struggle for white liberation. They aspire thus not to recapture the rot­ting corpse of the US government, but to free themselves from it—in order to be themselves, in their own land, in their own way.

White nationalists, as such, politically define themselves in wanting to create a sovereign state in North America. They endeavor, therefore, not to “put things back the way they were,” as conservatives wish, but to rid themselves of them completely.

A National Revolution, they hold, will alone restore “the white man to his rightful place in the world.”

Inspired by the birthright handed down by the blood and sacrifice of ancestors, their project, relatedly, is not about restoring the Third Reich or the Confederacy, as left­ists imagine, but about creating a future white homeland in which their kind will be able “to pursue their destiny with­out interference from other races.”


White nationalism is a variant of historic ethnonational­ism, what Walker Connor calls nationalism “in its pristine sense.”

All three—racial, ethno, and pristine nationalism—de­fine the nation in terms of blood.

The creedal or civic nationalism of the present regime, which makes loyalty to the state, not the nation, primary, is by contrast “nationalist” only in a narrow ideological sense, confusing as it does patriotism (loyalty to the state or affection for the land) with loyalty to the people (nationalism). It thus de­fines the nation in terms of certain abstract democratic principles, seeing it as a collection of individuals, each more important than the whole.

Though ethnonationalists privilege the nation’s spirit above all else, they nevertheless define it organically, in terms of blood, as an extended family, an endogamous kin group, or a genetic commonwealth.

Unlike European nations, formed around long-established ethnic cores (which had developed in the Middle Ages, as Germanic and other tribal confederations evolved into larger political, regional, and cultural identities), American national identity was defined, historically, in ex­plicitly racial terms.

As Sir Arthur Keith characterized it: “In Europe the stock has been broken up into local national breeds; in America the local breeds have been reunited.”

In both cases, a national identity grew out of a real or imagined blood relationship linking the nation’s members to inherited customs and institutions.

Because the American form of racial nationhood lacks the ethnic dimension distinct to European nationalism, it is a source of some misunderstanding, especially in its purely negative expression as anti-Semitism or Negrophobia.

For example, even Euronationalists who struggle for a continental nation-state tend to dismiss white nationalism —because it seems to imply the typical American leveling of cultural and other identities by subsuming them under a homogenizing biological concept that negates the particularisms of European nationhood and subjects them to an­other form of Anglo-American hegemony.

In this, however, our European cousins misunderstand the aim of white nationalism, though some white national­ists in their one-sided reaction to non-whites or in their “numbskull Americanism” may, admittedly, have given cause to this misunderstanding

White nationalism is a distinctly American (or, better said, New World) nationalism, not a European one, and the two are analogous only at the highest level, where the na­tional community, defined ethnically or racially, affirms its right to control its own destiny. Its highest loyalty, as Fran­cis Parker Yockey held, is to the destiny of its mother soil and father culture: Europe.

This is not to say that American racial nationalism—which makes white European racial ascriptions the basis of American identity—has no ethnic or historic component.

The country’s original settlers were largely of Anglo-Protestant descent, and this had a formative effect on American institutions and folkways.

The organic basis of the American nation, however, was less English ethnicity than “whiteness.”

Even before the War of Independence (the first Ameri­can war of secession), more than a quarter of the popula­tion was of non-English, mainly North European stock: Scots-Irish, German, Dutch, French Huguenots, etc. By about the mid-18th century, the “American English” were increasingly referred to as “Americans,” a people “selected by a whole series of ordeals which [had] killed off the weak and worthless” and conferred a distinct vitality on their laws, attitudes, and local institutions.

The bitterness of the War of Independence and the War of 1812, US-British acrimony and rivalry extending late into the 19th century, in addition to the “normal” nationalist compulsion to celebrate an American identity independent of the English—all tended to minimize the significance of the colonists’ original national origins, as they were reborn as pure Americans.

American nationalism arose in fact on the basis of a cer­tain popular revulsion against the English.

Nevertheless, English-Americans were the original na­tive Americans, and all the rest of us have since become American by assimilating something of the ethos derived from their unique genos.

Though Anglo-Protestant ethnicity continues to animate the inner reaches of American culture, it wasn’t the phenotypical basis of American identity. Rather, it was the ra­cial experience of transplanted Englishmen in 17th-century Virginia, then the “exotic far western periphery… of the metropolitan European cultural system.”

In the New World part of this system, the ever-looming presence of African slaves, considered “by nature vicious and morally inferior,” and “savage” red Indians, who posed an ongoing threat, could not but foster an acute ra­cial consciousness.

Given that economic opportunities, vast expanses of vir­gin land, and new fortunes prevented the old European so­cial hierarchies from re-establishing themselves, these ra­cial bearings would serve as the one fixed hierarchy or­dering colonial life.

Forged, thus, in conflict with non-whites, the colonists’ early racial consciousness served to mark the boundaries of the emerging American identity. The historian Winthrop Jordan claims that “Anglo-Americans” were already identi­fying themselves as “whites” rather than “Englishmen” as early as 1680.

National or ethnic differences in this racially mixed en­vironment were simply less meaningful than differences between Europeans and non-Europeans.

These differences were subsequently institutionalized, once the American colonists declared their independence, for they declared in effect their intent to become a self-determined people in the evolutionary sense, by becoming a nation, an organic body with its own sovereign state and its own laws of growth.

Then, following the revolution, as republican principles were gradually extended to all white males, the country’s Herrenvolk democracy posed an insurmountable obstacle to the extension of these principles to non-whites—for the new, explicitly white nation was based not on the liberal fiction of “humanity,” but on the assumption that human nature is a product of blood and race.

Indeed, the white egalitarianism of the early republic, shaped largely in opposition to the Toryism of anglophile Federalists (who represented the bourgeois interests of lib­eral market society and its connection to British commerce) was premised on the Negro’s otherness and the primacy of white racial ascriptions, all of which further contributed to the nation’s self-consciousness, coherence, and communal­ity, as British and European Americans, largely under the leadership of Indian-fighting, pro-slavery, and expansionist Southerners, came to share not just the same horizontal sense of right and identity, but the same vertical qualities and dignities of their racial stock.

In ways different from ethnicity, race formed the psy­chological bonds that joined American whites and differ­entiated them from non-whites, just as the language, cus­toms, and early institutions of the original Anglo-Protestant settlers established the cultural-linguistic framework in which white Americans became a self-conscious nation.


The ethnogenic process that gradually imposed a com­mon culture and identity on the former colonists, as they became Virginians and New Englanders, and more gener­ally, Americans, was interrupted in the 1840s by the mass influx of Irish and German Catholics—the former seen al­most as an alien race. Then, in the late 19th century, this was followed by a second great immigrant wave, from Southern and Eastern Europe.

Today the Third World invasion is taking the ethnogenic process to a new extreme, as the state, with its inorganic definition of the nation, endeavors to “transcend” the per­ennially white, Christian character of the American people for the sake of its oxymoronic “universal nation.”

At each nodal point in this demographic transformation, except the most recent, native Americans, however resis­tant to the newcomers, succeeded in assimilating them on the basis of their racial ascriptions, as the Anglo-Protestant character of American identity became progressively more “ecumenical.”

Indeed, it’s increasingly difficult today to talk of “hy­phenated-Americans,” given that the different European ethnic strains making up the white population have so ex­tensively intermarried that many now no longer know their ethnic origins, European hybrids that they have become. As one historian writes: “Ellis Island whiteness” has come to replace “Plymouth Rock whiteness.”

There were obvious limits to assimilation, though. As Woodrow Wilson put it: “We cannot make a homogenous population of a people who do not blend with the Cauca­sian race.” Against this view, many “new,” especially Jew­ish immigrants, advanced the cause for greater ra­cial/ethnic diversity, as if America’s vocation was to be­come a boardinghouse to all the world’s peoples. The Old America, though, would have none of this, and, in Stoddard’s words, dismissed such claims with the insis­tence “that America is basically ‘made’—and that it shall not be unmade.”

Then, later, when the post-1945 National Security State, armed with its newly acquired “mandate of heaven,” en­deavored to turn Roosevelt’s liberal-managerial state sys­tem into a world empire, premised on the belief that it was based on an idea, not a people, it launched what amounted to an assault on America’s historic identityan assault whose overarching aim was to undermine the population’s racial consciousness and promote ethnocidal practices fa­cilitating its “demographic” reconstitution.

The state’s “anti-racism” came thus to serve as an in­strument of its social engineers, who sought to turn whites into herds of “tamed sheep [who] care not in which flock [they] are driven.”

It was only natural, therefore, that once the shearing got under way the most racially conscious whites began to see themselves as an oppressed nation in need of their own sovereign state.


Numerous have been the criticisms that racial conser­vatives make of nationalists advocating secession from the United States. The most common of these—made in a pe­riod which has witnessed successful secessionist move­ments (in the former SU, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, etc.), as well as other popular movements resisting a despotic, leveling centralization in the name of regionalism, devo­lution, and the defense of historic identities—is that the prospect of creating a white ethnostate in North America free of the United States is totally unrealizable… a fantasy… pure and utter folly.

But this, they fail to realize, is hardly criticism at all.

For those with the courage of their convictions, it’s never a matter of calculating the odds and going with the win­ning side, but of doing what needs to be done—like that Roman soldier cited by Spengler in Man and Technics, whose Aryan sense of duty kept him at his post, doing what had to be done, as Pompeii was buried in the ash of Vesuvius.

The secessionist, then, is not another party politician loyal to Washington’s New Class establishment, but a na­tionalist loyal to his nation—and thus to whatever political imperative the nation’s welfare demands.

He has, moreover, no illusions about what this entails.

As the Euronationalist Jean Thiriart put it: “One does not create a nation with speeches, pious talk, and banquets. One creates a nation with rifles, martyrs, jointly lived dan­gers.”


Viewed “objectively,” neither secession nor a white con­servative reconquest has a chance, not one in a universe of infinite possibilities. Both are figments of a few white minds troubled by the prospect of their people’s imminent demise.

But that’s the way all great movements begin.

If a presently unattainable ideal is not first articulated as a mythic possibility, it remains unrealized, for its idealiza­tion is part of the process that quickens its realization (sic volo, sic jubeo).

In 1774, only a few believed in American independence, but after 1776 it was a critical mass.

Secession, as such, cannot be submitted to the usual criticism, for it’s not a fact or even an idea so much as it is a way of being—or of wanting to be.

Central to its realization, therefore, is not the objective forces opposing it, but the subjective will seeking its triumph—the triumph which comes, as Evola says, whenever “a heroic vocation awakens as an irresistible force from above and… is animated by a will to keep on going, over­coming every material or rational obstacle.”

Many things, of course, would have to change before either secession or reconquest are remotely realizable (though our postmodern age, the Kali Yuga of the Tradi­tionalists, is an interregnum in which time and events are greatly accelerated, as all things hurtle toward the inevita­ble crackup, the Ragnarok, which precedes every rebirth).

The thought, nevertheless, of whites breaking free of the United States, in this period when the multi-cult empire is experiencing what may be the first of its death agonies, seems, from a secessionist perspective, somewhat less of a fantasy than trying to reform it, which 60 years of ex­perience suggest is unreformable.


Almost every criticism that can be made of secession is to be found in Sam Francis’s “Prospects for Racial and Cultural Survival” (1995).

Sam, to whom I have paid high tribute in these pages [Chechar’s note: The Occidental Quarterly], was an important transitional figure in the devel­opment of white nationalism.

Though one of his feet was solidly planted in the racial­ist camp, the other, however, was never quite freed from his former “new right” and paleocon beliefs. Divided, his critique of secession reflected an old-fashioned patriotism unwilling to break with the US—though, perhaps, if he had lived, he might feel differently, now that the dusky helms­man has begun steering the ship of state perilously close to the shoals of what promises to be an even more horrendous fate.

As an anti-secessionist, Sam considered separation from the United States tantamount to surrender—surrender of the country his ancestors created, surrender of its history, traditions, interests.

But Sam was wrong.

Secessionists surrender nothing but the slow death of their people. For among other things, secession is about survival—and the prospect of being able to fight another day.

To do that, one must live. But where, how?

For all practical purposes whites have lost the United States. Though still a near majority, they are surrounded by armed forces seeking their destruction, they are running out of ammunition, and the ground troops are being sent in to clean up the remaining pockets of resistance. It looks as if they’re doomed.

Secession is a way of avoiding the deadly pincers closing in on white life. It is perhaps the only way.

In the last 60 years, it bears emphasizing, absolutely NOTHING—not one little thing—has been accomplished to interrupt the programmed destruction of European America.

Nevertheless, the critics of secession drone on: “Why give up the country when you can take it back?”

These two-fisted patriots, who think this is the most powerful argument against secession, are likely to be sing­ing the same song in the not too distanced future, when colored novelists start writing about “The Last of the Euro­peans.”

But even if feasible, what self-respecting white man would want to take back the United States, this monstrous, bureaucratic Leviathan whose Jewish, race-mixing, homo­phile, feminist, fraudulent, anti-Christian, and degenerate practices stand as an affront to everything his ancestors stood for?

The hard truth is that it’s gotten to the point where the US can no longer be defended as “my mother, drunk or so­ber,” only repulsed as an alien body-snatcher. [Chechar’s note: for an explanation of this metaphor, see this article.]

To this end, secessionists emulate the proud Danes, who said after the loss of Schleswig-Holstein in 1865: “What has been lost externally will be gained internally.”

But more than refusing to abide the state responsible for their dispossession, secessionists see this “abomination of desolation” as their principal enemy. Only by freeing themselves from it and acquiring their own land under their own sovereignty do they see a future for their kind.

One might call this “surrendering large parts of the country to non-whites”—though these aliens already oc­cupy large parts of it and will continue to do so until whites are completely replaced.

The secessionists’ ultimate consideration, then, is not what will be lost, but what gives whites the best chance to survive.

“Any proposal for separation,” Sam argued, “would simply alienate the most patriotic and nationalist loyalties of American whites and lead them to see separatists as un-American.” Most whites would also “refuse to abandon their allegiance to the US or forsake its territory.”

Here Sam confused loyalty to the state with loyalty to the nation, paying tribute, in effect, to Caesar in his own coin. One cannot wonder, moreover, how patriotic most Americans are going to be once they discover that their grandchildren will be paying off the debts of the present US government—at a time when American citizenship is likely to be little more than a form of Chinese peonage.

Secessionists care not in the least if most whites would refuse to abandon “their” country. Most whites, de-Ayranized as they are, allowed a Negro to become president.

Only those who care for their kind and are willing to fight for them can possibly found a new nation.

The flag-waving, Constitution-worshipping types—who know nothing outside the ideology of liberal democracy, old (“conservative”) or new (“progressive”), and who be­lieve that there is something sacred about the unholy United States—will never be mobilized for the sake of “ra­cial preservation”; that ship has sailed.

In secessionist eyes, it’s better to lose a bit of territory and shed the race’s detritus than to lose whatever remains of the white nation—especially in view of the coming age, which is certain to be filled with cascading catastrophes, set off by the imploding contradictions of liberalism’s dysto­pian regime.

As for being militarily crushed by the US, another fre­quent objection, anti-secessionists seem not to have heard of fourth-generation war, just as they conveniently forget that the only country the United States has truly defeated in the many wars of choice it’s waged in the last 60 years is the tiny Caribbean nation of Grenada. As one Russian observer notes, the US “military does not know how to win… [only] how to blow things up” (a Second Generation Warfare practice which the US Army learned from the French in WW I and continues to teach in its academies, as it justifies the Pentagon’s vast budgetary appropriations). It’s consequentially incapable of “prevailing over any en­emy, no matter how badly armed, demoralized, or minus­cule”—because it only knows how to fight standing armies in “conventional” wars, where firepower is paramount.

Both militarily and politically, it would seem a hundred times easier to secede from, than to retake, the United States. Concentrating their forces at the enemy’s weakest link—a concentration of what would be a growing base of support, once the United States starts its slow slide into the abyss of insolvency and tyranny—secessionists would need only to pene­trate the enemy’s porous lines, disorganize his rear through an “open-source insurgency,” and then sue for formal sov­ereignty over a collapsed or ungovernable part of the United States.

In the context of such a possible development, Sam wondered how the races could possibly be separated and what would prevent them from “unseparating.” Here again he didn’t see what was coming. Since the end of the Second World War there have been numerous population transfers by partitioned states (the most important of which were sanctioned by the US). These transfers occurred in the recent past, will undoubtedly occur again, and already oc­cur in little ways every day in the US, as non-whites force whites out of their former neighborhoods.

Secession implies both population transfers and territo­rial partition—historically justifiable measures, sanctioned by US precedent, and executable with a minimum of force, unlike the pipe dreams of anti-secessionists, whose imag­ined “reconquest” would be of a state with a hundred mil­lion non-white citizens, all with their hands out.

In its desire for cheap labor, Sam thought a separate white nation, would simply repeat the process that got whites into the present mess—as if the struggle for seces­sion (and all it entails) wouldn’t lead to an explicitly racial definition of nationality, to an inversion of the market’s primacy, and to a spiritual triumph over the materialism that has corrupted so many whites.

As a conservative, he couldn’t see that white secession (unlike the secession of the Confederacy) is a revolutionary project premised on a rejection not just of the illegal alien­ations of the federal government, but of the entire social, economic, and moral order sustaining its ethnocidal rule.

A white breakaway state, Sam also claimed, would be surrounded by hostile powers, vulnerable to invasion, and unable to defend itself against the rising demographic tide outside its borders. Again, these are non-criticisms. Any region seceded from the United States would have its own arms stockpile, including nukes, and would likely be sup­ported by Russia and other powers having scores to settle with Washington’s New World Order.

More crucially, the racially homogenous populace of a seceded white republic would be imbued with the nation­alist fervor that is the inevitable offshoot of newly forged nations and armed not simply with the technologies of mass destruction, which are now accessible to small states, but also with a society-wide system of local militias, like the Swiss.

To think that a mutilated United States, with its warring racial factions, welfare politics, and rubber-spine army would be able to crush an armed, autonomous white re­public is to abandon the realm of logic. Even at the height of its expansionist powers, National Socialist Germany never thought of invading tiny, mountainous Switzerland, where every citizen was armed and ready to defend his nation. The US Army, need it be said, is no Wehrmacht.


European Americans will not survive another genera­tion under the present Judeo-Negro regime.

Racially-conscious conservatives are counting on a fu­ture white backlash to mobilize in defense of white inter­ests. Through such a mobilization, and a much discussed though little practiced, “march through the institu­tions,” they hope to raise white racial consciousness, counter the demographic threat posed by non-whites, and introduce reforms that will curtail non-white power—all of which, of course, are totally desirable.

But they expect to arrive at this Utopia without ex­plaining how they would counter a population half of which will be non-white in 33 years (2042); with­out explaining how they would challenge a government that criminalizes white dissent; without explaining how a system can be fundamentally changed without fundamen­tally changing the institutions and powers that govern it and make it what it is; without any of these things, racial conservatives mock the notion of secession, as if their own not particularly successful project is the sole conceivable alternative.


Unlike their conservative critics, secessionists have a plan, a simple, straightforward one, that offers whites an alternative to an unreformable system and an inescapable death.

This plan has the advantage of being (a) eminently po­litical, (b) based on proven historical precedents, and (c) imbued with the power to generate a will to nationhood.

Given the increasingly totalitarian nature of the existing system, where the mere mention of “race” can be taken as an incitement to crimes against humanity, this aspect of se­cession, ought, perhaps, to be discussed in historical rather than explicitly programmatic terms.

Much of the history of European nationalism speaks to the American situation today, especially (in my admittedly partisan view) Irish nationalism.

In the 1870s and ’80s, a generation after the An Gorta Mor (the Great Hunger), revolutionary and conservative na­tionalists agreed to be allies in the common struggle for Irish nationhood. The revolutionary Fenians, preeminently in the form of Michael Davitt’s Land League, which led the rebellion in the countryside, gave the constitutionalists in Charles Stewart Parnell’s Irish Parliamentary Party the social leverage to force concessions from the English at Westminster—con­cessions that eventually won back many Irish lands. Then, once the constitutionalists had gone as far as they could, by about 1911 or so, the revolutionary, physical-force wing of Irish nationalism took over to complete the nationalist project.

We American secessionists want whatever works best for the future of our people. If our “constitutionalists,” per­haps in the form of a third party, are able to create dissen­sion and vulnerability among the “English” in a way that promotes white interests, they are to be supported. But once they fail, we will need to turn, as did the Irish, to the methods of Connelly and Pearse.

Those who know Hibernian—or any other European—nationalist history also know the immeasurable power of the nation, especially the nation rising to nationhood.

This is the spirit we secessionists hope to stir in white Americans.

The situation today may, therefore, be totally grim, but politically there is no more feasible or marketable strategy to awaken our people, especially as they become aware of their approaching minority status and all it implies.

Imagine, then, for a moment, a white homeland in North America, free of the Jew-ridden US government, with its colored multitudes and parasitic institutions: In my mind, this one image says everything, explains everything, promises everything.

The powerful imagery of an autonomous white nation possesses, as well, the mythic potential that the General Strike has in the thought of Georges Sorel.

All great movements, Sorel saw, are driven not by ra­tional arguments or party programs, but by their myths (which “are not descriptions of things, but expressions of a determination to act”).

For it is myth—and the memories and hopes animating it—that shape a nation, that turn a “motley horde” into a people with a shared sense of purpose and identity, that mobilize them against the state of things, and prepare them for self-sacrifice and self-rule.

A Sovereign Independent State, as the Irish called it in 1916—the White Republic, as I call it—is a possible seces­sionist myth to symbolize the determination of white men to assert themselves as a free people somewhere in an all-white America.


See endnotes here.

Secession, our only hope…

The idea of fighting for a republic populated only by Whites; to secede from a degenerated America, boggled my mind back in 2009 when I read Michael O’Meara’s seminal articles “Toward the White Republic” and “The Sword” at The Occidental Quarterly.

Today, two years later, at The Occidental Observer (TOO) Farnham O’Reilly has been publishing a series of articles of which I will republish only the latest one, “What Will Work, Part Nine.” It is an inspiring word for all those who, like me, believe that the next step toward a White Republic is to continue spreading these ideas until the minimum mass for actual revolution is reached.

Only then will secession become possible.

In discussions with others regarding the TOO responses on the topic of secession, some are discouraged by the number of negative reactions — ostensibly from racially conscious kinsmen — saying that, for one reason or another, White people cannot or should not secede. Yet, let’s remember the respondents are not representative of most White Nationalists. While perhaps one-third are really solid, clear thinking individuals, another third may be best described as Internet hobbyists. The remaining are, frankly, shills or malcontents of one stripe or another.

I really don’t mind the shills; I suspect most TOO writers have them, and while they work for the Enemy they are at least sincere. Really, it is an intriguing game of chess with them, for they are the best sophists, often agreeing in part yet coming across with compelling arguments that leave honest readers with the impression that, one way or another, Whites just cannot have total victory and total sovereignty. This impression is strengthened when the shill splits — not unlike an amoeba — assuming two different identities that begin to argue with one another, with the less polished half losing credibility. Yet, somehow the pseudo-dialog still leaves the reader with the impression that we can never have our Homeland — ever. As for the malcontents, they simply work from a premise of envy or hatred. Not happy unless they are miserable, these folks are of our own blood and will plague us to the end.

Many readers raise the point that the U.S. government “won’t let us secede.” But, that is what secession is all about! Yes, it is not for the faint of heart, but secession is quite possible, and would be brought about not through military victory, but by way of economic expediency. Just how the mechanics whereby a more powerful nation concedes territory and autonomy to a weaker one through economic necessity will be left to others to discuss in private — ample historical precedence as well as some very fine blueprints set in fictional settings exist.

We have all heard it is wise to not underestimate your enemy. But, it is also wise not to overestimate him! The Jews and their collaborators are only as strong as their servants, and we would do well to remember the last conflict the American military ever truly won was that against the diminutive Caribbean nation of Grenada.

Compromise will not work, implicit caste or segregation systems will not work, and enclaves will not work. Who is still in power in all those scenarios? Who has the nukes? Who has the central banking system? Who has the media? Nonwhites do not like Whites. They never have. Dig it. We can’t just all get along, for the nonwhite factions in this country — who will soon be a majority — do not want to get along, and do not want equality; they want us dead.

Only complete sovereignty, complete safety through autonomy, complete self-determination brought about by secession, will save us. United we stand, scattered we fall. We have seen how bad it is when we are a majority — has anyone given thought to the nightmare facing good White folk once we are a minority? If we do not act, there is no punishment we will not deserve. Every goal must bear a just proportion to its cost. For those who will act, there never has been a more noble cause.

Those who wish to ‘take America back’ have not honestly assessed reality. They are not even in a position to dictate their terms from a position of weakness. America — in its current physical entirety — is no longer theirs to take back. And, they do not deserve to have it back, even if they were in a position to take it. It is much like a prostitute who, upon meeting Mr. Right, decides to ‘take back’ her chastity. It can’t be done. It can’t be taken back. She sold it, and now it belongs to someone else — just like we did with America. The Jews did not betray and sell out America — Whites did that. We did it constitutionally, I might add. It is this America, the polluting, anti-Nature, race-mixing, porn-addicted, junk-food gorging, homophile, baby-killing, anti-family, instant gratification, entertainment craving, God-hating, Jew-fawning abomination that seeks to introduce its moral superiors such as Iran and Afghanistan to American democracy.

There is such a thing as national sin, the demand for payment which shall always be made in this world. America, once the safest, richest, kindest, most blessed nation, deigned not to honor the Source of that goodness, choosing instead to pursue evil beyond imagination. But to those who have been faithful to all that is good, all that is moral, all that is loyal, indeed all that has been declared to be in accordance with natural law by that ineffable Force without beginning or end, to those there is given the opportunity to come out of this diseased whore known as the United States of America before her ruin overtakes them.

For this nation of desolation has set its hand against everything good, and has upheld everything evil. It destroys the environment to extract those elements by which it may continue to foster sensual, sedentary lifestyles. It has eschewed health, preferring repulsive ingestion of garbage over good food — Americans are the fattest, weakest, most unnatural creatures on earth. It has mocked the sacred dual image by which Nature has designed all higher life forms — male and female — daring to call this holy design into question and relegating it to a matter of ‘orientation’ and ‘gender identity’. It has actively sought the destruction of the gene pool to which it owes its very existence through miscegenation, abortion, alien immigration, and all forms of sexual shame. It has celebrated and nourished the pornography industry, destroying families and robbing children of their innocence. It has chosen for its leader a man symbolic of the highest sin against Nature — a progeny of the sun and the moon — a repulsive yet narcissistic individual whose hatred for our folk knows no bounds. Finally, in all things and everything America serves — first and foremost — Jewish interests. And our people, what is left of our good people, need to come out from under her, for there is a sight of blood on her hands, and her fall, destruction and damnation will be great.

Much of what we talk about is what we don’t like; what is happening, why it is bad for us, what will happen if we don’t do anything, or perhaps how we intend on dealing with it. But seldom do we speak of what we want, what we are after, and what kind of world we want for our children.

It is hard to grasp how heavy the White Man’s burden really is, and how good life could really be without subsidizing the parasites and willful non-producers. One might think “Well, the income taxes really aren’t that bad, much lower in fact than most other developed nations. Besides, I always get a refund when I file.” But that is just the individual income tax. There are a lot of other taxes as well: tax on gasoline, tax on liquor, tax on highway users (truckers), tax on arrows used for archery enthusiasts, sales tax, payroll tax, estate tax, gift tax, corporate tax, tax on machine guns, franchise tax, tax on tobacco, ad nauseam.

And then there is foreign aid, the most obscene example being Israel, which siphons off, in the form of military aid, ‘loan guarantees’ and out and out cash gifts, enough to support each man, woman and child — legal or otherwise — in this country. In a society in which parasites and willful non-producers are absent — and there was at least one example of such a society not too many years ago — a government can serve its citizens quite well without the tax burden, and the citizens in turn will find that, while life still presents many problems, personal finances are not one of them.

If there will be anything like a national religion in the future White ethnostate, it will be a reverence for Truth. As with the ancient Druids, truth will be sought, coveted, and prized. Truth will be recognized as an absolute, regardless of any inconvenience, offense, unpopularity, or expense. We shall have truth in science, with all discoveries being welcomed regardless of iconoclasms they may bestow. We shall have truth in history — hysterical assertion shall not triumph over historical fact in our new State. Within our reverence for Truth shall be the recognition we are part of Nature and subject to Nature’s laws, and our treatment of, and interaction with the environment shall be one of love and respect.

We want an economy based on invention and production rather than speculation and consumption, on equity funding rather than debt financing. With an economy based on production, no citizen who is willing to work will be without employment or livelihood, no matter what kind of work it is. We want an end to the tyranny of oligarchy, the bitter maturing of laissez-faire capitalism with the loss of jobs, planned obsolescence, and the rich becoming richer and the poor becoming poorer, and our people being saddled with massive debt.

We want a nation where scholarships awarded on academic achievement are really given to young people based on their academic achievement, where you can send your daughter to college knowing if she does come home with a husband he will at least be a loving husband compatible with family heritage, and furthermore they will make some darn fine looking grandkids. We want a world where you can speak freely and honestly among your peers or at your workplace about any aspect of science or history without being ostracized, called names, or fired.

We want a society where you can watch a TV show without hearing profanity, seeing strange people, or being exposed to immodesty and immorality, and where there is no private monopoly on media/TV, for control of media equals control of the mind. We want a society where free speech means free speech, and not license to desecrate that which others hold sacred, or to steal the innocence of children by exposing them to filth and depravity.

We want a society where young men still find young women attractive when they are modestly dressed, and where young women can find young men who act like young men and not old boys, where kids can take walks in town at night in safety, where little boys can hunt frogs in the creek, and little girls can walk home from school safely. We want a society where food is not fast, and commutes are not slow. We want a society without repulsive malls, decrepit trailer parks, chintzy, greasy, plastic fast food establishments, and other post-war junk architecture.

We want a system where justice is bestowed on the righteous, and not purchased by the wicked, where truth is a legal defense, and where professional attorneys can make as much as the professional electricians and professional plumbers — if they work hard enough.

We want a government where the constitution not only confers a bill of rights, but also secures a bill of responsibility from each citizen, and where the rights of the people are not trampled by the rights of the individual.

We want a society where history books refer to the murder of 20 million Christians or 50 million unborn children as holocausts.

We want a land where our children learn about their heroes rather than about the heroes of our enemies — the man who responded to a courageous challenge by bringing a sling that could kill from afar, who started a love affair with the King’s son, who betrayed his loyal lieutenant so that he might ravish his wife in faithless treachery, and then thanked God when an innocent child paid the penalty for his transgression. It breaks my heart to think this repulsive little Hebrew is held up as a godly role model to White children in Sunday school listening in innocent, rapt wonder to the whitewashing (literally!) of his loathsome deeds.

We want a society where true artists are encouraged and honored, and where pornographers are located and executed. We want a society where live babies are preferred over live perverts, and where the slaying of the former rather than the latter is considered a crime of hate. We want a society where degeneracy is ridiculed, and Christianity is respected. We want a society where the just recompense for one’s wife being subjected to insult or unwarranted attention by another man may be transacted with guns and not words. We want a society where homemaking and motherhood is revered because it is natural, and the reversal of spousal roles is ridiculed because it is unnatural.

We want a nation where the beauty accruing from racial hygiene is preferred over the ugly anatomical disharmonies associated with race-mixing. We want a nation where any photograph of a gathering of people shows a healthy compliment of our own folk, rather than the obligatory and unnatural conglomeration of various races. We want a nation where quality is preferred to equality, and where value is based on the natural criteria of beauty, scarcity and utility, rather than the unnatural, fictitious, man-declared concept of inherent human worth, without the earning of such worth.

We want a country where dogfighting, cockfighting, bullfighting, all kosher barbarisms against our animal friends and other forms of ghoulish cruelty are rewarded with shame and death.

We want an education system that expands the definition of Special Education to include those ‘gifted & talented’, and expand those services to include, at a minimum, an equal amount spent on gifted as well as ‘challenged’ children, a system where our children can learn more about their own folk than about others, and learn more about the good things their folk have done rather than the mistakes they made. We want a society where active little boys are given 4H projects instead of Ritalin.

We want a society where ‘freedom’ is defined as being able to do as much good as one wants, regardless of criticism, rather than as much evil as one wants, so long as physical or financial injury does not occur. We want a republic, not a democracy. In other words, we want our constitution to be founded on the rights of the people, on which the rights of the individual shall not infringe, where our freedom comes before my freedom. This will be a constitution that recognizes the eternal truth which is this: the rights of all individuals cannot be protected so long as the individuals within that group have radically different values, but the rights of a group of people with similar values can be protected.

We want a land where any writing or pictures on buildings or trains will take the form of art, not hideous graffiti, where people who are hurt will get prompt attention in emergency rooms without having to wait while aliens are given priority, where dogs will receive loving care, fowl will receive proper animal husbandry, and neither will face an ugly end surrounded by sweating, screaming faces bidding the highest dollar on mutilation and death. Motorists will be insured, lawns will be mowed, and restaurants will have health inspections. We want to be able to walk our streets or into our stores and hear only the steady, friendly language of our own folk, and not the gabbling and gibbering of an alien tongue. Our military will guard our borders. No se habla español aquí.

We want a nation that loves and upholds Nature and Her laws, and that hates and opposes all that is unnatural and contrary to Her laws, a nation whose folk recognizes that creation should go up, and not down, even as it has in eons past. We want to live in a White world.


We have had a wonderful springtime here in the Homeland. The large snowpack has been experiencing a slow melt-off, and there are a profusion of wildflowers. The long, wet, cool spring followed by sudden summer heat has made for a very challenging farming season, but still life is very good. The ruffed grouse have finished their drumming and courtship in the woods, and the elk and deer, having wintered much lower due to the heavy snowfall, came through in fine shape. I saw two bull elk last week — both fat as ticks, with antlers forming and thick with velvet. For those who like shopping for free and nutritious groceries in the woods, the morel mushrooms were quite plentiful, as were the wild onions. The huckleberry harvest, still several months off, looks very promising.

And, for birders, the Pacific Northwest is paradise. While there are over 800 species of birds in North America, more than 350 of them may be found in Idaho alone! Much of this is due to our diverse geography, as well as the fact that, while we are a large area, we have only about 15 people per square mile. Actually, we have in many areas zero people per square mile as most folks live in or near one of three major cities. Recently my wife and I saw a pair of Pileated woodpeckers — always a haunting sight as they so closely resemble their larger southern brethren the Ivorybill woodpecker, the survival of which we and others in our communities continue to pray for, as we do for our own folk — the Children of the Sun.

* * *

Trainspotter comments at TOO:

Excellent and inspiring essay. As to the critique of America, I am ashamed to admit that Farnham is both harsh… and essentially correct. At what point do the missteps and misdeeds of the United States become fundamental to its nature as opposed to flukes and aberrations?

Importing cheap labor (including blacks), then whites slaughtering whites at least in part over blacks, reconstruction, extending the vote to blacks (in the 1800′s for crying out loud) – need one go on? And we haven’t even reached the post World War II era yet, or the absolutely disgusting present. A present where even rock ribbed red staters are peachy keen on immigration, so long as it is legal and the person wants to work hard. Want to make a buck? Want to pursue your self-interest and gorge on filthy lucre? Surely you are my kinsman, surely you are my fellow citizen. LOL! You just can’t make this stuff up.

If this bizarre attitude on the part of “conservatives” that the simple desire to make a buck makes one a kindred spirit, a good countryman, whether he be Zulu or aborigine, does not reveal the hollow shell of the United States, I don’t know what does. (I’ll note that, obviously, there is nothing wrong and much right with productive activity and building wealth – but the idea that such a desire makes a Bantu a meaningful part of my community, my people, is utterly absurd – but perfectly in vogue with the modern Kwa.)

Today, in 2011, we are witnesses with front row seats to the endgame. It’s a mad house.

Point is, this country had fundamental problems well before Brown v Board and the ensuing cesspool. I’m increasingly persuaded that these problems are inherent to what the United States is, baked into the cake as it were. Two of the major poisons being equality and excessive materialism, prominent right from the beginning.

This is not to say that there is nothing good about America, but it becomes increasingly apparent that most of the good attributed to the United States is, in fact, simply an expression of the whites who peopled it as opposed to the political ideas that get all of the credit. Whites who had a continent to conquer and put to productive use. Whites who still had a meaningful culture and folkways that they brought with them from the Old World, while temporarily being freed, or at least relatively so, from an exploitative oligarchy.

Whites were extremely race conscious for most of American history (and thank god for that, or we would already be at Brazil status), but again, can this be attributed to the United States political ideology/system in particular? I think not. It was simply whites, as essentially decent and realistic people, attempting to protect their communities, and in particular the more vulnerable whites in the community, from the horrors that we see all around us today. It had essentially nothing to do with “equality” or Coolidge’s famous “the business of America is business” materialist nonsense.

If anything, America’s political ideology/system worked against these good things, always threatening to undermine them. And then it did just that, and with some extra help from the Chosen, we survey the wasteland across the fruited plain.

In short, what has been beautiful and impressive about America has been its white people coupled with a fairly unusual set of circumstances, not the political and ideological snake oil that garners civic book kudos.

So yes, perhaps we do need something fresh, new and unused. Something particularly geared to our nature, and specifically designed to protect and elevate us through the coming ages. I just don’t think that the United States can really be that anymore. In many ways it never was.

This does not mean that I’m sold on the Northwest plan. I just don’t think it will work out that way, for a variety of reasons that I’ve written about before. However, at the moment, nothing better has been put forward, so the Northwest idea wins by default. So be it.

In any event, and however we get it, Farnham is absolutely correct: sovereignty for our people must be the unalterable goal. Nothing less will do. Whether the Northwest idea in particular falls in or out of favor, gaining a land of our own must be our lodestar.