German translation here
For the racialist, whose objective is to save our threatened people from extinction and set it upon a sound future path, the question Who belongs? is foundational. It must be examined with detachment from a variety of perspectives, regardless of any social awkwardness or interpersonal unpleasantness this may involve.
It is not about hurting people’s feelings; it’s about survival.
Because race is a biological concept, many of the most basic challenges we face are biological in nature. Of course, every biological problem has far-reaching social consequences.
Small groups, organizations, a movement, chronologically precede the establishment of a white polity, whether it be micro-nationalist, mini-nationalist, pan-national, or even the result of total reconquest. The question Who belongs?, initially applicable at the small group and movement level, therefore ultimately applies to the envisioned state as well.
Additionally, asking Who belongs? in a precise way hones the analytical faculty and clarifies the nature of the target audience, the methods needed to reach them, the actions desired from them and, in general, the goals one desires to achieve.
Intermarriage and White Survival
Intermarriage and interracial cohabitation, with or without hybrid issue (but especially with), are destructive of collective survival.
Nature required millennia to create our race, which can be destroyed almost instantly through intermixture, particularly in an environment characterized by white demographic collapse, genetic swamping, and the absence or suppression of cultural barriers to hybridization that non-dominant, non-isolated races need to survive.
“Throughout human history,” Jewish anthropologist Stanley Garn observed, “countless isolates have lost their reproductive barriers and in consequence their genetic uniqueness. . . . Today, we see numerous examples of crosses between disparate geographical races, with an increasingly larger proportion of the world’s population so formed.”
It is the “reproductive barriers,” especially social and cultural ones, which need to be consciously and explicitly reestablished and reinvented. No one has been hit harder by their legal suppression than whites. Indeed, laws prohibiting genocide criminalize the racist measures Jews and governments routinely adopt. Unfortunately, criminals pay as much heed to such prohibitions as they do to immigration laws.
It is interesting in this regard that when whites dominated, they arranged for the separate existence of races. Reservations, ghettoes, segregation, and apartheid envisioned the coexistence, rather than the destruction, of races.
Anti-white governments, in contrast, insist upon destruction. As noted, they stand self-condemned as criminals under their own laws!
Race-mixing by whites is occurring everywhere in the world. The proliferating products of such unions are effectively lost to our people, but hopefully some will eventually honor and fight for the white portion of their heritage.
In the vast majority of cases the actual whites who outmarry and sexually reproduce become irrelevant. They possess no racial pride or consciousness, and do not identify with or care about the survival of their own race.
Undoubtedly, some even welcome its disappearance. This is the default position of the System, and therefore of most people, white and nonwhite: “Who cares whether the white race survives?”
As Wilmot Robertson noted, “Strictly speaking, no one can change or trade his race. This is precluded by the physical stratum of race. But one can lose or give up his race-mindedness, his racial pride, his racism. . . . One can marry a person of a different race and have hybrid children.” By outmarrying, a white person “withdraws for all practical purposes from his own group and becomes, if not a bona fide, at least an ad hoc member of a minority.”
The Race-Mixing White Nationalist
It doesn’t take one long to notice that white racialism replicates within itself every social pathology characteristic of the surrounding society, race-mixing included. So one must attempt to be realistic about this and do the best one can in the face of it.
Paradoxically, there are intermarried whites, some with hybrid children, who nevertheless identify more strongly and sincerely with the white cause than do whites still living accidentally and unconsciously in wholly white family environments.
This is not altogether surprising. Some do not arrive at racial understanding until later in life, after the wrong path has been taken.
Furthermore, it’s the moral thing to do. One would expect even numerous individuals from nonwhite Gentile races to ultimately sympathize with our cause, since to oppose it means to endorse genocide—not in theory, but in practice. And whatever their other faults, members of these races aren’t Jews.
Two examples of intermarried individuals on the fringes of white racialism are conservative writers John Derbyshire and Fred Reed.
Derbyshire, an Englishman living in New York City who writes for National Review, is married to a Chinese woman. They have two children.
Fred Reed, an exceptionally gifted satirist and opinion writer, cohabits with a Mexican woman. I don’t recall whether they’re married or not, and don’t know whether they have children.
Reed was a guest speaker at an American Renaissance conference. That group is a conservative advocate of white interests.
What to make of this? It raises an issue that shouldn’t simply be swept under the rug.
The decision to outmarry, sexually hook up with nonwhite partners, or produce hybrid children, has major ramifications both for the individual concerned and the embryonic community as a whole.
The individual who makes such a choice cannot help but have his emotions and loyalties subtly but powerfully diluted—particularly where a spouse and children are concerned, but even otherwise. One’s racial sense is inevitably attenuated. Family ties are not easily eschewed.
The white racial community (i.e., conscious whites) is also affected. Members will refrain from speaking or even thinking certain thoughts that need to be examined and expressed in order to spare the feelings of people who are often true friends (unlike most white nitwits).
Just like society at large, the group grows accustomed to seeing and socializing on a familiar basis with nonwhites who become unconsciously identified with the in-group. The assimilation of nonwhites by white racialists into their intimate family circles as spouses, children, in-laws, cousins, and so forth, no matter how peripherally, also shifts group loyalties and blunts the ability of other members to sharply distinguish and oppose the inroads of the alien.
The same harmful process that occurs among whites in the larger society is thus replicated among explicit whites, even though they begin from a psychological point of origin more distant from, and less conformist than, that of profane society.
For these reasons, the psychological and ideological clarity provided by the radical (Pierce) approach, outlined below, cannot simply be dismissed. It at least has the virtue of throwing the problem into sharp relief.
The most intriguing aspect of the AmRen situation is that a Jewish correspondent for a major newspaper—my recollection is that it was the Washington Post—smugly reported one year that many attendees at an annual conference were accompanied by non-white spouses or partners.
This is precisely the sort of thing a Jew would immediately notice and grasp the significance of, but that whites—even racially conscious ones—would remain vague in their minds about.
We can identify two extreme responses to the proliferation within white nationalist ranks of sexual partnerships with nonwhites.
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell . . . Don’t Care
AmRen’s attitude probably exemplifies a reluctance to come to grips with the problem. No doubt organizers and members would prefer in-marriage to out-marriage, but gentility prevents them from confronting the matter directly, just as “anti-Semitism” is frowned upon, Paul Fussell-fashion, as low-status.
But when the sea is pouring over the dike and the mushroom clouds billowing, it’s time to chuck gentility out the window.
This lack of focus, or excessive politeness, may be contrasted with indifference arising from non-commitment, or a perceived lack of threat from intermarriage, interracial cohabitation, and hybridization.
Sailer casually dismissed the concerns of a correspondent who wrote, “Miscegenation destroys irreversibly and utterly that which took Nature tens of thousands of years to create.”
In response, the columnist claimed that “Anyone wishing to ‘abolish the white race'” is “going to have to wait a long time,” since there are, “depending on strictness of definition from over one billion to over two billion” whites on the planet.
The truth is, there is not even an accepted definition of “white,” much less a reliable census of the members of our race worldwide. Unsurprisingly, Sailer did not cite any sources for his numbers. The range of Sailer’s prodigious Internet output is as broad as the Great Plains, but in this instance at least less than 1/256″ deep.
In 2002, the estimated population of the world was 6.3 billion. So Sailer was guessing that the white population ranged anywhere from over 16% to more than 32% (nearly 1/3) of the total. His error range alone (2 billion – 1 billion = 1 billion), equaled his total low-ball estimate and represented roughly the population of India that year (1.1 billion).
Sailer proceeded to claim that intermarriage between whites and Hispanics, and whites and blacks, was statistically insignificant. (He omitted mention of Jews and other nonwhites completely.) This wasn’t true even when he wrote, but what matters anyway is the extent of interracial mating, whether inside or outside of marriage.
The allegedly slow growth in the small number of mixed race children in white areas “will have a mild but probably beneficial effect on racial friction.”
My bottom line view on marriage: you ought to marry the person you love. The alternatives—marrying a person you don’t love or not marrying at all—are worse.
I didn’t exactly come up with that idea all by myself. Over the last millennium, this has become the predominant view of Western Civilization. Increasing freedom to form love matches reflects the West’s distinctive values such as individualism, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
In other words, “Don’t worry. Be happy and racially irresponsible.”
Though Sailer is not a racialist (he has attacked even Jared Taylor’s tepid brand of white nationalism), and perhaps not even white (he has speculated that he may be part Jewish), his blasé approach is unquestionably reflected in the behavior of elements of the racialist right, as some commenters even on this website have freely admitted with respect to their own pasts.
At the other end of the spectrum is the zero tolerance policy adopted by William Pierce, founder of the National Alliance. He expressed his absolutist approach in various ways.
In the first few pages of his novel Hunter (1989), the book’s hero had already murdered 12 people—all racially mixed couples—by gunning them down in shopping mall parking lots:
He settled on the shootings for three reasons. First, they were highly symbolic of America’s sickness and of the danger threatening his race. Everyone would understand immediately their significance and the motivation behind them. Second, they were personal and direct actions; they had more therapeutic value for him than a more impersonal blow against the System would have had. Third, and most important, they were acts that could be imitated by others. Many could shoot down a miscegenating couple on the street.
Pierce isn’t the only person to think this way.
For example, his novel is dedicated to serial killer Joseph Paul Franklin, “the Lone Hunter, who saw his duty as a White man and did what a responsible son of his race must do, to the best of his ability and without regard for the personal consequences.”
Comparable sentiments were expressed by the band Blue Eyed Devils in their song “Walk in Shame.” (In this realm, as elsewhere, distinctions must be made. Ian Stuart and Skrewdriver, and of course Swedish singer Saga, are the Wilmot Robertsons/Instaurations of skinhead bands, Blue Eyed Devils, the ersatz Romper Stomper, and others the Tom Metzgers/Turner Diaries.)
In Pierce’s fantasized “Day of the Rope” in The Turner Diaries (1978; 2d ed. 1980), numerous victims dangling from trees and lampposts after the revolution are whites who engaged in interracial sex:
There are many thousands of hanging female corpses like that in this city tonight, all wearing identical placards around their necks. They are the White women who were married to or living with Blacks, with Jews, or with other non-White males. There are also a number of men wearing the I-defiled-my-race placard, but the women easily outnumber them seven or eight to one. On the other hand, about ninety per cent of the corpses with the I-betrayed-my-race placards are men, and overall the sexes seem to be roughly balanced. Those wearing the latter placards are the politicians, the lawyers, the businessmen, the TV newscasters, the newspaper reporters and editors, the judges, the teachers, the school officials, the “civic leaders,” the bureaucrats, the preachers, and all the others who, for reasons of career or status or votes or whatever, helped promote or implement the System’s racial program. The System had already paid them their 30 pieces of silver. Today we paid them.
More soberly, anyone with “a non-White spouse (whether under civil law or common law) or a non-White dependent” was ineligible for membership in the National Alliance—whose membership was restricted to “White persons,” defined as “any non-Jewish person who appears to be [i.e., displays a phenotype] of wholly European ancestry.”
Incidentally, the maximum Amerindian ancestry permitted for NA membership, even if the candidate looked white, was a stringent 1/8 (one Indian great-grandparent to 7 white great-grandparents). For historical comparisons of restrictions on Jewish ancestry among whites in Germany, and Negro ancestry under American miscegenation statutes, see here.
In 1981 a libertarian journalist wrote a letter to National Vanguard. He said:
To tell you the truth, you make me a little nervous. In your June edition of National Vanguard, in the short article on Rabbi Meir Kahane (I rather admire his honesty and courage) and his effort to make sex illegal between Gentile men and Jewish women, you write that death would be a more appropriate punishment for that crime than the five years in prison suggested by the rabbi. I already feel the blade whistling down.
What a guillotine is required for is to cut out of the race truly diseased elements, so that they do not propagate. Taking a non-white as a mate, whether with the deliberate intent of miscegenation or simply as an act of egoistic irresponsibility, is clear evidence of disease. (I would indeed be sorry if your nervousness in response to my seconding of Rabbi Kahane’s proposal for outlawing sexual relations between Jews and Whites were based on personal guilt.)
Allies and Emissaries
It would seem that a happy medium should be struck between these two extreme positions.
At least the problem should not be ignored, as the “Don’t care” response preaches. We must care. At present, genocidal anti-white policies of state and society are utilizing one-sided or compulsory propaganda and the power of the state to insure white biological extinction through replacement migration, a collapsing white birth rate, large scale hybridization with non-whites, institutionalized racial discrimination, and the curtailment of essential liberties.
Race destruction through hybridization is thus a key pillar of the Establishment’s assault upon our people. As racialists, we cannot ignore this.
Most whites who live with non-whites are either anti-white or racially indifferent.
Still, there is a small minority of de facto race-mixers whose pro-white sincerity and integrity are beyond question. Paradoxically yet undeniably, their group loyalty and psychological identification are purer by far than anything exhibited by the vast majority of accidental whites, who more often than not are actively anti-white.
Because the process of racialists hooking up with nonwhites is not going to subside anytime soon, there is the question of how to deal with the problem. There is also the matter of racialists who have engaged in interracial sex or relationships in the past, and perhaps had children from such liaisons.
The necessity of utilizing the talents, resources, and sympathies of these people seems inescapable.
Even the purist, unyielding Dr. Pierce did so to a limited degree. A follower who was refused NA membership due to a former marriage to an Asian woman nevertheless interacted with Pierce and donated money to the Alliance—including a vehicle Pierce drove.
Though I usually adamantly refuse to point to Jews as a positive example for anything, in this instance I’ll make an exception. Thousands of out-marrying and part Jews perform invaluable, possibly indispensable, services in establishing and preserving Jewish dominance and destroying white society despite being denied membership in, or being permitted to damage, the core Jewish population.
One may study the mechanisms by which this is accomplished through personal analysis and observation, or by reading a theoretical description in Jewish author Daniel Elazar’s Community and Polity: The Organizational Dynamics of American Jewry (1976). A succinct summary of Elazar’s key points on the subject may also be found in David Duke’s My Awakening (1998), p. 458.
Nevertheless, the negative effects of race-mixing upon the embryonic white community must be kept uppermost in mind, and steps taken to insure that the mixers, in combination with the habitual negligence and laxity even of committed non-mixing whites, do not contaminate and weaken the evolving community.
It would seem that a clearly demarcated “associate” status of some sort, formal or informal, should be established for WN race-mixers (but not their nonwhite family members) whose sincerity and loyalty is otherwise beyond doubt.
The miscegenating white racialist, while contributing in various ways to our cause, may also serve as an emissary or envoy from our people to the larger non-white and anti-white world beyond, retaining the memory of his white past, a commitment to the proud heritage of his ancestors and the co-racialists he left behind . . . who will survive or perish as their collective decisions, the forces arrayed against them, and Fate, have yet to determine.
Herman Husband, Eighteenth Century White Nationalist Pioneer
Remembering Savitri Devi (September 30, 1905–October 22, 1982)
The Ayatollah Answers
Talent: A Review
Southern Nationalism: An Interview with Padraig Martin of Identity Dixie
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 482 It Was a Very Good Year on The Writers’ Bloc
Safeguarding Our Tribal Discourse
A Tale of Two Speeches, Part 1