3,749 words 
Eric Kaufmann
Whiteshift: Populism, Immigration & the Future of White Majorities
London: Allen Lane, 2018
Eric Kaufmann’s Whiteshift is both highly useful and deeply disturbing to White Nationalists.
Whiteshift is useful because it provides both facts and arguments that validate white identity politics and national populism. Kaufmann also rejects the central tenets of critical race theory and affirms the moral legitimacy of whites who wish to resist cultural and demographic displacement. Whiteshift is disturbing, though, because Kaufmann thinks he can mollify such whites by selling them a vision of the future in which white culture and symbols remain dominant but whites largely disappear through race-mixing.
This strange take on white identity politics makes more sense when one understands Kaufmann’s identity. Kaufmann was born in Hong Kong in 1970, raised in Vancouver, Canada, went to graduate school at the London School of Economics, and became a professor of politics at the University of London. His father is Jewish and his mother is a mix of Costa Rican and Chinese.
Despite being a mixed-race cosmopolitan, Kaufmann seems to identify with white British culture, hence his willingness to entertain the concerns of white Britons who wish to resist demographic and cultural decline. He also describes himself as a “national conservative” in the Yoram Hazony sense.
The publication of Whiteshift led to five-years of Leftist harassment at the University of London, where Kaufmann had taught politics since 2003. In 2023, he resigned to become professor of politics at the University of Buckingham. Kaufmann’s most recent book, The Third Awokening: A 12-Point Plan for Rolling Back Progressive Extremism, is a polemic against “woke” Leftism.[1]
In chapter 12 of Whiteshift, “Will ‘Unmixed’ Whites Go Extinct?,” Kaufmann offers a critique of the White Nationalist claim that if nothing is done to stop low white fertility, non-white immigration, and race-mixing, the white race will go extinct. Since these anti-white trends are promoted by governments and other powerful institutions (that are in the position to oppose or even prevent them), White Nationalists argue that white extinction is actually intentional, meaning that it is white genocide.
In The White Nationalist Manifesto, I have provided the strongest cases to date for the theses that the white race is on the path to extinction[2] and that white extinction is intentional, thus it is also white genocide.[3]
Extinction just means the failure of a species to reproduce itself. I argue that the four chief causes of biological extinction apply to whites today: loss of habitat in which whites can sustain our population and genetic distinctness; invasive species, which compete with us for resources in our native habitats; hybridization, which destroys our genetic distinctiveness; and excessive predation, which does not just take the form of war and ethnic cleansing but also violent crime. These causes of extinction are now the norms in most white countries. There is also an additional, distinctly human factor that contributes to below-replacement fertility: many whites value other things more than reproducing their race.
Most species that have existed on earth have gone extinct. Extinctions can be divided into natural and man-made. Most extinctions are natural. Indeed, most took place before the human race even existed. White extinction is not, however, a natural phenomenon. It is not caused by drought, disease, or a cataclysmic asteroid strike. Instead, white extinction is man made. It is caused by human decisions. Somebody decided to promote anti-natalist values. Somebody decided to open the borders of white countries to non-whites, subjecting us to resource competition, hybridization, and outright predation.
As I argue in The White Nationalist Manifesto, I don’t think that the policies promoting white extinction were adopted unintentionally. But even if such policies were adopted without ill intent, our ruling elites have now been informed that they are leading to white extinction. Yet the policies remain in place. So if white extinction wasn’t the goal at the start, it is definitely the goal now. The United Nations definition of genocide includes creating political conditions that make the long-term survival of a particular group impossible. Whites, therefore, are being targeted for slow genocide by the elites that control our countries.
Let’s look at Kaufmann’s remarks on the white extinction thesis, which he treats as interchangeable with the idea of white genocide. This is not precise, since genocide presupposes an element of intent whereas extinction does not.
The first problem is that Kaufmann does not think of race as a biological concept: “. . . whites are not primarily attached to those of their race because they’re genetically closer to these people: there are no discrete biological races, so our tribal impulses have no obvious boundaries” (p. 478). Instead, Kaufmann thinks that whiteness is primarily an idea. Yes, but an idea of what? Clearly, it is primarily an idea of a biological race.
By turning whiteness into an idea or an image, Kaufmann wishes to detach it from biology and place it in the realm of culture: “Whiteness matters because it’s a cultural marker, part of the vernacular tradition tied to ethnicity and nationhood” (p. 479). He is trying to make whiteness conventional and thus mutable. Beyond that, he wants to make it into something that individuals can own or disown, identify with or reject. Specifically, he wants to make it possible for people who are biologically non-white to identify with whiteness.
Kaufmann’s definition of whiteness as primarily cultural is crucial to his argument that whites are not facing extinction, much less genocide, for he thinks it is possible for there to be a world in which everyone is of mixed race yet some of them identify as white.
This is not, of course, an adequate response to the ideas of white extinction and genocide, for extinction is a biological concept. White extinction means the death of the white race as a biological group, not as an idea or image. White genocide means the deliberate biological destruction of the white race, not the destruction of an idea or image. As we shall see, Kaufmann says nothing to reassure us about the long-term biological survival of whites.
Kaufmann writes: “The theory of white genocide holds that a combination of low white birth rates, non-white immigration and race-mixing will lead to the extinction of the white race in the West” (p. 479). This is a fairly accurate description of the problem, although to be precise, Kaufmann should have underscored that genocide is intentional.
Unfortunately, Kaufmann does not respond to a strong statement of the white extinction and white genocide theses. In fact, Kaufmann does not cite even a single case for these claims. He merely drops a few names: Patrick Sharp, Richard Spencer, Generation Identity.
This is the first argument Kaufmann examines: “The argument that minority ethnic groups are encouraged to take pride in their identity while whites are not strikes me as undeniable in the present climate” (p. 482). This isn’t even an argument about white extinction or genocide. It is simply a factual statement about the anti-white nature of multiculturalism. Kaufmann, moreover, agrees with it. He also thinks it is a problem: “Freezing out legitimate expressions of white identity allows the far right to own it, and acts as a recruiting sergeant for their wilder ideas” (p. 483). Of course, for most anti-whites, the only legitimate expressions of white identity are self-blame and self-loathing.
The next argument Kaufmann examines is that “only white countries have liberals who oppose their own ethnic group and express majority guilt. This is largely but not entirely the case” (p. 483). Again, this is not really an argument for white extinction or genocide, just another statement about the anti-white nature of contemporary multiculturalism. Of course, over a very long time, if white advocate against their own group and non-whites advocate for their own group, this would systematically disadvantage whites in struggles over power and resources. This could lead to white extinction.
Kaufman’s response is weak. He simply observes that other races have their own traitors. This isn’t news to most White Nationalists and does not undermine our views. (Kaufmann is the one who uses the word “only” here, which creates an easily-refuted strawman.) Kaufmann also acknowledges that non-whites who advocate against their peoples are rare compared to whites, thus they are not as destructive as their white counterparts. Thus the dangerous asymmetry between whites and non-whites remains.
Next Kaufmann asks, “Do liberals intend to transform white societies into non-white ones through immigration and race-mixing? I think this also contains a measure of truth, though it is far from the whole story” (p. 485). At this point, we are actually dealing with a version of the white genocide thesis, namely the intentional replacement of whites with non-whites.
According to Kaufmann, the whole story is that businessmen also promote non-white immigration. In effect, Kaufmann’s critique is that things are worse than his hypothetical opponent thinks, because in addition to the liberals who want to blend whites out of existence, businessmen also want to do the same:
Today’s left modernists are motivated by both humanitarianism and multicultural millenarianism. They also look forward to the demise of a white majority because they believe this will pave the way for progressivism . . . So there is truth to the white nationalists’ transformationist charge, but much of the impetus for immigration comes from liberal humanitarianism and economic laissez-faire rather than modernist millenarianism. (p. 485)
Of course, none of this is news to White Nationalists. So again, Kaufmann is just dismissing a straw man. But in this case, he is criticizing a weak version of the genocide thesis only to affirm a stronger one.
Kaufmann then deals with, “Another claim of the white genocide theory . . . that other racial groups are outbreeding whites. But the claim that whites have lower birth rates than non-whites can be dispensed with fairly quickly” (p. 488). Kaufmann argues that all racial groups are undergoing a transition to low birthrates, which will be completed around 2085. This is hardly a response, however. First, even if non-white populations do not grow at all, there are enough Africans or Indians today to completely swamp and destroy every white society on the planet if they are allowed to move there. Second, it isn’t 2085 yet. The claim that non-whites are outbreeding whites today is not falsified by pointing out that this may no longer be true in 2085.
At this point, Kaufmann asks, “Are Jews or minorities seeking to hasten white decline? I may be biased but I’ve never seen any systematic evidence for this claim” (p. 488). Kaufmann has already admitted that “liberals” are promoting and celebrating white decline. What ethnic groups do they belong to? It w0uld be surprising to find a group of “liberals” in which Jews and non-white minorities are not overrepresented. To dispute this, Kaufmann opposes the names of a couple of anti-immigration Jews to a couple of pro-immigration Jews, with nary a hint that he couldn’t continue this for very long, because Jews in Western societies are overwhelmingly in favor of non-white immigration. It is a very strange way for a social scientist to argue. Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique[4] offers a plausible explanation for why Jews are overrepresented among immigration advocates, but again Kaufmann doesn’t cite any sources for the argument he is criticizing.
Kaufmann then deals with the claim that whites are threatened with extinction through race-mixing: “Another white genocide claim is that whites face imminent extinction through immigration and race mixing. This is almost certainly false” (p. 489). Again, Kaufmann cites no sources. Instead, he formulates the argument himself, then claims that “Straight line demographic modelling does provide some evidence for this argument, suggesting that on current trends and assuming no geographic isolation the last [white] person in Britain will mix with a non-white partner in 980 years” (p. 489).
Note that Kaufmann is ambiguous about whose argument his evidence supports: the white genocide thesis or his critique. The answer, I guess, is both. After all, if white extinction is 1,000 years in the future, it can’t be “imminent,” a term Kaufmann himself chose, meaning that yet again he is knocking down his own strawman. However, if British whites will finally succumb to miscegenation in 1,000 years, that supports the white genocide thesis.
Kaufmann also claims that “the notion that whites as a race are facing extinction in Europe or America is more of a stretch,” but his argument is hardly reassuring:
As mentioned, there is already non-European ancestry in the white population [which will just hasten our destruction] and even with a good deal more admixture, many will appear Caucasian. Even if non-European ancestry becomes dominant, chance will throw up archetypal white individuals, as periodically occurs when two black parents give birth to a white baby. (p. 489)
This argument simply elides the difference between genetic whiteness and looking white. White identitarians are concerned with preserving people who are white, not non-whites who merely look and act white.
Kaufmann also asserts, without any argument, that “In the West, whites are likely to endure for millennia in isolated rural communities, just as unmixed native Indians or Gaelic-speaking Irish do” (p. 489). But let’s say that were true. Is it any consolation that the race that created the greatest civilizations in history should be reduced to remnants in rural backwaters while we are replaced in our citadels of power and culture? What sort of people would regard that as a happy ending?
Kaufmann also argues that whites might persist in communities of “religious fundamentalists who reject the modern world,” because these communities “grow through high birth rates and retain their offspring. . . . So long as they are tolerated, groups like the ultra-orthodox Jews, Amish, Hutterites, traditionalist Mennonites . . . will expand rapidly” (p. 495). There are three problems here.
First, unlike Jews, Christians believe in interracial conversion and marriage. Thus there is no reason to believe that such religious groups will remain white. Second, it is folly to stake our future on self-marginalizing religious sects that exist only “so long as they are tolerated.” Finally, Kaufmann is asking us to accept that such great white nations as the English, French, Italians, etc. will disappear through race-mixing, because there will still be Amish and Hutterites in the world. But this is no reason for French identitarians to give up the struggle for their own people’s future. Besides, can you name a great Amish novelist or a great Hutterite composer? Yes, they are still white. But it isn’t enough merely for some whites somewhere on the planet to survive. White identitarians of all nations want their own nations to survive and flourish. We want what’s best for all white nations.
Kaufmann’s vision of the future for whites is dystopian, not reassuring: “unmixed whites may persist in rural backwaters, Eastern Europe and a few tight knit diasporas” (p. 489). But, he insists, this will not be the end for white majority societies. Why? Because Kaufmann redefines white societies as mixed-race populations that accept white norms: “Imagine the Europe of 2200, in which whites of mixed race are the dominant group and the white archetype that hangs in museums and is portrayed on movie screens remains the cultural reference point” (p. 493). Elsewhere he writes, “Arguably the most important way in which unmixed whiteness will endure is through the archetypes around which an ethnic majority orients itself” (p. 501). There are three problems here.
First of all, biologically speaking there is no such thing as “whites of mixed race.” These people are more accurately described as non-whites who pass as white and identify as white. Moreover, there’s a difference between being white and looking white. The first is a biological reality. The second is an appearance, sometimes a deceptive appearance akin to mimicry. There’s also a difference between being white and thinking of oneself as white. The first is a biological reality. The second is a form of (sometimes false) consciousness. Finally, there’s a difference between being white and acting white. The first is an objective reality. The second is a performance.
I understand why merely looking white is meaningful to Kaufmann, who is a white-presenting, white-acting, white-identifying person of mixed race. Many mixed-race people highly prize looking white. As Kaufmann writes:
One fascinating study of Mexican elite families found that some began as successful mixed-race families who married poor European peasants to whiten their offspring and have since become part of Mexico’s white [i.e., white-presenting] elite. Similarly, poor whites who marry darker-skinned, wealthier Mexicans may produce offspring that cannot pass as white and therefore may pass out of the white racial caste. In South and East Asia today, skin lightening creams are a $43bn industry, with as many as four in ten East Asian women using them. Hair straightening is a massive business in African-origin communities. (p. 494)
Kaufmann even mentions sex-selection abortions, but he does not state the obvious. Someday very soon, mixed-race people with money will use genetic profiling and embryo selection to bring whiter babies into the world. Eventually, they will use gene editing to remove non-white traits.
Do whites really want to condemn their descendants to this kind of future? It seems grimly farcical that countless brainwashed whites happily praise race-mixing, or at least will not oppose it, given how coveted white traits are among mixed-race people and the pains they take to simulate or breed them back. If only whites prized their whiteness as much as non-whites envy it. Why destroy our race if future generations will desperately try to resurrect it, whether genetically or cosmetically?
I know mixed-race people like Kaufmann who value their whiteness, wish to live in white societies, and even curse their ancestors for mixing. This latter sentiment is, strictly speaking, irrational, because our genes are part of our identity. We would not exist without all of our ancestors, even the ancestors we might wish we didn’t have. You would not still be you without them. There’s something deeply unhealthy about this sort of self-hatred. This is why, in centuries past, we used to speak of the “tragic mulatto.” It saddens me to see it.
This brings us to the second problem: Why does Kaufmann think that whiteness would persist as a norm without white people? Does he think that whites are objectively superior to non-whites? Maybe. But people aren’t that objective. In a mixed-race world, why would one torture oneself and one’s children by upholding white norms? Wouldn’t it be healthier just to discard them? In a post-white world, the only thing that would sustain normative whiteness would be unhealthy sentiments like nostalgia and self-loathing. Thus it makes sense for people of mixed race to reject the normative whiteness that Kaufmann imagines can be preserved forever, even after whites disappear.
Moreover, in Latin America, many mixed-race people identify with their white side because they admire strength, and their white ancestors were conquerors. If, however, the white race goes extinct out of weakness and folly, allowing non-whites to inherit their lands, then people who admire strength would regard whiteness with contempt.
A white society can contain some white-presenting, white-acting people of mixed race while still retaining its identity. But why would actual whites allow themselves to be completely replaced by non-whites? There are plenty of mixed-race societies around the world. From India to the Middle East to Latin America, they all present the same spectacle: small white-presenting elites struggling to maintain order, prosperity, and a semblance of modern civilization against the retarding influence of vast numbers of less-intelligent, less-orderly, less-industrious non-whites. Why would any white nation wish to emulate such societies?
Of course, if whites think of themselves only as individuals, it would be possible for them to sleepwalk their way into such a future. After all, race-mixing expands sexual opportunities for selfish individuals even as it destroys the different races. Selfish individuals are also uninterested in the long-term future of civilization, especially if they have no children of their own, know nothing of their history, and only consume junk food and junk culture. If such people have their way, “the West will become multi-ethnic before it melts, with whites declining” (p. 509). Here “melting” means universal miscegenation.
But what about the growing backlash of nationalist and populist whites who wish to resist demographic and cultural decline? Kaufmann thinks they can be placated so they no longer resist their extinction. The goal of Whiteshift is to provide the establishment with precisely such a narcotizing teaching:
In the twenty-first century, whites may come to accept those of mixed race as part of the same ethnic group, even if racial differences persist for some time. The expansion of ethnic majority boundaries could reassure despondent whites that their group has a future while simultaneously endowing the mixed group with a new sense of being the inheritors of the European mantle and its racial archetype. (p. 510)
The only future Kaufmann offers whites is to imagine that non-whites are white and feel flattered that they wish to imitate our civilization and our appearance after we’re gone. The main problem with this solution is that there’s no market for it.
Those who don’t care about preserving white civilization and genetics won’t be flattered that non-whites wish to imitate us. Only whites who value our civilization and genetic heritage would be flattered by such attentions. But those who value their genes and civilization will wish to actually preserve them, not die off and bequeath civilization to people who at best will merely imitate us.
Eric Kaufmann’s Whiteshift offers no good reasons to reject the white extinction and white genocide theses. In fact, he gives every reason to think that whites will become biologically extinct unless we enact White Nationalist policies to separate the races, control our borders, and raise white birthrates.
But Kaufmann tells us to relax, because in the post-white world, white-presenting people will receive pride of place in Bollywood movies and telenovelas. Such a world is on a spectrum with the cargo cultists of Melanesia, who imitate whites by building thatched airplanes in the hope they will deliver prosperity. It is not a flattering tribute. It is a grotesque mockery.
Future generations of whites will thank us for vetoing this mixed-race dream. Future mixed-race generations will curse us if we fail.
Notes
[1] Eric Kaufmann, The Third Awokening: A 12-Point Plan for Rolling Back Progressive Extremism (New York: Bombadier Books, 2024).
[2] Johnson, “White Extinction,” The White Nationalist Manifesto.
[3] Johnson, “White Genocide,” The White Nationalist Manifesto.
[4] Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements (Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 1998).
65 comments
Kaufman’s thesis follows the system’s demoralization tactic of promelgating the idea that white extinction via race mixing is already set in stone and is an inevitability.
For white people aware of this issue, it’s a deeply demoralizing and frightening prospect. As a coping mechanism, I’ve seen some conservative whites try to bargain that a race mixed future won’t be so bad. Ideas like castizo futurism is a manifestation of this. However, it’s simply a delusional cope.
The system is trying to destroy white people holistically. While they are encouraging replacement migration to physically replace whites, they also promote the erasure of white culture and symbols. Therefore, the proposed mixed raced “nu-whites” won’t have white archetypes to aspire to, even if they wanted to.
In truth, the system is intentionally destroying whites out of hatred. It either stems from a deep ethno-religious hatred, spite from self loathing mutants and psycopathic individualistic traitors. The raced mix future that’s being promoted is not to edify humanity, it is to degrade it. The new mixed raced underclass will more likely identify with syrup drinking mumble rappers and pornstars, then true European historical heroes and myths. And yes, this includes high iq Asian or Africans and any other pet demographic conservatives romantacize.
“The raced mix future that’s being promoted is not to edify humanity, it is to degrade it.”
Agreed. And you know things are really bad when Whites are forbidden by law to marry other White people.
In Paraguay, Julio César Chaves, used the 1814 marriage decree to reduce the threat posed by Europeans in that country.
https://theconversation.com/from-paraguay-a-history-lesson-on-racial-equality-68655
It’s even worse when contemporary commentators regard such measures, as that author shockingly does, as admirable and to-be-hoped-for instantiations of “racial justice”.
High IQ Africans?? LOL!
Exactly. Good comment.
But it’s not really ” hatred ” , it’s envy, jealousy.
The biggest weakness of whites is that they are high trust empaths and abstract thinkers who have a bad habit of applying their principles to other groups. Universalist ideals such as Christianity, Marxism, and Libertarian are European concepts that only work in majority white countries. It doesn’t help that industrial society and capitalism has created so much leisure and comfort that most modern whites no longer care about tribalism and racial solidarity. We need ethics and principles that are practical and grounded in observable reality or whites will gradually self destruct by being too idealistic and lost in their heads.
I think a reverence for one’s own ancestors, particularly an ancient reverence pre-dating modernity is a possible inoculation to this universalism.
I’ve noticed many white American conservatives don’t seem to possess this. They may idolize the founding fathers at most. Usually their ancestor reverance will focus on the “greatest generation” who, being brutally honest, mindlessly destroyed Europe after being propagandized.
If whites viewed their ancestral lineage, homelands and histories as sacred they would be less likely to follow such nihilistic destructive behaviors.
That’s interesting, I was having similar thoughts recently. Most healthy non-European or pre-Christian cultures, eg Roman, Chinese, Japanese, engage in some degree of ancestor worship or reverence. This tells me that this state of mind is evolutionary and healthful. Whites are being taught to despise their ancestors. We’re being taught to see our ancestors as haters, racist, slavers, antisemites, etc. etc. To the traditional peoples, such as I mentioned, this would constitute a form of blasphemy. It’s an active blasphemy being committed against us in the media, and intellectual channels, with an intention of weakening us in creating self-loathing, which is obvious. Many people discuss the effect, but the exact mechanism is what I’m speaking to here, I guess.
If you have ever read the fantasy novel She, by rider haggard, Ayesha is entertained by destroying the crypts and mummies of her enemies, or the people she has displaced. Ayesha has a particular allegorical significance in that novel.
Oh, and great essay to the maestro!
In other words, Kaufman is promoting white genocide. It isn’t as harsh as Ignatiev’s “abolishing whiteness”, or Donald Moss’s, “kill all whites.” It is now merely, “shifting whiteness”, so it doesn’t really exist.
It is good he announced himself as our enemy. Someday, there will be trials for attempted genocide and may he be around to face his accusers to whom he has provided overt evidence of his guilt.
Aye!
There are so many great points to ponder in this essay.
“In a post-white world, the only thing that would sustain normative whiteness would be unhealthy sentiments like nostalgia and self-loathing.”
Re: nostalgia
Canadian philosopher Marshall McLuhan would agree that nostalgia is not healthy. I remember hearing him say, “All violence is a quest for identity. And the loss of one’s identity is evidenced by nostalgia.”
Interesting. I will have to look into McLuhan. Thank you.
You’re welcome.
It appears that Eric Kaufmann’s Jewish genes are spectacularly dominant. I just can’t see a Chinese person or a mixed-race person from Central America being that deviously hateful.
Even though he’s not white, it’s odd that Kaufmann questions the notion of “imminent extinction through… race mixing.” All he has to do is look in the mirror. Of what, I wonder, does he think he’s a living, breathing example?
I read that book some time ago. It is a projection of the wishes of rich mixed raced people. As such it quite acurately reflects their feelings about themselves. There is something very globalist and Anglo-American about that book. Its tenets are difficult to imagine in a smaller European nation but only make sense among the cosmopolitan ruling elite in London and New York. I do imagine that a mixed-raced billioniare in 25th century with a large collection of antique European artefacts and art might identify with the elite Whites of the distant past.
Perusing my recent Greg Johnson titles, I find his book reviews in only one: White Identity Politics, wherein he reviews Eatwell and Goodwin’s National Populism and Ashley Jardina’s White Identity Politics. But I remember reading his review of Hazony’s book on nationalism at CC; also, he gave a talk on Fukuyama in Ukraine, refuting his arguments, in which he mentioned the spate of recent books trying to counter our arguments. Might there be a new collection of reviews on the horizon? It would be nice to have them all within the covers of one volume–and read as he strikes out these opponents one by one and strengthens the case for white nationalism.
That’s very perceptive of you. Such a book will appear early in the new year.
What’s disgusting and beyond contemptible is not that this jew is arguing for this in an underhanded way as usual, but that a majority or large amount of white male conservatives agree with this, deny race, while smugly laughing in your face and see it as desirabale, just keep the culture.
Most conservatives grasp onto these sorts of straws because they fear that it is too late to rectify things. If we offer them a clear vision and some leadership, they might be turned into white men again.
Some can be turned, but don’t underestimate the power of denial. I think most will desperately cling to liberalism as the walls of their reality crumble around them, because they are always looking for the easy way out, the downward path, which is the ethos of liberalism/ capitalism, the ideology of the sell out. Liberalism is a cop out, it demands nothing from the individual, and that makes it extremely appealing to them. They are extreme avoiders and there is a demand for gatekeepers like Jordan Peterson’s spiel, gladly buying the lie that allows them to not take any risk or make any changes and feel good about themselves. That’s the worst part, the smug rationalization in order to protect their egos, because they don’t want to seem like pathetic cowards. Shallowness is cowardice. I think a lot of this simply comes down to the bourgeoisie mentality vs the aristocratic one. They have opposite values. Liberalism rose with the industrial revolution and the disenfranchisement of the aristocracy, who were btw overly demonized as they were the last defence of commoners against industry and banking where they were treated terribly in factories. Aristocratic culture was responsible for the achievements of high civilization, the arts and philosophy, whereas the whiteshift identity is the same american identity defined by corporations and tv, the atomized global consumer, anyone can become such an american, the lowest common denominator.
Essays like this are vital. We can’t let ourselves be talked into confusion, despair, and submission to White genocide. We have to talk back.
I agree. This is an incisive and well-written rejoinder to a depressing vision of the future.
Thanks!
Thanks. All we can do right now is talk back. But action follows talk, and we are winning the intellectual battle. The Left and the false conservative opposition are on their way down. We are on our way up.
I don’t see the rapid replacement of whites here in the USA as being based on them wanting to preserve the good things whites have provided without those nasty whites to run things. They all seem to want their own cultures to become dominant, be it african, chinese, indian or mexican. They are lead into this by the white liberals who still hold onto the belief that giving things to bin whites will make them appreciate us more and we’ll all live happily ever after. We know this can never happen and it amazes me how blind leftists can be to the negatives of minorities. They will never let you off when it comes time to slit your throat simply because you welcomed them years ago. We need at least 75% of the USA for our homeland with very distinct and fortified borders. The Colorado River to the Mississippi River and all points in between would be great. It’s my own little dream.
Kaufmann is selling conservatives on the idea that our replacements will be grateful for the chance to carry on our civilization. But the only way that would work is if whites reject multiculturalism and enforce radical assimilationism. But that would presupppse so much self-esteem and self-assertion that any white who attained it would not acquiesce to being replaced anyway.
If we have the power to assimilate them, then we have the power to stop them from coming and send them back.
We must not forfeit our massive coastlines to the great oceans that have numerous natural deep, warm-water ports. This Heartland Imperium must also have access to one major Pacific and one major Atlantic coastal port. It should be default have access to the Gulf of Mexico.
If this isn’t the initial deal, then plans must be drawn to obtain them as part of the positive vision for the future. How I long to be of the young men and elders who will undertake that task. It is tall. New York is so horribly disfigured it is … …. it is sickening.
So a very, very mixed-race man with fairly light skin wants a new overclass of people like him. I’ve seen this movie before.
Indeed, he sounds like a reanimated version of Coudenhove-Kalergi. I won’t be drinking his moonshine.
Good one!
It seems that Kaufmann’s position is rather similar to the CivNats who are fine with being replaced by Mexicans, so long as they all assimilate and follow the Constitution.
Yeah, but none of these assimilationists will call a halt to immigration until we actually assimilate people. Assimilation has been replaced, after all, with multiculturalism. Has a single conservative called for an end to multiculturalism?
More of a “bargain bin Kalergi” if you ask me. Retaining all of the devious cosmopolitan, pro-miscegenation attitudes of his spiritual predecessor, but without the noble ancestry or pan-European aristocratic ethos.
The original was certainly subversive, but at least had a certain degree of intellectual sophistication that you don’t see as much in globalists today.
I did read parts of the original from 1922 or so, a lot of stuff about “they’ll be blended out of existence but the nobility of their spirit will live on.” Real peachy. Kalergi was a trust fund kid with too much money and too many connections, and he wanted to remake the world in his image.
Way to eviscerate some disingenuous arguments, Mr. Johnson. I enjoyed reading this one and I only wish that more people had access to this site. Which is why I donate, of course.
I’ll second Kim in recommending a look at McLuhan. Along with figures such as Bezmenov I believe he is a vital figure for understanding propaganda- both how to counter and wield it. While less pertinent to that particular topic, I found his “Gutenberg Galaxy” a truly mind-blowing work and I think it would be well worth your time.
In case you’ve never seen it–
Still on youtube (good for normies & libs) this 14 min video, discusses Demoralization, the *Frankfort School*, & its cultural Marxism that crossed the pond to NYC, and began infecting Columbia U. It explains the steps taken to arrive at modern “Everything is White Supremacy!” hysteria.
Demoralization: What Yuri Bezmenov Didn’t Tell You By Academic Agenthttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niiF8hCSrYQ
This is an exercise in self-reassurance from an ugly mischling, who, on the one hand, fears being rejected (and deservedly so) if whites reassert their racial identity and rebuild their societies, and on the other hand, is afraid of losing all the advantages of a first-world society if incompetent non-whites destroy the entire West. To escape this dilemma, this “ tragic “ mischling invents a fantasy world where mystery meats like himself thrive and constitute the pseudo-white elite.
A very sad attempt by a man with no identity to create a place for himself in the world. Well, I would think it sad if I had any you-know-whats left to give.
Dr. Johnson wading through the mire so we don’t have to.
I think shame and fear must be brought to bare on these people. Kaufman must tour and give lectures on a regular basis.
At some point activism will mean the following. Create a website with well organized hard hitting information about TGR and White Genocide. It could just be quote after quote after quote along with visual representations of the process.
Bring stickers and phones to the event and be ready to let people scan the QR code that takes them to the site.
Then, during the Q&A do as follows:
“I have a couple of simple questions. You have stated that there is no such thing as a White race. This is effectively arguing that a real people does not exist. Are you aware that this violates international law and is considered a part of genocide?
In follow up, are you prepared to stand trial someday for advocating and abetting the genocide of the White race?
I have one final question. I would like to point the audience to the QR code available on stickers throughout the hall or to to go directly to http://www.whitegenocide.com. Noel Ignatiev, Donald Moss, Paul Krugman, you Mr Eric Kaufmann, Jennifer Rubin and countless other White skinned people have overtly called for White genocide. This site has a listing of all of them. Do you know what all of you have in common?
No? Well, let me tell everyone here what that is.”
You could have multiple people in the hall to ask each of the questions. I think Tucker’s call for a new Nuremberg trial probably made some people panic. It is time to dial up the heat and inspire more noticing with some intelligent activism.
Kaufamnn’s vision reminds me most of a society in some remote colonial outpost in the 19th century where there was a very small number of European settlers in a sea of natives and without a regular connection with the the civilized World. These were typically places where Europeans had very few women of their own and the natives were at Stone Age level or most of the population were black slaves. On such an island there were only a few white men among the plantation owners + a few white officials. In this environment, the upper-middle class were mixed-race families, along with Chinese merchants and Indians, who tried to ape the Whites as much as possible.
What do CC readers think of rhesus negative people being present in White populations? Are we a subset of Whotes or own separate species?
NO, no freaks! No Drori A-negative blood type people. 😉
I realize that my personal experience has been rather opposite of what Kaufamn claims. In the area where I grew up, miscegenation was quite rare. In the 1980s, they were almost always mulattoes, with an absent black father and a white mother. They were mostly raised by their white grandparents and thus indeed were part of the white community. They identified with White culture as they knew nothing else. But this changed when mixed raced people became a regular occurence, including many Asians. At that point, everyone of them began to identify predominantly as members of their non-white minority or ethnicity.
It is rather interesting that an author who, in some places, rejects biological conceptions of race still takes the effort to justify “Whiteshift” in terms of racial phenotype (i.e. discussing how racial hybrids can still “look White”) and still uses classifications like “unmixed Whites” or “mixed-race White.” If you accept the premise that race is a social/cultural phenomenon that can be fully divorced from biology, then wouldn’t a person of mixed ancestry who identifies as White be considered fully racially White and not a “mixed-race White?” Why then would there be a meaningful delineation between these ‘nu-Whites’ and the residual “unmixed” ones? And if such delineations can be made now by Kaufmann, why wouldn’t they also be made by these hypothetical future populations when demarcating their own identities? Haven’t read the whole book yet, so I may be missing something, but this seems rather contradictory.
Exactly right. If there are no biological races, then the idea of biological race-mixing is meaningless too.
If all the nations of the world magically became “culturally white,” would that make whites obsolete? Should whites be relieved that their duty is done and now they can just gently die off? Mr. Kaufmann is telling us: Yes, but it’s only going to happen in Western countries.
Not much different from the destructionist civic nationalists who have realized that diversity is a problem and wish for “a caffè latte future.” Mongrel nationalism.
I call it “miscegenationalism.”
The idea that whiteness will be normative, essentially by magic, even though whites are committed to multiculturalism, self-degradation, and self-extinction is the weakest part of Kaufmann’s position.
If whites were proud and self-assertive enough to uphold ourselves as normative in our homelands, we wouldn’t be willing to share our homelands or blend ourselves out of existence in the first place.
I guess there are two competing factors:
the low fertility of Whites (+ the influx of non-white immigrants into Europe and America)
versus the fact, that Whites are the most attractive phenotype – both Whites and non-whites consider good-looking Whites as the most desirable sexual partners. It is therefore quite likely that good-looking Whites will not be bred out so easilly because of their desirability. The White phenotype will probably remain quite dominant in the ruling class at least for a while. (As rich White men will still prefer good-looking White women as wives over non-white and mixed-raced gurls. Where Kaufmann might be spot on is the gradual whitening of originally non-white rich families due to inter-marrying with White women – this is quite apparent in rich JEWs, Arabs and Hispanics.
I don’t know about that. As whiteness loses social cache, dark haired or dark skinned individuals may become more desirable. Lots of people marry for social status. I remember an anecdote of Arab Spain, where one of the sultans had a Gothic mother, hence he had Blonde hair, and he would wear something to cover his blond hair because he was ashamed of it. It indicated low status to them! Although I do agree that whites are more intrinsically beautiful aesthetically. but evolutionarily whiteness has always been correlated with higher IQ, because Cold winter/ high IQ association, thus always associated with high status.
I mean, I imagine a regime, some sort of accelerated wokeness, like we almost just had, where it became very hard for Whites to get corporate or government jobs, and our social status would plummet rapidly. That’s obviously what they’re trying to achieve with this ridiculous over representation of non-whites in movies and TV commercials, that is, to raise their status in our eyes.
I guess even in that case white women would still be very much in demand.
The whole concept reminds me of a “half-breed” salesman on a tropical island who consideres himself more or less White because one of his grandfathers was Portuguese and the other Chinese.
Plus, he went to a local school for mixed-race kids, so he knows the Ten Commandments “and other scientific doctrines”. Hence he considers himself an educated man and “not like the unfortunate blacks around here”.
Sadly, Kaufmann only describes what is already happening. I have often been shocked by the swarthy dark skinned individuals that pass as White in the USA. Frequently I have met someone with a Wasp sounding name like John Smith who looked more or less Levantine or Latin American. Many Hispanics, dark skinned Jews, Greeks, Turks, Armenians, Lebanese and Sicilians are considered White in America whilest in Northern or Central Europe they would not be accepted as such. Everybody would see them as distinct brownish people.
Kaufmann does not think of race as a biological concept…
Greg Johnson: December 13, 2024 …If there are no biological races, then the idea of biological race-mixing is meaningless too.
—
Thank you, Greg.
So why read race-denier Kaufman? That makes about as much sense to a biological White race separatist as reading Walter Kaufman to understand Nietzsche.
We have plenty of White loyalist writers who are not confused by Jewish scribblers, Dr. Thomas Dalton for one, unravels the JQ: Nietzsche on the Jews | National Vanguard
And as far as the subject of race is concerned, we currently have men of our race like Douglas Mercer who are not confused, either: The White Race | National Vanguard
There are plenty of intellectually honest White men to choose from who are suitable to teach young Whites about race without confusing them with race-denying bullshit from Jews — John Alexander, for example: Yes, Race Is Real | National Vanguard
THIS PAPER WILL start by making an assertion that many politically correct academics would consider frustrating, alarming and infuriating: “Race exists as a biological concept.” Despite the unpopularity of the idea that race exists, slightly over half of all biological/physical anthropologists today believe in the view that human races are biologically valid and real.[1]
Although the simple statement “race exists as a biological concept” might make many feel uncomfortable and want to bury their heads in the sand, this paper will attempt to prove that the statement is true. Before doing so, however, it should be noted that this paper focuses only on the question of whether there is such a thing as race. It will not discuss concepts of racial inferiority or superiority and nor will it even attempt to examine the scientific utility of classifying humans by race. The focus of this paper, as stated upfront, is entirely limited to whether race exists as a biological concept….
Determined White separatists should cease seeing biological “Whiteness” as some sort of imagined concept and accept the treasure of our racial uniqueness as fact.
I have read Thomas Dalton’s “Debating the Holocaust”; excellent study of this question.
The “Mein Kampf” translation by Dalton is exceptionally valuable, together with his introduction and footnotes. I like very much the idea of putting together, page by page, the original German text with its English translation. I have limited knowledge of German and can read it. But Hitler’s style is fairly complicated one. Therefore, the English translation that is available on the following page allows quickly to decipher the bulky German sentences.
I have read “Mein Kampf” twice before, but reading it now I find yet more wisdom that is contained there. The profound understanding by Hitler of the most vital social problems is amazing. The value of his ideas only grow with time. The history itself proves him right and his enemies wrong.
The fact that the post-WW2 civilization has built its whole identity on vilification of Germany and now increasingly becoming a failed society, proves its whole foundation to be rotten and false. The farther we go from WW2 the brighter shines Hitler’s image.
I have no tendency of deifying anyone. My appreciation of Hitler is based on extensive knowledge of this historical period. Being Russian, I was raised, as all other Russians are, with the notion of Germans to be evil; Hitler was a name synonymous to Devil. It was impressed into us since kindergarten up to university. Hundreds of movies and books, thousands of magazine articles, all have repeated the same set of ideas. Hitler and Germany were invariably bad. Other Europeans were bad too, although to lesser extent. No wonder that millions of Russians repeat all those obnoxious claims about supposed German viciousness.
Only after reading many tens of books on WW2 I started to suspect that something is wrong with the official version. But even after discerning that the Soviet version of events is very biased, I continued to accept the overall prevailing evaluation of WW2. It took many years and yet many more books to finally dig down to the root causes and real villains. It isn’t an easy task. And it is hardly possible to demand from average mainstream people to undertake such a research. They will believe and repeat the official nonsense as long as those rotten systems continue in power. Therefore, the final destruction of the dominating Big Lie will happen only together with the destruction of the existing civilization. Only the catastrophic event that will sweep out all existing social structures and reintroduce the eternal factor of natural selection, will eventually restore the historical truth in relation to WW2.
Yet again, many thanks to Thomas Dalton for undertaking such a laborious task of translating Hitler’s book.
I read M.K. several times and there is very little about “natural selection”. What does it mean anyway? Is the “Whiteshift” described by Jewish liberal elitist Kaufmann the result of natural selection (because Whites are too dumb to stop immigration)? Natural selection can very well end with the colored r- strategists outbreeding the more vulnerable White K- strategists. The chief mistake of Adolf Hitler was his mystical belief in an inevitable victory (Endsieg) of the Nordic race. That lead to enormous risk-taking because if you think you are going to win no matter what you disregard risks and have no plan B. Nothing is ever inevitable and our movement has to be rationalist and not overly mystical. We do have idealist goals but we must pursue them with wisdom or at least with common sense. You Roussians have a tendency to take everything too literary (Marxism too).
Do you want to undertake real small steps toward realization of White ideals? Then, contact Chairman Williams; especially, if you live in USA. Americans and other westerners have less material constraints in following their inclinations. Your standard of living is much higher than anywhere in the world. Therefore, the only barrier to follow the chosen path is your own laziness or greed or fear of being socially ostracized. Pick shovel and ax and start building our New White World. Here and now. It would be much more honorable and productive than to blame Hitler, FBI or even Haitian cat-eating migrants for your failures and misfortunes. I give the same advice for Russians too: stop blaming outside factors and start real work, whatever it is. There is no solution except of hard work. There are no shortcuts.
Your oversimplified description of Hitler’s ideas reveals your lack of knowledge of this historical period. If anything, having become a German chancellor, Hitler had shown excessive restraints in his actions. He was very cautious. All his military actions were triggered by necessity.
Maybe, the invasion of Poland was a mistake. But, then, maybe, the invasion of Russia in 1708-09 by Karl the 12th was a mistake too? Or American rebellion against Britain in 18th century? Or support of Japan by Britain and USA against Russia in 1904-05? In this way we can degrade the whole historical science into mockery. History must be studied otherwise. This science doesn’t need your “expert knowledge” about how things must have been done. It requires you to assiduously study it and draw useful conclusions. You hardly possess enough knowledge to teach Hitler how he should have done. He acted according to the given circumstances; and anyone in his place could hardly succeed more.
What is your proposed solution? Worship American constitution, Founding Fathers, raise star-spangled banner and sing anthem? There are enough buffoons in USA who can do only this stuff and imaging themselves to be fearless fighters for their country.
Who is your favorite political figure in history that could be taken as a moral and ideological foundation for the White racial movement? Maybe, Winston Churchill, Ronald Reagan or even Margret Thatcher? Criticizing someone or something without presenting a viable alternative is utterly useless.
Please, elaborate your solutions of all major problems that the White race is facing now. And CC readers will have an opportunity to decide whether your way is the better option.
Wolf Stoner: December 15, 2024 … Being Russian, I was raised, as all other Russians are, with the notion of Germans to be evil; Hitler was a name synonymous to Devil. It was impressed into us since kindergarten up to university. Hundreds of movies and books, thousands of magazine articles, all have repeated the same set of ideas. Hitler and Germany were invariably bad. Other Europeans were bad too, although to lesser extent. No wonder that millions of Russians repeat all those obnoxious claims about supposed German viciousness.
—
You are a rare White racial nationalist, Wolf. The phenomenon you observe of how Russian people have been propagandized to hate our German cousins could just as well describe the same anti-German propaganda to which Americans have been subject. An excellent new book, despite the author’s occasional lip service to “preserving Christian civilization,” is The Myth of German Villainy by Benton L Bradbury – Cosmotheism
Ethnic Russians should no more have been declared the enemy of White Americans than were ethnic Germans, yet war was declared on both by (((powers that be))) in America. Fact!
—
Only after reading many tens of books on WW2 I started to suspect that something is wrong with the official version. But even after discerning that the Soviet version of events is very biased, I continued to accept the overall prevailing evaluation of WW2. It took many years and yet many more books to finally dig down to the root causes and real villains. It isn’t an easy task. And it is hardly possible to demand from average mainstream people to undertake such research. They will believe and repeat the official nonsense as long as those rotten systems continue in power. Therefore, the final destruction of the dominating Big Lie will happen only together with the destruction of the existing civilization.
—
The Big lie, the official nonsense of Putin’s “Great Patriotic War Against Fascism” is thoroughly debunked by you, here: Victory Frenzy | National Vanguard. To a lesser degree Americans celebrate on my birthday, 8 May, each year, VE Day. Looking back honestly, I ask, were Whites “victorious” as a result of that disastrous World War, or was Jewry? The insufferable Putinist here on Counter-Currents, “Victor,” can continue confusing people, promoting the Kremlin’s “Great Patriotic War” and smearing you as a “phony nationalist” for exposing Putin’s Big Lie, but the perceptive pro-White viewer of that “debate” can see who the truth-teller is and who is the lying troll. They also should read your other articles on the subject, like this one: The World War Is Coming | National Vanguard.
—
Only the catastrophic event that will sweep out all existing social structures and reintroduce the eternal factor of natural selection, will eventually restore the historical truth in relation to WW2.
—
This Krang fellow says that you, as a “Roussian [sp], have a tendency to take everything too literary,” whatever that means. He, who claims to have read MK several times and says there is very little in it about “natural selection” (in scare quotes), did not read the book as carefully for comprehension as you have from the racial nationalist point of view. You can respond to him yourself, if you wish, but to me natural selection conforms with Nature’s laws, the highest being survival of one’s subspecies. See: National Socialism and the Laws of Nature by Martin Kerr – Cosmotheism
An online definition, relating to race: Natural selection is a key mechanism of evolution of species… the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype.
Wolf, you should not have to keep explaining yourself to mainstream Whites who disagree with you or cannot grasp what you write. You will not mind my repeating here your revolutionary statement, to reinforce and clarify what you wrote above:
The Holocaust Big Lie and the overall false WW2 narrative will continue as is until the existing global system is destroyed. Therefore, everything that undermines it is good. The White race’s collective mentality is infected with the Jewish virus and it is hardly possible to cure without dismantling the overall social structure. There is no peaceful solution and no way to preserve the world as it is.
I suppose that Nature itself has chosen China and other non-whites as the ram that must destroy the Jewish-dominated White civilization. It is better to return back to caves but preserve our racial characteristics than to preserve a semblance of civilization but be transformed into a mongrel Brazil-type crowd of Jewish slaves. Therefore, everything that happens is for good. China’s exponential increase in military capabilities, the chaos in the Middle East, the inability of western rulers to put their economies on a war-footing are all signs of the coming global shift. It will not be a simple redistribution of spheres of influence but the catastrophic annihilatory war the harbingers of which we can see in Ukraine, Gaza and Lebanon.
I welcome this development. The mainstream people will never heed our message until put into the condition of Palestinians in Gaza. The worse the better. The overall social deterioration in White countries will inevitably lead to strengthening of our position. As I said, it is better to rule the few surviving Whites according to natural law than tolerate continuation of this decay in relative prosperity.
Thank you very much for accentuating the main ideas. Being certified “extremists” in our respective countries, we have a luxury of speaking our minds openly. We are not bound by any social constraints of being shunned by friends or lose a job and harm career prospects. All those trifling considerations are totally alien to us. But the absolute majority of other people can’t disregard those considerations; they are too strongly bound to existing society, therefore, they perceive any harm to their public reputation as the worst tribulation that could ever happen.
I fully agree that there is no need to try to reasoning with mainstream people about WW2. I ceased to do it long ago. They will believe any nonsense that was imposed on them by the state. Although serfdom was abolished long ago the majority of people continue to remain mental slaves. It is normal. Only few can rule; the rest must obey. Even the whole western democracy circus functions according to the same eternal principle but carefully camouflaged into the “rule of law” and “government of the people”. All this nonsense is for stupid masses in order to conceal from them the real rulers.
Hitler in his book elaborates on all vital questions; much more than any other politician or philosopher. In contrast to others Hitler does it with clarity and precision that lack in many other theoretical works on similar subjects.
There are people in the White identity movement who vilify Hitler and Third Reich. In most cases their rationale for this is to evade the opprobrium connected with those topics. They want to separate their activity from this historical legacy.
This trend has become especially disgusting and laughable in modern Russia in the last few years. People who were known to be local “Nazis” now joined the system, wear communist paraphernalia, praise comrade Stalin and demand extermination of all “Ukrainian Nazis” or even nuclear annihilation of Europe. These buffoons are the testimony of successful Soviet experiment of transforming society into a crowd of contemptible slaves; some kind of Dr Moreau Island.
In the West the nationalist activists aspiring for participation in public politics, try their best to distance themselves from any ideological connections with Hitler, Third Reich or anything even remotely related to those subjects.
It is funny to observe such “respectable” nationalists whose fixed idea is to “not to be called a Nazi”. The media play with these simpletons like a cat with a mouse, one time allowing them to express their views but on another occasion striking them with a paw for “espousing Nazi ideas”.
Even Thomas Rousseau, this marginal young activist, when faced with the question about his attitude toward Hitler, behaved like a scared rabbit, trying to assert that he has nothing in common with Nazism and that he didn’t even read “Mein Kampf”. If so, bad for you, Thomas. How dare you, then, claim any leadership position in the White identity movement? It is the same as being a Catholic priest without having read a Bible or to teach Astronomy without knowing where Polaris is located in the sky.
I have no negative feelings toward Thomas, he is a good fellow, but, definitely, he isn’t suited to be a leader. It is better to be a good follower than a bad leader. I would advise Thomas to join some existing nationalist organization instead of making a fool of himself.
All those people who try to create a viable White racial organization but in the same time reject Hitler’s legacy, will inevitably fail. Hitler was the first and the only major politician who put race at the center of his ideology and state project. Everything proceeded from understanding of racial reality. Therefore, there is no other way except of following in Hitler’s footsteps. It doesn’t mean to copy political patterns of 1920-30es; but to acknowledge and accept the rightful place of Hitler as the founder of racial politics. To deny this place to Hitler is the same as to study geometry but to reject Euclid.
Certainly, the main cause of this “rational” behavior is elementary cowardice. But those who are cowards don’t deserve to claim any leading role in their tribes.
The mortal existential struggle requires many sacrifices. Sacrifice of comfort, social stature, career prospects and social acceptability is only the first step on this arduous path. And if those supposed leaders fear to make this first step, how could they lead their people in combat?
The real leaders don’t care what others think about them. They follow the path of truth regardless of consequences.
Wolf Stoner: December 16, 2024 Thank you very much for accentuating the main ideas. Being certified “extremists” in our respective countries, we have a luxury of speaking our minds openly. We are not bound by any social constraints of being shunned by friends or lose a job and harm career prospects. All those trifling considerations are totally alien to us. But the absolute majority of other people can’t disregard those considerations; they are too strongly bound to existing society, therefore, they perceive any harm to their public reputation as the worst tribulation that could ever happen.
—
You’re welcome, Wolf. We are adults in roomsful of children. Some of the children will become responsible adults, but they will first have to pay their dues. It is not easy. They will not fear the “extremist” slur because our necessary Nature-based viewpoint, grounded in biological reality, is not extreme at all and is defensible, when backed up and declared with confidence. Wise truth-telling is a protective shield. The more truth, the more protective.
—
Thomas Rousseau, this marginal young activist, when faced with the question about his attitude toward Hitler, behaved like a scared rabbit, trying to assert that he has nothing in common with Nazism and that he didn’t even read “Mein Kampf”. If so, bad for you, Thomas. How dare you, then, claim any leadership position in the White identity movement?
—
Never heard of him and don’t need to hear more. Did a search on his name and got an eyeful, even when considering the source: Thomas Rousseau | Southern Poverty Law Center
Typical half-baked flash-in-the-pan who was part of the young alt-right losers who were out of their depth trying to lead and “unite” our race. Perhaps Thomas could have been guided into responsible adult racial leadership had he been patient, sought out and learned from adults who had already been where he was so determined to go.
A while back I asked a young member of Rousseaus’s Patriot Front, who had also joined our Alliance, to find out for me PF’s position on Christianity. He apparently met with Rousseau and reported back to me that PF does not have a position on Christianity. They avoid the issue for fear of offending White Christians. I found that to be typical of alt-righters. “Scared rabbits” when it comes to confronting difficult issues like NS or their kinsmen worshipping the Jews’ tribal deity. Like you wrote:
[T]he main cause of this “rational” behavior is elementary cowardice. But those who are cowards don’t deserve to claim any leading role in their tribes. The mortal existential struggle requires many sacrifices. Sacrifice of comfort, social stature, career prospects and social acceptability is only the first step on this arduous path. And if those supposed leaders fear to make this first step, how could they lead their people in combat? The real leaders don’t care what others think about them. They follow the path of truth regardless of consequences.
Our Weapon: The Truth | National Vanguard
In relation to Thomas Rousseau I can mention only the good advice given by Hitler: never try to become a political leader before your thirties. It applies to multitude of other aspiring young activists as well. They need time to ripen and good guidance from the experienced leaders. Instead they try to go their own way and fall into all kinds of traps.
By the way, commentator under alias “Krang” claimed that, supposedly, Hitler didn’t write enough about natural selection.
Here is a quote taken at random from “Mein Kampf”:
“Let me explain: Man must not fall into the error of thinking that he was ever meant to become lord and master of Nature. A lopsided education has helped to encourage that illusion. Man must realize that a fundamental law of necessity reigns throughout the whole realm of Nature and that his existence is subject to the law of eternal struggle and strife. He will then feel that there cannot be a separate law for mankind in a world in which planets and suns follow their orbits, where moons and planets trace their destined paths, where the strong are always the masters of the weak and where those subject to such laws must obey them or be destroyed. Man must also submit to the eternal principles of this supreme wisdom. He may try to understand them but he can never free himself from their sway”. Chapter 10.
If these words are not convincing enough, I don’t know what could be more.
Krang to Wolf Stoner: December 15, 2024 I read M.K. [Mein Kampf] several times and there is very little about “natural selection”. What does it mean anyway?
—
Wolf Stoner responds to Krang: December 17, 2024 (from chapter 10 0f Mein Kampf that anyone can validate)
“Let me explain: Man must not fall into the error of thinking that he was ever meant to become lord and master of Nature. A lopsided education has helped to encourage that illusion. Man must realize that a fundamental law of necessity reigns throughout the whole realm of Nature and that his existence is subject to the law of eternal struggle and strife. He will then feel that there cannot be a separate law for mankind in a world in which planets and suns follow their orbits, where moons and planets trace their destined paths, where the strong are always the masters of the weak and where those subject to such laws must obey them or be destroyed. Man must also submit to the eternal principles of this supreme wisdom. He may try to understand them but he can never free himself from their sway”.
So, is”Krang” simply the product of a “lopsided education” that has taught him that Mr. Hitler was an evil monster, or is he a bald-faced liar, claiming on C-C that he has read MK several times?
Wolf, on 15 December in a response to “Krang” above, you advised him :
Do you want to undertake real small steps toward realization of White ideals? Then, contact Chairman Williams; especially, if you live in USA…
I don’t believe Krang is American, but even if he is, he shouldn’t bother to contact me. He has shown that he is not Alliance material. I don’t have time to waste with him, thanks.
Wolf Stoner: December 17, 2024 In relation to Thomas Rousseau I can mention only the good advice given by Hitler: never try to become a political leader before your thirties. It applies to multitude of other aspiring young activists as well. They need time to ripen and good guidance from the experienced leaders. Instead, they try to go their own way and fall into all kinds of traps.
—
Such sound advice, depending on how a young person has been raised by his parents.
I didn’t quit being a worker bee and commit to being a political soldier until I was 37, and even then, knew I had a lot to learn, seeking out our racial leaders until I was 41 when Ben Klassen, founder of Creativity religion, invited me to come work with him as his XO.
I learned so much, working closely with him for 15 months as editor of his Racial Loyalty tabloid. I was 44 when Dr. Pierce invited me to come work with him as his National Alliance XO. I already knew, after working with BK, that what our people needed is their own racial religion — non Semitic. Pierce expanded on that with Cosmotheism, that will be his legacy. Cosmotheism: Wave of the Future | National Vanguard
…Cosmotheists are not people primarily – and I stress the word primarily – interested in promoting certain racial goals, or certain social or political or economic goals. We are people primarily concerned with fulfilling our mission as the bearers of the Creator’s purpose, as agents of the universal will. That comes first.
I am so encouraged to see many young people being attracted to Pierce’s teachings today, 22 years after he died — young Whites who will be our future racial leaders after years of study and paying their dues.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.