2,102 words
Part 3 of 3 (whole series here)
Break Big Problems Down into Small Ones
The numbers of people who need to be remigrated are immense and growing. Thus, at first glance, the problem seems overwhelming. But just as the biggest meal is consumed bite by bite, the best way to solve intimidatingly large problems is to divide them up into harmless little ones.
Close the Borders
As the saying goes, when you are in a hole, the first step is to stop digging. With immigration, that means closing the borders. We can do it today. If somebody tells you that it is impossible, remind them of Covid. If entire societies can be locked in their homes, we can surely close our borders. Again, it is only a matter of will.
Citizenship Must Be Based on Blood
Any country that grants citizenship based not on descent (jus sanguinis) but instead based simply on being born on its soil (jus solis) needs to change this immediately. Moreover, there is no reason not to make these laws retroactive. It may be unusual, but these are unusually important circumstances.
How to Get Countries to Take Back their Migrants
Many people ask, “But what if Pakistan or Morocco or Ghana does not want to take back its migrants?”
All of these countries depend on both trade and foreign aid from white countries. Threaten to cut those off, and they will take their citizens back.
What if migrants have renounced their citizenship or destroyed their documents?
Aren’t we constantly told that the solution to the “undocumented” is to give them new documents? Print them up then! Replacement documents are cheaper than losing Western aid.
There is no reason that we can’t make the corruption and cynicism of third-world regimes work for remigration, for a change.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s Toward a New Nationalism here.
Migrants who cannot safely return home should be sent to refugee camps in the closest safe country to their homes, in accordance with international law governing refugees.
Naturally, any country that is serious about remigration must exit all international bodies and treaties that impede that process. But that’s what sovereignty is for. When politicians and bureaucrats say they can’t do something because of the law, the proper response is simply: change the law.
In America, the right to “due process” is often invoked to stall or block deportation. “Due process,” of course, is ultimately what the law says it is. And if existing standards of due process impede the public good by making remigration impossible, then we will simply change the standards of due process.
Begin with the Illegals
Once the borders are closed, we should begin by remigrating the people who are among us illegally.
The most economical way is to get them to deport themselves by cutting off their employment and benefits. Employers, bureaucrats, landlords, etc. must begin to say “no.” Thus the frontline of remigration enforcement will be ordinary people in every community who are used to saying “no” all the time. This will make remigration more palatable to people, because we are already used to people moving due to lack of jobs, benefits, and housing.
Temporary Legal Migrants
Legal migrants fall into two categories: those with temporary and those with permanent leave to stay.
When temporary visas run out, they should not be renewed. The holders of such visas should be notified of this well in advance so that they can plan to leave. Most will leave, and those who stay too long will hardly overwhelm the police, especially given that migrant-driven crimes will be steadily decreasing.
Permanent Migrants who Commit Crimes
Migrants with permanent residency fall into two categories: criminal and law-abiding. Law-breakers should be denaturalized and returned to their homelands of origin. Indeed, there is no reason why we cannot pay to have them imprisoned in their original homelands. It would save a great deal of money. Denaturalization and deportation should be packaged together as part of their punishment, not treated as separate legal proceedings, which would simply make remigration slower and more expensive.
Law-Abiding Permanent Migrants
The hardest migrants to remove are those with permanent residency or citizenship.
The first step is to denaturalize migrant citizens, in effect making them resident aliens. We will never regain sovereignty in our homelands without denying migrants political power.
Denaturalization means that they will no longer enjoy the rights of citizens (civil rights). But of course they will retain their human rights to life, property, and due process, as do all foreigners.
The primary demographic threat from migrants comes from people of child-bearing age. Thus our priority is to remigrate all such people. This group includes the vast majority of law-abiding permanent migrants because migrant communities, unlike white countries as a whole, tend to skew young.
What about the rest? Ideally, they should go back to their homelands as well. But, if politically expedient, we can countenance allowing migrants over the age of 50 who are productive and orderly residents to remain. They should be able to work, retire, and live out their lives with all the benefits they are due, and with full protection of their human rights.
However, we should also make family reunification work in favor of remigration, so elderly migrants will be given every incentive to join their families in their homelands, where their pensions will probably go farther.
Law-abiding migrants of childbearing age can also be divided into industrious and upwardly mobile populations (e.g., elite South and East Asians) and indolent, welfare-dependent populations (Africans, Middle Easterners, low-end South Asians, and Latin American mestizos). The latter population would be willing to remigrate once we cut off their welfare benefits.
As for the energetic and upwardly mobile migrant groups, like most modern people, they move around quite a lot. We will just make sure that their next move takes them outside our homelands. Their children could be educated in the native tongues of their homelands. When they reach college age, they could be sent to college overseas, so it will be natural for them to seek employment there.
Even if we did the slowest possible version of remigration, such policies would restore white homelands within a few decades, and the process would be orderly, humane, and consistent with the human rights of all parties.
The Question of “Roots”
You can buy Greg Johnson’s The White Nationalist Manifesto here.
Many people are uncomfortable with remigrating people who have put down “roots” in our homelands. But migrants have tens of thousands of years of roots in their own homelands. Yet somehow they managed to move among us. So if their roots there did not matter to them, why should their “roots” here matter to us? And if their shallow roots here matter to us, shouldn’t our own deep roots matter that much more?
Family Reunification
Perhaps the most brazen condemnation of remigration is that it “breaks up families.” But migration breaks up families too. So if breaking up families is a bad thing, migration is a bad thing as well.
It is also quite brazen that “family reunification” is used only to argue for chain migration, when it can just as well be an argument for chain remigration. If family reunification is a legitimate goal of migration policy, then we must encourage migrants to return to the warmth of their families back in the Old Country.
The Hardest Question: Mixed Marriages & Mixed People
I have saved the most vexed question for last: How would remigration deal with Swedes who marry Somalis or Austrians who marry Bangladeshis? How would it deal with their children? There isn’t a neat and painless way to remigrate such people, which is why such “hard cases” are always lobbed at remigration advocates.
My preference is always to keep families together. So I would remigrate the whole family. Going forward, I would also ban such mixed marriages.
But remigration advocates don’t want to be depicted as heartless homewreckers, causing a thousand Romeo and Juliet-style tragedies. Thus my recommendation is simply to keep our preferences to ourselves and step over the problem in the following way.
White countries all together have tens if not hundreds of millions of people for whom the case for remigration is entirely unproblematic and unambiguous. It might take us decades to remove all the easy cases. So we will just deal with the hard cases later.
Yes, this is a crass political evasion of a difficult question. But white countries have serious problems precisely because it is second nature, when faced with difficult political problems, to “pass the buck” or “kick the can” to future generations. In this case, we should make that vice work for us.
Even if we don’t outlaw mixed marriages, once remigration commences, the numbers will decline naturally, and most existing couples would grow old and die before the question comes up for debate. So, again, our answer should be: “Don’t worry about this. By the time anything happens, you’ll be dead anyway.”
Sustaining Remigration
To start remigration, we must attain political power. To sustain remigration, we must retain political power. The longer the process of remigration, the longer we must hold on to power. Moreover, if we can’t hold on to power forever, then there is always the danger that remigration will be halted or reversed. How, then, do we sustain remigration, perhaps over decades?
First of all, we should create a “Remigration Industrial Complex”: a constellation of industries that profit from remigration (moving companies and airlines, for instance). Furthermore, we should also “privatize” as many remigration related government services as possible.
Moreover, industries that are harmed by remigration must be neutralized as potential sources of opposition. For instance, industries that lose profits due to loss of cheap labor should receive tariff protections, price supports, bailouts—anything, really, to shut them up.
Second, a remigrationist party would not need to hold on to political power forever if the ethnonationalist idea became culturally and politically hegemonic, meaning that all political parties are ethnonationalist and support remigration. It seems impossible, until you realize that multiculturalism and open borders were politically hegemonic until only recently.
Third, remigration will have short-term positive effects: higher wages, lower rents, less traffic, less crime, less ugliness, less stress dealing with foreigners, a greater sense of trust and community, etc. Your life will be better with no extra effort on your part, simply by not allowing Leftists to impose the burden of migrants on you. Once people experience these benefits, they will want more. That’s probably why the Left fights tooth and nail to prevent even a single deportation. Let’s hope remigration becomes addictive.
Fourth, even the long-term benefits of remigration can be enjoyed today. The restoration of white homelands may take decades, even generations. But there will be immediate psychological benefits the moment a people resolves that it will have a future again. There will be less alienation and depression. There will be fewer alcoholics, addicts, and suicides. More people will marry, have children, pursue degrees, start businesses, and contribute to society. Once we restore hope for the future, our people will start living as if that future is already here. As I am fond of saying, “Those who fight for a better world live in it today.”
Is Remigration Really Inevitable?
There are reasons for optimism,[1] but in all honesty, I don’t know if victory is inevitable. Nobody really knows the future. But white extinction isn’t inevitable either. It is happening because of ignorance and evil, both of which can be opposed. Indeed, we are opposing them.
But we don’t need assurance of victory. We only think so because we have a false understanding of moral motivation. We think that we cannot do the right thing unless we have some assurance that we will taste the rewards. But this is a multigenerational fight. None of us may live to see the victory. So we can’t be motivated by personal consequences, whether good or bad.
But that’s fine. We have a better motive: knowledge of our duty. We know that multiculturalism is contrary to nature, that it causes needless suffering and destruction, and that it can only be sustained by lies and oppression. We know that remigration is the right policy to save our race and civilization. That’s all we need to know. The rest is action.
Remigration is only as inevitable as we make it, and we are more likely to win if we stop caring about how this fight affects us personally and think only of the greater good. We fight for remigration simply because it is the right thing to do. So let’s get to work.
Note
[1] Greg Johnson, “Reasons for Optimism,” Against Imperialism (San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2023).
27 comments
I have to take an angle here and say that humans, like many other animals, are nomadic beings. To be sure, we became sedentary with the advent of agriculture in the Fertile Crescent some 10 000 years ago. Yet we remained nomads (but to a lesser degree) because sedentary lifestyle is contrary to our nature. Where it gets complicated is that we are also territorial to some extent.
Non-sedentary =/= nomadic. Agriculture is a fairly active form of life, especially before mechanization. Men who are bored and alienated in their cubicle jobs are not longing to be nomads.
Point being that before we became sedentary due to agriculture we were nomadic hunter-gatherers without nations. Once these distinctions are made, I think a fairly clear answer emerges. The hunter-gatherers who populated the earth before us were probably no angels and perfectly capable of murder. On the other hand, “war” – both in the sense that plagues our modern world and in the stripped-down sense that plagued our ancestors – seems to have been rare until most humans abandoned the nomadic lifestyle of hunter-gatherer societies. Our history as a species is not punctuated by escalated conflict. It is estimated that 90 to 95 % of all societies engage in war. And who are the exceptions? Nomadic hunter-gatherers of today.
Which brings us to agriculture. I will not hold back: in my opinion, the invention of agriculture is one of humanity’s greatest mistakes. Agriculture caused an explosion of human population, leading to civilisations. Agriculture makes humans dependent on a few domesticated crops and animals instead of hundreds of wild food sources, creating vulnerability to drought and plant and animal diseases. Agriculture gives rise to sedentary lifestyles, which causes humans to do something that no primate with an interest in hygiene and public health would ever do, namely, live next to their own feces. Agriculture creates surpluses and thus almost inevitably an unequal distribution of the surplus, creating socioeconomic status differences that diminish any other hierarchies that other primates invent.
Perhaps this is flowing overboard. Nevertheless, I think it is quite clear that it was only when humans began the enormous life transformation that followed the domestication of wild corn and wild tubers, aurochs and wild wheat – and wolves of course – that it became possible to let the hounds of war loose.
Nonetheless I’d rather have war and civilization, war and space exploration, than be stuck forever as primitive hunter-gatherers.
Sure, but alcoholics, drug addicts, suicides, mental disorders and general dissatisfaction are all due to suppressed “animal” instincts; not because of migrants or some other abstract concept. We have created civilisations and tied our hands and feet with the rule of law (as opposed to laws of Nature) and given the state sole permission to punish us by any means necessary. Whereas instead we could have had Eden on Earth with a much smaller and healthier population, were it not for agriculture, that is.
Farming isn’t preventing people from going to the gym, talking walks in the country, or having healthy habits.
We Whites are explorers but not nomads. (Nor are we a sojourning people.) We put down roots. We build homes and roads and bridges and farms. We make cities, and we make them great. We Whites are not merely a civilized race; by nature we are a civilizing race.
The great sedentary peoples, the city-builders and the city-maintainers and the benefactors of mankind through all the blessings that come from cities (such as writing, scholarship, and science) do not just abandon their cities to alien peoples and go away into the wilderness to wither. We hold on to what we built and we improve it unless we are beaten and driven out — which is what is being done to us by hostile elites and imported hordes.
What is being done to us Whites and our great cities is a catastrophe, a tragedy, and a crime. We are absolutely right to undo it.
Good suggestions. I don’t think we need to threaten to withhold trade or aid to get third world countries to take back their citizens. This is public and messy. Bribery on the quiet works well, they understand it. We could also take a strategic approach. For example, bribe the leader of Ethiopia with $50 million a year and they’ll take back every Ethiopian and citizens of neighboring countries (Somalia, Eritrea, Sudan, South Sudan, Kenya and Djibouti) who they can drive to the border and push across.
Another factor is to publish all the incidents, facts and figures about non-White crime on a daily basis. The truth will shock many Whites about the extent of the crimes, fraud and welfare dependency.
A major focus should also be on the education system which is where most Whites get indoctrinated.
Another suggestion is to make immigrants have to do military service and send them abroad in one of Israel’s wars. That will probably deter many of them.
Good suggestion. Presenting immigrants with a bill for their portion of America’s national debt would have a similar chilling effect.
Great article! I read an article earlier this week, which stated the new Trump policy required those who wish to apply for a green card to work in America, must return to their home countries, and apply at the local U.S. embassy, in order to do so. If this is true, it would be a good start. 🙃
As Oswald Mosley said “My friends, it’s all there. It’s all waiting. Of course it can be done; it depends upon ourselves.”
Yes. Remigration is as inevitable as we make it.
This whole article is a parade of good, practical and ethical ideas. This is what we want.
Thank you
Another point about “immigrants putting down roots here” is that many immigrants have their bodies sent back to their homeland for burial, especially Mexicans
That’s actually a really good point.
One other point is to facilitate the immigration of white people from countries where they are under threat (such as South Africa). This would boost the number of whites in the ethno-state and perhaps bring in some hearty frontier experience.
Due process,” of course, is ultimately what the law says it is
The above is where it’s at. First the idea that only whites can possibly Americans ontologically (as the kids say) must be hammered home in propaganda l. Once that has more or less colonized Americans minds (notice I didn’t say understood, most people can’t understand much they just repeat things they hear, and that’s ok!) THEN make laws or adjust laws to support an American homeland. And those laws need to support an American superiority in the boundaries of the us, and a minimal of civil right to non Americans .
That’s what this cracker would start with. Everything can flow those two things .
I can’t emphasize enough just how supremist and racist Americans use to be. From the same middle school reader:
Maria linguam latinam discere cupit quod haec est lingua huius gentis maximae.
Sun All Year Round – Remigration Farewell (Amelia Meme Song) (bitchute.com)
I love that song. Let’s all work together to make this good dream come true.
While all these things would be great do do, it takes political power that we currently don’t have in order to get them done. There is something that we all can start doing today to encourage re-migration:
Stop being nice to immigrants.
Openly tell them to go away. Tell them they aren’t wanted here. Tell them they’re fat and their kids are ugly. Make their day to day interactions as miserable as possible.
It’s a difficult thing to do given most people’s proclivity to being civil, but we need to understand tbay were not dealing with a house guest who overstayed his welcome. We’re being invaded and we need to respond accordingly.
Apparently former ICE head Bovino will rubbing elbows with Jared Taylor at a remigration conference in Portugal. Radio Renaissance on Amren had the usual great podcast on the subject. I think the commentary about Trump blinking first is spot on. This is likely because of the killing of Pretti and Good. The thing is, none of this was going to be pretty. Funny how for some reason nobody had a problem with white working class people being marched to integrated schools at bayonet point. This dovetails with the easy part/hard part commentary on here. Trump should have unleashed Bovino to do the easy part–deport the hardened criminals. There should have been a Manhattan project level deportation effort to deport all these miscreants and arrest anyone standing in the feds’ way, including subversive judges and local leaders. Invoking the insurrection act may be unusual, like Greg argued making citizenship by decent and not birth is unusual but as he stated the next words, these are unusual circumstances.
SCOTUS will likely soon rule on the birthright case. Roberts can wax poetic all he wants about “It’s a new world. It’s the same constitution” but therein lies the problem. His rebuttal was in the context of the solicitor general arguing that modern air travel and people cynically using birthright citizenship to allow foreigners to give birth here and viola! their child is a US citizen. Now all the sudden the living, breathing constitution doesn’t sound so appealing. Roberts can’t resist the temptation to cut off his nose to spite his face. “I sold the country’s birthright, but at least I upheld the principles of the constitution!”
I think the remigration thing would have to be done in a respectful and dignified manner. Wishful thinking of course because there would be so much protests and subversion of it that some sort of force would be necessary. Could boomers bear to watch 50 year old lesbian Karens get their faces stomped by ICE agents?
As for the hard part and dealing with mixed marriages that is obviously going to be a touchy subject. As Greg mentioned, once the easy part is done the hard part stuff is a much smaller portion. I would argue that once the hard part is done it sort of becomes a moot point. Let’s say some weebo marries a Japanese woman while visiting Japan and acquires citizenship. The proportion of weebos doing this is a drop in the bucket compared to Japanese marrying and having children with other Japanese (notwithstanding low birthrates). The offspring of the weebo and Japanese woman will be half and half. If their child mates with a 100% Japanese, basically being backcrossed into the Japanese gene pool, then the child is 75% Japanese. If this happens in the next generation, this child is 87.5% Japanese. After like 6 generations of this happening, the child of the 6th generation will be over 99% Japanese.
The weebo is ryan dawson, another antiWhite prick. As for the hard part and dealing with mixed marriages that is obviously going to be a touchy subject. Not at all. “Heyy, bill burr! You and that queen Kong you married and your rumored retarded child, get the fuck out!” Very simple.
Uncle Semantic: June 1, 2026 The weebo is ryan dawson, another antiWhite prick…
—
Weebo? That’s a new one on me, Unc. After finding this on the Urban Dictionary, I’ll never be using the word, thanks:
A weebo is much like an Otaku. Weebo’s-or commonly misspelled, Weaboo- is an over obsessive fan of Japanese culture, and are giving Otakus a bad name. They revolve their whole lives around anime and manga, usually with the main stream material. The common Otaku likes anime, and does occasionally cosplay. Weebos just cosplay and watch anime to be like the Otakus. Weebos are usually friends with Otakus, and want to impress them. (So they watch Naruto, Inuyasha, etc.)
“ryan dawson”? He’s unknown to me but I’ll take your word that he’s an anti-White prick. I thought you may be referring to 1819News.com’s Bryan Dawson, a white man who says he “hates” SPLC but wants nothing to do with those who are pro-White (?) I mention Bryan here in this piece that was put up today at NA’s online magazine, nationalvanguard.org “Christ Is Not King”. Some open-minded, intelligent Whites will like this, Christlings not so much:
by William White Williams
Chairman, National Alliance – 3 June, 2026
Either Or, But Not Both
WE WILL either be a Nature-based, biological White racial preservationist cause or an otherworldly “Christ Is King” Christian conservative cause, but not both. The two are mutually exclusive.
On 30 May I commented at nominally pro-White counter-currents.com under the topic there, “The SPLC Indictment,” about the 1819News.com folks in Montgomery, Alabama, who have been following DOJ vs SPLC, the groundbreaking, landmark case that involves the National Alliance (see: “Chaos at the Compound Redux: SPLC Indicted by DOJ”).
This relatively small Montgomery, Alabama-based 1819News.com source has been covering the DOJ vs SPLC case closer and more positively than the mainstream media. They hate the SPLC, but for the wrong reason: because SPLC started associating Christian conservative groups with so-called “White supremacists” like the National Alliance.
It turns out 1819 is terminally Christian-conservative and wants nothing to do with the pro-White groups that the SPLC have victimized for decades — their concern is only for fellow Christian conservatives who’ve been targets of the “law center.”
On 31 May, though, these white (lower case) Christian conservatives who say they “hate” the SPLC but want nothing to do with the pro-White National Alliance that fights for their race, sent me a video titled “Christians Must Take Power.” Earlier, they had removed a couple of reasonable comments I’d made under an article of theirs, thanking them for their coverage of the legal action. Here’s the text of the video:
Many people believe religion and politics shouldn’t mix, that pastors should stick to the Bible and not comment on current events. But according to Aaron Miller, founder of the Institute for Christian Statecraft, Christians must become more involved in government if there is any hope of preserving the country.
Miller joined “1819 News: The Podcast” last week, where he and host Bryan Dawson discussed why Christians can’t retreat from politics, the importance of building generational inheritance, and how strong Christian leadership can reclaim culture and institutions.
“This is our future. America is a Christian nation. It is the inheritance of our progeny,” Miller began.
“And when you look at Proverbs and several passages in the New Testament as well, it consistently says you have an obligation to raise your children for them to be respectful to their elders, but most importantly, to this context, you have to provide an inheritance not only to your children but your children’s children. And so we have to use this movement. It is Christ-centered, and it is focused on building a better future for our children.”
Miller also talked about “ordo amoris,” or ordered loves, and how the priority should be supporting one’s home as a solid foundation, then helping outsiders when possible.
“We have to say, hey, listen, the folks in the third world that are hurting, we should get to them, but we have other priorities before we get there. And it starts with our immediate family,” he said. “It starts with our church. It starts with our local community. And then we can build out. But if we don’t have a firm foundation in those things first, then we will never get to those other things. And we’ve tried to flip that on its head over the last several decades. And it has to stop. We have to come back to the center….
How about our racial progeny, Pastor Miller? Does the wish for an imaginary pie-in-the-sky eternal afterlife up in heaven take precedence over preservation of our race? Really? Do you even consider our race to be worth preserving?
Our Cause: the Definitive Speech
Of course our cause starts with family and community — and Church, if it’s the right one — and we build out from there. Dr. William Pierce, a man much smarter than you, explained it to us 50 years ago in his historic speech “Our Cause.” I can link to it at nationalvanguard.org but since I mentioned Counter-Currents, let’s read it there from that site’s owner, Dr. Greg Johnson, in his “Remembering William Pierce: September 11, 1933-July 23, 2002” from 2012. He links to 15 or so of Dr. Pierce’s speeches and writes, “If you only read one essay by William Pierce, let it be ‘Our Cause.’” Dr. Johnson gives us some background on his racial journey here:
At the beginning of 2000, I was a Right wing intellectual. I rejected modern egalitarianism, liberalism, and capitalism based on classical political philosophy and the great critics of modernity and the Enlightenment…. Although I had heard of the European New Right, I had not yet explored it…. I was racially aware and increasingly Jew-wise, but beyond the aesthetics, I was not attracted to National Socialism.
Dr. Johnson has come a long way since the beginning of 2000. Read his story at the link about how he had an enjoyable visit with Dr. Pierce in 2001.
What Dr. Pierce said in “Our Cause” is in direct opposition to what Pastor Miller said at 1819News.com, and to what Andrew Torba often says at the popular so-called pro-White “Christ Is King” social media platform, gab.com.
Alliance Policy
Another excellent example of what Dr. Pierce wrote on the subject can be found in his “On Christianity,” a reprint of Dr. Pierce’s commentary to his National Alliance members in a 1982 issue of his monthly, snail-mailed National Alliance BULLETIN. Dr. Johnson said of it: “William Pierce gives a beautiful demonstration of intellectual leadership on the Christian question.”
Thanks, Greg. You were right when you wrote that 16 years ago. Your words praising his intellectual leadership still hold true today. Fact!
Compare what Pastor Miller said in his video to what Dr, Pierce says about the mission of the National Alliance [emphasis added]:
It should first be noted that the National Alliance is not primarily a religious organization – at least, not in the usual sense of the word, although most members are able to recognize the strong [Cosmotheist] spiritual element in the Alliance’s message. Second, it should be noted that the National Office is fully aware of the sensitive nature of the Christian religion, and for that reason National Vanguard (NV) avoided the question for a long time.
This avoidance, however, was in conflict with the Alliance’s fundamental obligation to deal forthrightly with all issues of vital concern to the welfare and progress of our race. This obligation where Christianity is concerned has become especially difficult to ignore during the past few months, with the growing strength of the Moral Majority and other right-wing Christian groups and their active participation in political matters. The leader of that organization, the Reverend Jerry Falwell, has been outspoken in his support of Zionism, and he was recently given a Zionist award by Jewish leaders. There exists a clear conflict of interests for any Alliance member who supports such an organization, and the Alliance member should not compromise in matters of this sort.
This is not the place to deal at length with details of religious history and doctrine; NV will continue to have articles on these topics from time to time, and there will be such an article in the April issue [of National Vanguard magazine]. Here, however, a few things will be mentioned briefly for the guidance of Alliance members.
The most important single fact concerning Christianity with which the Alliance must deal is that all the major Christian churches, Catholic and Protestant, liberal and fundamentalist, have openly aligned themselves with the enemies of the White race. The Catholics and the liberal Protestants are vigorously supporting racial mixing, while the fundamentalist Protestants are strong boosters of Zionism. These alignments will become increasingly important factors in our struggle in the years ahead, as the churches become more and more involved in social and political issues. The Jews have already announced their intention to mobilize fundamentalist Christians in their effort to maintain control of the U.S. government. The Alliance cannot remain silent in the face of such developments, for the sake of White unity or anything else.
No honest, conscientious Alliance member can maintain his membership in the Alliance and also in an organization which is fundamentally opposed to the goals and principles of the Alliance. The former member who belongs to the Moral Majority acted correctly in resigning from the Alliance, and the same applies to others: Any Alliance member who is also a member of a church or other Christian organization which supports racial mixing or Zionism should decide now where he stands, and he should then resign either from his church or from the Alliance….
[These issues are] relevant to the mission of the National Alliance, and they cannot be ignored: We must look to our racial roots, and we must rid ourselves of alien influences, including those from the Levant; we must govern ourselves by White values and ethical doctrines, and by no others; and we must concern ourselves with truth alone.
I was so impressed with this commentary by Dr. Pierce to his members — when I discovered it 10 years later when he had invited me to come work with him as the National Alliance’s first Membership Coordinator — that I reprinted it as a one-page standalone article and distributed it to those interested in our Alliance. I wanted to make it clear that this was National Alliance policy. Dr. Pierce appreciated that I did that.
Wolf’s Arrival
“On Christianity” was republished online in 2010 by Kevin Alfred Strom, four years prior to my becoming National Alliance Chairman. There is a whining, forgettable comment that can still be seen under it, made in 2011 by a hostile Christian named Barros. More important, however, is the comment, under his, by ethnic Russian racial-nationalist Wolf Stoner (which I’ll quote below). Mr. Stoner had just discovered the National Alliance in 2020 when he made this comment, and he soon joined with us. See Wolf’s “Gaining Real Power; parts 1 and 2” published this month here at National Vanguard. Here is Wolf’s comment, slightly edited for clarity in English:
Mister Barros, I am of Orthodox origin and have read Christian literature more than many priests have. I have read the New Testament four times all the way through, and thanks to this knowledge I have become anti-Christian.
Any person having some analytical abilities would become anti-Christian after reading the Bible. The problem is that many people are unable to think for themselves and accept ready-made opinions and templates. In the Middle Ages they accepted the necessity to kill “witches,” now they are assured that multiculturalism is the only way and that all those who oppose it are “extremists” that should be somehow dealt with.
It was always so; stupid people are always a majority and wise people are always few and prophets like Bruno are few even in a thousand years.
By the way, the fact that I am anti-Christian in no way prevents me from being a religious man and respecting my national culture. Russian Orthodox traditions are heavily based on pre-Christian Slavic customs, so it is not exactly Christianity but a kind of hybrid religion. I am sure that sometime in the future, this ideological Christian sh** will be thrown out and our pure religion will remain in its true form. The same is true with Western denominations. For example Bach’s music is an expression of the traditional German religious spirit, but has outwardly Christian trappings. That should not prevent us from admiring Bach’s genius, while rejecting the Christian trash that accompanies it. Dr. William Pierce has found the best approach to this topic. We should be religious, but not Christian. We should worship our God, not their Jehovah.
Will Williams: June 4, 2026 I mention [“Christ is King” Bryan Dawson] here in this piece that was put up today at NA’s online magazine, nationalvanguard.org “Christ Is Not King”. Some open-minded, intelligent Whites will like this, Christlings not so much…
—
Some at Counter-Currents won’t care for such language, especially if Jesus is their “personal savior,” but intelligent, open-minded Patricia, weighed in under my piece at NV with this, that needed saying, reinforcing my post:
Patricia: 3 June, 2026 Christ not only isn’t king, he doesn’t even exist except as a fictionalized character in a fake morality play (the Bible) that casts race-thinking White people as the “bad guys.”
It doesn’t really matter whether the Christ stories were based partially on a real person and were then later fictionalized, or were based on a composite of various magicians and preachers that wowed the suckers of 50 AD, or were based on an entirely concocted character. The truth is that this character is now used to turn off the brains and good judgement of otherwise sane White people and make them think it is the essence of virtue to believe that all humans, especially the lowest, are “equal.”
If these nonsensical Christ stories had never been forced on us, 95% of the opposition to our racial ideas would not even exist.
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.