National-socialism can’t be judged. Indeed, national-socialism was put in practice only under Hitler’s regime, and for this reason it would be advisable to talk about Hitlerism and not about national-socialism to qualify the dictatorship period between 1933 and 1945 in Germany.

To be able to qualify positive or harmful doctrines, it’s necessary that this one was exploited by various leaders, over various times as it was the case for communism. With the communism, which existed before and after Stalin, we are in right to say that this red ideology was harmful for the people. What is not the case of the national-socialist ideology which lived only with the Führer.

To affirm that national-socialism was bad doctrine, it would have been necessary for that it existed in various places at various eras. Then, that is to say, one can draw from the observations on Hitler’s national-socialism : the industrial policy and economics were excellent.

The policy of anti-semitism was on the other hand excessive and negative, according to the Official history. But, as at the time of all new doctrines, Hitler’s national-socialism was an ideology with its errors, its misdeeds and its benefits. Which doesn’t mean to say that national-socialism, in general, is bad. Only Hitlerism can be qualified of good or bad and judged as so.

By Maurice Bardèche.

I do not like politics. If you think that fascism consists in parades of boot boys with brown or black shirts,
please know that it is not my definition of fascism. I defended the fascists, it is very different: because I knew fascists and because I hate lies. I protested against a falsification of the facts and a way of denaturation of the hearts and confiscation of the wills, based on this falsification. I remain convinced that I was right.

We were told lies and some continues to lie to us: because this lie is essential to the politicians in the place.
But this lie crumbles today, it will crumble tomorrow. One will end up looking at the fascist experiments as political experiments which were loaded and disfigured by the dramatic needs for the war, but which has as for essential nature the exaltation of certain moral values : courage, energy, discipline, responsibility, conscientiousness, solidarity, whose disappearance is the drama of the societies which followed. To be fascist today, it is to wish that these words have a direction for the people.

[...] Before hating fascism, it would be necessary to try to understand it. Fascism was born, historically, of the anger of the war veterans against the politicians. But it was, more deeply, a spontaneous opposition against the demoralization of the war and the post-war period which accompanied the transformation of a rural stable society, sparing, patient, courageous, attached to honesty and good citizenship, in a company of employees having for horizon their salary’s increase, for guide the ideology, for instrument the politics.

The fascist movements were born from a reaction against this denaturation of the people. This reaction had everywhere the same fulcrum. In their distress, those which refused this new world of the post-war period referred to an image-type of the ancient greatness of their people ; for Italy, the legions of Rome, for Germany, that of Arminius which had overcome the army of the Varus consul, for Romania or Hungary that their peasants combatants, for Spain the image of the Castilian honor : not an ideology, but a moral model, that which incarnated best than they were or what they had wanted to be in the trenches where they had fought. By destroying, after the Second world war, this rebirth of the national conscience under pretext of destroy the racist ideology, one destroyed an original political solution which at the same time made it possible to break the destroying ideologies of the national unit and excesses of wild capitalism.

However, racism made up in ideology isn’t part of the definition of fascism nor even of the definition of
national-socialism. Like the other ideologies, it starts from an idea right which was exaggerated and deformed while becoming a system. Its excesses were excesses to which leads every systematic thought.

Actually, the fascist regimes were not regimes of constraint for the individuals. They generally respected individual freedom and repressed only sabotage, parasitism and the speculation. On the other hand, they ensured the people most invaluable of freedoms, that to be themselves and not what one decided that they are: freedom which we do not know any more.

[...] The fascist regimes were or tried to be regimes of solidarity and social justice, which were then deformed by the constraints of the war. Any regimes of solidarity and social justice requires a strong State: but a strong State does not need ideology : it needs only good sense and generosity.

I don’t believe in the history of the fascist regimes and of the Second world war such as one presents it today. This history is not made yet: and what was made by it is hidden to us. The file of falsifications is copious: it relates to the facts, the documents, the omissions. I leave to each one the task to draw up of what one sees, as of now, of this catalogue. Any man who thinks should become aware of our illusions: we graze like animals without reason the lie of our victory, the lie of Resistance, the lie of our freedom. These lies nourished ideologies of self-destruction, antiracism, class struggle. And this adulterated food is the secrecy of our impotence.

Very soon, in twenty years, in ten years perhaps, the white race in Europe will have to fight for its survival.
This supreme battle will require strong regimes, governments of public safety. It could be led only in deterioration of the ideologies and by the recourse to virile qualities which I said. One should not wonder today if these strong regimes are possible, it should be known that they are inevitable, under some name that one gives them. Because they are the condition of our safety.

Translated from french by Eolh Front France.

The measures proposed by Mrs Castex to rectify the European birthrate are ridiculous because, like all the europeists with the
capacity, our colleague doesn’t want the demographic revival of the European people, but its replacement by an immigration from
Africa and from Asia. This is why she wrote fifteen articles of its report/ratio to ask facilities for family gathering, for civic rights for the immigrants, an to increase the effort to integrate them…

This policy recommended in France by Mr. Attali and followed by Mr. Sarkozy, will bring in Europe 80 million additional immigrants from now to 2050 and, in the long term, the disappearance of our people.

To ensure the survival of the European people, it is necessary on the contrary to reverse the migratory flow and to promote a natalist policy based on the family and welcoming life. For that, our nations must, in a new Europe, that one of the fatherlands, find their sovereignty and their identity.

Carl Lang, European deputy of the Front National

Translated from french by Eolh Front France.

Synthesis of the political philosophy of the 18th century, the human rights are the impossible to circumvent horizon of the dominant ideology. With antiracism, it works as one of the central devices of collective mental conditioning, the ready to think and the paralysis of any national revolt. Deeply hypocritical, the ideology of the human rights puts up with all social miseries and justifies all oppressions. It functions like a true laic religion. “The man” is here only one to be abstract, a consumer customer, an atom. It is striking to note that the ideology of the human rights was formulated by the Conventionnels of the French revolution, in imitation of the American puritans.

To criticize the laic religion of the human rights is obviously not to defend brutality, since the ideology of the human rights guaranteed on several occasions cruelty and oppression (the massacre of Vendeans or of the American Indians). The ideology of the human rights was very often the pretext of persecutions. It massacred in the name of the “Good”.

It by no means represents the protection of the individual, not more than Communism. On the contrary, it is essential like a new oppressive system, founded on formal freedoms. On his behalf, one will legitimate, with the contempt of any democracy, the colonization of settlement of Europe (everyone has the “right” to settle in Europe), the tolerance towards the anti liberty delinquencies, the wars of aggression carried out by claiming “right of interference”, the inexpulsability of clandestines and the laxism towards the african and moslem colonizers.

Most of it, the ideology of the human rights is today a strategic means to disarm the resistance of the European people by making them feel guilty in all the fields. It is the legitimation of disarmament and of paralysis. The human rights are a kind of perverse assumption of Christian charity and levelling dogma according to which all the men would be worth themselves.

The ideology of the human rights and the antiracism are the current central weapon of destruction of the identity of the European people and of the alien colonization of Europe.

The well thinking of human rights also distorted the History by making the Nazism evil and by holding up its spectrum associating it with all the opponents of the doctrinaire approach, with a principal aim to hush up any national resistance which would be opposed to the genocide of the European people victim of the imposed interbreeding.

The truth is that the antiracism and human rights are the weapons of propaganda of the republican democracy to suffocate

any national resistance which would be opposed to the genocide of the white race in Europe, programmed by the winners of the second world  war, and we start to see the first steps today…

Denis.C

Translated from french by Eolh Front France.

Only Germany was left out.

It is well known in the West that the Allies hanged Nazis for crimes — the murder of Jews, the brutal mass expulsions, the deadly forced-labour camps, the starvation of entire nations. What is not generally known is that these occupying armies carved off 25 percent of Germany’s most fertile land and placed it under Russian and Polish control, forcibly expelling about 16 million people into what remained. It has also been forgotten — or hidden — that the Allies forbade emigration and kept millions of prisoners in forced-labour camps. International charitable aid to Germany was banned for another year, then restricted for more than a year. When it was permitted, it came too late for millions of people.

In a plan devised by U.S. secretary of the treasury Henry C. Morgenthau Jr., the Allies “pastoralized” Germany. They slashed production of oil, tractors, steel and other products that had been essential to the war effort. They cut fertilizer production by 82 percent. They under-valued German exports (which they controlled), depriving Germans of cash needed to buy food. And a large percentage of young male workers were kept in forced-labour camps for years. During the six months following the end of the war, Germany’s industrial production fell by 75 percent.

The loss of so much fertile land and the drop in fertilizer supplies caused agricultural production to fall by 65 percent. Sixty million people began to starve in their huge prison.

The mass expulsions from one part of Germany to another, approved at the Allied victory conference in Potsdam in July and August, 1945, were enforced “with the very maximum of brutality,” wrote British writer and philanthropist Victor Gollancz in his book Our Threatened Values (1946). Canadian writer and TV producer Robert Allen, in an article titled Letter from Berlin, in Reading magazine (February, 1946), described the scene in a Berlin railway station as the refugees arrived in late 1945: “They were all exhausted and starved and miserable … A child only half alive … A woman in the most terrible picture of despair I’ve seen … Even when you see it, it’s impossible to believe … God it was terrible.” [Image:  Expellees from the East; as many as sixteen million Germans were driven from their homes in history's greatest ethnic cleansing.]

In the West, the plan to dismantle German industrial capacity began at the British headquarters of General Dwight Eisenhower in August, 1944. Meeting with Mr. Morgenthau, Gen. Eisenhower prescribed a treatment for Germany that would be “good and hard,” giving as his reason that “the whole German population is a synthetic paranoid.”

Mr. Morgenthau took a written version of their discussion to U.S. president Franklin Roosevelt and British prime minister Winston Churchill when the two met in Quebec City in September, 1944. British foreign secretary Anthony Eden, U.S. secretary of state Cordell Hull and U.S. secretary for war Henry L. Stimson all protested vigorously against the Morgenthau plan because a pastoralized Germany could not feed itself. Mr. Hull and Mr Stimson told Roosevelt that about 20 million Germans would die if the plan were implemented.

Most historians say the Morgenthau Plan was abandoned after the protests, but Mr. Morgenthau himself said it was implemented.

In the New York Post for Nov. 24, 1947, he wrote: “The Morgenthau Plan for Germany … became part of the Potsdam Agreement, a solemn declaration of policy and undertaking for action … signed by the United States of America, Great Britain and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.”

I first happened on the outlines of this story while researching my 1989 book Other Losses, about the mass deaths of German prisoners of war in Allied camps. For 45 years, historians have never disputed a massive survey conducted over four years by the government of chancellor Konrad Adenauer, which stated that some 1.4 million German prisoners had died in captivity. What is still disputed by the two sides is how many died in each side’s camps. Each has blamed the other for nearly all the deaths.

The fall of the Soviet empire in 1989 provided a spectacular test of the truth: If the KGB archives recorded how many Germans died in Soviet camps, the world would know how many died in the West.

In 1992, I went to the KGB archives in Moscow, where I was permitted to troll the long, gloomy aisles, free to read and photocopy anything I wanted. And there I found the reports from KGB colonel I. Bulanov and others showing that 450,600 Germans had died in Soviet camps. Given the figure of 1.4 million deaths, this meant that close to one million had died in Western camps.

In addition, the KGB records show that the Soviets had also imprisoned hundreds of thousands of civilians, of whom many thousands died.

This was the shadow of a greater tragedy, the fate of German civilians.

The recent declassification of the Robert Murphy Papers at the Hoover Institute in Stanford, California, and the Robert Patterson manuscript papers in Washington focused the picture. Mr. Murphy had been chief U.S. diplomatic adviser in Germany, and Mr. Patterson the secretary of war after 1945.

Some of Mr. Murphy’s papers show a catastrophic death rate in Germany, highlighted by a surprising comment by Mr. Murphy in discussing German demographics. He said in a State Department position paper in 1947 that the U.S. statistical projection of births, immigration and officially reported deaths showed that over the next three years the German population should be 71 million, but that “to be conservative and in view of the present high death rate in Germany, a figure of 69 million will be used.” In other words, Mr. Murphy was basing high-level U.S. policy on the knowledge that the actual German death rate was approximately double the rate officially reported to Washington by the U.S. military governor. [Image: A British nurse in Berlin helps three German refugee children expelled from an orphange in Danzig, now Gdansk. The boy on the left, aged nine, weighs 40lbs and is too weak to stand. The boy in the center, aged twelve, weighs just 46lbs, and his eight-year old sister, right, weighs 37lbs.This picture was first published in Time magazine on 12 November 1945.]

In the National Archives in Ottawa, I found a document seized by Canadians in 1946, showing a death rate in the city of Brilon in north-central Germany almost triple the total reported for the Allies for their zones of Germany in 1945-46. The U.S. Army medical officer in Germany secretly reported that the actual death rate in the U.S. zone in May, 1946, was 21.4 per 1,000 per year, or 83 percent higher than the military governor was reporting to Washington.

These documents in Ottawa, Moscow, Washington and Stanford, recently revealed or long neglected, show that the Allies not only destroyed most German industry, they also reduced German food production to the point that Germans received less food for long periods during several years than the starving Dutch had received under German occupation.

“From 1945 to the middle of 1948, one saw the probable collapse, disintegration and destruction of a whole nation.” These are not the words of a revisionist historian of the 1990s, but the sober judgment of a U.S. Navy medical officer on the scene. Captain Albert Behnke compared German and Dutch starvation: For months in parts of Germany, the ration set by the occupying Allies was 400 calories per day; in much of Germany it was often around 1,000, and officially for more than two years it was never more than 1,550. The Dutch always got more than 1,394. [Image: Seven starving babies in the Catholic children's hospital in Berlin, October 1947. The infant on the right is near death.]

And for his part in starving people in the Netherlands, Nazi commander Arthur Seyss-Inquart was hanged by the Allies.

A comparison of the German censuses of 1946 and 1950 shows the effect of the food shortages. The 1950 census showed 5.7 million people fewer than there should have been according to the number of people recorded in the 1946 census, minus officially reported deaths, plus births and “immigrants” (people expelled from the east and returning prisoners) in the period from 1946 to 1950.

Mr. Murphy had, indeed, been conservative, partly because he underestimated the number of prisoners due to return to Germany from Russia. The total tally of unacknowledged deaths among prisoners, refugees and non-expelled civilians comes to around nine million people between 1945 and 1950, far more than the number who died during the war itself. All of these deaths were surplus to those actually reported.

While Germans starved, the Canadian-U.S. relief program swung into action in other parts of the world. Former U.S. president Herbert Hoover, then chief food adviser to president Harry Truman, flew around the world assessing need and supply. He found big regions of food poverty, as there has always been and still are, but not insurmountable world food shortage. In fact, world food production in 1945, according to the U.S. government statistics, was 90 per cent of the average of the years from 1936 to 1938. By the end of 1946, it was virtually normal.

Mr. Hoover begged, borrowed and bought enough food from the few other surplus countries — Australia and Argentina — to feed nearly all the world’s starving. He congratulated Canadians warmly for their co-operation in a CBC speech in Ottawa in 1946: “To Canada flows the gratitude of hundreds of millions of human beings who have been saved from starvation through the efforts of this great Commonwealth.”

As Mr. Hoover pronounced victory over the greatest famine threat in world history, Germans were entering their worst year ever. In early 1946, reports of conditions in Germany led U.S. senators, among them Kenneth Wherry and William Langer, to protest against “this addlepated… brutal and vicious Morgenthau Plan.”

Belatedly, Mr. Truman asked Mr. Hoover to intervene. Mr. Hoover spoke to all North Americans: “Millions of mothers are today watching their children wilt before their eyes.” Infant mortality rates in some German cities were 20 per cent per year, catastrophically higher than the average in Germany before the war or in contemporary Europe.

Cases of tuberculosis among children in Kiel, in the British zone, increased by 70 per cent over the prewar period.

Mr. Hoover called for mercy to Germany.

“I can only appeal to your pity and your mercy…Will you not take to your table an invisible guest?”

Canadians and Americans set the table for the invisible guest.

According to prime minister Mackenzie King’s chief foreign-affairs adviser, Norman Robertson, Canada was the only country that had kept its food commitments to help the starving. Only in Canada did rationing and price controls continue long after the war so that others could be fed.

This unique campaign saved 800 million lives, according to Mr. Hoover.

Some older Germans treasure the memory of the “Hoover Speise” (meal) that warmed their bodies at school in 1947. Many millions — including hundreds of thousands of Canadians born in Germany — also remember their homes in parts of Germany now under Polish or Russian rule. None dreams of reparations; all yearn for us to know their story.

James Bacque

[...]

He referred to the starving Jews, and while he did not feel at liberty to grant them the full rights enjoyed by other subjects without the concurrence of the douma [i.e. the Russian parliament -- Irmin], he has relieved them from the most severe of the restrictions under which they have been suffering, and now they can go about Russia with an ordinary passport. They may engage in any business, but are not yet allowed to buy land outside of the pale of settlement. Jewish children are now admitted to all the schools and universities of Russia without condition. The members of that race are now enjoying nearly all the liberties of those of other races and religions, except that there has been no change in passport regulations, which has been promised from year to year. Foreign Jews are still compelled to explain the object of their visit before they are permitted to pass the boundary. Mr. Stolypin will undoubtedly remove that humiliation in due time.

THE VENGEANCE OF THE JEWS

Perhaps these reforms are the cause of the present tranquillity, because the revolutionary leaders nearly all belong to the Jewish race and the most effective revolutionary agency is the Jewish Bund, which has its headquarters at Bialystok, where the massacre occurred last June. The government has suffered more from that race than from all of its other subjects combined. Whenever a desperate deed is committed it is always done by a Jew and there is scarcely one loyal member of that race in the entire Empire. The great strike which paralyzed the Empire and compelled the Czar to grant a constitution and a parliament was ordered and managed by a Jew named Krustaleff, president of the workingmen’s council, a young man only thirty years old. He was sent to the penitentiary for life, and had not been behind the bars more than three weeks when he organized and conducted a successful strike of the prison employees.

Maxim, who organized and conducted the revolution in the Baltic provinces, is a Jew of marvelous ability. Last fall he came over here lecturing and collecting money to carry on the revolutionary campaign, but for some reason has vanished and nobody seems to know what has become of him.

Gerschunin, the most resourceful leader of the terrorists, who was condemned to life imprisonment in the silver mines on the Mongolian frontier, has recently escaped in a water cask, and is supposed to be in San Francisco. He is a Polish Jew only twenty-seven years old. I might enumerate a hundred other revolutionary leaders and every one of them would be a Jew. Wherever you read of an assassination or of the explosion of a bomb you will notice in the newspaper dispatches that the man was a Jew. The most sensational and dramatic episode that has occurred since the mutinies was on October 27, when, in the very center of Saint Petersburg, at the entrance of Kazan Cathedral, four Jews held up a treasury wagon and captured $270,000. They passed the package to a woman, who instantly vanished, and no trace of her has ever been found; but they were all arrested and were promptly punished. On the 8th of November a few Jewish revolutionaries entered a treasury car near Ragow, in Poland, got $850,000, and disappeared.

Every deed of that kind is done by Jews, and the massacres that have shocked the universe, and occurred so frequently that the name “pogrom” was invented to describe them, were organized and managed by the exasperated police authorities in retaliation for crimes committed by the Jewish revolutionists.

MANY REFORMS ALREADY INSTITUTED BY PREMIER STOLYPIN

But Mr. Stolypin has evidently arranged a truce. He has crushed out the conspirators in the police department who organized and directed the “pograms” [sic. -- KAS] and has given the Jews more liberty and more justice than they ever enjoyed before. He has appointed a commission to prepare a law placing them upon the same footing as Protestants, Roman Catholics, and members of other religious faiths.

Mr. Stolypin is an able, honest, and grave man, of broad horizon and liberal views and a high sense of justice. He has already done wonders. Every week some important reform is ordered, some tyrannical regulation revoked, some concession granted.

William Elroy Curtis

[The West] has not yet understood that whites, in a world become too small for its inhabitants, are now a minority and that the proliferation of other races dooms our race, my race, irretrievably to extinction in the century to come, if we hold fast to our present moral principles. [emphasis added]–Jean Raspail, The Camp Of The Saints

The loss of racial identity in the Western world is symptomatic of a deeper crisis within the European peoples, whose culture and technology have provided the world with much of what we know today as modern civilization. At its core, the crisis is the inevitable consequence of a profound, and perhaps fatal, misunderstanding of the nature of morality. We have lost sight of ancient and eternal laws of Nature on which our civilization must be based if we are to survive. We no longer have the luxury of indulging in universalist altruistic principles that, no matter how noble they may appear, have driven us to the brink of ruin.

Demographic projections based on American and European immigration policies, as well as the evidence of one’s own senses as one walks the streets of any large Western city, point to a bleak future. Within a century or two, perhaps less, the peoples of the West, those whose ancestry derives from the Nordic and Alpine subraces of Europe, will have ceased to exist as a cohesive entity. How quickly the end will come depends on immigration rates, differential birthrates among ethnic groups, and mixed-race childbearing rates. But the final outcome is fixed so long as we adhere to our present course. [Image: Mexican invaders announce their intentions.]

And yet, frank discussion of the outcome, the submergence of the race that produced the world’s first, and perhaps only technological civilization, is usually silenced with words like “racist,” “bigot,” and “xenophobe.” Neither the flawed moral system that enforces this silence nor the people who support it will outlive the demise of the West. But when the West is gone, it will be of little consolation that those responsible will have expired as well. If we are to reverse course, it is vital that we take steps now, before it is too late.

If, today, the West’s moral system is flawed, how can it be corrected? The first question we must ask is whether it is moral for ethnic groups as well as individuals to seek survival. And if so, what are the moral actions we may undertake to secure survival? What must be the moral basis of our civilization if it is not to be lost? In his Destiny of Angels, Richard McCulloch calls these questions a matter of “ultimate ethics.”

The Moral Dilemma of the West

The dilemma of our people is the product of a deep misconception about nature and morality. It arises from the mistaken, sentimental belief that altruism can be extended beyond its evolutionary origin — kinship and within-group altruism — to the whole of humanity. It results from failure to accept the role of genetic factors in defining human temperament and potential.

The standards that govern public debate are reminiscent of the Dark Ages in that they have no basis in science or in human experience. Instead, they consist of moralistic assertions derived from a world view rooted in radical egalitarianism. The long term consequence of adherence to these principles is rarely examined, let alone subjected to scientific scrutiny.

Most Western people would agree that an innate sense of right and wrong plays a key role in the Western moral system, a system that values individual worth and reciprocal fairness. The tragedy of this moral view is that it has been extended to the world at large — seemingly the most noble behavior humanity has ever exhibited — and has become the threat to the survival of the West.

As biologist Garrett Hardin demonstrated in his 1982 essay “Discriminating Altruisms,” universalism — a chimerical One World without borders or distinctions — is impossible. Groups that practice unlimited altruism, unfettered by thoughts of self-preservation, will be disadvantaged in life’s competition and thus eliminated over time in favor of those that limit their altruistic behavior to a smaller subset of humanity, usually their own genetic kin, from whom they receive reciprocal benefits.

Professor Hardin writes:

Universalism is altruism practiced without discrimination of kinship, acquaintanceship, shared values, or propinquity in time or space…. To people who accept the idea of biological evolution from amoeba to man, the vision of social evolution from egoism to universalism may seem plausible. In fact, however, the last step is impossible…. Let us see why.In imagination, picture a world in which social evolution has gone no further than egoism or individualism. When familialism appears on the scene, what accounts for its persistence? It must be that the costs of the sacrifices individuals make for their relatives are more than paid for by the gains realized through family solidarity….

The argument that accounts for the step to familialism serves equally well for each succeeding step — except for the last. Why the difference? Because the One World created by universalism has — by definition — no competitive base to support it … [Universalism] cannot survive in competition with discrimination. [emphasis in original]

Professor Hardin adds: “[W]e must not forget that for three billion years, biological evolution has been powered by discrimination. Even mere survival in the absence of evolutionary change depends on discrimination. If universalists now have their way, discrimination will be abandoned. Even the most modest impulse toward conservatism should cause us to question the wisdom of abandoning a principle that has worked so well for billions of years. It is a tragic irony that discrimination has produced a species (homo sapiens) that now proposes to abandon the principle responsible for its rise to greatness.”

It is to the advantage of non-Europeans, virtually all of whom retain their cohesion as distinctive, discriminating groups, to exploit the economic wealth and social order of the West, benefits many demonstrably cannot create for themselves. When this cohesive drive is placed in competition with self-sacrificing Western altruism, there can be only one outcome. In the near term, Europeans will be displaced by groups acting in their own self-interest. In the long run, biological destruction awaits us. Since those who displace us do not, by definition, maintain our moral standards — for if they did, they would not be replacing us — our flawed moral system will vanish with us.

The fact that universal, self-sacrificing altruism destroys its practitioners is its most obvious flaw. Any survivable moral order must recognize this.

The Cosmic Race

The dream of a Utopia in which racial harmony prevails, has never come true. Today, racial encroachment is a threat to the very existence of Western peoples. Lawrence Auster, author of The Path to National Suicide: An Essay on Immigration and Multiculturalism, has elsewhere summarized the situation thus:

Modern liberalism told us that racial differences don’t matter, and on the basis of that belief, liberals then set about turning America into a multiracial, integrated, race-blind society. But now that very effort has created so much race consciousness, race conflict and race inequality, that the same liberals have concluded that the only way to overcome those problems is to merge all the races into one. The same people who have always denounced as an extremist lunatic anyone who warned about “the racial dilution of white America,” are now proposing, not just the dilution of white America, but its complete elimination. Race-blind ideology has led directly to the most race-conscious — and indeed genocidal — proposal in the history of the world.

This change of strategy was signaled by the cover story of a Fall 1993 special edition of Time. The story featured a computer synthesized image of a woman representing the intermixture of all of the ethnic population elements of the United States in their present proportions. The subliminal message conveyed by this computerized android, obviously still of predominantly European ancestry, was: “Don’t worry, this is harmless.” Or, in the current idiom of multiculturalism, “let us celebrate our diversity.” Of course, this image represents the utter destruction of diversity, not its conservation.

This computer-generated android is a lie. The American population base is in a state of rapid change. Whites are now having fewer children, and there are thus fewer whites of child bearing age than Time assumes. This is happening worldwide. The question is, what would be the result of this plan being carried forward on a larger scale, carried to its logical conclusion in a world sans borders? Time‘s android is but a way station on the road to what some lovingly call the Cosmic Race.

People of European ancestry constitute something over ten percent of the world’s population, but since 1980, white births amount to only a little more than five percent of the world’s new children. The birth rate in the West has fallen to dangerously low levels, now about 1.8 children per woman. A level of 2.1 is required to balance deaths. Birth rates in the third world remain very high, thanks in large measure to the infusion of Western food, medicine, and “peacekeeping.” Because people are not computer morphs but have discrete ancestors, let us assume that the fraction of people with European ancestry is now one-sixteenth of the child-bearing population. When the Time experiment is complete on a world-wide scale, the resulting human will have only one white great-great-grandparent. He will be visibly Asian since about 60 percent of the world’s population is Asian. In round numbers, this amounts to ten of the sixteen great-great-grandparents, including four from China alone. Three would come from India and three more from Southeast Asia and the Middle East. Africa would supply three and non-white Latin America and the Caribbean basin the remaining two. [Image: Time's deceptively attractive "New Face of America."]

In this scenario, which is already unfolding on the North American continent and in Europe and Australia, the single European ancestor would leave no discernible residue in homo cosmicus. Europeans would be extinct, fulfilling the nightmare vision that Jean Raspail described in The Camp Of The Saints. This is not a condemnation of any real human being with such an ancestry. Nevertheless, this process would eradicate the biological diversity that multiculturalists claim to cherish. In its place would be only uniformity, the irreversible submergence of all races.

The passing of any race is an event of great significance. The destruction of an entire population is, in fact, genocide by the definitions of the UN Genocide Convention, which defines genocide as “… the destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial or national group. The acts so defined include … the destruction of the conditions of life necessary for the physical existence of the group….”

The debate about race must be framed in these terms in order to convey its true importance. The battle cannot be won by allowing the other side to limit the terms of debate by declaring certain subjects beyond discussion. The consequences are too important.

The Dual Code of Morality

Why, though, does race matter? The answer lies in the biology of genes and in the impact of genetic kinship on altruism. For many decades, altruism was a paradox for theories of evolution. Darwin himself realized that altruism was difficult to explain in terms of individual “survival of the fittest.” In his book Race, Evolution, and Behavior Philippe Rushton writes, “If the most altruistic members of a group sacrifice themselves for others, they run the risk of leaving fewer offspring to pass on the very genes that govern the altruistic behavior. Hence, altruism would be selected against, and selfishness would be selected for.”

Prof. Rushton suggests that this paradox is resolved by genetic similarity theory, a field pioneered by biologist W.D. Hamilton and others. Prof Rushton writes:

By a process known as kin selection, individuals can maximize their inclusive fitness rather than only their individual fitness by increasing the production of successful offspring by both themselves and their genetic relatives…. Genes are what survive and are passed on, and some of the same genes will be found not only in direct offspring but in siblings, cousins, nephews/nieces, and grandchildren…. thus, from an evolutionary perspective, altruism is a means of helping genes to propagate.

Over time, kin selection has resulted in a dual code of morality, an altruistic code for one’s genetic kin and a non-altruistic code for everyone else. Anthropologists have suggested that humans evolved through a process of migration and tribal warfare between groups composed of genetically related individuals. In A New Theory of Human Evolution, Sir Arthur Keith wrote:

The process which secures the evolution of an isolated group of humanity is a combination of two principles … namely, cooperation with competition…. I hold that from the very beginning of human evolution the conduct of every local group was regulated by two codes of morality, distinguished by Herbert Spencer as the “code of amity” and the “code of enmity.”

Garrett Hardin writes: “The essential characteristic of a tribe is that it should follow a double standard of morality — one kind of behavior for in-group relations, another for out-group.” In-group relations are characterized by cooperation while out-group relations are characterized by conflict. Liberals have tried to discredit the role of tribal conflict, claiming that such distinctions have been lost as groups reached nation size. But in so doing, they miss the vital message of genetic similarity theory. National ethnic groups represent the growth and consolidation of genetically related tribes over time.

Professor Hardin argues that, because of the nature of altruism and competition, the dual code of morality is inescapable and cannot be eliminated from human society:

In the absence of competition between tribes the survival value of altruism in a crowded world approaches zero because what ego gives up necessarily … goes into the commons. What is in the commons cannot favor the survival of the sharing impulses that put it there — unless there are limits placed on sharing. To place limits on sharing is to create a tribe — which means a rejection of One World…. A state of One World, if achieved, would soon redissolve into an assemblage of tribes.

The in-group out-group distinction still operates today; it is only the battleground that has shifted. Tribal warfare has been replaced by territorial irredentism and competing birthrates.

The liberal campaign to eliminate feelings of national, cultural, or racial solidarity among Western peoples was undertaken largely in the hope that the abolition of “tribalism” would inaugurate an era of world peace. As Professor Hardin has shown, tribalism cannot be eliminated. Worse still, any idealistic group that unilaterally dismantles its own tribal sense will be swept away by groups that have retained theirs. Unless the current direction is changed, the West will be destroyed in this new form of biological warfare.

The dual code of morality is therefore the cornerstone on which any enduring moral order must be based. It is also an answer to the question of ultimate ethics posed earlier: “Is it moral for ethnic groups to seek to survive?” Since it is impossible to eliminate “tribes” from the human race, the answer to this question must be yes. That which is built inextricably into the laws of the universe cannot be immoral.

Universalists might try to caricature the dual code of morality as an invidious double standard, but it is something we practice every day without even thinking about it. Without it, no group, be it a family, club, corporation, political party, nation, or race would exist. It is how groups distinguish between members and non-members. Employees of the same company treat each other differently from the way they treat competitors. Members of the same political party cooperate with each other and run against opponents. Families draw sharp distinctions between members and strangers. It is easy to overlook the dual code of morality precisely because it is so fundamental a part of human nature.

The “code of amity, code of enmity” explains racial loyalties. It is an extension of the biologically necessary fact that parents love their children more than the children of strangers. Such feelings are normal and natural. Yet “racism” has become the curse-word that stops discussion. Those who use the word as a weapon say that racial loyalty is racism when exhibited by whites but is justifiable pride when exhibited by non-whites. The word is simply a means of gaining power over people who have exaggerated moral scruples. [Image: Muslim invaders in Britain exhibit the most powerful weapon in their arsenal -- "racism."]

The Biology of Diversity

Feelings of racial loyalty are grounded in biological differences. These are discussed authoritatively in J. Philippe Rushton’s Race, Evolution, and Behavior, but they do not imply that one race has a right to rule over another. Frank discussion of real differences must not be considered morally repugnant. Scientific truth cannot be racism, at least not in the pejorative sense that the word is now used.

Most forms of behavior (by whites) that are characterized as racism do not involve unprovoked assault on people of other races, but are simply the natural loyalty of humans for their own group. They are necessary for survival. Unprovoked violence is a moral evil, but by all statistical measures, whites are overwhelmingly the victims of crimes of racial violence, not the perpetrators.

Blacks are twelve percent of the population but commit almost two-thirds of the violent crime in America, are over twelve times more likely to murder whites than the reverse, are more than a thousand times more likely to rape white women than the reverse, and choose whites as crime victims fifty percent of the time compared to whites choosing blacks as victims only two percent of the time.

Interracial crime is just one manifestation of a fundamental biological principle called Gause’s Law of Exclusion. In his book The Mammals of North America, University of Kansas biology professor Raymond Hall states the law as follows: “Two subspecies of the same species do not occur in the same geographic area.” [emphasis in original] One will inevitably eliminate or displace the other. Prof. Hall specifically includes humans in this rule: “To imagine one subspecies of man living together on equal terms for long with another subspecies is but wishful thinking and leads only to disaster and oblivion for one or the other.”

Oblivion need not come in the form of physical destruction. It may simply involve the loss of habitat. Harlem, Watts, East St. Louis, and many other black neighborhoods were once occupied by whites. The arrival of blacks (or other non-whites) in sufficient numbers makes it impossible for whites to survive, whereas the process does not work in reverse. Even without the carnage of inter-racial crime, whites could be eliminated through sheer loss of territory. Viewed in biological terms, ethnic diversity is prelude to destruction.

The great majority of people, of any age and origin, do not concern themselves with the rise and fall of civilizations. Like fish in water, they are conscious of their environment only when it changes rapidly and threateningly, a rarity in most people’s lifetimes. Yet civilizations do fall, and the warning signs for ours have been present for more than a century. Rudyard Kipling’s line, “East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,” presaged the message of early twentieth century Americans, Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard, whose books The Passing of the Great Race and The Rising Tide of Color helped bring about the immigration restrictions of 1924.

The 1924 national origins quota system was dismantled in 1965 during the wave of self-recrimination that accompanied the Civil Rights era. Should Chinese historians of the twenty-second century be writing the final history of Western civilization, no doubt they will cite the 1965 Immigration Act as the blow that broke the back of Western man.

Elmer Pendell, in his Why Civilizations Self-Destruct, surveyed historians’ theories as to why civilizations fall. They include Oswald Spengler’s analogy to individual aging and death, theories of moral decay, and theories based on ecological deterioration. Concerning the latter, Garrett Hardin notes in The Limits of Altruism: “No civilization has ever recovered after ruining its environment.” All of these theories have their appeal, yet none is a complete explanation for what is happening to the West.

Pendell’s own hypothesis seems closer to the mark. A civilization arises when natural selection produces a people of above-average intelligence. As the founders conquer natural culling forces, those who would have been removed from the population due to their lesser abilities survive and produce more children than the more intelligent founders. Francis Galton, Charles Darwin’s cousin and author of Hereditary Genius, first noted that “men of eminence” have fewer children than the average. Eventually the intelligence level of the population falls below that needed to sustain civilization.

Pendell suggests another factor in the collapse of civilizations, the gradual adulteration of ethnically homogeneous founding populations through losses in wars and, in ancient times, the taking of slaves. The modern analogue of slavery is immigration. Tenny Frank, in his History of Rome, wrote, “The original peoples were wasted in wars and scattered in migrations and colonization and their places were filled chiefly with Eastern Slaves.” “We cannot speak of the spirit of Rome or the culture of Rome,” Frank said, “without defining whether the reference is to the Rome of 200 BC or 200 AD.”

Theodor Mommsen wrote in The History of Rome, “The patrician body… had dwindled away more and more in the course of centuries and in the time of Caesar there were not more than fifteen or sixteen patrician gentes (clans) still in existence.” In 9 A.D. laws were passed requiring each patrician family to have three children. Lead poisoning has been implicated in the failure to reverse the decline of Roman blood, but the reasons do not change the outcome. Even in ancient Rome, slaves did not stay slaves forever, and their gradual suffusion through the population by intermixture would have contributed to Rome’s demise. The same situation, massive infusion of non-Western peoples and a birthrate below replacement level, threatens the West, and for reasons quite unrelated to lead poisoning.

After The Fall

Eric Fischer, writing in The Passing of the European Age, said that a new civilization never arises where an earlier civilization has died. If Pendell’s theory is correct and if the hypothesis of Tenny Frank and others explains the loss of a hereditary capacity for civilization, then Fischer’s observation has a genetic explanation. Civilization cannot arise on the site of an earlier civilization once the hereditary character of the people is permanently altered. This process is happening in the Western world today through immigration, welfare, and liberal policies that promote the submergence of ethnic groups into a global “melting pot.”

Should the West suffer the fate of Rome, there will be no recovery. Whether or not other civilizations arise among other peoples remains to be seen. Present economic success indicates that East Asia may be a future center of civilization. However, modern innovations flow predominantly from the creative wellsprings of the West. Whether innovation could be sustained in the absence of Western peoples remains to be seen. There is evidence that this might not happen; intelligence testing of Asians shows a relatively small standard deviation, suggesting a smaller right tail of the IQ distribution and a smaller percentage of innovative individuals.

Although dire predictions about the future are often ridiculed, it is wise to remember Rome — catastrophes can and do occur, and in a globally linked world, the consequences could be shattering. In The Limits of Altruism, Garrett Hardin cites Harrison Brown, author of The Challenge of Man’s Future, as the first person to recognize the vulnerability of the West’s advanced civilization. Brown focused on the role of metals in modern civilization and on the technology required to obtain metals. Prof. Hardin summarizes the situation:

Looking only at the copper component of the problem, we should note that preliterate man managed to create the Bronze Age only because of the ready availability of copper ores assaying greater than 20 percent…. Only the most primitive of means are required to process high grade ores. But now we are reduced to extracting our copper from ores that assay less than 1 percent, and soon we will have nothing better than 0.1 percent. It takes a very sophisticated technology to deal with low-grade ores, a technology that only a large population of technologically advanced people can muster.

Prof. Hardin continues: “Our many technologies form an incredible network of mutual support, mutual dependence. If this network were disrupted … it is doubtful if our kind of technology could ever be rebuilt…. On all counts, it looks as though our civilization, once fallen, will never be replaced by another of comparable quality.”

Prof. Hardin suggests two possible causes for the destruction of modern civilization: nuclear warfare and a population crash brought on by exceeding the Earth’s carrying capacity. However, genetic submergence of the peoples with the innate ability to sustain civilization will do just as well.

The Roots of Western Order

The Map of Freedom, published annually by Freedom House, graphically demonstrates that free forms of government generally track population concentrations of people of European descent, a strong suggestion that freedom has a genetic origin. Although there are exceptions, notably Japan, which lost a nuclear war to the West and had a Western constitution imposed on it, the world of the free is largely the world of the Western European. The partially free include newly emerged Eastern Europeans and a scattering of other nations around the world. Much of Africa and Asia remains in the not free category.

Thomas Jefferson foresaw this. Fearing “importation of foreigners,” he wrote in Notes on Virginia: “They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, or if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as usual, from one extreme to the other…. In proportion to their number, they will infuse into it [the nation] their spirit, warp or bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass.”

Because economic inequality between groups inevitably produces envy, stable societies are almost always homogeneous. Multi-ethnic and multicultural societies live on the edge of dissolution. In such cases, the role of government turns to conflict management, as Brent Nelson points out in America Balkanized: “Government as conflict management is an emerging theme of public life in the U.S., a theme which recurrently manifests itself in the concepts of dialogue, mediation, sensitivity, tolerance, and balance. The latter terms are increasingly the shibboleths of American public life. The fiction is maintained that these concepts … will produce a final resolution of intergroup conflicts…. [T]he reality is something quite other.” Laws against “hate crime” and “hate speech” reflect that other reality.

If today’s ethnic minorities become a majority it will be beyond the power of Western peoples to control, peacefully by means of the ballot, the destiny of the nations that were once their own. There is no guarantee that protections prevalent in Western societies will be preserved in societies that become non-Western. There is no historical reason to believe that governments based on principles of individual liberty will survive the disappearance of Western peoples.

Post-colonial Africa is enlightening. For the most part, the Dark Continent is reverting to its ancestral ways, suitably updated by the infusion of Western weapons, as evidenced by carnage in Somalia and Rwanda. That this disturbs our heightened Western sense of compassion is understandable. But sentimentality should not blind us to the long term implications for our own survival. Nature’s books are being balanced in Africa, and they will be balanced in the West, either by us or by Nature itself. Just as giving food to people who cannot feed themselves simply hastens an inevitable population crash, bringing third world people into the West simply hastens the transformation of the West into an extension of the third world.

The European tradition of ordered, self-governing liberty is probably part of our genetic heritage. Throughout the third world, governments range from anarchy to dictatorship. That too, is surely genetic. Those few non-European countries that appear to be free have generally maintained democracy through intimate contact with the West. If Europeans are marginalized and ultimately absorbed by the third world, the idealism of Western liberalism that permitted the third world invasion will have proved to be a lethal genetic flaw.

Few concepts are more ingrained in Western thought than respect for the “rule of law.” The West has a history of order that predates the eight-hundred-year-old Magna Carta. Roman Law was supreme in the Mediterranean world for nearly a thousand years. Unique among the peoples of the earth, the people of the West recognize, at least in theory, the subordination of government to individual rights. But laws have been instrumental in bringing on the current crisis. Although there is virtually no popular support for immigration in the Western world, it is everywhere proceeding under laws passed by governments elected by the people.

In the end, laws are no better at ensuring liberty than the people who make and enforce them. Sir Roger L’Estrange said, “The greatest of all injustice is that which goes under the name of law.” America’s Founders recognized the existence of a natural order to freedom that supersedes laws made by men. Although the American concept of liberty owed much to British and French political thought, the American act of creation, the Declaration of Independence, provided perhaps the best-known expression of “natural law” ever penned. Writing about securing “unalienable Rights” endowed by “Nature and Nature’s God,” Thomas Jefferson wrote:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, having the foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The rights Jefferson identified, “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness,” were set forth by George Mason in the Virginia Declaration of Rights, ratified on May 6th, 1776. Mason’s work was the basis for Jefferson’s statement, but the Mason version is superior because it eschews Jefferson’s poetic nonsense about all men being created equal. Mason’s language still stands as a monument of Western political thought:

[A]ll men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

Mason’s words are preferable to Jefferson’s for two reasons. First, he said that men are “equally free,” not “equal.” The difference is vast. There is ample evidence that Jefferson understood the difference as well as Mason, but much of the dispossession of Europeans in their own homelands can be traced to exploitation of this egalitarian philosophy by later Western liberals.

Second, Mason states directly the central thesis of natural law: People cannot, by any agreement, deprive their posterity of rights. Natural law is therefore the fulcrum on which rests the case that immigration is genocide. The governments of the West have no right to impose present levels of immigration and race mixing on their people. Nor are we morally bound to accept them.

The Ultimate Moral Principle

Mason recognized the role of “safety” as a motive for the creation of law and government. Others have said the same thing. William Blackstone wrote, “self-defense is justly called the primary law of nature… [It] cannot be taken away by the laws of society.” Jefferson wrote, “A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the highest duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation.”

Their message is simple. Laws alone, independent of their survival utility, are not, and cannot be, the underlying basis of civilization. In the end, whoever makes and enforces the laws has the power to determine who lives and who dies. Survival is the ultimate principle upon which all enduring moral systems must be based. This is the third, and final, cornerstone of any permanent moral order, for any people who “divest” their posterity of the right to existence will vanish, and their flawed moral system will vanish with them.

All systems of law and government must serve the imperative of survival. Speaking on the eve of the War for Southern Independence, and in the aftermath of John Brown’s attempt to incite a slave uprising at Harper’s Ferry, President James Buchanan expressed the fear felt by white Southerners who saw their very existence imperiled: “Self-preservation is the first law of nature, and therefore any state of society in which the sword is all the time suspended over the heads of the people must at last become intolerable.” Where law and survival were in conflict the Founders took their cue from Cicero: “Laws are silent in the midst of arms.”

The West is surrendering the power of life and death into the hands of third world aliens. In a world ruled by the dual “code of amity, code of enmity,” this decision, which was never subjected to systematic scrutiny by an informed electorate, is tantamount to suicide. Sometime in the next century [i.e the twenty-first], the sword Western society has suspended over its own head will become intolerable. What our response will be remains to be seen. If there is no response, the long descent into night is sure to follow. [Image: Muslim rioters set Paris ablaze.]

Which Way Western Man?

What would be lost with the passing of Western civilization and its peoples? Two thousand years ago, the Roman historian, Tacitus, wrote in De Germania that the peoples of the Germanic tribes possessed a fondness for personal freedom, an independence of spirit, an unusually high status accorded women and a deep affection for the land. These traits have survived twenty centuries. Without the West, will the spirit of individual liberty persevere? The Map of Freedom suggests not. Despite the tendency of liberals to denigrate the only culture on earth that would tolerate their presence, these virtues uniquely characterize only Europeans and their civilization.

Now, the descendants of those same Germanic tribes, the ancestors of much of the white world, and the creators of the only advanced technological civilization the world has ever known, are on the road to extinction. Do Western moral principles require that its creators commit suicide in order to fulfill those principles? Such a belief is insane. It therefore follows that if the West is to survive it must come to grips, as Jean Raspail foresaw, with the profoundly destructive nature of its moral beliefs.

Any enduring moral order must be based on the following principles: 1) a dual code of morality, which is of evolutionary origin, binds the members of ethnic and racial groups together; 2) universal, self-sacrificing altruism in a world in which racial cohesion is elsewhere the norm is lethal; and 3) the imperative of survival and the primacy of self-preservation supersede all laws made by man.

What then, must we do? Raymond Cattell, in his A New Morality From Science: Beyondism, called for a reversal of the universalist creed and creation of many social laboratories where evolution can proceed without harm or subjugation of anyone by anyone else. Wilmot Robertson urged this path as the basis of nationhood in The Ethnostate. Richard McCulloch has elevated this principle to a “racial Golden Rule” in The Racial Compact.

The only course that gives cohesive groups a chance to survive is ethnic separation. Without separation, the dual code of morality will ensure a long, chaotic period of strife and bloodshed. Eventually, what racial conflict does not finish, miscegenation, diminished birthrates, and physical and psychological displacement will. Personal liberty and individuality, without which Europeans simply cannot exist, will disappear long before the European genetic heritage is completely submerged. Lest this outcome seem remote and therefore of no concern, let the time scale of Rome’s decline be always kept in mind. Though those reading this may or may not live to see the collapse of the West, the white children being born today may well suffer it.

Jean Raspail also believed that the end was not far off. In the introduction to the 1985 edition of The Camp of the Saints, he wrote, “The Roman empire did not die any differently, though, it’s true, more slowly, whereas this time we can expect a more sudden conflagration…. Christian charity will prove itself powerless. The times will be cruel.”

Louis Veuillot, the 19th century French writer, captured the dilemma facing the West in confronting peoples who do not conform to Western moral principles. “When I am the weaker, I ask you for my freedom, because that is your principle; but when I am the stronger, I take away your freedom, because that is my principle.” The West must recognize this appeal for compassion by “the wretched refuse of [the non-Western world's] teeming shore,” for what it is: a form of beguiling parasitism that can, by definition, only seduce those with Western moral principles.

In The Decline of the West, Oswald Spengler wrote, “One grows or dies. There is no third possibility.” The peoples of the West must come to believe in and act in accordance with the only moral principle Nature recognizes: for those who live in harmony with Nature, survival is moral. For those who do not, the penalty is extinction. Without this understanding, Western Man, progenitor of law, compassion, technology and a spirit of quest that is unparalleled in the history of the human race, will perish at the hands of those who do not possess the same innate spark. For the sake of our children who are yet to be, let us choose life — by whatever means we must — while the choice is still ours.

Michael W. Masters

By David Lane.

From the era of Plato, Socrates, and Cato to that of DaVinci and Michelangelo, to Locke and Shakespeare, to Jefferson and Franklin, Western civilization has sprung from the creative genius of one kindred people. In the vast panorama of time this period was but a fleeting moment and a glorious dream. The near future will show what manner of civilization will follow the passing of the White man. How sad and ironic that the American Republic, which was formed exclusively for the preservation and promotion of Western man, became the vehicle through which he was destroyed both here and in his European homeland.

For many years I have struggled in whatever ways were available to a single powerless person to crack the iron media curtain and show my people that those very things which are protected, promoted, and forced upon us by those who today control the affairs of the Western world have destroyed every civilization we have ever built. I refer to such things as infanticide through abortion, a practice which has led to the murder of fifteen million babies of my kith and kin, and which is protected by the government and the Federal courts; homosexuality, whose adherents are forced upon us as role models and even teachers of our children by the government and Federal courts; and worst of all, the deliberate destruction of our very racial existence.

Those who have set out to mix and destroy the last remnant of Western man know full well that no people can continue in existence without a nation of their own in which to propagate, protect, and promote their own kind. They also know that a people who are not convinced of their own uniqueness and value will perish, and that is why I am slandered and destroyed when I show that nearly every improvement in the human condition has come from the fertile mind of Western man.

The White man is now a tiny minority in the world, yet he is denied not only a nation of his own but the integrity of the territorial imperative necessary to his survival. The guilt of those who partake in the destruction of this Race of men cannot be adequately described in the vocabulary of mortals. Regarding the prosecutors in this case, I say only that if the perpetuation of power is predicated on perjury, then the U. S. Attorneys are as solid as the Rock of Gibraltar. But if nature’s laws allow for the concepts of justice or karmic debt, then they walk on quicksand.

That this trial even occurred is a violation of every Constitutional protection against double jeopardy. The legalistic machinations and chicanery involved in jeopardizing a man for potentially unlimited times for the same offense, by changing the legal description of that offense, by changing jurisdictions and so on are utterly repugnant to the sense of Anglo-Saxon justice as well as totally contrary both to the spirit and the intent of the Constitution. The mad frenzy of those who now control the Federal government of the United States to punish and destroy any White man who resists the deliberate admixture and murder of his rapidly disappearing Race is evident.

History predicts unspeakable horror for the last generation of White children, if I and others who shall come after me are not more successful in awakening our people from their sleep of death. Our task is as simple as it is overwhelmingly important: “We must secure the existence of our People and a future for White children.”

In the face of that overriding historical imperative, what you do to me does not matter. I am not a brave man; I die the thousand deaths of the philosopher instead of the single death of the soldier. But I willingly sought this destiny, and I will not shrink from it.

Soon you will hear from another who will undoubtedly speak of his religious beliefs. Perhaps even at this late date, the power of a religious creed can save Western man, or perhaps Divine Providence will indeed lend a hand. If not, then those who rebel against tyranny must still accept the consequences with a shrug, or they are neither patriots nor men.

I say no more …