There is perhaps no publication in print that better describes the reality facing the White Race today than Matthew Hale’s, Ending White Slavery. Chapter One, Our Minds Are In Chains, is presented below. A reader with any sense of rational thinking will find it very difficult to deny any of the observations and conclusions contained therein. This chapter discusses the current state of affairs facing today’s ethnic European people – Hale brilliantly elucidates the concepts that have created the state of mental enslavement which has allowed the other races to run roughshod over the natural rights of the White Race. Concepts that have, in turn, led the Race to this dangerous stage of White genocide.
For those interested in reading the complete text, which includes Matthew Hale’s clear-minded prescription for turning the tide, Fearless Freedom Press offers a pdf version for download. Click here: Matthew Hale – Ending White Slavery (2015). To purchase a hard copy at Amazon click here.
About the Author
Reverend Matt Hale is the foremost religious prisoner of conscience in America today. From 1996 until his arrest in 2003, he led the World Church of the Creator, then the fastest growing pro-White organization in America. He was America’s most well-known advocate for that cause, appearing numerous times on shows such as Today, Good Morning America, CBS This Morning, and others as well as being known for his public speeches around the country. A graduate of Southern Illinois University School of Law and an accomplished classical violinist, he was convicted in 2004 on phony charges of having solicited the murder of Federal District Court Judge Joan Lefkow even though there is no evidence that any such solicitation occurred. Nevertheless, this book is proof of the fact that his wrongful imprisonment has failed to stop him from fighting for our White people whom he loves.
For more information regarding Matt Hale and his continuing struggle for justice visit FREE MATT HALE!.
Our Minds Are In Chains
I write these words from a prison cell but it is the minds of our White people that are in chains. To serve as a means by which those chains may be broken would be the highest calling of which I know; to succeed would be the greatest victory. The chains of the body are easily broken – all one needs is a hammer and a chisel, after all – but chains of the mind? Such chains are of much harder stuff and yet are not so visible to our eyes. Where do we strike? And how do we do so without wounding ourselves? For the links are more tightly forged than those upon any chained body.
The minds of our White people are in chains…but can we even utter the words “White people,” today? Have not the chains upon our minds become so tight, so fixed, that the very notion of a “White people” has become anathema to us? Are we not in fact imbued with the idea that we shouldn’t even utter or contemplate such words, that there are Whites, yes, and there are people, yes, but “White people,” together? Such a notion as “White people” is a mistake, a misfortune, a moral failing, we have been told. We are not supposed to have an identity as White people; rather, we are supposed to be individuals who just happen to be White. When asked our race, we are almost apologetic with our answer as if to say, “yes, I’m a White guy, one of those insignificant White males perhaps, but hey, I couldn’t help it…but I wish I could!” What a sickness to behold, a sickness of the mind. I wish it were untrue – I would dream that it were so – but true it is: a people is today unwilling to believe that it even exists. It would rather think its existence away, to wish it away, to banish from its hearts and minds its very name. Such would be pleasing to it. The minds of our White people are indeed in chains.
And they are chains of our own making, chains of our own fabrication! It is we who have placed our minds within the chains of the slave or allowed it to be so placed. It is we who have forfeited our own freedom of thought as a people in obeisance to what we have assumed to be the needs and desires of others. It is we who in the name of freedom have actually forsaken it where it matters most. It is we who have placed our minds in manacles every bit as thick and restraining as those to be found anywhere. In fact, we have truly become less free than the slave in the field. Yes, the slave in the field must work, performing a labor not of his own choosing, but at least his thoughts were free and he did not forget his identity as part of the race to which he belonged. We though, as White people, today stand as pariahs within our own skins, guilty of crimes uncommitted, and as foreigners within our own country. We are today’s outcasts unwilling to speak for fear of giving offense, with tongues unable to form even the syllables of a truly free people, and syllables unable to form the words of pride, respect, honor, and love directed upon that people, White people, much less feel it and show it.
You think I exaggerate? Then let me ask you this: would you feel comfortable donning a T-shirt in public that says “I’m proud to be White” upon it? If you are a political leader, would you be comfortable stating on camera that you are concerned about the future of White people? If you are a wealthy businessman, would you be willing to publicly announce an endowment to create a United White College Fund? If you are a “community organizer,” as our current president was, would you be willing to openly organize Whites as Whites?
If you are college student, do you feel free to create a White Student Alliance alongside the Black, Latino, and Asian? Do you feel free to open your mouth in class to defend the so-called “dead white males” as they are being castigated by your professor? Do you feel free to proclaim to the world that you are proud to be White and see no reason to apologize for anything your ancestors supposedly “did” to the other races? If not, you are indeed in chains, your actions fettered by the enslaved minds of others – or by the chains that grip your own mind.
Even the word “race” is distasteful to you, is it not? It is a word encased with fear and dread, a word that you would rather not have exist, that should not be uttered in polite company, that should be swept away under a rug someplace but alas, my brethren, such sentiments are only held by White people! Not the black, not the brown, and not the yellow. They do not run when the word is uttered, so why should you? They are not bashful about it, so why should you be? Why must you be half a man and they full? Why must your chin be low and theirs high? You have become so accustomed to the double standard that it is ingrained in your soul and you forget that it even exists.
What is acceptable for the others is not acceptable for you. What is open to the others is not open to you. What the others would want, you think yourself to have no right to want. This is the depth of your degradation, that you would think yourself to be entitled to so little and must forsake so much for the benefit of the others, that you must always accommodate rather than be the one accommodated. What chains have been forged upon the minds of our people that we would think it just to forbear ourselves at every turn!
Much has become habit for you but to be habitual is not to be right. You have become habituated to thinking and acting in certain ways, but what if these ways are wrong? You wish to be fair but should your fairness not also include being fair to yourself, and if it is right to be fair to yourself, should you not also be fair to your own people from whom you sprang? Does your people, yes, White people as White people, deserve not at least some kind of consideration, some kind of regard in this world? Is it wrong to think about ourselves, to care about ourselves, to want a future for ourselves, and if we do not, who will? Is it wrong to claim an existence for ourselves that we would deign not to be besmirched, a future for ourselves that we would prefer not to be doubtful, a present for ourselves that we would not like to see humiliated?
Must we always grovel before our mistreatment, always bow before any accusation, always assume that we as a people, and yes we as a race, are always in the wrong?
It is legal for the government of the United States to discriminate in favor of the black, brown, and yellow and yet illegal for it to do so in favor of the White. “Affirmative Action” they call the first; “racism” they call the second. The insane are indeed never conscious of their insanity, are they? The double-standard is swallowed as “justice”; the pain of White people is disregarded as “progress,” but it is a “justice” and “progress” never for you, is it, White man? You have been written out of such fine words. They are not to be applied to you.
“Civil rights” are likewise only civil rights for the brown, black, and yellow in this society in which we live. If you doubt that, I ask you, have you ever heard of anybody in power discuss “the civil rights of White people”? In any shape or form? “Civil rights” are simply something alien to White people and if you picture a “civil rights leader” in your mind, your image will automatically assume the configuration of a black or a brown person. Yes, you will hear talk of White civil rights workers but it is the “civil rights” of non-whites for which it is understood that they work. The idea that there could be actual civil rights of White people at stake, in any manner, simply never enters our people’s minds. Show up at the Equal Employment and Opportunity Commission and announce that you wish to work for the equal rights of White people and watch yourself be laughed at and shown the door. White people are simply not on the agenda for White people have been defined out of the very idea of “civil rights” just as they have been defined out of the very idea of progress and justice. There is no “progress,” “justice,” or “civil rights” for White people in their dealings with non-white people; these terms, and indeed these ideals, are reserved for the non-whites only. “Equality” can be talked about until people are blue in the face but the “equality” that people have in mind is only for those who are not White. If you are concerned about “civil rights,” the rights in question are automatically that of non-whites. You, as a White man, can go to work for the “civil rights” of the brown, the black, and the yellow only, for White people have no “civil rights” that exist or need to be respected. The definition of “civil rights” doesn’t include anything having to do with White people as a people except for when they are the servants of others. The minds of our White people are indeed in chains.
It is absolutely expected that White people will dig deep into their pockets and spend their time and energy to further the “civil rights” of the black man by supporting the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the United Negro College Fund but who would imagine, let alone expect, black people supporting a National Association for the Advancement of White People and a United White College Fund? The very idea illuminates the absurdity of our White people of today. White people who support a White movement and a college fund for White students are labeled by the mass media as “the fringe” for simply trying to do for their own people what, amazingly, their own White people are expected to do for the others who would never reciprocate and for which the very idea no one would ever imagine. Thus in our sick society, to care about the future of “colored people” is a “crusade for civil rights” but to care about the future of White people is “racism,” “bigotry,” and “hatred.” Blacks can unambiguously assert a black agenda and be applauded by the media and the government, but unambiguously asserting a White agenda, oh my goodness, what a fiend you are! With the minds of our people in such chains, chains on the body are unnecessary, are they not?
Whenever there is a supposed forum on race, the entire event is devoted to whether blacks are treated well enough to meet their satisfaction, whether White people have yet successfully “atoned” for their supposed sins, and what else White people can do to please blacks even further. The happiness and satisfaction of White people are never part of the “forum” at all. We are not supposed to care about such things, let alone discuss them. The media commentators joyfully proclaim that here, on their show, “both sides” are presented on the question of “Race in America” but these “sides” are merely composed of non-whites, and those Whites whose entire mindset is devoted exclusively to the appeasement of non-whites and to the utter disregard of White people as White people with rightful interests of their own.
If a White member of the audience were to have the temerity to ask the panel of so-called “experts,” “What about the best interests of White people?,” he would either be shouted down, interrupted, a convenient commercial break would be taken, or the “experts” would quickly respond by saying that they (supposedly) care about the best interests of “all people”…but that White people have a “special responsibility” to redress the ‘horrible discrimination’ that they have meted out to black people over the years. In other words, again, White people have no independent existence of their own; their race is only to be considered in relation to whether they have collectively redressed their alleged sins and made blacks sufficiently contended and smug. We are to be 100 percent “sensitive” to the feelings and wants of the black man and 0 percent sensitive to the feelings and wants of the White. This is further illustrated by numerous “sensitivity training courses” that have sprouted up across the land (like poisonous mushrooms?). Does anyone really think that the sensitivity in question is in regards to the feelings of White people, in any shape, manner, or form?
The minds of our White people are in chains. We don’t even think twice about referring to “white trash” on national television but who among those people saying that would comfortably use the words “black trash” in the same venue? Our minds and our society are so sick that the vast majority of people do not view the first as racist language and yet indeed would view the second that way. Have not the minds of our people become perverted when we can feel perfectly entitled to call our own White people “trash” but think that the heavens may fall if we call another people “trash”? Why though would we deny our own people the respect that we bestow to others? Why is it that we are willing to besmirch our own people at the drop of a hat and yet fear that the heavens may fall if we were to be critical of the black, brown, and yellow? What kind of “equality” is this? Indeed, the preachers of “equality” have, in actuality, rendered White people inferior within their own minds. It is an inferiority that they would like to maintain. The schools teach it, the government requires it, and the media reinforce it. When still a child, the mind of the White person has already been placed in chains through the entire fabric of the debasing society in which he lives.
How else can one explain the controversy that ensued when a White United States Senator was quoted as using the word “Negro” in a private conversation – as if this were somehow an offensive term – when there exists a United Negro College Fund that collects millions of dollars every year without objection, mostly from White people? (There were demands for his apology and even calls for his resignation when the man had simply been praising then presidential candidate Barack Obama, using a term that had historically been one of respect!) When a people is not even free to use the words that naturally come to it, how can it be considered free? Thus the Negroes can call themselves Negroes but when a White man does so in a moment of praise, a controversy ensues for days on end all over the television set an in the newspapers. White people have lost the right to even determine what is offensive and what is not; instead, it is up to the “Negro” to decide. Nor do the apologies of White people extend only to actual wrongdoing anymore; rather, they are wrung out of us at will and one apology is never enough. Have you noticed that it is always the White people who do the apologizing, that they are never the ones apologized to? That it is only the White people who grovel, never the non-whites? White people are expected to walk tip toe on pins and needles but when non-whites stomp their feet, we do not hesitate to pronounce them justified. When they claim to be outraged, they are always deemed to be in the right. On the other hand, is it not true that we as White people have been stripped of our very right of outrage at anything that non-whites do, in any manner? Occasionally our tongues will slip the harness imposed upon ourselves but we always know that a harness is there. True, we are responsible for the harness ourselves but we are no less slaves for it. The minds of our people are in chains.
The way those in power would have it, the only discrimination that occurs in America is by Whites against non-whites, that the only so-called “hate crimes” involving race that occur in America are that of Whites against non-whites, that the only slavery that has occurred has been that of Whites enslaving blacks, and that whenever blacks are behind Whites in any respect “socio-economically,” this must assuredly be a “vestige of slavery and Jim Crow laws” (i.e. the fault of the White man too). Alas, my brethren, the reality is that the vast majority of racial discrimination that occurs in America is against Whites through legalized discrimination (so-called affirmative action), that the vast majority of racial hate crimes consist of non-white perpetrators and White victims, that slavery has been practiced throughout history all over the world and owes its very name to the enslavement of White people (the Slavs of Eastern Europe), and that blacks are also behind White people socio-economically in places where they were never subjected to slavery or Jim Crow laws by Whites and thus their lag would have existed had White people been nowhere to be found. The “debt” that we are alleged to owe is simply not owed at all and nor is there any guilt on our part for which there should be repentance. The whole foundation though of anything having to do with race in this society is White guilt, White penance, and White resignation. We are supposed to feel guilty for blacks having been enslaved in America but where is the responsibility of blacks for having enslaved one another in Africa for thousands of years before a single White man ever owned a slave? Where is the responsibility of blacks for having sold fellow blacks into slavery to Whites in the first place? And why should the very few actual White slaveholders of blacks impugn the entire White people of today anyway? My ancestors did not own black slaves and yours probably didn’t either, but even if they did, how can it be morally right to cast stones upon those who gave us life in any dispute concerning another people? In other words, how can we morally justify defaming the memory of our own ancestors in favor of the present sentiments of another race? Instead, we should side with our own people, our own ancestors, rather than betray them to the wolves. To be sure, the current generation does not have a monopoly on morality and if our ancestors did things which we may find perplexing today, this does not mean that we would not have done the same thing had we been in their shoes. In any case, where is the justice in blaming the children for the deeds not of the parents, not of the grand-parents, but rather of the great-great-grandparents and beyond?
We are not supposed to hold our heads high as White people but rather be White people in spite of ourselves. We are not supposed to celebrate our ancestors but rather be ashamed of them if they were Southerners (for Negro slavery), Northerners (for conquering the Indians), or simply Europeans (for persecuting Jews). If we are Australians, we are discounted as being descended from criminals; if we are South Africans we are claimed to be thieves of black lands; if we are Italians we are painted as Mafioso; and if we are Germans we are smeared as warmongers. When we reflect upon the conquest of the American west, we are supposed to take the side of the Indians over that of our own people. (Indeed, we are not supposed to consider them “Indians” at all any longer but rather as “Native,” or ‘true’ Americans, with us presumably being the false ones!) When we reflect upon the American Civil War, the ending of Negro slavery is claimed to be more important than the deaths of over 600,000 White men. When we reflect upon the Second World War, it is “The Holocaust” that is remembered rather than the deaths of tens of millions of non-Jewish White men, women, and children. Our White people are simply not as important as the Indians, Negroes, and Jews. White men can be scalped, bled to death on a battlefield, or burned alive in the fire-bombing of civilians but their lives are simply not as important. This is the horrific message that is indeed sent to the world and with which our people are imbued. This is the message that has bored its way deep within our psyche: we are the bad guys. Those who are not White are the good, the oppressed, the healthy, the innocent; those who are White are the evil, the oppressors, the sick, the guilty. Slavery was supposedly “America’s original sin” and who participated in it? White people, and therefore they are guilty, all of them. No one ever bothers to even prove that this or that White man actually had an ancestor who was a slave owner; rather, all White men are simply guilty for being White and must “atone” for their supposed guilt, not as individuals but as an entire race. (Isn’t it telling that in positive matters, it is demanded that we be mere “individuals” but when it comes to our alleged guilt only, we are instead held to be a race? How quaint!) Even if your ancestors or mine didn’t come to America until after the Civil War, it is to no avail. You share the same gene pool, White man, and must therefore tolerate legalized discrimination against you (“affirmative action”), Negro college funds but no White college funds, and a host of other indicia of second class citizenship. More importantly though, you must suffer a perpetual feeling of guilt that can never be assuaged.
The matter though goes even deeper. If you have a pale complexion, you are ridiculed and considered sickly and are not considered right until you have darkened yourself upon a beach or under an artificial tanning bed. Your Whiteness is called a blemish, deemed a deficiency, a blight, even an abnormality. You are defective, White man; that too is the message that is sent and it has been duly received and imbibed. Darken your skin! Be ashamed of what you are! Don’t you wish that you weren’t White? Aren’t you unlucky to be so fair?
Was it not once the case though that to be fair was considered a great blessing? “A fair maiden,” after all. The lighter the complexion, the more beautiful one was considered, the more noble, the more desirous. There is no tale of old from our history extolling “the dark maiden.” Rather, only with White debasement has milky skin become a curse, a well-nigh perversion. In every so-called “Miss America” pageant today, for example, every White contestant sports an artificial, sometimes chemically-induced tan with not one willing to display a natural White, fair skin. Even if this were the only example of a lack of White self-esteem, it would be enough. Contrast this with the news footage of Miss America pageants of old. What has changed is the thinking of our people with the notion of what is beautiful and what is ugly being reversed. What is White suffers from low esteem; what is dark draws high esteem. The fact is inescapable. White skin is quite simply the object of disdain needing “fixed” as soon as possible and the White Miss America contestants make sure that it is indeed fixed in time for every pageant, some of them undoubtedly for fear that they may lose should they sport their natural, White skin! Since the judges share the collective anti-white psychosis, their fears are indeed sensible. The fact is inescapable that White skin is viewed as being a liability, is it not? Why else would every single White contestant come into the pageant every single year sporting a deep tan? And who really believes that their tans were merely caused by inadvertent exposure to the sun? We have become herd animals reveling in our fakery, our supposed ideal of (tanned) beauty actually being a shame for ourselves as we really are. We have come to disdain what we naturally are and seek to escape it. The minds of our people are indeed in chains.
One would wish that White self-loathing in the physical realm would be sufficiently assuaged by the almost frenzied drive by many of our White people to darken their skin but alas, this is not so. It is also reflected in the drive, though far less prevalent, to inflate our lips with various chemicals in an effort to achieve a non-white appearance. While the saying that someone has “nigger lips” used to be a statement of derision, we must consider the stark fact that White women are now going to doctors by the many thousands in order to procure such lips. Once again, we are met here with the deep-seated feeling that to be White is to be ugly, that to have the natural features of a White woman is to be ugly and to assume the features of a non-white, in particular a Negro, is to acquire beauty. Racial renunciation is thus once again at work. The numbers of women who actually participate in this “lip enhancement” procedure can only be greatly exceeded by the number of women who would also partake in it if the procedure were not painful, relatively expensive, and, to some people thankfully still, considered slightly idiotic.
In fairness though it deserves to be pointed out that in the physical realm, our White people are not alone in their racial self-loathing. The example here is the widespread practice of blacks, especially female blacks, to straighten their hair so as to look more like Whites and even blacks who have a keener sense of pride and love for their own people than the norm engage in this practice, such as alleged “civil rights” activist Al Sharpton. How though can any man (or woman) who is really proud to be black be willing to straighten his hair in order to look more like Whites? Do these millions of blacks never even contemplate the inherent contradiction involved? To be sure, they undoubtedly do it because they think that it makes them look better than retaining their kinky, wooly natural hair, but why would they think that having straight (or wavy) hair makes them look better unless they had already formed within their psyche the opinion that the hair of Whites is better than that of blacks? In other words, to assume the physical characteristics of another race is to lack esteem for your own race. To be black and to straighten one’s hair – as to be White and to zealously seek a darker skin and fat lips – is to replace one’s own race’s ideal of beauty with that of another race, both revealing a lack of esteem for and comfort in what one actually is. You may be tempted to say, “maybe these people just like the black or White look better” but this just begs the question as to why they would like the black or White look better in the first place. No color, or thickness of lips, or texture of hair, after all, has intrinsic superiority in itself but rather has only that superiority which we attain to it, and thus we must naturally ask ourselves what is causing millions of individuals in the various races to reject their own racial traits in pursuit of that of other races. The answer is the presence of a feeling of inferiority as to what they naturally and actually are. White people have become uncomfortable in their own skin (and in some cases, with their own lips!) and in times past there is simply no record of such a perverse phenomenon. White skin, formerly a symbol of beauty, has become, somehow, something to be ashamed of. The complimentary adjective of ivory has been replaced with the pejorative of “pasty.” The minds of our White people are in chains.
Of course, it is not a matter of disdaining the exposure of our skin to the pleasant rays of the sun of which we are speaking but rather the almost maniacal frenzy with which so many millions of our White people seek the darkening of their skin out of a sense of disdain for its lighter hue. The former is natural; the latter is a sickness and so is the usage of chemicals to facilitate it. One cannot imagine such a frenzy one hundred years ago when our White people still possessed a sense of self, a sense of self-respect, and self-love as a people. Our ideal of beauty was that of our own kind and there was absolutely no impetus within us to emulate any other people. No matter how White our individual skin, we were content that it stay that way or let it be tanned as it might with the seasons rather than as a matter of any conscious choice. The reversal of this situation, on the other hand, has prompted Nature to respond in a way that was unexpected: go out of your way to seek the darkening of your skin and cancer may be your penalty. Thus Nature herself seems to be telling us to be whom we actually are: white people, not brown or black. It is not, after all, some kind of coincidence that White people today suffer from skin cancer more than the other races by far, for it is our White people who are the only ones in pursuit of “the perfect tan” and this trying to be whom we are not prompts the skin to rebel. What seems obvious is that few of our brethren realize this fact. They are genuinely shocked when they are diagnosed with cancer and feel that they have somehow been aggrieved by their bodies when in reality it is their bodies that are the victims due to a distorted mental state.
The current Miss America pageant notwithstanding, there is nothing more wrong with being fair of skin than being blonde of hair. They of course go together far more than the present myth extolled of fair hair and bronze skin! What though of the situation in which there exists a Miss America pageant in which individuals of all races can and do participate (and win) but there also exists a Miss Black America pageant in which only blacks are allowed to participate? There is also, for that matter, a Miss “Latina” pageant in which only Hispanics are allowed to participate. This of course begs the question, where is the Miss White America pageant? Is it not a fact that were such a pageant to form that it would be immediately denounced as “racist”? Would not many of our own White people take the lead in the denouncing, perhaps even yourself? How though could such a pageant for only White people be “racist” and the others that are exclusively for the other races not be? Why are we White people cowered into forsaking what the other races are freely allowed to enjoy without fanfare or controversy? There is simply no doubt but that if a Miss White America pageant were to form, the black (of course!) “civil rights” leaders would spring from the woodwork immediately to denounce such a pageant as “discriminatory” and “insensitive” and attack the very name as “racist.” How though could a Miss White America pageant be discriminatory and insensitive while Miss Black America and Miss Latina pageants not be, and why is the former any more racist than the latter? Of course, our White people are so cowed, so unassertive, that we would rather not form a pageant for our own people at all than risk the ire of the so-called “civil rights activist” who has practically become some kind of demi-god in society and whose words are to us like pins to hapless butterflies in an insect collection. Whereas we could easily take them to task for the obvious hypocrisy, double-standard, and downright arrogance in their presuming to have any say at all in what White people do, the sick and misplaced guilt in our conscience forbears us here like it does everywhere else in asserting ourselves as a people with an independent existence and will of our own. Even the word “insensitive” is indicative of the pansy-like existence that has befallen us: when, in the history of the world, has a race purporting to be manly ever cared about whether its word might be “insensitive” to the feelings of others? When has a race ever sacrificed its own will, its own actions, and even its own attitudes because another race might be discomforted by them? Never until today! Never until today has “sensitivity” been deemed an acceptable substitute for strength, for courage, and even for honor!
So consider the bizarre scenario we have today whereby there exists a Miss Black America pageant (no Whites), a Miss Latina pageant (no Whites), and Miss America pageant where White people participate, all right, but they do their best not to look White!
There can be no doubt though that the “civil rights activist” does sincerely take offense at the prospect of a Miss White America pageant, for he hates the very words “White America” in themselves. This is an America that he does not want to exist. By attacking the very conception of a “White America,” either directly or indirectly, he knows that he will be able to garner special rights and favoritism for his own race (usually black) indefinitely. If there is really a “White America,” after all, somebody might get the idea of asserting the best interests of White America and all of the special rights and favoritism garnered by the non-whites in our society might be unceremoniously thrown out the window. So, keep White people on the defensive! Attack any and all hints of racial pride in White people and their feelings of any self-worth. Keep them thinking that they owe us (non-white) for something. Keep White people thinking that they are merely “individuals” rather than a people that might actually exist for themselves like we (non-whites) do. Keep them full of guilt concerning all of the wrongs they supposedly have done. Keep White people as groveling, simpering fools!
This may seem harsh but is this not the reality of the situation?
Is it not the case that the rights of our White people always seem to end wherever and whenever the non-whites assert that theirs begin? Thus the blacks can have their own television channel on the airwaves (“Black Entertainment Television” or “BET”) but if some Whites got together and tried to form a White Entertainment Network, they would be accused of “discrimination,” “racism,” and it is doubtful that a license from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) would even be forthcoming. Thus the hispanics (mestizoes) can have their own organization devoted to their best interests called “The National Council of La Raza” (“The Race”) without the accusation of racism being hurled at it but if some Whites got together and formed a parallel organization called “The White Race,” or any other name for that matter, cries of “racism” would, an do, fly. Thus White people can be legally fired for being White but non-whites cannot be legally fired for being non-white. Thus blacks reserve the right to retain “historically black colleges” but historically White colleges are banned as “unconstitutional.” Thus blacks are allowed to segregate themselves from Whites in the public schools when they deem it in their best interests but Whites are manifestly not allowed to do the same when they deem it in theirs. Thus blacks and Hispanics are given extra “points” in the military and in college entrance exams so that they may be promoted over Whites but a similar practice for the benefit of Whites over blacks and Hispanics would be chastised into oblivion.
White people cannot sell their homes to whom they want, cannot rent their apartments to whom they want, cannot allow into their businesses whom they want, and cannot even do business itself with whom they want.
Someone might have the gumption to reply, “Well, of course they can’t discriminate on the grounds of race!” Why on earth not? Why should non-whites have a greater right to buy a particular home than the White owner has a right to sell it? Why should non-whites have a greater right to rent a particular apartment than the White own has a right to rent it out? Why should non-whites have a greater right to use a particular property than the White owner who owns the property? Why should non-whites have a greater right to do business with me than I have a right not to do business with them? “And “discrimination”? We as White people are discriminated against all the time both privately and publicly and there are innumerable organizations avowedly for the purpose of advancing non-whites, and non-whites only, and this is discrimination just as surely as the White home or apartment owner who won’t sell or rent to blacks, browns, or whomever. All “discrimination” is the favoring of one group of people or things over that of another group of people or things and this happens all the time, just not for Whites.
Surely no one is naive enough to think that the millions, or maybe even billions, of dollars that are taken (thieved) from tax-payers each year from their “own” government and given away in the form of “grants” to non-white advocacy groups are also given to White advocacy groups? Surely no one is naive enough to think that the United Negro College Fund gives money to deserving White students in order that they may go to college? Surely no one is naive enough to think that the Congressional Black Caucus caucuses for the best interests of White citizens? Who in power, exactly, really looks out for us? No, we are second class citizens and are expected to swallow it and even be grateful for it. As in the movie “Animal House,” we are expected to say “Thank you sir, may I please have another?” while we are walloped on the rump in perpetuity.
Oh, I know, the apologists for blacks, browns, and others to look out for their own best interests, for the government to favor them, and for White people to even despise themselves claim that it is so that we can (allegedly) “remedy past inequalities” and (somehow) “make things equal” but why should this be assumed to be a laudable policy goal in the first place? Where does this “equality” business get it halo? Why should we White people forfeit our own best interests just so that the others may allegedly become “equal” to us in their own lives? Why should we tolerate our own mistreatment so that non-whites (especially blacks) may somehow become “equal” to us? Where was it ever written that non-whites even deserved “equality” with White people wherever White people happen to live? And how on earth does the mistreatment of the present generation and future ones make up for the supposed wrongs of the past?
If millions of White Frenchmen were to enter China, would the yellow Chinese really be obligated to treat them as equals? Why should they? Why shouldn’t they instead prefer their fellow Chinese which is, in other words, an unequal relationship? China is, after all, a yellow country: why should it change its character, its traditions, and its governmental policies to conform to the desires, wishes, and whims of those who are not Chinese? Would it really be sensible for China to cater to the non-Chinese? Would it not be foolish to do so?
By the same token, if millions of Whites were to enter Nigeria, the black Nigerians would be under no obligation to treat them as equals, instead keeping their fellow black Nigerians in a preferential status. White people would have no grounds for complaint in China and nor would they in Nigeria. This “equality” business is a man-made mirage, motes of a sunbeam for which people widely grope as if they were diamonds without even stopping to consider whether the diamonds (motes) really have any weight. “Equality” seems to be its own justification, its own reward, even though our White people are not, of course, treated equally. We are supposed to hosanna it, bless it without question, practically even pray to it, for “equality” is the false idol of our time. The minds of our White people are indeed in chains, are they not?
While China and Nigeria would not allow millions of White people to enter their borders, and sensibly so, we White people are told we have to open every border we have and if we don’t, we are “racists.” Thus America is flooded with millions of brown Mexicans pouring across our borders and if we dare to try to deport them, or even have the temerity to pass laws with the intent of identifying them, we are told that we are violating their “rights.” How on earth though do people who enter our country illegally (invade) have any rights? Why, as with every other issue involving race, do these invaders have more “rights” to stay here than we who are citizens have the right to determine (or track) who comes into our country? Again, why is it that the rights of White people always seem to end whenever and wherever the non-whites assert that theirs begin?
It is not some kind of remarkable coincidence that all of the Hispanic organizations in the United States, “La Raza” and the others, want as many of their brown blood brothers here as possible, supporting the euphemistically-called “undocumented workers” in every way. They do not do so out of the goodness of their hearts, because they are charitable, or because they genuinely believe that such immigration is good for the country as a whole. Rather, they are brown racists, quite simply. After all, if millions of White people were invading the United States, can there be any doubt that there would be no Hispanic organizations advocating on their behalf? In other words, it is the race of the brown invaders that motivates these Hispanic organizations to advocate for them and nothing else! These brown racists simply want power for their “raza” and they realize, quite rightly, that the more hispanics there are in the U.S., the more power it will have. They want this power not so that they can “share” with White people, or be “equal” with White people, but rather so that they can dominate the society in which they live, White people and everyone else for that matter. And with the minds of our White people in chains, their task is rendered all the easier, for it is White people themselves who have tolerated, and indeed legislated, the rapid demographic change of what was once their own country.
Their own country? Yes. In 1950, 85-90 percent of the American population was White and up until that point, the entire world viewed America as a White country and justifiably so considering that White people formed an overwhelming majority. When people thought of a “red-blooded American boy,” the image in their minds was that of a White boy, not a brown, black, or yellow one. Yes, we had a black minority but this was the only minority of any numerical significance and nobody thought the desires of the 10 to 15 percent racial minority in the country should take precedence over the 85 to 90 percent White majority. Today though, only sixty years later, only 60 percent, if that, of the American population is White. This may well be the fastest demographic change without war in all history. The federal government in Washington, D.C. – which doesn’t care at all about White people as White people – wants us to think that this demographic change was somehow inevitable but this is far from the truth. In reality, through its policies, the federal government has deliberately destroyed the White character of our country, replacing it with a mixed character that it did not previously have. In reality, legal immigration is rigged in favor of non-white countries (and has been since legislation was passed in the 1960s) and illegal non-white immigration (invasion) is tolerated by the same government as a means of increasing the cheap labor pool on behalf of big business donors and to appease the Hispanic voters who are already here in order to to obtain their votes. The votes of White people, though, are never even considered, much less talked about by these politicians because White people are considered to be totally divided, totally individualized, and hence totally neutralized as any kind of racial and interest group block. The politicians thus figure, quite correctly so for the time being, that White people will vote for them no matter what they do against the best interests of White America because unlike hispanics, and blacks to an even greater extent, White people simply do not vote as a racial group but rather as willy-nilly “individuals.” The politicians consider White people to be too befuddled to know or care that their best interests are being totally disregarded and they are sadly right, for the minds of our White people are in chains. The politicians have betrayed us, have given our country away, have sold out our country for the non-white vote of the moment instead of caring about the welfare of their own people now and in the future.
How often have we heard again and again from news commentators, for example, that the Republican Party risks “backlash” from so-called “Latino” voters if it dares to push a strong immigration policy, as if the “Latino” voters were the only ones who count or even exist? What, though, about backlash from White voters? The subject never even comes up, does it? It doesn’t come up because, for all practical political purposes, White people don’t exist! Our White people are so emasculated indeed that there is not a single White man in political office anywhere today who is willing to state publicly that there are enough non-whites in America as it is, even though as White people we have seen our share of the population in this country drop 25 percent to 30 percent or more in only two generations. Our White people are so emasculated that the only backlash anyone can expect from us has all of the force of a feather. Indeed, we are not even supposed to think in terms of “White backlash” for that would involve an assertive White people, a resolved White people, a united White people, a White people that is free from the mental and physical shackles of guilt and repentance; in other words, a White people that is no longer in chains.
We are also supposed to forget that our White Race was ever the overwhelming majority in this country in the first place and instead think that we were always and inevitably a racially polyglot society. How quaint a lie to imbue the people with by those who betrayed them! There was a time when no one, anywhere, questioned the fact that this was a White country but now, amazingly, nobody remembers that it ever was! How is that for an Orwellian memory hole? “1984” is indeed here.
There are today allegedly forty-five million brown hispanics in the United States. They are considered with a great deal of interest and concern, especially when they do not happen to like the various attempts and hopes of others to control the hispanic illegal immigration (invasion) problem. Right now, at the time of this writing, thousands of them are rallying across the country in protest of a new law in Arizona that merely requires the people there, when already stopped by police for a suspected offense, show proof of legal residence in the U.S. when asked by law enforcement to do so upon reasonable suspicion that the individual is here illegally. They don’t like this law and think that that alone means that the law must be repealed. In other words, as far as they are concerned, the people of Arizona, of whatever race, are not entitled to make their own laws. The law must therefore bow before the indignant hispanic (mestizo) who doesn’t want to suffer the inconvenience of merely leaving his house with a form of identification confirming that he is in the country legally; this is simply too much for the “gringo” White man to ask! Thus they rally and otherwise protest by the many thousands and as a race! White people, who never rally and otherwise protest as a race, witness this and assume that since they never rally or protest, that the hispanics must really have a legitimate grievance; that they surely wouldn’t be out in the streets if there weren’t a just cause for it, would they? Hence White people immediately assume a posture of being on the defense, of placation, of appeasement. “How can we end this controversy?” they ask themselves. Thus they set about to undermine their own laws, laws that their own people just passed, and even rebuke their own people for passing them. Majority rule, needless to say, goes right out the window. Who cares about the majority when the hispanics are upset? No, no, no. It’s not majority rule that matters in such an instance but rather, “minority rights”! The minority indeed calls the shots when the majority is confused, deluded, guilt-ridden, and hence divided and at odds with itself. If the rallies and protests aren’t enough to cause the law to be repealed, White judges will strike it down. The minority feels aggrieved so the law must go! The grievance that the majority felt in the first place leading to the passage of the law? That is either forgotten, diminished, or disregarded in the shuffle. The focus shifts instead to the upset hispanic. Upset White people? No big deal. In fact, nobody even wonders whether White people as a people might be upset. They’ll deal with it as they always do: look the other way, hide their heads in the sand, or blame themselves. If there are 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants (invaders) in the United States, it is our fault, so the mental sickness goes, since we built such a prosperous country that would naturally attract millions of people to come here illegally like bugs to a bug zapper. In other words, the responsibility lies with us somehow that these millions are here rather than with the millions who knowingly came here in violation of our laws in the first place. It is always our fault.
If “families have been divided,” that too is somehow our fault because when the invaders crossed our borders illegally in the first place, we didn’t ask them to bring the rest of their family members! We neglected to tell them to hitch a wagon and place grandma and their cousins in it so it’s our fault that they stayed behind in Mexico. This is the insane thinking of our times. So, if some of the illegal immigrant invaders seek to become citizens, we are expected to allow a process by which the relatives they left behind in Mexico can become citizens too. If we don’t, we allegedly “lack compassion” and are “breaking up families” that the invaders themselves of course broke up in the first place by coming here. We are hence supposed to show more regard for their families than they themselves did. The minds of our people are in chains.
If an illegal immigrant invader dies of thirst while crossing the desert border into America, that too is allegedly our fault since we failed to provide drinking water along the route. If an illegal invader dies of appendicitis because he was afraid to “come out of the shadows” due to his illegal presence in the country, it is allegedly our fault that he didn’t feel comfortable enough (due to our allegedly wicked system) to come out of those shadows and seek that needed health care. If an illegal immigrant invader drowns while attempting to swim the Rio Grande, it is our fault that we didn’t have a lifeguard on duty.
We are expected to know how to speak mestizo Spanish if we deal with illegal immigrants in any capacity, whether as border agents, policemen, or health care workers. If we don’t, well, that’s our fault too. We must always conform to them, not them to us. We must always cater to their (non-existent) “rights,” never them to our rights. At this rate, it will eventually reach the point where if an illegal immigrant invader suffers a needle from a cactus while pawing his way across the border, we will be expected to come running with the tweezers.
If the minds of our White people were not in chains, none of this would be possible. White people would openly admit that they don’t want more (mestizo) hispanics to come here as much as the (mestizo) hispanics openly admit that they do. There would be no talk whatever of “amnesty” because amnesty basically means that people are forgiven for breaking the law. There would be no reluctance to deport any and all known illegal immigrant invaders and far fewer claims that doing so would be “impractical”; if it was practical enough for them to invade the country in the first place, it is surely just as practical to deport them; if they could gradually trickle in by the millions, they can be gradually trickled out by the millions as well. White people would feel no obligation to learn the language of their invaders. White people would not be hesitant to ask suspected illegal immigrants for their papers proving that they are in fact here legally. White people would not feel obligated to provide education and health care to them, nor an obligation to quench their thirst nor feed their bellies. A people that is truly free is not only free to make its own laws but also feels itself free to discriminate with its compassion. Forced compassion is not compassion at all but rather, slavery.
A free people does not have to justify its laws to any other people. It does not ask any other people, “is this law okay with you?” The law, rather, exists for them, not the outsider and not the racial minority in what is allegedly a democracy where the will of the majority is supposed to be paramount. A free people does not cower under the criticisms of other peoples but rather forges its own laws and its own destiny regardless of whatever criticisms by other peoples may be in the offing. It owes nobody but itself. And yet we witness in America the bizarre spectacle in which the Mexican government routinely protests to the American government its “displeasure” concerning American immigration policy, with the American government granting a hearing on the subject to which the Mexican government is not even remotely entitled. Such is the abnormal normalcy of our times that we allow an invasion of our country and periodically wine and dine the government of the country from whence the invaders came while that government campaigns for a response to the invasion that is more to its liking.
With the minds of our White people in chains though, some of our people even seem to think that doing “good” by the other races justifies that they do bad to their own interests as a people and yes, race. Thus these individuals, for example, scramble to do “right” by the illegal brown invaders knowing full well that they are doing wrong by their own people. Indeed, not only are they willing to do so but they are positively avid about it. They positively gloat as they spread the word that White people will soon be a minority within what was once their own land, that the Mexican invaders “take the jobs that Americans (White people) don’t want,” that they themselves have integrated their neighborhoods and schools, that they themselves have adopted non-white children, and even that, to their greatest delight, they themselves have mixed their own bloodline with that of non-whites. They seem to have a suicidal death wish, a self-inflicted genocide in their hearts and minds. Nobody ever said, for example, that the racial integration of the public schools would be good for White people; such a thought never even entered the White so-called “civil rights workers” minds. Instead, their professed altruism excluded their own people. Nobody in fact believed or even argued that White students would receive an improved education by virtue of sitting alongside blacks students. Rather, what allegedly would benefit black students was the sole focus and concern. These individuals exist by the thousands, maybe even the millions. They are willing and happy to “reduce the achievement gap” between White and black students, for example, even if it means pulling the achievement of Whites down in order to do it. Such is the mania of “equality” that they would sacrifice quality in order to achieve it, including the future of their own people.
Similarly, no one thought that the racial integration of formerly exclusively White neighborhoods would result in less crime and less social strife. Rather, it was in fact tactically acknowledged that the result would be more crime and more social strife (for White people) but that since the black newcomers would benefit from rubbing elbows with White people (allegedly), the integration of the neighborhoods was “socially desirable,” with what is “socially desirable” being determined exclusively with reference to the best interests of blacks alone. So, every zoning law and every personal property right that had kept neighborhoods exclusively White were struck down in deference to everybody (non-whites) but the very White people who lived in those neighborhoods. New supposed “constitutional rights” were conjured up by those simply hell-bent upon foisting their own psychotic agenda upon a people they had come to hate: their own. To this day, the propagandized masses think that the Constitution somehow requires the integration of the races in schools and communities when in reality no such integration constitutional right exists, for if it did, we never would have needed a court to say that it did!
Similarly, no one thinks that today’s fad of adoption of non-white children by White couples (especially so-called “celebrities”) is somehow of benefit to White people; the idea never even enters the adopters’ heads, in fact. Instead there is the almost maniacal drive to give love to a non-white child, to provide a home for a non-white child. The adopters, on the other hand, never even reflect that their adoption of the non-white child means the non-adoption of a White child. In other words, a White child did not receive their love or a home because of their preference for the non-White child. They fail to realize the truism that discrimination in favor of one entity (the non-white child) automatically results in discrimination against another entity (the White child). In economics, this principle is undeniable and is called the “opportunity cost” and yet in regards to our White people itself, it is always forgotten. It amounts to this: if you choose one opportunity, you are always forsaking another. If you choose to benefit another race you are always forsaking benefit to your own race in the particular situation at hand. One of the most basic principles of economics is sadly passed blindly by when it comes to the wellbeing of our people itself; people indeed fail to realize that there is a “cost” to our own people when we help others, that is, when they are cognizant of their own people’s existence at all! The bottom line is that these non-white adopters would rather have a child of a different race than that of their own race. Their inclinations have turned from the natural (preference for their own kind) to the unnatural (preference for a different kind). In no other race is this seen: blacks do not go out of their way to adopt White children, for example; indeed such a thing is practically unheard of. This is because, unlike Whites, the minds of blacks are not in chains; they do not feel any calling to benefit non-blacks, do not feel guilty for supposed sins against non-blacks in need of penitence, do not mock and ridicule the color of their own skin, and would prefer instead to see the black race benefitted in all things and at all times. Would that our White people rediscover and embrace such a simple, basic, and natural psyche! Blacks in fact tend to think it odd that White people feel compelled to adopt black children; they cannot understand or relate to such a bizarre (and idiotic) altruism and sometimes wonder if there is instead some kind of ulterior motive at work whether conscious or unconscious. “Why to these White people want to raise our children?” they ask themselves. “Do they wish to strip them of their black cultural identity?” “Do they wish to parade their tokens around to show what supposedly holier than thou do-gooders they are?” “Do they wish to dispel any notion that they are racist?” Thus blacks themselves wonder at this strange “cross-racial” adoption business. The other races do the same. Some even wonder whether it is some kind of conspiracy to deracinate the most vulnerable of their own racial community but no, the answer simply lies in White mental befuddlement.
This befuddlement reaches its most severe form in those White people who partake in the ultimate form of betrayal of their own kind by breeding outside of their race, often with the very conscious desire to strike a blow against it. The individual who commits suicide does so often with the belief that he lacks sufficient value as a person to justify his continuing to exist. No less is this true of those who commit racial suicide through interracial marriage; he or she does not believe that his or her race possesses sufficient value to justify its continued existence and thus partakes in an act that destroys it. There is thus just as much hatred and lack of esteem bound up with the one as with the other even if this is not even remotely hinted at or realized in today’s so-called mainstream society. Prior generations knew this of course. They knew that interracial sexual relations were a form of rebellion, of perversion grounded in the hatred possessed by this transgressor of the racial community, and they consequently made it a criminal offense. Thus, contrary to the overwhelming yet deluded belief today that the hatred rested with those who made such laws, the hatred actually rested with those willing and even eager to destroy their White bloodline through the breeding of mixed-race children. It was they who sought to destroy, after all, while the lawmakers sought to preserve, and should we not, as a matter of basic logic, favor that which preserves our people rather than that which destroys it? The individual who would deny this is the individual whose mind is also in chains; by the same token, we may as well dismantle the military, police forces, hospitals, and other entities which also seek to preserve our people. We might as well call all of these institutions “hateful.” It simply cannot be denied that the progeny of an interracial sexual union cannot be White and thus rather than replicating her own kind as her ancestors did before her, the White woman who has committed this deed has suddenly and absolutely forsaken her ancestry and made herself a renegade to her own people. Such a deed would simply not be possible without a feeling of hate and lack of esteem for the people to whom she belongs. Even if it is true that the White woman (or man) loves the non-white spouse, what people neglect to realize is that this love is only a consequence of a prior hatred, lack of esteem for, and disregard for her (his) own people! In other words, interracial marriage does not occur because the individual of one race just happens to “fall in love” with an individual of another race. Rather, there is first a hatred, lack of esteem, and disregard for one’s own race that makes such a love possible. Thus White women who breed outside their race will frequently candidly voice their contempt and derision for White men as part of the explanation for their actions and White men who breed outside their race will do the same concerning White women. Have we not heard from White women, for example, that White men are less virile and masculine than black men and from White men that yellow (“Asian”) women make more obedient wives than supposedly assertive White women? The disdain for their own people is clear. When the normal loses its luster, then does the abnormal sparkle.
Of course, the fact that White people are so humiliated in the present society has gone a long way towards removing that very luster of breeding within one’s own kind. The White man is no longer considered the elite of the world but rather “just a White guy” as if there is something inherently lacking in him, as if his being is of very little consequence. Businesses are run by “old white males” as if they are somehow defective on that basis. White people are supposedly “privileged,” are supposedly lucky to have everything they have, and have merely benefitted by fortuitous circumstances in getting ahead of the supposedly more deserving toiling black or hispanic. This is the undercurrent throughout the entire society. White men are supposedly weak pencil-pushers sitting at their desks all day while the virile Negro “actually does all the work.” Their skin is “pasty” while that of the Negro is supposedly the epitome of health. The White woman is supposedly the bossy nagger uninterested in femininity while the Oriental woman is supposedly docile, subservient, and ready for every beck and call, the hispanic woman is supposedly a “hot Latin” imbued with some kind of mystical sexual expertise, and the Negro woman supposedly “knows how to treat her man.” It is little wonder that with all of these overt and not so overt negative messages about their own people bombarding them that so many of our White brethren have betrayed their White race through interracial breeding accordingly.
Some years ago a film came out entitled “White Men Can’t Jump.” Aside from the author and a few others “on the fringe,” nobody has nary a word to say about the obviously racist nature of the film’s title. What though do you think the reaction would have been if a film had come out instead with the title of “Black Men Can’t Think”? The outcry would have been deafening and White people would have played a major role in that outcry. A theater would have been lucky to have successfully aired such an entitled film without protests, violence, or worse. In other words, the state of affairs is such that while a black film director can comfortably issue a film that mocks the athletic ability of White men and do so without any controversy, a White film director cannot comfortably issue a film that mocks the intellectual ability of black men. Worse still, he can expect the wrath of White people if he were to dare make such a film, wrath nowhere to be found when White people are the ones being mocked. What is good for the good is simply not good for the gander in this misbegotten society. The minds of our White people are indeed in chains. They will raise their voices to defend others but not themselves. They will clench a fist to defend others but not themselves. They will even give their lives for the rights of others but not for the rights of themselves.
If black and brown racism is acceptable, then White racism should be acceptable too. By all means, let us admit that blacks have a natural superiority in certain sports – which is obvious to all who have eyesight – but let us also admit that Whites have a natural superiority in intellect which, though less visually obvious, is just as substantiated by the evidence. White men may well not be able to jump as high as black men on the basketball court but by the same token, black men may not be able to think as deeply as White men. Either both propositions are “racist” or neither of them are racist; one cannot be racist but the other not and yet the society of today would have it that racism is exclusively a province of White people, an idea that is quite quaint for the black and brown racists of course but absolutely disempowering for the White people of whom we are a part. White people are “allowed” to comment on the superior ability of blacks in certain sports but disallowed from commenting on their own intellectual superiority. If this is not a plain, simple example of the double-standard in this society, it is difficult to conceive of what would be.
What though does “racism” even mean? Other than a biased and false dictionary definition, it is a word that is bandied about without anyone bothering to explore its actual meaning and, as a result, it is one of the most ill-construed words that there is. All “racism” in reality means is the practice of racial distinctions and thus the “racist” is one who make racial distinctions, whether positive or negative. Thus the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is plainly a racist organization because it distinguishes between “colored” people and White people. In other words, it is concerned with race and thus is ipso facto “racist”. The use of “racism” and especially “racist” as pejoratives is quite simply misplaced. Whether the NAACP likes White people too, thinks that White people are equal or whatever is irrelevant; since it is concerned with race, it is racist, and so is every other of the thousands of non-white organizations that exist. Racism itself has nothing to do with hatred, race superiority, or any other perceived negative sentiment. The black NAACP is racist, the brown National Council of La Raza (“The Race”) is racist, the White Ku Klux Klan is racist, “affirmative action” policies are racist, and even the U.S. census is racist (as it too makes racial distinctions) since all of these groups and policies make distinctions on the grounds of race. There is nothing negative about racism, inherently.
The same applies to “discrimination.” There is nothing inherently negative about the word, a word that simply means the making of choices. Whenever you go to a grocery store, you discriminate as to which products to buy. When you marry, you discriminate as to whom you believe is desirable as a mate for life. When you drive to work, you discriminate as to the route you think is the best to get there. When you watch television, you discriminate in your choice of channels. When you read a book, you are discriminating in your choice of titles. All life involves discrimination, the making of choices. One can often fault the choice made itself, to be sure, but one cannot fault the choosing. To ban all “discrimination” in society would ban all choosing and thus render men total slaves, for is it not true that the slave in chains has likewise been deprived of all choice in how to live? Thus people should think twice before trumpeting “a world without discrimination” and other such twaddle when the reality is that a life as free men absolutely requires it. No free man can do so much as pass a single day of his life without discriminating.
All discrimination (i.e. the making of choices) likewise involves the choosing of one thing at the expense of another. Recall the “opportunity cost” discussed earlier. When you choose regular gasoline at the gas station, you are not choosing premium gasoline. When you choose to dine at this restaurant, you are not choosing to dine at that restaurant. When you are choosing to read my book, you are not choosing to read someone else’s book. Thus all choices are acts of “discrimination” and all discrimination encompasses acts of choosing. One choice is implemented and the others are not. No one would actually want a life without the ability to make choices, i.e. to discriminate. To wake up in the morning and not be able to choose what to eat, not to be able to choose what to read, where to work, where to live, and a thousand other choices per day; such a life free from “discrimination” would not be worth living. It would be the slave’s life. It is in the very nature of slavery that the slave is not allowed to make choices. It is in the very nature of freedom that the free man is.
So, let us dispense with the almost mystically negative connotations of the words “racism” and “discrimination” which are, in fact, used to keep the minds of our White people in chains. Is it not a fact for example that the minute a White man tries to assert anything even remotely favorable to White people that accusations of “racism” are heard? And yet the blacks and browns can, and do, do the same thing (assert matters favorable to their respective races) all the time with no cries of “racism” forthcoming. The same of course happens with “discrimination”: White people are discriminated against in business and schools and by the government across America but this has Orwellistically been renamed “affirmative action,” while, on the other hand, the minute one White man somewhere has the temerity to actually say that he doesn’t want to sell his home to blacks, cries of “discrimination” screech from the airwaves and one would think that the fellow had just committed a capital offense. Is the double-standard not obvious? And how long will we remain enchained to it? How long will we continue to tolerate the massive discrimination against our own people everywhere while at the same time refusing to discriminate for it? Why must we be the only race that practices forbearance when it comes to our own best interests?
In reality, every act of discrimination in favor of a particular group is discrimination against another so let’s quit being weak in this regard! If the blacks and browns wish to discriminate (choose) in favor of their own kind, more power to them but don’t whine when White people want to discriminate in favor of their own kind too. And White people, do not deny to your own people what you would freely give to the others! Such is sickness, such is mind perversion. Everything about our society points in the direction that our White people are on their way out and yet instead of protesting and resisting such a dispossession and demise, many of our own people are applauding it. With friends like these, who needs foes? The lack of a pure and proud White people is alleged to be a blessing to aspire to, a blessing somehow consonant with American values, and indeed is somehow the natural evolution of American society as if even a single one of our Founding Fathers would not be disappointed at the turn that their country has taken were they to have the misfortune to be able to witness it. Did they really fight for United States of America where their descendants would be expected to forego any and all choices in their own favor as a race while the other races do anything but in their favor? Did they really seek to create a country where their descendants would one day grovel before the other races’ every whim? Did they really want us to become second class citizens in our own land? Now we do not even feel free to discriminate as to who enters our (former) country and thus takes possession of it! Is that the kind of “freedom” that our Founding Fathers had in mind?
You must understand that “racism” and “discrimination” have been used simply as smear words to discourage White people from doing for themselves what the other races do without objection. There is nothing negative about the words inherently but through repetitive propaganda, White people have been deceived and indeed coerced into avoiding, at all cost, any kind of living that could even possibly invoke these supposedly bad words from being hurled at them since the words are (erroneously) thought to denote reprehensible conduct. The words have become an evil in themselves to avoid without justification, with White people being distracted by the words instead of being conscious of the true issues behind them. Lost has been the fact that non-whites practice racism and discrimination, for example, and that there exists no reasoned basis for White people not to do the same. “Equality” is simply no legitimate object; the fact that non-whites practice racism and discrimination as a means to (allegedly) raise themselves does not mean that White people should not practice racism and discrimination as a means to raise themselves as well, or that they should not refuse to practice racism and discrimination in favor of the non-whites in an effort to lower themselves so as to attain “equality.” In reality, our refusal to practice racism and discrimination for our own people has only lowered our own self-esteem and self-worth as a people, for it entails the abandonment of all feeling on its behalf.
When it comes to much trumpeted “diversity,” the true idea behind it is that there are too many White people and that this state of affairs, in itself, reveals that the society in question is somehow inferior to the so-called “multi-cultural” society. In other words, once again White people are set upon, derided, and condemned because of their very Whiteness, that of their neighbors, and that of their communities. The sick mentality of our times says that it is not enough that White people support the other races with their taxes, not enough that we feel guilty for all of our supposed sins against them, not enough that we open wide our borders to them, and on and on, but that we must also break up every White community, everywhere, with so-called “diversity.” Our ancestors lived in all-White communities throughout their past thousands of years of history without ever having the feeling that they were being deprived of something and yet now we are somehow supposed to feel empty at the thought that our communities may “only” be composed of members of our own kind! It is said that we “lack diversity” as if this were some kind of ailment. “Oh my goodness, there are only White people here! We need to ‘fix’ this situation by ‘bringing people of color’ to our community. Without experiencing ‘diversity,’ our children will be disadvantaged. Let’s bring in some nice Somalis, Vietnamese, Guatemalans, or somebody else to fix things because my children will miss out if ‘all’ they see are White people!” Such is the sickness, the self-hatred, the well-nigh idiocy of our times. Our people are simply not considered whole or complete without the presence of the others. Without the other races living around us and in our midst, life would even be “boring,” so it is said. The message is thus sent that we are inferior. After all, if we cannot be whole people and live whole lives without the presence of non-whites amongst us, what does that say about us? Inferiority! Across America, communities are targeted for their Whiteness and are in fact ridiculed for it. The clear presumption is that White communities are missing something, that they are defective, that they lack the supposed “enrichment” of the multi-racial community. Whenever the results of the census are reported, there are comments about how this or that state or community “still” lacks diversity and what can be done to change that, the word “diversity” confined exclusively to the White areas of the country. The State of Vermont, for example, is said to be “still one of the least diverse states” with the clear implication that this is some kind of problem, that it is “lagging behind,” and that it had better hurry up and become more “diverse.” States such as Montana and the Dakotas are regularly made fun of because of their Whiteness. Notably as well, states with a heavy White population are never deemed politically important and thus are routinely ignored in presidential elections. In sum, White communities and states are chastised, ridiculed, and devalued for a supposed lack of “diversity.” Our Whiteness, as always, is a defect, a blemish, a misfortune in need of repair. The minds of our people are in chains.
Never though is this said to the non-whites. Nobody ever says to a black community that it is deficient because it is lacking White people, and that it needs to “celebrate diversity” by bringing them in. Nobody ever says to the hispanic community, “you need to ‘enrich’ your community by ‘diversifying’ it with Whites and blacks.” Nobody ever feels a pressing need to integrate black, brown, and yellow communities with White people, only the other way around. Nobody says to China that its population is too yellow. No one says to Saudi Arabia that it is too Arab. No one says to Africa that it is too black. On the contrary, the Whites who live in Africa are often told that they need to pack their bags and leave, if that courtesy is extended to them at all, in order to make way for black people. Thus “diversity” is only a White problem and it is only a White problem because only White people have their minds in chains. It is not the lack of diversity in our communities and states that is the flaw but rather the thought that we need it. Yes we have an ailment but it is an ailment of the mind, not an excess of White people in our communities and states! Why else would White people be the only people that practically cries with anguish when it encounters “a lack of diversity,” and only within its own communities and states at that, while the other races do not? It is because of the sickness of our minds. We are a people that has come to despise itself and thus considers itself sorely in need of the others who feel no such need. Nearly everyone in the country of China is of the yellow race – more than 99.99 percent – and everybody is fine with that but the minute a mere all-White community is discovered in the United States and elsewhere, White people abound lamenting its lack of “diversity.” Yes, the minds of our people are in chains.
In the realm of professional sports, commentators lament the dearth of blacks in hockey but no one laments and criticizes the dearth of White people on a basketball court. Those who wish to push blacks into hockey are nowhere to be found when it comes to complaining about the almost complete absence of White people in an NBA game. In other words, once again, White people are told that they need diversity but no such demand is made of another race. I have heard sports commentators express their wish that there were more black hockey players but never have I heard a sports commentator express his wish that there were more Whites on an NBA basketball court. The sports commentator who did would probably be fired from his job for being “insensitive” and so many a tongue is held in check even if his brain is capable of formulating the thought. The message that is sent is a clear one: White people are of less value than non-whites, that it’s unfortunate that there aren’t more blacks in hockey but quite fine that blacks are the only players on the basketball court. In other words, we want more blacks so as to be more “diverse” when an overwhelming White sport is at issue but we couldn’t care less about diversity when an overwhelming black sport is at issue. Thus only Whites must diversify, i.e. make way for non-whites, while non-whites can remain mono-racial at will. We have become so accustomed to the situation, to the double-standard, that few of us even notice it. In essence, we White people are incessantly told in one form or fashion or another that we should make way for the other races but never, quite simply never, are the other races told that they should make way for us. There is nothing that we are allowed to call our own but plenty they are allowed to call their own. This is an odd sort of “equality,” is it not? And yet this is the mental slavery that has come over us.
Even in terms of nomenclature the other races are favored over us. Some years ago, for example, black leaders decided that one word was not enough to describe their people, that they should henceforward be referred to as “African-American.” No such change was instituted for White people of course. “African-American” was alleged to be more respectful but in this ‘respectful’ mood, the thought that maybe White people should likewise be afforded an analogous token of respect never entered anybody’s head or if it did, nobody had the temerity to say so. Let the reader ask himself, when was the last time you heard of a White person being referred to as a “European-American?” Whether “European-American” really is more respectful than “White” is not the point; rather, the point is that society has come to view “African-American” as more respectful than “black” without any analogous consideration for the respect of White people at all. Indeed, a White man is a thousand times more likely to be referred to as “just a White guy” than as a “European-American” and yet how many people though would refer to a black man as “just a black guy”? White people who would feel perfectly comfortable in referring to the males of their own kind as “just” White guys in public company would manifestly not feel comfortable referring to the males of the black race as “just” black guys in the same public company, or even in the most private company for that matter. No, consideration of respect is decidedly one-sided: away from ourselves. White people are devalued. It is almost a mindset that there are too many of us, even though we are actually a tiny minority in this world. There are Whites who are extremely careful to always refer to blacks as “African-Americans” and who visibly appear to be uncomfortable with themselves when they now and then forget. No such care and consideration is to be found though when they refer to their own people. Indeed, some of the same White people who so conscientiously utter the term “African-American” in one sentence have no hesitation in uttering the words “white trash” in the next. They are so unwilling to in any way besmirch the sentiments of another race and yet they are willing to besmirch their own race! The implication in all of this is quite simply that White people are worthy of less respect than black people and no one bothers to challenge such a notion. In the name of combating alleged hate and prejudice, so much of it has been turned upon ourselves.
The White man who loves his White Race and its culture, on the other hand, receives a double-dose of the hatred of the current society, ironically enough, for not only is contempt leveled at him simply by virtue of his mere membership in the devalued, derided, and guilt-ridden White Race but his refusal to hate his own kind essentially doubles his intrinsic “error” of Whiteness in itself. In other words, it is bad enough that he is White at all but to be proud to be White is, in the minds of a White people currently in chains, like a criminal who remains proud of his crimes. Then some kind of remorse is expected and when it is not forthcoming, the “crime” of White self-value is hated all the more, as well as its “perpetrators” of course. Thus we face the dual irony that not only are White people afflicted with a self-hatred, or at least self-contempt, today, but that those White people who instead love themselves as a people are targeted with hatred for precisely that love. Racial hatred is blessed in the current society so long as White people direct it at themselves but if they are perceived or claimed to direct it at another race, or indeed merely love their own race, they are hated additionally for it. Some of the most hateful people you will ever witness are thus, oddly enough, the very people who claim to be the most against hate. You yourself may be one of them but because you so adamantly campaign against what you perceive as hate, you do not reflect upon how much you yourself hate in the process.
The logic is certainly an odd one: “I hate you for loving White people,” but even if the logic were actually “I hate you for hating the other races,” as is often (erroneously) claimed, this too makes little sense for if hatred is bad, hating people for hating must also be bad. In fact, hating White people for allegedly hating other races makes even less sense than hating someone for loving his own race because what is deemed so objectionable in the first place (the emotion of hatred) is repeated in the objector who then logically should hate himself for hating! The wheel of mental confusion thus goes round and round. The flaw in the thinking rests with hating someone for hating in the first place and yet all the while the alleged hatred thought to be so objectionable isn’t really hatred at all but rather, self-love. In sum, harboring a negative emotion towards someone for that someone himself allegedly harboring a negative emotion is problematic, to say the least, and it becomes downright sad when it turns out that the person was misjudged in the first place! The prime motivation of every White man who loves his White Race and its culture is none other than the preservation of same. Should he really be a target of hatred for feeling this love? If he were really a hater, he would not attach himself to his race and culture, for attachment is a form of love, not hatred. The current society has totally missed this fundamental point and slashes its own hate-driven swords at a phantom largely of its own making.
As for the vaunted so-called “institutions of higher learning,” the minds of our young people are conditioned by propaganda to despise having to learn about “dead white males” in conjunction with a push to remove these “dead white males” from the curriculum. Again, the message is that White people, and especially White males, have been overvalued and that they must now, accordingly, be devalued. The less obvious implication is that White men should exit the stage of life, now! Colleges abound with racial pride (in the form of myriad non-white organizations) but none of it is White. Again, if this is “equality,” it is a very strange sort. There are “Black Student Unions,” for example, on college campuses across the United States but it is doubtful that there is even a single “White Student Union.” Since all expression of White racial pride and advocacy is mentally and socially suppressed in our society, few if anybody even tries to form such an organization and if they did try, it would likely be barred outright by the college administration or, even more likely, the students would fail to find a member of the faculty willing to serve as faculty advisor as colleges almost universally require for campus groups. How many White college professors are willing to attach their names to groups likely to be smeared as “racist,” after all? Thus there is a lock on the brain and lock on the door while the other races can go in and out of their doors of racial advocacy at will.
The word “nigger,” for its part, is today considered as the worst word that anybody can utter, worse even than the F-word and other profanity with a sexual connotation. Practically universally, people are under the impression that it is a smear word, used at all times, at least by White people, to demean an oppressed and otherwise victimized black race. We have all been led to believe that the word has some kind of inherent power to psychologically maim those at whom it is directed, that it is, in essence, a word used only with deliberation by evil people, perhaps the type of people who would drown kittens or who would gnash their teeth late at night at the thought that there are people happy in the world. Thus, in sum, usage of the word today is almost considered some kind of poison, reserved for the diabolical or perhaps the ignorant or feeble-minded, that no one uses the word without being disturbed in some way or keen upon disturbing others. This of course is the propaganda with which we have all been fed from the media, the schools, and the government. Society naturally and necessarily follows. Tellingly, the most scourged word in America is one that supposedly maligns black people, not a word that maligns White people or any other race for that matter. This is highly symptomatic of our mental slavery, that the minds of our people are in chains. And consider the fact that White people seem to get more worked up by the usage of the word than the blacks themselves! Thus the word calls for discussion within these pages, perhaps the only place it can receive such treatment free from societal taboos.
In reality, there are probably few words that have been as wrongly maligned as this one. The idea that it was originally used to speak ill of a black person is untrue and it has, in fact, only been deemed a “racial slur” in recent history. In essence, no black man was offended by being referred to as a “nigger” until somebody told him that he should be. Nor was the word ever confined to the South or confined to the institution of slavery. It was used in the United States, it was used in Europe, and it was used all over the world. Nor is the word a derivation of the word “Negro” as so many people have been led to believe. Nor is the word “nigger” a corruption of the word “Negro” either as is commonly claimed. Not only is practically everything that people think of when they consider the word “nigger” false but they also have passed blindly by the reality of the word even though it is nearly in front of their face.
Here then is the reality: it is not that the word derives from the word “Negro” but rather the opposite: the word “Negro” derives from the word “niger,” the Latin word for “black”! Thousands of years before any African slaves were being brought to America, the classical Roman people used the Latin word “niger” which was, and is, pronounced exactly as the word “nigger” which is merely a slightly different spelling of the same word in the English speaking word. Nigger, like niger, thus simply means “black.” There is no more inherent contempt or animosity in the word than in any other denoting a color. There are in fact two nation-states in Africa today whose names derive from “niger”: Niger and Nigeria. Their names are no more racial slurs than “nigger” is; that they are pronounced by the inhabitants and others differently than the original Latin word is pronounced (nig-er) is of no consequence. That the Latin word for black is “niger,” pronounced exactly the same as “nigger,” is simply too much to be a coincidence concerning the origin of the latter word. Niger (black) equals nigger (black).
It is thus remarkable that a mere brief study of the Latin language, upon which so many languages of Europe are based or influenced, overturns the entire (false) reputation of this so castigated word. Furthermore, the Latin language was widely used throughout Europe in matters of scholarship and diplomacy up until the 18th century, long after classical Rome was no more. Hence the word niger/nigger is simply a holdover from that language. When White people reached sub-Saharan Africa during the Age of Exploration, they used Latin words to describe the places and people they encountered including “niger,” naturally enough, to describe the inhabitants and the word simply carried over to the Western hemisphere later. White Englishmen, specifically, would use both the words “black” and “nigger” (with the extra “g”) interchangeably to refer to them, as well as the Spanish “negro” for that matter, the latter two words simply meaning “black” in the Latin and Spanish languages respectively. It is possible that “nigger” became a preferred word in reference to a black person (even George Washington used it) because it is more of a noun than an adjective; in other words, while it is unclear what somebody might mean by saying “the black crossed the street” (the black what?), it is not unclear what somebody means by saying “the nigger crossed the street” as “nigger” (niger), formerly an adjective simply denoting a color, gradually became a noun denoting a member of a particular race. In other words, since one word could be used to describe that person, it has a natural advantage over other, longer terms as word choice tends to be guided more by utility than by anything else. Thus, putting aside all emotions – emotions that were indeed not a factor at all at the time since the word had no negative connotation – it was easier to say “nigger” in reference to someone than “black man,” quite simply. By the same token, it is easier to say “fired” than “discharged from employment,” “foreigner” than “citizen from another country,” and many other terms that we have very matter of factly come to employ for the sake of ease of language. No slur was intended nor given.
Today though in the days of our mentally enslaved White people, White people are afraid to even engage in a discussion of the word, are afraid to utter it, and sometimes even try to pull books from school libraries that mention it like The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and others, the former even though the context clearly shows that Tom was not insulting his friend “Nigger Jim” when he referred to him that way any more than he would have done so had he used the words “Black Jim” instead, “Nigger Jim” and “Black Jim” meaning exactly the same thing. (Indeed, the author Mark Twain was very sympathetic to and supportive of blacks in America throughout his writings and throughout his life and would not have used the word “nigger” if the word were really a racial slur as it has so wrongly been made out to be.) Blacks (“niggers”) must further be amused at how fearful White people have become over a word that is used often in their own community, a fact that also demonstrates that it cannot truly be the word of insult that it has been claimed and assumed to be, foisted upon the world by White people out to demean. Notably also, blacks only seem to take great offense at the word when White people use it rather than when their own people use it and this too would seem to indicate that the problem is not the word itself. Strangely enough, historical figures of renown like Abraham Lincoln are criticized for having used the word, as well as looked at askance for it, without anyone stopping to think that maybe, just maybe, the word wasn’t viewed as insultive in the first place and hence why he and so many others used the word so freely and routinely and without a second thought at that. It would be interesting to discover whether any black historical figures used the word as well and whether they too are criticized for it or not. Probably no criticism would be forthcoming. The idea though that blacks past and present have only called themselves niggers with some frequency because they (still) bear the alleged torment, the scar of White oppression, should be treated as the nonsense that it is; what is more sad though is that there are White people who believe such tripe! And it so happens that some of the most intelligent of our race have their brains the most in chains. They bow, they scrape, and they appease as a consequence even with regard to mere suppositions that are foolish on their face. Some of the same people are willing to say “white trash” but begin to turn green at the thought of saying the word “nigger.” They will tiptoe around any possibility that they may offend blacks and yet are willing to leap in offense to their own people. The poor black in their eyes is “oppressed” while the poor White is “white trash”. This is the sickness of our times.
A race that is unwilling to use words of its own choice for fear of offending other races is not free. Even if the word “nigger” were not the neutral word that it actually is, our White people would be right to use it at their leisure just as much as any other word, and just as much as any other race uses the word for that matter. Far more important than the word is the principle. Only when our people feel free to say the word “nigger” once again can it be said that they are free. We are, after all, talking about a mere word. Our fear of it is highly symbolic of our weakness and our slavery. There is, after all, no other word that we are afraid to say and fear is a form of bondage, is it not? Even in criticizing the word, our people won’t say it today; instead, they will refer to “the n-word” as if saying nigger were some kind of verbal leprosy. If the situation weren’t so illustrative of the mental slavery of our White people today, it would be laughable. With great seriousness and earnestness, they avoid saying the word “nigger” as a vampire would avoid a cross. It is just a word, for goodness sakes, and are we a race of men or are we a race of rabbits? The word simply denotes a color and the (black) race that bears it.
Though we as White people today certainly do not feel privileged to use certain words that those filled with misplaced righteousness have declared “verboten,” how often have we heard the word “privileged” as a sort of code word for White people, with it sometimes even being said that simply by being White, we are “privileged” in life? Tell that to the White man who is working two or more jobs just to keep his family fed, housed, and clothed. Tell that to the White single mother who struggles to find a babysitter who doesn’t charge nearly as much as her own wages. Tell that to the White men whose job is that of digging coal from the bowels of the earth whose wage is a pitiful fraction of that of black actors, black sports players, and black talk show hosts. Tell that to the White construction worker who, like the White coal miner, routinely risks his very life on the job. “Privileged”? The word when used in regard to our White people implies that we didn’t work for what we have, that what we have came from the toil of others. Is not though the black man who makes (not earns) tens of millions of dollars per year by bouncing a ball on a floor and tossing it into a basket, privileged? Is not a certain black talk show host whose “net worth” is over a billion dollars privileged? Are not the thousands and perhaps millions of blacks who have their employment and position of employment due to government discrimination in their favor, privileged? Are not the millions of illegal Mexican invaders who could have been met at the border with gunfire by the U.S. Army privileged to instead be given a job, free education, and free health care? Are not the millions of Orientals who fled communist Vietnam, China, and elsewhere and given asylums and citizenship here also privileged? Are not the millions of non-whites from abroad who are allowed to attend our colleges privileged? And how many people realize that there are more poor White people in America than any other race?
We as White people never had to favor blacks in employment. We never had to allow “illegal immigrants” jobs, free education, and free health care. We never had to allow any Orientals into the U.S.; in fact, we never had to allow any non-white immigration of any kind. We never had to allow non-whites from abroad “student visas” so that they could come here and be educated in our schools. In other words, we gave all of these groups “privileges.” Instead of a feeling of entitlement, there should rather be a feeling of gratitude on their part. And instead of us thinking that we as White people have not done enough for these groups, we should be thinking that we have done way, way too much.
It is not the White people who are privileged; rather, we worked for what we have with few exceptions. Black slavery has been outlawed in America for over 140 years and those White people who actually profited by it – the very few – lost their wealth when it ended since their wealth was bound up with the very slaves who were freed. Furthermore, relatively few Southerners owned slaves in the first place. Besides, the South was nearly totally destroyed in the so-called “Civil War” and to this day it has not recovered its former economic status. Finding a White person who is wealthy (“privileged”) today because his ancestors enslaved blacks would be like trying to find a needle in a haystack. This is the truth that society does not want talked about because those who manipulate the minds of the people would rather that we White people forever have our minds in chains of guilt, self-abnegation, and low self-esteem while maintaining in the non-white population the myth that we owe them something. “Atone” is the word that underlies every single policy involving the races with the Whites (wrongly) doing the atoning. In reality, we have nothing to atone for. If blacks are unhappy that their ancestors were brought here as slaves, they should again consider the fact that it was fellow Africans who sold their ancestors into slavery and thus allot their blame in that direction accordingly. The idea that White people chased blacks into African jungles to enslave them – as portrayed in the fictional television series “Roots” – is indeed a myth. Rather, blacks were held in captivity by fellow blacks on the African shore, available for sale to all comers. Thus technically, White people did not even “enslave” blacks as they were already enslaved before Whites got there. We must thus ask why Whites should bear this strange burden for something that very few Whites participated in and didn’t cause in the first place while blacks hold themselves utterly (and conveniently) blameless in the matter. At the very least, responsibility is shared but when has that ever been acknowledged? A moment’s pause for reflection would show that a few slave-traders could never have rounded up millions of Africans without the active and indeed overwhelming collaboration of their fellow Africans. It makes little sense to blame the purchasers of enslaved persons more than those who took them by force into servitude in the first place, but of course blaming the White people of today for things that happened hundreds of years before they were born, including the notion that a collective debt has been incurred by us, makes less sense still. There was nothing especially unique about African slavery and nothing that justifies any sense of shame on the part of the White people living today. All races and cultures throughout history have practiced slavery and to this day, various African tribes still practice it. In other words, while it was White people who ended the enslavement of blacks in North America – after losing over 600,000 dead in a fratricidal war – blacks have continued to practice it upon themselves in Africa. Thus any White guilt over the matter is entirely misplaced. It may well be true that every person alive today, of whatever race, has an ancestor who was enslaved. So what? White people have gotten over it but blacks (and their numerous White liberal advocates) will not so long as they can use it to bludgeon White people with guilt to their own social, economic, and political advantage.
No matter what fault we may find with the institution or practice of Negro slavery, it is a fault that we should keep within our own household. In other words, White people should never take the side of blacks against the memory of those White people in the past who owned black slaves. All of the moral posturing of today does not give the present generation some kind of moral superiority or ascendancy over that of generations past. There should rather be some kind of loyalty towards our own kind. If White people in the past did things which we today find objectionable, they were still our people to whom we should have a sense of loyalty. A great American patriot once said, “My country, right or wrong.” If this saying is reasonable and indeed laudable, let us consider why the saying “My Race, right or wrong” should be less so. Should we not, in fact, value our people itself even more than the soil on which they stand and the society in which they live? Discrimination is the law of life; it is difficult to conceive of anything more basic to life than the act of making choices, i.e. to discriminate. The only question is thus how we will discriminate, not whether we will or not. When it comes to our race, will we hence discriminate for it or will we discriminate against it? Which discrimination makes more sense? If we were black, brown, or yellow, it would be proper and wholeheartedly right to discriminate in favor of that which benefits the black, brown, and yellow races of the world and no one would even begin to object. By the same token then, why should we not discriminate in favor of that which benefits White people since we are indeed White? Should we not be comfortable enough with whom we are so as to be willing to advance ourselves?
Even in the realm of culture, we are today, sadly, discriminating against our own race. Is it not true that our White people of today have become so demoralized that our culture has become nigrified, in fact? White youth listen to black music, sometimes dress as blacks stereotypically do, and sometimes even ape the black in speech, things which blacks themselves understandably and laudably despise in White people. What could be more illustrative of so many befuddled white youth today than the young man wearing baggy clothes with pants falling down his waist, a ball cap on crooked, a Malcolm X t-shirt, speaking “ebonics,” and listening to “rap” music? Is this a youth at home in White culture, comfortable with whom he really is as a White man, and proud of his White race? One hundred years ago that same youth, living in a far more healthy society that did not denigrate White people for being White, would have been listening to the music of Richard Wagner or some other composer of perhaps the greatest achievement that White people have accomplished in their history: classical music. Instead, in this present anarchical society, many of our youths have traded (though not consciously, to be sure) the pleasant strains of greatness for mindless cacophony that only destroys their soul and spirit. Their heroes are black, their idols are black, and their minds are likewise chained to the depths of the black abyss.
Nor is the sickness only confined to the so-called “wigger” youth: rather, throughout our society, the music that our people partake in is likewise nigrified. We in fact have the bizarre situation in which music sung by blacks sounds black and music sung by Whites sounds black too. “Pop” music is black and lest the fact be forgotten, “pop” stands for “popular.” Hence the popular music of the day is black music performed by both black “artists” and White “artists.” One can hear the song sung, assume that the singer is black, and then be confronted with the recording label showing that the singer is in fact White. And yet, to be blunt, what the hell is a White woman doing singing black gospel music, for example? Is it not a fact that these days you are far more likely t o hear this than a White woman singing Ave Maria? Our whole psyche has become divested from our own culture. Even the Star Spangled Banner is not immune; the author considers himself lucky when he hears it sung by a White person who doesn’t sing it as if it were a black gospel song! The way our White people are singing it these days, one would think that it must be a Negro spiritual or something rather than a song that was, in fact, written by a White separatist about White Americans defending against the White British in an 1814 naval bombardment. Underlying the White mimicry of black voices and black music is dissatisfaction with our own race and culture. It is not enough to sing a song anymore as our ancestors did; instead, we must “jazz it up” and throw a wild emotionalism into it that is actually foreign to our nature. In other words, we White people have come to view ourselves as plain, bland, uneventful, and unexciting in dire need of “soul,” of “rhythm,” of “spice” outside our own race. We supposedly have a deficit, a lack, a stuffiness when left to our own devices. The minds of our White people are indeed in chains. A formerly whole people is now a shell.
We have been told that White people lack a sense of rhythm. Tell that to the lovers of the music of Johann Sebastian Bach, Anton Bruckner, Peter Tchaikovsky, and numerous others who wrote rhythms far more intricate than anything that has ever come out of Africa or its people. Why should we accept the insane disparagements of our people at face value? A rhythm doesn’t have to come from the black race to be good and we do not need the rhythms, nor the music, of the black race to be whole. We can instead rejoice in the rhythms natural to us, sing in the voices natural to us, and yes, dance in the manner natural to us too rather than flail our arms and contort our bodies like idiot savages which is what passes for “dancing” today. Why do we disdain ballet, the waltz, square dancing, and other forms of dancing that actually require thought and grace? When I was an adolescent, square dancing was still taught in public school. I would wager that that is no longer the case and that any appreciation of it has been replaced by ridicule. We have become divorced from our own culture at every turn. Class has been replaced by crass. White people supposedly are not “cool,” not “hip” unless they forego their own nature as exhibited by their own culture. The superior has been replaced by the inferior and we lack the will to even say so. Our own culture has been abandoned, supplanted, forsaken, dispensed with in the schools and elsewhere. Actual dancing has always been both an art and a skill; what people deem as “dancing” today is neither and is rather an embarrassment. Our White people jiggle their bodies like clowns because they don’t know any better. Our people have been divorced from their own culture to such an extent however that they have no sense of this; to many White people, dancing is what it is to the black man rather than what it was to their own ancestors. The thought, if it occurs at all, of a ballet, of a waltz, of a polka, of a square dance, or of innumerable other forms of dancing that sprang from our own people is likely to evoke derisive laughter, scorn, or dumbfounded silence. That’s if our own culture comes to our minds at all. Class, grace, and talent have been discarded in favor of the primitive. Backward through the eons of time the culture of this society now finds itself. Is it not true that our youth today have more appreciation for a black Michael Jackson than for their own White Mozart? Is it not so that our true White culture stands today as a stranger to the descendants of those who created it? The minds of our White people are indeed in chains.
Even the way our White people identify themselves often reflects their sickness as a people. How often, for example, have we encountered White people who are obviously of that race identify themselves instead as “Native American” or “Indian” in deference to the one possible ancestor of theirs several generations back while omitting the obvious fact that the rest of their ancestors were White? In other words, rather than identify with their overwhelming White ancestry, they have so little regard for it – and conversely so much regard for their Indian ancestry – that they see themselves as an Indian. On the other hand, has anyone ever heard of an obvious Indian identifying himself as a White man just because one White man, several generations ago, entered his family tree? Has anyone, by the same token, heard of a black man identify himself as White because he has a fraction of White blood?
We have the situation, in other words, in which to have a small portion of Indian blood is such a great source of pride, and their overwhelming White ancestry such a source of distain, that some White people disregard their membership in the White Race altogether. A man can be 1/16 Indian (so-called “Native American”), rejoice in that paltry 1/16, and forget about and not identify with the other 15/16 of his ancestry at all! If this is not a striking example of the lack of self-love with which our White people are afflicted, it is difficult to conceive of what would be. A man can have the blondest of hair and the bluest of eye and yet amazingly claim to belong to an Indian tribe! This is mind subversion par excellence. No such affliction exists in the other races though. No man of obvious black ancestry identifies himself as White just because a mere one of his sixteen great great grandparents happened to be White. No man of obvious Indian ancestry identifies himself as White because a mere one of his sixteen great great grandparents happened to be White. White people though, on the other hand, routinely do this, i.e. take what possible non-white ancestry they might have (usually unconfirmed) and identify themselves as this rather than with the ancestry that predominates within them. Why? Because their minds are in chains. There is simply no regard for being White anymore while there is regard for the other races. Nor is identification only at issue but so is loyalty. Our White people have thus become so demoralized that some among us don’t even identify with their own race anymore, nor have any loyalty to it. To be White is a blight and so they think it away. The mind is so powerful that people can look into the mirror and negate what is there.
Nor do people seem to feel free to rejoice in their Whiteness even when they do embrace it: let us acknowledge the fact that if a young White man in high school were to don a t-shirt saying “White and Proud” on it, he would almost certainly face a more adverse reaction from his peers and from the school administration than would be the case if a young hispanic man in high school were to don a t-shirt saying “Brown and Proud,” a young black man “Black and Proud,” and so forth. Any public expression of pride in being White is absolutely forbidden lest one be deemed a social outcast. The best that White people might be able to pull off without supposed “controversy” is the expression of pride in a particular nationality or ethnicity, such as Irish pride or Italian pride, but interestingly enough, the expression of pride in the White race as a whole – encompassing of course these nationalities and other nationalities of the White Race – is considered strictly off limits. In other words, we are allowed to celebrate a branch of the tree (our particular ethnicity) but we are oddly disallowed from celebrating the tree (race) itself. This is a bizarre phenomenon, is it not? The word “White” is viewed with suspicion, distrust, and foreboding. The minds of our White people are indeed in chains. Take a run of the mill Italian pride festival and turn it into a generalized White pride festival and people of all races will rebuke it, call it “racist” (which it is but for different reasons than understood), and there will be protests against it. In fact, is it not true that White people putting together a “White pride festival” in a major city would have a difficult time finding people even willing to attend? That either the potential White participants would be unwilling to bear the potential controversy and smears against it and them or they themselves would reject the notion of celebrating “White” pride”? In other words, we must brood upon the fact that for every thousand White people who would be willing and happy to attend an “Italian pride festival,” maybe only ten White people would be willing and happy to attend a “White pride festival” celebrating the race as a whole. Why though, as a matter of logic and common sense, should our people be favorable to the one and not the other? Why is it that many thousands of Irish-Americans happily attend St. Patrick’s Day parades but would not be caught dead at a White pride parade? Why is it that we would be happy to enjoy Oktoberfest but not even consider attending or holding a White Fest? The only answer is the sickness of the times and the sickness of our minds. We have been propagandized to believe that “White” is a misfortune, and thus to celebrate White people as “White” people is tantamount to holding a dance for a witch. The doors are shut, the shades pulled, and supplications made. The minds of our people are in chains.
We further have been propagandized to believe that any expression of Whiteness on our part is somehow an offense to those who are not White, an idea which, when reflected upon, is about as sensible as a Christian church deigning to forgo religious services for fear of “insulting” non-Christians! Why must the assertion of our very identity and pride in it be a source of insult to anyone though? And why should we let phony claims of insult defer us from rejoicing in ourselves?
We have White people today that take offense at even being asked whether they are proud to be White. First, they take offense at the very word “White” being uttered. Second, they take offense at the implication that they themselves are White. Third, they think that the questioner must be some kind of provocateur by virtue of asking such a question, that only an obnoxious person would ask that. And fourth, “proud” and “White” simply don’t belong in the same sentence as far as they are concerned. It is considered less socially acceptable to ask that question than perhaps any non-racial question and yet the question and its answer reveal so much. Why should people take offense though at being asked whether they are proud to be White any more than any other form of pride? Say being asked whether you are proud to be an American, for example? If it is right to be proud to be an American, or a Canadian, or an Australian, or whatever, why should it be wrong to be proud to be White? If it is right to be proud to be a Texan, a New Yorker, a Kentuckian, or whatever, why should it be wrong to be proud to be White? The answer of course is that it isn’t. The reason why so many of our White people take offense at the straightforward question, “Are you proud to be White?” is quite simply because of the self-hatred, self-abasement, and self-derision with which our people are afflicted which this book aims to erase. There is no other answer. Only in a people that loathes itself and has been conditioned to flee from any kind of racial self-regard could the question “Are you proud to be White?” be offensive, for there is no more offense in the question any more than asking someone whether it is raining outside. The basic assumption in our society is that White people have somehow forfeited any right, or even option, to be proud of themselves as a race but this is an assumption without a basis that is deserved. The opening of any encyclopedia reveals plenty for White people to be proud about for again and again it is a White man or woman who contributed his or her knowledge, skill, passion, and yes, genius to this world. If your father, cousins, and brothers were to accomplish much in their lives, would you not be proud of them? Why then should it be any different as to our race as a whole whose accomplishments throughout history are not only innumerable but are without parallel, to the objective observer, in any other race? If each of us had a brother who had invented electric lighting, the automobile, the computer, the transistor, and thousands of other inventions, would we not be proud of him? Why then should we not be proud to be members of a race that invented all of these things? On the other hand, if we shouldn’t be proud to be White because obviously not all White people are saints or even good people, then on that basis we shouldn’t be proud to be Americans, Canadians, or Australians either, should we? As always, the positive identification and attribution to matters concerning country, but negative identification and attribution when it comes to the White Race, makes no logical sense. If the first is good, the second must be good as well but actually the second is far more valid than the first. People everywhere are expected to pronounce a pride in their country but White people everywhere are expected to denounce a pride in their race. Our minds are indeed in chains.
It may be argued that some of the discomfort with the notion of White people, White pride, a White Race stems from an actual awareness of strength, of being in power and thus having no need to embrace such things, that we are a majority so why think or care about Whiteness at all? This though only begs the question: why should a people ever choose not to embrace itself? Why should its feeling of self-worth be dependent on its having little power? Should not our White people instead love itself regardless of its material circumstances and regardless of its numbers? Furthermore, White people who either consciously or subconsciously rest their thoughts and actions upon a White majority status (in America) may well wake up one day to find that they are no longer a majority at all, largely due to their very lack of White self-love and loyalty today. If what is really at issue here were the bashfulness of the supposedly stronger (White) versus the supposedly weaker (non-white), White people would do well to realize that their Race is a pitifully small percentage of the world’s population (1/14 today), is rapidly shrinking percentage-wise in the United States and in our own European ancestral homeland, and that whatever material, economic advantage we currently have is consistently decreasing in favor of non-whites within our own countries and abroad in India, China, and so forth. If we wish to reverse the trend of our dispossession as a Race, we would also do well to cease being shamed out of looking out for our own best interests as this is the only way that our dispossession can be thwarted. With a White Race unwilling to lift a finger in its own defense, we can hardly expect the other races to do that for us and nor will they. We can hardly expect help from others when we are unwilling to help ourselves. No. Our dispossession can only be thwarted through the assertion of our own will.
Our White people today though are not even nearly at the point at which they would realize or even care about such a dispossession, for one can only be wary about one’s dispossession as a people so long as one first possesses an identity as that people. We today no longer have that identity. We are instead atomized “individuals” whose being is encouraged from all quarters to begin and end with our own individual selves. Have you noticed that the other races are thought of as groups while only White people are thought of as individuals? Blacks in America were expected, for example, to vote for the half-black candidate for president en masse (and they dutifully did so) whereas White people as “individuals” were expected to divide their votes between the two candidates and hence neutralize the voting bloc that they could possess. Blacks could freely announce that they were going to vote for Barack Obama because he was “black” but in no wise was it remotely deemed socially acceptable for White people to vote for John McCain because he was White. That would be “racist,” after all! In reality though, one is not any more racist than the other and if tens of millions of blacks voted for Barack Obama because he was black and were morally justified for it, White people would have been just as morally justified to vote for John McCain en masse because he was White. Of course, they didn’t, however. Instead, as usual, our votes canceled each other out. Amazingly, the largest racial population in America does not even have a voting bloc! Is it not true that a group mentality is encouraged when the group in question is non-white, only to be discouraged when the group in question is White? Again, this is a strange sort of “equality”: only White people are expected and urged to be “colorblind” while the other races are expected and urged to see color to their heart’s content. Obviously the “National Association for the Advancement of Colored People” is not “colorblind,” for example, and so why should White people be so? Why should we alone embrace what is, after all, a genetic defect in Nature, a genetic defect that, by the way, greatly decreases an organism’s chance for survival? To not see color is to not see the real world and to not see the real world is to likely fall prey to it. The NAACP sees color, the colors of its own people, but we White people do in fact have our own color too: our White color that deserves as much “advancement” as any else. To not see color, to be “colorblind,” is to be a victim and indeed our beloved colorblind White people are the victims of today, a people enslaved by its own confused thinking, a people whose mind is in chains. We actually do see color when it comes to lifting up and otherwise assisting the other races but when it comes to looking out for the best interests, or even any interests of our own people for that matter, we are indeed “blind.”
Anyone in a moment of honesty and reflection – and with some courage as well – will admit that all men are not created equal and that this inequality exists everywhere both within races and between races. The idea that all men emerge from the womb with equal potential or abilities is so blatantly false that no one feels it necessary to refute such a thing. Why then do we accept the mantra of “equality” like some kind of holy writ? Why must we then deceive ourselves and our children? Why do we lie and say that everyone can become a rocket scientist, that everyone can become president, that everyone, if he or she “only works hard enough,” can accomplish anything that he or she desires? Gaze upon a racetrack and tell me that all men are created equal. Show me a child with birth defects and tell me that all men are created equal; to have less or more than others in any respect refutes the idea of equality on its face. Men are not matchsticks, all of equal length and equal design. Rather, there is variety and variety itself means inequality (non-sameness). Not everyone can become a Mozart or Michelangelo regardless of upbringing because the raw material is simply not there. And thank goodness this is true! What a lack of worthwhile world it would be if we were all the same (i.e. equal), all with the same physical abilities, all with the same mental capacities, all with the same desires, all with the same character. If we were all created equal, the distinction between good and bad men could not exist. Every man would be interchangeable with every other, every potential wife or husband would be interchangeable with every other, every child would be interchangeable with every other. Who on earth really believes that this is so? Every single mark of distinction in this world is a mark of inequality and it is this distinction, this inequality that makes human life even possible. Otherwise we would be mere herd animals on a field but even there, there is the stronger and the weaker, the fast and the slower, and the taller and the shorter (i.e. the unequal).
Again, there can be no equality of man because all men are not the same and indeed, the higher the form of life in general, the less equality there is. Two rabbits, for example, which are well-nigh indistinguishable from one another, may be to all intents and purposes “equal” to one another but this is clearly not so in the case of man whose individuals are distinguishable from one another. Rabbits do not reason, rabbits do not talk, and rabbits look alike, those factors and others increasing the equality among them. None of this though is true with man. In other words, the more variety, the more that inequality exists. This is not to say that one must then always make a judgment as to which being is better, or superior to the other, but it does mean that “equality,” when it comes to man himself, is a concept without meaning and devoid of value. It also means, critically, that all attempts to make the races of man equal to one another in their lives, based on this inherent “equality,” are foolhardy, and if the races of man are not in fact equal to one another, where is the justification for all of the foreign and domestic policies based on that alleged equality? Why should White people ever make way for the non-white races in any respect due to their alleged “equality” when they are not, in fact, our equals? Thus all racial egalitarianism has a foundation built on sand. Individuals are not equal to one another and races are not equal to one another. Since races are not equal to one another, policies based on the notion that they are must be inherently flawed. Granting that individuals are not equal to one another (are not the same as one another), races, which are composed of individuals, cannot be equal to one another either. The whole dogma thus falls apart. The mania for alleged “equality” is just that: mania. The past one hundred years in that regard have been about as sensible as debating how many angels can dance upon the head of a pin as monks did in the Middle Ages. People sadly have always been zealous in their pursuit of phantoms. The reason why “equality” has become such a sacred cow for us is simply because its promotion is habitual. Habit becomes tradition and tradition becomes second-nature. If you are uncomfortable and even offended that I have challenged the notion of “equality,” stop and consider whether that in itself makes me wrong or whether instead the discomfort and offense you feel is really simply a reflex reaction to what you in your life have always been told is a good. The problem though is that the supposed “good” of equality has never been examined, analyzed, or dissected but when it is, we find in our hand a mere vanishing mote of a sunbeam rather than the diamond that has, for so long, been claimed and presumed to be the case.
There are far more broad differences among men than among any other races of life except perhaps dogs whose races (breeds) were crafted by men through selective breeding. There are more differences among men in intelligence, physical strength, personality, and essential character than among any other form of life whether it be bees, bears, or bobcats. Two bears are far more alike (equal) than two men. Thus the idea of equality is, ironically enough, even more untrue of the only beings who are capable of even conceiving of such a notion – men – than it is of any other form of life. In other words, a bear doesn’t have any notion of equality and yet equality is far more applicable to his kind than to man’s which does. Put still another way, bears cannot conceive of “equality” even though they are at least nearly equal to one another while men can conceive of “equality” even though they aren’t even close to being equal to one another. This is indeed a great irony: the only races of life on earth that can even dream up an idea of equality of their members are the ones whose members are the least equal to one another. There is far more uniqueness among men (inequality) than among any other forms of life on earth. One would be hard pressed to detect distinctions (inequalities) between two mice of the same breed but distinctions (inequalities) between two men of the same breed, or different breeds of course, are too numerous to count! Thus, rather than any supposed equality of man, there is distinction. This distinction is what typifies man. Some men are geniuses and some men are brutes. They are unequal because they are not the same. If you are looking to solve a mathematical formula, you might consider the genius to be superior for that purpose. On the other hand, if you are in need of “brute strength” to haul some concrete blocks, you might consider the brute to be superior for that purpose, and indeed, you would be a fool if you were to pay no mind to these differences between the two men, instead preferring to think of them as “equal” to one another. Thus it is the notion of “equality” that is objectively false while the notions of superiority and inferiority are subjectively true since they are based on point of view and function.
Needless to say, the society of today has these matters backwards. Distinction, difference, and variety exist everywhere and hence notions of superiority (meaning “higher”) and inferiority (meaning “lower”) naturally come into play constantly even if people mistakenly often have misgivings concerning usage of those particular words. Our taste buds may tell us that this apple is superior to that apple and thus that apple is inferior to this one. In matters of taste such as this example, we are most willing to use the words superior and inferior to connote that which we prefer but why should it be any different when it comes to men? I have met some superior men in my life and I have met many inferior ones. This is my judgment and my taste. Since all men are not equal, created as such or otherwise, no one will have the same exact judgment and taste and nor does he or she need to. Even Martin Luther King, as enamored as he was with the concept of “equality,” recognized that there was such a thing as a superior character and thus allowed for people to be judged by that. All the while though, he was engaged at improving things for his race, notably enough, but whether it ever occurred to him that White people doing the same for their race must necessarily oppose his efforts is anyone’s guess.
I may be getting ahead of myself. Since there is no equality (sameness) in men, we are left with difference, distinction, variety, inequality, and, ultimately, preference and interest. When it comes to the races of men, we naturally prefer those who are like us; in other words, those of our own kind just as does every other race on earth. A grizzly bear prefers the company of other grizzly bears, not that of black bears. Sparrows prefer the company of other sparrows, not cardinals or crows. Grizzly bears and black bears are both “bears” but they are not the same (equal), are different in character and physicality, are distinctive in appearance, and hence they do not intermingle nor of course interbreed in any way. Does any well-meaning person ever try to claim or pronounce that the two kinds of bears are “equal” to one another? Why then should people be so quick to pronounce that the two races of men, say White and black, are equal to one another? Indeed, the very fact that we are dealing with two different races, whether of men or of bears, proves that they are not equal – the same – as one another. If bears could reason and speak, would they really have any use for this “equality” business? Only in men, the only creatures on earth capable of abstract thought regardless of the truth or falsity of the particular idea in question, does such an abstract notion devoid of any fact unfortunately assume the role of an idol. Does anyone ever insist that grizzly bears and black bears “integrate”? No, because their preference and their interest dictate otherwise and, of course, nobody ever wasted his time on proclaiming them “equal” in the first place or worth the special attention that we devote to men. Rather, a grizzly bear naturally prefers his own kind and this naturality makes it right. Can you imagine how incredulous these respective bears would be if you could somehow communicate to them that they should “integrate”? One might expect them to say “Hey, we’re not the same!”
One would hope that White people would be acknowledged to have at least as much prerogative as bears and other forms of life to follow Nature’s Laws and prefer their own kind and seek their own interests. In other words, is it really right to deny our White Race that which is naturally possessed by every other creature on this earth? Every creature naturally looks out for its own kind, pursuing its own interests without regard to the preferences or interests of other kinds. This is the way that they maintain their existence as unique, diverse forms of life. Everywhere in Nature there is racial exclusiveness for if there were not, no races would exist. Thus ironically, those who struggle the most for alleged “diversity” in society are actually doing the most to destroy true diversity in man, for mixing the races of man socially, sexually, and environmentally destroys, obliterates the very diversity these people say they love so much. Only through separation can each race retain its true character.
Let me make the point more clear: when different races are brought together within the same society, they inevitably assimilate with one another as well as amalgamate (interbreed). They are expected to follow a common morality, a common culture, a common language, and have the same or at least similar attitudes. This though is the antithesis of diversity. The distinctions (i.e. diversity) in man are broken down through this institution of commonality. In America it is sometimes mused that one day the races will be so interbred that the races will no longer be distinguishable. Well, if the day comes when there are no longer distinctive races of men but rather one big mongrelized so-called “human” race, how can it be said that there will still be diversity? With the existence of White people, black people, yellow people, and brown people, there is diversity. To mix (mongrelize) them together, there is not. With thousands of languages in the world, there is diversity of tongue; if everybody on the contrary only spoke one language, there would not be diversity of tongue. Diversity is thus best maintained by keeping the differences in man intact, by rejecting “equality,” by rejecting integration, by rejecting amalgamation, and by rejecting assimilation. Those who, on the contrary, have fought for such policies while at the same time trumpeting “diversity,” have sacrificed long-term reality for short-term misplaced desires. True, society is more “diverse” when it is multi-racial (hetero-geneous) rather than mono-racial (homogenous) but the diversity of man himself is destroyed in the process, perhaps irrevocably. As with “equality” though, people neglect to really scrutinize what diversity means and what it doesn’t. The words are never really reflected upon but are rather usually used to replace thought. It is always assumed, for example, that the white separatist is against diversity when in reality the white separatist, black separatist, brown separatist, et cetera are the most dedicated to maintaining it. The very notion of a melting pot, so routinely uttered without reflection, illustrates the contradiction between assimilation and diversity, for melting various foods together in a pot obviously destroys their distinct nature, their distinct taste, their diversity. Everything starts to taste indistinguishably. That is largely the point of cooking but do we really wish to “cook” men? Do we really wish to meld (assimilate) them together, eliminating their uniqueness? Do we really wish to be a one size fits all conglomerate, adapted to the demands of the artificial society that we have crafted for ourselves, instead of having a society adapted to us as we are as it should be? This is, and would be, the degradation of man.
We as White people should not be forced to adapt ourselves to society; we have the right and prerogative to force society to adapt to us, to fulfill our needs as a race, to advance our culture, to protect our genes. Nor was America of course founded as a “melting pot” in the first place. Rather, this notion has been foisted upon us by the duplicitous and the ignorant to justify the incessant waves of non-white immigrants into what was once our country alone. It is also said that we are a “nation of immigrants” but this doesn’t mean that we ever had to be a “nation” of all immigrants from everywhere in the world. Our country is supposed to be our home but who ever heard of a homeowner being forced to open his home to anyone who wants to enter? No, he discriminates as he should and we as White Americans had and have a right to discriminate as to the racial characteristics of those seeking to enter our home, our country. Equality of immigration rights and freedom practically contradict one another, for forcing a people to grant all men the right to enter America regardless of race takes away the freedom of White people to live with whom they choose, the freedom of White people to have the country of their own desire. Why should we make way, bow down in deference to the supposed rights of others when our rights are sacrificed in the process? Especially when the temporary diversification of our society leads to the destruction of diversity in man?
Incidentally, the claim that all men are equal is in effect a repudiation of diversity, for if men were truly equal (the same), they could not also be diverse (not the same). How many people though erroneously think that “equality” and “diversity” go hand in hand! This is one of the marvels of our times.
Rather than “equality,” the guiding light for all creatures at all times is interest. What is in our best interests? What is in the best interests of this or that race? Peel away Martin Luther King’s campaign for “equal rights” and you will realize that it was merely a means to an end, not an end in itself. The end, rather, was the furtherance of the best interests, as he saw them, of black people. Whether or not he truly believed that all men are equal as he preached, he viewed a struggle by blacks for equal rights and their successful acquisition as being in the best interests of his race. As a black man, these were the only interests under his consideration in the campaign; never were the best interests of White people, on the other hand, at issue at all, rightly enough, since the man wasn’t White.
This is not to say that Martin Luther King was right that his struggle furthered the best interests of his own race, only that this was the purpose of his struggle. He came to the conclusion that equal legal rights for blacks were good for blacks. On the other hand, if he had come to the conclusion that equal legal rights for blacks (as he characterized them, of course) were bad for blacks, he would not have engaged in his struggle. He thought that racial integration was good for blacks; Malcolm X thought that racial integration was bad for blacks. The common denominator for both men, as well as other historical black leaders such as Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington, Marcus Garvey, and W.E.B. Dubois was what was best for blacks. The question as to what was best for White people wasn’t even in the room, let alone on the table. People indeed would have thought it strange, if not downright idiotic, if any of these men would have ever found themselves chastised for not properly considering the best interests of White people in their endeavors! And yet amazingly, White people aren’t supposed to consider the best interests of White people either! Yes, the minds of our White people are in chains.
Indeed, somehow during the 1960’s, the best interests of White people were totally subsumed by the struggle for the best interests of black people. When blacks (and their multitude of White helpers) sought to increase the power of blacks by registering them to vote, nobody seemed to reflect upon the fact that the power of Whites would be diminished thereby. When blacks (and their multitude of White helpers) sought to integrate the public schools under the notion that blacks would obtain a better education if they were educated alongside White people, nobody seemed to reflect that there was a distinct if not high possibility that White people would obtain a worse education by being educated alongside blacks, which has indeed been strongly borne out by the education statistics the past forty years (the more White students are integrated with blacks in school, the worst the educational performance of those students on average. Indeed, the downfall of the American educational system versus that of the rest of the world is directly attributable to Whites being forced to integrate with non-whites in the schools and the massive growth of the non-white population in the country itself.). Martin Luther King was spared from being called a racist simply because he fought for what he deemed were the best interests of black people. If, on the other hand, he had fought for what he deemed were the best interests of White people and were indeed a White man, the label (wrongly understood of course) would have been applied to him galore. Such is the bizarre hypocrisy, or double-standard, that puts the minds of our White people in chains. The same logic that would put one race at the Lincoln Memorial by the thousands (the furtherance of black interests) is denied altogether to another race, ours (the furtherance of White interests).
It is an unacknowledged fact that the White men, women, and children who protested the integration of their schools were fighting for their race just as rightly as the blacks trying to integrate them and yet their having done so makes them today an object of reproach – rather than admiration as in the case with the blacks – due to the confused state of mind our White people suffer today. Is it right to condemn our own people for asserting their own best interests while at the same time applauding blacks for asserting theirs? The difference though was that the blacks were trying to invade that which had belonged to another race while the Whites were merely trying to stop such an invasion from occurring. Under normal circumstances, one would thus think that the moral and ethical high ground was held by the Whites. Indeed, objectively speaking, do we usually root for the invader or for the defender? Do we usually root for the home invader or for the home owner? If someone wants to take up residence in your house tomorrow, don’t you think that you should be able to say no?
The problem, as always, is White self-denial. We would deny to our own people schools of their own and yet we would never even think about denying blacks schools of their own. We would support the integration of White neighborhoods but spare black neighborhoods any such integration. We would forbear ourselves while prodding the other races to assert themselves. We would assume that any professed grievances on the part of non-whites are just but that any professed grievances on the part of Whites are unjust. Hence the champion of blacks, Martin Luther King, has a nearly god-like reputation while champions of Whites are scourged. He is the only American whose birthday is a federal holiday, his image (graven image?) appears on a postage stamp, and a memorial to him on par with that of Lincoln or Jefferson (or even bigger?) is currently being built in the federal capital. All the while, memorials to any champion of White people, our people, are ruthlessly torn down wherever they appear or are squelched in their cradle. Do you not see how thoroughly our minds have been in chains? And is it not the case that even when we are conscious of the double-standard and the wrong that has been done to our White people these years that we still forbear ourselves? Indeed, many of us know that we’ve been wronged and yet we pretend that that is not the case. How many thousands or millions of people don’t think that there should be any holiday to King, for example, and yet how few are willing to say so? So much has been forced down our throats; so few of us have had the will to say “thanks, but no thanks.” We are told that we have “freedom of speech” but it is implicitly understood that that does not include saying nay to black furtherance (at our expense) and the idolization and indeed near worship of their champion. (What White public figure feels free to denounce the King holiday?) The White Christian has two gods, Jesus Christ and Martin Luther King, whether he would want them or not. If I am wrong then let the King holiday (“holy day”) be revoked. The fervor by which it is clung to speaks for itself.
Much has been made about King’s commitment to non-violence but this too, like the struggle for (allegedly) equal rights for blacks, was merely a means to an end rather than an end itself: the furtherance of black interests. Simply put, if King had thought that violence would advance the best interests of his race better than non-violence, he would have chosen violence. Instead, he was shrewd enough to know that a violent movement of blacks against Whites would, unlike a peaceful movement, mobilize Whites en masse against it and his entire program. The most sympathetic White liberals – upon whom his movement largely relied – would have fled for cover and the much-condemned Ku Klux Klan, in opposition to such a violent movement, would instead have been regarded as heroes, literally rescuing white knights, rather than terrorists. Wear the clothing of a sheep regardless of whether you are a sheep or a wolf, as it were. White people are willing to put up with much but mass violence is where they draw the line. King, a student of Gandhi, knew that his trump card was the (misplaced) compassion of White people. To allow violence to be done to you without fighting back – as King’s movement practiced – evokes compassion but to fight violence with violence evokes fear, alarm, and ultimately leads to more violence because people eventually forget, or no longer care, who committed the violence first. Thus, if King’s minions had fought back in the streets or at the lunch counters or elsewhere against the violence perpetrated against them, they would ultimately have appeared to be more like aggressors in the eyes of the White masses and thus they would have lost the support of mainstream America. Hence King instructed his minions to reject both offensive violence as well as defensive violence (self-defense) because both forms of violence would hurt their cause. The record is quite clear on this point. The so-called “civil rights movement,” as it styled itself, did not forgo violence out of some kind of moral superiority, love for White “oppressors,” or because it violated the participants’ principles, but rather because it was simply the best, and indeed the only winnable, tactic for the time and the circumstances in which they found themselves. It was willing to suffer in order to win and indeed, King deliberately sought out the infliction of suffering upon his adherents as a means of supposedly showing White people that his cause was just and that of the status quo unjust. The tactic of non-violence was born of weakness, not strength. Being outnumbered in the country at least eight to one, a violent black “civil rights movement,” so-called, would have brought down nearly the entire White populace against it but a non-violent movement was instead able to pull on the Christian heartstrings of the Whites and convince many of them that they had nothing to fear by the success of such a movement.
Sympathy (compassion) is indeed a powerful emotion in people regardless of whether we view it as good or bad. The so-called “civil rights movement” could not hope to win its professed aims without garnering the support of a significant number of Whites and sympathy was the best, and maybe the only, way to do it. Which evokes more sympathy for demonstrators, images of them shooting at police dogs or images of them being attacked by them? There is something in man today that disdains perceived victimization, a tendency to root for the weak against the brutality of the strong and to have compassion for them regardless of whether the cause they represent is just on the merits or not. Christian teaching, of course, buttressed (or even caused) this sentiment as King knew full well. Thus he formed his Southern Christian Leadership Conference and otherwise went about his struggle through religious trappings and religious dogma on behalf of the “oppressed” which could not help but resonate well in a Christian society. Never mind the fact that it was their very White “oppressors” who had introduced Christianity to blacks in the first place! The irony is indeed thick: the religion that was used in one era as a means of keeping blacks content with their enslaved condition (“Blessed are the meek,” et cetera) could be used in another era as a means to overthrow the dominant White society on alleged grounds of “inequality.” Christianity is, to be sure, capable of different interpretations; thus during one era it was held to endorse the maintaining of Negro slavery and yet during another era it was held to somehow demand full “civil rights” for the descendants of the slaves in American society. There are some Christians who still believe that the latter is indeed a true Christian teaching though in my own reading of The Bible, I have never been able to find a single verse that supports that and certainly not through lack of trying. As for passages supporting the institution of slavery, on the other hand, we do find this, among others: “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.” Ephesians 6:5. Nowhere in The Bible, incidentally, does it ever say that all men, or the races of men, are equal, are created that way or otherwise, nor that the races should integrate in any society or share the same (equal) status in that society. Historically and for our purposes though, what matters is not what Christianity actually teaches but rather what people think it teaches or would want it to teach. Further, if a movement styles itself as being Christian and claims to be struggling for Christian principles, it will usually be accepted as such, at least by many people. In the hustle and bustle of daily life, few have the opportunity or inclination to really investigate the claims of those around them; it is easier to simply take them at their word.
To this day, many White people are confused by the non-violent tactic into thinking that the cause must be just when in reality there is a world of difference between the two. So what if a cause uses peaceful means? That merely indicates that the advocates for it think that their cause is better served thereby. A cause is not made even an ounce more just because it forsakes violence as a tactic since a tactic is a mere means to an end while a cause is the end in itself. Thus the so-called “civil rights movement” merely used the tactic that would enable it to prevail, its pacifism in the face of violence being unfortunately mistaken by the Whites for righteousness. An act of willpower (in not fighting back against the violence inflicted upon you) is simply not the same as demonstrating that one’s cause is itself just. The distinction though was too subtle for a White people who, for the first time, had been exposed to a television media culture and they could not grasp it. Whites saw blacks being beaten on their living room television sets and their emotions were stirred. Without this new invention of television, this obviously would not have happened. A sympathy was stirred through the visual exercise of brutality that could never have been stirred without that visualization being inches away from them on their television screens. Our people gradually became convinced that the cause of the so-called “civil rights movement” must be just because surely the participants wouldn’t go through so much hell for it if it weren’t? By the same reasoning though we would have to declare the cause of the communist North Vietnamese against America in the Vietnam War just too since they too went through hell and so have other causes throughout history. Mere sacrifice thus proves nothing.
I have said that a non-violent tactic does not make a particular cause just, and this is the case no matter how much violence is perpetrated against those who espouse it. Conversely though, and perhaps even more importantly, the use of violence by those espousing a particular cause does not, in itself, make that cause unjust, and this fact too was sadly overlooked and missed by our people in the 1950’s and 1960’s and has been to this day as well. The sentiment was (and is) as follows: “violence is being perpetrated against the peaceful ‘civil rights’ workers and so the cause in opposition to them must be bad” but this isn’t any more true than that the cause of the so-called “civil rights workers” was good because they didn’t use violence. This is an important point because our people have been quite simply transfixed by the fact that one side employed considerable violence and the other didn’t as if that somehow settled the matter as to who was right and who was wrong. It didn’t because a tactic is just that, a tactic. One side employed violence and the other didn’t. So what? That just means that the one thought that violence would enable it best to prevail and the other that it wouldn’t. The White people who violently resisted the efforts to dispossess them of what was theirs did so in that manner simply because they possessed the strength to do so; the “civil rights movement” did not employ violence simply because it was too weak to do so and because such means would have been counter-productive. Hence the means do not justify the ends nor condemn them. By means of analogy, there would never have been United States of America without violence but does that mean that the founding of the Union was wrong? Conversely, pederasts, flat-earthers, and end of the world prophets all promote their respective causes through non-violence but does that make their causes right? Not hardly.
The so-called “civil rights movement” simply practiced a form of psychological warfare as most, if not all, movements do. It insinuated first of course that it was fighting for supposed “rights” by its usage of the “civil rights” moniker and this immediately lulled people into thinking that blacks had “rights” that were being denied. It’s as if a baseball team were to name itself “The Best Team”; automatically people are going to assume that it is indeed the best team by virtue of the mere usage of that name. In other words, call something a “right” and you tend to immediately have people trying to vindicate that “right” with not much time being spent on reflecting upon whether the “right” actually exists. People take the fictitious claim totally at face value, being duped by a well-chosen propaganda term and nothing more. The “right” is assumed and it is assumed with great indignation. By repeatedly styling itself as a “civil rights movement,” people were conditioned into believing that it was truly fighting for things that its adherents were entitled to whereas, in reality, no such “rights” existed and do not, in fact, exist today. For decades, our minds as White people have been in a straitjacket with us under the impression that if we seek anything at all in our own interests as a people, we are infringing on the “civil rights” of non-whites when in reality, the term “civil rights” was just a propaganda term all along. When though the so-called “civil rights movements” did reference some kind of sourse for their alleged (and usually simply assumed) “rights,” it was usually the hazy notion of “human rights” or, worse still, the Declaration of Independence which had nothing to do obviously with the “civil rights” of blacks since it was written, endorsed, and subscribed by slaveholders. More important though is the inherent contradiction in the fact that a professed “civil rights movement” found it necessary to fight for “civil rights” legislation. In other words, if what it was really fighting for was the “rights” of black people, no legislation would have been necessary since these rights were supposed to have already existed. Still in other words, if the law did not already provide the “rights,” the “rights” did not actually exist and hence why the campaigners pushed for the enactment of new laws so that the “rights” would now exist. Thus the very campaign for “civil rights legislation” tacitly admitted that no rights had previously been at issue or violated since they would actually come into existence only once the new legislation was passed. (Even so, the “rights” still do not exist since the legislation in question violates the Constitution of the United States.)
Thus, in reality, what was being fought for was new rights, not the vindication of old ones. Thus it was not that blacks in America were denied their “rights” so much as they wanted new ones which again, as stated earlier, automatically decreased those of Whites. There is simply no such thing as increasing the power of one group in society without decreasing the power of another. This is a truism that is unfortunately almost universally ignored but by means of analogy, isn’t it a fact that that the bigger the portion of pie given to one group, the smaller that remains for the other? When reflected upon, “rights” is really just another word for power and the increase of one group’s power (rights) means the decrease of another’s. Power is in every society a zero-sum gain. This is easily illustrated by the example provided by the 1964 “civil rights” act itself whereby, among other things, the newly provided legal right of blacks to be served in restaurants owned by Whites, or housed in hotels owned by Whites, gave them such a power while taking away the power of the White owners to serve and house whom they chose. It is always assumed that the power of White people is somehow constant, that the so-called “civil rights movement” did not take anything away from us, that the White people who resisted it were wrong for not wanting to generously dispense “rights” to the blacks because they as White people had nothing to lose in the process. This is false on numerous levels and yet it has saturated our thinking as a people for decades. The legacy of the so-called “civil rights movement” for our White people is, in fact, nothing other than massive crime against our people by black perpetrators, the destruction of the educational system due to racial integration, the nigrification of our White culture, amalgamation (racial interbreeding), and the self-hatred and mental slavery of our race which I have sought in my limited, but hopeful way to combat with this book. The danger, if not insurmountable hurdle, is that the minds of our people have been enchained by false concepts for so long that they will be unable to extricate themselves from them. Though it is often said that truth wins out in the end, nobody can really know that since nobody has ever experienced such an “end.” Time simply continues on unabated and thus no “end” is ever reached.
The bottom line about the professed civil rights movement is that it was dedicated to and propagated for the best interests of blacks alone. It had nothing to do with the best interests of our White people. Indeed, White people were called upon to sacrifice their best interests and in fact did so, and we are expected to continue sacrificing those best interests to this day. White people are expected to jump whenever a Negro cries “Boo!” It is considered socially acceptable for blacks to criticize Whites but considered socially unacceptable for Whites to criticize blacks. If blacks are better athletes, they did it through hard work. If Whites are better thinkers, it is because they are “privileged” and have “held blacks down.” In reality, Martin Luther King was a black racist because he fought for what he deemed to be in the best interests of black people. Nobody should begrudge him that, only chastise ourselves as White people for failing to fight for the best interests of our people. If black people wish to make him their saint then let them do so but we as White people need our own saints and they certainly should not be composed of those of another race who fought for that race at the expense of our own. If King was a savior of the black man, that doesn’t mean he was a savior of the White man. Fighting for alleged “equality” is no more virtuous than fighting for aggrandizement as both are simply a means to an end: in the case of King and his professed civil rights movement, the best interests of black people. They wanted to be “equal” with us but that doesn’t mean that we should want to be “equal” with them. They said that we owed them but we did not have to agree. Instead we should have had our own path and a recognition of and an allegiance to our own best interests.
No creature on earth, past or present, has ever been as willing to sacrifice its own best interests as has our White people. Indeed, we are now practically programmed to not even consider those best interests after decades of media, government, and classroom propaganda. indeed, with a White people that is today unwilling, and perhaps even unable, to conceive that it has a separate, unique, and important independent existence, how can it conceive that it has “best interests” to protect at all? The entire “mainstream” political system does not include a single voice speaking up for those interests and yet King has been made into some kind of god for fighting for the best interests of black people. Do you not perceive the double-standard, my White Brother or Sister? Indeed, the sheer craziness of our times? Can we indeed come to realize and recognize that we are, indeed, Brothers and Sisters of a racial family that deserves to exist and thrive for itself as much as the others do for themselves? That it is our interests that should matter to us, not the interests of every race but us? To cede power (so-called “rights”) to another race is to sacrifice the power/rights of your own race, to, in effect, betray your own race. Is it good though to be traitors to your own people?
We see a (further) striking example of this self-treachery in the hideous case of South Africa whereby the White people there actually voted to give the heavy black majority the vote, thus eliminating their own power there forevermore under such a system. (This sacrifice of White political power of course came after decades of economic and political pressure from their fellow White people from around the world.) Nelson Mandela, a convicted terrorist who was actually guilty of terrorist acts by his own admission, to top it all off became, in the eyes of the White people, a hero with White political leaders and celebrities from around the world fawning all over him. With little thought actually given to the matter, Mandela was and is considered a hero by Whites for fighting for black people whereas these same Whites condemned those White leaders in South Africa who fought for White people. Apparently a black terrorist gets a free pass if he commits his terrorism in an effort to further his own race while White people who seek to further their own race without any terrorism deserve condemnation by these same White people. Can you not discern the mental sickness that has come over our people? White people would rather castigate their own kind as oppressors than care one whit about their own best interests. No one could possibly have believed that the best interests of the White people of South Africa were going to be served by surrendering their power to the black majority and yet the White people there – by majority vote at least – did it anyway. (Again, the concern of White people was what might be good for black people, or at least a concern for raceless “democracy,” with concern for White people being totally ignored.) They did it after years of worldwide White propaganda against White rule, essentially a fixation of White people upon suicide. No outside enemy could have ever beaten us and so we have insisted upon beating ourselves. Instead of circling the wagons to protect our kind as we did as a people in the 19th century, in the 20th and 21st centuries we have joined with the redskins to shoot at them! White people have duped themselves into thinking that they somehow have a duty to put their arms around the shoulders of Jerome and José and extol their position, their viewpoint, and their interests against that of their own John and Jennifer and they have no sense of how insane that truly is. They have come to believe that power is bad whenever it is associated with Whites and yet on the other hand good when associated with non-whites. Why though should power be a good thing for one group and not for another?
Let it be clearly stated though that the matter is not, and never has been, about hating or disliking non-whites but rather that White people should not hate or dislike themselves. Thus the propaganda that has attacked any sense of White self-love has always wrongly labeled that self-love as “hate” when the reality is that the true hatred actually rests with those White people who do not care about the continued existence of White people as a people. In other words, amazingly enough, White people are smeared as “haters” for daring to love their own race but it is the White people who do the smearing who are actually motivated by hate even if that hate is so deeply within their subconscious that they do not recognize it. This was intimated earlier but let it be explicit. Now, after generations of this mind subversion, attacking White loyalists as “haters” has become almost second nature, routine, and automatic without giving any thought to what is really at issue. It would seem that the White man is not even entitled to have his own personal feelings anymore, that Big Brother (or Big Sister!) is always looking over his shoulder and trying to snatch any thoughts of his that may indicate “prejudice,” “bigotry,” or “intolerance” on his part. Every White man in his employment, and every White man especially on television, knows that if he dares say anything that could violate the societal dogma of White self-immolation, he faces almost certain firing or worse. Thus our White people are trained to think that such thoughts are bad, indeed reprehensible, when they are not, for we are psychologically predisposed to believe that only that which is bad is subject to being punished. In other words, if caring about the future of White people as White people weren’t bad, why would people face punishment (persecution) for expressing thoughts along those lines? Through repeated “examples” being made of anyone who expresses any White loyalist feelings (firing, arrest, verbal condemnation, etc.), our people are deluded into believing that White Loyalty is wrong the same way that societal oppression determined what was deemed right and wrong in George Orwell’s 1984. Through the repetition of persecutions, the true oppression of our White people is systematized in our minds with only the rare individual giving it a second thought, for this would require an independent mode of thinking that is precisely a casualty of the current societal oppression. In other words, the more that all forms and expressions of White identity are rebuked by those wielding power and influence, and the longer this occurs, the more suppressed does White identity become within our minds and indeed, the more ‘righteously’ we run headlong to our own suicide as a people. Hostility to our own White people becomes so entrenched that we do not recognize it for what it is. Without even a pause, we consequently attack anything favorable to White identity instantaneously and never afterwards even reflect upon whether the attack was just. How often I have witnessed this I cannot count because it is so endemic. Why though should any belief in this world be assumed to be right or wrong without even a scintilla of analysis? Where is the debate? Where is the dialogue? The notion that there are ideas in this world so “self- evidently” wrong so as to justify their removal from any kind of contemplation and conversation – such as White identity, White loyalty, and White advocacy – is in reality simply an admission that your mind is in chains, that as free as you think you are, you are really a slave. You have let others form for you the rules of your own mind. Your thoughts and actions follow a script not of your own making. The individual who looks upon himself as among the most open minded actually has his (or her, of course) brain in a box. Among our youth, only insatiable energy – and the natural urge to rebel against that which was set in stone without their involvement – enables them to more potentially break the chains encompassing their minds. We can hope that they may not let us down in that regard! May the youth in their natural rebellion be willing to pick up the hammer and wield it with force upon the chisel resting upon the chains of their mental enslavement – and even if pain may necessarily be involved!
The open mind is not just what the television set, the politicians, and “society” tells you it is and it is within your power to issue a resounding “no!” of defiance to herdlike acceptability no matter how “settled” the particular opinion is claimed to be. Nor has truth ever been decided by a majority vote. All “modern” means is “recent” and everything that is recent inevitably becomes dated and old with time. Thus the so-called “modern” world of today is the old world of tomorrow. The supposedly enlightened opinions of today applauding the degradation, devaluing, and dispossession of our White people may well be considered foolish, backward, and insane tomorrow. The haters of White identity, White pride, and White advocacy are matched with their ignorance only by their arrogance in the thought that some kind of “Brave New World” has been reached that will never be questioned, never be critiqued, and never be discarded. Their recency in time does not give them potency of right. No so-called “end of history” has been reached as history has no end. The world of White emasculation has lasted a few decades but a few decades do not dictate to eternity. The “liberal” of tomorrow may not be the same as the so-called liberal of today and nor may this be the case with the so-called conservative either. These are mere words for a momentary period of time but they do not connote a vision. They are merely labels for a subservience to a status quo that may not be worth retaining. We have witnessed five decades of idiocy but that does not mean that the next five decades, centuries, or millennia must be the same.
It doesn’t always have to be this way but we today live in a bizarre world in which it is considered more socially acceptable for a White man to triumphantly profess his homosexuality (and thus the unmentioned physical sexual perversion that that entails) than to even meekly profess an attachment to and loyalty to his White Race. In other words, it is considered more socially acceptable for a White man to profess sexual satisfaction through unnatural sex acts with other men than for a man to profess simple pride in and regard for his race which is certainly not unnatural regardless of whatever way it is looked at. The fact that no one is willing to openly discuss what homosexuals actually do with each other is proof enough though that there is a natural disgust for such things even if intellectually, people have been duped into thinking otherwise. On the other hand, there is a natural inclination in everyone to have racial attachment rather than disgust but this natural inclination has been intellectually suppressed. Thus the true haters, the haters of an extant, proud, assertive White Race, talk about their fight to “root out racism” but if racism were not deeply rooted and indeed as natural as the roots of any plant, it would not be considered necessary to “root it out,” would it? Thus these people confess their hatred of the natural world. To be sure, they can suppress by numerous means, including persecutions, the natural racism in man – and indeed, the minds of our White people are locked in chains today – but they can never eliminate entirely the natural instinct of every creature on this earth to have allegiance to its own kind. Birds of a feather flock together and blood is thicker than water. It is racism which preserves the variety and diversity of life on this planet with which we are so inspired with awe. Without racism – regard for racial distinctions – there would soon cease to be different races of birds for example and nobody would waste his time and energy watching the mongrelized ugly bird flying about which would be the product of such a “raceless” mentality. By the same token, the same destruction of the beauty of man occurs when his mentality is raceless and when he views his natural racism as some kind of enemy. No one would think about chiding a canary for being unwilling to mate with a crow so why should we chide any White man for being unwilling to mate with a black? The example may seem inappropriate because men are not canaries or crows and yet the fact remains that we are all still part of Nature and her laws. Natural instinct teaches all species quite simply that exclusivity preserves and inclusivity destroys. Observe the distinctions and you will remain distinct; ignore the distinctions and your uniqueness will be obliterated. It is all so very simple but sometimes the most simple things pass people’s notice for that very reason. Truth has never been complicated but unfortunately the more intelligent the being, the more it assumes it to be so. The White Loyalist is called upon to “defend” his views and yet no defense is necessary since his worldview is indeed in accordance with the world, i.e. Nature.
Observing and wishing to maintain the distinctions in man never had anything to do, by the way, with judging anybody by the color of his skin. Indeed, the railing against such judgments by King in the 60’s, and generations since then, has been even more misplaced than the notion of “equality” that has also been of course idolized and bandied about. The reality is that making racial distinctions has, and had, nothing to do with personal judgments of anyone or of any kind. Indeed, individual personalities are totally irrelevant to the matter. Rather, what is at stake is being true to Nature’s Laws whereby the natural diversity of the world is preserved. The man who disdains the integration of the races does not do so because he thinks that individuals of races different from his own are bad on some kind of personal basis. Rather, he simply wishes to preserve his own race with whom he naturally identifies and is loyal to. “Judging” individuals on the basis of race never enters the equation because the individual is not the issue. Whether we know non-white individuals of high character does not mean we should forsake White identity, White loyalty, or White advocacy any more than the fact that we all know women of high character means we should forsake our wives. Thus it must be realized that a phony argument has captivated the minds of our White people for decades, that we must either be raceless (i.e. “colorblind”) or we must judge others by the color of their skin. This is a false dichotomy that never actually existed. I for one have never judged anybody by the color of his or her skin, least of all the billions whom I’ve never met, for this would indeed be asinine. However, that does not mean that I should not believe in an existence for White people, a consciousness for White people, a culture for White people, and a place in the sun for White people. These are not things that have anything to do with individuals of other races, their respective characters, and so forth and nor, for that matter, do they have anything to do with the individuals of my race. We have thus again been the victims of a canard: be raceless or judge others by the color of their skin when no such choice between the two options was ever necessary. There are good and bad characters in all races but that doesn’t mean that our White people should be flushed down the drain by virtue of having a raceless mentality when it comes to our own White people, but full of race when it comes to helping the others. Loyalty to White people quite simply has nothing to do with judging others by the color of their skin and never did. Nor of course is any prejudice (pre-judging) involved, the word “prejudice” being yet another word falsely and routinely applied to the matter at hand.
Our sense of fair play has been manipulated against us by virtue of this atrocious canard that we must either be raceless (i.e. ignore our best interests as White people) or judge everyone by the color of his skin because, after all, it certainly does not seem fair to “judge” someone by virtue of something of which he or she had no control. That this has been a cruel hoodwinking of our White people is an understatement. What fair-minded White person would think it proper to judge this or that White man, black man, brown man, or yellow man as good or bad on the basis of color of skin thus overriding whatever good or bad qualities he or she individually possesses? It does not seem right because it isn’t. We all know of White people with poor character which itself shows that a White skin does not necessarily signify a good character or that a non-white skin signifies a bad character. Thus it is immediately apparent that judgments as to the content of one’s character on the basis of one’s skin color are misplaced and nobody, upon reflection, would even disagree with that. In other words, if there are White people of poor character – and we thus judge these White people to be of poor character – the idea that we should not judge people by the color of their skin is an unobjectionable banality. That though has nothing to do with whether White people should be preserved. The matter is akin not to apples and oranges but rather to apples and giraffes. No White Loyalist has ever sincerely denied that there are good and bad characters in all races. It’s just that this is not the point. We are not trying to preserve (and advocate) for White people because the individual character of black men is bad for we would do the same were every individual black man to be a saint. Rather, we are trying to preserve (and advocate) for White people because we feel that White people themselves have worth. One does not affect the other. One doesn’t matter and the other does. This reality has been totally missed with the result that not one person in a thousand really understands what is at stake and what is at issue. It is like playing a game of baseball while thinking that the object is to miss the ball with the bat. We are told that we must not judge individuals by the color of their skin (of course!) as if that somehow means that we shouldn’t care about the best interests of White people at all (of course not!). The minds of our White people are in chains. Witty propaganda slogans have taken our people down a false alley and this alley is leading us to a cliff. We are happily swinging our bats – content in our ignorance of the actual rules of the game – while our score on the scoreboard remains a big fat zero.
Notably, as the NAACP fights to advance colored people, and the National Council of La Raza fights to advance hispanic people, nobody ever accuses these organizations (and other non-white organizations), and their millions of members and sympathizers, of “judging” White people by the color of their skin and yet anytime any pro-White organization makes an appearance, it is immediately assumed to do just that. Thus the double-standard is plain, is it not? Simple logic dictates that if non-white organizations are spared all criticism for “judging” individual White people by the color of their skin, so should the White organizations for “judging” individual non-whites for theirs. Quite simply, discrimination in favor of one race has nothing to do with the “judging” of individuals of another race. Thus Martin Luther King’s entire plea for a time when we would cease “judging” people by the color of their skin but rather by the content of their character was a plea that had nothing to do with the reality of the situation and thus not worth the idolizing since ascribed to it. If judging a person by the color of his skin is wrong as we all can agree, where is the supposed moral culpability of the White segregationist in the 1950’s who did not engage in such judging? By the same token, the black separatist is not culpable either. Your preference for your own race has nothing to do with the personal character of the billions of individuals of other races and thus there is no reason for us, as White people, to feel any kind of guilt that White people past or present have engaged in an adverse judgment of that character. This of course extinguishes the entire guilty conscience that we have all been taught that we should have and that’s why it is so important. We are not guilty! The policies and actions of our ancestors had nothing to do with judging any individual by the color of his skin. Never did we look at this black, brown, or yellow man and judge him bad because of his skin color and thus the entire prism into which we have looked concerning racial history has been a sad myth, sad because we have drawn the inference that since we shouldn’t “judge” individuals on the basis of skin color, we shouldn’t care about our own future as White people at all. A false charge has thus, in part, resulted in the abandonment and even disdain of everything we are and the sacrifice of our own best interests, indeed to the point where our own best interests are not recognized to even exist. To do so, after all, would be to “judge others by the color of their skin”! The most asinine myths are the most dangerous.
Whether we would will it to be different or not, no natural creature on earth ignores the difference between “us and not us.” In fact, there is perhaps no thought or instinct more fundamental to life on this planet than this. All societal relationships are based upon it whether that of man, mouse, or mosquito. There are those who are part of “us” and there are those who are “not us.” In Nature, this distinction is primarily decided by race and only secondarily by geography. Thus a lion, for example, is more likely to form a community with a fellow lion coming from a different geography than with a gazelle, tiger, or elephant who lives within his own geography. Genetics (race) trumps space. Furthermore, while a tiger may be a fellow cat, since he is not a fellow lion, the lion does not consider him one of “us” but rather, “not us.” Thus the broad label of “cat” ascribed by men, like that of “bee,” “bear,” “ant” or that of any number of other beings, is not enough to erase the difference between “us” and “not us” as far as the various beings themselves are concerned. The creatures of this earth couldn’t care less what labels men choose to ascribe to them; rather, they are only concerned, instinctively, with the exact genetic reality that confronts them: whether this or that being is of the same race. The members of one’s community are strictly limited to individuals of the same race; black ants only live with black ants, red with red, grizzly bears with grizzly bears, bumble bees with bumble bees, and so with thousands of other examples. This does not mean that they “judge” the individuals of other races, only that they recognize a chasm between “us” and “not us.” The generic words that we as men ascribe to animals do not bridge the chasm between them and thus, for example, the fact that we label grizzly, black, and polar bears by the same word “bears” does not mean that these various races can, should, or would form some kind of community together, for not only does genetics (race) (blood) trump space but it also trumps language, especially that of a race as far removed from them as is man. In other words, we can call the various similar types of omnivores “bears” all we want but that does not mean that there is, should be, or could be any such thing as a “bear” community irrespective of their various races. Nature couldn’t care less what particular language men employ to describe the beings within it. What matters instead is the actual reality of the situation, the fact that the races of the beings in question are indeed different.
All of this seems pretty obvious in animals but why should it be any less the case with “man” which is likewise a generic term on par with “bear,” “bee,” “ant,” and so forth? As with every race of animal there is the distinction between “us” and “not us,” so too does this exist naturally among the races of men. Thus for us White people, “us” is our White people and “not us” are the other races, of both man and animal. “Man” is merely a generic label; it is merely a word used to describe beings that walk on two legs, can speak, and are capable of rational thought. The word does not denote a race but rather encompasses all races with such characteristics. Thus, likewise, there is no such thing as a “human race”; rather, there are races that we have adjudged to be human. Likewise, there is, strictly speaking, no such thing as “mankind” but rather there are “kinds (races) of men.” There is no more natural community of “men” irrespective of race than there is a natural community of “bears,” “bees,” or “ants” irrespective of race. The labels that we ascribe, whatever they may be, do not alter the fundamental realities of Nature, try as we ignorantly might. I say “try as we ignorantly might” because let’s face it, for hundreds of years people truly have been trying to change the natural reality of the world in an effort to make it conform to language rather than the other way around. How often have we heard people say that “there is only one race, the human race,” for example, because of their own philosophical desire rather than obedience to the actual, real world around them? They want the world to fit the language rather than apply the language to the world as it is or, more importantly, have simply been caught up in the propaganda of our times without reflection. There is, again, no such thing as a “human race” but rather there are races of men or human races (distinctive races that walk on two legs, speak, and are capable of rational thought). That there are even those today who would deny that there are really races of men altogether, in favor of one supposedly monolithic “human race” of their own invention, just goes to show how deeply devoted they are to forcing the square block of Nature into the round hole of their philosophical desires. In reality, there are races of men just as there are races of bears, each in a state of Nature forming a community limited to its own respective race. Race in fact defines membership in the community. That the races of men have lately veered away from this natural disposition (lately in world history, certainly) is the problem, not that this natural disposition exists. Why indeed should we turn hysterically against our natural being in order to conform to an agenda, any agenda? If it were natural for the various races of men to live together and to form racially integrated “communities,” forced busing, “fair housing” laws prohibiting racially restrictive covenants, and all other efforts to “desegregate” would never have been necessary. Racial integration is fundamentally unnatural; that is why people had to fight so hard to bring it about. “Community,” as the name implies, relates to that which people hold in common, namely blood. Thus a “multi-racial community” is essentially a contradiction in terms. Notably, the word “community” bears no grammatical relationship to geography. This is well-illustrated by the fact that Jews, for example, are part of the same “Jewish community” regardless of where they happen to live, no matter how many thousands of miles they may be apart from one another, and even regardless of whether they happen to practice the Jewish religion or not. The word has to do with blood, ethnicity, and race, not a mere area on a map.
You will have noticed that I have not used the word “specie” in this discussion, referring instead to races of animals, races of insects, and, of course, races of men. This is because there is an inherent man-made value judgment bound up with the word “specie” that is not present with the word “race.” A racial distinction exists in Nature whether we would want it to or not; it is a matter of fact, not a matter of (Man’s) classification, unlike specie. Various races qualify as separate species only in the minds of men; in the minds of the various animals and insects themselves, all that matters is that they are different races. Thus distinctions between races and “species” have no value in Nature itself and serve to confuse men who have imputed value to them. Two members of different so-called “species,” as commonly defined, are automatically members of different races; whether though two members of different races are also members of different species, as defined by men, is irrelevant to the discussion, for there aren’t any more interracial communities in Nature than there are interspecial communities in Nature. Race is thus what characterizes Nature; whether racial distinctions “tax” the taxonomist enough to qualify also as special (in his eyes) is beside the point. As a mode of classification, the word “species” may have a certain use; as a method to exhibit distinction, it does not. Whether a grizzly bear and a black bear are able to interbreed (thus meeting the common definition of “species” as classified and manufactured by men) is pretty darn irrelevant as to whether they are in reality distinct beings (races) disposed to forming separate communities in Nature where such interbreeding wouldn’t even take place, and whether such interbreeding would defy their natural instincts in fact.
I said earlier that all societies are based upon the distinction between “us” and “not us.” This is the case even in the current non-racial American society; it’s just that we have chosen geography, rather than race, upon which to base the distinction. Thus, in America, “us” is composed of Americans and “not us” is composed of non-Americans. Thus, unlike everywhere else in Nature, we have replaced the primary factor of race with that of the secondary factor of geography. Why, though, should we do this? We are told that we should, of course – and the vast majority of Americans do so without any thought at all – but where is the logic in being the only creatures on earth that place mere geography before race? We are told over and over again that “we are all Americans” but why should that matter so much more than the “we are all White” alternative as is so implicitly claimed and indeed demanded? We are expected to be “Americans first” but why should that matter more than being White first? It is considered proper to extol the colors of the American flag (or the colors of other flags should we live in other countries) but to extol the color of our own skin is today considered taboo. “To die for one’s country” is considered by the present society the greatest honor but the idea of dying for one’s race is never given any thought at all, let alone made the subject of positive social discourse. In sum, to be a patriot is to be lauded and to be societally blessed while to be a White advocate is to be criticized and societally condemned, and yet both concepts have their root in the “us” and “not us” distinction that governs all life and thus one would not expect them to be subjected to such disparate treatment. In other words, why should any man be reviled for placing his White Race first in his heart and mind while the “American” who puts America and Americans first in his heart and mind is applauded? Those who do the latter would be hard-pressed to justify the grossly disparate treatment between the two on any kind of rational or sensible grounds and yet so many of them condemn the White advocate without much of a thought at all. The so-called “Greatest Generation,” for example, was supposedly so great because it defeated the Axis Powers in the Second World War in defense of America and Americans. Would though a generation of White people receive the same moniker today for defending the White Race in some equally titanic struggle? We know the sad answer to that. Why though should we have a country that we care about but a race that we don’t? Why should we honor the defenders of the country but condemn the defenders of the race? Why should what is good for the goose be so strikingly bad for the gander?
Imagine a world where all of the fanfare that is currently devoted to our “us” as Americans were instead devoted to our “us” as White people. Would this be so wrong? And if so, why is the devotion to “us” as Americans so right instead? Why should geography trump our blood? We may “all be Americans” but our White Race existed thousands of years before there ever was such a moniker as “America” and hopefully it will continue to exist long after that name has passed into history as names of countries tend to do. States (polities) too have come and gone throughout history but the race remain. You love your country? This is understandable as it is only just to love the soil upon which you live, but do not forget though your own people in the process, that before your soil (geography) comes your blood (race), for how can we place more value in land than in our life itself? It may be argued that the placing of value in “us” as Americans does not, in fact, place land before life, but since those who are Americans are such because of their geography, it really does. In other words, without a land called America, there would be no Americans and no defense of American land and fellow Americans, of course. This is not the case with our White people whose existence is not based upon that of a particular land and indeed is independent of any land. The bond that exists between those whose “us” are Americans ends the moment one of them moves to and identifies himself with the nation-state across the border. When reflected upon, this is a pretty week basis upon which to distinguish that which is “us” and that which is “not us” in this world; “us” can become “not us” pretty readily. On the other hand, by distinguishing “us” and “not us” on the grounds of race, no such back and forth parley is possible: you are “us” or “not us” based not on what you think or where you live but rather on what you are, which is unchangeable.
Again, the issue here is not whether we should love our country or not but rather whether we should really distinguish between our “us” and our “not us” on that basis. Why should we declare that we somehow have more in common with a black American than with a White Frenchman? Why should we have more concern for the well-being of yellow Americans over that of White Norwegians? Why should we care whether the White Serb is an “American” or not? Why should we care whether he resides outside a border on a map or maybe drives on the left side of the road? Why, too, should we be willing to fight and kill our fellow White people whenever a government – any government – tells us that we must? Why should we focus on the prosperity of the country rather than on our prosperity as a race? Why should we have a bond with everyone within our fifty United States that is superior to that of the bond with the White Canadian perhaps a mile away from us across the border, a border that only exists in our minds rather than is actually etched upon the earth at that? Borders are and always have been man-made. Our Race is not. Why should men be the only beings on earth to place borders before blood?
Bad ideas that we are raised with melt away when confronted with cold hard logic. The difficulty is in facilitating the confrontation. Bad ideas are like tires rolling down mountains, with tradition acting as a form of gravity, demanding that they have had the last word without any other word actually ever having had the opportunity to be spoken or heard. A new dawn is possible though if we can only realize that all thought is arbitrary, all values are transitory, unless they have a basis in the physical world and unless they do, their haloes are actually false crowns, hollow and brittle upon examination.
There is simply no sensible reason why the “American” in “White American” should matter more than the “White”; in “White American,” in “White Spaniard,” in “White South African,” and in every other example. The fact that we are closer in space to those non-whites within our man-made borders or closer in space to those non-whites within the society in which we live does not mean that they have to, nor should, be our “us.” So what if we live in the same country? So do ants, aphids, and armadillos. So what if we are all subjected to the same group of laws? So are those whom we personally hold in contempt. So what if we all speak English? We don’t even all speak English anymore. So what if we all drive on the same roads? There are a lot of bad drivers on those roads too whom we wish were not there. So what if we all share the same values? We don’t. So what if we all share the same history? We don’t. So what if we all bleed red blood? So does a rhinoceros. We had no more say – unless we happen to be the traitors in governmental power – in choosing who lives in the same country and society as us than we did in choosing the color of our White skin, and yet our White skin, our White blood is us and thus a superior way of deciding who is “us” and “not us” than any mere geographical or societal accident. Just as for a normal man, his manhood is an inescapable part of his very identity and for a normal woman, her womanhood is an inescapable part of her identity, our race is an inescapable part of our identity. On the other hand, it is the sick man who denies his manhood, the sick woman who denies her womanhood, and the sick race that denies its racialhood. It is our being, our natural self, rather than an artificiality imposed from without. We are born with this identity before any thoughts or values are even imposed upon us. Every child is born with a consciousness of skin color as much as any other color but here the color signifies his very identity and tells him (and all others) who is “us” and who is “not us.” Nature tells us who is “us” by appearance alone without a word ever having to be spoken or conjured. The race of each individual whom we encounter in this world is the trait we most immediately recognize and this signifies instinctively for us whom our “us” is. It is only society that tries to tell us that this is wrong in favor of a “we are all Americans” dogma designed to resign us to a “multiracial” society that we naturally would otherwise disdain.
Understand indeed that so much of the premise of the Americans are “us” dogma is that society, the country, and your very life is necessarily, inevitably, and irremediably “multiracial” and thus that you might as well forget about questioning it or resisting it. To do the latter would be “hateful,” “bigoted,” and even “un-American,” or so it is claimed in some quarters even though the very founding documents of the United States of America were entirely written by White people for White people. The bottom line, as indicated before, is that we are expected to conform to a perverse, artificial society rather than make our society conform to us; to our natural, inherent identity and our best interests as a people and race. So many millions of our White people have sadly obliged, forfeiting their own will, their own interests, and sometimes indeed their own conscious desires. Conform! Be a herd animal! This is the message of the government, the media, the schools, and even the churches. Succumb to the thought that there is nothing for you to fight for when it comes to your own people and there’s no way that you could get anywhere even if you did fight. Rather, just sink into your couch, turn on the boob tube, and swallow the mantra of White annihilation whole!
The truly free man though does not feel obliged to conform to any of society’s demands; rather, he is determined to make society conform to his natural unexpurgated self as a breed, as a blood, as a race. This is a freedom so much more important than the mere “freedom” of being able to say only what society claims is “acceptable” to say. The “freedom” to say only that which (the current) society demands is not much of a freedom and how could this be more true than in the case of White racial feeling, identity, and loyalty with which we are dealing? Thus for those who harbor such feeling, such identity, such loyalty, there are not many words more appealing than the word “non-conformist”! Yes, by the grace of ourselves, we do not conform with the idea that we should hate ourselves, that we should sacrifice our will to live as a people to misbegotten governments, societies, and newly-arrived habits and traditions; we say rather that “us” is what we are and not what it is “politically correct” to be. The truly free man does not care about being sensitive to the feelings of others as much as he cares about being right.
As part of the guilt complex that is foisted upon us, it is said sometimes that we should bear some kind of gratitude towards non-whites for their joining the American military and hurling themselves onto far-flung battlefields, supposedly at our behest, and supposedly somehow in the defense of our “freedom.” This though, obviously, is not the kind of freedom that we have in mind and nor would we want these individuals to fight and die at our behest in the first place. In other words, the believer in White feeling, in White identity, in White loyalty did not send them, would not send them, and his freedom is not fought for by them. In reality, these nearly incessant wars have little to do with freedom for anyone, least of all for those who believe in a natural (hence separate) White identity, community, and country, but they are rather used as ploys by the government to drive home the idea that our “us” are Americans. “We’re all in this together,” and the like, such as “during a firefight I don’t care what color the guy next to me is” and so forth. Obviously not, but the question is begged as to why soldiers must be perpetually placed into firefights by the government of the United States in the first place. The White loyalist did not place them there. No one disputes a man’s courage based on his race; rather, the point is that as shared service in the military, or any other field for that matter, does not negate who our “us” truly is: our White Race, not “Americans” vs. “non-Americans” around the world as is claimed. Implicit in the idea that the White loyalist (“racist,” as commonly referred to) should feel some kind of shame or guilt by virtue of non-white service in the military is that the “us” is Americans when this is simply not the case at all, just as many blacks have, past and present, realized that the White soldiers are not serving their “us” either (black people). All of this is very important to understand because there are few things worse than misplaced guilt and attacks upon our sense of honor. It is not the White Loyalist who seeks to use non-whites to literally fight his battles but rather the very politicians who are seeking to break down all White feeling, identity, and loyalty. In other words, it makes little sense to blame the White loyalist for the actions of those who are hostile to the very idea. They are the ones who throw non-whites into combat, not us.
To be sure, the ‘Americans as us’ idea is, at least in part, based on the supposition that Americans all share a special, mystical belief in freedom that binds them together in a way not shared by those who reside in the other lands of the world. This though is more rite than reality though it has been ingrained for so long that it is not given a second thought. In reality, everybody wants freedom but only to a certain extent, as total freedom is anarchy. (Most people, after all, would not care much for a “freedom” in which murder, rape, and robbery were legal and thus blessed by the State.) Thus there are certain freedoms – and not others – in every country and thus the notion that America has a special, unique, even exclusive claim to love of freedom that calls for all Americans to regard themselves as “us,” and the rest of the world as “not us,” is flawed. Furthermore, consider the fact that the very claimed foreign policy of the federal government is to promote freedom around the world because allegedly everyone wants it. If everyone wants it, we cannot be unique in that regard and if everyone wants it but many are denied it by their governments, is it really just to deem all Americans as “us” on the basis of a shared belief in freedom while rejecting the rest of the world as “us” even though they also share that belief? Again, the idea breaks down. If a belief in freedom determined who is “us” and who is “not us,” we could not very well divide the world into Americans and non-Americans since many, if not all, non-Americans also believe in it. So, we are back to mere geography once again notwithstanding the claim that our “values” set us so far apart from everybody else. Everywhere men would like to speak their minds, practice their religion, and not be assaulted in their homes and on the streets. This is not an exceptional wish anywhere.
The call for you then is to understand that your “us” is what you are and not where you were born, what political or geographical label may be ascribed to you, or what particular thoughts happen to go through your head. Your “us” is not dispelled or dissipated by your nationality, your religion, your politics, your economic class, or the clothes you wear for that matter. You can speak English, German, Russian, or even Chinese or Swahili without your “us” changing in the least. You can reside at the North Pole or in the tropics, like a big government or a small one, prefer George Washington or prefer the Czar, call yourself a conservative, liberal, libertarian, fascist, communist, or whatever and yet your “us” remains the same: White people. Your skin is your uniform before any tunic imposed by a government. Your race is your being whether United States of America remain in existence, whether there is a border on a map between Frenchmen and Germans, whether the Flemish and Walloons continue to live together in a polity called Belgium, whether Quebec remains part of Canada, or whether a million other man-made distinctions continue to exist. Your distinction, with precedence over all others, is what Nature made, not man. You hence rejoin the rest of the beings in the world. Your justification is your existence and you need not have more. The thoughts that have afflicted us are like the leaves that come and go with the season while the tree, your race, remains. Your physicality trumps the mentality of geography. Your appearance negates the need for a question. Your “us” is your being that needs no words wherever you are. The truest identity is that which is discerned on sight: your race.
Nature herself points the way but because Man has divorced himself from the natural world, he fails to see it. Losing the guide of Nature, his mind becomes his own worst enemy, for being capable of abstract thought, abstractions come to dominate him, to wage war against his very being; his mental power gives him the ability to muster an endless amount and variety of thoughts regardless of whether they are conducive to his natural, and hence racial, survival or not. Thus Man has burdened himself with concerns about lines on maps, religions, economic lasses, and the like when all along his true being, his true distinction, his true significance, his true “us” stared back at him when he simply gazed upon his reflection in a mirror: his race, his blood, his kind. It has never been anything other than that. Today’s world is the perversion, not the eons of the past where our “us” was at least more recognized than it is today, though still flawed and imperfectly, for all around us is race in its unashamed and undiluted splendor. Every bird exhibits race, every bee exhibits race, every bear exhibits race, every creature everywhere exhibits race, and yet we’ve been told that thoughts of race are wrong! How though can thoughts of race be wrong when the whole natural world is guided by them? What makes a lion a lion but his race? What makes a sparrow a sparrow but his race? What makes a red fox a red fox but his race and what separates him from a gray fox but his race? “Foxes” they may both be but their difference is their being! Do we really wish to destroy that being… in foxes or in men? Should we really allow artificiality to trump naturality?
Let us though consider the matter in perhaps simpler, more “human” terms”: who in this world should we side with? Shouldn’t we in fact side with our own people? (We can’t side with everyone for sides do exist.) Even the geographical “us” with which we are currently burdened (“Americans,” for example, versus “non-Americans”) acknowledges that various people and States around the world have their own interests. What then are ours as White people? Shouldn’t they, at a minimum, include our continuing to exist, to retain a culture of our own, to have a space that we can call our own, to preserve further our very lives? How many of us today are concerned about the present and future of elephants, of whales, of polar bears, of eagles, and many other creatures; do not our White people have at least as much value as they do in our own eyes and thus should we not also be supported and preserved? Thus if it is praiseworthy to avowedly seek to preserve the existence of polar bears, how can anyone say with a straight face that it is not praiseworthy to avowedly seek to preserve the existence of our own White people? Or are we so sick today as a people that we would rank the racial existence of polar bears highly but consciously disparage and devalue that of our own kind? Are we so full of self-hate that we would proudly protect the races of animals around the world but gleefully and “proudly” forsake the protection of our own? Aesthetically speaking, polar bears are delightful creatures but did they give us Shakespeare, Da Vinci, Edison, Beethoven, ad infinitum? Can we thank polar bears for electricity, running water, sewing machines, airplanes, et cetera? How many millions of people are concerned about the future of polar bears and other creatures; would that these same millions and more be concerned about the future of White people too! Everyone has an understanding of the need of every race of animal to have its own habitat; have we forgotten our own need in that regard? If it is praiseworthy to seek the preservation of animal races, should it not also be praiseworthy to seek the preservation of the race of White people, the preservation of its genes, its genotype, upon this earth? As a society, we are taking steps, and have been taking steps, to preserve the existence, the genotype, of numerous creatures. Where though is the effort, as a society, to preserve the existence, the genotype, of our own White Race? If the one is praiseworthy, should not the other be as well?
Conversely, who ever heard of someone being denounced for caring about the preservation of animal races? Who ever heard of someone being smeared as a “racist” (intended as a disparagement, that is) for wanting to protect the races of whales, for example, from whaling? Who ever heard of elephant lovers being denounced as “racists” for wanting to stop poachers from killing them for their tusks? And yet the point is indeed the preservation of their race! Can we in turn say that the White race of men is being preserved when we don’t even have a habitat of our own, when our culture has become nigrified, and when our race is mongrelized with the other races at will? We say that we love the beauty of Nature’s creatures; would that we would love that of our own kind too! If we are willing to love creatures who are clearly “not us,” shouldn’t we also be willing to love “us”? Why on earth should we be more reluctant to say openly that we wish to preserve the White Race than we are to say that we wish to preserve the humpback whale, or the condor, or the spotted owl, or innumerable other examples? Indeed, the minds of our White people have been in chains to the point where a situation exists where we are willing, eager, and proud to fight to preserve the races of various animals but unwilling, reluctant, and ashamed to fight to preserve that of our own. Let someone try to offer a sensible reason why we should support the races of animals but not support that of our own race, why we should invest so much time, money, and effort to support the races of animals but invest so little to support our own race, why the races of animals matter but the race of White people doesn’t. He will be hard-pressed. The only explanation is the lack of love that we currently have for ourselves as unique, distinct, and worthwhile beings on this earth. We frown at our own existence; I would yearn that we smile! For make no mistake: there can be no long term preservation of a race, of our race, unless it is racial, that it recognize and appreciate race in all things. For only with a racial consciousness can there be a racial culture, and only with a racial culture can there, in today’s world, be racial exclusivity, and only with racial exclusivity can there be racial preservation.
There is a great chasm between praise and condemnation that behooves us to be consistent, that if we praise something on one basis, we should not very well condemn an analogous situation that operates on the same basis. Thus I turn to another example, in this effort to break the chains of our mental slavery, that is perhaps closer to home for our White people today in light of our present detachment from Nature: sports.
If it is praiseworthy to root for one’s own high school sports team, it is hard to fathom why it should not also be praiseworthy to root for one’s own race, and do we not also root for our own team whether its play be fair or foul? It’s our team! That’s what matters. We always look at every play from our team’s perspective and we leave the other team’s perspective to its fans. It is not our task to sing the praises of the other team but rather to sing the praises of our own. That this is so natural and expected is indicated by the fact that nobody ever gives the matter a second thought. We root for our own team and that’s that. We have pep rallies for our team, marches for our team, and wear our team’s regalia with pride. To not have much enthusiasm for one’s team is to evince a lack of school spirit and this is bad. In any event, while some may be lacking in enthusiasm for the doings or exploits of one’s own team, nobody ever roots for the visiting team: indeed, who ever heard of high school students against their own team? A pep rally during school in which the loyalties are divided between the home team and the soon-to-be-arriving visiting team? Band members refusing to play the school song or even breaking out into the song of the visiting team? Students shunning the colors of their team in favor of the colors of the visiting team?
How silly would it be if the support of students for their own team were to be decried as “prejudice,” “hate,” “bigotry,” and the like? Can you imagine how incredulous a student would be were you to berate him for rooting for his team? He would likely look at you as if you were an escaped lunatic.
That we take our sports teams very seriously is a truism with which no one can find objection. Many billions of dollars a year are spent rooting for them at all levels, there are entire television networks devoted to covering them, players are “drafted” as if into the military, their exploits are discussed as seriously as politics, and their victories and defeats assume the character of triumphs and agonies in the hearts of millions if not billions of people. What though is really at issue but a mere game, a fantasy, an abstraction? Its value is totally self-contained; the value of sports is only within sports itself and only has the value which we ourselves attach to it. And yet it is important to men and women everywhere and no one bothers to justify that importance. What begins in high school and even earlier continues through our lives and is promoted, embraced, and applauded by society.
Well, isn’t our White Race our team too but a team whose stakes are far higher than that of any mere sports game? We too have a struggle to win in this world but it is a struggle for existence and livelihood rather than for mere points on a scoreboard. If enthusiasm for mere sports is so high, enthusiasm for our concrete race should be much higher by virtue of plain logic. Do we not have more to lose as a race if we neglect its best interests than we have to lose if our particular sports team loses on the field? Should we not be more serious about that which is in fact serious than that which is merely fun?
If it is right to have “school spirit,” must it not also be right to have “White spirit”? If it is right to rally support for our particular sports team, must it not also be right to rally for our White racial team? If we are proud of our sports team, can we not also be proud of our racial team? Our skin is our uniform and the field we must win is the earth. There is no shedding this skin and thus no possible trading of it for another color unlike the situation with every other kind of uniform. Our instinctive and rightful allegiance to it is established at birth and since we wear it so long as we live, our rightful allegiance to it lasts that lifetime. Just like every other uniform, our skin color should tell all, instantly, where our loyalties lie.
I would challenge anyone to explain why it is that rooting for a particular sports team makes more sense than rooting for our White Race, why we should devote billions of dollars to the promotion of sports teams but should devote little to nothing to the promotion of our White Race, why we should defend the reputation of our sports team but refrain from defending the reputation of our White Race, and why we should be loyal to our sports team but be disloyal to our White Race. Again, is it not so that our White Race is also a team, in a different form, true, but a team nonetheless?
It makes no difference that we were born into our White racial team instead of being able to choose it. It is our team regardless. Why should the matter of choice matter at all? We didn’t choose our parents either but we still have love for and loyalty to them. Is it not true that even children put up for adoption, and who thus haven’t seen their parents since birth, still retain this love and loyalty towards them, towards people they never even met? Furthermore, often times we do not consciously choose to be parents ourselves and yet we still have an instinctive love for and loyalty to our own children. We didn’t choose our own siblings either but we still have love and loyalty to them too. There is a natural love towards our family; it is a bond not of conscious thought, not determined by reasoning or thinking the matter through at all but rather is a matter of blood. Our parents, our children, and our siblings may do things we disdain, and we may wish that we could have chosen different ones, but they are still our blood.
This is true of our race as well. As with our immediate family, so with our racial family. We know that many of our White people have done things that we disdain and that there is no shortage of bad characters in our history, and yet the fact remains that our White people are still our people. Every White man, woman, and child is related to us, is our blood or, as one might more readily put it today, is of the same genetic strain. Our race is our “us,” our family, our team. Our White Race is ours and we are its. Again, we belong to this race regardless of the polities in which we live or the language that we speak. Indeed, this race existed before there were any polities and before there were any languages and will, if we break the chains of our mental slavery at least, exist long after such polities and languages have either ceased existing themselves or have changed massively. Long before there were ever United States of America, a United Kingdom, or a European Union, or before there were ever English, Greek, Czech, or other languages, there were White people, and while polities and languages come and go throughout history, the race that forged those polities and languages remains. Blood matters more than any particular form of government, lines on a map, or the form of speech that we employ. Our race transcends all of these things. It is our team wherever it goes and indeed, since all of us are of the same genetic strain, a strain that distinguishes us from all the other races, it is our family as well. The blacks are right to call each other “brother” or “sister” because they indeed possess their own racial family and so do we as White people! Ironically then, what White people tend to consider a source of amusement, mystery, or even disdain – that blacks often refer to each other as brother or sister – is instead something that is worthy of respect and appreciation and something that should likewise be customary with our own race. They have their racial family and we have ours. Our racial family may not be as close as our immediate family but it is still our family. One cannot truly justify the love for one without justifying love for the other. You have brothers and sisters of your immediate family, you have kin of your extended family, and you have brothers and sisters of your racial family; all tied by blood, not by thought processes. All created by Nature rather than fabricated by man.
That there are those who would vehemently deny all of this simply shows how far we have sunk, and how confused we have become, as a people. They perceive man as a mere atom, an atom among other atoms but totally independent of them without any responsibility to anyone or anything but himself, that he has no roots and no destiny, no ancestors and need to be concerned about no descendants, and that there is no guide for him in life at all other than what he comes up with in his own head. And they wonder why there is so much crime, so much depression, so much drug use, and all in all so much lack of self-respect, self-confidence, self-discipline, and self-esteem in the people! The way they would have it, all rests on the individual, but the reality is that man in his loneliness needs more than himself. We want roots, we want a destiny, and we want to believe that the world does not begin and end with our own individual selves. Otherwise, is it not a fact that we are all losers in the end, no matter how many pleasures we may have enjoyed during our brief individual life on earth? For in the end, the individual inevitably loses.
With racial feeling, with racial consciousness, with racial love, with racial loyalty though, we have something far greater than our individual selves which can and will, if we allow it to, give us a purpose and meaning to our lives which may not otherwise exist. When we look upon the world as a team, as a racial family, we know what we must do: strive to advance it, to benefit it, to look out for it, to be proud of it, to root for it. How little this truly has to do with “hatred,” “prejudice,” or “bigotry” as our White people have been so thoroughly propagandized! At most, it means that you are willing to hate but upon reflection, that goes for anything a person loves. If, for example, you have a son and you love him of course, you will be willing to hate the pederast who lurks outside his school. If you have a wife and love her of course, you will be willing to hate he who would contemplate raping her. If you have love for your country, you will be willing to hate the army contemplating the invasion of it. In other words, under these scenarios, hate is simply a mechanism to employ in the defense of that which you love, as necessary. It is a tool of defense, not some kind of mystical force of malevolence as is so commonly made out, especially in the propaganda attacks against our White people. It can be an entirely justifiable and indeed desirable emotion. By hating threats to that which you love, you tend to preserve that which you love. If some scoundrel is slashing at your children with a butcher knife, love is not the emotion you need at the forefront of your mind at that moment in order to save their lives but rather hatred, a righteous hatred for he who would harm that which you love.
How telling it is indeed that in our sick society, where any indication of Whiteness is considered foul, that the label of “haters” is reserved almost entirely by the media and government for those who love White people and want a future for them. Nobody ever calls the misnamed “civil rights movement” a “bunch of haters” while pro-White groups are called that without hesitation and yet, is it not a fact that the so-called civil rights movement hated conditions in society as they were and hence resolved to change them? Whether you hate people, policies, conditions, ideas, or whatever are distinctions without a difference as the emotions, or sentiment, is the same. Why should pro-White groups be the only groups in society that are called “hate groups” as a matter of course?
Nobody ever calls the American revolutionaries “haters” and yet they hated King George III and the lack of American representation in the British parliament. Would there be United States of America if they hadn’t?
Nobody ever calls Christian missionaries “haters” and yet is it not a fact that Christianity seeks to displace, even eliminate the native religions of those it seeks to convert? And could not adherents of these native religions fairly interpret such an effort to be “hateful”?
Nobody ever calls environmentalists “haters” even though they clearly hate the destruction of the environment. Nobody ever calls professed “animal rights” activists “haters” even though they clearly hate to see people wearing fur. Nobody ever calls capitalists “haters” even though most of them would probably admit hating communism. Nobody ever called Americans “haters” during the two world wars of the 20th century even though they were clearly involved in the killing of their claimed enemies in Europe and Asia. Has anyone ever called the Founding Fathers (revolutionaries), the Catholic church (Christians), the Sierra Club (environmentalists), PETA (animal rights), the Club for Growth (capitalists), or the U.S. Army “hate groups”? Surely nobody thinks that the U.S. Army, for example, conquered Western Europe in World War Two through acts of “love”?
Even true black separatists, who hate the mingling of the races as much as the White, are generally, if not always, spared the label or accusation of being “haters.”
No, it is only the White man who holds the preservation of his race and culture dear to his heart who is routinely considered afflicted as a “hater” while innumerable movements and individuals throughout history and today are left unassailed in their own hatred. The great irony is that not only does the White Loyalist in actuality hate less than these movements and individuals past and present but that as soon as a White man, woman, or child offers any kind of opinion even mildly sympathetic to the preservation of the White Race, he or she finds himself or herself on the receiving end of hatred. So, pardon me if I refuse to accept the nonsense that we White Loyalists are deserving of any kind of singling out as “haters” or participants in “hate groups” when no other cause, groups, or individual anywhere is labeled in such a manner. Why should those who seek to preserve their race and culture be deemed “haters” anyway? The minds of our White people are in chains for thinking so. Again, while innumerable other causes and individuals hate to their hearts’ content without censure, our present society is so sick that it condemns only the White man as a “hater” who is merely loyal to his race. Everything under the sky can be done to dispossess us of what is ours – including the flooding of our country with non-white immigrants, the firing of White workers so as to make way for non-white workers, the peddling of a non-white trash culture of sex obsession to our children, and even the legalization and now overt promotion of interracial marriage (mongrelization) – and yet we are conditioned to believe that any opposition to such assaults upon our prosperity and continued survival as a race would be “hateful” (and hence to be disdained lest we be labeled as “haters”), and yet the assaults themselves are presumably to be considered some form of “love”? One could weep for the insanity of man. We have been befuddled for so long and so thoroughly that grass is blue and the sky is green in our eyes. And our heroes have become villains and our villains have become heroes. Those who break the chains of their own mental slavery can expect to be called villains, haters, and worse but such is the price of true freedom.
The whole “hate” smear business is so worth mentioning – and at several different junctures at that – because it is so endemic. It is a psychological weapon wielded against any budding of a proud, assertive, considerate, conscious White Race. It is intended as a bludgeon with no contact even being needed to be made. It has been enormously successful. Men who know that our people have been wronged or at least perceive of the hideous double-standard have, by the thousands or even by the millions, kept their mouths shut for fear of the “hate” smear. Thus the mental slavery of our people as a whole extends to the physical slavery of those whose minds are not so much in chains. We do not live in a time of courage; rather, we live in a time of “sensitivity” and this towards every group but our own. We live in a time of a supposed “democratic” will but our White people today have no will. We live in a time of “love” but our White people today have been turned away from loving themselves. I drive the point home because the point must be driven home. We would never deny any other people their love of self so why should love of self be denied to us? We are not bound by a decadent present nor a decadent or inferior past but rather can form our own will.
There is indeed a White people on this earth. There is indeed a White Race and no, the word “race” is not a bad word. It is the word that reflects the fundamental reality of all life and it is particularly appropriate since we are indeed in a “race,” a competition, with the other races, the other teams, on this earth. If we do not side with ourselves, we lose. We must discriminate in favor of our race, our team, or it loses. We have our own unique personalities but we are still part of the race, the team, our “us.” The only civil “rights” that should matter to us are that of our own: our power, our strength, our will. The only right that should matter to us is our own. If we end up dominating the field, that is as it should be. Who ever heard of a team shaving its own points or donating some to its rivals?
We should disdain the racial diversity of society because we desire the diversity of men, wishing to preserve their distinctions, their uniqueness, their natural selves. We should disdain the idea of equality (sameness) of man because men are not in fact the same as one another and nor are the races which are composed of men. Rather than equality, let there be distinction. Rather than forbearance, let there be assertion: of ourselves.
We as White people do exist for our eyes do not lie. We are not individuals who just happen to be White but rather are White people who are also individuals, individuals of a race. We each play our particular position on the team but that hardly means that the team, the race, does not exist. This man here is an auto mechanic, that man there is a computer programmer, another is a fireman, and still another a welder: they work for a personal living but there is also a racial living to their work, fulfilling the needs of the team, the race. The individual comes and goes but the race remains; at least it should, and will, without our minds being in chains. The coming and going of the individual player does not mean the end of the team, does it?
It matters not why we are White any more than it matters why our parents are our parents, our siblings are our siblings, or our children are our children. As we should be loyal to our families, we should be loyal to our race. The loyalty naturally exists simply because… they are ours. From the seed of our ancestors we spring and from us shall our descendants spring. Kind after kind, like after like, blood after blood, the bond of Nature precedes and succeeds all diversions that tickle the fancy of the moment in the minds of men.
“Civil rights” were “rights” in the minds of black people in the 1950’s and 1960’s simply because they wanted them. Their desire became their right. So should it be for us, for the best interests of our people, no other interests likewise to be considered any more than the best interests of Whites were considered by the black “equality” seekers. We though should refuse to use “equality” as a means because we are better than that. No such demagoguery suits the taste of the upright man and who ever heard of a team merely wanting to be “equal” to the others? And what sports fan ever likes a tie game?
We as White people have swallowed so much silliness, so many propaganda gimmicks, so much subterfuge, so much delusion. Can we yet extricate our minds from these chains that ensnare us? Can we yet come to understand that we owe no people but ourselves, that the only possible sin that we can commit as a people is to ignore our own interests as that (White) people, and that the current society with its demands of White guilt, forbearance, and denial is hostile to those best interests? Can we not come to understand that racial integration is a profoundly destructive activity to White culture, White genes, and White lives? That White culture, White genes, and White lives and yes, White freedom should have at least as much value to White people as the achievement of so-called “equality” did to black people, as open borders does to brown people, as “living the American dream” does to yellow people, and on and on? That we as White people have the prerogative to have a place in the sun, to chart our own destiny, and to exert our own will as much as anybody else? That there is more “hate” in White guilt, forbearance, and denial than there is in White assertion, loyalty, and pride? That the genetic survival of no bear, fish, owl, or any other animal race can possibly be more important to us than the genetic survival of our own White race? That racial love and loyalty need no more justification than family love and loyalty? That all lines on maps are artificialities and thus of less importance than the race, our race, which is real?
Can we remove our minds from the media, government, and school propaganda manipulation that lock, keep, and tighten our minds in chains? Can we dare to think outside of them; can we recognize them for what they are, melt them with our will, break them with our spirit, and overthrow them with our love?