An American-Dutch Dialogue on Racial Issues

E-Mail of Richard McCulloch with a Dutch correspondent discussing the racial situation in the Netherlands and common issues confronting Nordish racial preservationists in Europe and America

Subject: Northernkind On Line
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 16:40:44 -0700
From: A correspondent in the Netherlands
To: archon@racialcompact.com

Dear Mr. McCulloch,

In "the Racial Golden Rule", you wrote:

"If the Dutch could leave Indonesia, the Indonesians can leave the
Netherlands"

In [my] translation of this, I substituted 'Indonesia' and 'Indonesians'
with 'Surinam' and 'Surinamers' (how is a person from Surinam called in
English?) respectively, because of all the non-Europid ethnic groups in
the Netherlands, the Indonesians are the most widely accepted and I
think they are not a good example to draw the interest of Dutch people
to your philosophy in a positive way. The contrast in appearance and
behavior is far greater in the Congoids, of who, in the Netherlands, the
most come from Surinam, and I think a literally "black/white"-contrast
is more instructive to my sedated, racially unaware countrymen. We need
to start somewhere, though I often despair about the future of
Northernkind, especially in the Netherlands.

Throughout my life I have always had some racial awareness, even when I
was a kid. But, being exposed to the rise of the altruist-egalitarianist
ideology (I was born in 1969) my whole life, I had learned that I should
hide it, deny it, and annihilate this feelings and thoughts, in which, I
am glad to say, failed. That left me with a rather fragmented philosophy
of life - I had to find it all out on my own (not that I don't have any
friends but they simply do not care about it all).
Anyway, to summarize what could be a long and boring story: Your work,
your writings, your philosophy is everything that I believed or
suspected, some of it conscious, some of it half- or subconscious, and
beyond that - more consistent, as if, to use a cliche-metaphor,
'everything fell in its place.'
Reading "The Ideal and Destiny" often brought me in some almost ecstatic
mood. I had such experiences before, when I read good and inspiring
books, but no book ever excited me more then TIAD.

This leaves only one thing for me to say to you now: Thank you, Sir, for
what you have written.

Richard McCulloch's reply:

The reference to the Indonesians is based on the fact that Indonesia (the Dutch East Indies) was the foremost example of Dutch imperialism, as India was the foremost example of British imperialism. Both involved violating the territorial rights of another race or people -- the Indonesians and Indians. But this violation has been ended, and is now reversed, with the Indonesians and Indians violating the territorial rights of the Dutch and British peoples in a racially much more substantial and harmful manner, violating their very right to exist by effectively negating their future racial existence if their presence is not removed. This example cannot be correctly applied to the Surinamians, as the great majority of them are not themselves native to Surinam, but to India, Africa, Indonesia, China, etc., and thus were actually invaders of Surinam and violators of the racial rights of the native Indian peoples as much as the Dutch themselves. Thus the Dutch never violated the territorial rights of these non-native Surinamians who are now violating the territorial and racial rights of the Dutch, so the argument of reciprocity does not apply to them, and to substitute them for the Indonesians makes the context erroneous.

I understand your concern that the Dutch people generally have more positive feelings for the Indonesians than the Surinamians, which would make them less sympathetic to a call for their removal, but the necessity for the removal of other races from the Nordish homelands should not be based on negative feelings for them. The appeal to such negative feelings for other races, in the belief that such feelings are the necessary foundation for a racialist movement, has in fact been the fatal flaw of those movements that have followed this course. An effective racial preservationist movement must be based on positive feelings for our own race, and preferably on positive feelings for other races as well, or at the very least on respect for their legitimate rights and interests. I personally have very positive feelings for many people and peoples that I recognize must be separated from my race if my race is to be preserved, and wish no harm to come to them, but wish them well, and would want the separation to be conducted in a manner that is consistent with friendship and good will. Those of other races that are truly our friends, that truly wish us well, that have positive feelings for us that merit our reciprocal positive feelings of friendship and good will for them, will want us to enjoy the conditions (i.e., separation) required for our well-being and continued existence. If they do not, then they are not our friends, and it is upon this standard and no other that we should judge them and base our feelings for them, whether positive or negative, whether they are Indonesian, Surinamian Congoid, or any other race.

Perhaps the greatest obstacle to the success of a racial preservationist movement is the fact that thus far the ranks of the racial activists have largely consisted of persons motivated by negative feelings for other races. I believe a successful movement depends on mobilizing the majority of our race on the basis of positive feelings for our own race. Negative feelings for other races are in fact a debilitating handicap or obstacle that we need to overcome if we our to reach our goal of racial salvation, because a majority movement cannot be effectively built on them, and any movement handicapped with them will be doomed to never appeal to more than a small and ineffective minority of our race. So although you may find the racial awareness of such persons somewhat refreshing compared to the racial ignorance that is the norm, it is an awareness coupled with a fatal flaw that must be avoided and excluded from any preservationist movement that is to have any hope for success. If I might be permitted to borrow a line from the Star Wars movie series, "Beware the dark side of the Force!"

I find your reference to your life-long racial awareness interesting, and familiar, since I share it. I trust this sort of life-long gut feeling (instinct or intuition?) much more than the more intellectualized mental wanderings of converts. It is much more dependable. I suspect that there is an innate sense of racial intelligence and awareness that varies greatly among people, possibly distributed in a bell curve like IQ.

Regards,

Richard McCulloch

______________________________________________

Subject: Reaction & Request
Date: Sun, 04 Jul 1999 19:42:23 +0200
From: A correspondent in the Netherlands
To: archon@racialcompact.com

Dear Mr. McCulloch,

First a little explanation about the racialist/nationalist scene
here in the Netherlands. Personally, I have always been more of
a "racial nationalist" than a "volksnationalist", and that's
probably why I have been an admirer of your work when I even
only had read the description of your books from the Howard
Allen leaflet. This kind of racialism is much more normal in
America - where people of various Northern European descent
experienced that, like you write somewhere, nationality is an
artificial identity, and race a natural.

But, in general, European, and more specific, Dutch nationalists
are far more likely to be "volksnationalists". That does mean,
that, although most acknowledge the relation between the
(Northern) European peoples, they stress, the uniqueness of the
own people trather than that of the own race. This has been
caused by the fact that Europeans lack the "northern blending"
experiment, and also by the tabu and legal restrictions on the
expression of racism that exist here as a reaction on the
aggressive racism of the Nazi's that ruined Europe half a
century ago.

Anyway, the most likely group of people that would cherish the
racialist ideal, are the volksnationalist movements. They are
yet small, as Nederland probably holds the dubious honour to be
racial nihilist country no.1 on the World, but there is some
intellectualisation going on more or less behind the screen. The
movements are investing in political training and the
development of strategies and the formation of political
philosophy. In this philosophy, the "rights of the volk" have
gotten a honourable place, and to stress this, the movement has
declared solidarity with independance movements from all over
the world - Basques, Bretons, Kurds, you name it.

Since a few days, have been emailing with this fellow who is an
activist in these circles, and he told me that he was impressed
by the Charter of Racial Rights. But, and here comes the
Question, he wondered, whether we could translate "race" by
"etnische groep" (meaning "ethnic group"). This term is slightly
wider than race, but I must say that it might indeed be more
useful to be used in the Netherlands. The volksnationalism could
fit very easily into it - a "volk" is also an ethnic group.

"Ras", "race", has an almost unbreakable association with Nazism
and the holocaust, and will probably cause most people to not
look/listen further. If you are stereotyped, the contents of your
words are lost - the viewer/listener has decided that he knows
what you will be saying, and even if it isn't what he expected,
he'll explain "you're just using nice words, but you still are a
nazi." Indeed, A "Charter of of Ethnic Rights", "Handvest van
Etnische Rechten", will be frowned upon, but the word "race"
will probably trigger images of the scene from "The Boys of
Brazil" in which Dr. Mengele injects blue paint in some latin
kid, with most people.

So, what do you think of this proposal? It would not really be a
distortion of your original words, although it is of course not
the most literal translation.

(On the difference between European Volksnationalism and
American Pan-Nordicism, see also the little essay "Words Across
the Sea", in Wilmot Robertson's "Ventilations". I.m.o. racial
nationalism and volksnationalism don't bite each other and could
very well strengthen each other.)

As for your "matter of interest" - it was indeed a very
instuctive discussion! As a matter of fact, I've often held such
discussions, although I am not as eloquent as you are. In my
experience, most people are indeed a bit stubled, but, although
I can sense they are often a little bit less certain of their
point of view, they nevertheless choose for the racial nihilist
option. And because most people do not seem to have any trouble
with their being inconsequent, and are also confirmed in their
racial nihilism by other nihilists and by the media, we have
along way to go. But I certainly feel that this is a good way to
get our point on the agenda of the "public discussion".

By the way, not every racial nihilist pretends to love diversity
- some are really just racial nihilists - hyperindividualists,
who hold that there are no in-between levels between the
individual and mankind as a whole. These are not easily dealt
with, because they are not inconsistent. I recently asked some
Dutch white guy in a usenetgroup, who happened to be married to
a black woman, wheter he didn't think that race mixing was, in a
way, a kind of genocide... He gave me a sarcastic reply, but, of
course, I did not in any way make him really think about this
matter. Do you have any suggestions to deal with those kind of
people?
People who really don't care?

Well, I seem to have asked you 3 questions instead of the one I planned. In case that you've
only time for 1 answer, the middle one is the most important for now.

Richard McCulloch's reply:

I don't really mind a "Charter of Ethnic Rights" but remember that a race is something far greater and more important than an ethnic group or nationality. I want to preserve the different ethnic groups of Europe. I treasure them all. They enrich the cultural diversity of our race. But they shouldn't be regarded as having the same standing or rights of a race to any comparable degree. After all, the general racial types have existed for many thousands of years. The Nordish race is probably over 10,000 years old, and it has the potential of existing and continuing its development toward its unique evolutionary destiny for many more tens of thousands of years -- if it can be saved from multiracialism. Ethnic groups and nationalities are, by contrast, very young, and their lifespans much more limited. A race can pass through many different national identities in its lifetime. The Nordish race has existed in the form of many nationalities and ethnic groups over the millennia and its future, if it has a future, will probably see many new ethnic or national manifestations. Therefore it somewhat devalues or cheapens the concept of racial rights to present a claim to ethnic rights in the same terms, suggesting that they are equal or even similar, when they are not. People can shed or change their nationality, and many do. They can't change their race. Unlike race, nationality is not physical or material, not physically or materially real. It is a product of memes, not genes.

Please never let anyone equate your racial position, or mine, with Nazism. The term "Nazism" is of course an abbreviation of nationalism, not racism. I define my position as racial preservationism. Nazism was not racial preservationism. The Nordish peoples who fought against Nazism were not fighting against racial preservationism, against the continued existence of their race. At least that is not what they believed, or were told they were fighting against, and to suggest now that such was the case would be an historical falsehood of enormous scale and a shocking surprise to surviving veterans, whose sense of shock would probably be exceeded only by their sense of betrayal. The chapter/essay "Right and Wrong Racism" (rightwrongracism.html) is a rebuttal of the reductionist thinking that equates "Nazism," or any other kind of immoral racism, with racial preservationism. Of course, most people don't know that racial preservationism exists. The only forms of racism they've been told about are the immoral forms. The only form of opposition to multiracialism they know about is the immoral form, now commonly equated with Nazism, so they reflexively equate opposition to multiracialism with Nazism. We need to let them know there are other choices and other alternatives besides Nazism and multiracialism.

I'll answer the question about dealing with nihilists by elaborating on my previous e-mail:

All issues relating to race are currently defined and discussed as if no vital, compelling or even legitimate interest of the Nordish race is involved or at stake, as if the Nordish race won't suffer any adverse effects or consequences, any harm or loss, as a result of multiracialism. Therefore, by this definition the Nordish race has no legitimate grounds, reason or motive for opposing multiracialism, only trivial, petty, hateful or mean motives or reasons, such as intolerance, an unreasonable fear or dislike of other races, or an unjustified desire to not have them around. As a result, there is a prevailing lack of awareness or recognition that in fact the most vital and compelling interests of the Nordish race are involved -- its continued existence and control of its own existence.

This lack of awareness is not only true of the general public but also of many of the most prominent opponents of multiracialism, the supposed spokesmen for Nordish interests, whose arguments for opposing multiracialism are consequently limited to much less vital and compelling, and even questionable, reasons based on the supposed negative behavioral traits and low intelligence and morality of other races -- in essence on claims that the other races are inferior. This is not only seen as offensive and insulting, hateful and mean, intolerant and illegitimate, by most people, but it also misses the main issue, the compelling and vital reason for Nordish opposition to multiracialism, and is therefore a necessarily superficial analysis of the racial issue, and for most people an inadequate justification for opposition to multiracialism.

Our first task is to change this, to create among the general public a state of awareness and recognition that the most vital and compelling Nordish interests, its continued existence, are at stake and will be adversely effected, in fact destroyed, by multiracialism. By this means we will redefine the issue and change the very nature of the debate by placing the most vital and compelling interests of the Nordish race into play against the much less important pseudo-interests of the other races to live in the Nordish homelands, an interest which didn't even exist in all the thousands of years of separate racial existence before 1960. Until we have done this we will not even be on the playing field and our ideas will not yet be in play. Until we have done this we will have not yet really begun to fight.

That is why whenever a multiracialist advocates the destruction of the Nordish race, or admits it is an acceptable or even desirable consequence of multiracialism, whether explicitly or implicitly, however disturbing or shocking this may be to us, we should regard it as something we have been searching for, to save and document, for it is evidence we can use to help us prove our case and put our ideas in play.

Armed with the evidence to prove our case, we must take the moral offensive and put the multiracialists, in fact the race destroyers, on the moral defensive. When the question is bluntly put to them, what reason can they have for wanting the destruction of the Nordish race, or for opposing the preservation and continued existence of the Nordish race? Does the existence of the Nordish race harm anyone? Does the restoration of the normal and natural race-preserving condition of racial separation harm anyone's vital or compelling interests? If not, what can be the reason for the intense anger directed toward any expression of Nordish preservationism? Drawing out the answers to these questions will be one of our first tasks after the preservation issue is recognized.

Of course there will be many people who simply don't care, especially at first until they have time to think about it. Many people do care about the Nordish race but don't realize it, caring about people whose existence is part of the Nordish race but not making the connection between the two. These we can help by pointing out the connection. But our first concern is to locate and convince the people who do care, people who value and love the Nordish race and want it to continue to exist. We must let them know the existence of the Nordish race is in peril. I believe that, when they think it over, far more Nordish people will want their race to be preserved than will want it to be destroyed. We must provide them with a preservationist alternative that they can support.

I'm attaching a scan of the cover of the Fall, 1993 special issue of "Time" magazine on the racial transformation of America. (Time_Fall_1993.JPG) It is valuable evidence we can use to prove our assertion that the most vital and compelling interests of the Nordish race are threatened. It is also a very rare implicit admission of this fact by a major mainstream publication. It is an ominous portent of what is to come when the power structure believes it need no longer evade or deny the reality of Nordish destruction but can instead openly celebrate and welcome it as something both positive and inevitable. The inevitable part is important, as this belief will help discourage and thus preempt any possible residual Nordish capability for resistance. Of course, it is not inevitable, but a matter of human choice and action. The falsehood and air of unreality that surrounds the current policy of evasion and denial will be replaced by the falsehood and air of unreality of claims of inevitability. This is the falsehood that already permeates many of the halls of academia, but the general public is still surrounded by the false fog of evasion and denial.

The cover photo is a product of computerized blending, with all traits being precise intermediate averages of the photos used in the blend, with the ancestry being 15% Anglo-Saxon, 17.5% Middle Eastern, 17.5% African, 7.5% Asian, 35% Southern European and 7.5% Hispanic. Genetic blending in the real world doesn't work the same way, as there are dominant and recessive traits, with the latter usually being completely replaced by the former in the phenotype. In the real world there would be no trace of blue in the eyes resulting from this mixture. Of course, what the photo of this face doesn't show us is all the other faces, the diversity and variety of faces, especially the Nordish faces, that will be lost, never to be seen again, as they are replaced by the faces of this racial type. This is part of persuasion technique, to never show what will be lost or replaced. (Thus in the movie "Fools Rush In," when the main Nordish character is considering marrying and having children by an Hispanic woman rather than his long-time Nordish fiance, everywhere he looks he sees Hispanic children, but the camera shows him and us no Nordish children, the alternative that will be lost.)

There is a very similar photo on the cover of the Feb. 5, 1994 issue of the Dutch magazine "Elsevier
," for a similar cover story describing the racial transformation of the Netherlands, which I mention in the chapter/essay "The Nordish Crisis." I have a poor black & white photocopy of it that I was mailed back in the pre-internet days. I wonder if you could find a copy of it in a library and scan the cover and e-mail it to me. I'm sure the similarity is more than a coincidence. Is "Elsevier
" owned by Time-Warner, or have some connection or collaboration with them? Notice how the subtext on the "Time" cover describes America as becoming the world's first multicultural society. (What about Brazil? The cover photo looks very Brazilian to me.) Part of the fog of ignorance we need to dispel in America is the false perception that this multiracialist transformation is happening only to us, that it is unique and particular to us as a "nation of immigrants," and that the peoples of Europe (and even Australia) are not seriously threatened by it but will continue to exist in essentially unaltered form. This is another example of the lack of awareness of the scale of the threat. The "Elsevier
" cover is evidence that can help correct this misperception.

I'm also attaching a photo of the poster of a mulatto girl that was posted around the Stockholm area to advertise this year's midsummer festival at Skansen park. (skansen99.JPG) It is from my Stockholm correspondent that I mentioned in my previous e-mail. Disturbing and disheartening to be sure (it greatly disturbed him), but still more valuable evidence of the true consequences of multiracialism.

Regards,

Richard McCulloch

July 5, 1999

________________________________________________________

Subject: Re: ethnic rights, etc.
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 14:04:28 +0200
From: A correspondent in the Netherlands
To: archon@racialcompact.com

Dear Mr. McCulloch,

I have been thinking a lot about what you wrote in your last
mail; one of the reasons I didn't reply earlier. Have been quite
busy with unrelated things too - my apologies!

archon wrote:

> I don't really mind a "Charter of Ethnic Rights" but remember that a
> race is something far greater and more important than an ethnic group or
> nationality. I want to preserve the different ethnic groups of Europe. I
> treasure them all. They enrich the cultural diversity of our race. But
> they shouldn't be regarded as having the same standing or rights of a
> race to any comparable degree. After all, the general racial types have
> existed for many thousands of years. The Nordish race is probably over
> 10,000 years old, and it has the potential of existing and continuing
> its development toward its unique evolutionary destiny for many more
> tens of thousands of years -- if it can be saved from multiracialism.

I really agree with you on this. But the rotten thing is -and I
can only really speak for Nederland now- is that:
a) I experience that most people are so indoctrinated that their
"anti-racism" -racial nihilism- has taken fanatic religious
proportions
b) The "anti-racist" lobby here is very strong, and is supported
by the law. If I had more money I would hire a lawyer to examine
what one can say and what not, within the limits of the Dutch
"anti-discrimination" laws.

Of course, (a) is why our task is so important, but (b) is why
most people here, who in their hearts agree with the importance
of race, choose for ethnic nationalism. The general view seems
to be that the biological determinism that comes from the racial
perspective, is a bad tactic for here-and-now. This is really
bad - Nederland seems to have imported an American vice
-interracism- _without_ an American virtue: the 1st amendment,
which is your most important weapon to resist against racial
nihilism.

I also often have the feeling that most people are worried when
I point out the consequences of race mixing - they seem not to
like the idea of the Northerners being replaced by some race of
mulattoes, but they "correct" their feelings according to the
dominant racial nihilist ideology. They seem to say to
themselves: "I do not like this race mixing idea, but this my
problem, my weakness, my fault - I really should not express
this worry in anyway."

Another bad thing (for us) is, that people often cannot
distinguish between personal feelings and the concept of
thinking tens of thousands of years ahead. They point out:
"hey, this black guy is not a bad guy, he's nice. So why should
he leave? Let him stay." Very few people have the need or the
capability to think some centuries ahead.

> Ethnic groups and nationalities are, by contrast, very young, and their
> lifespans much more limited. A race can pass through many different
> national identities in its lifetime. The Nordish race has existed in the
> form of many nationalities and ethnic groups over the millennia and its
> future, if it has a future, will probably see many new ethnic or
> national manifestations. Therefore it somewhat devalues or cheapens the
> concept of racial rights to present a claim to ethnic rights in the same
> terms, suggesting that they are equal or even similar, when they are
> not.

Well, this "volksnationalist" I corresponded with recently,
pointed out something which I more or less agree with him: each
level of humanity is important: race, family, nation, and race.
Of course, these levels should not be confused, or thought of as
"more or less the same on another scale", and I do indeed agree
with you that race is the most important, because it is not only
a quantity of several million people but in fact the "stuff" of
which we are made. Nevertheless I think that "nationality" is
important, but not in any of its present-day manifestations.

> People can shed or change their nationality, and many do. They
> can't change their race. Unlike race, nationality is not physical or
> material, not physically or materially real. It is a product of memes,
> not genes.

In a healthy situation I think that all northerners should feel
part of the Pannordic nation, and within that, of their English,
German, Swedish, Morth-American, or Dutch nation. This
"small-nationalism" should not be in conflict with the Pannordic
nationalism, but each should rather be one typical manifestation
of it.

> Please never let anyone equate your racial position, or mine, with
> Nazism. The term "Nazism" is of course an abbreviation of nationalism,
> not racism. I define my position as racial preservationism. Nazism was
> not racial preservationism. The Nordish peoples who fought against
> Nazism were not fighting against racial preservationism, against the
> continued existence of their race. At least that is not what they
> believed, or were told they were fighting against, and to suggest now
> that such was the case would be an historical falsehood of enormous
> scale and a shocking surprise to surviving veterans, whose sense of
> shock would probably be exceeded only by their sense of betrayal.

Yes, this is one of the things that has taken place here very
much. The anti-Nazism has really been absorbed by the racial
nihilists, and by communists in general. Not that I confuse
racial preservationism with fascism (with which it really has
not much to do), but there has also been a fascist resistance
group in Nederland, which seems to be totally erased from the
public consciousness.

It is too bad Nazism attracts many racial conscious people - I
have also been attracted by it, and still am in some way, but it
certainly is NOT a means to accomplish anything now. There were
some inherently wrong things within Nazism, but many of its vices
were brought into by opportunists I think. Your analysis (I
think in DoA) that it was an antithesis of communism is very
right, I believe. It behaved and was shaped much like the
communist parties that existed in many countries during that
era. Yet, it has never been a real doctrine, and I think that
there were, and still are, people among the national socialists
who are not bad or stupid, but who more or less bet on the wrong
horse. I once met a South African fellow, who sometimes wrote on
the Internet. He was an admirer of your 1st and 2nd book,
but he seemed almost offended by the Charter of Racial Rights,
which he though of as "almost liberal". To my remark that this
was one of its strengths, he only reacted with an indignant
facial expresion... Because we didn't have much time, I left
this discussion for what it was. I feel somewhat sorry about
this now (btw, this fellow was an NS sympathizer). Anyway, my
point is, that within the "racial-preservationist movement", if
we can assume there is one, there is no real consensus of what
our primary goal should be, and how we should strive toward it.

> The chapter/essay "Right and Wrong Racism" is a rebuttal of the reductionist
> thinking that equates "Nazism," or any other kind of immoral racism,
> with racial preservationism. Of course, most people don't know that
> racial preservationism exists, the only forms of racism they've been
> told about are the immoral forms. The only form of opposition to
> multiracialism they know about is the immoral form, now commonly equated
> with Nazism, so they reflexively equate opposition to multiracialism
> with Nazism. We need to let them know there are other choices and other
> alternatives besides Nazism and multiracialism.

Yes, this is indeed very important! But national socialism often
has an almost religious meaning to those people. I think your
books have the potential to compete with that, but it will take
time before your variety of racial-preservationism will become a
movement in itself.

> I'm attaching a scan of the cover of the Fall, 1993 special issue of
> "Time" magazine on the racial transformation of America.

Very deceptive indeed! If I had to guess, I would not even have
regarded her as a non-European; maybe an Italian, or a 1/4
Indonesian or so... Anyway, on a small scale, nothing to worry
about...

> Of course, what the photo of this face doesn't show us is all the other faces, the
> diversity and variety of faces, especially the Nordish faces, that will
> be lost, never to be seen again, as they are replaced by the faces of
> this racial type.

Very impotant point! But even to such arguments an internalized
"political correctness" shows up often, is my experience. People
say genocidal things like "but I think dark hair is nicer than
blond anyway" (even if they are blond themselves) and are
shocked and insulted when I tell them this is a genocidal
thought.

> Notice how the subtext on the "Time" cover
> describes America as becoming the world's first multicultural society.
> (What about Brazil? The cover photo looks very Brazilian to me.) Part of
> the fog of ignorance we need to dispel in America is the false
> perception that this multiracialist transformation is happening only to
> us.

I have indeed noticed on several occasions that U.S. Citizens
think that Europe is composed of "whites only" countries... On
discussion boards, racialist are told to "get back to Europe" if
they don't want to live in a "multi-racial" society. I don't
think the conglomerate of the largest Dutch cities, including
Amsterdam and Rotterdam, and a.k.a. the Randstad, is less
racially diverse as L.A. or New York. Maybe the number of
Northerners is somewhat higher here too, but not much I think. (I
have no statistics, and these would be incorrect anyway. It was
in the news some weeks ago that it is estimated that there are
abou 100,000 illegal aliens here. These people were discussed
from a "what can we do for them" angle, instead of a "how can we
get them out of here a.s.a.p" one!).

> I'm also attaching a photo of the poster of a mulatto girl that was
> posted around the Stockholm area to advertise this year's midsummer
> festival at Skansen park. It is from my Stockholm correspondent that I
> mentioned in my previous e-mail. Disturbing and disheartening to be sure
> (it greatly disturbed him), but still more valuable evidence of the true
> consequences of multiracialism.

Yes, I've seen it too. I think it shows how difficult our task is: I cannot deny that
this girl looks sweet, and it not easy to explain to people what
is wrong with her being in Sweden. Again, it's a mater of
thinking some decades, and even centuries, ahead.

Richard McCulloch's reply:

I'm not surprised that in the Netherlands the magazine Elsevier is considered right-wingish, an organ of the classical liberals who favor the gobalist-capitalist one-world vision of a free trade regime without borders, i.e., with no obstruction to the movement of goods, capital or people (i.e., the movement of alien racial elements into the Nordish homelands and the movement of production out of the Nordish countries into low-wage countries). The Republican party in the U.S., the supposed representatives of "conservatism," preaches the same vision. It is, of course, racial nihilist to the core, the antithesis of racial preservationism. Racial interests are simply not recognized as a legitimate concern. Everything is presented in the material terms of economics and finance, to which golden calf the Nordish race is being sacrificed. Obviously, such right-wingism offers no opposition to the Nordish destruction sought by the left, although its racial nihilism is more implicit than explicit and thus more hypocritical.

To those who respond to your Nordish preservationist message with such quasi-genocidal remarks as "but I think dark hair is nicer than blond anyway" you should make it clear that you are not just talking about a single Nordish racial trait, but a race as a whole with all its traits, the people who are under that hair and all their traits, not just their hair color. You should correct their apparent misconception by informing them that about half of the Nordish race has dark hair (possibly including those whose hair they think is nicer than blond). Mention some favorable examples of the Nordish race, either a celebrity or, better, an attractive Nordish adult or child who is within view. Ask them if they really want Nordish men, women and children to no longer exist, to become extinct or nonexistent. If so why? What is the justification for this act of racial destruction that lessens the diversity of humanity? What compelling reason or purpose does it serve? Is not the earth big enough for all the varieties of humanity to have a home on it where they can continue to exist and share the earth together in the future as they have for many thousands of years before the recent overturning of the natural racial order? Why must the Nordish race lose its homelands to other races and thereby lose the conditions it requires for its continued existence? If they invoke the oneness dream of one-world and one-race, with the elimination of racial differences and different races, tell them that the earth, with its many diverse, varied and geographically separated enviroments, is ideally designed to create and sustain diversity and variety, not uniformity, and that the Nordish part of that diversity and variety will be lost unless there is a restoration of the former state of racial separation that is required for its preservation.

Of course, as I've often said before, remarks such as the one above, which implicitly or explicitly acknowledge that the Nordish race is being destroyed by multiracialism, are usually not made by members of the official power structure or the mainstream media. Their typical response is to ignore, evade or deny this issue, to portray it as a paranoid delusion and vilify those who raise it as mentally ill. This is also the view of the conformist masses, those lacking the ability or courage to see the issue in wide-scale and long-range terms, restricting their sight to the short and narrow view, hoping to find safety and comfort in blindness. It is thus somewhat frustrating that when we do encounter someone who acknowledges the destructive consequences of multiracialism for the Nordish race they are so often someone who expresses support for this destruction.

A growing part of our problem, which we increasingly encounter when our point that multiracialism will destroy the Nordish race is accepted, is the devaluation of the Nordish race that is employed to justify its destruction with the argument that it is of no value anyway so there is no legitimate reason to oppose its destruction. When a call for Nordish preservation is met with such remarks as the one above (about preferring dark hair anyway), or any remark which belittles or demeans Nordish traits, claiming they are of little value, worth or importance and thus not worth preserving, it is an example of devaluing the Nordish race. Of course, it has long been, and still is, an unfortunate practice of many Nordish racists to devalue other races, to deny their value, worth or importance and portray them as inferior, often as the justification or rationale for either opposing multiracialism or for supporting Nordish racial supremacism, i.e., rule over other races. What we are now seeing is part of that uniquely Nordish phenomenon, central to our problem, of the Nordish race being turned against itself, against its own most vital and compelling interests, and accepting and promoting its own devaluation, engaging in self-devaluation, the denial that its racial traits and identity are of any value or importance or worth preserving. Also, except in the most extreme cases, Nordish racists who devalue other races have not and do not typically advocate or support the destruction or extinction of the other races, and do not use that devaluation as a justification for such destruction.

I agree with your observation that the short-term and limited mentality, which is unable to comprehend the destructive long-term consequences of multiracialism or the enormous scale of the destruction that is occurring, is a major part of our problem in fostering awareness of our situation. It is simply too big for many people to grasp. Referring to recent events (the JFK Jr. plane crash), they can grasp the reality of a plane crashing in the ocean and three valuable lives being destroyed, and they can mourn that loss and wish it had been prevented, but they seem unable to grasp the reality of an entire race of several hundred million people (the race to which those three people belonged) being destroyed, and are unable to mourn or care about that loss and unwilling to prevent it. Conformism and the blind faith acceptance of what they are told by authority figures, i.e., the multiracialist power structure in the media, academia and government, is another problem. You hint at still another problem -- fear. People are afraid to agree with our view that the Nordish race is endangered and/or that action should be taken to preserve it by restoring the natural condition of racial separation required for its preservation. What is the cause or nature of that fear? In my more recent work I haven't attempted to examine or analyze the deep psychological sources of motivation to nearly the same extent as I did in my first book. Yet this is a rich field for research which we should develop more fully, and certainly will be developed if our movement successfully expands. But I think the fear is largely one of fear of association, of being associated with beliefs, opinions, ideas or values that are vilified as evil and mentally ill by the mainstream culture, and most specifically the fear of being associated in any way with Nazism.

Unfortunately, the definition of Nazism has now been implicitly expanded to include any love for the Nordish race, concern for its well-being or support for its interests, regardless how basic, legitimate and vital those interests might be. Thus although the mainstream culture doesn't explicitly equate racial preservationism with Nazism, it simply refuses to recognize racial preservationism for what it is, denying its reality, and implicitly confuses or equates it with Nazism. This is the extremist reductionism which refuses to admit the existence of alternatives other than the extremes. Of course, many millions of people were members of the Nazi party, and the great majority of them were good and decent people who agreed with its official policies of German national revival and betterment. The evil of Nazism that the Allies fought against was its aggressive conquest and subjugation of other nations, i.e., its violation of the rights of other nations and races. The Allies were not fighting against the legitimate interests of the German people, against their continued existence and control of their existence, at least not officially or in principle, and they certainly were not fighting against the preservation of the Nordish race, including the many Nordish countries the German Nationalist government conquered and subjugated and/or the many Nordish countries who resisted and fought against it and ultimately defeated it. What has twisted and distorted the perception of Nazism so that it is now -- unofficially and implicitly, but very effectively -- identified with support for legitimate Nordish racial interests, including continued existence, and opposition to vital Nordish interests is now identified with opposition to Nazism? The prevailing misuse or abuse of the Holocaust by the multiracialist and racial nihilist power structure, misusing it to justify the denial and violation of the most legitimate, vital and compelling racial interests, in actual effect to justify the genocide of the indigenous races of northern and central Europe, is certainly a large part of the answer, perhaps the largest part. This distortion has reached the point where any advocacy of legitimate and vital Nordish rights and interests, including its preservation, is represented as the equivalent of advocating the genocide of non-Nordish races. But an assisting role has also been played by many of those who are the supposed champions of Nordish interests, who combine those interests with neo-Nazi or pseudo-Nazi ideology and a lack of respect for the legitimate rights and interests of other races.

Regarding racial-nationalism, ethnic-nationalism or volks-nationalism, I personally think it only serves to confuse the issue, to bring in a lot of extra baggage not really relevant to our cause, to create a sort of package deal that includes many distracting and divisive issues along with the fundamental issue of racial preservation, thereby diluting our message and giving people many reasons to oppose us that are not really related to what should be our fundamental purpose. Most of the movements and groups that use the term nationalist to describe themselves are not racially oriented, and many see any concern for racial interests, i.e., any form of racialism, including racial preservationism, as their enemy. Recent events remind me of how the Kennedy family in the U.S. has long embraced and been embraced by the forces of Irish nationalism while promoting policies destructive of the most vital interests of the Nordish race as a whole, which of course includes the Irish nation. Many so-called nationalist groups in the U.S. are proudly "trans-racial," promoting the interests of the multiracial anti-nation against the most vital interests of their race. Nationalism has become another method of divide and conquer, or divide and destroy, being used much more to divide, distract, confuse, weaken and harm the Nordish race than to promote its real interests. Is it any wonder why I lack enthusiasm for it?

Regards,

Richard McCulloch

July 22, 1999

_______________________________________________

Subject: Elsevier

Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 21:02:30 +0200
From: A correspondent in the Netherlands
To: archon@racialcompact.com

Dear Mr. McCulloch,

It took a while, but I finally got that Elsevier
cover for you.

Well, here it is, and from the article the same photograph with
the sources they used to compose it. (Elsevier_kaaskop1.JPEG)

I copied the article too, but I haven't had time to translate
it, and I see no reason too, unless you'd really like to read
it. In a nutshell, it describes the story og the racial decay of
the Netherlands, although in the predictable, well-known
"positive" way. It says that about an estimated 13% of all
marriages in 1992 was between a white and a non-white partner,
and the number of mongrel kids is estimated at 800,000 (!). It
is stated that about 15% of the Dutch natives already have
Indonesian blood (what I doubt - if so, then Indonesian genes
are apparently just as recessive as Nordish), and that in several
generations nobody will notice the coming race mixing anymore
(Well, they are probably right with that last assumption - if we
can't stop it, that is).

There is some shocking, but if you think about it, in a strange
way comforting description of a negro boy: ' He only takes white
girls to "have some fun". The past revives, mirrored: "They are
so eager, they are much easier than black girls", he says. But I
won't marry any of them. I don't want to be a sell-out, who lets
his race become extinct. Race to race." '

Race to race. Well, they are not that bad after all.

Then there are some appraisals of multi-racialism by
celebrities, followed by the accounts of the hybrid "Dutch"
themselves, who deal with prejudice from both their white and
their "coloured" ancestors.

Time magazine is quoted, although not extensively, and the
quoted issue isn't mentioned.

Well, as both the city in which I live, and my very own
neighbourhood are getting darker at fast pace, I am playing with
the thought of migrating to Scandinavia. Just playing though, as
I am not at all in a financial position to do so, and besides,
this IS my country. Yet, as you will very well understand, it
does worry me much, especially after reading this article. But
still, I hope for a recovery. Not all people are infected with
racial nihilism.

About racial nihilism, I am thinking of making some "special"
about it on the Towards Pannordica web site (which, btw, has
been restyled; I dropped much of the kitschy gothic print which
slowed the downloading of the site too much. It looks better now
I think). I want to use that discussion you mailed me, and
several photographs. Maybe you can help with this; I'll let you
know when I've set up the first version of it.

Btw. as you'll probably know, "Kaaskop", cheese-head, is some
old-fashioned slang for Dutch native.

Richard McCulloch's reply:

I agree with you that one figure does seem implausible -- the estimate that 800,000 Dutch children have one white and one colored parent. There are only about 4 million people in the Netherlands under the age of 21. The above figure would mean that 20% of Dutch children are first-generation racially-mixed, in addition to the children who are all-colored. I find that very hard to believe. I suspect some intentional exaggeration here for some deceptive purpose.

It's also interesting that although the percentage of immigrants in European countries, including the Netherlands, has long been routinely given as 5%, fully 13% of the marriages in 1992 were mixed. Since many immigrants presumably marry members of their own race, this figure means that immigrants were involved in over 13% of the total marriages. This would indicate that either they have a higher rate of marriage, or they are over 13% of the population of marriageable age. Also, this figure seems to contradict the claim in the previous paragraph. How could 20% of the children in the Netherlands be racially mixed if only 13% of the marriages are racially mixed, and presumably much less than 13% were racially mixed in earlier years, when many of those children were born? What is the rate of illegitimate births? If it is very high, and the majority of them racially mixed, it would raise the percentage, yet for 20% of Dutch children to be first-generation racially mixed, in addition to the children who are all colored, would indicate a rate of racial intermixture far beyond my highest estimate even for a population where the Nordish and colored populations were about equal in number, and I assume that the Netherlands is still over 85% Nordish at the least.

When I was there in 1993 my impression was that the proportion of non-Europeans was much lower outside of the big cities. I could easily believe the above percentages for Amsterdam, but not for the country as a whole.

Regards,

Richard McCulloch

August 24, 1999

________________________________________________

Subject: Nihilism etc.
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 14:22:41 +0200
From: A correspondent in the Netherlands
To: archon@racialcompact.com

Dear Mr McCulloch,

Thanks for reassuring me about those numbers! As the
neighbourhood in which I live has rapidly become an
immigrant-hood, I easily accepted these numbers.

I live in a suburb [of a major Dutch city]. When I came to
live here, it wasn't exactly Beverly Hills, but it was a quiet,
over 90% white neighbourhood. Nearby was one of the oldest
congoid areas of the Netherlands, with many negros from Surinam
and the Antillian Islands there even before 1975. Because the
decay was getting such proportions that even the government
could not ignore it anymore, they broke down the whole
area, and redistributed the population. Now, at least half of
the people on the streets in my part of town are congoids.
In addition, there are also other non-whites, some of which I
cannot relate to any part of the world (these probably come from
areas where a lot of race mixing already has taken place).

Before my house, btw, there are two concrete garbage containers,
in which citizens can throw their garbage which is collected
every Thursday. These garbage containers have become the
hang-out spot for the racial nihilist kids of the neighborhood
- the racial nihilist dream: kids of all races "playing" there
together, and playing means making a lot of noise, drinking bear
and smoking dope. I wish I could send you a photograph of them -
they are a great metaphore for a doomed future, sitting on those
garbage containers - but I think it's unethical to take a
picture of them.

> Interesting that the negro boy is worried about the extinction of his
> race from intermixture. The negroes in the U.S. have never seemed to
> worry about that.

Most negroes here don't do either I think. Besides, both in the
genetic and in the social concept of race, most people silently
agree that a mulatto is a negro. The congoid genes are dominant,
and often they are accepted among the negro population as one of
them. Most of the congoids in both the U.S. and the Netherlands
will probably have some Europid genes - they are a hybridized
group of people.

Btw, I was recently chatting with some articulate pro-race
mixing negro, who really made a big deal of "all negros carrying
Indian genes", which would make the blacks the rightful owners
of the U.S.! This is ridiculous of course, but his reasoning was
funny: "Only a few Indians some centuries ago", he reasoned,
"could have spread their genes over more than 90% of the blacks
in America". When I remarked that they also had Europid genes,
probably more than Indian, which would make them the offspring
of slave-owners and thus partly responsible for it (according to
his principle of original sin which he applied to Whites), he
answered that, because White genes are recessive, this didn't
count.

One thing else about negros, is that most of them don't seem to
have a concept of family life. Black "families" are often a
single mother, having about 5 kids of 3, 4 or 5 different
fathers. Black men often have kids with more than one woman.
This apllies to "our" negroes, but as far as I know, this is also
true of negroes in the U.S. This gives them a high
"miscegenation-risk." Turks and other immigrants, are far more
reluctant to racial intermarriages.

Alas, from a racial-nihilist point of view, the negro is most
suited for interbreeding. What the Proletarian was for the
socialists, the Negro is for the racial nihilists - a Freed Man:
Christ relived, as it were. "This time, we won't allow him to
be crucified". These two things (the negro attitude towards
mating, and their prominent role in racial nihilist religion),
i.m.o., account for most of the interracial couples being
negro-nordic. I seldom see whites with Turks, or other
immigrants, Indonesians excepted (btw, I am not sure I agree
with your Scale of Northern European Racial Assimilability where
you state that Armenids and Orientalids get lower numbers then
East-Asians).

Well, I hope I haven't bored you with these elaborations.

Richard McCulloch's reply:

Thanks for your "elaborations." I found them most interesting.

I'm somewhat surprised by your question about Armenids and Orientalids having lower numbers on my scale of Nordish racial assimilability than East Asians, indicating that they are more assimilable by the Nordish race than are East Asians.averageisdestiny.html

Genetically speaking, the Nordish race is of course much more closely related to the Armenids and Orientalids than to the East Asians, being part of the same Caucasian subspecies.

Phenotypically speaking, I have seem numerous examples of persons half-Nordish and the other half Armenid or East Asian and many of the former are very Nordish, or at least near-Nordish, in phenotype, while the latter are clearly part Asian and usually predominantly Asian in phenotype. Of course, the great majority of Armenids in the U.S. and Europe are Ashkenazic Jews. Examples of half-Jewish celebrities who are of Nordish racial type, although their Jewish ancestry was presumably largely of Armenid racial type, include Harrison Ford, Gwyneth Paltrow, Goldie Hawn and Catherine Oxenberg. By contrast, actress Nancy Kwan from the 1950s and 1960s was half Nordish and half Chinese, and was represented as pure Chinese to audiences during her career, with no suspicions to the contrary, and can be regarded as typical with regard to phenotypical dominance in such a mixture. I've seen many offspring of Nordish and East Asian parents, and the latter is usually predominant in the phenotype, often to the point that the Nordish element is not really noticeable unless it's brought to one's attention. Some of the Eurasian women I've seen have been very attractive, looking like an idealized version of East Asian feminine beauty (to Nordish eyes) that has been subtly altered or modified by the Nordish mixture into something that is pleasing to Nordish tastes in an exotic way yet still strangely familiar rather than alien, but to Nordish eyes they still look East Asian.

Regards,

Richard McCulloch

August 26, 1999

__________________________________________

Subject: Re: re elaborations
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 17:03:53 +0200
From: A correspondent in the Netherlands
To: archon@racialcompact.com

Richard McCulloch wrote:

> I'm somewhat surprised by your question about Armenids and Orientalids
> having lower numbers on my scale of Nordish racial assimilability than
> East Asians, indicating that they are more assimilable by the Nordish
> race than are East Asians.

Thanks for your explanations on this subject; I am not fully
convinced yet, but I am willing to accept that this is due to
some distorted perspective I have on both East-Asians and
Armenids.

To East-Asians, I might, to some degree have undergone the
process you call "domestication". In my early youth (maybe when
I was 4 or 5 years old), my parents had some Indonesian friends
(in fact, if I remember well, people from mixed Chinese,
Indonesian and Dutch ancestry). Indonesians were the first
visible Non-Nordics to arrive in Nederland, and most of them
were already "Nederlandicized" in Indonesia, which most probably
had been the reason they didn't want to stay there after it
became an independent nation. The assimilation (in a cultural
and social, but in cases also a biological sense) of these
people had already begun in Indonesia. Though it might indeed be
true that East-Indians are less compatible with Nordish people
than are Armenids, it is a fact that this assimilation has
already taken place, and to such a degree that people with some
Indonesian ancestry are accepted as genuine Dutch, even (as far
as I know) by right-wing nationalist/racist groups. Due to the
limited number of Indonesians, I don't think this will indeed,
result in an alteration of the Dutch Nordic after some
generations (if there will still be a Dutch Nordic after some
generations). The Elsevier article, did however suggest that it
already has.

Btw, I recently read somewhere on the WWW, that the last flag
parade of the COJCC/AN (Richard Butler's "Aryan Nations"),
included two Amerindians -Mongoloids- who were
apparently accepted as "White". Of course, this accepting of
Amerindians as "White" might have a strategical reason, just
like that negro claiming 90% of all African Americans had
Amerinindian ancestry - "our people were her first".

>Some of the Eurasian women I've seen have been very
>attractive, looking like an idealized version of East Asian feminine
>beauty (to Nordish eyes) that has been subtly altered or modified by the
>Nordish mixture into something that is pleasing to Nordish tastes in an
>exotic way yet still strangely familiar rather than alien, but to
>Nordish eyes they still look East Asian.

This also plays a part in it, I think. Btw, I think that most
so-called "beautiful half-blooded women" are beautiful BECAUSE
of their Nordic features., indeed in an exotic way, and not
because of their Non-nordic features.

Towards Armenids, most present here as Turks, I have always had
some reservations, to say the least. I won't elaborate on this.
However, I must indeed admit, when I think about it, that I have
seen some children of couples that were mixed Turkish-Dutch,
that looked fairly Nordish, or Nordish-Alpine. But maybe my
equating of Armenids with Turks is not correct. Turks are a
mixed people, a mix of -I guess- Alpine, Armenid, Turanid and
even Tungid elements, and maybe even some Nordic (Kemal Atatürk,
as far as I know, had blond hair and light blue eyes!).

Richard McCulloch's reply:

You've mentioned several times growing legal restrictions in the Netherlands and elsewhere in Europe on the expression of pro-racial views. Do you know of any source on the web that discusses those restrictions and gives examples of what type of views are considered illegal to express?

This is of course a cause for great concern. During WWII the allies endorsed Roosevelt's famous "Four Freedoms" as the essence of what they were fighting for. Two of those freedoms were freedom of belief and freedom of expression. Now it seems that a dark night is falling upon Europe and those freedoms are being sacrificed to prevent any challenge to the ongoing process of multiracialism and its destructive consequences for the European peoples.

Regards,

Richard McCulloch

January 27, 2000

_______________________________________________

Subject: Re: web site
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 23:55:04 +0100
From: A correspondent in the Netherlands
To: archon@racialcompact.com

Dear Mr. McCulloch,

Richard McCulloch wrote:

> You've mentioned several times growing legal restrictions in the
> Netherlands and elsewhere in Europe on the expression of pro-racial
> views. Do you know of any source on the web that discusses those
> restrictions and gives examples of what type of views are considered
> illegal to express?

I got most of my info on this from usenet discussion, which I,
unfortunately, haven't saved.
Another source is the web site "Meldpunt Politieke Correctheid"
(http://huizen.dds.nl/~mosely/), an anti-political correctness
parody on the "Meldpunt Discriminatie Internet"
(http://www.magenta.nl/mdi/)

The last is a project, run by the Stichting Magenta / Magenta
foundation, which is a racial-nihilist organization with close
ties to the Anne Frank foundation. This "Meldpunt Discriminatie
Internet" actually encourages citizens to report cases of
(racial) discrimination to them, and they take these to the
authorities. Article one of our constitution forbids any form of
discrimination on any ground.

(This article one is a result from the "Verzuiling"
("pillarization"), the long-time situation in the Netherlands in
which society was divided up into a Catholic and several
Potestant-Christian "pillars". Later, there arose also
social-democratic and communist pillars. These classic pillars
have now largely gone, but the pillar-model has become a
blueprint for the multi-cultural society.)

This "Meldpunt Politieke Correctheid" does not share our point
of view, however. They are anti-multicultural, not anti-race
mixing (they are not pro either, they just don't mention it).
They sympathize with libertarianism and are thus against any
governmental interference.

Whatever their background may be, their web site features a
number of useful articles in which one can read that even some
legislation professors think things have gone too far with
regards to the prosecution of racists and right wingers. Our
most infamous right-wing politician (of whom I, incidentally, do
not think highly at all) got a sentence for just saying: "If I
was in power, I would abolish the multi-cultural society". The
judge interpreted this as "So, you are against equal treatment
of immigrants, and so, by openly saying this, you violated our
constitution."

> This is of course a cause for great concern. During WWII the allies
> endorsed Roosevelt's famous "Four Freedoms" as the essence of what they
> were fighting for. Two of those freedoms were freedom of belief and
> freedom of expression. Now it seems that a dark night is falling upon
> Europe and those freedoms are being sacrificed to prevent any challenge
> to the ongoing process of multiracialism and its destructive
> consequences for the European peoples.

Indeed. We have been able to see this in the last few days, when
the entire European community, as well as the US, threatened
Austria with all sorts of sanction if Haiders FPOe would become
part of a coalition. Let us hope these are the spastic motions
of a political establishment which feels its end may be near.
Not that I would expect immediate redemption from a populist and
old-school-nationalist as Haider, but of course he would be much
more favourable of the ethics of the racial compact than any of
the present political "ideologies" we know in Europe at present.

Do you have any idea which of the U.S. presidental candidates
would do least harm to our cause? I'd say McCain, but I am, of
course, by no means versed in American politics. The other seem
more harmful than this reaganite veteran.

Richard McCulloch's reply:

Presidential candidate Senator McCain and his wife have an adopted daughter of mixed-race ancestry. This fact has not been well advertised but I think it indicates 1.) that they are tender-hearted and 2.) that they are either unaware of the magnitude of the danger to their race, or that they don't care, or that they are a willing part of that danger. Because of the possibilities inherent in #2 I think that McCain could do a great deal of harm to the cause of Nordish racial preservation.

I think the reaction of the international anti-Nordish establishment to the rise of the FPOe in Austria is that of a ruthless, intolerant and monolithic tyranny to a perceived challenge to its complete dominance. I think Haider's challenge is a tepid one, and does not really go to the heart of the matter -- i.e., the ultimate issue of Nordish (indeed, European) racial preservation and independence -- but it has been sufficient to induce a wave of hysteria to repress it. No dissent from the multiracialist destruction of the Nordish race, or anything else which might question, slow or impede the process, can be permitted. What the reaction has done is cause the power structure to reveal itself, its agenda, and its nature more openly and clearly than we have seen before at this level. Even I have been surprised. We can only hope that this will open more eyes.

I know very little about the FPOe and its message. It is described in the press here as "anti-immigrant," not as pro-Austrian. It is central to our problem that the rights and interests of our race are never considered, no matter how vital they may be, as if they don't exist or are of no importance or significance, but that every issue is defined in terms of the rights and interests of other races, no matter how non-vital they may be, as if all existence is centered around them, they are the source and cause of all motivation and only they are important. Our physical nonexistence in the future is preceded by the nonexistence of our most vital rights and interests in the present.

Best regards,

Richard

Feb 6, 2000

_________________________________________

Subject: Several Issues
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 01:42:46 +0100
From: A correspondent in the Netherlands
To: archon@racialcompact.com

Dear Mr. McCulloch,

Richard McCulloch wrote:

> Presidential candidate Senator McCain and his wife have an adopted
> daughter of mixed-race ancestry. This fact has not been well advertised
> but I think it indicates 1.) that they are tender-hearted and 2.) that
> they are either unaware of the magnitude of the danger to their race, or
> that they don't care, or that they are a willing part of that danger.
> Because of the possibilities inherent in #2 I think that McCain could do
> a great deal of harm to the cause of Nordish racial preservation.

I'm sorry to hear this. Nevertheless, I can't imagine George W.
Bush would be better, not to mention Al Gore. How's Pat Buchanan
doing? He is with the reform party now, and they never seem to
get media attention, so I don't think he has a change. Of all
the presidential candidates I "know", I think he would be
relatively best for our cause (I'm sure he will have some token
negro acquaintances, but I'll bet even David Duke has some).

> I think the reaction of the international anti-Nordish establishment to
> the rise of the FPOe in Austria is that of a ruthless, intolerant and
> monolithic tyranny to a perceived challenge to its complete dominance.

I agree!

> I think Haider's challenge is a tepid one, and does not really go to the
> heart of the matter -- i.e., the ultimate issue of Nordish (indeed,
> European) racial preservation and independence --

You are right about that, but that would be fairly impossible as
things are now.
I don't know about Austria, but in the Netherlands the first
article of our constitution is something like "it's forbidden to
discriminate by race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.", and
this takes precedence over freedom of speech (I wouldn't even
know if your and Mr. Robertson's books could be published here).
So, a direct approach to the matter of racial destruction would
require a change in the constitution, for which a 2/3 majority
in parliament is necessary. So, nationalist parties in Europe
(most countries have a similar legislation; I think England is
the most eh... liberal [in it's original meaning of
"free-minded"] in this respect) have to base their message on
"cultural identity" and similar concepts.

Apart from the legal issue (but of course interwoven with it),
there is the fact that there is a moral tabu on race (in which
Europe does not differ that much from the U.S.) and also a
historic lack of racial terminology (in which I think Europe
differs from the U.S.): I'm sure you have read Orwell's 1984. In
that society the government tries to eliminate words with which
people could express unwanted thoughts. The racial nihilists are
now working on a similar project for Western Civilization
("human races don't exist"). I think in Europe they have had
more favourable circumstances for this than in the U.S. Europe
has traditionally never been a multiracial society (of course,
according to a more refined system of classification, such as
yours, this is not true - in a lot of countries live closely
related, partly blended, races. But in the laymen's eye, Europe
was the White race's land.) Before race became a non-subject due
to the Nazi abuse of it, Europeans only used racial terminology
to describe the exotic worlds called "the Colonies", not a
real-life situation at home. The colonies were lost, and so was
the only situation in which Europeans spoke about races.
Meanwhile, the tabu on race became more tight and by the time
the Great Third World Immigration had came in motion, it was
impossible to openly speak about it as a racial happening - race
was a non-subject.

In the U.S. has existed a situation in which race has always
remained a topic. Even nowadays, negros often refer to
themselves as "Blacks" - this is a racial term, and there is an
implicit racial consciousness in this. Which keeps "race" on the
agenda.

Taken these three things in account (legislation, tabu, lack of
proper and neutral terminology) a racially conscious European
politician with the ambition to become elected, had better avoid
the race issue than straightforward address it.

Remarkable is that the former Communist countries have remained
the most folkish-nationalist (which is not the same as racial
preservation, but both are forms of ethnocentrism and are not
exclusive of eachother). It is a paradox that the system which
has been heroified by many racial nihilists in the West
(including the U.S.), actually has never given rise to racial
nihilism on such a scale as we now experience here. The end of
the cold war, the fall of (most of) the communist regimes left
their admirers empty-handed. One of the pillars of their
narcisist Good Samaritan spirituality, The Opponent Which Should
Be Treated As A Friend, has fallen away, and they seem to have
found a substitute in the Non-White. By the way, did you know
that Communist China's occupation of Tibet, is approved of and
defended by some "anti-racists" here? As both Chinese and
Tibetans are humans, they reason, it would be a form of racism
to see them as Chinese or Tibetans - "They are humans, no more,
no less". They also claim that the Chinese freed the Tibetans of
a theocratic dictator and compare the Dalai Lama to Ayatollah
Khomeini of the Islamic Republic of Iran in it's early days.

> but it has been sufficient to induce a wave of hysteria to repress it. No dissent from
> the multiracialist destruction of the Nordish race, or anything else
> which might question, slow or impede the process, can be permitted. What
> the reaction has done is cause the power structure to reveal itself, its
> agenda, and its nature more openly and clearly than we have seen before
> at this level. Even I have been surprised. We can only hope that this
> will open more eyes.

It seems to have done so. In the Netherlands it has stirred the
whole discussion on immigration and the "multicultural society".
Too bad the only options mentioned are

a) multiculturalism and immigration are o.k. (this is the
leftwing view)

b) stop immigration. Immigrants should assimilate fully a.s.a.p.
(rightwing)

Alas, an option (c), remigration, is only held by some
marginally small nationalist parties.
Nevertheless, of the given options, (b) is the best, because it
holds the implicit rule "if they can't, they shouldn't get
citizenship", and the criteria of "who has assimilited" might be
manipulated in the future. (As I pointed out earlier, I see this
is a more realistic scenario than an explicit recognization of
the racial matter).

> I know very little about the FPOe and its message. It is described in
> the press here as "anti-immigrant," not as pro-Austrian.

Here, the magic word applied by the press is "extreme right".

The FPOe is not extreme right, they are more a kind a
conservative-liberal (whatever these words are worth these days)
moderately nationalist party. The fact that they attracted so
much attention, was not their program or slogans; as far as I
know, the Front National of Le Pen in France, is much more
direct ("extreme") in its message. Rather have Haider's
references to, what he saw as the good parts of the Third Reich
period, made him a figure watched by international
anti-fascists; a lot of "anti-immigrant" statements by the FPOe
have been perceived from a prejudiced view ("We know they are
fascists. Now let's find the evidence"). If he had never said
any of those things, I think there would be a lot less
commotion.

> It is central to our problem that the rights and interests of our race are never
> considered, no matter how vital they may be, as if they don't exist or
> are of no importance or significance, but that every issue is defined in
> terms of the rights and interests of other races, no matter how
> non-vital they may be, as if all existence is centered around them, they
> are the source and cause of all motivation and only they are important.

So it seems.

There seems to prevail a weird, masochist narcisism in the minds
of the Nordish racial nihilists - the altruist egalitarian
factor, as you desribed in TIaD [The Ideal and Destiny]. And, remarkably enough, an
implicit supremacism: the moral imperative for self-sacrifice is
only expected of Whites (Nordish), as if other people still
remain in prehistoric innocence. There is a sliding scale from
"die-hard" supremacists like Cecil Rhodes, via more human
supremacists like Rudolf Steiner and Christian missionaries, to
these modern-day "anti-racists." Those people should realize
that their attitude is in fact a form of supremacism, and that
we, separatists, have no part in their self-imposed "collective
White guilt".

> Our physical nonexistence in the future is preceded by the nonexistence
> of our most vital rights and interests in the present.

I hope your words will turn out to refer to an "if"- rather than
a "when"-situation...

Richard McCulloch's reply:

Re Pat Buchanan, if he does run on the Reform Party ticket he'll be very lucky to get even 10% of the vote. He just doesn't have any issue sufficiently compelling to threaten the de facto political monopoly of the two major parties.

You mention that the first article of the Dutch constitution forbids racial discrimination. This is interesting. Do you have an English translation of this article you can send me? When was it enacted? Before circa 1957 there really weren't different races in the Netherlands, so such an article would have been unnecessary as it would lack any raison d'être, unless its purpose was planned in advance to facilitate the multiracialization of the country. I wonder if it would be interpreted as forbidding racial preservationism, racial independence or racial rights. (On the subject of independence, I've recently seen Mel Gibson's movie "Braveheart" for the second time. The "freedom" he defiantly cries out for at the end is not personal or individual freedom or liberty, but freedom for his people, i.e., national independence. Henry Wallace could be seen as a hero for our principles.)

I agree with your observation that the peoples of Europe, due to their racial isolation before the 1950s, are lacking in the terminology to address racial issues compared to America. I think the several centuries of experience with the Congoid people in their midst also provided Nordish-Americans with a greater degree of racial awareness and somewhat stronger defenses against, or resistance or immunity to, racially destructive practices compared to Europeans. This explains why the process of racial destruction often seems to be occurring faster in Europe than in the U.S.

The phenomenon of "collective White guilt" that you mention -- the Nordish race against itself -- is of course central to the tragedy now overtaking our race. It has pre-empted any effective resistance. The motives of our people for opposing the most vital and fundamental rights and interests of their race are something we need to try to understand. I think conformism (including indoctrination and "brainwashing" through education and the culture in general) is a large part of the explanation. I certainly hope so, as this would allow the hope that they can wake from their trance and see the light if we can get the right message to them. Our task would be almost hopeless if the reason for their racial treason is some innate flaw or destructive impulse within themselves that no external influences can alter. I think natural selection would act against something that racially suicidal. But conformism is a very real and tremendously powerful force that has been constantly strengthened by natural selection and has now been turned against its intended purpose, being used for the destruction of their race rather than its preservation.

Regards,

Richard

Feb 27, 2000

_________________________________________

Subject: Re: re Several Matters
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 14:02:29 +0100
From: A correspondent in the Netherlands
To: archon@racialcompact.com

Dear Mr. McCulloch,

Richard McCulloch wrote:

> You mention that the first article of the Dutch constitution forbids
> racial discrimination. This is interesting. Do you have an English
> translation of this article you can send me?

I just looked for it at the web site of the Meldpunt
Discriminatie Internet, a racial nihilist organization dedicated
to reporting racists to the authorities.

They feature the law articles they base their actions on, but to
my surprise, Article 1 wasn't there. So I might be mistaken
about it. Nevertheless, they featured a bunch of law articles
with a similar content. (I will translate and send them to you
a.s.a.p.; I had wanted to do that now, but I see my time is
running out.)

> When was it enacted? Before circa 1957 there really weren't different races in the
> Netherlands, so such an article would have been unnecessary as it would lack any raison
> d'être, unless its purpose was planned in advance to facilitate the
> multiracialization of the country.

I think (but I haven't done any systematic research into this)
that originally religion was the real issue here. The birth of
the Kingdom of the Netherlands as a separate nation-state
occured in the time of the religious wars in Europe, between
Catholics and Protestants. Although the ruling classes of the
Netherlands were Protestants, they were "enlightened" and in
favor or religious freedom. In later times (I don't know when, I
suspect the late 60s or early 70s), this religious freedom was
expanded to race, gender and sexual orientation. I don't think
it was done so in advance on purpose. We must not underestimate,
but also not overestimate our enemy. A great deal of the problem
is short-sightedness rather than some conspiracy (I'm not
denying these anti-Nordish consirational tendencies do exist,
but I don't think they were influential enough back then).

> I wonder if it would be interpreted as forbidding racial preservationism, racial
> independence or racial rights.

I think very much so. I think judges, politicians and the
media would interpret a call for racial independence as a call
for deportation of non-whites. You'd probably get convicted,
and, to borrow an expression of Wilmot Robertson: it would
render you a one-way ticket to a social Siberia. (The lack of
racial terminology and racial identity I mentioned, add to this
- racism is considered evil. I recently even read an article in
a militant Dutch nationalist on-line e-zine in which racism was
considered as a pollution of nationalism - of course the people
in these circles are racists in deed, but apparently they are
trying not to be racists in word. Strangely enough, and sadly
enough, there seems to be an uneasy consensus among all groups
within Dutch (and European) society, that race should not be an
issue. The constitution which once provided spiritual freedom
for people and protected them from dogmatic religious
oppression, has now been perverted to a dogmatic oppression
itself, which prevents people to base their ethnical identity on
the biological basis of their existence.)

> (On the subject of independence, I've recently seen Mel Gibson's
> movie "Braveheart" for the second time. The "freedom" he defiantly cries
> out for at the end is not personal or individual freedom or liberty, but
> freedom for his people, i.e., national independence. Henry Wallace could be
> seen as a hero for our principles.)

Even a "lefties' heroe" like Mohandas Ghandi can be seen as a
nationalist separatist. What do you think of that? Could a
re-evaluation of Ghandi be helpful to our cause?

> I agree with your observation that the peoples of Europe, due to their
> racial isolation before the 1950s, are lacking in the terminology to
> address racial issues compared to America. I think the several centuries
> of experience with the Congoid people in their midst also provided
> Nordish-Americans with a greater degree of racial awareness and somewhat
> stronger defenses against, or resistance or immunity to, racially
> destructive practices compared to Europeans. This explains why the
> process of racial destruction often seems to be occurring faster in
> Europe than in the U.S.

Yes. "Race" in the U.S. also implies a concrete, ethnic group
within society. "Race" in the Netherlands (and probably more
European countries, although the U.K. might be an exception
because their is no language barriere with the U.S.) is rather
an abstraction - a feature of a person, like length, weight,
gender etc. And it is a feature of which "we all" agree that "it
doesn't count". The way we deal with the topic of race is
probably very similar to how people dealt with the subject of
sexuality in the Victorian age.

> The phenomenon of "collective White guilt" that you mention -- the
> Nordish race against itself -- is of course central to the tragedy now
> overtaking our race. It has pre-empted any effective resistance. The
> motives of our people for opposing the most vital and fundamental rights
> and interests of their race are something we need to try to understand.
> I think conformism (including indoctrination and "brainwashing" through
> education and the culture in general) is a large part of the explanation.
> I certainly hope so, as this would allow the hope that they can wake
> from their trance and see the light if we can get the right message to
> them. Our task would be almost hopeless if the reason for their racial
> treason is some innate flaw or destructive impulse within themselves
> that no external influences can alter.

In some cases the last may be true, but I think that indeed
conformism and an alien idealism are much to blame for it. And
some misplaced, tasteless romanticism that "Love can conquer any
bariere". Many people will regard an interracial relationship,
especially between a negro and a Nordic (btw, the Muslims here,
who are mainly Turks and Moroccons, are a fast-rising star in
the interracist pantheon of Martyrs), as the greatest triumph of
love over social limitations.

A friend of mine, who lives in Amsterdam, recently told me he
was now dating a woman who had two children of whom the father,
her ex-husband, was an immigrant from Nigeria (Besides this, he
was an alcoholic and, judging from the stories, a possible
mental patient - a great person to satisfy ones hyperaltruistic
needs with). I think my friend is quite distasteful in his
choice to date this woman, and I told him I am not interested in
ever meeting her. But maybe it would be an interesting case to
study, so maybe I'll change my mind on this.

I have met such girls on sevral occasions (mostly at my job, or
at the periphery of my social world), and I have in most cases
always felt there was something lacking in their personality, a
kind of emptiness I find difficult to describe. They often
proclaim a simplistic "love-all" world-view, and in addition, I
have noticed they seem to think in stereotypes - in other words:
they are prejudiced racists, but their racism doesn't lead them
to racial preservationism but rather to racial nihilism, as if
the "inevitable" should occur as soon as possible, better today
than tomorrow.

(In honesty, I must say that I now have one female colleague who
has a husband from Cabo Verde [I hope you know what I mean, I
don't know the correct English name], so I guess he is at least
partly a negro. Of this girl I cannot say other than that she is
a complete person, without the mentioned personality flaws. She
must be one of the few really "colorblind" people. Of course
such persons lack racial consciousness, but they don't seem
focused on the intentional submergence of the Nordic race. Their
actions, harmful as they may be, seem to be governed by their own
will rather than by some indoctination process, and this doesn't
bother me as much as the types I described in the previous
paragraph.)

> I think natural selection would act against something that racially suicidal.
> But conformism is a very real and tremendously powerful force that has been constantly
> strengthened by natural selection and has now been turned against its
> intended purpose, being used for the destruction of their race rather
> than its preservation.

I agree that natural selection, in the modern welfare state that
the entire West has become, is in the advantage of the parasites
rather than the prometheans, in the advantage of quantity rather
than quality. Northernkind has gone so far in replacing nature by
comfort, that we seem to have reversed the process of natural
selection.

But there might be a small point of light in this. At present,
the racial separatists are the non-comformsists, the independent
thinkers, and it is happened several times in human history that
such independents became the nucleus of a new mass movement.
Periodically, people get bored with the conformism they see
around. This might also happen to racial nihilist conformism.
Non-conformist snobbism would not a very noble reason to become
a racial separatist, but it might turn to our advantage at one
day. I would be our taks then to replace this snobbism with a
genuine understanding of the matter.

__________________________________________

Subject: some matters
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 17:08:21 +0100
From: A correspondent in the Netherlands
To: Richard McCulloch <archon@racialcompact.com>

Dear Mr. McCulloch,

I still haven't had the time to translate the law articles
(and I cannot estimate when I will - my apologies for this!).
However, i do have some news on legislation: The VVD, a Dutch
conservative-liberal party (regarded as moderate
"anti-immigrant" by those more to the left on the political
spectre) has made a proposal last week, to raise the maximum
sentence for spreading racist material, from one to two years in
prison. According to the VVD chairman, racism is on the rise,
especially on the internet, and is "a threat to our society". I
assume that such a proposal will also mean that the prosecution
of those offending this law, will be given a higher priority.
Recently multi-culturalism has seen its first open criticism
from a "mainstream" journalist in a large daily paper (although
certainly not in any race-related context, rather a cultural)
and I think this will result in a polarization of the defenders
and the critics, but I also think that the critics will make it
quite clear that race is not an issue. That might be an
explanation for this law proposal from an unusual direction.

The article on raising the sentence for discrimination can be
found at:

http://www.planet.nl/news/anp/berichten/ANP081622043.shtml

I've fast-translated it for you (please forgive me any poor
syntax constructions, it was a hasty job):

"THE HAGUE (ANP) - people who systematically insult people
because of their race, religion, life philosophy or sexual
preferences, should get a prison sentence of two years at max.
At present, one can get 1 year at max for this. If people
continously spread discriminating material, this should be
sentenced with a year in prison at max, in the opinion of
minister Korthals of the Justice Department. Wednesdat the
VVD-minister has sent these proposals to relevant institutions
for advice. Korthals points out that the extreme-right is small
in word and deed in the Netherlands, at present. Yet,
discrimination can take structural proportions. Internet, for
isntnace, makes this easier. This is such a threat to the
constitutional state, that calls for a a raise of the maximum
sentence. The present discrimination legislation of the Penal
Code dates from 1971."

I wonder to what extent yours, and Mr. Robertson's, writings
would be considered "systematically insulting" (but, as you will
understand, my curiosity doesn't go such a degree that I would
care to find that out in court).

Richard McCulloch's reply:

You wrote "there seems to be an uneasy consensus among all groups within Dutch [and European] society, that race should not be an issue." This is also true in the U.S. and Canada. The racial issue is a non-issue, not recognized and not addressed. Any mention of it is taboo and places one outside the limits of permissible discussion. The dispossession, replacement and destruction of the Nordish race by the Afro-Asianization of its homelands is to be accomplished without any debate or discussion, without any acknowledgement or recognition that it is taking place. It is a conspiracy of silence. That, of course, is the crux of our problem. We need to make race an issue, the issue, that must be recognized and discussed, acknowledged and addressed. That has to be the focus of all our efforts. All else is trivia by comparison.

A race is people. It is a group or population of people sharing a common ancestry that can be distinguished from other groups or populations by inherited (i.e., genetic) traits. To deny a race is to deny a people. The Nordish race is all the Nordish people. It is all those individual people, celebrities or not, children and adults, that one can think of, who one can name as examples. The preservation and continued existence of the Nordish race is their preservation and continued existence. To oppose the preservation and continued existence of the Nordish race is to oppose their preservation and continued existence. It is that clear and simple, and we need to make it, and keep it, that clear and simple.

You already know what is at stake. You know how truly desperate our situation is, how long the odds against us are. Our mission is to communicate that knowledge to as many others of our race as we can reach and are willing to listen, however few they may be. Our only hope is if that knowledge is spread to enough of the right people our race can still be saved. By "the right people" I mean those who will be receptive to our message, those who have the intellectual ability and independence to understand the truth of what we say and think for themselves, and who value and love the Nordish race -- who value and love the people who are the reality of the Nordish race -- and want it -- and people like them -- to continue to exist. I still believe, in spite of everything, that the majority of our race do not want their race to be destroyed, but value and love the people who are their race, and want it, and them, what they are, to continue to exist. But they are demobilized by a combination of ignorance and hopelessness, both of which are nurtured by the anti-Nordish establishment which strives mightily to keep them in line. We have recently witnessed the utterly ruthless extent of this effort in their reaction to a small country (Austria) that stepped just a little bit out of line. Virtually no justification was given, nor needed to be given, for their extreme reaction. The audience was presumed to be juvenile, if not infantile, in its long-conditioned passive ignorance and obedience. Typical was the report by John Cochran, the White House correspondent for the ABC television network nightly news broadcast, who only needed to say to anchorman Peter Jennings, "These are bad people, Peter," to explain and justify the strong words and actions of President Clinton and his Secretary of State against Austria for the political successes of the Freedom Party. No reason was given why these "people," the members of the Freedom Party who were joining the Austrian government, were "bad," nor were these people identified, or their principles discussed, nor was "bad" defined as to its application in this instance, nor was it necessary to do any of these things. It is now apparently sufficient for an establishment journalist to simply describe those not totally in line with the racial nihilist agenda as "bad" and all are expected to agree without question.

I wonder if it would be considered "systematically insulting" to other races to promote the preservation and independence of one's own race. I suspect our antagonists regard this as the case but I don't know if they could make their opinion on this a reality in law yet.

Best regards,

Richard

March 17, 2000

________________________________________________

More observations on some points you discussed in your recent e-mails:

I find your analysis of the psychology of certain racial nihilist types very interesting, especially the girls you've encountered who've engaged in race mixing. I engaged in some similar psychological analysis in The Ideal and Destiny, as you probably know, but I've gotten away from it in my more recent works. Still, it is a subject that cries out for investigation, description and explanation. Our antagonists frequently engage in bogus attempts to psychologize Nordish racialists, which usually results only in rather juvenile and inaccurate stereotyping such as the kind believed by the girls you mention, but I think we can do much better explaining the perverse psychology of those who have become traitors to their own kind and wish for its destruction. There is a saying that "those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" which I think applies perfectly here, that those who are so psychologically twisted as to hate and betray their own race shouldn't dare to psychologize those who love and are loyal to their own race.

You wrote: "I think judges, politicians and the media would interpret a call for racial independence as a call for deportation of non-whites." Well, they would be right, of course. A call for racial preservation would no less necessarily, and perhaps more so, be a call for the deportation of non-whites. The simple fact is that the most fundamental, compelling (necessary for their well-being) and vital (i.e., life-essential) rights and interests of the Nordish race -- its preservation and independence, its continued existence and its control of its own existence (i.e., its racial freedom) -- require its separation from other races. In Europe this separation can only be practically and humanely, and morally, achieved by the deportation of the non-whites who have settled in Europe since 1950 -- i.e., by sending them back to their own racial homelands where they existed for many thousands of years before 1950. The rights and interests they have at stake in remaining in Europe (i.e., the higher standard of living they enjoy from living in the homelands of Europeans rather than their own ancestral homelands) are neither vital (i.e., life-essential) nor compelling (i.e., necessary for their well-being) and thus cannot be objectively compared in importance to the rights and interests the Europeans have at stake in removing them (i.e., their racial preservation or continued existence, their independence or control of their own existence, and the possession of their ancestral homelands). That this very simple and basic objective fact is not recognized and acknowledged, but effectively ignored and denied, is another of our primary problems, which I discussed in my e-mail of July 5, 1999 and deserves repeating here:

"All issues relating to race are currently defined and discussed as if no vital, compelling or even legitimate interest of the Nordish race is involved or at stake, as if the Nordish race won't suffer any adverse effects or consequences, any harm or loss, as a result of multiracialism. Therefore, by this definition the Nordish race has no legitimate grounds, reason or motive for opposing multiracialism, only trivial, petty, hateful or mean motives or reasons, such as intolerance, an unreasonable fear or dislike of other races, or an unjustified desire to not have them around. As a result, there is a prevailing lack of awareness or recognition that in fact the most vital and compelling Nordish interests are involved -- its continued existence and control of its own existence."

Re the matter of whether my writings would be considered "systematically insulting" to non-Nordish races under Dutch law, I think this again illustrates the point made above, that the least, most trivial, petty or minor interests of non-Nordish races (e.g., in this case, their interest in not having to suffer "insults") are given priority over the most vital and compelling, the greatest and most important, interests of the Nordish race -- its very existence and freedom, its preservation and independence. The former are regarded as being of paramount importance while the latter are not even acknowledged or recognized, but are denied and regarded as evil and immoral to even consider or mention. Could the fundamental anti-Nordish character of the current power structure and its ideology be more clear than this? Notice also that "insult" is not even defined, but as you suspect, and most others would assume given the prevailing anti-Nordish bias, even to advocate concern for the most vital and compelling interests of the Nordish race, to express love for it and the desire for its continued existence and the restoration of its independence, would almost certainly be regarded as an insult to the non-Nordish races.

Regards,

Richard

March 20, 2000

_____________________________________________

Some more observations on our speculation that the promotion of Nordish racial preservation and independence might be considered "systematically insulting" to other races under the proposed new Dutch law:

Is it an insult to other races to advocate the preservation and independence, continued existence and freedom, of one's own race or people? Should they be insulted by it? Should they be offended by it? Should they resent it? If they do feel insulted by it, offended by it, and resent it, is that not the same thing as saying that they oppose the preservation and continued existence of our race and the right of our race to control its own existence? Is it not the same thing as saying that to them our race is not worthy of continued existence and control of its own existence? Is it not the same thing as saying that the very existence of the Nordish race, and especially its independent existence, or the very idea of continued Nordish existence, is an insult and affront to other races? If that is the case then who has the greater cause to feel insulted and offended? That the answer to this is not blatantly obvious to everyone only proves how unreasonable the dominant anti-Nordish ideology has become. Its status as unchallengeable and unquestionable has enabled it to become this unreasonable, and only when it is effectively challenged and questioned will reason be restored to the vital racial issues that confront us.

This socratic didactic highlights the unreasonableness of the anti-Nordish position, and the fundamental unfairness of the current power structure toward the Nordish race by the vastly unequal and disproportionate weight it gives to even the most minor interests of other races over the most compelling and vital interests of the Nordish race, essentially regarding the very existence of the Nordish race as an insult and affront to other races which can be remedied only by its extinction.

Regards,

Richard

March 22, 2000

____________________________________________

Subject: Re several matters; more observations
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 13:01:06 +0100
From: A correspondent in the Netherlands
To: "Richard McCulloch" <archon@racialcompact.com>

Dear Richard,

You wrote:

"I wonder if it would be considered "systematically insulting" to other
races to promote the preservation and independence of one's own race. I
suspect our antagonists regard this as the case but I don't know if
they could make their opinion on this a reality in law yet."

In the Netherlands, the judge takes into account what "the public opinion
say" when interpreting law. You will understand that "the public opinion" is
the opinion of the establishment. We have no First Amendment protecting free
speech, so in fact the judges, on the strings of the establishment, limit
what one can say. And these limits do not leave much room left int the
Netherlands.

In fact, it is my hope, and expectation, that this rigidity will in time cause
an inflation of "discrimination" legislation, which will bring a major shift
in perspective. Btw, signs of such a shift of persepctive might be seen now:
there is some discussion developing on identity (or rather a
pseudodiscussion on pseudo-identity, as there is not yet a real polarization
between two opposites and it seems to focus on culture and religion rather
than race - "Native Europeans vs. Muslims" might be a good description.)
Although this hasn't really anything to do with Preservationism, it might be
a pre-stage of it. Being confronted with multi-ethnicity, people start
contemplating on their identity. However, I don't expect such a thing to
happen soon in the Netherlands and I don't think the Preservationist message
could do much good here right now (which doesn't mean this is a static
situation). Someone once tolc me (and said he was paraphrasing Nietzsche):
One shouldn't make the truth so salty that no one can swallow it (it sounds
better in Dutch).

You wrote:

"We need to make race an issue, the issue, that must be recognized and
discussed, acknowledged and addressed. That has to be the focus of all
our efforts. All else is trivia by comparison."

That's very true - and strangely enough, this is one of the most difficult
points to convince people off (even people who consider themselves, or are
considered, as "racists". For instance, a lot of education needs to be done
on the ability to distinguish between what you call "form and content" in
TIaD. Most people who value their race and its continued existence, are
inclined to express this desire in some theory on how the perfect state
should be organized. I think I was one of them before I read your books.)

But in doing so, we must take into account the fact that the Nordish race is
spread over several areas, each with there own difficulties, their own (lack
of) awareness, and their own racial threats. In some cases - and I think
quite a lot cases, "dealing with trivia" might be a necessary stage before
the real matter can be adressed. Before we can protect our message from
being obscured, we need an environment where it can live.

Maybe it would be a good thing to make an overview of these different
conditions in the various Nordish homelands? (This reminds of the fact that
I promised to translate the law Dutch law articles - I hope to find the time
for this somewhere next week) The Nordish areas that have relatively more
potential and actual awareness, should act as aid to the more difficult
areas. Although our race might be most endangered by the risks of
miscegenation and replacement in the U.S., the U.S. has some great
advantages which make it the most important of our nations:

* It has the First Amendment protecting free speech. Of course, there are
things like politically correct censorship and the power certain lobby
groups hold over the media, but this is still a much better situation
than an actual persecuation policy.
* Many non-American Nordish people are able to read English. A message
primarily aimed to the Nordish Americans, under American law, can be
read by many other people.
* America is culturally dominant in what is regarded as the Western
Civilization (and, indeed, the world). European nationalists often
blame it for bringing multiculturalism to Europe (an accusation which
is not honest of course, though there is some truth in it). But if
Europeans got the disease from the Americans, then why not the cure?
Meaning, that the way the Americans deal with problems, is often
admired here and imitated here (although there seems to be a rule
amongst the European cultural establishment to never openly admit
this.).

About a psychology of racial nihilism, you wrote:

Still, it is a subject that cries out for investigation, description and explanation. ... I think we can do much better explaining the perverse psychology of those who have become traitors to their own kind and wish for its destruction. There is a saying that "those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" which I think applies perfectly here, that those who are so psychologically twisted as to hate and betray their own race shouldn't dare to psychologize those who love and are loyal to their own race.

I agree. I really liked your analysis in TIaD, the "quest for
non-existence"; this certainly is a large component. Another, I think, might
be the total lack of the idea of being part of an entity that exists in
time. I think I can also speak for you, and other racial preservationists,
that we have always had the innate knowledge of being part of a chain. But
to my astonishment, many people don't seem to have such an awareness. They
do feel part of "mankind", however. It's quite frustrating seeing the same
people who mock the idea of the significance of race by stating that it is
just a mythical entity existing in the racist's mind only, basing their
morality on a much more mythical, and much less real entity as "mankind".
But how should we organize this job? Would it be desirable, and possible, to
set up an archive of case studies?

As to the contents, I'm pretty sure that the establishment-rhetorics would
be something like: "People are individuals. You tie someone down on his race
and that is ridiculous. Race is not an entity." And the bad thing is, in the
conscient minds of a lot of people, even those who instictively feel that
the presence of racial aliens is wrong, "race" is indeed not an entity. To
make them aware of this, should indeed be the focus of of all our efforts.

With regards to racial awareness and the reciprocity of the Racial Golden
Rule and the Charter of Racial Rights, I consider it a bit of a practical
drawback that many ethnic groups do not have a racial identity, but rather
an ethnic or national identity.

You might argue that their concern is not of vital importance, that their
races and communites in their respective homelands are not threatened by
miscegenetaion or racial replacement, but nevertheless they are people, and
for the Nordish youth, many of them highly altruistic, the well-being of
these people cannot be put aside. To me, the answer to this dilemma is: the
non-Whites (non-Nordish, non-Alpine) should agree to a racial divorce, or at
least, they should be presented an offer of which the naive altruistic
idealist Nordish youngster would feel it is justified.

An example is the Turkish community in the Netherlands (and the rest of
Western Europe.) They certainly do distinguish between Turks and Non-turks,
but as they are not a real racial group (Turkish people come in a wide
variety of hybrids between Turanid, Armenid, Dinaric, Mediterranean, Alpine
and even Nordish elements.) You might reply that it's not at all a primary
concern for us whether Turks identify themselves as a race or as an ethnic
group. But with a large number of them living in Western Europe (they are
Europe's Mexican's, including the underground idea of a renewed
Great-Turkish Ottoman Empire, like the militant Chicano's have their idea of
Aztlan), they do matter, if only through the minds of all the Nordish
altruists I mentioned.

Like I once wrote you, a one-time correspondent of mine proposed a Charter
of Ethnic Rights instead of one of Racial Rights. You didn't mind this idea,
but pointed out that race is of far more importance than ethnicity. I agree
this is certainly the case to the Nordish people - but apparently not to all
ethnic groups. I am more and more thinking of a pan-ethnic world view in
which all ethnic groups would unite to protect their own exclusive identity.
Of course, we, the Nordish people would base our ethnicity on race, but if
some hybrid Turanid-Armenid tribes base theirs on religion, or language, or
culture, well, it's fine with me as long as they respect our exclusiveness
too.

I do not at all imply that the Charter of Racial Rights, or any of your
writings should be modified, or even that you should bother to get into this
matter, but I am playing with the idea of creating an ethnic liberty section
with links to "Free Tibet" organisations
etc., also because I've noticed that the traditional leftists are inclined
to defend communist China ("they liberated the people of Tibet from a
theocratic dictatorship." while the altruist youngsters tend to sympathize
with the Dalai Lama. This could lead to the simplified, condensed truth that
"ethnic nihilism is genocide."

Of course, this should only be presented on the side. The idea of racial
preservationism should not in any way be obscured by a call for ethnic
liberty for all people, but I think we can present the first as a particular
and special manifestation of the second.

Richard McCulloch's reply:

I agree that, as a practical matter, the U.S. needs to take the lead in restoring the natural condition of racial separation. It has two very important advantages that you did not mention.

1.) It is sufficiently powerful, militarily and economically, that no other country or alliance of other countries would likely be able to stop it from carrying out a program of racial separation. A single European country -- especially a smaller one like Austria, but even Germany, the most powerful nation in Europe -- would likely be opposed by an irresistible international alliance led by the U.S. that would defeat any attempt to implement Nordish preservationist policies.

2.) Its geographical situation and size allow it to separate its races by a process of geographic separation, accomplishing the separation within its own territory, by completely internal transfers of population or relocations, rather than having to relocate certain races to another country. This is not feasible in Europe, where an effective racial separation and the compelling interests of the European peoples to the possession of their own ancestral racial homelands both require the removal of the non-European races, preferably by returning them to their own ancestral homelands.

Still, there is much that the Europeans can do in calling attention to the Nordish crisis, providing intellectual and moral leadership, and setting an example by asserting their will to preserve themselves and all that they are, their racial identity, their countries and their cultural heritage. A successful movement that would eventually embrace the entire Nordish race could start in any country with a racially-threatened Nordish population. The spark could be lighted anywhere.

Best regards,

Richard

March 27, 2000

Return to Racial Preservation: Issues and Answers page

Go to Racial Compact main page