An American-Swedish Dialogue on Racial Issues
E-Mail of Richard McCulloch with a Swedish correspondent discussing the racial situation in Sweden and common issues confronting Nordish racial preservationists in Europe and America
Subject: Star Trek Prime Directive
Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 06:40:46
From: "P.E." in Sweden
What you wrote on "The Racial Compact" and other material is not only the most intelligent I have read about racial issues, but it's outstandingly similar to what I realized myself. After surfing on the net for years I was resigned to find just rednecks and hooligans in bombers and "Doc Marten's". I came too to the concept of "The Racial Golden Rule", and, oddly enough, I came also to think to the Prime Directive of Star Trek (I'm a science fiction fan too, even if I ceased to look Star Trek when I realized it's a subtle propaganda of the American melting pot).
My racial consciousness was awakened some years ago when I got what was going on in Sweden. Sweden has always been the most racially homogeneous country in Europe, and certain the most distinctive for our race, whenever you call it nordish or white. In a couple of decades, it has become, maybe with the exception of the Netherlands and England, the most interracial and mixed society of the West. I didn't think such thing was possible, I couldn't conceive that a whole political class could not only permit but actively promote this, not more that I thought possible to voluntarily surrender a couple of provinces to another state. After the shock came a sense of anger and impotence, but now I'm getting the resolution to enter in politics and fight this madness. Your idea of dividing the States is inspiring and I think it could be more realizable in a country like Sweden, that is small, neutral, and doesn't belong to org. like NATO which would stop it. At the same time it's sparsely populated, especially in the north. It wouldn't be possible, for practical and ethical reasons, to send home all the extra-european immigrants, but they could be transferred, together with the less assimilable europeans and the mixed people, to the northernmost province, Norrbottens Län, which is vast and largely uninhabited. Moreover, it's at the margins of Europe, in the region originally inhabited by the Lapps (who are not Nordish), and who are still largely concentrated in the province. There is just a little problem: a political party which dared to propose such a programme wouldn't even get 0.1% of the votes. In the meanwhile midsummer is coming and all over Sweden a poster invites people to join the traditional celebration in Skansen: on the poster a young smiling girl with the traditional midsommarkransen (midsummer crown) holds flowers in her hand. This young girl, chosen to symbolize the most traditional of the swedish celebrations, is a MULATTO.
Is it all hopeless? I don't think so, and if it doesn't bother you, I would discuss the issue with you further. My most respectful greetings. P.E.
Thanks for your deeply moving e-mail of May 21.
I'm sorry to hear of the racial nihilist ad for the Skansen midsummer festival, but not surprised. Its not so subtle symbolic message of racial replacement and destruction of the indigenous Nordish population turns the festival around 180° from its proper purpose of affirming racial life. Those seeking the destruction of our race seem to have an almost uncanny (diabolical?) talent for striking at the heart of our race and turning it against itself.
I attended the Skansen midsummer festival in 1995. I was moved by its beauty, but saddened by the evidence of racial destruction in the obtrusive presence of numerous interracial couples, their mixed race children, and adoptees of different races. It almost seemed as if they were drawn to the festival, by a desire to display themselves and assert their purpose of subverting (or usurping) the festival, of taking it over for themselves and the future they represent. That is why the ad does not surprise me. It means they have now succeeded in their purpose, at least at the official level.
I understand the mental stages you mention going through -- shock (at the realization of what is happening), anger (a natural response to a threat to your people, especially one so devious and of such magnitude) and impotence (the frustrating sense of helplessness, that one is unable to save one's people from its destructive course). But you have already won one great victory, perhaps the most important victory of all, the one for your mind and soul. That is where the battle is being fought, in many millions of battles in the minds and souls of the many millions of our race. Our race is victorious in the battle for you, and that is a battle you have won. You can help others to win their own battle but you cannot win it for them. In the end it is their decision. But every victory I hear of gives me new hope.
I also understand your motive in suggesting a partition of Sweden, giving part of the country to the non-Nordish immigrants in the hope of saving the rest. It is a motive born of desperation and a realization of the ultimate peril of your people. But I think it is a bad idea. Perhaps you are following my example, but in my partition proposal I explain the differences between the United States and the European countries, why partition is appropriate and right for one and not for the other. We must think in long range terms. In the short term your idea might provide some practical relief, but in the long term the presence of enclaves of extra-European racial elements in Europe would be very dangerous, presenting a perpetual threat to racial preservation. Under such conditions the continued existence of our race would be far from secure.
Our race can only be saved by intelligent, talented, energetic and courageous people such as yourself. Yes, you are courageous. It takes great courage (as well as intelligence) to think independently on a matter such as this in the face of such tremendous social and political pressures enforcing conformism. In many ways we are like the child in Hans Christian Andersen's story "The Emperor's New Clothes". You may be heartened to learn that you have kindred spirits in Sweden and elsewhere in northern Europe.
Feel free to correspond with me.
Richard McCulloch, May 25, 1999
Subject: Re: Midsummer concerns
Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 09:26:25 .
From: "P.E." in Sweden
Thanks for your answer and your understanding.
I don't want to talk about my identity for security reasons.
The Big Brother
control us, maybe these messages are safe but I don't want to take risks.
Here people are paranoid about these issues, they smell racism everywhere
and I have already lost a job because I was so naive to tell my boss that I
wouldn't be happy if my daughter married a black. The answer was: "If you
have such ideas you can't work here". Period. I have also lost friends and
once I missed a chance with a beautiful woman because I told her I don't
like black women. I suppose if I had said I don't like white women like her
it would have been OK...Anyway I go on with my ideas.
I know you wrote that the immigrant should be replaced outside Europe. But when I talked about sending them to Norbottens Län I was thinking that this place, even if geographically inside Europe, it's actually a wilderness separated from the heart of Scandinavia by hundreds miles of forests and originally inhabited by the Lapps. So it's something like an European "Far West". Of course one could think to some other place, like an island. In your project you say immigrants in Europe could find place in homelands carved in America, but the problem is that first you should divide the US, and that, euphemistically said, doesn't seem an easy step to me. One could think also about sending these immigrants to south European countries that have already a largely mixed population, like Spain or Italy, but I don't think they would be very happy about it, wouldn't they? Moreover I got the impression that these nations, even if largely mixed Mediterraneans, are much more race conscious than Northern Europeans. Never seen in Spain or Italy a white girl walking in the streets with a black mate. Also, it would be inhumane to send a half black kid raised in Europe or an adoptee to some Third World country that they just know through the books or television. So some sort of homeland must be created for them: that's a consequence of the madness of our past and present politics!
I don't agree that the main battle must be won inside the hearts
of the people. The human nature dictates that most people are
short sighted, and their short-sightedness is continuously worsened
by the powerful propaganda machine of the "Globalization"
factors. Some practical steps, even if limited, must be taken
soon, because we haven't much time left. If you have been in Stockholm
recently, you must have been stricken by the vision of the nordic
ideal of female beauty continuously and everywhere tore apart
by a miscegenation that probably is not even matched in Brazil.
If you have been here during the Water Festival you could almost
wonder if among the younger generations the white Swedish males
have any chance to find a white mate. Not that they seem very
worried about it: getting a booze and listening hip-hop music
seems to be their main concern. And the propaganda! "Bo bättre!"
(Live better) said an advertisement for new flats for selling
some years ago. On the poster a young smiling couple, a beautiful
blonde girl with a black man, his arm around her shoulders. Or
that perfume advertisement diffused in the whole Scandinavia,
with a naked angelic woman, symbol of the European beauty since
the ancient times, celebrated by the Middle Ages bards in France
and everywhere, in the arms of a naked black man, their position
clearly indicating a sexual intercourse. And the Benetton publicity,
that have openly chosen race mixing as leit-motif for its advertising
campaign...How would I have tore apart those posters (and sometimes
I did)! But now I'm thinking to something more constructive and
rational. Not only it's a big consolation for me having found
a great soul like yours among the sea of haters who are moved
only by destructivity and not by love for their race and culture
(they could as well be hooligans soccer supporters, and often
they are), but I hope in a future collaboration. Beg your pardon
for the length of the letter, but my heart is very heavy.
Practical suggestions would be warmly accepted.
Thanks for your thought-provoking e-mail. You obviously have thought deeply on these matters for a long time and possess a great deal of awareness of, and sensitivity to, the racial situation.
Surely, the most depressing phenomenon we encounter is a member of our race who is fanatically opposed to its most vital and legitimate interests and intolerant of any expression of concern or support for those interests. Encountering such people almost seems like entering the "Twilight Zone," a classic TV series of the 1950s that dealt with the weird and strange. How can we get through to such people? Are they so totally lacking in love for or loyalty to their race, concern for its well-being, or empathy for its existence? They seem utterly without awareness of the situation, and their irrational and often hysterical reactions of evasion and denial suggest that they are actually motivated by fear. Small minds motivated by fear are dangerous and untrustworthy and should be avoided. You have lost a job and a beautiful woman for confiding your concerns to small minded people of limited intellect and vision, so I understand your fears of further discovery.
I wonder if you still have access to some of the disturbing photos you mention that have shocked your racial sensitivities, such as the Skansen midsummer ad with the Mulatto child, the ad for new flats or the perfume ad. If you are able, perhaps you could scan these ads and e-mail them to me. Such shocking and disturbing images could be useful to convince web visitors of the seriousness and reality of our concerns and shock some of them enough to reach down deep and find the suppressed racial feelings that hopefully still exist somewhere in their souls despite all the racial nihilist propaganda and indoctrination.
Meanwhile I attach a more encouraging jpeg of Swedish midsummer. [midsummer.jpg]
Subject: Re: Midsummer hopes
Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 09:07:09 .
From: "P.E." in Sweden
here is the image in the Midsommar ad. I hope the resolution
of the photo is
good enough. I was obliged to steal the poster from a subway wagon, but it
was a pleasure...[skansen99.JPG]
I'm a little concerned about the security of the e-post. I bet that US
authorities control the post of known members of hate-group and the like.
Since your address include the word "racialcompact" I guess that
it sounds "suspect" enough for someone to get a look in it. Maybe my fears
are unjustified but I would like to communicate with you without indiscrete
eyes on us, if you understand what I mean. Have you thought
to an alternate address? Have you some idea to make the post safer?
Thanks for the Midsummer ad you e-mailed, it came through fine. I suppose those who chose her for the ad consider her to represent the new future of Sweden. I wonder what Swedish girl, and what Swedish future, she replaced. That's what we'll never see, that's what we've lost, unless we can restore the proper and natural state of racial existence.
I don't think you have to worry about the U.S. government snooping on our e-mail. That's illegal without a court order, and it takes material grounds to get such an order. I've never done anything, or intend to do anything, to give them such grounds. Also, even if they did snoop, I have nothing to hide. I don't say anything on the internet or other mail or publications that I wouldn't be willing to say in a public courtroom or anywhere else, if it came to that. Besides, as far as the dominant elements are concerned, the ideas and concepts I advocate -- racial rights, racial preservation, moral racism, the positive affirmation of racial life, love for one's race and respect for the legitimate rights and interests of all races, etc. -- don't exist. They don't recognize their existence and wouldn't want to do anything to publicize them (at least not yet) so they're not about to make an issue of them. They much prefer to let everyone think that 1.) no harm will come to the Nordish race from their policies and that 2.) the only alternative to their policies is some form of evil racism that would violate the rights of other races. The publication of my ideas would undermine the credibility of these two supporting pillars of their control.
I don't think my ideas are illegal in Sweden either, or elsewhere for that matter. My other correspondents in Sweden don't seem to be concerned over this issue. Of course, the dominant elements in all the Western countries have largely succeeded in pathologizing all positive feelings (love, loyalty, etc.) of Northern Europeans for their race by denying their true nature and origin and falsely equating them with negative feelings (hatred, malevolence, etc.) directed against other races, but they haven't yet criminalized them. I don't advocate or say anything that is against the legitimate rights or interests of any race. Quite the contrary, I zealously and consistently advocate and defend the legitimate rights and interests of all races, including my own. It would be difficult, and embarrassingly revealing, to attempt to criminalize something when they don't want people to know it exists.
Much of our problem stems from the fact that the interests of our race, even its most vital and legitimate interests such as its right to continued existence and independence, are not recognized and thus do not exist in the current public forum. The Nordish race simply has no rights or interests. The other races, however, and only the other races, do have rights and interests, and all issues are addressed and measured in terms of their interests, of what is good for them. What is good for the Nordish race, including the ultimate good of its continued existence, is not recognized or considered a legitimate matter of concern.
Also, all emotions, feelings and motives are described as if they are all centered around and based solely on the other races, on how one feels about the other races, not on our race or on how we feel about our race. The feelings we have for our own race are not recognized, their existence is effectively denied. All our racial opinions and ideas are attributed to our feelings, emotions or thoughts about other races, not our own. It is taken as given that we are mentally and emotionally centered around other races, motivated strictly by our feelings for other races, not our own. This is obviously a distortion of reality, as all races are normally centered around themselves and normally act in their own interests, with their own race the center of their concern and other races being viewed from this perspective as outside the center of concern. But the current anti-Nordish culture denies that normal perspective to the Nordish race and asserts that it is strictly motivated by its feelings toward other races, not itself. In the current culture only the other races matter, only they have interests, and everything we think and do is centered around them and revolves around them. They are the center of existence and the measure of all things, not just their own existence, which would be right and proper, but the center of our existence as well, and by this enormous conceit wrongly usurp our own race from its proper position, replacing it with the other races. Thus, if a Nordish person advocates racial preservation, separation or independence they are accused of being motivated by negative emotions of hatred for other races, because all motives are assumed to be based on their feelings for other races, not their own, and under this assumption the feelings toward other races that would motivate a desire to be separated from them would have to be negative ones, e.g., hatred. The fact that the feelings toward one's own race that would motivate a desire for preservationist separation would be positive ones, of love for one's race and concern for its existence as being important and valuable, are not considered. It is as if we do not exist, as if our existence is not recognized by the current anti-Nordish culture and our interests thus have no legitimacy, anticipating the realization of our actual non-existence, our extinction, the fulfillment of the ultimate and final goal of the dominant ideology.
Of course, it is important that we make our true source of motivation clear by first stating what we are for, not what we are against. For example, one should first state that one is for racial preservation and independence, etc., and then state that for this reason one is opposed to whatever is inconsistent with those values, e.g., multiracialism and the inclusion of alien races in the Swedish population or the population of any other country. To simply state that one is against multiracialism and the inclusion of other races in one's native population, without first stating what one is for, deprives one's position of its moral justification and promotes misunderstanding. It is a mistake to assume that the person you are addressing is aware of the chain of your reasoning, and can therefore appreciate your true motives. The great majority of people are totally unaware of the issues of racial preservation and independence that motivate us.
You wrote that you didn't think a separatist proposal would win more than .1% support in Sweden at this time. Why is that? Think about it for a moment. Is it possible that only .1% of the Swedish population would favor their own preservation, the continued existence of their people? I really don't think so. The problem is that the issue is not presented to them in these terms in a morally and intellectually credible way, so they don't recognize that their racial preservation is in fact the issue, is what is really ultimately the question. "To be or not to be, that is the question." If they knew this, really knew this, with fully internalized and conscious knowledge of this fact and all that it means, and also knew of morally acceptable alternatives, recognizing the propriety of their own legitimate rights and interests, so they could make a truly informed choice, I have to think that the majority of our race would support preservation and the conditions required for preservation. If given the choice between the preservation or extinction, existence or nonexistence, of the Swedish girl in the jpeg I e-mailed you, or of millions of other Nordish women and children you could show them photos of, would not the majority of Swedes and other Nordish peoples choose their preservation and continued existence? I have to believe they would.
Our task, it seems to me, is to help them to understand and know these facts, to achieve the level of knowledge and awareness of the situation that we have, including full knowledge of the alternatives, so they can make an informed choice. Our simple slogan should be something to the effect that the world (or earth or planet) is big enough for all the races of humanity to live on, to provide each with its own territory or homeland, so that all can be preserved and continue to exist and share the planet together in the future as they have in the past. Based on this principle we can assert the necessity of racial separation for preservation. On this principle we can take our stand.
Regarding other races we must make it clear that we respect their legitimate rights and interests. Its not necessary to go beyond that and value and love the other races, but let me say that I personally do value the existence of the other races of humanity and would consider it a great loss if any were to cease to exist. It would be a great loss to humanity if the Japanese, Chinese or Indian people somehow became extinct. I wouldn't want any of them to be replaced by the Nordish or any other race in their homelands, just as I wouldn't want the Nordish race to be replaced by other races in its homelands. I confess I have something of a crush on Kristi Yamaguchi (the Japanese-American ice skater). I think she's adorable. But that doesn't mean that I want the Nordish race or any other race to be replaced by her race, even as I don't want her race to be replaced. I wish all the races well, and hope that they can all continue to exist, sharing the earth together in peace and harmony, cooperating for their mutual benefit and well being, each respecting the rights of the others. That is the essence of the racial compact I propose. Again, as above, this is where we can take our stand.
I attach a scan I made from the April, 1963 issue of National Geographic magazine of a photo I fell in love with when I was 13. If anyone asks, it is one of the sources of my motivation, along with some before it and many more since. They can then decide whether they think I'm motivated by love or hate, but the answer should be a no-brainer. [NatGeo4-63.JPG]
Be of good cheer,
Richard McCulloch, May 29, 1999
Subject: Re: Hopes and Concerns
Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 11:44:07 .
From: "P.E." in Sweden
Dear Mr McCulloch,
Computers are sometimes really irritating. Today I wrote a long letter in
which I explained why I believe in the .1% figure, but the server erased
everything for I had exceeded the two hours limit imposed for security
reasons. I'll come back on the issue in a next letter, now it'll suffice to
say that my opinion come largely by personal experience. Like what I have
just seen a few minutes ago: a former Italian friend of mine (you can
imagine why "former"), a fine blond blue-eyed girl, with her no less fine
Swedish friend, happily sat at a MacDonald with two n****s. I retire what I
said about "race conscious" Italians...
There is another important issue that I would like to discuss
with you if
you don't mind. After all my studies I'm still rather confused about the
racial classification of Europe. Before reading the Racial Compact I thought
only in term of "White Race". Your classification is an original development
of Coon's, and the term "Nordish Race" is yours. But it looks quite
different from the classifications of most scholars, which usually divide
the Europeans into five main races. A very recent classification come from
Arthur Kemp in its book "Europe: the History of the White Race". Apart the
second section of chapter one (which deals unconvincingly with human
evolution) I found the book very interesting, and I recommend you to read it
(Best to spare it because it's quite long!)
Kemp uses the traditional term "White Race", which he divides into three
main subraces: Nordic, Alpine and Mediterranean. The last, according to him,
no longer exists today, submerged into the genetic pools of surrounding
races. East Baltics and Dinarics would be the result of mixtures between the
three main subraces. I send you three JPEG from his book:
Nr 1) is a classic Nordic male from Sweden.
Nr 2) is a classic Alpine male from southern Germany.
Nr 3) is, according to Kemp, as close an example of a true Mediterranean as
is to be found in modern times: a WW1 soldier from Wales.
What puzzles me is that nr 2),characterized by rectangular facial traits and
short skull, is almost as common in northern Europe as nr 1), with a
virtually infinite graduation of intermediate types.
This is true especially in northern Germany and Benelux but also in
Scandinavia and other baltic countries. You classify the Alpines as a
completely separate race but my personal observations in many years of
travels all around Europe would rather suggest a common white race divided
into many regional types, excluding the southernmost regions of the
continent which are the domain of Mediterranean peoples, and the easternmost
regions which show a mongolic influence.
Thanks for the beautiful picture (it's not difficult to understand
were so fond of it) and for the kind encouragements, but I can't feel in a
very good mood.
There are simpler systems of European racial classification than mine, which is a modified version of Carleton Coon's, but I consider them to be less accurate. Most, as you observe, follow the popular system of Ripley, which divides Europeans into just three types -- Nordic, Alpine and Mediterranean. Some add East Baltics and/or Dinarics to this scheme. My system is consistent with this, but divides these basic types into subtypes. Also, I use the term Nordish instead of Nordic as the inclusive term for all Northern Europeans, as Ripley and others defined Nordics by certain physical traits (dolicocephaly, light hair and eye pigmentation, etc.) which in actuality are not common to all Northern Europeans, e.g., the Borreby and Fälish types which predominate in Denmark and are common elsewhere in Scandinavia and northern Germany, and are certainly very Northern European, are brachycephalic, and thus not Nordics as that term is normally defined.
You may have noticed I don't use the term "white" as a racial category very often, and never when racial accuracy is important, as the term is very vague and ill-defined. In popular usage it is generally defined very broadly to include numerous populations that are not genetically compatible, such as Northern Europeans and Mediterraneans, and thus should not be considered as belonging to the same race for purposes of racial preservation.
I've looked at Kemp's site (other correspondents have referred to it) and I'm not impressed.
I'm sorry that you had to witness such a discouraging sight. Many valuable members of our race are falling victim to the destructive consequences of multiracialism, and for those of us who care it hurts to see it, to witness their destruction without being able to save them. But for those who still doubt, they provide the tangible proof of our assertion that racial separation is necessary for racial preservation.
Richard McCulloch, June 3, 1999
Subject: 0.1% ; Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 07:28:15 .
From: "P.E." in Sweden
Dear Mr McCulloch,
As I have already written, I fully agree with the noble principles
espoused in the Racial Compact and in the Racial Golden Rule.
I'm trying to explain why I don't think these principles can be
implemented through normal democratic means. My opinion is in
part due to personal experience.
You wrote that most people should react when they realize their racial characteristics are going to disappear. The problem is, at least here, people not only don't care, they think Nordish characters are uninteresting and "boring" and welcome as much variation as possible, especially the youngsters. Many use make-up to look less Nordic and think that exotic and strange looking is exciting. Many beautiful, tall and delicate nordish girls mate not only with big and powerful Negroes, but also with short, big-nosed, disproportionate, in a word clearly ugly Bolivian or Chilean mestizos. This way of thinking is encouraged by the media, as I showed you. Behind this there are very serious economical reasons. The process called Globalization, i.e. the free circulation of capitals and goods, implies also multiculturalism and the more or less free circulation of people. Moreover the diffusion of the mass-media in the Third Word countries results in the creation of a myth for which the Western Style of life, and the White woman, are the ultimate prize for those populations, triggering the immigration process. In the West our economical and political system enhance the natural apathy and of the masses, whose goals in life are just consumeristic, to get a good job, a speedy car, etc without place for any ideals. If they look beyond their own future, its only to the material welfare of their offspring. "Educating" these people would mean not only fighting against their dullness, but also against the immense propaganda machine of the most powerful economical and political forces on the Earth. I think they would use any means to remove who stays in their way (remember Ruby Ridge). Moreover, at least in Northern Europe, in a short time almost everyone will have at least a friend or a relative of some degree among people of other races. That will not certainly be an incentive to accept any separatist proposal.
These are some of the reasons for which I used the .1% figure. Moreover some Parties, which have less radical programs, didn't much higher electoral responses. I therefore have come to other solutions, about which I would be extremely interested in discussing with you further. This is absolutely not a critic to you, but only a sincere concern for the sort of our people and civilization.
Thanks for the inspirations you gave me.
You have obviously thought long and hard and deep on our racial crisis, and have achieved a high level of awareness about it. Only an exceptional few are able to do this on their own. The problem, of course, is what do we do with our knowledge and awareness when we gain it, often through great personal pain and grief. There is a temptation to give way to despair, to see the odds against us as so daunting as to lose all hope and regard all efforts as futile. But we cannot do that, for if those few of us who are aware of the true nature and degree of our peril give up then our race really has no hope and is doomed. We few are the hope of our race for salvation. When you think of it, it is truly an awesome responsibility. Our race really is being destroyed, for real, and it is up to us, however few we may be at this point, to save it. We must engage in constructive and effective thought and action toward that goal, avoiding actions that might be counterproductive and remaining intensely focused on our purpose by avoiding secondary issues that might distract us.
I am always interested in hearing new ideas and thoughts about solutions to our problem, always with the hope that they will be constructive and effective toward the above stated goal, for it is by this standard that I judge them.
Richard McCulloch, June 5, 1999
Subject: Re: solutions
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 06:00:26 .
From: "P.E." in Sweden
Dear Mr McCulloch
Maybe my bad English make me misunderstood, but I didn't say
I'm giving up.
I just tried to evaluate realistically certain solutions, like that of a
separatist party trying to win a majority in our society. But of course I'm
not giving up in trying to "educate" people. I got a positive response when
a friend of mine saw the "midsummer" poster, but she is one of the only two
people which has listened to my ideas without getting infuriated. As I told
you, I made a void around myself just trying to mildly presenting the
problem, and now my former "friends" look at me with contempt or worse, and
I'm not the kind of guy who goes around yelling "f******g n****r". As bad
things can be in America, here in Europe they are 1000 times worse. But I
don't mind, I stick to my ideals.
I also would be very interested to hear suggestions and to
"constructively". Please tell me what I can do. I'm not thinking to any
destructive, just trying to think to something realistic. But first I'd like
to hear your practical proposals. One way would be to gain place in the
media, I mean owning, at least in part, a newspaper or a TV. I'm trying to
improve my economy to reach such a goal, but, as you can imagine, it's not
that easy. In the past I tried also to distribute material to awake people:
for example I covered the walls of the University with leaflets that I
printed from the net (a statement about race by prof.Rushton). They didn't
last long... I contacted The Euro-American Student Union and begged to send
some sort of declaration for the European students which I could distribute
at the University. They answered that it was a good idea and then they
didn't do anything, just went on bullshitting about the old Romans and
German, till I got tired. The only people who seems interested in such
issues are Nazis and the like. Many of them are just teenagers who look
for an identity. Some of them are adult psychopaths. I don't know if you
heard what happened in Sweden last week. Three neo-Nazis robbed a bank to
finance their organization and in the process killed two policemen. One of
the three, a former mercenary and war criminal in Bosnia, is a MULATTO. I'm
not kidding, and to the journalists which wondered if it wasn't a little
weird being a Nazi-mulatto, he answered that Hitler had blacks in his Army
(that is, moreover, true!). That is, if you are brutal and violent enough,
that's always OK! I don't want to have anything to do with such sick people.
It would be very sad if you would break the contact with me, I'm pretty
isolated here. But tell me how to help you in our battle, and I'll try as I
You ask what you should do.
First, keep on doing what you're already doing. Whatever it is, it has had wonderful results in making you aware of the situation. Keep learning and educating yourself, and most of all keep thinking. You do that very well. Trust your judgment.
Second, I recommend that you get in touch with kindred spirits in Sweden. Not neo-Nazis or skinheads, of course, which you rightly avoid, but intelligent people like yourself looking for a morally responsible preservationist solution to the common dilemma of our race.
Third, please keep in touch with me. I enjoy corresponding with intelligent kindred spirits also.
Richard McCulloch, June 7, 1999
Subject: The Tiger and the Donkeys
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 07:01:38 .
From: "P.E." in Sweden
Greetings dear Mr McCulloch.
I read that naturalists and animal preservationists are worried
future of the Indian tiger. It seems indeed that somebody, in an attempt to
repopulate some areas, have reintroduced tigers of dubious origin, which
have blood from other subspecies. Rightly enough, those preservationists are
worried that the genetic pool of the Indian tiger can be spoiled by
interbreeding with these tiger-mongrels. Now, I was really stricken by this:
not because I think those preoccupations are wrong. Tigers are beautiful and
noble animals and their loss would be terrible. I was stricken because while
people feel perfectly normal worrying about the "purity" of an animal race
nobody (almost) feel the same for their own race (at least if it's white).
On the contrary many consider it as the ultimate sin. The preservationist
idea is that every living form, from the giant sequoia to the moth, is worth
to be preserved just BECAUSE IT EXISTS. Only the white (or nordish if you
prefer) race is excluded by this right. Have you ever heard something more
asinine than that? Now, because I don't think all the people are just a
bunch of donkeys ( even if many undoubtedly are) I want to do a couple
considerations. The first I already talked about: it's the natural
short-sightedness of most people. I want to quote a passage from "Starship
Troopers" by R.A.Heinlein that I'm reading just now: 'He (a scientist)
claims that the human race is too individualistic, too self-centered, to
worry that much about future generations. He says that the genetic
impoverishment of distant generations ... is something most people are
simply incapable of worrying about.' This sentence match remarkably well my
own conclusions on the matter.
But there is something more. You wrote that race is a reality: for most
people that's not true. The liberal and leftist propaganda has bombarded the
last white generations with the notion that racial differences are
unimportant or that races simply don't exist. This is retained as an article
of faith by most people. Scientific research is reinterpreted to match this
conclusion. Newspapers and books write for example that the work of Cavalli
Sforza has made the concept of race obsolete, when this scholar (who is
anyway very careful to be "political correct") simply stated that genetic
differences as regard to intelligence has been overestimated. ( He expressed
the very personal point of view that intelligence is 1/3 genetic, 1/3
environmental and 1/3 casual (?).
I think that is our duty to reintroduce the racial studies as a respectable
discipline like it was in the past. The creation of the SNPA was a very good
step. Maybe with your contacts you could create something like that in
America. I suggest you to contact prof. Philippe Rushton (you can find all
the information about him on the net).
I hope we can start an useful collaboration.
Thanks and "hälsningar" !
The claim that races don't really exist, ludicrous and absurd as it is, is being encountered with increasing frequency, and is central to the cause of racial preservation, so we have to take it seriously and expose it for what it is: an exercise in thought control to impose an incredible falsehood as politically correct orthodox dogma to which all must conform or suffer condemnation and reprisal. The purpose can only be to eradicate every vestigial trace of European racial consciousness and awareness. Thus a person of European racial type can't love or care for their race, or have any loyalty or positive feelings or emotions towards it, as these feelings are based on racial consciousness which the dominant culture condemns as politically incorrect, and even pathologizes as mental illness. This tactic is ineffective on persons with a high degree of intellectual and moral autonomy, but people of less independent thought, who characteristically and perversely regard themselves as superior to the independent thinkers, are easy to control.
Personally, I trust what I can see with my own eyes over any claim to the contrary. I was well aware of primary racial differences before the age of eight, even though they weren't discussed in my home and I had no special training or education in this matter. The reality of race was simply self-evident: I could effortlessly see it with my eyes. I could also easily associate racial types with the appropriate areas of the world from which they derive. At age eight, when I saw the movie "The Bridge Over the River Kwai," I understood and could identify the racial distinction between the Japanese and British soldiers, even without their uniforms, and if a Briton had been cast as a Japanese, or vice versa, I would have instantly recognized that as improper. My racial identification process had nothing to do with the subject's blood type, cephalic index, IQ, height, or numerous genetic variables, although some of these can be seen with the eye while others cannot. You could provide me with all this information about a person and I wouldn't be able to identify their race, but show me a good picture of them and I can identify them most readily (and could when I was eight years old, although I wasn't as aware of the finer points of subracial identification as I am today). Even if they are of mixed type, I can identify the dominant type in the mixture and possibly the other types as well. (For example, golfer Tiger Woods' dominant type is Congoid, although his ancestry is 50% Thai [Southeast Asian] and less than 50% Congoid, as he has some Amerindian and Caucasian ancestry as well. Yet my knowledge that he is part Amerindian and Caucasian is different than my knowledge that he is predominantly Congoid. I can see his Congoid ancestry with my own eyes, so it is first hand knowledge. I can't see his Amerindian or Caucasian ancestry, it is not evident to me, so my knowledge of it is second hand, based on what I've read or been told.)
Interestingly, all the claims that races are not real and simply don't exist are based on differences (or lack of differences) in things which are not racially definitive, which have never been used by ordinary people for racial identification, whether things we can't see (genes, blood types, IQ, etc.) or things we can (height, cephalic index, etc.). Some scientists may have attempted to identify different races through these things, but they are of marginal utility as racial identifiers, and at best secondary to the primary identifiers of physical appearance. They are actually completely unnecessary for racial identification and are only a matter of interest to those scientists who study such things. Their use as racial identifiers probably began in good faith, but now they are used by the racial nihilists, racial gnostics and other race deniers to claim that races don't exist, are not real, because the differences between the different races in these things are either minor or essentially nonexistent, often based on the assertion that the variation in these things between different individuals within a race are greater than the average variation in these things between races. So what! These things are not primary racial identifiers. They are at most secondary racial identifiers. As I said, you could tell me all these things about a person and I wouldn't be able to identify their race. But I can identify their race by their physical appearance, as I can identify different types of animals or plants by their appearance but not by such things as genes, blood types, etc. Yet the race deniers press on with their insistence that races don't exist, based on their measurements of these improper racial identifiers, and present this logical fallacy to the public as the scientific view. I'm sorry to say that Luigi Cavalli-Sforza is also guilty of this intellectual dishonesty or incompetence. We don't need scientists to identify races for us. I was able to do it with great accuracy by age eight without reading any scientific work on the subject, and everyone in my family, and everyone I knew or know, was and is able to do it without help from any scientist. Luigi Cavalli-Sforza and other scientists who proclaim race doesn't exist are willfully racially blind, and only fools allow the blind to lead them. Unfortunately, racial blindness, whether real or feigned, is a precondition for success, or even survival, in the present culture, as you yourself have experienced. It is the price which all must pay to qualify for advancement to positions of influence and power.
This is the main reason why I often compare our situation to Hans Christian Andersen's story "The Emperor's New Clothes." In the story, the population is told by the expert authorities that the Emperor's clothes are real, told to believe something contrary to what they can see with their own eyes, to distrust their own judgment and deny the evidence of their own senses. But a child, uncorrupted by political correctness, naturally trusting what he sees with his own eyes, exposes their fraud. Like the child, we must trust what we see with our own eyes, and virtually every person of anywhere near average intelligence who has eyes to see can readily identify a person's dominant primary racial type by their physical appearance. Even the race deniers can do this, but claim that physical appearance is not the proper racial identifier, insisting against all logic that the proper racial identifiers are those things with which they, and we, are unable to identify a person's race. Thus the race deniers attempt to define race into nonexistence with word games. But it is a physical reality that people see with their own eyes, however much they have been told to be racially blind and not see it, and to deny they see it.
The purpose of this race denial, again, is obvious. It seeks to delegitimize racial existence by denying that existence. Something which doesn't exist has no legal or moral standing to claim a right to exist or any other rights: no right to life, to control of its life, or to the conditions it requires for life; no right to preservation, no right to independence or self-determination, no right to its own territory and homeland, no right to be. Since it doesn't really exist there is nothing to preserve or protect, its continued existence is not a matter of legitimate concern, and nothing will be lost by its nonexistence, destruction or extinction. The basis for a Nordish racial preservationist challenge to the multiracialist goal of Nordish racial extinction is cut off at its source, delegitimized as unreal and pathologized as mentally ill, and it will likely be eventually criminalized as a threat to the multiracialist civil order.
For those of us who care, who love our race and who can see, it is a most painful sight we have to endure. But endure we must, for all hope resides in we who have eyes that see, hearts that care, and minds that think.
Richard McCulloch, June 11, 1999
Subject: Re: An important matter
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 05:59:04 .
From: "P.E." in Sweden
Greetings Mr McCulloch,
I agree with you: I couldn't care less if, to say, a 6'' fair
girl and a Mbuti Pigmy woman from Zaire have the same blood group or tissue
protein, what I do care is what I can see and touch.
But let me add some considerations. Both the blood group and
attributes who makes the differences between the two races so relevant (of
course for a Mbuti male not corrupted by western mass-media short stature
and wool hair are beauty attributes) depend upon genes and are genetically
inherited. What the media don't say is that Cavalli-Sforza research
considers only "neutral" genes, ie those not influenced by environmental
selection but by random drift. This method, if one admits absence of gene
flow, creates a good "genetic clock", ie it tells us when different
populations separated, but it doesn't tell us how big are the real
differences, because it doesn't consider genes which affect skin, eye or
hair color, nose shape, size, nor intelligence or behavior, etc. Moreover
Cavalli Sforza studies just 120 alleles, very few I'd say.
Nevertheless, incomplete and limited as this research is, it
conclusions that Cavalli Sforza & Co try carefully to avoid, as both prof.
Edward Miller and Gunnar Adler-Carlsson noted. That's not surprising, since
researchers whose statements are politically incorrect risk not only to have
the funds cut, but also to be expelled by their Universities (think to
Jenssen or to Rushton).
Anyway, if one considers the data from "The History and
Geography of Human
Genes" by C.S., Piazza and Menozzi, the differences between the main racial
groups emerge clearly. Not only, but also inside the Caucasoid family, which
C.S. calls euphemistically but incorrectly "Europeans" the differences are
rather evident. Most Europeans peoples have a genetic difference not
greater than 0.005%, but at the periphery the differences increase
dramatically: between English and Greeks it's 0.02%, between E. and
Sardinians it's 0.034% and between E. and Lapps 0.04%. Values grow further
between main racial groups. Between English and N. Amerindians 0.095%, E.
and Japanese 0.124 and so on to 0.237% between E. and Mbuti Pygmies.
Other geneticists reach rather similar conclusions: so it seems
clear to me
that Genetics and traditional Physical Anthropology are incompatible only if
you make them so. I have to admit that the mass-media are very "able" in
I hope to hear you soon. Regards.
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 04:33:07 .
From: "P.E." in Sweden
Greetings Mr McCulloch
It's a bit that I don't hear you: hope I didn't write anything
I read the statistics about the main Party which seriously
immigration politics in Sweden (Sverigedemokraterna). They reached a peak
of 20 000 votes in the national election last year, but just 8 500 votes in
the last vote for the EU Parliament. Despite their programme is rather
moderate (repatriation for immigrants who cannot get a job, prohibition of
non European adoptions) and they don't talk about race, they are subjected
to a continuous moral lynching by the media. Statistics seem to show also
that youth are the more open to immigration.
One last thing: you said in an interview that you are a blend
types. How much do you rate yourself in your scale? It's just curiosity, so
if you don't want to answer it's OK. On myself, I admit I'm not a very fine
specimen: using your criteria I rate about a modest 5.5. It's weird that
here the best female specimen seem to be the least racial conscious.
Hope to hear you soon.
Don't worry. You haven't written anything that might alienate me. In fact, I found your analysis of Cavalli-Sforza's work in your June 16 e-mail to be very enlightening.
Although I also have a copy of "The History and Geography of Human Genes" I haven't fully studied it yet, so I regard you as something of an expert on CS. Your analysis has given me a head start.
I'm not surprised that Sverigedemokraterna did not do well in the elections. It should be obvious by now that opposition to immigration by itself is not the road to success. A reason must be given, in fact a very compelling reason, compelling enough to justify and actually ennoble that opposition. That compelling reason can only be racial preservation and the racial right to life and independence. The tremendous magnitude of what is involved, of what is at stake, must be made clear to the populace. They must be made fully aware that it is a matter of racial preservation, nothing less. Nothing less will do. Even this will not do for many, and at the moment perhaps even for most. But it will win many more supporters than less compelling reasons.
I have also found that the most distinctly Nordish types are not necessarily any more racially conscious than their less distinct racial kindred, although one might think that simple self-awareness from looking in the mirror would give them a certain advantage in developing such a consciousness.
You rate yourself at 5.5 on my scale? This is outside the typical Swedish range, and in fact outside the Central Nordish range. Perhaps you need an objective second opinion. I'm fairly distinctly Nordish so I'd rate myself about 2.5 on the scale.
Richard McCulloch, June 29, 1999
Subject: Re: re CS analysis etc
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 05:55:28 .
From: "P.E." in Sweden
Dear Mr McCulloch
Well, I have not read the book ["The History and Geography
of Human Genes"] directly, so maybe I'm not such a big expert,
but I have read several comments and essays about it, and I have
a basic knowledge in genetics. It could be interesting to add
that this is not the
first work by CS, and that a previous research in the 80s, based on a lesser
range of alleles, gave very different conclusions: it indicated that the
Caucasoids are nearer to the Congoids (I prefer the term Negroids which is
more common)than to the Mongoloids. Of course it was celebrated by the
liberals as the prove that phenotype is invalid in race classification. On
the contrary, the new studies with a greater number of alleles show that
this early research was wrong, and broadly confirm the conclusions of
Another common place that you have surely heard is that there
genetic variation between two gorillas from the same forest than among two
humans anywhere in the world. Usually the media which report this omit to
say that this variation is about mitochondrial DNA, not nuclear DNA (from
which depends the transmission of the hereditary characters). Mitochondrial
DNA is transmitted from the female with her egg, so a child get all his/her
mitochondrial DNA from the mother. With the time, casual mutations occur
and accumulate, so it's possible to use this type of DNA as a genetic clock.
In the case of the humans, a demographic crisis occurred about 100 000 years
ago (when man had just left Africa) which reduced the whole humanity to
about 10000 individuals. So present day people are the descendants of those
10000, which subsequently multiplied themselves and spread all over the
world. Hence the scarce human variability in mitochondrial DNA. For the
gorillas the process was inverse, they were initially spread over a large
area, and then their number and habitat shrinked. As usually, scientific
data can be used in a distort way to support the "correct" political
I have always feared, and maybe those parties do the same,
that just using
the word "race" would make also the few voters disappear. But maybe I'm
wrong. Avoiding the central issue make not only seem their reason weak, it
make also look them contradictory. If you say, as SDs say, that you are
worried about the cultural unassimilability of the immigrants, that looks
vague and uncertain. Even if it's probably true, the opposition just says
that it cannot be proved: let's instead multiply the efforts and spend more money for the integration. That's the tune of the comments on the liberal newspaper. But the destruction of race by interbreeding is mathematical, it's a fact. The problem is that race
preservation is not accepted as a social and moral value, on the contrary
it's considered evil. 85 years ago, in the age of nationalism, it was
considered morally acceptable to send 10 millions soldiers to die and kill
their european brethren, in the name of national ideals. That was the
"correct" ideology of the time (even if there was at least space for
opposition). Now the "correct" ideology is multiculturalism. Masses follow
the morality of their times. The problem is to change it.
Hopes to hear you soon.
Thanks for your observations about the way the media (in fact the whole multiracialist power structure) distort "scientific facts" (e.g., mitochondrial DNA) by slanting their interpretation to support their agenda. Of course, they are able to get away with this because of their overwhelming degree of control over the means of communication.
I was struck by your following statement: "The problem is that race preservation is not accepted as a social and moral value, on the contrary it's considered evil."
This idea is the crux of our problem. The people who are the dominant or controlling elements in the power structure presumably really do think this way. But they don't say so publicly. Why not? Because this isn't really the way the Nordish general public thinks. The Nordish public is still essentially unaware of the extinction that is the inevitable fate of their race under multiracialist policies, and the power structure prefers to keep them unaware until they really do think that way, or until it is too late for them to do anything about it.
Personally, I'd love to confront a member of the power structure who stated in public that racial preservation is evil. The rejoinders are obvious. "Is the existence of the Nordish race evil? Why? Is/Was the existence of Meg Ryan, Michelle Pfeiffer, Princess Diana, Marilyn Monroe, the little Nordish child over there, the young Nordish lady over there -- or any past or present Nordish person whose existence is regarded with general favor as something good -- evil? Why?" Go on the moral offensive and show how it is destruction that is evil, not preservation.
I think you can see the great possibilities offered here, and why members of the power structure are therefore careful to conceal their real thoughts and goals behind false issues and misleading definitions. They simply can't openly oppose the preservation of the Nordish race, not yet, and that's why they can't allow it to become an issue, can't allow it to be recognized as something that is threatened, lest the alarm be raised. In certain restricted venues, such as a university, such thoughts may be expressed and even strongly encouraged by lower echelon supporters of the multiracialist power structure, but they are kept from the general public and never publicly expressed by the higher echelon figures.
If you've read the interview on my site you're probably aware that several of the questions dealt with how we should respond to antagonists who advocate the destruction of our race. These antagonists usually begin by expressing their support for multiracialism. I advocate confronting them with the racially destructive consequences of multiracialism, thus moving them into a position where they must either: 1.) retreat from their support for multiracialism; 2.) try to deny or evade the fact of its racially destructive consequences or; 3.) openly acknowledge those consequences and reveal their support for them. If the response is #3 the argument is usually ended, for there can be no common ground with a person who knowingly desires the extinction of the Nordish race, or any other race (and you should make it clear that you support the continued existence of all races). If the response is #2 then use all the #3 responses you have documented as the best proof to convince the deniers and evaders that the survival of our race really is at issue. That is really the purpose the #3 types serve for our cause, to help us convince the #2 types, who are much more numerous and are potential supporters for the Nordish preservationist cause, that the inevitable destruction of our race by multiracialism is a fact that must be faced. When a fully committed multiracialist admits that his agenda includes the extinction of the Nordish race it is, to the extent that we can use that admission to convince potential supporters of the true extent of the threat to our race, an admission against interest, helping us and hurting them, and the higher their position in the multiracialist power structure the more their admission helps us. That is why normally only low echelon multiracialists, who attract little attention and have little credibility, make such admissions. Still, the cumulative effect of their admissions can be great, and that is why they should be collected and documented. Higher echelon figures can eventually be confronted and embarrassed with them, and be compelled to address them. That is our checkmate move. We must make the destructive consequences of multiracialism a publicly acknowledged issue that is fully recognized and addressed, the defining issue that must be faced by every person of power or influence without evasion or denial.
Below is an e-mail exchange I had recently with a lower echelon multiracialist (a college student) from a restricted university environment (where extreme multiracialist views are strongly encouraged) in which he initially expressed rather safe multiracialist platitudes, but when I confronted him with the destructive consequences of multiracialism for the Nordish race he openly acknowledged those consequences and expressed his support for them. If the exchange had been in public it might have been worthwhile to continue it for the enlightenment of the audience, but as it was private I ended it after I received the acknowledgement I wanted and the revelation of his true motives.
Subject: Are you serious?
Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 17:46:03 -0700
I sure would not want to live in your world. Yuck!
Personally, I like having people of all races and cultures all around me. I
can see, smell, and taste their diversity. The ideas that can be shared
easily with the current system makes far more sense to me than your mad
Are you one of those people that spend a great deal of time making sure that
the peas on your plate do not mix with anything else? Me, I like to mix it
all up and eat rather than starve to death because I cannot stand intermixing.
Sorry, I suspect that we will never agree on anything. Don't you think that
makes life more interesting? I do.
Thanks for your e-mail of May 31.
The problem is that the Northern European or Nordish racial types (or any other distinct racial type, e.g., the Japanese) cannot live in your (multiracial) world. They require monoracial conditions, the conditions in which they were created and in which they have spent the whole of their prior existence, for their preservation or continued existence. Their eventual nonexistence is the unavoidable consequence of multiracial conditions over the long term. Unfortunately, this is apparently not evident to most people whose thoughts on this matter seem to be limited to the short term, but it is the fundamental issue with regard to the subject of race, and any discussion or analysis of racial matters which fails to address this issue (which means nearly all, since this issue is almost always evaded, denied or dismissed as unworthy of consideration, as if the mere mention of it were taboo) is necessarily superficial.
In the short term multiracial conditions have their pluses as well as their minuses (even I find some things positive about them, such as the greater ease of sharing ideas in person that you mention) but in the long term their racially destructive consequences constitute a negative of such drastic proportions as to far outweigh all their possible positive benefits. Even in the short term, the great majority of "white" people in the United States have gone to extraordinary and costly lengths to avoid or minimize contact with other races. The long sad record of "white flight" from neighborhoods, cities, parks, schools, etc. undergoing multiracialization indicates that only a small minority would prefer to live in your world if given a choice, even without consideration of the racially destructive long term consequences.
I find it odd, or at least inconsistent, that you seem to have no concern for preserving the racial diversity you profess to enjoy. Racial diversity cannot continue if the diverse races are not preserved. The racial diversity humanity enjoys today was created and preserved by geographic separation, or more precisely by the reproductive isolation which geographic separation provided, and its continued existence depends on the continuation of these conditions of isolation and separation. Seen in the long term, the diversity of multiracial conditions are only a transitional stage between the prior original monoracial conditions of many distinct and diverse separate races and the final successor monoracial condition where only one blended uniform race of mixed origin remains -- the "universal race" desired by the advocates of human oneness. Thus, paradoxically, the so-called diversity of multiracial conditions is actually the destroyer of true human racial diversity, and a true lover of human diversity should therefore support racial separation to preserve it. I have found that those who really love something wish to preserve it, not destroy it.
It is unfortunate that the governments of all the Nordish countries now being multiracialized were not required to file the equivalent of a "racial impact statement" before they committed their countries to their present racially destructive path, fully informing their populations of the long term consequences of their actions. That is in essence what my site attempts to be, a racial impact statement informing the Nordish peoples of the racially destructive consequences of multiracialism and of alternatives, of other choices they can still make to preserve themselves and their racial identity, avoiding assimilation into a universal racial collective. (This, of course, would also set a precedent which other races would hopefully follow.) Being aware of alternatives is as important a part of being fully informed as is being aware of the consequences of the current course. My proposal for separation -- or as you put it, my "mad scheme" -- is a presentation of a possible alternative. Despite all the efforts of the dominant cultural forces to pathologize all positive feelings that Nordish people might have for their race, I do not believe it is mad, or mentally ill, to want one's race to be preserved and continue to exist. Quite the opposite, it seems to me that wanting one's race to cease to exist should qualify as a form of madness.
"Subject: Re: Preservation is a serious matter
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 12:29:57 -0700
Thanks for replying. :)
Now for some counterpoints.
The problem is that you are seeing different races and not the fact that
there really is only one human race. We have many cultures and come in a
verity of colors but the biological fact is there is only one species of
human. However, it is true that diversity is being changed. We are a
global civilization now. We are no longer isolated into tiny regions that
are widely spaced apart. Yes, cultures are going to be wiped out as new
ones take their place. This is the way of evolution or natural selection
works. I believe that there will always be different cultures for different
parts of the world but the differences will not be as great. Yes, in some
ways this is a shame, but over all, I would have to say it will benefit
human kind far more than it takes away. One of the greatest causes of
"racial tensions" is that of different customs and beliefs. Once the world
has fully integrated there will be less tension due to misunderstandings or
ignorance of other cultural differences. This would make it possible for
people to understand and tolerate one another better.
I am not so sure that there is any reason to try very hard to save any
culture that wishes to be separate from all the rest. Isolationism is not
going to help this world get along better. It only enhances tensions and
prevents progress. As for the arrogant "White Race" (that I am ashamed to
be a part of), I believe this "race to be among the bigger causes of world
problems. They go around pushing their ideals on everyone else and claim,
or at least feel, that they are superior. Their extinction (by
interbreeding) would not bother me in the least. I do not feel that the
white race has anything of unique value to offer that cannot be replaced
with something better.
The world is changing. There is no reason to fear this change. Accept
it and grow with the rest of us. Grow into something better and hopefully,
more peaceful. Besides, do your really expect people to willingly separate
themselves at this late date? Do you really expect people who have grown to
love the part of the world they live in to pack up and move to some place
that may be totally inhospitable compared to what they know and love about
their current part of the world? I think not. Although according to your
map I would not have to move, I know many people that would have to be
dragged kicking and screaming to the places you suggest they go. I know I
would not want to be told that where I had to live! I do not think that
your ideas are very realistic in any way shape or form. Sorry, but I think
you are living in a dream world that I for one do not want any part of.
Well, I do not have time to go over this and shape it into what it should
be. I have a final essay to write and a chapter and a final test to
complete and I am fast running out of time. I would be willing to debate
this issue with you more in two weeks if you are willing? There is no way
that you can convince me that you are right but I am willing to listen.
As you can see, there is much to analyze here. This is obviously an intelligent person and a good student, in fact a very good student. He has learned his lessons very well and has succinctly stated the essentials of the racial nihilist position that he has undoubtedly been taught by a long series of teachers and professors. For example, the denial that different races exist or are real, the justification for racial destruction that the absence of diverse races (the dream of human oneness) will bring peace and harmony, the globalist assertion that racial globalization is inevitable and we must learn to accept this change even if it means the end of what we deeply love and cherish, and the justification of Nordish extinction by the demonization of the "arrogant" white race as uniquely evil so that its continued existence is particularly undesirable.
He is exposed for what he really is and really believes. His first e-mail said almost nothing and is similar in tone and content to what is found in editorials and letters to the editor in countless mainstream newspapers and magazines, and is therefore of little value or use to us as the general public would view it as harmless. But his second e-mail says almost everything, telling us what is to happen to us and why, the reason and justification for our extinction, saying things that never appear in mainstream publications. He hides somewhat behind the term "culture," trying to avoid using the term "race" as he doesn't want to acknowledge the reality of race, but the meaning is very clear for all to see. This is an admission we can use to prove our case to the doubters, evaders and deniers who don't want to face reality.
Collect such admissions whenever you can and document them. If you can get your antagonist to make the admission in public, especially before members of the general Nordish public rather than some select restricted group, so much the better, for then it would be worthwhile to take the argument as far as you can go, making it ever more clear to your audience how destructive multiracialism is for the Nordish race.
Richard McCulloch, July 2, 1999
Subject: Re: morality of preservation
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 07:02:15 .
From: "P.E." in Sweden
Greetings Mr McCulloch
Thanks for sending the interesting discussion with M.C. Three
points emerge from his letters:
A. Multiculturalism will make the World better.
Even if there are surely some "ups" with m.c. most evidence would rather
prove the opposite. Most if not all multicultural societies are riddled by
increasing problems, violence and conflicts. As former Yugoslavia proves
ethnic tensions can lie hidden very long to explode suddenly. Only a fair
separation would end conflicts; moreover it doesn't mean the end of contacts
between cultures, which could continue to know each other through mass-media
and tourism. "A" is also contradictory because it doesn't recognize that
m.c. is mostly the product of economical forces (globalization)and that the
weakest cultures, like the hunters-gatherers of the rain forests, are the
first to be wiped out in the process:this kind of "jungle struggle" strikes
me as very far from the peaceful purposes expressed by M.C. & Co.
B. Races don't exist.
This is the classic objection that I met in similar discussions that I had
on the net. When I tried to answer with scientific arguments I didn't get
any reply. They simply cut the dialogue.
C. Whites are the "bad guys" and white culture is
While I can try to dismiss A and B as fruit of naivete and ignorance, C
makes me really angry. People like M.C. just sit there and spit in the
dish from which they are eating. Almost everything which is around us is
fruit of the "evil" white culture: also their misunderstood ideals of
tolerance, the CDs with their thrash music and the computers which allow
them to diffuse their bullshit!
What to say about that? C is self-destructive, but also B is
because it kills every possible discussion on race preservation. Of course
you can't preserve something that doesn't exist.
I have engaged in discussions (or sometimes I have just listened)
with a lot
of people of different age, social background and education, from different
parts of Europe, and I got the conclusion that what you define as the "lower
echelon" of multiculturalists is a majority, especially between young and
well-educated people. I wish I were wrong but it's my experience.
I divide the vast majority of people - at least here in Europe - in two
Lower echelons. They usually get angry when engaged in such discussions,
and look at you as you were a Nazi. Some are polite like M.C. but no
less negative. Even the few which admit that races exist and that our is
going to disappear don't find this worrisome at all: THIS IS THE KIND OF
ANSWER WHICH DISCOURAGE ME MOST. They just say that this is an unimportant
problem, that mixed people are beautiful, white traits are boring and that
it was Hitler which worried about "pure races". A couple times someone
ironized also that since my hair is dark I shouldn't bother about the
Irresponsibles. This are the kind of people who don't care about the
society, "just think to have sex and get a booze instead of bullshitting..."
I think you are not surprised if I find all this most discouraging.
we mustn't give up to try educating people, I think other solutions should
I recommend you to visit:
and to go to altavista mainpage:
and you'll find a lot of "interesting" sites
Write me soon
I visited the Race Traitor site you recommended. I'd heard of them before but I hadn't visited their site before. The thing that stands out most in their nonsensical warped view of reality is that they don't define race as something physical, material, biological or genetic, as something physically or objectively real, but as something mental and arbitrary, unconnected with objective physical reality. They also say that the white race isn't really real, that it doesn't really exist in an objective sense but only in the minds of people who have been conditioned (indoctrinated or brainwashed?) to believe it exists. This bizarre mind game that disconnects race from physical reality seems to be part of the fundamental position of both the race traitors and race deniers. They don't acknowledge the fact that a race is people, physically and objectively real people, that share a common ensemble of physically real genetic traits that are manifest in their phenotype or physical appearance. The Nordish race is people such as Meg Ryan, Michelle Pfeiffer, Nicole Kidman, Christina Applegate, Alicia Silverstone or 400+million others. Their denial of race is in essence a denial of physical reality, of the physical existence of these people, and is a rejection not only of the white race but in its mode of thought it is also a rejection of the scientific and logical mode of thought promoted by Western civilization in favor of some mystic New Age nonsense.
This manner of thinking is of course closely related to M.C.'s, to many of those "lower echelon" types with whom you've had discouraging encounters, and to millions of others who've truly been indoctrinated with racial nihilist dogma, usually in the classroom. But these people are not the ones for us, at least not yet, so we shouldn't let ourselves be too discouraged when we encounter their foolishness. The ones we are after at this point are those with much better situational awareness and much more racial sense and sensibility than these mental defectives.
You should never let anyone equate your racial position, or mine, with Nazism. Always demand that they define the term, something they almost never do. If they can't or won't define it, tell them that without a definition it is meaningless. Like most name-calling, use of the term "Nazi" is actually an evasion of the real issues, a tactic to avoid discussion of the issues you raise by those who would prefer to ignore them. The term "Nazism" is of course an abbreviation of nationalism, not racism. I define my position as racial preservationism. The historical Nazism of 1923-45 Germany (more correctly National Socialism, as "Nazi" is a slang term for Nationalist, as "Commie" is for Communist) did not address the subject of Nordish racial preservation as this was not even an issue in pre-1945 Europe. The Nordish peoples who fought against Nazism in World War II were not fighting against racial preservationism, against the continued existence of their race. Nor were they fighting for multiracialism, the cause of racial destruction. At least that is not what they believed, or were told, 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" is a rebuttal of the reductionist thinking that equates racial preservationism with any kind of immoral racism, i.e., racism that does not respect the legitimate rights and interests of other races, which includes "Nazism" as it is commonly defined. 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 -- including racial preservationism -- with Nazism. We need to let them know there are other choices and other alternatives besides Nazism and multiracialism. (When I visited Uppsala University in 1989 I saw numerous posters announcing a rally against "Nazism," by which was meant opposition to immigration -- i.e., multiracialism -- which was equated with Nazism. I don't know the particulars of this situation -- perhaps there really was a local self-labeled Nazi group that was expressing opposition to immigration, but I doubt it. As you have experienced, any opposition to multiracialism -- most often in the form of opposition to immigration -- is reflexively equated with Nazism.)
As for dealing with racial nihilists who openly endorse Nordish extinction I'll elaborate 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 (quite frequently including myself, although not necessarily for the same reason) 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? If the preservation or continued existence of the Nordish race does not harm anyone, then they have no compelling, vital or even legitimate reason for opposing its preservation and continued existence, and thus for opposing 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. In doing this we should first calm their reflexively conditioned fears and suspicions by assuring them, repetitively like a mantra if need be, that nobody is harmed by racial preservation, that the continued existence of the Nordish race will not harm the legitimate interests of any person, that there is thus no compelling or vital reason to oppose its continued existence, and that opposition to Nordish preservation is therefore unjustified and immoral.
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 their 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 replaced and lost. The same is true of the Skansen midsummer poster -- the girls that are replaced by the mulatto are not shown. We need to juxtapose these photos of what the multiracialists are promoting with the photos of those whom the multiracialists are replacing and destroying, so they too will be seen and the viewer will be fully informed.)
Richard McCulloch, July 6, 1999
Subject: Re: preservation matters
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 02:49:28 .
From: "P.E." in Sweden
Dear Mr McCulloch,
I'm not surprised at all about the Time cover, having already
things several times. Two years ago the daily paper Metro publicized an
article which showed the pictures of three women, one caucasoid, one mong.
and one cong. and nine other pictures realized with the computer in which
the three women were progressively blended (75% cauc-25% cong, 50% cauc-50%
cong, 25% cauc-75% cong, 75% cong-25%mong and so on). The article revealed a
research which showed how men like beautiful, proportionate and symmetric
women regardless of their race. That is, most men, if shown a picture of
Naomi Campbell and Claudia Schiffer would say that both are beautiful women:
Pope is catholic and water is wet. I recognize too that N.C. is a beautiful
woman, but I don't feel any sexual attraction for her because she is black,
and I never would choose her as a partner. So this research prove nothing.
If you can get a copy of African Exodus by Dr Stringer you'll find some
other example of this forgery. For example a picture of Arnold
Schwarzenegger modified with the computer to look african-american. With
Adobe Photoshop I could turn a donkey into a dinosaur, so this is simply
ridiculous as a prove that races don't exist, but that is the message as
it's presented to the public. Unfortunately I don't have a scanner at my
disposition at the moment, but I'll try to send you these and other examples
of such forgeries as soon as I will be able to.
It's always refreshing and stimulating for me to hear your ideas: heartly
I have Christopher Stringer's book "In Search of the Neanderthals" (1993) but not "African Exodus." As you note, he is one of those palaeoanthropologists who seem to have an ideological agenda behind their work, going out of his way to minimize the value, significance or degree of racial differences or variety. Cavalli-Sforza does the same thing, going out of his way to preach the vision of racial oneness.
More thoughts on countering the common belief you noted in your previous observation, that: "The problem is that race preservation is not accepted as a social and moral value, on the contrary it's considered evil."
If race preservation is evil then racial existence, the existence of different races, must also be evil. If this state of evil is not limited to the existence of the Nordish race or the broader white race but to the existence of all races, then it follows that the existence of the Congoid race, the East Asian races, etc., are all evil. If the existence of different races, of more than one race as opposed to just one race, is evil, then it follows that the creation of the different races was also evil, i.e., an evil act. (Evil is of course a term of moral or ethical belief, not a term of factual belief, and the ethical belief that the existence of different races is evil is a value judgment common to the advocates of human oneness.) But the natural tendency of the earth, with its wide variety of diverse environments separated by great distances and geographic barriers, is to promote separation and divergence and create variety, diversity and differences. It is as if this is what the earth was designed to do, what it was made for. If its diversity of environments has any purpose it is to create or promote the greatest possible variety or diversity of life forms or races. On this earth, our home, nothing could be more natural and normal than diversity and differences. Nothing could be more abnormal or unnatural on this earth than an attempt to reduce the diversity and variety of a globally distributed species to oneness, to one single common form, to one uniform type. That is why I call the earth "a house of many mansions" (a phrase used in the bible to describe heaven). It is a planet of many diverse environments suited for the promotion of racial diversity and differences, of different races rather than one uniform race. The earth is large enough, and has room enough, to provide homes for all the races of humanity, secure homelands of their own where each can continue to exist and control their own existence. To describe this as evil and to seek to destroy or overturn this natural order is the essence of nihilism, the rejection of the natural and normal order and the attempt to annihilate and reduce it to the nothingness of nonexistence.
Racial nihilists who support the destruction of their own race, who regard the preservation and continued existence of their own race as evil, can be described as having a death wish and being part of a death culture at the racial level. It is part of the essence of nihilism that it rejects and breaks all connections with ancestral generations and their culture, beliefs and values, and the most extreme nihilism rejects and breaks all connections with the natural order itself. It is very unhealthy and very unnatural, and totally contrary to the purpose or meaning of life. Of course, many people spend a great deal of time searching for the meaning or purpose of life, often looking in the most exotic places. Many people equate it with religion. I think the meaning or purpose of life, of our existence, to the extent there is one, is really quite simple and obvious to deduce, easy to see and understand. We are stewards of life, species and race, meant to serve life in general, our own species in particular, and most specifically of all our own race. As Hector said in the Iliad, the purpose of a man's life is to serve his people, whether in war or peace. It was obvious then and obvious now; perhaps too obvious for some who reject the obvious answer as too simple in the belief that the truth must be hidden and difficult to discover. Positive or life-affirming religions serve the natural order by promoting life-serving values and beliefs. Negative or life-denying religions or ideologies, the type that appeal to nihilism, reject and subvert the natural order by promoting life-denying values and beliefs. Such value systems are perverse and unwholesome, whether religious or secular, and at least in the metaphorical sense can be described as Satanic, which is a term I think is metaphorically appropriate for any value system that subverts and rejects the natural order and is anti-life. The racial masochism and racial treason of the racial nihilist are perverse and contrary to the true purpose of their life, which they reject and condemn as evil.
Richard McCulloch, July 9, 1999
Subject: Re: More morality of preservation
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 06:39:50 .
From: "P.E." in Sweden
Dear Mr McCulloch
While I can find Mediterranid and, exceptionally, Mongoloid
attractive, I can't feel any attraction for Negroid or mulatto women. Even
the slightest sign of Negro blood, like in the blond, blue-eyed actress of
the science fiction series F/X (I don't remember the name), is enough to
cancel any sexual interest, so much negro features negate my ideal of
femininity. That's coherent with the fact that Negroids are the farthest away
from us in the human family tree.
That's not the case for many Europeans who find exotic and odd traits very
attractive. One of the main preservationist problems is that also those
people which fully or partially realize that the present multiculturalism is
leading to the extinction of their race, don't regard it as a problem, but on
the contrary as an improvement. This statement come from my experience, and,
as I already wrote, it's common that, especially among the youngsters,
Nordish and European traits are considered boring and uninteresting and
mixed people are considered beautiful. Another problem is that racial
"purity" is not universal: while central-northern Europe, central Africa,
eastern Asia and some other places have always been protected, isolated
environments, that's not true for many other areas, where race mixing has
often occurred in large degree. The most obvious example is Latin America,
but also the Middle-East has also been a crossway for different peoples and
races. So I can't expect that, to say, an Arab can develop the same kind of
racial consciousness like us and consequently be so ready to respect our
racial rights, because the very concept of race purity can be difficult to
grasp for him. Arabs and some other people usually identify themselves with
their culture and religion rather than their race.
I found the words in your last message moving and beautiful,
I wonder if you
have tried to contact the academic world and tried to explain your ideas in
the same terms. Racial preservationism must be diffused and gain that
respectability that it deserves.
As you say, the concept of racial preservation might be difficult for an Arab to understand. Actually it is difficult for almost any non-European to understand, not necessarily because they are of mixed race, as many are not, but because the existence of their own race is in no foreseeable danger of destruction from intermixture. So for them it is simply not a matter of concern.
It should, however, be a matter of the utmost concern for Europeans in general (outside of the countries of the former Soviet Union) and Northern Europeans in particular, as they are in very real danger of destruction. In fact, their destruction is certain unless decisive actions are taken to restore the previous, normal and natural condition of racial separation. Yet, as you observe, it is generally not a matter of concern among the endangered Nordish peoples whose destruction is now in progress.
This is what we need to change. In spite of the responses you encounter that express support for multiracialism even to the point of Nordish destruction, the fact remains that at the official level the danger to the Nordish race is not recognized or acknowledged. Any person who sounds the alarm concerning the very real destructive consequences of multiracialism for the Nordish race is likely to be portrayed as suffering from paranoid delusions. The reality of the danger is thus denied, evaded or ignored, but never acknowledged at the official level. It is often acknowledged at the unofficial level by members of the younger generation who, in their classrooms, have been even more thoroughly indoctrinated with the multiracialist ideology than their elders, but not at the official level.
My essay "Whom the Gods Would Destroy" discusses probably the most basic problem that we face, the fact that the Nordish people, in part unconsciously and without full awareness, have been turned against the most important, compelling, vital and legitimate interests of their own race. Many have been effectively alienated from the affection, loyalty, love or sense of concern for the interests of their race which are natural and normal, and actually regard such thoughts and emotions as pathological or evil.
But in spite of the powerful forces of conformism that compel superficial support for multiracialism I still believe that many, if not most, Nordish people really do want their race to continue to exist, but for them it is not an issue they need to address because they are not really aware that its existence is endangered. This, again, is what we need to change. We need to promote situational awareness, awareness of the true consequences of multiracialism and awareness of morally acceptable alternatives, with the hope that there really are many Nordish people who want their race to continue to exist and that they will act in support of its vital and legitimate interests when they are fully aware of the situation.
In the end, the Nordish race will be preserved only if many millions of its members want it to continue to exist. It is upon them, those who do want the Nordish race to continue, that the survival and salvation of the Nordish race chiefly depends. They are the ones we must reach with our message, the ones we must inform and make aware, the ones we must help to see. Without them all is lost. With them, or with enough of them, all is possible. The others do not matter. They may annoy you with their nihilism, madden you with their expressions of support for the subversion and destruction of their race, frustrate you with their willful conformism and impenetrable ignorance and stupidity, and outrage you with their moral self-righteousness. They are like religious true-believers, the masses of people throughout history who have believed what they have been told to believe, and thus been certain of the most incredible and amazing falsehoods. They simply lack the mental ability to understand our message on their own. But they don't really matter, so don't waste your time on them.
Richard McCulloch, July 18, 1999
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 06:09:02 .
From: "P.E." in Sweden
Dear Mr McCulloch,
reading your very interesting scale of racial assimilability, I came to some
points that I don't fully understand. You write that the most distinct
Nordish rate 0 and the least 6. When you say 15% Swedish rate 0 does it mean
that they rate between 0 and 1 or are they all 0s, followed by 1s, 2s etc.?
I.e., is the scale continuous or not? And if the scale is continuous, who
occupy the range between 6 and 7? Since the Nordish range ends at 6 and the
Alpine-Dinaric start at 7, is the place in between empty? I would pleased to
know more about your scale: are you planning to develop it and to write more
on it on the net? I hope so! Thanks.
The purpose of the racial assimilability scale is to provide a standard reference for predicting the effects of intermixture, and thereby a guide for the development and comparison of plans for racial partition for racial preservation. My intention was to provide a genetic-predictive tool for racial preservationists comparable to what the periodic table of the elements provides for chemists. Sort of Mendel meets Mendeleyev.
I believe if is effective for this purpose. You will notice in my essay that the average of different populations is frequently expressed in decimal points, although I avoid doing this for individuals. Still, it can be done. When 2s and 3s mate and have children are all the children 2s or 3s? Of course not. Some will be 2.2s and some will be 2.8s, etc., and the average will tend to be 2.5. The space in between 6 and 7, per your question, would be occupied by part-Nordish hybrids that are just outside the Nordish racial range.
I could multiply all the numbers by ten, with Nordish types ranging from 0-60 and Central Africans averaging 830, but I think this would be too complicated for most purposes. I welcome your comments and will make changes if I think they would improve the scale.
Richard McCulloch, July 27, 1999
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 06:03:20 .
From: "P.E." <p_e@..com>
Dear Mr McCulloch
Stephen Hawking wrote that life is a struggle against the principle
Entropy. Life is organization and the principle of Entropy says that the
degree of disorder - disorganization - in the Universe steadily increases.
To accomplish itself life must increase the Entropy of the environment
outside itself. But this process is natural. The same can be said about
race: race is organization, but it's natural organization, not an artificial
process. Race is part of the natural process of the life, because the
natural evolution of life leads to a partition into different races, then
species and so on. Of course the subdivision in categories is a human
construction, which serves practical purposes, but the process in itself is
natural. When nature created the barriers which divided the different races
jet planes, ships - and multiculturalism - had not yet been invented.
Usually the supporters of race mixing fail to see this point.
I can't judge your scale for the simple reason that I lack the knowledge for
doing it. Nor I can look at someone and say if he is a 3.3 or 3.4. I just
assume that your scale is right. But there are some interesting consequences
which it would be important to discuss. I assume from what you wrote in your
last message that your scale is based on the genotype and not on the
phenotype. This is an important distinction because the phenotype can show a
much wider variation, due to the effects that dominance and recessivity have
on the combinations of the alleles. If you consider the fusion of two large
populations of the same size, a scale based on the genotype would tend to
give intermediate values (of course the results for single individuals is not
so easily predictable). A scale based on the phenotype would tend to give
values nearer to the population which possess most dominant characters. When
you calculate the value for the African-american, which possess a 25% of
white genes, you apply this formula:
(3/4* 83) + 1/4* 3 where 83 is the African average and 3 the
average. So you appear to use the genotype, not the phenotype.
Regards. I hope to be able to continue this interesting discussion soon.
I discuss the principle of entropy in the chapter "Ascending Life" in my book "Destiny of Angels." I enjoyed your discourse on major principles and reference to Stephen Hawking. This is the kind of thinking, and the kind of thinker, that is the glory of our race. Thought at this level and this quality seems to be much more typical of our race than others.
I'm sorry if my last message confused you, but my scale of racial assimilability is based on phenotype, not genotype. As you point out, phenotypes can show a much wider variation, but when dealing with large numbers of people (i.e., a population) the phenotypical average will tend to reflect the genotypical average. That is why the scale is more accurate in its prediction of the phenotypes of hybrids the larger the numbers involved. There can be wide variation in the phenotypes of individual hybrids, as I discuss in the accompanying text, but the average phenotype of large numbers of hybrids should conform to what is predicted in the scale. If not, the scale will need revision.
In general, any individual or population rated over 12 on this scale has genetic traits which are strongly dominant over Nordish genetic traits, usually placing offspring of equal ancestry out of the Nordish phenotypical range. The more unfavorable the dominant-recessive effect is for the Nordish race relative to another race the more unassimilable the other race is and the higher its number on the scale. The top-of-the-scale high number of 83 for the African average, indicating their very high degree of unassimilability, is directly related to the extreme dominance of their genetic traits over Nordish traits (and judging by Tiger Woods and other Afro-Asian hybrids, over the traits of other races as well). Thus the scale not only allows for the effects of dominant and recessive genetic traits, it is actually based on it. You could view it as a dominant-recessive scale. The higher the number of a population on this scale the more dominant its genetic traits are over Nordish traits, and the more unassimilable it is for the Nordish race.
Richard McCulloch, July 31, 1999
Subject: Scale issues
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 04:53:00 .
From: "P.E." in Sweden
Dear Mr McCulloch
it's long since I heard from you, I hope everything is OK and you had a nice
I have a suggestion to maybe improve your scale. You wrote
that it's based
on the phenotype. I considered this example:
Let's take two individuals, A and B, which have both, let's
say, a Dinaric
phenotype and rate both 8 in your scale. But while A's genotype is pure
Dinaric, B's is a blend of Dinaric and Nordish, even if the Nordish traits
are recessive and are not visible in the phenotype. Now, it's clear to me
that B is more assimilable than A because his/her Nordish recessive genes
can, and very probably will, recombine with those of a Nordish mate and give
offsprings with a more Nordish phenotype than those from A. Thus two
individuals which rate the same can have a different assimilability.
Now let's take an other example:
two individuals, X and Y, which rate both 6, but X is a pure peripheral
Nordish, while Y is a blend between a central Nordish 0 and an Armenid 15
which happens to have a more Nordish than Arm. phenotype (one must consider
that rarely gene combination follows exactly the Mendelian laws, and that
not all Nordish traits are recessive). In this case I'd say that X is more
assimilable than Y, because some recessive (or partially recessive) Armenid
genes can recombine with those of a Nordish individual of mixed origin and
offsprings with some odd trait which could be enough to negate the Nordish
I think these cases, even if maybe not so frequent, prove that
can't be ignored. Maybe one could think to adding some corrective values to
modify the scale. One should also define which are the traits which more
negate the Nordish ones. I'd pleased to collaborate with you in finding out
solutions and refining your scale (that, anyway, is a remain your exclusive
accomplishment and merit).
"Brûnn" and "Noric" greetings.
Your comments about the variability between genotype and phenotype with regard to my table of Nordish racial assimilability are quite correct, and that is why the accuracy of the scale is much lower with individuals than with populations, and increases in predictive accuracy with the increase in the size of the population, because in a population recessive genes will manifest themselves in phenotypes in numbers reflecting the extent of their genotypic presence.
But consider also that many genetic traits are not simply recessive or dominant, but are produced by a complex of interacting genes, and these traits often tend to be intermediate in mixed offspring between the parent stocks and are thus a more accurate indicator of the degree of mixture. Skin color is one example of such a complex trait, with many degrees and shades of color possible and the offspring of mixed pairings usually being intermediate between the parents.
I think in general it is these complex traits which best indicate the genetic distance between two racial types, not simple traits like light versus dark eyes. The greater the genetic distance between two racial types, the more distant their relationship and common ancestry, the less compatible they will be in terms of assimilability, regardless of the dominant and recessive issue. I've seen persons who were distinctly Congoid in phenotype yet had light eyes (simply meaning both their parents had some light-eyed -- presumably Nordish -- ancestors whose recessive genes for light eyes happened to combine in this person) and other persons who were very distinctly Nordish in phenotype yet had dark eyes, so I've learned not to place too much importance on these genetically simple traits unless they are combined with the appropriate ensemble of more complex traits.
For obvious reasons the scale has to be based on phenotype, because we really don't know what a person's genotype is except to the extent that it is manifested in the phenotype, and the phenotype has worked very effectively as a guide to assimilability (genetic compatibility) by both human and animal (and plant) matchmakers since before history.
That said, I welcome your interesting observations and any suggestions you may have to improve the scale.
Richard McCulloch, August 26, 1999
Return to Racial Preservation: Issues and Answers page
Go to Racial Compact main page