E-Mail from Opponents of Nordish Racial Preservation
Selections of correspondence from opponents of Nordish racial preservation with replies and commentary by Richard McCulloch
This page is concerned with the common objections encountered by proponents of Nordish racial preservation. For the most part it deals with the arguments raised by those who explicitly oppose Nordish preservation, and who explicitly favor its destruction or extinction, and openly acknowledge that this will be the consequence of multiracialism. But it should be made clear that the most common type of opposition Nordish racial preservationists encounter when they discuss the issue of preservationism versus multiracialism derives from the fact that most people do not realize that the preservation, the very existence, of the Nordish race is at stake. They seem to be afflicted with a static view of existence that causes them to assume that things will not really change in any significant way but will continue to be as they have known them, or with a short-range temporal perspective which prevents them from comprehending the long-term effects of current policies and trends, both of which make them unaware of the critical nature of the racial situation, unaware of the racially destructive consequences of multiracialism, unaware that racial separation is required for racial preservation, and based on this lack of awareness and understanding they see no compelling need for preservationist measures such as racial separation. Before they can give proper consideration to the preservationist position and alternative, they need to be informed and made fully aware of the racial situation, of the existential crisis confronting the Nordish race. Without this situational awareness, this racial sense and sensibility, they will not see the need for the separatist measures required for racial preservation, as they will not appreciate the critical nature of the problem, will not see the compelling reasons, ultimate issues and vital interests involved.
The general lack of awareness of the racial situation is made even more dangerous by the fact that 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 will not 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 be separate from them. As a result, there is a prevailing lack of awareness or recognition that the most vital and compelling interests of the Nordish race are involved -- its continued existence and control of its own existence.
Added to this is the fact that all racial issues are now centered around the non-Nordish races, to the point that their interests are the center of concern, actually the sole matter of concern, and all racial issues and policies are viewed from their perspective and measured by the standard of how well they serve their interests. All motives and emotions are assumed to be centered around the non-Nordish races, so it is presumed that Nordish people are motivated by their feelings for other races, not their feelings for their own race, creating the presumption that Nordish people who support the vital interests of their own race -- such as preservation and independence -- are not motivated by positive feelings or emotions for their own race, such as love for their race, but by negative feelings and emotions for other races, and thus are not pro-Nordish but anti or against the non-Nordish people or peoples. This situation fosters an obvious double-standard, a clear indicator of ethical illegitimacy, which promotes an intensely subjective view of reality for the non-Nordish peoples while demanding a level of objectivity from the Nordish peoples that is so extreme, so centered on the interests of other races, as to be self-destructive. Under these conditions, the rights and interests of the Nordish race are not considered or even recognized, but are ignored and denied. Inconsiderateness is often unintentional, a result of obliviousness or unawareness. This is probably the reason for much of the lack of consideration for the rights and interests of the Nordish race. But this racial inconsiderateness cannot be regarded solely as an unintended result of obliviousness, as many its practitioners remain intentionally inconsiderate when informed of the effects of their actions and policies on Nordish interests, and vigorously enforce this inconsiderateness against any who dare to assert that the interests of the Nordish race are a matter of legitimate concern that should be considered. In some countries this inconsiderateness of Nordish interests has gone so far as to enact laws prohibiting their consideration, recognition, discussion or promotion, as to do so is regarded as a violation of the rights and interests of the non-Nordish races.
The lack of racial situational awareness is not only true of the general public but also of many opponents of multiracialism, the supposed promoters of 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, 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, in fact a trivialization, and for most people an inadequate justification for opposition to multiracialism. Thus the first task of Nordish preservationists is consciousness raising, to raise the general level of knowledge and awareness about the racial situation and the true nature and magnitude of the danger to the Nordish race. Until this task is accomplished Nordish preservation will remain a non-issue, never mentioned, acknowledged or discussed in the general public forum.
It is less common for Nordish preservationists to encounter people who are aware and acknowledge that the eventual consequence of multiracialism is the destruction and extinction of the Nordish race through racial intermixture, and who openly and explicitly favor this destruction, or explicitly oppose Nordish preservation and continued existence, which is the same thing. Some of the common justifications or arguments used by the anti-Nordish supporters of Nordish extinction (anti-Nordish in the most extreme sense of the prefix "anti," as they support the destruction and nonexistence of the Nordish race) are:
1.) There is nothing valuable, important or special about the Nordish race to justify its preservation, and/or the differences between it and other races are not great enough to make its continued existence a matter of importance or legitimate concern. The fact that the different races of humanity share 99.9% of their genes in common is often cited to support the second argument.
The first argument basically takes the position that a race does not have a right to exist, and is not worth preserving, unless it can prove it is of special value or importance, or in other words, prove that it is superior. A race is presumed to be unworthy of preservation and continued existence unless it can prove otherwise, and the standard of proof, if given, is typically arbitrary and unattainable, so any attempt to prove a race worthy of preservation is essentially futile. This is, obviously, the opposite of the preservationist position, which believes that the presumption should always be in favor of preservation, not destruction.
The second argument is basically a subjective value judgment. If one values the different races of humanity, or any race of humanity, and values or loves their -- or its -- unique traits, as I do, one will consider the differences great enough, valuable enough and important enough to make their -- or its -- continued existence a matter of the utmost concern. The citation of human racial genetic similarity is much less impressive when the fact that humans share 99% of their genes in common with Chimpanzees, 90% with cows and other mammals, 80% with birds, and even 20% with yeast, is also cited for the sake of providing perspective and context.
2.) Races are not real. They do not really exist, and therefore there is no legitimate justification for preserving the Nordish race as there is no valid reason to preserve something that does not really exist. This position, called racial deconstructionism, is becoming increasingly common, and is essentially a more extreme development of the position described in the preceding paragraph. It is addressed on this site in the selection titled The Reality of Race.
3.) The Nordish race is mixed with other races and is thus "impure," and because of this alleged "impurity" from past intermixture its preservation by the prevention of additional intermixture with other races is not a legitimate concern. This position is addressed on this site in the selection titled The Issue of Racial Intermixture and Impurity.
4.) The Nordish race (and other closely related European races) is uniquely evil as proven by its role in historical violations of the rights of other races such as the Holocaust, African slavery, the dispossession of the American Indians and other non-European native peoples, etc., and because of this evil history and the danger of its capacity for more evil it is a threat to the rest of humanity and should be destroyed.
This is the most explicitly anti-Nordish position, an argument which effectively demonizes the Nordish race and its peoples through a doctrine of collective guilt and an intensely subjective and distorted anti-Nordish interpretation of history which takes events out of their historical context to portray the Nordish race as morally unworthy of continued existence or independence. This argument is essentially a defamation of Nordish moral character, a claim that the Nordish race is morally inferior to other races, and like the arguments in the three preceding paragraphs seeks to devalue the Nordish race to justify its extinction and morally delegitimize its preservation. It also essentially rebuts itself by its own extreme immorality and evil logic, which should be obvious to any objective observer. I think that an objective and balanced study of the full course of history, where events are seen in their historical context rather than removed from it, and the perspective of all the parties is understood, would show that the moral character of the Nordish race is by no measure inferior to that of other races. Where the Nordish race is more likely at fault is in its sense of moral superiority and its consequent presumptuous missionary tendency to teach or impose its morality and values on the rest of humanity. That missionary sense of moral superiority has mutated into hyper-altruism, an extreme form of altruism that I refer to in my book The Ideal and Destiny (1982) as anti-self and anti-self-kind ethics that has turned the Nordish race against itself, against its own most vital rights and interests, against its own existence, and turned it into its own enemy. Far from violating the rights and interests of other races, the Nordish race -- by its acceptance of multiracialism, the destroyer of races -- is now engaged in a massive violation of its own greatest, most vital, major, primary, fundamental and compelling rights and interests, violating and sacrificing its independence, its possession of its homelands, the conditions it requires for its preservation and continued existence, and thus its very existence, for the sake of other races, to serve and give precedence to their lesser, non-vital and secondary interests, specifically their desire to live in the homelands and societies of the Nordish race. In practice, the fundamental operating principle of multiracialism is that non-Nordish peoples have the right to move into, live in, and take possession of the Nordish homelands, to dispossess and replace the Nordish inhabitants, and that the Nordish peoples have no right to retain possession of their homelands, no right to the conditions they require for their continued existence, and no right to exist. Any assertion of Nordish rights or interests, including its most vital right to continued existence, is regarded as a threat to other races based on the false and extremist logic that the assertion of Nordish rights inevitably leads to the violation of the rights of other races. In some Nordish countries this extremist reasoning has even been used to enact laws that prohibit expression of recognition and support for Nordish interests. By contrast, I believe it is immoral to violate the vital rights and interests of any race, including one's own race, whether Nordish or non-Nordish.
5.) Human differences are the cause of human conflict, so all differences between different human groups -- including racial differences -- should be eliminated to prevent conflict.
Of all the differences that have caused human conflict -- nationality, ethnicity, religion, political ideology, economic rivalry, competition for territory or resources, race, etc. -- only race is by definition physical and biological, a product of nature existing as an objective fact of reality. The other differences exist in the mind -- in the memes, not the genes -- and are acquired from the environment, nurture and cultural inheritance, not from nature and biological inheritance. (Although traditionally there is usually a racial identity as well as cultural element associated with nationality and ethnicity, the racial identity is not necessary by definition, and there are many populations defined as nations or ethnic groups that are so racially diverse as to lack any meaningful racial identity.) So only race can be eliminated by physical or biological means, and that is the only means by which it can be eliminated, and that means is the racial intermixture resulting from multiracialism. As multiculturalism eliminates cultural differences, or destroys cultures, by blending different cultures together, so multiracialism eliminates racial differences, or destroys races, by blending different races together. This is the goal and ideal of globalism -- to end conflict by eliminating or destroying differences, eliminating or destroying human racial and cultural variety and diversity, and by uniting all humanity in one economic system, under one government, eliminating racial and national independence: one world, one economy, one government and one uniform, monotypic race. And this is the direction in which the world is headed under the control of the dominant globalist power structure, with one important modification: the goal of racial destruction is in practice -- currently and for the foreseeable future -- only being applied to the Nordish and other closely-related European races. Only they are actually being subjected to a process of racial elimination, being replaced in their homelands by other races, losing their racial identity and eventually their racial existence as they are gradually assimilated into a hybridized race that is a blend of European, African and Asian elements, with the European element in the blend constantly decreasing under continuous Afro-Asian immigration. At present, and for the foreseeable future, the non-European races are not similarly threatened by multiracialism, and it is difficult to imagine a credible scenario in which the peoples of such countries as India, Indonesia, China, Nigeria or Mexico could be similarly threatened.
I believe that humanity is a house of many mansions, that the wealth of humanity is in its differences, its rich diversity and variety, and that human conflict is best minimized by the recognition, respect, protection and preservation of those differences, so that they are secure in their existence, and in that security there will be no need to resort to conflict. What should be eliminated are those policies and actions which threaten and endanger the preservation and security of human differences. As every individual should have the right to be secure in their person, in their being, in their existence, and in their homes, and not have that security endangered, threatened or harmed, so every race should have the right to be secure in its existence, in its control of its existence, and in its possession of its homelands, and not have that security endangered, threatened or harmed.
6.) Racial preservationism is motivated by hatred of other races, and is thus a form of hate, and because of this supposedly negative source of motivation is morally illegitmate.
This emotion-based argument is not really a logical reason for opposing racial preservation, being more a means of evading the issue by attempting to morally discredit it to the point that it is socially unacceptable and most people will be afraid to be associated with it, but given human nature it is often the most powerful and effective argument for the anti-preservationist position. I have addressed it elsewhere from my Noridish preservationist perspective as follows:
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 defined, 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 defined and 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 population of any 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.
Our task, it seems to me, is to help them to understand and know these facts, to achieve full knowledge and awareness of the situation, 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. It is 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 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 by mine or any other. 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. After all, although we are different races, we are different races of the same species, and we should all desire to preserve our common species in its entirety and completeness. That is the essence of the racial compact I propose. Again, as above, this is where we can take our stand.
The advocates of multiracialism and Nordish racial destruction would be well-advised that those Northern Europeans who are motivated by hatred for other races are only a minor obstacle to their goal. The major obstacle to their goal are those Northern Europeans who are motivated by love for their own race, not hatred of others. The true obstacle to their goal is the love Northern Europeans have for their own race, not the hatred they have for other races, of which most hopefully have little or none. Although the advocates of Nordish destruction claim that their adversary, what they are fighting against, is hate, their true adversary, what they are really fighting against, is love -- the love Northern Europeans have for their race which causes them to value and cherish it, and to desire its preservation, continued existence and well-being. But they deny and refuse to recognize the existence of that love, just as they deny and refuse to recognize that the Nordish race has any legitimate rights and interests, or that Nordish people are motivated more by their feelings for their own race than their feelings for other races, or that their thoughts, values, motives and feelings are centered more around their own race than around other races, or that Nordish people can be "pro-Nordish" rather than "anti" some other race, or that Nordish people can desire the preservation, continued existence, independence and well-being of their race because of their love for it rather than because they hate other races. This love for the Nordish race is the love which no member of the current establishment or power structure can or will acknowledge or speak of, and which no Nordish member of that establishment can or would admit to, and if accused of it would most vehemently deny it. Yet it should be presumed that hate is associated with destruction and love with preservation, that those advocating destruction are motivated by hate and those advocating preservation are motivated by love. That these normally presumptive associations have been reversed in the current discussion of racial issues indicates the degree of cultural dominance now enjoyed by the advocates of Nordish destruction, and the degree to which this dominance has enabled them to distort general perceptions.
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 years old. It is one of the sources of my motivation, along with some before it and many more since. It should leave no doubt on the question of whether I'm motivated by love or hate. Love is the obvious answer. [NatGeo4-63.JPG]
7.) The claim or belief that racial separation is evil per se and that multiracialism (different races sharing the same territory or country) and racial intermixture are good per se.
This is a rather new claim or belief that first appeared in the latter part of the 20th Century. It is nearly always made without reference to, or recognition of, the fact that racial separation is required for racial preservation, that the creation of the different races was made possible by separation and that the different races existed under conditions of separation for all of their existence until very recently, and that multiracialism and the consequent racial intermixture must inevitably result in racial destruction. If this claim or belief is accepted then the continued existence of the different races is evil, all of our existence until recently was evil, the conditions that created and preserve the different races are evil, and the design of the earth -- which promoted the creation and preservation of the different races by its geographic variety and distances -- is evil.
8.) The belief that the different races of humanity should be blended together into one global race, all the same all over the earth.
The explicit proponents of this view are open racial nihilists, openly advocating and seeking the destruction or annihiliation -- reduction to nothingness or nonexistence -- of racial differences and different races. They are also likely to explicitly recognize that separation is required for preservation and that multiracialism causes racial intermixture and racial destruction, and to view this as a positive development and cause for celebration. Of course, this view or belief is implicit in the values, policies, actions and programs of the dominant culture and power structure, as racial destruction -- or as a practical matter, and more truthfully, Nordish racial destruction -- is the inevitable consequence of their practice, and any explicit opposition or resistance to this view -- such as any explicit support for racial preservation -- is certain to be strongly condemned. But while most members of the ruling cultural and political establishment avoid explicit recognition of this fact, the advocates of a single global human race of one mixed type openly acknowledge this goal as their dream or vision of the future, as John Lennon did in his song Imagine, and promote it with a ferver similar to religious millennialism, seeing this utopian "peaceable kingdom" or "brotherhood of man" as the inevitable and pre-ordained destiny of humanity, which is futile to resist, but should be welcomed and celebrated as progress, when in reality it is a radical reversal of the natural course of divergent evolution and destruction of human racial diversity, the normal racial condition of humanity, destroying the different races of humanity that have existed for the last 20,000-plus years. As a rule, this belief is more likely to be openly expressed and recognized in Europe than in the United States. The following excerpt from an editorial by Staffan Heimerson (heimerson_staffan.JPG), a well-known Swedish journalist and foreign correspondent, published in the major Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet on January 1, 2000 (note the date; it is symbolic) is a good example:
Every Group Becomes a Minority
[A] change is on its way. The approaching change is that everybody on earth will be of the same race. Soon, we will all look rather the same. Not just in the way we dress. All of us will also have the same skin color. A little darker than now, if we are white Caucasians. Somewhat lighter, if we have an African background. Somewhat rounder eyes than now in the East, somewhat more slanting in the West.
This process of amalgamation has already begun. It's accelerating. This change is...the most important event of the new millennium. This is -- more than free trade and multinational corporations -- the real globalization. This is not utopian. It is a statistical fact that we mix like never before. The ethnic boundaries are breaking up. This is happening right before our eyes while we in the name of decency let ourselves become horrified by conflicts...But these conflicts are exceptions, the last death throes of ethnocentrism, jingoism, xenophobia. In the bigger picture, the barriers are broken. This will become reinforced during the peaceful 21st century. Every group becomes a minority.
It is, like in most things, America that leads the way. In the next generation no people -- not white Caucasians, nor Blacks, nor Hispanics, nor Asians -- will be a majority there. Every group is a minority. That is the result of the young America mixing in all directions all over the place. It was a sociologist in another society of immigrants, the Australian Donald Horne, who said: "The best assimilation takes place in bed."
America is by no means alone. In India, more people marry over the caste-boundaries than before. In Japan, which used to be the quintessence of xenophobia, the number of "international marriages" is on a sharp increase. The explanation is simple: a new generation of entrepreneurs is the new role model, and at the same time more foreigners of a young age are coming to the country. In Germany...in the most German of towns, in the heartland of Mercedes-Benz, in Stuttgart, one of every four inhabitants is a Turk. It was also, as you remember, Germany which in the last Eurovision Song Contest finale was represented by a Turkish group.
This new freedom from prejudice, with its fruit so full of promise, takes place at the very time when we ourselves dwell on "ethnic conflicts" and "increasing racism." The very opposite is true. There is no longer anything fateful about the question of an old movie title: "Guess Who's Coming for Dinner?" And Kipling has been proven wrong in saying: "East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet." They are meeting in more places than in bed. The most prestigious literary awards of Britain are not given to authors in London. They go to the masters of the English language, one year in Bombay, the next in Jamaica or Durban. In the real center of the world, Silicon Valley, forty per cent of all new establishments are made by immigrants, most of them from India.
Charles Darwin...said something about animal life which in the third millennium is even more applicable to Man: "The species that survive are not the most intelligent or strongest. It is the ones who are better at adapting to change." Adaptation is in progress...we are now all going to become Creoles. How wonderful!
Note that the term "Creole," which originally referred to a French person born in the West Indies, is now generally used in Europe as a term for persons of racially-mixed ancestry. Obviously, if we are all Creoles, there will be no Northern Europeans, or any other of the historical races of humanity. I, for one, do not regard the nonexistence of the Nordish race, which I love, or the other human races, as progress, or as something wonderful, and think that this belief, supported and rewarded though it is by the dominant power structure and those who comform to its values, is one of the most perverse, evil and dangerous ideas ever to afflict the minds of men. Like other dangerous ideas, its consequences are destructive, and at present and for the foreseeable future its destructive effects are directed almost solely at the Nordish race. That this plan for Nordish racial destruction enjoys such widespread and intense support among the leadership elements of the Nordish race is evidence for the point I make above that the evil and harm now being perpetrated by the Nordish race is directed not against other races but against itself.
My dream or vision of the future, as stated above, is quite
different. I also hope for peace and friendship among all the
races of the human family, but based on mutual respect and recognition
for each other's existence and vital rights and interests, especially
the right of each race to exist and be secure in its existence
and in its possession of its own homelands. This is the dream
or vision of a humanity and world that is a "Kingdom of Many
Mansions," where each race is secure in its own mansion and
good fences (secure racial borders) make good neighbors. This
is the vision of the future I call the Racial Compact.
The following selections of e-mail correspondence are from persons who are proponents of Nordish destruction, either explicitly by openly advocating Nordish destruction, or implicitly by opposing Nordish preservation, and who usually include one or more of the above listed arguments to justify their position. The bottom line of all these arguments is that the Nordish race should not be preserved, should not be permitted to continue to exist, should not be permitted to control its own existence, and should not be secure in its existence or in its possession of its own homelands. The arguments seek to justify this in different ways, but the bottom line is the same.
Subject: Racial separation
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 18:01:59 -0700
Funny how your "racial nations" save the industrialized
area for whites, while shoving minorities together in the crappiest real
estate in the country.
You're just another nazi bigot wrapped in delusional fantasy.
You make me
ashamed of my race.
Richard McCulloch comments:
Since Mr. Rice appears to be opposed to the preservation of his race and in favor of its extinction, being ashamed of his race would seem to be a trivial matter, like adding insult to the greatest possible injury. Although he blames me for his shame, I suspect that it, and his hatred of his race, were fully developed long before he discovered my site.
Far from being "the crappiest real estate in the country," the areas designated for the non-Nordish nations in my partition proposal, if taken together, would currently have the world's fourth largest economy, and are so desirable as places to live that they are often referred to as the "Sun Belt" and have experienced the largest population growth rates for the last half century. But I doubt if Mr. Rice's objection is really with the particular territory I allocate to the non-Nordish races. I suspect his objection is with Nordish preservation itself, and the racial separation it requires, and that his objections would be no less even if my allocations were completely reversed and I allocated the non-Nordish races the territory I allocate to the Nordish race. I note in this regard that he doesn't offer an alternative partition proposal, or even a constructive criticism.
The "nazi bigot" accusation is an example of name calling, a tactic commonly used by those who are unable or unwilling to discuss the issue of racial preservation. Since no definition is given for these terms they serve only to evade and distort the issues. Is a person who wants their race to be preserved, who wants their race to continue to exist, a "nazi bigot?" Or does this term apply only to people who want the Nordish race to be preserved? Is just wanting the Nordish race to exist Nazism? If so, then the very existence of the Nordish race must be Nazism. Is this Mr. Rice's definition of Nazism? This is the definition implied by all those like Mr. Rice who accuse proponents of Nordish preservation of Nazism, and thus equate Nordish preservation -- continued Nordish existence -- with Nazism.
Many opponents of Nordish preservation, like Mr. Rice, are eager to equate, link, connect or associate the Nordish race and its interests with "Nazism," and opposing those interests with opposing Nazism. Destruction of the Nordish race is thus regarded as the destruction of Nazism and the preservation of the Nordish race is implicitly regarded as a Nazi position. Of course, many seek the destruction of the Nordish race as their goal, and equating or linking it with Nazism is an effective means to that goal. It is not really Nazism they oppose, but the continued existence of the Nordish race.
In the current prevailing logic of the anti-Nordish opponents
of Nordish racial preservation and continued existence, Nordish
racial preservationism is reflexively equated with Nazism (and/or
with Adolf Hitler, the historical figure who personifies Nazism),
and any member of the Nordish race who supports or desires the
continued existence of their race, who supports its most vital
and compelling interests, or opposes the causes of its destruction,
is reflexively classified as a Nazi. The logical connection between
Nordish racial preservationism and the historical Nazism (National
Socialism) of 1933-45 Germany, which is condemned for genocidal
violations of the rights of other peoples and races, is based
on the claim that support for the interests of the Nordish race
-- and especially support for its most vital and compelling interests
of continued existence and independence, and the condition of
racial separation these interests require -- ultimately leads
to Nazi-style genocidal violations of the rights of other races.
This line of logic, by denying the possibility of any position
or alternative between the two extremes of Nordish racial destruction
through multiracialism on one end, and Nazi-style genocidal violation
of the rights of other races at the other end, is a blatant example
of extremist reductionist reasoning, which reduces choices to
the two extremes. This extremist mode of reasoning -- that support
for Nordish preservation necessarily leads to genocide of non-Nordish
peoples -- is central to the racial nihilist and multiracialist
critique and condemnation of racial preservationism. It is also
the central message of Holocaust education, from the National
Holocaust Museum in Washington to the Simon Wiesenthal Center
in Los Angeles and Holocaust Studies courses in schools and universities,
which teach the extremist view that support for Nordish preservation
and independence -- or opposition to multiracialism, the cause
of Nordish destruction -- necessarily leads to extreme Nazi-style
violation of the rights of other races, and thus that Nordish
preservationism is the equivalent of Nazism, and cannot be tolerated
or permitted. The promotion of this "lesson of the Holocaust"
-- that opposition to multiracialism and support for Nordish preservation
and independence necessarily leads to extreme violations of the
rights of other races -- has become the central purpose of Holocaust
education, which thus misuses the Holocaust to promote multiracialism
(often under the banner of "tolerance") and the denial
and violation of the most vital, compelling, fundamental and legitimate
interests of the Nordish race -- its preservation and independence,
continued existence and control of its existence. In a growing
number of Nordish countries this false and extremist "lesson
of the Holocaust" is used to promote and justify legislation
that makes it illegal to support and promote the vital interests
of the Nordish race, especially the condition of racial separation
it requires for its independence, well-being and continued existence.
I reject this extremist form of reasoning, and think there are
many possible alternatives for us to choose from, not just the
two extremes, and that one of these alternatives is what I have
described as the Racial Compact, a philosophy of racial relations
that promotes racial preservation, racial independence and mutual
recognition and respect for the legitimate rights and interests
of every race.
Subject: Another reference...
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 21:12:52 -0500
"Mein Kamf" by Adolf Hitler. "Lebensraum" sound familiar?
Richard McCulloch comments:
Ditto. A snide version of Nazi name calling. Refer to the commentary on the preceding correspondence.
Subject: racial euphemisms
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 09:53:03 -0700
From: Instructional Computing
Organization: UM - St. Louis
I guess this is what they mean when the Constitution says that
individuals have their freedom of speech rights, even to the extent of
being able to express one's idiotic view via the internet. You are such
an asshole if you really believe the garbage that you are advertising.
Like the Starr Report, some shit should be censored. You attempt to use
intelligent language coupled with compromising prose, but you still come
off to most as a three-piece suit wearing racist with this KKK hat in his
Richard McCulloch comments:
Ditto again, but with the KKK replacing the Nazi reference, more vulgar language (rather common among opponents of Nordish preservation) and a call for censorship, all things that proponents of Nordish preservation often encounter from those who wish to evade the issues because they are unable or unwilling to discuss them, and favor their suppression.
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 12:00:09 EST
You are aware that no matter what your views are, in the future
be a nice honey brown color...
Richard McCulloch comments:
The above is, of course, the ultimate dream of racial nihilists, globalists and One-World advocates -- humanity reduced to one globalized, uniform, monotype race. I have nothing against people who are a "nice honey brown color," but I don't want everyone to be of the same color, whether honey brown or any other, or be the same in any other feature where humanity now enjoys variety and diversity. I especially want my own race, the Nordish race, and its traits and features to continue to exist in their current form and quantity. The fate of the Nordish race is really the central issue of racial globalization, for as a practical matter it is the Nordish race which is most threatened by multiracialism and its consequent racial intermixture, which is in clear and present danger of destruction, followed by certain other European races. The non-European races are not in any danger for the foreseeable future. The races of Central Africa, India, and East Asia are not experiencing immigration from other races sufficient to threaten or even alter their continued existence. So AphroditeFalling's dream is not really for everyone, just the Nordish race and certain other related European races. At present, and for the foreseeable future, it is essentially a Nordish problem, a Nordish crisis, which the other races do not share. In the Greek myths, Aphrodite is described as having typically Nordish features. Perhaps "Aphrodite Falling" means the Nordish race is falling.
The following correspondence is a rather long and wandering monologue that is of value for what it reveals about the mental processes of many opponents of Nordish preservation:
Subject: Are You sure this is what you want?
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 23:54:50 -0400
From: Thomas McClure
Well, it is indeed an interesting topic. But I wonder how much
of it makes sense,
particularly since you base your entire argument under the assumption that race is constant.
First, the .5 you talk about, separating us from each other, will never be lost. Why? Because we are ever evolving. Someday, maybe millions of years from now, we probably
won't even recognize ourselves.. perhaps we will appear more inhuman like that we could
Secondly, the way of things is such that it is ever moving toward greater and greater aggregates. Perhaps, some day we will all mix into one race, as you predict, but this does not mean there want be some other unseen differences existing in our genes, it is always our phenotype that separates us.. In fact, there is often more similarity between two people of different races, than two of the same race.
Thirdly, to preserve a 'particular' race is similar to preserving a finger.. we all make up a whole.. blacks, whites, asians, hispanics, etc...
Fourth, race is socialization in its purest form.. what if someday in the future, we based ones race upon the size of their ears, or nose? or even color of hair? Race is merely a human idea, it doesn't exist on some concrete level.. we determine what makes a particular person of any particular race.
Fifth, it is dangerous to support a doctrine of 'racial' preservation... why? look at hitler... look at other groups throughout history.. rather we want to believe this or not.. when human's are given suggestions, not laws mind you, to remain separate, there is something very powerful about the idea, particularly in the context of religion... which is alive and well I remind you, a 'they' and 'we' attitude almost naturally develops which almost invariably, if not allows ends in war.. look at Yugoslovia. If however, humans are not impressed upon to do one or the other.. nature takes its course and does what it needs to for the assurance of survival.. sometimes that means at the expense of a particular species, or group or population.. why? because it ensures the process of evolution. Perhaps, the indians will be 'nullified' first.. or even the 'Blacks' but what difference does it make.. particularly, given what I said earlier and the fact that race is a human creation.
Sixth, humans should not be impressed upon to intermix or to stay within their own race. Humans should not be taught to think a particular way.. but rather should think for themselves. If you chose to stay within your race... then more power to you..however to impress upon others to do so.. is to become an evangelist of some sort....religion has been the source of much demise and hatred on this planet. Are you ready to take upon the burden of such responsibility... rather you know it or not this is what you are doing in some 'spiritual' way. I certainly would not want to be part of such a blood bath.
Seventh, to think divisively is to lack wholeness. your charts
are categorized into separate groups. This is to think in terms
of division.. not to add or multiply. United we stand,
divided we fall. Humans are just that humans... try to think beyond earth.. there are other
planets...(millions in fact). To think of race, is to think of that which is aesthetic or superficial only.. try to imagine the things that make us alike.. outside of genetics. Why
should we dictated by genes.. animals do that. See a world were humans are brought
together by symbols, ideas, etc.. (the very thing that separates us from animals). As long as humans think in terms of this group and that group, it will never think in whole.. but only in part. We will be pit against one another.. if not in flesh then in spirit.
Finally, to hang on to anything is to fear death. To fear death is to fear life itself.. and fear is what keeps one from living life fully. The fear of death is the result of almost all distress and heartache on this planet.. This might sound strange.. but Madonna said it best "there is no greater power than the power of good-bye". Imagine your talents working toward the betterment of humanity.. instead of the preservation of one so called "race". Christ himself suggested that there was neither 'jew or gentile, woman or man in his house.. but we are all one and the part of the same body.
another factor, is lack of faith in God , that he/she knows
best...must we take it upon ourselves to save ourselves, or a
"race"... can we trust God will do for us what must
be done... or must we play God ourselves? by determining in some
spiritual way what is 'suppose' to be.... are we suppose to lift
a particular race over another? Did not Christ himself say that
the man who beat on his chest the most was the one who was the
greatest sinner in heaven. What is so proud or important about
separating ourselves into this or that race? I wonder? Does the
person who writes this article .. beat his/her chest so proudly
over the white race? Trees die, dinosaurs have died, even the
sun dies.. should the blacks, asians, hispanics die also? Of course,
why? because it makes way for the new...and is the way of things..
the shedding of the old .. nature.. shows this to you.. through
through... the tree loses its leaves to make way for the new... Perhaps the white race will
live for another million years.. or only 100 years, who knows... actually the truth is the white race will exist as long as we deem that it does.. in our minds.. how we define or what we define as "nordic" or white. nordics aren't even truly white... their skin is tan. But we don't call them tannies.
On and on I go.. but the point is made here I believe. That
race matters only in so far as we let it. But if it does matter
than let us preach on the pulpit with a loud voice about the importance
of preserving... let us try so hard to convict the hearts of man..let
us eventually separate and loss sight of each other, "this
group" versus "that group" and let us soon thereafter..
have misunderstandings.. knowing that we are 'so' important to
preserve.. because of the color of my eyes.. or hair.. or because
we lack the assure that nature will take care of things, even
though it has for millions of years.. or billions. Then let
us go to war and kill one another eventually exterminating one of the races, (the aztecs, the
indians, other tribes, groups.. if you need to be reminded.. Yugoslavia). In the end, it want be the white race.. but the black race.. but that doesn't matter... in fact, its the way of
things we will say... better 'them' than 'us' we will remind our conscience.
Or maybe we can instead.. forget all this talk about race and expend our energy elsewhere.. like feeding the millions of hungry people in the world, like trying to limit the population expansion, getting rid of aids.. perhaps we can finally learn to embrace one another as a human race..and forget about our superficial differences.. perhaps we can trust that nature has done a superb job of keeping the human race alive and we will decide that the .5% that will be lost will be small compared to the remaining 95%. Also, perhaps we will recall that nature will always ensure diversity.. even between a particular species, and let go of our fears...instead perhaps we will learn to trust one another and learn to share.. and see ourselves as one... race under God. Maybe we will finally come to live side by side coming to understand each other better than we ever did and we will finally learn to live, love, work and play together... maybe we will intermix.. not because we are thinking about it... but because race doesn't exist in our minds.. and loving someone is determined by the persons character rather than by their skin color, hair color, or whatever other color... shape or size.
Perhaps we will for that reason come to understand each other
like we never did before..
and love each other the more for it... (we love our families the most) why? because we
have lived side by side for so long... This great love between all humans will perhaps bring
us to the most high level of evolution we have ever experienced (we all know how wonderful it is to be in love, the greatest high) maybe this will take us to place we otherwise would have never gone.. look at the world.. with intermixing.. there would have be no Oprah Winfrey's or Steven Spielberg's or even Tiger Woods, or even Keneau Reeves, Mariah Careys.. etcc.. or even no Mother Tereasa.. what can be so bad about intermixing... should we do it for the sake of intermixing? Of course not.. no more than we should to 'preserve" a particular 'race'.. We are human.. the human race.. and until we learn this we will always misunderstand one another and have conflicts between one another and thus suffer... and as a result not realize our greatest potential.. a human should neither try to intermix or remain in their race but rather should love someone for that person as a whole..not because of their race but because of who they are. Perhaps someday as John Lennon once said "you will join us."
Subject: racial diversity
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1998 00:31:12 -0300
From: "Dennis Durbin"
very entertaining. I especially like how you gave away Texas
to the blacks. The whites should keep San Diego though. We need some sun.
Florida too. Look, the first article Racial Diversity appears to be
factually correct. Races are a result of divergent evolution caused by
geographic isolation over time of populations of the same species. Then
you speak of biological racial diversity which is a new one for me. Racial
diversity as you describe it has no biological justification. It is very
true that interracial breeding will result in the loss of racial
uniqueness. As you properly stated each distinct race has distinct
identifiable characteristics that are tempered through racial
interbreeding. But the strength or health, if you will, of a species is
its genetic diversity. Subpopulations, races, are more uniform genetically
than a racially mixed population. Subpopulations are more susceptible to
disease and other population stresses than racially mixed (genetically
diverse) populations, ie blacks and syckle cell anemia (spelling? you
understand). Therefore, a more diverse genetic population is a more
ecologically healthy population and therefore more preferible to the entire
population as a whole.
Note. Your reports, I didn't read all of them, erroneously
Hispanics as a racial entity rather than a cultural one. Hispanics may be
the most racially intermixed people on the planet. There are whites
(blonds, brunettes, redheads), blacks, mulattos, mestizos, American
Indians, and every possible combination of the preceeding. In addition,
there are regional differences. For example puertoricans are white, black,
but mostly a mixture of the two with very little indian influence while
Mexicans are white, indian, mostly mestizo with little black influence.
Eventually, the USA will look more like the people of Venezuela, Brazil, or
Colombia (which have all of the above combinations) rather than the
racially diverse USA that you are proposing. I don't know if it is good or
bad but I believe, in the USA slowly, eventually will happen. With large
pockets of "racially diverse" groups of course just like you see in latin
america. I am not sure I really understand your proposal on racial
diversity but if you use science to explain it you should tell the whole
Richard McCulloch's reply:
Dear Mr. Durbin,
Races are biological entities and therefore racial diversity is biological diversity. Races were created by evolution, a biological process, and determined by genetic (i.e., biological) means, as are broader taxonomic categories such as species and genera. Such champions of biodiversity as Edward O. Wilson recognize the fact that racial diversity is a key component of biological diversity. I don't understand what you mean when you write that racial diversity has no "biological justification" when it was created by biological means and represents a stage in the process of biological evolution that has created all the biological diversity that exists, unless you are asserting an arbitrary threshold of biological diversity that excludes racial diversity. The bottom line is that racial diversity equates to biological diversity, and the biological diversity of the human species as a whole is greatest when the degree of racial diversity is greatest.
The "hybrid vigor" argument used by proponents of racial intermixture, asserting that a racially mixed or hybridized population enjoys greater hardiness, vigor or resistance to disease than separate distinct populations, is a difficult one to counter because it is something of a phantom argument. Whenever I have attempted to investigate it or nail down the facts I have found that there is nothing there above the level of animal husbandry. Even this material is mixed, as for every example of hybridization to produce superior characteristics there are an equal or greater number of examples of selective inbreeding to reproduce desired traits. But it is really something of a smokescreen, as the advocates of racial intermixture are not really motivated by a desire to produce a superior human race, and do not really believe that intermixture will achieve that purpose. That is not what is driving the movement toward racial panmixia. The vigor or disease-resistance of humanity is not really an issue. The distinct races are not perceived as lacking in vigor or resistance to disease, so even if it were true that hybridization would produce some degree of benefit in this area it would be largely irrelevant. This argument seems to pop up chiefly in superiority-inferiority debates, which tend to be conducted at a very low intellectual level, where it is employed by defenders of racial intermixture to counter the claim of intermixture opponents that mixture will produce an inferior population. But again, the bottom line is that this issue is largely irrelevant to me. I do not attempt to justify racial preservation on the grounds that the distinct races are more vigorous or resistant to disease than a mixed population would be. The different races of humanity have a value and importance to me that transcends these concerns. Their existence is an end in itself. Concerns about vigor and resistance to disease are merely a means to an end.
You are quite right that "Hispanic" is not a proper racial category, but you are mistaken to state that I erroneously classify it as such. As I state in my essay "Racial Population Projections," "The Hispanic category is racially diverse, but consists mainly (about 90%) of persons of whole or mixed (Mestizo) Amerindian ancestry from Mexico or Central and South America. The remainder (about 10%) are mostly Mediterranid or Congoid."
Hispanic is not only not a proper racial entity, you are mistaken to classify it as a cultural entity, as Hispanics are almost as culturally diverse as they are racially diverse. They are in fact nothing more than a rather artificial and inaccurate (and therefore inadequate) demographic entity with little more than their language in common, and therefore references to them should be carefully qualified. Government statistics, by generally not distinguishing between the different racial and cultural elements in the Hispanic populations, are the source of much of the improper racial categorization. I would like to see a more accurate racial classification of the Hispanic population.
Subject: Fw: racial diversity, etc.
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 19:18:00 -0300
From: "Dennis Durbin"
WHY NOT SEPARATE ON HAIR COLOR, BLONDS LIVE IN OREGON, REDHEADS
IN RHODE ISLAND? BLONDS SHOULD ONLY MATE WITH BLONDS, REDHEADS
WOULD THAT NOT MAINTAIN DIVERSITY ACCORDING TO YOU??. WHAT YOU ARE ACTUALLY MAINTAINING IS GENETIC VARIATION NOT DIVERSITY. YOU ACTUALLY WEAKEN THE GENE POOL BY ELIMINATING GENES WITHIN THE WHOLE POPULATION IN FAVOR OF MORE HOMOGENOUS SUBPOPULATIONS. YOUR REASONING IS FLAWED. AGAIN IT IS GENETIC DIVERSITY WHICH IS KEY TO THE HEALTH OF SPECIES AND POPULATIONS. YOUR IDEA OF RACIAL SEGREGATION COULD CONCEIVIBLY LEAD TO THE
DEVELOPMENT OF DIFFERENT SPECIES OF HUMANS. THIS WOULD BE DIVERSITY IN THE SENSE THAT THERE WOULD BE MORE SPECIES, BUT EACH SPECIES WOULD BE HAVE LESS GENETIC DIVERSITY THAN THE ORIGINAL POPULATION. READ ON I COMMENTED TO SOME OF YOUR REBUTTAL.
> From: archon <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: ddtraveler
> Subject: re: racial diversity, etc.
> Date: Monday, August 31, 1998 11:47 AM
> Dear Mr. Durbin,
> Races are biological entities and therefore racial diversity is
> biological diversity. NO SPECIES ARE BIOLOGICAL ENTITIES. RACES ARE
SIMPLY VARIATION WITHIN THE SPECIES. Races were created by evolution, a
> process, and determined by genetic (i.e., biological) means, as are
> broader taxonomic categories such as species and genera. ALL
CLASSIFICATIONS OTHER THAN SPECIES (GENERA, FAMILY) ARE HUMAN INVENTIONS USED TO CLASSIFY SIMILAR SPECIES. THE ONLY TYPES OF ORGANISMS THAT EXIST ARE THE SPECIES THEMSELVES. SPECIES ARE A RESULT OF EVOLUTION, GENERA WERE INVENTED FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF SCIENTISTS. Such champions
> of biodiversity as Edward O. Wilson recognize the fact that racial
> diversity is a key component of biological diversity. I BELIEVE THE
PROBLEM IS YOU ARE CONFUSING DIVERSITY WITH VARIATION.
I don't understand
> what you mean when you write that racial diversity has no "biological
> justification" when it was created by biological means and represents a
> stage in the process of biological evolution that has created all the
> biological diversity that exists, unless you are asserting an arbitrary
> threshold of biological diversity that excludes racial diversity.
NO BIOLOGICAL JUSTIFICATION IN THE SENSE THAT THE RACES NEED
TO BE KEPT SEPARATE IN ORDER FOR THE SPECIES TO PERPETUATE ITSELF.
WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE SEPARATION BRING? WHAT IS THE GOAL OF YOUR
IDEAL OF RACIAL DIVERSITY?
WHILE SURELY RACIAL DIVERSITY (DIFFERENT RACES) IS A RESULT OF EVOLUTION, THIS IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR PHYSICALLY SEPARATING THE RACES. WHAT PURPOSE DOES THAT SERVE? THE COLONISTS MADE THE MISTAKE OF ENTERING A NEW CONTINENT WHICH WAS ALREADY POPULATED BY A DIFFERENT RACE. THEN, THEY BROUGHT BLACK SLAVES. RACIAL MIXING WAS THEREFORE INEVITABLE. JUST LIKE
TWO "RACES" OF DOGS OR AN AMERICAN MOOSE AND A EUROPEAN MOOSE WILL MATE IF THEIR GEOGRAPHIC ISOLATION IS ELIMINATED. THE REPRODUCTIVE DRIVE IS THE THE MOST BASIC OF ALL ORGANISMS AND DIFFERENCES IN SKIN COLOR HAVE NOT DAMPENED THE PASSION BETWEEN THE SEXES.
ANOTHER POINT MR. MCULLOGH, WHY LIMIT YOUR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
SEGREGATION MODEL TO SKIN COLOR. WHY NOT HAIR COLOR AND EYE COLOR
AS WELL? THE MIXING OF THESE TRAITS WOULD ALSO RESULT IN DIMINISHED
"BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY" ACCORDING TO YOU.
> bottom line is that racial diversity equates to biological diversity,
> and the biological diversity of the human species as a whole is greatest
> when the degree of racial diversity is greatest.
NO BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY IS GREATEST WHEN THE GENE POOL IS LARGEST.
CHANCE COMBINATIONS WILL RESULT IN THE MOST DIVERSE (VARIED) PHENOTYPES.
BREEDING OF ORGANISMS THAT ARE MORE SIMILAR SIMPLY RESULTS IN
THE PERPETUATION OF THE SAME TRAITS OVER AND OVER.
> The "hybrid vigor" argument used by proponents of racial intermixture,
> asserting that a racially mixed or hybridized population enjoys greater
> hardiness, vigor or resistance to disease than separate distinct
> populations, is a difficult one to counter because it is something of a
> phantom argument. Whenever I have attempted to investigate it or nail
> down the facts I have found that there is nothing there above the level
> of animal husbandry. Even this material is mixed, as for every example
> of hybridization to produce superior characteristics there are an equal
> or greater number of examples of selective inbreeding to reproduce
> desired traits. But it is really something of a smokescreen, as the
> advocates of racial intermixture are not really motivated by a desire to
> produce a superior human race, and do not really believe that
> intermixture will achieve that purpose. I AGREE THAT IS WHAT THE
SEGREGATIONISTS WANT LIKE ADOLF HITLER AND THE MASTER RACE. That is not
what is driving the
> movement toward racial panmixia. The vigor or disease-resistance of
> humanity is not really an issue. The distinct races are not perceived as
> lacking in vigor or resistance to disease, so even if it were true that
> hybridization would produce some degree of benefit in this area it would
> be largely irrelevant. This argument seems to pop up chiefly in
> superiority-inferiority debates, which tend to be conducted at a very
> low intellectual level, where it is employed by defenders of racial
> intermixture to counter the claim of intermixture opponents that mixture
> will produce an inferior population. But again, the bottom line is that
> this issue is largely irrelevant to me. I do not attempt to justify
> racial preservation on the grounds that the distinct races are more
> vigorous or resistant to disease than a mixed population would be. The
> different races of humanity have a value and importance to me that
> transcends these concerns. IT IS YOUR VALUE BUT HAS NO SCIENTIFIC
Their existence is an end in itself. EVERY ORGANISM IS AN END
IN ITSELF BUT HAS THE ABILITY TO PASS ON ITS CHARACTERICS TO FUTURE GENERATIONS AND THEREFORE CONTINUE THE EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS.
Concerns about vigor and resistance to disease are merely a means to an end.
> You are quite right that "Hispanic" is not a proper racial category, but
> you are mistaken to state that I erroneously classify it as such. As I
> state in my essay "Racial Population Projections," "The Hispanic
> category is racially diverse, but consists mainly (about 90%) of persons
> of whole or mixed (Mestizo) Amerindian ancestry from Mexico or Central
> and South America. TO ONE DEGREE OR THE OTHER, BUT IT DEPENDS ON THEIR GENOTYPE. LATIN AMERICA IS ALSO HEAVILY INFLUENCED WITH "BLACK" GENES.
PUERTO RICO, VENEZUELA, BRAZIL, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, CUBA, HONDURAS. The
remainder (about 10%) are mostly Mediterranid or
> Congoid." Hispanic is not only not a proper racial entity, you are
> mistaken to classify it as a cultural entity, as Hispanics are almost as
> culturally diverse as they are racially diverse. YES I WOULD HAVE TO
AGREE WITH YOU. HISPANIC REALLY JUST MEANS THAT THEY ARE FROM A
LATINAMERICAN COUNTRY NOTHING MORE. They are in fact > nothing more than a
rather artificial and inaccurate (and therefore
> inadequate) demographic entity with little more than their language in
> common, and therefore references to them should be carefully qualified.
YES BUT HISPANICS, IN GENERAL, ARE MORE COHESIVE RACIALLY AS A NATION. FOR EXAMPLE, A BLACK PUERTO RICAN AND WHITE PUERTO RICAN WOULD CONSIDER THEMSELVES PUERTO RICAN FOREMOST AND LIKELY BE COMFORTABLE IN A SOCIAL SITUATION WITH DIFFERENT "RACES" OF PUERTO RICANS WHILE BLACKS IN THE US QUALIFY THEIR AMERICANISM BY CALLING THEMSELVES AFRICAN-AMERICANS AND MANY
WHITES DON'T SEEM TO CONSIDER ANYBODY ELSE THAT ISN'T WHITE TO BE A "REAL" AMERICAN.
> Government statistics, by generally not distinguishing
> different racial and cultural elements in the Hispanic populations, are
> the source of much of the improper racial categorization. I would like
> to see a more accurate racial classification of the Hispanic population.
THAT WOULD BE QUITE IMPOSSIBLE DUE TO THE DEGREE OF INTERMIXING
THAT HAS TAKEN PLACE.
Richard McCulloch comments:
I include the above e-mail from Mr. Durbin as an example of the passionate intensity often encountered among the opponents of Nordish racial preservation, although he is so obviously unreasonable and dogmatic (even fanatical) in his view, reflecting a militant ignorance that may be all too common, that I chose not to reply.
If I were to reply I would say that I want to preserve the existing races as they are, not create new races or species, and that such preservationism by definition does not eliminate genes or lessen diversity but preserves the genetic diversity now existing. The preservation of existing subpopulations does not eliminate genes within the whole population. Quite the opposite. It is, of course, Mr. Durbin who wishes to lessen diversity but denies this with his claim that racial diversity is not diversity. His argument seeks to justify the destruction of racial diversity on the grounds that intermixture would produce a healthier population, but even if that were hypothetically true, there is no perceived need for greater health or resistance to disease through such means. People have adapted through culture (including medical science), not by changing their genetic makeup.
To insist that racial differences constitute variation rather than diversity is an attempt to belittle and trivialize them and an example of the semantic dogmatism of word games that seek to change the meaning of words to alter reality, made all the more ludicruous by the fanatical pseudo-devotion to some hypothetical diversity that cannot be seen or known that confers some supposed health benefit, which can only be achieved by intermixture. Tell that to the superbly healthy Icelanders. Far from requiring the supposed benefits of hybrid vigor, the population of Iceland is regarded as exemplary for its good health and physical vigor, even though it is one of the most inbred populations on earth, consisting of only 250,000 people almost exclusively descended from a founding population of about 8,000 Vikings that arrived about 1,100 years ago.
The remark about separating blondes, brunettes and redheads, although perhaps partly facetious, reveals a mindset that attempts to trivialize racial differences and set up a smoke screen to foster ignorance, confusion and misunderstanding about race, a transparent exercise in obfuscation and evasion, misrepresenting the reality of racial identity. Are the Icelanders multiracial because they have a stable balance of blondes, brunettes and redheads in their population over the last thousand years? Separating Northern Europeans on the basis of hair color might maintain diversity, but so would keeping them together in a state of balance as they have been for thousands of years, so separation is not necessary to maintain this diversity, and his comment is only meant to mislead and confuse. Northern Europeans of varied hair color are part of the same populations, with this variation being a racial characteristic of the population which would be lost if they were separated. Also, race is determined by many traits, and hair and eye color are not racially determinative. There are many persons of mixed racial ancestry with blonde hair and blue eyes who do not have an a Nordish or even a white racial identity, which involves a large combination of genotypical traits, not just one or two in combination with other traits that are mostly non-Nordish or even non-white. On a number of occasions I have seen a brown-eyed brunette who was distinctly Nordish standing next to a blue-eyed blonde who was very clearly not Nordish.
The emphasis on creating a more healthy population, resistant or immune to disease, by genetics reminds me of eugenics, but such a goal is achievable only by the eugenicist means of reducing the reproduction of the less fit or those with the genes that are being eliminated, not by intermixture, which would have the opposite effect. The homogeneous populations of Scandinavia do not need intermixture with other races to become more healthy, or do not need to be divided according to hair color to preserve their diversity in this trait.
The argument that racial diversity is really less diversity, and that human diversity would be increased by intermixture into one hybrid uniform race in which racial diversity would be destroyed, would assume that the ancestral human population of 200,000 years ago was more genetically diverse than the racially diverse human population of the present, that its separation into differentiating populations decreased human diversity rather than increasing it, amounting to a disaster for diversity.
The remark that racial preservation is my value but "has no scientific reasoning" is an example of the justification argument that the preservation of something has to be justified on some scientific or objective grounds, without providing a standard by which the justification can be measured. Obviously, such a standard cannot be met. In truth, unless the justification is sought in the will or plan of a divine creator being, whose will or plan becomes the objective standard, there is no scientific justification for the existence of anything. Science does not provide such justification. Such justification comes from the value and importance that humans give to something. When it is claimed that something must justify its existence to be preserved it must be asked where such reasoning ends, what does it lead to? Can the existence of humanity as a whole, or even the earth or the universe, be justified in such terms? The difference is only one of degree, not kind, and it is arbitrary to say that one thing which exists is worthy of preservation while something else which exists is not.
Subject: Are you serious?
Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 17:46:03 -0700
From: "Michael A. Crane, Jr."
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
Sorry, I suspect that we will never agree on anything. Don't you think that
makes life more interesting? I do.
Michael A. Crane, Jr.
Richard McCulloch's reply,
Dear Mr. Crane,
Thanks for your e-mail of May 31. You wrote:
"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 scheme."
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
From: "Michael A. Crane, Jr."
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.
Michael A. Crane, Jr.
Richard McCulloch comments:
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 globalist 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.
In his second e-mail he reveals himself 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 as the general public would view it as harmless. But his second e-mail says almost everything, telling Nordish people what is to happen to their race and why, the reason and justification for its 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 that can be used to help prove the Nordish preservationist case to the doubters, evaders and deniers who don't want to face reality.
Such admissions should be collected and documented, even when they come from a "lower-echelon" proponent of Nordish extinction such as this college student. (Similar admissions from higher-echelon promoters of Nordish destruction would be more definitive and credible, but they are seldom so honest or explicit about the consequences of their programs, at least not yet.) If the proponent of Nordish extinction makes 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 farther, making it ever more clear to the audience how destructive multiracialism is for the Nordish race.
Subject: Questions about the Racial Compact
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 17:58:22 PDT
From: "Ben Fisher"
Hello Mr. McCulloch. I must say I very interested in your web
you are obviously a very hard-working, intelligent, and educated man.
However, I have a few questions about your Racial Compact. First, let me
tell you a little about myself. I am a Nordish, American male teenager, 15
years old. I find your writing fairly complex, but I'm pretty sure I'm able
to get the general idea of it. I'd appreciate it if in your response you
tried to explain your answer as simply as possible because sometimes I don't
think I can fully grasp your writings.
Okay, first off, let me just say, I don't see the point of "racial
preservation." I don't see why it matters if humans form distinctive races,
or are all mixed. I think individual rights should supercede race rights.
If two people want to procreate, who are we to say they can't if they aren't
of the same race? If people want to live with people of different races,
who are we to say they can't? I don't think it is fair to dictate where
people can live, who they can marry, because of race. Furthermore, I don't
most people in America, Nordic or otherwise, care about racial preservation.
Why enfore something upon people, when they don't want it. Why try to
protect the Nordic race from extinction, if most people in the Nordic race
simply don't care. It's not like anyone will die in your so called
"genocide" of the Nordic race. No one will suffer. Just certain
characteristics will cease to be passed on. If all races are equal, as you
assert, then why does it matter which race has it's characteristics passed
on, and which doesn't. In fact, to me race has only lead to conflict. It
has caused people to enslave each other, abuse each other, and discrimate
against each other. What would be so bad about no racial differences?
I'm sorry if I got confrontational sounding, but I honestly want to hear
your views on these matters. And I want you to know I respect you. Your
views might even be correct and I'm just not understanding them properly.
My basic question is just, why are racial differences worth preserving.
Please respond to this letter. Thank you for your time.
Dear Mr. Fisher,
Thanks for your e-mail of April 10. You asked the ultimate questions. I'm not sure there are really ultimate answers, or at least not obviously ultimate answers such as a religion might claim to provide, but I'll give you the best answers I have.
"I think individual rights should super[s]ede race rights. If two people want to procreate, who are we to say they can't if they aren't of the same race? If people want to live with people of different races, who are we to say they can't? I don't think it is fair to dictate where people can live, who they can marry, because of race."
In a monoracial society, such as our ancestors lived in for the last 35,000 or more years, people of different races do not have contact with one another, so intermixture and its consequences simply do not occur and are therefore not an issue. As a practical matter, it is only in a multiracial society, such as virtually all the Nordish homelands have now become, that intermixture occurs. The overwhelming evidence from sociology indicates that the great majority of Nordish people, when given a choice, do not want to live among people of different races but among people of their own race. This is true even of those who marry members of other races, the great majority of whom prefer to live among other people of their own race rather than the race of their spouse. For example, very few Nordish men, whether in Europe or the U.S., who marry Asian women live with their Asian wives in Asia. They prefer to import them into their Nordish homeland.
I am not totally opposed to the existence of multiracial societies where people of different races could live together and intermix if they so choose, so long as the homelands the different races require for their preservation remain monoracial. For example, Brazil and a number of other Latin American and Caribbean nations would continue to be multiracial societies and attract those who wish to live in such a society. Also, in my plan for partition of the U.S., appropriate racially-mixed families that do not fit well in any of the designated racial homelands would be settled in the predominantly Southwest Asian-Asian Indian homelands in southern California and southern and central Florida.
There is a price to be paid for racial preservation. It requires the prevention of racial intermixture. It is either-or. One cannot have both. One must make a choice between one or the other, and if the Nordish race is to be preserved it is a choice that must be made by many millions of Nordish people. I value individual rights and interests as well as racial and community rights and interests. There are boundaries that determine where one or the other takes precedence, where the values and interests of one are primary -- are greater, more important, fundamental, compelling and vital than those of the other. For example, many believe that an individual has a right to commit suicide, but few would defend this individual right to such an extreme degree as to allow it to be done in a way that endangers or harms others. Similarly, it is an extremist position on individual rights to give them precedence to such an extent that they are used to justify and cause racial destruction.
Every race has interests, of which the primary are its vital interest in its continued existence (preservation) and its fundamental interest in control over its own existence (independence or freedom). The Nordish race is no different from any other race in this regard. But its most vital and compelling interests are not recognized or acknowledged by the dominant culture, which is in fact opposed to those interests, and routinely negates and denies them in favor of the much less important secondary (non-vital) interests of other races, which are the only interests allowed to be recognized. Thus the dominant culture is anti-Nordish in the most extreme sense of the term, actually supporting and actively promoting the causes of Nordish racial destruction and extinction.
"If all races are equal, as you assert, then why does it matter which race has it's [sic] characteristics passed on, and which doesn't. In fact, to me race has only lead [sic] to conflict. It has caused people to enslave each other, abuse each other, and discrim[in]ate against each other. What would be so bad about no racial differences?...I don't see the point of "racial preservation." I don't see why it matters if humans form distinctive races, or are all mixed....My basic question is just, why are racial differences worth preserving."
I do not say that all races are equal, just that they all possess the same racial rights. All races are different and unique, each with traits that it alone possesses and which would be lost if it no longer existed. The racial compact is not only about racial preservation, but also about racial rights, so that if it were practiced no race would enslave or otherwise violate the rights of any other race. I think the world is big enough for all the races of humanity to continue to exist upon it secure in their own existence and in their own homelands without causing harm to other races or violating the legitimate rights or interests of other races.
If there were no racial differences then all the different races and their unique traits, all the different racial types of people would cease to be, and be replaced by a single uniform blended type. But this is theory. In actual practice, at present and for the foreseeable future, the Nordish and other European races are the only part of humanity really threatened by the destructive consequences of multiracialism, so what you are really asking is, "What would be so bad about the non-existence of the Nordish race and its traits, its racial differences, and why are they worth preserving?" Well, this question really requires an answer of essentially metaphysical dimensions. For me it is almost the same as if you questioned the importance of the continued existence of humanity itself, or all life, or of the planet, or the universe. Where does one draw the line when one starts questioning the value or importance of the continued existence of something that exists, of a part of existence, before one starts questioning the value or importance of the whole of existence? Where does this extremist and nihilistic form of reasoning lead?
I believe there should be a moral presumption in favor of preservation over destruction. That which exists should not need to justify its existence, or establish or prove or demonstrate that it is worthy of continued existence. Its right to exist should be presumed as a moral principle. So should its right to be free -- to control its own life and existence. Do you really want to do otherwise, to require a race prove it is worthy of preservation before it would be permitted to continue to exist? Who would make such a judgment? I would never presume to judge any race, whether mine or another, unworthy of continued existence.
A race is people. Very simply, I love and value the Nordish race because I love and value many Nordish people. I want the Nordish race to continue to exist because I want people of the same type as these Nordish people that I love and value to continue to exist. Part -- an important part -- of what I love and value about these many Nordish people is obviously and certainly racial, specifically their uniquely Nordish physical traits. For instance, I could name many beautiful Nordish women whose beauty I have admired and valued -- a beauty that is inseparable from their Nordish racial identity -- and whose beauty I want to be continued, but their names would mean nothing to you. I have had many more years than you to accumulate this appreciation, but perhaps you could think of some that you value whose names would mean nothing to me, or perhaps you lack this inclination, which would probably explain your description of yourself and your lack of love for the Nordish race more powerfully than anything else I could think of. Still, there are also many celebrities whose distinctly Nordish physical beauty I have admired and valued, although secondarily, as I have not seen them in person. Their names you might know, but I should not have to name them, for they are legion. They too represent much of my motive for loving and valuing the Nordish race and desiring its continued existence.
It may be that esthetics are subjective, and it would follow from the evolutionary theory of sexual selection that males should normally find the females of their race more beautiful than the females of other races, but I think that a case can be made even beyond this that the greatest beauty of humanity is found within the Nordish race. For me, in my subjective opinion, this is certainly true, and the preservation of this uniquely and exclusively Nordish beauty that I love is probably my most basic motive for desiring the preservation of the Nordish race.
Mental and intellectual traits are less obviously racial. I could not make a definite racial identification of a person based only on their mental traits. Yet it is an objective fact that a vastly disproportionate share of the cultural achievements of the last 3,000 years can be attributed to the European races in general and the Nordish race in particular, and one must presume that mental traits are the foundation of that record of achievement. The primary races have been separated by over 50,000 years of divergent evolution. I think we must assume that there has been some evolutionary development of the brain and mental traits during that period. Evolutionary theory strongly suggests that the separated races would not evolve in exactly the same direction or at exactly the same speed, but in somewhat diverging directions and at differing speeds. This creates a presumption that there are genetic differences between the races in mental and intellectual traits. This is another motive for desiring the preservation of the Nordish race, as it may possess mental traits of great value and importance for the future development of this planet and humanity as a whole. Yet again I must stress that the right of a race to continue to exist should not be dependent upon the value of its special or unique traits, whether physical or mental, but upon the moral presumption in favor of preservation over destruction. In this regard the negritos of New Guinea have as much right to existence as the Nordish or any other race.
"...I don't [think?] most people in America, Nordic or otherwise, care about racial preservation. Why enfor[c]e something upon people, when they don't want it. Why try to protect the Nordic race from extinction, if most people in the Nordic race simply don't care....No one will suffer. Just certain characteristics will cease to be passed on."
Is it true that most Nordish people do not care about whether their race becomes extinct or not, continues to exist or not? Have they ever been asked? Really asked, with full knowledge that it was not simply an academic question but for real? Are they fully aware of the seriousness of the crisis, of the ultimate consequences of multiracialism? Are they fully aware of the alternatives? If so, why is it not openly acknowledged and discussed, instead of being evaded and denied?
There sometimes occurs a crisis in the life of an individual, and more rarely in the life of a race or people, when their continued existence depends on their will to live, on their love for themselves and their life and their desire or will to save themselves. The Nordish race now faces such a crisis. Its continued existence, continued life or preservation, depends on its love for itself and its will to live or desire to continue its existence. If it does not love itself, does not value itself, enough to assert its most vital, most basic, and most legitimate of all rights and interests -- its right to exist, to live, to continue to be -- and do what it must to secure those rights and interests, then it will not continue to exist and will cease to be.
And for what? What would be gained by the extinction of the Nordish race? As I said above, a race is people. The Nordish race is all those people of Nordish racial type, all those people I have valued and loved and so many millions more. Would the world be a better place without the Nordish race and its traits, without all the people I have valued and loved? Would it have been a better place in the past without the Nordish race, or a better place in the present without the Nordish race, if the Nordish race, including all the people I have valued and loved and so many millions more, did not exist?
Is the existence of the Nordish race, of Nordish people -- the existence of Meg Ryan and Dennis Quaid, Michelle Pfeiffer and George Clooney, Nicole Kidman and Mel Gibson, Alicia Silverstone or Matt Damon (just to name some current celebrity examples), and so many millions more Nordish people -- an evil thing, or is its existence, and their existence, a good thing? Is their existence of value, or is it of no value? If it is an evil thing for the Nordish race and all those people to exist, why is it evil? Is the existence of any race an evil thing or a good thing? Is the existence of different races a good or evil thing, of value or of no value? If the existence of the Nordish race is a good thing, if it has value, then that which would end its existence, and the existence of the people that are its existence, is an evil thing. In my morality, in my values, the presumption is in favor of that which exists, in favor of continuing all the existing forms of life in all their variety and diversity, and any loss of any existing form of life makes this world, and indeed this universe, something less rather than something more, a poorer and worse place rather than a richer and better place. For me this feeling is intuitive. I do not even need to think about it. I do not question it. It is a given part of the deepest part of my being.
I, of course, by my will alone, cannot enforce or impose the conditions needed for Nordish preservation, nor would I want to impose them by my will alone if I could. Just as the justification for Nordish preservation does not derive from some external source, but internally from its own being and existence, so the preservation of the Nordish race cannot be imposed from without by an external force, but must come from within itself by its own internal will and desire. The Nordish race will survive its crisis only if many millions of those who comprise it want it to survive, care about its existence, love it and wish to preserve it. It will be preserved only if many millions want it to be preserved. It will be preserved only by their will.
If the majority of the Nordish race thinks, as you say you do, that its existence is of no value, then it is in fact as good as dead, for its love for itself and all that it is is dead, no more, no longer existing -- and when that is dead a race or people, like an individual, is as good as dead. If the majority are as you describe yourself, and do not love, value or care for their race, its people and their characteristics, then the Nordish race will not be preserved and will become extinct. But if the majority, if given a choice -- a real choice, a fully informed choice with full knowledge of the different alternatives and their consequences -- loves and cares for their race, considers what it is to be valuable and important and worth preserving, and wants their race to continue to exist, then it may yet find the will to save itself from the destruction it is now suffering. In my own small way, I am trying to give them that fully informed choice.
April 11, 2000
Subject: Re: Re Questions
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 16:26:00 PDT
From: "Ben Fisher"
Dear Mr. McCulloch,
Thank you very much for taking the time to write your long and very
thoughtful response to my questions. I would like very much to debate some
of the points you talked about more, but I have a feeling that we'll
continue to disagree on the same things, no matter how I state them, so we
might as well not discuss so as not to create any hostility. I was just had
a few questions more about you if you wouldn't mind answering them.
I was wondering what is your occupation? Also beyond theory, what do
you think it would take to implement the racial compact? Do you think its
likely the that sentiment will change so it can actually be implemented? In
what sort of time frame would this happen? If nothing is done, in what year
do you think all Nordic traits will be nonexistant? Also, what's your views
on white supremacy groups, and such groups as the Klu Klux Klan? Are they
worse or better than the practitioners of racial nihlism?
Again thank you very much for your responses.
Dear Mr. Fisher,
My occupation is unrelated to my efforts to promote racial preservation.
The implementation of the Racial Compact would require the support of many millions of people. At present if seems very unlikely that this would occur, but there are many unknowns. The primary unknown is the response of the Nordish people if given a fully informed choice on the issue, with the consequences of multiracialism widely, fully and openly discussed and recognized, and the alternative offered by the Racial Compact fairly presented. Certainly it will not be easy, but no great goal ever was.
The timeframe of Nordish racial destruction as a consequence of multiracialism depends on several variables which I discuss in essays 8 and 9, "The Nordish Crisis" and "Racial Population Projections." Certainly, if present trends continue, or even if they are simply not reversed by the restoration of the normal and natural condition of racial separation, before the end of the 21st century there will be no Central Nordish populations still existing. Individuals of Central Nordish racial type will still exist, but they will be too few to sustain their racial type, and will thus belong to the category students of biodiversity refer to as the "living dead."
My view of white supremacy groups is best summarized by the following excerpt from "The Charter of Racial Rights" which, by the way, is the most important single essay on my site.
"The recognition and defense of the racial rights listed above requires support for certain other related ethical beliefs, values, policies and positions, and the practice of certain ethical principles, which include the following:
1. Support for the ethical belief or principle that no race should be a slave or servant to another, that all races are an end in themselves and not a means to the ends of others, that they should serve and benefit their own ends and not the ends of others, and that no race should interfere with or unduly influence the affairs or development of another.
2. Opposition to any and all doctrines or forms of racial supremacy, dominance or mastery, whereby one race is supreme, dominant or master over another, and rules over, governs, dominates or controls another, whether in whole or in part, totally or partially, overtly or covertly, by force or by guile."
As to whether white supremacy groups are worse or better than the practitioners of racial nihilism, I would say that:
1. With the exception of a small percentage of extremists, white supremacists do not typically advocate the destruction of other races, but their subjugation to white rule, domination or control. The racial nihilists advocate the destruction of the Nordish race, and while destruction and subjugation are both evil, destruction is the greater evil, both because the damage is infinitely greater and because it is final and irreversible. A subjugated people can regain their freedom, but an extinct race cannot regain its existence. Extinction is forever.
2. Racial nihilism is the immediate and present danger, white supremacism is not. Racial nihilism is really happening, strongly supported and promoted by the ruling power structure with little effective opposition, and it is destroying the Nordish race. Destruction of other races by white supremacists is not occurring, nor is it advocated, or likely to occur in the foreseeable future. There is no indication of any significant promotion or support for white supremacism.
April 18, 2000
Richard McCulloch comments:
The question regarding the year in which the Nordish race will be nonexistent cannot be answered with precision because of the many variables which cannot be precisely predicted, but what is important is that under multiracial conditions it is inevitable that the Nordish race will disappear. This fundamental fact is not recognized or discussed by the mainstream culture, and as a consequence most people seem to be unaware of it, and if the subject is raised they usually respond with disbelief and denial. The general lack of awareness and recognition of this issue can only be described as a profound and tragic case of racial ignorance and confusion. The modern study of humanity by anthropology and sociology has established that different human races occupying the same territory will eventually interbreed and blend together into one mixed race. ["Every human population living today has interbred with every other human population with which it has had extensive contact." Jared Diamond, The Third Chimpanzee: The Evolution and Future of the Human Animal , (HarperCollins, 1992), p. 34.] "Eventually" means that it is only a matter of time. But time may be the problem. Perhaps most people cannot easily grasp or comprehend a process that occurs over a long period of time, and this short range mentality prevents them from seeing the long range consequences of multiracialism over the generations. Do most people really believe that the different races can live together in multiracial societies for centuries with no physical, legal, social or cultural obstacle to intermixture -- in fact with strong cultural and social encouragement to intermixture -- and not intermix and blend together into one hybridized race in which the Nordish race and its traits will be submerged and disappear? It is true that popular works of science fiction set centuries into a multiracial future portray this as the case, with the Nordish race still existing in its present form, and apparently in its present proportions, but is this realistic?
What can prevent racial intermixture? The only certain means to prevent racial intermixture is reproductive isolation through geographic separation. It is the only proven means to prevent intermixture completely, and the only means to prevent it indefinitely, for an unlimited period of time, whether centuries or millennia. For uncounted thousands of years reproductive isolation was provided by geographic separation of the races. The races lived in different regions of the world and had little or no contact with each other. This condition allowed racial differences, and the different races with all their distinct traits, to evolve by the process of divergent evolution, and to be preserved. Under multiracial conditions different races share the same territory and are not geographically separated. Without the physical obstacle or barrier provided by geographic separation what can prevent, limit or slow the process of racial intermixture? Only some other obstacle or barrier, whether legal, political, social, cultural or psychological, that if not totally prevents it at least limits, restricts, slows or minimizes it to very low levels.
For Europeans, the multiracial era began about the year 1500 with the colonization of Central and South America and the Caribbean by the Spanish and Portuguese, to which they soon began importing Congoid slaves from Africa. For the Nordish race the multiracial era began soon after the year 1600 with the colonization of North America by the Nordish peoples, to which they also soon began importing Congoid slaves. Some of those who claim that the Nordish race does not require racial separation for its preservation, and that it can continue to exist indefinitely under multiracial conditions, point to the fact that it has survived in North America for 400 years in multiracial conditions without apparent diminishment. While this may sound like an historical argument, supported by history, it is actually the opposite as it ignores the historical reasons or explanation for why and how this occurred. These historical reasons consisted of some very obvious and powerful legal, political, social and cultural obstacles and barriers to interracial mixture that severely restricted and limited its extent, and minimized the entry of non-European genes into the Nordish race. In one form or another (slavery, segregation, legal sanction of public and private racial discrimination, etc.) these barriers to racial intermixture remained in force until the 1950s.
Beginning in the 1950s the formal legal and political barriers to intermixture were removed, leaving only informal social and cultural obstacles (or "taboos") to act as a barrier against interracial mixture. In the United States, where the Nordish population, especially in the southern states, had developed these social and cultural obstacles or taboos against racial intermixture as an adaptation to multiracial conditions over several centuries, they were sufficiently strong to provide a continuing, if weakening, barrier to slow the rate of intermixture. But also beginning in the 1950s multiracial conditions were no longer limited to the United States, but began to spread to the other Nordish countries in Europe, Canada and Australia, so that by the beginning of the 1980s all the Nordish countries outside the Soviet bloc had become multiracial societies. These other Nordish countries not only had no legal or political obstacles to racial intermixture, they also had minimal social or cultural obstacles to it. Until the 1950s they had been protected from racial intermixture by geographic separation and thus had no need or incentive to develop non-geographic barriers to it. Also, their multiracialization occurred during and as part of the rise of the ideologies of racial nihilism and multiracialism to political, social and cultural dominance, when all forms of racial discrimination had become unacceptable to the political, social and cultural mainstream. Without strong social or cultural obstacles or taboos against racial intermixture, and actually with strong social and cultural taboos against racial discrimination, the other Nordish peoples had weaker defenses against racial intermixture than Nordish-Americans, and as a result experienced proportionately higher rates of mixture.
What then is left to prevent or even slow the rate of racial intermixture when different races inhabit the same territory, when there are no legal or political restrictions or prohibitions against it but rather political and legal policies that promote it, and when the dominant social and cultural institutions endorse intermixture while condemning any form of racial discrimination as pure evil? Only the barriers at the very private level of the individual, the family and small social groups that promote racial discrimination in the selection of a mate. But how effective can we realistically expect this individual and family level racial discrimination to be in the long term, when the larger society and culture around them is using all its power and influence to promote the opposite values? It is likely that the practice of racial discrimination in the selection of mates by Nordish individuals would become progressively more difficult with each generation as the proportion of prospective mates of their own race steadily declined to an ever smaller minority, making the racial nature of their discrimination ever more obvious, and thus the target of increasing criticism and condemnation. So the proportion of Nordish individuals practicing racial discrimination in their selection of a mate is certain to decline with each generation, both from social and cultural influences and for the practical reason that prospective mates of their own race will become less numerous and thus more difficult to obtain.
Like many people who were of sufficient age on the day President Kennedy was assassinated (I was 14), I have an unusually vivid memory of what I did after that traumatic event. That night at my cousin's birthday party I read an article in the current issue (Nov. 18, 1963) of U.S. News and World Report titled "Intermarriage and the Race Problem - As Leading Authorities See It" in which "authorities" such as Gunnar Myrdal, Ernest van den Haag, Margaret Mead and others denied the likelihood that racial integration would significantly increase the rate of intermarriage, at that time less than .5%. I remember my reaction being more than skeptical - in fact their denials, if anything, tended to confirm my belief that increased intermixture of one kind necessarily results in increased intermixture of the other kinds - and assessing the article as an effort to reduce resistance to integration by denying the reality of one of the main concerns behind that resistance. It was much the same tactic as the proponents of the 1965 Immigration Reform Act used when they denied that it would change the racial proportions of the population.
In the years since that article I have noted a steady and dramatic increase in the frequency and social acceptability of racial intermixture, including intermarriage. A special issue of Time in 1993 was essentially devoted to the subject of racial intermixture and stated that between 1973 and 1993 the number of interracial marriages increased from 310,000 to 1.1 million. In 1998 the U.S. Census reported a 900% increase in the number of interracial marriages, and a 600% increase in the proportion of marriages that are interracial, from 1960 to 1998, from 150,000 to over 1.3 million, with over 50% of these marriages being Asian-Caucasian (about 75% of these being white male and Asian female) and 25% being black-white (about 75% of these being black male and white female). Thus the number of interracial marriages increased from 150,000 in 1960, to 310,000 in 1973, to 1.1 million in 1993, to over 1.3 million in 1998, and "whites" are involved in over 75% of them, which is proportionate to their share of the population. (During the 1993-1998 period the U.S. had a president, Bill Clinton, who openly endorsed interracial marriage as a "cure" for racial divisions, and celebrated the drastic and increasing post-1965 changes in the racial proportions of the population that he happily announced would cause European-Americans to become a minority by 2050, both being developments that his ideological predecessors in the 1960s had denied would occur.) Given these trends, I was more than skeptical when the November, 1998 issue of American Renaissance reported approvingly on a study by the Population Association of America that claimed that less than 2% of married "white" women had husbands of a different race (but 20% of Hispanic women and 24% of Asian women), that less than 3% of U.S. marriages were interracial, and "that blacks and whites, especially, are hardly more likely to marry each other now than they were 30 years ago," in my opinion causing its readers to continue to believe such misleading information, understating the actual extent of racial destruction already suffered from intermixture and the increasing rate of destruction it threatens for the future.
As a Nordish (i.e., Northern European) racial preservationist, my first objection to this study and its interpretation, as to most mainstream racial statistics, is how it defines the races. The racial term "white" has become very elastic, now commonly stretched in government statistics to include large populations whose primary racial ancestry is not even Caucasian - such as the majority of "Hispanics" or "Latinos" who are mestizos of racially mixed ancestry - much less Nordish. Therefore, the marriages of mestizos and Northern Europeans are often not counted as interracial. It also discounts the effect of intermarriage between Northern Europeans and other Caucasians of non-Nordish type, not counting these as interracial marriages, although they usually produce non-Nordish offspring and must therefore be considered as having a destructive effect on the Nordish racial group. In fact, much of the racial destruction suffered by the Nordish race from intermixture has been from intermixture with other racial groups counted as "white" in most mainstream racial statistics. If our population is being transformed into another Brazil, then our "white" population is also being transformed into something similar to the marginally "white" population of Brazil, not a Nordish type of "white" population.
My second objection is that this statistic does not break down the different rates of intermarriage between different age groups, or over time, so that a trend can be seen. If the rate of racial intermarriage for the married Nordish female population as a whole is 2 percent, this indicates that the rate of intermarriage for the younger segment of the population (those of reproductive age) is higher, for the rate among the older segment is much lower, as the rate of intermarriage in 1963 was under .5%. For example, if the rate of racial intermarriage for the oldest 25% of Nordish women is .5%, and the rate for the second oldest 25% is 1%, a rate of 4% among the youngest 25% and 2.5% among the second youngest 25% would give an overall average of 2%. Such a breakdown would indicate the trend, which is certainly toward an increasing rate of intermarriage. A breakdown of the percentage of interracial marriages on an annual basis would also indicate the trend, and in this dynamic process of racial destruction it is the trend which is important. We need to see movement in statistics, motion pictures not snapshots, so we can see which way and how fast our subject is moving. The trend, I fear, is not cause for Nordish complacency.
My third objection is that this statistic is narrowly limited to intermarriage, not to intermixture in the broader and more meaningful sense, which would include any interracial sexual union, married or not, that results in racially mixed offspring. For the issue of Nordish racial preservation, the statistic that is most important is not the number or percentage of interracial marriages, but the number or percentage of non-Nordish children born to Nordish mothers. In this regard, two other possibilities need to be considered. The first is the possibility that Nordish women with non-Nordish husbands have a significantly higher birthrate than those with Nordish husbands (for various not well-understood -- yet clearly dynamic -- cultural, social, psychological and ideological reasons). The second is the possibility that the rate of intermixture is higher among unmarried Nordish women who have children than among married Nordish women. Given a Nordish illegitimacy rate that is now probably over 15% this is an important factor. If both these possibilities are in fact the case, as my observations and other evidence lead me to believe is likely, then the true rate of Nordish racial intermixture, measured by the proportion of racially-mixed children born to Nordish women, is perhaps about 25% higher than the proportion of married Nordish women in their prime child-bearing years with non-Nordish husbands, i.e., 5% instead of 4%.
This is the statistic that counts, and although it certainly has a high correlation with the rate of interracial marriage, a focus on the rate of intermarriage tends to hide or understate the true rate of racial intermixture. Statistics on intermixture, unfortunately, are difficult to come by, and perhaps unavailable, but assuming per above that the rate of interracial childbearing among the youngest 25% of adult Nordish women -- i. e., those of prime reproductive age who are currently having children -- is 5%, and if this figure is extended to include intermixture between Northern Europeans and other "whites" who are far removed from the Nordish racial type, and it is also assumed that such mixtures are as common as the Nordish-nonwhite variety, but with the same birthrate as Nordish-Nordish pairings, then it can be estimated that about 9% of the children currently born to Nordish mothers are not of Nordish racial type or identity. Those familiar with compound interest will understand what the consequences of 9% compounded over a number of generations will be, and if this rate rises in future generations, which is certain if the current trend continues, the final consequences will be realized only that much sooner.
My fourth objection is that this statistic does not mention the effects of the extent of interracial contact and regional and cultural variation on the rate of intermarriage. Those populations which are more racially isolated and homogeneous (states such as the Dakotas and Idaho, or many rural communities, small towns and ethnic neighborhoods), or which have an intact cultural heritage that discourages interracial mixture, probably have a much lower rate of interracial marriage and intermixture than populations in which the races have more extensive contact and interaction, and where the culture or ideology promote intermixture. It should be noted that the latter populations represent the direction in which our society is moving.
My final objection is to the common tendency to evade, deny or downplay the essential inevitability of intermixture in a racially mixed society. It should be a law of sociology that different races occupying the same territory under conditions of extensive contact will intermix and ultimately blend into one mixed race. Indeed, whenever early Anthropologists encountered different races existing in the same society and territory it was assumed that one or both of the races were relatively recent arrivals, and that the two distinct races had not been living together for a long time. The multiracial society in North America had its beginnings less than four centuries ago, with intermixture strongly inhibited by social and legal constraints until the 1960s, and with the degree of multiracialization now increasing at a rapid pace and spreading to the countries of Europe. The conditions now being created will permit, or even propel, a vast increase in the rate of intermixture in the near future. I must assume that the intermixture we have seen to date is only a small fraction of the intermixture to come, which will ultimately be total, with fatal consequences for the Nordish racial group, unless appropriate action is taken to restore the conditions of racial separation and reproductive isolation required for racial preservation.
The evidence from the real world is that whenever different
races share the same territory they intermix, eventually blending
into one race. It is only a matter of time. The simple fact is
that any degree of intermixture, no matter how small, if it continues
with cumulative effects over a sufficient number of generations,
will eventually result in one mixed race. An almost total absence
of intermixture would be required to prevent this. It is basic
mathematics. Of course, if the degree of intermixture is small
the process will take longer, requiring more generations, and
be less obvious in any single generation. It might be that any
degree of intermixture below 10% per generation is too small for
most people to really be conscious of its ultimate consequences,
as the rate of racial mixture in the U.S. is now probably approaching
10% and there still seems to be little awareness or recognition
of what this means for the future. (The major media could of course
raise a high degree of awareness even if the rate of intermixture
were negligible, but they generally avoid the subject of intermixture
or minimize or deny it.) Would there be a general awareness of
intermixture and its consequences at the 10% rate, or would 20%
or 30% be required? I don't really know. My hope is that most
people can be made aware of the consequences at the current level.
That's the awareness I'm trying to raise.
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 01:42:56 -0400
From: Angelique <email@example.com>
To: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
I don't understand your philosophy, as it relates to realistic
implementation, or feasibility. Your belief system, is the basis for
your attitude and values. Your rights as a citizen allow you to live in
a free society, with rights to your own free will.
What you seem to advocate is the right to seperatism, to preserve
races, as to embrace our differences, and keep a societal balance. I
don't see how imposing the value system of some individuals, to all the
citizens of the United States.. How does that help racial relations, or
humanity? It would seem to undermine the Constitution itself, mocking
the freedom that allows you to publish your beliefs.
In a society of free speech, you may be contradicting yourself
thought of seperatism. How can a society in a direction of change, and
education. justify beliefs that require people to sacrifice their
choices of region, and marital partners.
Is there anything specific that lead you to believe these thoughts
Ann in Florida
Dear Ann in Florida,
Thanks for your e-mail of April 16.
"What you seem to advocate is the right to sep[a]ratism, to preserve all races... How does that help racial relations, or humanity? It would seem to undermine the Constitution itself, mocking the freedom that allows you to publish your beliefs...In a society of free speech, you may be contradicting yourself by the thought of seperatism."
I believe that respect for the right of races to exist and to control their own existence is the essential requirement for good will between races and the foundation for good racial relations. It is an inescapable fact that the continued existence of the different races, and their control of their own existence, both require that the races be separated, the first requiring physical separation and the second requiring political and geographic separation.
I don't believe that preserving the Nordish race, the race of those who wrote the U.S. Constitution, would undermine the U.S. Constitution, nor would I want it to do so, but if it came down to a choice between the two, I would say that preserving the Nordish race is infinitely more important than preserving the Constitution. The Constitution is a human product created by a group of Nordish men in a convention that lasted a few days, and if somehow lost could be recreated just as easily if people willed it so. The Nordish race is a part of physical reality, of nature, created by an immensely complex process of evolution over the course of tens of thousands of years, and if lost its recreation would be essentially impossible. Extinction is forever. Also, it is worth considering that the best way to preserve the Constitution and its values would be to preserve the race of those who created it.
I don't think advocating the preservation and independence of the Nordish race, and the condition of separation required both for Nordish preservation and independence, in any sense mocks freedom of speech, or is in any way inconsistent with freedom of speech, but is in fact an expression and exercise of that freedom.
"How can a society in a direction of change... justify beliefs that require people to sacrifice their choices of region, and marital partners."
Almost everything a society does, whether preserving the environment or preserving a race, requires certain restrictions and limitations on individual rights and freedoms. Preserving Redwood trees or whales requires that people be restricted from cutting down Redwoods or killing whales. Preserving a natural environment requires that people be restricted from developing or changing it. Preserving a race requires that it be isolated or separated from other races to prevent intermixture. This condition of racial isolation-separation required for racial preservation is the same condition required for racial creation. It is the condition in which, and by which, the different races were created, and in which, and by which, they were preserved for many thousands of years. The "direction of change" you mention is in the direction of Nordish racial destruction, the change is the dispossession, replacement and extinction of the Nordish race.
I value individual freedom, rights and interests, but not when they are taken to an unreasonable extreme to justify and cause the destruction of a race. This is beyond the justifiable bounds of individual rights. The average life span of an individual is about 80 years, and none have been known to live more than 130 years. The Nordish race has existed for perhaps 30,000 years, and has the potential to continue to exist for many hundreds of thousands or even millions of years more as a genetic continuum of generations. For this reason, among others, I think that in the long term the well-being and vital interests of a race are far more important and compelling than any conflicting interests of individuals. I don't think any individual, or generation, has the right to engage in actions or behavior that cause racial destruction. If there is a conflict, the interests and rights of a race are deeper and more basic than the interests and rights of any of its individual members and should be given priority. In normal and healthy societies this is understood intuitively and there is a reflexive response in favor of vital and compelling racial interests if they are threatened or violated.
That this reflexive response in favor of the vital interests of their race is now largely absent among Nordish people shows how confused they have become regarding racial matters, partly due to an extremist interpretation of individual rights, and partly to the pervasive denial and delegitimization of Nordish racial interests by the prevailing anti-Nordish culture. 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 be separated from them. As a result, there is a prevailing lack of awareness or recognition that in fact the most vital and compelling Nordish interests are involved -- its continued existence and control of its own existence."
"Is there anything specific that lead [led] you to believe these thoughts on race?"
Specifically, which thoughts and beliefs? I assume you are referring to my support for Nordish racial preservation and independence. First, let me stress that I strongly desire and support the preservation and independence of every race, not just my own Nordish race, but as a practical matter, at present and for the foreseeable future, only the European races in general, and the Nordish race in particular, are actually threatened with dispossession and destruction by multiracialism. So racial preservationism is -- as a practical matter -- Nordish preservationism, and opposition to racial preservation is opposition to continued Nordish existence. Thus, to be specific, my racial preservationism is strongly motivated by my love of my race. Because I love it I regard its continued existence and control of its own existence, its preservation and freedom, as a matter of the greatest importance. Why do I love and value my race so much? The reasons defy adequate description, and are certainly too numerous to list, but include every beautiful Nordish woman and child I have seen, and every positive achievement and accomplishment by members of the Nordish race.
April 18, 2000
Return to Racial Preservation: Issues and Answers page
Go to Racial Compact main page