An Interview with Richard McCulloch

Interview

In October, 1998 Richard McCulloch was interviewed over the internet by three European correspondents.

Dear Mr. McCulloch,

Here are our questions. Feel free to digress as far as you like, and to leave any question you
don't like unanswered. If you have any additional information we
haven't specifically asked for, feel free to state it as well.

1. SOME PERSONAL QUESTIONS
==========================

1.1) Can you tell us something about yourself, and where your life-long
interest in the Nordish people comes from? What place has racial
consciousness taken in your life through the years? In other words, how
did you develop your way of thinking and your ability to express this
way of thinking in the great way you do?

1.1 Answer: I wish I knew, but perhaps this degree of self-awareness is denied to us. I can say that it is an irreducible part of what I am, at the very core of my being and identity, as far back as I can remember. I spend a great deal of time thinking about these matters, and with time my thoughts have been refined and my ability to express them improved.

1.2) We are, and other readers might be, curious about your own ethnic
background. Obviously, you are Nordish, but to which branches of the
Nordish race do you trace back your ancestry?

1.2 Answer: Like many Nordish-Americans, my ancestry derives from several of the peoples of northwestern Europe. My two grandfathers' families were old-stock American. My McCulloch ancestors were what we call Scotch-Irish or Ulster Scots, emigrating from the Edinburgh area to Ulster in Northern Ireland in the 1600s, and after 1717 emigrating from there to western Virginia, ending up in 1792 in western Pennsylvania, where they intermarried with many other old-stock American lines of varied Nordish origin (Boyd, Craig, Earhart, etc.). My Dutch, Swedish and Huguenot ancestors (van der Goes, van Nes, van der Vliet, van Arsdalen, Claesen, Anderson, Latourette, etc.) settled in New Netherlands (New York) in the 1630s, moving on in community groups to New Jersey in the 1670s and Illinois in 1836. My two grandmothers' families arrived more recently -- my German grandmother's family emigrated from Berlin to Detroit in the early 1890s shortly before she was born, and my Norwegian grandmother's family emigrated from a small town near Trøndheim in 1911 when she was 8 years old, settling in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.

1.3) What study did you do? What is the relation of this study to your
racial philosophy?

1.3 Answer: My college major was history, with anthropology my second area of study. This reflected my interests from an early age. The subject matter in my college classes was often almost a review for me of subjects I had already studied. Both areas of study fostered my racial awareness and a wider perspective. My parents purchased a set of The World Book Encyclopedia in 1959, around the time of my 10th birthday, and I remember reading the section on race soon after this. I watched many television documentaries that were informative about recent history. I remember reading H.G. Wells' An Outline of History in 1961-62 when I was 12 or 13 years old, and being struck by a passage in which the author stated that humanity, after thousands of generations of divergence, was apparently changing course in the direction of recoalescence, and realizing the consequences of this development. From my readings in anthropology I learned that if two distinct peoples were found inhabiting the same territory it was assumed that one or both of the peoples was a relatively recent arrival, and that they had not been living together for long, as populations that had lived together for a long time were invariably blended together by intermixture into one population where the distinctions between the ancestral peoples were gradually eliminated. Obviously, awareness of this anthropological principle made the consequences of multiracialization very clear to me, and I began to express my concerns on this matter to my friends and family members while still in my teens. But I was not very effective. Indeed, through my college years I felt rather isolated, not knowing anyone else who shared my racial views (the only "racist" organizations I knew of were those of the KKK and neo-Nazi variety, whose racial programs were supremacist rather than preservationist), until one day in 1973, while I was a graduate student, that I discovered The Dispossessed Majority by Wilmot Robertson in a downtown bookstore, and discovered there were others with whom I could connect who were addressing the race issue in a morally and intellectually respectable manner. Robertson's example inspired me to begin writing about race.

1.4) What interests do you have? We know for instance that you are
interested in the exploration of the solar system - and beyond. We got
the impression that you have a love for Science Fiction books and
movies.

1.4 Answer: I think my early interest in history went hand in hand with my early interest in Science Fiction, as good, credible Science Fiction seemed almost like an imaginative continuation or projection of the past and present into the future, an extension of history. Some of my earliest reading in both history and Science Fiction was in the form of comic books (I wish I still had them). In adulthood my reading of Science Fiction has decreased, but this has been partially offset by the greatly increased quantity of television and motion picture Science Fiction. From my perspective as a Nordish racial preservationist, there is one particular criticism I have of this genre. By portraying the Nordish race as still existing (apparently in full undiminished form) after several centuries of multiracialism it helps foster the common misconception (indeed, the fatal fallacy) that the Nordish race can continue to exist, even without diminishment, under multiracial conditions. The various Star Trek series as well as Babylon 5 (which reminds me of Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" trilogy in its epic story line) are examples of this. One exception is Arthur Clarke's Imperial Earth, which I read circa 1970, which is set several centuries in the future when the various white racial types no longer exist due to intermixture. Of course, Clarke mentions this fact almost casually and does not treat it as being of any significance. It was, however, significant to me. I did not finish the book. Another criticism of the Star Trek series is its use of the name "Ferengi" for the most unattractive, dishonorable and ignoble of its alien races. "Ferengi" is of course the Islamic World's name for the Franks, which they used to refer to all Western Europeans. I assume that the people in charge of Star Trek development knew this, and it can be taken as an anti-Nordish insult that reveals their lack of regard for the Nordish race.

The apocalyptic theme that is common to many SciFi films -- from alien invasions and infiltration to "body snatching" (replacing humans, especially persons in authority, with alien impostors) and meteors -- is strangely analogous to the situation now threatening the Nordish race. Our race is threatened with destruction. Its continued existence is at stake, much as the existence of humanity or the earth is at stake in these films. One particularly apt analogy is to the "Borg Collective" in Star Trek. We too are threatened with assimilation into the collective (the non-Nordish mass of humanity), and told that our assimilation is inevitable and resistance is futile. Of course, when the humans in these films become aware of their danger they do everything in their power to combat it (Capt. Picard answered the Borg with a resounding "No!"), as we hope our race will also when it is aware. To seek and welcome the destruction would move the plot into the "Twilight Zone" genre. At the moment our position is more like the humans in the alien infiltration or "body snatcher" films, with only a few of us aware of what is happening, and desperately trying to inform our disbelieving brethren.

2. SOME CLARIFICATIONS WANTED
=============================

2.1) In TIAD [The Ideal and Destiny] you give a four-fold classification of the Race; there are
4 types: dark, middle, light and ultra-Nordic.
In TNQ [The Nordish Quest], and on your web site you give a much more elaborate system,
which describes the Nordish race as a center with concentric circles
around it, and various subtypes within these circles. Can we assume that
the classification in TIAD should be considered as a sliding scale from
the most outer Nordic types to the most inner, or should we consider it to
be outdated/overruled by the new classification?

2.1 Answer: Consider the dark-through-ultra Nordic classification scheme overruled by the new scheme. The racial boundaries between Nordish (Northern European) and non-Nordish are the same in both classifications. The change is strictly internal within the Nordish group, classifying its various component elements in a more accurate manner. I am sorry to say that until 1985, in spite of all my searching through major university libraries, I had never found a book on race that went much beyond Ripley's old classification of Europeans into Nordics, Alpines and Mediterraneans. Usually the only addition was the East Baltic type. Even John Baker's otherwise excellent book Race, which appeared in 1974, is deficient in this regard. In 1985 I obtained a copy of Carleton Coon's 1939 work The Races of Europe, which was written as a college text on the subject, and although I have points of disagreement with it, it is by far the most definitive work on the subject with which I am familiar, and represents a line of scholarship that has been neglected and almost forgotten over the last half century. The scheme in The Nordish Quest and my web site can be considered as a slightly modified and updated version of his classification system, synthesized with Baker and others.

2.2) Can you give us any sources / further reading advises on the racial
classifications of Human- and Northernkind, and the racial composition
of the European nations?

2.2 Answer: Unfortunately, the study of the races of humanity has been in disfavor over the last half century, and any serious attempt to study it in an objective manner will likely result in the scholar being branded a racist, probably the most feared epithet in the modern Western world (although not outside the West) and certainly the most feared in the "politically correct" groves of academia. I have heard that the best work in this area over the last generation has been done in Hungary, but I do not know of any specifics. Other than my own work the best material I am familiar with is that of Baker and Coon mentioned in the previous answer. I am sorry to say that I find much of the work of Luigi Cavalli-Sforza and his group to be misleading in its interpretation of the genetic data, which our present culture effectively prevents from being challenged by alternative interpretations.

2.3) In TIAD [The Ideal and Destiny] you write that minimizing the interference of the state with
society would be the best way to preserve and improve the race, and that
interference of the state - i.e. state-capitalism, or socialism - is a
political-economic system that is far more likely to slow down or
reverse the divergent evolution of the human races. However, in DOA [Destiny of Angels] you
mention there sometimes is a discrepancy between "internal natural
wealth" and "external material wealth", which can lead to the union
between the material wealthy and the natural wealthy- and, through a
process of intermixing, to the loss of inheritable beauty.
But, this selling of racial beauty - because this is what you
essentially describe - is in fact a liberal-capitalist process. Should a
moderate form of state interference not be desired to limit these
processes, and make sure that those rich in natural wealth but poor in
material wealth, should prosper, and those poor in natural wealth should
be stimulated not to procreate?

2.3 Answer: The above section in Destiny of Angels refers to interracial matings rather than to matings within the Nordish race, and especially to the mating of men of various non-Nordish Caucasian racial types to Nordish women who are attracted to their material wealth and social standing. In a monoracial society this problem would not exist.

To maintain a generally positive evolutionary trend it is of course necessary for those of higher quality to reproduce at a higher rate than those of lower quality, but I prefer positive eugenics to negative eugenics, measures to encourage those of higher quality to have more children rather than measures aimed at discouraging the reproduction of those of lower quality. At the present, considering the below replacement level reproductive rate of our race for the last quarter century, what we need is a pro-natalist movement to encourage and promote a general increase in reproduction across all classes. Our problem is not so much that the lower quality elements are having too many children, as their rate is also low, but that our race in general is having too few children, especially those of higher quality. Government should play some role in promoting a pro-natalist environment (and in monitoring and reporting demographic trends), as should all other cultural and social institutions, especially education to increase awareness of the importance of reproductive decisions, but I do not really trust its wisdom to manage the reproduction of the race as much as I trust the wisdom of millions of individual couples. The latter may be far from perfect, but I cannot help believing that the former would be so much worse.

3. RACIST PHILOSOPHY VS. RACIAL NIHILISM
========================================

We'll now confront you with some of the questions people ask racists.
They are not our questions; we just would like to know how you would
reply to them as they represent some of the common misunderstandings
about racism and the ignorance that is forced upon people by the
dominant altruist-egalitarian ideology.

3.1) "What does a person's race matter? Isn't it much more important
that some one behaves good and means well? Bad people come in all
colors, and so do good people."

3.1 Answer: This is a common racial nihilist objection to racial preservationism, but this one is easy as I have already answered it. Character and race are two different things, as I wrote in the footnotes of "Many Mansions:"

"When Martin Luther King remarked in his celebrated 'I have a dream' speech that a person should be judged not by the color of their skin (a minimalist expression for the thousands of genetic differences involved in race) but by the content of their character, he provided a platitude often used by racial nihilists to oppose racial (and especially Nordish) rights, independence and preservation. He also implied a conflict between race and character, as if one necessarily excluded or was inconsistent with the other, an implication reminiscent of the supposed conflict between physical reality and a 'higher' or superior spiritual reality which should be given precedence, with race belonging to the physical realm and character to the spiritual. But they are each part of what we are, each judged or determined by its own proper terms and standards. To assert that racial judgments or determinations should not be made is the position of racial nihilism, which denies racial rights, racial values, and the love of race which promotes racial preservation.

"There is no conflict between race and character, and it is dishonest to pretend otherwise, and immoral to use character as an argument to justify the violation of the racial right to continued life, existence and preservation, as it is to use claims of a supposed (and perhaps imaginary) 'higher' spiritual reality to promote actions that are destructive of the physical and material reality in which we exist. In fact, one of the primary measures of morality and character should be respect for the rights of others, and this includes respect for the rights of other races, and particularly their right to life. Good character and morality should be consistent with the Golden Rule of live and let live, and therefore inconsistent with the denial or violation of the rights of other races to continued life, preservation and independence."

In our campaign to secure the preservation and independence of our race, and indeed these same rights for all races, we are the protagonists and our opponents, including those who make such assertions and objections (disguised as questions) as above, are the antagonists. Many of these assertions and objections are nonsensical, logically inconsistent and even incoherent, defying basic assumptions of logic and reason, and thus frustratingly difficult to answer. If the person making these antagonistic assertions is non-Nordish, then one can assume that he is aggressively promoting what he sees as his own racial interests contrary to the most vital rights and interests of the Nordish race. If the person is Nordish one can assume that he is hostile to the most basic interests of his own race, in accordance with the ethics and values of racial nihilism. They have been taught that this is a morally superior position and that all else is intolerably evil. In addition to the quote above, I would answer such assertions essentially as follows:

"To say something matters is to say that it is important and has value. To say something does not matter is to say it is of no importance or value. To say something is the only thing that matters is to say that all else is without importance or value. I act on the presumption that everything that exits -- every part of Creation -- matters, that it has importance and value, and that it is both improper and nihilistic to presume otherwise. This importance and value can be regarded as objective, based on its position and role in Creation, or subjective, based on the sentiments of those who love it, by which standard anything that matters or is important to anyone, that is loved or valued by anyone, is regarded as valuable and important. The continued existence of the Nordish race may not matter to you [addressing the antagonist opponent of Nordish preservation] but it matters to me. You may not value, care for, or love the Nordish race, but I do. You may not consider its existence to matter, to be important, but I do. I know that the ideology of multiracialism says that it is morally wrong to love or value one's race (especially if one is Nordish), to care for it, regard it as important, or desire its continued existence, well-being and independence, but I consider this ideology -- which you apparently support -- as immoral and destructive, and in the present context particularly destructive of my race. I think there should be a moral presumption in favor of preservation and against destruction, and thus in favor of the conditions that preserve and against the conditions that destroy. By this presumption it is multiracialism that is immoral and my philosophy of racial preservationism that is moral."

I would like to see every person in a prominent or influential position asked if they love, value and care for the Nordish race, if they consider its existence to matter or be important, if they favor its preservation and support its most vital and legitimate rights and interests, its continued existence and independence. These are questions they have never been asked, and have never had to answer. They would prefer not to, so as not to prematurely alert the Nordish population before it is too late for the destructive course they have set to be reversed. Unlike the antagonist questioner above, they are much more discrete, and much less honest. Therefore, the above question is not likely to be publicly asked of a prominent member of the power structure. Not yet. We typically encounter it at a much more basic level, with little or no audience. I think the extent to which you answer it should depend on the audience. The antagonist questioner is probably not worth the effort (you need to assess this on an individual basis) but you may have an audience that includes people who are worth the effort. Your response should then be made for their sake.

3.2) "Why do you care if colored-eyed, blond people would disappear?
That will happen after you are dead anyway. Why bother? Things change;
that's the way things normally go."

3.2 Answer: The reference to colored-eyed, blond people is an evasive way of referring to the Nordish race, minimizing or trivializing its many unique traits and characteristics by arbitrarily restricting reference to only one or two traits (unless they are merely responding to your own use of these traits as a reason or justification for Nordish preservation, which is why if you use such an argument you should make it clear that you are talking about the preservation of a race, not just some of its traits). People who use such language should be obliged to clarify what they are referring to, and thus admit that they are referring to the Nordish race, not just to certain traits associated with it. So they are really saying no one should care if the Nordish race disappears -- i.e., becomes extinct through replacement and intermixture -- that its existence is not worthy of continuation. Where does the nihilistic reasoning behind this question end? Why should one care about preservation or conservation, about the continued existence of something that exists, that is a part of nature and the universe, whether a rain forest, a class of animals, a race of humanity, or the planet earth itself? The answer, ultimately, is that we value it and consider it important to us for some reason, and if it is an important part of our personal lives the probable answer is that we love it. Do not be afraid or ashamed to say that you love your race and that this is the source of your motivation. In fact, this should be the emphasis of your argument. Your love for your race should be affirmed whenever the subject of its preservation is debated. You can tell such people that you are sorry they do not think the Nordish race is worthy of continued existence, sorry that they do not care about its survival, but that you do because you love it and consider it worth saving.

Regarding the issue of racial preservation, the above question is a very non-committal, even cowardly, form of expression of those unwilling to state their own position. They should be confronted with the necessity of stating their position, of what they prefer or want if given the choice between Nordish preservation or destruction. They should be obliged to answer that question. If they say that, if the choice was theirs to make, they would prefer continued Nordish existence, that is one thing; if they say they would choose Nordish nonexistence, that is quite another thing. You could then turn the tables on them and ask them why, pointing out the general moral presumption in favor of preservation over destruction. Why do they favor Nordish extinction? What is their motive? What possible justification could there be for desiring the disappearance or nonexistence of a human race?

When telling someone that the Nordish race is moving toward extinction I have often heard the comment "We won't live to see it" or "We'll be dead by then." This is often a sign of fatalistic resignation, of people who see no way out, no viable alternative, and have been convinced that there is nothing they can do to change our course and therefore accept it as inevitable, adapting to live with this knowledge by accepting it, and telling themselves that what will be lost is of little value and not cause for grief or concern. They do not really want this to happen, but unless they can see a credible alternative they are likely to resent any call to resist it as futile and disturbing. If they say they want the Nordish race to be preserved, then present your alternative -- one that is morally and intellectually acceptable, even preferable, to the present course. If they say they want the Nordish race to be destroyed (usually they are not so honest, and evade the question) there is really very little purpose in continuing the conversation, and certainly almost no hope of converting this person to Nordish preservationism. It might be interesting to ask them if they would care if certain other races were to disappear, if there is any race they wish preserved. If they say no then you have a pure racial nihilist. If they would preserve other races but not the Nordish race then you have unmasked a specifically anti-Nordish strain of racial nihilism, and, if you have an audience, you can probably do no better than to lay it bare, expose it for what it is and describe your alternative. Say that the planet is big enough for all the races of humanity to exist on, as they have for the last 40,000-plus years. No race need disappear. This change they say is normal (and infer is inevitable) -- the disappearance of the Nordish race -- is not necessary, and certainly not normal. There is nothing normal about it. In fact it is completely abnormal. The normality of the last 40,000 years is for the races to each inhabit their own part of the planet, and to be secure in their continued existence in their own homelands. It is the recent abnormal violation of this normality, with other races moving into the Nordish parts of the planet, the Nordish homelands, which is now threatening the Nordish race with destruction. If this violation of normality is corrected, and each race is again secure in its own parts of the planet, all the races of humanity can continue to exist and share the earth together for uncounted millennia to come, and none need disappear.

My first encounter with explicit racial nihilism occurred in my senior year of high school (1967) in my American Institutions social studies class. The teacher, Mr. Schelter, began to preach racial intermixture as the solution to the race problem. I raised my hand and objected that intermixture would cause the extinction of the white race (I used the term "white" in those days). He replied "So? What's so special about the white race?" I was caught by surprise by this nihilistic reply and was not prepared to answer it. Until then I had naively assumed that no responsible or respectable person would knowingly advocate the destruction of my race, or any other race. I assumed that people who supported the conditions and practices that cause racial destruction did so because they were unaware of the consequences, not because they actually desired Nordish destruction. I still think that this is true of the great majority of our race who support multiracialism. Certainly the true consequences are not acknowledged by prominent leaders of the multiracialist establishment, but are evaded or denied. If the power structure behaves in this manner it can be assumed that they are afraid they would lose at least the consensus of public support for their policies if people were generally aware of their racially destructive consequences. Thus establishment leaders do not publicly make the kind of nihilistic remark as the person in this question. At least not yet. And that is itself cause for hope.

3.3) "Why do you praise this so-called Nordish beauty? There are lot's
of ugly white people, and there are beautiful non-whites too, so your
esthetic argument is invalid."

3.3 Answer: The praise of Nordish beauty is, of course, only relevant to those who appreciate it. As a reason or justification for Nordish preservation it is only effective with those who regard Nordish beauty as valuable and important and worth preserving. It is ineffective with those who regard Nordish beauty as being without value or importance. In the end, we will only preserve that which we love, and if the Nordish race is preserved it will be by those who love it, including those who love its beauty. In general, you should not have to justify Nordish preservation on the basis of its beauty (the "esthetic argument") or intelligence, as the right of a race to exist should be an absolute principle of morality and not be dependent on its qualities, yet its beauty -- based on appropriate examples (usually well-known celebrities, although your use of them as examples should not imply that they support the preservation of their race, or any of its other interests, as many, if not most, successful celebrities in the current cultural milieu will probably disappoint you in this regard) -- should certainly be mentioned at every opportunity as a reason why it should be valued and loved, and should make clear to any sensible person why its beauty is not interchangeable with, or replaceable by, the beauty of any other race.

When Mr. Schelter asked me what was so special about the white race that it deserved to exist (see response to previous question) he was playing the justification game, the ancient philosophical challenge to justify one's existence, or the existence of one's people, on the grounds that one is superior or special, and therefore worthy to exist, by some external measure. But the only measure that counts is internal, it comes from within us. It is we who make something valuable, meaningful, important or special by regarding it so. All value and meaning is determined and bestowed by us. (We are now told that the existence of the Nordish race has no meaning, value or importance, and that it is wrong, immoral and "racist" for us to think otherwise.) I often think of the justification game as the "Schelter trap," the false belief that many fall into that the preservation of the Nordish race must be justified by assertions that it is superior to other races, or conversely by claims that other races are inferior, and that without such superiority it does not deserve to exist. This logical trap assumes that superiority is required to be worthy of existence. Ultimately, the right of our race to exist does not depend on it being superior to any other race in any way, whether in beauty, intelligence, morality or creativity, but on the very fact of its existence and the moral presumption in favor of preserving that which exists, and on the fact that there are many millions of people who love and value it and want its continued existence, whose values and wishes should be treated with full consideration and respect. It is they who give its existence value and meaning and it is by their will that it has the right to exist.

If the person denying the basic rights of the Nordish race to preservation and independence is a member of a non-Nordish race, who is offended that you regard traits which he does not share as valuable and important, angered that you love and hold dear things that are outside of him and of which he is not a part, and insulted that you do not want your race to join with his, become one with it and become what it is, but want it to remain separate and distinct from his, you should tell him that you respect the right of his race to existence and independence in its own homelands, that you would not be offended by his love for his race and its existence, and that you reasonably expect the same consideration from him. Also, you should inform him that the mutual recognition of the right of each race to exist is the essential basis for trust and good will in relations between races, that without such recognition it is better to have no relations at all, and that if he does not respect the most vital and legitimate rights and interests of your race it is you who has the just cause for anger, not him.

3.4) "Isn't it a fact that in the Middle Ages the Arab world was more
powerful, more advanced and more scientific than the Western world?
Doesn't this make your assumption of the Nordish Race as the "Race of
Creators" invalid?"

3.4 Answer: This question is not really relevant to the issue of racial preservation, and if it is asked it is probably because the questioner assumes, rightly or wrongly, that you are justifying your call for Nordish preservation on the assertion that it is the "Race of Creators." You should not let your expressions of praise for your race, lauding its virtues, beauty and achievements, however legitimate and well-deserved, be mistaken as your justification for its preservation, which would imply that you believe the right of a race to exist is dependent on such considerations.

That said, and addressing the question on its merits, and as not relevant to the issue of racial preservation, Lawrence Brown, in his 1963 book The Might of the West, answers it very well. Empirical science was a unique creation of the Western World, beginning in the Middle Ages with those thinkers, such as Roger Bacon, who laid its metaphysical foundations. Arab physics was what Brown calls "the physics of magic," of the alchemist looking for the philosopher's stone or other magical powers, and its influence on the West in this area was harmful. As for power, certainly by the beginnings of the Crusades it was the West that was on the strategic offensive, exercising the dominant role, and the Arab world that was on the defensive, in which they were ultimately successful as the West refocused its energies on its internal struggles. When one looks at the science and engineering and technology that characterizes the modern world it is all essentially a creation of the West, adopted by the other peoples of humanity. Even with the diffusion of Western knowledge among the very capable peoples of northeast Asia, most notably Japan, the primary creation of new technology still occurs in the West, with the other peoples engaging in secondary creation, the further development or refinement of technology the West started. While the proportionate role of the Nordish race in the Classical world is more difficult to determine, certainly since the Middle Ages the Nordish race has clearly been the dominant racial element in the development of the West.

3.5) "Even if there would be differences in development, in intelligence
etc., what would they matter? Isn't this race mixing, this global coming
together part of our destiny? It would make a better world"

3.5 Answer: Destiny? Destiny is not preordained or determined by some external force. It is determined by us, by our choice, for which we are responsible. This question is another example of the attempt to portray the destruction of the Nordish race as inevitable, as something beyond our control caused by some external power, and thus evading the responsibility of our own actions and choices, which are the true determining force of the future. A better world? Why is one mixed race better for the world than the many distinct races that now exist and have existed on this world for tens of thousands of years? Specifically, why would the world be better without the existence of the Nordish race? Is not the planet big enough for all of its children, a house of many mansions? It has been for tens of thousands of years. Why should we change this? And make no mistake, if it does change it is humans and their actions that change it. It is a matter of human action, of human choice and decision, not of destiny or anything else outside of us. We can choose between the continued existence of the different races or their blending into one mixed race. In actual practice rather than theory, for the foreseeable future this is really a choice between the continued existence of the Nordish race in its homelands or its replacement by a hybridized African-Asian-European population in which the European element will be genetically submerged (and therefore effectively extinct or destroyed), while the non-European races will continue to exist in their own homelands.

3.6) "You and your believers have lost so many battles during the last
50 years that the war must be practically lost. Your enemy, the
proponents of multiculturalism, enjoys an almost total dominance. The
race mixing and the assimilation process has gone so far that a reversal
of this development would cause far more pain and discomfort than what
the northern peoples, who have grown very comfortable lately, could
endure. So why do you bother? What makes you think you can change the
world and in such a drastic manner too?"

3.6 Answer: Drastic? The extinction of the Nordish race would be a far more drastic change of the world than the restoration of the normal condition of racial separation. What makes the proponents of Nordish extinction think they can do this, or should do this? This seems to be another version of the claim of inevitability, that resistance is futile. Of course, if people can be made to believe this is true then it is likely to become the truth, as they will lose the will to resist.

As far as the war being practically lost, the fact is that we have not yet begun to fight. There has thus far been no significant Nordish opposition to multiracialism and the forces of racial destruction it has set in motion. This is because, so far, most Nordish people are still ignorant of what is at stake, still do not realize or understand what is happening, are still unaware of the consequences of multiracialist policies. Sometimes when you mention these consequences you hear the racial nihilist responses and questions listed here, but much more often you see and hear expressions of disbelief and incomprehension. Even many intelligent and thoughtful people, even supposed experts on the race problem, cannot understand or comprehend the fact that racial preservation requires reproductive isolation from other races, which requires racial separation. They do not understand what any competent anthropologist should know (and our antagonist questioners know) -- that races sharing the same territory will eventually mix together into one race. No prominent scholar, political leader, journalist or media figure will admit to such knowledge or acknowledge this fact in public. Not yet. Nor have they in the past. When the governments of the Nordish countries began their policies of multiracialization they did not publicly declare that the ultimate consequence would be the destruction and replacement of the Nordish peoples in their homelands. If the political, economic and cultural establishment leaders who promoted this policy were aware of its consequences, which any competent anthropologist could have told them if they lacked the wit to see for themselves, they certainly did not publicly acknowledge it. Instead, there has been a long record of dissimulation, disinformation, evasion and obfuscation on this matter, a practice that has been so effective that they have never been publicly challenged or questioned on it, so they have not even had to bother to deny it.

The battle for the preservation of the Nordish race has not yet begun, and it will not truly begin until the Nordish people are fully enlightened and informed about what has happened, is happening, and what will happen on the present course, until they are completely aware of their situation, including the fact that it is not inevitable, and that there are alternatives they can choose other than those given them by the multiracialist establishment. Without awareness of all the alternatives and their consequences, without all the relevant information and knowledge, they cannot make an informed choice or decision, and thus far they have not been informed, but have been controlled in a state of ignorance. If the questioner thinks the battle for Nordish preservation is already lost, then challenge him to share this belief publicly, to declare it in a public forum (if the editor will let him) or put it in writing and sign his name to it. If he does it will only help us to overcome the disbelief and incomprehension we most typically encounter in our efforts to make our people more aware. Of course, if he is a person of no prominence (as is typical of those who publicly acknowledge and support the consequences of multiracialism) his words will have little influence. The fact that the prominent and important people who promote multiracialism do not publicly say or admit what this questioner does is our best assurance that we have not yet lost, that our race can still be saved from the destruction they have planned for it if the Nordish people become aware of the situation and the possible alternatives, and that they know this, and fear it, and this is the reason for their silence, evasion and denials.

What kind of pain and discomfort does the questioner mean? Physical pain and discomfort from movements of population to restore the normal and natural condition of racial separation and reproductive isolation required for racial preservation? Tens of millions of people move great distances around this planet every year without physical pain or discomfort. In fact, many millions do it for pleasure. We call them tourists. Modern transportation technology has reduced the discomfort of travel or movement to the point where it is almost solely a matter of attitude. Emotional pain and discomfort? We should of course do everything within reason to minimize this. But this sounds like a claim that it is already too late to save the Nordish race, that the process of multiracialization has already gone too far, so we should give up and accept its destruction and replacement. This is perhaps a bit of wishful thinking on the part of the multiracialists, and more than a little hypocritical, that after minimizing the effects of multiracialism for so many years as a harmless exercise in humanitarianism they should now exaggerate its effects as the reason to claim that the destruction of the Nordish race must now be accepted as irreversible. Of course, the process has not yet gone too far to be reversed. The Nordish race still exists in essentially full and undiminished form. But time is not on our side. Every year the situation worsens and the extent of racial harm and loss increases. So the questioner's remarks should be taken as reason why we must not delay or fail in our efforts, or before too long his words will be true.

4. REALIZING RACIST [i.e., Racial Preservationist] PHILOSOPHY - TOWARDS PANNORDICA
===================================================

These questions are about how your philosophy can be realized.

4.1) Do you think Ethnostates are a realistic option? In what time? What
are the requirements to set the process of constructing these states in
motion?

4.1 Answer: If by ethnostates you mean the separation of the races into their own independent countries or nation-states, you are referring to the condition required for racial preservation and independence. If they are not a realistic option then racial preservation and independence is not a realistic option. Abraham Lincoln said that no matter how difficult the task, where there is a will there is a way. Certainly it is realistic. As far as the physical capability is concerned, it is very realistic. The races can be separated at least as easily as they were brought together. The question is solely one of human will. If we want and desire ethnostates, if this is our will, then we will have them. The requirement to set the process of constructing them in motion is to let people know they are possible, that they are an alternative, and that they are necessary for racial preservation, thus creating a general will, a consensus of purpose, within our race to realize them.

4.2) Do you think the non-Nordic immigrants in the ancient Nordic
Racelands (i.e. Europe) can be persuaded to leave in peace? What are the
requirements to set this process in motion? What help should we, of
course from a pragmatic point of view, offer them? How large is the
chance it would result in violent conflicts (like Bosnia)?

4.2 Answer: I think the response of the non-Nordish peoples in the Nordish countries to Nordish preservationism will depend in part on their recognition of its moral correctness, and in part on the extent of support the preservationist movement enjoys within the Nordish race itself. The stronger the support within the Nordish race for preservationism the greater the degree of recognition and acceptance it is likely to be given by the non-Nordish peoples. If it achieves majority support within the Nordish race its legitimacy as the expression of the Nordish will would be undeniable and the moral credibility of multiracialism, and the supposed consensus that supports it, would be destroyed. Our hopes for a peaceful resolution of this problem will depend on respecting the legitimate rights and interests of the other races, treating them fairly, providing them with a situation in which their vital rights and interests are not threatened, and by making it clear that preservationist separation is supported by the resolute will of the Nordish race, from which it will not deviate. As we educate members of our own race regarding the reasons for separation, that it is imperative for racial preservation, we will also hopefully educate many members of the other races. If they can be made to understand our motive or reason for seeking separation from them is not to cause them harm, but to secure our continued existence, our most vital and legitimate right and interest, and that this is morally right and proper, and that we have good will toward them, mean them no harm but wish them well, and respect their legitimate rights and interests, certainly some, and hopefully many, among them will do what is right and give us their support. We should do everything within reason to maximize support and minimize opposition, by reducing the reasons or justifications for resistance, not only within our own race, but among the other races also. Certainly the more support we have from the other races in this undertaking the easier it will be, and the better will be the relations between the races afterwards.

4.3) At the beginning of DOA [Destiny of Angels] you state that deterrence without a real
capability to withstand hostile aggression from outside is not enough to
secure the interests of the Race. What if the Racial Golden Rule is not
accepted by all other races, or if it is accepted only by Northerners?
If one or more races are not content with having the wealth supply from
the North cut off and begin to rearm and express hostility towards the
North and thereby acquire a capability to strike through the defensive
measures of the North, how would the North respond to such a threat, or
potential threat?

4.3 Answer: It would of course be better if the principles of racial relations expressed by the Racial Compact and the Racial Golden Rule were implemented multilaterally rather than unilaterally, but we should be prepared to implement them unilaterally for the protection of our own interests if necessary. Recognition of the right of each race to exist is the necessary basis for trust and good will in the relations between races. Any race which refused to recognize, and act in accordance with, this right should not be permitted to prevent or interfere with the achievement of our goal of racial preservation and independence. If the Nordish race can achieve its independence united and with its strength intact, it should be capable of defending itself against external threats.

4.4) Are there any organizations today that come close to your
philosophy? Which organizations are closest? Have you been able to exert
any influence to change and broaden the mindset of any organizations or
other political forces?

4.5 Answer: I do not know of any existing organization that approaches my philosophy. I presume such an organization remains to be created. Most existing racialist organizations, and those who belong to them, have an existing mindset which is difficult to change. The problem is that this mindset is often a part of our problem, as it is a mindset that does not appeal to the great majority of our race, but rather alienates and repels most of the high quality people, as well as the masses of more ordinary people, we must attract if we are to gain the broad popular support we need to save our race. Often their goals and methods are such that they do not openly acknowledge them as they would instantly alienate all but the most fanatical supporters. This shapes their strategic outlook, causing them to accept as conventional wisdom the assumption that conditions for our race will have to get much worse before they are likely to attract a wide degree of support, as people would have to be terribly desperate or enraged to accept their program. This makes them dependent on external events, on something outside themselves and beyond their control, on something that will make large numbers of our race terribly desperate, on something that will probably never happen or happen only when it is too late, when the situation of the Nordish race has deteriorated to the point where it is no longer capable of saving itself. This tends to engender a passive rather than active stance, as they assume there is little they can do until hoped for external events change the situation. They do not consider changing their program, the alternative they offer, to make it an alternative people can accept now, under present conditions, as preferable to the present multiracialist course. To use a metaphor, the patient will have to be very sick indeed before he will accept the medicine they offer as a cure. If they offered a medicine that was palatable they would not meet such resistance from the patient, and might be able to save him before he dies.

4.5) The organization which, according to some, is the most progressive
and forceful today, is the National Alliance. How do you regard them?
How do you regard Dr. William Pierce and his strategic outlook? The
chapter Right and Wrong Racism from TRC [The Racial Compact] can certainly not be used to
describe the Alliance's outlook on racial relations.

4.5 Answer: I cannot claim to speak for Dr. Pierce, so I would not presume to attribute ideas to him that I have not seen explicitly expressed in his writing. Regarding his strategic outlook, he is one of those who have expressed the conventional racialist wisdom (as noted in my response to the previous question) that conditions will have to get much worse before he expects his movement to gather wide support. If his cure is similar to the course he describes in his novel The Turner Diaries conditions would have to get very bad indeed, perhaps even as bad as he imagines in his novel, before many would be willing to support it. I for one certainly hope that the situation of our race never comes to such desperate straits, where such extreme and desperate measures are taken by such desperate men and women.

4.6) What are the major weaknesses of those organizations and forces
opposed to the currently dominant multiculturalist power structure?

4.6 Answer: I think my responses to the previous two questions provide part of the answer for this question as well, but I will elaborate. One common weakness or flaw I find in many organizations is that they do not adequately recognize the primary problem -- that the issue is nothing less than racial survival, that the continued existence of our race is at stake -- and this causes them to greatly understate the severity of our problem and the measures necessary to correct it. These organizations either evade or deny the reality of this problem -- in which they essentially echo the multiracialist power structure itself -- or they belittle it as not likely to be of serious concern for the foreseeable future. They therefore concentrate their attentions on the lesser or secondary problems of multiracialism, which can theoretically be solved by means other than separation. Obviously, as they do not recognize the primary problem confronting the Nordish race from multiracialism, but effectively ignore it, they do not propose an alternative that would provide a solution to it. As far as racial preservationism is concerned, they do not address the issue and have no message to offer. They are still in the dark, still unaware, still clueless, about what is happening to their race. They cannot see that the issue is nothing less than the continued existence of their race. In this they are similar to the majority of their race as a whole, and it might help wake them to the real situation if they were introduced to some of the people who ask the kind of nihilist questions I answered above in section 3.

A subset of this type of organization is one that claims to support racial preservation, and even says its advocates separation, but proposes as a solution an alternative that is inadequate, where the races are either not separated geographically into their own countries and governments, but only by voluntary social arrangements, or where only a survivalist fraction of the race is separated into a small homeland while the great majority of the race is left to perish from the consequences of multiracialism. Such proposals are perhaps hampered by an effort to conform to individualist libertarian sensibilities, but they are inadequate to achieve racial preservation and independence, and represent another attempt to evade the true extent of the problem.

Another type of organization, which the multiracialist power structure typically claims represents the only form of racial thought, which all racialist thinkers supposedly adhere to regardless of what they might say to the contrary, is that of the supremacist or even genocidal variety. This type does not recognize or respect the rights or interests of other races. It may recognize the seriousness of the situation, but does not recognize the fact that racial preservation does not require measures that cause harm to other races, and that it therefore certainly cannot be used to justify such harm. The measures they advocate are typically violent and harsh, and not necessary for preservationist purposes, and thus apparently motivated by and serving some other purpose. They often identify themselves with "Nazism" (National Socialism), a nationalist political movement that violated the rights of other nations and races, and whose actions were in no way related to the legitimate goals of racial preservation. Such organizations are now commonly called "hate groups," and this term often has some validity when applied to them. The multiracialists claim that all racialist thought, even advocacy of racial preservation and racial rights, really belongs to this category, as they refuse to recognize the possible existence of alternative forms of racialism that are morally and intellectually credible and capable of attracting broad popular support. Unfortunately, they have been very successful at this, and are actually assisted by the activities of these racialist organizations and their members, who are widely perceived as the only representatives of racialist thought and action, but who in fact only do their race a great disservice, and the multiracialists a great service, by alienating the great majority of their race from pro-racial values. Most people know of nothing else, so the multiracialists are able to claim that these groups represent the only alternative to their policies, and equate any resistance or opposition to, or disagreement with, their policies with support for the policies of these groups. Thus the slightest expression of opposition to the multiracialist program can cause the speaker to be associated with Nazism and its crimes. Under such a blackout of racial information, where people know of no alternative to multiracialism and its consequences other than the quasi-Nazi groups, it is common for those who are most determined to oppose multiracialism to join these groups. We need to provide another alternative, another choice, a constructive course of action for those who want to save the Nordish race.

I would summarize by saying that the racial activist organizations I know of either have not adopted a comprehensive preservationist philosophy that outlines an adequate preservationist alternative, or they have not adopted one that is in accord with the moral sensibilities and values of the majority of our race, which is required to attract the broad popular support needed if we are to have any realistic chance of saving our race from the destructive effects of multiracialism.

4.7) Are there any non-Nordish / non-White countries or organizations
you know off that could be expected to welcome the philosophy of The
Racial Compact? For instance, Japan, or the Nation of Islam?

4.7 Answer: Most of the non-European peoples of the world already follow policies that are in their racial interest, although they might not express these policies in a formal racialist philosophy. I suspect many Japanese would broadly agree with the principles of the Racial Compact. The Nation of Islam talks about racial separation and independence but I do not know how firm their support for this would be if really given a choice. That choice would separate the true Black Nationalists from those who are only jiving.

5. THE PROMOTION OF YOUR PHILOSOPHY
===================================

5.1) In your books you express your philosophical outlook, but can you
say something about your strategical outlook? How shall we win the
hearts and minds of the Nordish people, how should the message be conveyed and
how can we find and reach out to the right people?

5.1 Answer: We need to reach people with our message by whatever means we can think of and whatever means are available. I started with books and magazine articles, both of very limited distribution. Now the internet is available so I am on-line, and I hope it will prove a great medium of communication for our cause. With sufficient people to do the work, pamphlets and leaflets are also a useful tool. We should use every means that we can. But first we must have the right message, or all our efforts will be futile and ineffective.

Our efforts should be ultimately geared toward political action. Election campaigns are great educational tools. Our mission is to convince our people to vote for the salvation, the continued existence, the preservation and independence, of their race. Thus simply stated, this seems like it should be a "no-brainer," absurdly simple, yet in our current near "Twilight Zone" type of situation it is perilously difficult, so much so that many say it is already too late. To achieve this mission we must first establish our moral and intellectual credibility and integrity in the minds of the electorate. We must make them aware both of the racially destructive consequences of multiracialism, the present course, and the preservationist alternative that we offer, which we should describe in as much detail as is reasonably possible. This will define our position, which we must do for ourselves or we can be sure our opponents -- masters of disinformation -- will be happy to do it for us, much to our disfavor. Our position might displease many people, especially at first when they have not yet thought through the alternatives, but it will be much more favorable to us than the position the opposition will try to ascribe to us. We should promote the Charter of Racial Rights, making it clear that our movement respects and supports the legitimate rights and interests of all the other races and means them no harm, that we are against the legitimate rights of no race, that we want the same consideration from other races for our legitimate rights, that we do not want those who think otherwise to be part of our movement, and that any who behave otherwise will be excluded. We must make it clear that we condemn acts of illegal violence and terrorism, and that such acts do not promote the preservationist cause.

We should gain control of the issues by making our issue the defining issue that must be addressed and answered by every politician and public figure, compelling them to state their position on the question of Nordish racial preservation and independence, permitting no evasion or denial, no place for them to hide from the issue any longer. Those anti-Nordish racial nihilists of lesser prominence who have antagonized us with their explicit calls for the extinction of our race will then prove to be a source of embarrassment for their more prominent co-nihilists, as their careless language will come back to haunt them and undermine their efforts to deny the consequences of the course they have set us on. Eventually, when a sufficient level of situational awareness is achieved by the public, the position of the multiracialist power structure will be morally and intellectually discredited, and its consensus of general support will dissolve. That, at least, is what I would like to see happen. There is a saying that if you build a church the people will come to fill it. We must build a movement on a good foundation, on the right message, a comprehensive philosophy of racial relations, and then hope that the right people, good people, will come to fill it.

5.2) How many copies of your books have been printed and sold?

5.2 Answer: Not nearly enough! Books are very expensive, especially for someone like myself who has limited resources. They are also difficult to distribute, especially if you cannot afford to advertise. Although I am a dedicated bibliophile, and nothing can replace the tangible physical experience of a book, the internet is much cheaper, and if we use it well, it will hopefully enable us to break through the distribution barriers faced by books.

5.3) What kind of, and how many, responses to your books do you get?

5.3 Answer: One difference between the internet and books -- the responses I get from book readers is nearly always very positive, while the responses to my website are divided fairly evenly between pro and con. Some of the con responses are very interesting and informative in revealing the opposition thought processes, others are from "flamers" who are often so hostile they cannot express their argument in a rational or civil manner. Some responses are "off the wall" and quite eccentric, but this applies to some of the book readers as well.

5.4) Thus far, none of us know of your work being especially featured by
racial preservationist organizations -- it could be and should be much
wider known! How is the dissemination of your writings and philosophy
going and what strata seem most susceptible?

5.4 Answer: The seeds are being sown, and some are bearing fruit, but it is a painfully slow process with very limited resources. Generally, the most susceptible strata consists of highly intelligent and aware people who share one essential trait in common -- the continued existence and well-being of their race is important to them. They are those who love their race and care about its future, which is what one would expect. But thus far only a tiny fraction of even that strata has any awareness of my philosophy.

5.5) What kind of assistance would you most warmly welcome? What do you
think could cause a major breakthrough of this philosophy in important
segments?

5.5 Answer: All kinds of assistance would be welcome, all contributions gladly accepted. We need all the resources we can get, without forgetting that what we are really after is people, and that all other resources are merely a means to reach and hopefully get more people. It all boils down to a matter of people, of people supporting with their contributions, time, effort and votes the continued existence of their race. Every person we get to support our cause is a breakthrough. A major breakthrough would involve getting the support of a major person, a person of important standing who would attract publicity and create legitimacy. For me personally the ultimate assistance would be acquiring the means to devote all my time to the preservationist cause rather than spending most of my time having to work for a living. We will not really have a movement until it can afford to support a group of dedicated full-time activists and spokespeople.

5.6) The Charter of Racial Rights that you designed seems like it could
be promoted very well in our contemporary society (as the way it is
shaped -- a declaration of human rights -- is something the altruist
egalitarian, anti-Nordish forces within western civilization, are not
trained to deal with immediately, although we can be sure that at one
point they'll come up with some counteroffensive). But what strategy do you
think would be best to promote it? Could it be sent to certain
institutions, and/or organizations, and/or individuals (and of course
which institutions / organizations / individuals) ?

5.6 Answer: It was designed to stand alone and be easily understood by most people, appealing to their most basic sense of what is fair and good. It can be nailed to a door like Luther's theses, stuck on a wall, passed out to passersby, read aloud at a meeting, mailed to just about anyone, or posted on a website. It would be interesting to see how the multiracialists might attempt to counter it, but that does not worry me. I am much more concerned that they will ignore it, that the culture will ignore it, and not enough people will learn of it to create a critical mass sufficient to have an effect. That is their most likely means of countering it.

6. THE NEAR FUTURE
==================

6.1) Are you, apart from the additional articles on your web site,
working on anything specific now? A new book maybe? Is there one
planned?

6.1 Answer: A book is a major project in terms of both time and other resources, and most critically of all, of ideas. I do not have a book in the works at this time, but I am developing some ideas for new articles, which I will put on my website.

Richard McCulloch
October 30, 1998

Return to Racial Compact main page