A Radical Left Plan for Racial Survival

Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, March 30, 2012

An alternative racial politics?

Welf Herfurth, A Life in the Political Wilderness, Finis Mundi Press, 2011, 240 pp., $20.00 (soft cover), order from Amazon here.

This book is written for us—for people who have a clear understanding of race and are ready to fight. It makes a few basic race-related arguments—”survival of the different races and cultures is as important as the survival of the whale, elephants, and different birds”—but its entire thrust is practical: What must we do to survive?

Welf Herfurth, a German now living in Australia, has thought intensely about racial politics for decades. He has studied deeply, he writes well, his insights are sometimes brilliant, and he is not afraid to cast aside even the most fundamental notions about how Western societies should be run. I think his conclusions—even his assumptions—are almost always dead wrong, but A Life in the Political Wilderness is still one of the most provocative essays on practical racial politics to appear in some time.

Mr. Herfurth has a distinctly European view of politics that was nurtured in his days as an activist in the National Democratic Party of Germany (NPD), but travel has tempered his perspective. He was living in Iran at the time of the Khomeini Revolution and was impressed by how a seemingly impregnable regime can fall when the people oppose it. A stay in South America and many years in Australia have also colored his views. The result is this collection of essays that appeared elsewhere, but hang together very nicely without duplication.

A Leftist Revolutionary

Mr. Herfurth is the last person one would expect to find in American racial circles: a Leftist revolutionary. He notes, like many before him, that nationalism (his word for white racial consciousness) is so fundamental it is neither Right nor Left, but in a world of categories, it falls naturally on the Left:

[E]very nationalist I have encountered has opposed the neoliberal agenda of free trade, privatization, deregulation, union-busting, etc. Nationalists take a left-wing position on most economic issues.

He believes nationalists should break the Left’s monopoly on opposition to capitalism and globalism, and repackage themselves as “a revolution of the decent, i.e., people who are not underclass but who deserve better treatment.” He wants to appeal to those who feel left out of the market system, and says American nationalists who talk about small-government and classic liberalism have it all wrong.

Mr. Herfurth admits that capitalism has created wealth but argues that the cost in alienation has been much too high. He notes one of the key communitarian tenets of Leftism:

“. . . the need to increase community bonds, a sense of fellow-feeling and shared destiny, and have members of the community work, at least in part, for the good of the whole instead of their own selfish benefit.”

He also cites Leftist slogans from May 1968: “The society of alienation must disappear from history. We are inventing a new and original world.” He adds that this is precisely “what we nationalists are trying to achieve: an overcoming of the alienation of members of the white race.”

May 1968.

One road to healthy community is redistribution: “We need to move towards an economy where people are treated on the basis of their ‘merit,’ their ‘social value,’ and not merely their market value.” That takes big government.

Mr. Herfurth stresses over and over that no movement can make progress unless it appeals to economic interests, and believes that the current world recession makes a turn to the Left especially appealing. He suggests that unemployed people over 55, along with recent college grads who cannot find a job are perfect candidates for (racial) nationalism.

Mr. Herfurth argues that most whites will oppose immigration when they realize it hurts them economically. In Australia, it is the middle-class Pakistani or Indian who takes a job in law, medicine, or accounting, that puts a native white out of work. Whites can therefore more easily oppose white collar immigration than Sudanese or Kurd asylum seekers who go on welfare but do not compete for jobs.

As he explains, “A racist slogan like ‘Pakis go home’ is not the expression of a social movement; it is an expression of animus or resentment.” Instead, nationalists must explain that Pakistanis are economic competitors.

Mr. Herfurth would even have Nationalists dress like lefties in black, anarchist garb and, at least outside of America, lead demonstrations against MacDonald’s and Starbucks. This confuses and enrages the liberals. At the same time, fighting globalism is a way to oppose the capitalist system and take a stand for local identity.

Mr. Herfurth insists that the basic goals of nationalists are not different from those of liberals: a just economic system, a caring society, local autonomy, rising standards of living, a strong sense of community. The only real difference is that liberals believe these things can be achieved in a multi-racial society because they have convinced themselves that race does not matter. Nationalists know better, but by endorsing the same goals as the Left, they can inject a necessary understanding of race into the search for a better life.

Mr. Herfurth is not much interested in party politics but instead wants a cultural revolution. How do you get that?

“It is an axiom of modern political life that no revolution has ever succeeded without the support of students . . . . It is almost certain that once the universities go, the rest of a country’s institutions go.”

He warns that “if a piece of propaganda scares students, white, middle-class, and left-leaning youth, and fails to appeal to them, then it won’t appeal to anyone.” He says that in Australia, even out-and-out Marxists who mouth Trotskyite nonsense get better attendance at their events than nationalists, because they are on the Left and can attract young people.

Mr. Herfurth notes that the traditional Leftist concern for workers does not conflict with nationalism, pointing out that Communists in China, Vietnam, and Cambodia were ultranationalist. No mushy multi-culti for them. Likewise, what does support for mass immigration or gay rights have to do with solidarity with the working class? Nationalists can win support—and also fly the Leftist flag—by putting the emphasis where it belongs.

Uncle Ho: No mushy multi-culti for him.

For this reason, Mr. Herfurth says the British National Party gets it right when it says, “We’re the Labor Party your granddad used to vote for.” This is healthy, nationalist, economic Leftism without the vile excrescences we now associate with the Left. Mr. Herfurth only wishes the BNP would go further and say, “We’re the radicals who rioted at Seattle in 1999.”

Seattle 1999.

Comes the Revolution

Mr. Herfurth is a genuine revolutionary who does not believe in the multi-party system at all. Political parties just split the country into squabbling, selfish interests and, most of the time, serve party hacks rather than the people they claim to represent.

Nationalists and populists think they have the truth, and that their politics reflect the will of the people. They think—mistakenly—that by winning office they can take that truth to Parliament and legislate around it:

I myself applaud the efforts of the electorally successful populist parties like the BNP, the FN and the Vlaams Belang; but the existing constitutional order, in Australia, and in Europe, is the disease, not the cure.

Filip Dewinter of the Vlaams Belang.

He continues:

A good many nationalists in Australia and elsewhere are in political fairy-land; they think they can form a nice little bourgeois liberal democratic party, and be treated with the same respect, and enjoy the same rights as all the other liberal democratic parties.

Instead, even the most successful and reasonable European nationalist parties face the cordon sanitaire and are never treated as legitimate representatives of the electorate. Since party politics are stacked against nationalists, Mr. Herfurth wants something else:

The nationalist thing to do would be to abolish these parties, which represent conflicting, warring interests, and amalgamate them all into one giant party which would represent the national good.

Mr. Herfurth would do the same with trade unions, industry lobbies, and professional associations. If that sounds like dictatorship, he does not deny it. He notes that separation of powers was instituted so that no one would hold too much power and thus misuse it, but:

I myself hold the opposite view: political office without the limitations of the separation of powers and the constitution confers a grave responsibility on the politician who holds it. By placing all the responsibility in his hands, the politician is forced to make the right decision.

He insists that “by diffusing power, no one ends up holding it, and so no one ends up bearing responsibility—for success or failure.” At the same time, elected officials do not care about the long term because they may be voted out of office any time. The solution is plain: “In order to achieve nationalist goals, the existing liberal and parliamentary order must be overturned.”

Even liberal freedoms of assembly and the press are a snare because they do not apply to nationalists. They give the appearance of liberty while the system crushes dissent through extra-legal means. In Mr. Herfurth’s view, a nationalist regime would end the charade and make sure only the right ideas were promoted.

As he puts it:

Surely elections, multi-party systems, frequent changes of government, the freedom of the press to snipe and criticize the government of the day, and parliamentary debates, cannot be ends in themselves? Was Iraq invaded to give the Iraqis these dubious blessings?

In one of the book’s most remarkable passages, Mr. Herfurth writes:

I as a nationalist look at a country like North Korea or Cuba, with some degree of envy: there, the respective populaces are disciplined, and led by a political leadership which is anti-US and which, despite all its faults, acts in the national interest as represented by the State—above all classes, all special interests, which exist in our own liberal democratic societies. . . . [O]ne can be sure that social pathologies are dealt with firmly by the law. At the same time, non-one doubts that Cuba and North Korea are dead and repressive countries, and that their standard of living is far below that of the Western States. The challenge for any theorist of Western nationalism is to isolate the good from the bad.

North Korea: No mushy multi-culti for them either.

Mr. Herfurth argues that a regime that forbids elections and the formation of opposition political parties does not necessarily lack the support of the people. The people can show support through acclamation or passive consent.

But how will movements that cannot even get a seat in parliament manage to overthrow the system? Many nationalists argue that the fight should be to change the culture first; politics will follow. Mr. Herfurth cites the example of past mass movements started by communists and fascists, and the contemporary case of the Islamic radical groups Hamas and Hezbollah, which “are charities, religious groups and guerilla armies.”

The idea is to create parallel movements and organizations that operate outside of politics and that eventually overwhelm a corrupt system.

As he puts it:

Nationalism has to be expressed as a style, as a way of life, before it can become an electoral movement. . . . Nationalism must, before it becomes embodied in a party, be a state of mind and a mass movement.

If that mass movement ends up taking power the way Mussolini did in his march on Rome, so much the better.

Mr. Herfurth says that the NPD has the right idea. Especially in East Germany, “it runs kindergartens, discos, youth groups, community volunteer organizations which assist pensioners.” Even parts of the Red Cross are “fully controlled by nationalists.” The main idea is “Germans helping other Germans.” Some people call this the “soup kitchen strategy.” Mr. Herfurth himself is in a volunteer fire brigade, which is a typically non-political organization that can be a vehicle for changing culture.


The great obstacle to nationalism is the liberal insistence on the equivalence of races. Mr. Herfurth argues that the present leaders of the West are racial liberals because they fought a long battle against Apartheid, segregation in the South, the White Australia Policy, and other nationalist programs. Our rulers seem to think they are still fighting the same battles, but Mr. Herfurth hopes the younger generations will be able to see the catastrophe their thinking is bringing on.

A more immediate irritant are the “anti-fa” (“anti-fascist”) militants who sincerely believe we are secretly planning death camps for “the racially impure.” They are motivated by hatred and nothing else. As Mr. Herfurth notes, ask them if they have a policy on unemployment or trade and they will draw a blank. As he puts it, they “believe in racial harmony and the brotherhood of man—and the use of violence to enforce it.”

At the same time, nationalists make many mistakes. Mr. Herfurth decries “the standard white nationalism/Nutzi [sic]/Far Right nationalism, which is geared towards kicking the Negroes, the Hispanics, the Muslims, etc., out of one’s country.” All this does is attract white trash, and is, in any case, purely negative:

Even a thorough-going ethnic cleansing of non-whites will not overcome social alienation. Much of the social pathologies in the West can be traced back to the individual’s isolation and alienation from his community.

Even if whites have homelands, Mr. Herfurth thinks they could split into alienated isolation. This is part of the problem of nostalgia: “Many of the Far Right populist politicians in Europe, the USA, and Australia seem to want a return to the bourgeois, halcyon days of the 1950s, which were whiter, cleaner and safer, but hardly communitarian.” The past will not return and nationalists must prepare for something different.

The nostalgics think they must dress in suits, and appease their critics by acting as housebroken as possible. Mr. Herfurth argues that the system cannot be appeased because it hates us, and trying to please it only sets up our opponents as the arbiter of correct behavior. But it is even more stupid for nationalists to deck themselves out in runes and Celtic crosses—and worse—that scare people. It is the regalia of the Left, along with a communitarian sympathy for the disfranchised that will create a new system and a truly nationalist culture.

Mr. Herfurth believes that the young are still rebellious and that they can be attracted by an appeal to heroism. Being a nationalist takes guts—though only when nationalists come out from behind their computers. Mr. Herfurth laughs at racialists who praise the courage of the white man but are terrified of a lefty with a camera. He points out that the challenges we face are nothing compared to Robert Mugabe’s political opponents, for example, or the Tibetans who stand up for their country against the Chinese. As Mr. Herfurth says, nationalist politics is “a duty to my nation and to my people,” and duty means hardship and risks.

Morgan Tsvangirai faces more danger than any of us do.

What Works?

It would be easier for Americans to critique Mr. Herfurth’s Leftists prescriptions if we had a thriving nationalist movement that had real influence on policy. Even so, it is hard to imagine his conception taking root here—or anywhere else. Even if nationalists could be persuaded to lead demonstrations against big business and the World Bank—and that would be a struggle—it would be hard to convince anyone they were Leftists. Racial egalitarianism is now the central dogma of the Left, and the most doctrinaire Marxist will be run off the Berkeley faculty if he says the wrong things about race. When the Bloc Identitaire distributes pork soup to the poor in France, no one thinks it is a Leftist gesture, because it leaves out Muslims. Any nationalist who managed to convince the Left he was one of them would have to suppress his racial consciousness to the point of futility.

Nor is there a good way to start a Leftist racial-consciousness campaign that appeals to class or economic interests—desirable though that would be. In the West, the poor are largely non-white, so redistribution benefits them rather than whites. This is why blacks and Hispanics are all for handouts and why Tea Party activists are called “racists” when they oppose them. Whites resent the taxes they pay for dialysis for illegals and school lunches for their children. Nationalists can—and do—make a useful economic-interests argument against that, but it is an argument of the Right, not the Left. Any policy that lets rich whites keep their money out of the hands of poor non-whites comes from the Right.

Ethnomasochism is so central to American thinking that an economic argument that makes perfect sense in a non-racial context is unacceptable as soon as there is a racial element. If the crime-prone, uneducated, non-English-speaking, tax-consuming immigrants that cross our Southern border were white we would do a cost-benefit analysis and tell them to stay home. It is precisely because they are not white—and therefore bring “diversity”—that sensible arguments make no headway. A Tea Party appeal to what amounts to white economic interests is a vital first step, but until the racial insanity is cured, that will not get very far.

If anyone should have a Leftist, working-class reason to resent Mexican immigrants it is blacks, who compete with them for jobs. An anti-immigrant alliance with blacks is possible and even desirable, but that is a roundabout expression of racial consciousness.

The nationalist movements that succeed in Europe do not preach a class/economic message. They appeal to history, culture, kinship, and tradition. As many of them put it, they are Identitarian. If whites are unable to see themselves as a distinct people with a distinct destiny, no appeal will save them.

What probably most startles American readers of Mr. Herfurth’s book, however, is his admiration for the one-party state. He is right: the balance of powers is designed to make sure no one gets too much. He is also right that politicians represent narrow segments of society and even betray those segments when it suits them. Hans Hermann Hoppe argues that monarchy is better than party politics because a monarch actually owns his country and cares about its future, whereas politicians care only about filling their pockets while they are in office.

But North Korea and Cuba are what you get when one-party states go wrong. A wise dictator may be wonderful: Lee Kuan Yu did well for Singapore, and a case can be made for China’s current Communist party. Saudi Arabia could do a great deal worse than its current royal family, and the mess we have made of Iraq leaves one longing for Saddam Hussein. But is that the way white people want to live?

Even to ask that question evokes Soviet Russia and its satellites, Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, Peronist Argentina, and Greece under the colonels. Whatever the merits of any of these regimes, they do not inspire today’s whites. Those who are attracted to all-powerful states are like Swedes who think they want to try multi-racialism: “Those Americans got it wrong but we will get it right.” The European Left accuses nationalists of being “anti-Democratic.” It is a very bad idea to give that accusation legitimacy.

One version of non-democratic takeover.

Finally, it is good to promote an alternative, racial-nationalist culture. Let there be music, books, stage plays, Internet sites, conferences, and communities that celebrate us and our heritage—as many as possible. But it will be a very long slog before that culture “overwhelms” the system, and if the idea is that the counterculture is to take power through a “march on Rome” rather than through the ballot box, it will scare potential supporters and entrench enemies.

Despite Mr. Herfurth’s incisive criticism of democratic politics, the best chances for our race are in the small countries of Europe, where dynamic nationalist parties influence policy and even hover on entry into government. In Denmark and Austria or in an independent Flanders it is possible to imagine genuinely healthy regimes that could be models for the rest of the continent. Politics of this kind—and it is inevitably identified as Right Wing—is hard work with many setbacks, but it offers more hope than veering Left or dreaming that power will someday fall into the hands of parallel cultures we might build outside of politics.

Of course, we in the English-speaking world are far behind. It is frustrating to see our positions—eminently moral and rational—either ignored or smeared as “hate.” It is vitally important to reflect on what works and what does not, and to imagine different routes to success. Wrong or not, Mr. Herfurth’s ideas are part of our struggle.

Topics: , , ,

Share This

Jared Taylor
Jared Taylor is the editor of American Renaissance and the author of White Identity: Racial Consciousness in the 21st Century.
We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • WmarkW

    As someone who came to the Amren philosophy from liberalism (which accomplished a  great deal in America from the 30s to the 60s), I reject one-party or totalitarian-based solutions.  Race realism should not idolize any despotic philosophy, including slavery (wearing Stars and Bars) and genocide (Nazi symbols.)  Race realism will best thrive in the world the liberals advocate, if they would practice what they preach.  Free speech, free association, and a scientific worldview would win if allowed to flourish. 

    I hope Amren keeps its mission “core” and doesn’t get distracted into taking positions on other issues like military spending, abortion, environmentalism  or deregulating Wall Street, that many conservatives would wrap into the same package.

  • jackryanvb

    Lot’s of Left politics work well for us.

    Birth control , abortion rights for the urban poor, union work requirements – don’t let big business flood the West with happy 3rd world minimum wage slaves. Environmentalism works really great in my Big city- we tore down Lakefront Black housing projects, tore down every basketball hoop on Lakefront parks, took out free parking for mass cookout parties and now we have prairie restoration areas fenced off from human use.

    Making Chicago Green and White!

  • There is a photo of Mr. Herfurth on the back cover of his book.

  • JohnEngelman

    A political thinker should be read for insight rather than doctrine. Karl Marx had a better understanding of the business cycle than classical economists. His chief error was to assume that among working class people class loyalty is stronger than national and racial loyalty. Adolf Hitler had a good understanding of social psychology. He was wrong about the Jews.
    Unfortunately, people have a tendency to distill the philosophy of a complex thinker into an easy to understand doctrine that they accept or reject for emotional reasons.  
    Karl Marx never claimed infallibility. When he learned that others made that claim on his behalf he wrote, “I thank God that I am not a Marxist.” 

    • robinbishop34

      You could argue that Marx’s writings were based on emotion? The industrial revolution had no need for philosophers.

    • Memphomaniac

      I disagree that Marx had a good understanding of the business cycle. Marx did not say that capitalism is cyclical, he said it was fatally flawed and these flaws would ultimately destroy the capitalist system. (He also wrote that capitalism saved mankind from the “idiocy of rural life” because it built cities.) It was Nicolai Kondratieff that said capitalism is not flawed but merely cyclical….for which he was purged and sent to the Gulags…..as a counter-revolutionary heretic. The admission that capitalism was subject to cycles was a rejection of Marxism. Kondratieff paid with his life.

    • IanJMacDonald

      “Karl Marx had a better understanding of the business cycle than classical economists.”  You’ve got to be kidding.  He had no original ideas, and he published nothing but mush, e.g., labor theory of value.  He had an impact on politics, but as far as the field of economics is concerned, he might as well have never existed. 

  • JohnEngelman

    The New Deal coalition of northern social democrats and southern segregationists was less incongruous than it seems to have been in retrospect. 
    The northern social democrats were post capitalist in their thinking. The southern segregationists were semi feudal, and pre capitalist. Both disliked commercial values and the corporate elite. 
    The New Deal was possible because of the Immigration Act of 1924 and Jim Crow laws. Many white blue collar workers would not have voted for Franklin Roosevelt if by doing so they were voting for social and economic equality with Hispanics and blacks. 

    • robinbishop34

      “Many white blue collar workers would not have voted for Franklin
      Roosevelt if by doing so they were voting for social and economic
      equality with Hispanics and blacks.”

      It’s probably more accurate to say that they were looking out for their own personal and economic self interests, rather than being consumed with chaining down the rest of humanity. Of course whites pursuing their own rational self interests is racist I suppose?

    • Memphomaniac

      Blacks during FDRs time were Republicans. They did not move to the Democrat Party until the late 1960s, which prompted the white conservatives to migrate to the Republican Party in time to elect Nixon and later Reagan. The Democratic Party was much associated with the Old South, mossback reactionary conservatism. Remember, Gov. George Wallace ran for President as a Democrat (and later third party candidate) in 1968…..during which time he was shot and paralyzed by a would-be assassin.

      • JohnEngelman

        Southern Democrats used to win elections by yelling, “N*gg*r!” Now Republicans win elections by whispering, “Negro.” 
        At any rate, blacks did benefit from the economic policies of the New Deal, as did most whites. 

        • robinbishop34

          “Now Republicans win elections by whispering, “Negro.”

          To quote the now late Andrew Breitbart… So?
          “At any rate, blacks did benefit from the economic policies of the New Deal, as did most whites. ”


          • JohnEngelman

            Most blacks were lower income Americans. The New Deal benefited lower income Americans with policies like Social Security and minimum wage laws. Moreover, there was a general decline in the unemployment rate, except after 1937 when there were cuts in government spending. 

  • Wayne Lo

    Actually I was hoping for a more interesting read….something along the lines of a genuine Marxist revolutionary with a racist world-view.

    But the guy sounds more like a typical populist. Racism on the left is actually nothing new. Much of the opposition to Chinese immigration in the settler states such as Australia came from a very ‘workerist’ perspective.

    And good luck explaining how a Pakistani migrant to Australia is anymore of an ‘economic threat’ than his good German self.

    I’m surprised Mr Taylor did not mention the red-brown phenomenon in Russia. That is nationalists sympathetic to Stalin, anti-semitic communists (the Russian Communist Party is basically a populist nationalist party which decries immigration), the National Bolshevism movement, etc. Russia is the place where people really can’t be easily pigeon-holed for their views.

    I have talked to Rumanians who were communist, still like Ceacescu who in other areas have views which are more socially to the ‘right’ than some of the posters here.

    China is a little bit of a different case. Believe it or not some there still really believe in Marxism Leninism and internationalism.

    I also disagree with Mr Taylor’s claim that Communists in China, Vietnam, and Cambodia were ultranationalist. Anti-imperialism as a cornerstone of the communist movement meant the non-white peoples were to be vanguard of world revolution (Lenin’s – imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism), and to throw off exploiters, both foreign and domestic.

    However to say that these were racially based movements analogous to some white nationalist movement that people here would want is rather superficial. The fact that a white man can openly date a local girl in these countries, and even have children there, and be treated with some measure of respect, is testament to the fact that these regimes are not fundamentally racist. I wonder how a white woman married to a black man with half-white kids would be viewed by most of the posters here?

    Furthermore nationalism was condemned as a bourgeouis thing during the Maoist period, and there was indeed during this time support for Africans, Asians, and Latin American liberation movements.

    Communists believe that fighting for workers rights simply in Western countries, while exploiting third world peoples is simply getting crumbs off the masters table, and not really fighting against oppression.

    Communism without anti-imperialism is basically not communism, in the way Nazism without anti-semitism would not be Nazism.

    • nettle

      ·         “The fact that a white man can openly date a local girl in these countries, and even have children there, and be treated with some measure of respect, is testament to the fact that these regimes are not fundamentally racist. I wonder how a white woman married to a black man with half-white kids would be viewed by most of the posters here?”  This statement is coming from a racial equalitarian who still has a lot to learn.  Perhaps Mr. Lo does not know that the Japanese and Chinese look up to whites?  They are in economic competition with the whites especially the Chinese.  They are not in economic competition with blacks which states a lot on how they regard blacks.  Whites interbreeding with blacks not a good idea due to vast racial differences in intelligence, behavior, etc.  This will cause regression of the white genes which the media is currently working over time to accomplish.

      • Wayne Lo

        I’ve also seen a lot of black guys with asian girls too in China. They don’t get lynched or castrated as they would have in the US several decades ago. Chinese simply do not get as worked up over these sorts of things.

        Whites interbreeding with blacks not a good idea due to vast racial differences in intelligence, behavior, etc

        I thought you lot were simply into preserving the white race? So you mean interbreeding with Asians is OK (at least for white men to go with asian women is OK?).

        Actually I’m hardly surprised with the sheer hypocrisy which goes on here when it comes to interracial marriage.

        • MissBonnie123

          My experience as an American citizen with Asians (Chinese especially) has been that they can be very racist. In fact, I had to stop shopping at a store that a Chinese man owned because he could not contain his hateful attitudes towards Whites despite the fact that he needed Whites as customers.

          You said “They (Blacks) don’t get lynched or castrated as they would have in the US several decades ago.” They don’t today. Your comment only goes to show how backwards your thinking is and how full of anger you are towards Whites.

           You said “I thought you lot were simply into preserving the white race? So you mean interbreeding with Asians is OK (at least for white men to go with asian women is OK?).” Many of us believe it is better for Whites to marry Whites because we want to continue the White race. Asians can marry other Asians.

          Because of my experiences with Asians, I don’t believe for a second that they are loving and kind towards Blacks and other races.

        • robinbishop34

          White men father Asian children with Asian mothers. White men father black children with black mothers. White women give birth to whatever race the father is. See the difference you little chink?

          • Wayne Lo

             You are wrong there.  In most interracial pairings I have seen, the children invariably indentify with the race of the father. So what you say for white women, also applies to Asian women (in my experience), and I suspect black women as well.

            The majority of half-caste white-Asian off-spring go on to marry whites. That says where the real ethnic identity of these children lie. Rarely Asians. The quarter Asian kids mainly look white.

            So it is the Asian side which loses in these types of marriages.

        • To Wayne Lo:
          Right on with your assessment!!

  • anonymous_amren

    Actually, quite a few of us come from the revolutionary left. I used to be a marxist. While it’s harder to convert marxists to race realism, when you do they are more likely than others to actually understand the importance of it and the political implications of it, and feel the desire to go out and preach the message.

    There are a number of inaccuracies with this article though, which I’ll have to address later. I don’t have time right now.

    Don’t forget to turn off your lights for Earth Hour.

    • robinbishop34

      Marx was an anti-capitalist. The current cadre of idiots who claim to be Marxists are actually Trotskyites.

      • JohnEngelman

        The American Communist Party is certainly not Trotskyist. 
        The Progressive Labor Party broke away form the CPUSA because it supported Mao Tse Tung, rather than Leon Trotsky.
        The Socialist Workers Party, which publishes “The Militant,” is Trotskyist.

        • robinbishop34

          The Socialist Workers Party is based on Nationalism.  Communism is based on internationalism. There is nothing more Trotsky than than no?

        • Memphomaniac

          All this blab about Trotsky and no one mentions Lenin. Trotsky was not a rival with Marx (who was long-dead). Trotsky was opposed by Lenin, who did not follow the Marxist party line. Lenin and Trotsky, both were inspired by Marx and both figured out that Marx was mistaken.

          • robinbishop34

            I’m referring to Trotsky’s tenure as a cultural agitator, not his economic philosophy.

          • Pandemonium

            Leon Trotsky, otherwise known as Lev Bronstein, died with a hatchet in his head.

          • JohnEngelman

            Trotsky lead the crushing of the Kronstadt Uprising of 1921. This was a left wing rebellion against the Communist dictatorship. He also originated the idea of forced collectivization. This violated an original promise of the Bolsheviks to give the peasants land.
            Nevertheless, because Trotsky lost his power struggle with Stalin many Marxists in the West imagined that if he had won the Soviet economy would be an attractive example of socialism. 
            Trotsky was an articulate critic of Stalin’s tyranny, but I doubt things would have been better for most Russians if he had won the power struggle. 

  • robinbishop34

    “It’s not a conspiracy by “evil” jews, liberals, communists or whatever.”


  • JohnEngelman

    Von Mises and F.A. Hayek lived and wrote after Karl Marx. I have read F.A.Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom,” but I do not remember him saying much about business cycles. I have also read Adam Smith’s “On the Wealth of Nations.” Again there was no mention of business cycles.
    According to Karl Marx under laissez faire capitalism, which was the only kind he knew, labor productivity increases faster than wages, so manufacturers produce more than they can sell. This leads to a crisis of over production. When manufacturers have unsold inventories they lay off employees, reducing demand even further. 
    When Henry Ford opened his first assembly line to produce his Model T Ford he paid twice the going rate for factory work. Business rivals condemned him for being a socialist because this required them to pay their factory workers more also. Henry Ford’s explanation was, “I want my workers to be able to buy the cars they make.” 
    According to John Maynard Keynes the solution to over production is to raise the consumption ability of lower paid employees through labor unions and minimum wage laws. This enables them to buy more, encouraging employers to produce more and hire more. 
    Republicans claimed during the New Deal, and continue to claim that labor unions and minimum wage laws discourage hiring and new investment by raising labor costs. Nevertheless, the unemployment rate declined throughout the Roosevelt administration, except for a year after 1937 when the Roosevelt administration reduced government spending. 
    In addition, there was nearly as much economic growth during FDR’s first term as during the terms of Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge. 

    • robinbishop34

      “Nevertheless, the unemployment rate declined throughout the Roosevelt
      administration, except for a year after 1937 when the Roosevelt
      administration reduced government spending. ”

      World War 2?

      • JohnEngelman

        From 1932 to 1936, when military spending did not increase, unemployment declined from 23.6 percent to 16.9 percent.

        • robinbishop34

          The unemployment rate of the time had little, if nothing to do with the decline of military spending. The government’s financial ‘safety net’ intervention was effective in securing a loyal constituency of dummies, nothing else.

        • JohnEngelman

          I did not say that reduced military spending lead to increased employment. Throughout the administration of Franklin Roosevelt increased government spending lead to increased job creation. 

    • IanJMacDonald

      Havek’s “Road to Serfdom” concerned the inevitability of tyranny under planned societies; discussion of the business cycle was beyond it’s purview.   Likewise Adam Smith contributed almost nothing to our understanding of the business cycle.  I recommend von Mises and Rothbard on the subject.  See Rothbard’s “History of Economic Thought Vols. I & II.”
      Regarding the claims of unemployment levels under FDR, in May 1939, Treasury Secretary Henry J. Morgenthau Jr., one of Franklin
      Roosevelt’s best friends, testified before the House Ways and Means
      Committee: “I say after eight years of this Administration we have just
      as much unemployment as when we started… And an enormous debt to boot.”

      • JohnEngelman

        Havek’s “Road to Serfdom” concerned the inevitability of tyranny under planned societies. 
        – IanJCacDonald
        F.A. Hayek predicted totalitarian dictatorships resulting from social democratic economies. No serious political observer expects a totalitarian dictatorship to emerge in any of the Scandinavian democracies.  

      • JohnEngelman

        Regarding the claims of unemployment levels under FDR, in May 1939, Treasury Secretary Henry J. Morgenthau Jr., one of Franklin Roosevelt’s best friends, testified before the House Ways and Means Committee: “I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started.”                                                      
        – IanJMacDonald        
        When Franklin Roosevelt was elected in 1932 the unemployment rate was 23.6 percent. In 1938 that had declined to 19.0 percent. In 1940 that had declined further to 14.6 percent.
        Treasury Secretary Henry J. Morgenthau Jr.’s assertion was factually incorrect.

  • I wrote this review. The indication at the bottom of Henry Wolff as the author is a computer problem that we cannot at this point fix without taking down the entire review.

  • JohnEngelman

    As an indigenous political movement capable of overthrowing the existing government without outside support revolutionary Marxism, or “Communism” has only succeeded in countries with little industry where capitalism was not fully developed.  
    In these countries the Communists were able to appeal to nationalism. After the First World War the Fascists in Italy and the Nazis in Germany were better able to appeal to nationalism, so Communism was unsuccessful. 

    • Memphomaniac

      Once again…..you have only demonstrated that Marx was mistaken, since the first Communist revolutions were in countries where capitalism was not fully developed……Imperial Russia and Red China. None of the advanced capitalist economies have seen or even been threatened with Communist revolution, which was what Marx expected, i.e. that imperialism was the last stage of capitalism before communism. While the Marxist intelligencia were convinced that Marx was still correct, they fully expected the Communist revolutions to spread quickly to Capitalist countries and fall like over-ripe fruit. This did not happen, nor did it almost happen.

      • JohnEngelman

        As I have already said, political thinkers should be read for insight rather than doctrine. Karl Marx predicted increasingly destructive economic downturns. This did happen. One can argue that when he wrote The Communist Manifesto in 1848 he predicted the Great Depression, which began in 1929. 
        He did not predict Keynesian economic policies which countered the tendencies he wrote about. Now that Keynesian economic policies are being scaled back by the Republican Party, economic down turns are becoming more destructive. 

  • British Activism

    Whilst I cannot say that I currently share Welf’s more deeper proposals
    about the nature of controlling the state, as a former “lefty” myself I
    do tend to appreciate some of the other points he seems to be putting
    over here, and have written about some of them myself over the last few

    He notes that the British National Party once issued material stating
    that it was “Old Labour, like your grandfather used to vote for” – and
    that is actually quite an accurate description in my opinion.

    I seem to recall evidence from a couple of years ago which discovered
    that most, the vast majority, of British National Party supporters were
    once “old labour” – not “right wing” or former Conservatives, as some
    would expect.

    I was “old labour” in my youth, and my father who also joined the British National Party was a once proud ‘Old Labour’ voter.

    The message of nationalism, by its very definition, is that of opposing
    globalism. That used to be, so I believe, a traditional position in
    Britain – even with the Trade Unions, who were once against immigration
    to this country because it was seen to lower the wages and was seen as
    undercutting for capitalist gains.

    The British National Party has many policies which are indeed
    “leftwing”. Re-nationalisation of key industries, some elements of
    transport, and self ownership and sufficiency in energy supplies.

    Furthermore, when we are opposing ‘globalism’, some of us tend to care
    about the ‘globalisation’ of culture too – not just movement of people.
    Starbucks and McDonalds get a mention in the piece above, and in my
    opinion it is quite right that they do too. This is because this is part
    and parcel of a lost identity and a general interchangeable conformity
    smothering the globe.

    When I visted Germany for the first time about 6 or 7 years ago, I had
    hoped to see something that was German. However, in the area we happened
    to stay, there was hardly anything at all that was authentically
    German.  They had ToysRus stores, starbucks, “subway” sandwich bars,
    McDonalds, KFC, and of course, lots of Chinese takeaways and kebab/Muslim/Turkish fast food and pizza places.

    Ironically, the closest we got to a German experience was an American
    ‘themed’ bar and grill. At least the staff were all white, the food was
    generally German and atmosphere a bit German, albeit surrounded by
    artefacts from the United States stuck on the walls. We should have
    ventured further out to rural Germany, but it was a “city break” for a
    long weekend, to see a friends relative.

    The people in the towns and cities were wearing nike clothes, baseball
    caps on their heads at a funny angle, the stores were mostly selling
    goods made in China, and on the TV there we had German youths “rapping”
    like Black Americans, in chains, hoodies, “bling” and doing that silly
    pointing and gesturing – only it was rapping in German. The other shows
    we did see of an evening included many dubbed American shows along the
    lines of CSI.

    That is not the Germany I wanted to see. I have that same culture and
    ‘imported foreign demographic’ right here in England. I might as well
    have taken a car journey to the nearest large town or city and I would
    have hardly known the difference – and would have saved a lot of time
    and money. The only difference to going to Manchester was the language –
    people still spoke German.

    “Americanisation” and “globalisation” of everything is a problem for
    securing identities, perhaps a problem that many Americans do not seem
    to appreciate how there could be an objection to it by some European
    nationalists? This is perhaps why Welf rails against globalism like the
    examples he cites above.

    Many people oppose corporatism and corporate fascism, many people
    support things like “British Jobs for British Workers”, building a
    manufacturing base again, mild protectionism, the National Health
    Service, and loathe what is happening at the hands of the “new left”
    -importing slave labour, people trafficking for prostitution gangs, the
    concreting over the countryside, harm to animals (halal meat production)
    and many other things – therefore, those issues some nationalists fight
    on are considered to be “old lefty” and ‘classic liberal’.

    I think there might be many things worthy of merit in Welf’s thinking –
    including that of establishing a lifestyle.  A lifestyle based on
    nationalist values and social programmes. The ‘revolution’ surely has to
    come within society itself before it can overthrow the established
    order via the ballot box or anywhere else.

    Building a future for ourselves has to be the key and the promotion to
    push, as the old nation we used to know and love has already vanished. I
    think Welf is right there.

    I do not think we make enough of selling the full range of “left” to
    “right” positions. I think there is much we can reclaim from the
    established “left”. Considering that the “leftist” discourse in Britain
    is so ingrained now – perhaps unlike the United States – I have thought
    it might be wise to see if we can use it and turn it against itself on
    its own terms. 

    On that, I can agree with Welf too. Where I might disagree is the stuff
    being proposed further than that – one party states and so on. Not
    really my thoughts of intentions at this time anyway.

    He is also sounding quite accurate on isolationalism and
    over-individualism and alienation of our own white societies.  We do not
    tend to do anything as a collective group for our interests any more –
    whilst other groups do. Whatever we do actually do is enforced to be
    “for everybody” and open – but what they do is most often for

    I do not know whether I will agree with the whole book or position being
    put forward – and maybe it is unworkable and flawed – but it is always
    good to have a jolt now and again to shake us up a bit and look around
    with fresh eyes.

  • Memphomaniac

    or even Joseph Schumpeter…..another Austrian economist, who has written a considerable amount on the subject of cycles in economics.

    • JohnEngelman

      What did Joseph Schumpeter say about business cycles? I explained what Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes said about them using my own words. Of course, they had more to say than I did. I do think I expressed their basic arguments, however. 

  • Wayne Lo

    In terms of interracial marriage, it is wiser not to with the genetically inferior.

    I thought it was ‘wiser’ to simply stick to your own race.

    It is quite noble to give support but it does not mean you have to allow
    your own country to be run in the ground from needy third world peoples

    Fact is it is whites who have gone all over the world historically, and still today, forcing themselves on to non-white peoples. Otherwise you lot would have remained in Europe.

  • Wayne Lo

    Does Mr Taylor really think that whites will simply settle for their own little quaint communities and isolate themselves from the rest of the world – and be happy with that? I doubt it. That is what whites had before but they were not happy about that and then they went round the world.

    Whites have always wanted to invade others, exploit others, and to tell white people they should keep their noses out of the affairs of Chinese, of blacks, etc would simply be impossible.

    Whites think they have this mission to go round the world telling others what to do, and feeling superior about it.

    That is part of the fun for whites when it comes to interacting with non-whites – to be able to either outright exploit non-whites, boss them around, beat them up, or if you can’t do that, patronise them and laugh at them.

    Whites simply need non-whites around, because whites are supremacists who feel the need to be around those they deem more backward in order to feel good about themselves.

    The fact is whites have this thing in them which simply means they cannot leave the rest of the world alone. It is not even something as simple as economics which explains this.

    Why else is Asia and Africa abound with whites who lecture Asians on ‘human rights’, on Tibet, on environmentalism, on the Sudan, on gay rights —every single social movement in the East has some white trouble-maker behind it.

    Whites also love to be the centre of attention. One way to do this is go round the world looking like an adventurer and saving non-whites. And by doing this you get to marry a beautiful woman from your own race, who thinks you are so ‘passionate’ about things, or you get to marry a beautiful non-white woman and become king of her tribe as well!

    Whites (the men anyway) aspire to be someone like this poseur:

    But you can only aspire to this if you have non-whites willing enough to hang round as props.

    So whites should leave others alone, and then they will be left alone. But I don’t think whites will ever be able to simply let Asians and Africans get on with it. History over the past few centuries is ample testimony of that.

    • Is this envy or criticism or both?

      No self-consciously white nation that manages to emerge from the wreckage of the present will make the mistake or empire-building or ethnomasochistic exhibitionism. Nor will it  permit mass immigration.

      • Wayne Lo

         Neither. Just a statement of fact.

        Whites are the biggest busy bodies around the world. Whites control a vast amount of the world’s resources, through military force.

        I find it hard to believe that whites will be happy to have their own countries, withdraw their military from all over the world, give up their control of much of the resources of the world,  and just have their own all white enclaves, and farm their own little patch of land.

        Whites, particularly Anglo Saxons, have this massive inclination to stick their noses into other peoples business. Much more so than blacks or Chinese or any other race.

        You can see it all through Asia, particularly China, and the endless prognostications going on in websites run by whites, in newspapers run by whites on every conceivable issue in China —abortion, the one child policy, gay rights, animal rights, tibet, pollution, …..the list is endless, and whites think that non-whites are ‘aggressive’ or ‘nationalistic’ if non-whites do not follow white demands on how to run their own countries.

        You people cannot help yourselves —you have to involve yourselves in everything.

        And your people are the biggest miscegenators in the history of the world.

    • robinbishop34

      Unlike non-whites who are allowed to mobilize around their own race and culture, you have to realize the divide between the whites who would be more than happy to let Africans ‘get on with it,’ verses the redemptive white do-gooders who wish to socially engineer all mankind into some multicultural, fantasy world.

    • To Mr. Wayne Lo:
       Very excellent posts and analysis. Say sir, are you a professor of history? I’m just curious. Onething i would like to say about these misguided individuals is , you have to dismiss them with a big laugh. The reason why they say all these bizarre things plus obviously, haven’t read history, is because they’re frustrated with their shabby lives. Therefore, they’re looking for easy scapegoats to condemn. Nevertheless, again, fantastic posts!!

  • anonymous_amren

    “You think they’re turning out their lights and virtuously shivering in
    the dark for an hour in the barrio tonight? You think Earth Hour is a
    big deal in the ghetto? Hell, they won’t even be observing it in

    No. I think caring for the environment is a white trait that only us “tree honky”s engage in. That’s because it requires high levels of future-time orientation, intelligence, altruism, compassion, self-criticism, self-confidence, caring for your children, and non-conformity. It’s the province of white people. And your mockery of white people is offensive.

    The main manner in which we harnessed electricity was a short-term small-scale solution. There is only a limited amount of fossil-fuel for us to burn and burning it makes a significant difference to the composition of our thin atmosphere. White people have invented other ways of harnessing electricity, but our economic system rewards short-term thinking, and so do our media and social systems.

    “After all, WHO are you saving all those kilowatts FOR?”

    For YOU and YOUR children and grandchildren, you fool.

    ‘I will be celebrating “Human Achievement Hour” ‘

    You are not celebrating white people’s achievements. You are celebrating present-time orientation, stupidity, willfull ignorance, and not looking after your children and grandchildren. In short, you are celebrating black people’s traits.

    You are also deliberately being a jerk towards your fellow white people.

    • holyflower

      Anonymous Amnren, you might profit from reading:

      The Truth About Greenhouse GasesProfessor William Happer
      The Global Warming Policy Foundation
      Briefing Paper No. 3

      William Happer is the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University. He is a member of the GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council.Dr. Happer has been featured on at least three occasions recently in the Wall Street Journal.  “Climate Change” science, Happer demonstrates, is heavily politicized.  Let me share one of many gems from the essay:

      “In 2009, a conference of ‘ecopsychologists’ was held at the University of West England to discuss the obvious psychological problems resident in those who do not adhere to the global warming dogma. These ecopsychologists, who knew almost nothing themselves about climate science, told us that scientists and members of the general population who express objective doubt about alarmist views of global warming are suffering from a kind of mental illness. We know from the Soviet experience that a totalitarian society can find it convenient to consider dissidents to be mentally deranged and act accordingly.”

  • anonymous_amren

    “He says that in Australia, even out-and-out Marxists who mouth
    Trotskyite nonsense get better attendance at their events than
    nationalists, because they are on the Left and can attract young people.”

    The Australian Marxists who mouth Trotskyite nonsense are self-destructing badly at the moment. Their attendance has been dropping, their organisations have been splitting, their newspapers have lost half their pages, and they look like collapsing in the next few years.

    Nationalists like the Q Society http://www.qsociety.org.au/ are growing and are getting better attendance than the Trotskyists. The Q Society is an anti-Islamist and Nationalist group, but like everyone in Australia they believe in strict racial equality, at least at the genetic level.

    Racism is completely illegal in Australia, and everyone follows that law. Andrew Bolt http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/ got convicted of racism for pointing out that Aborigines in academia are actually mostly white (which they are) and is now legally banned from commenting on that. He’s considered the most racist commentator in Australia, but he doesn’t believe in genetic differences between races, or he hides it well. He blames everything on culture or the left.

    Even the Q society has to read a very long legal disclaimer at the start of every meeting. http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/12/promoting-sharia-in-any-form-is-a-reckless-pursuit-on-the-part-of-democratic-governments.html

    So there’s no possible way for a racist organisation to operate openly in Australia at the moment, which makes it very difficult to attract young people.

  • anonymous_amren

    “I as a nationalist look at a country like North Korea or Cuba, with some
    degree of envy: there, the respective populaces are disciplined…”

    North Korea is a very Nationalist country. More than anyone realises. It’s actually North Korea that is most hostile to Chinese influences, not South Korea. But North Korea only exists because of the racial characteristics of North East Asians. (Luckily) no other race could ever create a country like North Korea.

    Cuba also can only exist because of its racial composition. The social liberation that the left likes about Cuba couldn’t exist in a white country, but they never recognise that.

    But after reading Those Who Can See http://thosewhocansee.blogspot.com/ I’m starting to extend that line of thinking even further.

    The Soviet Union couldn’t have happened in other white countries. Because Russians have different personality traits to other white countries. And those traits probably have a genetic component. It’s those traits that led to the kind of governments they had then, and the kind of government they have now.

    Nazi Germany can’t happen in other white countries. Only Germans are capable of it. Other axis countries had fascism, but were still quite different from Nazi Germany.

    Germany, Italy, Russia, (and other white countries) are all white, and they all have white characteristics and tendencies. But they also have their own separate gene pools that have been evolving and drifting separately for thousands of years, and therefore can be thought of as slightly different races. And those slightly different races lead to different forms of government.

  • IanJMacDonald

    You paint with a an awfully broad brush.  Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard were both race realists. Hans-Hermann Hoppe is an immigration restrictionist whose conferences have seen the likes of Richard Lynn as featured speaker.  There are strands within the “libertarian” (I prefer the term anti-authoritarian)  movement which are fully compatible with race realism and even white nationalism. 

  • robinbishop34

    @JohnEngelman – wouldn’t the government spending you speak of mean the war?

  • This is essentially my view. I do not want to write prescriptions about what a future, racially conscious white society would be like. It might be aggressively free-market, like the United States of the early part of the 20th century, or it might be socialist like Scandinavia of latter part of that century. There could be many different kinds of racially conscious white societies. To me, the essential struggle is to bring about the conditions that will make those societies possible rather than express preferences about the direction or texture of those societies. That they be white and determined to preserve to remain culturally European is all I believe we should ask.

    To that end, what matters now, is agreement on the basic fact of race. Whites who agree completely on race will still disagree on religion, economic theory, and the whole spectrum of word views that go run from Left to Right. Once there are enough of us, we can ensure a destiny that unfolds in keeping with our nature.

    • JohnEngelman

      Unfortunately, most liberals in the United States, the British Commonwealth, and in Europe refuse to acknowledge that a high rate of any immigration, and certainly third world immigration, interferes with everything else they want to achieve. 

      Immigration contributes to environmental degradation. It moves the white working class to the right. A heterogeneous work force is more difficult to organize than a homogeneous work force. Immigration contributes to the growing income gap. 

      We are told that we need immigrants to support retired people. This does not seem to be a problem in countries like Japan that discourage immigration, and are experiencing population decline.

    • Oil Can Harry

      Mr. Taylor, I think your “big tent” approach is the correct one. There’s no reason to purge someone from this movement because they happen to leftist, gay, Jewish, etc.

      My only quibble with your fine review is a minor one: you featured a photo of the heroic Madison Grant but alas, there’s no mention of him in the article.

    • WmarkW

       Unfortunately, if you don’t provide a vision for the post-Renaissance world, people will assume what you want is AmeriKKKa, in which blacks are denied even the human rights of citizens under a republic.  That’s poison to a lot of people who might agree with accepting de facto segregation rooted in economics, or dis-employing illegal immigrants to improve the quality of low-skill jobs.

  • JohnEngelman

    Rather than thinking in terms of political labels, I believe we should consider political goals that can be achieved. These goals include more restrictions on legal immigration, deporting illegal immigrants, ending affirmative action and forced school busing, and more effective law enforcement. 

  • robinbishop34

    “It’s not a conspiracy by “evil” jews, liberals, communists or whatever.
    It is a systemic, unavoidable product of a certain stage of capitalism.”


  • JohnEngelman

    In the West, the poor are largely non-white, so redistribution benefits them rather than whites. This is why blacks and Hispanics are all for handouts and why Tea Party activists are called “racists” when they oppose them. Whites resent the taxes they pay for dialysis for illegals and school lunches for their children.                                                   
    – Jared Taylor                    
    Working class whites who oppose a more progressive tax system overestimate the cost of the welfare system while underestimating the amount of income inequality in the United States. 

  • jeffaral

    At last some common sense!    The Left-Right paradigm is totally obsolete.   Right-wingers probably would have sided with the catholic Church against the genious Galileo  against all the evidences he presented of a new cosmovision.   Conservatives are the same people who supported Black slavery and at the same time forcibly christianised the Blacks against their will.   We must place Race and Culture above primitive religious comcepts from the Middle East.

  • White people are genetically predisposed to individuality. Communal systems may be enforced but will never be naturally embraced. 

    Libertarianism, on the other hand, affords humans the right of association, property rights and free speech. How long could Affirmative Action last in such a society? 

  • British Activism

    Maybe if you took your own clown shoes off for a moment, you might find time to understand the difference between being anti-globalist and anti-American.

    If you actually comprehended the reply that was posted, you would understand that I was attempting to explain why the author of the book, Welf, might object to the kind of examples which HE seems to have cited in HIS book.

     – i.e McDonalds and Starbucks etc as a process of GLOBALISATION, and thus how that it is NOT an attack upon American people or culture IN America.

    I just happened to recount my own PERSONAL experience in Germany – and how much of it was no longer all that recognisably German. I found that to be quite sad – including all the OTHER facets of what globalism has brought them, NOT just the American adoptions and manifestations which we happened to take some refuge in.

    So, in answer to your question about Spain, YES, actually I am against that “British” culture taking over the indigenous Spanish one too.

    Whilst you are bound to get a few pubs and fish and chip shops in a main tourist area – and I do not particularly object to the occasional one of those – I do find the huge splurge of gaudy British pubs and chains to be a blight on Spain.

    It is not something that I am proud of as a British Nationalist, and nor do I think it is right for the English to head over there, command huge enclaves of Spain and turn it into some kind of a “sunnier England” either. Many, to their credit, don’t – but some areas have reportedly become like that.

    Nor do I like the kind of beer swilling British morons and hedonists that tend to blight resorts like Ibiza on holiday – people who think that because they are British they have the right to shout, act rowdy, be sick/urinate  everywhere, trash the place and expect everything to be served with tomato ketchup and chips.

    If some of the traditional Spanish were aggrieved at it all, resented the cultural import and came to resent the British people for their actions and behaviour I would not blame them for being like that – nor would I take it as an insult against the British as a whole.

    It is just them, being against the destructive culture that the modern British bring, and attempting a protection of their own ways in their own country.

    I suspect it is only the commerce that has led some of them to put up with it for so long, as Spain and many Spanish people rely upon feeding into this trashy form of tourism.

    Not only should you try learning to differentiate between being “anti-American” and “Anti-globalist”, you should perhaps try to look at something from another persons perspective once in a while.

    That is what I am attempting to do with Welf and his positions which are said to be in his book.

    I am not saying I am right or that Welf is right, or that they are flawless or that they can be taken to an ultimate conclusion. I am just attempting to explain where he might be coming from.

    Mr Taylor was describing how Welf was against GLOBALISM.  That is what I think a ‘nationalist’ – especially in countries outside of the United States – tends to do. They want to preserve THIER ways, their customs, NOT those of Americans in America.

    Globalist conglomerate chains and wholesale culture exports around the world is just as much a part of globalism and the new world order building as the international treatise and self appointed world authorities we are increasingly subordinated to.

    With not having read Welfs book, I am having to guess at his reasoning – but I suspect he finds it a shame that native national cultures and customs around the world are being extinguished and replaced with imported ones, which at the present time do tend to be American.

    It would be the same argument if it was some kind of Chinese culture and conglomerate trends smothering the globe.

    Perhaps you want the world to be uniform in brands, culture, lifestyles, rules, regulations, outlooks – and for everywhere to be just like America? Is that it? Mix together all the races, all the religions all the cultures all the laws and rights and customs and have one uniform human being?

    Seeing as you are on Amren, I obviously doubt you want to mix up the races (same here) – but what about everything else? Are you in favour of the globalisation process other than that matter of race?

    I would prefer it if different nations had their own cultures developing and that they held on to some of their own customs and traditions.

     I can also appreciate how many in the middle east may fight against what they see as American/British/Western imperialism in order to usher in these things into their nations.

    Some Russians apparently do not like the emergence of Halloween parties and culture in their country replacing their own festivals and traditions. Good for them, I say.

    Some arabs loathe the construction of skyscrapers and having the golden arches of McDonalds and characters of Ronald frigging McDonald surrounding their places of religion/worship. I don’t blame them. I don’t like their Halal butchers or their mosques or their stamp being put on my English town either. 

    The general consumer culture of MTV, Walmart, Fast food, and suburban sprawl has little cultural value in both America and the rest of the world.

    Unfortunately, America is often directly associated with globalisation in the rest of the World because they are the home to most of these international banks, corporations, and media conglomerates. That is why my personal experience just so happened to name so many American companies and globalist ventures.

    However these institutions are truly international now, and they have NO responsibility or loyalty to America – they only care about profits.

    They are tarnishing your nation’s reputation abroad with their greed and exploitation (take Coca Cola and the depletion of the water tables in poor nations as an example, or Monsanto seeds being pushed onto nations like India and as they tried to do in France) – while at the same time these people are lobbying YOUR Government to relax your/our immigration laws for cheaper labour and reduction of wages and often do not think twice about sending your (and our) jobs overseas.

    These corporations and brands are not necessarily your friends. They do not care for white rights, white preservation, nationhood, or your jobs or your well being.

    There is nothing wrong with being patriotic and proud of your manufacturing products and inventions – and nor is it realistic to avoid the technological advancements being taken up around the world- but that is an entirely different subject matter from unifying and smothering the world in the same uniformity.

  • Wayne Lo

     You know what?

    It was only 150 years ago that China was richer than Western Europe and the US combined.

    The British were so desperate to trade with China, that they flooded the country with opium and fought a war for its legalization. With the inflow of opium came the outflow of silver from China to Britain, and China was bankrupted.

    The white ‘age of discovery’ was largely driven by whites wanting trade with superior Asian civilisations. It was all about finding trade routes to China and India.

  • Wayne Lo

    very generous of the whites to keep this going, the Chinese, never

    For your information affirmative action for minorities in China dwarfs anything done for minorities in the US.


    Additionally, in China, blacks are segregated from the rest of society.

    Absolute nonsense. Prove it.

    But as shown by how the Chinese have segregated themselves in Africa
    when setting up mini colonies, the Chinese are quite racist

    Pew research, and BBC polls show that the Chinese are extremely popular in Africa. In fact Africans approve of China more than Asian countries approve of China. Google it.

  • Wayne Lo

    No. Paid for the computer. So I don’t need to have any particular gratitude towards anyone for it.

    Similarly if you enjoy a Chinese meal, that does not mean that you need to be particularly grateful for the person who cooked it — as long as you paid the asking price.

    Hypocrisy —no. that comes from you people—-who invade a large part of the world, and then turn round and express surprise that you find yourselves rubbing shoulders with non-whites. And if living with another race is ‘genocide’, then what do Native americans, Aborgines, Maoris, or even black Americans etc feel. There are few pure-bloods among these races, but they now can still develop a healthy sense of ethnic identity.

    Whites—1.2 billion of them, are numerically the second largest race in the world.

    There are a whole lot of other distinct races closer to ‘extinction’ than whites. That is why your ’cause’ is laughable.

    • To Mr. Lo:
      Actually, they’re are more blacks than whites worldwide. Black peoples represent 1.5 billion which are more than whites. However sir, you’re right that whites need to stop being paranoid about being wiped out!!
      Thanks again!!

  • Wayne Lo

    The white race is an individualistic race

    Particularly Americans. That is why everytime I attend a technical seminar given by an American, he will spend half an hour talking about his family, and how but for a fortuitous twist of events in his life history he would not be standing where he is today, privileging us with his presence.

    The sense of self importance of white people is actually quite sickening.

  • John McNeill

    I consider myself both an ethnonationalist and a rightwinger, but I have to admit, a lot of what this pro-white leftie says makes sense. I disagree with his view on the separation of powers, and I do not believe that a politician given absolute power would use it responsibly. I’m receptive to the idea of monarchy, but I believe monarchs should be of native stock, rather than being leftovers from some foreign royal family.

    I’m also skeptical of the idea that infiltrating the culture will shock the system into defeat. Now don’t get me wrong, I believe in the importance of culture, in fact I think its critical in order to rally whites. But I think that by the time our ideas penetrate the white mainstream, whites will already be a minority and it will be a little too late. Perhaps it would be able to rally whites in establish a white ethnostate.

    I also think that a pro-white Left will have a better chance at cooperating with nationalists from non-white countries in opposing globalism. An International Nationalist movement, if that makes sense. 😛

  • British Activism

    I am not really interested in some kind of weird slanging match just because you foolishly took great exception to me trying to pose an argument about globalism.

    So, to once again reply to your curt response, yes “Well DUH” – YOU were the one defending your globalist corporations and their actions, NOT me.  ‘LIKE-DUH-!’ 

    Is this how you want to play it?

    You are clearly hell bent on turning it into some kind of “Anti-American” battle, where I have no interest in “bashing Americans” or internal American culture. 

    You have manufactured that attitude all by yourself, and still do not seem to understand the difference being made between globalism and nationalism, or anti-globalism and anti-Americanism.

    I actually like Americans, I see European Americans as my extended kith and kin and family, I support American people keeping hold of their culture in America and I fully support Amren and its message for White America (and the rest of the White world).

    You seem to have a chip on your shoulder about the British, though.

    You didn’t even give any decent response or insightful thoughts back to the points I made above, you just seem to want to rake up history and try and conflate me – as a British Nationalist and as an individual – to times before I was even born and things I had no involvement in and do not even support! Ad-Hominem, much?

    I am a British Nationalist, not a British Imperialist. I do not support “exterminating fellow whites”, I am not a Churchillian flag waver, I don’t agree with hiring Hindu’s or Sikhs to kill anybody, white or not, either now or in the past.

    What is your excuse? You seem to like your multinational/globalist corporations transplanting themselves onto other people’s cultures, you seem to not care that they are not in the interests of Whites or America.

    Why do you defend warmongering American Imperialism and these kinds of corporations and organisations who hold no allegiance to you?

    Why does that “hurt you” as an American citizen in America?  Can you not handle any criticism of American imperialism and globalism without throwing toys out of the pram and suggesting it is “anti the American people” (when it is no such thing)?

    Do you agree in “liberating” other peoples countries, propping up tyrants, fighting Iran, and being the worlds policeman too? Are you a neo-conservative or a paleo-conservative?  I do not understand what exactly your problem is.

    I am not “lecturing” Americans. I am pointing out a fact that these globalist companies are not necessarily your friends or in the interests of the white race. You are the one defending them and their actions, not me.

    How all that somehow morphs into some “well, the British people have less loyalty to the white race than anyone” is beyond my comprehension.

    You cannot seem to disconnect companies and vested interests of an elite, to that of ordinary people – or differentiate between what is inside of a nations affairs and what is outside of a nations affairs.

    Do you think the British people “voted” for and “supported” all this “Arab Spring” nonsense, that we got some kind of “say” in it?

    Do you think we had any say or influence in our Labour government taking it upon itself to start parting off Kosovo after the Muslims had invaded and race-replaced and religiously-displaced the Serbs in Serbia?

    Do you think the ordinary “British people” are itching to fight Iran just because the Prime Minister David Cameron (and his string pullers) make some noise about it?

    Do you think that the good, patriotic, white people who tragically fought and died in WW2 fully understood the real situation going on and “hated those bloody whites”?! lol, They were lied to, just like Americans were lied to.

    Maybe you think we all wanted all this immigration here too! After all, these corporations and vested interests, the government actions etc which have done it all for decades are all perfectly acting with the full will and wishes of ordinary British people! – well, according to your logic they are!

    And not only that, but by your logic I should also take great exception to anybody criticising those governments and vested interests cos it would be “anti British”!

  • Welf Herfurth:  “[E]very nationalist I have encountered has opposed the neoliberal agenda
    of free trade, privatization, deregulation, union-busting, etc.
    Nationalists take a left-wing position on most economic issues.”

    Surely he is exaggerating. At least in the United States, there are plenty of nationalist Whites who at least *think* that they support “free-trade”. In reality, their arguments defend not free-trade but only trade in the broad sense, and they seem not to understand the difference. Many also support various degrees of privatization or the reform of regulation, and also union-busting. The last position is not hard to understand due to the globalist, leftist, and generally corrupt character of many major American labor unions. The leadership of those unions are very often hostile bringers of detriment to their own workers. I would not mind having such unions busted myself, but that is distinct from a general sympathy for the trade/labor union concept.

    Moreover, I do not agree that it is “left-wing” to oppose privatization, deregulation, and free-trade. Economic policies akin to mercantilism and protectionism are highly conservative positions historically. If one goes back to the first half of the 19th Century in British history, one will find that it was the Tory party which supported retaining the Corn Laws and other limits on free-trade. The Tories also supported government interventions in the economy, such as during the Great Famine in Ireland. It was the Whig/Liberal movement which supported the unilateral establishment of a free-trade policy, to the point of opposing the provision of aid to the starving and suffering Irish people.

  • TeutonicKnight67

    Every form of state enforced mongrelism has been imposed from the Left. The Communist Left has always seen our “diversity” as a weakness and therefore evident of a lack of social cohesion. They have ALWAYS used this to subvert our society and advance their wealth/materiel/land grabbing plan for totalitarian rule. Do you honestly expect any sane white man to align himself with the politics of the Obamanation?

    • 20670

      You said “The Communist Left has always seen our “diversity” as a weakness and therefore evident of a lack of social cohesion.” Yes, a lack of social cohesion is to be expected when a society has opposing cultures and races…is it not possible to form cohesion among these diverse groups…I think it is possible, but certainly not what the old Marxist/Communists desire.  A pop culture of fashion/music/art supported by certain *forces of power in power* might be able to bring that about…then again the question of nationalism…perhaps a form of nationalism might come about via pop culture…that *democracy*or democratic-culture would seem to appear rather idiotic wouldn’t it? Like a democracy of the lowest order? I mean if one considers the pop-culture’s promotion of music/art today? Isn’t it all what Ben Franklin feared anyway?…mobocracy?

  • TeutonicKnight67

    I also disagree. Pre “Roe v. Wade” America may have been rent by civil unrest but the years since have seen the establishment of the “average” 2.5 child white family. This has led to a dangerous decrease in our white population. If more white children were being born there would be no need for illegal immigrants to “do the jobs Americans won’t do”. Nor would there be a shortage of white clergy, nurses, doctors, soldiers etc. etc. We are now forced to import the diversity curse right into our homes due to the lack of a surplus white population. Our military is forced into political correct experiments. Our streets are polluted with non-English signs and childless white couples  are forced to adopt non-white “trophy babies” to show what good and loving parents due to the lack of available white children.

    •  Even if Roe v Wade would have never happened, and all those extra white people would be in existence now, that doesn’t mean the cheap labor lobby wouldn’t be pushing for open borders.  That’s because their excuses about “jobs Americans won’t do” are nonsense.  All those extra white people would still want to work for decent wages and salaries and under humane working conditions.  There are plenty of white people do that work even in our Roe v Wade reality.

      • TeutonicKnight67

        Absolutely! The phrase  “jobs Americans won’t do”  has always been a canard. The Demonrats use it to suppress the white middle class by bolstering their loyal minority voter base and the Republicants use it to swell their industrial slave labor force. Either way, the average white American is being sold out of its birthright.  and P.S. – the true phrase SHOULD be “jobs Americans won’t do for slave wages and no benefits”

  • Jon_the_I

    A fine article that needed to be written. Tribe and race  should always come before economic theories and the resulting bickering. People forget that by 1950’s standards, Marx and Engels would be considered racist, elitist, and anti-Semitic. Their goal was never the destruction of Europeans or our civilizations, they were just political theorists. 

  • Jon_the_I

    As to your first sentence, how many self-hating white people have you met or heard of in the media? 

    Secondly, Marx and Engels were dead by the time the revolution in Russia happened, and cultural Marxism wasn’t even  a theory until well after the Russian revolution. Just google “Marx Engels racism” and you’ll find plenty of quotes to support my claim.

    Like I said before, in this day and age race and culture are the only things that should matter, we need to do away with the  short-sighted economic bickering. What difference does it make whether the West is capitalist/democratic or socialist if there isn’t any white people left?

  • Well said, lets not forget all the people of British decent who were deposited in Africa and esp Southern Africa, by successive British Governments to civilise and christianise the African populace, and to fight their wars and carve out a piece of Britain, only to be abandoned and left to face the savage hordes on their own. not to mention the genocide they committed on their fellow European decedents, the Boers. not that we all want one, but the British Government would rather dish out passports to Indians and Pakistanis before before they consider fetching their own people back from Africa.

  • I agree, just take a look at Africa, esp South Africa over the last 18 years, and you will see what happens when you have too much democracy with no accountability and large population of below average IQ.

  • Philo Vaihinger

    Any fan of the North Korean regime is nuts.