RACE, Preservationist Alternative

Preservationist Alternative

 

by

Richard McCulloch

 

After thousands of generations of creative divergent evolution the reality of humanity, of human life and existence, is a great and rich diversity of type and kind. The preservation or continued existence of this diversity requires the reproductive isolation of its particular and distinctive parts or varieties. As a practical matter, reproductive isolation and racial preservation can only be effectively guaranteed by geographic separation, which is also the best guarantee of racial independence.

The unprecedented mass movements of peoples over great distances that has characterized the modern age has placed the historical geographic separation of the races in jeopardy. For the Nordish race, reproductive isolation has already been largely lost. Its restoration requires the adoption of a new culture of human racial relations that recognizes, affirms and promotes racial rights, preservation and independence. This would be a radical departure from the presently dominant culture, which denies racial rights and rejects racial preservation and independence, yet it would be a logical and consistent development or extension of the ethical principles and values of the Western liberal tradition, or of any other ethical tradition based on the Golden Rule of live and let live.

The presently dominant culture of human racial relations is universalism, the ideology that promotes the racial nihilist goal of human “Oneness” — the unification of the races into one race through multiracialism and intermixture — and therefore opposes racial independence and preservation. The “Oneness” goal is one of human uniformity, the elimination of racial diversity, particularities or differences. The dominance of universalism can be traced back many centuries to the creation of the first multiracial empires. Universalist philosophies and religions provided a justification for the existence of such empires, and a means to hold them together. In fact, there has always been a close connection between imperialism and universalism, and universalist religions such as Christianity and Islam, with their missionary zeal to convert, transform or assimilate other peoples, have often provided the impetus for imperialist endeavors.

In part, the current dominance of universalism and the racial nihilist goal of human “Oneness” is a legacy of the imperialist mentality. It is also a product of the still active missionary mentality which seeks to transform, convert or remake the world into its own image, whether that image be defined in terms of religion, culture, political ideology or race. [Note 1] The imperialist empire-building and missionary activities of the nineteenth century, which attempted to unify diverse races and cultures into one political and economic system, provided the practical foundation for the development of modern universalism. It is the essence of empire — of imperialism — that it subordinates a diverse group of people or races to one unified political or economic order, and denies or rejects their right to independence, control of their own lives, or a separate existence, and this is a central characteristic of the currently dominant form of universalism.

The consequence for the Nordish race — whose imperialist and missionary efforts to dominate other races and transform them into its own religious, cultural, economic or political image provided the basis for modern universalism — is that it is now threatened by that universalist ideology with the loss of its own racial existence and independence. That ideology promotes multiracialism, racial nihilism and the goal of “One-World, One-Race,” to be achieved by a process of racial intermixture that would replace the transitional condition of multiracialism (the means to the end) with one unified mixed race (the end). To facilitate that end it claims that the unification of the diverse races and countries of the world into one race and one global political and economic order — a “world without borders” — is inevitable and progressive, that there are no alternatives, and that resistance is futile and regressive. [Note 2]

In truth there is only one world, but there is more than one race. Our one world is the home of many different races, not just one. It is a world with “Many Mansions,” many different habitations, with sufficient territory for each race to be secure in the exclusive possession of its own “mansion,” habitat or homeland. The fact that they exist together on one world does not require, nor make it inevitable or progressive, that they unite into one mixed race. In fact, the course of human development since the beginning of human existence has been predominantly in the direction of evolutionary divergence rather than convergence — toward greater diversity, variety and differences, not less. It is neither inevitable nor progressive that this creative process of divergence should now be reversed. There are alternatives to the universalist vision of the future, alternatives that would preserve human racial diversity by the restoration and continuation of reproductive isolation rather than destroy it by mixing the diverse races together into one race.

A “world without borders” is ultimately a world without diversity. Given the fact that different races which share the same territory under conditions of extensive contact interbreed, the preservation of human racial diversity requires reproductive isolation, which as a practical matter — especially in the long term — requires the geographic or territorial separation of the races, which requires racial territorial exclusivity, boundaries or borders. Racial preservation requires recognition of the right of every race to exist within secure borders, in its own territory or “mansion,” exclusive of all genetically incompatible racial elements.

A view of humanity as “a house with many mansions” would encourage tolerance for the existence of many diverse races, all living on the same planet as they have for many thousands of generations, yet each possessing its own exclusive territory or “mansion,” and each enjoying the full rights of independence, self-determination and control of its own life, existence and development — its own country, its own culture, its own religion and its own political and economic system. The ethic of “Many Mansions” would protect the continued existence on our “one world” of many different races, cultures, religions and political and economic systems, promoting diversity in all of these areas rather than imposing “Oneness,” sameness, uniformity or submission to an imperialist or universalist world order or system. It would recognize each race as unique and special, value and appreciate their diversity and differences, and promote their preservation.

The diversity of humanity is often likened to a rainbow. The beauty of a rainbow lies in its many separate and distinct colors. If these different colors are blended together into one mixed color the beauty of the rainbow is lost. So it is with human racial diversity. If the different races are blended together into one mixed race the distinct races of humanity will be diminished and lost, and with them the variety provided by human racial diversity.

Humanity has enjoyed some hard-won ethical progress over the centuries. New ethics have been developed against slavery, imperialism, racial or national supremacism, the violation of human rights and the destruction of the environment. To preserve the diversity of life on earth, including and especially human racial diversity, a new preservationist ethic is needed “…to take all reasonable action to protect every species and race in perpetuity.” [Note 3] Such an ethic would be based on the principle that humanity “…should not knowingly allow any species or race to go extinct.” [Note 4] For humanity, such an ethic would promote an understanding and agreement between the races, a Racial Compact that would affirm the value and importance of each race, recognizing and protecting the right of each race to exist, to live, and to control its own life, free and independent, without animosity or aggression toward other races, but with mutual respect and consideration.

The preservationist ethic of the Racial Compact would promote the coexistence and continued existence of the different races and peoples of humanity. It would permit the different races or nations to continue to be what they are, to be themselves, secure in their continued existence and in the possession of their own homelands. It would let Poland be Poland, Sweden be Sweden, Scotland be Scotland, France be France, Japan be Japan, China be China, India be India, Tunisia be Tunisia, and Nigeria be Nigeria. It would ensure that Holland belonged to the Dutch, England to the English, Norway to the Norwegians, Spain to the Spanish, Vietnam to the Vietnamese, Iran to the Iranians, and Ethiopia to the Ethiopians, and so on, in perpetuity, for all the races and nations of the earth.

If the different races are to coexist with each other, they must first be allowed to exist. Their right to exist, and their right to the conditions they require to exist, must be recognized and respected. The races developed, evolved or were created in different lands, geographically separated and reproductively isolated from each other, and in that condition coexisted on the same planet until recent times, and that is the condition required for the different races — and especially the Nordish race — to continue to exist, and therefore to coexist. To coexist they must first exist, and the continued existence of the Nordish race depends on its separation from other races in its own racially exclusive territory or country. In a multiracial society where it was joined with other races it would soon cease to coexist as it would soon cease to exist.

Racial preservation is a matter of special concern for the Nordish race. More than any other race, its independence and very existence is endangered by the currently dominant culture and policies of universalism and multiracialism. No other race is similarly threatened. For that reason racial preservationism is most commonly Nordish preservationism, and opposition to racial preservation is most commonly opposition to Nordish preservation. Given the strongly anti-Nordish bias of the currently dominant ideology and cultural elements, the current culture tends to be strongly opposed to racial preservation in general and Nordish preservation in particular.

The opponents of racial preservation use a variety of arguments and assertions to promote their position. One of these is the oft-repeated claim that little or nothing of value or importance would be endangered or lost through intermixture. To support this claim they commonly minimize, trivialize or belittle the extent, value or importance of racial differences, diversity or variety. For example, they commonly portray racial differences as solely a matter of color, ignoring or denying all other racial differences. Or, in more scientific terms, they argue that since the races of humanity share over 99.5% of their genes (or DNA) in common, racial differences are trivial and of little value or importance, and little will be lost if one or several races (and their unique ensemble of genetic traits and characteristics) ceased to exist. It is true that the 99.5% of genes which all human races share in common is not endangered, and will not be lost or destroyed, by an intermixture of the races, or even by genocide. That 99.5% will continue to exist as long as any human race continues to exist. [Note 5] But it is the .5% or less of genes in which the human races are different that are the source of human racial diversity, variety and differences, and these genes would suffer loss, diminishment or destruction by intermixture. It is the differences that are in need of preservation, not the similarities which all humans share in common. Racial nihilism and universalism regard only the genes and traits which are universal — which all humans share in common — as important, valuable and worth preserving. They regard the genes and traits which are not universal — which differ between the races — as unimportant, without value, and expendable.

Somewhat similar to the claim that the differences between human races are not sufficient to justify racial preservation, is the claim frequently made by opponents of racial preservation — sometimes explicitly, but more often implicitly — that a race must be “pure” – or “special,” “superior” or “unique” — to be worth preserving. But these qualities are either not defined, or are defined so narrowly that they are essentially defined out of existence. Thus in arguing against racial preservationism they commonly assert that there are no “pure” races, with the implication that a race which is not “pure” is not worthy of preservation. Again, their definition of “pure” is generally not given, but it is obviously so narrow that no race existing in reality meets its standard, and as it is not based on — or related to — any existing racial reality it must be regarded as arbitrary and capricious. [Note 6]

In concept and motive the assertion that there are no “pure” races is similar to the more extreme racial nihilist assertion of the racial deconstructionists — who deny the reality of race — that different races do not exist. The underlying purpose or motive of both assertions is to deny racial rights — especially the primary right to life, existence or preservation — by denying or belittling racial existence. The assertion of racial nonexistence tends to be ineffective as most people can readily see the physical reality of race and racial differences, and easily distinguish one race from another, but the assertion of racial “impurity” tends to be more effective as most people do not know what a proper or objective standard of racial “purity” should be, or whether such a standard should determine whether a race is worthy of preservation.

A standard of racial purity so narrow and restricted that it does not exist in any real population cannot be regarded as objective, valid or proper. It is possible to define almost anything out of existence if it is defined by a sufficiently narrow standard, as in this instance. Definitions of race should be based on existing reality, on real existing races, not on misconceptions of racial reality or arbitrary standards that do not exist in any real population. An objectively meaningful measure, standard or definition of race would be based on distinctness and uniqueness. If the identity of a race is clear and distinct, so that it is clearly and distinctly identifiable as itself and nothing else, and its ensemble of genetic traits and characteristics are unique to itself, belonging exclusively to itself and to no other, its racial existence and rights should be recognized. As for the condition of the Nordish race, the usual target of racial nihilist denials of purity, although it has suffered — and increasingly suffers — extensive losses due to multiracialism and intermixture, by far the greater part of it still exists with its racial identity fully intact, clear and distinct.

Under the ethical principles of the Racial Compact the right of all races to life, continued existence and preservation would be recognized and protected. These rights would not depend on any requirement for purity, specialness or superiority. All races would be recognized as inherently special, unique, and valuable, worthy of continued life and preservation, and entitled to the full complement of racial rights.

The opponents of racial preservationism also attempt to ethically discredit it by equating it with immoral racism, or emotionally discredit it by claiming it is based on negative emotions or hate. They use reductionist logic to claim that there is only one form of racism, rejecting and denying any difference between the immoral forms of racism that deny and violate racial rights and the moral forms that recognize, assert and protect racial rights. They typically refuse to recognize the existence — or even the possibility — of moral racism, even as they refuse to recognize the existence of racial rights.

Emotions and feelings such as hate or love are not in themselves either moral or immoral, right or wrong. Morality is based on behavior and actions, not emotions. Moral behavior toward other races consists of recognizing and respecting their legitimate rights and interests, especially their right to life, independence and their own territory. Immoral behavior toward other races consists of denying, rejecting or violating their legitimate rights and interests, especially those vital rights required for their continued existence.

The equating of love for one’s race and the desire to preserve it with hate for other races can be partly attributed to the agapic concept of love favored by nihilistic ideologies and religions, including the currently dominant ideology of racial nihilism. Agape, or agapic love, is egalitarian and universal, given equally to all without exclusion, preference or discrimination. It does not recognize a love which is exclusive, selective, preferential, discriminating or unequal as love. It regards such an emotion as evil and immoral, as a violation of egalitarian values, as negative rather than positive, and therefore defines it not as love for its object, but as hatred for the others that are not its object. By the tenets of racial nihilism the only love recognized as love is the agapic, equal, universal, non-discriminating, non-particular, all-inclusive and all-embracing love for all humankind as an undifferentiated whole. As a consequence, for a person to express a particular love or preference for their own race is commonly regarded as if it were the moral equivalent of an expression of hate for other races. [Note 7]

The association of racial preservationism with hatred can also be partly attributed to the effects of racial subjectivity, which causes many persons to view their race as the center of existence, not only for itself but for all other races as well. Thus they view their race as the reason and motive for the actions of other races, as the standard and point of reference by which the actions and emotions of all other races are judged, and define all actions solely in relation to their race. Their subjectivity blinds them to the fact that other races have purposes of their own unrelated to any other race, that each race exists of itself, by itself and for itself, not because of, by or for other races, that each race is the center of its own existence and uses itself and its own interests — not some other race — as its own point of reference, and that each race has motives and reasons for its actions based on its own separate existence, determined by its pursuit of its own interests and goals unrelated to any other race. Thus they subjectively define any action by another race to preserve its existence or independence not as an action by that race for (or pro) its own interests, but as an action against (or anti) their interests, and assume that hatred for their race rather than love of the other race for itself is the motive for the action.

As a consequence, offense is taken when members of a race want to preserve their racially unique traits and characteristics, which other races do not have, or when they value and love these traits, in which they differ from other races, and regard them as important and worth preserving. (Racial subjectivity is often so extreme that merely to express consciousness of racial identity, or of racial differences, is regarded as being against and violating the rights of other races.) This love and caring for unique and exclusive racial traits, and consequent desire to preserve them by separation from the other races which do not share them, is wrongly equated with hatred or demeanment of the other races. The result of this arbitrary subjectivity is that those who oppose the legitimate, vital and primary rights of another race to continued life, existence, preservation and independence feel morally right in doing so, wrongly believing that the assertion of such rights by the other race is against them rather than for itself.

Members of one race should not take offense if members of another race value and love their distinct and unique racial traits and identity, seek to preserve their race, and desire to be separate from other races as required for both racial preservation and independence. Under the ethical principles of the Racial Compact these sentiments and desires would not be regarded as offensive, insulting, demeaning or threatening to other races, but would be seen as a proper and legitimate expression of racial love and assertion of fundamental racial rights. All living things wish to continue their life, to preserve their existence. This natural wish should not only be tolerated and respected, but treated with the utmost honor and reverence, and it should enjoy the presumption that it is motivated by love of itself and its own life, not hate for others.

In fact, there should be a presumption of morality in favor of preservation, and of racial preservation in particular, and a presumption of immorality with regard to destruction. Similarly, in terms of emotional motivation, there should be a presumption that preservation is motivated by love, benevolence or good-will, and that destruction — or opposition to preservation — is motivated by hate, malice or ill-will. But the real issue and choice of morality is between preservation and destruction, between the recognition and protection of racial rights and the denial and destruction of racial rights, not between love and hate. The recognition and protection of racial rights, not subjective emotional motivation, is the objective ethical standard on which a new paradigm or culture of racial relations — the Racial Compact — would be based. The recognition and protection of racial rights, whatever its emotional motivation, would be judged as moral, while the denial and violation of racial rights, whether for reasons of love or hate, would be judged as immoral.

Since at the present time, and for the foreseeable future, racial preservationism is especially — in fact almost uniquely — a matter of Nordish preservation, as the continued existence of the non-Nordish races is not similarly threatened, the opponents of racial preservation — who are thus in effect opponents only of Nordish preservation — often use arguments that are specifically critical of the Nordish race. In particular, the concept of collective guilt is used to claim that the Nordish race is collectively guilty of past wrongs against other races, and therefore has no right to continued life or independence, but should, in effect, be sentenced to the penalty of racial death or extinction. There is a different version of this argument for each race claiming to be a victim of past wrongs by the Nordish race. In what is probably the most common version of these endless recriminations, it is argued, more often implicitly than explicitly, that the German people have no right to life because Nazi (National Socialist) Germany violated the right to life of other peoples, and this argument is then extended to claim that by association the entire Nordish race — to which most Germans (as well as the English, Scots, Irish, Scandinavians, Dutch and many others, including Nordish-Americans) belong — is collectively guilty of these violations and is therefore uniquely evil, unworthy of preservation, and has no right to exist, thus justifying its annihilation — or reduction to nothingness and nonexistence. [Note 8]

From such a perspective it is almost to be expected that reductionist logic would be used to link any expression of Nordish preservationism — and assertion of vital Nordish rights and interests — with the immoral forms of racism which deny and violate the rights of other races. Ironically and hypocritically, with such arguments as these the opponents of racial preservation and racial rights are using allegations of past violations of individual and racial rights to justify and excuse the present denial and violation of the vital or life-essential rights of the Nordish race. By contrast, under the ethical principles of the Racial Compact, the doctrine of collective guilt — which condemns an entire people for the misdeeds of some of its members — would be rejected as inherently violative of both individual and racial rights, and would not be permitted to justify or excuse the denial or violation of the primary, vital and life-essential rights and interests of any race.

The currently dominant ideology of racial nihilism is so hostile to the vital and life-essential interests of the Nordish race that Nordish reproduction itself is increasingly regarded with disfavor. It is considered offensive when preference is shown for a mate of the same race, and immoral when motivated by a conscious intent or desire to preserve or continue the Nordish race. Reproduction is the very essence of preservation. It is the ultimate preservationist act. The purpose of reproduction is the continuation or preservation of the genetic continuum or race. The opponents of Nordish preservation therefore oppose Nordish reproduction. Since successful reproduction requires that the partners be genetically compatible — so that the traits of both will be continued, preserved or reproduced in their descendants — the opponents of Nordish preservation and reproduction are especially opposed to any discrimination or preference by Nordish people in favor of their own race in the selection of reproductive partners. When the right of a race to reproduce is threatened or denied, its reproduction discouraged or condemned as immoral, and the conditions it requires to reproduce and preserve itself are violated, the result is a racial wasteland, where racial life or existence cannot be continued.

The anti-Nordish and anti-preservationist misconceptions and arguments discussed above are part of the currently dominant ideology, and as such are taught to school children from the earliest ages. The quotation below — from an editorial written by a high school student — is representative of these teachings, particularly the dual argument that racial preservationism (specifically “white” preservationism) is motivated by hatred for other races and is inseparable from the immoral forms of racism that deny and violate the rights of other races. (She also repeats the arbitrary assertion — and statement of racial nihilist factual faith — that there are no “pure” races, without defining “pure” and with the implication that a race which is not “pure” is not worthy of preservation.)

I was watching a TV talk show recently and the guests were young women whose sole mission in life was to have as many children as they could in order to preserve the white race.

After I got my jaw off the floor, I realized how truly hateful some people are….

Obviously something has happened in their lives to make these people so hateful…. What I, other blacks like me, Hispanics, Jews, and others ever did to hurt these people is beyond me.

It saddens me to think that there is so much hate that some young white women are actually giving birth in the name of racial preservation. They are so consumed with hate that they fail to realize that there are no pure races. My heart goes out to their children, who through ignorance will undoubtedly carry on the ideas and beliefs of their parents.

Unfortunately, most of us don’t take enough time to consider why the differences in people are so wonderful. Too often we automatically assume that the differences make people somehow wrong or inferior. We should learn to accept one another for what we are and to make judgments solely on the content of a person’s character.

Racism and hate always will exist. But I hope in some way we can bring it down to a bare minimum: Make it the exception, not the rule.

We as young people need to realize that if we all came together as one, many of the troubles that we have today might be gone tomorrow. [Note 9]

The platitudinous expressions of appreciation for the “wonderful” racial differences of humanity are logically inconsistent with the condemnation of racial preservation, without which this diversity — or at least the Nordish part of it — would be lost. If the student editorialist really valued these differences she should support racial preservationism, and recognize that it is based on love, and the consequent desire to preserve that which it loves. To paraphrase her key paragraph in racial preservationist terms, the racism based on hate will always exist, but we can hope to bring it down to a bare minimum — making the racism based on hate the exception, and the racism based on love the rule.

It should be pointed out that the children of the preservation-motivated women will not only carry on the ideas and beliefs of their parents, but their genes and race as well. Unlike many other members of their race, who have accepted and practice the anti-preservationist teachings of racial nihilism, and have neglected or rejected the primary responsibility of all life to create the next generation of their kind, these women at least will have children, and by doing so will preserve the continuum of generations of racial life of which they are the currently living representatives.

There is an element of logical inconsistency, and perhaps hypocrisy, in the student’s claim that her heart goes out to the children, when she condemns the preservationist motive for their conception as hateful. All living things seek to reproduce or continue their kind, their unique life form, what they themselves are, their genes, their traits, their race. This is the essence of preservationism, and it is the driving reason, purpose and motive for reproduction throughout nature. The ultimate purpose of reproduction is the continuation or preservation of one’s race. This is the foundation of life. It is also the essence — and perhaps the ultimate natural source — of the positive emotions called love. There is no better, more moral, proper, natural, life-serving or loving reason for reproduction than the continuation or preservation of one’s genetic line and race. To equate such natural and life-serving positive feelings with hate is to equate the continuation of life itself with hate. To equate such life-serving feelings by members of the Nordish race with hate is to equate the continued life of the Nordish race with hate.

According to the proverb, it is by their fruits (effects, consequences or results) that you will know them (their motives or intent). The fruits of anti-preservationism — consistent with racial nihilism — are the denial, rejection and violation of racial rights and, ultimately, racial destruction. As to motives, although anti-preservationists claim to be motivated by friendship, benevolence and love, the destructive effects of their policies are more consistent with the emotions of malice and hate. Like the proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing, racial nihilism has long cloaked its racially destructive values and goals in the words of love. But love should support the well-being, preservation and continued existence of that which it loves, not its destruction. What the members of every race require — and have a right to expect — is respect for their racial right to continued life, preservation and independence, not a destructive and harmful “love” that denies and violates their rights and opposes their independence and continued existence.

The culture of racial nihilism teaches that it is wrong to hate other races. It also teaches that it is wrong to love one’s own race — although not in such terms, as it does not recognize a love which is given unequally to one particular race as love, but as the equivalent of hate for other races. In practice, the explicit racial nihilist campaign against racial hate is much more an implicit campaign against racial love, or to be more accurate — given the anti-Nordish double standard currently operative in racial matters — a campaign against Nordish racial love. The dominant racial nihilist elements, advocates of racial intermixture and “Oneness,” and opponents of racial preservation, know that racial love, and the consequent desire to save and preserve that which is loved, is both the primary motive for racial preservationism and the primary obstacle to the goal of Nordish annihilation — the reduction of the Nordish race to nothingness. To defeat racial preservationism they must first weaken, suppress, inhibit or discredit racial love. Their method is to deconstruct racial love, to define it out of existence by equating it with hate.

By contrast, the culture of the Racial Compact would teach that racial love is a positive, healthy and life-serving — and perhaps life-essential — emotion. But much more important than their different teachings about emotions, the two cultures would differ in their moral teachings, for whereas the current racial nihilist culture teaches that the denial, rejection and violation of racial rights is moral, and the recognition, assertion and promotion of racial rights is immoral, the Racial Compact would teach the opposite. The Racial Compact would be based on objective ethics rather than subjective emotions, on mutual and reciprocal recognition, respect and protection for racial rights rather than arbitrary assertions of love or accusations of hate. Being for (recognizing and supporting) the rights of a certain race is ethically much more important and meaningful than one’s emotional feelings for that race. It is not ethically necessary to have the same or equal emotional feelings for every race, or even to have positive emotional feelings for every race. But it is ethically necessary to be for the legitimate — and especially the life-essential or vital — rights of every race. If one is for or pro the legitimate rights of a race one cannot be against or anti that race in any ethically meaningful sense or definition of the term.

The opponents of racial preservation and independence are proponents of racial intermixture or “Oneness,” believing (or claiming) that if, as the song says, we would “all come together as one,” blending or integrating — or disintegrating — all the world’s races into one uniform race, it would solve all the world’s problems. But the real problems of humanity — whether conflict, poverty, hunger, disease, pollution, environmental destruction or overpopulation — would not be solved by the destruction of human racial diversity and the violation of the rights of the diverse races of humanity to continued life and independence. Only an ideology which sees the existence of human racial diversity and differences, and racial rights and independence, as a problem would think any problem could be solved by such a racially dissolving course, and this of course is the very “problem” that racial nihilism is seeking to solve by its advocacy of “Oneness.”

Since for the foreseeable future the full racially destructive effects and consequences of such a course would be suffered primarily — if not solely — by the Nordish race, one can conclude that the very existence of the Nordish race is the “problem” which the dominant racial nihilist elements seek to solve by the promotion of multiracialism, racial intermixture and Oneness. The solution to their “Nordish problem” is, in effect, a soft form of genocide. The end or goal is the nonexistence, extinction or annihilation — the reduction to nothing — of the Nordish race. The means or method is racial replacement and intermixture through the agency of multiracialism. Thus every Nordish country has been obliged to become a multiracial society. If racially incompatible elements are not present they are imported by immigration. If they are already present their numbers are constantly increased to assure the totality of Nordish destruction by a form of genetic overkill. No Nordish population is allowed to escape this fate. To deny entry to racially incompatible non-Nordish immigrants, or fail to assist and encourage such immigration, or exhibit any sign of racial preservationism, is regarded by the dominant racial nihilist culture as immoral, as hatred for — and an offense to — all the other races of humanity.

The Racial Compact offers a preservationist alternative that would promote the peaceful coexistence of the diverse races of humanity while protecting their continued existence and independence. When the different races are secure in their own continued existence and preservation, in the possession of their own territory, and in the recognition and protection of their own legitimate rights and interests, they will no longer have a valid reason to feel threatened or endangered, and what is probably the most common cause of human conflict — the fear and anxiety caused by insecurity — will be effectively eliminated. The danger posed by racial nihilism and multiracialism to racial existence and preservation, to racial rights and interests, is one of the foremost problems confronting modern humanity. For the Nordish race it is the foremost problem, having caused great destruction, diminishment and loss to its existence, and threatening to end its very existence — to annihilate it or reduce it to nothing — if it is not solved.

The Racial Compact would solve this problem, and make the world safe for continued racial existence, independence and diversity. It would be the institutionalization not only of the ethical principles of racial rights, but also of the ethical principles of racial conservation and preservation. It would apply the presumption that the preservation of life is moral and the destruction of life is immoral — that morality tends to preserve life and immorality tends to be destructive of life — to race and racial diversity. In terms of conservationist ethics,this would mark a great advance for humanity over its past and present cultures of racial relations. [Note 10]

For the Nordish race, multiracialism — or a multiracial society — is a temporary transitional stage during which it is gradually replaced by — or destroyed by intermixture with — other races. Multiracialism is inherently destructive of its most vital rights and interests. The condition of reproductive isolation from genetically incompatible elements which it requires for continued existence is denied and violated, as also is its racial freedom and independence, as multiracialism holds it in bondage to the other races sharing the same country. In the long term, the Nordish race cannot be preserved under multiracial conditions which deny it the condition of reproductive isolation it requires for preservation. In the short term, social practices such as racial segregation can provide a partially effective form of reproductive isolation, but in the long term such systems are not sufficiently effective and are thus ultimately ineffective.

Racial preservation requires the prevention of racial intermixture. As racial intermixture is an inevitable consequence of a multiracial society, and can only occur in a multiracial society, and can only be effectively prevented by reproductive isolation, which can only be effectively provided by geographical separation, racial preservation requires the prevention of multiracial conditions by the restoration and perpetual maintenance of geographical separation. Reproductive isolation is the condition required for racial preservation. As a practical matter it requires geographical separation from other races. The Racial Compact would provide a system of total racial separation and independence based on the Golden Rule of reciprocal and mutual respect for the legitimate rights and interests of each and every race.

For the Nordish race a multiracial society is a racial wasteland, a place where its life and existence cannot be continued or preserved. Multiracialism and preservation are incompatible. Racial destruction through intermixture is the unavoidable consequence of multiracialism, and it is futile to attempt to prevent it under multiracial conditions, and misleading to think it can be prevented, or that multiracialism can exist without it. This is the denial and evasion which subverts the search for effective preservationist solutions and alternatives.

Racial preservation requires racial separation. Members of one race should not take offense or be resentful if members of another race seek to be separate from them, as required both for independence (sovereignty, self-determination or racial freedom) and continued existence or preservation. It should not be regarded as a provocation, slight, demeanment, disparagement, insult or criticism of other races, but recognized and respected as a requirement for life and independence. Human racial diversity was fostered by geographic separation and nurtured by the “many mansions” provided by the broad expanses of the earth for separate human existence and divergent evolution. It can only be preserved by continuing the essential racial existential condition of “Many Mansions,” of geographic separation and reproductive isolation, each race inhabiting its own mansion or mansions on the earth, thus securing the continued existence of each. This is the ethical principle of “Many Mansions,” of racial independence and separation, each race secure in the exclusive possession of its own part of the planet, its own territory or homeland, where its continued existence and independence can be assured, safe from the racially destructive effects of intermixture. The diverse races of humanity should share the planet together, but should not share their countries or homelands together. Then each race will be able to truly wish every other race a long life, the opposite wish of racial nihilism. [Note 11]

In preservationist terms, population groups belong to the same race only when they are genetically compatible and can interbreed without negating or significantly altering their unique ensembles of genetic traits or characteristics. It must be assumed that different population groups that share the same territory or country will eventually interbreed or blend together. Therefore, when one population group cannot interbreed with another without significant alteration, loss or diminishment of its unique and distinctive traits, racial preservation requires that the two groups be reproductively isolated from one another by geographic separation. Such separation-isolation should be viewed as a simple requirement for continued racial existence. It does not mean that the different races should be adversaries. Quite the opposite. They can be good neighbors, friends and fellow inhabitants of planet earth, provided they each respect the conditions of separation-isolation required for continued racial existence and development.

There is no perfect solution for the dilemma created by multiracialism, only some solutions that are better than others. The separatist solution offered by the author, or others based on the Racial Compact and the ethical principles of racial rights, is a preservationist alternative to the racial destruction or annihilation sought by racial nihilism, which is the unavoidable consequence of multiracialism. The ultimate or long term consequences of multiracialism — racial intermixture and the resulting replacement and extinction of the Nordish race — have long been evaded or denied by its supporters. But more recently, as the dominant position of multiracialism has become more secure, its consequences have been ever more explicitly recognized, welcomed and promoted rather than evaded and denied. Increasingly, the supporters of multiracialism are also openly supporting its eventual consequence of racial destruction by intermixture and replacement, proclaiming its morality and condemning preservationist opposition to it as immoral, making the choices confronting the Nordish race also ever more clear.

For the Nordish race, the choice is between continued existence or extinction. Its continued existence urgently requires the implementation of the only effective preservationist solution to the crisis of multiracialism — the restoration of the condition of reproductive isolation by geographic separation. Until such a solution is implemented its existence will continue to diminish until the cumulative losses and destruction reduce it to the nothingness sought by racial nihilism. Western culture has rejected as immoral one of the destructive extremes of racial relations — the racial supremacism that denies and violates the rights of other races. In doing so it overreacted and promoted the opposite destructive extreme — the racial nihilism that denies and violates all Nordish racial rights and interests, including its vital and legitimate rights to life, control of its own life, and the conditions of existence it requires for life. Unless and until this destructive extreme of racial relations is also rejected as immoral the process of racial destruction it promotes will continue. Its moral rejection requires the development of a new culture, ethic or paradigm of racial relations, a Racial Compact which would promote racial preservation, security and independence through the recognition, protection and promotion of racial rights.

The Racial Compact is an agreement between the diverse races of humanity to recognize and practice the moral principles of racial rights for the common good of all. It is a plan for racial preservation by which the diverse races of humanity can all continue to exist in perpetuity. It is an ethic for the different races to live by, which will enable them all to continue to live. It is a new basis for racial relations, an agreement for coexisting or sharing the earth together in a manner that preserves human racial diversity and safeguards the right of every race to life, independence, self-determination and a secure existence in its own territory in accord with the principle of “Many Mansions.”

Hopefully, humanity has reached a point in its intellectual, moral and spiritual development where this is possible. The forces of racial destruction, whether knowing or unknowing — from evasion, denial and ignorance to expediency, deliberate policy and willful intent — must be overcome. The continued existence of the Nordish race, and the freedom and security of all races, depends upon it. The efforts of this generation can make possible the continuation of racial life for the thousands of generations yet to come. It is to the existence of these future generations — the life to come — that the cause of racial preservation is dedicated.

Notes

1. The “Oneness” goal of eliminating all racial diversity and evolutionary divergence in favor of racial uniformity corresponds with the missionary goal of converting all humanity to one universal religious or political creed and eliminating all religious or political diversity. (The twentieth-century has seen political creeds such as democracy and communism promoted with the same missionary zeal formerly reserved for universalist religions such as Christianity and Islam.)

2. It also refers to the process of intermixture and unification as “integration,” the joining together of different parts of a whole to make them complete. But this is a misnomer, as the different races do not need to be joined together to be made whole or complete, but quite the opposite. True integration is constructive, not destructive or negating. When two races cannot be joined without negating or destroying the traits of one or both they are not part of the same whole, and the destructive result is racial disintegration rather than integration.

3. Edward O. Wilson, The Diversity of Life , (Harvard University Press, 1992), p. 342.

4. Ibid ., p. 351.

5. Similarly, the 98.4% of genes which humans and chimpanzees share in common will continue to exist so long as either humans or chimpanzees continue to exist, and the 30% of DNA which humans and insects share in common will continue to exist as long as either humans or insects continue to exist.

6. According to the extremist logic of the opponents of racial preservation — who are proponents of racial destruction — any degree of racial intermixture or “impurity” means that a race has no right to continued existence but must accept their goal of total intermixture and racial destruction. To the extent that such malreasoning is accepted, they have a clear interest in promoting ill-defined allegations of racial impurity.

7. The racial nihilist and universalist campaign against racism is expressed as an explicit campaign against racial hate, but is actually much more an implicit campaign against racial love — against the natural, healthy, positive and life-serving emotions and feelings of love by a person for their own race. Such a love is particularist, non-agapic, non-universal, unequal, exclusive, differentiating and discriminating — loving, preferring and valuing one particular race more than others — and is therefore defined as hate by the dominant racial nihilist and universalist ideology.

8. As a consequence, it is very common, especially in Europe, for opponents of racial preservationism to attempt to discredit it — especially with regard to its opposition to immigration by incompatible racial elements — by associating it with the immoral form of nationalistic racism, Nazism, that committed these violations. Support for alien immigration and other policies which violate the vital rights of the Nordish race are often portrayed as opposition to Nazism. (When the author visited the campus of Uppsala University in Sweden in 1989 he saw posters advertising a rally in support of non-Nordish immigration, and describing such support as “striking a blow against Nazism.”) Thus, implicitly or explicitly, the vital rights and interests of the Nordish race are wrongly identified with the morally discredited ideology of Nazism and all its negative associations, and the assertion of legitimate Nordish racial rights is denounced as Nazism. As Nazism was opposed by the majority of the Nordish peoples, who certainly did not believe that they were opposing the vital rights and interests of their race, this identification, whether implicit or explicit, is not only factually wrong but unjust. Also, as the immorality of Nazism consisted in its denial and violation of the legitimate rights of other (non-German) races and nations, not in its assertion of the legitimate rights of the German nation, the association of support for legitimate racial and national rights with Nazism — especially by the opponents of racial rights — is not only factually incorrect but ethically dishonest and hypocritical.

9. “Make hate the exception, not the rule,” The Miami Herald , January 8, 1994, p. 27A. Note the author’s identification of racial preservationism — or intentional racial reproduction — with hatred, derived from the a priori assumption that racial preservationism must be based on hate for other races rather than love for its own race. This follows logically from her subjectivist assumption that “white” racial preservationism cannot be motivated internally, from within itself, by love for itself and its existence, but must be motivated externally by something another race — such as her own — has done to “hurt” it and thus cause it to hate. Note the author’s subsequent bewilderment at her inability to identify such a “hurt,” and her implicit contention that in the absence of such a “hurt” white racial preservationism (which she equates with “hatred”) is unjustified.

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.

10. “Destruction is anathema to conservationists, but the fact remains that most people, lacking knowledge, regard it as perfectly acceptable.” Wilson, op. cit ., p. 320.

11. In a report on “transracial” adoption broadcast on the Cable News Network (March 31, 1993) which was essentially a call for “integrated” families, a white adoptive mother of several black children said, “If integration is a value then families should be integrated.” The reporter, Margaret Lowery, asked, “How can we share the same planet if we cannot even share the same house?” As the races of humanity do, and always have, shared the same planet together without sharing the same houses, or until recently the same countries, this question bears no logical relationship to reality. So long as the races remained separate they had no problem sharing the planet. Problems only arose, and arise, when races enter or invade or otherwise attempt to share the “houses” (“mansions” or homelands or living space) of other races, thus violating their rights by denying them the conditions of separation they require for continued existence and independence. Races cannot coexist or share the same planet together if they deny other races the conditions required for their existence. “We” can only meaningfully and truly share the planet together by recognizing and respecting the right of every race to its own “house,” homeland or “mansion.” The question should be, “How can we continue to share the planet together if we share the same countries, or even the same houses?” The answer is that we cannot, as the sharing of the same planet, or anything else, by different races requires the continued existence of different races, and their continued existence requires that they be reproductively isolated from each other by geographic separation in different countries. “Integration,” which destroys racial existence and is therefore racial disintegration, is a value only under the racially destructive ethics of racial nihilism, universalism and Oneness. Under the preservationist ethics of the Racial Compact it is racial existence — the incompatible opposite of “integration” — which is a value.