Nordish Crisis

The Nordish Crisis
by
Richard McCulloch

 

All the races of humanity share in common the same primary vital interest — preservation, the continuation of their racial existence. Their preservation or continuation is dependent upon the same condition as their creation — reproductive isolation, the only effective preventative of their intermixture with other races. This is ultimately true for all races, and most immediately true for those whose relatively recessive genetic traits make them more vulnerable to the racially destructive effects of intermixture. In racial preservationist terms the loss or absence of reproductive isolation creates the most severe form of racial problem — a problem that threatens the very survival and continued existence of the race, a problem that must inevitably result in the destruction or nonexistence of the race, a problem that is nothing less than a racial crisis. The Nordish (Northern European) race is now threatened by such a crisis — a racial problem that has grown and developed over the past four centuries to the point where it is now causing the destruction of the Nordish race.

The peopling of the earth over the last 100,000 years was achieved by many migrations by many different peoples. In this long series of human movements many lands have been occupied in succession by diverse peoples, the newcomers often replacing or displacing the previous inhabitants. This process is both ancient, in fact older than humanity, and recent, in fact still continuing.

The expansion of the European peoples into the Americas beginning in 1492 was part of this process. This expansion displaced the indigenous Amerindian peoples in those areas where their population density was low, such as North America, but in those areas where their population density was high, such as Mexico and Central America, or regions which were less accessible, such as the mountain and forest regions of South America, they remained predominant. The European expansion into what became known as Latin America (the lands south of the Rio Grande) was undertaken primarily by the Mediterranid peoples of Spain and Portugal, assisted by a large-scale importation of slaves from the Congoid peoples of sub-Saharan Africa. The settlement and development of North America (the United States and Canada) from 1600 to 1880 was, with one significant exception, a Nordish enterprise. That significant exception was the diversion of about five percent of the total commerce in Congoid slaves into the southern English colonies.

That exception was a fateful one, for it transplanted into the new Nordish homeland a population element which the Nordish race could not assimilate without effectively destroying or negating itself. This action violated the vital and primary Nordish racial interest in a racially homogeneous all-Nordish country — the condition of reproductive isolation from unassimilable racial elements required for long-term Nordish racial preservation. It also divided the developing new Nordish nation into two different socio-economic systems, a difference based on — and caused by — the presence of Africans in the South and their absence in the North. The North developed as an essentially monoracial all-Nordish society and economic system similar to the Nordish homelands in Europe. In the South the establishment of African slavery, and the resulting presence of Africans as a third of the population, caused the social and economic development of the region to be distorted, to deviate from the normal and natural course of monoracial development and follow a course of multiracial development different from the North and the Nordish homelands. This was the beginning of the race problem, a problem whose solution was never adequately addressed, so it continued and grew and eventually expanded into the racial crisis now threatening the whole Nordish race.

The social and economic differences that developed between the North and the South because of the African presence resulted in deeply divisive disagreement and strife. Their conflicting interests were often expressed in political, philosophical or legalistic terms (such as the decentralized “States Rights” and sectionalist “Southern Rights” concepts championed by the South, versus the unified “sea to shining sea” and “manifest destiny” Nordish-American nationalism that was growing in favor in the North), but the ultimate source of their differences was the African presence which caused the socio-economic development of the biracial South to diverge from that of the monoracial North. For Thomas Jefferson and other American leaders of the first “four score and seven years” the racial problem was a “firebell in the night” which caused them great concern for the future of both their race and their country. Their values of human rights and liberty required that the Africans be freed, while their desire for racial preservation required that the races be separated to assure reproductive isolation. [Note 1]

The race problem was never resolved in a manner that satisfied both these concerns. The race problem began with slavery, having been brought to America by slavery, and until the Civil War it remained essentially identical with slavery. The northern states did not permit slavery, and as a result were almost totally Nordish in population. (Illinois and Ohio did not permit even free Congoids within their borders.) The essence of the division, and divisiveness, afflicting the young nation is expressed by the terms used to denote the different factions — “free states” and “slave states.” The people of the monoracialist, all-Nordish free states of the North sought to prevent the expansion of the race problem — and thus increase the territory occupied exclusively by Northern Europeans — by opposing the spread of slavery, and thus of the Congoid population, to new territories. The dominant slave-owning class of the Southern slave states sought to open up new territory for the expansion of their biracial socio-economic system, but were frustrated by monoracialist Northern resistance and felt threatened by the growing sentiment in the North in favor of an all-Nordish nation.

The proposals for the abolition of slavery favored by Jefferson, Lincoln and other early American leaders included plans for the compensation of the former owners and the resettlement of the freed African slaves outside of the United States, resulting in an almost monoracial Nordish-American nation. In the minds of most people in the north, the two goals of ending slavery and achieving a racially homogeneous all-Nordish nation — by the resettlement of the Congoid population in a country of their own — were inseparable. Each was presumed to be linked to the other. In fact, it can be said that the abolition of slavery was generally regarded as less of an end in itself than as a means to the end of achieving a monoracial Nordish nation. The one was a necessary step to the realization of the other. [Note 2]

If the abolition of slavery had been accomplished peacefully by Southerners and Northerners acting together to serve the vital and best interests of their race — that is, separation from other races combined with the unity of the Nordish-American people to create a racially homogeneous all-Nordish nation — it is likely that it would have been coupled with a long term solution to the race problem. But because the members of the dominant slave-owning class in the South were more concerned with their economic interests than with the best interests of their race (this and similar economic interests being a persistent and important cause of the race problem) divisive sectionalism obstructed the opportunity for the North and South to work together to solve the problem. This tragic failure of racial leadership eventually led to the attempt by the South to dissolve the union of the Nordish race in America by secession. This followed the election of Abraham Lincoln to the presidency in 1860, which made it clear that no further expansion of slavery and the Congoid population would be permitted, and that the monoracialist free states would therefore soon outnumber the biracialist slave states. In the traumatic experience of war which followed — as the North sought to preserve the Union, and the unity, of the Nordish-American people — vital racial concerns and interests were forgotten in the escalation of partisan passions and the single-minded pursuit of victory, and the war which began with the North attempting to secure the vital racial interests of the Nordish population was largely transformed into a crusade to promote the interests of the African-American population. As a result, the abolition of slavery was accomplished without compensation for the owners and, most crucially, without resettlement of the freed African population in a separate country of their own, and the opportunity to solve the race problem at an early stage was lost. Consequently, the race problem remained unresolved and continued to grow. It also became more complicated.

Before the Civil War the race problem was essentially limited to the southern states and was mainly a simple matter of Nordish and Congoid, or “white” and “black.” The white population, and immigration, was almost all Nordish (in fact almost all Central Nordish from northwest Europe), and the small minority that was not Nordish was mostly Alpine. Under the naturalization law of 1790, which remained in effect until the mid-1960s, only “free white persons” could become naturalized citizens of the United States. Non-whites could only become citizens by birth. “U.S. immigration policy, from 1792 until the 1960s, sought to limit immigration to whites. The argument that the American tradition is one of welcoming all ethnic and racial groups is simply false; that tradition is only a generation old.” [Note 3]

After the Civil War the race problem expanded when large numbers of Congoids began to migrate from the south to the north, and it became more complicated after 1890 when the majority of immigrants became non-Nordish. Prior to 1890 immigration was overwhelmingly from the Central Nordish countries of northwest Europe, but the massive “new immigration” from 1890 to 1924 was mostly non-Nordish. Southern and Eastern Europeans were only 13% of the immigrants in 1882, but 81% in 1907. Some of the immigrants from these regions were Peripheral Nordish, but the majority consisted of Mediterranids (the predominant element among the immigrants from Italy and Sicily) and Armenids (the predominant element among the Ashkenazic Jews from eastern Europe). Many of the new immigrants promoted the values of multiracialism and “The Melting Pot” (the title of a 1909 play by Israel Zangwill), but most Nordish Americans opposed multiracialism, and enacted into law the National Origins Act of 1924 that greatly reduced non-Nordish immigration — and largely stabilized the racial proportions of the population — for the next forty years. This limited act of Nordish racial self-preservation temporarily slowed the growth of the race problem, but it was too little and too late to stop it, and did nothing to solve the problem that already existed.

In his 1945 book, Swedish sociologist Gunnar Myrdal called the race problem “The American Dilemma.” A dilemma implies the absence of a solution. But over the next two decades racial nihilism rose to a position of ideological dominance and provided its solution to the dilemma — the rejection of all racial preservationist concerns and the promotion of racial negation and destruction by intermixture. It achieved this dominant position not only in the multiracial United States, but also in the monoracial Nordish lands of Europe, Canada and Australia, which were strongly influenced by the U.S. model to regard multiracialism as an essential part of a modern and advanced society. The result was the promotion of multiracialism in all the Nordish countries — the practical consequence of which was large-scale non-Nordish immigration into almost all the Nordish homelands and the end of the reproductive isolation required for Nordish racial preservation.

To the author’s knowledge, no sociological or historical study has been done that documents, describes or explains the process of multiracialization now occurring in the Nordish countries: how it began; who made the decisions; to what extent the course or consequences of multiracialization were intended or planned, considered or foreseen; statistical documentation of the numbers and racial identity of the immigrants; and the extent of interracial mixture, marriage and adoption. Such a study would face problems, as the governments of the Nordish countries undergoing this process have seemed reluctant to collect or publish accurate information about it, and until they are more forthcoming reliable information on the subject will remain difficult to obtain. But even without such a study, it is clear that the indigenous Nordish populations as a whole had and have little choice in the matter, were and are not well informed about it, and were and are largely unaware of its consequences — the racial transformation of the ancient Nordish homelands through the gradual displacement and replacement of the indigenous Nordish populations by increasingly non-Nordish populations. It is also clear that whereas the motives behind the earlier stages in the process of multiracialization were almost wholly economic — the desire of large and influential business interests for a plentiful supply of cheap labor, from African slaves and Chinese railroad workers to Southern European factory laborers and Mexican farm hands — the motives behind the greatly expanded multiracialization process that began in the 1950s included a significant, and increasingly predominant, ideological component, as the multiracialization of the Nordish homelands and its destructive consequences for the Nordish race became an end in itself under the rule of the ever more powerful racial nihilist ideology.

Large-scale non-Nordish immigration into Britain began in 1957, ironically as the British themselves withdrew from their former non-Nordish colonies [ First_Immigrants.JPG]. In the early 1960s large numbers of non-Nordish immigrants and “guest workers” began to enter the Nordish countries on the European continent. In the U.S. the Immigration Reform Act of 1965 reopened the door to large-scale non-Nordish immigration — with the result that the massive post-1970 immigration has been over 90% non-Nordish — while the increased racial “integration” promoted by the Civil Rights movement greatly increased the extent of interracial contact and intermixture, as it abolished much of the racial separation (or “segregation”) which had provided a limited form of reproductive isolation. [Note 4] In 1967 Canada — an almost monoracial Nordish country — reformed its immigration laws to encourage non-Nordish immigration as it actively sought to transform itself into a multiracial society. In the 1970s non-Nordish immigrants began to enter Scandinavia, and Australia abandoned its traditional “whites-only” immigration policy in favor of a “multiracial future” (by which is meant an East Asian, rather than Nordish, future). By the 1980s the race problem that had long been a uniquely American dilemma, limited to the United States, had grown into a racial crisis affecting almost all the Nordish peoples, violating their primary and vital interests in independence and the reproductive isolation necessary for their continued existence. [Note 5]

A number of different factors, other than racial nihilist ideology, contribute to this crisis of Nordish racial survival. One is certainly the relative economic well-being of the Nordish countries, which makes them very attractive to immigrants for economic reasons. Another is the “population explosion” in most of the non-Nordish countries, which greatly increases the demographic and economic pressures for immigration. Another is the relative vulnerability of the Nordish race to intermixture, resulting from its relatively low birthrate (actually below the replacement level since the early 1970s, and thus a crisis in itself), the fact that it is a small minority of humanity as a whole (less than 10% of the total world population and less than 5% of total world births), and, most uniquely, from the relative recessiveness of the various traits in its genetic ensemble, which generally causes them to be negated or severely diminished by intermixture.

The non-ideological factors are likely to become even less favorable for the Nordish race in the foreseeable future. By 2050 the world population is projected to increase to 10.2 billion, with over 90% of that growth in the “less developed” countries, while the Nordish race will actually decrease in absolute as well as relative terms (less than 5% of the total 2050 world population and less than 2% of total 2050 world births). As a result, the increasingly less-Nordish formerly Nordish countries are expected to face increasing waves of non-Nordish immigration as millions of refugees flee the poverty of their native countries. [Note 6]

Tables I and II show the racial changes that have occurred in the composition of the U.S. population since 1880 and the changes, based on current trends, that are projected to occur between 1992 and 2050.
To describe the situation in biological terms, the habitat of the Nordish race is being invaded by competing life-forms or races. [Note 7] If the different races do not interbreed the competition will be decided solely by numbers, in which the non-Nordish races, both in their potential numbers of immigrants and higher birthrates, enjoy a decisive advantage. If they do interbreed — and it should be assumed that different races which cohabit the same territory will eventually interbreed — the race whose genetic traits are dominant will enjoy an advantage increasing the power of its numbers by a factor based on the extent of its genetic dominance over its interbreeding rivals. Because the distinctive ensemble of Nordish genetic traits is generally recessive compared to non-Nordish traits the effects of interbreeding tend to favor the non-Nordish races. Consequently, the ability of a Nordish population to assimilate non-Nordish elements without significant alteration or diminished distinctiveness of its racial identity and genetic traits is very limited. Even with members of the Alpine racial group, a ratio of six-to-one in favor of the Nordish population is required to achieve assimilation without significant alteration of its racial identity and traits. With other races higher ratios are required, each member of the non-Nordish element effectively accounting for multiple members of the Nordish element in the equation of intermixture. For the Nordish race the results of intermixture are clearly unfavorable, a grim mathematics of alteration, diminishment and extinction.

For the most part, the non-European races of humanity are not similarly threatened. Not only are their genetic traits more resistant to alteration or diminishment by intermixture, their demographic problems also tend to be the opposite of the Nordish race — excessive growth rather than decline. For the foreseeable future, the one billion-plus people of India (as of May, 2000), the 1.3 billion of China, and the soon-to-be one billion people of Africa and 700 million of Latin America, are not likely to be threatened by immigration from other regions or races. Their racial existence appears secure. The crisis of racial survival caused by racial nihilism and multiracialism is thus almost exclusively a Nordish crisis. What is actually foreseeable, given current trends, is the growth and expansion of the African, Asian and Latin American races into the homelands of the European peoples, especially the Nordish race, which will be gradually replaced by a mixed race of part-Nordish origin, with the Nordish proportion steadily diminishing as new waves of non-Nordish immigrants are continually added to the mixture.

In little more than three decades the countries of northwestern Europe (including Britain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, France, Switzerland, Austria, Denmark, Sweden and Norway) acquired populations of non-European immigrants that are too large for the native populations to assimilate without negating or destroying their racial identity. Yet given the fact that different human populations sharing the same territory do eventually interbreed, it must be assumed that they will attempt to assimilate these unassimilable elements, and in the process destroy themselves. If their commitment to multiracialism and racial nihilism remains unchanged, and recent demographic trends in immigration, differential birthrates and racial intermixture continue, one can project that by the year 2100 the remnants of the native populations of northwest Europe will be too small to constitute a viable continuation of their previous existence. They will be effectively extinct.

In a rare and unusually candid statement about this usually ignored or evaded process of Nordish extinction, a Dutch Minister of Education and Science stated:

I think that the Dutch will in the long run disappear. The [immigrant] ethnic groups’ population growth is much faster than that of the Dutch. It is obvious that this process will continue, even after the year 2100. This is the trend worldwide. The white race will in the long term become extinct. I don’t regard this as positive or negative. Apparently we are happy with this development. [Note 8]

The Nordish countries of northwestern Europe, North America and Australia are being transformed by the cumulative effects of non-Nordish immigration, differential birthrates, interracial adoption and intermixture into non-Nordish countries. Over the course of generations their Nordish populations will gradually become extinct as the diminishing remnants are blended into the mixed solution of the racial melting pot. According to the U.S. Endangered Species Act, which defines species as including subspecies, an endangered species is “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” A threatened species is “likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future.” By this standard the Nordish race is already endangered. [Note 9]

Extinction is a gradual process of racial destruction that occurs over a period of generations, with the cumulative amount of racial loss increasing in each generation until the process is complete. As part of this process the race undergoing extinction also suffers the loss of its political, social, cultural and economic independence, control over its own life and destiny, and the exclusive possession of its own homeland, nation, country or territory. As this process is conducted under racial nihilism, the race being dispossessed of its culture and country is first dispossessed of its sense of nationhood or national identity, the close historical association or identification between a particular population, the nation they formed and the country or homeland they occupied. Their racial and national identities are denied and taken from them by redefining them to be inclusive of other groups — in effect defining their identities out of existence, as if their identities must first be denied and destroyed before their right to exist is denied and they are destroyed. The rights of exclusive possession or ownership of a people or race to its homeland, heritage, peoplehood, nationhood and very identity are denied by asserting that immigrants of other races are part of that nation, belong to that people, and have a right to live in that country and share that identity as much as the historical racial population. [Note 10]

The cultural and ideological dominance of racial nihilism is now so strong that it is regarded as morally wrong (and perhaps illegal) for a Frenchman to assert that France belongs to the (indigenous) French, and that only the indigenous French should be described as French, or for an Englishman, Dutchman, German or Scandinavian to make a similar assertion of exclusive racial ownership of their ancestral homeland and national identity. Their peoplehood, nationhood, racial heritage, identity and ownership of their own countries are being denied and taken from them, and any opposition to this process is strongly condemned by the culturally and politically dominant elements that promote racial nihilism. Their countries are being lost as homelands for future generations of their race, as those generations are themselves being lost through the racial destruction that is part of the same process.

Various arguments are used to justify or rationalize the multiracialization of the Nordish world. In the United States, where it began, multiracialization has often been justified by the argument that America is “a nation of immigrants.” But this argument is merely an evasion of the fundamental issues and concerns of race, especially racial preservation and independence, and ignores the fact that, with the exception of the Congoids who were imported as slaves, the immigrants to America before 1890 were overwhelmingly Nordish, and gave the new country a distinctly Nordish racial identity. The “nation of immigrants” argument is really a confusing smokescreen to cover and promote the immigration of non-Nordish peoples into the Nordish homelands. While it was first and still most commonly used to justify non-Nordish immigration into the United States, it has also been used to legitimize non-Nordish immigration into Canada and Australia, where immigration was almost exclusively Nordish until recent decades, and even into Europe, where it is patently false as the indigenous European peoples have been there for 40,000 years. An example of the latter is the assertion by the French Interior Minister, Jean-Pierre Chevenement (as reported by the BBC on July 28, 2000)…”that Europe should be prepared to take in millions of migrants in the next 50 years to offset population decline….[and] that Europe, a land of immigration [emphasis added], will become a place where racial mixing occurs and public opinion needs to be enlightened and convinced.”

Another common argument for multiracialization is that immigrants of different races enrich or strengthen a country. But a people or race is not enriched or strengthened by the violation and loss of its independence, its control over its own life and destiny, and the conditions of reproductive isolation and separation required for its preservation and continued existence. Indeed, such a development must be regarded as the most severe form of impoverishment and enfeeblement that a race or people can suffer. If a country is identified with the people or race that has historically inhabited it (contrary to racial nihilist practice, which divorces a country or nation from any racial identification) then it also must be regarded as impoverished and weakened, rather than enriched and strengthened, by multiracial immigration. Similarly, it is argued that multiracialism represents progress or improvement. But again, no race can properly regard the violation and loss of the conditions it requires for continued life as progress or improvement.

Humanitarian arguments are also used to justify non-Nordish immigration into the Nordish homelands. But humanitarian assistance can be provided to non-Nordish peoples in their own homelands, a solution that would protect rather than violate the right of the Nordish peoples to their own countries and the conditions they require for continued life. It is also argued that democracy requires multiracialism, and that opposition to multiracialism is undemocratic, although democracy has long thrived in monoracial Nordish countries. Actually, “multiracial democracy” should itself be regarded as both undemocratic and as a contradiction in terms, as it denies the right of different peoples or races to self-determination or self-rule, to government of themselves, by themselves and for themselves, to independence, and even to existence, thus condemning them to “perish from the earth” rather than affirming their right to endure and be preserved. To the extent that the Nordish peoples accept the multiracialization of their countries they are accepting the denial of their own right to exist, sacrificing their ultimate or most vital interest — their continued life.

The following selections from a special report on race issues in the United Kingdom and elsewhere by Anthony Browne, posted on The Guardian Unlimited (the website of The Manchester Guardian) on September 3, 2000, are a rare instance of a mainstream news report that partially reveals the consequences of multiracialism, addressing the consequences of immigration and differential birthrates but ignoring the consequences of racial intermixture.

UK whites will be minority by 2100

Whites will be an ethnic minority in Britain by the end of the century. Analysis of official figures indicate that, at current fertility rates and levels of immigration, there will be more non-whites than whites by 2100. It would be the first time in history that a major indigenous population has voluntarily become a minority, rather than through war, famine or disease. Whites will be a minority in London by 2010.

In the early 1950s there were only a few tens of thousands of non-whites in the UK. By 1991 that had risen to 3 million – 6 per cent of the population. The population of ethnic minorities has been growing at between 2 and 4 per cent a year. Net immigration has been running at record levels, with 185,000 newcomers last year. Government forecasts suggest that immigration on its own will be responsible for half the growth of the British population over the next couple of decades.

New immigrants, who are on average younger than the population at large, also tend to have higher fertility rates. In contrast, the population of white British citizens is static. Their fertility rate is very low – at under 2 children per woman — and there is overall emigration of British citizens.

The analysis of the figures showed that if the population of ethnic minorities grows at 4 per cent a year, whites will become a minority before 2100. The demographer who made the calculation wished to remain anonymous for fear of accusations of racism.

The last days of a white worldWe are near a global watershed – a time when white people will not be in the majority in the developed world, Britain included. It was news and no news; the most significant milestone in one of the most profound changes to affect the US in the past century, and yet a non-event. Last week the US Census Bureau issued figures showing that non-hispanic whites made up 49.8 per cent of the population of California [probably about 75-80% of the "non-hispanic whites" are Nordish]. Anglo-Saxon whites are already a minority in Hawaii and the District of Columbia. Now they are an ethnic minority in the country’s most populous state, the one most usually identified with the American dream. ‘It’s my hope we can all see our state’s diversity as a cause for celebration and not consternation,’ said California’s lieutenant governor, Cruz Bustamente, a Latino.

As recently as 1970, eight out of 10 Californians were white. Fuelled by immigration at its highest rate since the start of the last century, and higher fertility rates, the Asian and Latino populations of California have risen by almost a third since 1990. At the same time, with limited immigration and low birth rates, the population of non-hispanic whites has fallen by 3 per cent. By 2040, hispanics are expected to be the overall majority in the state. Where California goes, the rest of America is predicted to follow. At present 72 per cent of the US population is non-hispanic whites; the US Census Bureau predicts they will become a minority between 2055 and 2060.

The shifting sands of the US reflect wider — and highly controversial — changes elsewhere in the world. It is an area in which few demographers dare to tread for fear of being accused of racism. ‘You cannot quote me – a word out of place and I get crapped on from a very great height,’ said one academic. ‘Whatever you say you are deemed racist’.

[A]round the world, whites are falling as a proportion of population. The United Nations collects and produces a vast array of statistics on population, but produces none relating to race or ethnic origin. Indeed few countries collect their own figures on ethnicity – in Europe, only the UK and the Netherlands do. However, the UN’s State of the World Population 1999 predicted that 98 per cent of the growth in the world’s population by 2025 will occur in lesser developed regions, principally Africa and Asia. The most significant reason for this is lower birth rates in rich countries: in 61 countries, mainly the rich ones, people are no longer having enough babies to replace themselves.

In its World Population Profile 1998, the US Census Bureau predicted that by the second decade of this century all the net gain in world population will be in developing countries. ‘The future of human population growth has been determined, and is being determined, in the world’s poorer nations,’ it said. The global centre of gravity is changing. In 1900 Europe had a quarter of the world’s population, and three times that of Africa; by 2050 Europe is predicted to have just 7 per cent of the world population, and a third that of Africa. The aging and declining populations of predominantly white nations have prompted forecasts of — and calls for — more immigration from the young and growing populations of developing nations to make up the shortfall.

Last year net immigration to Britain reached 185,000, an all-time record. The number of ethnic minority citizens has risen from a few tens of thousands in the 1950s, to more than 3 million — or around 6 per cent of the total population. While the number of whites is virtually static, higher fertility and net immigration means the number from ethnic minorities is growing by 2 to 3 per cent a year. One demographer, who didn’t want to be named for fear of being called racist, said: ‘It’s a matter of pure arithmetic that, if nothing else happens, non-Europeans will become a majority and whites a minority in the UK. That would probably be the first time an indigenous population has voluntarily become a minority in its historic homeland.’

Lee Jasper, race relations adviser to the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, predicted a similar future, telling The Observer : ‘Where America goes, Europe follows 30 years later. There is a potential for whites to become a minority in some European countries.’ In Britain, that is almost certain to happen in London, and in the relatively near future. ‘At the moment ethnic minorities are about 40 per cent in London. The demographics show that white people in London will become a minority by 2010,’ said Jasper. ‘We could have a majority black Britain by the turn of the century.’

British National Party chairman Nick Griffin said: ‘I don’t think there’s any doubt that within this century, white people will be a minority in every country in the world.’ For Griffin, however, it is a major cause of alarm: ‘Every people under the sun have a right to their place under the sun, and the right to survive. If people predicted that Indians would be a minority in India in 2100, everyone would be calling it genocide.’ Yasmin Alibhai-Brown of the Foreign Policy Centre, who arrived in London from Uganda in 1972, said such fears are basically racist: ‘Only white people worry about this. She added: ‘There is a white panic every time one part of their world seems to be passing over to anyone else. But it’s foolish to panic about it. So what if we do become a majority? What difference does it make?’

Jasper said the concerns of the British National Party are based on outdated ideas. ‘The racial mix of nations changes all the time. There is no way that ethnicity of blood can be tied to a specific geographic place in a global world. You can no longer look at ethnic states, saying that Germany is Anglo-Saxon and so on.’ Jasper felt the process would strengthen Britain. ‘Diversity strengthens a country. It makes it more exciting. We have hundreds of languages spoken, when we go out to eat we never eat English, we eat Thai or French or Indian. It makes London a very cool place to live and work.’

Back in California, in a land built by immigrants, Bustamente put a positive spin on the end of the white majority: ‘If there are no majorities, then there’s no minorities.’ In Europe, with its 40,000-year-old indigenous white population, the rise of a non-white majority may not be greeted with such equanimity.

No country, society, people or nation can be both Nordish and multiracial. It can either be one or the other, but not both. The movement toward one is movement away from the other. Nordish America is becoming the America of the past. If present demographic trends continue, the America of the future will not be a Nordish America. America will have a non-Nordish future if the dominant proponents of multiracialism succeed in realizing their dream. The future prospects for the Nordish countries of northwestern Europe, Canada and Australia are essentially the same. If present trends continue they too will have a non-Nordish future, and their Nordish peoples, like the Nordish Americans, will all too soon “belong to the ages.”

Every species or race requires a habitat with the conditions needed to sustain its life. A land or habitat that lacks the conditions needed to sustain life, where life can only diminish, lessen and wither to the end of extinction and death, is a wasteland. The Nordish race requires a monoracial habitat, providing it with the condition of reproductive isolation essential to sustain its life. For the Nordish race, a multiracial society is a wasteland, an environment where the Nordish race cannot continue to live, where its life cannot be sustained, where its freedom, independence and control over its own life and future are denied, and where, in the end, it will lose its very existence. Again, a society or country cannot be both Nordish and multiracial, cannot have both a Nordish future and a multiracial future, only one or the other. There is no future for the Nordish race in a multiracial society. There is no future for the Nordish peoples in any homeland or habitat, whether in America, Australia, Britain, Scandinavia, the Netherlands, Germany or elsewhere, that is multiracialized into a wasteland incapable of sustaining Nordish life.

Yet multiracialization is what is happening. The Nordish habitats are being systematically destroyed by their transformation into multiracial wastelands that are no longer able to sustain Nordish life. And this is being done knowingly, willfully, deliberately and intentionally by the dominant proponents of racial nihilism, who have effectively sentenced the Nordish race to death by multiracialization. Opposition or dissent to this racial death sentence, or advocacy of the rights of the Nordish race to life, liberty and independence, is condemned as immoral and unworthy of consideration by the culturally and politically dominant racial nihilist elements. They celebrate the multiracialization of the formerly Nordish homelands and rejoice in the unfolding process of Nordish dispossession, replacement and extinction. [Note 11]

The multiracialization of the Nordish countries is so widely supported and promoted by the dominant elements in the major political parties, the communications and entertainment media, the educational establishment and the various religious denominations that it is occurring without significant opposition, debate or discussion of the consequences. Indeed, this support is typically of such passionate intensity as to be incapable of objective discussion and dogmatically intolerant of any dissenting opinion. The source of this intensity can, to a large extent, be attributed to the influence of so-called “Left-wing” ideologies, which have long promoted a nihilistic version of egalitarianism that would eliminate all human differences or distinctions. In the nineteenth century the “Left” identified the aristocracy and “bourgeois capitalists” as the “class enemies,” “exploiters” or “oppressors” to be overthrown by revolution and destroyed. In the twentieth century it increasingly targeted the Nordish race as the enemy, as an oppressive and evil racial elite that must be overthrown by any means necessary. Consistent with this view, the “Left” has become distinctly and particularly anti-Nordish in a sense that exceeds the general anti-racial values of racial nihilism, and this bias has caused it to single-out the Nordish race for marginalization, devaluation, dispossession and extinction. By the end of the 1960s this identification and bias had become explicit, as illustrated by the following account concerning the militant Weatherman faction of the Students for a Democratic Society:

I remember going to the last above ground Weatherman convention, and sitting in a room and the question that was debated was, “Was it or was it not the duty of every good revolutionary to kill all newborn white babies.” At that point it seemed like a relevant framing of an issue, the logic being, “Hey look, through no fault of their own these white kids were going to grow up to be part of an oppressive racial establishment internationally, and so really your duty is to kill newborn white babies.” I remember one guy kind of tentatively and apologetically suggesting that that seemed like it may be contradictory to the larger humanitarian aims of the movement, and being kind of booed down. [Note 12]

As this account indicates, by the late 1960s various radical elements explicitly desired the nonexistence, destruction or extinction of the Nordish race, and were even willing to consider violent means to achieve this genocidal goal. Fortunately, to date there has been no actual attempt to destroy the Nordish race by killing its newborn babies. Instead, the Nordish race is being destroyed by other means, chief among which is the multiracialization of its homelands, which violates its right to exist by depriving it of the condition of reproductive isolation it needs to continue its existence. By this means the not so distant future existence of the Nordish race, and Nordish babies, is preemptively negated. In fact, although the ideological position of the currently dominant elements is not as explicitly anti-Nordish as that of the radical Weathermen, its long term goals and the long term effects of its policies are essentially the same — the replacement, dispossession and effective extinction of the Nordish race in all of its homelands.

With regard to the Nordish race the dominant political and cultural elements are in complete agreement. They are united in their opposition to its preservation and independence and in their denial of its vital rights and interests, including its right to exist, as demonstrated by their opposition to the conditions of reproductive isolation and separation it requires for continued existence. If it is assumed that the dominant elements are aware that different races which share the same territory eventually interbreed, and are also aware of the destructive consequences of such intermixture for the Nordish race, then the multiracialization of the Nordish countries conducted under their direction indicates that they are, in fact, anti-Nordish in the most profound sense — deliberately, knowingly and insistently inflicting on the Nordish race conditions of life that are causing its destruction. By the definition of the United Nations Genocide Treaty their policies could, and should, be described as genocide. [Note 13]

The general passivity and lack of opposition among the Nordish population with regard to multiracialism and its destructive consequences can be attributed to various causes. Certainly the common human desire to conform to the dominant value system or ideology — which is currently racial nihilism — plays an important role. So does ignorance, the lack of knowledge or awareness of what is happening, of its long term effects or consequences, and of alternatives. Much of this ignorance is certainly willful, as many do not want to know either what is happening or its consequences. Thus many engage in denial when informed of the facts, or attempt to evade the issue. Many others are intellectually and emotionally committed to the cause of multiracialism and intermixture, some to the extent of actually desiring its destructive effects on their race. Another important cause is a simple lack of caring, a seeming obliviousness by many people to racial concerns and interests which effectively consigns their race to oblivion. (A similar attitude with regard to the natural environment long permitted its desecration and destruction and hindered its preservation and conservation.)

The ignorance, denial, and lack of awareness, caring and concern on this matter can be partly attributed to the fact that the process of racial replacement and destruction by multiracialism is gradual, occurring over a period of generations, and thereby escapes the attention of those whose perspective is limited to more short range or immediate concerns. But more important is the fact that it is a subject largely ignored, evaded, repressed or denied by the dominant political, cultural and media elements, or portrayed as a morally improper matter for caring or concern. There has long been an air of unreality in the manner in which the dominant elements have evaded the consequences of multiracialism, hiding the destructive truth behind an oft-repeated mantra of fictions, distortions, denials and deceptive platitudes. [Note 14]

There is also a prevailing state of disorientation among the Nordish peoples regarding their racial identity and interests. The Nordish race has suffered an extensive alienation of the affections of its members, many of whom have been separated from their natural affiliation and allegiance, loyalty and love, by the dominant anti-Nordish influences in the culture and educational institutions, which often portray the Nordish race as collectively evil and guilty of misdeeds against other races, and therefore unworthy of existence. Under these anti-Nordish influences large numbers of the Nordish population have been turned against their race, against its legitimate rights and interests, against the conditions it requires for continued existence, and against its preservation and continued life. The resulting racial dysfunction greatly weakens the ability of the Nordish peoples to affirm the value and importance of their existence and assert their vital rights and interests.

But perhaps the most important factor in the seeming indifference and passivity of the Nordish race in the face of its unfolding dispossession and destruction is hopelessness, the feeling that nothing can be done, that the process of racial destruction is inevitable and resistance is futile, and that there is no acceptable alternative to the current racial nihilist trend. This feeling of hopelessness is fostered by the dominant racial nihilist elements, which portray the current trends that are causing the destruction of the Nordish race as inevitable, and claim there is no alternative — no other choice — that is morally tolerable or, in other words, that the only alternatives are those offered by the immoral forms of racism.

This lack of alternatives and choices is in part a legacy of reductionist and extremist logic, which denies the possibility of another course between the two destructive extremes of racial nihilism and immoral racism, equating all pro-racial sentiments and ideas with the latter. It is also a legacy of the anti-Nordish bias of the dominant elements, which has fostered a racial double-standard in the culture that is highly prejudiced against even the most vital and fundamental Nordish rights and interests, regarding their assertion as inherently evil and violative of the rights and interests of other races. The result is an intellectual void or vacuum among the Nordish population on the subject of race, empty of all thoughts and feelings that affirm and promote racial life and continued existence. It is a void in which racial love and caring are not permitted to exist. It is the void of racial nihilism.

The apparent lack of morally acceptable alternatives lends credibility to the claim by the dominant racial nihilist elements that multiracialism is inevitable. To the extent that this claim is accepted all opposition to multiracialism, or consideration of possible alternatives, is regarded as futile, and serious discussion, debate and dissent are effectively preempted and suppressed. The claim of inevitability is a common propaganda device to discourage and suppress resistance, thereby turning wishful thinking into a self-fulfilling reality. It was a favorite propaganda tool of the promoters of communism. It is also a favorite myth of those who promote the racial nihilist dream of “One-World, One-People, One-Race,” to be achieved through the racially destructive effects of multiracialism. But multiracialism and its destructive consequences are no more inevitable than communism. Contrary to the claims of such ideologies, the future is not predetermined. [Note 15]

In Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol , when Ebenezer Scrooge saw the deadly consequences of his current direction and course he asked the Ghost of the Future, “Are these the shadows of the things that will be, or are they shadows of the things that may be, only? Men’s courses will foreshadow certain ends, to which, if persevered in, they must lead. But if the courses be departed from, the ends will change….Assure me that I yet may change these shadows you have shown me, by an altered life!” He believed there were alternatives, that there was still hope for a different future if he changed direction and altered the course of his life.

So it is with the Nordish race. The certain ends foreshadowed by the trends described in this work, the future indicated by the demographic projections, and the deadly consequences for the Nordish race if the present course is persevered in or continued, are not what must be. They are not the inevitable future, only what will be if the present course and direction is continued. The present course leads to Nordish destruction, loss of independence and racial death. If the direction is changed, altered or departed from, a different future, a future of Nordish preservation, independence, continued life and existence, is possible. That would be the future of the Racial Compact.

If we set our course in the direction of the recognition of racial rights, affirming the value of racial existence and the importance of human racial diversity — not just of some races but of all — a “New World Order” of peaceful racial coexistence, of the different races of humanity sharing the earth together, respecting the right of each to continued existence and independence within the secure borders of its own homelands, would be realized. It would be a true solution to the racial dilemma that has troubled the Nordish race almost from the beginning of its expansion beyond its original North European homeland.

The racial dilemma is no longer recognized as such by the dominant racial nihilist elements, as they no longer recognize racial existence and life as something to be valued, preserved and continued, but as something to be denied and negated in pursuit of the universalist ideal of a unified world and uniform humanity. Toward that end they promote multiracialism and its inevitable genocidal consequences for the Nordish race, reducing it to the nothingness of extinction through racial intermixture and replacement. But contrary to their beliefs, the nonexistence of the Nordish race would not make the world a better place, but a much worse and poorer place. The loss of the Nordish race would be a tragedy of cosmic proportions, eternally diminishing and impoverishing the future of humanity. Fortunately, change is possible. There is an alternative to the destructive solutions offered by both racial nihilism and the immoral forms of racism, a solution that would make the world safe for human racial diversity — the preservationist solution of the Racial Compact.

Notes

1. Or, as Jefferson wrote in his Autobiography , “Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people [the Congoids] are to be free; nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government.” And in his Notes on the State of Virginia , “When freed, he [the Congoid] is to be removed beyond the reach of mixture.” Quoted in Nathaniel Weyl and William Marina, American Statesmen on Slavery and the Negro (Arlington House, 1971), pp. 71 and 90. Throughout his life Jefferson’s thoughts were centered on the…”single project of preserving the purity of the Anglo-American race. Jefferson was obsessed, in particular, by the fear that his precious Anglo-Saxon nation would be corrupted by intermixture with nonwhites. Fear of miscegenation was perhaps the most consistent aspect of his thought, from youth to old age.” Michael Lind, The Next American Nation (The Free Press, 1995), p. 370.

2. Throughout the North, even the staunchest opponents of slavery tended to believe, like Jefferson, that the slaves, once emancipated, should leave the country. Typical was Harriet Beecher Stowe, the author of Uncle Tom’s Cabin , who wanted to return the freed slaves to Africa and thereby open up the South to increased Nordish settlement. James Monroe and John Tyler were among the antebellum American presidents who advocated plans for the emancipation of the American Congoid population coupled with their repatriation to Africa or resettlement in some other separate homeland. The cost of compensating their owners, and their transportation to their new home, would be provided by the sale of government owned Western lands. Another president, James Madison, became president of the American Colonization Society, which was organized for the purpose of removing the Congoid population from the nation, and included in its membership (among other prominent Americans) such luminaries as Henry Clay, Andrew Jackson, Daniel Webster, Stephen A. Douglas, Francis Scott Key, Winfield Scott, John Marshall and Roger B. Taney. In its publication, The African Repository , it spoke for the consensus of racially-responsible American opinion and advocated the emancipation of all slaves coupled with the deportation of the Congoid population to Africa or some other suitable country. These efforts were opposed by the slave-owning planter oligarchy of the South, whose most notable spokesmen were John C. Calhoun and Jefferson Davis.

Abraham Lincoln, like Jefferson an advocate of both freedom and geographical separation for the American Congoid population, recognized that monoracial conditions of reproductive isolation are required if racial intermixture is to be prevented, stating, “A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation….The enterprise [the resettlement of the American Congoid population in a separate country of their own] is a difficult one, but where there is a will there is a way….Let us be brought to believe it is morally right…and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be.” Speech of June 26, 1857. Frederick Douglass, the most prominent African-American leader of Lincoln’s time, who met with him on several occasions, said Lincoln…”was preeminently the white man’s president, entirely devoted to the welfare of the white man.” Quoted in Weyl and Marina, p. 169. On August 14, 1862, Lincoln addressed a delegation of Congoid leaders in the White House and told them of his plan to resettle the African-American population outside the territory of the United States, specifying Central America. In this he was reflecting the sentiments of the great majority of Nordish-Americans. When this plan foundered on the unwillingness of the Central American countries to accept the African-American population, Lincoln in early 1863 proposed a plan…”to remove the whole colored race into Texas, there to establish a republic of their own.” Weyl and Marina, pp. 211-229. This proposal is clearly inconsistent with Lincoln’s primary war goal of preserving the Union if the Union is defined in territorial terms, but if the Union that Lincoln and the North were striving to preserve is defined in racial terms, as the Union of the Nordish-American people, it is perfectly consistent.

3. Lind, The Next American Nation , p. 228. “[T]he basic conception of the American people as a branch of the Anglo-Saxon tribe, whose members remained part of a single race…was the conception of American identity shared by most of the Founding Fathers…and generations of later American leaders….The idea that the United States is or should be ‘a nation of immigrants,’ not only non-Germanic but nonwhite, would have struck most Americans before World War II as bizarre.” Ibid ., p. 19. Anglo-America defined its… “national community as the Anglo-Saxon race….To be an American in Anglo-America…was to be an Anglo-Saxon (or Teuton) in race….Commitment to political principles…was less important…than membership in a particular race….[W]hen the framers of the federal Constitution and their successors in the first half of the nineteenth century spoke of the American people, they meant white Americans of English descent, or immigrants from the British Isles and the Germanic countries…who had assimilated to the Anglo-American norm.” Ibid ., p. 27.

4. “[D]uring the past two decades, America has produced the greatest variety of hybrid households in the history of the world….The huddled masses have already given way to the muddled masses….Over a period of roughly two decades, the number of interracial marriages in the U.S. has escalated from 310,000 to more than 1.1 million….The incidence of births of mixed-race babies has multiplied 26 times as fast as that of any other group.” Jill Smolowe, “Intermarried With Children,” Time , Special Issue on “American Diversity” (Fall, 1993), p. 64. When the popular press, or the U.S. Census Bureau, refers to interracial mixture they are usually referring to mixture between different subspecies.

5. The racial transformation of Canada since 1967, like most other Nordish countries, has been rapid and profound. The subject, usually avoided as too sensitive for public discussion, was addressed somewhat indirectly in late 1993 by Jean Chretien, the newly elected Prime Minister of Canada, when he was asked by journalist David Brinkley if he agreed with predictions that Vancouver would be an “Oriental [East Asian] city in about ten years or less.” He replied,

Oh, apparently Vancouver will grow very fast….And of course, there’s a lot of people from Asia who are becoming Canadian immigrants and like to locate in Vancouver. I was in a school this week and probably half of the students that I was talking to were looking oriental, but of course, good Canadian citizens. You know, the mix of population is changing in Canada quite rapidly. The French and English component is reducing very fast in relation to all the newcomers….I welcome that, it’s given a flavor to Canada that’s pretty good.

This Week With David Brinkley , #630, ABC telecast, Nov. 21, 1993.

In the early 1990s, 250,000 immigrants were entering Canada legally each year, of whom 48% (120,000) were from East Asia, 16% from Africa and the Middle East, and 15% from Latin America. The Miami Herald (March 11, 1994), p. 16A. In proportion to its population of 26.8 million (1992), this level of immigration is about double the U.S. rate.

6. “War, poverty, and oppression are driving people into Western Europe in unprecedented numbers. The region receives more than two million immigrants a year, almost triple the influx into the United States.” “Europe Faces an Immigrant Tide,” National Geographic , Vol. 183, No. 5 (May 1993), p. 102.

“As the better-off families of the northern hemisphere decide that having only one or two children is sufficient, they may not recognize that they are in a small way vacating future space to faster growing ethnic groups both inside and outside their national boundaries. But that is, in fact, what they are doing.” Paul Kennedy, Preparing for the Twenty-First Century (Random House, 1993), p. 45. The population explosion is occurring in Africa, Latin America and Asia. “In 1950 Africa’s population was half of Europe’s, by 1985 it had drawn level (at about 480 million each), and by 2025 it is expected to be three times Europe’s (1.58 billion to 512 million).” Ibid ., p. 24. (Africa’s population projection allows for 40 million AIDS deaths.) Also, perhaps 50 million of those 512 million projected inhabitants of Europe in 2025 will themselves be of African ancestry. Between 1960 and 1993 the African population grew from 281 million to 650 million. In 1960 the average Kenyan woman had 6.2 children, in 1980 8.2 children. Ibid ., p. 218. In 1960 the Latin American population was 210 million, in 2025 it is expected to be 762 million, with 150 million in Mexico. Ibid ., p. 219. From 1985-1990 China’s birthrate was 2.4, India’s 4.3. China and India are each expected to have populations of 1.5 billion by 2025. Ibid ., p. 169. Since the early 1970s the Nordish birthrate has been about 1.8 per woman. The replacement rate is 2.1. Kennedy discusses the racial fears and anxieties caused by relative demographic decline, such as the fear of being overwhelmed by large-scale immigration, the fear that one’s race will be altered through intermixture, and anxiety based on the belief that one’s racial group is special and must be preserved. Ibid ., pp 39-41. What he fails to mention is that these fears and anxieties are relevant only in multiracial societies where racial existence is not protected by separation, and that these issues and concerns are rendered moot by separation. Also, it is normal to regard whatever one loves, values or cares for — including one’s race — as “special,” and to desire its preservation, and to be fearful or anxious if its preservation is threatened. He asks, “Can Europe’s relatively rich societies insulate themselves from the demographic pressures building up elsewhere…?” Ibid ., p. 255. He could ask the same question of the Nordish populations of the United States, Canada and Australia. The answer is that they may not be able to insulate themselves from all the destructive effects of the population explosion on the planet, but they can insulate themselves from the racially destructive effects of immigration and intermixture if they choose to assert their rights to reproductive isolation, racial independence and preservation.

7. Much of the adversarial behavior, values and attitudes that have been described by the term “racism” are a natural result of the competition or struggle of different life-forms or races for supremacy or predominance in — or possession of — the same territory or habitat. This racial competition or struggle is ultimately a matter of survival or continued life. By definition it is a multiracial struggle which requires the presence of more than one race in the same territory, and can only occur in countries with multiracial populations. In a monoracial country this competition — and the adversarial behavior, values and attitudes of “racism” that are associated with it — have no reason to exist. The United States has experienced such competition — in various stages, forms and levels of complexity and intensity — from the beginning of its multiracial history. The other Nordish countries have only begun to experience it in the last few decades as they too have become multiracial societies.

8. From an interview in the Dutch magazine Vast & Zeker , quoted in the Dutch newspaper Algemeen Dagblad , December 11, 1989, p. 1, in an article entitled, “Ritzen: Blanke ras verdwijnt” (Ritzen: The White race disappears ). The article states, “Minister Ritzen (Education and Science) expects that the white race will eventually disappear. He is also pessimistic about the survival of the Dutch culture and the Dutch people. He reckons that because of the birthrate of foreigners, the Dutch will eventually disappear.”

Robert Schouten, a correspondent for the Dutch newspaper Haagsche Courant , echoes Ritzen’s prediction in his column “View From the Hague” in NATO’s Sixteen Nations , Vol. 36, No. 8/91 (August, 1991), p. 6, where he writes, “The one million inhabitants of the capital Amsterdam now include 23 percent of people of non-Dutch origin. By the year 2050 this will increase to 50 percent. Blond hair and blue eyes are on the way out.”

The mass non-Nordish immigration which began in the 1960s, and the resulting racial intermixture, are the proximate causes of this Nordish extinction. A cover article in Elsevier (Feb. 5, 1994, pp. 24-29), the Dutch version of Time magazine, states that 13% of the marriages in the Netherlands in 1992 were “mixed.” The issue’s cover features a hypothetical face of a racially-mixed woman (produced by a computer process called “morphing”) with the caption “the new Dutch person” (De Nieuw Kaaskop — literally, “the new Cheesehead,” a slang term for the Dutch Elsevier_kaaskop1.JPEG). The caption continues to state that, “A nation’s color is changing. There are more and more ‘doubleblood’ Dutch people, born of a mixed relationship.” The enthusiasm for this fatal development for the indigenous Nordish population is evident in the text of the lead-in to the article, “Dutch people with ‘doubleblood:’ beautiful examples of the human race. Soon there will be many more. Our nation slowly but surely changes color.” That this development extends beyond the Netherlands is well-known to the Dutch reading public, and the article views this trend positively, stating, “The result of all inter-ethnic relations are the New Dutch. But also the New English and the New Americans. All over the Western world this new, combined race is making great strides.” Unfortunately, those strides are being made at the expense of the continued existence of the indigenous Nordish peoples of the Western world.

9. In the early 1990s non-Nordish immigrant mothers accounted for over 10% of the children born in Germany and Sweden. Additionally, due to the loss of reproductive isolation caused by multiracial conditions, a significant proportion of the children born to native German and Swedish mothers are of mixed-race parentage and non-Nordish in their racial identity, but are counted as native German or Swedish births in government statistics. Also, many non-Nordish children are imported into the Nordish countries through adoption by Nordish parents, and are not counted as immigrants, but as part of the native population. Similarly, many non-Nordish women are imported into the Nordish countries as brides for Nordish men, and are not counted as part of the immigrant population. (For example, in one typical year — 1991 — some 2,200 German men married Filipino or Thai women.) Referring to the combination of the low native German birthrate with the large influx of alien immigrants into Germany, economist Bernd Hof is quoted as saying, “The Germans have decided to die out.” Carla Rapoport, “Them,” Fortune International , July 13, 1992, p. 22. The largest immigrant group in Germany are the Turks. In 1991 3,580 German women married Turkish immigrants.

When the author was in Scandinavia in 1989 he was struck by the presence of large numbers of non-Nordish children, either adopted, the children of non-Nordish immigrants, or the offspring of mixed pairings. At the Stockholm town hall he saw the wedding party of a Swedish woman and a Congoid immigrant, perhaps part of a futile and self-destructive effort to assimilate an alien element so genetically incompatible as to be effectively unassimilable. Even among a group of child folk dancers in Fälun, Sweden, one of the children was a Bangladeshi adoptee. In their own racial homelands, their own place in nature, these children are part of the continuation of life, but in the homeland and society of another race, where each one of them would effectively negate the recessive genetic traits of multiple times their own number of the indigenous children, they are agents of the destruction of life — in effect a soft form of genocide — rather than its renewal and continuation.

Perhaps nothing is more sacred to Swedish folk culture and symbolic of Swedish national identity than the annual Midsummer’s Day festival observed on June 23. The largest and most important observance is held at Skansen, a large park dedicated to Swedish folk tradition located on the heights overlooking Stockholm harbor. One ancient custom of this festival is the wearing of crowns of summer flowers by the girls and young women, a symbol of fertility, health and the renewal of life dating back to its pre-Christian origins [ midsummer.jpg]. The author attended this festival in 1995 and was charmed by the wholesome ambiance of folk costumes, music and dancing, all consistent with the original purpose of promoting racial identity and continuation, but was disturbed by the disproportionate numbers of mixed-race children that were present, whose parents seemed determined to thrust them into the center of the festival and thus into the center of Swedish national identity. In 1999 the Skansen observance of the festival was advertised throughout the Stockholm mass transit system with a poster of a mixed-race girl [ skansen99.JPG], symbolizing the triumph of racial nihilism over racial preservationism — and the ongoing process that is causing the destruction of the indigenous Swedish people by intermixture and replacement — at the very heart of Swedish national identity. Presumably, those who chose this girl for the ad considered her to represent the new future of Sweden, or at least the future that they want and intend to promote. Additional examples of this racially negating and destructive anti-Swedish selection process can be seen in the racially non-Swedish women chosen to be Miss Sweden 1998 ( MissSweden98.jpg), Miss Stockholm 1999 ( MissStockholm99.jpg) and the Stockholm television weathergirl ( s_cooard.jpg). One might wonder what Swedish girls and women they have replaced, and what Swedish future they are replacing. That is what needs to be seen, for which I provide examples from 1962 ( NatGeo4-63.JPG) and 1999 ( MissSweden99.jpg). This is what will be lost, unless the proper and natural state of Swedish racial existence is restored.

10. When the author was in Edinburgh, Scotland during the festival in 1986, he attended an exhibition at the Scottish National Gallery entitled “The Enterprising Scot.” One of the exhibits was a film defining the Scots which began with the word “nation” and then showed, in succession, an Asian Indian, a Congoid, an East Asian and a North European. The author naively expected these diverse types to be described as examples of different nations, with the last being an example of the Scottish nation, but then they were described as “Scotsmen all,” in a rather obvious attempt to deny the racial identity of the Scottish nation and promote multiracialism in accordance with the values and goals of racial nihilism.

11. As described by one enthusiastic celebrant of multiracialization, “Something is happening: we are becoming the first universal nation in history….if you believe, as the author does, that the American drama is being played out toward a purpose, then the non-Europeanization of America is heartening news of an almost transcendental quality.” Ben J. Wattenberg, The Good News is the Bad News is Wrong (Simon and Schuster, 1984), p. 84. Actually, this is “bad news” for those who favor Nordish preservation and independence, or those who believe that the existence of the Nordish race also has a purpose. It is “heartening news” (or “good news”) only for those who believe the purpose of America is the fulfillment of the racial nihilist dream of a “universal” (multiracial) society in which Nordish America, in fact the Nordish race and its existence, are “transcended,” or risen-above, replaced or relegated to the past — in fact destroyed — by a supposedly “higher” form of multiracial (non-Nordish) existence.

12. Doug McAdam, in “Picking Up the Pieces,” Part 5 of the PBS series Making Sense of the Sixties , televised January 23, 1991. It can be assumed that the term “white” as used in the above debate was defined narrowly so as to apply more or less exclusively to the Nordish race. Many of the attendees at that convention, such as Mr. McAdam, were themselves Nordish. Most of the others belonged to non-Nordish racial groups that are popularly referred to as “white,” and are so defined by the census bureau, but who almost certainly did not define themselves or their racial groups as “white” in the context of this debate. It should be noted that at the time of the above debate the Nordish birthrate was falling rapidly and within a few years (i.e., the mid-1970s) fell below the replacement level, where it has remained ever since. To the extent that many members of the Nordish race have been motivated to reject or restrict their reproduction because of anti-Nordish ideological or cultural influences, the two events can be regarded as related. (If present trends continue — or, as the Weathermen might say, if the wind keeps blowin’ in the same direction — very few Nordish babies will be born a century from now, making the above debate somewhat academic in the long term.)

13. According to the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, “genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group…(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.”

14. The air of unreality is especially pronounced on the subject of racial intermixture and its destructive effects on the Nordish race. It should be a fundamental axiom of sociology that different races interbreed under conditions of extensive contact, and that intermixture is consequently inevitable in a multiracial society, yet the reality of intermixture and its effects are still largely ignored, evaded or denied. Even such an avid advocate of multiracialism as Ben J. Wattenberg — whose “universal nation” (see note 10 above) is just another name for the multiracial society, or what Israel Zangwill before him termed the “melting pot” — evades the destructive, in fact genocidal, effects of multiracialism on the Nordish race.

Similarly, a special issue of Time magazine on the subject of “American Diversity” (Fall, 1993), which addresses “…the promise of the future: An America that’s the world’s first truly international nation” (a contradiction in terms), discusses intermixture but not its destructive consequences. On its cover is a hypothetical face of a racially-mixed woman (produced not by genetics, but by a computer process called “morphing”) with the caption “the new face of America.” [ Time_Fall_1993.JPG] Never mentioned is the fate of the Nordish race in America — extinction through intermixture — which this “new face” implies, and the rich variety of distinctively Nordish faces which will be lost through intermixture and replaced by the racially-mixed face. (The message and style of this special issue, altered to suit the Dutch situation and audience, were essentially repeated in the cover article of the Feb. 5, 1994 issue of Elsevier, the Dutch version of Time, discussed in note 8 above.)

15. It is true that some actions have inevitable consequences. This is a matter of cause and effect. For example, taking a sufficient dose of poison inevitably causes death. In the same sense it can be accurately stated that Nordish racial death is an inevitable consequence of a sufficient degree of racial intermixture, which itself is an inevitable consequence of multiracial social conditions, creating a chain of cause and effect with Nordish extinction being the ultimate effect and multiracial conditions the proximate cause. What is not inevitable, despite the claims of deterministic ideologies, are the actions that cause the consequences.

Return to Racial Compact main page