The Struggle and Ideology of Racial Identity
The various manifestations of any traditional or revolutionary concept, idea, or methodology is largely due to national circumstance: popular [racial] identity, reactionary elements, visionary elements, financial depression and cultural insolvency.
In every epilogue of human events there exists, in stark relief, the metamorphosis of a People, or Folk-community. Regardless of any significant or insignificant attempt, or contribution too, any particular form of government, no matter the construct or principle, it is the people, the race-culture, which either is enslaved or liberated. Ironically, in terms of the former, slavery, to some, is ordered and constructive consumerism, which demands a certain consistency in social arrangements; to others, the lack of individualism, of sovereignty, marks the slave from the freeman. This balance has, for millenia, swung from one extreme to the other.
The White Nationalist, as an individual motif, also stands in stark relief, in that he, like no modern equivalent, sees himself extended, a hundred-million fold, as a collective consciousness, a unique and imperative part of the whole; yet is not subsumed, nor inundated with a strident form ‘communalism’, that group-think of yesteryear, of mass conformity and that pernicious form of altruism. White Nationalism, then, is this extended understanding, put forth into the world, as both a water-mark, or level of measurement, for others to follow, mould their world-view, and share with their fellows.
As the nation of our Fathers and Mothers deteriorates, the cacophony of voices, both reactionary and visionary, has started to reach its own crescendo within the white nationalist community. Still, the overall world-view of ‘white nationalism’ is far removed from what is considered the organs of mainline propaganda, and furtively survives in various venues, small organizational ‘get-togethers’, work-place debates, and a few intellectual debates amongst the choir. These tentative relationships, as I have said before, have been seen time and time again in my own lifetime; and before me, it was the same. It is, or surely must be, part of the natural order of things. Or is it?
I think not.
This work, like many which have been seen in the last twenty-five years may, or may not, shed new light on this discussion – as each of us gravitate to those voices and visions which more closely resemble their own. If we all admit that our struggle is honest, righteous, and closely aligned with the best interests of our disparate parts: our old, our young, our men and women, our concept of, and the utilitarian use of, our natural resources, our industry, and our moral imperatives as a unique and independent racial identity then, by all accounts, the terms ‘white nationalism’, ‘white nationalist’, ‘territorial imperative’, ‘ethno-state’, ‘ethno-centrism’, ‘fiscal-nationalism’, racial ‘collectivism’, and individualism is embraced by the White Nationalist as part of his panoply of world-views which, in the most succinct way, is described as White Nationalism.
To the white nationalist, race, that unique and ofttimes misunderstood description of identity, is as natural as breathing. Moreover, race does not limit the white nationalist’s political perspectives, as many on the ‘left’ and on the ‘right’ seem to think, at any rate, what both of these groups spread to the masses. The use of the word ‘race’ is not limited strictly to a metaphor of ‘skin colour’, but encompasses a much larger and healthy appreciation, some would say an almost ‘spiritual’ metaphor, of the collective essence of an entire organism. White Nationalism embodies this essence, insofar as it is composed of the various manifestations of organism: its Life Force, its history, and accomplishments; this includes the manifestations of Art, Literature, Science and its mainline or nascent spiritual beliefs and institutions. To the white nationalist, it is not any one thing, but all these manifestations which make race the operating description.
To the newcomer of ‘racial realities’, it may, at first, seemingly be a trick of the eye, something like quicksilver, fleeting and, perhaps, of no effect, since ‘humanity’ is the basis upon which many base the higher value of citizenship, and common interests. Moreover, if ‘any man’ or ‘any woman’ is caught up in a discussion or debate concerning ‘race’, the psychological imprint of survival seems to be missing or, in obverse, seems to be dominate in degrees, and the ensuing conflict, even if innocent, creates tension and disagreement, especially in ‘mixed’ company. Of course this is not fair, or pleasant – but it is a reality. The white nationalist, on the other hand, cares little if ‘mixed’ company makes some discussion unpleasant, as this type of individual has, for the most part, ‘already been there’, which makes disagreement of opinion yet another level to be overcome. In other words, the white nationalist is not afraid.
Throughout this work, it will become very clear that thoughts and ideas which are, today, not accepted by many in the mainstream are, to the white nationalist, marks of distinction; in the field of ideas, just as in war, there is hardly a moment to be wasted, and every shot counts. Ideas, without action, like ‘faith without works’, then, is likened to the play-actor, who accounts for words written for him, without benefit of any real thoughts of his own, or without any telling influence upon his personal actions in ‘real’ life.
To the ‘new’ reader or student of white nationalism, it is incumbent upon each of you to closely adhere to the principles ascribed in this work, if one is to gain any true understanding of the mindset of your peers. Moreover, you will find, in short order, that most of what these peers think is, in the main, the same as yours – it has just been given a name with which you are, undoubtedly, unfamiliar.
For instance, the modern concept of ‘environmentalism’ seems to parallel the rise of the ‘small’ overcoming the ‘large’, of minority rights overcoming the behemoth of ‘racism’, yet few today, especially of the young, those of Western stock, know that the very concept of ‘saving the planet’, or environmentalism as a civic duty, came not from those who demand ‘equal rights’, but came from the deep recesses of Western thought and compassion – for himself, and the future of what belonged to him in those ways which were most evident to him – to his people, his race. Such names as Madison Grant, or John Muir, Alexis Carrel or Charles Lindbergh have passed from the memory of our Folk-community, yet without these names, what we have attempted, what we have saved in terms of our environment, would not exist today.
These men, also, were stridently racial  in their world-view, and considered saving the very blood which bore them, to be as interwoven with our natural surroundings as Sun is to Moon.
Even before Grant or Muir in the year 1847, George Marsh, a Vermont Congressman became the first public advocate of environmental conservation when he called attention to the destructive impact of deforestation and proposed a land management plan. In 1864, Marsh published an influential analysis of conservation issues entitled Man and Nature. The naturalist writings of Henry David Thoreau also contributed toward the public awareness of conservation issues in America. The total number of persons such as these, are myriad, yet the prime understanding is that these men shared more than simple policy inclinations, but shared a common blood, a common experience.
As a new novice to the world of racial-nationalism, you will be exposed to many such individuals. To the more experienced, time to dust off the old volumes, and reaffirm the legacy of your Fathers when dealing with the opposition you will surely be facing individually, and collectively in the years ahead.
 The beginning of Grant’s public career can be dated to 1893, when he joined the Boone and Crockett Club [BCC]. This organization had been founded as a sportsmen’s club by Theodore Roosevelt five years before. With Grant’s influence the organization broadened its scope. Along with George Bird Grinnell he set about transforming a ‘social club’ for wealthy hunters into a seminal conservation organization in America. Grant’s first conservation battle was over preservation of Yellowstone National Park. The park had been established in 1872 as the world’s first large public park.
In addition to helping define the idea of national parks, Grant originated the modern zoological park. In the late 1890s he founded the New York Zoological Society which in turn established the Zoological Garden of the City of New York – the world famous Bronx Zoo. At three hundred acres, the Bronx Zoo was five times larger than the largest existing zoo. Instead of displaying animals in cramped cages, Grant’s zoo created natural settings, large enough for the animals to interact with their environment, yet small enough for them to be easily viewed by the public. This is just one example of a man who, with time, has been vilified because of his love of his own people, his own blood. These are concepts which the novice should acquaint themselves with. [Author]
 John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club.
 For those unacquainted, see: The Passing of the Great Race (1916) and The Conquestof a Continent (1933).