Prophetic Words On The Inevitable Struggle: How the West was Won

Prophetic Words On The Inevitable Struggle:

How the West was Won

Frank L. DeSilva

Word Count 7,237

[Editor’s Note: It is always profitable to look backwards, as it were, and see through the eyes of certain individuals who, as most have never been, in the ‘eye of the storm’, and given a certain perspective, that is then gifted to those with the ability to understand.

In going back over a work, written almost 30 years ago, We felt it timely, if it were presented, that those involved in our native conflagration, our struggle, might better view the over-all imperatives with which we are faced.

Rise of The West is such a work.

We extend, once again, our thanks to the Author, a stalwart defender of the West. The Staff]


The American West, in a strictly cultural sense, is broken up into distinct Nations.

At first glance, many who read this will wonder just what is being said, having no formal instruction other than what little they think they know from television and government ‘think tanks’. It is said that there are forty-eight ‘united states’ [within the Continental U.S.] but that each, voluntarily, make up the Nation as a political unit. In a purely political sense, this is apparent, yet, what is spoken of here is the precise components of biological nations, which inhabit that political unit called ‘america’. Each race-culture, such as Afro-american, Asian-american, Amer-Indian, Mexican-american, ad nauseum, constitute ‘specific’ [biological] nations which act, perform, congregate, celebrate, and decide political, moral, and social issues predicated upon those that are part of their particular race-culture in question. This is political reality.

The political reality of race-cultural separation is also manifest. It is very commonplace in the language and conversation of every race-culture presently inhabiting America. The Modern has instructed his national organs of communications to ignore these realities in the hope that this slow, ineluctable demise, through absorption, into the entire consciousness of America, and just what it has to offer in return for this absorption. The ‘security forces’ of the Modern are instructed to destroy this idea of separation, of sovereignty; but it continues nevertheless. The contest of cultures begins anew:

The ‘nation’ of Azatlan is spoken of by the south-western mestizo-Hispanics; the ‘nation’ of Islam is taught by the Afro-american; the Asian-american is, already, content with his presently achieved level of separation. The Jewish population, as always, is unassimilated into the body of the West, and is perceived as assimilated, and totally a part of the ‘americanna’ of the West. He, above all else, is truly an ‘american’ phenomenon. The only real surprise here is that of the burgeoning formula of Western [white] demands for separation.

White [western] Nationalism is at its highest incident rate since just prior to the Second War of Fratricide. In that case, Americans of European descent, denounced the aggressive ‘alien’ position of involvement in a foreign theatre against a Nation that was, and is, very close in make-up as our own. The feelings of the associated numbers of present day White-Nationalists is of a different sort. His present day ‘spirit’ is imbued with a feeling of consciousness that transcends the ‘old form’ nationalism, that is, Conservatism. The Nationalist, unlike the conservative, sees his position as having deteriorated to a point that is unacceptable. The conservative still believes he may battle and win a duel with the Modern in the political technics of the great leveler. He has been deceived.

The Nationalist, however, does not choose to take the bait, no matter how beautiful the lure. The Nationalist is, and will always be, a part of that ‘working class’ which, on a daily basis, sees for himself, in the street as it were, just where the Modern is trying, and in most cases, already has, taken him. He is not part of the monied aristocracy. It is he, and he is aware of this, that must shoulder the responsibility of fighting for his race, with his very hands, if necessary, for the future of his family, his children, and his culture. The Modern, always prepared for this eventuality, declares War.

It was the Prussian tactical Officer, Carl von Clauswitz, who declared a “defensive war,” a “winning war.” The Nationalist, as always, has started from behind, from a position of defense – a legacy of his fathers who had not the stomach for utilizing those means necessary to stop this change in his environment. The Modern has declared war. The Nationalist is defending himself. Even the ‘conservative’ has felt the brunt of the Modern in his [the Modern] reaction to the growing elements of resistance. From every corner, the conservative feels betrayed, his ox has now been gored, the wound too apparent, too deep, to reject the obvious. From his timid exploitation of religion, to his childish belief in democracy and liberty (as is portrayed by the Modern) – it cuts across his whole field of vision.

The conservative now denounces the Modern.

They have, as significant elements of the conservative apparatus, begun to question the Modern’s ‘legitimacy’, to demand such extremes of judicial process as confiscation of [all] weapons, especially the small concealable handgun, which is designed to eliminate intruders of all types, including the Modern if necessary.

The Nationalist, as well as the Conservative, questions the Modern’s sanity. To the issue of ‘gun control’, the elements of the nationalist and conservative come closer than on any issue. In both cases, they recognize that guns, ultimately, are for one purpose, and one purpose only – that weapons, in general, as well as specifically, are designed with one purpose in mind: That weapons are designed to kill people; and is clearly defined for all to see. Sporting, as such, is a smoke screen by the conservatives, to ameliorate the Modern, to keep him at bay.

Since our primal epoch of development, man has sought various means by which to defend and attack. Without this ability, Western man, perhaps, would have ceased to exist many aeons ago. Man is martial by inclination, and remains peaceful at least half the time – the other half, is either actively pursuing “war by other means” or pursuing war, period. Any use of weapons after that primary use [listed above] is, purely, an individual choice, such as hunting in a purely ‘sports’ sense. The right to ‘keep and bear arms’ is shared by both the nationalist and the conservative – the only real telling difference between the two is that the nationalist knows, already, just who the enemy [of these rights] really is; who the enemy of his traditional freedoms are, and to where they gravitate. The conservative does not want to see, or admit, these enemies exist at all – for he is afraid, and rightly so – that these same enemies are a part of his own ranks. The Conservative is content in watching from the sidelines as the nationalist carries on the fight for his [the conservative’s] liberties, while, at the same time, this self-same conservative helps himself to the victories and spoils, while at the same time, distancing himself from any losses – ‘conservatives’ are well known to ‘leave their wounded on the field of honour’. But, in recent days, a few stouthearted conservatives have ventured out beyond the ‘traditional’ norms of conservatism.

No longer is the conservative of one mind concerning his belief in the Modern and his governmental technics. A concerted effort, having been traditionally relegated to small nationalist ‘factions’, once considered outside the Western race-cultural mainstream, have now designed a ‘national’ programme to ‘educate’ the mass as to its loss of power and legitimacy. The Nationalist forms a wry smile as to this approach; he nevertheless accepts the conservative’s coming of age.

As stated before, the common ground between nationalist and conservative has been, and is, for the most part, the issue of ‘bearing arms’, but for different reasons. The Conservative believes in the documents of the past to maintain this ‘right’; the Nationalist believes that there is no ‘right’, other than the right to choose for himself the ‘right’ to self-determine his role in relation to his surroundings. If the reader will take, good naturedly, another reminder, let it be this, and ever this: If there is anything such as a ‘god-given right’, it is up to man to enforce it (!). Man has made his political State what it is, not god. The Conservative awakens from his slumber – his attacks against the positions of the Modern multiply daily. But nothing has reached the crescendo of battle cries, as has the issue of ‘the right to keep and bear arms’. This whole position was ably penned by two separate [conservative] authors in two separate conservative periodicals. Their positions, frankly, were revolutionary in scope – something that, as of late, have been relegated to nationalist publications (usually very small, well written, but not read widely) and not part of the mainstream.

The first, author Roger Koopman, spoke directly to the Western race-culture when he stated: “The people, not the government, possess an absolute right in the area of gun ownership1 This statement transcends all political boundaries of both the conservatives and nationalist. What is new in this area of political maneuvers, implied or stated, is the attack on the technics of the Modern – the Modern’s perception of Order has run afoul of the mainstream. Mr. Koopman goes even further by stating these rather provocative words:

What these folks [government technics] stand for is a total reversal of our Constitutional system, where rights and powers become vested not in the people [race-culture], but in government. They promote an alien…mentality that turns the citizenry against itself by convincing us that we should trust the government and distrust out neighbors. [emph. mine]

What a statement from a Conservative!

It is that ‘alien’ mentality with which the nationalist is very much at odds. That of the Modern. The Nationalist is, by far, more vociferous in its attack against the Modern than is the conservative – but without the larger media aid of the conservative it is apparent who still holds the upper hand. While the childish argument continues, the Modern closes his grips upon both; his governmental technics continue to reserve for himself the right ‘to maintain weapons in the hands of his militancy, his police force, his national security services. This, above and beyond, the majority of those Western people’s who demand the same right, also, but who, as of this writing, have not the power to enforce their will.

The issue is not, nor ever has been, over ‘gun ownership’, this was simply the clarion call of the Conservative, the ‘sound-bite’ for the masses. The issue is Freedom, pure and simple. Freedom to maintain a race-cultural imperative; to protect Family; one’s Home, self, and ultimately, the freedom to defend oneself from the tyranny of a technic, individually or collectively, of any infringement of one’s Liberty by a foreign or domestic power. Period.

The Nationalist realizes that defense against all predators is a law cognizant with nature. The nationalist knew, and has always known, that the issue of gun ownership was his first line of defense – that the issue of ‘sporting arms’ was the pleading of the conservative to the traditional governmental technic, like a son pleading with his father for favor, for his ‘inalienable rights’ when, actually, the basis of his pleadings were based upon documents of the past, which at the outset, granted no rights, it simply verified, as a device of communication, recognized and battle-won, yes, those hard won rights decided in struggle and contest; decided by blood and sacrifice. Through Blood and Iron; through the contest, of culture and civilization.

Lessons like these are designed to instill a certain value intrinsic in the very learning. The conservative has forgotten “…that this nation was born in a revolt against the legitimate authority of a long-standing government that had gone progressively sour until violent revolution was the only escape possible.”2 But the conservative will not hear of such a thing – he is loyal. But, to what? What loyalty does he owe anyone that would take his most treasured and important necessities? What will he do? Here is yet another conservative answer:

The thought that there might come a time when peaceable gun ownership (and even members of the NRA) must take arms against the U.S. Military and their own local police is anathema to nearly everyone. The possibility, however, must be faced.”3

Ponder the above statements – carefully. Americans preparing for possible armed conflict? This must be the ranting of a paranoid nationalist. But is it? Do we not, rather, see a rising, a reawakening of a spirit long dormant? What is it, this rising amidst the ‘kinder and gentler’ America? Do we, both conservative and nationalist alike, feel the soft rustling of a midsummer breeze, or is it the whisper of the growing hurricane? Does culture begin to resist its technics? The Modern considers the entire issue of guns, and their ‘destructiveness’, as being just a part of the reactionary elements incumbent in the ignorant, uncivilized mass. He promises, as only a snake can, to prohibit only assault-orientated weapons – since this ‘type’ weapon only serves the purpose of murder. This type of prohibition is always the Modern’s way.

The ‘prohibition’ movement created criminals. So also the ‘drug dealer’ of today; so also the ‘gun owner’ of tomorrow. Crime is, as has been stated before, created by definition, not necessarily by the simple act. There must, of necessity, be a value prior to the consignment of any criminal stigma. Value, in its pure form, is subjective – the course of its development is mapped by its proponents – might is right. The weaker elements must accept the consequences of a loss of power – he accepts the privilege of power. The ‘gun owner’, ‘nationalist’, ‘modernist’, etc., is also facing the same classification – whoever is the fittest, or most capable, will survive. The reality of judicial conduct in any major city in America which, as is widely known, already classifies gun owners as criminals, and is utilized daily by the Modern. Innocents are now, ipso facto, criminals. What will the Conservative do then, when the security forces come to his home, demanding the receipt of any and all weapons in his possession? The Conservative cannot face this inevitable reality (or, in the opposite, will gladly allow members of the ‘state’ to pilfer, search, and confiscate any weapon, which the state may deem unacceptable as a matter of course!). One can sense the furrowing of the broad brow of the Nationalist.

The average Western individual, at least in the large cosmopolis of the ‘city’, goes blank when pondering this thought of impending alienation between himself and his traditional protector. He forgets the first imperative of the original revolutionaries which may force them to consider the possibility that “ they may have to choose between owning their guns and facing the full implication of the Declaration of Independence”4 …that, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. Some, it may happen, will meekly give up these rights, the right of primitive, free man, horrified that they may have options, which require any real action on their part – others, however, will not submit. What then, will be said of those that will not? Criminal? Insurgent? Seditionist? Revolutionary? Will it be legal? The Modern begins his assault; he cringes in fear at the culture he thought long dead.

Intrinsic in this discussion is the survival of the West.

Gun ownership may be, to some, a side issue – and so it is – yet, intertwined with that very survival. It is not ‘guns’ per se, but the actuality of survival. A murder in defense of one’s family, nation, or race-culture (this is done in any patriotic war) is ethical. Anyone who proscribes this act is considering something other than the personal intrinsic ethical instinct of self-defense. It is the most primal essence of survival; the platitudes of the ‘state’, which arbitrarily seek to circumvent the individual imperative – the Modern claims that this will maintain order, and take away the emotional element – well and good, as far as it goes; but to consider, let’s say, the rape of one’s infant daughter, that father or mother has the ‘right’ to be emotional – and justice by either the hands of parents or family members prior to the ‘state’ spending millions of dollars is, somehow, to say that ‘justice has not been served’! It is only by whose hands, justice is to be delivered. In like fashion, the nationalist sees the separation of the West from all aliens as imperative to the survival of all he knows. This is his ethic. This is his Justice. The survival of his race-culture is ethical; its destruction, unethical.

National ‘unity’ is a will-to-express technic of Culture. Once that ‘unity’ defined by race, tradition, mores, etc., fails to exhibit its high-culture, in its will-to-express life cycle, it is finished. This, in relation to the entirety of Western history. For all intents and purposes, a new evolutionary process takes place. The technics, values, and imperatives in the Western culture have changed – but Western man cannot place his finger in the problem. He is undecided. Nature, however, has nevertheless, made the decision for him. Indications of this decisive change can be seen in the ‘ethnic relations’ within the race-culture of the West.

Here we draw the analogy between ‘gun ownership’ and the right of ‘separation’. Both can be categorized as a battle for the consistent understanding of ‘inalienable’ rights, those that are provided by nature – but maintained by man – which, after long ages, has become written in the pages of historical survival. The proof was in the doing. The Modern has taken this proof, twisted it, and perverted it. His vision of ‘unity’ has fostered the amalgamation of all peoples; of the perversion of an experiment intended solely for the race-cultural extension of one people. The Modern’s actualization: Babel. The confusion of tongues, of Cultures. The confusion of racial identity.

While the political understanding of ‘unit’ is sound in relation to the American technics of the past, that is to say, in relation to the bonding of ‘states’ and the like, in a unified cohesive unit, such as a living organism, the Modern has transformed it to include all the elements, diverse though they are, of far reaching and alien cultures, and then forced them to mix as ‘unit’. This is his social experiment – not the experiment of our Western Fathers. It is a fabrication intended to beguile the Western; to re-learn, to reconstruct Western man, in the new technic of ‘political unity; this, of course, is the very reason for such feelings of racial separation in the West. Racial and political determinism is the watchword of today’s thinking.

To some, the future ‘ethnic/political’ relations are horrifying. To others, it is welcomed as natural, inevitable, and sound practical race-culture politics. To those moderns, which are fearful of this trend, they mask themselves with self-righteous condemnation of all those who seek a different path. They point to the ‘democratization’ of Eastern Europe. But that should not deter us long, if at all, since it is precisely because eastern Europe was breaking apart along racial lines that any change in the political environment was necessitated. The role of money was secondary. Race was primary. The once great Soviet Empire, like her mirrored sister, America, has finally realized that ethnic ‘groups’ (i.e. Biological nations) must determine their own future and political realizations – based on their organic needs and will-to-express. The Modern knew this, does know this, and is precisely why he has kept the West confused, continually fighting himself over who is going to be the greatest democracy; who is going to bend over backwards in helping all others but that of his own kind. To those in America, the Modern would have us believe that Europe will be weakened by the apparent separation of its individual collective states – nothing could be further from the truth! In reality, the Western race-culture of ‘old’ Europe will become stronger than it has ever been. The casting aside of years of forced assimilation has, or will produce, a nation of truly epic proportions. The Modern shudders at the thought.

Isolation tends to mark the race-culture with will, strength, and a will-to-power that will, with time, create a positive destiny. In this light, must America, also, decide its own destiny. But only if America, truly, remains a higher-culture. If she is not, then the coming isolation from her sister, Europe, will dim her epoch making flame to that of a dead ember.

The Balkanization of the contiguous ‘states’ within the boundaries of these United States is unacceptable to most, if not all those that carry the flame of the Modern. To all and sundry, the cry is heard: ‘to all one god’, ‘to all one people’, ‘to all one government’. This is, and has become, the rallying wail of the Modern; this is their imperative. They must, their power depends upon it. Yet, the ancient drive to realize, to actualize a particular race-culture with the necessary developments required to succeed in a vast world of competition is the kind of struggle the Modern will, at any cost, keep Western man from attaining. The Modern, however, is wearing thin; he fears the technics of organism. The Cosmopolis, that crowning achievement of the Modern, has been split between the visible lines of racial demarcation from their very inception, and the visible realities of equality and diversity in the coming Babel of the 21st Century.

In the past, this presented little problem – he [the Modern] controlled his environment – now, however, it is controlled by those ‘individual’ racial units who, with political power have, ipso facto, created a balkanization effect with no thought whatsoever of their future excepting the single imperative of breaking up the political state of the Western. The Modern, of course, supports and aids in its implementation. In the ‘cities’, they already have control. Their very numbers demand this control – the mob now in control. Democracy, once again, serves the Modern, yes, and even the Western who created it, and allows his technics to pass from him to the mob of the Modern. The Western [man] cannot complain. Nay! He must welcome this passing – it is, after all, the ‘people’s choice’! Freedom of choice, however, cuts both ways, but not always in those ways predicted. The Nationalist as well, has made his choice.

It is now true, unlike any time in our history, that large segments of the Western race-culture of America has realized the loss of political power as a ‘race-cultural unit’. Let us be more specific: members of white European stock have not only decreased numerically through abortion, self-denial, and intellectual decisions to ‘decrease’ family size, and fundamental encouragement of non-European immigration over that of European immigration has, most assuredly, put the ‘white race’ at an untenable crossroad: his extinction as a ‘voting majority’ is already here; and extinction of his racial sovereignty follows close behind.

Let the Modern say what he will; let him denounce this position until he is blue in the face; the fact remains, that Western man has neither the power to change a thing on the National level, nor the power to claim any sovereignty other than what his ‘status’ as a de facto citizen of the republic – with rights and privileges granted by those who hold power over him – even by those who neither know his past nor have any inclination or knowledge of how his future must be formed and shaped to guarantee his future. Western man, those white Europeans of America, are facing a future directed by others.

The Western fecund rate, the ability to create and raise children, is ever decreasing, and now forces one to contemplate the reality of a non-western increase in real numbers, which equate into a real increase of voting power – this simply is the way of nature. The collective ‘units’ of the various diverse race-cultures feel the present presence of their own power; the resultant spin-off leads, of necessity, towards separation. So, also the Western. Where will this trend lead us? It is the question of a new century; of a new future – Destiny awaits in vitro.

The birthing of a new order, of a new destiny is apparent in all we do and see. It must be addressed now, for if this continent is to be sustained as a Western race-cultural unit, as well as a ‘safe haven’ for the other existing units, it must be determined to just what extent this trend is manifested, indeed, as to just how far along we already are. More importantly, in the long run, is the understanding of what this fulfillment of separation and diverse individual unity will bring to our culture and race, that is, the Western Culture and Race.

Broad predictions can be made. Anything other than predictions is highly unlikely. As was stated in the first part of this work, however, we can learn, if we have eyes to see, the lessons of the past for the organization of our future. The great cause, the seemingly insignificant apparatus, which turned the first gear in the machinery of the race and culture can be identified by the very application of causes – the practical result. Its technics are never to be isolated in the context of ‘this’ or ‘that’ was the cause, but rather in the overall outlook of the entire personality of the particular presence being analyzed. The Future, likewise, may be seen in the light of the past and its continuous presence in manifesting itself in Industry, Political technics, and its Military endeavors. The disposition of the past is the manifest spirit of any age – as change evolves slowly, the recognition is, therefore, also slow and, consequently, may take several centuries to be analyzed effectively. Only during the siege of revolution may one ascertain, on a daily basis, the future of this or that particular culture.

Therefore, as in this case, generalized predictions may be made in the expectation of a ‘high certainty’ as to the eventual outcome of this present discussion. The long-range prediction, of course, is symptomatic of a lesser degree of certainty. Deviations always occur – this is the great cause – the working prime lever of the machine of change in the period of, say, a hundred years or so which may, or may not, fix any one or numerous predictions to a set course. The trends we speak of now is based solely on those experienced here, in the United States of America, as well as based upon her international conduct. These predictions, as well, are predicated upon a ‘liberal’ policy of immigration towards non-western elements; any tightening of this policy will slow, but not stop, these predictions. Predictions are not prophecies. This is, rather, a safe series of probabilities and possibilities as seen in the present presence. Here, then, listed below, are such predictions as are warranted in this work:


This simply recognizes that Whites will begin to show less and less sympathy for nonwhites. Their feelings of charity and aid to these groups will be limited to the altruistic, and philanthropic principles. Ethnic factors and values will be ever more prevalent in the political arena; the deadlock realized from this positioning will create ever more conflict, and prolong the process of governmental stagnation. Separatist movements will increase.


Internal conflict will rise above the level of any party to handle; this will raise the International specter of instability, and indecisive political technics. In the International view, the American political and cultural outlook will be more and more of a ‘third-world’ manifestation. These manifestations will conclude with the ‘international’ outlook of military/political imperatives which, at this date, would be ‘anti-american’ if put into practice. How the American people respond to this remains to be seen; apathy will be consonant with cowardice and betrayal, and action to deny this [internationalism] will be condemned as betrayal to the principles of the Modern and his minions.


The path and direction, laid out by ‘black power’ movements, will continue to gain increased dominance in the realm of minority reality. Hispanics [mestizo] will gain the most impetus from this manifestation of power by ‘asserting’ those desires in maintaining the same space as their hosts; this desire, having some ‘historical’ validity, will only encourage and promote more separatism.


The dissimilar values and attitudes expressed by these minority groups, as well as a predisposed animus toward the Western race-culture will, undoubtedly, cause in direct proportion to the level of conflict, an animosity unparalleled in a modern democracy – since, in this environment, all contending parties will be able to have ‘their’ voices heard. Unification of these ‘groups’ will, however, find the value of cooperation with each other, against those of Western Stock. The expression of this cooperation will take on more strident and ‘defensive’ racism [as seen and promoted by these groups] against those of Western stock.


In the Future, Afro-Americans will realize their limited position in relation to Hispanic [mestizo] political acumen which, after being in the shadow of European cultural technics have gained superiority in technical understandings of Western political innuendo. Problems of just who is the ‘oldest minority’ and, consequently, who will garner the greatest favors of the Western political leaders – (this is perceived as being a ‘social contract’ between the ‘whites’, and the blacks for their rather close association between the Western, as seen by afro-americans). It is not coincidental, that ‘black’ criminal activity has surfaced in areas, which promote such interactions between Mestizo and Asians in numbers, neither familiar nor experienced by African-Americans. This will continue to escalate.


Once passive, whites will become combatants in continuing ethnic violence. Not being politically astute in the areas of ‘specialization’ areas, such as immigration, housing, and the like, the average white-worker will, inevitably, become more estranged and enraged by the amounts of money spent on ‘social reform’, and ‘grants’ of housing and other commodities, as those of Western stock start to feel the loss of what they had come to expect of their ‘way of life’; while they, the white American, are seemingly doing without, paying exorbitant taxes, and seeing little in any real return, which affects them, personally, they will soon react. Whites will soon shed the ‘image’ of black, or any other ‘minority’ as victim – this will allow his [white] true feelings to come to the surface. Anger and resentment in the ‘work-place’ will continue to grow at an enormous rate. Frustration will turn to anger – for all parties involved – and one or more groups will elicit various responses including, but not limited too, violence against persons and property, political challenges such as ‘education’, ‘jobs’ [i.e. once granted, never given up], ‘citizenship’, and nationalist sentiments, on all sides, as to their idea of racial, and political hegemony on a local and national level.


Conflict of twenty years ago between black and white used to take on the picture of ‘small’ rising against the ‘big’. Now, it takes on the picture of ‘inter-group’ against ‘inter-group’. The lines of political demarcation are diminished. Racial antagonisms are increased based on perceptions of the level of achievements between ‘groups’ and ‘sub-groups’. Black students, as with other minorities, receive ‘preferential treatment’, be it real or perceived, and then fail to ‘make the grade’. This further disenfranchises whites. The ‘right’ to address these issues by White Student Unions, papers, and staff will create issues of ‘freedom of speech’ and the real ability to use the ‘forum’ of the Campus for their attempts at recognition as a racial unit. The policy of ‘selection’ in regards to enrollment of ‘special’ groups will further alienate the white student. He will sense the shift in traditional norms in every field of education. European studies will decrease – those who wish to follow this traditional ‘western’ path will be termed racist, and insensitive. All this will sow the seeds of racial discord and anger, and see a loss in actual Western alumnae.


The political outcome, of minority political power, will be predicated upon which group holds the coalition together, and what ‘alliances’ are made, and with which ‘sub-group’. In response to this, will be the emergence of a new Nationalist/Racialist Party – or some racially conscious PAC embolden by a central figure – either an individual or an [existing] institution which has a more radical approach to the issues of the day. This will be a racial alliance first and foremost.

Religionists will be drawn to one another, or be forced to split that party or institution, which is now representing them. Hispanic ‘Catholicism’ may prove to be a decisive factor amongst Irish, Italians, or others traditionally of the catholic experience. The ‘Poles’ as well, would be drawn to their co-religionists – but the racial distinctiveness between themselves and other non-Western stock will force any realignment necessary. The Irish, and Italians will be valuable assets in any coalition; should the Irish prove to be inclined, as have their fathers, then whichever they decide, their religion will be first and foremost, as their sense of ‘race’ has been contravened by their religious history, to follow their deity. Italians will, as is their nature, follow their passions, wherever this takes them, but are inclined to follow their sense of ‘western imperialism’ and will be split here in America as to how, properly, to address this issue. All in all, those of the West will, ultimately, choose to participate in a ‘working’ relationship with each other, no matter the small dissenting minority ‘within’ Western culture, and support the growing sense of Western identity.

Continuing ‘legislative’ dominance by minority pressure groups will force the growth of this ‘white coalition’, and will receive the support of the military over those ‘interest’ groups, which have facilitated the breakdown and massive social experimentation of the armed forces. This would be needed, of course, to qualify the largest amount of ‘public’ perception as to the legitimacy of political change. The trappings of military ‘order’ will draw the white-mass for good or ill. The extent to which the military and civilian forces, both political and personal, will accommodate one another will be gauged by both the ‘internal’ and ‘external’ stimulus exerted on either one individually, or collectively. A militarization of the populace will occur spontaneously regardless, as a matter of course.


The continuing understanding of just ‘who’ one is will, in ever increasing amounts, force a realignment of historical realities: for White, Black, Asian, and Mestizo. This understanding, of one’s root and stock, will cause continued imbalance in the day to day working relationship of any one or all-existing racial groups. Of course, this ‘type’ of polarization is natural and must be fostered by each individual ‘type’ – assimilation by the weaker group, or group that refuses to acknowledge his past will occur, inevitably. The Western race-culture will be the most powerful since, as has been shown before, he is capable of solidifying his power base more quickly when threatened from the outside. His past is marked by more marital conflict, and his diplomacy is usually relegated to violence of the most extreme nature. The expression of ‘racial’ memory will take on greater and larger meanings as time goes on.

10. WHITE ‘Ethnic’ REVIVAL:

As Western whites, increasingly, see themselves as a distinct ethnic group, threatened by invading cultural aliens, coupled with the submergence of their own racial stock to that of other diverse groups, their particular ‘reactions’ will imitate, in large degree, that of traditional ‘ethnic groups’. They will react violently to racial slurs, job discrimination, inter-racial couplings, and will therefore assume a more demonstrable kinship with ‘their own kind’ as has been accepted in the past with non-Western ‘minorities’. Ethnic ‘revival’ will be largely Cultural, and will not take on political shades until they have first made their cultural needs manifest – more likely than not, in the ‘streets’ or in the traditional ‘institutions’ of the country. From this reaction will come the political manifestation of Separatism, seen as the only method of survival.

  1. MESTIZO ‘Ethnic’ REVIVAL:

The greatest possibility of a ‘first’ separatist movement is seen in the Mestizo population. The hotbed of contention is in, and over, the Southwestern portion of America. New Azatlan is already a part of the ‘cultural’ mind of the southwest Mestizo – it is, after all, the ancient historical homelands of his ancestors – the Aztec Indians, who controlled a Mexican Empire prior to Cortez. Religious leaders (such as Father Florecio M. Rigoni), looks at the mass immigration of Mexicans across the American borders as ‘a peaceful conquest’ of territorial lands. Some may think this fanciful thinking by an aspiring culture who, those of the West, have had little feelings for one way or another, as their religion boasts of ‘the love of mankind’, and thereby rationalizes this transformation. The Mestizo, on the other hand, believes strongly in this possible realization. There are two main reasons why the chance of success is high for this race-culture:

  1. There is some justification of their ownership, rooted in relatively recent times. They, at one time, controlled the Southwest as a People and Culture.

  2. There is simple evidence that Mestizos will be a numerical majority in all or large part of the Southwest in a relatively short period. If the latter happens, and there is an almost certain possibility that it will, then Separatist sentiment will certainly thrive. The French in Quebec is just another example of the way this contest is about to play itself out.


The ‘break’, of even one traditional race-culture from the norms of the United States, will create a domino effect that will not subside unless tremendous force is utilized in its suppression. This is not, however, the worst-case scenario. A more dramatic, if not less popular, would be a continuing ‘state of war’ carried out by guerilla’s in a small scale civil war. Terrorism would be the watchword of the day. The examples of Lebanon, Sri Lanka, India, and Northern Ireland will suffice to make this point. Even in forms not as concrete as total separatism, the probability that the various groups maintain a more than rigid conglomerate in the large cities of the United States is highly likely. This will be de facto separatism.


This is over and above any real ‘nationalism’. America will be truly International in scope. The ‘open border’ concept will bring a two-way traffic, which will usher in the new [American] and will usher out the old [American]. This ‘may’ create the largest white flight in the history of the Western race-culture, or they may stay and fight for sovereignty like has not been seen since the first wave of Aryan invaders crossed the eastern steppes. The consequent loss of scientific and educational levels in America by the latter situation would completely rearrange the face of this continent.

  1. THE RISE OF A ‘New’ WEST:

This manifestation will be regarded as ‘revolutionary’ by the powers that be. It is, however, a necessary prerequisite to the continuation of the Western race-culture, either as a distinct ‘ethnic’ group, isolated, and sharing a possible ‘portion’ of this Western Continent, or as a racially dominant legislative bloc – this latter, however, will not be necessitated if the present trends continue. The new conscious Western man and woman will, most assuredly, demand their part of the pie – what is left of it. He will face growing opposition from the established order, which, after the levels of determination will convince those of Western stock of their betrayal. Military and civilian contacts will continue to facilitate joint ventures and, when that ‘personality’ becomes known, will voluntarily commit to each other’s cause; the presence of ‘money’ will manifest itself in, and from those American interests which have succumbed to ventures of International Finance by forcing their economic interest to go abroad, thereby denying their own people work and sustenance. Militarism, coupled with money, will bring about the venues certain to establish Culture over that of the mechanism, of civilization, and will eventually be overcome by Culture created, formed, and lived by those of the West.


These predictions, as said before, are broad in scope. To face the facts as we see them is to be honest with ourselves, as well as to the future of our [white] children. To drive all the foregoing home however, let us add this: The fact that non-Westerns are numerically growing is evident; the fact that political power is based solely on the majority of the voters, regardless of their race, is supported by the ideal of ‘democracy’ – a Western concept – and will, eventually prove the maxim of ‘one man, one vote’ is the essence of modern democracy – and the end of the Western Culture on this continent as we know it, as well. Forcing these various ‘groups’ inhabiting this continent to be like the Western race-culture will only add fuel to the already burning fire of Nationalism and Separatism.


1 Koopman, Roger – Second Defense – Outdoor Life, February, 1990, page 61, 99, 100.

2 Koman, Victor – The Real Reason We Own Guns – Guns and Ammo, February 1990, page 32.

3 Ibid.

4 Ibid, page 33.

Note: The fact, that the present American government has approved the ‘fast track’ to Mexico, as of this writing, should make all those of Western stock raise their heads in anger and demand an explanation. With the close proximity that Mexican mestizos and American-Chicanos have in both culture and geography, it is certain that any ‘extra’ positioning of these groups by the government, will lead to the rapid deployment of these kindred people’s between Mexico proper, and those American ‘centers’, which house the greatest numbers of Mexican mestizo immigrants and Chicanos. This will reinvigorate the ‘old’ contacts between agitators and leaders of every persuasion – marking, even more so, the difference between the opposing groups. This may well facilitate a situation much more militant than that of Quebec. Mexican mestizos will fight when the time is right. At the very least – in the case of a positive Separatist movement – the southwestern mestizo will demand autonomy on levels not seen since Pancho Villa. The Modern, it would seem, is trying to placate these elements by their fast-track proposals. For those that think this possibility of annexation, of separatism, as illogical, let it be remembered that our own revolutionary leaders and people, were certainly not logical to take on the entire British Empire for something as esoteric as ‘freedom’. Whether we, those of Western stock, accept the aspirations of the immigrant Mexican mestizo, or other non-Westerns, it is, nevertheless, part of a racial imperative, which will, and does seek, release. FLS


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s