A media service of European Americans United

Main Menu

  • Home
  • Forum
  • About Us
  • Search
  • Action Alerts
  • Free Podcasts
  • Stories by Author
  • New Online Store
  • Archives
  • Categories
  • Links

  • Frank Roman
  • John Young
  • Garden Blog

  • User Menu

  • Register
  • Login
  • Logout
  • Submit News

  • Email This Page

    Syndication Feeds

  • Handheld/PDA
  • XML News Feeds
  • View Sidebar
  • Mozilla Sidebar

  • 33

    Housing Policies for European American Freedom, Solidarity, and Prosperity
    Report; Posted on: 2008-04-02 19:57:24 [ Printer friendly / Instant flyer ]
    by Charles Lemagne

    “Blacks in particular have to re-ask what is really best for themselves—integration or independence—and free themselves of the mental shackles of misleading ideas that have been affixed to their minds as absolute dogma in order to be able to evaluate things freely. Part of their problem will be to show that while civil rights activists were right about some things, they were wrong about others, and that the black nationalist program was more comprehensive and aimed at a much more total black independence than the civil rights ideology offered.”

    As is becoming more and more apparent, though many European Americans believe in fair play and universal codes of morality, the fact is that the Marxist Left and some members of minority groups do not. Since the beginning of the civil rights movement and before, minorities of different backgrounds have fought for equal rights, but have also exploited our generosity, the democratic political system, and civil rights laws to advance their own interests at our expense or used their positions to abuse and humiliate us. The continued invalid association of European American interest groups with racism and anti-Semitism is only the most blatant example, but so is the unregenerate attempt to transform the U.S. into a European American-minority nation through open-door immigration policies. More and more of us are awakening to the fact that influential sections of other groups, as well as many of our own, do not care for our welfare, and even want our permanent subjugation and dissolution. The ongoing effort to make America into an empire in which we are only one set of subjects among others ruled by wealthy oligarchies is another problem we face.

    The current civil rights program of course reflects a desegregation ideology, the opposite of an ethnic- or otherwise particularist-based ideology; but it need not be the final word in the subject. Desegregation, or integration, was born in part out of the desire to remove second-class human status from blacks, something said to be implicit in segregated housing. It may have been. The labeling of European Americans as racist whenever they stand up for their collective interests is in a way the reverse of labeling blacks unfit to mingle with whites on an equal basis, however: Both degrade their object to inferior moral and sub-human status, and thus fit for supervision and regulation by the state. Such shifting degradation campaigns need not be allowed to form the basis of housing policy. If desegregation and civil rights have become no more than rationales for efforts to subjugate or disperse those of European heritage, they are evidence of harmful intent, and so need to be replaced.

    Housing patterns are subject to the prevailing economic system, but also to the prevailing social ideology, which now mandates acceptance of diversity and integration not only in our thoughts and work, but where we live. In the future, proper housing policies will reflect cultural parameters as well as less centralized economic powers and imperatives than those we have now. As we develop our policies and ideas, we will be able both to better demonstrate our positive purposes and to better deflect insidious charges of racism and anti-Semitism. I would like to propose for consideration four policies to help us on the path toward greater unity and prosperity. Policies like these will strengthen the bond between cultural groups and economics, and make membership in such groups meaningful economically as well as socially and culturally and help improve the quality of life.

    Four Proposals

    European Americans are asked to consider the following proposals concerning housing policy to reshape our society, increase its wealth, and free its members and economic enterprises for other pursuits. These proposals, if implemented, would link cultural lineage and heritage to the housing market, shift expenditures on rent to increasing individual and family wealth, alter our tax structures, stimulate the European American industrial and other non-financial economic sectors, break up large, unhealthy population centers, and stimulate rural and small-town European American economies. All these policy proposals are valid for other national groups as well.

    The groups that are the subject of these proposals are defined in terms of ethnicity, such as Anglo, Anglo-Celt, Scandinavian, German, Jewish, Korean, Amerindian, etc., or civilizational, such as African American, European American, Semitic, Asian, and the like: wherever there is a natural ethnic or civilizational commonality and affinity. Peoples that might now be dispersed and isolated in small groups will come to live in areas like the German (American) Area(s), the Southern Anglo-Celt Area(s), the European Common Area(s), the African American Area(s), Philippine Town, and the like. The seeming non-universalist nature of this new order may take time to get used to, but will ultimately come to be understood as a new form of universalism, one explicitly incorporating the richness of cultural variation as a political and economic component. Illegal immigrants will of course not be included in this reorganization.

    Reservation Policy

    First, all homes, condos, and other units of housing should be reserved for members of a given cultural group within any given area where they dominate numerically or have been the traditional majority. That is, whenever a housing unit goes on the market, the members of that group will be given priority in subsequent purchase and leasing contracts. This will include housing properties given as inheritances or in any other transfer of ownership. It would exclude, for example, students still in school and renting apartments. A reservation policy like this will allow members of any given group to re-congregate, and thus rejuvenate their culture and social contacts, something more difficult to do when they are subject to population dispersal laws that inhibit the development of a natural commonality of interests.

    Conversion Policy

    Second, housing ownership should be given priority over income property. Ownership serves vital economic, psychological, and political functions. Economically, it is a form of equity, and allows people to be more prosperous and secure, as well as use as a basis for loans, which create economic opportunities and serve as a safeguard in a pinch. It also frees a person or family from a life of debt bondage, in the sense that paying rent is something continually owed and never results in equity, and as such is money down the drain. It is probably more closely related to indentured servitude than freedom, the main difference being that it occurs in the realm of equity rather than the realm of labor. As a nationalist program, housing ownership will therefore mean increasing individual, family, and group wealth. Psychologically, ownership provides security as well as stability, the absence of a state of dependence on or subservience to property owners, and the sense of being a member of society insofar as that is defined by ownership. Politically, as the founders and old theoreticians of democracy knew well, ownership fosters independence of opinion, and thus less vulnerability to demagogues who gain appeal on the basis of economic deprivation and then expand state power, even to the point of establishing quasi-totalitarian governments. Housing policies should therefore be formulated with these goals in mind.

    More specifically, people seeking to buy owner-occupied homes or condos should have first right to a unit of housing, not, generally speaking, those seeking rental income or profits from speculation. This can be done in any or all of three ways: first, requiring conversion to ownership when a rental unit becomes available; second, requiring conversion of the necessary number of rental units within a given, reasonable period in order to satisfy need; and third, granting construction permits on the same lines, for the purposes of personal and family ownership, not income. It may be possible to allow ownership of some rental units for the purposes of extra income, but, given the priority of disseminating ownership in a nationalist ideology, this should probably take second place. In addition, making a living from rents should be strongly discouraged, if not made illegal, in favor of productive work.

    Exceptions to this policy would appear to be rental units for transients or those unwilling or unable to commit to permanent housing at any given time, such as students or young couples. In these cases, being able to rent is more important than ownership, and so a rental supply must be available. Even so, rental units can be owned by cooperative associations of apartment owners who have surplus units whose purpose is to maintain such units in order to benefit those who need them.

    Special consideration could also be given to rental units owned by those over a certain age who have spent most of their working years investing in housing, and are thus less likely to be able to develop another source of income, though it is conceivable that work in a related field could be found for them. In addition, the money they receive from conversion could be substantial, enough to last them for years, perhaps even through retirement. Policy will have to be developed so that the goal of widespread ownership is achieved while caring for people who would be left without prospects of sufficient income because of the conversion process.

    Conversion policy would also apply to public housing. The purpose of public housing is to provide shelter to low-income people who might otherwise be unable to afford a place to live. If nationalism means to protect the interests of and guarantee an ethno-cultural or civilizational group’s members the means to live—and biological, cultural, and other forms of group continuity require this kind of guarantee—then it will have to include guaranteeing them places to live, one way or another. Given the importance of ownership, public housing succeeds on one point—secure housing—but fails in terms of increasing personal and family equity. The sale of most public housing units to their tenants would therefore be better policy. Some evidence demonstrates that at least in some cases, people start taking better care of their residences after they take over ownership of what was once government property. Opening up sale of these units to the general market may be questionable, however, since it could result in gentrification and the loss of places to live for European Americans who perform necessary economic functions in the areas where they live. The poverty and low-income questions and thus the need for low-income housing, whether publicly or privately owned, could be solved through broader economic policies that avoid punishing the less-talented by condemnation to poverty, but that is another subject.

    Mortgage Policy, Consumer Spending, and Industrial Development

    Third, local governments, singly or jointly, should subsidize residential ownership. Specifically, local governments should obtain lending institution mortgages involving local residents and reissue them at low interest rates. The rates could conceivably be as low as the inflation rate, or even less. The reasoning for this policy is this: Home and other residential ownership is the single largest expense most individuals and families face. Their mortgages tie them down as long as 30 years, most of a person’s working life, and often command one-third of an individual or family’s income. Even a couple of percentage points in the mortgage rate can make a meaningful difference in a family’s disposable income, and thus the comfort and security that it can afford, especially for children. Reducing this longterm burden in any way possible would thus appear to be of a certain priority if we intend our people to prosper and be happy.

    Another reason for government support is this: By reducing the funds diverted to mortgage finance, more funds will be freed not only for consumer expenditure, but for two other sectors. First, more money will be spent on items that can be taxed, increasing government revenue if necessary, and possibly reducing the need for an income tax. Second, increased consumer expenditure will stimulate more productive sectors of the economy. Housing and mortgage finance are not particularly progressive economic sectors by any means, providing little if anything in the way of added value or new consumer products. They in fact would appear to reduce the income flow that would otherwise go to consumer-goods industries, and thus reduce funding for further research and development. Though housing is a necessity, expenses connected to it would not appear to provide the best utilization of funds from any macro-economic point of view. Housing policy that reallocates funding to some extent from mortgages to more dynamic economic sectors is therefore preferable to current practice. And even though this policy appears to promote subsidies, it in fact should increase revenue from the sales tax, potentially balancing out any losses from subsidies and possibly even raising revenues, and stimulate more productive and dynamic economic activity.

    If this policy were implemented, it would expand, relocate, and re-dedicate current housing loan practices. Quasi-federal agencies already provide low-interest mortgages to some extent, but they work on the federal level and are targeted at first-home and low-income buyers, not as general policy. To the extent they are federal or even state programs, they also have no direct link to local economies, or, of course, European Americans. Furthermore, such programs should operate on the local or multi-local level, both to avoid further empowering the federal government and to conform to local conditions, and be specific to a target group, like Americans of European descent. A non-governmental institution could conceivably take on this function, but its mandate would have to be specified by law, and it would not be a normal commercial or financial institution but operate on a revenue-neutral basis (having neither profits nor losses) and have the purposes listed above. If lending institutions fail to cooperate in transferring their mortgages, the government or designated institution could make its own loans. This policy could prove very popular if made part of a political program. Economists, however, will need to evaluate it for its feasibility in the tax, consumer spending, and other spheres.

    Population Decentralization Policy and Rural and Small-Town Development

    Finally, anyone who has ever driven on highways around New York City, Los Angeles, and other major cities around rush hour (if not all day in certain places) knows how abysmally poor traffic conditions are. This is often the result of centralizing economic power in larger metropolises, creating social centralization in its wake. If a lot of profitable businesses are located in large cities, many jobs will be also, causing people to evacuate rural areas and small towns to get good work. One of the results of this centralization is traffic jams and rush hour highway crawls that can stretch for miles, with vehicles often moving along at 10 mph for a short stretch and then stopping, then starting again. A couple of miles can take 15 minutes or more to cover. So while corporations and their lackeys like many of our presidents and members of Congress paint pictures of “freedom” in the sky, the real picture is on the ground, where quality of life suffers and time is wasted in long commutes due to current economic policies. For our politicians who don’t get it, a lot of people just don’t feel free when they’re tied up in traffic for 1-2 hours a day. Rather, extended commuter time is an additional cost levied on people by current economic policies, one measured more in life than in dollars. Many city officials play along with this game, building commuter lanes or pushing for more highway construction, but leave the causes of the problem untouched, if not unmentioned. As a housing issue, this concerns population concentration and quality of life. Long commutes mile-wise increase pollution and are anti-environmental. Long commutes time-wise are anti-family, and perhaps even anti-health if the added time on the road fighting traffic increases stress.

    A nationalist economic program would try to address this issue. In general terms, what needs to be done is to create policy that incentivizes relocation of economic enterprises all around the country, particularly into the rural and small-town areas, and drains some of the overpopulation out of the megalopolises. Numerous steps could be taken to achieve this goal, and only a few will be mentioned here. Strong pro-relocation tax incentives and city-centralization tax disincentives for businesses are of course one set of possibilities. A drawback to incentives is that they can amount to a form of blackmail used against local governments that want to attract businesses to their area.

    Another step would be to require a closer link between commodity production and value-added production, for example, that a significant percentage of retail food products, like the kind found in grocery stores and supermarkets, be produced near where the food—whether grain, vegetable, or meat—is grown. The point would not necessarily be to relocate all related post-agricultural jobs and population into agricultural areas, but at least some of the value-added production. To enforce this, local value-added production would be given priority in terms of the use and allocation of commodities produced locally, not the open market, even if the later would bring in higher initial profits. Higher commodity profits could in fact mean less profit overall than what could be made from value-added production, so there is no particular reason to support a so-called free market in circumstances like these if its end result is to impoverish or siphon off the resources of rural and small-town areas. Commodity speculators and futures markets already probably distort pricing anyway, and may depress profits earned by primary producers. If farmers are harmed by lower commodity prices in this framework, they could be compensated. They could also be made part- or cooperative owners of local value-added industries that use their commodities: Farmers would not only grow the grain, for example, but make the flour. (A number of organic food production cooperatives are already successfully using this model.) This brings in a new set of policy issues, however, and will not be discussed further here except to say that agricultural producer cooperatives have been a part of the American scene for a long time, something that most people are poorly educated about, and that the cooperative form of ownership is an alternative to the current system of “employeeism,” in which most people are non-stake-holding employees. The British National Party also promotes this form of enterprise.1

    Nevertheless, not only does current policy undermine the prosperity of European Americans in these areas—something that should be our concern, especially as most poor Americans are statistically of our national group, not minorities—it once again helps drive the concentration of population in large cities, with all its attendant problems, like traffic jams, concentrated air pollution, lack of green spaces, etc. Implementing this approach would require more political strength than implementing incentives, but has the advantage of avoiding what is in effect paying businesses for what needs to be done, changing its character from a money-greased business deal to a necessary social and economic policy, which is what it really is if we are to take metropolitan overpopulation and rural and small-town stagnation seriously. To the extent it benefits other national groups, it could be part of a trans-cultural separatist political program as well, one that is attractive to broad sections of the population and a clear challenge to the major parties. It will in addition show our ability to address a range of people's problems with boldness of vision.

    A restrictive policy may be required in addition to the above. That is, it is worth considering putting limits on the number of people who can move into a given metropolitan area if the goals of population and traffic reduction and related issues are important enough for the average person. Few people like traffic congestion, and may be willing to support reducing population size to be able to drive close to the speed limit again whenever they want, not just at 4 a.m. or 11 p.m. One way to achieve this would be to require that any job opening be offered to a local resident before any relocater from outside the area be considered. This policy would shift jobs around within a given locale but not add population, and could use attrition to reduce population as well. Businesses wishing to expand would either have to draw on the local population or, if not tied to the immediate area by the nature of their business, such as being involved in oil-drilling operations, expand elsewhere. Many businesses or business functions do not rely directly on local natural resources, so this should not pose too much of a problem, especially given that many companies already have numerous offices and functions nationwide.

    A Test Case

    At some point during the conversion process, European American and other ethnic nationalists will be tested as to their commitment, and it will become a question what policies and practices should be used in certain scenarios. One scenario likely to arise is when a member of another heritage offers more money for a housing unit being put on the market by a person or organization of European American heritage than anyone of our descent offers. Currently, free-market and anti-discrimination laws and practices encourage, and sometimes require, that any housing property be sold either at the owner’s discretion or to anyone who makes an offer, with strict prohibitions against discrimination against minorities in particular, especially where real estate agents are concerned. These rights and laws are a challenge to the development of strong, culture-based communities. Certain opponents of the plan who don't self-identify with our cause and also have much more wealth are much more likely to interfere with the creation of these communities when they are formed by someone other than themselves, so may attempt to offer more money than a European-American for a particular residence at any given point in time, raising the question of how this should be handled.

    One possibility is that the owner simply refuse the offer. This is to be encouraged. We will all probably have to make sacrifices somewhere down the road for the sake of our philosophy and people, and this is one kind of situation where we will have the opportunity to do so. It will probably strengthen members’ wills, and help us decide where we really stand and what our real values are. Moreover, I suspect that real estate offers generally do not vary over a wide range for any given piece of property in a given market, so any loss borne may be relatively small, and in any case it is a question how accurate the market really is.

    For those who do make this sacrifice, it is suggested that their sacrifice be positively recognized. Those who “take the money” would, of course, not be accorded such recognition. In all likelihood, folks who strongly identified with our national project would take that into account in choosing friends and businesses so that those who made a sacrifice would be rewarded.

    Another option is for the community to cover any loss incurred. This is a more pecuniary solution and lacks the nobility of sacrifice, but does have the powerful benefit of manifesting group solidarity. It is also unfeasible at this time owing to lack of resources, though could in the relatively near future be considered a part of strategy in selected cases for its publicity value. If the compensating agency were an arm of government, it would help show people that the government was on their side, unlike now, when we often have to fight the government. Presumably, the expenses associated with this policy would be reasonable, and so require little extra in the way of taxation. And, once laws are passed establishing ethnic or civilizational criteria for local residence purchases, this financial burden will disappear, since minority purchases will lack legal recognition.


    How a liberating ethnic policy like this will be implemented, in addition to what is suggested above, will have to be discussed with those experienced in running public campaigns, but a few approaches can be suggested, for housing as well as other policies. As noted, the kind of politics above is personal, not just organizational or otherwise representative, and some of us will have to decide to whom they sell their residential property. Implementing it as a right of law, however, is a larger task.

    First, longterm educational campaigns about the rationality and morality of nationalist housing policy should be introduced to and taken up by college students. They are the future, and everything we do concerns their future. It is important that as many universities as possible have student organizations centered around the new ideas that we are raising, and that they publish newsletters or websites and arrange speakers and forums where alternative ideas can be presented and discussed.

    Internet opinion polls could be taken on various questions by EAU or anyone else, with anonymous “voting.” This would be part of a campaign to erect parallel political forums at all levels of politics. People badly need a place to express their opinions, and there is a good reason why most Americans are called the “silent majority”—Most aren’t allowed to express their real opinions, or know they will be punished if they do. The need for people to express their opinions is desperate given the monopoly in the mainstream media and the suppression of most dissenting ideas. The questions would of course have to be as well-phrased as possible to prevent confusion or double meanings, and tested on sample groups according to standard practice. Polling questions could be about anything, from current events, a candidate’s policy, or a law that we might propose.

    Internet, email, and fax campaigns targeting elected officials, corporations, universities, or others on specific issues could also be taken up. These have been extremely effective, and in fact decisive, in stopping the immigration amnesty juggernaut. Just demanding separation in housing would be ineffective, however, and more sophisticated approaches have to be used. Press releases are also part of any political arsenal.

    Politically, running for office is an obvious necessity at some point. During campaigns new ideas on housing policy could be presented and popularized. This could start on the local level, but conceivably on higher levels as well, if the relative success of Ron Paul’s campaign means anything. He, however, put in 20 years’ worth of dues as a congressman, and others may have to also. If political representatives sponsoring our housing and other policies explain that they would benefit other cultural groups, they might in the long run cause less reaction in members of other groups, especially blacks. Reminding them that black nationalists advocated black self-reliance and separation, and that they only wanted the best for blacks, is a powerful argument in this regard, and will be discussed below. “Part in Peace” is a possible slogan or name for the separatist campaign as a whole, though it lacks the fire of a slogan designating the growing oppression of European Americans.

    It is also necessary to note that these policies tend to conflict with current law that benefits various professions and groups, such as when real estate agents are involved; and for that reason would be adamantly opposed by agents of the existing order, as well as be rejected by precedent-bound judges. Ultimately, the matter would probably end up in the Supreme Court, though should do so only as a result of targeted impact litigation, legal test cases designed to challenge parts of the law and raise public awareness. There, and prior to that in public and legal forums, I suggest that a longterm campaign to undermine the legitimacy of Brown v. Board of Education be undertaken. This campaign could emphasize, among other things, the false scientific basis of the decision as well as its ideological—as opposed to rational—components. Regarding the latter point, it could be demonstrated that desegregation decisions were heavily influenced by religious and Marxist ideologies, and that, therefore, one thing at stake is whether a body committed to justice and rationality should be in the business of making theology or Marxism law. This, however, is a subject for another paper. Nevertheless, important policies may require the cultivation of popular support before being taken to court, which is as it should be if this is to be a popular movement for change. Moreover, it may be inadvisable to make housing policy the centerpiece of a campaign, though the mortgage and megalopolis reduction plans could be immensely popular, and may be preferable to promote a set of goals and demands of which housing policy is only a part. Finally, though some would argue that what is at stake is genetic commonality and continuity, judges need to see that in another sense the issue is whether they can accept the challenge of a new political philosophy that incorporates cultural and economic components in ways that morally and rationally cast doubt on the validity of both constitutional liberalism as we know it today and legislative Marxism.

    Finally, as part of general strategy, not for the housing issue in particular, every candidate running for political office should be asked in public forums how much of his or her campaign money is being donated by persons of any given ethnic descent (I.e. European, Jewish, Black, etc.), how much they will be beholden to them during the process of legislation if (re-)elected, and related questions. Certain ethnic factions, particularly wealthy Jewish campaign contributors, have an enormous, highly disproportionate influence on American politics and the European American community, both domestically in the media and in immigration and foreign policy, among other spheres; and it constitutes the single largest source of funds for both major parties. Insofar as we want independence for ourselves, we cannot tolerate this kind of political (or other) subjugation. Questioning candidates as to the sources of their funds, or publicizing these sources, will turn the spotlight on this injustice and galvanize people to think and act independently when they vote or run for office. People should be reminded that “We have rights too” in case anyone calls this anti-semitic.

    This should be done to expose corporate campaign donations also, inasmuch as they are connected with economic policies, like job and production export and trade, that are corporate-globalist in nature and harm European Americans in their pocketbooks. Unfortunately, not enough nationalists, in their focus on ethnic and racial issues, are sufficiently aware of the serious harm that can be done to European Americans by economic power-holders who put their own profits ahead of the needs and interests of our national group—globalization and the mass import of cheap labor being only the latest of their maneuvers—or of what specific steps should be taken to thwart their agendas, particularly in terms of permanent solutions. While defending against cultural enemies, in other words, a people can be blindsided by economic predators unless steps are taken. President Bush, traitor that he is, nevertheless had an idea in this respect that could serve us well: Not just educationally or “No child left behind,” we could develop a program in which “No European American will be left behind” economically as so many millions now are as a result of neo-liberal policies. This would hit corporations, globalists, many liberals, and others right where they are most vulnerable—in their abandonment of wide swathes of white America. Other writers and activists in Europe, Australia, and New Zealand see the need to confront both liberal-leftist multiculturalism and systemic economic injustice, not just ethnic or trans-ethnic issues, and European American nationalists may benefit from reading them. For those who don’t know it, the trend in these places among the white avant-garde is towards a “third way,” beyond both the traditional Left and the traditional Right. Welf Herfurth is one of the most articulate spokesman in this movement, though other individuals and organizations operate out of a loosely similar framework.2

    Minority Intellectual History

    Residential and other forms of separation were red-hot political focal points during the civil rights upheavals of the 1950s and ‘60s. Martin Luther King, Jr., and other darlings of the mass media were not the only voices representing blacks at that time, however; though that fact has been forgotten or carefully buried. Blacks also had black nationalists, whose message was quite different from the message of those promoting civil rights. They didn't think blacks needed to merge into white society or rely on whites for their sense of identity, self-respect, or progress. Unlike civil rights activists like Martin Luther King, Jr., they had faith in their own people. Blacks’ own intellectual and political history, in other words, includes the ideology of separatism.

    Black cleric Archbishop C.C. Addison had this to say a few decades ago against integration:

    "It makes me very happy to know that there is another coloured minister [referring to Rev. Webster McClary, of Kingstree, South Carolina, a black opponent of desegregation] bold and brave enough to speak the truth in spite of pressure groups... The NAACP must go and we are out to stop it... Equal rights...integration etc., just won’t work.... Only White men who wish to use negroes for convenience would dare to encourage them in such folly. Every race-loving Black man and woman considers the Supreme Court decision a slap and a spit in the face of every member of our race... I have the pleasure of informing you that the NAACP is far from being the spokesman of the Black race... Had it not been for segregation in the South there would not be a Black man in America worth ten cents. To prove this I invite our brethren in the South...to send a Committee to make a survey of conditions in the North and your findings will be shocking. In New York there is Harlem... It is owned by Jews. Stop and watch the stores on 125th Street, the heart of Harlem. The Black men and women behind the counters may look good to you... Just keep watching and you will see the White man come before closing time with the keys and get the money... In the South when you see a Black man or a Black woman behind a counter, it is his store, his counter, he is the boss. It is a far cry from that in New York City. The Black man will soon control nothing. Once he is allowed to eat in the White man’s restaurant or to sleep in White hotels, Negro restaurants and hotels will have to close down...”3

    Zora Hurston, black novelist and playwright, wrote in the Orlando Sentinel:

    "If there are not adequate Negro schools in Florida, and...some inherent unchangeable quality in white schools, impossible to duplicate anywhere else, then I am the first to insist that Negro children of Florida be allowed to share this boon. But if there are adequate Negro schools, and prepared instructors and instructions, then there is nothing different except the presence of white people. For this reason I regard the ruling of the United States Supreme Court as insulting, rather than honoring my race.”4

    Davis Lee, publisher and editor of the Newark, New Jersey, Telegram, had this to say on January 25, 1953:

    "The efforts being made by certain paid agitators and pressure groups to have segregated schools in the South declared unconstitutional—may cause Southern negroes to lose a lot more than they will gain...the achievement of such an objective could have repercussions that might set the negro back fifty years... This present movement to end segregation in the schools is merely the beginning of a well laid plan to completely end segregation in everything in the South. If this happens the negro will be thrown into direct competition with the white race, and our business institutions will crumble... During the past two years I have spent more time in the South than in my office and I have interviewed thousands of negroes in all walks of life—and I have found very few who favour mixed schools. They want their own schools, but equal facilities. This being the situation one questions the fairness of forcing these coloured citizens to accept what they don’t want." 5

    Archbishop Addison’s and Davis Lee’s predictions about black businesses having to close down if forced to compete with white enterprises was not a barren prophecy. Rather, what they said has come to pass. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, blacks now own and control an almost non-existent percentage of American capital: 0.41% in 2002. This figure is not a statistical aberration, but stable, and has even gone down from the stellar height of 0.99% in 1987. Civil rights have helped the black middle class grow, but have plunged them back under the control of other groups in terms of the freedom, wealth, power, and self-respect associated with ownership and control of capital.6

    More well-known black nationalist leaders have espoused similar ideas. Malcolm X put some of his arguments for black separation this way:

    "Let me explain what I mean. A segregated district or community is a community in which people live, but outsiders control the politics and the economy of that community. They never refer to the white section as a segregated community. It’s the all-Negro section that’s a segregated community. Why? The white man controls his own school, his own bank, his own economy, his own politics, his own everything, his own community; but he also controls yours. When you’re under someone else’s control, you’re segregated. They’ll always give you the lowest or the worst that there is to offer, but it doesn’t mean you’re segregated just because you have your own. You’ve got to control your own. Just like the white man has control of his, you need to control yours.7

    We believe integration is hypocrisy. If the government has to pass laws to let us into
    their education system, if they have to pass laws to get the white man to accept us in better housing in their neighborhoods, that is the equivalent of holding a gun to their head, and that is hypocrisy. If the white man were to accept us, without laws being passed, then we would go for it.8

    The economic philosophy of black nationalism is pure and simple. It only means that we
    should control the economy of our community. Why should white people be running all the stores in our community? Why should white people be running the banks of our
    community? Why should the economy of our community be in the hands of the white man? Why? If a black man can’t move his store into a white community, you tell me why a white man should move his store into a black community. The philosophy of black nationalism involves a re-education program in the black community in regards to economics. Our people have to be made to see that any time you take your dollar out of your community and spend it in a community where you don’t live, the community where you live will get poorer and poorer, and the community where you spend your money will get richer and richer.

    Then you wonder why where you live is always a ghetto or a slum area. And where you and I are concerned, not only do we lose it when we spend it out of the community, but the white man has got all our stores in the community tied up; so that though we spend it in the community, at sundown the man who runs the store takes it over across town somewhere. He’s got us in a vise. So the economic philosophy of black nationalism means in every church, in every civic organization, in every fraternal order, it’s time now for our people to become conscious of the importance of controlling the economy of our community. If we own the stores, if we operate the businesses, if we try and establish some industry in our own community, then we’re developing to the position where we are creating employment for our own kind.

    Once you gain control of the economy of your own community, then you don’t have to
    picket and boycott and beg some cracker downtown for a job in his business. The social philosophy of black nationalism only means that we have to get together and remove the evils, the vices, alcoholism, drug addiction, and other evils that are destroying the moral fiber of our community. We our selves have to lift the level of our community, the standard of our community to a higher level, make our own society beautiful so that we
    will be satisfied in our own social circles and won’t be running around here trying to knock our way into a social circle where we’re not wanted. So I say, in spreading a gospel such as black nationalism, it is not designed to make the black man re-evaluate the white man—you know him already—but to make the black man re-evaluate himself."9

    Statements like these will also help dispel civil rights propaganda that portrays Martin Luther King, Jr., as the black messiah and civil rights as the ideal political goal of blacks, as if both are of divine origin. Because this propaganda is false and affects blacks and whites alike, countering it by disseminating black nationalist ideology and defending the legitimacy of black nationalist ideas will help weaken the intellectual assaults on separatist ideas put out by other groups, like European Americans, as well as lead to questioning of the civil rights ideology. Among other things, intelligent blacks and whites will see, if they don’t already know, that alternatives exist, alternatives that are substantially better than what the civil rights movement offered. Civil rights ideology represents neither black intellectual uniformity nor the totality of black historical reality, but was a political victor at a certain time owing to a constellation of factors, many having nothing to do with moral or intellectual superiority.

    Blacks in particular have to re-ask what is really best for themselves—integration or independence—and free themselves of the mental shackles of misleading ideas that have been affixed to their minds as absolute dogma in order to be able to evaluate things freely. Part of their problem will be to show that while civil rights activists were right about some things, they were wrong about others, and that the black nationalist program was more comprehensive and aimed at a much more total black independence than the civil rights ideology offered. The latter, in fact, in effect did the opposite in many regards—promoting merger into white society, with all its attendant difficulties of having to compete with whites and other minorities, and subjection, rather than independence, to more powerful white and other minority economic players made into a permanent feature of black existence in the business, educational, job, and other spheres. Blacks are politically more advanced in this sense than American Jews because, at least from the late 1800s until the civil rights movement, many of them did not feel compelled to define their success in terms of acceptance in white society. If blacks begin to jump the civil rights ship, whites may also.

    Moreover, because of the similarity of ideas, castigating European American separatism as “racist” implies black nationalism was racist also—On the level of principles, the two are to a large degree inseparable. To the extent blacks respect and revere people like Malcolm X, calling these ideas racist slanders him and blacks like him, and is designed to suppress those ideas. Call them racist, but the fact that both blacks and whites have advocated separation suggests this is not primarily a racist phenomenon, but another philosophy at work, which should be evaluated on its own merits. Taking the philosophical or ideological approach, educating people in terms of alternatives to liberalism and Marxism, is another, albeit, more intellectual and longterm, element of strategy, as mentioned.

    Jews also have to confess to certain facts. They have had a history of division between assimilationist and Zionist, i.e., nationalist, elements in their community—both considered legitimate—so why should other communities be slandered and demonized because they have the same concerns? Reminding them of their history and confronting them with it will, at least for those who are honest, go a ways in assisting their brains in understanding that it may just be possible—that there may be just the slightest chance in their God-ordained universe of morality and ideas about equal rights—that other peoples have a right to hold philosophical views similar to their own. Repeated kowtowing and obsequiousness may be required before anyone can enter their halls of power to present these ideas, but it could be tried. European Americans, in other words, also have their “Zionism” and reasons for having their own homelands and other forms of self-rule. We, however, will not use it to oppress and destroy others, but be a liberating force for humankind.

    Racism and Anti-Semitism

    It is to be expected that housing and social reorganization policies like this will be labeled racist and anti-semitic. It may seem so on a superficial examination that merely parrots prevailing ideas. It is not, however, because all national groups will be entitled by law to pursue the same program, and thus be entitled to the equal protection of the laws. National unity rights in housing will be available not only to European Americans, but Blacks, Jews, Cubans, Amerindians, and the like wherever they dominate, and they will have first right to available housing wherever they are in a majority, or, perhaps, have a historical presence. They will also own all that housing, something that most likely further distinguishes these policies from, for example, Southern segregationist laws. The only exceptions might be immigrants who have come illegally or recently been awarded citizen status under pressure from open-door policy lobbies who work in the interests of corporate globalist, Marxist, and other agendas.

    The current policy of desegregation is only one of many related policies that have been used to manage inter-ethnic and interracial relations in the history of the U.S. It is, however, racist in its own way, in the sense that it mandates the de-integration of each and every national group by law, as if group identity and cohesion of this kind are somehow immoral. In other words, merely asserting group identity politically is considered a racist phenomenon, at least when done by those of European descent. This itself is racist, however, because it portrays the activities of national groups, under the rubric of racial terminology, as fundamentally immoral, suggesting that national groups themselves are fundamentally immoral. This assertion rests on poor reasoning, however, because in one sense national groups are like trees and flowers: They merely exist, and existence is not immoral. Morality’s domain, rather, is motive and deed, particularly behavior in the interpersonal and public spheres.

    Terms like “racist” thus tend to obscure rather than enlighten, especially when the term is never defined, or is defined within the context of a defective ideology. This paper uses it in the sense of the subjugation or plunder of members of one group by members of another, and maintains that its proper concern is the relations of groups, not their very existence. The fact that the current meaning of racism has roots in the ideology of individual rights is no real argument in this regard either, since it ignores the profound social and cultural dimensions of man, has other faults, and -- like any ideology -- should be open to discussion.

    Desegregationists assume that the end of racism in this more accurate sense can only be achieved through desegregation, but this is a fallacy. The individualist-pluralist model of society allows some groups to become wealthy at the expense of others, since it allows members of one national group to penetrate the social, cultural, economic, and other domains of another national group and take over its resources, whether wealth-producing, institutional, or otherwise. This may or may not stem from racism in ideology, but it is racism structurally and in fact, since the end result is economic, cultural, or another form of domination of one group by another. The ethic behind this model is competition, and in all competition there are winners and losers. This can occur on an individual or group basis. Nor are equal opportunity laws—so highly touted by advocates of this model—a safeguard against this outcome: They are in fact a sufficient condition for it, since they nourish and protect an environment in which it becomes possible.

    Finally, it should be noted that anti-semitism, a label that some people already throw at European Americans who stand up for their rights, is a term defined in terms of semitism. In other words, anti-semitism needs semitism to exist. We cannot have a term defined as the negative of something else (call it “x”) unless there is an “x” and we know what it is. This is impossible. So how to define it? What is “x,” or semitism? This is important because if semitism itself is never defined, then stigmatizing something as anti-semitic is disingenuous and morally dishonest. At the same time, we can begin to define it, as activity that promotes semitic interests regardless of its effects on other groups or individuals, the often extreme, amoral ethnocentrism that Professor Kevin MacDonald and others have documented. In this sense, anti-semitism need not mean opposition to all those of semitic descent, regardless of what they do or do not do, but rather can refer to opposition to organized activity amongst those of semitic descent noteworthy because of its motives and effects on others, which makes it a moral issue, not an issue of bigotry.

    Our Own Terminology

    The word “nationalist” has been used, among others, in this proposal to describe European Americans who are conscious of their heritage and seek to protect their legitimate interests instead of “racial,” because the latter can evoke too much of the biological argument, and tends toward biological determinism. Rightly or wrongly, I prefer to think we are more mental beings than biological ones, or, at the very least, that it is important to emphasize this aspect more than one that makes us just another part of Nature, like fish or animals, who operate only on the basis of what their genes tell them. We all have profound genetic determinants, but nationalist is a more broad term, and can include political, economic, social, and cultural factors as well. It also avoids implying that all our actions are only the products of genes, and thus that we have no freedom or choice. Put another way, there is no “me” or “us” to the extent things are genetically ordained; we become little more than transmission points for Nature’s laws and impulses. Without making these distinctions in terminology, a European American rights philosophy might end up resembling the other side of Marxism, which holds that our thoughts, values, and behavior are only the products of our class. Freud was also a biological determinist.

    “Race realism” is an advantage over “racialism,” since it asks people to be honest and realistic, not deluded, about racial differences, but once again it focuses almost everything on race, and ignores other vital parts of life like the economy. In other words, with that as the motif, a society could gain racial separatism, but be plunged into poverty or a society ruled by the Bill Gateses and George Bushes of our community, people who ship our jobs and factories overseas and import cheap labor to take jobs away from us here.

    The word racial also paints perhaps too broad a stroke, since within any given race are important cultural distinctions worth preserving. Whoever has been in Scandinavia, Italy, and France, for example, knows how beautiful and constructive this diversity is. The American tendency toward cultural homogenization works against it and has to be watched carefully, and its merits and demerits discussed; some European Americans retain a healthy sense of their ethnic heritage, others consider themselves part of a blended European American group. Clearly, European Americans may have to unite for strategic reasons around a European American identity, but in the long run we should also perhaps allow reconstitution of various ethnocultural groups within that whole if members of those groups feel strongly enough about it. Southern Anglo-Celts, for example, may not want to surrender their unique history, culture, and identity so easily.

    Using racial terminology also makes a nationalist movement vulnerable to charges of racism, even when no racism exists, precisely when these can harm a movement that lacks strength, and might alienate potential supporters among those of our own background. The link between racial terminology and racism, which in the past has existed even though it is not a logically necessary one, is rather strong and may be too strong to overcome. The terms “people,” “folk,” or “volk” could also be used, as some have done, including here on this website, with less invitation to hysteria. In a sense, it may be better than nationalist, which tends to connote right-wing ideas only these days, since in a very important sense a “people” is neither right nor left but a combination of both plus other elements, including the spiritual and the mundane.

    Though all of the above terms have their merits and problems, we may want to consider “ethnic humanism” as the term to use in certain public discourse. Many movements come to be known by a word or two or a phrase, like communism, capitalism, fundamentalism, civil rights movement, black power, etc. Ours will also fall probably fall into that process of labeling. Our enemies of course want to label us racist or antisemitic, but we are developing our own vocabulary. The key to any political vocabulary is not only that it “sticks,” but that it resonates with the truth. That is, it must represent what it says. It should also be as immune from blind and conditioned reaction as possible.

    “Ethnic humanism” may not refer to a movement, if I can presume to offer a suggestion in this regard, so much as an important component of the philosophy behind it. The point of using this term would be simple—to cast humanism, a prevalent philosophy of today, in a more sophisticated light, one that allows ethnic politics to have humanistic, and thus moral, elements, or, conversely, allows humanism to better reflect cultural diversity. It can be said to be the counterpoint to or more developed and moral form of multiculturalism. When critics, the curious, and our enemies use terms like racist, we can say that we rather promote ethnic humanism, and explain that. The terms “ethical ethnic humanism” or “ethical humanism” could also be used.10 The first may sound too humorous, though that could serve a positive purpose in certain situations. The latter lacks a clear relation to ethnicity, or what can be called a limited trans-ethnicity, in our case a positive European American outlook and identity, and requires a detailed explanation both how conventional humanism is not really that ethical and how an ethnic humanism would be more ethical than conventional humanism, in spite of the latter’s reputation for being the highest expression of morality. Conventional humanism could, by the way, be called “hypocritical humanism,” because it applies different standards to different groups, painting European Americans in particular as basically immoral or evil, the cause of all the world’s problems.

    Finally, “self-determination” movement is also a possible ideological designation. Not only does it describe a core element of separatism, in my opinion, it is recognized indirectly in the United Nations Charter. Chapter 1, Article 1, Section 2 states one of the purposes of the U.N. to be “To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace...”.11 This article falsely assumes nations are equivalent to peoples, but includes the notions of both self-determination and peoples, and has value in that regard. Even without the Charter, the self-determination of peoples is a term that it would appear to me accurately represents one of the basic principles of any separatist, nationalist, or people's movement. “Friendly relations” in turn could be taken to refer to the moral, if not social, aspects of ethnic humanism.

    Once again, so much attention is being paid here to terminology because it serves as a powerful focal point for public discourse and propaganda, both positive and negative. People need catchwords, and if they aren’t given them, somebody will invent them.


    Reservation, conversion, mortgage, and population decentralization policies are just some of the parts of a political program needed to provide housing to all members of a given cohesive national group, and to do this in a way that benefits their quality of life and helps them prosper, rather than remaining subject to debt bondage and deprivation of capital as so many Americans are now. Moreover, housing policy is only one piece of a much larger puzzle and struggle. Other policies need to be formulated as well if national self-determination is to take root and blossom fully. Though not discussed here, these would include economic policies that favor doing business with and hiring only those who are members of the same ethnocultural or civilizational group, except for goods and services subject to inter-group trade, as well as educational policies that return elite institutions to our hands. Regarding education, for example, it is to be expected that faculty and student exchange programs and cross-cultural faculty and student quotas will be part of this program for the sake of good will and mutual benefit, but that the emphasis will be on self-reliance. If any minorities read this, they should be assured that this could result in institutions currently tops in quality and prestige like Harvard and Yale dropping a bit in this regard as minority institutions develop their own quality and prestige value. What is to be avoided at this time is the domination of the economic and intellectual apparatuses of one culture by members of another culture. A true ethnic humanist reorganization of American society on liberating lines will require policy development and political programs not only in housing, the economy, and education, but in nearly all fields of life.


    1. The British National Party, “British National Party Policies,” http://www.bnp.org.uk/?page_id=51.
    2. See for example Johnstone, Tim, “Welf Herfurth: Against the Reductio Ad Hitlerum,” http://www.newrightausnz.blogspot.com/; Herfurth, Welf, “The Pros and Cons of the Nouvelle Droite,” http://blr.folkandfaith.com/proscons.htm.
    3. “Communism and the Race Question,” reprinted from The New Times by The Victorian League of Rights, 343 Lt. Collins Street, Melbourne, Australia, no date, p. 6, italics added.
    4. Ibid., italics added.
    5. Ibid., pp. 6-7, bold styling removed.
    6. “Summary Statistics for Changes in the Numbers of U.S. Businesses and their Receipts, 1997-2002,” http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/cb05_108_table.xls.
    7. X, Malcolm, “The Ballot or the Bullet,” in Breitman, George (Ed.), Malcolm X Speaks, Grove Weidenfeld, New York, NY, 1965, pp. 23-44, reproduced at http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/malcolmxballot.htm.
    8. “Bayard Rustin Meets Malcolm X,” Reprinted from the January-February, 1993 issue of Freedom
    Review, a publication of Freedom House, http://www.socialdemocrats.org/rusmalx.html.
    9. X, Malcolm, op. cit.
    10. Welf Herfurth has used the term “ethnic federalism,” which refers to a sociopolitical form or application of ethnic humanism; Herfurth, op. cit.
    11. Charter of the United Nations, Chapter 1, “Purposes and Principles,” Article 1, Section 2, http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter1.htm.
    News Source: Email

    Post New Comment
    Note: This site does not allow anonymous comments. Registered members can login here to participate.
    Include my profile signature.
    Disable smilies in this post.
    Disable block tag code.
    Add [url] tag at URLs.

    Entire site copyright ©2007-2008 European Americans United.
    Opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of EAU,
    the editors, or any other entity. Some clearly marked materials are
    parodies or fiction. By submitting material you grant European
    Americans United a non-transferable 100 year non-exclusive license
    to use the submitted material.
    The following copyright pertains to the news site software only:
    Copyright ©Copyright (C) 2007-2013
    Powered by Esselbach Storyteller CMS System Version 1.8
    Licensed to: European Americans United