Expectations for Comrades and Leaders

In a previous article I discussed the question of loyalty and its meaning for a serious political movement. A good comrade brought to my attention an important corollary to loyalty: the expectations of behavior for leaders and comrades in the movement.

Everyone has expectations for acceptable or decent behavior in public and private. For purposes of political activism I differentiate between two standards of behavior that is illustrative of the different roles people choose to play.

I define a comrade as someone whom you know that is of like mind and wants to achieve roughly the same goals as yourself. A comrade does not have to agree with 100% of another comrades opinion. Comrades have a special path to walk. With few exceptions comrades come from different backgrounds inspired by ideas and the possibilities they contain. A certain level of being non-judgmental is necessary with comrades: one overlooks personality differences, eccentricities, or differences of opinion. Like a marriage, the long term goal is always the most important part of your relationship. With comrades one is honest, encouraging, and hopefully, always looking on the bright side of any given situation. To be comrades is a rewarding path that offers not just camaraderie but friendship. However comrades do not overlook character limitations or problems that develop in a given situation. I will add that in my opinion anyone that uses recreational drugs should be not be considered a comrade. Same for heavy drinkers.

Before I get into expectations of behavior for comrades and leaders lets touch on what leadership is. In English the word leader makes it look like there is a ‘leader’ and everyone else is merely a passive follower of the charismatic personality. This is hardly if ever the case. Leaders may be more accurately described as organizers and in our cause, community organizers. Organizing a group of people to care about each other and act in unity under more or less equal terms is far more valuable than a room full of chiefs and no indians. Simply put leaders are the people that plan and organize events and when they express an opinion on some topic people listen and discuss it seriously. It is not that they “lead” people by telling them what to do and shouting orders, the hallmark of leadership is taking the initiative and seeing how to take advantage of opportunities as they arise. Rather than waiting for someone else to do what needs to be done leaders take it upon themselves to make things happen. This includes organizing meetings and motivating supporters to attend events. For those of you familiar with this task you know that the latter is probably your least favorite part of the job. Be advised that the behavior and words of a leader is always held up to a magnifying glass and it is a requirement to be an example of living up to the highest standards and second to none. However it should be noted that just being your best won’t please everybody. Making a comment that ninety nine out of a hundred agree with there will always be the one person that will find something wrong with it and try to undermine your leadership because of it. C’est le vie.

Over time a leaders name can act as a brand name. Everyone knows what brand Al Sharpton and David Duke represent when they make an appearance on television. This is a good thing and comrades should promote the leaders that most resonates with them and not give much thought or much criticism for those they don’t feel affinity with. The role of leadership can attract the ambitious and self-serving and a political community needs to be wary of these sorts of people. It’s impossible to extract the exact motivations of a leader but I suggest a litmus test by analyzing what they have actually achieved rather than what they say or what others say about them. Have they brought more people together? Are they dedicated and committed with the resources they have or not? Have they led campaigns that give the cause good exposure? What do they discuss more, their personal needs or those of the community? From these kinds of questions a broad picture of a persons contribution to the cause can be measured.

The way in which this brand is communicated is largely dependent on the personality, experience, and predilection of the leader in question.

Now as this article is about expectations the important thing to do is this: keep your expectations within reasonable bounds and no higher. I define reasonable as whatever it takes to grow the movement. I would go so far as to say that nothing more or less is asked of you when interacting with like minded people.

When the opposite approach is taken, when expectations are so high that people you come across do not meet those expectations, decent people can be discarded as useless or never brought up to reach their full potential. This is an example of failing to be a good comrade and will probably result that you won’t be able to function as a leader.

Having standards that are too low can be even more disastrous (however that is beyond the topic of this article).

Over time you can find an infinite number of faults in the people you associate with. Find humor in it. Your comrades and community leaders are not perfect. Everyone has shortcomings and there is a good possibility of being let down by somebody due to no ones fault. I believe that a good comrade can tell you the exact areas where he needs to improve and he can tactfully point out where you can as well. I make it a point of asking my comrades “what could I of done better?”

I ask this because contrary to popular belief we (you dear reader and I) are simply not good enough, as we are, to make happen the goals we want to achieve. In order for us to achieve our goals we are going to have to change ourselves, and our community, for the better.

Having reasonable expectations of what to expect from one another is the starting point for doing what needs to be done.

Thank you.


  1. One thing to remember is that “to lead is to serve”. Many forget this or have never learned it.

    Another thing to remember is the leadership principle of the Israeli Defense Force (the Jews have it right in this case). That principle consists of only two words: “follow me”. Meaning: don’t point and shout. Leaders are front and center and lead by example.

  2. Sorry, but once you start calling yoursevles ‘comrades’…. I wonder whether this is some new stalinist movement? Please clarify…

    In my culture, our definition of leadership is someone who is 100% crystal clear transparent, no secrets, and who uses crystal clear languge.

    Would you clarify what you mean by ‘comrade’; what you wish to imply the use of the term, to other historical organisations that used it, Stalin, the ANC, Julius Malema, etc., etc. etc….


  3. I’ll give you an example of leader: a political party recently contacted someone I consider a leader, to ask that person to please consider being nominated to stand for a local by-election. the leader responded as follows: the leader refused to accept one vote from anyone who did not sign an affidavit stating that the voter had read the leaders manifesto, clearly and unequivocally understood it. The leader furthermore refused to accept the nomination if the party accepted secret anonymous financial donations. The political party withdrew their suggestion for her as a nonimation; but she would get my vote anyday. However most voters don’t want crystal clear language — my word is my honour refuse to BS you leaders — they want I promise you anything you want, vote for me so I can betray you, and show you what a moron idiot you are!

  4. I don’t want to speak for Andrew, but “comrade” is quite common in Germanic languages (of which my first language is one). In german, “Genosse” has racial connotations, while “Kamerad” is mostly used in a military context (people with whom you serve/have served, for example). In the Scandinavian lanugages, different versions of “Kamrat” is used for both. The German national socialists often used “Volksgenosse” (“People-Comrade”) to describe members of the German minorities in the surrounding countries.

  5. We definitely need to get a long better. There’s way too much infighting.

    I have a friend who moved to my area from a metro area. He is a WN, and he criticizes me on certain things very harshly and undiplomatically, such as mechanizing my garden. He said that I’m doing “Zimbabwe gardening,” and the rototiller is “Rhodesia farming.” Ouch! But he was right.

    If you have a thick skin, you’ll be able to take harsh criticism and sift out the worthless bashing from the gold nuggets of wisdom.

  6. Recently I found this excellent article (quoted and linked below) which might not be out of context in this place… the conclusion is that being “white” (skinned) alone is not enough, and that this never was any serious source of pride for our ancestors back when the great white achievements of history were made and white people ruled the world. You have to DO “white” things, to improve yourself and create, no just be a paleface and leave it at that… if the white race(s) or people are to be preserved, they must show that they can rise again to their greatness and do something about their lives and cultures. What I see the majority of white people doing today doesn’t really deserve much preservation, I’m afraid…

    Here is the quote:

    “Our ancestors didn’t think they were superior just because their skin was white. It was their minds that made them white. They were superior because they did things. They composed symphonies, proved theorems, discovered the laws of nature, invented machines, built cathedrals, explored the world, established complex states, and planned their battles strategically. They did things that no one else did.

    150 years ago, Europeans didn’t have to talk about “white power.” They stood among other people like grownups among children. Their superiority was self-evident.

    We started talking about “white power” only after we had lost the thread. In fact I don’t think the expression “white power” was ever heard before the 1960s. It was only when blacks started talking about “black power” that white activists started talking about “white power.” It wasn’t even our idea. We were just copying somebody else’s idea.

    Our ancestors thought of themselves as English, French, Dutch, etc., not merely as “white people.” Their identity was specific, not generic. They fought for their country, their king, and their church. Sometimes they just fought for personal power. They didn’t fight for the white race as such.

    I’m not saying they weren’t racially conscious at all. Of course they were. Four hundred years ago, Queen Elizabeth complained that there were “too many niggers and blackamoors” in London. But she was the Queen of England, not the Queen of the white race, whatever that would mean.

    Americans think of race in terms of “the white race” versus some other race. First it was white vs. Indian, then white vs. black, more recently white vs. asian or latino. In Europe, it’s white vs. white. …”


  7. “if the white race(s) or people are to be preserved, they must show that they can rise again to their greatness and do something about their lives and cultures.”

    The irony is that other races are never held to this standard.

    Greatness is by definition a rare thing.

    “What I see the majority of white people doing today doesn’t really deserve much preservation, I’m afraid…”

    The idea isn’t to preserve the folly of what Western Culture has become, but rather to preserve the blood of the European people who are currently being misled from reaching their genetic potential.

  8. “It was their minds that made them white.”

    Actually it was their being Whites which made their minds, not the other way around.

    “They composed symphonies, proved theorems, discovered the laws of nature, invented machines, built cathedrals, explored the world, established complex states, and planned their battles strategically. They did things that no one else did.”

    And yet they were White before they did those things. 2,500 years ago most Whites outside of Greece and Italy couldn’t read, much less ‘discover the laws of nature’.

    Even in the Middle Ages most Whites couldn’t read, because the Roman spread tradition of widespread Literacy was temporarily lost.

    And yet on a racial level they were scarcely different that we are, and were as White as we are.

    Culture is different, but it’s a different concept than race.

    Romulus and Remus were Proto-Latin White Men, though they were supposedly raised by Wolves.

  9. Please let this concept die once and for all if you ever want to save the white race! It keeps popping up endlessly even from generally wise WNs like HC.
    PC dogma, Baby boomer fantasies where in the world does this absurd preclusion to working with or standing by another white come from? We are not recruiting for a monastery! Imagine if the major religions decided to grow the church but required sinners to be sin free before they could join.
    I don’t care if you do drugs, drink, are a felon, swear with every other word have no table manners etc.; this is a simple guide for how you should pick your friends, business associates, comrades and leaders.
    1. Color of their skin.
    2. Similar/ compatible politicaly or in WN goals.
    3. Loyalty and trustworthiness to the degree that you can assess it by their previous behaviors and history.
    4. Skills and abilities or special knowledge.
    5. Morality, religious or philosophical compatibility

    This essentially how it has worked for whites (and all races) for recorded history. If you can cross off one and two that candidate should be preferable to any others in all but extreme exception. As far as 3-5 that determines what kind of interactions or business relationships you can risk with that individual. People are human fallible and in moderns times jaded by their lifetime indoctrination and whites are not immune. Race first, world view and politics next the rest is based on your judgment and immediate needs. If we ever get back to white first, white only in our free associations as our like our great grandparents we will rise to the top again.

  10. “The idea isn’t to preserve the folly of what Western Culture has become, but rather to preserve the blood of the European people who are currently being misled from reaching their genetic potential.”

    Well, at the moment it’s all about self-preservation. But then, what? We are idealistic animal, we need something more to live for than just our survival. Of course there can be no discussion about survival and self-preservation. They are the basics of anything. But if Whites don’t actually DO anything superior today, their claims for superiority are futile.

    And one must come to realize that it is not merely outer misleading, but decadence and cluelessness within white people(s) themselves that make them as they are today. If this decadence hadn’t set in already, they wouldn’t fall for liberal, anti-white, etc ideas, subversions, fallacies… in the first place.

    I say this, because this ceaseless fetish of being “white” as an aim in itself just sucks (to me as an European, Non-American) and is a bit ridiculous. Among whites I see everyday so many walking genetic and moral disasters, ugly, stupid, worthless, corrupt etc people around, that I have a hard time of glorifying the white race as such (or any race for that matter). “Race” is just the potential, the groundworks from which things are or are not realized, and even having the same race as, say Beethoven, Newton or Shakespeare doesn’t make you a tiny bit their equal or even close to them, no matter how hard you try.

    If we waste too much time of indulgeing in our white narcissm, we are no better than all those nice “colored” folks who really haven’t much substantial to be “proud” of except their skin colour or the size of their dicks. Or have you ever heard any Asian talk about being “yellow” as Blacks talk about being “black”? Even the Japanese don’t do it, and they are among the most proudly racialist people in the world. The reason that Asians don’t need to gaze into the mirror all the time and marvel at their own yellowness, is that they are (at least in countries as Japan, China, Korea, Singapore…) powerful, major achievers on many important levels (such as science and economics). It’s crucial for survival to be proud and preserving of one’s race, but the moment it gets maniacally, tautologically overemphasized all the time, you can bet for sure something is going wrong inside, some general idea is missing here … something our ancestors had, and we don’t.

  11. I agree with 10 Petronius. To be White is nothing if we don’t act White. Self-respecting, hard-working, honest, and creative White behavior is a stronger barrier to miscegenation than visible racial characteristics.

  12. Dave,

    Drug users are by definition untrustworthy and unworthy of being accepted as comrades. Drug users prove by their actions that they do not care about the health of their body, mind, or spirit. This has nothing to do with being PC or recruiting for a monastery but a tried and true path for a serious political movement.


  13. “If one of us becomes tired,
    The other watches for him.
    If one of us has doubts,
    The other laughs reassuringly.
    If one of us should fall,
    The other takes the place of two.
    For Wotan gives every warrior a comrade.”

  14. One of the best articles I ever read on the importance of character for the men and women in our movement.

    Bravo Andrew!

  15. Well said, Andrew! We’ve lost our bearing. We have allowed the miscreants within to rise to the top. We have allowed our civility to be sidelined, actually trashed! The ties that bind like respect, honesty, loyalty, and integrity no longer are a prioity in our communities. So often we are drawn apart because the people least likely to help us – or most likely to screw us – are our fellow whites!!!

    Also, another problem for our race is ethnocentrism. Probably because our race has so many great ethnicities and each is responsible for vast achievements. Asians, blacks, hispanics all support each other as a race. They do not break down along ethnic lines when in a multicultural setting. Whites break down along ethnic lines despite being surrounded by non-whites. We need to end this dividing line to recover. We squabble all the time.

    There is no such thing as white privilege. As Pat Buchanan said, we are a house divided. What is viewed as white privilege is nepotism and cronyism (often solely practiced by our traitorous elites).

  16. I am still drinking my beer and i still consider many a comrade even if they are not perfect. The ranks are too thin to be picky like that.

  17. “Among whites I see everyday so many walking genetic and moral disasters, ugly, stupid, worthless, corrupt etc people around, that I have a hard time of glorifying the white race as such (or any race for that matter). ”

    A lot of Whites today are moral disasters in comparison to Middle Eastern Caucasian Muslims.

    Can we conclude from this that the Whites are inferior on this metric due to genetics?

    Certainly we cannot.

    “‘Race’ is just the potential, the groundworks from which things are or are not realized, and even having the same race as, say Beethoven, Newton or Shakespeare doesn’t make you a tiny bit their equal or even close to them, no matter how hard you try.”

    Still the average White is a lot more like those people than the average member of other Races is.

    Certainly even the average stupider than average White is more like Ludwig Van Beethoven than the average stupider than average Black or Mexican, even on the simple level of IQ and much less traits that are more specific to Whites and which relate to brain structure.

    Who do you think is writing the best Classical Music, even today?

    It’s people overwhelmingly of European descent, and this reflects meaningful differences in the population means of different Racial Populations.

  18. “Well, at the moment it’s all about self-preservation. But then, what?”

    We can go back to doing what we did in the 16th Century. Writing great poems and plays, painting great paintings.

    We can even try to do to Mars what Columbus did to the Americas.

    But we’ll never be able to do all those wonderful things without racial preservation.

    We owe it to our ancestors not to be the last link a glorious chain that they fought so hard to create and maintain.

    But we also owe it to the future.

  19. Thanks to Andrew and Brewmaster for at least making a comment on my post. Sorry to say what we need is neither a political movement, nor a shot at creating a master race or any collection of superior whites. That is kind of how we got in this mess in the first place trying to create a better society via diversity rather than facing up to human nature. If and when our enemies decide we are weak enough to finish off (which could be soon) they won’t shoot based on anything other than skin color. Your chances of survival won’t depend on being lucky enough to have a fine upstanding White example of morality and intellect next to you in the foxhole. It will be whether or not the whites in your neighborhood or community stand together whenever threatened.
    In the end if we can’t reacquaint ourselves with the daily pattern and practice of race first in all our actions, associations and business transactions then we “shall all hang separately” as Franklin remarked. Any fantasy that we WNs can remake (with improvements) white society, white cultural norms leaving out the riff raff rekindling white survival instincts after fifty years of brainwashing is a tad unrealistic in the extreme. When and if the WTSHTF anyone with a white face shooting beside me at the enemies and hitting one every so often is a friend of mine.

  20. It is wrong and misguided to say that we must justify our existence on the grounds that we are superior and that we do not deserve to exist if we aren’t superior by some external measure. The right to exist is not contingent upon superiority.


    3.3 Answer: The praise of Nordish beauty is, of course, only relevant to those who appreciate it. As a reason or justification for Nordish preservation it is only effective with those who regard Nordish beauty as valuable and important and worth preserving. It is ineffective with those who regard Nordish beauty as being without value or importance. In the end, we will only preserve that which we love, and if the Nordish race is preserved it will be by those who love it, including those who love its beauty. In general, you should not have to justify Nordish preservation on the basis of its beauty (the “esthetic argument”) or intelligence, as the right of a race to exist should be an absolute principle of morality and not be dependent on its qualities, yet its beauty — based on appropriate examples (usually well-known celebrities, although your use of them as examples should not imply that they support the preservation of their race, or any of its other interests, as many, if not most, successful celebrities in the current cultural milieu will probably disappoint you in this regard) — should certainly be mentioned at every opportunity as a reason why it should be valued and loved, and should make clear to any sensible person why its beauty is not interchangeable with, or replaceable by, the beauty of any other race.

    When Mr. Schelter asked me what was so special about the white race that it deserved to exist (see response to previous question) he was playing the justification game, the ancient philosophical challenge to justify one’s existence, or the existence of one’s people, on the grounds that one is superior or special, and therefore worthy to exist, by some external measure. But the only measure that counts is internal, it comes from within us. It is we who make something valuable, meaningful, important or special by regarding it so. All value and meaning is determined and bestowed by us. (We are now told that the existence of the Nordish race has no meaning, value or importance, and that it is wrong, immoral and “racist” for us to think otherwise.) I often think of the justification game as the “Schelter trap,” the false belief that many fall into that the preservation of the Nordish race must be justified by assertions that it is superior to other races, or conversely by claims that other races are inferior, and that without such superiority it does not deserve to exist. This logical trap assumes that superiority is required to be worthy of existence. Ultimately, the right of our race to exist does not depend on it being superior to any other race in any way, whether in beauty, intelligence, morality or creativity, but on the very fact of its existence and the moral presumption in favor of preserving that which exists, and on the fact that there are many millions of people who love and value it and want its continued existence, whose values and wishes should be treated with full consideration and respect. It is they who give its existence value and meaning and it is by their will that it has the right to exist.

  21. The supporters of the 1924 immigration act did not argue for immigration restriction on grounds of superiority.


    The restrictionists actually went out of their way to deny that they believed they were racially superior to other groups. The Congressional Record reports Representative William N. Vaile of Colorado, one of the most prominent restrictionists:

    “Let me emphasize here that the restrictionists of Congress do not claim that the ‘Nordic’ race, or even the Anglo-Saxon race, is the best race in the world. Let us concede, in all fairness that the Czech is a more sturdy laborer…that the Jew is the best businessman in the world, and that the Italian has…a spiritual exaltation and an artistic creative sense which the Nordic rarely attains. Nordics need not be vain about their own qualifications. It well behooves them to be humble.

    “What we do claim is that the northern European and particularly Anglo-Saxons made this country. Oh, yes; the others helped. But… [t]hey came to this country because it was already made as an Anglo-Saxon commonwealth. They added to it, they often enriched it, but they did not make it, and they have not yet greatly changed it.

    “We are determined that they shall not…It is a good country. It suits us. And what we assert is that we are not going to surrender it to somebody else or allow other people, no matter what their merits, to make it something different. If there is any changing to be done, we will do it ourselves.” [Cong. Rec., April 8, 1924, 5922]

  22. Yeoman’s ideas on Leaders and Comrades are rock-solid. We already have some very good ones, based on what I’ve read and heard over the past few months: Kevin MacDonald, Hunter Wallace, Kievsky, others. Fortunately, the Time of Troubles that the U.S. will shortly enter is going to be a hands-on school, a white-hot retort, for developing real Leaders and and real Comrades. As for the Leader of leaders, I think it won’t be a charismatic blowhard like Hitler; more a savage, intelligent coalition-builder like Franco.

  23. We have a significant number here who are deep in The Twilight Zone!

    “…care about the health of their body, mind, or spirit. ”

    Take a good look around you. Does it seem to you that that is on very many white folks “radar screens?”

    As far as drinking and drugs, no one sane, I think, is or even would suggest we pay much attention to stoners, hop heads or sots. That said, you just alienated in one fell swoop at least 60 percent of white people, especially the working class. White people drink, and many like their smoke, too. More than a few white men like to “have women we never had” as well. Hank Jr and the like are not popular because whites don’t identify.

    The vision I frequently hear of in these circles of a future white society made up of men and women sitting around listening to Mozart while discussing Quantum Mechanics and philosophy under a no smoking sign is sheer fantasy, not to mention bearing little resemblance to REAL white people. What is even more absurd is that many such visionaries will bring this up immediately after invoking the Vikings and such!

    I think such people who speak like this are either very young or else hopelessly cloistered and out of touch with reality.

    I also think a modern Puritanical Movement is as repulsive as the present multiracial hell.

    A good start at formulating strategies will be to accurately asses white people and what they are and what they like. Let’s leave Twilight Zone plots to the Scifi channel.

  24. Brutus…

    Thanx man! You’ve saved me the trouble of posting what would have been a carbon-copy of what you wrote…get out of my head, please!

    White people are all on different levels of ability, intelligence, wisdom, experience and appeals need to be adjusted accordingly….likewise expectations: ever-widening concentric circles of involvement are the key, with the hardest and wisest at the core, the leaders.

  25. Aside: also Vikings gave a damn about being white, or about invading, looting, raping and slaughtering other whites (well, there was also no-one else nearby to loot I guess).

    Heightened race consciousness is always a result of conflict with an alien/hostile environment. In the US it was the result of an underprivileged minority. The idea of “Black Power” would be absurd in Africa. Rather than a “black nationalism” that could unify the continent, you have perennials wars and civil wars and genocides. In fact few people know, that there is a lot of “racism” and “xenophobia” among African peoples. So, if our European ancestor didnt care much about being white, and did not see it as an unifying element, it was because they lived naturally, like fish in water, in an all-white world, would only occasionally see attacks from non-European peoples.

    If Whites today are becoming a local and global minority, the emergence of “White power” or WN ideas is a natural result. However is should be kept in mind that this is a concept born out of crisis and defense and could only carry that far.

    As a European I also feel that it this a concept that could only be born in the USA. While multi-racial conflicts are more evident there, the Whites, who are of multiple descent (name any European country) do not really have a unifying history or element besides being white. In Europe the differing histories and the remembrances of the wars of the past still constitute national divisions and identities and resentments that are far stronger than the idea of a united resistance against the rise of Islam or multiculturalism (which is propagated by European elites just as massive as in the US). Thus, in Europe pro-white resistance can only be a pro-nationalist resistance, and old concepts of a United States of Europe are still very hard to imagine to come true.

  26. Petronius is completely right.

    “The vision I frequently hear of in these circles of a future white society made up of men and women sitting around listening to Mozart while discussing Quantum Mechanics and philosophy under a no smoking sign is sheer fantasy, not to mention bearing little resemblance to REAL white people.”

    My grandparents, and their grandparents, and on back for several hundred years at least that I have seen records for, were small farmers in Europe – low class. Family gatherings today, and with the older generations when I was a child, are and were not so different from what you are ridiculing – dinner table discussion is always interesting and often touches on intellectual matters, mixed in with the normal goofing around of a family. Reading the letters and books left in the attic, the family has consistently been at a high level of education and intelligence and morality for generations; regardless of the comparative poverty of circumstances. Drunkards were always bad examples from other villages.

    You can sell yourself short if you like. I know better. And I don’t associate with white trash – by which I mean, not poor people, but whites who don’t live up to what they could and should be. I am better than that.

  27. How can you not ‘associate with white trash’ when they are EVERYWHERE? I’m no statistician, but I think a stroll down most streets in most towns will reveal far less Cleavers and more Bundies. That’s just the is-ness of the typical american white person these days.
    Keeping one’s own personal and family standards high is great, but trying to get people over to our side might mean lowering said standards in our relations with them.

  28. I read once in Chronicles that in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when modern industrial America was built, no more than a quarter of our people had solid middle class values, the things we think of as White values. Honesty, sobriety, intelligence, self-restraint, respect for education, delayed gratification. That minority had the confidence to impose its values on the rest of the country, and thereby lifted up tens of millions of White trash, my grandparents included. The enormous post-WW2 prosperity allowed many more Whites of limited ability and/or character to adopt the outward appearance of a real middle class. Well, the money is gone, and the termites have hollowed out the structure. The Whites who haven’t got the stuffing to maintain a civilization will sink back to their natural level. Just as there are natural aristocrats, there are natural slaves. We need to recognize that, shun the worst of them, work with the ones we can, and be on the lookout for those trash that can be elevated.

Comments are closed.