When it was cited by Niccolò Machiavelli
early in the 16th century, it already was a strategy
as old as the race: Divide et impera. It is the strategy
which the enemies of our people have used successfully
against us more than once, and it is the strategy which
is responsible for our present peril.
Surprisingly, the division of our people
is widely discussed in front of us by the enemies who
have accomplished it, although the discussions are heavily
laden with disingenuousness: the heterosexual White
male, they gloat, has been dispossessed; his power has
been taken by minorities and women, and there is nothing
he can do about it except learn to live with the fait
Actually, it's not that simple. The division
itself is far more complicated than heterosexual White
males on one side and Jews, homosexuals, Blacks, Asians,
mestizos, and women on the other. The most important
complication is that many White women, probably a majority,
are on the side of their men; and many heterosexual
White males have joined the other side. Furthermore,
there is much which can be done about the situation.
The division we would like to see, of
course, is all heterosexual White men and women on one
side and all Jews, homosexuals, Blacks, Asians, and
mestizos on the other. Then we would be ready for the
shooting to start, and we would settle matters pretty
quickly. The Jews understand that, and that is why their
efforts have been directed not only toward empowering
the non-Whites and the perverts but also toward alienating
as many White men and women from their own race as possible.
I remember talking to groups of White
university students 25 years ago and pointing out to
them where the "civil rights" agitation, which
even then had become quite fashionable on campuses,
was heading. I told them that it would lead to the decline
of our morals and our culture, the disintegration of
our society, and finally to a race war between Whites
and Blacks in America. Most of the students just listened
without noticeable reaction, as if they were watching
yet another television program. Only small minorities
expressed either a favorable or an unfavorable response.
Nearly all of the former were males: unfortunately,
many of them males with a low testosterone level, who
crept up to me quietly afterward and expressed their
approval when no one else was around to hear them.
Both males and females were among my vocal
opponents, but I was always sad to note that the girls
tended to be more numerous and more hostile than the
boys. After a talk I gave at the University of Maryland,
one White girl proudly told me, "Well, if there's
a race war between Whites and Blacks, I'll be shooting
at you from the Black side."
I spoke to a class of seniors at a private
high school, also in Maryland, and while the teacher
smirked in the back of the class a blonde girl in the
front row sat next to the only Black male in the class
and kissed and fondled him throughout my talk, in an
obviously prearranged effort to disconcert me.
Women are much more fashion conscious
than men. Of course, there are men, even heterosexual
men, who worry very much about wearing the latest style
in cuff links or ties, but women always have been far
ahead of them in such matters, far more easily persuaded
that they absolutely had to buy new wardrobes every
time the fashion moguls raised or lowered hems an inch.
The Jews, to their credit, understood
before the rest of us that the female tendency to be
a slave to fashion is an innate, sex-linked characteristic,
and they also realized that ideological fashions could
bind women as strongly as fashions in dress and ornament.
It is no coincidence that nearly all of the influential
gurus and heroines of feminism of the past half-century
have been Jewesses: Betty Friedan, Bella Abzug, Andrea
Dworkin, Shulamith Firestone, Lucy Komisar, Lynda Schor,
Gloria Steinem, ad nauseam.
Thus, the arbiters of fashion in Hollywood
and New York who used the cinema and television to make
racial mixing fashionable among the trendy set also
made feminism fashionable among White women. The madness
has gone so far today that substantial numbers of otherwise
normal, heterosexual White women have let themselves
be persuaded that not only can they be just as capable
combat pilots or firefighters as men but that only women
really know how to give women sexual fulfillment.
Fortunately, most of them have not yet
brought practice into line with that doctrine, but they
have managed to make themselves thoroughly neurotic
trying to reconcile doctrine with instinct. More relevant
to the matter under discussion here, many women have
let themselves be maneuvered into a position where they
view any assault on the currently fashionable ideology
of racial equality as an assault on their "right"
as women to be military-school cadets or corporate raiders.
These women have a subconscious understanding that this
"right" is just as artificial as the "equality"
claimed by non-Whites and homosexuals, and they have
accepted these others as their allies in fending off
the efforts of heterosexual White males to drag them
out of the cockpit and the boardroom and put them back
into the kitchen, the bedroom, and the nursery. They
have bought the Jewish argument that heterosexual White
males should be regarded with suspicion until the latter
have demonstrated their "sensitivity."
Unfortunately, all too many men have done
just that. Men may not be quite as trendy as women,
on the average, but that's not saying much for them.
The difference is a matter of degree, not kind. There
are all too many men who are as afraid of having a Politically
Incorrect idea in their heads as the average woman is
of being caught in unfashionable attire: if "sensitivity"
is "in," they gladly will put on the most
disgusting display of it. And there are men who simply
have no ideas in their heads except getting ahead. Unlike
the "sensitive" ones, they have no shortage
of testosterone, but they also have no sense of responsibility
or propriety: they will ally themselves to whatever
faction seems to offer them the best career prospects,
and they will pay lip service to the corresponding ideology.
Like the feminists, they will regard any other man who
tries to rock the boat they are in as an enemy.
Actually, that's too stark a picture.
Most people, on both sides, are not really partisans.
They're just spectators, who find themselves, by accident
more than by choice, in one camp or the other, and they
sing along with the crowd without really thinking about
the meaning of the words.
That makes the division no less real and
no less dangerous for us, however. If looking at the
great, passive middle tends to blur the division, it
is sharp enough at the extremes, where there is passion
aplenty: passion most often expressed as hatred.
In the trendier circles in Washington,
D.C., and other large, eastern cities, there is more
bigotry than there ever was in a Ku Klux Klan klavern.
It may be that back in the 1930s some of the more backward
Klansmen didn't like Catholics or foreigners (although
the Klan since has had the good sense to drop those
divisions), but that's nothing compared to what the
Politically Correct bigots in Washington don't like
Walk into one of their cocktail parties
wearing a National Rifle Association button, and the
conversation will freeze as suddenly as it would if
Nelson Mandela showed up at a Klan picnic. If you speak
with a rural accent, you will be regarded with immediate
suspicion. If you're from the South, then you'll be
expected to prove that it's only the "New"
South of Jews, Blacks, and Politically Correct yuppies
with which you have any connections. If you're especially
"Aryan looking" (a la Rutger Hauer or Daryl
Hannah, for example), you can deflect hostility by coming
with a Black date.
In these circles the word "White,"
used as a racial designation, evokes instant fear and
loathing, especially among the Whites. They usually
won't admit their hatred of their own kind to non-trendies,
but among themselves they are quite open about it. They
all agree that it is a good thing that North America
is becoming darker, and they look forward eagerly to
the day when the continent will have a non-White majority.
Things will be much better then, they all aver: the
greatest evil on the planet, White racism, finally will
be suppressed, and love and brotherhood will reign.
When they watch a cowboys-and-Indians
movie, they always root for the Indians: when a White
is scalped or tied to a stake to be burned, they cheer.
Reading The Turner Diaries, or any book in which the
Whites win, "sickens" them (to borrow the
word most often used by mainstream journalists to describe
their reaction to my novel in the reviews they wrote
of it following the Oklahoma City bombing). Viewing
Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will, with its magnificent
portrayal of proud, racially conscious White men and
women, is a "chilling" experience, they say,
even though it was made by the greatest woman cinematic
Their dream world is one high in melanin
and low in testosterone. It is a world in which strong
women, wearing trousers and holding the key executive
positions, share power with Blacks, Jews, and other
non-Whites, and everyone lives in a city much like New
York. Everything will be run by committees, and problems
will be solved by talking them to death. White males
will be tolerated in subservient positions, if they
are either homosexual or have been "sensitized."
This picture of the world is one which has been drilled
into them during the past 30 years, starting at puberty
with MTV and Politically Correct comic books.
They tend to fall into the mistaken belief
that they are the universe, because they live inside
a media-generated illusion-world and talk only with
each other. But they do chatter in nervous fright whenever
they are reminded that there are still some of those
awful heterosexual White males left out there who haven't
been sensitized yet. They look to the government to
protect them from this threat and maintain their empowerment,
and they are hot to have the government use whatever
measures are expedient for that purpose. In particular,
they want a roundup of guns and a clampdown on Politically
Then there's our side of the division.
Close to the middle are those White men and women who
still believe that the traditional family, with a male
breadwinner and protector and a female homemaker, is
not only worth saving, but that it's the natural way
for men and women to live and by far the best way to
raise emotionally and spiritually healthy children.
Unfortunately, the changes in American
society during the past half century or so have made
the traditional family an endangered species. In 1940
most married women were full-time homemakers. Between
1940 and 1990 the portion of married women working outside
the home increased by a factor of four, to approximately
60 per cent. More than half of married mothers with
children under 17 years of age are now employed full
time outside the home, and the percentage rises every
This change has not been entirely a matter
of choice: increasing urbanization of the economy, with
jobs moving from rural to urban areas, and the rising
cost of housing relative to per capita income have made
it much more difficult to maintain a family on one income.
Greatly exacerbating the situation, however, has been
a trend in life-styles toward ever greater consumption.
People on both sides of the division have let themselves
be persuaded that they cannot live without many things
that their grandparents found quite unnecessary.
The division at the middle, then, is not
between people who are members of traditional families
on our side and those with working wives and mothers
on the other. Rather, it is between those who would
live in traditional families if they could, and those
who regard traditional families as old-fashioned and
repressive and look on the present trend with favor.
Looking at the division from a different
viewpoint, those near the middle on our side are those
who value freedom above comfort and security, while
the converse is true for those on the other side. The
herd instinct is a little weaker on our side than on
theirs. They have a near-monopoly on authoritarian personalities:
on people who like to speak with reverence of "our
President" and "our government" and to
hate anyone who lacks their reverence.
We look to ourselves to satisfy our needs;
they look to the government. We also tend to live more
in tune with our instincts--more the way God intended
us to live, the Christians on our side would say--while
the others favor life-styles as artificial as their
As we move further away from the middle,
the passion becomes stronger. Trendy people--people
who always want to do only what everyone else is doing
and would never dream of striking out in a new direction,
away from the crowd, or trying something they hadn't
seen on television--feel comfortable with lots of rules
and regulations. Things that aren't regulated by the
government make them nervous. They like to buy licenses
and apply for permits and pay fees and be told just
what's permissible and what isn't. It's like having
a stamp of assurance from the government that what they're
doing is fashionable, or at least acceptable.
They cannot imagine the feeling of rage
and resentment that rises in people with a more independent
or adventurous nature when the latter are confronted
with one of these artificial government barriers. Here's
an example: When I was a kid I loved fireworks. I could
go to a fireworks store and buy whatever I wanted. I
could ride my bicycle to a vacant lot and set off my
firecrackers and bottle rockets without violating any
laws. Today there are very few places left in the United
States where kids can do that. Certainly, there always
were inept dolts who managed to blow off a finger or
lose an eye playing with fireworks, just as there are
people who will manage to shoot themselves or a member
of the family by accident if they get their hands on
a gun. We used to be willing to accept such risks. We
were aware that if you're not careful you can hurt yourself.
We understood that living was an inherently dangerous
business. We preferred a world in which there were freedom
and risks to a supposedly safer world walled in by rules.
By the time I was 12 years old or so,
I had developed a more serious interest in rockets and
related matters than store-bought fireworks could satisfy.
I used to take the money I made mowing lawns in Dallas,
Texas, and get an adult to give me a ride downtown to
Greene Brothers, the big laboratory supply warehouse,
where I would give a clerk the list of chemicals and
glassware I wanted, and then I would walk through the
warehouse with him while he found the items for me on
the shelves. A dollar would buy a lot more nitric acid
or powdered aluminum in those days than it will today.
The important thing, though, was that I didn't have
to fill out any forms or show the clerk a permit from
the government to buy what I wanted.
Pyrotechnics isn't everyone's thing, of
course, but the same thicket of government restrictions
has overgrown nearly every activity that's not on the
beaten path: flying your own airplane, building your
own house, collecting your own firearms, operating your
own business. It can't be that the government is trying
to protect us with its restrictions: it still pays farmers
to grow an addictive drug which causes the deaths of
400,000 cigarette smokers in the United States every
year. Whatever the government's reason, it is infuriating
to plenty of people besides me.
I live in one of those rare, backwoodsy
places where there are no building codes, and a property
owner doesn't have to ask city hall for permission to
dig a hole in his backyard or change his plumbing around.
He just does it, and it's nobody's business but his.
The trendier locals are trying to change that. They
believe that building codes are "progressive"
or something of the sort, and they want to have the
same sort of rules that property owners in Philadelphia
and New York have. Fortunately, there are plenty of
other folks like me around here who are resisting, but
the trendies are looking for allies in the state government.
People who live in New York just wouldn't understand,
but there are those of us who really get steamed about
It used to be that men valued their personal
honor above all other things, and governments understood
and accommodated themselves to their citizens' sense
of honor, albeit reluctantly in many cases. That was
a long time ago, of course. Even some politicians had
a sense of personal honor. (That was a very long time
In those olden days, if a man were in
public with his wife, and a stranger made a lewd remark
to her or put his hands on her, the offender could count
on having to defend his life. If the husband killed
or seriously injured him, and there were witnesses to
the original offense, the husband would have been justified
in his actions, in the eyes of his peers and of the
government. Similar considerations applied if the original
offense were against the husband himself. The corollary
to this was that people tended to be more polite in
public, more careful not to give offense.
How different it is today! The feminists
become infuriated at the mere suggestion that a man
should feel any obligation to protect a woman. Protection
suggests a sense of possession. Protection is a job
for the government, not for individual men. And the
Jews, who always have regarded with a sneering sort
of amusement and disbelief the Aryans' willingness to
fight for the sake of honor, have joined the feminists
in moving us all into a more enlightened era, where
honor counts for nothing.
There are, of course, a few of us whose
hearts are still back in the Stone Age. We may control
ourselves most of the time. We may swallow insults and
other offenses without reprisal, just to stay out of
jail; but when we do, we feel dishonored, and when we
feel dishonored a feeling of hatred begins building
in us: hatred against the government which forced us
to dishonor ourselves, hatred against the politicians
and the bureaucrats and the other supporters of the
I am acquainted with the details of a
recent case in which a White man and his wife were insulted
in a mall parking lot by a Black who had nearly hit
their car with his. After screaming his insults about
White "crackers" and "honkies" and
being told in turn that he and his fellow "niggers"
should go back to Africa, the Black drove off, then
came back a few minutes later with a Black friend and
a brick. Advancing on foot with the brick in hand toward
the car in which the White man and his wife were sitting,
the Black screamed at the White man, "I'm gonna
smash your motherf---ing head in." Whereupon, the
White man tore open his glove compartment, grabbed a
pistol, and shot the Black dead.
During the subsequent trial, both the
defense and prosecution witnesses agreed that the Black
had threatened to smash the White man's head with a
brick. The only difference in the testimony was that
the prosecution's witnesses--the Black's male friend
and a White woman--said that the Black dropped his brick
and took a couple of steps backward just before he was
shot, while the defense said that the Black still was
holding the brick when the White man fired. The key
to the outcome of the trial, however, was that the prosecution
emphasized that the White man, who was a university
graduate with a good job and a stable marriage, happened
to be a "racist," who didn't believe that
Blacks should be permitted to remain in America. The
Jewish prosecutor read excerpts to the court from Politically
Incorrect books and letters seized from the White couple's
The mostly White jury, showing to the
world that it had no sympathy for White "racists,"
brought in a Politically Correct verdict of guilty of
premeditated murder, and the White judge sentenced the
White man to life in prison. Such an egregious injustice
may be considered only a fluke by some--the consequence
of an unlucky combination of a "sensitive"
jury, a Jewish prosecutor, a politically ambitious judge,
and an inept defense lawyer--but those who pay attention
to such matters can cite a hundred similar cases from
The Jews, the feminists, and their collaborators
would like to lock up all of us Stone Age men, who would
rather fight than crawl. Our presence makes them uncomfortable.
And so they have perverted the "justice" system
to serve their purpose. And they're getting away with
Or are they? Every time they have a success
of the sort cited above, every time they gloat and smirk
publicly about such a victory over heterosexual White
males, the hatred against them builds, the burning desire
to tear out their throats and smash their heads grows.
Which brings us back to sex again. Heterosexual
White males who used to know instinctively what to do
when a Black attacked them with a brick also used to
know instinctively how to behave when they wanted a
mate--or even the temporary company of a woman. The
changing of all the rules to suit feminist and Jewish
notions of "equality" has confused many of
Most of us, to be sure, have learned to
adapt. Whether we liked it or not, we learned the new
etiquette. We also learned that there still are old-fashioned,
unreconstructed women to be found--feminine rather than
feminist women--if one knows where to look for them.
But they definitely are scarcer than they used to be,
and the fellows who have a harder time adapting to unnatural
conditions have suffered accordingly. There's hardly
anything to make a man angrier than depriving him of
a woman's company for an extended period.
So here's what it all boils down to: the
war between the Clinton constituency and the rest of
us is heating up. Astute observers have been commenting
for years on the "culture war" raging in America.
It was a war between those on one side who believe that
children should be raised in a disciplined environment
and have old-fashioned values instilled in them, and
those on the other side who believe that all any child
needs is a big dose of "multiculturalism"
via MTV every day.
The folks on the old-fashioned side were
fighting with one hand tied behind their backs, though,
because they were careful never to admit even to themselves
that the "culture war" is really a race war:
that what makes MTV so elementally evil is that it is
Jewish, that it is the fiendishly crafted instrument
of the sinister Jewish billionaire Sumner Redstone.
They railed against "multiculturalism," but
they retreated in embarrassment when the multiculturalists
charged them with "racism."
So obviously the Clintonistas were winning,
and the rest of us were losing. One easy triumph after
another caused the Clinton constituency to throw caution
to the winds and to push ahead more rapidly and more
brazenly. Homosexuals, radical feminists, and Blacks
were brought into more policy-making positions in the
government than ever before. Jews came out from behind
the scenes and assumed more visible positions of power:
on the Supreme Court, in the Cabinet, and as movers
and shakers in the Congress. Military leaders who were
considered insufficiently "sensitive" were
The Jews defined a new category of crime--"hate
crime"--and got the government to go along. The
Politically Correct elitists announced that the Constitution
is obsolete, and the government decided to prove it
by making bloody examples of dissidents, first shooting
in cold blood the wife and child of a White separatist
at Ruby Ridge and then burning to death nearly a hundred
Second Amendment dissidents at Waco.
All of this became a mite too much for
us unsensitized heterosexual White males. We decided
to make ourselves heard, and we began speaking out more
loudly than before. We began using the Internet, and
we began making radio broadcasts on those few stations
not yet under Jewish control. And a few crazies among
us did some wild and stupid things: shooting abortion
doctors, bombing a government building, shooting up
the White House.
The Clinton constituency responded by
announcing the need to silence dissident voices: specifically,
to keep Politically Incorrect messages off the Internet
and Politically Incorrect radio programs off the airwaves.
Actually, this response was only the unveiling
of a small part of a scheme on which they had been laboring
for years. The Jews want in the United States the same
sort of laws they have succeeded in forcing on the populations
of Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, Switzerland,
Belgium, Denmark, and a dozen other White countries,
where it is now illegal for Whites to dispute the Jewish
version of history or to criticize Jewish efforts to
"multiculturalize" their people. They had
succeeded in introducing codes of Politically Correct
expression at most universities, in many of the larger
corporations, and in the government itself, but they
were still wondering how they could put real teeth into
these codes by criminalizing what they cleverly refer
to as "hate speech" when the Oklahoma City
bombers presented them with a golden opportunity. Now
they're trying to make the most of it.
It remains to be seen how successful they
will be. If they do succeed even partly in their efforts
to scuttle the Bill of Rights--even if all they're able
to do is knock another brick or two out of the Second
Amendment and close down a few Politically Incorrect
broadcasters--I believe they'll get a response from
us Stone Age types which will make everything which
has happened so far seem like a church social.
And I believe that they will be at least
that successful. Certainly, free speech has never been
truly popular. Joe and Jill Sixpack have never understood
why anyone should be permitted to write or say things
that offend conventional people. During the 1960s, when
the Jews were offending a great many conventional people
through their "counterculture" campaign, the
freedom to shout obscenities and preach treason was
zealously promoted by their trendy collaborators in
the cultural, academic, and media establishments. That
era is far behind us now, however, and the same trendy
collaborators are warning everyone that we really must
outlaw "hate speech."
That'll be another step for them in the
division of our people. Many people on our side who're
near the middle now will be pulled far out toward the
extreme. This radicalization will make us stronger.
The authoritarian types will remain where
they are for the most part, on the other side near the
middle, supporting "our President" and "our
government" as self-righteously as ever. About
the only ones we can expect to cross over to us in substantial
numbers are those whose oxen are gored by the changes.
Fortunately, more and more oxen will be gored, as the
Jews rush to cram everything they can down our throats
while they still have a grip on the situation.
In particular, their continuing drive
to usher in the New World Order as soon as possible,
with its attendant deindustrialization of America and
the proletarianization of the White middle class, will
force many to take a position with us who would have
preferred to remain squarely on the fence. We should
be thankful that the Jews' campaign for the division
and destruction of our people is committed to a number
of fronts simultaneously, and they cannot easily pull
back on one while pushing forward on another.
In our effort to defeat their campaign
we may find ourselves allied with many people whom in
the past we barely tolerated: the religious zealots
of the Christian right, the essentially conservative
types who have been gravitating toward the militias,
the wild and undisciplined young White people in our
cities who had nowhere to turn but to the skinhead movement
when they were abandoned by our "multicultural"
society, libertarians who finally are waking up to the
fact that if they are to preserve any liberty at all
they may have to compromise their individualism temporarily,
perhaps even a few authoritarians from the military
and police establishments who have overdosed on Clintonism.
Thus, even as the division of our people
continues, new unions will be formed. By the time the
shooting begins in earnest things almost certainly will
not be divided along the lines we would prefer. What
we must strive for now is to ensure that those on our
side of the division will be able to win.