Are You One of Us? (2003)

Interview with an unknown emailer calling himself Mr. Williams, October 2003

Mr. Wiliams claims to live in the Chicago area and was curious to find out if I am a white supremacist, because he said that this would be his prerequisite for staying in touch with me and perhaps even supporting me. I never heard back from him after this interview, so I guess I failed the test. His questions are given in bold face.

Do you in any sense of the term consider yourself to be a White racialist? (We would define a White racialist as a White person who believes in the superiority of the White Race – excluding jews, gypsies, etc., etc. – for most civilizational purposes and who advocates for same in some manner).

Let me split this up: 1) Is the White Race superior to all other races for most civilizational purposes? Looking at history and civilizational achievements, the point can be made that nations dominated by the White race were superior since the end of the medieval era. However, looking back into the past, it must be argued that Arab civilization was superior to European/white civilization during the medieval era, and that Chinese culture was equal or in some regards perhaps even superior to European/white civilization in ancient and medieval times. Civilization first appeared in Mesopotamia, which isn’t quite what is generally referred to as "white," though that can be argued. Referring to IQ tests – accepting their correctness and validity for the sake of this argument – it seems like Asian people score slightly higher than members of the white race. To summarize: I do not think that the question whether a race is superior to another is solely based on genetic features, but also a matter of historical, geopolitical, and other factors, all of which change in time.

What this discussion boils down to is whether races are equal, if all humans are equal: The ideology of equality is the most extremely flawed ideology that ever existed, as equality exists only in mathematical equations, but nowhere in nature. Acknowledging that people are different for many reasons, genetics being the most important, and that there are human races, I consider it impossible that these races, who can be distinguished by external/physical features, are equal regarding their capabilities in social matters, also in building and maintaining civilizations. This is, of course, no qualification, as being different does not mean that one is superior to the other. Differences result in advantages in the struggle for survival, or they can be disadvantages, totally depending on the environmental situation. Between 1500 and the late 20th century, the white race doubtlessly dominated the world and as such was overwhelmingly superior to all others for many reasons, and it is of course impossible to exclude genetics, but it is also difficult if not impossible to determine its exact contribution and importance. However, the tendency of white culture to be very philosophical, ethical, and compassionate, as well as the generally degenerating effect of wealth and hedonism has rendered it susceptible to less scrupled, more instinct driven ethnical groups who are more and more successful in replacing whites from their dominating positions (a process which has happened before in history with other cultures). Superiority, finally, can be measured only in success to prevail, and I think that the development of the last thirty some odd years indicated a strong inferiority of the white race. Since White racialists themselves state that the white race as such will have disappeared in some 200 years if things do not change radically, this is the ultimate proof of inferiority to the point of extinction of a race. Whether this will result in the decline and destruction of the civilization created by whites has yet to be proven. Though I consider it likely that a civilizational downturn will occur – we are actually right at the start of it (since 1914) – I also think that a new civilization built upon the ruins of ours – if it goes in shambles – will succeed. History has shown an up and down of many civilizations – European, Middle Eastern, Asian, American (no black African, though, it appears). It may take hundreds of years or perhaps even millennia, but eventually our civilization will be superceded by one even more fascinating and advanced than ours – provided we down blow up mother Earth. It need not be a white one. That is why I want to believe in heaven: Because I want to sit on the edge of a cloud and observe and understand the development of life on earth in general and human "progress" in particular over millennia to come. If I had all the answer already now, heaven would be boring. Eternal discovering, learning, and understanding is heaven for me.

2) Excluding Jews, Gypsies, etc… from the white race: There sure are Jews and non-Jews who do that, as well as Gypsies and non-Gypsies. Race, by definition, has fuzzy edges, and Semites are a borderline case of the white race. So are Arab/Middle Eastern civilizations, of which the Jewish is a tiny fraction – with not more specific Jewish contribution than primitive stone-age "law" books à la Tora, Talmud, Schulchan Aruch – can or cannot be excluded from it. That "originally" most Jews (Ashkenazim) were closer related to Kurds than Arabs makes no big differences. However, I think that Jews are probably the most ethnically mixed group of all. The Gypsies are a similar case, though genetically probably "purer" than Jews, closely related to Romanians. I cannot see how one can justify their exclusion while relying on genetic features, but then again I am not an expert in the genetic definition of what exactly constitutes "white" genes and what not.

Thus, I do not consider the White race superior per se. It was superior in past centuries under certain historical and environmental conditions, but evolution isn’t static, neither biological nor societal/civilizational. A radically changing environment and similar changing historical conditions can and probably will make the white race succumb to other races fitter for survival.

What are your views on race and its significance (or lack thereof) in the history of human societies?

I do, however, believe in the right, yes the duty of every individual, company, culture, nation, society, civilization, race, and species to struggle for survival, as improvements in biology, society, culture, and civilization can be achieved only if everybody gives his best. Competition is the key for quality and progress in commerce, industry, and technology, and this is just as true in social, political, historical, cultural, civilizational context: Monopolies are the death of progress, "fair" competition between different competitors is its engine, and the fuel driving each individual person, company, culture, nation, society, civilization, ethnic group, race, is what is called "corporate identity" in economics: identification with yourself, your company, your ethnic group, your nation, your society, your culture. Thus, awareness of membership within a group can and should be a powerful motor driving progress in evolution on all levels. I can therefore not only not condemn racial awareness, but have to embrace it as one part in the various hierarchical levels of the organization of the human species. That includes the right to believe – and to be motivated by it to perform best – that one is superior to others: I am superior to my neighbor, my company is better than a competing one, my nation is superior to another nation, my culture to another, my race to another. Provided, of course, the competition is "fair," that is that I do not resort to means of competition considered illegal. Now, that opens a wide field, but let me say that everything should be defined as "unfair" that infringes on people’s civil rights – for instance to love who they want, to marry who they want, to say what they want, etc. I cut this discussion on "fairness" short here, as it would lead us astray.

On this more general level, I do have a feeling of identity with my racial group (although it is perhaps not the most identity-forming characteristic of mine), as most people have, although most white people do not dare admitting it. However, a look into various dating websites quickly reveals that most white people prefer dating white people (as blacks prefer blacks, etc), which is the most profound expression of this feeling of racial identity: mating preferences. I am aware of it and admit this, as it is the most natural thing in nature. Preferring your own kind over others is just another driving force behind evolution, leading to differentiation and thus situations of competition. That this is considered "evil" in our society is an indication that this society’s paradigms are anti-natural, anti-evolutionary, anti-progressive, and thus in a more philosophical sense "evil." Of course, I understand the historical background of "unfair" competition in the past where people were denied basic civil rights just because of their racial/ethnic identity, but today’s political correctness of extreme egalitarianism is an unhealthy overreaction.

I must, however, also say that evolution does not come with the "right" of survival. To the contrary: concepts which are inferior to others to a certain degree and are unable to compete will disappear, and have to in order to make room for better concepts. Death is the natural prerequisite of life. The old, unfit must go for the new, fit one. Of course, in human society we always have the "fair game" rule as referred to above, but even fair game can lead to the demise of a company, culture, nation, racial group, as many white racialists see it happen to their group right now. So if the white race is to weak to keep its identity, then evolution demands that it goes. As a member of it, it sure hurts to see that happen, as it must have hurt Red Indians to see their kind vanish (with "unfair" games, though), but that is the way this world is.

If yes, are you plugged into or do you have a history with any White racialist organization (presently existing or now defunct) or are you sympathetic with any?

I do not know any such group, thus am no member anywhere and also feel no need to distance me from them. Actually, my gym membership is the only one I have anywhere.

Are you a colleague of Dr. Butz?

No.

Are or were you affiliated with any American university?

No.

Have you been in Chicagoland long or are you newly arrived?

I came here in November 2002.

We note that you have both Hastings, Chicago, and Massachusetts contact information. Do you shuttle between these three locations or is one of them your primary residence?

I have contact addresses in Germany, Great Britain, and the U.S. – an outdated one in Alabama where I resided until summer 2002, and the new one in Chicago. In late 2000, I applied for political asylum in the U.S. As long as my case is pending, which will be the case for years to come, I cannot leave the country, thus I am restricted to traveling within the U.S.

In Chicago, do you have a circle of friends and associates with whom you gather from time to time, any of which could be characterized as a White racialist, or are you pretty much of a loner as far as contact with Chicago-area White racialists is concerned?

This question is funny. Most people do not "have a circle of friends and associates with whom you gather from time to time, any of which could be characterized as a White racialist," yet most of these people sure aren’t loners. To use that word just because people do not mingle with a tiny minority calling themselves "White racialist" is like putting things upside down. Realistically seen, it is the White racialists who could be described as loners in a broader societal sense. But then again, this can be said of revisionists as well, as they put themselves in a situation where not too many people like to socialize with them anymore, and sometimes also vice versa.

If your circle of acquaintances in Chicagoland could not accurately be characterized as White racialist, how would you characterize it?

Human – how about that? I do not tend to select my acquaintances by monitoring their views on politics, race, and history. This would be like putting myself in a mental and social Stalinist GULag. Most of my social contacts are white, but there are exceptions. This is, however, not a result of selection but rather one of the regional and social environment I live in.

Do you have a – or you familiar with any – Chicago area webmaster(s), database administrator(s), e-entrepreneur(s) who is/are White racialists by conviction (if not by affiliation)?

No.

Scan to Donate Bitcoin
Like this? Donate Bitcoin to at:
Bitcoin 1BpYAeBpBZv3h27aTqEDw4SBPqhJJCjMcW
Donate