The greatest threat to our survival

By Chris DeHuff

Today we are confronted by our greatest challenge. Not only are we threatened by politico-economic disaster, but as a people we face a crisis of identity. Western Man is adrift in hostile waters. If we do not set our sails aright we will drown.¹ By “we” I refer to our racial community, the vanguard of this people, itself fractured by division. Broad terms like “movement,” “struggle,” “cause,” etc., are inaccurate by way of description as they give a false appearance of unity, and the more exclusive names like “skinheads,” “klans,” etc., are simply divisive, actually doing more harm than most of us are willing to acknowledge. What we really are is a racial community of diverse groups pursuing a common goal. Unfortunately, throughout our short history we have seemingly failed to recognize this simple fact: Regardless of your perspective, we all share the common goal of racial survival and advancement. If we do not come to a recognition of this final reality and make a conscious effort to focus on it, we are doomed, and rightfully so; if we haven’t the good sense to cooperate, if our collective will to survive is lacking, then we don’t deserve to survive. It’s really that simple.

Nature in her splendor never fails to provide her creatures with lessons crucial to their survival. The most basic of these is the racial imperative; it is so simple that it has been emblazoned in the writings of all the great religions of our people, and even enshrined in most of our laws and social customs until recently. More importantly, the racial imperative is encoded in one’s genes; like to mate with like is the natural inclination of all people, and rightly so, as a diluted gene pool hasn’t the capacity for greatness, only maladaptation and subservience.

The racial imperative supercedes all political and religious differences. Without question, nothing is more important, for, lacking the racial imperative, all else is lost. Our recognition of this simple truth is the more urgent under present circumstances; the conditions for racial conflict are ripe in this country (and around the world), and a united front is absolutely necessary to defend our interests, and even more so to reassert our dominant position in the world.

I am not suggesting here that we set aside our differences and unite under one banner; such an idea is unrealistic. I am a National Socialist, and I well recognize the wisdom of Adolf Hitler on the subject.²

“It may happen that, from considerations of a purely tactical kind, the supreme command of a movement whose goal is set in the future will enter into a coalition with such associations for the treatment of special questions and may also stand on a common platform with them, but this can be only for a short and limited period. Such a coalition must not be permanent, if the movement does not wish to renounce its liberating mission. Because if it should become indissolubly tied up in such a combination it would lose the capacity and the right to allow its own forces to work freely in following out a natural development, so as to overcome rivals and attain its own objective triumphantly.

“It must never be forgotten that nothing really great in this world has ever been achieved through coalitions, but that such achievements have always been due to the triumph of the individual. Successes achieved through coalitions, owing to the very nature of their source, carry the germs of future disintegration in them from the very start; so much so that they have already forfeited what has been achieved. The great revolutions which have taken place in human thought and have veritably transformed the aspect of the world would have been inconceivable and impossible to carry out except through titanic struggles waged between individual natures, but never as the enterprises of coalitions.”

In recognition of such wisdom, I do not suggest that the answer to our problems lies in coalitions. However, I do propose that we cooperate to the extent that that is possible. After all, we are not now fighting for the triumph of an idea; ideas at this point are secondary; we are here and now fighting for our very survival. Whatever our differences, the time to debate them and give them free play in the struggle for dominance lies in the future; at this time none of them is worth sacrificing our shared goal of racial survival.

As individuals we have a responsibility to recognize that this is a collective struggle, and to act accordingly. That means that the promotion of division should be viewed as treason, and absolutely prohibited. In my experience, the most contentious rift in our racial community is religion, and debate is out of the question as such beliefs are not amenable to logic. Before beginning this article I did some research on the issue, seeking viewpoints from both sides of the Christian-Pagan divide – and found that sowing division in the name of religion is justified by neither position. In fact, quite the contrary. The Bible is very explicit on this point. I will quote a few scriptures.

“Ye shall not go up, nor fight against your brethren the children of Israel: return every man to his house; for this thing is from me.” (I Kings 12:24)

“Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: I am the LORD.” (Leviticus 19:18)

An exception: “When any persons would compel us to break our laws, then it is that we choose to go to war.” (Josephus Against Apion, 2:38)

And I have this in a letter from David Tate of the Order Brüder Schweigen:

“…What we should remember, however, is to practice common courtesy and ‘friendship,’ or ‘philadelphia,” racial brotherly love for those outside our individual camps. It never helps a Christian to hear certain Pagans say, ‘I can’t wait until victory so we can kill all Christians!’ (I’ve seen this in print more than once.) Nor does it help Pagans to hear certain Christians telling them that they will ‘burn, burn in hell forever and ever and ever’ (which shows a few common misconceptions of Bible verses). Jesus defined our ‘neighbor’ as one who helps those in need (Luke 10:29-37; Matthew 25:31-46; Hebrews 13:1-3; II Timotheus 2:24-26). So, as a Christian separatist I always have a door open to my racial kindred, but I also exercise God-given common sense. If a so-called brother has bad intentions, employs criminal thinking and makes victims of others, then I owe him nothing. Every single individual is either part of the problem or part of the solution. My ideology is not just an intellectual exercise, but to be lived, and I recognize that every member of our race is either alive, dead or dying to God right now inside his head. I know my ‘neighbor’ not because he says he is a ‘racist,’ but because of how he acts. Those of my Christian family are another matter, I know them by their knowing agreement with God, as Jesus said, ‘You are either with me, or against me’ (Matthew 12-30; Luke 9:50, 11:23; Mark 9:39)…”

The Poetic Edda, the most sacred book of Odinism, is more esoteric, but its message is essentially the same. A few stanzas from the Havamal (Song of the High One) should suffice to make this clear:

(154) “An eighth I know, that is to all
Of greatest good to learn;
When hatred grows among heroes’ sons,
I soon can set it right.”
(121) “I rede thee, Loddfafnir! and hear thou my rede,
Profit thou hast if thou hearest,
Great thy gain if thou learnest:
Be never the first to break with thy friend
The bond that holds you both;
Care eats the heart if thou canst not speak
To another all thy thought.”
(77) “Cattle die, and kinsmen die,
And so one dies one’s self;
One thing now that never dies,
The fame of a dead man’s deeds.”
(69) “All wretched is no man, though never so sick;
Some from their sons have joy,
Some win it from kinsmen, and some from their wealth,
And some from worthy folks.”

A second reason that religion is the most contentious issue dividing us, I think, is that it is the longest-running argument among our people. To that I say, “Get over it,” let’s put this strife to rest. As for any conflict between logic (science) and faith (religion), I feel that it’s irrelevant; the aforementioned scriptures should put the issue to rest. Division is obviously frowned upon by both holy books; “logic” doesn’t even come into it. And to those who would interject, “But other writings support the opposite position,” I say, begone with you; if it is conflict within the struggle you seek, then you have no place among us. This is not about satisfying the individual ego, it concerns racial survival! Those who would seek to divide us when we most need to unite are enemies deserving neither kinship nor compassion. It’s as simple as that. In Mein Kampf, Hitler gave this to consider (Vol. 2, Ch. 10, page 311):

“I have no hesitation in saying that in those men who seek to-day to embroil the patriotic movement in religious quarrels I see worse enemies of my country than the international communists are. For the National Socialist Movement has set itself to the task of converting those communists. But anyone who goes outside the ranks of his own Movement and tends to turn it away from the fulfillment of its mission is acting in a manner that deserves the severest condemnation. He is acting as a champion of Jewish interests, whether consciously or unconsciously does not matter. For it is in the interests of the Jews to-day that the energies of the patriotic movement should be squandered in a religious conflict, because it is beginning to be dangerous for the Jews.” (op. cit.)

In this passage, he was talking about the conflict between Catholics and Protestants that raged in his time, but his words are universally valid. Many people are unaware of the fact that Germans of various religious backgrounds worked and fought side by side in Hitler’s Germany, often in spite of the enemies’ efforts to sow discord among them; the Führer was absolutely intolerant of those who would allow religious differences to divide the German people in their struggle against international despotism. In fact, I would strongly suggest the reading and rereading of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf by as many of our folk as possible; the parallels between Hitler’s time and our own is frightening; the book is very nearly prescient.

Most of the other issues that divide us tend to be individualistic in nature and not all-encompassing. There will always arise personal differences of opinion on such secondary issues, and this is even a good thing. It is our individualism that leads to greatness, and such should be encouraged so long as it doesn’t interfere with our collective struggle. To quote a comrade I had sought input from:

“People must be able to retain their individuality. That trait springs from our differences. The problem with a fragmented movement is that everyone is attacking the differences among our racial comrades and alienating people all around. How can a Pagan tell an Identity Christian his beliefs are false, when that person became racially aware as a result of his Christian beliefs, and vice versa, expecting the other to see reason behind his own point of view? It’s madness… The key to unifying our people is by focusing on the things we have in common rather than our differences.”

He makes a very good point, and I’d like to enlarge upon it. Lately my studies have turned toward collective psychology in attempting to understand the relationship between motivation and action in a larger context. And what I’ve discovered is very enlightening.

In stark contrast to others, Europeans have ever prided themselves in a hardy quality of individualism. This spirit built Western Civilization. Individual initiative, personal responsibility, determination to see a task through to the end in spite of difficulty, the will to stand bravely against overwhelming odds; and the creativity responsible for the pyramids, the Parthenon, the Sistine Chapel and the Roman aqueducts (among other grand projects); all of these shout to the world the value – and brilliance – of the individual man.

The history of Europe reads like a book of hotly-debated issues, and whether social, political, religious, philosophical or scientific, the desire for truth and justice burns bright in the breast of European Man. This spirit of rugged individualism and indomitable will conquered the West! Unfortunately, if we don’t finally learn to cooperate and focus this strength toward achieving its collective survival, all we have wrought in this world will disappear. I believe Adolf Hitler was absolutely correct when stating (Vol. 2, Ch. 4, pages 248 and 250):

“A Weltanschauung which repudiates the democratic principle of the rule of the masses and aims at giving this world to the best people – that is, to the highest quality of mankind – must also apply that same aristocratic postulate to the individuals within the folk-community. It must take care that the positions of leadership and highest influence are given to the best men. Hence it is not based on the idea of the majority, but on that of personality…

“Accordingly a human community is well organized only when it facilitates to the highest possible degree individual creative forces and utilizes their work for the benefit of the community.” (op. cit.)

Today, democracy is all the rage. We have become obsessed with mediocrity. Thus it is no wonder we find ourselves in such a mess. Our uniquely individualist psyche can only be focused on collective goals through exemplary leadership; but we have forgotten how to recognize such leaders because “democracy” has burdened us with the misconception that all men are capable of leadership. It has not always been this way among our people. (See my earlier treatise, “A critical examination of democracy,” in the October-December 2006 issues of The First Freedom).

Among the great branches of mankind, Europeans are uniquely individualistic. By comparison, both Asiatics and Africans are collectivistic. This is an inherent part of our psychological makeup, as reflected in the civilizations we’ve erected throughout our history. For a detailed analysis of the individualist vs. collectivist paradigm, I strongly recommend Kevin MacDonald’s trilogy on the Jews, especially the first book.³ These revolutionary writings gave me my “Eureka! moment,” so to speak, and will enhance any reader’s understanding of the age-old conflict between Jew and Gentile. The professor has been slandered and vilified for making such studies. Jews are hyper-collectivistic in contrast with the Aryan’s bent toward hyper-individualism, and understanding this paradigm helps one to truly understand how they have been so successful at invading and integrating themselves in all Western societies, yet at the same time insulating themselves from Western influences.

This theory focuses on nations (races) and the development of survival strategies that govern their relationships with other groups. Collectivist peoples stay cohesive by categorizing themselves as the in-group, and everyone else the out-group(s). Thus they are very hostile to outsiders because the latter are automatically perceived as a threat. The Aryan, however, remains more inclined to deal with people individually because he places so much value on the worth of each person, and tends to reject in-group/out-group distinctions except under extreme circumstances. As a people, we are capable of collectivist behavior, but need a central authority to keep us together. National Socialist Germany serves as a modern example of how a collectivist ideology for once succeeded in subduing the individualist inclination of our people; a very hierarchical, authoritarian political platform (Weltanschauung) incorporating the aristocratic principle into a recognition of collective racial goals.

The history of Christianity in Europe can also serve as an example here. When Christianity was first introduced there, it was under central authority of the Roman Emperor and then the Catholic Pope. Those familiar with the Catholic Church are aware of the fact that it is hierarchical in nature, with supreme authority invested in the Pope; and also very ritualistic (saints, sacraments, papal bulls, etc.), providing uniformity in the enforcement of its dogma. The structure of this institution – papal authority, hierarchy, ritual – kept our people united under the authority of Rome for some centuries.

As the empire expanded, however, and acquired more territory and converts, the authority of the church was not enough to keep our people united; thus, the empire split and gave way to two emperors and several archbishops contending for the title of Pope.

Successive crusades and inquisitions followed, spreading and trying to maintain the authority of the church in a frenzy of mass murder. Then came Martin Luther with his 95 theses challenging the church’s authority and its rituals, thus facilitating the Reformation. Upon the advent of that statement, our individualism completely reasserted itself; with the central authority of the church undermined, Protestant denominations spread like wildfire, each with individual interpretations of scripture. Of course, this is a simplistic outline, given merely to make a point.

Do not mistake my intentions; I am not criticizing Christianity here, but just giving the broadest example of the individualist- collectivist paradigm I know of. Make no mistake; this war is more psychological than anything else, so, to comprehend this paradigm is to understand something about ourselves. Our individualism is exactly what makes us great, and its contribution to the creative and ever-searching spirit of our people is unfathomable; it is the source of our strength. Unfortunately, that’s also our Achilles heel. As a people, we are accustomed to forthright, i.e., “traditional” warfare – that is, standing armies meeting face to face on the battlefield, may the best man win – and we expect our opponents to address grievances in the same “honorable” fashion.

Thus, we are generally unsuspecting of subversion and deception, which is why “conspiracies” remain so unbelievable and foreign to most Aryans, even while dealing with an enemy who has perfected such tactics over long centuries, and whose collective psyche gives them an immense advantage. For centuries we have been at war with the Jews, and up until about the time of the Reformation successfully kept our inclination toward hyper-individualism at bay.

In this context, it is interesting to note that a quite thorough infiltration of the Judeo-Christian outlook into worldwide Christendom came after the Reformation, whereas historically Christianity had been hostile to the influence of the Jews. With the Renaissance that wall came down. In today’s raging psychological war, Aryan hyper-individualism is no match for the hyper-collectivism of the Jews (and their pawns), especially after nearly a century of subversive indoctrination.

All of us can see this just by examining the social policies of the last half-century. Whereas we struggle individually to better our circumstances, the Jew, Asian and Negro stand together as collectives; and constantly batter against us, whining and complaining about “equal opportunity” and the always ubiquitous “racism,” while we continue giving ground by instituting social policies that put us at disadvantages (“Affirmative Action,” school/workplace integration, etc., relaxing our immigration laws and lowering standards of excellence). Why?! What’s the purpose of giving so much ground constantly? We have been made to feel guilty for our achievements for one thing; but, more importantly, we’ve lost the ability to think in terms of our collective interests.

Our society is becoming more and more atomized (where Whites are concerned), in contrast to the balkanization of all other races. We are our own worst enemy in this psychological war, because as individuals we fail to see that the walls of the citadel have been caved in, and, rather than turn and confront our collective enemies, we rip each other to shreds in an individualistic frenzy.

Of course, even collective peoples differ in myriad ways, often violently so; yet issues of group welfare nearly always take precedence. Any student of the Jewish Question knows that, whether Hassidic or Orthodox, Traditional or Reform, almost all Jews stand united on issues of racial/ national survival. And even Moslems, in spite of their sectarian disputes, recognize Israel and Western Imperialism as the two greatest threats to their racial/national survival, and act accordingly. Asians and Negroes are also intensely conscious of collective interests. But the White race, having more to be proud of (and thus more to protect) than any other nation, seems oblivious to the welfare of its own racial collective. And, in addition, the majority of our people have been manipulated into supporting and even financing every racial cause but their own; conversely, we’re the first to attack, slander and abuse the few among us who have committed themselves to taking a stand for our racial survival. It’s truly pathetic!

It is a form of “collective punishment” (another tendency of the individualist psyche: one of the “extreme” instances of group behavior I’ve mentioned), where a perceived threat to the “status quo” is first stigmatized and then ruthlessly eliminated. Historical examples include the witch-hunts of Europe and the punishment of heathens/ heretics, historical anti-Semitism (Jews banished from most European countries for their usurious practices, etc.), the witch trials of Salem, the treatment of Jews in the Third Reich (the Nuremberg Laws, etc.), etc. This defense mechanism, recognizing a specific “out-group” as hostile to our interests, can be used either to our benefit or detriment, depending on who does the labeling. Of course, today it is obviously being used against us.

What’s even more pathetic is that those among us in the racial community, most of whom recognize this summarization of the problem to one degree or another, just can’t bring themselves to pull their heads out of that hole in the ground! It’s time for us to wake the heck up! We need now to temper our hyper-individualism with a collective mindset, and can do this by focusing on “in-group” goals. Our common imperative is racial survival and advancement. David Lane has said it nicely in 14 words: “We must secure the existence of our people, and a future for White children.”

This is a cause we can all agree on, and attempting to individualize it (as I’ve seen some do) is absolutely disgraceful, since survival embodies the collective spirit of our racial community, effectively crosses all divides and gives us a common ground to stand on. It is not necessary, nor even desirable, to set aside our differences; but let them not stop us from striving toward our collective goals, each in his own way making a serious and concerted effort at cooperation instead of looking for reasons to fight among ourselves. To paraphrase David Tate: “We are not a movement, but many movements, all struggling toward the same goal.” (See his article, “The Movement is Dead… Long Live the Cause!” at www.nationalistfreepress.com.)

Today we are fractured and splintered, more interested in fighting each other than working together. As a “movement” we have always been myopic in the goals we set for ourselves; that is, we’ve been very short-sighted. It’s high time for a different outlook. We know a common enemy – the Jew – and a common aim: racial survival. The longer we divide our focus between multiple enemies and myriad causes, the more we are tempted to apply an objective standard (another individualist tendency) to a purely subjective struggle. The fact is, we are one people regardless of differences in outlook, and share a commitment to a common goal. Our enemy has amassed an immense amount of power and influence, and he is intent on our destruction at all cost. But we are Aryans, and possess the will and the strength to stave off disaster. Failure to do so will be nobody’s fault but our own.

A few things to keep in mind… First, let nobody think that if only we can gain enough support, bloodshed might then be avoided. This struggle will devolve sooner or later into a full-blown race war. In fact, to my mind, it already has, and one need only look at the FBI’s crime statistics to verify that. Let nobody doubt: we are at war.

By acknowledging that fact, I am not advocating random violence on the first enemy you see. However, we do need to be realistic and prepare for the inevitable. And when that day comes, know that your actions are justified by the truth in your heart. A future victory must be won. It cannot be voted on.

Second, beware of empty rhetoric. This struggle demands sacrifice and hardship. All of which is second nature in war. The enemy is relentless and unforgiving, so disabuse yourselves of any idea of a quick end to hostilities. We must look to posterity. It’s a conflict for the future of our people. We have neglected this duty far too long to expect Providence to decree victory in our lifetimes. It will be a protracted and bloody era, and victory is by no means guaranteed. But, take heart, as Clausewitz stated in his Three Articles of Faith,

“The stigma of shame incurred by a cowardly submission can never be effaced. The drop of poison which thus enters the blood of a nation will be transmitted to posterity. It will undermine and paralyze the strength of later generations.”

And yet, on the contrary, he added –

“Even the loss of its liberty after a sanguinary and honorable struggle assures the resurgence of the nation and is the vital nucleus from which one day a new tree can draw firm roots.”

Finally, to those who would limit themselves, and us, to operating within a legal framework (the New Orleans Protocol is an example), I say, plainly – cast the scales from your eyes. I certainly don’t advocate anarchy, but neither am I naïve enough to believe that we can achieve our goals by working entirely within the system. Law is an abstraction; it derives its just authority from the expectation that all parties will respect and abide by it. Limiting ourselves thus places us at a disadvantage, for our enemies have no such compunction (as should be obvious by now). So, ultimately, we have the most to lose. Our government long ago broke that sacred trust which binds men to its dictates. It has become petty, arbitrary and tyrannical. Today, that regime is not only devoid of its original purpose – to guard the interests of its Founders – but openly seeks to destroy us. So to hell with limiting ourselves under “the law”; there is no compromise with despotism!

Race trumps all, and, if it’s necessary to break the law in pursuing our racial survival, so be it; we are a self-reliant people, certain of the difference between right and wrong. In the words of Adolf Hitler (Vol. 1, Ch. 6, page 106):

“But when nations are fighting for their existence on this earth, when the question of ‘to be or not to be’ has to be answered, then all humane and aesthetic considerations must be set aside; for these ideals do not exist of themselves somewhere in the air but are the product of man’s creative imagination and disappear when he disappears. Nature knows nothing of them. Moreover, they are characteristic of only a small number of nations, or rather of races, and their value depends on the measure in which they spring from the racial feeling of the latter. Humane and aesthetic ideals will disappear from the inhabited earth when those races disappear which are the creators and standard-bearers of them.” (op. cit.)

And Thomas Jefferson said it thus:

“God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty… And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”

Regardless of your political/religious inclination, we Aryans share this racial imperative as a common foundational principle. The Establishment repudiates that assertion, and maniacally hunts and vilifies its adherents. No compromise can be reached between forces so diametrically opposed. The spirit of negation permeates this present regime. It must be destroyed before we can build anew. Breathing fresh life into something so corrupt and long dead is impossible. As the Creators say, “That which is good for the White race is a virtue; that which is bad for the White race is a crime.”

We are our own law. Period.

On election day 2008, millions of our people enthroned a Negro to rule over us. I can still recall his acceptance ceremony, looking out into the crowd to see a blond- haired small girl sitting on her father’s shoulders, waving a little flag as her future was sacrificed to multiculturalism. It broke my heart. Barack Obama is a neo-Marxist, firmly in league with the Zionist elite; his policies will only invite disaster. (And maybe that’s a good thing… the wake-up call we need). We no longer have the luxury of a White face in the White House, and the false sense of security it brings. Barack Hussein Obama is our enemy, collectively, and his intentions toward Anglo-America are anything but beneficent.

So, whether Identity Christian, Pagan or Creator, National Socialist, Populist or whatever you may be, make a commitment to our racial collective, and then go out and start acting that decision. It’s not necessary to convert the masses; we need first to work on focusing the collective energies of our already extant racial community. As Adolf Hitler pointed out (Vol. 2, Ch. 2, page 224):

“Against us we have the innumerable army of all those who are lazy-minded and indifferent rather than evil, and those whose self-interest leads them to uphold the present state of affairs. On the apparent hopelessness of our great struggle is based the magnitude of our task and the possibilities of success. A battle-cry which from the very start will scare off all the petty spirits, or at least discourage them, will become the signal for a rally of all those temperaments that are of the real fighting metal. And it must be clearly recognized that if a highly energetic and active body of men emerge from a nation and unite in the fight for one goal, thereby ultimately rising above the inert masses of the people, this small percentage will become masters of the whole. World history is made by minorities if these numerical minorities represent in themselves the will and energy and initiative of the people as a whole.” (op. cit.)

For my part, I declare all men and women who sow division among us my enemy, and I will deal with them as I do the Jew, who is adamantly intent on keeping us divided.

If the sacrifices of our martyrs are to have any meaning, if all those noble and courageous acts by our heroes can be said to have left their mark on history, and if the often misguided yet nobly-intended actions of our rebellious young ones are to be counted for anything, then dammit, stand up and fight for your people! As a people! Otherwise we fight for nothing more than egoism, and the cause is truly dead.

If we change the way we think about this struggle, the extraneous crises that confront us will be but a mountain we must climb; but if we fail to think as a collective, the pages of history will record our failure and the sands of time will swallow us. The choice is yours…

The 31-year-old author welcomes your comments/ correspondence. A National Socialist and Skinhead, he has served 12 years of a life sentence for felony murder. Chris DeHuff #P-17205, P.B.S.P./A1-221, P.O. Box 7500, Crescent City, CA 95532.

1. Which Way Western Man? by W.G. Simpson, available from www.NoontidePress.com .

2. Mein Kampf, By Adolf Hitler, James Murphy translation, Vol. 2, Ch. 8, page 286, available from www.NoontidePress.com .

3. A People That Shall Dwell Alone, by Prof. Kevin MacDonald. Books 2 and 3 are, respectively, Separation and its Discontents and Culture of Critique, available from www.BarnesReview.com .