By H. Millard:
I was called a white supremacist again recently (and not in a good way) by one of the usual low I.Q. lefties whose mouth is bigger than his brain and who apparently doesn’t understand that words have meanings.
Usually I don’t bother with bigots like this, but maybe this is a good opportunity to discuss what I believe; since it may also be of some minor interest to others who may also have similar beliefs and who have been called names by the bigots.
A white supremacist is one who believes in white supremacy. This is defined by Wikipedia as: White supremacy is the belief, and promotion of the belief, that white people are superior to people of other racial backgrounds.
I checked many definitions of the term and the above is fairly representative. None of the definitions I’ve seen, including the one above, fit what I believe.
Thus, by definition, I can’t be a white supremacist.
Truth be told, I know too much about evolution to believe that one type of organism, including one type of human, is across the board “superior” to other organisms. This just isn’t the way life adapts and evolves. Superior? At what? In what environment? No organisms are superior or inferior across the board, they are just different.
But this begs the question about what I do believe about human beings and human races.
Unfortunately, for those who don’t like reading a lot of words, I have to start way upstream from human beings and work down to them in order to explain how I’ve arrived at my views on human beings. Nevertheless, I’ll try to keep this as mercifully short as I can. Naturally, this will entail leaving out a lot of details. If you want the details, you can find my essays all over the internet or you can read my books.
GENERALLY: I believe in the ways of existence. [You can stop right here if you want. What follows just explains what this means to me.]
THIS MEANS (in part): I believe in cosmic evolution (continual change throughout existence). I also believe that existence started from absolute nothing and began with a single point–a First Cause. I believe that change is the only constant in the universe including on Earth. This includes changes in organisms, including humans. I further believe that every organism in existence or which ever was in existence or which will ever come into existence is also its own single point that may or may not cause a branching off in new directions. Thus, you and I and every other organism are single points. If we reproduce, we have started branching off. If we don’t reproduce, we are dead ends.
ABOUT LIFE ON EARTH: I believe that DNA (and the genes that are part of DNA) is the major determinant of the way life “IS,” on Earth and that all life on Earth evolved from the forces started by the First Cause that started everything and which eventually led to the evolution of the first molecule of DNA. This first molecule of DNA was a “single point,” between so-called non-living matter and living matter. This first molecule of DNA–this spiraling, code carrying, miniature cornucopia and life force–then started expanding, like the universe itself. From out of that first molecule of DNA started pouring forth an endless supply and variety of life constantly being modified so that DNA would survive and fill all niches where life is possible. The process of the expansion of the DNA continues as new forms of life mutate, branch off and evolve out of earlier forms.
This march of the DNA is a natural process and is never ending as DNA automatically and endlessly “tries” to fill all of existence with itself and constantly tinkers with life in order to survive under all possible conditions. As it branched off, this first molecule of DNA retained its basic core code that reads “life.” All other parts of the code were remarkably changeable so that living organisms carrying the DNA code would be able to come into existence and not only survive, but be comfortable and able to make a living in every possible environment.
If you’ve ever scratched your head when you’ve seen science articles about humans being this or that percentage the same as apes, or rats, or flies, or even bananas, you needn’t wonder about it.
The reason we share so much with all other living organisms is because we all came from that first molecule of DNA that crossed the threshold from so-called non-living matter to living matter. It is not the similarities that are most important to us, but the differences. And, in the world of DNA, very “minor” changes can have major effects. DNA is DNA no matter what organism it is in. The only difference is in the shuffle of the billions of combinations of the four chemicals that make up DNA.
AS FAR AS HUMANS GO: I believe that humans are just one of the countless billions of life forms that came from that first molecule of DNA. Just as there was a single point–the First Cause–that has been expanding and evolving ever since it began, so too was there a single point of every type of organism including humans. This first true human–a single point–then became, largely through natural selection, the first cause of all humans.
WHITE PEOPLE: A sub-species of homo sapiens; a branching off from other human types. I believe that there was a single point White person who was one of the descendants of people who probably arrived in Europe from other places. This single point White person; or, to be more precise, the mutated genetic code he or she carried, then expanded via natural selection and eventually became the norm for Europe as the individuals produced from this particular genetic code proved to be the most fit for the European environment.
I believe that Whites not only evolved the outward characteristics that we can easily see–skin color, hair color and texture, eye color, bone structure, head shapes, etc. but that we also evolved internally, including in the way our brains work.
Now, to be clear, when I speak of a “single point” as with a single point White person, it’s not really as clear cut as it sounds. I believe that a person was born with a genetic mutation that made him or her whiter than others at that time. And as science now tells us, whiter skin allows for the production of more Vitamin D in less sunny climes and thus helps prevent rickets. This person thus had a survival advantage over others. This let him or her live longer to produce more children. Some of those children carried the white skin gene mutation and passed it on to even more children. Over the centuries, due to natural selection, the gene(s) for white skin won the battle with the darker skin genes in Europe and replaced them.
OUR PRESENT SITUATION: I believe that today, as never before, White people are an endangered sub-species and that we face extinction largely due to the modern lack of isolation and the attendant gene transfer called miscegenation, and also because of abortions, birth control, and by purposely having fewer children than we can have who share our genetic code with our mutations that make us, us.
OUR DESTINY: I believe that destiny is not predetermined and that our highest destiny can only be achieved by avoiding the things that hold down our numbers and keep us from teeming. In this regard, I believe that we need a certain critical mass of our kind of human for us to progress. I further believe that we must follow a certain path in life (described in my many essays). Suffice it to say, here, that the path requires right thinking and the right actions that follow that right thinking and that the most important part is to have as many children in our image as possible.
CONTROLLING OUR DESTINY: I believe that the changes we see that constitute evolution are nature’s default settings. I believe that we can change those settings to our advantage and that we can control our evolution so that we not only do not go extinct, but so that we expand just as we once did when we started as a single point in Europe when we branched off from the rest of mankind.
ISOLATION NEEDED: I believe that because White people are a later evolutionary development, that our White genes are not as fixed as those of other peoples, and that this is why it takes two White parents to make a new White child. In other words, most of our unique genes are recessive. In the past, and with our European isolation and social taboos about miscegenation and abortion and without modern birth control measures, we were able to reproduce as nature intended us to. Those days are gone, and we must adapt to a new reality and we must now make conscious decisions to continue our evolution.
CONCLUSION: There you have it; some of my basic beliefs. But there is much more that flows from these basic beliefs. For me, these beliefs are what answers many of the big questions about existence. Most of my essays and books–even my fiction writings–deal with many of the details that naturally flow from these basic beliefs.
The difference between humans and other organisms is that we can study and understand the automatic ways of nature and we can act to change the course of evolutionary history if we have a proper understanding of what it’s all about and if we so desire.
As I indicated above, I believe that we can change the default settings of nature so that we evolve in the best direction for us, and we can leave blind hit and miss evolution to organisms that have less consciousness. And, no, this does not involve false eugenic ideas about breeding the few and the best. I believe that is counter productive. In fact, I believe that to change the default settings of nature, we have to breed willy nilly with our own kind without being overly picky about our own people who we produce children with.
Nature screams out: Make more like yourself or you will be replaced. We have to start listening and we have to start acting.
By H. Millard © 2015
# # # #
THREE BOOKS BY HARD TO PIGEONHOLE H. MILLARD
All three books are now listed on Amazon.com.
Just click on the “https://www…” links after each book.
They’re also available at quality brick and mortar stores or can be ordered by them for you.
The lefties at the OC WEEKLY said Millard is one of OC’s most frightening people.
“Millard is an important writer” New Nation News
“Millard is an original. His books aren’t like your typical fiction.
“If you don’t know where to put his books, try the same shelf with Kerouac,
Kafka, Sartre and Nietzsche” – a reader.
“I consider H. Millard one of the most brilliant writers and analysts
in the European American civil rights movement.” – David Duke
|
Ourselves Alone & Homeless Jack’s Religion |
|
ROAMING THE WASTELANDS – (ISBN: 0-595-22811-9) H. Millard’s latest sacred cow toppling book, is now available at Amazon.com by clicking on this link |
|
THE OUTSIDER – (ISBN: 0-595-19424-9) H. Millard’s underground classic story of alienation is available at Amazon.com by clicking on the this link or by calling 1-877-823-9235: |
# # # #
Shaun
- Edit
I think it’s good to have a sense of pride in your people’s accomplishments and all that. I’m proud, for example, that somebody like William Wallace (a White man) was able to build the first mass movement from such an unprivileged position against the brutal, bullying Norman thugs who controlled Scotland in up until the early 14th Century! Does that make me a White supremacist?
Maybe in some people’s eyes, but why should I care what ”they” think? Why should I let myself be defined within the ”moral” framework of the pedo-protecting, White-genocide promoting left wing?
Flanders
- Edit
Why are you letting a jew dominated website define White supremacy?
Whites KNOW that White people have no need to become disciples for our race. We know that we are White – and that, left to live without interference, our race is good – and is superior in it’s acheivements.
It is spokespeople for the other races who are placing Whites in a position of a suspect type of supremacy, but they do that only for the purpose of making all Whites targets. Those Jews for example, who pretend to be “white” while doing everything within their power to bring down our White race, it’s culture and it’s history, and to place our race squarely within the minds of the more mentally-challenged as being somehow their enemy, whenever we stand together as the White men we are.
You have a way to go to be among Whte men, Millard, so don’t be trying to define what you can’t comprehend.
Max Musson
- Edit
I don’t understand why you are expressing hostility towards Mr Millard, Flanders? He has written extensively on this subject and has demonstrated a very clear understanding of the plight of White people in the modern world.
heechee
- Edit
I am proud to be white, our people have added to the world so much!
What would this world be like without white inventions and white discoveries? Isn’t it western (white) medicine keeping so many more Africans from dying of disease?
Think of a science and try to find a multiculturally equal list of greats in that field?
It is what it is, and you cannot change that to fit a theory!
Superior no, more curious,inventive and industrious, probably!
katana
- Edit
By H. Millard:
.
I was called a white supremacist again recently …
.
A white supremacist is one who believes in white supremacy. This is defined by Wikipedia as: White supremacy is the belief, and promotion of the belief, that white people are superior to people of other racial backgrounds.
.
I checked many definitions of the term and the above is fairly representative. None of the definitions I’ve seen, including the one above, fit what I believe.
.
Thus, by definition, I can’t be a white supremacist.
.
Truth be told, I know too much about evolution to believe that one type of organism, including one type of human, is across the board “superior” to other organisms. This just isn’t the way life adapts and evolves. Superior? At what? In what environment? No organisms are superior or inferior across the board, they are just different.
—————–
.
HM, I find your line of reasoning overly influenced by political correctness, leading you to deny what I know you really believe, namely that Whites are the superior race, in sum, of all the traits that matter to us.
.
I don’t see any need to play word games about this by using an “apples and oranges” style of argument. The “apples” part is what we all know, that Whites produce a better society than what negroes produce, for example. Whites are demonstratively superior to negroes in all matters that WE consider important. If that is the definition of “White supremacy”, then so be it. This is a “subjective” standard that we use every day.
.
The “oranges” part of your comparison is what impersonal evolution produces and how it’s all relative to the environment. Where superiority is judged by the “objective” standard called survival.
.
As things stand today, the superior race, the White race, is threatened with destruction by the subjectively “inferior races”, namely the Shylock tribe and his tools, the White collaborators, the negroes and others.
Max Musson
- Edit
Winning over people who are subjectively already already with us is child’s play Katana, but wat will make the big difference is our capacity to win over those who are seeking the comfort of an objective reason to support us.
.
Millard’s aim is the provide an ideological platform that enables us to attract support from those who seek objective justifications. This is again one of those issues where ‘less is more’. You need to start looking for the good in what people are saying, try to catch them doing something right rather than catch them doing something wrong.
katana
- Edit
.
I accept your point Max and I am in full support of HM’s overall sentiment and do appreciate his writings.
.
As for “objective” reasons for Whites to support “us”, being the continuing existence of the White race, then it comes down to the “will the exist”. The will of ourselves, our families and extended families all the way to our White race to continue to live and reproduce, just like any other race that make up the human species. The objective fact is that each living thing has a will to exist, by definition.
.
It’s an objective fact though that human races can be in competition with each other.
.
Our race has been hijacked by a deadly parasitical sub-race that has managed, through total media control, to convince Whites that we have no “objective” right to exist and should de-breed ourselves out of existence.
.
The simple fact that we do exist is the only “objective fact” we need to fight for our existence and to destroy any other thing that threatens our existence.
.
And today that threat is a tiny parasite, that has lodged itself in the brains our so-called elite, that is leading us to destruction and extinction.
.
.
———
.
For my latest blog post, Onward Christian Soldiers – Part 9 – click here >>> KATANA
.
[https://katana17.wordpress.com]
.
Keith
- Edit
As far back as Aristotle and Plato morality has been recognized to be of great importance in influencing others in political discourse.
.
The approach you put forward has been the one that has been used for the majority of the post WW2 period in the UK and the USA and what success has it brung? You could tell a person 1000 times the achievements of European civilizations in comparison to non-Europeans but it would do nothing.
.
We can never underestimate the severe impact that internalizing discontent has on a population. To overcome this we have to deconstruct their internalized discontent by providing a moral framework to assist them in leaving and embracing a more clearer natural view. This moral framework and worldview has to be transcendental, not reactionary.
.
Sure we don’t like it but post-WW2 Western Europeans have become so liberalised, hooked on victim-hood propaganda and the distortion of history that people are not logical in their views. For Western Europeans to survive we must recognise their current mental state and work to unravel it.
Flanders
- Edit
Max, I appreciate your efforts to give varied opinions voice, but If Millard is the best that White people can come up with as a spokesman…. And, the stupidity behind such smatterings as:
“I believe that because White people are a later evolutionary development, that our White genes are not as fixed as those of other peoples, and that this is why it takes two White parents to make a new White child…”.
…does not deserve the time to read.
Max Musson
- Edit
You are welcome to your opinion Flanders, and while you are at it, perhaps you would direct us to your own writings on this subject, which must be so much more technically precise, incisive and inspirational by comparison?
Flanders
- Edit
Why should I care to engage in any type of dialogue with you, Max. You do not have the decency to allow my full comment to be published, although it was reasonable and, I thought, illuminating. Your self-editing is censorship, so to hell with you.
Max Musson
- Edit
No, Flanders, I did not publish your comments in full. One of my roles as editor of this website is to moderate the comments of our readers, should moderation be needed. When people make statements that are unnecessarily abusive towards others, they tend to get moderated.
.
I take it that you don’t have a body of writing somewhere that establishes your credentials as a thinker and writer and justifies your severe criticism of H. Millard?
John Beattie
- Edit
How many non-White space pilots are there ?
Walter Greenway
- Edit
How many white men still build mud huts?
heechee
- Edit
I believe we gained something from the Neanderthals,and possibly others, there are genetic markers in us not present in others so much.
We also faced the challenges of a more hostile environment for survival, our ancestors faced more challenges and grew to meet them. Problems need solutions, that requires thought.
Max Musson
- Edit
Very true!
Michael Woodbridge
- Edit
A “White Supremacist” is simply one who acknowledges Aryan superiority as part of the natural order. This is self-evident to any White Man who makes a serious historical study of our people.The problem arises when armed with that knowledge we mislead ourselves into thinking we’re superior to Nature herself. “The whole is superior to the sum of its component parts”.
katana
- Edit
Although I naturally don’t like my comments being clipped, as they occasionally are, I accept that Max has the right to publish what he likes.
I also fully understand why Flanders is angered by his comment being edited. And I think part of that annoyance is that Max does a “good” job of making the redactions “silent” to the other readers. In other words the censor’s work remains unseen.
So, I’d like to suggest that Max indicates in some manner that a comment has been cut. No need for any reason to be given as it will be obvious that the deleted parts crossed a line.
What do you reckon Max?
Max Musson
- Edit
I have always made it clear that comments are moderated to remove illegal and/or abusive material and also statements that are completely nonsensical or persistent repetitions of assertions already made and rebutted or where a commenter posts a ‘wall of text’. I frequently also correct grammatical and typing errors and malapropisms that detract from what commenters are trying to say. Only a very small percentage of commenters have their comments moderated to any significant degree and when such moderation takes place, I am careful not to alter the meaning of what has been posted.
.
The benefit derived from this can be appreciated by anyone who visits with any frequency other websites where comments are posted with no moderation whatsoever and the comments sections following articles are blighted by the unseemly outpourings of various ‘trolls’ of one sort or another.
.
However, if it you feel it is important that I indicate when a comment is edited, I am happy to oblige.
munnyhunny
- Edit
these people and situations are not places for rational discussion. it’s about shutting down opposing views, their legitimacy is irrelevant.
if you’re explaining to your accusers, then they’ve already got you on the back foot.
you need to respond with an equivalent neural exocet.
call them an anti-Semite! after all it’s the most racially focused belief system on the planet and if your accuser is anti-racist then he’s an anti-Semite.
sorted.