White Biocentrism

THIS ADVERTISING MATERIAL IS BEING USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF SOLICITING THE SALE OF TIME-SHARE PROPERTY OR INTERESTS IN TIME-SHARE PROPERTY. - CLUB WYNDHAM

Derek Stark: September 6, 2025 Will, You seemed to make a lot of assumptions about me that may not be right… You also insinuated that I somehow am a bit “squishy” on the JQ… Jewish influence also should not be discussed: Nelson suggests that the existence of a “vastly powerful ‘Israel lobby’” is “an antisemitic fiction.”
—

Seems squishy to me. That is my informed opinion, Derek. Who cares what this Jew apologist Nelson thinks?

And another thing on the JQ. Convincing somebody that “it’s okay to be white [sic],”.. is the first real step in our direction, is a lot easier than convincing somebody of all the Jewish perfidy we have suffered…
—

Nonsense. IT IS GREAT TO BE WHITE, not just OK. Baby steps are for babies, not for racially responsible White adults.

Did you really not know that Conservative Inc is just a somewhat derogatory generic catch-all phrase for all of the thousands of mainstream think tanks, consultants, media outlets, political organizations, etc. that are right of center? So when I say I work in Conservative Inc, I mean I work in one of those thousands of organizations. And, while much of it is indeed toxic, Conservative Inc is also an important pipeline into the white [sic] identity movement..
—

Oh, I see. How would I have known that? I’m not in any “identity” movement.

I could give a shit what thousands of “right-of-center” conservative think tanks and organizations think. In the end, if our race is to survive and expand, many current conservative-minded men and women must come Pierce’s way, and as his successor, my way, not I theirs. Believe me.

Furthermore, you and Pierce seem to be lumping all “conservatives” together. It is a mistake. The conservative world contains everything from neo-cons, Straussians, and right-libertarians to paleo-cons. Paleo-cons have contributed greatly to the literature of white [sic] nationalism…
—

Lumping all conservatives together is not a mistake. You deal with all of those various conservatives and our Alliance will deal with the race realists who are beyond conservatism and are attracted to us. I even go so far as to lump all Christians together because at its core Christianity is Semitic, worshipping our enemy’s tribal deity.

BTW, not everyone at C-C pooh poohs Pierce’s teachings, otherwise “Why Conservatives Can’t Win” would not be featured on this site. Dr. Greg Johnson introduced that essay and other Pierce writings like this, here: “Remembering William Pierce: September 11, 1933–July 23, 2002”

Kim: September 6, 2025 It is VERY hard to isolate yourself from adult family you still feel responsible for (who are White but not pro- White enough) in order to live 100% with grumpy pro-White nationalists who never had families.
---

You don’t have to isolate yourself from anyone to stand up for truth and for your pro-White beliefs. Let others isolate themselves from you for your having moral courage. They are the “grumpy” ones. You’ll lose some old friends for speaking your mind and gain new, better ones.

Nicolas d’Or Esmé: August 26, 2025 ... First, we should agree with Greg Johnson’s piece on “The banality of AI.” AI is indeed banal… My inquires to AI regarding SFEcon would confirm Greg’s finding that AI is prone to a certain species of error. And, in any case, AI cannot be more truthful than the internet itself...
—

Agreed. Being an electronically-challenged Boomer I have no interest in AI, seeing it as artificial. It has its uses but I’ll leave them to those who like it for our purposes, like Kevin Strom, the National Alliance’s Media Director, who has done some excellent work, using AI.

Banal is a good descriptor for AI. Don’t look to it for the truth any more than looking for the truth about our cause from WikiJews. David Sims, a brainy physicist who was Dr. Pierce’s editor has proven AI lies in this recent exchange he had, when the double-talking Gab-AI robot had to admit “You caught me in a fabrication.” See “Beware of AI Fibbing!” at whitebiocentrism.com.

Ondrej Mann: September 6, 2025 I love your answers, Will. With you, it always seems like everything has already been said by someone else 30 years ago, and said better. Whether it’s about the band Absurd, burnout, a letter to normie friend, JQ, racial separatism, or any other topic. Doesn’t that make you a little depressed?
---

Depressed? Not at all, Ondrej. Your response to my comments is encouraging. First, because I learn that someone of your stature and influence reads my comments, but also because you like them. My time has not been wasted.

That “someone” I quote from the past is usually William Pierce and what he had to say to his people 30 years ago — sometimes 50-plus years ago — and after, was indeed expressed better than much of what is being said by wannabe White leaders today.

In the interview you did with me for C-C earlier this year I focused on the founder of the National Alliance and Cosmotheism, my mentor, William Pierce. It is not about me, but what he left for us to build on. 50 years from now, long after I become worm food, Pierce’s vision will be carried forward by younger generations of Whites who have paid attention to his unique body of work.

Derek Stark: September 7, 2025 Will… Whether you like it or not, I believe Peirce is wrong by lumping all conservatives together. Anybody who thinks the US would not be a far better place today if conservative Pat Buchanan had replaced Reagan instead of Bush Sr. is ignoring reality. Buchanan was a strong nativist… [and] was also very aware of the JQ.
—

Pierce believed what he believed. You disagree with hs belief. That's OK, but you will not be changing my mind about conservatism.

I and our Carolina National Alliance members worked closely with PB during his 2000 Reform Party bid for president, mostly to introduce his conservative White base to NA and Pierce’s teachings. We did the same with Ron Paul’s 2008 presidential bid. You may appreciate this Pierce’ piece about Jewry’s hatred of PB, “Why They Hate Buchanan” at nationalvanguard.org.

Pierce liked Buchanan — what’s not to like? — but did not endorse him because, as a serious White revolutionary separatist/preservationist, he opposed the entire electoral process of mass democracy. Pierce, a statesman, was no politician. The present system of choosing our leaders has to go.

I also find Christianity—which I also believe is a sect of Judaism for non-Jews–to be a major problem… I stated as my true opinion that the Jews have cleverly manipulated, indoctrinated, and partially destroyed the West. How the bleep is that squishy on the JQ? It’s probably not too far from what your beloved Pierce might have thought, although I’m not familiar enough with him to be sure… [You say] I somehow “pooh-poohed” Pierce’s teachings by saying he made a mistake [by lumping all conservatives together].
…

Squishy is your word, not mine. Pooh pooh is mine, which I retract since you found it to be offensive.

I grant that you are not squishy on the JQ. Then do you embrace the slogan JEWS ARE OUR MISFORTUNE as did Pierce and as does our Alliance? If not, why not? That is the simple answer to the Jewish Question?

As for Pierce’s dim view of conservatism as the ideology for Whites, please read your C-C host, Dr. Johnson’s piece from 15 years ago: “Why Conservatives STILL Can’t Win” at nationalvanguard.org

by Greg Johnson
RECENTLY I RE-READ William Pierce’s classic 1971 essay “Why Conservatives Can’t Win.” Like Pierce, if forced to choose between liberals and conservatives, I would side with conservatives. Conservatives have the indispensable political realism necessary for the preservation of any civilization…

The core of Pierce’s argument is that conservatives can’t win because they aren’t really trying. The left plays for keeps. They have an overriding goal. They have a world to win. Conservatives are just trying to hold on to the 1950s or the 1980s. Conservatives may fight ferociously from time to time, but they are always playing defense. They think the election of a Nixon or a Reagan is a great victory, then lapse into complacency, only to awaken a few years later to find that the left has been on the march the whole time…

Conservatives also make a virtual cult out of being good sports, graceful losers, and ready compromisers.

Well, conservatives STILL can’t win. But neither can they learn, so they continue to promote their folly to new generations…

Pierce was right. Conservatism can’t win. It doesn’t really conserve anything. It is so politically inept and hapless that it seems almost designed to lose. If doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity, it is also a good definition of conservatism.

We should be on the same side…
—

Derek, we do agree on important, fundamental issues of the JQ and Christianity as an opposed ideology — that’s big! — but disagree on Conservativism of any stripe being the ideology for serious racial nationalists.

I suggest you grant a C-C interview with Ondrej Mann, like he did with me earlier this year. That way we can learn more about you. You have much to say.

Derek Stark: September 7, 2025 …Perhaps our exchange was the adult version of a new kid showing up on the first day of school and having to fight somebody to show he’s not a wimp (although I have been writing articles in C-C for almost a year now).
—

Come back when you’ve been doing this thing of ours for 40 years and we’ll talk more. I’ll be 118 then. I attended my high school classes 60th reunion last weekend. Classmates enjoyed telling me some “Billy Williams” stories, one about how I lasted three rounds boxing a Negro professional fighter at a local county fair on a Friday night. I was carried out of the tent on classmates’ shoulders, a hero. By Monday, I had to begin fighting others who wanted a piece of the “hero,” so I relate to what you are talking about. ;o}

…As far as conservatism goes, I think the problem is with the particular form of conservatism that developed in the US in the mid-20th century. It was defined not according to true conservative principles, but by the “fusionist” concept of William Buckley and Barry Goldwasser (lots of J influence with both), which married libertarian economics with Christian social beliefs. One of the first things they did was to chase the nativists out of their coalition, leaving them without a mainstream voice. (This elimination of the nativist voice occurred again when the neocons chased Buchanan from the Republican Party). This form of conservatism has served as a “controlled opposition” that always loses in the long run, and it may have been secretly conceived of as such from the start. Or maybe it is just the Christian mentality that seems to like losing. I can’t say for sure—above my pay grade.

… [C]onservatism has become defined by greedy loser scum like Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham. But that form of conservatism has little to do with the fundamental principles of Edmund Burke—it is a mockery of them. The two most important ideas of Burke (according to me, at least) are his concept of the “contract between the generations” and his rejection of Classical Liberal universalism for a particularist, historicist view of the world… Burke was writing at a time when he would have meant exactly that. So the contract means that we have obligations to our people, both past and future. What modern American conservatives have done is to twist it into some superficial idea of going back to some recent past culture, liked the 90s or 50s, without mentioning that a culture is an expression of a people. Very lame, and easily defeated….

—

Agreed. Thank you, Derek. Your response is something I’d expect to see in a Poli Sci paper on “The History of Conservatism” : “Where’s Edmund Burke when we need him?”

You don’t address Greg’s supportive quote, Pierce was right. Conservatism can’t win. It doesn’t really conserve anything… Oh, well I shouldn’t have expected you to.

Did you not read Pierce’s “Why They Hate Buchanan” — “they” being Jews? Since we were discussing PB and the Jews, I’ll post an excerpt from that here for others to enjoy:

…But does any of these things make Buchanan an “anti-Semite”? Do these things justify the Jews’ claims that he is a “hatemonger,” a “Jew baiter,” and a “neo-Nazi”? I doubt it. What do you think?

Now if I were the candidate [for POTUS] instead of Pat Buchanan, the Jews would have something to scream about. Because if I were elected I’d declare a national emergency, and I’d immediately take the control of our news and entertainment media away from them. I’d root them out of Hollywood. I’d weed them out of our universities. I’d remove them from the courts. I’d clean house. But I really don’t believe that Buchanan would do that. He’s certainly never said or written anything to indicate he’d do that. He’s not a revolutionary. He’s a conservative. He’s a Republican. He’s a Christian. He’s simply a fellow with old-fashioned values, and he’s a fighter. He has no particular grudge against the Jews, but when some of them desecrate his church, he becomes angry and says something about it. When he sees an injustice taking place, as in the persecution of John Demjanjuk, he may or may not speak out, but his decision as to whether or not to speak out isn’t based on what the Jews might think about it. He has other considerations.

And basically that’s why the Jewish media are attacking him so viciously. They can’t tolerate a politician who has any considerations other than what the Jews might think. Basically they can’t tolerate a politician who doesn’t jump when they whistle. If he won’t apologize and grovel now, there’s no telling what he might not do if he’s in the White House. He might not send all of those billions of dollars from American taxpayers to Israel every year. He might not appoint Jews to half of his cabinet positions and to the head of the CIA and to every Supreme Court vacancy, the way Clinton has. He might not send U.S. troops when and where he’s told to send them. He might not base his policies on what’s good for the Jews instead of on what’s good for America. That’s why they hate him. That’s why they’re trying to convince the voters that he’s an extremist….

More of that Pierce classic from nearly 30 years ago at the link.

Though Pierce doesn’t mention the word conservative in the following quote by him from July 2001 to his Alliance members (that a current Alliance member just sent to me) it’s conservatives that he is describing, don’t you think?

Many people who are sympathetic to our side view the present disparity in strength between us and the Jews — and also the rapidity with which the Jews are pushing toward their goal — and they conclude that the Jews will win. Those who reach this conclusion often become unwilling to participate in our effort. They don’t want to make personal sacrifices for a cause they view as lost, and so they remain on the sidelines.
The cause these people on the sidelines view as lost is not the same as our cause, however. Their cause is the salvaging of the present order of things, more or less intact. Our goal is the permanent survival and ascendancy of our genes and our ideas, no matter what else is lost and no matter how long it takes to ensure our success…

Weave: September 7, 2025 I don’t hate the term “white supremacy” at all. I think it’s true; we are better than everyone else. And that doesn’t mean I want to rape or enslave anyone…
—

Whites as a unique race were still supreme on this planet around the beginning of the last century. That has changed as the world has shrunk and other races have become “equalized,” to our detriment.

Whites have shrunk to less than 4% of the world human population and our traditional living/breeding habitats are being invaded by competing subspecies (races). It is a natural phenomenon that ecologists call “habitat succession,” when the traditional subspecies gives up its habitat without a fight — leading to its extinction.

Mother Nature cares not which of her creations is the prettiest, most inventive, or even the smartest — only which is standing at the end of the natural struggle for space and resources. Dr. Pierce famously said, “We cannot put the White man in the fight until we put the fight into the White Man.”

As word-controlled humans “White supremacy” has become a term used by our enemies, a guilt trip on Whitey that suggests that we want to reign supreme over other races. We don’t! Maybe some Kluckers or others feel that way. I don’t know.

Serious White preservationists seek strict racial separation. How can they be accused of supremacy over non-Whites who are not in their midst? It’s a stupid term.

It’s not necessary for us to claim that Whites are the superior race — it’s implicit! Many ineligible Whites will be lost to us and will fight against us. Some will eventually wake up and want to join with us.

Other races can claim superiority in certain areas, like nigger fecundity, criminal tendancies, singing, dancing, shooting hoops, and running with a pigskin. Give that to them while entirely separating from them and their influences. No racial mixing! Whites who support racially-mixed sports and entertainment should give that up if they want to be in our intentional, exclusive White communities. It’s easy.

I wish to never lay eyes on a black, brown, yellow or anything else as long as I live. That would be awesome, it would actually be supreme!
—

There you go, Weave! That’s the attitude. Seek out others who are determined to separate and live that way with you.

Greg Johnson: September 6, 2025 I understand that you would not choose Russia as your enemy, but sometimes your enemy chooses you.

Derek Stark: September 8, 2025 Will, It appears that we have exhausted the nested replies, so I had to reply to my own post. Since you asked about whether I recognize those who recognize those sitting on the sidelines because they want to preserve the current culture, here goes…[skip the various types of conservatives] Some of them may be slowly moving in our direction—maybe they just saw their first AR or C-C article today and it will take them some time to digest it all. Those conservatives are our potential allies; I used to be one of them.

I’ll throw Pierce on the “To Read” pile, although it’s already a big pile. I’m currently half-way through both Kevin MacDonald’s Culture of Critique and Alisdair MacIntyre’s After Virtue.
—

Yes, our interesting exchange on the merits of conservatism as a serious strategy has been pretty much exhausted, but I want to add thrsr final words to your final word:

Pierce admired KMac and Greg’s recent interview with him waa excellent, But in Greg’s early C-C essay “Why Conservatives STILL Can’t Win” from December 2010, that in which he more or less agreed with Pierce, he wrote this about KMac’s journal:

The Occidental Quarterly I knew was founded to be explicitly white and to deal explicitly with the Jewish question. But you would never know that from Gardner’s TOQ 2.0 agenda…

If this is taken seriously as TOQ policy, then every back issue of the journal will have to be pulped and reprinted, with references to Jews replaced by euphemisms like “liberals” and “cultural Marxists.” Furthermore, Kevin MacDonald now seems like an odd choice for Editor. And in the end, it will never work, because the SPLC will always be around to remind people of the truth about White Nationalists who scuttle crabwise toward the mainstream, begin speaking in riddles and euphemisms, and try to reinvent themselves as conservatives.

We few who know the most important truth in the world—that organized Jewry (not “liberals,” not “cultural Marxists”) have set the white race (not “conservatives,” not “Christians,” not “Western Civilization”) on the path to extinction—have an absolute duty to get this message out and wake our people up. Because if we don’t do it, nobody else will. Those who know the truth but can’t shout it from the rooftops have the duty to support those who can spread the word.

I’ve never heard of Alisdair MacIntyre, so searched his name to find he was probably an academic philosopher, who evolved from being a Marxist to Catholicism — not someone I would read, and, if true, certainly not a serious White race-thinker like Pierce.
If I were you I’d toss MacIntyre and pick up Pierce’s teachings, or better. yet, read William Gayley Simpson’s widely banned magnum opus, Which Way Western Man? He evolved over his lifetime from being an extremely devout Christian to eventually embracing Pierce’s Cosmotheism and joining Pierce’s National Alliance.

Which Way Western Man? (Third Edition) by William Gayley Simpson at cosmotheistchurch.org. Blurb:

Throughout his long lifetime, William Gayley Simpson was a widely traveled and careful observer of Western civilization and its relations with the non-White peoples of the world, especially the Negro and the Jew. An exceptionally deep thinker, he traced the sickness that has overtaken the White man’s world in the 20th century to its roots in Jewish world conspiracy and its coordinated aggressive moves against us. Simpson reveals the deception inherent in our money system, which isn’t based on real wealth at all, but on debt and fantasy, and it cannot do other than cause trouble for the people condemned to use it as their medium of exchange. The author also shows why feminism is not the liberation of woman, but the unsexing of woman. Simpson reveals the fundamental incompatibility between capitalism, which he calls “The Machine,” and the human psyche. He goes into great detail about the physiological basis of Negro intellectual inferiority, quoting copiously from sources that once were readily available to the layman, but were censored from the popular media and removed to arcane medical journals after World War 2. And, of course, he exposes the nefarious Jew for the deadly parasite he is. Every racially conscious White person will want this book in his collection. It is very possibly the best book of racial philosophy originally written in the English language. This is the only edition of Which Way Western Man? that incorporates the author’s final revisions.