Download the full version of the textbook now at textbookfull.

com

Toward a New Nationalism Greg Johnson

https://textbookfull.com/product/toward-a-new-
nationalism-greg-johnson/

Explore and download more textbook at https://textbookfull.com

 Recommended digital products (PDF, EPUB, MOBI) that
you can download immediately if you are interested.

Perrine’s Literature: Structure, Sound, and Sense 13th

Edition Greg Johnson

https://textbookfull.com/product/perrines-literature-structure-sound-
and-sense-13th-edition-greg-johnson/

textbookfull.com

Diverse Bodies Diverse Practices Toward an Inclusive

Somatics Don Hanlon Johnson

https://textbookfull.com/product/diverse-bodies-diverse-practices-
toward-an-inclusive-somatics-don-hanlon-johnson/

textbookfull.com

Toward 6G: A New Era of Convergence 1st Edition Martin

Maier

https://textbookfull.com/product/toward-6g-a-new-era-of-
convergence-1st-edition-martin-maier/

textbookfull.com

LLMs and Generative AI for Healthcare (Early Release)

Kerrie Holley

https://textbookfull.com/product/llms-and-generative-ai-for-
healthcare-early-release-kerrie-holley/

textbookfull.com
Ferri’s Clinical Advisor 2019: 5 Books in 1 Fred F Ferri

https://textbookfull.com/product/ferris-clinical-advisor-2019-5-books-
in-1-fred-f-ferri/

textbookfull.com

Cambridge IGCSE and O Level Environmental Management

Workbook Cambridge International IGCSE Gary Skinner

https://textbookfull.com/product/cambridge-igcse-and-o-level-
environmental-management-workbook-cambridge-international-igcse-gary-
skinner/
textbookfull.com

Advanced Engineering and Technology III Proceedings of the

3rd Annual Congress on Advanced Engineering and Technology
1st Edition Liquan Xie
https://textbookfull.com/product/advanced-engineering-and-technology-
iii-proceedings-of-the-3rd-annual-congress-on-advanced-engineering-
and-technology-1st-edition-liquan-xie/
textbookfull.com

Digital Economy and the New Labor Market Jobs Competences

and Innovative HR Technologies Svetlana Igorevna Ashmarina

https://textbookfull.com/product/digital-economy-and-the-new-labor-
market-jobs-competences-and-innovative-hr-technologies-svetlana-
igorevna-ashmarina/
textbookfull.com

News Media and the Financial Crisis How Elite Journalism

Undermined the Case for a Paradigm Shift 1st Edition Cox

https://textbookfull.com/product/news-media-and-the-financial-crisis-
how-elite-journalism-undermined-the-case-for-a-paradigm-shift-1st-
edition-cox/
textbookfull.com
Succeeding with Agile Hybrids: Project Delivery Using
Hybrid Methodologies 1st Edition Shawn Belling

https://textbookfull.com/product/succeeding-with-agile-hybrids-
project-delivery-using-hybrid-methodologies-1st-edition-shawn-belling/

textbookfull.com
 TOWARD A NEW NATIONALISM

GREG JOHNSON

Counter-Currents Publishing Ltd.

San Francisco
2019

Copyright © 2019 by Counter-Currents Publishing

All rights reserved
 Cover photograph is a derivative of “let’s compare apples and oranges” by frankieleon and
is licensed under CC BY 2.0.

Cover design by Kevin I. Slaughter

Published in the United States by

COUNTER-CURRENTS PUBLISHING LTD.
P.O. Box 22638
San Francisco, CA 94122
USA
http://www.counter-currents.com/

Limited Edition Hardcover ISBN: 978-1-64264-128-8

Hardcover ISBN: 978-1-64264-115-8
Paperback ISBN: 978-1-64264-116-5
E-book ISBN: 978-1-64264-117-2

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Johnson, Greg, 1971- author.

Title: Toward a new nationalism / Greg Johnson.
Description: San Francisco : Counter-Currents Publishing Ltd., [2019] |
Includes index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2018036577 (print) | LCCN 2018057600 (ebook) | ISBN
9781642641172 (e-book) | ISBN 9781642641158 (hardcover : alk. paper) |
ISBN 9781642641165 (pbk. : alk. paper)
Subjects: LCSH: White nationalism. | White supremacy movements. | Ethnic
relations--Political aspects. | Ethnicity--Political aspects.
Classification: LCC HS1610 (ebook) | LCC HS1610 .J64 2018 (print) | DDC
320.54089/09--dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018036577
 CONTENTS
Preface

White Nationalism
1. Why Race is Not a Social Construct
2. Who Are We? Nordics, Aryans, & Whites
3. Why Conservatives Conserve Nothing
4. The Refutation of Libertarianism
5. Why “White” Nationalism?
6. The Specter of White Nationalism
7. Is White Nationalism Un-American?
8. What is American Nationalism?
9. Is White Nationalism Hateful?
10. Why Boomers Need Not Fear White Nationalism
11. Technological Utopianism & Ethnic Nationalism
12. Freedom of Speech
13. The European Fighting Spirit
14. In Praise of Extremists

The Jewish Question

15. Reframing the Jewish Question
16. Why the Holocaust Happened & Why it Won’t
Happen Again

The Deep State

17. Superheroes, Sovereignty, & the Deep State
18. Operation Nemesis
19. Nothing is Beyond Our Grasp

The Alt Right

20. What is the Alternative Right?
21. Against Right-Wing Sectarianism
22. Redefining the Mainstream
 23. Punching Right 2
24. God Emperor No More
25. The Altamont of the Alt Right
26. Unite the Right Did Nothing Wrong
27. Interview on Unite the Right 1 & 2
28. Unite the Right 2 Couldn’t Have Been Better
29. In Bed with the Press
30. Beyond the Alt Right: Toward a New Nationalism

How to Fight Evil & Save the World

31. A Reply to Jack Donovan
32. Why I Support Mike Enoch
33. Under Cover with the Alt Right
34. Dov Bechhofer Did Nothing Wrong
35. Don’t Let the Bastards Get You Down

About the Author

 PREFACE

Toward a New Nationalism is a companion volume to The White

Nationalist Manifesto. Many of the essays in the sections on White
Nationalism and the Jewish question were written for the Manifesto
but dropped to make the book shorter and more focused. The
essays in the section on the deep state pull together political
philosophy, history, current events, and popular culture to illuminate
the idea of the deep state and what White Nationalists should think
and do about it. The essays in the section on the Alt Right chronicle
its rise and fall, spelling out lessons to be learned for the next
chapter of white identity politics. Finally, the book concludes with a
series of essays that deal with particular individuals but in the
process discuss the ethos White Nationalists need to cultivate if we
are to save the world—and deal with doxers, trolls, and jerks along
the way.
I wish to thank John Morgan and Michael Polignano for helping
bring this book to press; Kevin Slaughter for his work on the cover;
the many readers who submitted ideas and images for the cover;
Alex Graham for help with the index; F. Roger Devlin, Tom Goodrich,
and Richard McCulloch for their promotional quotes; Jez Turner of
the London Forum, Fróði Midjord of the Scandza Forum, Stead
Steadman of the Jonathan Bowden Dinner, and the organizers of
Erkenbrand and the Finnish Awakening Conference for inviting me to
give six talks included here; and the many writers, donors, and
commenters at Counter-Currents who made it all possible.
This book is dedicated to Charles Wing Krafft, in friendship,
respect, and gratitude. You really had us scared there for a while,
Charlie.

Budapest
November 15, 2018
 WHY RACE IS NOT A
SOCIAL CONSTRUCT

Race realism is one of the intellectual foundations of White

Nationalism. Race realism is the thesis that racial differences are
objective facts of nature, which pre-exist human consciousness,
human society, and even the human race itself—since there were
different species and subspecies before mankind emerged.
Nature must be understood in contrast to conventions—like
human languages and laws—which do not exist independent of
human consciousness and society.
As objective facts of nature, racial differences cannot be safely
ignored. Nor can natural racial differences be transformed simply by
altering legal or linguistic conventions. Conventions can only alter
racial realities by guiding human action to change nature itself. For
instance, if we institute eugenic or dysgenic incentives, this will
change the genes of future generations.
The opposite of race realism is the idea of the “social construction
of race,” the thesis that racial differences are not objective facts but
rather shared social conventions, which may vary from time to time
and from place to place, like languages and table manners.
The social construction of race is one of the intellectual
foundations of racial egalitarianism, for if race is socially constructed,
then so is racial inequality. This offers the possibility that racial
inequality can be replaced with equality simply by altering social
conventions, like laws and language.

THE BASIS OF RACE REALISM

The basis of race realism is sense experience. Different races
appear different from one another. Different subraces appear
different from one another. Racially mixed children appear different
from pure specimens. Even races that appear superficially similar—
like Australian aborigines and African blacks—appear to be different
on closer inspection. Careful observers do not confuse the two.
Racial differences are not just a matter of “skin color,” but of
morphology and behavior as well, all of which can be observed
1
empirically.
Note that I do not claim that racial realism is based in science.
People were aware of racial differences long before the emergence
of science. Science comes along only later, to explain observable
racial differences. Scientific theories are, moreover, verified or
falsified based on their ability to explain observed racial differences.
Observable racial differences are, therefore, the Alpha and the
Omega of racial science. Thus the foundation of race realism is
sense experience, not scientific theorizing.
This is important to understand, because it implies that problems
with theories of race do not in any way alter the perceptible
differences between races.
It is also important to understand that race realism is the default,
common-sense position of all mankind. We observe differences
between races, subraces, and hybrids—human and otherwise—
before we learn words to communicate and classify them, and
before we create theories to explain them.
I vividly remember my first experience of a non-white: a waiter in
the dining car of a train. I was 4 or 5 years old. I was especially
taken by the contrast in color between the back and the front of the
man’s hands. When he went away, I asked my mother what I had
seen, and she told me that he was not just a white man turned
brown, but a different kind of man called a “Negro.” But I already
saw the differences before I was told the name and explanation.
Indeed, I asked for an explanation because I saw the differences.
My mother and I certainly did not construct the differences that
were apparent to all.
Given that race realism is the default, common-sense position,
proponents of social constructivism need to offer arguments for their
claim. In this essay, I criticize four arguments for the social
construction of race, which I characterize as follows: (1) the
argument from the social construction of knowledge in general; (2)
the argument from changing racial classifications; (3) the argument
from continua; and (4) the argument from the silence of science.
This is not an exhaustive list, nor is this a “scholarly” survey and
2
critique. I chose these arguments simply because they are
commonly used in middle-brow online debates. I conclude by
treating the thesis of the social construction of race as a social
construct itself, exposing the political agenda and power relations
behind social constructivism.

1. THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF KNOWLEDGE IN GENERAL

One argument for the social construction of race is a simple
deduction from the general thesis that “All knowledge is socially
constructed.” This is a philosophical thesis about the relationship
between mind and reality, which holds that there is no single correct
account of any aspect of reality, but rather a plurality of equally valid
accounts which are relative to the contingent circumstances of
different communities. For instance, there is the scientific account of
the origin of the species, and there is the Biblical account, both of
which are products of different communities, and there is no neutral
standpoint or criterion that allows us to claim that one approach is
better or truer than another.
I believe that this sort of relativism is philosophically incoherent in
3
itself. But it also fails as a justification of the social construction of
race because, in a sense, it proves too much. For if everything is a
social construct, the concept loses all utility. Social construction only
makes sense if there is a contrast term, namely objective natural
facts.
But if everything is a social construct, then we have to ask: Is the
social construct race more like the social construct money or the
social construct gravity? Because it is in society’s power to change
money, but it is not in our power to change gravity. A philosopher
who defends the idea that gravity is a social construct still leaves the
lecture hall by the door rather than the window because he knows
that one ignores some social constructs at one’s own risk.
 The social constructivist clearly wants race to be like money rather
than gravity, but if everything is a social construct, he needs to offer
an additional argument to prove that racial inequalities can be
abolished by social fiat.

2. CHANGING RACIAL CLASSIFICATIONS

One of the most common arguments for the social construction of
race is along the following lines: (1) If racial differences are real,
then racial classification schemes will not vary from time to time and
place to place. (2) Racial classification schemes vary from time to
time and place to place. For instance, the same mixed-race
individual might be considered black or white in different places and
4
at different times. Therefore, racial differences are not real. And,
since racial differences are either real or social constructs, they must
be social constructs.
This argument has two main problems.
The first premise is simply false because it elides the distinction
between reality and opinion. Racial differences can be perfectly real,
but people’s opinions about racial differences can vary widely. Since
human beings are fallible, there can be many opinions about one
and the same fact. But that does not make the facts any less
objective. It just proves that people frequently fail to be as objective
as the facts.
The oft-cited example of varying standards of blackness proves
nothing about racial realities. First, the very idea of categorizing
mixed-race individuals as black or white is problematic, simply
because they are mixed. Given that they are neither black nor white,
it is not surprising that people make different decisions if they have
to classify them as one or the other. Thus it may be arbitrary social
convention to say that Barack Obama is a black man. But it is an
objective fact of nature that he had a white mother and a black
father and is therefore half white and half black.

3. CUTTING THE CONTINUUM

Visit https://textbookfull.com
now to explore a rich
collection of eBooks, textbook
and enjoy exciting offers!
 Another common argument for the social construction of race, and
of knowledge in general, depends on the distinction between
differences of degree and differences of kind, and runs as follows.
(1) If racial differences are real differences of kind, then there
should not be a continuum of intermediate types. (2) There are
continuua of intermediate types between races. Therefore, there is
only one human race, and distinctions between races are not found
in nature but constructed by human beings. We carve up the
5
continuum. Nature does not come separated into different kinds.
There are two major problems with this argument.
The first premise strikes me as highly dubious: Just because there
are continua in nature does not mean that there are no real
distinctions between parts of a given continuum. In terms of color,
red may shade off into orange, and different cultures might have
different words for colors and make finer or grosser distinctions
between them. But does this mean that there are no real,
observable differences between, say, red and blue?
Evolutionary theory posits the common origin and evolutionary
continuity of all life on earth. Does that continuity mean, therefore,
that there are no real differences between mammals and birds, or
birds and reptiles, or nematodes and human beings? Is the
difference between dinosaurs and humans merely a “social
construct”? Did dinosaurs not exist before human beings were
around to “socially construct” them?
If race is a social construct, is the human race as a whole a “social
construct” too? What then is society? What is society made up of
before the social construction of the human race? Is society also a
social construct, which would seem to get us into an infinite regress
(society is a social construct of a social construct of a social
construct . . .)? Or is society not a social construct? Is it just a fact of
nature? Is it just here? Then why can’t other things be facts of
nature, like human beings and dinosaurs?
The second premise is also problematic. Anthropologists claim that
all human races descend from common ancestors. But at different
points in time, the five distinct human races—Caucasoid, Mongoloid,
Congoid, Capoid, and Australoid—branched off and differentiated
themselves from both their common ancestors and one another.
After developing in isolation for enough time to attain distinctive
traits, these races then came into contact with one another and gave
6
rise to mixed populations. But the existence of racially mixed
individuals no more overthrows the real distinction between races
than the existence of green paint refutes the existence of blue and
7
yellow paint.

4. THE SILENCE OF SCIENCE

Another common claim of the social constructivists is to claim that
science does not give adequate support to the idea of real racial
distinctions, thus social constructivism is true. The argument runs as
follows. (1) If there are real racial differences, then science will
explain them. (2) Science has not explained racial differences.
Therefore, there are no real racial differences. Since racial
differences are either real or socially constructed, race is a social
construct.
This argument has four grave problems.
First, race realism is based on observed racial differences, not on
scientific theories of race. Human beings perceived racial differences
long before the emergence of science, and we perceive them still,
even those of us who are entirely innocent of racial science (as most
social constructivists happen to be). Thus the first premise is simply
false: The reality of race does not depend on the success or failure
of scientific theories of race. Theories may rise and fall, but
observable differences remain.
8
As for the second premise: Scientists would beg to differ. We can
determine the race of an individual from the morpoholgical or
genetic analysis of a single bone or strand of hair.
Of course, the social constructivists are not exactly clear about
what constitutes the failure of science to explain race, but they
generally insinuate that science has either (1) failed to come up with
a single differentiating trait possessed by all members of a race and
 9
not possessed by other races, or (2) that no such theory has
attained universal acceptance.
But the demand for a single essential differentiating trait for each
race is arbitrary. Nature does not have to conform to our demands.
And the fact that a theory does not attain universal acceptance has
nothing to do with its truth, given the variability and fallibility of
human opinions. Frankly, I believe that most social constructivists
are intellectually dishonest. Thus no theory of objective racial
differences will ever gain universal assent, no matter how well
founded it may be.
Another problem with this argument is that it overlooks the fact
that science is a process that unfolds over time. Thus even if the
second premise were true, the conclusion does not follow, simply
because science might not have come up with the correct account
just yet. But wait.
A final problem with this argument is its assumption that in the
absence of a scientific explanation of race, the only alternative is
social constructivism. In fact, the default position is race realism
based on empirical observation, which does not depend upon
scientific explanation at all.

SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM AS SOCIAL CONSTRUCT

Social constructivists typically do not limit their thesis to race.
Many claim that all knowledge is a social construct, or even that
reality itself is a social construct. Thus it is fair to ask: Is social
constructivism itself a social construct? If social constructivism is a
social construct, this has three important implications:

1. Like all social constructs, social constructivism is the product of

a unique set of historically contingent circumstances.
2. Since every society is divided into the rulers and the ruled,
every social construct will be marked by the agenda of those
who hold power.
3. If social constructivism is a social construct, not a natural fact,
its acceptance or rejection is not based on reason and nature
 but on social incentives: moral and political commitment for the
true believers—brainwashing, greed, and fear for the rest.

Social constructivism has a long philosophical pedigree, but today

it functions as the metaphysical postulate of egalitarian social
engineering projects to equalize the races by revolutionizing
European defined and dominated societies. Of course, this revolution
cannot produce racial equality, but it can create a new racial
hierarchy in which Europeans are subordinate. Social constructivism
thus serves the interests of a new emerging social elite, an alliance
of rootless plutocrats, non-whites, sexual minorities, and other
outsiders, in which the organized Jewish community is the senior
and guiding partner. Thus social constructivism is an element of
what Kevin MacDonald calls the “culture of critique”: the critique and
overthrow of European civilization by Jewish-inspired and dominated
intellectual movements like Marxism, psychoanalysis, the Frankfurt
School, feminism, deconstructionism, and most forms of
10
postmodernism.
These movements are characterized by pseudo-science,
obscurantism, and crass ethno-political advocacy. They acquired
their influence not through reason and science but through the
subversion of the educational, cultural, and political institutions of
European societies. They perpetuate their influence though the
indoctrination of the impressionable and the suppression of dissent.
Thus social constructivism cannot be defeated merely by criticizing
its astonishingly poor arguments, which in large part are merely
tools of self-conscious and cynical deception. If you lop off one
argument, the hydra just sprouts another.
Instead, social constructivism must be defeated on its own terms:
by altering the social conditions that give rise to it; by changing who
rules this society; by disempowering and silencing its advocates just
as they disempower and silence their critics. In short, social
constructivism must be socially deconstructed and replaced by a new
cultural and political hegemony that is aligned with reason, reality,
and white interests. And we can do that in good conscience,
because social constructivism is a false and pernicious ideology,
nothing more.
Race realism is the default position of common sense. It is,
moreover, supported by the best biological science. There is no good
case for the social construction of race. It would be truer to say that
society is a racial construct, meaning that society is the creation of
human beings, who exist as part of nature and whose biological
traits shape and constrain society and culture.
But once society is established, social conventions shape the
underlying race by instituting eugenic and dysgenic breeding
incentives or simply by legislating the extermination of entire groups.
Nature comes before culture, but once culture exists, it turns back
11
on and modifies nature. Only in this specific sense can one say that
race is a (partial) social “construct,” although it would be better to
drop the misleading language of construction altogether.

Counter-Currents, July 24, 2015

 WHO ARE WE?
NORDICS, ARYANS, & WHITES

White Nationalism presupposes an answer to the question “Who is

white?” White Nationalism is a political movement, whereas white
identity is a metapolitical question. A precise answer to this question
provides the foundation for effective white advocacy. False or
imprecise answers, however, lead to confused and ineffective efforts.
I wish to deal with two such misleading answers: “Nordicism” and
“Aryanism.” Both attitudes undermine White Nationalism by
introducing confusions about white identity.
The archetypal Nordic is tall, long-headed, and fair-skinned, with
blonde hair and blue eyes. Nordic types and traits are found
throughout Europe, but as the name suggests, they are more
prevalent in the North. As I define it, Nordicism is the view that the
Nordic type is the model, paradigm, or archetype of whiteness, with
the implication that non-Nordic is non-white, or white to a lesser
degree. The most childish Nordicists actually imagine that the only
way Europeans could acquire dark hair, eyes, and complexions is
through racial admixture.
The Aryans were the creators of a particular language and culture.
Their homeland, apparently, was in Eastern Europe, somewhere
between the Baltic and Black Seas (an area now populated by Slavs
and Balts, whom some Nordicists consider inferior breeds). In the
second millennium BC, the Aryans began to migrate West into
Europe, South into the Middle East, and East as far as India and
China, diffusing their language, culture, and genes in the process.
Because of the expanse of this diffusion, Aryans are also called Indo-
Europeans. The original Aryans are thought to have been Nordic
types, hence the same physical traits are described as Aryan and
Nordic. Just as Nordicism regards the Nordic as archetypically white,
the Aryanist makes Indo-European languages and cultures
normative.
 What’s wrong with Nordicism? Nothing really, if one is a Nordic. It
seems perfectly natural and healthy for Nordic people to prefer the
company of genetically similar people. Indeed, the brain is hard-
wired to do so. I am a Nordic type, and I am most comfortable in
northern climes among Nordic people. Other things being equal, I
would prefer a Nordic mate who shares my recessive traits and can
help pass them on to the next generation. These attitudes would
only be objectionable if I expected non-Nordics to share them as
well. This would be to take a natural preference that is relative to a
subracial group and turn it into an absolute standard for all groups.
I don’t even object to the idea of Nordic superiority. If groups
really are different, then every group is bound to be objectively
better than others by some standards. But we must remember that
this also implies that the same groups are bound to be inferior by
other standards. Nordics are objectively superior at creating
prosperous, egalitarian, high-trust, low corruption societies. As a
Nordic, I am most comfortable in such societies, and many other
peoples are attracted to such societies, if only as sponges and
plunderers.
Nordics, however, are proving objectively inferior at preserving our
societies due to low ethnocentrism, high trust, and extreme credulity
in the face of predatory tribal peoples out to dispossess us. Nordic
superiority becomes objectionable only if (1) we assume that Nordic
excellences are the only criteria for judging societies, and (2) we
forget that Nordics are not superior in everything.
Although such White Nationalists as Wilmot Robertson and William
Pierce were strongly Nordicist, and their attitudes linger on, in my
experience Nordic White Nationalists are the most aware of the
weaknesses of our own people. Beyond that, the Nordics that have
the most naïve and ingrained supremacist attitudes tend to be the
liberals and Leftists who believe that non-white immigrants can
become citizens of Nordic societies, that they want to become
citizens, and that apparently we don’t even have to try to assimilate
them, because the Nordic way of life is so intrinsically compelling
that everyone would spontaneously and voluntarily want to adopt it
(without, I might add, divesting themselves of their own ethnic
identities, which are apparently only superficial matters of clothing
and food anyway).
Nordicism is problematic for White Nationalists because it
undermines cooperation and trust among different European groups.
This damages the ability of White Nationalists to advocate for white
interests in European colonial societies like the United States and
Canada, which were peopled by many different European ethnic
groups which are increasingly blended into new ethnic groups—the
American, the Canadian, etc.—which are not entirely Nordic. In
Europe itself, Nordicism also undermines the pan-European solidarity
necessary to prevent European infighting and to unify Europe in the
face of extra-European threats.
Imagine, for instance, the feelings of an American with Greek or
Italian ancestry toward William Pierce’s National Alliance if he read
Pierce’s Who We Are, in which he laments that the Nordic invaders
of Greece mongrelized themselves with the indigenous European
populations rather than exterminating them to keep their blood pure
—an exterminationist agenda that he envisioned for the future in
The Turner Diaries. Such attitudes follow logically from the premise
that Nordics are the only authentic Europeans, which implies that
non-Nordics are lesser men. The National Alliance accepted non-
Nordics as members, but such people could legitimately ask if the
organization could really take their money and represent their
interests in good faith.
The idea that Nordics are authentically and archetypically white is
simply an intellectual error.

First, there is no reason to think that the first Europeans were

Nordic.
Second, even if the first Europeans were Nordic, there is no
reason to suppose that all departures from the Nordic type
represent a decline from the ideal.

Nordics are just one branch of the European family tree and are
no more or less authentically European than any other branch.
 Another error that is allied to Nordicism is what I call the son-in-
law fallacy. Many whites operate on the assumption that the only
truly white people are those they would have marry into their family.
And since most people’s attitudes about such matters are based on
genetic similarity, the son-in-law fallacy is really just a form of
unconscious sub-racial chauvinism. It is perfectly natural and healthy
to want to marry people who are genetically similar, so one can
more reliably pass on one’s genes and culture to the next
generation. But this does not imply that groups one would not wish
to marry into are less European or less white.
Aryanism is an even more problematic attitude than Nordicism.
Again, Aryanism is the view that Indo-European language and
culture are normatively white. At its most childish, Aryanism leads to
the false inference that Basques, Finns, Hungarians, and Estonians
are “not white” because they do not speak Indo-European
languages. Equally childish is the inference that non-European
Caucasians (Persians, Armenians, Indians) are somehow “us”
because they speak Indo-European languages. The reductio ad
absurdum of Aryanism is a European who feels more kinship with
Persians and Hindus than Hungarians or Finns because of common
linguistic roots. Of course, due to colonialism there are also millions
of Africans, Amerindians, and Asians who speak Indo-European
languages and even carry European genes. Logically, the Aryanist
should also prefer these people to Basques or Estonians, but let us
hope they shrink back before this absurdity. Europeans can learn a
great deal about our own pre-Christian language and culture through
the study of Aryan offshoots among non-Europeans. But those who
bear these languages and cultures today are still non-Europeans—
not “us.”
There is no reason to presume that Indo-European language and
culture are normatively European. The Aryans were a branch of the
European family that split off from the main stem, evolved a distinct
language and culture in isolation for untold millennia, and then
migrated back into the European heartland, as well as into the Near,
Middle, and Far East.
 The Aryans certainly contributed to European civilization, but they
did not create it. Indeed, when the various waves of Aryans returned
to Europe, they were rightly regarded as barbarians. They even
regarded themselves as barbarians. Agriculture, ceramics, metal-
working, written language, clocks, calendars, astronomy, irrigation,
urban life, the wheel, refined arts and crafts, monumental
architecture—all of these were pre-Aryan inventions. Europe’s first
high civilizations arose around the Mediterranean shore, not in the
North. Its creators were subracially Mediterranean, not Nordic. The
creators of the high civilizations of Mesopotamia were Caucasian, but
they were probably no more European than the current residents of
those lands. And when the Aryans diffused themselves throughout
Europe and the Orient, they were awestruck by the superior
civilizations they found and eagerly to assimilated them, culturally
and genetically, until Aryans in the pure form became extinct.
Europeans today, culturally and genetically, are more or less
composites of Aryans and pre-Aryans. Thus it is a form of false
consciousness—of inauthenticity—to identify ourselves, individually
or collectively, with the Aryans, an extinct people who live on only as
genetic and cultural ingredients of modern Europeans. The Aryans
are part of us, but they are not us. Dreaming that we are Aryans is
like a dog dreaming that he is a wolf.
Who are we then? Who is white? Who is European? A simple but
pragmatic answer is that we are the branch of the Caucasian race
that has inhabited Europe since the last Ice Age, as well as their
unmixed descendants around the globe. Pragmatically, this common
ancestry embraces all groups that we recognize as Europeans, but
also excludes the non-European Caucasians in the Middle East, the
Caucasus Mountains, and Central and South Asia.
Europeans and non-European Caucasians apparently had common
ancestors. But when I speak of the European or white race, I am
referring to the subset of the Caucasian race that settled and
developed in Europe. Although there are liminal cases where the two
sub-races blended, non-European Caucasians are culturally and
genetically distinct from Europeans. Furthermore, non-European
Caucasians exist in vast numbers and unlike Europeans, they are in
Visit https://textbookfull.com
now to explore a rich
collection of eBooks, textbook
and enjoy exciting offers!
no danger of extinction. Although breeding between European and
non-Europeans Caucasians is not race-mixing in the strict sense, it
should still be discouraged, since it erodes the genetic distinctness of
an already threatened race.
If Nordicists think this definition includes people they would not
want to live or breed with, they need not do so as long as they
maintain their own distinct homelands.
Whites are united by a common origin, common enemies, and a
common threat of extinction. The only common thing we lack is a
way to prevent our complete genetic and cultural oblivion. The
purpose of White Nationalism is to give our race a future again.
Changing the course of history is no small task. It requires white
consciousness and solidarity, as well as organization and world-
historical action.
White solidarity need not conflict with particular regional, national,
and sub-racial identities. Indeed, the whole purpose of White
Nationalism is to protect such differences. But sub-racial and
national chauvinisms—and imaginary identifications with extinct
ancestors and non-Europeans who speak Indo-European languages
—do conflict with the solidarity we need to save us. Nordicists and
Aryanists are slated for destruction with all the rest of us. Which
means that such attitudes are ultimately self-defeating. They are
luxuries and indulgences a dying race can ill afford.

Counter-Currents, March 8, 2016

 WHY CONSERVATIVES
CONSERVE NOTHING

The White Nationalist critique of conservatives is simple: they

conserve nothing. Therefore, we need to stop wasting our political
time, energy, and money on conservatives and invest them in White
Nationalism instead. And we need to do it immediately, while there is
still something left to conserve.
Why do conservatives conserve nothing? Because to conserve
anything, they have to win political power. Winning requires a
conservative majority. Conservative voters tend to identify with their
nation and its history, whereas Leftists tend to be alienated from it.
In the United States and other white countries, it is natural that
conservative voters are overwhelmingly white, whereas the Left
tends to be a coalition of Jews, non-whites, and alienated whites
(e.g., liberal ideologues, feminists, and sexual deviants).
White birthrates are below replacement levels in every country
around the globe. If this trend continues, white countries will cease
to exist. White populations will be replaced by growing non-white
populations, whether through legal and illegal immigration or simply
through the increase of non-white populations already within their
borders. Even if a white country has secure borders and no non-
whites, if its population declines enough, eventually burgeoning non-
white populations will simply march in and make themselves at
home. (While white populations decline worldwide, the population of
black Africa is expected to double between now and 2050.)
As whites become minorities in our own homelands, it will be
impossible for conservative politicians to win election. Therefore, it
will be impossible to implement conservative policies. Therefore, the
things that conservatives love will disappear. In the United States,
that means limited constitutional government, fiscal responsibility,
private enterprise, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, gun
rights, etc. These values have tenuous enough footholds even in
white countries and are almost non-existent in non-white countries.
In the short run, it might be possible for conservatives to hold
onto power in certain localities and even to gain national office from
time to time, due to unpredictable factors like wars, famines,
scandals, and electoral whims. But in the long run, conservative
policies will become politically impossible because the Left will have
elected a new people with solidly Leftist preferences.
In short, conservatives will conserve nothing, because they will do
nothing to preserve the white majorities needed to elect them.
At this point, conservatives will take another hit on the crack pipe
of “minority outreach.” They’ll tell themselves that non-whites are
“natural conservatives,” even though there is precious little
constitutionally limited government, fiscal responsibility, or individual
freedom south of the Rio Grande, in Africa, or anywhere else where
non-whites are the majority. They’ll pander and cuck a little harder
for the brown people. They’ll put forward more black and Hispanic
affirmative action candidates (Cain, Carson, Cruz, Rubio). They’ll
blubber and hope and pray that Jesus will miracle their asses into
power for just once more election cycle. Anything, really, to avoid
facing up to the slow, unrelenting countdown to white demographic
Armageddon.
Of course white liberals are in the same boat. Both groups are
aware that they are dying out. Neither group will lift a finger to stop
the process. And when both groups contemplate the future of their
values in a brown world, both of them pin everything on somehow
converting their replacements, a kind of ideological transmigration
from their enfeebled wraith-like bodies into the fecund, swarming
colored masses. They never ask themselves why healthy races would
want to adopt the values of a race that created the greatest political
and economic orders in history, then consumed itself in self-
indulgence, opened its borders, and gave everything away to
peoples they should have held in contempt.
The only way for conservatives to conserve anything is first to
conserve the white majority of natural conservatives. It can be done.
White demographic decline is not a cosmic mystery. It is the
predictable consequence of bad political decisions: affirmative
action, feminism, desegregation, open borders, and economic
globalization, for starters. It can be fixed by better decisions, starting
with closing the borders; cutting illegal aliens off from employment,
education, and social benefits; and then deporting the ones that do
not self-deport.
Saving the white majority will be difficult. It becomes more
difficult with each passing day. But it can be done, as I outline in my
12
essay “Restoring White Homelands.” All we lack is political will.
Why, then, are conservatives so opposed to doing the one thing that
can save them and their values from long-term extinction? Why are
they willing to gamble everything on the far more dubious and
difficult path of converting a rising non-white majority to
conservatism?
The answer is simple: Like a herd of elephants being stampeded
off a cliff by a tiny mouse, conservatives are destroying themselves,
their values, and their nations out of fear of a single word: “racism.”
Under the present dispensation, it is regarded as perfectly moral for
Jews, blacks, Asians, Hispanics—everyone, really, except whites—to
think of themselves as ethnic groups and to fight for their group
interests in the political realm. For whites, however, that would be
the sin of racism. And conservatives are willing to sin quite a lot—to
lie, to break oaths, to betray their constituencies and their nations—
but they’d rather die than be racist. They’d rather us die too, a
decision that our enemies applaud.
Whites are allowed to think of ourselves only as human beings
with generic human interests that by definition cannot conflict with
those of other human beings. We can benefit as a group only by
benefiting all humanity. This is the basis of the desperate
conservative attempt to convert blacks and browns to the virtues of
constitutional government and free enterprise, as if these are a race-
neutral, universal ideology rather than specifically European cultural
practices, which cannot be transplanted everywhere on the globe
and cannot be sustained in our own homelands once we are
replaced by non-whites.
 Of course, conservatives are not above making crass appeals to
the ethnic interests of non-whites. It is only white ethnic interests
that are taboo. As I put it in my article, “The Conscience of a
Cuckservative”:

By treating appeals to white ethnic interests as simply

immoral, Republicans are . . . playing by rules dictated by the
Democrats. And of course the Democrats have rigged the rules
in their favor.
Imagine American politics as a poker game. Each ethnic
group has a place at the table and a certain number of chips,
representing its collective wealth and power. Whites have the
largest stack. But every group gets to play a wild card, “the race
card,” except for whites. No matter how big our initial
advantage might be, if we play by those rules, we will lose hand
after hand, until we have surrendered our wealth, our power,
our country, and any control we might have over our destiny—or
we kick over the table and refuse to play a game rigged against
13
us.

I used to think conservatives were unprincipled. But they are

highly principled. The problem is that their principles are provided by
their enemies, and if we act upon them, we will be destroyed.
In America, however, the conservatives are getting worried. They
were stung by the cuckservative barb; they are nervous about the
rise of the Alt Right; and they are terrified of Donald Trump, who
merely stands for a moderate, non-racial form of nationalism. But
like their cousins the Social Justice Warriors, when their bullshit is
called, conservatives just double down.
A case in point is David French’s January 26, 2016 National Review
article, “The Race-Obsessed Left has Released a Monster it Can’t
Control,” which correctly argues that Left-wing, anti-white identity
politics is giving rise to Right-wing, white identity politics (the
“monster” in French’s title).
Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:
 Fig. 115. The “Bloodhound.” Built in 1874.

During the ’seventies and till the ’eighties, the tendency was to
build yachts whose dimensions were still deeper, narrower and
longer. Beam was thought deserving of little consideration and
altogether undervalued until the year 1886, when an entire change of
feeling came. The illustration in Fig. 115 shows the wonderful old
Bloodhound. She was built by Mr. William Fife of Fairlie in 1874 for
the Marquis of Ailsa and was one of the famous class of 40-tonners
which flourished during the ’seventies and into the ’eighties. During
the six years she belonged to her first owner she won about £2500
worth of prizes, and afterwards changed hands. Last year, however,
Lord Ailsa re-purchased her, and with new sails the old ship showed
that her marvellous turn of speed had not deserted her. She did
remarkably well during Cowes week until she had the misfortune to
be sunk in collision with L’Esperance, and lay for some time at the
entrance to Cowes fairway, a sad sight, with her masts showing
above water and her crew at work salving what they could. She has
since been raised, and this year is again racing with surprising
success.

Photo. West & Son.

Fig. 116. The Auxiliary Topsail Schooner-Yacht “Sunbeam.”
Registered Tonnage, 227. Owned by Lord Brassey.

Few yachts, perhaps, are so well-known in name, at least, to the

general reader, as the Sunbeam, in Fig. 116. Built in 1874, and
owned by that enthusiastic yachtsman and experienced navigator
Lord Brassey, the Sunbeam is an auxiliary topsail-yard schooner.
She was designed by Mr. St. Clare Byrne and is built of teak with
iron frames. Her length over all is 170 feet; beam 27½ feet; depth
13¾ feet. Her displacement is 576 tons; her registered tonnage 227;
her draught 13½ feet; while her sail area as now altered is 7950
square feet. She has cruised round the world, and been into almost
every port where she could get. She raced across the Atlantic in
1905 to the Lizard, with the Valhalla among the competitors,
although it was not to be expected that she would come in first
against such an extreme type as the Atlantic. In her time she has
covered as her best run under canvas, 299 knots from noon to noon,
whilst her highest speed, also under sail alone, was 15 knots. She is
still happily with us, and is a familiar sight at Cowes, where she fits
out.

Fig. 117. The Yawl “Jullanar.” Built in 1875.

 During the ’seventies, thanks to Mr. William Froude and others,
experiments of the highest educative value were made to discover
the laws which governed the resistance of water to bodies moving
through it. This led to a scientific basis on which to model the lines of
yachts’ hulls. But suddenly and unexpectedly, from Maldon, on the
Blackwater, in a remote corner of Essex, a Mr. E. H. Bentall, not a
professional naval architect but an agricultural implement maker,
who had received but little training in naval architecture, designed
and had built the now famous yacht the Jullanar, in 1875. Since
length means speed, he gave her much of this, whilst for stability she
was given a fairly deep draught. But getting right away from existing
conventions, he had the courage to dispense with the old-fashioned
straight stem and stern, and cut away all dead-wood from both. And
so the Jullanar, with her easy lines, and rigged as a yawl, came into
being. She had a tonnage of 126 (Thames measurement); length
over all 110½ feet; beam 16·6 feet; and a draught of 13½ feet. She
immediately displayed such remarkable speed and was so
successful as a racer that her lines considerably influenced the late
Mr. G. L. Watson, the famous yacht architect of the nineteenth
century, in designing the Thistle, although this ship did not come into
being until 1887. The sketch in Fig. 117, showing the hull and rigging
of the Jullanar, has been made from the fine little model in the South
Kensington Museum.
 Photo. West & Son.
Fig. 118. The “Satanita.” Built in 1893.
 Photo. S. Cribb.
Fig. 119. King Edward VII.’s Cutter “Britannia,” launched 1893,
showing the Mainsail being hoisted by Fourteen of the Crew.

Yacht-design has been considerably modified by contemporary

existing measurement rules. Thus, when in the ’eighties the only
taxed dimensions were, not length over all, but length on water-line
and sail area, the temptation to introduce overhang both at bow and
stern was irresistible. In Jullanar the germ of the idea existed, but it
developed to its fullest extent during the ’nineties, and so by a
curious fatality one becomes witness of still another revival, more
strange and curious than all the others, the revival of that which was
indeed one of the most characteristic features of the Egyptian craft in
the early dynasties, the overhanging bow and stern. In 1893 was
built the Satanita, in which this last-mentioned feature is well shown.
(See Fig. 118.) This powerful beauty has on the water-line 97·7 feet,
and an extreme beam of 24·7 feet, and a draught of 16·5 feet. Her
sail area (Y.R.A.) was in her Solent days 9923 square feet. The
beautifully-fitting sails seen in the accompanying illustration are in
wonderful contrast to those hollow bags used in the pre-America
days. In the same year was launched King Edward’s (then Prince of
Wales’) Britannia, which with Captain Carter at her helm, won both
fame and a considerable number of prizes during the ’nineties. Her
length on the water-line is 87·8 feet; her extreme beam 23·66 feet;
and draught 15 feet. The illustration in Fig. 119 of the counter of
Britannia has been specially included to give the reader some idea of
the weight of her mainsail, which, as will be noticed, is being hoisted
by no less than fourteen hands on the halyard, including the ship’s
cook and steward. The year 1893 was made memorable by the
launch also of the Valkyrie, one of the famous trio of yachts of the
same name. She measured on the water-line 86·8 feet; her extreme
beam was 22·33 feet. The illustration in Fig. 120 shows Valkyrie I. It
was during this year that beam, being no longer taxed, was allowed
to show its value, and ever since that time the tendency has
continued for a more wholesome type of boat, instead of the vicious
old plank-on-edge class of craft.
 Photo. West & Son.
Fig. 120. The “Valkyrie I.” Owned by the Earl of Dunhaven.
 Photo. West & Son.
Fig. 121. The Auxiliary Ship-rigged Yacht “Valhalla.” 1490 Tons.
Built in 1892.

The illustration in Fig. 121 is of the Valhalla, which, like the

Sunbeam, has auxiliary engines and is one of the largest and finest
sailing yachts in the world. Under the ownership of the Earl of
Crawford she has made lengthy voyages to distant countries, and
was one of the fleet which raced in company with the Sunbeam from
the U.S.A. to the Lizard for the German Emperor’s Cup, obtaining
third prize, and doing the passage across the Atlantic in 14 days 2
hours, using sail only. She was built in 1892, and was first rigged as
a privateer of a hundred years ago with stun’s’ls. She even had her
ward-room, gun-room and armoury after the manner of the naval
ships of a century ago. In the accompanying illustration she is seen
with courses, topsails, t’gallants and royals. But when she came into
the hands of Lord Crawford the stun’s’ls were abolished, and she
was given double topsails instead of single so as to facilitate her
being worked with less labour. The old-fashioned deck arrangement
below was also entirely changed. This handsome 1490-ton yacht
has recently been sold, and left English waters to become an
American training-ship.

Photo. West & Son.

Fig. 122. The American Cup Defender “Columbia.” Launched in 1899.

Although American yachting existed long before the races for the
America Cup, yet these contests have given an enormous fillip in the
United States to the building of cutters as apart from their fast
schooners. Such vessels, built to defend the Cup, as the Defender,
launched in 1895, the Columbia in 1899 (see Fig. 122), the
Constitution in 1901, and the Reliance in 1903, are about 90 feet on
the load water-line, and carry about 13,500 square feet of canvas;
though when Reliance beat Shamrock III., the former carried over
16,000 square feet. But the most popular American large racing
cutters are the 70-footers. In build the Americans have been
accustomed to use lighter scantlings than we on this side of the
Atlantic. Meteor, in Fig. 123, the well-known schooner belonging to
the German Emperor, was the product of an American yard. The
photograph here reproduced was taken while she was racing for the
King’s Cup inside the Isle of Wight.

Photo. S. Cribb.
Fig. 123. The Schooner-Yacht “Meteor.” Owned by His Majesty the
German Emperor.

Some sensation was caused in the Solent last summer by the

arrival and success of the Germania, a remarkably fast and pretty
schooner, notable as showing the ability to which German yacht
designers and builders have now attained. That we can in England
still build cruising as well as racing schooners is proved by two such
different examples as the Elizabeth and the Pampas. The sail plan of
the former will be found in Plan 5. Launched in 1906 from the yard of
Messrs. White Brothers of Cowes from designs by Mr. H. W. White,
her tonnage (Thames measurement) is 236, her length over all 132
feet, but on the water-line 93½ feet. Her draught is 12½ feet, and her
sail area 7938 square feet. She is also fitted with a motor that can be
run on either paraffin or petrol with a two-bladed propeller, giving a
mean speed under motor alone of six miles per hour. The deck plan
and longitudinal section showing motor installation will be found in
Plans 6 and 7.
The Pampas is one of the most interesting yachts of 1908. In her
will be found the very last word in schooner designing and building.
The requirements were that she should be suitable to go to any part
of the world in comfort and with speed. In order therefore that she
might not be handicapped in the Doldrums she was fitted with a 60-
horse-power motor giving a speed of six knots in smooth water.
Designed by Mr. C. E. Nicholson, and built by Messrs. Camper &
Nicholson for Señor Aaron de Anchorena, of Buenos Ayres, she has
considerably more overhang than the Elizabeth, and has shown
herself to be very fast under sail alone. The sail and rigging plan in
Plan 8 will explain itself, whilst from the other plans the general
internal arrangement of this most modern of yachts will be realised.
She has between her two masts a sunken deck-house, a feature that
has recently become very popular on sailing yachts. The two large
cabins athwart the ship are fitted in satinwood, and other
accommodation is in ivory white. Electric light and ventilating fans
are also found on her, and she is classed twenty years A1 at Lloyd’s.
 Photo. West & Son.
Fig. 124. “White Heather II.,” 23-Mètre Cutter.

To return to the English cutters, one of the most interesting of

modern yachts is that seen in Fig. 124, which represents White
Heather II. For size and sweet lines, with her bold bows and white
graceful hull, her lofty mast and her mountain of canvas, she is an
imposing sight if one comes across her on the Solent. She is at her
best in a strong wind; in light winds she used to be no match for the
latest Shamrock. But during the past winter White Heather has had
some structural alterations made to improve her power in light winds.
 Photo. West & Son.
Fig. 125. “Shamrock IV.,” 23-Mètre Cutter. Owned by
Sir Thomas Lipton. Launched 1908.

An important step was taken in 1906, when an international

conference was held to devise such an international rule as would be
acceptable to the whole of yachting Europe. During the last fifteen
years various rating rules had been in force at different times. It was
now felt that something should be done to prevent the success of the
racing-machine and skimming-dish type, and recent rating rules had
indeed tended to produce a wholesome cruiser that was
nevertheless good for racing. The conference therefore formulated a
new rule based on that which had produced such recent healthy
types as Nyria; but a premium was placed on freeboard and a check
on clumsy overhangs, in order that a thoroughly healthy type of sea-
going yacht might be evolved that should be good as well for cruising
as for racing. Care was taken also to ensure the requisite strength in
construction. The rule came into force on January 1, 1908. Under
this rule, Shamrock IV., seen in Fig. 125, was built, and during her
maiden season last year she showed that in light weather there was
nothing of her size to catch her. In spite of adverse criticisms the new
rule has in it much that is likely to be an influence for good; and since
it is to be in force for ten years, it will certainly add to the prosperity
of yachting by introducing to an extent hitherto unknown the element
of international racing.
Shamrock, the fourth of that name owned by Sir Thomas Lipton,
belongs to the 23-metre class. She was designed by Mr. William Fife
and built by Messrs. William Fife & Son of Fairlie. She is of
composite construction, her planking being of mahogany and her
frames of steel. In yachting, as in the biggest sailing ships, wire
rigging has now ousted the old-fashioned hemp. Runners, topping
lifts, bobstay falls, outhauls, halyards—all are of wire. Racing boats
and many cruisers now have rigging screws too, while the custom as
to ballast is to bolt most of it outside the keel.

But our limit is at length reached. We have watched the primitive

ship evolve from the tree; we have seen how she has been changed
and revived, degenerated and improved, made larger or smaller,
tubbier or more graceful according as it has pleased the hand of
man. Now that we have shown, however imperfectly, with however
many omissions, her noble and illustrious pedigree, her ancestry
reaching back through the centuries into the first blush of the dawn
of the world’s creation, perhaps we shall regard her with an interest,
a respect and affection at once greater and deeper because we have
become better acquainted with the reasons that have caused each
of these developments.
THE END.
 G L O S S A RY.

Braces. Ropes rove through blocks by which to control the yards

of a square-rigged ship.
Brails. Ropes used for the purpose of shortening a ship’s canvas,
as in the case of the Phœnician and Roman ships, and to-day in the
Thames barge.
Careen. To lay a ship over on to her side in order to be able to
caulk her lower seams.
Carvel-build. The manner of building a vessel so that the planks
are laid edge to edge, and not overlapping.
Caulk. To stop the seams of a ship with oakum, so as to prevent
the water entering between the planking.
Clew. The lower corners of a squaresail, and the aftermost corner
of a staysail.
Clinker-build. The manner of building a vessel so that the planks
overlap each other. (Compare “carvel-build.”)
Crank. An adjective applied to a ship when she is liable to
capsize.
Davits. Short pieces, formerly of timber, now of iron, projecting
over a vessel’s side, for hoisting up the ship’s anchors or boats.
Dhow. The term applied generally to the lateen-rigged ships of the
East.
Freeboard. The amount of a ship’s hull extending from the
waterline to the gunwale.
Gaff. A spar used for extending the upper edge of a fore-and-aft
rectangular sail—e.g., the mainsail of a cutter.
 Goaring. An old English expression in use during Elizabethan
times, applied when the lower corners of the sail extended much
further out than the width of the canvas stretched along the yard.
Gooseneck. A piece of bent iron fitted to the end of a boom by
which to connect the latter to the ship.
Guy. A rope attached to a spar for the purpose of steadying it.
Gybe. When a ship so alters her course in running free that the
wind, instead of coming from one quarter, comes from the opposite
quarter, the mainsail of a fore-and-after will have swung over, and be
said to have gybed.
Halyard. A rope or tackle used for hoisting or lowering sails and
spars.
Jettison. To lighten a ship by throwing goods overboard.
Jib-boom. The spar which continues further forward the projection
of the bowsprit.
Keelson. The piece of timber which is laid on the middle of the
floor timbers over the keel.
Lanyard. A short piece of rope used for various purposes—e.g.,
for making fast the shrouds to a ship’s side.
Lateen. A long triangular sail bent to a long yard, a characteristic
sail of the Mediterranean and dhow-rigged craft. Also carried on the
mizzen and bonaventure mizzen of mediæval full-rigged ships.
Leach. The vertical edges of a sail.
Lug. A fore-and-aft sail hoisted on a yard, of which not more than
about a third of its length is forward of the mast. In the dupping-lug
the tack of the sail is made fast some distance forward of the mast,
and because the sail must needs be set on the lee side of the mast it
has to be dipped at each tack and hoisted afresh on the other side.
Mizzen. The aftermost mast of a vessel having two or more masts;
sometimes called a jigger. In the case of mediæval ships having four
masts, the aftermost was called the bonaventure mizzen, and the
one immediately forward of this the main mizzen.
 Parral. A band for keeping the end of a yard to the mast; made in
different ages of basket-work or rope—in the latter case running
through a number of circular pieces of wood, to prevent friction in
raising and lowering the yard or gaff.
Pavisses. Shields of wood or other material placed round a ship’s
side for a protection against the enemy’s missiles; used also in open
boats for keeping out the spray.
Pintle. The bolt by which a rudder is attached to the stern of a
ship.
Quant. A pole used extensively in Holland and East Anglia for the
purpose of propelling a craft along shallow waterways. (Greek
κοντὸς, Latin contus, a pole.)
Race. A rapid current of disturbed water caused by the
unevenness of the bottom of the sea, frequently found off headlands
—e.g., St. Alban’s Head, Portland Bill, &c.
Rocker. The curvature of a piece or pieces of wood in a vessel’s
structure.
Scuttle. To cause a ship to sink by making holes in her hull
below the water-line.
Sheer. The curve of a vessel’s hull from bow to stern, or vice
versâ.
Spinnaker. A light, triangular-shaped sail set on the side opposite
to that on which the mainsail extends, and used when running before
the wind.
Sprit, Spritsail. (1) In full-rigged ships the spritsail was a
square-sail set on a yard below the bowsprit; now obsolete. (2) In
fore-and-aft vessels the sprit is a spar used for stretching the peak of
the sail, thus extending diagonally across the mast—as, for instance,
in the case of a Thames barge (see Fig. 99).
Staysail. Usually triangular in shape, though in the seventeenth
century sometimes rectangular, hoisted on a stay, between the
masts or forward of the foremast.
 Steeving. The angle which a ship’s bowsprit makes with the
horizon.
Stempost. The piece of timber to which the two sides of a ship’s
planking are united at the forward end.
Step. The block of wood into which the keel of a mast is fixed.
Strut-frame. A piece of timber used in shipbuilding for
strengthening the vessel.
Topping-lifts. Ropes used for the support of the boom of a sail
when the latter is stowed.
Truck. A small wooden cap at the summit of a mast.
Vang. A rope leading down from the end of a gaff to the deck. A
characteristic of the Dutch sloops and Thames barge rig.
Wale. One of the planks of a ship.